U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton (shown in a July photo) warned yesterday that Iran could be a nuclear weapon threat in as soon as one year (AFP photo/Gwan Joo-hoon). U.S. Calls Iran Nuclear Threat; IAEA Report Not Expected to Rule Out Iran Weapons Program Iranian negotiators told officials from France, Germany and the United Kingdom last month that Tehran could produce enough weapon-grade uranium for an atomic bomb within a year, U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton said yesterday (see GSN, Aug. 16)...Full Story

Key Missile Defense Flight Tests Again Delayed, Deployment Planned for Before Intercept Test By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire HUNTSVILLE, Ala. — The U.S. Missile Defense Agency yesterday again delayed the next flight test of the ground-based long-range missile defense system, from Aug. 18-23 until mid-September, as it prepares to deploy components of the system for the first time, a senior U.S. military official said (see related GSN story, today)...Full Story

Sept. 11 Panel Leaders Seek Stronger Congressional Hand in Guiding Homeland Security Activity By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The leaders of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States continued their tour of congressional committees yesterday, telling representatives called back from a summer break that the legislative and executive branches of government must improve their performance on central antiterrorism tasks (see GSN, Aug. 17)...Full Story

	Wednesday, August 18, 2004

Sept. 11 Panel Leaders Seek Stronger Congressional Hand in Guiding Homeland Security Activity By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The leaders of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States continued their tour of congressional committees yesterday, telling representatives called back from a summer break that the legislative and executive branches of government must improve their performance on central antiterrorism tasks (see GSN, Aug. 17). At a testy morning hearing of the House Select Committee on Homeland Security, commission Chairman Thomas Kean and Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton took Congress to task for failing to effectively oversee government antiterrorism activities and repeated their call for basing Homeland Security Department spending on the assessed terrorism risk in different parts of the country, not on political or population considerations (see GSN, July 23). “I think it’s important,” Hamilton said, “for the Congress to get itself into shape, so that it can perform one of its constitutional duties, which is oversight.” The Sept. 11 commission said in its report on the 2001 attacks on the United States that the massive, young Homeland Security Department, cobbled together from a host of existing agencies, reports to 88 congressional committees and subcommittees. “That doesn’t mean oversight at all,” Kean said yesterday, since Homeland Security officials spend time testifying before Congress instead of protecting the country. “Eighty-eight subcommittees: That really is absurd, and it simply is not fair. It is not fair to the executive branch,” Hamilton said. The commission recommended legislative oversight be both consolidated and strengthened, goals Congress could try to achieve by creating a joint committee with Homeland Security jurisdiction or making the temporary select House panel a permanent committee. Existing committees have appeared loath to cede power, however. Democratic committee member Loretta Sanchez (Calif.) yesterday decried the absence at the well-attended session of several members — David Dreier (R-Calif.), James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), Bill Young (R-Fla.) and Don Young (R-Alaska) — who head other committees with Homeland Security jurisdiction, suggesting the “empty chairs” were the product of opposition to a permanent panel. Republican Christopher Shays (Conn.) echoed Sanchez’s complaint, calling the absences “outrageous.” “We simply have got to put this aside and do this right and have a permanent committee,” Shays said. Hamilton, a former lawmaker, blamed a generally poor atmosphere in Congress for the impasse. “One of the things that really bother me about the Congress today,” he said, “is … how difficult it is for you to deliberate. … In much of the activity on the floor of the House, you’re just kind of reading speeches and making speeches past each other.” Commission Leaders Stress Spending Priorities Kean and Hamilton said Homeland Security grants to emergency responders around the country should be based solely on assessed threats and vulnerabilities, rather than on the current formula, which combines per-state minimum payments with population and other factors. The commission concluded that cities such as Washington and New York are for now the most obvious priorities for the money. Homeland Security has not yet produced a national threat and vulnerability assessment that is required under the department’s initial mandate and would serve as a central guide to spending. “Priorities is always the toughest question in government: Where do you put limited resources?” Hamilton said. “Intelligence chatter,” he said, now indicates large cities are especially threatened, suggesting they deserve more funds. “It’s people and it’s symbols,” Kean said, “and I think we’ve got to direct our resources at those places where the large [numbers of] people congregate and where those symbols exist.” Private companies could improve their security efforts to take up some of the slack created by shifting government funds to high-risk cities, Hamilton suggested. Witnesses repeatedly told the Sept. 11 panel that “the private sector remains largely unprepared for a terrorist attack,” he said, voicing his endorsement of American National Standards Institute benchmarks for private-sector emergency preparedness. “Private-sector preparedness is not a luxury. It is a cost of doing business in the post-9/11 world,” Hamilton said. Top committee Democrat Jim Turner (Texas) said the commission’s conclusions on federal first-responder funding are embodied in a bill that the committee approved in March. Turner and committee Chairman Christopher Cox (R-Calif.) tried unsuccessfully over the past few months to put the measure before the full House of Representatives (see GSN, May 11). “The 9/11 commission report is a wake-up call for our government. We need to regain the sense of urgency that we had following Sept. 11,” Turner said. Information-Sharing Improvements Sought The commission leaders said the United States needs better information sharing among government agencies dealing with terrorism. Kean said the “Cold War assumption” that the risks of disclosing information are greater than the benefits of sharing is deeply ingrained but no longer appropriate. The chairman called for more incentives to share information and a presidential push to bring “the information revolution” to national-security agencies, including by enabling each to search the others’ terrorism databases. Hamilton criticized agencies for frustrating the flow of information by assigning “need-to-know” status to too much of their data. “You have to elevate the need to share up to the need to know,” he said, “and maybe the balance even has to tip a little bit toward the need to share.” Recognition of the intelligence flaws underlying the September 2001 attacks has already spurred the creation of a range of new agencies, including Homeland Security and its Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate, the CIA-led Terrorist Threat Integration Center and the FBI-led Terrorism Screening Center. A second hearing of the committee yesterday saw top officials from the Homeland Security and State departments, the FBI and the Terrorist Threat Integration Center testify about their efforts to better share intelligence. Faced with concerns that the new agencies could simply constitute more bureaucracy to impede effective counterterrorism, Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for Information Analysis Patrick Hughes stressed the benefits of current informal cooperation between his directorate and the other agencies involved in the effort. “While existing relationships are gaining momentum every day,” Hughes said, “we must assure that we will formalize a process which will improve information-sharing and collaboration. The [Homeland Security] Department is charged with this responsibility by law and by executive order.” With the Sept. 11 commission recommending a new national counterterrorism center, Cox asked Hamilton at the morning hearing whether further consolidating terrorism-intelligence activity could diminish beneficial competition among agencies. Hamilton suggested the new center could improve the existing situation by bringing competing analyses to the attention of a single overseer, rather than allowing minority views to go unheard by selective decision-makers. “We do not believe,” he said, “that combining the intelligence agencies under one office undermines competitive analysis. … I do not believe that the current system fosters competitive analysis.” A national counterterrorism center, Hamilton said, would coordinate the work of the Terrorist Threat Integration Center and other clearinghouses. “TTIC is one among several fusion centers, maybe even one of many” throughout the government, he said, whose work would be brought together. Well-Attended Hearing Unusually Tense The committee found itself in the unusual position of having most of its members present to question the heads of the commission, whose report has become a popular cause among lawmakers of both major parties since it was released last month. With so many representatives present, time did not permit questioning from all committee members. Time constraints combined with high stakes — the commission’s call for better congressional oversight of Homeland Security could weigh heavily on the committee’s future — led to frequent heated exchanges. Members criticized colleagues for taking too much time in posing questions and for pursuing lines of questioning the critics deemed irrelevant. Representative Barney Frank (D-Mass.) successfully pleaded early on for members to forgo making opening statements, saying he had not returned from a vacation in his home state to listen to politicians’ speeches. As the hearing progressed, Frank paced around the dais and repeatedly threw up his hands when the proceedings slowed. After Representative Lamar Smith (R-Texas) pressed Hamilton, a Democrat, on the extent of Democratic ex-President Bill Clinton’s responsibility for the Sept. 11 attacks, Representative Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) loudly complained that the remarks were inappropriate, continuing to make the point even as Cox sternly sought to cut off his remarks. Minutes later, Cox himself drew the ire of Representative Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) when the committee chairman sought to clarify Sanchez’s complaints about absences by noting the presence of several leaders of other committees. Mindful of the short time remaining in the hearing, DeFazio interrupted Cox’s remarks, calling them “extraneous.” Back to top       Rumsfeld Calls for Caution on Intelligence Reform By Mike Nartker Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld yesterday called on lawmakers to exercise caution as they implement the intelligence reform measures proposed by the Sept. 11 commission, including the creation of a national director to oversee the entire U.S intelligence community (see GSN, Aug. 17). “It’s important that we move with all deliberate speed. We need to remember that we are considering these important matters, however, while we are waging a war. If we move unwisely and get it wrong, the penalty would be great,” Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee. “I doubt that we should think of intelligence reform being completed at a single stroke,” he added. As lawmakers work to prepare legislation creating the new director — a move backed by the White House — questions have arisen over what level of authority the new director should have over the budgets and top personnel of the various intelligence agencies, a large number of which are contained in the Defense Department. The Sept. 11 commission and many Democratic lawmakers support giving the new director full budgetary and personnel authority. While the White House originally resisted providing that authority, there have been recent indications that President George W. Bush has shifted his position to allowing the director more power in those areas. While Rumsfeld did not directly address that issue, acting CIA Director John McLaughlin said he supported providing substantial authority to the intelligence director. “I believe that that individual should have the clear authority to move people and resources and to evaluate the performance of the national intelligence agencies and their leaders,” McLaughlin told lawmakers, adding that “this should be accomplished in the cleanest and most direct manner you can devise.” McLaughlin has previously opposed the creation of a national intelligence director on the grounds that it would add unnecessary bureaucracy (see GSN, July 19). He also said yesterday, though, that the new director’s authority should be limited to the intelligence agencies included in the National Foreign Intelligence Program — the CIA, National Security Agency, National Reconnaissance Office and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.  The new director would also have to accept “ironclad accountability” for continuing to support military intelligence needs, McLaughlin said. “No matter what course the administration and Congress choose, intelligence support to the military, especially in time of war, should not be allowed to diminish,” he added. During yesterday’s hearing, administration and military officials emphasized the need to preserve the collaborative relationship between the intelligence community and the military in an intelligence reform effort. “There cannot be a czar that just starts pointing and pulling levels. There is no Wizard of Oz here that’s going to solve this, in my opinion,” said Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The creation of the new national intelligence director cannot be allowed to create “institutional barriers” between intelligence agencies and the rest of the military, Myers said. He also warned that the overcentralization of intelligence could reduce important competition and “innovative thinking” among intelligence analysts in the various agencies. “I believe the more you have centralized control, the less you have the kind of entrepreneurial spirit and agility that I see in our servicemen and women every day. The officers and NCOs [noncommissioned officers] and civilians in the field who see a problem and create a solution contribute immeasurably to our overall intelligence capabilities,” Myers said. Instead of creating a new national intelligence director, committee Chairman John Warner (R-Va.) proposed enhancing the stature and authority of the director of central intelligence.  “As I look at the current body of law, you have extraordinary powers already on the statute. Perhaps some correction could be made or addition by Congress to the existing powers, so that there is no limitation to your ability to work as a co-equal with your peer group, be it the secretary of defense, secretary of homeland (sic), secretary of state or whatever the case may be,” he told McLaughlin. Warner suggested formalizing through legislation the current collaborative relationship between the director of central intelligence and the defense secretary on budgetary and personnel issues. While not advocating that the director of central intelligence be made a Cabinet-level position, Warner said that the position should be elevated “in every possible way to that of a full Cabinet status.” “Perhaps we could change it so you're on an absolute co-equal status and give you the title of NID [national intelligence director] and try it for a while and see if it would work,” he told McLaughlin. McLaughlin said that the elevation of a national intelligence director over the CIA director could have a negative impact on agency employees. “People who work in … the intelligence community, in the National Foreign Intelligence Program, not just the CIA, have grown up with the thought that the leader of the DCI is the leader of the community. And, you know, I think anything that diminished the role of the person who sits in that chair would take quite a bit of adjustment on the part of CIA employees,” he said. Back to top       U.K. Charges Eight With Plotting WMD Attacks British authorities yesterday charged eight suspected al-Qaeda operatives with planning chemical and radiological attacks in the United Kingdom, according to the London Daily Mail (see GSN, June 30). The eight suspects were among 13 men arrested earlier this month, according to the Daily Mail. They are accused of plotting over the last four years to conduct attacks involving radioactive materials, chemicals, toxic gases and explosives. One of the eight suspects was found with information on how to prepare chemicals and explosives, the Daily Mail reported. Another of the eight suspects, Dhiren Barot, has also been charged with possessing plans for potential attacks in the United States, against targets such as the New York Stock Exchange and the International Monetary Fund in Washington, the Daily Mail reported (Stephen Wright, London Daily Mail, Aug. 18). U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft said the Justice Department is considering pressing charges in the United States against the eight suspects, the Associated Press reported (Jill Lawless, Associated Press/Washington Times, Aug. 18). Back to top

U.S. Customs to Require Cargo Descriptions 30 Minutes Before Trucks Cross Border Beginning in November, freight trucks entering the United States would be required to describe their cargo 30 minutes before entry via electronic message in an effort to prevent terrorists from smuggling chemical, biological or nuclear weapons into the country, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Nov. 21, 2003). Customs officials would then compare the description to information in law enforcement and commercial databases, the Homeland Security Department announced yesterday. Identification of mislabeled cargo or prior shipping violations could lead to inspections. A very small percentage of air, rail and truck cargo is now inspected, according to the Associated Press (Associated Press/Yahoo!News, Aug. 18). Back to top

U.S. Calls Iran Nuclear Threat; IAEA Report Not Expected to Rule Out Iran Weapons Program Iranian negotiators told officials from France, Germany and the United Kingdom last month that Tehran could produce enough weapon-grade uranium for an atomic bomb within a year, U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton said yesterday (see GSN, Aug. 16). The claim came as officials from the European nations sought to persuade Iran to halt plans to resume building centrifuges or enrich uranium that could be used in nuclear weapons. “They’ve told the EU three that they could produce, they could enrich enough uranium for a nuclear weapon within a year and they could produce nuclear weapons within the range of our own assessment, which is a way of threatening the Europeans to get them to back down,” Bolton said in a speech at the Hudson Institute. Bolton said the United States has been using diplomacy to apply pressure on the Islamic republic, working through the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Group of Eight economic powers and with individual countries. However, he characterized the Islamic republic as a nuclear threat and said the United States would isolate rather than “engage” with the country.  “Iran’s actions and statements do not bode well for the success of a negotiated approach to dealing with this issue,” he said. “Iran’s decision on July 29 to resume the construction and assembly of nuclear centrifuge parts domestically and remove the seals on material sealed by the IAEA is further cause for alarm,” he added (see GSN, July 29). Bolton said Iran is pursuing both a uranium-based and a plutonium-based nuclear program. “As to the uranium route, Iran has tried to develop two different uranium-enrichment methods in order to produce weapons-grade uranium,” he said. “First, it has established a number of facilities for the manufacture and testing of centrifuges. In parallel, Iran has pursued another program to enrich uranium with lasers.”  “Both of these programs were successfully concealed from IAEA inspectors in Iran for years, until an Iranian opposition group disclosed their existence. As IAEA [Director General Mohamed] ElBaradei’s reports confirmed, Iran used both enrichment methods to secretly enrich uranium, enriching to at least 1.2 percent using centrifuges, and up to 15 percent using lasers,” he added. Bolton said a heavy-water research reactor built covertly by Iran and said to be for civilian purposes is the basis for the parallel, plutonium-based weapons program. He said a second, light-water reactor being constructed with support from Russia could provide additional materials for that program. “Another potential source of plutonium for weapons is the Bushehr light-water power reactor, which is currently under construction,” he said. “Russia has agreed to provide all fresh fuel for that reactor, and Iran and Russia are discussing an agreement to return all spent fuel to Russia,” he added (see GSN, July 13). “However, if Iran should withdraw from the [Nuclear] Nonproliferation Treaty and renounce this agreement with Russia, the Bushehr reactor would produce enough plutonium each year for about 30 nuclear weapons,” Bolton said. He also said the cost of such purportedly peaceful nuclear infrastructure is excessive for a country rich in alternate fuel sources. “No comparable oil-rich nation has ever engaged, or would be engaged, in this set of activities — or would pursue them for nearly two decades behind a continuing cloud of secrecy and lies to IAEA inspectors and the international community — unless it was dead-set on building nuclear weapons,” he said. “Iran’s uranium reserves are miniscule, accounting for less than 1 percent of its vast oil reserves and even larger gas reserves. Iran’s gas reserves are the second largest in the world, and the industry estimates that Iran flares enough gas annually to generate electricity equivalent to the output of four Bushehr reactors,” Bolton added. Iranian officials have said their country needs to enrich uranium because it cannot count on foreign supplies, Bolton said, but noted that Iran will have at most a single nuclear power reactor for the next decade. “We are being asked to believe that Iran is building uranium enrichment capacity to make fuel for reactors that do not exist from uranium Iran does not have,” he said. Bolton added that U.S. diplomatic efforts to stem the crisis included talks with Russia. “We have focused special attention on Russia, the supplier of Iran’s Bushehr reactor,” he said. “Following sustained high-level exchanges, initiated by President Bush, we believe that Russia now shares our concern about Iran’s nuclear activities,” he added (Marina Malenic, Global Security Newswire, Aug. 18). Meanwhile, diplomats in Vienna said an IAEA report due next month would not rule out the existence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran, nor would it make conclusions on whether Iran’s nuclear efforts are peaceful or military in nature or refer the country to the U.N. Security Council (see GSN, Aug. 10). The agency has not yet concluded that the traces came from equipment bought on a black market network run by Pakistan’s former nuclear chief scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan, as reported by Jane’s Defense Weekly this month, the source told Agence France-Presse. “That source was not entirely correct — some of the samples support the idea that some of the protocols came from Pakistan but (IAEA inspectors) don’t have the complete set of analysis and samples and are not yet able to say what Jane’s said,” the diplomat explained. “I suspect that this will be another of those reports where there is no ‘smoking gun’ which would allow the hard-line countries to send this to the Security Council,” the diplomat said. However, the he added that the report would not deliver “a so-called clean bill of health, which would allow Iran to say that they should be taken off the agenda of the [IAEA] board of governors.” The agency announced yesterday that it would conduct more spot inspections of Iran in the future. “This round of inspections is finished, [there] will be more in the future,” said IAEA spokesman Mark Gwozdecky (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, Aug. 17). Elsewhere, Iran threatened to destroy Israel’s Dimona nuclear reactor if Israel attack its nuclear installations, the Associated Press reported. “If Israel fires a missile into the Bushehr nuclear power plant, it has to say goodbye forever to its Dimona nuclear facility, where it produces and stockpiles nuclear weapons,” Brig. Gen. Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr, deputy chief of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, said in a statement. The head of the Guards’ political bureau, Yadollah Javani, said the Islamic republic would use its Shahab 3 medium-range missile to attack the reactor. “All the territory under the control of the Zionist regime, including its nuclear facilities, are within the range of Iran’s advanced missiles,” Javani said in a separate statement (Ali Akbar Dareini, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, Aug. 17). Back to top       Australian Official in Pyongyang, Urges North Korea to Participate in Talks on Nuclear Standoff Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, traveling in North Korea, today urged officials there to participate in six-party talks aimed at resolving Pyongyang’s nuclear standoff with the United States and other countries, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Aug. 17). “I’d been, on arriving here, concerned that the six party talks process was stalling, and I hoped that we’d been able to add some substantial momentum to that process,” Downer said. Downer arrived in North Korea yesterday, and was wrapping up his trip today after meeting with Foreign Minister Paek Nam Sun and ceremonial head of state Kim Yong Nam. Meanwhile, South Korean officials said today that participants were still discussing dates for talks to resume. “Our government believes that the main talks should open before the end of September, and we expect it to be opened and will make necessary preparation,” said Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon. Chinese officials also encouraged North Korea to join the working-level meeting. “We hope that all sides will maintain a calm, practical and flexible attitude, appropriately handle these disagreements and continue to push forward the peace talks process with great strides,” said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan (Soo-Jeong Lee, Associated Press/The Herald (S.C.), Aug. 18). Back to top       Upgraded B-2 Set for Delivery Northrop Grumman Corp. announced last week that it was set to deliver the first operational U.S. B-2 bomber equipped with a new type of exterior coating, Aerospace Daily and Defense Report reported (see GSN, March 9). Covered with an alternate high-frequency material (AHFM) to improve its stealth and radar technology, the aircraft is expected to be delivered to Whiteman Air Force Base, Mo., in about a week, according to company officials. The remaining 19 B-2s in the Air Force fleet are expected to receive the coating over the next seven years (Marc Selinger, Aerospace Daily and Defense Report/Aviation Now, Aug. 16). Back to top

U.S. Army Delays Munitions Incineration at Umatilla Safety concerns forced the U.S. Army to postpone plans to begin incinerating chemical weapons this week at the Umatilla Chemical Depot in Oregon (see GSN, Aug. 17). The incineration was scheduled to begin yesterday, but was delayed until sometime next week, according to the Associated Press. Trace amounts of surrogate vapor were detected in the system’s charcoal filter banks during a trial burn, according to the press release. Depot officials and project managers are investigating (U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency release, Aug. 17). A local anti-incinerator group, GASP, said the delay indicated flaws in the Army’s plan to incinerate the weapons. “I think this is just more evidence that this is a poor choice of technologies,” said GASP leader Karyn Jones. “There have been ongoing problems with the ventilation system. We were assured they were taken care of but obviously they were not,” she added (Aviva Brandt, Associated Press/Kansas City Star, Aug. 17). Back to top

U.S. Analyst Warns of Countries Seeking Missiles North Korea and Iran are among roughly 25 countries that are developing ballistic missiles that could pose a threat to the United States, U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency missile analyst Charles Monson said yesterday (see GSN, Aug. 17). Speaking at the Space and Missile Defense Conference in Huntsville, Ala., Monson said that advanced missile-related technology is available from a number of countries, including China, North Korea and Russia. He also warned of the direct missile threats posed by China, which is modernizing its arsenal; and North Korea, which he said has developed an ICBM capable of hitting U.S. territory (Associated Press, al.com, Aug. 17). Back to top

Key Missile Defense Flight Tests Again Delayed, Deployment Planned for Before Intercept Test By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire HUNTSVILLE, Ala. — The U.S. Missile Defense Agency yesterday again delayed the next flight test of the ground-based long-range missile defense system, from Aug. 18-23 until mid-September, as it prepares to deploy components of the system for the first time, a senior U.S. military official said (see related GSN story, today). The delay of Integrated Flight Test-13C of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system, the fourth rescheduling disclosed this year, reduces to about two weeks the time during which an analysis of that test could be conducted prior to the scheduled Oct. 1 deployment date set last year by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (see GSN, Aug. 12). It also pushes back the subsequent test, IFT-14, which would be the first intercept test of the GMD system using a new, much faster rocket booster, until mid-November to mid-December, according to GMD Program Director Maj. Gen. John Holly, who announced the delay while speaking at an annual Army Space and Missile Defense Command conference here. “We’ve nominally got about a 60-day to 90-day turnaround time between flight test missions,” he said, citing time needed for preparing a missile-launched target and conducting pre-mission test activities and rehearsals. “I’d hoped I was not going to be standing up here today. My plan was to be at Kwajelein Atoll instead of talking to you,” Holly said, referring to the site from which the test interceptor is launched in the Pacific. Experts say that incorporating the new, faster booster could challenge the system by increasing the closing speed between the missile interceptor and the target, which gives the system less time to try to hit the target (see GSN, July 2). Holly said the delay of IFT-13C was caused by “a telemetry problem in the flight computer,” referring to the system’s flight data computer, which he said would be replaced.  He said that during a ground test the system failed to transmit 200 milliseconds of data on system performance. “200 milliseconds is a fair amount of data,” he said, adding such test data is essential for anchoring to reality models and simulations of how the missile defense system would work. “We’ll fly this, and it should work out,” he said. Missile Defense Agency spokesman Richard Lehner said the flight data computer is used for testing purposes, to tell the people on the ground how the interceptor is performing by transmitting various pieces of data. The test was delayed earlier this year for various reasons from March to June, then from June until late July, then from late July until mid-August, according to Lehner. Deployment Date in Question Pentagon spokespeople have refused to confirm the scheduled Oct. 1 deployment date, reported by Global Security Newswire last month, which coincides with the start of the next fiscal year and is about a month before the presidential election (see GSN, July 13). Air Force Maj. Gen. William Shelton, director for policy, resources and requirements of the U.S. Strategic Command, which will have overall responsibility for system operations, however, here acknowledged the date as a goal but said it could be subject to change. While Oct. 1 “has been the notional date that most folks have been working toward,” he said in comments to GSN, “when you’re talking about a capability that is under development, you’re working toward a goal as opposed to a hard and rigid date and I think people ought to view it in that light.” “Certainly it’s a goal, but I sense that folks are maybe not as rigid,” he said.  Lehner has said the final decision to deploy would be made by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Strategic Command, the Northern Command, and other future system operators based on an assessment of the utility of putting it on alert. Shelton suggested that that assessment process is continuing. “No question there’s a lot of data still being gathered and a lot of things that still need to be considered,” he said. The Strategic Command is not ready to judge the system operational, he told the conference. “You look at the technical capability, you look at the crews being trained, you look at the procedures being put in place, you look at the engagement criteria, you look at the rules of engagement, you look at the policy in place, and if all of that comes together, then I think STRATCOM is going to satisfied that that is a capability that is ready for some limited operational use,” he said. “But we’ve got a long way to go,” he said. Back to top       Thule Radar Work Set for 2005, to Cost $260 Million The early warning radar system at Thule Air Base in Greenland is expected to undergo $260 million in upgrades over three years, beginning in 2005, Inside Missile Defense reported today (see GSN, Aug. 9). The improved system would give the planned U.S. missile defense system a better tracking ability by enabling the radar, 750 miles north of the Arctic Circle, to follow missiles launched from the Middle East, according to Inside Missile Defense. Upgrades would be similar to work done on early warning radar systems at Beale Air Force Base in California and to a project under way at Fylingdales Air Base in the United Kingdom (see GSN, Feb. 6, 2003). Those efforts involved enhancing “computer processing capabilities, graphic displays and communication integration” with system command and battle management computers, according to the U.S. Missile Defense Agency. The agency plans to spend $15 million for Thule radar work in fiscal 2005, $142.1 million in fiscal 2006 and $102.7 million in fiscal 2007 (Thomas Duffy, Inside Missile Defense, Aug. 18). Back to top       Russian Official Unfazed by U.S. Missile Defense Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said today that U.S. missile defense efforts do not pose a threat to Russia (see GSN, Aug. 13). “Personally, I don’t see any threat to Russia’s safety from the construction in the U.S. of the first missile silos in its antimissile defense system,” Ivanov said, referring to U.S. missile interceptors based in Alaska (Agence France-Presse/SpaceWar.com, Aug. 18). Back to top

Ukrainian Police Recover Radioactive Material Ukrainian police Sunday discovered three containers holding radioactive material near the southern city of Odessa, according to the Ukrainian newspaper Segodnya (see GSN, Aug. 10). The material was found as part of an investigation into organized crime activity. The containers are suspected of containing plutonium and strontium, but further testing is needed before the material can be conclusively identified, according to Segodnya. The radioactivity level of the material within the containers is hundreds of times greater than the legal limit, the newspaper reported. The containers were discovered along with a cache of weapons including assault rifles and grenade launchers (Oleksandr Korchynskyy, Segodnya/BBC Monitoring, Aug. 17).    Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

© Copyright 2008 by National Journal Group, Inc. The material in this section is produced independently for NTI by National Journal Group, Inc. Any reproduction or retransmission, in whole or in part, is a violation of federal law and is strictly prohibited without the consent of the National Journal Group, Inc. All rights reserved.