U.S. Response:  FEMA Considering Sirens to Warn of Terrorist Attack

The U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency is considering whether to use Cold War-era sirens, originally intended to warn of impending nuclear attack, for use in providing terrorism warnings, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, June 6).

A number of cities, such as Chicago and Dallas, have upgraded their outdoor warning systems to be able to broadcast voice announcements, AP reported.  The siren systems could be particularly useful in alerting those who are not watching television or listening to radio.

“If you’ve got a weather radio in your house, it doesn’t do much for you when you’re at the ballpark,” said Kerry Wagnon, director of public safety capital projects in Oklahoma City.

In addition to sirens, officials are also considering broadcasting terrorism warnings via electronic text messaging and through a reverse 911 system that would telephone people, said Jo’Ellen Countee of the Washington Emergency Management Agency.  “A lot of people want sirens — people who are old enough to remember sirens,” Countee said (Tim Talley, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, July 15).

Back to top

Iraq:  Bush Defends Speech, Rationale for War

U.S. President George W. Bush yesterday defended his January State of the Union address, which contained the claim that Iraq had sought uranium from Africa, saying that the speech was “backed by good intelligence” (see GSN, July 14).

“I think the intelligence I get is darn good intelligence.  And the speeches I have given were backed by good intelligence,” Bush said yesterday during a joint press conference with U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan following a White House meeting.  “And I am absolutely convinced today, like I was convinced when I gave the speeches, that [former Iraqi President] Saddam Hussein developed a program of weapons of mass destruction, and that our country made the right decision,” he said.

Bush said his address was cleared by the CIA and that the agency had doubts “subsequent to the speech.”

“The thing that’s important to realize is that’s important to realize is that we’re constantly gathering data.  Subsequent to the speech, the CIA had some doubts,” Bush said.  “But when … they talked about the speech, when they looked at the speech, it was cleared,” he said.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan today sought to clarify Bush’s remark, saying that the president had first learned of doubts in March, after the International Atomic Energy Agency concluded that documents purporting to show that Iraq had purchased uranium from Niger were forgeries (Mike Nartker, GSN, July 15).

Bush aides have said, however, that the CIA raised doubts that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium from Niger, a basis for the Africa uranium claim, more than four months before the State of the Union, according to the Washington Post.

U.S. Marine Gen. Carlton Fulford told the Post yesterday that he had been sent to Niger last year to investigate the security of that country’s uranium stockpiles, and that after the visit he believed they were secure.  Fulford’s findings were passed on to Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, though it is unknown if they reached the White House, according to the Post. 

Capt. Frank Thorp, a spokesman for Myers, said the general has “no recollection of the information,” but did not doubt that he had received it.  “Given the time frame of 16 months ago, information concerning Iraq not obtaining uranium from Niger would not have been as pressing as other subjects,” Thorp said (Priest/Milbank, Washington Post, July 15).

Some Republicans have called on the Bush administration to step up its efforts to respond to questions over the case for war on Iraq, according to the New York Times.

“They have the potential to hurt, unless they are firmly and forcefully and frequently answered,” Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said.  “I don’t think you can let any of this go unanswered.  And I don’t think the president is going to take any of this lying down,” he said.

In his remarks yesterday, Bush defended the decision to go to war with Baghdad, saying that such a decision was necessary because Hussein refused to allow U.N. weapons inspectors into Iraq.

“The larger point is, and the fundamental question is:  Did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program?  And the answer is: Absolutely.  And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in,” Bush said.  “And therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region,” he said.

During a White House press briefing today, McClellan sought to clarify Bush’s comment.  What Bush meant by his comment was that Hussein had failed to fully comply with U.N. resolution 1441, which established the inspection regime, and that Hussein had worked to “thwart inspectors … every step of the way,” McClellan said (Nartker, GSN).

British Africa Uranium Claim Disputed

Meanwhile, a Western diplomat with ties to the IAEA has said that all British intelligence purporting to show that Iraq had attempted to obtain uranium from Africa was based on a set of documents that have been revealed to be forgeries, according to Agence France-Presse.

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw defended the Africa uranium claim, which was included in a September 2002 report, saying the information had come from “foreign intelligence services.”

The evidence that the United Kingdom has of Iraq’s efforts to obtain uranium from Africa, however, refers to the same alleged transaction that was described in the forged documents, the diplomat said. 

“I understand that it concerned the same group of documents and the same transaction,” the diplomat was quoted by the Daily Mail as saying (Agence France-Presse).

Discovered Nuclear Components Ineffective, U.N. Inspector Says

U.N. weapons inspector Jacques Baute said it would have been “virtually impossible” for Iraq to relaunch its nuclear weapons program with equipment and materials that were recently recovered from a Baghdad backyard, according to the Associated Press (see GSN, June 26).

The recovered uranium enrichment equipment, provided by an Iraqi scientist last month, lacked necessary components, Baute said.  In addition, blueprints also provided by the scientist contained a number of mistakes, he said.

U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher, while refusing to comment on Baute’s assessment, said the recovered equipment and documents indicated that Iraq had not abandoned its desire for nuclear weapons (see GSN, June 27).

“I think the findings in Iraq demonstrate that Iraq had not abandoned its intentions on nuclear programs.  Just buried them.  Maybe more,” Boucher said.  “We’ll see.  We’ll find the full extent of that as time goes on,” he said (Charles Hanley, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, July 15).  

Back to top

North Korea:  Pyongyang Says It Plans to Assemble Nuclear Weapons Soon

North Korean officials last week told the United States that North Korea has reprocessed enough uranium to build a half-dozen nuclear weapons and that it intends to take that step soon, the New York Times reported today (see GSN, July 14).

U.S. intelligence agencies are now trying to determine if Pyongyang is telling the truth.

“It’s the mirror image of the Iraq problem,” said one U.S. official.  “We spent years looking for evidence Iraq was lying when it said it didn’t have a nuclear program.  Now North Korea says it’s about to go nuclear, and everyone is trying to figure out whether they’ve finally done it, or if it’s the big lie,” the official added (David Sanger, New York Times, July 15).

Some experts have expressed doubts about the nuclear claims.

“It could be done if (the North Koreans) used shortcuts and wanted to risk (nuclear) contamination,” said a former U.N. weapons inspector who has visited North Korea (Stewart Stogel, Washington Times, July 15).

A U.S. envoy met in New York with North Korean U.N. representative Park Gil Yon last week, according to a State Department official.  The official would not comment, however, on the nature of their discussions (Agence France-Presse, July 15).

Naval Blockade Is War, Pyongyang Says

North Korea, meanwhile, said that a proposed naval blockade of the communist country would be tantamount to a declaration of war.

“If the United States expands the sea blockade to include international waters, it would become a prelude to war,” said the state-run North Korean newspaper Rodong Sinmun (Yonhap News Agency/Korea Times, July 15).

Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, however, dismissed the threat of a North Korean nuclear attack.  Self-proclaimed North Korean spokesman Kim Myong Chol said Australia might be attacked if it takes part in the effort to interdict North Korean ships.

“If Australia becomes part of American manipulation against North Korea, North Korea reserves the right to strike back on Australia — that is the official North Korean position,” Kim said.

However, Downer said North Korea does not have the capability to hit Australia with nuclear missiles.

“We don’t believe for a minute North Korea would launch some kind of nuclear attack against Australia, or have the capacity to fire nuclear missiles that sort of distance.  That’s if they have the capacity to fire nuclear missiles at all,” he said (Jack Taylor, Agence France-Presse, July 15).

Former U.S. Defense Secretary William Perry, meanwhile, warned that the Korean crisis is drifting toward war.  Six months ago, Perry said the situation was manageable, but it has deteriorated since then, he said.

“I think we are losing control,” Perry said.  “I have held off public criticism to this point because I had hoped that the administration was going to act on this problem, and that public criticism might be counterproductive.  But time is running out, and each month the problem gets more dangerous,” he added (Ricks/Kessler, Washington Post, July 15).

China Reaches Out to North Korea

Chinese Deputy Foreign Minister Dai Bingguo met with North Korean leader Kim Jong Il Monday, the Associated Press reported.

The two “had an in-depth exchanges of views on the nuclear issue between (North Korea) and the U.S. and international issues of mutual concern,” the state-run Korean Central News Agency said (Jae-suk Yoo, Associated Press/Atlanta Journal-Constitution, July 15).

Back to top

Iran:  Tehran Wants Talks But Washington Is Not Listening

Iranian officials are attempting to open negotiations with the United States over Tehran’s alleged nuclear development, but Washington is not interested, the Financial Times reported today (see GSN, July 11).

“We are not reaching out at this point,” said a State Department official.

Tim Guldimann, the Swiss ambassador to Iran, also conveyed the message that Tehran wanted to talk.  Switzerland represents U.S. interests in Tehran (Guy Dinmore, Financial Times, July 15).

Mohammad Zarif, Iran’s U.N. ambassador, has been meeting with U.S. officials in an attempt to arrange talks.  Zarif has reportedly indicated that Iran would consider signing the Additional Protocol, which would open up its nuclear activities to closer International Atomic Energy Agency monitoring, in exchange for direct talks.

Daniel Ayalon, the Israeli ambassador to Washington, last week said that Iran might be close to developing a nuclear weapon.

“The point of no return — where they are on the verge or on the way to get nuclear capabilities — is much, much smaller now, could be even a matter of a year or so,” Ayalon said (Guy Dinmore, Financial Times II, July 15).

European diplomats, meanwhile, are becoming frustrated by their offers of trade agreements to Tehran in exchange for negotiating concessions.

“There is a degree of major frustration.  There is a chink of light on the nuclear issue, total immobility on human rights, some movement but not much on terrorism and nothing at all on the Middle East peace process,” said a European ambassador in Tehran.

The European Union is demanding that Iran sign the Additional Protocol, or lose a trade deal with Europe.

“Iran claims to have peaceful intentions but that doesn’t mean a thing,” German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said earlier this month (Stefan Smith, Pakistan Dawn, July 15).

Japan Says Oil Not Linked to Nuclear Issue

In talks that begin this weekend, Tokyo will not combine the nuclear issue and the potential development of an Iranian oil field by Japanese companies, Asahi Shimbun reported today.

Yukiya Amano, the Japanese Foreign Ministry’s director general for arms control and scientific affairs, is expected to tell Iranian officials that Japan is not waiting for Iran to sign the Additional Protocol before Japanese companies develop the oil field.  U.S. officials have been pressuring Japan to hold off on the oil work while the nuclear issue remains unresolved (Asahi Shimbun, July 15).

Tehran Holding Al-Qaeda Members

Iran reportedly is holding several al-Qaeda members, including spokesman Sulaiman abu Ghaith, a senior Iranian official said this weekend.

U.S. officials have not publicly confirmed the report.

“We did have knowledge of a number of al-Qaeda people in Iran under some circumstance, rumors of them being taken into some kind of custody, the nature of which is unclear,” said a U.S. official (Azadeh Moaveni, Los Angeles Times, July 15).

Back to top

United States:  House Subcommittee Cuts New Nuclear Weapons Funding

A Republican-led House appropriations subcommittee rejected a $50 million White House request to study the development of new nuclear weapons, the New York Times reported today (see GSN, July 9).

Representative David Hobson (R-Ohio), chairman of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee, said the Energy Department needed to focus on maintaining the existing U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile.

“Before we go blindly into new areas, we have to think about where we are and what we are doing with what we’ve got,” Hobson said.  “I did what I thought was the responsible thing to do, and my committee concurred,” he added.

U.S. officials said they would fight to reinstate the funding before the spending bill becomes law.  The $50 million could be reinstated by the full committee.

“I am disappointed they were reduced or eliminated and hope that when the final appropriations bill comes forward that the Congress will support the president on this,” said Linton Brooks, chief of the National Nuclear Security Administration.  “I think it’s important,” he added.

Democratic senators, who opposed the new nuclear research, supported Hobson’s move and called for similar cutbacks in the Senate (Carl Hulse, New York Times, July 15).

Back to top

France:  Former Defense Official Urges France to Emphasize Space-Based Programs

Former French Defense Minister Paul Quiles yesterday said France should decrease spending on nuclear weapons programs and use the savings to lead the European Union toward a new emphasis on space-based defense programs.

In a commentary in Le Figaro, Quiles called for EU spending of more than $3 billion annually on military space programs, including a French contribution of more than $1 billion each year.  He said France could free up the funds by cutting about $500 million, or about 15 percent, from its annual nuclear weapons budget.

“The current efforts in nuclear dissuasion seem particularly excessive in light of developments in the strategic environment.  They rest on programs that were defined mainly during the Cold War, when France faced the threat of a massive invasion of its territory by an overarmed nuclear power,” Quiles wrote.

“The threats of today are completely different.  They no longer justify an effort that accounts for 10 percent of the defense budget (compared with 3 percent in the United Kingdom),” he continued.

Quiles deemed insufficient current French spending on military space technology, which he put at more than $450 million, and backed ramping up funds for intelligence and communications satellites.  Increases in space spending, added Quiles, would encourage cooperation among EU countries on defense — made necessary by the recent conduct of the United States in the international arena, according to Quiles — and enable them to “accede to autonomy, that is, to freedom in evaluating risks and threats.”

“The same need for strategic autonomy should also lead Europe to develop an advance warning system allowing it [Europe] to detect the propulsive phase of ballistic missile strikes. … The military space program is also necessary to give Europe the broadband data transmission ability that is now required for carrying out integrated, real-time operations in remote theaters,” he said (Paul Quiles, Le Figaro, July 14, GSN translation).

Back to top

U.S. Response:  NNSA Lacks Airlift Capability for Nuclear Response Team

A recent report by the U.S. Energy Department’s inspector general says the National Nuclear Security Administration needs more aircraft to enable it to react quickly to a possible terrorist attack involving nuclear weapons, Energy Daily reported today (see GSN, July 9).

According to the report, the NNSA does not always have enough aircraft available to transport its Joint Technical Operation Team (JTOT) in the event of a nuclear attack.  In addition, the agency does not have contingency plans in place if its own aircraft are unavailable, the report says.

Currently, the NNSA has four aircraft available for use — a Gulfstream 3 long-range, high-speed jet; two Boeing DC-9 airliners; and a Lear jet, according to Energy Daily.  The report found, however, that the NNSA’s contract with the Gulfstream’s operator did not require that the plane be maintained on a permanent stand-by basis.  In addition, the Gulfstream 3 was also found to have been used for other purposes, it says.

The Lear jet is not an adequate substitute because of its limited range and smaller size, the report says.  It also says that the two DC-9 airliners are not capable of transporting JTOT personnel and equipment “to all possible incident sites.”

The Energy Department has also “not developed formal contingency plans” for the use of other aircraft, either civilian or military, in the event the NNSA aircraft were unavailable, according to the report.

“Based on these findings, we are concerned that JTOT personnel may not be able to respond as rapidly and effectively as necessary to address a potential terrorist incident,” Energy Inspector General Gregory Friedman said in the report.  “Specifically, given the national importance of the JTOT mission and the necessity of timely arrival of JTOT personnel and equipment at an incident site, uncertainties relating to aircraft capability are unacceptable,” he said (Nathan Hodge, Energy Daily, July 15).

Back to top

Smallpox:  New York Might Dump Hundreds of Smallpox Doses

New York state might have to destroy hundreds of doses of smallpox vaccine because so few volunteers took part in the immunization program, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, June 30).

In January, state officials ordered 8,000 doses, in 80 vials, from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  As part of U.S. President George W. Bush’s smallpox immunization campaign, New York officials estimated that 16,000 volunteers would receive the vaccine, but only 747 have so far stepped forward.

The expiration date is nearing for some of the doses left in the 26 vials that were opened, AP reported.  The opened vaccine expires after 90 days and will have to be destroyed, according to New York state Health Department spokeswoman Kristine Smith (Associated Press/Newsday, July 15).

Back to top

U.S. Plans:  Physicists Find Boost-Phase Approach Impractical

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The largest U.S. society of professional physicists today released its conclusion that boost-phase missile defenses, such as those being pursued by the Bush administration for its national missile defense system, would be largely “impractical.”

It found that the brief time needed for an enemy rocket to boost into space would provide the United States with little opportunity to destroy them unless U.S. forces were prepositioned as close as 400 to 1,000 kilometers to the enemy missiles.

Even then, the approach may not be feasible, the study said.

“Defending the United States against solid-propellant ICBMs would be impractical in many cases, because of their short burn times,” said the American Physical Society in a release announcing its 150-page scientific and technical feasibility study, Boost-Phase Intercept Systems for National Missile Defense.  Missile-defense experts, mostly from academic institutions around the country, prepared the report.

“Even against longer-burning, liquid-propellant ICBMs that North Korea or Iran might initially deploy, a boost-phase defense would have limited use due to the requirement that interceptors be based close to potential missile flight paths,” it said.

It said, however, that boost-phase defenses could be technically possible against short- or medium-range missiles launched from ships off U.S. coasts.  In such a scenario, U.S. ships with interceptors would need to be sailing less than 40 kilometers from the attacking ships, it said.

Challenges Acknowledged

The Bush administration has been pursuing a multilayered approach to developing a national missile defense, with the idea of developing and deploying different systems to create overlapping defenses using varied technologies.  Boost-phase systems — potentially using land-, sea-, air- and space-based systems — are considered longer-term goals.  The APS study estimates that initial deployment of the major systems would take 10 years.

The Department of Defense’s Missile Defense Agency is planning initial concept demonstrations of the technologies in 2004 for the Airborne Laser (see GSN, March 7), in 2005 for an envisioned new missile interceptor, and much later for a space-based laser.

With respect to the missile interceptor, it aims to make “product-line decisions” in the next few years and have an initial capability deployed by 2010.

The administration this year requested $626.3 million for this boost-phase work in fiscal 2004.  The Senate Appropriations Committee, however, last week cut funding for a boost-phase interceptor by $175 million for fiscal 2004 while otherwise increasing spending for additional midcourse interceptors by $200 million, Defense Week reported this week (see GSN, July 14).

The Missile Defense Agency previously has acknowledged that effective boost-phase defenses would require “quick reaction times” and “high-confidence decision-making.”  It is developing faster interceptor capabilities and also high-powered lasers for the Airborne Laser.

“Thus, resources have been allocated to develop both kinetic and directed energy capabilities in an effort to provide options for multiple engagement opportunities and basing modes to address a variety of timing and geographic constraints,” according to an agency fact sheet.

The APS report concluded, though, that even very large and fast interceptors “that pushed the state of the art would in most cases be unable to intercept solid-propellant ICBMs before they released their warheads,” according to the release.

It also said that the Airborne Laser system currently under development would have a limited range that would require it to be so close to the enemy that it would be vulnerable to a counterattack.

A space-based system, it said, would be reaction time-constrained and also could require a sizable commitment of resources — 1,000 or more orbiting satellites would be needed to ensure that one would be in place to intercept a single missile, requiring a potential tenfold increase to U.S. space-launch capabilities.

“It is crucial that decisions about large-scale investments in weapons systems take into account their technical feasibility,” said APS President Myriam Sarachik in a statement.  “The APS hopes this report will help in evaluating whether to build boost-phase defense systems,” she added.

Back to top

Radiological Weapons:  Radioactive Shipments Are Vulnerable to Terrorist Attacks, Experts Say

Participants at an International Atomic Energy Agency conference on the safe transportation of radioactive materials have said that countries are unprepared to respond to a terrorist attack on such shipments, Reuters reported Friday (see GSN, July 8).

Current emergency response plans in many countries are only able to handle “unintelligent accidents,” according to John Large, a nuclear issues consultant hired by Greenpeace.  Countries have failed to plan for “an intelligent terrorist attack where they know the vulnerabilities of your emergency plan,” Large said.

IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei told the Vienna-based conference that international regulations and industry practices have “an excellent safety record.”

“Over several decades of transporting radioactive material, there has not been an in-transit accident with serious human health, economic or environmental consequences,” ElBaradei said.

The Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States, however, demonstrated that there is “room for improvement” in increasing the security of radioactive material shipments, an IAEA official said (Louis Charbonneau, Reuters/Yahoo!News, July 11).

Back to top