Iraq I:  U.S., U.K., Spain To Hold Last-Ditch Meeting

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell told Congress yesterday the United States might abandon altogether a resolution in the U.N. Security Council authorizing war against Iraq, even as the United States, United Kingdom and Spain agreed to hold an emergency weekend summit aimed at salvaging the battered resolution.  Meanwhile, with no signs of consensus emerging on the Security Council, the United States sped up war preparations in the Persian Gulf in a signal that Washington is prepared to go it alone (see GSN, March 13; Sanger/Hoge, New York Times, March 13).

“The options remain:  Go for a vote and see what members say, or not go for a vote,” Powell told the House Appropriations subcommittee on foreign operations.  “All the options that you can imagine are before us and we will be examining them today, tomorrow and into the weekend,” he said (Arshad Mohammed, Reuters, March 13).

Powell’s comments directly countered U.S. President George W. Bush’s declaration last week that “no matter what the whip count is, we’re going for a vote” (see GSN, March 7).  After several days of dispute within the administration, the New York Times reports, Powell argued that the political cost of going to war without a U.N. vote would be less than the cost of going to war in defiance of a vote against military action (Sanger/Hoge, New York Times).

In a meeting billed by the White House as “an effort to pursue every last bit of diplomacy,” Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar will meet Sunday in the Azores, reportedly to save the second resolution.  Bush administration officials said the leaders would be discussing diplomacy, not military strategy (Ron Fournier, Associated Press, March 14).

Security Council Keeps Meeting

Several Security Council members heading into closed talks this morning said they hoped the weekend summit could bring a peaceful compromise.

“If it could in any way contribute to (getting) a consensus on the council, we would welcome it,” said Pakistani Ambassador Munir Akram.  Pakistan is one of six council members that are undecided about the move to authorize force against Iraq (Dafna Linzer, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, March 14).  Pakistan faces strong domestic opposition to the war (Bokhari/Huband, Financial Times, March 14).

U.S. Domestic Opposition

The Bush administration faces criticism at home as well.  Senior Democratic senators Patrick Leahy and Edward Kennedy lambasted the administration’s “messianic zeal” on Iraq and warned that going to war alone against Iraq would damage U.S. prospects for international support in the future.

“The administration’s domineering and simplistic ‘you are either with us or against us’ approach ... has already damaged long-standing relationships, both with our neighbors in this hemisphere and our friends across the Atlantic,” said Leahy.  Added Kennedy, “I am concerned that as we rush to war with Iraq, we are becoming more divided at home and more isolated in the world community” (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo.com, March 14).

A last-ditch effort by British diplomats to win support for a modified resolution that would ease the disarmament deadline by a few days and set forth six specific tasks for Iraq to fulfill or face military attack failed to win support of any members of the Security Council.  German and Russian officials reiterated their opposition to using force against Baghdad (London Telegraph, March 14).

White House officials said Bush was still making calls in an attempt to sway the six undecided nations on the council, but the support of the three African nations — Angola, Cameroon and Guinea — was described as weak, and Mexico and Chile still had refused to commit to voting for the resolution or against it (Sanger/Hoge, New York Times). 

U.S. Military Buildup

Meanwhile, the U.S. military continued its buildup in the Gulf in preparation for a massive and overwhelming first strike on Iraq meant to encourage a hasty surrender.  The first wave of B-2 stealth bombers left yesterday for the Persian Gulf and the British island of Diego Garcia.  About a dozen Navy cruisers, destroyers and submarines armed with satellite-guided, 1,000-mile-range Tomahawk missiles left the Mediterranean bound for the Red Sea, from where they could shoot hundreds of missiles across Saudi Arabia into Iraq.  Two aircraft carriers currently in the Mediterranean will probably stay there and send aircraft over Israel and Jordan (Barbara Starr, CNN.com, March 14).

Iraq to Hand Over VX Report

Iraq was scheduled to deliver a detailed report to the United Nations chronicling its destruction of 3.9 tons of the deadly nerve agent VX.  A report explaining how it disposed of at least 2,245 gallons of anthrax is to follow in the next few days.

Iraq says it produced 8,500 liters of anthrax and 3.9 tons of VX, but weapons inspectors estimate it could have produced almost three times that amount of anthrax (CNN.com, March 14).

More Missiles Destroyed; Inspector Dies In Accident

U.N. weapons inspectors today supervised the destruction of four banned Iraqi al-Samoud 2 missiles, bringing to 65 — more than half the estimated total — the number destroyed since the March 1 deadline set for starting the process, the United Nations announced (U.N. release, March 14).

A U.N. weapons inspector was killed and another injured in a car accident near Baghdad yesterday when their vehicle hit a truck and went into a lake (Agence France-Presse/Dawn, March 13).

Leaked Document Refutes “Domino Democracy”

A classified report by the U.S. State Department challenges the assumption that installing a new regime in Iraq will begin a chain reaction in the Middle East that spreads democracy.

An intelligence official who read portions of the report to a Los Angeles Times reporter said the document’s gist was “that this idea that you’re going to transform the Middle East and fundamentally alter its trajectory is not credible.”

The report, Iraq, the Middle East and Change:  No Dominoes, dated Feb. 26, was distributed to top officials and appears to highlight deep divisions within the Bush administration over the success of spreading democracy through forcible regime change.  Bush has said that “A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region,” but the report states that “Liberal democracy would be difficult to achieve.”  It also speculates that “Electoral democracy, were it to emerge, could well be subject to exploitation by anti-American elements” (Greg Miller, Los Angeles Times, March 14).

Back to top

Iraq II:  Small WMD-Agent Releases Could Cause Heavy Casualties in Iraq, Neighbors

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — A fairly small release of Iraqi anthrax over Kuwait City or Baghdad could infect hundreds of thousands of people under certain conditions, according to computer models by a nonprofit research organization and described in a press briefing here yesterday.

Use of a nuclear weapon in Iraq by the United States, for retaliation or other purposes, could be just as devastating to the civilian population, depending on the size of the weapon and whether the detonation were near a major city, the analysis suggested.

The calculations were performed by the Natural Resources Defense Council, which used special software — developed for the Pentagon — to model a number of potential WMD scenarios in a U.S.-led war on Iraq.  The scenarios also included various Iraqi chemical weapons attacks against Tel Aviv and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and U.S. nuclear retaliatory attacks on Baghdad and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s home city of Tikrit. 

The program, called Hazard Prediction and Assessment Capability, was created for the military by the Science Applications International Corp. and licensed by the Pentagon to several nongovernmental organizations (see GSN, Nov. 27, 2002). 

Depending on the scenario, the most serious casualties might occur from an anthrax release.  Such a release could be caused an Iraqi attack or by an accidental release caused by U.S. forces bombing an unknown cache, according to Matthew McKinzie, the NRDC analyst who modeled the scenarios.

In a potentially worst-case scenario, an Iraqi attack against Kuwait City spraying 30 kilograms of anthrax from an aerial drone under certain wind conditions could infect 800,000 people, McKinzie calculated.

“This is one of the most terrible scenarios we looked at … when you start talking about that many casualties, you’re in the range of nuclear weapons scenarios,” he said.

The United States has accused Iraq of having drones capable of performing such attacks.

McKinzie also calculated the release of a relatively small quantity of anthrax spores, just half a kilogram, from a hypothetical, damaged facility at Abu Ghraib near Baghdad.  With a gentle wind blowing over Baghdad, the model showed a resulting spore plume that might produce more than 300,000 infections.

“What you find is that even for light damage to such a facility and subkilogram quantities of anthrax that’s released, you actually have a substantial plume that’s produced, a plume that can cause anthrax infections, because only a very low number of anthrax spores can cause an infection,” he said.

In the two cases the models assumed that the attacked populations were not widely inoculated against anthrax or treated with antibiotics.  While not considered as contagious as smallpox, anthrax is described by a U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention fact sheet as one of the most dangerous diseases because of the relative ease with which it can be mass-produced and disseminated to a large population.

Treated early with antibiotics, a fatal infection can usually be prevented.  In previous known cases, fatality rates for an infection from inhalation have ranged from 90 percent to 100 percent.

U.N. inspectors reportedly expect to receive a declaration soon from Iraq on any existing or destroyed anthrax holdings.

Chemical Attacks Less Deadly

NRDC, which has not taken an official position on the possible war, calculated that potential Iraqi chemical weapons attacks would probably produce far fewer casualties than biological or nuclear attacks, in part because of the need to concentrate a significant amount of gas on a location.

“What NRDC took away from this analysis is really that all weapons of mass destruction are not equal, that the scenarios that we calculated paint very different pictures of chemical, nuclear or biological attacks,” he said.

Using the software, NRDC calculated a chemical weapons artillery barrage or ballistic missile attack against a heavily populated area using the deadly nerve agent sarin might cause at most thousands of casualties for unprotected individuals.

Iraq is believed by U.S. intelligence agencies to have hidden hundreds of 155 mm artillery shells containing chemical weapons.  In addition, Iraq is suspected of possessing some Scud missiles and other, longer-range missiles that could be armed with weapons of mass destruction.

U.S. Nuclear Retaliation Considered

U.S. President George W. Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have both alluded to the possibility of using U.S. nuclear weapons in retaliation for Iraqi chemical or biological weapons use.  On Sept. 14, Bush reportedly signed a secret national security directive allowing for the possible use of nuclear weapons for attacking deeply buried facilities or in retaliation for chemical and biological weapons attacks (see GSN, Jan. 31).

Low casualties resulting from an Iraqi chemical attack against Israel or U.S. forces, however, would make nuclear retaliation disproportionate and therefore unjustifiable, McKinzie said.

“I don’t think any of these scenarios justify a nuclear retaliation.  The response would be disproportional and would reopen [the issue of] the use of nuclear weapons, which in my view would probably be more damaging in terms of encouraging others to increase their arsenals or gain arsenals,” said Thomas Cochran, director of NRDC’s nuclear program.

A 50-kiloton U.S. nuclear attack on Baghdad might cause 400,000 casualties, with 175,000 deaths, NRDC calculated.

A similar nuclear attack on less-populated Tikrit could produce 107,000 casualties, with 68,000 dead.

There has been a concern Israel would respond with a nuclear attack if Iraqi President Saddam Hussein attacked it with chemical weapons. 

A ballistic missile attack against Tel Aviv using 225 kilograms of sarin would produce an estimated 3,000 casualties, with more than 31,000 people potentially exposed, according NRDC’s model.  Similar numbers would result from the same chemical weapons attack on Kuwait or Riyadh, McKinzie said.

U.S. Targeting Considerations

Hussein commonly locates militarily significant structures near civilian ones, such as schools and hospitals, with the apparent intent of deterring strikes on those facilities or forcing foreign attackers to risk negative publicity by causing significant civilian casualties, U.S. officials say.

The U.S. Defense Department has indicated U.S. military forces will take potential noncombatant casualties, civilian infrastructure damage, culturally sensitive sites, and the proximity of so-called “human shields” into account when targeting bombings in the event of war.

“We strike only military targets while taking extraordinary care to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties and to minimize collateral damage.  Saddam Hussein, on the other hand, flaunts the laws of war and co-locates military and civilian facilities, and employs human shields,” a Pentagon spokesman said at a March 3 briefing on targeting.

A senior defense official also said at the briefing the military may try to attack suspected WMD facilities, but would use tactics intended to mitigate the release of WMD agents.

“We might also target some of those kinds of facilities with special operating forces, as opposed to kinetically, with bombs,” the official said.

“There’s also some good studies on the kinetic effect of various types of munitions on various types of chemicals.  And so you may be able to incinerate some of those in the actual attack itself,” the official said.

The official said, “There are some studies” suggesting similar results could be achieved in striking biological weapons facilities with conventional bombs. 

Existing weaponry may not be satisfactory, however, as the Bush administration is seeking congressional approval to research the possible development of low-yield nuclear weapons that would incinerate the agents in chemical and biological facilities (see GSN, March 6).

Wind an Important Factor

NRDC’s modeling showed that wind speed and direction were important factors in calculating the effects of WMD attacks.

For the Abu Ghraib scenario, if the winds were blowing where they usually do on a March morning, which is not toward Baghdad, then casualties could be in the range of 1,000 people, the group calculated.

A strong wind could also significantly affect the effectiveness of a drone anthrax attack, reducing casualties even if the attack used a much greater quantity of anthrax.

McKinzie said Hussein might be more inclined to use chemical or biological weapons against civilians because the weapons would have much less impact on U.S. and allied military forces who are equipped with defensive equipment and are vaccinated against some biological agents.

He cited a 1998 book by one expert, former U.S. military officer Albert Mauroni, which argued that weapons of mass destruction could cause “mass destruction” against an unprepared civilian population, but they would probably cause only “mass disruption” against a force with proper equipment and training.

U.S. soldiers in the area are reportedly being vaccinated for smallpox, anthrax and a range of other diseases, and have been supplied with suits and other equipment for defense against an attack.

Bunker Busters

The modeling software was developed in part to aid the Pentagon in planning U.S. attacks against targets housing chemical, biological and nuclear materials. 

The models assess how and where a biological or chemical agent disperses by incorporating atmospheric conditions such as temperature, wind and humidity, and terrain, and transferring its calculations onto a map of the area in question (see GSN, June 5, 2002). 

They also incorporate the physical properties and toxic effects of the weapons, as well as data about how the agents might be deployed by Iraq. 

The software can also calculate the effects of nuclear explosions, including blast, heat, radiation and fallout.

NRDC has calculated significant collateral devastation if Bush were to order a nuclear attack against a deeply buried bunker hidden under or near one of Hussein’s presidential palaces.  Such facilities are suspected near a presidential facility in Mosul, in northern Iraq, and one in Tikrit, McKinzie said.

“Even with a very small yield of a half-kiloton, you have to bury the nuclear weapon tens of meters, 50 meters or more into the ground to contain that fallout,” he said, adding that so far the military has been unable to design an earth-penetrating weapon that can burrow that deep.

“You still get a ferocious amount of fallout from low-yield nuclear weapons buried deeply into the ground,” he said.

Back to top

North Korea I:  China Avoids Security Council Meeting on North Korea

The United States has been pushing the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council to unanimously condemn North Korea for withdrawing from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty but has met Chinese resistance, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, March 13).

U.S. officials last week arranged a meeting of the permanent members to negotiate a council statement on North Korea, but only U.S., French and British representatives attended, AP reported.

“We are trying to ask (the council) to understand that diplomatic efforts (are) going on and we do see the possibility that we could bring the parties together for a dialogue,” Chinese U.N. Ambassador Wang Yingfan said.  “So we do not wish at this stage that there should be the involvement of the Security Council,” he said (Edith Lederer, Associated Press/Philadelphia Inquirer, March 14).

Beijing is apparently supporting North Korea’s call for direct negotiations with Washington while Moscow remains undecided, Reuters reported.

U.S. President George W. Bush told South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun that the United States is still committed to multilateral talks.

A South Korean official said his government will work to close a “perception gap” between foreigners who are more nervous about the current crisis and many South Koreans, who are not.

“We know the situation better than others,” said South Korean Finance Minister Kim Jin-pyo.

North Korea, meanwhile, might be only weeks from launching a Rodong missile, which has not happened since August 1998, according to Japan’s Yomiuri Shimbun (Eckert/Wilson, Reuters, March 14).

Surveillance Flights Resume

The United States has restarted surveillance flights near North Korea and the U.S. aircraft have not been bothered by North Korean forces, according to Adm. Thomas Fargo, commander of U.S. Pacific forces.  The flights resumed Wednesday and had been suspended after North Korean fighter jets intercepted a U.S. aircraft March 2, AP reported.

“We retain our right to fly these unarmed surveillance and reconnaissance flights in international airspace, as we do throughout the world,” Fargo told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The Pentagon is taking “prudent measures” to ensure the safety of the flights, Fargo said (Associated Press/Baltimore Sun, March 14).

Back to top

North Korea II:  Interview With New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, after being approached by emissaries of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, conducted critical talks with North Korean officials this winter over that country’s nuclear threat (see GSN, Jan. 13).  Richardson has vital negotiating experience with North Korea and Iraq after serving in the Clinton administration as U.N. ambassador and energy secretary.  He also was an international troubleshooter during his 14 years in the U.S. Congress.

Veteran diplomatic correspondent Lee Michael Katz interviewed Richardson for the National Journal on March 10.  In the edited excerpts below, Richardson offered a window into North Korean motives and dangers, Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and U.N. divisions over Iraq.

National Journal:  Are you concerned that there is so much attention on Iraq that not enough is being paid to dangers from North Korea?

Bill Richardson:  North Korea poses a strong threat to the United States, but not as severe as Iraq.  Nonetheless, the Bush administration needs to address the North Korea issue more effectively.  Face-to-face talks are needed to resolve our differences and ease tensions.

Adopting the multilateral approach — getting China, South Korea, and others to lean on North Korea — is not going to work without the United States being a decisive part of pressure on North Korea to reduce its nuclear arsenal.

NJ:  We’ve recently seen a North Korean missile test and the buzzing of a U.S. military plane (see GSN, March 10 and March 4).  Will North Korea’s [leader] Kim Jong Il use preoccupation with [Iraqi President] Saddam Hussein to try to provoke the United States?

Richardson:  Most definitely.  I believe the North Koreans are looking at the American distraction with Iraq to press their points even further.  This is why it’s in America’s interest to defuse it, whereby there will be an agreement:  In exchange for not attacking North Korea, that country would reduce its nuclear arsenal.  We don’t need to have three crises at the same time — the war on al-Qaeda, Iraq, and North Korea

The North Koreans typically escalate their rhetoric and actions right before they believe they’re entering into a negotiation with the United States.  The reality is, they’re not restarting their reprocessing plant or taking overly belligerent actions, except for these missile tests.  I’m not trying to excuse them, but it’s important to engage them effectively instead of trying to isolate and contain them.  That’s not going to work.

NJ:  Can America ignore North Korea while going forward with Iraq?

Richardson:  No.  They’re a major hostile power, and they need to be treated differently.  I’m not of the school that we should keep the military option alive in North Korea.  The difference between Iraq and North Korea is, with Iraq, diplomacy can no longer be an instrument.  With North Korea, diplomacy is the only instrument we have available.

NJ:  Do you see North Korea as a U.S. policy failure?

Richardson:  We let them take the rhetorical advantage with all their provocative statements.  We appear to be not responding — without a policy.  I believe Secretary [of State Colin] Powell is going to move in the right direction.  I remember being in the administration when you are overwhelmed.  It’s hard to deal with more than one crisis and the volume of decisions and activity.

NJ:  Do you think the administration is paralyzed by the Iraqi situation?

Richardson:  There’s no question the president himself is consumed by this issue.  We ought to give a little bit of the benefit of the doubt.  But if it persists much longer — the lack of discussions with North Korea — we’re going to end up paying more than we should in a potential agreement.  And we may drive them into more isolation, which is dangerous because then they make foolish decisions.

NJ:  If President Bush hadn’t been so negative about South Korea’s “sunshine policy” of engaging with North Korea, dismissive of Kim, and preoccupied with the “axis of evil,” would this situation have happened?

Richardson:  The reality is, North Korea broke the framework agreement before President Bush took office.  A good part of the fault lies with North Korea.  But I don’t think President Bush’s axis-of-evil statement was helpful, nor the apparent hostility which many in the administration seem to have with Kim Jong Il.  There’s no question, he’s not a human-rights champion.  But why go out of your way to antagonize someone that may have two nuclear weapons and a million-and-a-half-plus army on the border of one of our allies with 37,000 American troops?

The administration needs to be more careful in their rhetorical tactics to not get into the problems we seem to have with the U.N. Security Council and our NATO allies by appearing to be bullying everybody.

NJ:  Could Korean tensions result in miscalculation, such as the shooting down of a plane, that could lead to war?

Richardson:  North Koreans are capable of miscalculation.  They’re prone to hostile acts and gaffes.  I believe North Korea would not engage the United States, but why take the risk?

This is why face-to-face talks are the best answer to any potential miscalculation or act of irrationality on the part of North Korea.  Keeping third-country pressure like China is only marginally effective.  I fail to see why it’s in China’s interest to want to defuse the crisis on the Korean Peninsula.  China probably likes instability brought upon by the North Korean situation to keep us in check in the area which they want to dominate.

NJ:  What prompted your North Korea talks?

Richardson:  The North Koreans reached out to me because they felt they couldn’t get any kind of response from the Bush administration.  They have felt neglected.  That doesn’t mean their concerns are right and righteous.

They felt the axis-of-evil statement was unnecessary.  They observed to me, it seemed that the Bush administration wanted to wipe out every single Clinton administration initiative with North Korea — and they were perplexed.  They felt insulted the Bush administration was trying to needlessly isolate them and put them on the back burner.  And that deserved a response.

I believe it’s a cry for attention.  It’s a cry for “let’s resolve our differences.”  That doesn’t mean you do it on their terms.

NJ:  Any chance you will hold more talks?

Richardson:  I don’t think so.  I’ve got enough problems with the New Mexico Legislature.

NJ:  Are we just willing to accept that North Korea is a nuclear power?

Richardson:  Their only card is the nuclear option.  The reality is, they are a nuclear power.  We should probably accept that, but at the same time try to curb its use and its proliferation and engage them, not keep them isolated.  They’re resilient.  Probably one of the poorest nations on Earth, they seem to survive.

NJ:  Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has suggested that the U.S. should consider pulling its troops from their front-line trip-wire position in Korea.  Is that a good idea?

Richardson:  Eventually we should look at reducing our force there, but it should only be in consultation with South Korea.  We clearly should not be where we’re not wanted.  I was troubled the new South Korean president seemed to be wanting American troops out.  A lot depends on North Korea’s behavior and the attitude of our friends like Japan, who may want our troops there for protective reasons.

NJ:  How do you think the Iraq and North Korea situations would be playing out if Bill Clinton were still president?

Richardson:  We would make major efforts not to have three crises at the same.  I think the major concentration would be the war with al-Qaeda, and we’d be dealing with Iraq at a lower decibel level, but with the same level of determination to disarm ... with much more multilateral support.  And we would be directly engaging with North Korea — that’s the difference.  There would be increased dialogue and probably some progress right now.

NJ:  You were also energy secretary.  Questions were raised in Congress about the Energy Department’s nuclear technology transfer to train North Koreans.  Do you see any problems?

Richardson:  No.  I think training North Koreans in nuclear nonproliferation and training Russians has been one of our best programs.  What you want to do with a hostile country is penetrate it, and bring moderate influence, good training, and good behavior to temper their excesses.

NJ:  Iran is a new topic of concern in Washington for having a far more advanced nuclear enrichment program than previously thought.

Richardson:  It is a danger.  Iran is a major power in the Persian Gulf, where we have a lot of our troops.  There, I believe multilaterally is our best option.  Get our European and NATO allies and the International Atomic Energy Agency to try to curb that use.  This is why it’s important to have a strong U.N. and other institutions to help us deal with problems.  It’s better to have support for our goals than being isolated.

NJ:  Are you worried if the United States goes into Iraq without U.N. approval and without Germany, France, and Russia, it will damage long-term U.S. interests?

Richardson:  Yes.  The strongest alliance in the world is the NATO alliance, and repairing it by the U.S. going alone is going to take years and years.  France, Germany, Russia, and others have acted precipitously and irresponsibly, but that doesn’t mean we don’t try to work out our differences.  I worry about the stability of the Western world if countries like the U.S., France, and Germany have fractious relationships.

I have never seen our relationship with our major allies so tattered.  This doesn’t mean that it’s our fault.  The U.N. is weakened often by its own inaction.  Being the world’s only superpower also has its burdens.  The United States should lead more with diplomacy rather than bullying.

NJ:  You’re not a candidate, but what would you do differently on North Korea and Iraq if you were president?

Richardson:  I would engage North Korea directly.  With Iraq, I would build international support in the Security Council — and then go for military action if that didn’t work.

While I realize we probably must go forward with military action, I worry it will have a very negative impact on the economy of the states, the role of the federal government in helping our states in areas like Medicaid, homeland security, and education.  We’ve got to be full partners.  Right now, it’s a one-way street.

Back to top

Iran:  Recent Developments Vindicate U.S. Rhetoric, Powell Says

Recent news about Iran’s surprisingly advanced nuclear capabilities has proven that U.S. alarms about Iran’s intentions are justified, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said yesterday (see GSN, March 13).

“We’ve raised this issue repeatedly.  We’ve talked about the ‘axis of evil’ and been criticized for it,” Powell told the House Appropriations subcommittee on foreign operations.

“And lo and behold, we discover they had a far more robust nuclear infrastructure that could be used for weapons development than people had thought, or wanted us to believe.  We were seen as suspicious, and we shouldn’t be moving in this direction, but now we have a real concern.  When you marry that up with their continued support for terrorist organizations that foment terror in Lebanon and other places throughout the Middle East, I believe that our concerns with respect to Iran were well founded,” he said (David Gollust, VOA News, March 14).

Back to top

Smallpox:  Smallpox Immunizations Continue, but Advance Slowly

Authorities are perplexed that few health workers have been inoculated with the smallpox vaccine, the Los Angeles Times reported today.

“We’ve been putting a lot of eggs in the vaccination basket and it hasn’t gotten us a lot,” said Joseph Henderson, associate director of terrorism preparedness and response for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Vicki Kemper, Los Angeles Times, March 14).

Health officials had vaccinated 16,919 people as of March 7, according to numbers released by the CDC.

Concerns about the vaccine’s side effects, compensation for those adverse effects and the small likelihood of a smallpox terrorist attack caused participation to stay far below expectations for the first month of the program.  To date, 14 people have suffered moderate to severe reactions and one person has been treated with vaccinia immune globulin, which treats adverse effects from the vaccine.  In recent weeks participation has increased and the following chart details progress in each state and major cities through March 7 (CDC release, March 13).

State / City	Number of Immunizations
Alabama	310
Alaska	87
Arizona	5
Arkansas	407
California	366
Chicago	18
Colorado	193
Connecticut	332
Delaware	63
District of Columbia	4
Florida	2015
Georgia	73
Hawaii	23
Idaho	125
Illinois	5
Indiana	544
Iowa	231
Kansas	256
Kentucky	142
Los Angeles County	115
Louisiana	499
Maine	177
Maryland	177
Massachusetts	41
Michigan	151
Minnesota	1349
Mississippi	149
Missouri	651
Nebraska	1388
New Hampshire	90
New Jersey	619
New Mexico	13
New York City	41
New York State	115
North Carolina	282
North Dakota	100
Ohio	738
Oklahoma	78
Pennsylvania	57
South Carolina	217
South Dakota	618
Tennessee	2280
Texas	810
Utah	64
Vermont	20
Virginia	292
Washington State	178
West Virginia	257
Wisconsin	79
Wyoming	213
TOTAL	16,919

Back to top

Anthrax:  Antibiotic-Antitoxin Combination Could Be Effective Post-Exposure Treatment

By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — Researchers at Advanced Biosystems Inc. in Virginia have found that a combination of antibiotics and antitoxin substances is an effective post-exposure treatment for anthrax, Serguei Popov, a researcher at Advanced Biosystems, told Global Security Newswire yesterday (see GSN, Jan. 30).

During the autumn 2001 anthrax attacks, the antibiotic Cipro was administered to thousands of people suspected of being exposed to anthrax.  Preliminary efficacy testing has found that the combination approach — using both antibiotics and antitoxins — was effective in treating anthrax, Popov said.  Antitoxin substances, such as bestatin, which is also used as a cancer treatment, prevents anthrax bacteria-produced toxin from killing body cells, he said (see GSN, Jan. 14).  While antitoxins prevent cell death by themselves, they do not stop bacteria from replicating inside the body, so antibiotics are also necessary.

Advanced Biosystems researchers infected mice with between 10 to 30 times the lethal dose of anthrax, Popov said.  The mice were then administered the combination therapy, which consisted of low doses of antibiotics for 10 days along with the antitoxin substances.

The test found that the combination therapy resulted in almost full survival of the infected mice, Popov said.  In comparison, the use of antibiotics alone resulted in only about a 45 percent survival rate, while the use of antitoxin substance alone resulted in a survival rate of up to only 20 percent, he said.

For further information, see:

CDC Frequently Asked Questions About Anthrax

Journal of the American Medical Association Background on Anthrax

Back to top

China:  Officials Say China Did Not Need U.S. Rocket Technology

Two recently punished U.S. companies did not give missile technology to Beijing, according to two Chinese scientists familiar with the launch of U.S.-built satellites, Bloomberg.com reported yesterday (see GSN, March 6).

The U.S. State Department fined U.S. contractors Boeing and Hughes Electronics $32 million last week for sending rocket technology to China without the proper licenses, Bloomberg.com reported.  The United States said that the companies should have obtained licenses before they provided missile technology while investigating two failed Chinese rocket launches in the 1990s.  The State Department alleged that the actions represented 123 violations of the Arms Control Export Act and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations.  Boeing and Hughes agreed to the fine.

“There isn’t any need for us” to take U.S. rocket technology, said Long Lehao, head of the China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology.  “Our rockets are like our children, we’re very clear on their illnesses and merits,” Long said.

Demonstrating its technological independence, China released an analysis of its failed 1995 Long March 2E rocket launch more than six months before the U.S. companies did, according to Mu Shan, former deputy chief engineer of the Xichang Satellite Launch Center.

“This has harmed not only the feelings of the Chinese people, but also to the interests of the two countries,” Mu said (Chi-Chu Tschang, Bloomberg.com, March 13).

Back to top

U.S. Plans:  Mount Missile Defenses on Flatbed Ships, Hunter Says

U.S. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) yesterday said the Defense Department should investigate mounting missile defense systems on flatbed ships to protect from sea-based missile attacks on the United States (see GSN, Feb. 27).

To defend against a “tramp freighter” armed with a Scud missile, Defense could deploy a “flatbed ship with a missile defense system bolted on it,” Hunter said.

The Pentagon is using the Aegis missile defense warning system, mounted on cruisers, to develop sea-based missile defenses for deployment worldwide.  Hunter suggested, however, that something less expensive and “less complete” than the Aegis system could be more applicable to static coastline defense.

Hunter made his suggestions at a committee hearing on U.S. military homeland defense activities.  Navy Adm. James Ellis, commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, did not support or reject Hunter’s proposal but said “all options” are on the table for defending the United States from a missile attack.

Representatives also questioned the Strategic Command’s role in missile defense.  Ellis said the command “is not envisioned to pull the trigger” but would instead relay information on incoming missiles to regional combat commanders or, if the attack is against the United States, to the head of the U.S. Northern Command.  The information would then be sent to the missile system operators.

Representative Terry Everett (R-Ala.) said that the information relay could cost crucial time in a missile attack (Marc Selinger, Aerospace Daily, March 14).

Back to top

Radiological Weapons:  Conference Says Tighter Source Controls Needed

A Vienna conference on preventing the use of a “dirty bomb” called yesterday for tighter controls on radioactive sources worldwide and new international efforts to make the search for radioactive material easier (see GSN, March 11).

“High-risk radioactive sources that are not under secure and regulated control, including so-called ‘orphan’ sources, raise serious security and safety concerns,” the International Conference on Security of Radioactive Sources announced yesterday.  Over 700 delegates from more than 120 countries attended the meeting (International Atomic Energy Agency release, March 13).

In its findings, the conference supported “the pooling of resources by states — e.g., through the sharing of monitoring and detection equipment on common borders” and the continued “development of the IAEA illicit trafficking database.”

The findings called for developing members of the conference to receive help “in establishing sustainable radiation protection infrastructures.”

The conference supported the formal endorsement of the Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radioactive Sources.  That document is being revised to account for current concerns (David McGlinchey, Global Security Newswire, March 14).

Delegates also encouraged states to develop action plans to locate and recover radioactive sources, strengthen existing measures to stop trafficking, push public awareness campaigns and improve current agreements that attempt to address the problem, according to the IAEA.

“There are millions of radiological sources used throughout the world.  Most are very weak.  What we are focusing on is preventing the theft or loss of control of the powerful radiological sources,” IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei said (IAEA release, March 13).

Back to top