Iraq:  Agents Try to Buy Centrifuges for Making Nuclear Weapons

Iraqi operatives were detected last month trying to purchase stainless-steel tubing — which is used in gas centrifuges to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons — from an unknown supplier, U.S. officials told the Washington Times (see GSN, June 20).

U.S. intelligence agencies believe that obtaining the tubing is essential to Iraq’s plans to build nuclear weapons, the Times reported today.

“We know they are trying to obtain this material but so far have not been successful,” a senior Bush administration official said.

Enriching uranium is the basis for the Iraqi nuclear program, said former Iraqi nuclear official Khidhir Hamza.  Iraq in the past tried to produce enriched uranium by using centrifuges that require stainless-steel tubing, said Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control.

“We do know that if they were to reconstitute their nuclear program, they would need stainless-steel piping,” he said.

“This is only one sign that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program,” a Bush administration official said (Bill Gertz, Washington Times, July 26).

U.S. Debates Attack Plans

Meanwhile, the Bush administration has continued an internal debate over how to attack Iraq, and some civilian aides to U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld are advocating a surprise attack with 80,000 troops.

Advocates of the plan say a surprise attack is necessary because Iraqi President Saddam Hussein knows the United States wants to remove him from power and he might hit U.S. troops with chemical or biological weapons in a pre-emptive strike (see GSN, July 18).  A surprise U.S. attack could occur as soon as October, the Miami Herald reported.

“If it happened in October, I wouldn’t be completely surprised,” one official said.

Some military planners and analysts have backed a plan to invade Iraq using 250,000 to 300,000 U.S. troops and massive air strikes (see GSN, July 8).  They have said the 80,000-troop plan might be disastrous.  Taking over Baghdad would require a major U.S. force, former Army special operations and CIA officer Michael Vickers said.

Bush aides are also debating whether to ask Congress to approve an invasion.  Senate Foreign Relations Committee  Chairman Joseph Biden (D-Del.) said U.S. President George W. Bush must gain congressional and public support for a military campaign or risk ending his career.  U.S. officials emphasized that Bush has not yet decided on an attack plan.

“I have specifically inquired about the prospect of an October surprise and have been told there will not be an October surprise,” Biden said.

The administration faces opposition from most Arab and European countries who have said the United States must help resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict before moving to attack Iraq (see GSN, April 5).

“I think a widespread assumption is, the U.S. is going to attack,” an official at the United Nations said. “There is widespread concern that this will destabilize the whole of the Middle East.”

The State Department has expressed the same concern.  “With all that’s going on, with all the uncertainty in the Middle East … it probably is not a good time,” a senior State official said.

The Bush administration has also not provided a plan for creating a post-Hussein government that would unite the country’s Shiite and Sunni Muslims and ethnic Kurds, according to the Miami Herald (see GSN, March 20; Strobel/Landay, Miami Herald, July 26).

For further information, see:

Wisconsin Project Iraq Watch

Carnegie Endowment Nuclear Status Map

Back to top

U.S.-Russia:  Consider Debt-for-Nonproliferation Swap, State Official Says

By Kerry Boyd
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The United States should consider swapping a portion of Russian debt for nonproliferation programs, a senior State Department official said yesterday, praising last month’s Group of Eight agreement to provide funds for nonproliferation programs in the former Soviet Union (see GSN, June 28).

In testimony before the House International Relations Committee, Undersecretary for Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs Alan Larson, said the recent G-8 agreement to provide $20 billion over the next 10 years “will make possible substantially increased nonproliferation efforts through new and expanded multilateral and bilateral projects.”

As part of the G-8 agreement, the United States has agreed to provide half of the funds while other countries would match that amount.  Contributors plan to coordinate projects to avoid duplication and ensure broader coverage of nonproliferation needs, Larson said (see GSN, May 3).

“The initiative allows each partner the flexibility to finance and carry out projects in a manner consistent with its program priorities, national laws and budgetary procedures,” Larson said.

One option for financing more nonproliferation programs is a bilateral debt exchange, Larson said, adding that the United States does not know whether other G-8 countries plan to use that option.  The United States might agree to waive a certain amount of Soviet-era debt to the United States if Russia agrees to use those funds for programs to scrap and safeguard weapons of mass destruction (see GSN, April 18).

“We see debt exchange for financing nonproliferation efforts as a possible approach unique to Russia,” Larson said.  “It would use Soviet-era debt to help Russia address Soviet-era problems.”

Under such a plan, the United States and Russia would agree to a bilateral contract.

“For instance, if the U.S. and Russia agreed that a specific project would cost $50 million over three years, then the U.S. would relieve Russia of the obligation to make $50 million of debt payments over three years — a dollar-for-dollar proposition,” Larson said, adding that any agreement would include provisions for suspending or terminating the debt exchange if Russia failed to meet established benchmarks.

Russia and the United States still need to work out more details and decide whether the conditions met each country’s national interests, but Russian authorities are interested in a debt exchange approach, Larson said.

Larson emphasized that his proposal is not a form of “debt relief.”  Russia’s economy has improved in the last few years, and the country is capable of paying its debts, he said.  However, Russia faces many economic burdens and does not have enough money to carry out all its WMD responsibilities, including destroying its chemical weapons arsenal, shutting down plutonium production plants, disposing of excess fissile material, securing WMD materials and scrapping ballistic missile-launching submarines and other launch systems.

For further information, see:

G-8 Statement:  Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction

U.S. Defense Department CTR Site

U.S. State Department Fact Sheet on Nonproliferation Programs in Russia (May 24, 2002)

Back to top

U.S. Response:  Congress Clears Path for CTR; Lugar Outlines Next Steps

By Bryan Bender
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Congress this week cleared the way to spend the $400 million allocated for new projects to destroy strategic weapons in the former Soviet Union this year (see GSN, May 2).  The money had been blocked when the Bush administration said earlier this year that it could not certify that Russia is complying with arms control obligations.

The U.S. House of Representatives and Senate each voted this week to eliminate a funding requirement for new projects in the Cooperative Threat Reduction program that stipulates the president must certify, among other things, that Russia is abiding by arms control agreements.  U.S. President George W. Bush is the first president to have denied the certification since the program began in 1991 (see GSN, April 8).

The provision passed this week, however, lasts only through Sept. 30, and CTR supporters are calling for rapid expenditure of the remaining funds on new projects.  They are also pushing for an extended or even permanent waiver to take advantage of billions of dollars in new funds pledged for threat reduction efforts over the next decade.

The creators of the CTR program outlined yesterday how to expand the program in future years, beginning with Russia’s thousands of chemical weapons.

Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) and former Senator Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) — co-authors of the original legislation that has led to $5 billion in funds to destroy former Soviet weapons and subsidize former Soviet weapons scientists — told reporters yesterday that a permanent waiver is needed to move swiftly ahead with new CTR projects.  A freer hand is also necessary to implement the Moscow Treaty, recently reached by the United States and Russia to reduce deployed nuclear weapons, they said.  Russia is expected to require significant financial assistance to live up to its part of the deal.

The final version of the fiscal 2003 defense authorization bill, currently under negotiation between the House and Senate, is expected to address a more extensive waiver.

Nunn, who now heads of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, said the certification process — originally created to ease concerns over Russian use of the CTR funds and to encourage a fuller accounting of Russia’s WMD inventories — is no longer practical.  He said the Moscow Treaty is based primarily on faith and trust — there are no verification procedures such as there were in previous treaties.

Lugar’s Top Ten List

With a permanent waiver, Nunn and Lugar said the CTR program will be able to take full advantage of $20 billion pledged by the United States and the European Union at the G-8 summit earlier this month to address the proliferation threats emanating from the former Soviet Union (see GSN, June 28).

Lugar urged devoting those funds to a list of 10 critical threats, starting with Russia’s large stockpile of chemical weapons.

“The United States and Russia ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1997,” Lugar said.  “Today, some five years later, the U.S. is in the midst of a very expensive destruction process but the Russians have barely eliminated 100 pounds of their estimated 40,000 metric ton stockpile.  The smallest of these, an 85 mm shell, can easily fit into a suitcase.  Just one briefcase can carry enough agents to kill tens of thousands of people” (see GSN, June 18).

Russian biological weapons also need greater attention, according to Lugar. 

“We have enjoyed great progress … but there are still some facilities in Russia who will not engage with us,” he said.  “Specifically, there are four former military facilities that have not opened their doors.  This is a mistake that must be corrected.”

Lugar plans to go to Russia next month in an effort to lift some of the “mystery of the biological situation.”

Lugar also urged expanding CTR programs to cover tactical nuclear weapons, the further engagement of former weapon scientists, material protection, control and accounting projects, radioactive sources for a “dirty bomb,” the shutting down of plutonium producing reactors, nonstrategic submarines that can carry nuclear-capable cruise missiles and nuclear reactor safety.

“The CTR program needs a lot of help,” Nunn added.

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

Back to top

China:  United States Identifies Sanctioned Companies

The U.S. State Department yesterday named the 10 entities that it recently sanctioned for selling WMD components to Iran (see GSN, July 25).  The entities consist of eight Chinese companies, one Chinese individual and one Indian individual.

For violating both the Iran-Iraq Arms Nonproliferation Act of 1992 and the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991, the United States has imposed sanctions on the following:

*         Jiangsu Yongli Chemicals and Technology Import and Export Corporation,

*         China Machinery and Equipment Import Export Corporation,

*         China National Machinery and Equipment Import Export Corporation,

*         CMEC Machinery and Electric Equipment Import and Export Company Ltd.,

*         CMEC Machinery and Electrical Import Export Company, Ltd.,

*         China Machinery and Electric Equipment Import and Export Company,

*         Wha Cheong Tai Company, Ltd., and

*         Chinese national Q.C. Chen.

The United States also imposed sanctions on the China Shipbuilding Trading Company and Indian Hans Raj Shiv for violating the Iran-Iraq Act, State spokesman Richard Boucher said in a press briefing yesterday (U.S. State Department release, July 25).

Several of the Chinese entities named yesterday have been the target of previous sanctions for sales of WMD material to Iran, according to previous State Department reports.  In May, the United States imposed sanctions on the China Shipbuilding Trading Company, Wha Cheong Tai Company and Chen (see GSN, May 16).  Chen was also sanctioned in January — along with the China Machinery and Electric Equipment Import and Export Company — and again in May 1997 (see GSN, Jan. 24; Mike Nartker, GSN, July 25).

The latest round of sanctions does not apply to either the Chinese or Indian governments themselves, Boucher said.  The United States plans to continue to work with China to reduce the spread of weapons of mass destruction, he said. 

“Nonproliferation is a key issue in our bilateral relationship with the People’s Republic of China and we will continue to seek Chinese cooperation in resolving areas of concern,” Boucher said (State Department release).

Back to top

Iraq:  Blair Promises Proof That Hussein Is Pursuing WMD

British Prime Minister Tony Blair said yesterday that if the United States were to take action against Iraq, officials would then present evidence that the country is pursuing weapons of mass destruction.  Meanwhile, no one should doubt that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is trying to acquire such weapons, particularly nuclear weapons, Blair said (see GSN, April 2).

There is a “certain scratchiness” between the United States and the European Union in regard to a potential U.S.-led military campaign against Iraq, Blair said (see GSN, July 24).  He added, however, that some observers have exaggerated the disparity (Advertiser, July 25).

Meanwhile, British intelligence services have advised Blair that the United Kingdom should work to persuade Bush to obtain a U.N. mandate before attacking Iraq, the London Evening Standard reported today (see GSN, May 10).

Senior British intelligence officials and some military advisers have expressed concern that trying to create a link between the al-Qaeda organization and Iraq might create false expectations.  Blair said last week that there are “rough linkages” between al-Qaeda and Hussein, but his arguments for action against Iraq have focused on the country’s programs for weapons of mass destruction (see GSN, June 21).

The intelligence services have said the main justification for attacking Iraq would be Hussein’s biological and chemical weapons programs and the threat Hussein poses to stability in the Middle East.  Although intelligence agency MI6 is skeptical about a war against Iraq, it has decided that attempting to dissuade Bush from attacking would be futile and suggested that Blair use his influence in Washington to obtain a U.N. mandate, according to the Evening Standard (Anne McElvoy, London Evening Standard, July 25).

Back to top

U.S. Response I:  Pentagon Eyes Assortment of Anti-WMD Weapons

By Bryan Bender
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Defense Department is pursuing an assortment of weapons concepts in hope of introducing a new arsenal that can safely and effectively neutralize research and storage facilities for weapons of mass destruction, according to military officials and defense experts.

Faced with the prospect that weapons of mass destruction might be used against U.S. troops or civilians, the Pentagon is pushing ahead with a new class of weapons that it hopes will provide a variety of options — both destructive and nondestructive — for attacking underground or otherwise heavily secured WMD sites.

The effort is part of the Bush administration’s national security strategy following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that calls for preventing WMD attacks sponsored by terrorists or states by using pre-emptive military strikes under certain conditions.  Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said earlier this week that the United States should not wait for a surprise attack before taking steps, including pre-emptive strikes, to reduce the threat from rogue states or terrorist groups with weapons of mass destruction (see GSN, July 23).

Several weapons projects now underway range from the development of new technologies — such as a deep-penetrating warhead that would dispense a hard or sticky foam — to modifying existing weapons such as ICBMs to either destroy WMD targets or render them inaccessible, according to defense officials and industry experts.

These so-called “agent-defeat” weapons, combined with new sensors that can help to positively identify weapons of mass destruction from long distances, would provide U.S. military planners with an offensive capability against the WMD threat short of nuclear weapons.

“The notion of specialized weapons for disabling extremely destructive munitions has emerged as a discipline in and of itself in the Pentagon,” said Loren Thompson, chief operating officer of the Lexington Institute, a defense policy think tank.  Thompson, a consultant for the office of the secretary of defense, cited three reasons for pursuing these new weapons.

“First, there is growing concern about weapons of mass destruction given their proliferation,” he said.  “Secondly, the diversity of those weapons, in terms of kill mechanisms and characteristics, has expanded” to include nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological weapons.  “Thirdly, in the past, the Soviets had hard-to-destroy but easy-to-find WMD places, while others had hard-to-find and easy-to-destroy facilities.  Now we are dealing with both.  Many of the enemies that worry us most are putting their weapons of mass destruction in hard to find, hard to destroy places.”

Iraq is a case study.  As U.S. military planners develop war plans for a possible assault to overthrow the regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, they are being stymied by the prospect that the Iraqi leader will resort to using weapons of mass destruction against U.S. troops in the region or a neighboring country (see GSN, July 18).

According to a recent Defense Department study, the Pentagon needs new weapons that can “attack rogue biological and chemical production and delivery targets.”  These weapons are needed to neutralize storage facilities as well as to destroy WMD agents distributed over a wide area, according to the study on defense research, released earlier this month by the Pentagon’s Defense Science Board, a senior advisory panel.

Novel Weapons

The Pentagon’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency, which is leading many of the development efforts, is eyeing several novel technologies to help meet the new and extremely difficult agent-defeat mission.

Many of these concepts are nonexplosive in nature due to the inherent challenge in attacking adversaries’ WMD facilities:  preventing deadly biological toxins or chemical agents from being dispersed into the atmosphere, risking civilian casualties or contaminating areas where U.S. troops may need to operate.

“In some cases you may not want to have an explosion because the explosion may have the unwanted effect of spreading the material around the countryside, not only having negative collateral damage effects, but also complicating the situation when our ground troops go in,” DTRA Director Stephen Younger said in an interview with reporters on July 17.

DTRA is currently working on a penetrating warhead that would release a hard or sticky foam designed to neutralize rather than blow up a WMD facility.  Two kinds of foam are under consideration:  a hard foam that would block access to the target and a sticky foam that would temporarily disable the facility so U.S. troops could attack.  The foams could be dispensed from a penetrating warhead or from ground forces.  Toxic agents in the foam could also be used to destroy the targeted chemical or biological agent.

Another proposal that defense officials are seeking to fund calls for an agent-defeat warhead that can provide a “high temperature incendiary kinetic energy penetrator warhead to destroy biological and chemical manufacturing and storage facilities,” the Pentagon said in a March press release.

“It’s not as simple as blowing it up,” Younger said.

Modifying Current Weapons

The Pentagon is also considering modifications to current weapons to help meet the agent-defeat mission.

A primary candidate is the Trident D-5 submarine-launched ballistic missile.  Currently designed to carry up to 10 nuclear warheads, Defense Department scientists are considering a conventional model that could strike hardened or underground bunkers, including WMD storage sites.

“The strategic submarine’s nuclear-only arsenal … limits its ability to deter non-nuclear threats,” according to Navy Cmdr. Ken Perry, commanding officer of the USS Pennsylvania, a Trident submarine.  “We are not going to launch a strategic nuclear missile in response to a tactical terrorist strike, and the terrorists know it,” he wrote in the June issue of the U.S. Naval Institute’s Proceedings.

A D-5 missile, officials said, could also be used without any explosive warhead in the hopes that the sheer kinetic energy of the impact would render a WMD facility useless, at least temporarily until the rubble can be removed.

The Pentagon has requested $30 million for next year to begin studying this D-5 concept, but many questions remain about the efficacy of using an ICBM in a conventional role, including how to prevent other nuclear powers from mistaking a launch for a nuclear attack.

Nuclear Option?

Meanwhile, defense officials believe that conventional warheads may not be enough to eliminate a WMD facility in some instances and are pursuing a classified project that is looking at the possibility of developing a nuclear penetrator for such purposes (see GSN, March 26).

DTRA needs to “understand the theoretical limits to conventional attack of deep and buried targets,” according to agency documents.

One proposal is to modify the B-61 nuclear warhead.  “The B-61 warhead is the only nuclear weapon at this time configured for any kind of penetration before it explodes,” according to Clark Murdock, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a former Air Force war planner.

However, fierce opposition to developing such a weapon exists among critics who say it would lower the threshold for nuclear warfare.

Identifying WMD Sites

As the Pentagon pursues a variety of agent-defeat weapons, experts acknowledge that improved intelligence on suspected WMD sites is critical. 

“Targets in structures or underground are extremely difficult to detect and identify using standoff sensors,” says the recent Defense Science Board report, which calls for new investments in airborne and ground-based sensors to improve surveillance of potential WMD sites.

One such effort already underway is an advanced concept technology demonstration seeking to develop an expendable unmanned aerial vehicle that can covertly deliver off-board sensors and provide tactical surveillance, battle damage assessment and other monitoring of weapons of mass destruction sites (see GSN, March 6).

Back to top

Iraq:  Annan Suspends Talks, Cites Iraqi Disinterest

U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan told members of the U.N. Security Council yesterday that he plans no further talks with Iraq until it indicates some willingness to allow weapons inspectors to return (see GSN, July 12).  Annan added, however, that a line of communication with Iraq should remain open, according to some council diplomats (Reuters/Washington Post, July 24).

Pessimism Grows in EU

Meanwhile, members of the European Union have become pessimistic that diplomats will be able to reach a deal with Iraq and eliminate the need for U.S. military action, the Financial Times reported yesterday.  EU members want Iraq to readmit U.N inspectors without preconditions and to abide by U.N. Security Council resolutions, a senior EU official said.

The sense of disillusionment grew after a meeting Monday between Belgian and Iraqi Foreign Ministers Louis Michel and Naji Sabri.

“The outcome of the meeting was very disappointing,” a senior EU diplomat said.  “There was no flexibility on the side of Iraq even though Mr. Michel warned Mr. Sabri it was already past five minutes to midnight,” referring to U.S. plans for military action against Iraq.

The United States is expected to conduct a military campaign against Iraq and to attempt to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, according to the Times.  Several senior EU diplomats, however, have questioned the U.S. policy of regime change in Iraq (see GSN, July 11).

“Regime change for change’s sake.  Then what?” a French official asked.

Michel told Sabri that the European Union firmly supports U.N. attempts to find a diplomatic solution to the weapons inspectors issue, according to diplomats.

“Iraq knows full well our reservations about any U.S. attack on its country,” a senior EU official said.  “But if Iraq thought it could split the Europeans from the U.N., it was mistaken” (Judy Dempsey, Financial Times, July 23).

For further information, see:

UNMOVIC

U.N. Resolution 687 (Sanctions Regime)

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

U.S. State Department Fact Sheet on Iraqi Sanctions Revisions

Back to top

U.S. Response II:  Senators Seek to Identify Weapon-Related Firms

Legislation drafted by the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee would require the CIA to investigate which non-U.S. companies raising funds in U.S. markets are also suspected of being involved in WMD proliferation, Bloomberg.com reported yesterday (see GSN, July 22).

The discovery that several suspect Russian and Chinese firms are probably raising funds in U.S. equity markets has prompted the committee to amend the CIA’s fiscal 2003 budget to require the agency to prepare a classified annual report on the topic, according to Bloomberg.

In a congressional audit, U.S. General Accounting Office investigators talked to officials at the FBI, Federal Reserve, Commerce Department, Defense Intelligence Agency and the Securities and Exchange Commission.  The agencies compared lists of Chinese and other foreign firms involved in U.S. capital markets with lists of companies believed to be involved in WMD proliferation, according to Bloomberg.  The agencies found several matches — “more than a handful” — said Richard D’Amato, co-chairman of the U.S.-China Commission.

“American investors could be unwittingly assisting proliferators who are selling goods, technology and information useful in the development of weapons of mass destruction to rogue states such as Iran and North Korea,” said Senator Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.), who ordered the audit.

The committee legislation would require the CIA to release an annual list of suspect companies attempting to raise funds in the United States, regardless of whether their suspected sales of WMD-related technology violated international agreements, Bloomberg reported.  The full Senate still must vote on the legislation, and the House Intelligence Committee’s version of the CIA budget contains no similar provision.  A conference committee will probably include the requirement in final legislation, an analyst said.

The amendment might help draw attention to some non-U.S. companies that are involved in WMD proliferation but otherwise might have gone unnoticed, said Gary Milhollin, director of Wisconsin Project.

“The legislation could produce some surprises,” Milhollin said.  “There may be some well-known companies that are doing bad things that otherwise would escape public scrutiny.”

A China analyst said, however, that he doubts the effectiveness of the amendment.

“I think the committee is barking up the wrong tree,” said Nicholas Lardy, a China specialist at the Brookings Institution.  “I doubt there is an intersection between those Chinese firms that are raising funds in the international capital markets and those that are proliferating weapons of mass destruction” (Tony Capaccio, Bloomberg.com, July 23).

Back to top

U.S. Response III:  Troops Test for WMD Agents in Afghanistan

For the first time in a military conflict, U.S. troops in Afghanistan are routinely monitoring the air for biological and chemical agents, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, June 24).

Teams from the U.S. Army 310th Chemical Unit — established in 1996 to address concerns about biological weapons threats — are working in Bagram and Kandahar to check air samples for lethal agents.

Technicians are conducting preliminary tests in field laboratories, but suspected agents often must be sent to laboratories in the United States to obtain definitive results, Capt. Brandt Schoenback said.  They conduct most of the field tests at night because biological agents might not endure sun and heat, Sgt. Connie Parker said.

The United States has developed abilities to detect biological and chemical weapons since the 1991 Gulf War, according to the AP.

“We realized we had a problem during Desert Storm,” Parker said.  “Biological weapons were a big threat in Desert Storm, but we had no capability for detecting them.”

The United States relied on its allies to test for biological weapons during the war, and a Czech anti-chemical unit was the only team to detect trace amounts of gas, according to the AP (see GSN, April 30).

“Now we can test for all sorts of agents,” Schoenback said.

U.S. troops have found no evidence that biological weapons exist in Afghanistan, but they have found indications that al-Qaeda has been interested in obtaining them, Defense Threat Reduction Agency Director Stephen Younger said last week (see GSN, April 19).

U.S. forces detained a man July 10 in Hesarak, Afghanistan, on suspicion that he was smuggling biological weapons (see GSN, July 19).  Preliminary tests indicated that he might have possessed the toxin ricin, but more extensive tests in the United States indicated no biological or chemical agents, the AP reported (Regan Morris, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, July 24).

For further information, see:

CDC List of Bioterrorism Agents

CDC List of Chemical Agents

DTRA Chem-Bio Defense

Back to top

U.S. Response:  Rumsfeld Urges Consideration of Pre-Emptive Action

By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The United States should consider using pre-emptive action against rogue states seeking to obtain weapons of mass destruction, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday (see GSN, July 15).

“It seems to me, [pre-emptive action] is an issue that ought to be discussed,” he said during a Pentagon press briefing.  “It ought to be considered.  It ought to be elevated ... it is a serious, important concept that ... our country ought to consider.”

The United States and its allies today face a much more dangerous threat from the spread of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons than from the proliferation of conventional weapons, Rumsfeld said, declining to specify any country that poses significant risk.

“During the 20th century, we were dealing for the most part with conventional weapons, and they tended to kill hundreds or thousands of people.  In the 21st century, we’re dealing with weapons of mass destruction ... that can kill not just hundreds or thousands, but they can kill hundreds of thousands or millions of people,” he said.  “In the 20th century, our margin for error had a penalty of X.  In the 21st century, the margin for error or penalty has a penalty that is many, many multiples of X.”

The United States should not wait for a surprise attack before taking steps to reduce the threat of rogue states and terrorist groups attempting to build WMD arsenals, Rumsfeld said.

“We have to say to ourselves, on the one hand, ... ‘Is it incumbent upon us to wait until there is a Pearl Harbor — wait until there is an attack that has killed several thousand people or — and risk not several thousand but several hundreds of thousands of people or millions?  Is that — is that the responsibility of free people today in the 21st century?’” he said.

“Or conversely,” he added, “is it the responsibility of free people to look at the world and take people at their word and watch the progress of the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction and see the risk that poses to hundreds of thousands of people or potentially millions of people ... and take a step that would prevent that in your own self-defense?”

Back to top

China:  United States Confirms Sanctions

The U.S. State Department confirmed Friday that the United States has imposed sanctions on 10 entities for selling weapons of mass destruction components to Iran (see GSN, July 19).  Officials have sanctioned eight Chinese companies, one Chinese national and one Indian national, according to the Washington Times.

The Iran-Iraq Arms Nonproliferation Act of 1992 and the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991 govern the sanctions, which limit the entities’ access to U.S. technology, State spokesman Richard Boucher said (Bill Gertz, Washington Times, July 20).

All 10 entities were sanctioned under the Iran-Iraq law and eight were also sanctioned under the chemical and biological weapons control act, he said.  Sanctions imposed under the Iran-Iraq Nonproliferation Act last for two years, while the sanctions imposed under the chemical and biological weapons law are effective for one year, Boucher said (U.S. State Department release, July 19).

State notified China about the sanctions Thursday, White House officials said.  The event marks the fourth time the Bush administration has imposed sanctions on Chinese companies over proliferation concerns.  Some of the enitities penalized last week have been targeted by earlier sanctions, Boucher said.

“I would note that in some of these cases, some of these entities are already under sanctions and, therefore, the sanctions are cumulative on those entities,” he said.  “But some of these entities are new” (Gertz, Washington Times).

China Criticizes Sanctions

China today criticized the U.S. move, calling it “unreasonable.”

“China expresses its opposition and displeasure with the unreasonable sanctions by the United States,” the Chinese Foreign Ministry said in a statement.  China abides by international nonproliferation agreements and has a strict set of export controls, the ministry said (see GSN, June 14).

“We have consistently abided by our international obligations, made a series of corresponding laws and regulations and conducted strict controls on the export of relevant items,” it said (Reuters/New York Times, July 22).

Back to top

U.S. Response I:  CDC Inaugurates New Toxin Laboratory

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention inaugurated two new laboratories Friday in Chamblee, Ga., including one designed to help improve U.S. defenses against chemical weapons (see GSN, July 15).

The CDC toxin laboratory has the capability to analyze 120 chemical weapons agents, including nerve agents, which terrorists might use in an attack, said James Pirkle of the CDC National Center for Environmental Health.  In the event of such an attack, the facility would be able to identify the agents used and who is affected, he said.

“This is like a lab of BMWs and Mercedeses,” Pirkle said.  “This is the premier lab in the world” (Erin McClam, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, July 20).

Back to top

U.S. Response II:  Bush Surveys Argonne Technology

U.S. President George W. Bush was scheduled to visit Argonne National Laboratory near Chicago today to view demonstrations of laboratory inventions that might help prevent terrorism (see GSN, April 22).  The president would use the opportunity to promote his homeland security department plan, according to the Associated Press (Scott Lindlaw, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, July 22).

Argonne began several projects relevant to homeland defense years ago but decided to expand some after Sept. 11, said Harvey Drucker, the laboratory’s national security research coordinator.  For example, officials decided to adapt technology designed to detect anthrax during an outdoor military campaign to monitor buildings or subway systems instead, he said.

“This is not a defense laboratory.  We don’t think about weapons,” Drucker said.  “But we are pretty good at doing science and developing new technologies.”

The laboratory, owned by the Energy Department and operated by the University of Chicago, has also developed a chemical sensor that can detect cyanide gas and other dangerous agents.

“We’re not the only ones who have developed them, but we have made very small devices that have high sensitivity that can give you a quick analysis,” Drucker said.

Argonne scientists have also created a portable detector that can find concealed radioactive materials and determine what types of materials are present, Drucker said (Maura Kelly, Associated Press, July 21).

Under Bush’s homeland security proposal, Argonne would continue to be directed by the Energy Department but would receive some research funding from the proposed department, said Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for Homeland Security Office (Lindlaw, Associated Press/Yahoo.com).

Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP