Iraq:  Vienna Showdown Expected Over Outlawed Weapons Programs

By Bryan Bender
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — As U.N. negotiators this week seek the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq after nearly four years, U.S. officials are saying that in the absence of on-site monitoring, the Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has made modest progress in advancing Iraq’s outlawed chemical, biological and nuclear capabilities, but has not yet acquired any fissionable material to build a nuclear bomb (see GSN, June 10).

Iraq’s suspected continuing development of weapons of mass destruction — despite U.N. sanctions in place since the Gulf War ended in 1991 — has set the stage for a July 4 showdown in Vienna that will more firmly place Baghdad on a collision course with Washington if it does not agree unconditionally to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to return to Iraq.

The U.N. delegation, led by Secretary General Kofi Annan and Hans Blix, executive chairman of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, will seek Iraqi agreement to return international inspectors that were pulled out of the country in 1998 following Baghdad’s refusal to cooperate with the U.N. team.

The much-anticipated meeting is expected to have a narrow agenda focusing on the return of weapons inspectors despite Iraq’s desire to also discuss the lifting of sanctions as well as an end to the U.S.- and British-enforced no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq (see GSN, May 6).

Iraqi U.N. Ambassador Mohammad al-Douri said last week he did not believe all issues could be resolved in one meeting and Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri yesterday expressed hope that the meeting would begin a process leading to a comprehensive settlement.  “Iraq wants a comprehensive settlement and will not accept partial solutions,” Sabri told reporters in Baghdad before leaving for Vienna.  “The Iraqis may try to stall,” said a U.N. official who asked not to be named.

The United States, however, has made it clear that further delays are unacceptable and a full accounting of the destruction of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and missiles must be completed before sanctions can be lifted, as required by U.N. resolutions dating back to the Gulf War.

“We continue to work with our allies in the international community to get Iraq to comply with U.N. Security Council obligations, including acceptance and full cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors,” State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said earlier this month.

According to U.N. officials, the Bush administration in recent weeks has told Annan that it will veto any deal that makes concessions on the immediate return of inspectors.  Annan said earlier this month he was seeking “a decisive meeting” in Vienna.

U.N. officials also said other U.N. Security Council members, including Russia and France — who have been sympathetic to Iraq in the past — have sent Baghdad a clear message that it must give in to U.N. demands on inspections without restrictions.

“They realize that Bush will move quickly against Iraq if they don’t get what they want,” said one U.N. official.  “If the Iraqis want qualifications, the U.S. has said it would veto any agreement.  This is a make-or-break meeting.  Even the Russians say no restrictions.”

U.S. intelligence officials, however, said that Iraq still has much to hide and they have no reason to believe they will cooperate fully.  “They are pursuing a WMD program,” said one intelligence official, citing recent intelligence reports.  “They are able to get stuff they really want and we can’t inspect,” the official said, citing the opening in recent years of a number of overland routes between Iraq and Turkey, Syria and Jordan, as well as the return of commercial airline flights to Baghdad.

“They have an effective deception and denial program and conceal their programs in civilian structures,” the official said.  “They don’t have any fissionable material, but if they were to acquire them a nuclear bomb would only be a few years off.  And they never lost the brain trust from the chem-bio program.  They have maintained the programs and over time made improvements.”

Yesterday, the official al-Iraq newspaper reported that Hussein praised military scientists for making a “new and important scientific achievement.”

U.N. officials predicted that if the meetings this week fail to reach the desired solution, they could pave the way for U.S. military action against Hussein’s regime.  “If they get stiffed, there could be a U.S. attack sooner rather than later,” said the U.N. official, predicting cruise missile and air strikes similar to the four days of air strikes during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998.

Moreover, the officials said, Washington could have more leverage than usual at the United Nations, as the United Kingdom will hold the rotating Security Council presidency in July and Washington will preside in August.

“What we’re concerned about with Iraq is its intentions and capabilities to develop weapons of mass destruction and the merger of that capability with terrorist groups,” Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Bob Graham (D-Fla.) said during a hearing last week.

The United Nations is ready to move quickly if it gets the green light from Iraq. Blix has said the inspectors’ abandoned weapons monitoring headquarters in Baghdad could be operating within seven to 10 days.

Back to top

Threat Assessment:  Carnegie Book Describes Diminishing WMD Threats

By Kerry Boyd
Global Security Newswire

The United States and its allies are winning the war against WMD proliferation, Joseph Cirincione, director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Nuclear Nonproliferation Project, said last month.

Speaking at the launch of a new book analyzing WMD arsenals around the world, Cirincione said there are fewer long-range missiles and weapons of mass destruction in the world today than there were 10 years.  The Cold War marked the peak of WMD proliferation, he said, and arsenals have declined in quantity and size, largely due to arms reduction agreements between the United States and the former Soviet Union.

In the 1990s, only India and Pakistan openly joined the “nuclear weapons club,” making a total of eight nuclear-armed states, but six countries left the club, Cirincione said.  According to the book — Deadly Arsenals:  Tracking Weapons of Mass Destruction by Cirincione, Jon Wolfsthal and Miriam Rajkumar — Ukraine (see GSN, Dec. 5), Belarus and Kazakhstan gave up their nuclear inheritance after the Soviet Union dissolved.  South Africa destroyed the six nuclear weapons that its former apartheid government had secretly constructed, and Argentina and Brazil both halted nuclear weapons programs and signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Since the Chemical Weapons Convention was signed in 1996, many chemical weapons stocks have been destroyed, the authors wrote.  Despite delays, the United States (see GSN, June 24) and Russia (see GSN, June 18) are in the process of destroying their chemical arsenals, they wrote.

The news on biological weapons is more mixed, according to Cirincione.  More than 160 countries have signed the Biological Weapons Convention, and “most of the world’s biological weapons have been destroyed,” the authors wrote.  However, there are 12 states today that are suspected of having biological weapons programs.  Most are possible research programs — in Egypt, India, Libya, Pakistan, Sudan and Syria — but Iran, Iraq and Russia are believed to have arsenals, and China, Israel and North Korea might also have weapons, according to the book.

Finally, the risk that an enemy would launch an ICBM against the United States is also down, the authors wrote (see GSN, March 12).  There are 57 percent fewer missiles capable of striking the continental United States today than in the mid-1980s, according to Deadly Arsenals.  There are also far fewer intermediate-range ballistic missiles in the world.  The number of medium-range missiles has declined, but there is concern that new missile programs in certain countries — although they do not directly threaten the United States — might endanger international stability, the authors wrote.

Concerns about proliferation of weapons of mass destruction today are down to a few hard cases that pose a “relatively confined threat,” Cirincione said.  His book identifies the Middle East and Northeast Asia as the two major regions where concern over biological and chemical weapons remains high.

Fewer Weapons But Higher Risk

Although the trend of WMD proliferation is definitely in decline, the risk of actual WMD use has increased, partly due to the risk of terrorist attack, Cirincione said.

Countries concerned about proliferation and WMD warfare must work to ensure that the downward trend in WMD proliferation continues and to prevent any “new wave of proliferation” in the future, he said.  In Deadly Arsenals, the authors wrote the bottom line on proliferation trends is that “first, the current global situation is dangerous; second, it could have been much worse; and third, the right government policies could make the situation much better.”

The Right Policies

It is up to countries to continue making progress, Cirincione said.  The United States must work to “sustain and even expand” nonproliferation regimes to maintain the trend of diminishing WMD arsenals, the authors wrote.

“The regime works,” Cirincione said.

Appropriate diplomacy, nonproliferation agreements and controls could help the United States and other countries address the remaining hard WMD cases, the authors wrote in Deadly Arsenals.  Active U.S. and international diplomacy might improve relations with North Korea and Iran and decrease concerns about their WMD arsenals (see GSN, June 28).  Tensions between nuclear-armed Pakistan and India might pose “the most difficult challenge,” but there is a possibility that negotiators could construct agreements similar to the NPT to ease that situation, the authors wrote.

International leaders have been able to prevent certain crises from turning into WMD nightmares in the past, and current leaders should be able to continue to avoid such nightmares if they use the nonproliferation tools at hand, Wolfsthal said.

For further information, see:

NPT Text

NPT Members

Carnegie Endowment Nuclear Status Map

CWC Text

CWC Members

BWC Text

BWC Members

Back to top

Russian Testing:  “Non-Nuclear Experiments” to Continue, Ivanov Says

While Russia has no plans to resume testing nuclear weapons, it will continue “non-nuclear experiments,” Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said Thursday at the Novaya Zemlya test range (see GSN, June 27).  Since ending nuclear testing, Russia has performed 132 hydrodynamic tests to represent nuclear explosions, Ivanov said.  There are also no plans to reduce the funding or number of troops at the test range, he added (RFE/RL Newsline, June 28).

Back to top

Anthrax:  White House Stockpiles Vaccine for Civilians

The White House announced a new policy on anthrax vaccinations Friday, preserving a third of the U.S. supply for civilians and continuing to vaccinate military personnel considered to be at high risk (see GSN, May 31).

Under the new policy, the U.S. Defense Department in two weeks is expected to begin vaccinating personnel who will spend at least 15 days per year in high-risk regions, according to the New York Times.  Those regions include the Middle East, the Korean peninsula and possibly Afghanistan, officials said.

One-third of the U.S. anthrax vaccine supply will be set aside for civilian use in the event of an anthrax attack, the Times reported.  Doses will be stored in secret locations as part of the National Pharmaceutical Stockpile administered by the Health and Human Services Department, Bush administration officials said (see GSN, Jan. 29).  In the event of a domestic anthrax attack, first responders such as police and firefighters, as well as those near the areas exposed to the disease, would be vaccinated, Bush administration officials said.

“This is a shift from our earlier policy, which was to vaccinate everyone,” said William Winkenwerder, assistant defense secretary for health affairs.  “This is a policy that’s focused on those in higher-threat areas.”

The change in policy, which previously had been to vaccinate all military personnel, could have been caused by concerns over a potential shortage, the Times reported.  There have been concerns that BioPort, the sole U.S. producer of the vaccine, would not be able to produce enough vaccine needed in the event of a major military operation, some Bush administration officials said (see GSN, May 17).

BioPort officials, however, said they would be able to produce as much vaccine as needed, adding they are disappointed that the Pentagon appeared to link the change in policy to supply concerns (see GSN, April 12).

“We can make millions on an annual basis,” BioPort President Robert Kramer said.  “We were disappointed to hear at the press conference that the vaccination schedule is supply driven, that policy was being driven by supply.  We’re ready, willing and able to partner with anyone to produce enough doses under our license.”

Some White House officials said the change in anthrax vaccination policy is meant to preserve more of the stockpile for civilians.

“At this point in time we do not have a large enough stockpile to prevaccinate, so the stockpile will be reserved for post exposure,” said Jerome Hauer, Health and Human Services acting secretary for emergency preparedness.  “The stockpile for civilians will be used for postexposure vaccination and as the stockpile grows we will re-evaluate our policy as to whether certain first responders should be prevaccinated” (Dao/Miller, New York Times, June 29).

1990 Study

A 1990 study examining the effectiveness of various anthrax treatment regimens helped provide support for the change in vaccination policy, the Times reported Saturday.

The study, which was conducted on 70 rhesus monkeys, indicated those that received anthrax vaccine and antibiotics together had a higher survival rate against the disease than those monkeys that were only administered either the vaccine or antibiotics, according to the Times (see GSN, March 7).

The study first exposed three groups of monkeys to anthrax and then gave one group both treatments, another group only the vaccine and another group only antibiotics, said Arthur Friedlander, a senior researcher at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick, Md.  After the first exposure to anthrax, some of the monkeys in each group died, Friedlander said.  When the monkeys were exposed again to anthrax three months later, only those in the group that had been both vaccinated and given antibiotics suffered no additional casualties, he said.

U.S. officials provided few details about how the anthrax vaccine would be used with antibiotics in the event of an outbreak.

“Stockpiling the vaccine is the most prudent course for protecting our citizens’ health and well-being,” Deputy Health and Human Services Secretary Claude Allen said.

Experts also agreed with the Bush administration’s decision to use the vaccine along with antibiotics based, in part, on the study, according to the Times.

“There’s no way in the world you could do a clinical trial of this in humans,” said Philip Brachman, an anthrax expert at Emory University (see GSN, June 4).  “We use the best scientific judgments we have” (Sheryl Gay Stolberg, New York Times, June 29).

For further information, see:

CDC Frequently Asked Questions on Anthrax

Journal of the American Medical Association Background 

Back to top

U.S. Plans I:  Bush Administration Seeks Missile Defense Partners

The Bush administration is moving to form partnerships with allies and non-U.S. companies to develop missile defense systems — an effort that was largely prevented in the past by the now-defunct Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Washington Post reported Saturday.

U.S. officials will probably face skepticism as they visit NATO capitals this month and later fly to Asian cities to discuss missile defense cooperation, the Post reported (see GSN, April 15).  Pentagon officials have said, however, that allied support is key to developing an anti-missile system.

“We need to start talking to our allies about what their desires might be, what our needs might be and see if we can come together in some agreement,” said Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish, Missile Defense Agency director.

The United States already has some experience conducting joint development of systems to defend against shorter-range missiles, including the Arrow program with Israel (see GSN, May 7), the Medium Extended Air Defense System with Germany and Italy and the Standard Missile 3 program with Japan.

The talks, to be mostly exploratory, will focus on what foreign companies might have to offer and on the U.S. need to use allied territory to base radars and perhaps interceptors, officials said.  U.S. delegates might discuss basing early warning radar in Turkey, stationing interceptors in central European countries or using British shipborne radar technology, the Post reported (Bradley Graham, Washington Post, June 29).

In a cooperative missile defense system different allies would have different roles, including jointly developing system components, participating in testing or exercises or allowing the United States to use air fields or ports, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Pentagon officials have said they plan to focus on persuading Japan and European countries, possibly including Russia, to participate in missile defense projects.  The projects would initially focus on developing missile defense systems to protect deployed troops, which is less controversial.

Why the U.S. Needs Its Allies

Pentagon officials are seeking allied support in an effort to prevent potential enemies from leveraging U.S. action by threatening its allies, according to the Times.

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could threaten London, Paris or Berlin to influence U.S. plans to attack the country, said Jacques Gansler, former defense undersecretary for acquisitions and technology.

“We have always thought that a threat to our major allies was a threat to us as well,” he said.  “It’s in our interest to protect these capitals as well as New York and Los Angeles.”

Another reason for joint efforts is the tendency for the United States to fight wars in multinational coalitions, according to the Times.  If a missile is heading toward allied forces, “you’re not going to say, ‘I wonder whose troops it’s heading for,’” Gansler said.  “You’re going to need to protect the entire force.”

Since many anti-missile systems perform better when their radar, sensors and interceptors are close to an enemy launch site, the United States would probably also need permission to move equipment through other countries’ territory.  For example, the Pentagon might ask for permission to move Aegis cruisers through various ports and land airborne laser aircraft on bases in other countries, the Times reported (Paul Richter, Los Angeles Times, June 29).

China Too

U.S. Representative Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) indicated there might be opportunities for U.S.-Chinese missile defense cooperation, according to Defense Daily.  When a congressional delegation recently visited Beijing, senior Chinese military officials did not express concern about U.S. missile defense plans or the U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, Weldon said (see GSN, April 14).

“This proves the real questions on the ABM Treaty were not in Moscow or in Beijing but with the liberals in the United States who warned the sky was falling,” Weldon said (Kerry Gildea, Defense Daily, June 28).

Potential Obstacles

Despite U.S. interest in multinational cooperation, many U.S. allies have expressed little enthusiasm for missile defense programs.  European defense spending has been in decline, and NATO members place spending priority on programs such as strategic airlift and precision munitions rather than missile defense, according to the Post (Graham, Washington Post).

Allies might also be reluctant due to uncertainty over missile defense costs.  The U.S. investment is estimated at $48 billion only through 2007, and many long-term costs will depend on which technologies are chosen for an actual deployed system (Richter, Los Angeles Times).  U.S. leaders have not decided which technologies will be used, and some diplomats said allies would be hesitant to support a program without a more distinct concept of it will involve.

“How far can dialogue and engagement go at this point without a clearer idea of the architecture?” one European diplomat said.

Other potential obstacles include questions over what ability foreign firms have to contribute and U.S. legal barriers controlling access to sensitive information (Graham, Washington Post).

Joint Sensor Project

Meanwhile, U.S. defense contractor Lockheed Martin and Russia’s Khrunichev State Research and Production Space Center have signed an agreement to begin joint work on missile defense, MDA Director Kadish and Representative Weldon said Thursday, according to Defense Daily.  Under the agreement, the two countries would initially focus on developing sensors for missile defense (see GSN, May 24).

The agreement is the result of one of several discussions regarding Russian-U.S. cooperation that have been taking place, Kadish said.  An MDA delegation has also visited Ukraine to discuss ideas for cooperation, Kadish added.

Senate Could Cause Major Delays

Meanwhile, Kadish and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told the House Armed Services Committee that the version of the fiscal 2003 defense authorization bill passed last week in the Senate would cut the missile defense program severely (see GSN, June 28).  The bill would allow the president to apply up to $814 million in inflation savings to missile defense to offset cuts in made by the Senate Armed Services Committee.

If inflation savings do not materialize, the missile defense program would be delayed, and U.S. President George W. Bush’s senior advisers would suggest that the president veto the bill, Wolfowitz said (Gildea, Defense Daily).

For further information, see:

MDA Missile Defense System

MEADS Fact Sheet

U.S. Missile Defense 2002 Budget

MDA Terminal Defense Segment

Federation of American Scientists Background on Arrow

U.S. Fact Sheet on Withdrawal from ABM Treaty

U.S. Defense Department ABM Treaty Summary

Back to top

United States:  Lockheed Martin Begins Shipping PAC 3 Missiles

Defense contractor Lockheed Martin has begun shipping the first of an order of Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC 3) missiles to the U.S. Army, Defense Daily reported Thursday (see GSN, June 18).  The Army’s initial production contract is for 32 PAC 3 missiles, 11 Patriot launcher modification kits and 18 fire solution computers, the contractor said (see GSN, March 27).

“The grand opening of our PAC 3 All-Up Round facility in Camden [Ark.] was in March, and we’re now seeing the first production missiles coming off that line,” said Steve Graham, Lockheed Martin PAC 3 missile program director.  “These missiles were delivered on schedule and on budget, and we’re pleased that this new facility is up and running efficiently” (Kerry Gildea, Defense Daily, June 27).

For further information, see:

MDA Basics of Missile Defense

PAC-3 Fact Sheet

Back to top

U.S. Plans II:  House Restores Airborne Laser Funding

The U.S. House of Representatives voted last week to restore half the funding previously cut from the Airborne Laser program — a missile defense component — in the fiscal 2003 defense appropriations bill, Defense Daily reported Friday  (see GSN, March 25).

By a voice vote Thursday, the House passed an amendment offered by Representative John Spratt (D-S.C.) that would restore $30 million of the $60 million that the House Appropriations Committee had cut from the laser program.  The House passed the full bill later in the day (see GSN, June 28).

To pay for the funding restoration, appropriators removed $30 million from the Space-Based Boost missile defense program, according to Defense Daily.  The Pentagon needs to learn from past attempts to develop space-based interceptor systems, Spratt said — such as Brilliant Pebbles and a plan to equip a satellite with missile interceptors, which were both cancelled (see GSN, June 11).

“We need to build on our successes and learn from our failures” with space-based systems, Spratt said.  “We need to winnow out some of these extraneous programs and invest the money we have in ballistic missile defense in systems that have near-term potential and are likely to work” (Frank Wolfe, Defense Daily, June 28).

Space-Based Boost program supporters also defeated an amendment, offered by Representative John Tierney (D-Mass.), that would have eliminated all funds for the program (Marc Selinger, Aerospace Daily, June 28).

Back to top

Radiological Weapons I:  Military Stockpiling Anti-Radiation Drug

Amid increased concern that U.S. troops might be exposed to radioactive fallout in an accident or attack, the U.S. military has been purchasing more medicine to counteract one consequence of radiation exposure, Reuters reported yesterday (see GSN, May 24).

Suppliers of potassium iodide, which can prevent thyroid cancer caused by radiation exposure, said shipments to the military have increased in recent months.  According to Reuters, the military bought more than 400,400 potassium iodide tablets between January and June of this year — an 80 percent increase over the same period in 2001.

Those orders, which were placed through the Defense Logistics Agency and the Defense Supply Center in Philadelphia, do not include orders that the military services and their divisions might have placed independently, potassium iodide suppliers said.

William Winkenwerder, defense assistant secretary for health affairs, wrote in a Nov. 19, 2001, internal memorandum that military commanders should assess risks to soldiers and develop plans to use potassium iodide.  In that memorandum and another one issued Jan. 24, Winkenwerder wrote that the armed services “must ensure availability of supply” of the pills.

Winkenwerder charged the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute with reviewing the military’s plans for potentially distributing potassium iodide.  “We will take appropriate action when we get the plans,” institute spokesman Peter Esker said.

Under the memorandum’s guidance, “the commanders-in-chief, in any given part of the world, will assess the situation and will be responsible for providing appropriate material to their troops,” Pentagon spokesman James Turner said.

In another measure to defend against weapons of mass destruction, Winkenwerder said Friday that the military will vaccinate some personnel against anthrax (see related GSN story today).

The Pentagon would not discuss its potassium iodide policy further, but the U.S. Central Command spokesman said the command is not distributing potassium iodide to troops in Afghanistan and other South Asian countries, contrary to the claims of several potassium iodide suppliers, according to Reuters (Reuters/New York Times, June 30).

Back to top

Radiological Weapons II:  New York Installs Radiation Detectors

New York municipal police have begun installing radiation detectors outside several city buildings, the New York Times reported Saturday (see GSN, March 18).

The first of four detectors was installed Thursday at police headquarters in Lower Manhattan, the Times reported.  Another detector will be installed in the headquarters’ garage, and the police bomb squad and emergency services unit will be equipped with the other two detectors, officials said.

“There will be those sorts of devices in other city buildings, when and where I can’t tell you specifically, but clearly that is the goal of the city administration,” New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said, adding that one of the detectors would probably be installed outside of City Hall.

Similar radiation detectors have already been installed outside the White House and the U.S. Capitol, one official familiar with the detectors’ use said.  Washington and other New York officials said they support the New York Police Department’s use of the detectors.

“I think the kind of vigilance the Police Department is using is right on target,” said Jerome Hauer, director of the U.S. Health and Human Services Department Office of Public Health Preparedness.  “As we continue to have heightened concerns about potential threats in this country, I think it’s important to look at critical facilities like police headquarters and use the best available technology to protect them” (William Rashbaum, New York Times, June 29).

Back to top

Radiological Weapons III:  Thai Materials Might Not Be Secure

The International Atomic Energy Agency has warned that Thailand might be a source of radioactive materials for terrorists attempting to build a “dirty bomb,” the Bangkok Post reported today (see GSN, June 26).

The IAEA has told Thailand that better measures are needed to prevent against theft of radioactive waste, diplomatic sources said.  The IAEA issued a report last week that said several countries need to do more to control radioactive materials, but did not name the countries, according to the Post.

“Thailand has a lot of radiation waste, and no one seems to know where it all is or even how to find out,” a diplomatic source said.

The Thai Office of Atomic Energy for Peace failed a control test in February 2000, when scrap metal collectors found three containers of cobalt-60 and opened them, according to the Post.  The radiation killed three and injured more than 200 after 20 days of exposure, the Post reported.  After the incident occurred, the office attempted to track the source of the containers, but some critics questioned the office’s abilities, according to the Post.

“Actually, the OAEP showed it was totally incapable of handling or disposing of radioactive material,” the diplomatic source said.  “That’s the problem here.”

The IAEA has approved Thailand’s production and use of radiological devices, according to the Post.

According to the diplomatic source, who paraphrased IAEA comments, the agency basically said that the problem “is when the machines go out of date or the isotopes have been used up and become nuclear waste” (Alan Dawson, Bangkok Post, July 1).

Thai atomic energy officials said today that there are ample measures in place to prevent the theft of radioactive materials.

“We do not have much radioactive material and we have measures to prevent any of it from going missing,” an energy official said.  “Radioactive material here could not go missing easily.”

Thailand could be used, however, as a transit point for terrorists attempting to smuggle radioactive materials, the official said.

“It is possible for them to bring the material from outside, like Russia, and pass through Thailand to go to another country,” the official said (Agence France-Presse, July 1).

Back to top