#47 7 Feb 2001

USAF COUNTERPROLIFERATION CENTER CPC OUTREACH JOURNAL Air University Air War College Maxwell AFB, Alabama

Welcome to the CPC Outreach Journal. As part of USAF Counterproliferation Center’s mission to counter weapons of mass destruction through education and research, we’re providing our government and civilian community a source for timely counterproliferation information. This information includes articles, papers and other documents addressing issues pertinent to US military response options for dealing with nuclear, biological and chemical threats and attacks. It’s our hope this information resource will help enhance your counterproliferation issue awareness.

Established here at the Air War College in 1998, the USAF/CPC provides education and research to present and future leaders of the Air Force, as well as to members of other branches of the armed services and Department of Defense. Our purpose is to help those agencies better prepare to counter the threat from weapons of mass destruction. Please feel free to visit our web site at www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-cps.htm for in-depth information and specific points of contact. Please direct any questions or comments on CPC Outreach Journal to Lt. Col. Michael W. Ritz, CPC Intelligence/Public Affairs or JoAnn Eddy, CPC Outreach Editor, at (334) 953- 7538 or DSN 493-7538.

The following articles, papers or documents do not necessarily reflect official endorsement of the United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or other US government agencies. Reproduction for private use or commercial gain is subject to original copyright restrictions. All rights are reserved.

Doctors on alert for bioterrorism By Laurel Campbell, Post staff reporter The Ohio Department of Health is asking doctors to be on the lookout for several new diseases -- including those that could indicate acts of terrorism -- and report any cases they see to the state. The newest list of reportable diseases, mandated by the state's Public Health Council, goes into effect Feb. 15. Physicians and laboratories will be notified of the additions.... http://www.cincypost.com/news/diseas012601.html

Hartford Courant January 27, 2001 Pg. 4 Agency Recommends Anthrax Vaccine Curbs The General Accounting Office Findings Regarding The State Department Could Have Negative Implications For The Pentagon's Mandatory Vaccination Program. By Thomas D. Williams, Courant Staff Writer A federal watchdog group has found that the State Department should not continue to give voluntary anthrax shots to its employees until it determines whether there is an international terrorist threat of an anthrax biological weapons attack. The U.S. General Accounting Office's report this week may undermine the Pentagon's separate, but mandatory, anthrax program. Former Secretary of Defense William Cohen ordered the Defense Department's six-shot series inoculation program in 1997. He and other Pentagon officials have argued that service members must take the vaccine or face court martial because the biological weapons threat from terrorists and enemy nations is so significant. They insist the vaccine has now been shown to be safe and effective through tests of monkeys. This week's GAO report says: "Diplomatic security officials in the State Department and Central Intelligence Agency analysts agree that they have no clear evidence that U.S. missions or interests overseas are threatened by foreign state or terrorist attacks using biological or chemical agents at this time." The GAO also found that 80 percent of 8,000 doses of the anthrax vaccine at eight overseas State Department missions had to be destroyed because they were not used before their expiration date; other doses the State Department tried to give to the Defense Department before they expired were improperly stored; and none of the vaccine recipients at one agency site had received all the vaccinations required. Previous GAO reports have said there is no evidence the vaccine is effective against airborne anthrax spores. In addition, the GAO has criticized the Defense Department, as it did the State Department in this report, for ineffective monitoring of adverse reactions to the vaccine by those inoculated. State Department spokesmen told the GAO that its inquiry exaggerated the department's problems and criticized some of its anthrax operation in a way that was deceiving. They said the department's program has been harmed by a shortage of the vaccine. Since a perceived threat of a biological attack existed, the department had to do the best it could to offer its employees protection, the spokesmen told the GAO. The State Department did agree to obtain an up-to-date assessment of the anthrax threat; to better monitor vaccine supplies; to survey its employees about those truly wanting the vaccine; to improve monitoring of adverse reactions and to ensure employees are vaccinated with all the required doses. The vaccine manufacturer has run out of supplies of the old vaccine, manufactured by a previous operator, and is awaiting approval of its own lots. In the meantime, the Pentagon is ordering use of the vaccine only in overseas areas it says are susceptible to biological attacks. The State Department has discontinued use of the vaccine until new supplies are available.

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy Policy Watch Number 515 January 29, 2001 IRAQ’S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION (WMD): AN EMERGING CHALLENGE FOR THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION By Michael Eisenstadt Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) are emerging as one of the first major foreign policy challenges of the Bush administration. Free of weapons monitors and with sanctions eroding, Iraq has resumed its aggressive policies. After the start of the al-Aqsa Intifada last September, it briefly moved elements of four to five divisions toward its border with Syria in a show of solidarity, and on several occasions since then, Saddam Husayn has threatened to destroy Israel. Then, earlier this month, his older son Uday reasserted Iraq’s claim to Kuwait. With its conventional military capabilities hobbled by two bloody wars and more than a decade of sanctions, Iraq’s retained WMD capabilities assume renewed salience…. http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/watch/Policywatch/policywatch2001/515.htm

Iran Nuclear Plant to Be Operational by 2003 NewsMax Wires January 31, 2001

TEHRAN -- Iran's first nuclear power plant, under construction in the southern city of Bushehr, was expected to go on stream in about two years, according to a media report Wednesday.

The Persian daily newspaper Jam-e Jam quoted Khalil Mousavi, the head of public relations office of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, as saying that construction of the plant was at "full speed."

The construction is being handled by Russian technicians. According to the newspaper, Russia signed a contract with Iran in September 1998 to finish the project within 52 months.

The plant was designed to generate 1,000 megawatts of electricity during the first phase, Mousavi said.

The facility was initially to be built by the German company Seimens, but the company pulled out following the 1979 Islamic revolution and the subsequent Western embargo on high-technology transfers to Iran. Iran filed a lawsuit against Germany seeking compensation for losses while Germany counter-sued on claims that Iran failed to meet its commitments.

The United States has voiced fierce opposition to the construction of Iran's nuclear plant, claiming Iran can use it for producing weapons of mass destruction. Iran has repeatedly stressed on its "peaceful objectives" in pursuing the production of nuclear energy.

Anniston (AL) Star January 31, 2001 Depot Workers Unharmed By Nerve Agent Leak By Elizabeth Bluemink, Star Staff Writer Hattie Baskin likes to know her enemy. Especially when it's GB nerve agent, potentially leaking in her direction. Somehow, Ms. Baskin, who has worked 15 years at the Anniston Army Depot, feels most secure when she is close to the depot's GB-filled weapons, where she can see them and monitor them. "I'm nosy. I like to know what's going on out front. I like to be there," she explained. Monday morning, Ms. Baskin and her fellow ammunition inspector, Joe Webb, stood within inches of a leaking M55 rocket as they monitored it and 63 other weapons stacked in an Anniston Army Depot igloo. At the time, Lt. Col. Bruce Williams, the Anniston Chemical Activity commander, was standing outside the igloo with other depot workers. None of them knew about the leak. It was 4 p.m. before Ms. Baskin, Webb and Williams found out about the .00037 milligram per cubic meter of nerve agent vapor that was detected by afternoon laboratory tests of air samples from the weapon's shipping tube. (The amount of leaked vapor was too small to be detected by other means.) They found out by a fax from the lab. Williams showed the biggest reaction. "My eyes got a little big," confessed Williams, who has been a U.S. Army chemical officer for 20 years and was posted to the Anniston Army Depot about 90 days ago. This was his first visit, as commander, to a surveillance operation at one of the depot's chemical weapons storage units. Yet, for Ms. Baskin and Webb, it was just another day on the job. "It's just like any other job. You use your head and your training," Ms. Baskin said. At 4 p.m., they already knew that they hadn't been physically exposed to nerve agent, so they didn't worry. Early detection systems would have warned of GB agent in the igloo's air. At least once every few months, they and other ammunition inspectors and laboratory workers detect nerve agent leaks from rockets and other weapons. Usually, the "leakers" are M55 rockets, which were manufactured in light aluminum casings that simply do not meet the stresses of long-term storage. At Anniston Army Depot, risk is a matter of milligrams per cubic foot. This leak was so tiny that it did not register on two finely calibrated detection systems used during the surveillance operation. The detection systems protect the depot workers while they are in the igloo by monitoring the air before and after they enter. Also, shield safeguards are used to prevent vapor from the shipping and packing tube from escaping to the igloo. To experience immediate danger to their health, Ms. Baskin and Wells would have had to inhale .2 milligrams per cubic foot of GB agent. That did not happen. To cause health effects over an extended period, the level would have to be .0001 milligrams per cubic meter. Under truly bizarre conditions, that could have happened. Ms. Baskin and Webb would both have had to crawl in the six-foot rocket's holding tube and stay there awhile. Obviously, they couldn't fit in the tiny space. Neither, of course, could they stay there eight hours a day, five days per week for the duration of their careers. That is the amount of time it would take to be harmed by .0001 milligrams per cubic meter or more of GB agent. Like most leaks in the depot's stockpile, this was a relatively small one. A bigger vapor leak could have caused a runny nose and difficulty in breathing. A mild exposure, such as skin contact with GB agent, could have caused sweating and muscular twitches. A severe exposure would start with nausea and vomiting, headaches and possibly end in death. With more than 30 years of depot experience between them, Ms. Baskin and Webb knew the risks. That, perhaps, explains why they say they were not afraid. Williams, the commander, said Monday's leak gave him a new appreciation for his workers. "I depend on their expertise," he said. "These workers are members of the community and they are also hostages of anything that happens here," he added.

(Editor's Note: Hyperlink for report after this article.) Panel recommends sweeping national security changes January 31, 2001 Web posted at: 11:28 a.m. EST (1628 GMT) From National Security Correspondent David Ensor WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A blue-ribbon commission unveiled a detailed report on national security Wednesday, calling for sweeping changes in the way the government handles what it calls a "significant and growing" threat of terrorism on U.S. soil. One of the panel's main recommendations is for President Bush to create a new Cabinet-level National Homeland Security Agency to handle prevention, response and recovery to terrorist incidents…. http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/01/31/terrorism.report/index.html

Road Map for National Security: Imperative for Change The United States Commission on National Security/21st Century http://www.nssg.gov/phaseIII.pdf

Denver Rocky Mountain News February 1, 2001 Army Destroys 2nd Sarin Bomb 4 more to be neutralized in next week By Berny Morson, News Staff Writer The Army destroyed the second of six sarin nerve agent bombs at Rocky Mountain Arsenal Wednesday. As health officials watched by closed-circuit television, a worker in a protective suit and respirator placed the small bomb in a sealed steel chamber. An explosive charge was used to crack open the bomb, releasing the sarin liquid. A caustic liquid was then added by remote control. The caustic agent neutralizes the sarin. The first of the bombs was destroyed by the same process on Sunday. A third bomb is scheduled to be destroyed Friday. The rest will be destroyed next week. Air monitoring around the destruction site showed none of the sarin was released into the environment during either of the operations conducted so far, the Army said in a prepared statement. In addition to the steel chamber, the operation is contained within a steel shed designed to prevent toxic releases. The first of the bombs was found by workers in October in a pile of scrap metal. The other five were discovered nearby. They are in the middle of the 27-square-mile arsenal, at least two miles from the nearest fence. Sarin was manufactured at the arsenal in the 1950s, and bombs continued to be filled at the plant until 1969. But officials have been at a loss to explain how six of the deadly bombs came to be laying around. Sarin is so deadly that a single drop can kill an adult in under an hour. The area of the arsenal where the bombs were found is being combed for more of them.

Anniston (AL) Star February 2, 2001 Pg. 1B Chemical Agent Disposal Alternative Fails Test By Elizabeth Bluemink, Star Staff Writer The National Research Council committee charged with reviewing the U.S. Army's Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program issued a report this week citing problems with an alternative technology planned for use at a military chemical stockpile site in Newport, Ind. The committee's report was issued Wednesday. It warns that problems with a hazardous waste disposal technology known as "supercritical water oxidation," currently being tested in Corpus Christi, Texas, may delay construction and operation of Newport's chemical agent disposal facility. Army officials are preparing a response to the report, said Cathy Herlinger, a spokeswoman for the Army's Chemical Demilitarization program. "Things have improved since the committee collected information for this report," she said. Unlike Anniston, all of the VX nerve agent at the Newport Chemical Depot is stored in large steel containers and will not be incinerated. Twelve percent of the nation's VX nerve agent stockpile is stored there. Several years ago, the Army selected neutralization as the method to destroy chemical agents at Newport and at the Edgewood Army Depot. The National Research Council endorsed the Army's decision. Like the other chemical weapons stockpile sites, the Newport facility must dispose of its approximate 1,300 tons of nerve agent, stored in 1,690 one-ton containers, by April 2007 in order to comply with the international Chemical Weapons Convention of 1997. Currently, the Newport operation is scheduled for completion in October 2004. Last May, Congressional investigators with the General Accounting Office said the United States probably won't meet the 2007 deadline, due to delays at the Pueblo Chemical Depot in Colorado and the Blue Grass Army Depot near Richmond, Ky. Combined, the depots store about 10 percent of the U.S. stockpile. Now the NRC committee fears delays at the Newport site. The Army plans to use the "supercritical water oxidation" technology to treat the byproduct of neutralized VX nerve agent at the Newport depot, mixing it with water and oxygen. According to the NRC committee report, some materials used in the Corpus Christi reactor testing the method haven't worked properly, and some routine operations have failed. The report also says there is "no evidence that stakeholders have been informed of problems encountered in the development of (the technology) or the possibility that an alternative treatment technology may have to be found." The report says, "Because of these problems, data critical to confirming the design and predicting the efficiency of operations for the full-scale reactor may not be available in time to meet the current schedule for construction and operation of the Newport Chemical Agent Disposal Facility." Herlinger said the Army informed the NRC committee in September about problems occurring in the pilot phase, and some of the problems have since been addressed. "We have better data, now. What they have is old data," she said.

Washington Times February 2, 2001 Inside The Ring By Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough Iran helps Libya Iranian missile technicians have begun installing equipment in Libya to help the government of Moammar Gadhafi produce more advanced Scud missiles, according to U.S. intelligence officials. A U.S. intelligence report from Oct. 30 said the Iranians were spotted working on a factory that is part of Libya's Al Fatah missile program. The Iranian assistance was provided by the Shahid Hemmet Industrial Group, a major component of Iran's government-run ballistic missile program. The Iranian-Libyan cooperation is the latest sign Libya is moving ahead with upgrading its missiles, and that Iran is becoming a missile supplier, not just an importer. The State Department last year protested China's sale of missile technology to Libya. The transfers were first reported in The Washington Times. A Pentagon report on arms proliferation issued last month said Libya is "improving" its missiles since the suspension of U.N. economic sanctions in April 1999. The report said Tripoli has obtained missile goods from Serbia and India, and wants to acquire or build North Korea's 620-mile-range Nodong missile. "Should Libya succeed with its effort to purchase or perhaps develop such a missile, the missile could threaten Egypt, Israel, NATO countries in southern Europe and U.S. forces in the Mediterranean region," the report said.

Boston Globe February 3, 2001 Pg. 1 Bioterrorism Threat Finds New Urgency By John Donnelly, Globe Staff WASHINGTON - Suddenly, the threat of bioterrorism on American soil doesn't seem so far-fetched anymore. A series of anthrax hoaxes nearly shut down Canada's immigration department this week. At the same time, a blue- ribbon US commission reported that an attack using nuclear, chemical, or biological agents was likely in the United States in the next 25 years. In Cambridge, a biopharmaceutical company races toward developing a new smallpox vaccine - in case a terrorist releases the deadly virus. And inside the elegant wood-paneled lecture hall of the National Academy of Sciences in Washington, a group of distinguished scientists and doctors yesterday discussed the possible outcomes of a smallpox attack. The death toll, they grimly calculated, could be in the millions. The threat has grown along with the exponential rise in hoaxes, hundreds of them now - including one in Western Massachusetts last month - as well as the knowledge that several groups or nations have been plotting to use biological, chemical, or nuclear warfare. Perhaps the most chilling example was the revelation a few years ago of the Soviet Union's stockpiling of anthrax during the Cold War, a cache that is believed still to exist. ''Unfortunately, a chemical or a biological terrorist attack is something we are convinced we are more likely to see in the next 10 to 20 years than not,'' said Warren B. Rudman of New Hampshire, a former US senator and cochairman of the Commission on National Security, which called for a Cabinet-level agency to coordinate the defense against an act of terror. The planned response has shifted over the last two years, moving beyond police and the military into the realm of public health to include teams of emergency room doctors and nurses, lab technicians, and infectious disease specialists. And yet, specialists say, areas of the country still lack even the slightest protection against a terrorist strike. ''The main focus of our concern is the local health establishment,'' said Joshua Lederberg, professor emeritus at the Rockefeller University in New York and chairman of yesterday's Forum on Emerging Infections at the Institute of Medicine. ''The question we are facing is, `What levels of insanity do we have to prepare for?''' To counter an outbreak of smallpox, the first infectious disease afflicting humans ever eradicated, the preparation is immense. Populations are no longer vaccinated, making them frighteningly exposed to a virus that killed 300 million people in the last century. ''To use smallpox is to attack the world,'' said Lederberg. ''It may start in New York, go to Italy, and move up to Baghdad - all in 48 hours.'' The United States stockpiles only about 15.4 million doses of the smallpox vaccine, enough for 7 percent of the population, a fact that spurred the government five months ago to award a $343 million contract to Acambis Inc. of Cambridge, Mass., and Cambridge, England, to produce 40 million doses of the vaccine. ''We are having to make a completely new vaccine,'' Thomas P. Monath, Acambis's vice president of research and medical affairs, said yesterday. ''Therein lies the rub: You don't make this overnight.'' Monath said the company hopes to win licensing of the new vaccine by 2004 and produce the doses by 2005. On another front, Massachusetts health officials recently upgraded communications systems that connect emergency room doctors, laboratory specialists, the FBI, fire departments, and police in the event of a terrorist attack. During the last year, the state received $1.2 million in federal funds to improve lab facilities, information systems, and surveillance for an attack. ''We had a hoax situation a couple of weeks ago in Western Massachusetts that happened in the evening, on a weekend, and we immediately got a team from the state lab there,'' said Ralph Timperi, director of the Massachusetts State Laboratory Institute and a member of the US Centers for Disease Control steering committee on bioterrorism. ''The hoax involved an envelope containing powder. There was a note claiming it contained anthrax, but it turned out to be baking soda,'' Timperi said, declining to give further details. However, published reports said a letter was mailed to a Greenfield official and similar threats against two other Greenfield residents and a Northfield resident are being investigated. ''What was important was that we had a team on the road immediately,'' said Timperi. ''The FBI met us at the site. This is the kind of thing that is beginning to happen routinely.'' Not all states, though, can mobilize so quickly. Donald A. Henderson, director of the Center for Civilian Biodefense Studies at Johns Hopkins University, said researchers last year checked each state to learn whether it had a health department hot line to coordinate the response to an attack. ''In 10 to 15 states, people said, `A hot line? What's that?' They had nothing. Another 10 or so said they had them but there were problems,'' Henderson said. ''One state had a 24/7 hotline, but we had to leave a message and didn't get a response for three days.'' Henderson and other public health specialists said while many states have made marked improvements in the last year, much more needs to be done. ''We have not in the medical and health profession come to grips with the reality that this could happen, and if it did, that we need to move quickly,'' Henderson said. In the meantime, all the work on getting ready for bioterrorism has had some other positive benefits. Timperi said the preparation helped in the reaction to the outbreak of the West Nile virus last year.

New York Times February 4, 2001 Pg. 1 U.S. Tries Defusing Allies' Opposition To Missile Defense By Michael R. Gordon MUNICH, Feb. 3 — Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, the first senior Bush administration official to visit Europe, tried today to defuse opposition to the administration's antimissile plans by offering to help European nations and other allies to deploy missile defenses. But while Mr. Rumsfeld assured European allies that the United States would consult with them on its antimissile plan, he did not address in any detail one of the Europeans' principal concerns: how an antimissile defense can be reconciled with strategic arms control and a productive relationship with Moscow. "The United States intends to develop and deploy a missile defense designed to defend our people and forces against a limited ballistic missile attack, and is prepared to assist friends and allies threatened by missile attack to deploy such defenses," Mr. Rumsfeld said in a speech to a conference of top political officials and defense specialists. Mr. Rumsfeld underscored that the Bush administration was determined to proceed with an antimissile defense of United States territory even if it could not overcome the objections from the Russians, the Chinese and the Europeans. He described a missile defense as nothing less than a moral imperative. Missile defense was hardly the only sensitive issue today. The European Union's move to develop a 60,000-member rapid reaction force by 2003 has drawn a wary reaction from the Bush administration. While not opposing the initiative, Mr. Rumsfeld was clearly skeptical, and stressed the need for great care to ensure that the European Union does not detract from NATO. Mr. Bush's fatigue with the Balkan peacekeeping mission also remains a continuing source of anxiety in Europe. Mr. Rumsfeld said little on the subject today, saying that the matter was under review at the White House. The United States and Europe also have to decide how to proceed with NATO expansion, a topic that greatly worries the Russians. But as European leaders have challenged the missile defense plan in recent weeks, the issue has risen to the fore. The main European concern is that deployment of an antimissile shield will undermine the framework of nuclear arms control and spoil relations with the Russians. Or as President Jacques Chirac of France put it last month, an American missile defense "cannot fail to relaunch the arms race in the world." Mr. Chirac has not been the only critic. Rudolf Scharping, the German defense minister, has questioned the technological feasibility of the missile defense plan, and on a recent visit to Moscow urged that arms control agreements be preserved. The Russians have sought to stoke the Europeans' fears, warning that they may abandon the strategic arms constraints they have negotiated with Washington if the Bush administration abandons the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty and deploys an antimissile system. The head of the Russian Security Council, Sergei Ivanov, is due to address the conference on Sunday, raising the specter of an American-Russian tussle for European opinion. In his attempts to sway European opinion, Mr. Rumsfeld presented several arguments. He suggested that antimissile defenses could be reconciled with some arms control treaties, avoiding the bluntness of comments he made in Congressional hearings — and even on the plane flying to the conference — that the ABM treaty was an anachronism. Mr. Rumsfeld also sought to turn long-standing European concerns about American isolationism or military intervention into arguments for missile defenses. Without a missile shield, he suggested, future American leaders might turn isolationist in a crisis and shrink from confronting a missile- wielding third world aggressor. Alternatively, he warned, America might have to carry out a pre-emptive strike against a rogue nation. "A system of defense need not be perfect, but the American people must not be left completely defenseless," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "It is not so much a technical question as a matter of a president's constitutional responsibility. Indeed, it is, in many respects, a moral issue." Mr. Rumsfeld's case was helped by Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, who told the meeting that there was a general consensus in Washington that some sort of missile defense should be deployed. "The question from an American point of view is not whether we will have a national missile defense but when and how," Senator Lieberman said. "This is not a technologically feasible program now. We are some years away." Senator John McCain and former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger also called for missile defenses, adding to the sense of inevitability. The European response to Mr. Rumsfeld's proposal today was respectful, if restrained. Joschka Fischer, the German foreign minister, appeared to speak for most of his fellow European foreign ministers when he said that European nations were glad that Washington wanted to consult with them on the antimissile plan but that a missile defense must not come at the expense of arms control. That is a difficult balancing act that neither the Americans nor the Europeans were prepared to discuss in detail. In general, neither European nor American officials seemed inclined to quarrel openly today about missile defense or the European Union's rapid reaction initiative. "The United States has made it clear it intends to develop a missile defense system," said George Robertson, the NATO secretary general. "We have to take the sincerity and commitment of the United States seriously." European officials cling to the hope that an American missile defense might be compatible with a modified version of the ABM treaty. Mr. Rumsfeld was careful not to exclude that option, but it may well be put to the test once the scale of the administration's plans are known. Former President Bill Clinton proposed limited defense, involving 100 interceptors and a battle management radar in Alaska, which he planned to reconcile with an amended ABM treaty. There is no reason to think, however, that the Bush administration will settle for such a limited system, which was still too much for the Russians. Mr. Rumsfeld, a former American ambassador to NATO, has only been in office for two weeks, and the Bush administration as a whole has not yet had time to develop comprehensive missile defense proposals. Still, Mr. Rumsfeld's offer to help the Europeans and other allies deploy defenses raised a number of tricky questions, such as which land- based, sea-based or space-based systems might be used. As a result, it is impossible to say how long it would take to develop a system, what it would cost or to what extent it would require modification of the ABM treaty. Mr. Rumsfeld did not say how much the Europeans would have to pay for antimissile defenses of their territory — no small concern for a continent whose military spending has lagged — and what Washington might contribute. Mr. Rumsfeld has been something of a hard-liner on arms control. While Bush administration officials have previously talked of making deep, even unilateral cuts in the American nuclear arsenal, he had no specific arms control proposals to offer Moscow today. Yet he insisted that the Russians were mistaken to perceive an antimissile defenses as quest for strategic advantage. He said a limited American defense could not neutralize the Russian nuclear arsenal, and he suggested that the Russians understood that but were pretending not to understand to build opposition to the American plan in Europe. "The idea of an arms race between the United States and Russia ought not to be front and center in our thinking," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "It is something that is a leftover, a relic in our thinking."

Bloomberg.com February 4, 2001 Pentagon Mismanaged Chemical And Bio Defense Team, Audit Says By Tony Capaccio Washington -- The U.S. Defense Department has mismanaged a three-year-old program to set up specially trained National Guard teams capable of responding to nuclear, chemical and biological weapons attacks in the 50 states, according to the Pentagon Inspector General. Efforts to certify the first 10 teams by April 2000 were sidetracked by inadequate guidance and training and by ineffective or potentially unsafe equipment, the Inspector General wrote in a report to be released early this week and obtained by Bloomberg News. The audit is the first comprehensive look at ``Civil Support Teams'' since the program was unveiled in May 1998. It comes less than a week after a bipartisan U.S. Commission on National Security recommended creating a new ``Homeland Security Agency'' to coordinate defense against domestic attacks and expanding the Guard's role. ``If we get this wrong, the consequences of an incident could be disastrous,''' said Gordon Adams, director of Security Policy Programs at George Washington University. ``If it is this difficult to get one piece of `homeland defense' right, we need to be pretty cautious about creating whole new bureaucracies,'' as the commission proposed, Adams said. The 59-page Inspector General's report, signed by David Steensma, deputy assistant for auditing, outlines a chain of management decisions that were flawed from the start. The result was ``the program had slipped significantly and none of the teams were fully operational and none of the 10 teams had received certification.'' Pentagon Response Cheryl Irwin, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said she was unaware of the report and could not comment. Senior Pentagon officials who responded to the report in writing, however, raised no major objections and said many of the Inspector General's concerns were being addressed. ``The importance of these teams and the insights regarding the critical shortfalls identified in the report have resulted in series of actions,'' wrote Charles Cragin, principal deputy assistant secretary for reserve affairs. The actions include a review of the entire program, including closer scrutiny of the paperwork submitted by the first 10 teams, Cragin wrote. The management office responsible for most of the problems the audit identified will be abolished, Cragin wrote. Still, ``the audit describes a very serious problem,'' said Representative Christopher Shays, a Connecticut Republican, who chairs the House Government Reform national security subcommittee. ``I find it ironic that just as the Commission on National Security is recommending `the National Guard be given homeland security as a primary mission' we learn that current efforts to train and equip state Civil Support Teams have been ill- conceived, badly managed and wasteful,'' Shays said. Cost Growth The mismanagement has financial consequences. Cost estimates have risen to $10.9 million to equip a single team versus the original estimate of a total of $18.2 million to equip as many as 54 teams, according to the audit. The initial teams are to be located in Natick, Massachusetts; Scotia, New York; Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania; Marietta, Georgia; Peoria, Illinois; Austin Texas; Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri; Aurora, Colorado; Los Alamitos, California; and Tacoma, Washington. Seventeen additional teams were to be certified as ready for operations early this year, Cragin said last year. Each 22-member team, drawn from state National Guard units, is to reach the site of an attack within four hours of being notified. On arrival, teams enter a contaminated area in a specially equipped Ford van to gather air, soil and other samples and electronically transmit them to laboratories for thorough analysis. The team is to coordinate its response with state, local and federal law enforcement agencies. Readiness, Equipment Woes The process has gone wrong from the start because a special ``Consequence Management Program Integration Office'' failed to adequately coordinate with the U.S. Army or Joint Chiefs of Staff to develop the guidance or ``doctrine'' that forms the rationale for training and equipping units, the audit said. The program office, for example, issued certification criteria requiring the teams meet only the Army's minimal standard for unit readiness -- a C-3 rating indicating the team would be ``marginally'' combat ready. ``All ten teams have reported a C-3 rating and as of January 22, nine teams have submitted a request for certification,'' according to the audit. Congress in a 1999 law directed the teams achieve the Army's highest readiness status, or C-1, said the audit. ``Training programs and materials were not sufficiently identified, developed and approved,'' the report said. ``Training was inadequate.'' In addition, ``safety concerns with the fielding of untested equipment'' were raised by team personnel, the audit said. ``Commanders and personnel lack confidence in the unknown, untested and unsubstantiated reliability of the equipment that they were issued.'' Team members, for example, raised questions about a combination gas mask and air-purifying respirator they had been issued because the gear was not originally designed to function together. The audit quotes one unnamed team commander as saying the mask combination ```probably would work; I'm just not willing to bet my life on it.'' The Pentagon program office fielded the untested mask anyway. The teams have decided not to attach the respirator ``because the combination was untested, resulting in further degradation of their mission capability,'' the audit said. One safety issue involved one of the team's most important pieces of equipment -- Ford Motor Co. vans the Pentagon modified. The $400,000 vans are equipped with filtration systems designed to protect personnel as they collect samples in contaminated areas. There is no way to fully decontaminate the van's filtration system after exposure to a contaminant because of design flaws, audit said. The van also ``does not provide adequate physical space for the currently designated components or laboratory operations conducted by two people wearing chemical protective suits,'' the audit said. For example, a florescent microscope and associated gear for analyzing chemical samples, needs five electrical outlets. The vans have only three. The microscopes are now to be used in a tent outside the vehicle, connected by extension cords and surge protectors.

Defense News February 5, 2001 Pg. 4 Congress To Concentrate On U.S. ‘Homeland’ By Robert Holzer, Defense News Staff Writer WASHINGTON — Congress is crafting legislation and preparing to hold hearings on the key recommendations of a bipartisan commission assessing the nation’s future overall national security posture. Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, told Defense News Feb. 1 he is developing legislation based on recommendations from the United States Commission on National Security/21st Century’s report. Also, both the Senate Armed Services and Judiciary committees are expected to hold hearings on the commission’s recommendations this month, Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., chairman of the Armed Services emerging threats subcommittee, said Jan. 31. "The work speaks for itself," Thornberry said Jan. 31. "Now the challenge is how do you make this happen. The more you look at this issue, we are not really structured the right way, and changes have to be made." The commission unveiled its final report Jan. 31 here. It contains more than 50 recommendations that, if implemented, would represent the most comprehensive overhaul of the nation’s security infrastructure in more than 50 years. "We have attempted to provide new solutions, new processes and new laws to adapt to the threat," said former Democratic Sen. Gary Hart, co-chairman of the commission. "This task has not been undertaken for more than half a century, since the establishment of the National Security Act of 1947." However, unlike reports from many previous commissions, whose recommendations were quickly shelved, this latest effort appears to be gaining momentum, particularly in Congress. "I give [the commission] a lot of credit, they really touched base with Congress" and kept members informed on the commission’s recommendations, said Steven Nider, director of the defense working group at the Progressive Policy Institute here. Commission co-chairs Hart and former Republican Sen. Warren Rudman plan to brief senior officials in the administration of President George W. Bush on the report’s contents, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell and Condolezza Rice, Bush’s national security adviser, said Hank Scharpenberg, chief of staff of the commission. "No matter how dramatic or how radical some of these recommendations sound, we have a moral obligation" to assess and debate their merits, said Roberts, the subcommittee chairman. The creation of a National Homeland Security Agency would cut across parts of his subcommittee’s jurisdiction, as well as the committees of Transportation, Commerce, Judiciary and Intelligence. Roberts plans to hold hearings on several elements of the commission’s findings, said Betsy Holahan, spokeswoman for Roberts. Hearings may be held within the next month. Key recommendations proffered by the commission include: *the creation of the National Homeland Defense Agency to direct the myriad entities now charged with overseeing bits of this mission today; *reshaping the State Department along regional lines; *focusing more of the nation’s attention on improving science and technology education; *revamping the National Security Council’s functions; and *reshaping the Pentagon’s acquisition processes. "A lot of members of Congress have an unease over our ability to defend the homeland," but it is a broad subject difficult for members "to get our arms around," Thornberry said Feb. 1. "This report provides good focus," he added. Unlike prior commissions, the Hart-Rudman panel is not immediately out of business, said Scharpenberg, but will remain in existence through July to aid Congress or the Bush administration in explaining recommendations or pushing the reforms forward. "It is now [time for] implementation," Scharpenberg said.

Making Chemical Weapons Is No Easy Task Combating Such an Attack Would Prove Equally Difficult By Vernon Loeb Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, February 5, 2001 With U.S. intelligence fixated on Saudi extremist Osama bin Laden and the chilling possibility that he has been testing chemical weapons on animals, policymakers in the Bush administration and members of Congress would do well to consider the true difficulties involved in making chemical weapons…. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19900-2001Feb2.html

Korea Times February 5, 2001 Seoul's Resounding 'No' To NMD By Chang Sung-min With the inauguration of U.S. President George W. Bush, all eyes and ears are being riveted on a new U.S. policy toward North Korea. At this juncture, we have no choice but to take note of the proposed National Missile Defense (NMD) system, which is likely to influence Bush's international strategy. The envisioned NMD is likely to have implications to the political situation not only in Korea but also in Northeast Asia. Though Bush administration declared its intention to move ahead with the NMD, it has yet to provide exact timetable on the deployment of the NMD due to adamant oppositions both in the U.S. and around the world. With the transfer of power, Democrats who lent their lukewarm support to the NMD are likely to go back to their own principle of opposing the ``Star War.'' The move will place a serious burden on Bush, who has to exert leadership in an effort to heal the wounds of national division stemming from the Presidential election last year. Yet, the NMD is an issue that cannot be easily scrapped, as it was President George W. Bush's Presidential campaign commitment. In addition, his connection to the military industrial complex works in a way that forces President Bush to move forward the NMD. In that sense, it is safe to say that the NMD is a `hot potato' to Bush. Not only Russia and China but also European allies of the U.S. are vehemently opposed to the NMD as they fear the military project will disrupt the international nuclear balance, which will touch off a consumptive arms race. The NMD could also raise the specter of 20th century in the Northeast Asia, which forms a structure of new Cold War. First of all, the new Cold War will begin with the tension between the U.S. and China. China's nuclear deterrent will be lost if more than 100 intercepting missiles are deployed as China only deploys 30 nuclear tipped missiles. In that sense, it will become evident that China will desperately push for the sophistication and enlargement of missile attack system, which in turn will touch off an arms race in Japan. China's move will be like adding fuel to the fire to Japan, which is increasing its military muscle by introducing air refueling aircraft and large convoy ship. In a general perspective, it cannot be ruled out that the NMD project could saw the emergence of new trilateral alliance among North Korea, China and Russia. The push ahead with the NMD is expected to have negative implications to the bilateral relations between North Korea and the U.S., and by large extension the inter-Korean relations. The litmus test of improved Pyongyang-Washington ties is the missile negotiations. According to New York Times article on Dec. 30 last year, North Korea agreed not to produce, export and develop the missile, but it has yet to address the issue of how to verify the missile program and how to deal with missiles it has already produced. The missile negotiations, however, are highly likely to hit snag, as Bush administration will go to the negotiating table in a way that would not jeopardize its cause of developing the NMD and Theater Missile Defense system. If the negotiations come to nothing, it will put North Korea further away from its desire to be lifted from the list of countries sponsoring terrorism, which in turn will present a decisive roadblock to North Korean leader Kim Jong il's ``New Thought'' and Pyongyang's reform and openness demonstrated by Kim's recent visit to Shanghai. It's because that whether the North's reform and openness will succeed hinges on how many investments the West will make toward the North. In that sense, we cannot rule out the possibility that the North, which recently shows signs of reform, go back to its closed-door policy. In addition, it seems that two Koreas' efforts to establish peace regime and seek arms reduction, which are likely take more concrete shape on the occasion of Kim's visit to Seoul, could be undermined. What is worrying is that the establishment of NMD could be linked to the reduction of U.S. troops stationed abroad. Progressive Democrats are cautious on the U.S. Forces in Korea (USFK) while conservative Republicans, including Jess Helms, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, called for the withdrawal of the USFK. This indicates that the NMD, which is aimed at safeguarding the U.S.proper, coupled with close-door policy could lead to the pullout of the USFK. At this juncture, we have to take note on New York Times article on June 30 last year that to complete the NMD system, the U.S. has to construct two radar facilities in Asia, possibly in Korea and Japan. The Korean government cannot but make its position crystal clear on the NMD if Bush administration initiates the NMD program in earnest. Korea will face a catch-22, as its participation in the NMD runs counter to its national interest amid thawing inter- Korean rapprochement. Korea's direct opposition to the NMD will also run counter to its national interest as long as the U.S. does not change its mind on the development of the NMD. I think no other time is better for Korea to make its view clear on the NMD as Bush administration's international strategy are being drawn up and comprehensive review of pending issues are underway. My understanding dictates that Korea needs to signal that it does not favor the NMD through diverse diplomatic channels, including Korea-U.S.policy consultations, seminars, conference and contribution of articles. The article was contributed by Rep. Chang Sung-min of the ruling Millennium Democratic Party and a member of National Assembly Foreign Affairs-Unification Committee.

Defense Week February 5, 2001 Pg. 1 Air Force Okayed ICBM Upgrade Despite Unproven Accuracy By John M. Donnelly Just over a year ago, the Air Force okayed a $1.9 billion production plan for a new nuclear missile guidance system, even though the system hadn't been tested enough to prove that it met the accuracy requirement, Defense Week has learned. The upgraded Minuteman III ICBMs may yet turn out to be accurate, but there isn't enough data to prove it yet, the Pentagon's former top tester says. The Air Force says the NS-50 guidance system is accurate, but acknowledges that more tests will bring greater "statistical confidence." Despite the uncertainty about a "key performance parameter," Boeing, which makes the NS-50, has begun building more than one-third of the 652 required guidance units. The unresolved questions about the Minuteman III upgrade's accuracy have not been previously reported. The NS- 50 guidance sets are the latest example of a military system being built whether it has passed muster or not. The General Accounting Office, in a Jan. 17 report on Defense Department management, reiterated its longstanding criticism of the Pentagon's tendency to buy before it flies, or at least before it flies enough. The Air Force is replacing not just the guidance but also the propulsion in its 500 Minuteman III ICBMs so that they'll last until at least 2020. The requirement for the guidance upgrade is to extend the missile's life without degrading the accuracy. The whole upgrade costs $5 billion. If START II takes effect, those Minuteman IIIs will be the only land-based missiles in the U.S. strategic arsenal. In November 1999, the Air Force approved the NS-50 for production, although the system had undergone just two flight tests. The system's actual accuracy in the tests is classified. But the former top tester, Philip Coyle, argued that two tests weren't enough and convinced the Air Force to do more. Coyle did find the system "operationally effective," with several reservations, and so he didn't stand in the way of the $1.9 billion production go-ahead. Instead, Coyle convinced the Air Force to delay another decision—one to start a $1.8 billion production of a propulsion upgrade—until more tests were done. The propulsion decision was moved from this month to September. The next test of the Minuteman III's new guidance system is scheduled for Wednesday, with another set for June. Defense Department officials say that the two flight tests which had been done prior to the November 1999 approval to produce the NS-50 guidance system were enough to inspire the confidence needed to go ahead with the contracts. Coyle, the tester, told Defense Week in a statement that building the systems that early in testing was risky, but the risk was "moderate." Yet he also said in a written statement that "an informed judgement" couldn't be made about the system's accuracy until more tests were done. The issue is the amount of testing, not how well the NS-50 did in the five tests to date (three came after the November 1999 production decision). The actual accuracy performance of the NS-50 in these tests could not be ascertained because the information is classified. The initial cost to start building the guidance is $1.9 billion, but if it doesn't work, the entire $5 billion project is put at risk. In addition to the $1.9 billion cost of NS-50 production, its development cost $530 million and the propulsion improvements add another $2.6 billion—for the $5 billion total for an extended-life Minuteman III force, the Air Force says. `Uncertainties' remain "The Air Force contends that the demonstrated performance of the NS-50 guidance system is representative of results obtained from the (predecessor) NS-20 guidance system over the life of Minuteman III," said Coyle, until last month the Pentagon's Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, or DOT&E. "The limited statistical confidence from the five tests to date is not sufficient to support such a determination. That is why DOT&E is asking for further accuracy data from missile flights. ... DOT&E hopes that we will be able to make an informed judgement of NS-50 accuracy when we have the final results from the ... additional flights." Brent Collins, until last month the Air Force's top acquisition official for space systems, said in a statement: "Demonstrated performance in the five flight tests to date shows the NS-50 is consistent with the (previous) NS-20 family of guidance units. However, the statistical confidence from five tests is limited and will be increased as more flight tests are conducted. ... To date, the field performance has been excellent, accumulating over 50,000 hours in the field. ..." Collins' assessment of the system's actual performance in the five tests was guarded: "The specific accuracy requirements are classified. We can say that, to date, the small sample size of data collected does not indicate that the NS-50 electronics upgrade has degraded the Minuteman III accuracy." Asked to explain how he could find the NS-50 operationally effective yet say the Air Force doesn't have enough data to make an informed decision about its accuracy, Coyle said testing the NS-50 on the ground and analyzing simulations contributed to an understanding of the system's accuracy, apart from the flight tests. All these tests supported "favorable conclusions at moderate risk," he said. Leaping, then looking The MV-22 Osprey tiltrotor is the most high-profile weapons system of many that are today on the verge of, or in the midst of, production though they haven't in some cases been tested thoroughly in realistic conditions doing what they were built to do. The perceived urgency of threats, and the need to field systems faster to keep pace with commercial technology, may appear to justify compressing development. But the effect may be the opposite, analysts say: Prematurely producing unproven systems typically delays fielding dates, increases costs and hurts readiness. In 1997, the Air Force, in a move that signaled the growing privatization of the military, turned over responsibility for maintaining the Air Force's ICBM programs to TRW in a 15-year deal worth $3.4 billion. Boeing is replacing the guidance under a subcontract with TRW. Asked how the Air Force can maintain leverage over the contractors to produce a guidance system that works when the checks are already flowing, the Air Force's Collins said: "The contractor's profit is based on how well they satisfy the performance requirements and is a strong motivation."

International Herald Tribune February 5, 2001 Pg. 1 U.S. Intends To Put Anti-Missile Shield Around The World By Joseph Fitchett MUNICH -- The Bush administration will move ahead with a controversial missile defense system, one that is even more ambitious and far reaching than the proposal put on hold by Bill Clinton in the last year of his presidency. The confirmation of the Bush administration's determination - its first major initiative on international security - was delivered by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld at a weekend conference on security in Munich. From Mr. Rumsfeld's terse description, the administration intends to create something amounting to a global defense system - probably a mobile one – that could protect the United States as well as American armed forces in such distant regions as South Korea or the Gulf. European governments, which in the past have echoed Russia and China in objecting to U.S. missile defense, will seek urgent consultations with Washington now that the plan seems bound to go ahead, allied officials said after hearing about the Bush team's intentions. Similarly, Mr. Rumsfeld implied, the interceptor missiles could be deployed in Europe or in Asia to protect allied nations that otherwise would have no defense against even one or two ballistic missiles - from the Middle East or North Korea, for example. By expanding the system's coverage in this way, the administration of President George W. Bush clearly hopes to curb complaints from allies that missile defense is an umbrella for the United States that would be liable to make Americans seek security in isolationism. Mr. Rumsfeld, speaking at the Munich Conference on Security Policy, an annual meeting attended by a score of defense ministers and 200 other specialists, said Saturday, "The United States intends to develop and deploy a missile defense designed to defend our people and our forces against a limited missile attack and is prepared to assist friends and allies threatened by missile attack to deploy such defenses." The Clinton administration's plan had been called "national missile defense," but Mr. Rumsfeld pointedly did not use the word "national" when describing the Bush team's approach. He did not bring up any circumstances or conditions that might throw doubt over U.S. determination to proceed with the program. Previous programs have had to meet such criteria as the performance of technology, costs and arms control treaties signed with Moscow. Underlining the new approach in Washington, Senator Joseph Lieberman, the Democratic nominee for vice president last year, said at the conference that U.S. missile defense was "not a question of whether, only when and how." Russia and China, which have threatened to build more weapons if the United States adopts missile defenses, were not mentioned by Mr. Rumsfeld in his speech. But the defense secretary said afterward said that Moscow and Beijing did not need to worry about a system that would be designed to handle "handfuls" of incoming missiles, not the full arsenal of a major nuclear power. Still - "limited" in the sense of being designed to intercept a few missiles launched by a so-called rogue state, by terrorists or by accident - the proposed U.S. system would extend far the beyond the previous "national missile defense," one that would have been designed to cover part of the continental United States. For the moment, the United States does not have any proven technology to protect even limited parts of U.S. territory against incoming warheads, especially a strategic ballistic missile traveling at supersonic speed. In tests last year, failures led to the Clinton administration's decision to shelve its program for a national system centered on new radars and interceptor missiles in Alaska and Europe. But the Bush administration, U.S. officials have said, will authorize a research program that examines a much wider range of technologies, including sensors in space - an element banned by an arm control treaty that the Clinton administration was reluctant to breach. It is unclear whether Washington will press ahead with the old program while perhaps seeking to mesh it with more advanced systems. One new idea involves trying to spot a missile at launching, perhaps early enough to destroy it in the boost phase, when the missile provides a relatively easy target. The current program against long range missiles might also be meshed with so-called tactical anti-missile systems that are designed to intercept short-range nuclear missiles. These systems can be operated from warships, so they offer rapid mobility in a crisis and could help neutralize Scud type missiles, like those of Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries. All of these questions - the mix of technologies, the political impact for the allies of a shift in Western nuclear strategy, the reactions of Russia and China and the potential industrial opportunities for allied countries to participate - will now be broached in U.S. consultations with European governments in the coming weeks, officials said, once Mr. Bush installs more top appointees in the Pentagon and the State Department. Mr. Rumsfeld, the first Bush cabinet member to visit Europe, encouraged the allies to seek ways to benefit from the U.S. program to tighten Western solidarity and increase their own protection against missile threats across the Mediterranean. "We will consult with you," the defense secretary said. The allies, Mr. Rumsfeld added, ought to agree that European nations "share similar threats" to the ones alarming the United States. But he offered no guarantee that Washington would refrain from proceeding with missile defense unilaterally if the allies refused to join in. European leaders have so far largely shunned domestic debate about missile defense because they felt that the program had only half-hearted support from the Clinton administration. The center-left governments in Britain, France and Germany worry that missile defense will lead to new tensions with Moscow and put fresh pressure on military budgets that are already strained. European leaders' hopes that the missile defense issue might go away if it was ignored long enough seem to have evaporated after the exchanges in Munich, British and French officials said. The German chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder, said, "We Europeans place great value on frequent exchanges with the American administration on plans for missile defense." Sounding as if he anticipated trouble from arms control advocates among his Social Democratic Party and its coalition ally, the Greens, Mr. Schroeder called for German debate on missile defense "that takes into account the entire width and breadth of German American relations and does not make the mistake of concentrating on this question alone." Russian Warns of Arms Race A senior Russian security official said Sunday that plans by the Bush administration to deploy an anti-missile system would undermine world stability and lead to a new arms race in outer space, Reuters reported from Munich. "The destruction of the ABM Treaty will result in the annihilation of the whole structure of strategic stability and create prerequisites for a new arms race, including one in outer space," the official, Sergei Ivanov, secretary of Russia's security council, said at the conference on security. Military analysts say the 1972 Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty between Washington and Moscow would be breached by the new U.S. system if it were deployed. Mr. Ivanov offered talks on deep cuts in strategic nuclear weapons if the Bush administration abandoned its plans for missile defense.

He added: "Restraining the so-called rogue nations - to use the American terminology - may be carried out more effectively from the point of view of both expense and consequences by means of a common political effort. The situation in North Korea is the obvious example because the situation a year ago seemed much worse than today."

U.S. Homeland Defense Policy Mired in Competing Interests by John Stanton Federal resources that were spent during the past five years on programs to defend the United States against potential weapons-of-mass-destruction attacks have not resulted in any substantial capabilities to cope with such threats, according to government, industry and independent experts…. http://nationaldefense.ndia.org/article.cfm?Id=420

Washington Times February 6, 2001 Pg. 1 Europe Warms To Missile Defense By David R. Sands, The Washington Times The Bush administration's missile defense plan may not prove as tough a sell in Europe as expected. While China and Russia remain staunchly opposed to the idea, cracks in the once-solid skepticism of NATO's European allies have been widening noticeably since President Bush took office. Javier Solana, the former NATO secretary-general who now sets security policy for the European Union, told reporters in Washington yesterday that the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty — which forbids the kind of system Mr. Bush says he is determined to build — "is not the Bible." "For us Europeans, what we would like is for the major powers to [reach a deal] by consensus if possible," he said. But he added that the United States has the "right to deploy" such a system if it concludes it will enhance its national security. And Lord George Robertson, Mr. Solana's successor as head of NATO, told a news conference in Brussels yesterday that "there has to be an acceptance [among U.S. allies] that the decision on missile defense was made in the U.S. presidential election." Analysts said the Bush administration deserves credit in its first weeks for skillfully changing the debate over national missile defense (NMD), promising closer consultation with allies over the effect of the system while leaving no doubt that the United States is moving ahead with testing and deployment. "I don't think the Clinton administration really took a proactive role in pushing missile defense," said W. Bruce Weinrod, a senior Pentagon official under President George Bush in the early 1990s. "They either didn't explain the idea or explained it in a halfhearted way." Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, in his first visit to Europe since taking over at the Pentagon, left little doubt in an address in Munich on Saturday that a U.S. missile defense system would be built, whatever the international repercussions. Mr. Rumsfeld also argued that the United States' NMD concept was defensive and would strengthen trans-Atlantic ties. "The Bush people have been doing a very good job of making missile defense seem inevitable to the Europeans," said Clay Clemens, an analyst on European politics at the College of William and Mary. "The attitude right now is a lot less than enthusiasm but a fair deal more than resignation, and that's a shift," he said. Kim Holmes, a foreign policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, said he found during a recent European tour that opposition from officials and analysts in Europe weakened appreciably when the "national" was dropped from NMD discussions. "If it's pitched as a system that doesn't leave the allies out, they tend to like it a lot more," he said. He also said the Bush administration's evident determination to proceed had robbed critics of a crucial debating point. "You immediately jump past the whole issue of deployment, where the Russians and Chinese will try anything to delay the process or create problems," he said. Already, the opposition Conservatives in Britain and the Christian Social Union in Germany have come out in support of the U.S. missile defense plan, particularly if the proposed shield can be extended to Europe. Although neither party appears poised to take power, the fact that they have been able to embrace the U.S. idea demonstrates the changing nature of the debate in Europe, Mr. Clemens said. The endorsement by Britain's Conservatives has put the Labor government of Prime Minister Tony Blair in a bind, with national elections widely expected this spring. Mr. Blair and Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, who visits Washington this week, have been forced to reconcile widespread European doubts about the idea with their desire to preserve Britain's "special relationship" with the United States as a new, conservative administration takes power here. Friedbert Pfluger, who chairs the European policy committee for Germany's center-right Christian Democratic Party, said the Bush administration had been much more open in discussing missile defense concepts than its predecessor. "The whole spirit of the discussion is much more sensitive in tone and spirit to European concerns compared to a year ago," said Mr. Pfluger, whose party also recently said it was willing to consider the NMD idea on its merits. The NMD debate in Europe has shifted so quickly that American critics accuse the Bush administration of trying to create a false impression that the battle is over. "Once again, proponents of missile defense are putting the cart before the horse," said John Isaacs, president of the anti-NMD Council for a Livable World. "Rumsfeld is trying to give the illusion that deployment is inevitable, when there is no workable technology ready for development," he said. It remains true that no Western European leader has enthusiastically endorsed the U.S. missile defense plan. Mr. Pfluger said that public sentiment in Europe is largely skeptical of the plan and that most people in Germany aren't ready to abandon the ABM Treaty and other Cold War barriers to missile defenses. "But we have to be open to the idea of escaping the world of deterrence," he said. "Why should deterrence be forever?"

New York Times February 6, 2001 Russia Says U.S. Antimissile Plan Means An Arms Race By Patrick E. Tyler MOSCOW, Feb. 5 — Two days after American officials told their European counterparts that the United States intended to go ahead and develop a national missile shield — but only after extensive consultations — Russia responded today with a sober warning that it is ready to resort to a new arms race to ensure that its strategic rocket forces will not be undermined. At the same time, President Vladimir V. Putin was said to be preparing a diplomatic offensive to meet the leaders of two of the so-called rogue nations whose ballistic missiles are of greatest concern to Washington. President Mohammad Khatami of Iran is expected in Moscow next month for discussions about trade and military cooperation, and diplomats here and in Tehran said the two leaders would discuss ways to control the spread of ballistic missile technology. The United States has expressed longstanding concerns about Russian assistance to Iran's ballistic missile program. Then, in late April, diplomats said, the North Korean leader, Kim Jong Il, is expected to come to Moscow, which would be his longest-distance diplomatic visit to date. Mr. Putin made a surprise visit to the North Korean capital last summer and opened negotiations to persuade Mr. Kim to give up his quest to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile that could threaten Japan and the United States. Mr. Kim has offered to forgo further ballistic missile development in return for Western assistance in launching civilian satellites, but his statements have yet to be set down in any binding accord. As Mr. Putin was preparing his diplomatic moves, Defense Minister Igor D. Sergeyev said today that Russia was making contingency plans to respond to the Bush administration's antimissile plans. He said Russia was not planning a new missile buildup, which it cannot afford, but "asymmetrical" technologies that would penetrate any missile shield. "We had three mighty programs to counteract asymmetrically the national missile defense systems of the United States during the period of Reagan's Star Wars," he said. He told the Interfax news agency that "a lot of money was invested in those programs" before they were abandoned at the end of the cold war. "But we still have them," he added, "and can take them up again." Marshal Sergeyev, the former commander of Russian strategic rocket forces, labeled the American antimissile proposal "son of Star Wars," and predicted, in remarks to the visiting Swedish defense minister, Bjorn von Sydow, that the Bush administration would not be able to persuade its allies to abandon "the entire system of agreements, which has led to strategic stability in the world" and to support American actions that would cause "those agreements to be scrapped." The defense minister's statements and Mr. Putin's diplomacy were another effort by Russia to play on the deep skepticism that already exists in Europe over the United States' determination to rearrange the strategic landscape. An American national missile shield would violate the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, which the Bush administration wants to amend and which Moscow now calls the "cornerstone of strategic stability." Russia is promoting its own proposal to make further deep cuts in the nuclear arsenals, while cooperating with Europe and the United States to develop regional missile defenses that could be brought to bear against threatening states. By signaling his plans to meet the leaders of two of the three nations about which Washington is most concerned, Mr. Putin was positioning himself to play a self-interested role in trying to address the post-cold- war security concerns on which the Bush administration has centered its national security strategy. Russia's diplomatic campaign will play out over several months in advance of the meeting of leaders of the largest industrial countries, in July in Genoa, where Mr. Bush will make a diplomatic debut. Speaking in Munich on Sunday, Mr. Putin's national security assistant, Sergei B. Ivanov, argued that "restraining the so-called rogue nations — to use the American terminology — may be carried out more effectively from the standpoint of both cost and effectiveness by means of a common political effort." He added, "The situation in North Korean is the obvious example, which a year ago seemed much worse than it does today." Mr. Ivanov's remarks followed those on Saturday by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who sought to allay European concerns by offering to help extend any antimissile shield to Europe. He also pledged that the Bush administration would undertake extensive consultations with its allies and with Russia before making any decision to pull out of the 1972 treaty. Though Mr. Rumsfeld seemed satisfied that he had given European leaders a reasoned set of arguments that the United States is seeking no advantage in pursuing missile defenses and that it is determined to be the master of its own security, a number of senior Republican members of Congress worried aloud on the return flight to Washington that the United States was isolating itself while driving Europe and Russia closer together. In Washington today, the former NATO secretary general, Javier Solana, who is now the foreign policy chief of the European Union, said that while the United States had the "right to deploy" an antimissile shield, doing so "has consequences that go far beyond" putting such a system in place. Before meeting Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser to President Bush, Mr. Solana told reporters, "We have to start talking, and I hope whatever is done is beneficial to the alliance and to the stability of the world." Russia has asserted that if the United States ultimately withdraws from the 1972 treaty, all of the strategic arms accords negotiated over the last 30 years will become invalid because they are based on the common principle of prohibiting an arms race in defensive weapons. American officials have repeatedly asserted that an antimissile system of 100 interceptors initially would not be directed at or effective against Russia's arsenal of 3,000 or more strategic delivery systems. But the Russian military establishment continues to express doubt that any American antimissile shield would remain a limited system. Konstantin V. Cherevkov, a senior missile scientist at the Russian Space Academy, wrote last week in a newspaper commentary that "Russia considers the American position deceptive." "There is reason to believe that the fielding of national antiballistic missile infrastructure would allow for a subsequent increase in its capabilities, to a level that would fully block our retaliatory capability," he wrote.