U.S. Response:  Intelligence Agencies Gain More Power

U.S. intelligence agencies have been taking on more authority and expanding their capabilities since Sept. 11, largely due to increased support from the Bush administration and Congress, USA Today reported today (see GSN, May 15).

The Bush administration is using classified intelligence findings — basically presidential authorization to conduct secret operations — and other less-public tactics to provide more power to the CIA, FBI, National Security Agency and other intelligence organizations, according to USA Today.

For the first time, the CIA has authority over a weapon — launch control of Hellfire missiles on unmanned aerial vehicles patrolling Afghanistan.  Additionally, although assassinating foreign leaders is still officially prohibited, national security officials said U.S. President George W. Bush has asked the CIA to draw up plans that might include killing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in battle (see GSN, June 17).

The president still must formally authorize all covert CIA operations, and Congress must be informed, but now members of Congress are pressuring the CIA to do more instead of continuing to scrutinize why the agency does so much, according to USA Today (see GSN, June 5).

Congress also passed the USA Patriot Act in the weeks after Sept. 11, which includes provisions allowing law enforcement officials to spy on U.S. citizens as part of counterterrorism efforts (see GSN, June 28).

The CIA has taken on more responsibilities but follows the rules imposed on it, CIA spokesman Bill Harlow said.

“We’ve been given added authorities to allow us to go after the terrorist target around the world, to go into what was a sanctuary in Afghanistan and help root them out,” he said.  “We’ve been at war with terrorism since long before Sept. 11, but now we’ve got increased authorities, increased funding, increased capabilities to do a better job” (John Diamond, USA Today, July 9).

Back to top

Iraq:  Security Council Calls for Continuing U.N.-Iraqi Talks

A “great majority” of U.N. Security Council members want to continue talks with Iraqi officials in hopes of reaching an agreement concerning the return of U.N. weapons inspectors to Iraq, British Ambassador and council President Jeremy Greenstock said yesterday (see GSN, July 8).

The council discussed the latest round of talks between U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri, which ended last week without an inspections agreement, Deutsche Presse-Agentur reported yesterday.  The council has said Iraq must allow inspectors to confirm that the country has destroyed its weapons of mass destruction before the council would consider lifting sanctions, which have been in place since the early 1990s.

Greenstock, who was briefed on the talks by an Annan aide, said Iraq has made some moves “toward complying with obligations under U.N. resolutions.”  Iraq has agreed to return Kuwait’s national archives, which Iraqi troops took in 1990, but issues regarding prisoners and arms inspections remain unresolved.

Council members “repeated the need for Iraq to immediately fulfill all requirements under U.N. resolutions, including Kuwaiti missing persons and on the unconditional return of the inspectors,” Greenstock said (Deutsche Presse-Agentur, July 8).

Russia

Meanwhile, the Russian Foreign Ministry issued a statement yesterday urging a diplomatic approach to Iraq.

“The Iraqi problem can only be resolved through political-diplomatic means on the basis of U.N. Security Council resolutions,” the ministry said.  “Any other options, especially military, are absolutely inadmissible.”

Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said yesterday that he has no information regarding any U.S. plans to attack Iraq.

“No negotiations with Washington have been held on the matter,” he said (United Press International, July 8).

United States

U.S. President George W. Bush said yesterday at a press conference that it is his firm intention to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power (see GSN, June 17).

“I do firmly believe that the world would be safer and more peaceful if there [was] a regime change in that government,” he said.

“We’ll use all tools at our disposal” to remove Hussein from power, and there are “different ways to do it,” Bush said.  He added that he is “involved in the military planning, diplomatic planning, financial planning — all aspects of reviewing all the tools at my disposal” (White House transcript, July 8).

For further information, see:

UNMOVIC

U.N. Resolution 687

U.N. Resolution 1409 (“Smart Sanctions”)

U.N. Office of the Iraq Program

Back to top

U.S. Response:  U.S., U.K. Jointly Explore WMD Countermeasures

U.S. and British scientists plan to work together to develop new methods of detecting and combating biological and chemical weapons agents, according to an agreement signed by the United States and the United Kingdom last week (see GSN, July 3).

Under the agreement, the United States and United Kingdom will merge their expertise and knowledge in several areas, including biological and chemical weapons agent detection systems, computer modeling of agents released into the environment and decontamination methods.

“Exchanging scientific knowledge and technology to help detect and defeat chemical and biological threats will help us address threats from terrorists and other adversaries who could acquire these weapons of mass destruction,” U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration Administrator John Gordon said in a press release.  “Our countries have a long history of defense science cooperation, going all the way back to the Manhattan Project, and it makes sense to partner again to address this new challenge” (National Nuclear Security Administration release, July 3).

Back to top

U.S.-Russia:  Senators Take on Moscow Treaty With Powell

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — Senior members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today offered a bipartisan mixture of praise and harsh criticism of the U.S.-Russian nuclear arms treaty signed in May.  The committee heard testimony from Secretary of State Colin Powell in the first of a series of treaty hearings.

The treaty, which needs Senate approval before U.S. President George W. Bush can ratify it, is “a very important step” in improving U.S.-Russian relations, said committee Chairman Joseph Biden (D-Del.). 

The 1«-page agreement would require each country to reduce its deployed strategic nuclear warheads from an estimated 6,000 today to between 1,700 and 2,200 by the end of 2012, according to Powell.  U.S. officials have said they will comply by reducing the number of operationally deployed strategic warheads, mostly by removing warheads from delivery vehicles.

Biden expressed concern that the treaty lacks a schedule for making its reductions, has no verification provisions, does not require either side to eliminate any warheads or delivery platforms and does not prevent Russia from deploying its multiple-warhead SS-18 ICBMs.  He also questioned why the treaty does not address tactical nuclear warheads.

“I have some concerns … about the nature of the treaty and what it means and what it doesn’t,” he said.

Ranking committee member Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) said the treaty “marks an important step toward a safer world.”

He questioned, however, whether current U.S.-Russian cooperation to secure nuclear materials across Russia would be sufficient to safeguard the warheads Russia would remove from its delivery vehicles in accordance with the terms of the treaty.

“I share some of the concerns and fears expressed by the critics,” he said.

Lugar said the treaty “is really in jeopardy” — as are the Bush administration’s military efforts against terrorists — if money cannot be channeled into new Cooperative Threat Reduction programs designed to protect nuclear and other WMD materials.

In April, the administration announced that Bush was unable to certify, as required by law, that Russia was meeting certain nonproliferation commitments, preventing the release of some CTR funds.  A joint House-Senate conference is currently considering legislation to allow waiving the certification requirement.

Lugar said the failure to certify is holding up several CTR activities.

Strong Support

Powell offered strong support for the treaty — which was negotiated by the State Department’s Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton — stressing it would maintain U.S. flexibility.

“The treaty codifies each country’s commitment to make deep strategic nuclear weapons reductions in a flexible and legally binding manner,” Powell said.  He said the reductions would result in the “lowest levels possible consistent with our military requirements, alliance obligations, and reflecting the new nature of our strategic relations.”

In his prepared testimony, Powell acknowledged limitations to the treaty.

“There are things that [the treaty] did not do,” he said.  “For example, it did not specifically eliminate warheads.”

He also said the treaty allows Russia to keep multiple warheads on its ICBMs — negating a provision of the now-defunct START II Treaty (see GSN, June 14) — but added that in light of the emerging U.S. relationship with Russia, the United States would not consider that a problem.

U.S. officials have told their Russian counterparts, “You can MIRV your missiles.  Do what you think you need,” Powell said.

Further Skepticism

Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) offered the most comprehensive criticism, challenging several of the administration’s fundamental explanations for what the treaty would accomplish.

“It seems to be that the goal of accountability, verifiability, mutual destruction of weapons and ultimately moving to a more stable regime without the [Russian] SS-18 out there is completely neutered simply to arrive at some agreement that says we are going to have in 10 years less warheads on missiles, but not necessarily unavailable for future use,” he said.

Questioning the need to retain as many warheads as the treaty would allow given the administration’s view of a new relationship with Russia, Kerry suggested the levels are unnecessarily high for addressing other likely threats such as North Korea, Iran, Iraq and possibly China.

“Why can’t you go below 1,700?  What is the rationale for 1,700?” he said.

“This treaty leaves in place what START II would have destroyed, which is the ability of the Russians to have an SS-18 with 10 warheads on it.  It was always a goal of ours to try to reduce because that is perceived as a more destabilizing weapon because of the ‘use or lose’ theory,” he said.

Kerry further criticized the treaty for relying on the START I mechanism for verification, which was not designed to verify warhead numbers.  Powell said U.S. officials have seven years to negotiate a verification mechanism for the new treaty.

Clearer Definition

Kerry also criticized repeated assertions by administration officials that the treaty would reduce the size of the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal to 1,700 to 2,200 warheads, arguing that many of the warheads would not necessarily go away but could be stored for future use.

“I’m told that in addition to the 2,200 limit in the deployed strategic nuclear warheads, if you add in the substantial number of nondeployed inactive and active reserve warheads, and the substantial number of tactical nuclear weapons, we would have numbers way in excess of the 2,200 warheads.  So there is a certain fiction here in addition.”

Biden expressed concern about the undismantled warheads.  “My concern is it is not that we are going down to 1,700 to 2,200, but it is that we could quickly go back up to 5,700, and what that says to the rest of the world,” he said.

Powell in his testimony indicated that the phrase “operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads” — the target of the reductions — was in fact very specifically defined to exclude weapons in storage or on reserve.

“For the purposes of this treaty, the United States considered operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads to be reentry vehicles on intercontinental nuclear missiles in their launchers, reentry vehicles on submarine-launched ballistic missiles in their launchers on board submarines and nuclear armaments loaded on heavy bombers or stored in the weapon storage areas of heavy bomber bases,” he said.

Powell said that spare nuclear warheads stored at bomber bases also would not count toward the treaty targets.  Officials also have said warheads assigned to submarines in overhaul also would not be counted.

Some of the downloaded warheads would be stored and some destroyed, Powell said, without offering precise numbers.  The administration has not said precisely how many warheads it may choose to destroy.

Back to top

Russia:  Strategic Nuclear Forces Declining

Russia has removed more than 600 strategic nuclear warheads from service over the last year and has reduced 200 nonstrategic nuclear weapons, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists reported this month.  Russia continues to have 8,400 operational nuclear warheads as of mid-2002, according to the Bulletin.

Officials are expected to reduce the stockpile of operationally deployed warheads to between 1,700 and 2,200 by the end of 2012 — in accordance with a U.S.-Russian agreement signed in May — or earlier, because the country is shifting resources to emphasize conventional forces, according to the Bulletin (see GSN, June 21).

In parallel to its nuclear reductions, Russia has also significantly decreased ballistic missile submarine patrols due to a smaller submarine fleet, budget constraints and safety concerns in the wake of the August 2000 sinking of the Kursk submarine (see GSN, June 28).  Russia conducted 37 patrols in 1991 and only one in 2001, according to the U.S. Navy.  The Bulletin noted, however, that some ballistic missile submarines could launch ballistic missiles while in port.

Russia was expected to eliminate all of its nonstrategic ground forces nuclear weapons before the end of 2001, but officials announced in April this year that they are still in the process of scrapping nuclear warheads for tactical missiles, nuclear artillery shells and nuclear mines.  They reaffirmed that they are no longer producing those warheads, and that the country will eliminate all such weapons by 2004 as long as there are sufficient funds, the Bulletin reported.

Some Increases in Delivery Systems

Russia is increasing arsenals in some areas, the Bulletin reported.  Officials deployed five new SS-27 ICBMs in 2001, bringing the total number of SS-27s to 29.  The country might deploy six more this year and will probably have 50 to 60 SS-27s deployed by the end of 2005, but that number is lower than the 160 to 220 previously expected.

Three more Tu-160 Blackjack bombers also are under construction, and the air force might receive one late this year or in early 2003, the Bulletin reported (see GSN, Jan. 14).  There are also plans to modernize and extend the lives of older Tu-160s, allowing them to carry “new types of missiles with conventional and nuclear warheads,” according to Air Force Commander in Chief Vladimir Mikhaylov (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, July/August).

Back to top

Smallpox:  Researchers Begin Testing Vaccine Stockpile

Researchers yesterday began testing the effectiveness of a 50-year old stockpile of smallpox vaccine on more than 300 volunteers throughout the United States (see GSN, July 8).

The tests, being conducted in Oakland, Calif., Iowa City, Iowa, Nashville and Houston, are to determine whether the vaccine doses found in storage at the pharmaceutical company Aventis Pasteur carry any side effects and whether they are still effective (see GSN, May 16).  If the vaccine is found to be safe and effective, it could be diluted to provide enough doses for all of the United States, Canada and part of Mexico, said Steve Black, co-director of the Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center in Oakland.

The Oakland tests will involve injecting diluted vaccine into 40 to 50 volunteers aged 18 to 32, according to the Los Angeles Times.  The volunteers will receive $50 for participating in the study and will keep a daily journal of any physical symptoms after receiving the vaccine.  They will also return to the center for checkups and answer follow-up phone calls over six months.

While the vaccine trials are not expected to cause adverse reactions, the smallpox vaccine can cause side effects that include rashes, brain swelling, and in some cases, death, according to the Times.  Steven Pereira, an 18-year-old college student, said the potential benefits of the vaccine outweigh any dangerous side effects.

“If there was a terrorist attack and the vaccine works, I’ll be the first one vaccinated and won’t have to worry about catching disease,” Pereira said.  “Also, I’ll be one of the people to test it for other citizens of the United States” (Nerissa Pacio, Los Angeles Times, July 9).

Researchers also plan to test Dryvax smallpox vaccine — which accounts for 15 million doses of the U.S. supply — through diluted injections given to volunteers, according to the Associated Press.

Out of 700 previously unvaccinated young adults who were given Dryvax injections, one-third reported pains severe enough to cause them to miss school or work, according to two studies released in March by the New England Journal of Medicine.  Although none of the people who took part in the studies became seriously ill, some reported fever, headaches, nausea, swelling and other side effects (Associated Press/New York Times, July 9).

Four Vaccination Strategies

Out of four vaccination strategies, a mass vaccination campaign before a smallpox outbreak would save the most lives, according to a study conducted by researchers at Yale University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and expected to be published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (see GSN, June 21).

“We find that mass vaccination results in both far fewer deaths and much faster epidemic eradication,” the authors of the study said.

The researchers examined how four different vaccination strategies would combat a hypothetical smallpox outbreak that infected 1,000 people in a large U.S. city, according to the New York Times.  Out of the four strategies examined, the ring vaccination plan — vaccinating only those whom come into contact with an infected person — was the least effective in stopping the smallpox outbreak.  Use of the ring vaccination plan led to 367,000 infections, 110,000 deaths and an outbreak that lasted 350 days, according to the study.

If officials began a mass vaccination strategy once an outbreak was detected — which would probably be about two weeks after infection — it would lead to 1,830 infections, 560 deaths and an outbreak that would last 115 days, the study says.  If officials started with the ring vaccination plan and switched over to mass vaccination on the 33^rd day of a smallpox outbreak, it would result in 15,570 infections and 4,680 deaths, according to the study.

The most effective strategy is to conduct a mass vaccination campaign before an outbreak, according to the study.  If 40 percent of the U.S. population were vaccinated before an outbreak, with follow-up mass vaccinations once an outbreak began, there would only be about 440 deaths, the study says.  If ring vaccination were used instead as a follow-up once an outbreak began, however, it would lead to 40,000 fatalities, according to the study (William Broad, New York Times, July 9).

Officials Examine Quarantine Measures

Meanwhile, U.S. health officials have begun planning how to quarantine those who might come into contact with someone infected with smallpox, according to the Contra Costa Times (see GSN, Dec. 18, 2001).

“It’s not pretty to think through these type of doomsday scenarios, but it’s important to start to put yourself there and imagine things unfolding if you want to anticipate how to react,” said Marty Cetron, a quarantine expert at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The quarantine planning is still in its early stages and will include logistical and policy concerns, such as where people would be kept while officials determine whether a smallpox case has occurred, according to the Times.  Health experts plan to give the quarantine plan to top U.S. officials and others who would be involved in preparations within the next few weeks, Cetron said.

According to one part of the plan, officials would emphasize that people would be better off staying in quarantine because of increased access to smallpox vaccine and other medicines, the Times reported.  That is a major shift from quarantines in the past, when people inside were discounted, Cetron said.

“All the goodies will be delivered inside the box,” he said.  “It’s a fundamental difference to spend as much, if not more attention, on monitoring and preserving the health of the people inside the box” (Laura Meckler, Contra Costa Times, July 9).

Back to top

Hamas:  No Evidence of Suicide Bombers Using Poisons, Commentator Says

Slate commentator Jack Shafer yesterday suggested U.S. media reports that Palestinian militant groups have used chemical weapons in suicide bombings are poorly substantiated (see GSN, June 17).

“The rat poison bomb story is the sort of tale that newsroom cynics call ‘too good to check,’” Shafer wrote in an article examining the media’s handling of the claims.  “We so want to believe that the Palestinians are stinking up their bombs with rat poison that we won’t even ask for evidence.”

Reports of Palestinian militants incorporating chemical weapons into suicide bombings began with the Associated Press coverage of a December 2001 bombing in Jerusalem that was reported to have included poisonous chemicals, perhaps rat poison, Shafer said (see GSN, Dec. 10, 2001).  Further stories in publications such as the Washington Post, Time, Newsweek and yesterday in the New York Times have also contained anecdotal reports of bombs that contained poisons, according to Shafer.  There has been, however, no forensic proof of chemical weapons usage included in these stories, he said.

Shafer praised the Israeli media for challenging the veracity of the poison bomb claims.  A Feb. 8 article in the Jerusalem Post reported that later forensic tests conducted on evidence recovered after the Jerusalem bombings found that the samples had been contaminated by rat poison used in the area earlier, Shafer said.

“Perhaps the most embarrassing thing about the rat bomb dispatches is that Israeli reporters — who have a very personal stake in the war — have been more demanding of their government on this story than their U.S. counterparts,” he said (Jack Shafer, Slate, July 8).

Back to top

United States:  Army Leaks Lewisite During Test

A filter stack released trace amounts of the blister agent Lewisite during a July 2 test of the Chemical Agent Munitions Disposal System at the Deseret Chemical Depot in Utah, the U.S. Army said yesterday (see GSN, March 25).

The agent posed no threat to workers at the site, surrounding communities or the environment, the Army said.

The CAMDS test site, which is separate from the Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal Facility (see GSN, March 18), is working to find safe ways to destroy Lewisite.  The entire U.S. Lewisite inventory, which was first produced in World War I, is stored at the depot (Associated Press, July 8).

For further information, see:

CDC List of Chemical Agents

Federation of American Scientists Information on Chemical Weapons

Back to top

Nuclear Waste:  U.S. Senate Expected to Approve Yucca Mountain

The U.S. Senate is expected to pass a resolution today supporting Yucca Mountain for the site of the first long-term U.S. nuclear waste repository (see GSN, June 26).

Senator Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska) is expected to offer a motion today to consider a joint resolution that would override Nevada Governor Kenny Guinn’s veto of the site, according to CongressDaily.  The motion is likely to cause a procedural vote, which Republican supporters of Yucca Mountain are expected to win closely, CongressDaily reported.

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which designated Yucca Mountain as the sole site for a potential nuclear waste repository, allows 10 hours of Senate debate on the resolution before a vote.  To override Guinn’s veto, both houses of Congress must pass the joint resolution, which the U.S. House of Representatives passed in May (CongressDaily, July 9).

A CongressDaily survey indicated that yesterday 51 senators were in favor of the Yucca Mountain repository plan, 25 were opposed and 23 undecided.

Almost all Senate Republicans have said they are backing the plan, with the only opposition coming from Senators Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-Colo.) and John Ensign (R-Nev.), according to CongressDaily.  Democrats in the Senate have been more divided, with 23 against the repository and 10 in favor.  Out of the senators still publicly undecided on the issue yesterday, 16 were Democrats and six were Republicans (CongressDaily, July 8).

If the Senate approves the override resolution, the U.S. Energy Department will have 90 days to file a license application with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, according to the New York Times.  Many Yucca Mountain supporters, however, have said that Energy will not be able to meet that deadline and that it might take up to two years to file an application.

Once Energy files an application, the commission will probably decide based on rules prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, according to the Times (see GSN, April 12).  The state of Nevada and the Natural Resources Defense Council, however, are currently challenging the EPA rules (Mitchell/Wald, New York Times, July 9).

Back to top

Radiological Weapons:  States Debate Accepting Potassium Iodide

Fewer than half of eligible U.S. states have accepted medicine from the federal government to guard against thyroid cancer during a nuclear disaster, USA Today reported today (see GSN, May 24).

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced a program six months ago to provide a two-day supply of potassium iodide pills for people living within 10 miles of a nuclear power plant (see GSN, Feb. 15).  Of the 33 states eligible for the program, 15 have accepted the drug, according to USA Today.

Some states have rejected the program, saying that it might give people a false sense of security or that the two-day supply of the drug is not enough because people must take the drug for 10 to 14 days after exposure to radioactive iodine.  The NRC has said a two-day supply is sufficient to protect people as a supplement to evacuation.

Iowa, one of the states that rejected the NRC offer, did so partly because potassium iodide does not protect against other potential consequences of radiation exposure, such as cancers other than thyroid cancer, Iowa’s Public Health Director Stephen Gleason said.  He also expressed concern about giving the drug to people without checking their medical conditions.

States that have accepted the NRC offer are distributing tablets in different ways.  Florida is storing its pills in secret locations to be distributed if a nuclear disaster occurs.  New Hampshire plans to distribute its pills soon after it completes a plan, and New York’s Westchester and Rockland counties began distribution in June.  Other states that have asked for the pills include Alabama, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Maryland (see GSN, Jan. 14), Massachusetts (see GSN, Jan. 11), New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Vermont (Haya El Nasser, USA Today, July 9).

Back to top