Threat Assessment:  U.S. Nuclear Plants Near Airports May Be at Risk of Airplane Attack

Thousands of small airports are close to U.S. nuclear power plants, raising concerns that terrorists might attempt to attack a nuclear plant using a hijacked aircraft, USA Today reported today (see GSN, May 13).

While security at major U.S. airports has been increased since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, there is little to no security at most of the 18,000 “general aviation” airports that handle smaller aircraft, according to USA Today.

“What would prevent some terrorist or criminal from taking a Learjet from a small airport?” said security consultant Jalal Haidar, senior vice president of Aerospace Services International.  “They have no security measures.  They’re a loophole in the overall aviation security system,” Haidar said.

According to USA Today, more than 6,200 airports and heliports are within 60 miles of nuclear plants.  Every U.S. nuclear plant is located within less than 20 miles of at least one public airport.

Nuclear power plant operators have said, however, that most planes based at airports near nuclear plants are to small to cause the release large amounts of radiation (see GSN, Dec. 30, 2002).  The concrete around a plant’s nuclear reactor would shield it from damage, and a crash attack on other sections of a plant would not result in a massive radiation release, they said.

There is increased concern that a plant’s spent fuel pool might be more vulnerable to an attack using a hijacked aircraft because their roofs are often made of corrugated metal or concrete that is less thick than that of a reactor shell, according to USA Today (see GSN, Jan. 31). 

“It’s more difficult than a World Trade Center target but not beyond the capabilities of any commercial airline pilot,” airline pilot Marc Feigenblatt said, noting that an airplane attack on a spent fuel pool is possible.  “It’s also not beyond the capabilities of a Sept. 11 terrorist with some degree of training in a commercial aircraft,” he said.

Nuclear plant operators have said that commissioned studies indicate that while an airplane crash would damage a spent fuel pool, it would not result in a radiation release.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission began a study as to the possible effects of an aircraft crashing into a nuclear power plant.  The study remains uncompleted, though it has “the highest priority,” said NRC security chief Alan Madison, adding that science “does take time” (Gary Stoller, USA Today, June 11).

The fear that terrorists might attempt to crash an aircraft into a nuclear site did not originate with the Sept. 11 attacks, according to USA Today.  In 1972, three hijackers took control of a passenger flight during a stop in Birmingham, Ala., and threatened to crash the plane into a U.S. nuclear weapons plant in Oak Ridge, Tenn.  The plane got as close as 8,000 feet above the site before the hijackers’ demands were met, USA Today reported.

The hijackers were later arrested and imprisoned in Cuba after flying the plane to Havana.  They were returned to Alabama in 1980, where they were sentenced to 20 to 25 years in prison each.  Then have since been released (Gary Stoller, USA Today II, June 11).

Back to top

Australian Response:  Canberra Revises Threat Alert Level System

Australia has implemented a new terrorism threat alert level system, with four levels of alert replacing the existing three classifications, Australian Prime Minister John Howard said today (see GSN, Dec. 16, 2002).

The new system includes an “extreme” alert level in addition to the existing low, medium and high classifications.  The new level indicates that a terrorist attack is imminent or that one has already occurred, according to Agence France-Presse.

The revised system will more accurately inform the public about any potential terrorist threat and help remove confusion, Howard said, adding that the system was not revised because of any new threat information.

“We don’t have any information additional to what we have previously received that has led to the reclassification,” Howard said.  “I don’t want people to be concerned that we’ve got some new information and that we’re preparing the ground to release that by ordering the (new) classifications,” he said (Agence France-Presse, June 11).

Back to top

Iraq:  Blix Attacks U.S. Critics

U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix yesterday openly criticized members of the Bush administration, saying some within the U.S. Defense Department had orchestrated a smear campaign against him (see GSN, June 10).

“I have my detractors in Washington.  There are bastards who spread things around, of course, who planted nasty things in the media.  Not that I cared very much,” Blix said in an interview with the London Guardian.  “It was like a mosquito bite in the evening that is there in the morning, an irritant,” he added.

While describing his overall relationship with the United States as “good,” Blix said the Bush administration “leaned” on inspectors to prepare reports that would gain the United States support within the U.N. Security Council for attacking Iraq.  For example, the United States was angered that inspectors did not “make more” of discovered cluster bombs in Iraq, he said.

Blix said he was convinced that there were officials within the Bush administration that “say they don’t care if the U.N. sinks under the East River, and other crude things.”  Instead of seeing the United Nations as a collective body, the United States now sees it as an “alien power, even if it does hold considerable influence within it.  Such (negative) feelings don’t exist in Europe where people say that the U.N. is a lot of talk at dinners and fluffy stuff,” Blix said (Helena Smith, London Guardian, June 11).

Blix yesterday also defended U.N. inspectors’ efforts prior to the war in Iraq.  “I would say that I think the criticism that was directed to us was misdirected,” he said in an interview with the Associated Press.

With no weapons of mass destruction found so far in Iraq, Blix said an important question now is why Iraq chose not to cooperate with the United Nations for so long.

“I have speculations, one could be pride,” Blix said.  “Saddam Hussein regarded himself as an emperor of Mesopotamia, some said, and he regarded inspectors as impostors,” he said.

Blix nevertheless praised Hussein’s ouster.

“He was an ancient-type ruler who got control of a country with an oil income and could use 21st century weapons,” Blix said.  “That was a very dangerous combination, and I think we all feel a great relief that he is put out of action,” he said (Edith Lederer, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, June 10).

Opposition Leader Defends Intelligence

Meanwhile, Iraqi opposition leader Ahmed Chalabi, head of the Iraqi National Congress, yesterday defended information he provided to Washington on Iraq’s WMD programs, denying that he had exaggerated the threat (see GSN, May 27).

“We gave very accurate information, and we produced people who we handed over to the United States who told them very significant things,” Chalabi said.  “The only tangible things they have found are the mobile labs, which our defectors talked about,” he said.

U.S. authorities will find Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction once they find Hussein, who Chalabi claims is still alive, he said. “The weapons and Saddam are one and the same thing,” he said (Colum Lynch, Washington Post, June 11).

DIA Defends Report

U.S. Navy Adm. Lowell Jacoby, director of the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency, last week denied that a 2002 DIA report indicated that the agency did not believe Iraq possessed a chemical weapons program prior to the war (see GSN, June 6).

The classified report, which was leaked to the media June 6, said there is “no reliable information” as to whether Iraq at the time was producing or stockpiling chemical weapons.  All the report meant, however, was that the DIA could not identify specific facilities that were involved in producing chemical weapons, Jacoby said.

“It is not, in any way, intended to portray the fact that we had doubts that such a program existed … was active, or … was part of the Iraqi WMD infrastructure,” Jacoby said.  “We did not have doubts about the existence of the program,” he said (U.S. State Department release, June 9).

United Nations Appoints New UNMOVIC Acting Head

The United Nations yesterday appointed Demetrius Perricos as acting executive chairman of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission. 

Perricos, currently serving as Blix’s deputy and director of planning and operations, will assume his position July 1.  Diplomats believe U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan will not appoint a new executive director to UNMOVIC until the United States agrees to allow inspectors to return to Iraq, Reuters reported (Reuters/Business Recorder, June 11).

Back to top

International Response:  Australia Group Adds New Pathogens to Control List

By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — A group of 33 industrial nations agreed last week to restrict the export of a number of human pathogens that could be used to create biological weapons, the Australian Foreign Ministry announced Friday (see GSN, Oct. 28, 2002).

The Australia Group — an informal network of countries that coordinate export controls on dual-use items that could be used to create biological or chemical weapons — agreed at its annual meeting in Paris to add 14 pathogens to the group’s biological control list, the ministry said in a press release.  The pathogens include 12 types of viruses, such as encephalitis and hemorrhagic fever, as well as two types of bacteria, according to the U.S. State Department.  The pathogens were selected because they are sufficiently dangerous to humans to pose the risk of being used as biological weapons, a State Department official told Global Security Newswire yesterday.

At last week’s meeting, the group also agreed to several additional nonproliferation measures.  Group members endorsed a cooperative program to engage countries in the Asian-Pacific region on biological and chemical export-control issues, according to the Australian Foreign Ministry.  The plan could also include group members helping Asian-Pacific countries to develop or strengthen national biological and chemical export control laws, the State Department official said.

The official denied that the Asian-Pacific region posed a greater risk for biological and chemical proliferation, saying that Australia’s position as chair of the group was a factor in the region being chosen as the target of the first action plan.  The United States hopes similar plans for other regions will also be developed, the official said.

Australia Group members agreed to new procedures to improve transparency and information sharing, the ministry said in its release.  These new procedures include mandatory information-sharing among members on the implementation of group-related export controls, the State Department official said.  In addition, group members approved a new guide to help national compliance and enforcement officers to detect and prevent illegal transfers of controlled items.

“I welcome the continued high priority placed by members of the Australia Group on preventing the spread of CBW in the fight against terrorism and their commitment to strengthening export-control measures,” Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said in a statement.

The United States believes, however, that more work remains to be done through the group to address chemical weapon-related issues, according to the State Department official.  The group was unable to reach a consensus at this year’s meeting on adding additional chemical precursors to the group’s control list, the official said.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security has modified the U.S. Export Administration Regulations to incorporate decisions made by the Australia Group at its annual meeting last year, according to a final rule published yesterday in the Federal Register (see GSN, June 21, 2002).

Under the final rule, which took effect yesterday, eight new toxins have been added to the U.S. Commerce Control List.  The bureau has also lowered volume limits for controlled fermenters from 100 liters to 20 liters.

In addition, the bureau has also modified licensing policy provisions in the Export Administration Regulations to make them more consistent with guidelines the Australia Group adopted last year.  Now, the bureau will consider several new factors before an export license will be granted, such as the reliability of the parties involved in the transfer, relevant information about proliferation or terrorism activities, the risk of diversion of the transferred items and the applicability of other export control or nonproliferation agreements.

Back to top

German Response:  Berlin Withdraws WMD Team From Kuwait

Germany is pulling a specialized WMD detection team out of Kuwait, German Defense Minister Peter Struck said today (see GSN, Nov. 7, 2002).

The German unit includes 60 personnel and six modified armored vehicles.

“This was a combined joint task force — the United States, the Czech Republic and Germany posted defense forces against nuclear, biological and chemical weapons to Kuwait,” Struck said.  “Now that the Americans and Czechs have left, there is no longer a combined joint task force,” he added (Associated Press, June 11).

Back to top

United States I:  Former Bush Official Advocates Low-Yield Weapon Research

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — A former senior Bush administration official yesterday took aim at “antinuclear activists” opposed to an administration initiative to begin researching new low-yield nuclear weapons, saying the critics misunderstand the nature of new global threats facing the United States.

Keith Payne, who last week ended his year and a half of service as the deputy assistant secretary of defense for forces policy, oversaw Pentagon policies on some of the administration’s most controversial defense initiatives, including missile defense, nuclear weapons and the Nuclear Posture Review.

He laid out administration reasoning behind its approach to nuclear deterrence — particularly its interest in research on new, low-yield nuclear weapons — and said critics, intentionally or not, have failed to appreciate the rationale.

“It is hard to find folks less adept at thinking outside the old Cold War box than the U.S. antinuclear crowd.  The world has changed dramatically, but their arguments have not,” he said.

“Nowhere has this inability to engage in ‘newthink’ been more apparent than in the heated response to recent congressional efforts supported by the Bush administration to free up research on precision low-yield nuclear weapons, including those capable of threatening those underground bunkers,” he said, citing Los Angeles Times and Washington Post editorials.

New Threats Described

Payne, who has returned to his former position running the National Institute for Public Policy, said potential U.S. enemies differ from the Cold War-era Soviet Union in that enemy leaders now may not value the welfare of their populations or their own survival, and may make decisions based on superstition or fanaticism.

During the Cold War, he said, “We didn’t consider an enemy whose decision-making process is not determined by … external pieces of evidence and analysis, but by their feelings, by the feelings of an unquestioned leader, by political absolutes, and by the advice of some court soothsayer.”

The United States might possibly face opponents driven by “unquestioned adherence to a leader who has a bad dream” or relies on “fortune telling or astrology or all those things that underlie decision-making in many parts of the world,” he said.

Today’s potential opponents, he said, “don’t see their citizens as citizens.  They are subjects, they are consumables.”

Argues for Pursuing New Nuclear Capabilities

Such factors, Payne said, raise questions about whether the United States can have confidence in its present deterrence capabilities, consisting mostly of high-yield nuclear weapons.

“Interest in research on new, low-yield nuclear weapons comes from a desire for a deterrent that is believable,” he said.

“Some opposing leaders may doubt U.S. deterrent threats because our existing arsenal has generally high yields and a relative lack of precision,” he said.

He referred to 10-year-old legislation barring such research, which the administration successfully encouraged Congress to amend this year, as “thought control.”

“What’s all the fuss about?” Payne said.  The law “when rigidly applied, restricts even thinking … about new low-yield nuclear weapons.  Yes, thought control is alive and well under existing law,” he said.

He also said a study to consider modifying an existing nuclear weapon for improved bunker-busting capabilities and potentially striking biological weapons facilities was first sought during the Clinton administration.

“The response to these initiatives has, as I said earlier, been reminiscent of the antinuclear left’s Cold War tactics in both style and substance,” he said, which is characterized by “overheated partisan rhetoric intended to frighten and politicize the unsuspecting.”

Nuclear Pre-Emption Critique Disputed

Payne disputed charges from arms control organizations that the administration initiatives would make the use of a nuclear weapon in future conflict more likely.

“The research initiatives that I described are being reported as evidence that the Bush administration is looking for nuclear pre-emption against someone,” he said.

“It’s all familiar nonsense of course, but its scary nonsense,” he said.

Three years ago, a Payne-led panel released a study concluding that nuclear weapons could play a greater role in U.S. defense policy.  The panel included current White House Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen Cambone.

The study, Rationale and Requirements for U.S. Nuclear Forces and Arms Control, concluded there might be a future need for nuclear weapons that could provide “unique targeting capabilities (deep underground/biological weapons targets)” and said nuclear weapons could also be used to “neutralize enemy military capabilities, especially nuclear and other WMD forces.”

Back to top

Iran:  Nuclear Scientists Travel to North Korea

Iranian nuclear scientists have traveled to North Korea three times this year, perhaps in an effort to learn techniques to evade international inspectors, a Japanese newspaper reported today (see GSN, June 9).

Two Iranian scientists visited North Korea in March, an Iranian nuclear official traveled there in April, and two others spent more than a week there in May, according to Tokyo’s Sankei newspaper (Agence France-Presse, June 11).

Meanwhile, a Western diplomat said inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency have been obstructed from conducting inspections in Iran after inspectors were denied access to a Tehran electric company that they want to investigate.

Iranian officials, however, denied the charge.

“Everything they’ve asked for [under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty] we’ve done,” said Gholamreza Aghazadeh, the head of Iran’s atomic energy agency.

Iran also denied that is in violation of the NPT — as Washington has repeatedly claimed — and called on U.S. officials to stop leveling accusations about a secret Iranian weapons program without concrete proof of its existence (Soraya Nelson, Knight Ridder/Miami Herald, June 11).

“We do not have any site in Iran which is necessary to declare to the agency based on its regulations,” Aghazadeh said.  “In the era of satellites, how could such huge facilities be hidden?” he asked (Parisa Hafezi, Reuters/Washington Times, June 11).

The Iranian denial follows an IAEA report that alleges that Iran illegally imported uranium from China in 1991, including 1,000 kilograms of uranium hexafluoride, plus quantities of uranium tetrafluoride and uranium dioxide.  Centrifuges use uranium hexafluoride to enrich uranium into nuclear power fuel or nuclear weapons material.

Iran said it did not report the imported uranium because officials believed the amount was too small (Miranda Eeles, London Times, June 11).

Despite Tehran’s denials, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has again claimed that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

“The intelligence community in the United States and around the world currently assess that Iran does not have nuclear weapons,” Rumsfeld said.  “The assessment is that they do have a very active program,” he added (Reuters, June 11).

The European Union will also apply pressure to Tehran to accept more intrusive inspections of its nuclear facilities, the Financial Times reported today (Bozorgmehr/Dempsey, Financial Times, June 1).

Iranian officials said they will not accept international inspectors to monitor nuclear facilities unless Tehran is allowed to acquire more modern technology (Associated Press/Washington Post, June 11).

Back to top

North Korea:  No Schedule for Nuclear Talks, U.S. Official Says

A U.S. ambassador to South Korea said today there is no firm plan or date for talks between Washington, Pyongyang and other regional powers (see GSN, June 10).

“We don’t have a timetable for talks yet,” Thomas Hubbard said.  “We are ready for multilateral dialogue as soon as the North Koreans are,” he added.

However, the Yomiuri, Japan’s largest newspaper, yesterday quoted a U.S. official as saying that talks would probably be held with the United States, North Korea, China, South Korea and Japan as early as July (Kenji Hall, Associated Press, June 11).

Hubbard also said the United States may resort to other measures if talks fail, but that does not necessarily translate to military action, the Korea Herald reported (Seo Hyun-jin, Korea Herald, June 11).

Seoul Boosts Defense Spending

South Korea announced it would increase its defense spending by 28 percent in next year’s budget, Agence France-Presse reported today.

“The increase in our defense spending reflects our plans to acquire new equipment,” a Defense Ministry spokesman said.  That new equipment will most likely include procuring new Patriot missiles, the spokesman added.

“We are not free of threats by North Korea’s long-range artillery and missiles,” Deputy Defense Minister Cha Young-koo said yesterday.

The defense spending boost will also earmark money for missiles, surveillance planes, radar, satellite technology and an Aegis warship (Lim Chang-won, Agence France-Presse, June 11).

In a measure aimed at crippling Pyongyang, an official from the South Korean ruling party has announced his support of sanctions against North Korea.

“The nuclear standoff between the United States and North Korea can be addressed as the North is vulnerable to economic sanctions from the international community,” said Cho Soon-sung, chairman of the Millennium Democratic Party’s special committee on the nuclear crisis.

Cho said China would probably not oppose sanctions.

“China will eventually follow Washington’s move because it also wants a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula,” he said (Joo Sang-min, Korea Herald, June 11).

Japan Cracks Down on Shipping

Shortly after the White House announced that it will push for allies to put pressure on North Korean shipping, Japan yesterday detained two North Korean cargo ships, citing safety concerns.

Japanese authorities detained the Namsan 3 and the Daehungrason 2, leading North Korea to react angrily.

“If this is part of ‘sanctions’ against the D.P.R.K., we cannot but regard it as a very serious development,” said the state-run Korean Central News Agency (James Brooke, New York Times, June 11).

The inspection was conducted amid suspicions that North Korean vessels have smuggled drugs to Japan and illegally carried home ballistic missile parts.  The Namsan 3 was cleared to leave port today, according to Japanese officials (Agence France-Presse, June 11).

Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer today said that Japan, the United States and Australia would look into potential changes to international law to allow North Korean ships to be interdicted at sea (BBC News, June 11).

Back to top

United States II:  Air Force Successfully Tests Minuteman 3 ICBM

Early today, the U.S. Air Force successfully test-fired an unarmed Minuteman 3 ICBM from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California (see GSN, Sept. 20, 2002). 

The long-range missile flew for about 30 minutes before hitting a target at the Kwajalein Missile Range in the Marshall Islands in the Pacific Ocean, staff Sgt. Rebecca Bonilla said (Associated Press/San Jose Mercury News, June 11).

Back to top

United States III:  Y-12 Contractor Faces Fine for Alleged Safety Violations

A company that manages a U.S. nuclear weapons plant could suffer a civil penalty of almost $100,000 for alleged safety violations at the facility, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, May 22).

Personnel at BXWT, which oversees the U.S. Energy Department’s Y-12 nuclear weapons plant in Oak Ridge, Tenn., failed to conduct required inspections last year of two pieces of equipment that had been previously determined to be “safety significant,” said Linton Brooks, head of the National Nuclear Security Administration.  As a result, the U.S. company could face a fine of $96,250, AP reported.

While the violations did not result in “actual harm,” the failure to conduct the inspections could have created safety hazards, NNSA spokesman Steven Wyatt said (Associated Press, June 11).  

Back to top

Anthrax I:  Maryland Pond Operation Could Last One Month, Area Mayor Says

The FBI’s effort to drain and search a pond located near Frederick, Md., as part of its investigation into the fall 2001 anthrax attacks could last a month, Frederick Mayor Jennifer Dougherty said yesterday (see GSN, June 10).

It is expected to take several days to drain the pond, according to the Associated Press.  Engineers hired by the FBI plan to slowly reduce the water level in the pond, by about one foot per day, to avoid excessive disturbance of aquatic life, Dougherty said.  The bureau’s search of the pond could then last for several weeks, she said.

“Obviously, everybody’s eager to be successful, but to do it in the right way,” Dougherty said (David Dishneau, Associated Press, June 11).

Back to top

Anthrax II:  Hong Kong Officials Rule Out Terrorism in Anthrax Death

Hong Kong health officials believe the recent death of a 2-year-old boy from anthrax is not related to bioterrorism, Agence France-Presse reported today (see GSN, May 23).

The boy first exhibited anthrax symptoms May 27 and died three days later, AFP reported.  The boy is believed to have contracted the disease from contaminated food, according to a postmortem report released yesterday.

“There is no evidence that this was a biological attack,” said Hong Kong Health Department consultant Tse Lai-yin.  “We suspect he consumed uncooked contaminated meat as the source,” Tse said.

Authorities plan to continue the investigation into how the boy contracted anthrax, including “checks on the types of food he consumed and where they were purchased,” a Hong Kong Health Department spokeswoman said.

Health officials have responded to the situation with caution, sterilizing the boy’s home, the hospital where he received treatment and his school.

Area hospitals were alerted but they were not expected to be needed because the boy’s death was the first area anthrax death in nine years.

“We just need the public to maintain good personal hygiene and make sure their food is cooked very very well,” said Health Department consultant Tse Lai-yin (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, June 11).

Back to top

U.S. Plans:  Defense Department May Budget For Missile Procurement

Responding to criticism from government auditors, the U.S. Defense Department may begin allocating money in future budgets to buy missiles currently under development by the Missile Defense Agency, Inside Missile Defense reported today (see GSN, June 5).

Agency officials said the military services do not currently budget for procurement because they do not know if missile systems will be transferred to them.

Glenn Lamartin, director of defense systems for the undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, commented on a General Accounting Office recommendation to earmark money for missile procurement in future budgets.

“Doing so would not only promote the stability of the overall defense budget, but would also significantly improve the likelihood that an element or component would actually be fielded,” Lamartin wrote in an April 17 response to the GAO.  “The department will certainly consider this option for elements and components that have demonstrated sufficient maturity to enter into production,” he added.

In its report, the GAO warns that not laying out the costs in advance could force cuts in other programs down the line, Inside Missile Defense reported (Thomas Duffy, Inside Missile Defense, June 11).

Back to top