U.S. Response:  Pentagon Wants Extra $10 Million for Northern Command

By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Defense Department has included $10 million in its fiscal 2002 supplemental appropriations request to help set up the proposed Northern Command, Pentagon officials said yesterday (see GSN, April 18).

The command would defend the United States and help civilian authorities respond to terrorist attacks involving weapons of mass destruction, the officials said.

The $10 million included in the request would go toward the Northern Command transition team, Pentagon Comptroller Dov Zakheim told the Senate Appropriations Committee yesterday.  Defense has also included $81 million in its fiscal 2003 budget to begin Northern Command operations, Zakheim said.  The fiscal 2003 budget request also includes $215 million for related secure command and control activities, but that would not be specifically for Northern Command, he said.

The Northern Command is expected to begin operations Oct. 1, although no commander has yet been named, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told the committee.  The Northern Command will take over the U.S. Space Command’s current responsibility for the Northern American Aerospace Command (NORAD), as well as activities from the U.S. Joint Command, Rumsfeld said.

“The biggest thing that’s being assigned to Northern Command is NORAD, in terms of numbers of activities and organization structure,” Rumsfeld said.

National Guard Role

The U.S. National Guard needs to be more fully involved in the Northern Command, said Senator Christopher Bond (R-Mo.).  The Pentagon should examine the idea of naming a National Guard commander as a Northern Command deputy commander, Bond said.

“These are men and women who live in almost every community in America.  They are undoubtedly not only the most readily available, but also the eyes and the ears for national defense,” Bond said.  “So I would urge ... a careful consideration to that role for the Guard.”

Rumsfeld said, however, that he believes the National Guard could be used for homeland defense but does not have to be limited to such missions.

“I don’t think of homeland security as the sole responsibility of the Guard, and I think that ... we’re not organized and arranged for that to be the case,” Rumsfeld said.

More Accountability Needed, Byrd Says

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) said the Pentagon must better account for money that Congress already has allocated for the war on terrorism and homeland security before he will support the department’s supplemental request.

The Pentagon’s fiscal 2002 $14 billion supplemental request includes $7 billion for combat operations, $4 billion to support the reserves, $1.5 billion for command and control and intelligence functions, $500 million to replaced used ordinance and $1 billion for other activities, according to Appropriations Defense Subcommittee Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii).

About $11 billion of the supplemental request is expected to go into a Defense Emergency Response Fund to support the war on terrorism, Byrd said.  The fund will be made up of the $7 billion allocated for combat operations and the $4 billion for the reserves, according to a Byrd spokesman. The Pentagon, however, has not adequately defined how it would use the money in this fund, Byrd said. 

“This request for $11 billion is a tremendous amount of money, and I think Congress ought to have better strings attached than simply to put this money into a fund and allow the Defense Department to disburse it without further ado, virtually,” Byrd said.

Congress has already given the Pentagon more than $17 billion to support the war on terrorism, which the department has said will run out by the end of the month, Byrd said.  Out of that funding, the Defense Department has committed about $14 billion, and of that, has spent $12 billion, Zakheim said.

The Defense Department, however, has not informed Congress as to how it has spent this $17 billion, Byrd said, adding he would have difficulties supporting future funding requests without this information.

“I want to be supportive.  I want to help the Defense Department.  But I also have a responsibility to the taxpayers and to the Senate and to the other members of the committee,” Byrd told Rumsfeld.  “We want this information.  If you have it, let us have it.  Otherwise, you’re not going to get the support from this chairman for what you’re asking for.”

Back to top

U.S. Response I:  Nunn Criticizes Administration Over Threat Reduction Funds

By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — Former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn yesterday criticized the Bush administration for not requesting a funding increase in its proposed fiscal 2003 budget for nonproliferation programs in the former Soviet Union (see GSN, April 29).

“Even as the administration seeks increases of tens of billions for fighting terrorism, for homeland security and for developing a missile defense system, it seeks no increase for efforts to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists,” Nunn told a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on homeland security and fiscal 2002 supplemental request.

The administration has requested $65 billion for the war on terrorism and for homeland security measures — more than three times the amount requested for the Gulf War, according to Nunn.  The largest threat to the United States, however, is that posed by terrorists armed with a crude nuclear or radiological weapon, he said (see GSN, May 7).

The Bush administration has requested $1 billion in fiscal 2003 for threat reduction programs to secure nuclear weapons and materials in the former Soviet Union, an amount equal to last year’s appropriation, Nunn said.  Last year, the administration only requested $745 million for threat reduction programs — a decrease of about $100 million, he said.  Congress had to add $257 million to reach last year’s final appropriation of $1 billion, Nunn said.

The government needs to conduct a national security estimate that would rank the major threats to the United States and estimate costs, Nunn said.  Both governmental and nongovernmental experts need to be involved in creating a risk analysis, which Congress would then need to use when making funding decisions, he said.

“In the absence of an infinite budget, relative risk analysis must be the beginning point in shaping our strategy and allocating our resources,” Nunn said.  “The cost incurred must be proportionate to the threat deterred.”

Measures for U.S.-Russia Summit

Nunn also said that the United States and Russia could agree to several measures to reduce the WMD threat that at this month’s Moscow summit (see related GSN story, today).  U.S. and Russian Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin could agree to commit to international standards for WMD security, along with the necessary monitoring, Nunn said.  The two countries should agree to work to persuade the rest of the world to adopt such standards, he added.

Bush and Putin should build on their pledge to reduce U.S.-Russian nuclear arsenals without foregoing the transparency, stability and verifiability that come with traditional arms control measures, Nunn said.  The United States and Russia should both agree to work on changes in their nuclear forces to reduce the risk of an accidental launch of nuclear weapons and to increase security for tactical nuclear weapons, he said (see GSN, May 3).  The two presidents should agree to combine biological defense information and to develop a joint response plan in the event weapons or materials are ever lost, Nunn said.

“The initial steps in building a coalition against catastrophic terrorism must begin with action from the United States and Russia,” Nunn said.  “We must set the example and ask others to join.”

[EDITOR'S NOTE:  Sam Nunn is co-chairman and chief executive officer of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, the sole sponsor of Global Security Newswire, which is published independently by National Journal Group.]

Back to top

U.S. Response II:  Rumsfeld Aims for “New Triad”

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is shaping U.S. forces into a “new triad” that includes reduced nuclear weapons, technologically advanced “conventional” weapons and new forces to defend against new threats, the secretary wrote in the current issue of Foreign Affairs (see GSN, March 11).

The Pentagon is undergoing a transformation to defend against uncertain threats  — in space and cyberspace and from ballistic and cruise missiles — with a focus on deterring would-be attackers, according to Rumsfeld.

“Now is precisely the time to make changes.  The events of Sept. 11 powerfully make the case for action,” Rumsfeld wrote.

“Instead of building our armed forces around plans to fight this or that country, we need to examine our vulnerabilities … and then fashion our forces as necessary to deter and defeat that threat,” Rumsfeld wrote. 

Building a missile defense system and restructuring the U.S. nuclear force are key parts of transforming the military and deterring enemies, he said.

“The terrorists who struck on Sept. 11 were clearly not deterred by the massive U.S. nuclear arsenal.  We need to find new ways to deter adversaries.  That is why President [George W.] Bush is taking a new approach to deterrence: one that combines deep reductions in offensive nuclear forces with improved conventional capabilities and missile defense that can protect the United States and its friends, forces and allies from limited missile attack,” Rumsfeld wrote.

Missile Defense as Deterrent

The United States is the world’s dominant power in terms of military might on land, at sea and in the air, so instead of confronting the United States head-on, enemies will try to strike at the country “by looking for vulnerabilities and trying to exploit them,” Rumsfeld wrote.

“And they know that we have no defense against ballistic missile attack — creating an incentive to develop weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and the means to deliver them,” Rumsfeld wrote.  The United States must therefore develop ways to defend itself against missile attack, he said.

Deploying missile defenses would deter enemies from developing missiles, because defenses would deny adversaries the opportunity “to hold U.S. and allied cities hostage to nuclear blackmail,” Rumsfeld said.

Therefore, the United States is reorganizing and revitalizing missile defense development, “free of the constraints of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty,” he said (see GSN, Dec. 13, 2001).

Restructuring the Nuclear Force

In the post-Cold War world, the United States “no longer needs the many thousands of offensive nuclear warheads amassed during the Cold War to deter a Soviet nuclear attack,” Rumsfeld wrote.  The military has therefore adopted a new policy to reduce its “reliance on strategic nuclear weapons” (see GSN, May 6). 

While reducing the number of nuclear weapons, the United States must also “refashion” the nuclear arsenal and maintain its safety and reliability, Rumsfeld said. 

“New earth-penetrating and thermobaric weapons” would deny terrorists the opportunity to hide in underground bunkers and prevent “terrorist states” from protecting their weapons of mass destruction in underground facilities, he wrote (see GSN, April 5). 

Transformation Requires Money

Developing new ways to protect the United States will require more money, Rumsfeld wrote, adding, “The notion that we could transform while cutting the budget was seductive but false” (see related GSN story, today).

The United States must be able to protect its homeland and its overseas interests and forces, he said.

“Over the next five years, we will increase funding for defense of the U.S. homeland and overseas bases by 47 percent, for programs to deny enemies sanctuary by 157 percent, for programs to ensure long-distance power projection in hostile areas by 21 percent, for programs to harness information technology by 125 percent, for programs to attack enemy information networks and defend our own by 28 percent and for programs to strengthen U.S. space capabilities by 145 percent,” Rumsfeld wrote (Donald Rumsfeld, Foreign Affairs, May/June).

Back to top

Libya:  Official Rejects U.S. Claims Country Is Developing WMD

Libya yesterday rejected U.S. claims that the country is trying to obtain weapons of mass destruction.  Libyan Foreign Ministry official Hasuna al-Shawish said the accusations made by U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton amount to terrorism, and he called on Bolton to provide evidence (see GSN, April 19).

Libya has supported all international agreements banning the use of weapons of mass destruction, al-Shawish said.  The United States has not said “anything about the chemical and nuclear arsenal that the Israelis possess” and so is not interested in destroying such weapons, al-Shawish said (Sadek al-Tarhuni, United Press International, May 7).

“The U.S. believes that Libya has continued its biological warfare program,” although it is a state party to the Biological Weapons Convention, Bolton said Monday (see GSN, Jan. 11).

“Although its program is in the research and development stage, Libya may be capable of producing small quantities of biological agent,” Bolton said.  “Libya's BW [biological weapons] program has been hindered, in part, by the country's poor scientific and technological base, equipment shortages, and a lack of skilled personnel, as well as by U.N. sanctions in place from 1992 to 1999.”

Libya is also pursuing nuclear weapons capability, Bolton said.

“We believe that since the suspension of U.N. sanctions against Libya in 1999, Libya has been able to increase its access to dual-use nuclear technologies. Although Libya would need significant foreign assistance to acquire a nuclear weapon, Tripoli's nuclear infrastructure enhancement remains of concern,” he said.

Libya wants to develop chemical weapons capability, Bolton said.  The country is not a party to the Chemical Weapons Convention but has expressed interest in acceding to the treaty, and “such a move could be positive,” he said (see GSN, Dec. 20, 2001).

Additionally, Libya is working with foreign assistance to expand its missile capability, Bolton added.  The country could attain a medium-range ballistic missile, he said.

“Outside assistance — particularly Serbian, Indian, North Korean (see GSN, Feb. 21) and Chinese — is critical to its [Libya’s] ballistic missile development programs, and the suspension of U.N. sanctions in 1999 has allowed Tripoli to expand its procurement effort,” Bolton said (U.S. State Department release, May 6).

Back to top

U.S.-Russia:  Teams Meet Again to Prepare Nuclear Reductions Agreement

Russian and U.S. negotiators are expected to hold another round of talks May 13 on reducing nuclear weapons in Moscow, the Russian Foreign Ministry said today (see GSN, May 6).

Deputy Foreign Minister Georgy Mamedov will lead the Russian delegation, and Undersecretary of State John Bolton will head the U.S. team.

The meeting is part of accelerated U.S.-Russian talks as the two sides attempt to reach an agreement to cut nuclear arsenals to between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads in time for the summit between Russian and U.S. Presidents Vladimir Putin and George W. Bush on May 23 to 26 (Agence France-Presse, May 8).

The United States is willing to negotiate mechanisms for exchanging information about nuclear force levels in order to assure that the weapons would remain in storage, but such negotiations would occur after the signing of a basic agreement, a senior U.S. diplomat said yesterday (see GSN, May 2).  There has been disagreement over what to do with reduced warheads.  The United States wants to store some of the weapons, and Russia wants to destroy them. 

The two sides might also discuss possible cooperation on missile defense programs, the diplomat said (see related GSN story, today).

Russia and the United States are likely to sign an agreement during the presidential summit, the diplomat said (Robert Cottrell, Financial Times, May 7).

Yesterday, Bush and Putin spoke for 15 minutes on the telephone and expressed hope that their negotiators, who are making progress, would reach an agreement the presidents could sign when Bush travels to Moscow, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said during yesterday’s press briefing (White House transcript, May 7).

Back to top

Cuba:  Havana Offers No Comment on U.S. Claims

Cuba has no official comment on U.S. claims that it has an offensive biological weapons program, a Cuban Foreign Ministry spokesperson said yesterday (Reuters/CNN.com, May 7).

The claims, made yesterday by U.S. Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and Nonproliferation John Bolton, were not based on new information, but on information declassified by U.S. intelligence agencies at the request of Bolton and Assistant Secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere Otto Reich, said a State Department official (see GSN, May 7).

Bolton’s stature helps to give weight to his claims about Cuba’s biological weapons program and its aid to other rogue states, said the former White House drug czar, Gen. Barry McCaffrey, an observer of U.S.-Cuban policy.

“I’d be hard-pressed to think that he’d make it up,” McCaffrey said.

Supporters of eased U.S. tensions with Cuba, however, expressed disbelief at Bolton’s charges, according to the Miami Herald.

“Where’s the evidence?” asked Representative William Delahunt (D-Mass.), leader of the Cuban Working Group, a congressional group opposed to the U.S. embargo.  “Accepting what they have to say as fact is high-risk” (Tim Johnson, Miami Herald, May 8).

Russia Angry

The United States is trying to include Cuba, Libya and Syria to the “axis of evil” through the recent claims made by Bolton, Russian legislator Alexei Arbatov said yesterday (see GSN, Jan. 30).

Bolton did not name countries to which Cuba might be giving biological weapons-related information and technologies, but he did say Cuban leader Fidel Castro had visited Syria and Libya, along with Iran, last year, according to the Associated Press.  The United States should share any information it might have with the U.N. Security Council, Arbatov said.

“Russia might respond by pointing to similar threats from other countries, notably Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkey,” Arbatov said (Associated Press/Baltimore Sun, May 8).

Back to top

Hemorrhagic Fevers:  Diseases Difficult to Detect and Treat, Study Says

An attack with hemorrhagic fever as a biological weapon would be particularly dangerous because early symptoms are ordinary and there is no vaccine or approved drug treatment, experts said in new guidelines published in this week’s Journal of the American Medical Association (see GSN, Jan. 16).

The Working Group on Civilian Biodefense, which includes doctors and experts from the military, civilian government and universities, said it hopes the guidelines can help physicians recognize uncommon or isolated diseases that could be wielded by terrorists.  The group earlier published guidelines on anthrax, smallpox and plague.  Few doctors have ever seen such diseases in actual patients, it said.

The United States and former Soviet Union have weaponized some hemorrhagic fevers such as Ebola and Marburg (see GSN, Nov. 30).  Victims of such disease often show early signs similar to influenza symptoms, such as fever, facial redness, lethargy and headaches.  Bleeding usually starts later, according to the guidelines.

The article, which recommends steps to reduce fever and blood pressure, says physicians could use ventilators and anti-seizure drugs if necessary.  Medical workers would have to send blood samples to one of two national laboratories that can test for such viruses, and health care personnel would need heavy masks, impermeable gowns and other protective equipment.  Medical authorities would have to isolate any suspected victims, since hemorrhagic fevers are highly contagious, according to the Associated Press.

The guidelines are useful for doctors who would be involved in responding to an epidemic, but medical workers also need national government funds for training and equipment, said Neal Shipley, head of the emergency department at Manhattan’s North General Hospital.

“It’s one thing to have the masks and suits sitting in someone’s office.  It’s another thing to have personnel on every shift, 24-7, who know how to use them,” Shipley said (Lindsey Tanner, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, May 7).

Back to top

Iran:  Shahab-4 Missile Could Hit Europe, U.S. Official Says

A senior Bush administration official has said that Iran is developing a long-range missile capable of striking NATO countries in Europe with the assistance of Russia and other countries, the Associated Press reported yesterday (see GSN, Jan. 15).

Iran’s Shahab-4 missile would have an initial 1,250-mile range but could later be upgraded to reach Italy, Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Greece, the official said, according to the AP.

U.S. officials have said Iranian missile development is occurring at the same time the country is developing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, the AP reported.

Although the United States has expressed concern about Iranian development of weapons of mass destruction and support for terrorism, Iran is highly unlikely to strike the European states, which have normal relations with Iran, the AP reported.

Improving Shahab-3

Older Iranian missiles have shorter ranges that could strike Israel, Turkey and U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, but a U.S. defense official said yesterday that the Shahab-3 is not considered completely reliable (see GSN, March 4).

Iran is working to improve the Shahab-3’s “destructive power, accuracy and range,” Iranian Defense Minister Adm. Ali Shamkhani said yesterday on Iran’s state-run radio (see GSN, Feb. 7).

Russian Assistance

The senior official who spoke about the Shahab-4 expressed U.S. concern regarding Russian technological assistance to Iran (see GSN, May 7).

“We’re concerned that Russian technology and expertise is helping Iran to increase the accuracy and distance of their missiles, and that Russian technology and expertise is helping Iran develop fissile material,” the official said.

Russian assistance to Iran is “a piece of baggage that weighs down” the U.S.-Russian relationship, the official said.  A CIA report released this year (see GSN, Jan. 31) said Iran receives missile technology and equipment from Russia, North Korea and China (George Gedda, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, May 7).

Back to top

U.S.-Russia:  Former Rivals Might Cooperate on Missile Defense

The United States and Russia might produce an agreement later this month to incorporate Russian technology in a U.S. national missile defense system, the Wall Street Journal reported today (see GSN, April 17).

The United States has held preliminary discussions with Russian defense firms that “could be very valuable,” a U.S. diplomat said.  Russia has the world’s only operational missile defense system — a limited system designed to protect Moscow, according to the Journal (see GSN, April 16).

Russia has opposed U.S. plans to build a national missile defense system and to store nuclear warheads taken off operational status, but U.S. contracts with Russia’s struggling defense industry could decrease criticism that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not gaining much from the United States, the Journal reported (Guy Chazan, Wall Street Journal, May 8).

The United States is proposing to provide information to Russia about U.S. plans and to offer help if Russia decides to expand its missile defenses, a senior U.S. diplomat said yesterday, according to the Financial Times.

Such an offer could be included in a nonbinding “political declaration” at the planned summit May 23-26 between Putin and U.S. President George W. Bush, the Times reported (see related GSN story, today).

“We are still working on the exact language,” the diplomat said.  Officials are discussing “joint data exchange, a joint approach to missile defense architecture and a joint approach to the technology itself,” he said (Robert Cottrell, Financial Times, May 8).

Back to top

Nuclear Waste:  Bush Administration Examining Reprocessing, Energy Department Official Says

The Bush administration is expected to request additional funding for waste reprocessing research, which would help lower the amount of nuclear waste to be stored at the proposed Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada, a U.S. Energy Department official said yesterday (see GSN, April 16).

“The administration is on record as being willing to reopen the reprocessing issue,” Energy Undersecretary Robert Card said during a meeting of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board yesterday in Washington.

The proposed research will focus on waste reprocessing and transmutation, which some critics have said is too expensive a process, Card said.  The United States stopped reprocessing research because of nuclear proliferation concerns, AP reported.  Last year, an energy task force led by Vice President Dick Cheney, however, recommended continued reprocessing research (H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, May 8).

Yucca Mountain Could Leak, Critics Say

Opponents of the Yucca Mountain repository have said the mountain cannot protect nuclear waste stored within from the effects of water for the 10,000-year period required, the Los Angeles Times reported today (see GSN, March 13).

There already are leaks at two nuclear sites that were supposed to be safe for up to thousands of years — the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory and the Energy Department’s Hanford Site in Washington, according to Yucca Mountain opponents.  Both sites could contaminate groundwater with radioactive material through leaks in about 10 years, said a report from the National Research Council, part of the National Academy of Sciences.

Scientists have also found that Yucca Mountain itself is wetter inside than previously believed, the Times reported.  Recent studies have found traces of chlorine 36, which can only be created through nuclear explosions, inside the mountain.  This finding indicates that rainfall could carry radiological materials through the mountain in less than 40 years, since the last nuclear detonations at the Nevada Test Site, where the mountain is located, occurred in 1962, according to the Times.

When researchers learned that Yucca Mountain was wetter than previously anticipated, the Energy Department altered plans for the repository to take into account man-made waste storage containers.  It is unknown, however, how well the containers will perform over the 10,000-year period required, the Times reported.

“There are a lot of issues that remain unresolved that could affect the safety of humans and the environment,” said Allison Macfarlane, director of the Yucca Mountain project at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  “We should not be in a rush.”

The Energy Department has said the only alternative to storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, however, is to leave it at the temporary storage sites spread out among 39 states where it closer to the population and could be the potential target of a terrorist attack.

“There is no more (storage) space, there are deteriorating storage conditions and you have the challenge that so much of it is located near population centers and waterways,” said Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham.  “No one believes you can bring in David Copperfield, wave a wand and it all goes away” (Gary Polakovic, Los Angeles Times, May 8).

Back to top