United States:  Bush Budget Reflects Nuclear Weapons Ambitions

By Bryan Bender
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration’s fiscal 2004 budget request reflects the White House push for a strengthened nuclear deterrent and has already prompted criticism from lawmakers who worry that a heightened reliance on nuclear weapons will prove both unnecessary and destabilizing.

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld yesterday was questioned by members of the House Armed Services Committee about the administration’s plans during testimony over the budget submission, sent to Congress on Monday (see GSN, Feb. 3).  Lawmakers signaled a coming debate on Capitol Hill over the wisdom of the administration’s nuclear ambitions.

The proposed budget calls for significant increases in nuclear weapons-related activities.  For example, the Energy Department is seeking $6.4 billion next year for nuclear weapons programs, a 9.1 percent increase from the previous year, according to budget documents.

The money will be used to certify, along with the Defense Department, the safety, security and reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile, including efforts to extend the operational life of currently deployed nuclear warheads, including the W-87, B-61, W-76 and W-80 warheads, according to the documents.

The budget proposal also includes $320 million to manufacture plutonium pits, the triggers in a nuclear weapon that experts say could deteriorate over time, risking long-term effectiveness (see GSN, Sept. 20, 2002).

“As the Nuclear Posture Review issued by President Bush acknowledges, a nuclear capability is going to be a key element of our national defense in the foreseeable future,” said Bryan Wilkes, National Nuclear Security Administration spokesman.  His agency, part of the Energy Department, develops and maintains U.S. nuclear weapons.

One of the thrusts of the nuclear review, released in January 2002, is the potential need to develop a new or modified nuclear warhead capable of burrowing through concrete and other hardened structures where weapons of mass destruction might be hidden (see GSN, Oct. 10, 2002). 

With $15 million, Los Alamos National Laboratory is conducting a study of the so-called Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, which could be a modified version of the B-61.

The seriousness of this effort was underscored last week when the Pentagon’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency announced it is seeking proposals for a computer modeling system to help predict how effective nuclear weapons might be in destroying underground targets and the likely effects of radioactive fallout.  The $1.26 billion program is scheduled to be complete in 2006, according to the DTRA request for proposals (see GSN, Feb. 3).

The possibility that the United States would develop what critics charge would be a more usable nuclear weapon yesterday prompted one member of the House committee to ask Rumsfeld to defend the administration’s position.

“At a time when this committee has not yet received a report required in the [2003] defense authorization bill on the potential uses of the robust earth penetrator, or whether or not we can still use conventional weapons to defeat hardened targets, I am deeply concerned that the administration is pushing the envelope on trying to design a new generation of smaller, more usable nuclear weapons, creating a more unstable and dangerous world,” Representative Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) said during a question and answer period.

Rumsfeld, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard Myers and Pentagon budget chief Dov Zakheim appeared before the committee as part of the Congress’ annual review of the president’s budget request.

Rumsfeld tried to assure the committee that the department is still only researching the possibility of developing such a weapon and that no new nuclear designs are on the drawing board.

“I’m 99 and nine-tenths positive there is no new weapon development of the nature that you’re describing,” Rumsfeld responded.

The variety of nuclear weapons-related efforts called for in the budget request are nevertheless cause for great concern, according to critics. 

“You put all these pieces together and the administration is moving in the direction of creating a new type of nuclear weapons that would probably require nuclear testing,” said Daryl Kimball, director of the Arms Control Association.  “This is a slow-motion slide backward to the Dr. Strangelove days,” he said.

Back to top

North Korea:  Pyongyang Readies Nuclear Reactor

North Korea yesterday said it has either restarted or will soon restart a nuclear reactor that could produce plutonium for nuclear weapons and hinted that it could attack first if threatened by the United States, according to reports (see GSN, Feb. 5).

“The D.P.R.K. (North Korea) is now putting the operation of its nuclear facilities for the production of electricity on a normal footing after their restart,” a statement from the North Korean KCNA news agency said, according to Reuters.

The statement was unclear in Korean as well, according to a South Korean official.  It could be interpreted to mean “poised to restart,” the official said (Nesirky/Allen, Reuters, Feb. 6).

“We have confirmed that the North has moved fresh fuel rods to the nuclear reactor and it will not take long for it to be reactivated,” said a South Korean official (Seo Hyun-jin, Korea Herald, Feb. 6).

Daniel Pinkston of the Monterey Institute of International Studies said the reactor was probably not yet running.

“What they are saying is that they are in the process of normalizing, of restarting operations.  It could be very soon now,” he said.

Japanese officials said they were concerned by the statement and were investigating to see if it was true.

“We are very much concerned that they have been engaged in an escalation of tension and … brinkmanship and we urge the North Koreans to stop doing this kind of thing,” said Japanese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hatsuhisa Takashima (Nesirky/Allen, Reuters).

The International Atomic Energy Agency expressed dismay with North Korea’s announcement.

“Without the presence of our inspectors we could not certify this alleged nuclear activity,” IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said.  “However if it is true, the IAEA deplores the operation of nuclear facilities without safeguard inspection,” she added (Agence France-Presse, Feb. 6).

“We are now on a slippery slope away from negotiations and toward potential confrontation,” said C. Kenneth Quinones, a former U.S. State Department specialist who was involved in the 1994 closing of the plant.

North Korea claims it is forced to reopen the plant at Yongbyon to generate electricity for the nation.  Experts said the plant would not produce a significant amount of electricity and the plant will more likely be used to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons, the Washington Post reported.

“I don’t see anything being put in place to slow that process,” Quinones said yesterday.  “Pyongyang is certainly not slowing it.  And the Bush administration right now is in a very hard-nosed stance,” he added (Doug Struck, Washington Post, Feb. 6).

Pre-Emptive Prerogative

Pyongyang expressed anxiety about recent plans for a U.S. military buildup in the region and one official said that North Korea maintains its right to launch a pre-emptive attack.

“The United States says that after Iraq, we are next,” said Ri Pyong Gap, deputy director of North Korea’s Foreign Ministry.  “But we have our own countermeasures.  Pre-emptive attacks are not the exclusive right of the U.S.,” Ri added.

The situation now is more serious than the confrontation a decade ago, according to Ri.

“The present situation can be called graver than it was in 1993.  It will be touch and go,” Ri said (Jonathan Watts, London Guardian, Feb. 6).

Back to top

Iraq:  Powell Presents U.S. Evidence of Nuclear Efforts to U.N. Security Council

By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell provided new information to the U.N. Security Council yesterday outlining Iraqi efforts to develop and conceal its alleged nuclear weapons program (see GSN, Feb. 5).

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein “is determined to get his hands on a nuclear bomb,” Powell said.

The United States has obtained intelligence information from a number of sources outlining Iraq’s attempts to acquire magnets and high-speed balancing machines — both of which can be used in a centrifuge uranium enrichment program, Powell said.  For example, in 1999 and 2000 Iraq negotiated with several companies throughout the world to purchase a magnet production plant capable of producing magnets weighing between 20 to 30 grams — the same size of magnet Iraq used in its uranium enrichment program before the 1991 Gulf War, he said.

Hussein has also devoted more attention to Iraqi nuclear scientists, or as Hussein calls them, his “nuclear mujahedeen,” Powell said.  “He regularly exhorts them and praises their progress.  Progress toward what end?” Powell asked.

In his presentation, Powell described to the council Iraq’s attempts to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes, which can also be used in a gas centrifuge uranium enrichment program.  Iraq has said the tubes were used to build conventional rockets; a charge that Powell criticized, noting that the specifications for the tubes had become more refined with each effort to acquire the tubes.  For example, the latest shipment included tubes with an anodized coating on extremely smooth inner and outer surfaces.

“I am no expert on centrifuge tubes, but just as an old Army trooper, I can tell you a couple of things:  First, it strikes me as quite odd that these tubes are manufactured to a tolerance that far exceeds U.S. requirements for comparable rockets,” Powell said.  “Maybe Iraqis just manufacture their conventional weapons to a higher standard than we do, but I don’t think so,” he added (White House release, Feb. 5).

Other experts, however, have challenged the U.S. claims that the aluminum tubes were meant for an Iraqi nuclear program, according to the Washington Post.  The International Atomic Energy Agency, which oversees nuclear inspections in Iraq, reported last month that the tubes were not suitable for use in an enrichment program without significant modification (see GSN, Jan. 10).  Other sources have said the tubes matched the dimensions of rockets already in Iraq’s arsenal and that Iraq ordered the same tubes during the 1980s to restock its rocket supply, the Post reported.

While the tubes may not have been perfectly designed for use in a uranium enrichment program, Iraq might have ordered them anyway in an attempt to hide its intentions, said Khidhir Hamza, a former Iraqi physicist who defected in 1994.

“Of course Iraq would not order cylinders with exact specifications for centrifuges, because such tubes would never have been shipped,” Hamza said.  “This is a standard Iraqi ploy,” he added (Joby Warrick, Washington Post, Feb. 6).

For further information, see:

Powell’s presentation slides (U.S. State Department)

Back to top

North Korea:  Washington Says Talks With Pyongyang Will Happen

The United States said yesterday it intends to hold direct talks with Pyongyang, the Baltimore Sun reported (see GSN, Feb. 3).

“Of course, we’re going to have to have direct talks with the North Koreans.  There’s no question about it,” said U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage during testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The White House is preparing for the talks by meeting with allies in the region and in Europe, said U.S. officials.  There is not, however, a timetable in place for the talks and Washington wants an international consensus before entering discussions so “this thing doesn’t rub entirely off on us to come up with a solution” (Mark Matthews, Baltimore Sun, Feb. 5).

Armitage said Washington is wary of North Korea selling its nuclear material.

“Our major fear is that North Korea would pass on fissile material,” he said (Barbara Slavin, USA Today, Feb. 5).  “I don’t think that, given the poverty of North Korea, that it would be too long after she got a good amount of fissile material … that she would be inclined to engage with somebody, a nonstate actor or a rogue state,” Armitage added.

He also told the committee that the difference between North Korea and Iraq is the intent of their leaders.

“We know, we think, what (North Korean leader) Kim Jong Il wants,” Armitage said.  “Some economic benefits and things of that nature,” he added.

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, on the other hand, wants to “intimidate, dominate and attack,” Armitage said (Matthews, Baltimore Sun).

Japan said yesterday that international dialogue is needed in the wake of the Bush administration’s decision not to fund the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (see GSN, Feb. 4).

“We must talk with relevant countries,” said Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi (The Japan Times, Feb. 5).

Pyongyang said, meanwhile, that it would not send a representative to a Feb. 12 meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency that could forward the Korean nuclear crisis to the U.N. Security Council.

The burden in the crisis is on the United States to prove that it has no hostile intent, according to Park Eui Chun, the North Korean ambassador to Moscow (Seoul Yonhap, Feb. 1 in FBIS-EAS, Feb. 1).

Back to top

U.S.-Russia:  Senate Committee Recommends Approval of Moscow Treaty

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The Senate Foreign Relations Committee today passed a resolution to approve the U.S.-Russian Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (see GSN, Dec. 16, 2002). 

Signed by President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin last May in Moscow, the treaty would remove several thousand nuclear warheads from front-line military service by 2012 (see GSN, May 24, 2002).

The committee passed the resolution with conditions requiring a single report studying how U.S. nuclear reductions and nonproliferation assistance can help Russia implement the treaty and an annual report on U.S. and Russian implementation of the treaty.

The next step is for the full Senate to agree to the treaty, needed for Bush to ratify the treaty.

The treaty has been criticized for not requiring destruction of any weapons and for lacking specificity (see GSN, Aug. 5, 2002).

“I want to reiterate my view that the goal of meaningful nuclear arms reduction can only be achieved by dismantling and destroying these weapons,” said Senator Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), who criticized the treaty, but voted for the resolution nevertheless.

“I hope that it will be the first step in a more comprehensive binding plan to reduce the number of nuclear weapons that are stored and deployed by our two countries,” Feingold said in a statement.

The treaty requires all but a maximum of 2,200 strategic warheads to be removed from each country’s respective bombers, submarines and missiles by the end of 2012.  The treaty then expires, technically allowing the two countries to return those warheads to service the following day, officials and experts have said.

The resolution recommended that the president continue strategic offensive nuclear reductions “to the lowest possible levels consistent with national security requirements and alliance obligations of the United States.”

Bush administration officials have said they would pursue no further strategic arms reduction treaties with Russia.

The resolution also urged the president work with Russia to improve Moscow’s accounting of its nonstrategic nuclear weapons and to ensure their security.  Estimates of the size of the Russian nonstrategic stockpile range up to 12,000 warheads, which experts say are easier to steal than strategic weapons and easier to provide illicitly to other states or groups.

Back to top

Indian Response:  Foreign Secretary Highlights Pakistani-North Korean Links

By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The world must focus on the nuclear and ballistic missile proliferation links between Pakistan and North Korea, now being “ignored,” Indian Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal said here yesterday.

Speaking at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Sibal said that while the current conflict over North Korea’s relaunched nuclear program must be addressed, attention should also be paid to nuclear and missile transfers between North Korea and other countries.  The New Yorker reported last month that a June 2002 CIA report outlined Pakistan’s exchange of nuclear technologies for North Korean missile components (see GSN, Jan. 21).  The father of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program, A.Q. Khan, has also reportedly made a number of secret trips to North Korea (see GSN, Nov. 25, 2002). 

Pakistani Foreign Minister Mian Khursheed Mehmood Kasuri pledged last week, however, that his country would not aid North Korea, or any other country, in developing nuclear weapons (see GSN, Jan. 30).

India’s commitment to nonproliferation has been “unwavering and its record impeccable,” Sibal said, noting that India has strengthened its nuclear and missile-related export controls (see GSN, Nov. 15, 2002). 

Scientific Cooperation 

During his speech yesterday, Sibal noted India’s desire to increase scientific and technological cooperation with the United States, which has been constrained in the past because of India’s nuclear efforts (see GSN, Dec. 10, 2002).  U.S. law prohibits nuclear transfers to countries that have not signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, such as India.  India also does not belong to the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which is an informal export control regime that establishes guidelines for nuclear transfers  

Sibal criticized such nonproliferation regimes, saying they both act as an undue constraint on India and that they fail to combat clandestine proliferation.

“It is evident that international ad hoc proliferation control regimes, designed on different assumptions of proliferation and for a different era, are clearly ineffective in meeting the resulting threats to international peace and stability,” Sibal said.

“Developing countries, which exercise self-discipline and adhere to the rule of law and transparency, find themselves facing both the constraints of the ad hoc control regimes and a deteriorating security environment from unchecked clandestine proliferation,” he said.

India’s nuclear weapons are “purely a defensive approach” and act primarily as a deterrent, Sibal said.  He said India has demonstrated nuclear restraint in several ways, including its continued testing moratorium, its no-first-use policy and its policy of refusing to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states (see GSN, Jan. 10).  India, however, will never accept that there can be only five nuclear weapons states, Sibal said.

Increased U.S.-Indian scientific cooperation was a subject of Sibal’s recent meetings with several senior U.S. officials, including Commerce Undersecretary for Industry and Security Kenneth Juster.  India and the United States have made progress in understanding each other’s security and nonproliferation concerns, but more needs to be done to increase scientific and technological cooperation, which would have economic benefits for both countries, Sibal said.

“The dialogue that we have had ... demonstrates — at least from our perspective — that what separates us on these issues is not interest or approach but a historical point in time that put us on the opposite sides of a legal divide,” he said.

Kashmir

Sibal yesterday also made a number of veiled criticisms of Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf for supporting terrorism and for failing to end cross-border infiltration into the disputed province of Kashmir — long feared to be a potential flashpoint between the two nuclear-armed South Asian rivals.

“The leader of a country whose right hand commits terrorist acts against India and the left hand cooperates against the Taliban and al-Qaeda, one part of whose discourse is a rallying call in favor of terrorism against India and the other rallies against those who target the West ... cannot be a reliable partner in the combat against terrorism,” Sibal said.  “You cannot with the one hand water poisonous weeds and with the other hand spray weed-killers,” he added.

The outside world, including the United States, needs to bring more pressure on Pakistan to abide by its commitments to end cross-border terrorism, Sibal said, adding that India was disappointed with such efforts so far.  He said the United States was able to pressure Pakistan into abandoning its support for the Taliban, which Pakistan’s intelligence services played an important role in creating. 

“In the global war against terrorism there is no room for double standards ... of terrorism directed against the West and that directed against the others, of the former being untarnished evil and the latter requiring resolution of its root causes,” Sibal said.

While India realizes the United States needs Pakistan’s support for its efforts to rebuild and stabilize Afghanistan, efforts to reduce Pakistani support for terrorism should not be seen “as a favor to India but as a part of the international combat against terrorism,” Sibal said, adding that terrorist infrastructures used against India could also be used against other countries.  An end to cross-border terrorism will also help pave the way for a dialogue to begin between India and Pakistan and a normalization of relations, he said.

“Pakistan represents everything that is in the forefront of U.S. concerns:  religious fundamentalism, terrorism, weapons of mass destruction in possession of a failing state, a military dictatorship masquerading behind a pale democratic facade,” Sibal said.  “A big challenge India and the U.S. face is to make Pakistan a genuinely moderate state,” he added.

Back to top

North Korea:  Bush Budget Request Does Not Fund KEDO in 2004

U.S. President George W. Bush has not requested any money to support the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization in fiscal 2004, the Wall Street Journal reported today (see GSN, Jan. 17).

The move is the first concrete sign the Bush administration might terminate a key 1994 bilateral agreement, from which KEDO was created, according to the Journal.

U.S. officials said money could be redirected to KEDO if a diplomatic solution to the current nuclear crisis is found.

“If KEDO survives … and if we want KEDO to continue to maintain what it is doing right now, and if we are looking at resuming shipments of fuel oil, then we will take care of what needs to be taken care of,” said Assistant U.S. Secretary of State Christopher Burnham.

South Korea has been encouraging Washington to maintain its commitment to KEDO, the Journal reported.

“The South has been arguing that we don’t want to give the North a pretext to begin reprocessing” by pulling out of the energy deal, said Victor Cha, a Korean expert at Georgetown University.  “That has now been undercut,” he added (David Cloud, Wall Street Journal, Feb. 4).

Meanwhile, the U.S. Defense Department might send 24 long-range B-52 and B-1 bombers to Guam in response to the nuclear crisis, the New York Times reported today.

The move would be intended to deter North Korean “opportunism” while the United States focuses on Iraq and to allow Bush a variety of military options if diplomacy does not resolve the dispute, according to officials.

“It’s fair to say that there is a broad assumption in the administration now that Kim Jong Il is out to produce his weapons as fast as he can,” said a senior U.S. official (see GSN, Feb. 3).  “We hope they can be dissuaded by diplomacy, pressure from us and from China and from Russia.  But there are no guarantees any of that will work,” the official added.

Bush has repeatedly said the United States “has no intention of invading North Korea,” according to the Times.

“It is standard practice for us to review our defensive posture for existing security commitments when U.S. forces are preparing for potential operations elsewhere in the world,” said Pentagon spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Jeff Davis.  “Such planning could result in the movement of forces, but only as a prudent measure to ensure that we maintain our ability to rapidly respond to contingencies if needed,” he added (Sanger/Shanker, New York Times, Feb. 4).

“Fear” Drives Pyongyang

A South Korean official yesterday said North Korea was motivated by fear and sought assurances that Pyongyang’s security would not be compromised, the Washington Times reported.

“At heart, the North would like to have their regime guaranteed,” said Chang Young-dal, a member of President-elect Roh Moo-hyun’s Millennium Democratic Party.  “The actions they have taken lately have come because they fear for their survival, because of the weakness of the regime and the difficult economic conditions.  At the same time, the United States must be prepared for a comprehensive dialogue with North Korea so a package settlement on the nuclear issue and the Korean Peninsula situation can be resolved in the near future,” he added.

Chang also said Roh’s reported resentment of the United States has been overblown by the media.

“Mr. Roh was very unfamiliar to many in the United States when he was elected,” Chang said.  “But when we heard there were concerns in Washington about him, we just laughed.  I think he will be able to develop a stronger relationship than ever in the past,” he added (David Sands, Washington Times, Feb. 4).

IAEA Will Meet Feb. 12

The International Atomic Energy Agency announced its Board of Governors would meet Feb. 12 to declare Pyongyang in violation of its commitments under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and to refer the issue to the U.N. Security Council.  U.S. officials said they would ask for a resolution condemning North Korea’s actions, but they said they would not ask for sanctions or penalties (see GSN, Jan. 30; Sanger/Shanker, New York Times).

“When we get to the Security Council, we’ll see what we propose there,” said State Department spokesman Richard Boucher.  “But we have not talked about sanctions at this point,” he added.

“I’ve exhausted all possibilities within my power to bring North Korea into compliance,” said IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei (Sands, Washington Times).

Moscow today said bringing the issue to the Security Council would not help solve the nuclear crisis.

“As before, we still believe that the possibility for diplomatic dialogue between the interested sides is not exhausted,” said Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Yakovenko.  “In this connection, submitting the question about North Korea to the U.N. Security Council now would be counterproductive,” he added (Paul Shin, Associated Press/KATU.com, Feb. 4).

Back to top

United States:  Orbital Sciences Receives Contracts to Convert ICBMs

By Jay Newton-Small
Global Security Newswire

Under two U.S. Air Force contracts awarded Wednesday, Orbital Sciences Corp. will convert retired U.S. ICBMs into as many as 41 space launch vehicles and missile defense targets, according to an Orbital release (see GSN, Nov. 7, 2002). 

The 10-year contracts, worth up to $475 million, call for combining existing commercial technology with rocket motors from retired U.S. Peacekeeper and Minuteman long-range missiles.  The Air Force has been retiring Minuteman ICBMs for many years and began dismantling Peacekeepers, also known as MX missiles, last year (see GSN, Oct. 4, 2002).

The two contracts fall under the Pentagon’s Orbital/Suborbital Program, with one $238 million contract devoted to Peacekeepers and the other, also $238 million, to Minuteman missiles.  The contracts extend the Pentagon program that began in 1997 and produced nine missile defense targets and five space-launch vehicles from retired ICBMs.

Back to top

Iran:  ElBaradei to Urge Tehran to Sign Additional Protocol

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency said yesterday he plans to urge Iran to sign the Additional Protocol to its IAEA Safeguards Agreement during a visit scheduled for later this month (see GSN, Jan. 15).

“I would like to discuss with Iranian officials the possibility of Iran joining the Additional Protocol,” Mohamed ElBaradei said in an interview with Reuters.  “That I think would clearly create additional assurance with regard to the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program,” he added.

The Additional Protocol gives the IAEA the authority to conduct more intrusive inspections of a country’s nuclear program.  The United States is concerned that three nuclear sites currently under construction in Iran, including the Bushehr nuclear reactor being built by Russia, could be used for a weapons program (see GSN, Dec. 19, 2002).

Iran has assured the IAEA that the facilities are only for peaceful uses, ElBaradei said, adding that he would visit the sites during his visit.  He also praised Russia’s intention to recover the spent fuel from the Bushehr reactor, saying it would reduce proliferation concerns (see GSN, Dec. 31, 2002).

“(Bushehr) is under IAEA safeguards and Russia is going to take back the spent fuel.  So the question of proliferation per se out of Bushehr should not arise,” ElBaradei said (Louis Charbonneau, Reuters, Feb. 4).

Back to top

United States:  Energy Report Says Los Alamos Officials Hid Problems

A review by the Energy Department’s inspector general has concluded that senior officials at Los Alamos National Laboratory “obscured serious property management and security problems” during an investigation of fraud and theft at the nuclear weapons research facility in New Mexico, Energy Daily reported Friday (see GSN, Jan. 21).

The report said laboratory management discouraged staff members from discussing or revealing the alleged improprieties.

Inspector General Gregory Friedman also said there was no clear reason why the laboratory had fired two former law enforcement officials who had been brought in to investigate missing money.

The dismissal of Glenn Walp and Steven Doran was “incomprehensible,” according to the report.

“These events raise doubt about Los Alamos’ commitment to solving noted problems, had the potential to have a chilling effect on employees who may have been willing to speak out on matters of concern, and were inconsistent with laboratory and University of California obligations under its contract with the Department of Energy,” the report said.

The report did not support allegations, however, that “laboratory management deliberately hid criminal activity” (George Lobsenz, Energy Daily, Jan. 31).

Laboratory staff members were responsible for at least $1.5 million in missing or stolen government property and management reportedly told employees to “resist the temptation to spill your guts” about the situation, the Los Angeles Times reported (Vartabedian/Trounson, Los Angeles Times, Jan. 31).

The report also said officials were poor property managers, charging the Los Alamos leadership with a “substantial degree of dysfunction” in this area, the University of California’s Daily Californian reported.

Los Alamos’ equipment was delivered to “open spaces with little or no security,” according to the report (Kin-Mai Cutler, Daily Californian, Feb. 3).

Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham will most likely decide by April whether the University of California will continue to operate the national laboratory system, the Times reported (Vartabedian/Trounson, Los Angeles Times).

Back to top

North Korea:  Washington Suspects Nuclear Weapon Push

Washington suspects North Korea is pushing to build a half dozen nuclear weapons, but U.S. President George W. Bush has few options to counter the effort, the Washington Post reported Friday (see GSN, Jan. 31).

The suspicion follows recent reports that Pyongyang is moving spent fuel rods from storage at Yongbyon and could attempt to separate the plutonium in the rods.

“Any movement of the spent fuel rods at Yongbyon would be a very serious development for the international community,” said U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher.  “It would be another step in the wrong direction by North Korea,” he added.

In closed congressional intelligence hearings, administration officials have said Pyongyang is making definite moves to develop nuclear capability, according to the Post.  The Bush administration has said it will not enter into talks with North Korea until Pyongyang abandons its nuclear aspirations.

“The ball’s in their court,” a senior administration official said.  “We are looking for a fundamental change in North Korea’s behavior,” the official added.

Adm. Thomas Fargo, commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, recently requested aircraft reinforcements to compensate for the potential deployment of the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk to the Persian Gulf, the Post reported.  Fargo asked for two dozen long-range bombers to be stationed in Guam as well as eight F-15E fighter-bombers and several reconnaissance planes to be sent to Japan and South Korea.

U.S. defense officials said the request — which is being considered — was not linked to the latest intelligence reports on the spent fuel rods (Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, Feb. 1).

2001 Report Revealed Nuclear Work

In November 2001, officials at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California completed a report alleging that North Korea was developing a secret uranium enrichment program, but the Bush administration did not confront Pyongyang with the evidence until October 2002, the Post reported.

“No one focused on it because of 9/11,” said a Livermore official.

The Livermore findings were confirmed in a June 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, a major report that pools the information of several intelligence agencies, but administration officials did not make the account available until after Congress passed a resolution authorizing Bush to use force against Iraq, the Post reported.

White House officials denied withholding intelligence for political reasons (Walter Pincus, Washington Post, Feb. 1).

Back to top

United States:  System to Help Determine When Nuclear Force Is Needed

The U.S. Defense Department has initiated a program to develop computers that would help determine when nuclear weapons should be used against underground bunkers, the Los Angeles Times reported today (see GSN, Jan. 31).

The program would develop computers that would calculate the structure of an underground target and determine the amount of weaponry needed to destroy it, according to Pentagon documents.  The system, which is also slated to include human experts, would then determine whether a nuclear weapon is needed to destroy the target and how much collateral damage that explosion would cause, the Times reported, citing Pentagon documents.

Defense and White House officials declined to comment on the program, which is slated to cost $1.26 billion (Richard Cooper, Los Angeles Times, Feb. 3).

Back to top

Russia:  Chechen Rebels Continue Quest for Weapons, General Says

Rebels in the breakaway Russian republic of Chechnya are continuing efforts to obtain a Russian nuclear weapon, ITAR-Tass reported Thursday, citing remarks by a senior Russian military officer (see GSN, Nov. 1, 2002).

“Operational reports indicate that Chechen terrorists intend to get hold of an important military facility or a nuclear warhead in order to threaten not just our country but the whole world,” Col. Gen. Igor Volynkin, head of the Russian Defense Ministry’s 12th Directorate, said during a reception for a U.S. Defense Department delegation held at a Defense Ministry training center in the Moscow region (ITAR-Tass, Jan. 30 in FBIS-SOV, Jan. 30).

Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP