USAF COUNTERPROLIFERATION CENTER

CPC OUTREACH JOURNAL

Maxwell AFB, Alabama

Issue No. 522, 28 August 2006

Articles & Other Documents:

Experts warn of agro-terror In Muted Response To Iran, U.S. And Allies Seek Edge Foes Say Tehran Builds Fast Uranium Centrifuges U.S. Cold War Gift: Iran Nuclear Plant Iran's Islamic Influence In The Mideast Ballistic Missile Defenses Soldiers hone response to civil emergencies U.S. May Curb Iran Court Thwarts 'Atomic Vets' Suits For Info Russia Says It Opposes U.N. Sanctions On Iran S. Korea certain North has nuclear bombs: minister Seoul, Beijing Fear Nuclear Test Japan Accuses 5 Of Exporting Equipment With Nuclear Nuke Test Possible, Pro-Regime Paper Says Uses Rumsfeld Sees Some Progress In Missile Plan U.S. Set For Biggest Missile Defense Test In 18 Months U.S. Plans For Sanctions On Iran Rumsfeld Wants More Missile-Shield Testing Missile Radar Idling In Hawaii

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 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 Jo Ann Eddy, CPC Outreach Editor, at (334) 953-7538 or DSN 493-7538. To subscribe, change e-mail address, or unsubscribe to this journal or to request inclusion on the mailing list for CPC publications, please contact Mrs. Eddy. 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

Atlanta Journal-Constition Experts warn of agro-terror Federal efforts criticized as subcommittee meets in Athens By MIKE TONER The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Published on: 08/25/06 ATHENS — The nation's farms and food supply are highly vulnerable to terrorism and the Department of Homeland Security isn't prepared to deal with the "catastrophic" consequences of an agro-terror attack, Georgia agricultural experts warned a U.S. House subcommittee Thursday. "Compared to bio-terror, agro-terror is appallingly easy," said Corrie Brown, professor at the University of Georgia's College of Veterinary Medicine, invoking the specter of terrorists introducing foot-and-mouth disease, avian influenza, swine flu of some other animal-borne disease that could disrupt the U.S. economy — and threaten human health as well. Brown noted that 11 of the past 12 disease outbreaks of "global concern" in recent years have been zoonoses, diseases of animals that can be transmitted to humans. "These dangerous pathogens can be obtained from infected animals in many parts of the world," she told the committee. "Our agricultural system is so vast and so integrated, if something gets in, it's going to be all over and the terrorists know this." Brown, along with Georgia security and agricultural experts, said despite claims by Homeland Security officials that agro-terror is a "top priority," the department has no strategy for preventing or containing such an outbreak — and has provided little money to address the threat. "The Department of Homeland Security is in the driver's seat, but they just don't have a lot of depth in agriculture," Brown said. The sharp criticism of federal efforts got a friendly reception from the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on the Prevention of Nuclear and Biological Attack, which met in Athens to address "agro-terrorism's perfect storm" — the introduction of so-called zoonotic diseases, like avian influenza. Bidding for defense facility Georgia is one of 11 states in the running for the Department of Homeland Security's proposed National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility, which would address such threats. The state has offered two locations, both in Athens, as sites for the $500 million center, which would play a similar role in the domestic animal world as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does in human health. "An attack on our nation's agricultural resources would have devastating public health and economic consequences," said subcommittee Chairman John Linder (R-Ga.). "It is frightening to contemplate." Linder has been a frequent critic of federal priorities in a $35 billion Homeland Security budget that "emphasizes box cutters over biological threats." "One of every eight dollars we spent is on airplane security," he said. "There needs to be some proportionality in relation to the threat." Agriculture, which generates $1 trillion in U.S. economic activity a year, is the nation's largest industry and its largest employer. The Government Accountability Office warned earlier this year that the introduction of foreign pests or diseases could trigger "catastrophic economic losses" for livestock, poultry or crops. The U.S. Department of Agriculture spent $552 million last year on agro-terrorism programs — including its first voluntary security guidelines for farmers, urging such actions as putting up more "no trespassing" signs, increasing outdoor lighting, and keeping fences in good repair. Most of the government's effort to combat agro-terrorism is geared to intercepting potential pathogens at the border or detecting outbreaks before they can spread widely. "But right now the country doesn't have the infrastructure in place to prevent such an attack," said Paul Williams of the Georgia Emergency Management Agency. Georgia praised for improving security Committee members praised Georgia officials for their efforts to improve security on their own — particularly in Georgia's poultry industry, which is the state's largest agricultural enterprise. Unlike most states, Georgia has trained 2,500 emergency management personnel, police and veterinarians to respond to an attack on agriculture — and plans to hire a full-time agricultural intelligence analyst next year. Farming and the food supply are considered "soft" targets for terrorists — ones whose impact would be subtle, but potentially more far-reaching that an attack on "hard" targets like bridges, buildings or airplanes. The United States has 95 million cattle, 60 million hogs and more than 8.5 billion chickens, turkeys and other fowl. Accidental outbreaks in other countries provide a hint of what could happen if such a disease were deliberately introduced. Based on the 2001 outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Britain, the Congressional Research Service estimated that a serious outbreak in the United States would require the destruction of 8 million cattle and hogs and cost the country $33 billion. http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/stories/0825meshagterror.html?cxntnid=amn082506e

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

New York Times August 25, 2006 Diplomatic Memo In Muted Response To Iran, U.S. And Allies Seek Edge By Helene Cooper WASHINGTON, Aug. 24 — After demanding for three months that Iran suspend its uranium enrichment or face penalties, the formal reaction from the United States and its European allies to Iran’s refusal to suspend uranium enrichment has been decidedly low-key. Why the reticence? It is all about a public relations strategy intended to make the West appear patient and measured in dealing with the issue, United States and European diplomats say. After receiving Iran’s response on Tuesday to a proposal to curb the country’s nuclear program, Bush administration officials had a series of telephone calls with European counterparts to discuss where to go from there. Everyone agreed that Iran had not met the most crucial requirement: that it suspend uranium enrichment. Everyone agreed that sanctions were the next step. But disagreement on just how to get to that step reflected a familiar division: between the State Department and America’s European allies on one side, and hard-liners in the Bush administration, particularly in Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, on the other side, according to officials involved in the discussions. Officials representing the vice president, including John P. Hannah, a national security aide, argued that by not slamming the Iranian document from the start, the United States was allowing Iran’s response to appear reasonable. State Department officials, on the other hand, pressed to “keep the temperature down,” as one American put it. They pushed for a concerted media strategy that would help keep Russia and China on board the already fragile coalition trying to rein in Iran’s nuclear ambitions, American and European diplomats recounted. The officials, representing some of the countries most actively engaged in the issue, would only discuss their private strategy if they were not further identified. “The thinking was, even though we all know the Iranian response doesn’t amount to much, before rejecting it out of hand we should remember that at least two members of the group have a Security Council veto,” one European diplomat said, referring to Russia and China and their historic aversion to penalties. He referred to the strategy as “giving Iran the rope to hang itself.” The result: on Wednesday, a day after receiving the Iranian response, America, the most hawkish in the coalition of six countries that made the offer, issued a tepid statement — and not through its blunt United Nations ambassador, John R. Bolton, but from a low-profile acting State Department spokesman, Gonzalo Gallegos. While the American statement mentioned the obvious, that Iran’s response “falls short” of the uranium suspension condition, it was careful to add: “We acknowledge that Iran considers its response as a serious offer, and we will review it.” Across the Atlantic, the reaction was also muted. In Paris, Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said simply that Iran must stop uranium enrichment before negotiation on its nuclear program could resume. In Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel echoed, “What we expected is not stated there, namely: ‘We will suspend our uranium enrichment and come to the negotiating table.’ ’’ There were no official mentions of penalties, despite the looming Aug. 31 deadline that the six countries, which also include Britain, have given for Iran to suspend enrichment. United States and European diplomats say the response so far is part of a calculated public campaign to give the appearance that they are carefully considering Iran’s response, despite the fact that Britain, Germany, France and the United States all agree that it was unsatisfactory. The four countries still plan to pursue penalties if Iran does not suspend uranium enrichment by the Aug. 31 deadline set by the United Nations Security Council. But, officials from all four countries said, they do not want to appear trigger happy. The maneuvering highlights the fragile nature of the coalition on Iran that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is trying to keep together. While the United States and its European allies appear to be united in the notion that the next step should be to impose penalties on Iran through the Security Council, Russia and China remain question marks. Neither country likes sanctions in general, and both have been loath to hit Iran in particular, since both have deep economic interests there. Both Russia and China crossed a diplomatic threshold in July and joined the United States and Europe in seeking a Security Council resolution ordering Iran to freeze some nuclear activities, or face penalties. United States officials said Ms. Rice received assurances in June that Russia would, at a minimum, sign on to a first phase of weak sanctions if Iran refused to suspend uranium enrichment. Those penalties would probably include a ban on travel by Iranian officials and curbs on imports of nuclear-related technology. But the diplomatic choreography under way demonstrates that Russian and Chinese cooperation is by no means assured, analysts say. Iran’s nuclear program and its response to the offer from world powers are on the agenda for Friday’s meeting of European Union foreign ministers in Brussels. But that meeting is expected to be dominated by the international effort to come up with a peacekeeping force in Lebanon. European officials said that the foreign ministers were not expected seriously to take up the Iran issue until Sept. 1. A senior Bush administration official said the group wanted to avoid the criticism leveled at Iran last year for being too quick to turn down a European offer on its nuclear program. “The game is about appearing to be reasonable,” the Bush official said. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/25/world/middleeast/25diplo.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

New York Times August 25, 2006 Foes Say Tehran Builds Fast Uranium Centrifuges By Craig S. Smith PARIS, Aug. 24 — An Iranian opposition group said here on Thursday that Iran had built at least 15 advanced uranium enrichment machines that could speed production of nuclear fuel and asserted that the country would have hundreds more by next year. The group, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, has been correct before. In August 2002, its announcement that Tehran was pursuing a secret uranium enrichment program led in part to the current standoff over the Iranian nuclear development program. But many of the group’s subsequent disclosures have been either less significant or wrong. Iran faces possible United Nations sanctions if it fails to stop enriching uranium by Aug. 31. Iran says it will use the nuclear fuel to generate power, but the international community fears that the program is designed to provide fuel for nuclear weapons. The National Council of Resistance is the political wing of the People’s Mujahedeen of Iran, whose goal is to overthrow the Islamic Republic by force. The National Council said Thursday that Tehran was making advanced centrifuges, known as model P-2, at a secret site run by the “Iran Centrifuge Technology Company.” Iran has already been enriching uranium with slower P-1 centrifuges, made from an older design. A spokesman for the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations unit that has tried to monitor Iran’s program, said it could not immediately comment on the report. But he said there had been longstanding concern that Iran was developing the more advanced centrifuge. The agency has repeatedly asked Iran for information, but Iran has insisted that it abandoned work on the P-2 centrifuge three years ago. Then in April, Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, announced that Tehran was “presently conducting research” on the P-2 and boasted that it would quadruple Iran’s enrichment powers. The agency subsequently wrote to the Iranians demanding an explanation. They have not replied. The opposition group said Thursday that an enrichment expert named Jafar Mohammadi was head of the centrifuge manufacturer, whose headquarters it said were on the third floor of No. 1 37th Street in Tehran’s Yousef Abad district. It said the centrifuges were assembled in three large hangars “on a side road about three kilometers from Tehran-Pars Junction on the Tehran-Damavand Highway.” “According to the information obtained by the Iranian Resistance, at least 15 P-2 centrifuges have been assembled so far and are being tested,” Mohammad Mohaddessin, a spokesman for the group, told a news conference here. He said the group’s intelligence showed that within the next year Iran would have “hundreds of P-2 centrifuges.” The Iranian government has not responded to the group’s announcement. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/25/world/middleeast/25nuke.html

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

Chicago Tribune August 24, 2006 Pg. 1 U.S. Cold War Gift: Iran Nuclear Plant Now cited as evidence of weapons activity, facility was provided to shah's government By Sam Roe, Tribune staff reporter In the heart of Tehran sits one of Iran's most important nuclear facilities, a dome-shaped building where scientists have conducted secret experiments that could help the country build atomic bombs. It was provided to the Iranians by the United States. The Tehran Research Reactor represents a little-known aspect of the international uproar over the country's alleged weapons program. Not only did the U.S. provide the reactor in the 1960s as part of a Cold War strategy, America also supplied the weapons-grade uranium needed to power the facility--fuel that remains in Iran and could be used to help make nuclear arms. As the U.S. and other countries wrestle with Iran's refusal this week to curb its nuclear capabilities, an examination of the Tehran facility sheds light on the degree to which the United States has been complicit in Iran developing those capabilities. Though the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations nuclear watchdog, has found no proof Iran is building a bomb, the agency says the country has repeatedly concealed its nuclear activities from inspectors. And some of these activities have taken place in the U.S.-supplied reactor, IAEA records show, including experiments with uranium, a key material in the production of nuclear weapons. U.S. officials point to these activities as evidence Iran is trying to construct nuclear arms, but they do not publicly mention that the work has taken place in a U.S.-supplied facility. The U.S. provided the reactor when America was eager to prop up the shah, who also was aligned against the Soviet Union at the time. After the Islamic revolution toppled the shah in 1979, the reactor became a reminder that in geopolitics, today's ally can become tomorrow's threat. Also missing from the current debate over Iran's nuclear intentions is emerging evidence that its research program may be more troubled than previously known. The Bush administration has portrayed the program as a sophisticated operation that has skillfully hid its true mission of making the bomb. But in the case of the Tehran Research Reactor, a study by a top Iranian scientist suggests otherwise. After a serious accident in 2001 at the U.S.-supplied reactor, the scientist concluded that poor quality control at the facility was a "chronic disease." Problems included carelessness, sloppy bookkeeping and a staff so poorly trained that workers had a weak understanding of "the most basic and simple principles of physics and mathematics," according to the study, presented at an international nuclear conference in 2004 in France. The Iranian scientist, Morteza Gharib, told the Tribune that management of the facility had improved in the past three years. When asked whether sloppiness at the reactor might have contributed to some of Iran's troubles with the IAEA, Gharib wrote in an e-mail: "It is always possible, for any system, to commit infractions inadvertently due to lack of proper bookkeeping." 'This was not an oversight' Jeffrey Lewis, an arms control expert at Harvard University, said bungling might be to blame for some infractions, but the Iranians clearly concealed major nuclear activities, such as building a facility to enrich uranium. "This was not an oversight," he said. Another overlooked concern about the Tehran reactor is the weapons-grade fuel the U.S. provided Iran in the 1960s- -about 10 pounds of highly enriched uranium, the most valuable material to bombmakers. It is still at the reactor and susceptible to theft, U.S. scientists familiar with the situation said. This uranium has already been burned in the reactor, but the "spent fuel" is still highly enriched and could be used in a bomb. Normally, spent fuel is so radioactive that terrorists could not handle it without causing themselves great harm. But the spent fuel in Iran has sat in storage for so long that it is probably no longer highly radioactive and could be handled easily, the U.S. scientists say. The fuel is about one-fifth the amount needed to make a nuclear weapon, but experts said it could be combined with other material to construct a bomb. In an interview, Linton Brooks, head of the National Nuclear Security Administration, an arm of the U.S. Energy Department, said the U.S. would like to retrieve the U.S.-supplied fuel, but the top priority has been to get Iran to suspend its enrichment efforts. Under the international nuclear non-proliferation treaty, Iran has the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. But the UN Security Council, saying Iran has failed to prove it is not building weapons, has demanded Iran stop enrichment by Aug. 31 or face economic sanctions. This week, Iran offered "serious talks" on its nuclear activities but did not promise to stop enriching uranium. While Brooks downplayed the proliferation risk of the Tehran Research Reactor, some experts believe the facility is so important to Iran's nuclear program that it would be targeted in the event of a U.S. military strike on Iran. "Its purpose is mainly advanced training and producing a cadre of nuclear engineers," said Paul Rogers, an arms control expert at the University of Bradford in England. "So it's one of the facilities that is really quite significant." Exactly how significant is unclear. The Tehran reactor provided the foundation for Iran's nuclear program, but that program now consists of numerous other facilities as well. And over the years, Iran has obtained nuclear aid from various sources, including Russia and the black market network of Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan. China also has supplied research reactors. Most of the world's nuclear research reactors, which train students or produce radioisotopes for medicine, fall under IAEA restrictions. Agency inspectors have visited the Tehran facility several times in recent years. Iran says its nuclear program, including the U.S.-supplied reactor, is solely for peaceful purposes. When arguing for tough penalties on Iran, U.S. officials have pointed to activities in the U.S.-supplied reactor. In 2004, John Bolton, the State Department's senior arms control official at the time, told a congressional panel that Iran's covert nuclear weapons program was marked by a "two-decades-long record of obfuscation and deceit." He cited experiments in the reactor as part of the evidence. Several months later, Bolton told another congressional panel that Iran had received technological assistance from companies in Russia, China and North Korea in an attempt to develop missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons. Countries that provide Iran such technology "ought to know better," said Bolton, now the American ambassador to the United Nations. If foreign companies aid Iran, the U.S. "will impose economic burdens and brand them as proliferators." What Bolton didn't note: America's role in Iran's nuclear program. That role has complicated U.S. efforts to gain support for greater restrictions on Iran. For instance, the U.S. wants Russia to take a firmer stance on Iran's nuclear program and has been critical of Russian efforts to help Iran build a nuclear power plant. But Russia has noted the U.S. had no problem providing Iran a research reactor and highly enriched uranium when it was politically expedient. CIA helped restore shah Those who defend the U.S. say it should not be faulted for aiding Iran in the past. "It's not the international community's fault for helping Iran exercise its rights in the past" to develop nuclear energy for peaceful uses, said Lewis, the Harvard expert. "It's Iran's fault for not living up to its safeguards obligation." Iran's nuclear program can be traced to the Cold War era, when the U.S. provided nuclear technology to its allies, including Iran. In 1953, the CIA secretly helped overthrow Iran's democratically elected prime minister and restore the shah of Iran to power. In the 1960s, the U.S. provided Iran its first nuclear research reactor. Despite Iran's enormous oil reserves, the shah wanted to build numerous nuclear power reactors, which American and other Western companies planned to supply. Yet today, the U.S. argues that Iran does not need to develop nuclear power because of those same petroleum resources. In 1979, when the shah was overthrown and U.S. hostages taken, America and Iran became enemies; Iran's nuclear power program stalled. The U.S. refused to give Iran any more highly enriched uranium for its reactor, and Iran eventually obtained new fuel from Argentina. This fuel is too low in enrichment to be used in weapons but powerful enough to run the facility. To this day, the reactor runs on this kind of fuel from Argentina. In 2003, shortly after IAEA officials inspected the U.S.-supplied reactor, Iran acknowledged it had conducted experiments on uranium in the reactor between 1988 and 1992--activities that had not been previously reported to the agency. The IAEA rebuked Iran for failing to report these experiments and expressed concern about other activities at the reactor. These included tests involving the production of polonium 210, a radioisotope useful in nuclear batteries but also in nuclear weapons. Inspectors also were curious why some uranium was missing from two small cylinders. Iran said the uranium probably leaked when the cylinders were stored under the roof of the research reactor, where heat in the summer hit 131 degrees. When inspectors took samples from under the roof, they indeed found uranium particles. But inspectors did not think Iran's explanation about leaking cylinders was plausible. Eventually, Iran acknowledged the missing uranium had been used in key enrichment tests in another facility. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0608240188aug24,1,1982129.story

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

Christian Science Monitor August 25, 2006 Iran's Islamic Influence In The Mideast By Daniel Schorr WASHINGTON – Call it the Pyongyang ploy. Hold out for direct talks with America and its allies, thus bolstering your international position, while budging not an inch on your nuclear aspirations. If North Korea seemed unimpressed by a package of inducements and unfazed by the threat of United Nations sanctions, Iran seems to be even less so. The reason is not hard to find. Iran sees itself at the forefront of a new pan-Islamic movement. The day of pan-Arabism, when a secular Syria joined with Egypt in a United Arab Republic, is long since gone. A young Egyptian is quoted by The New York Times as saying, "I have more faith in Islam than in my state." A Congressional report says, "There is a lot about Iran that we do not know." That's for sure. But we do know that the Iranian mullahs, flush with oil revenues, are putting their imprint on a large part of the Middle East. There is reason to believe that Iran encouraged Hizbullah to open hostilities against the Israelis. And a Jordanian newspaper says that what it calls "the Hizbullah victory" will have "earthshaking regional consequences." The mullahs in Iran have undoubtedly made the calculation that fading superpower America has expended its armed might in Iraq and is unable to mount another significant military action in the Middle East. Meanwhile, recent battles in the Middle East, the emergence of Hizbullah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, the sectarian war in Iraq, even recent reverses for the American-backed regime in Afghani- stan, all point to Islamic empowerment. This is the atmosphere in which Iran feels powerful enough to thumb its nose at the countries that would deny Iran an Islamic nuclear bomb. If the confrontation in the Middle East is between radical Islam and democracy, it looks as though, at the moment, radical Islam has the upper hand. Daniel Schorr is the senior news analyst at National Public Radio. http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0825/p09s02-cods.html

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

Washington Times August 25, 2006 Pg. 16 Ballistic Missile Defenses By Austin Bay North Korea's July missile volley raised legitimate concern about American vulnerability to ballistic missile and cruise missile attack. Hezbollah's rocket barrage of Israel demonstrated terrorist organizations (nonstate actors) can acquire and use missile systems. The next step, for both North Korea and Hezbollah, is adding a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) -- most likely a warhead carrying either nukes or nerve gas. The longer-range rockets Hezbollah used (for example, Russian FROG- 7 variants) can be classified as short-range or "battlefield" ballistic missiles. With range exceeding 100 kilometers, these missiles can strike well beyond the front-line. There is good news. The United States isn't completely vulnerable. It possesses a nascent, "thin shield" ballistic missile defense consisting of bits and pieces of tactical and theater-level anti-missile programs supported by a dozen or so long-range missiles positioned in Alaska and Hawaii. This defense has layers. The Patriot PAC-3 is designed for short-range, "point-target" defense. The Patriot PAC-3 is a completely different missile from the Gulf War's Patriot PAC-2. The PAC-2 was an "enhanced" and "upgraded" anti-aircraft missile. The PAC-3 is a genuine anti-ballistic missile (ABM). The Army's THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Air Defense) missile and the Navy's Standard-2 and Standard-3 missiles extend the "anti-missile umbrella." The Navy systems are particularly useful. They can be deployed on Aegis cruisers and destroyers and can quickly place anti-missile firepower in the Persian Gulf (to thwart a shot from Iran) or the Sea of Japan (to intercept a North Korean launch). The Standard-3 missile had a very successful missile test in June. In a July test at the Army's White Sands range, a THAAD intercepted a SCUD-type ballistic missile. The nascent defense, however, is an inadequate defense -- I don't think that's a debatable point. Yet it is a defense in being and a defensive system in the process of expansion. Though limited and frail, it demonstrated political utility in July when North Korea launched its missile volley. What do I mean by that? Japan -- a threatened ally -- asked for Patriot PAC-3s to bolster its defense. The United States agreed to provide them. We also have a new U.S.-Japanese missile monitoring station in Japan, activated earlier this year. Our limited anti-missile system isn't what it should be or could be, and yes, myopic, wrongheaded politics played a key role in delaying program funding, testing and deployment. The anti-ABM cant of certain influential major media -- in the case of the New York Times, a fossil of its 1980s opposition to the Reagan administration -- certainly hindered development. Resistance from McGovernite Democrats was a potent and problematic factor in Washington. The Cold War's "balance of terror" strategy created a "strategic culture" wedded to the notion of "Mutual Assured Destruction" (appropriately named MAD). If the Soviets launched a missile strike against the United States, U.S. retaliatory capabilities ensured that Moscow would be turned into radioactive glass. An ABM, in the MAD minds, altered the certainty of mutual Armageddon. An ABM "destabilized" the ability to assure Moscow and Washington they would both perish in a nuclear exchange. The rise of rogue states and fanatic, "suicide" terrorist organizations, combined with proliferation of ballistic missiles and WMDs, turned MAD into utter madness. A suicide bomber cannot be deterred by the threat of "mutual destruction." Hezbollah's rocket rain offers a chilling example. Hezbollah demonstrated it is quite willing to sacrifice its own people and neighborhoods. Remember, Hezbollah is Iran's puppet, and Iran is led by a clique that believes Israel's destruction will accelerate their version of apocalyptic end times. North Korea has sacrificed its own people (via starvation) to finance its missile and nuclear programs. In February 2003, I wrote a column titled, "The hell formula for the 21st century." The formula: terrorists plus rogue states plus WMD. Breaking the hell formula requires offensive action against terrorists and rogue states -- and we've taken that, in Iraq and Afghanistan. But I also wrote that "breaking down the hell formula will take time." A more robust missile defense system buys time and blunts the political effects of "fear us" campaigns waged by North Korean and Iranian despots. Austin Bay is a nationally syndicated columnist. http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20060824-084027-1397r.htm

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

Army News Service Soldiers hone response to civil emergencies By Staff Sgt. Andy Stephens Joint Task Force Civil Support Public Affairs August 23, 2006 FORT MONROE, Va. (Army News Service, Aug. 23, 2006) – The scenario could be one of your darkest nightmares: a madman driven by an anti-American zealotry has shattered the peace of a major U.S. city. His weapon of choice? An aerosolized form of Y. Pestis bacteria, better known in medieval times as plague, and he has let it loose on America. Welcome to Sudden Response 2006. At Fort Monroe, Va., Joint Task Force Civil Support is writing – and rewriting – the way the U.S. military responds to such dire circumstances. In the Joint Planning Group, procedures and lines of communication are plotted and established that will save lives if the scenarios ever become reality. Exercises such as Sudden Response 2006 allow the Department of Defense to determine how military elements function in civil emergencies, what resources can be used, what are distractions and what must be avoided. “The JPG’s mission is to rapidly assess and conduct planning for potential support to civil authorities in the event DoD assets are requested or directed by the Secretary of Defense,” said Maj. Jose Berrios, CBRNE planner for the JTF-CS Command Assessment Element. The “CBRNE” acronym captures the mission of JTF-CS in the proverbial nutshell; it stands for Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and (high-yield) Explosive. Exercises such as Sudden Response 2006 deal with one or a combination of scenarios related to the CBRNE focus. The exercises gather data and use it to refine methods to address CBRNE situations that might occur in the real world; these methods use DoD resources in the most efficient way possible. Scenarios of such scope and magnitude require extensive planning, the primary focus of the JPG. The JPG acts as a brain trust for U.S. Northern Command’s disaster response, a crucible where potential threats are boiled away to their natural conclusions, situations are stabilized and foundations are laid for the agency to begin recovery efforts. The process to get from Point A to Point B examines the “rules of the game,” limitations and challenges that define the threat and the response, as well as which and how many DoD resources are needed. “You don’t send 10 fire trucks if you don’t have a fire,” Berrios said. “Every incident is a local incident. JTF-CS is just there to bring additional support based on the requests of civil authorities.” A lead federal agency, usually the Federal Emergency Management Agency or the Department of Homeland Security, will initially respond to any civil incident or disaster that happens in the United States, its territories and possessions, Berrios said. Data on the incident is shared with the JPG at Fort Monroe to determine what, if any, response DoD needs to muster to support that agency. The JPG’s assessment is then relayed up the chain to the JTF-CS commander, U.S. Northern Command, and eventually the Secretary of Defense. The factors that determine the DoD response can range from the initiating agency’s ability to respond and set up resources themselves to what extent infrastructure has been rendered inoperable. But whether 10 experts or 10,000 servicemembers are mustered, the JTF-CS role remains the same. “Whatever we send forward is what state and local agencies will use,” Berrios said. “They drive the train on what we send downrange.” The basic challenge JTF-CS faces in these exercises is understanding the CBRNE effects and the potential support requirements, which can change based on evolving situational awareness and local capabilities, Berrios said. To illustrate this challenge using the Sudden Response 2006 exercise scenario, JTF-CS knows that the number of people infected with plague exceed the number of hospital beds in the affected city. Further complicating the situation is the “worried well” element. These are healthy people who are afraid they may be infected and flood the city’s medical infrastructure with false alarms, even going to hospitals to seek treatment and unintentionally coming into contact with people who really are contaminated. “The ‘worried well’ are a byproduct of situations we train for,” said Mr. Paul Marcinko, deputy surgeon for JTF-CS. “We have to find the point where local resources would be overwhelmed and what their capabilities are. We are building reality into these exercises and updating the playbooks for the Command Assessment Element.” Realistically refining the playbooks is the goal of exercises such as Sudden Response 2006, Marcinko explained. The JPG representatives must update the playbook with all of the scenario's potential issues and how each one would affect their counterparts in the field. "Worried well" citizens are one issue, but there are dozens more, and each is explored to its logical limit. The playbook explains how each issue was explored and becomes a resource for DoD civil disaster relief assistance efforts. The playbook evolution also reflects improved response times. For example, Sudden Response 2006 is the first exercise in which JTF-CS had a cache of medical supplies on-site. In previous exercises, a biological warfare/chemical warfare cache was sent to Fort Monroe from nearby Langley Air Force Base, Va., when an incident occurred. But in the real world, JTF-CS needs the cache’s resources immediately upon notification of an incident. Having the cache at Fort Monroe increases efficiency immensely, Marcinko said. “We need to establish casualty estimates now,” Marcinko said. "If you don’t estimate casualties properly, you can’t estimate accurately the resources needed to take care of them.” If the JPG playbook spells out the secrets of winning the big game, then Sudden Response 2006 could be the Super Bowl. JTF-CS is the home team, applying its knowledge and expertise to overcome challenges posed by opponents. "We work very diligently in all of this preparation and planning,” Berrios said, “so that, if a CBRNE event happens, we’ve thought through all the potential issues and problems so we can best assist and support the local authorities. We’re not in charge of the problem; we’re in charge of the forces that go in there to help civil authorities solve the problem.” http://www4.army.mil/news/article.php?story=9445

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

Los Angeles Times August 26, 2006 Pg. 1 U.S. May Curb Iran If the U.N. Security Council won't penalize Tehran for its nuclear program, the White House may forge an alliance to do so. By Maggie Farley, Times Staff Writer UNITED NATIONS — With increasing signs that several fellow Security Council members may stall a United States push to penalize Iran for its nuclear enrichment program, Bush administration officials have indicated that they are prepared to form an independent coalition to freeze Iranian assets and restrict trade. The strategy, analysts say, reflects not only long-standing U.S. frustration with the Security Council's inaction on Iran, but also the current weakness of Washington's position because of its controversial role in a series of conflicts in the Middle East, most recently in Lebanon. Despite assurances from Russia and China in July that they would support initial sanctions against Iran if it failed to suspend aspects of its nuclear program, Russia seemed to backtrack this week after Tehran agreed to continue talks, but refused to halt enrichment. A Security Council resolution gives the Islamic Republic until Aug. 31 to stop uranium enrichment, which could provide fuel to produce electricity or possibly atomic weapons, or face penalties. Russian Defense Minister Sergei B. Ivanov said Friday that as long as Iran was willing to negotiate, it was "premature" to punish the country and perhaps permanently isolate it. "I do not know cases in international practice or the whole of the previous experience when sanctions reached their goals or were efficient," Ivanov said. "Apart from this, I do not think that the issue is so urgent that the U.N. Security Council or the group of six countries" — the U.S., China, Russia, Britain, France and Germany — "should consider the introduction of sanctions. In any case Russia continues to advocate a political and diplomatic solution to the problem." French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said Iran's response was "not satisfactory" but France wanted to avoid a new conflict that could lead to "a clash of civilizations." "But the worst thing would be to escalate into a confrontation with Iran on the one hand — and the Muslim world with Iran — and the West," he said on French radio. "That would be the clash of civilizations that France today is practically alone in trying to avoid." U.S. Ambassador John R. Bolton said in an interview late this week that the United States planned to introduce a resolution imposing penalties such as a travel ban and asset freeze for key Iranian leaders soon after the Aug. 31 deadline, and seemed optimistic that China and Russia would agree to it once they saw the text. "Everybody's been on board," he said. But in case Russia and China do not accept it, the U.S. is working a parallel diplomatic track outside the U.N., Bolton said. Under U.S. terrorism laws, Washington could ramp up its own sanctions, including financial constraints on Tehran and interception of missile and nuclear materials en route to Iran, Bolton said, and the U.S. is encouraging other countries to follow suit. "You don't need Security Council authority to impose sanctions, just as we have," he said. The U.S. has had broad restrictions on almost all trade with Iran since 1987. Exceptions include the import of dried fruits and nuts, caviar and carpets. In addition, U.S. companies can obtain licenses to do limited trade in agriculture and medicine. The United States also initiated the Proliferation Security Initiative, involving a coalition of countries that have agreed to intercept shipments of materials to Iran that could be used for weapons of mass destruction. "We will continue to enhance PSI to cut off flows of materials and technology that are useful to Iran's ballistic missile program and nuclear programs," Bolton said. "We will be constraining financial transactions under existing terrorism laws." He said Washington was focusing on European and Japanese banks to restrict business with Iran, because most of Tehran's transactions are done in U.S. dollars, euros, British pounds and yen. "There aren't a lot of opportunities to sell in other currencies," he said. Bolton and U.S. Treasury officials refused to provide details on which countries might be interested, citing the "sensitivity" of the talks. But Treasury spokeswoman Molly Millerwise said they had already seen results, including Union Bank of Switzerland cutting off relationships with Iran. "We're seeing more financial institutions around the world looking at the actions and messages emanating out of Iran — from their nuclear ambitions to state sponsorship of Hezbollah — and asking themselves, 'do we really want to be Iran's banker?' " she said in an e-mail. Though U.S. officials said pursuing parallel paths is "common sense" and highlights what they consider to be the inefficiency of the Security Council, some analysts said the move would underline Washington's inability to win over the council and the lack of options against a newly emboldened Iran. "When you start doing things that would be better with the Security Council's endorsement, does it show weakness or strength?" said George Perkovich, the director of the nonproliferation program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "Iran could argue that 'the U.S. couldn't even get the Security Council backing, and so we are winning.' " Perkovich said even traditional U.S. allies were fatigued by dealing with so many conflicts and didn't want to add Iran to a list that includes Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon. "There is a general reluctance to follow the U.S. lead," he said. "Our negotiating power is diminished, which is regrettable." Russia and China have specifically objected to the use of a U.N. charter measure known as Chapter 7 that would open the door to military action or sanctions. But Bolton said that a resolution on North Korea passed unanimously in July might create a new template for dealing with those concerns. That resolution instituted a ban on supplying technology and goods related to North Korea's missile and nuclear programs, and got around China's and Russia's doubts about Chapter 7 with other legally binding language that would prevent an Iraq-style invasion. "There are some aspects of the North Korea resolution that will be useful," Bolton said. "A lot of this is just going to have be played out." Times staff writer David Holley in Moscow contributed to this report. http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-fg-iran26aug26,1,803879.story

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

Arizona Daily Star (Tucson) August 26, 2006 Pg. 1 Court Thwarts 'Atomic Vets' Suits For Info By Michael Doyle, McClatchy Newspapers WASHINGTON — Radiation exposure took Alice Broudy's husband a generation ago. This week, a court ruling sliced away at her bid for redress. In a quiet ruling that nonetheless resonates nationwide, a federal appellate court rejected efforts by Broudy and others seeking claims on behalf of "atomic veterans." The same court simultaneously rejected bids by other veterans exposed to biological and chemical agents. Taken together, the dual rulings by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals will likely impede many veterans hoping for compensation. At the very least, they will complicate future claims. "It's a significant ruling," Washington-based attorney David Cynamon, who represented veterans in both cases, said Friday. "Unfortunately, it's a significantly bad ruling." A Department of Veterans Affairs spokesman couldn't be reached to comment. Broudy, a resident of California's Orange County, has long been seeking full compensation for the death of her husband, a Marine major who was repeatedly exposed to radiation. She has company. George Woodward, who lives north of Wichita, Kan., in the town of Miltonvale, was exposed to radiation during a 1955 test blast. Kathy Jacobovitch, a resident of Vashon Island, Wash., lost her father through exposure to contaminated ships in Puget Sound. Ernest Kirchmann, a 62-year-old Navy veteran who lives south of Minneapolis in tiny West Concord, who's filed a separate lawsuit, was exposed during a 1964 nuclear submarine accident. "It isn't just my personal case," Broudy said Friday. "It's the entire veterans community. It makes me so angry." Broudy married her husband, Charles, in 1948. Three years earlier, he'd walked the war-poisoned streets of Nagasaki. Within a decade, he was facing radiation in the Nevada desert. He died of lymphatic cancer in 1977. Though she has since received partial compensation, Broudy has been confronting the federal government for more. She has now lost three separate lawsuits. "This closes the door," Cynamon said of the latest appellate court ruling, which was issued Wednesday. "It will make it very difficult, if not impossible, for individuals who are victimized by government cover-ups." All told, an estimated 220,000 U.S. soldiers were allegedly exposed to radiation in the 1940s and 1950s. Some, such as William Yurdyga of Sacramento, Calif., claimed in an earlier lawsuit that they were exposed after the Hiroshima or Nagasaki atomic blast. Others claimed exposure during Cold War testing. The three-member appellate panel wasn't ruling on whether the atomic veterans deserve compensation. A 1988 law provides that. To succeed, though, veterans must prove they were present at a radioactive site and that they contracted a radiation-related illness or were exposed to a cancer-causing radiation level. Required military test records can be elusive. A 1973 fire destroyed many veterans' records, and veterans consider alternative "dose reconstruction" estimates inaccurate. "You send a Freedom of Information Act request," Broudy said, "and you wait and you wait and you wait, and then maybe you get a piece of it, or you get nothing at all because they say it's classified." The latest lawsuit sought to force Pentagon officials to release all relevant records. In the opinion written by Appellate Judge Thomas Griffith, appointed by President Bush last year, the court panel agreed unanimously that atomic veterans couldn't compel a massive release of all the Pentagon's relevant documents. Instead, individual veterans must file individual claims. If the Pentagon is "covering up records of medical tests that describe the amount of radiation to which these veterans were exposed, FOIA (the Freedom of Information Act) provides a potential remedy," Griffith wrote. A new study by Melinda Podgor for the Elder Law Journal found that 18,275 atomic veterans had filed for compensation as of October 2004. Only 1,875 claims were granted. http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/143717.php

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

New York Times August 26, 2006 Russia Says It Opposes U.N. Sanctions On Iran By Steven Lee Myers MOSCOW, Aug. 25 — Russia’s defense minister said Friday that it was premature to consider punitive actions against Iran despite its refusal so far to suspend its efforts to enrich uranium as the United Nations Security Council has demanded. Although Russia agreed to the Security Council’s resolution on July 31, Defense Minister Sergei B. Ivanov’s remarks made it clear that Russia would not support taking the next step that the United States and Britain have called for: imposing sanctions against Iran or its leaders over its nuclear programs. The Council set Aug. 31 as the deadline for Iran to respond to its demand. Russia has repeatedly expressed opposition to punitive steps, even as President Vladimir V. Putin and others have called on Iran to cooperate with international inspectors and suspend its enrichment activity. But on Friday Mr. Ivanov went further, saying the issue was not “so urgent” that the Security Council should consider sanctions and expressing doubt that they would work in any case. “I know of no cases in international practice or the whole of previous experience when sanctions achieved their goals or were efficient,” Mr. Ivanov, a close ally of Mr. Putin who also serves as deputy prime minister, said in televised remarks in the Far East. Russia’s opposition left in doubt the Bush administration’s delicate diplomacy to increase pressure on Iran over its nuclear energy programs, which American officials fear disguise an effort to build nuclear weapons. Echoing a statement by the Foreign Ministry after Iran responded in writing this week to an offer of incentives from Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States, Mr. Ivanov said that Russia would continue “to advocate a political and diplomatic solution to the problem.” But neither he nor other officials have said what Russia will do if Iran refuses to meet the Security Council’s demands to suspend its nuclear programs by the deadline. On Wednesday a spokesman for the Foreign Ministry, Mikhail L. Kamynin, said that it was important to “grasp nuances” in Iran’s lengthy written response and that Russia would continue to use its influence with the Iranians. Russia has significant economic ties with Iran and is building a nuclear reactor at Bushehr, an Iranian city on the Persian Gulf. Underscoring Russia’s cooperation in the field, an Iranian delegation has been visiting this week to discuss further joint projects, which officials from both countries have emphasized are purely civilian in nature. But Russia’s opposition to sanctions appears to extend beyond purely commercial interests. Officials have indicated that they fear that sanctions would lead to a new American-led military conflict in the region, as happened in Iraq. Voicing a similar fear, the French foreign minister, Philippe Douste-Blazy, said in Paris that Iran’s response was “not satisfactory” but warned that it would be worse “to lend fire to a confrontation between Iran on one side — the Muslim world with Iran — and the West.” http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/26/world/middleeast/26russia.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

YaHoo! News S. Korea certain North has nuclear bombs: minister By Jack Kim Fri Aug 25, 10:09 AM ET SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea has nuclear weapons and Seoul's best estimate is Pyongyang has produced one or two bombs, its defense minister said on Friday, amid reports that the North may be preparing a nuclear test. Another senior official said South Korea and China had agreed to cooperate in preventing the North from conducting a test, which would pose a grave situation in the region. Defense Minister Yoon Kwang-ung said he believed the North had one or two nuclear weapons, but his remarks in parliament on Friday were among the strongest yet on the North's possession of atomic bombs. "It is estimated that the North has one or two," Yoon told a parliamentary hearing when asked about the North's nuclear arsenal. When asked if the South has no doubt about the North's possession of a nuclear weapon, Yoon said: "That's correct." Yoon also said there was not enough evidence at present to conclude the North is about to conduct its first nuclear weapons test. North Korea declared in February 2005 it possessed nuclear weapons. U.S. and Japanese news reports have said the North might be preparing to conduct an underground nuclear test that would demonstrate its capability. In July, the communist state defied international warnings and test-fired seven missiles, prompting condemnation by the U.N. Security Council, including China. Song Min-soon, South Korea's chief presidential secretary on national security, was quoted by Yonhap news agency as saying Beijing was well aware of the grave consequence a North Korea nuclear test would bring about. "South Korea and China would continue to cooperate so (a nuclear test) would not take place," Yonhap quoted Song as saying following a trip to China to meet Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing. When asked if he had urged China to "apply pressure" on North Korea, Song said: "This is a matter of cooperation, not pressure." The defense minister said certain activities had been observed at a North Korean nuclear site, but they did not yet amount to conclusive evidence of an imminent test. "More analysis of data is needed to talk about the possibility (of a test)," Yoon said. North Korea had up to six nuclear weapons in 1994 when it agreed to freeze all related programs, but the number is likely to have risen, Leon J. LaPorte, former commander of the U.S. military in Korea said in South Korea's JoongAng Ilbo in April. "The estimate of one or two is actually fairly dated," said a senior expert on the North's nuclear program at the Korea Institute of Defense Analyses, Kim Tae-woo. "But to say he has no doubt about it is definitely a step forward," Kim said. Most estimates of the North's nuclear arsenal vary between five to 10 and sometimes more, Kim said. South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon said a North Korean nuclear weapons test would have a far more devastating consequence than the missiles test. Ban said the July missile launches had cast a shadow over prospects for North Korea to resume six-country talks aimed at ending its nuclear weapons program in exchange for aid and security guarantees. (With additional reporting by Jon Herskovitz and Rhee So-eui) http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060825/wl_nm/korea_north_bombs_dc_5

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

Washington Times August 26, 2006 Pg. 7 North Korea Seoul, Beijing Fear Nuclear Test SEOUL -- South Korea and China have agreed to cooperate to prevent a possible nuclear test by North Korea amid increasing reports citing suspicious activity in the communist nation, Seoul's presidential security adviser said yesterday. A nuclear test by the communist North would be "a grave situation of a different level from missile launches," Song Min-soon said after returning from a two-day trip to China, South Korea's Yonhap news agency reported. South Korea and China, along with Japan, Russia and the United States, have tried to convince the North to abandon its nuclear program at six-nation negotiations that have been on hold since November. http://www.washtimes.com/world/20060825-095600-7146r.htm

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

New York Times August 26, 2006 Japan Accuses 5 Of Exporting Equipment With Nuclear Uses By Martin Fackler TOKYO, Aug. 25 — Five executives of a precision instruments maker were arrested Friday on suspicion of illegally exporting equipment to Malaysia that could be used in making nuclear weapons, the police said. The president of the Mitutoyo Corporation, Kazusaku Tezuka, and four other executives were accused of exporting advanced measuring devices without government permission in late 2001 to an unspecified recipient in Malaysia, a police spokesman said. He spoke on condition of anonymity, which is customary here. Japanese television broadcast pictures of police officers raiding Mitutoyo’s headquarters in Kawasaki, Japan, and the homes of the arrested executives. While the police provided few details, reports in the Japanese news media said the devices had been sold to Scomi Precision Engineering, a company that was later linked to Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani nuclear scientist who sold nuclear technology to Libya. The reports, by Kyodo News and most major newspapers, said at least one of Mitutoyo’s devices had been shipped to Libya via Dubai on an Iranian-flagged cargo ship. The reports said the police were also investigating whether additional measuring devices had been sent to Iran via an unidentified Iranian trading company based in Tokyo. Iran faces possible United Nations sanctions if it fails to end its uranium enrichment by Aug. 31. It says the enrichment program is for peaceful purposes, but the United States and other nations fear it could be for nuclear weapons. Libya gave up its weapons program almost three years ago. The police refused to confirm or deny the news reports, which appeared to be based on exclusive briefings that government officials here frequently give to large local media organizations. An employee at Mitutoyo’s headquarters refused to comment beyond confirming the arrests. The news reports said the police were also trying to determine whether Mitutoyo’s devices were used by Scomi to make centrifuge parts that were sold to Libya to enrich uranium for its nuclear weapons program. In October 2003, containers full of centrifuge parts made by Scomi were intercepted en route to Libya, a discovery that led to the uncovering of Dr. Khan’s role in Libya’s attempts to build nuclear weapons. The Malaysian police later cleared Scomi of wrongdoing. The company said it did not know the parts were bound for Libya, but instead believed they would be used in oil and gas production in Dubai. The Tokyo police said Mitutoyo exported two of the devices, known as coordinate measuring machines, to Malaysia in separate shipments in October and November 2001. They said the machines had been sent by ship to Singapore, and then transported over land to Malaysia. The sophisticated machines, normally used in the precision manufacture of parts for commercial products like autos, can also be used in making the centrifuges that enrich uranium for weapons. Because of this potential use, the devices cannot be exported without government permission, the police said. Mitutoyo is one of the world’s largest makers of the most advanced types of coordinate measuring devices. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/26/world/asia/26japan.html

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

Washington Times August 27, 2006 Pg. 5 Nuke Test Possible, Pro-Regime Paper Says By Bo-mi Lim, Associated Press SEOUL -- North Korea will not rule out a nuclear test as long as Washington is hostile toward Pyongyang, a newspaper linked to the communist nation said yesterday. There are growing concerns, bolstered by reports of suspicious activity, that Pyongyang may be planning to follow up its recent missile launches with a nuclear test. Pyongyang claims to have nuclear weapons but hasn't performed any known test. "We can't say for sure that North Korea will not conduct a nuclear test as part of strengthening its self-defense," said Choson Sinbo, a newspaper published in Japan by a pro-North Korean association linked to the Pyongyang regime. "The full responsibility for this lies with the U.S., which regards any forces that don't agree with or submit to its logic or actions as evil," the paper said, accusing Washington of trying to topple the North's communist regime. "It is self-evident that we have to take strong countermeasures to protect our country from that threat," the paper said. China, the communist North's closest ally and key provider of oil, has agreed with South Korea to cooperate to prevent a possible North Korean nuclear test. China also has reduced "a significant amount" of its oil supplies to Pyongyang since the July 5 missile launches, South Korea's Chosun Ilbo newspaper said. The report cited unidentified officials at an oil storage terminal near the Chinese border city of Dandong. North Korea's Foreign Ministry said that the regime will "pursue all possible countermeasures to protect our sovereignty and dignity," without elaborating what those measures would be. The statement referred to U.S. financial restrictions imposed on the communist North for purported counterfeiting and money laundering. "It is foolish to think that the issue can be solved through sanctions and pressure," the statement said. Song Min-soon, South Korea's presidential security adviser, said yesterday that a North Korean nuclear test would be "a grave situation of a different level from missile launches and that South Korea and China have agreed to continue cooperation not to let that situation occur." Mr. Song, who returned from a two-day trip to Beijing on Friday, refused to elaborate how the two countries would cooperate. South Korea, China, Japan, Russia and the United States have tried in six-party talks to persuade the North to abandon its nuclear program. Talks on the North's nuclear program have been stalled since November, when negotiators failed to make headway in implementing the North's agreement to drop its nuclear program in exchange for aid and security guarantees. South Korea's seismic authorities said they detected a tremor in North Korea on Friday but ruled out an underground nuclear test. http://www.washtimes.com/world/20060826-110046-9482r.htm

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

New York Times August 28, 2006 Rumsfeld Sees Some Progress In Missile Plan By David S. Cloud FORT GREELY, Alaska, Aug. 27 — Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said here Sunday that while the fledgling United States ballistic missile defense system was becoming more capable, he wanted to see a successful full-scale test before declaring it able to shoot down a ballistic missile. “I have a lot of confidence in these folks, and I have a lot of confidence in the work that’s been done,” Mr. Rumsfeld said after touring one of the system’s two interceptor sites. But he added that he wanted to see a test “where we actually put all the pieces together; that just hasn’t happened.” Mr. Rumsfeld’s assessment was more cautious than that of the Missile Defense Agency director, Lt. Gen. Henry A. Obering III of the Air Force. General Obering said recently that he was confident the system could have shot down a ballistic missile test-fired July 4 by North Korea, if it had been a live attack aimed at the United States. The two- stage rocket broke up shortly after launching and fell into the Sea of Japan. The Bush administration has taken the unusual step of deploying the system, which is designed to shoot down a limited number of missiles, before testing is completed and before all the radars and sensors necessary to track incoming missiles are in place. Mr. Rumsfeld repeated Sunday that the system was aimed at protecting against attacks from North Korea and Iran, which he called “rogue states that are intent on developing long-range ballistic missiles.” The first flight test of the American system in more than a year, involving the firing of an interceptor at a target, is planned for this week, but it is not the sort of full-blown trial Mr. Rumsfeld meant. The goal this week is to see if sensors in the so-called kill vehicle can recognize an incoming warhead, not to actually hit it, General Obering said. A test in which the kill vehicle is supposed to hit the target warhead is planned for later this year, he said. But General Obering said that this week’s test was “about as realistic as you can get” because it employed a target that in its size and speed was representative of missiles that might be fired at the United States. In the last two flight tests, the system halted the firing sequence before the interceptor missile left its silo. General Obering said those setbacks were due to “minor glitches” in software and workmanship by contractors that had “nothing to do with the functionality of the system.” Even so, after the second failed test in February 2005, the system was taken down until December. On his tour of Fort Greely, a remote base 100 miles from Fairbanks, Mr. Rumsfeld climbed down a ladder into an underground silo containing one of the 10 54-foot-long interceptor missiles already deployed. Another of the three- stage missiles is scheduled to be put in the ground on Monday, officials said, and as many as 40 are supposed to be installed by next year. The other interceptor site is at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, where two interceptors are in silos. Once the sensors detect an incoming missile and the interceptor is launched, it flies 18,635 miles an hour until the kill vehicle separates from its missile and, if it works correctly, flies into the incoming one, destroying it. The Bush administration is also looking at locations for an interceptor site in Europe that would protect the United States and parts of Europe from missiles launched from the Middle East. The administration is seeking $126 million this year to build the site and the interceptors, which could be in place in four years if Congress provides the money, General Obering said. Later in the day, Mr. Rumsfeld met in Fairbanks with Sergei Ivanov, the defense minister of Russia, which has long been wary of the American antimissile system, fearing it could be expanded into a more robust shield that would threaten the strategic balance between the United States and Russia. Mr. Ivanov did not directly criticize the American system, but he called for “transparency” by the Bush administration, a term meant to convey Russia’s concern about any modifications to the system that could take its capabilities beyond stopping a small number of missiles. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/washington/28missile.html

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

Los Angeles Times August 28, 2006 U.S. Set For Biggest Missile Defense Test In 18 Months At stake is the ability of an interceptor to spot -- not necessarily to hit -- its target. By Julian E. Barnes, Times Staff Writer FT. GREELY, Alaska — The U.S. military will test its missile defense system Thursday, the fullest demonstration since a pair of tests grounded the program 18 months ago. Military officials are seeking to lower expectations. Although a target missile will be fired from Kodiak Island, Alaska, and an interceptor rocket topped with a "kill vehicle" will launch from California's Vandenberg Air Force Base, military and industry officials say the goal isn't to actually shoot down the missile. "We are not going to try to hit the target," said Scott Fancher, head of Boeing Co.'s ground-based missile defense program. "It is not a primary or secondary test objective to hit the target." After a tour of the missile interceptor silos here Sunday, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said that although he wanted to see a "full end-to-end test," he was patient. He rejected suggestions that the system should try to hit the target this time. "Why not proceed in an orderly way with the kind of the test expert people [want to do]?" Rumsfeld told reporters. "They do not have to do it to demonstrate to you." Air Force Lt. Gen. Henry "Trey" Obering III, director of the Missile Defense Agency, said it was "possible" the kill vehicle would take out the missile even though that was not a goal. But the military, he said, is focused on making sure a redesigned kill vehicle is able to spot the target missile, distinguish between its booster stage and warhead, and communicate with the control centers on the ground. "This is about as good as it gets in terms of a system test," Obering said. The general has said several times that he believes the missile defense system can shoot down a long-range North Korean missile aimed at the United States. "We can protect L.A. — we can protect the entire United States from both California and Alaska — from a North Korea threat," he said Saturday. The military is not going to try to knock out a target missile until December, a test that Obering called the "final stage." "It will be the same scenario: target out of Alaska, interceptor out of California," the general said. But "the objective will be to intercept the target." Critics have long raised doubts about the $43-billion system. Although the interceptors have hit dummy missiles in five out of 10 tests, some outside experts have said the conditions were too controlled and the targets not realistic enough. Obering rejected any suggestion that the previous tests were rigged. Thursday's test, he said, will use a target missile similar in size and speed to the single-warhead weapon that the military believes North Korea could fire. "We believe it is very close," Obering said of the target missile. "As much as we know, we believe it is very representative." The missile defense system was declared operational in 2004, meeting a goal that President Bush had set two years before. Military officials said then that testing and improvement of the system would continue. After botched tests in December 2004 and February 2005, Obering ordered a halt to the program in order to examine and fix the problems that prevented successful launches and flights of the interceptors. The testing resumed, in incremental steps, in December. In the first test, an interceptor was launched against a target dropped from an airplane. And in February, the military tested the ability of the ground-based radar in Beale, Calif., near Sacramento, to pick up and track targets. Thursday's test is more important because it will involve all the main components of the defense system. The military operates two interceptor sites. One site is at Vandenberg, which will be used for Thursday's test. The Alaska site at Ft. Greely will hold 11 missiles when the latest is placed in the ground today. During his visit here, Rumsfeld examined the missile waiting to be installed, saw a mock-up of the kill vehicle and climbed into one of the silos. The military is hoping to install another set of interceptors either in Poland or in the Czech Republic. Obering said that if Congress appropriated the initial funding for the project this year — about $56 million for the site and $70 million for the interceptors — the interceptors could be operational by 2010. At a meeting Sunday in Fairbanks, Alaska, with Russian Defense Minister Sergei B. Ivanov, Rumsfeld outlined the Pentagon's plans for the new interceptor site. At a news conference afterward, Ivanov called on the United States to be "transparent" in moving forward and hinted that an interceptor site might not be needed. "We should proceed from reality," Ivanov said, speaking through a translator. "How many countries can possess substantial ballistic missiles?" The two men also discussed American plans to retrofit some nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles with conventional warheads. During the news conference, Rumsfeld said he thought the Russian military should also retrofit some of its missiles. "We think it would be a good thing five, 10 years from now if both of our countries had that additional weapon available," Rumsfeld said. "We do not know how the world will evolve. But we do know that there are terrorist networks in the world, and they are already using missiles." Ivanov said his government had concerns over the plan. But, he allowed, "we will keep in touch." http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-missile28aug28,0,1428312.story?coll=la-home-nation

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

Washington Times August 28, 2006 Pg. 1 U.S. Plans For Sanctions On Iran Move to follow U.N. deadline By Bill Gertz, The Washington Times The Bush administration plans to move rapidly to organize and impose international economic sanctions on Iran, but not until after a Thursday U.N. deadline passes, according to Bush administration officials. A senior official who has reviewed Iran's 21-page response said there is still hope Iran will agree before then to stop enriching uranium, although there are no indications Tehran is ready to do so. The Iranian response, sent privately last week to several nations, contains numerous references to how Iran is moving forward with its plans for uranium enrichment. "Clearly, it falls short of meeting the condition that was set," the senior official said. "That condition was full suspension of enrichment activity." International economic sanctions likely will be imposed after passage of a United Nations Security Council Chapter 7 resolution, and sanctions will be applied in stages. The initial sanctions are expected to target Iran's weapons of mass destruction and missile programs and will be designed to make it more difficult for officials of the regime of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to travel abroad and conduct business abroad. A coalition of nations in Europe and Asia also is being organized to impose sanctions on Iran should the U.N. Security Council fail to take action after Thursday. Tougher sanctions will be imposed later if Iran continues to reject controls on its nuclear program and halt uranium enrichment. The goal of sanctions will be to persuade Iran's government to suspend its enrichment activities, not to punish the Iranian people, the senior official said,. Meanwhile, the officials said the State Department, White House and Pentagon are at odds over whether to give Iran another chance to halt enrichment activities. Nicholas Burns, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, is working to persuade Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to agree to a plan by the governments of Britain, France and Germany to send Javier Solana, the European Union foreign policy chief, back to Tehran for talks before the Thursday deadline. The Europeans are arguing that if Iran is willing to discuss suspension of enrichment, then the three European governments will not pursue immediate sanctions. The planned concession is opposed by officials at the Pentagon and the office of Vice President Dick Cheney, who oppose making any further concessions to the Iranians because of Tehran's continued defiance. The Iranian response was made after Europeans, the United States and China offered Iran a package of incentives, including trade offers and regional security arrangements, to give up uranium enrichment outside International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) controls. Russia and China, either of which could veto any Security Council moves against Iran, oppose sanctions. The administration is encouraged by support from the governments of France, Germany and Britain for sanctions, although it is not clear whether tough action will be taken to punish Iran this week or next, the senior official said. The U.S. intelligence community estimates that the enrichment activities will give Iran, under the guise of a civilian electricity-generating program, the ability to produce nuclear weapons within four years. "Their nuclear program is continuing," a second official said. "They have set the goal of having 3,000 centrifuges in place by end of year, or early next year. They are having some technical difficulties, but they have also shown themselves to be very capable in terms of their own science and technology and in terms of solving problems." Yesterday, Iran's nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani stated that the Islamic republic would not stop uranium enrichment despite the U.N. deadline, Reuters reported from Tehran. "Iran will continue its uranium enrichment," he said. "We want to produce our own nuclear fuel. We will never stop it." U.S. officials said the Iranian response to the United Nations has been to say that any preconditions on Iran are unfair and something they cannot accept. "Two decades of denial, deception and concealment [on the nuclear program] has made a pretty convincing case for IAEA and others that they are pursuing nuclear weapons," the senior official said. Much of Iran's secret nuclear arms program is located at an underground facility at Natanz, where IAEA inspectors were denied access last week. The facility is the site of a planned centrifuge cascade -- a large number of machines that spin uranium gas into small quantities of enriched uranium. Meanwhile, a senior Iranian nuclear official stated in an interview published in Iran yesterday that a nuclear research facility in Natanz and the uranium conversion plant at Isfahan are operating uninterrupted. Mohammad Saidi, deputy director of the Atomic Energy Agency of Iran, told the Tehran newspaper E'temad-e Melli that Tehran's response last week was "comprehensive and conducive to the resumption of talks for creating an ultimate agreement." http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060828-122941-4296r.htm

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

USA Today August 28, 2006 Pg. 4 Rumsfeld Wants More Missile-Shield Testing By Robert Burns, Associated Press FORT GREELY, Alaska — Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Sunday sounded a note of caution about expectations that interceptors poised in underground silos here would work in the event of a missile attack by North Korea. Rumsfeld climbed down a steel ladder into one of 10 silos here that house single 54-foot-long missile interceptors. If ordered by the president, one or more of the rockets would blast into the sky and race at more than 18,000 mph to launch a small “kill vehicle” at an enemy warhead as it soared through space. An 11th interceptor is to be installed at Greely today. Rumsfeld said he would not be fully convinced that the missile shield was ready until the multibillion-dollar defense system has undergone more complete and realistic testing. “I want to see it happen,” Rumsfeld said, “A full end-to-end” demonstration is needed “where we actually put all the pieces” of the highly complex and far-flung missile-defense system together and see whether it would succeed in destroying a warhead in flight. “That just hasn't happened,” he said, adding that some elements of the missile-defense system are yet to come on line, including some of the radars and other sensors used to track the target missile. Rumsfeld said that North Korea's leaders show by their test-launch of multiple missiles on July 4 a determination to “continue to improve their capability and to threaten and attempt to blackmail other people.” Rumsfeld declined to say when he thought the missile-defense system would reach the point of full reliability but stressed that his advisers, including Lt. Gen. Henry Obering, the Pentagon's missile-defense chief, have told him they believe it will work as designed. “I have a lot of confidence in these folks, and I have a lot of confidence in the work that's been done,” Rumsfeld said. Brig. Gen. Patrick O'Reilly, program director for the ground-based interceptor system, told Rumsfeld that on Thursday an interceptor based at a launch site at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., is to be tested against a target missile launched into the Pacific Ocean from Alaska's Kodiak Island. That will be the first full test of the latest version of the interceptor and its kill vehicle, a device attached to the nose of the interceptor. Once it separates from the interceptor's three-stage booster, the kill vehicle is designed to use its own propulsion system and optical sensors to lock onto its target and, by ramming into it at high speed, obliterate the warhead and any payload. Obering said the main objective of Thursday's test will be to see if the optical sensors on the kill vehicle aboard the interceptor work as designed. http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20060828/a_rumsfeld28.art.htm

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

Chicago Tribune August 27, 2006 Missile Radar Idling In Hawaii Defense experts have concerns about design of X-Band vessel By Kirsten Scharnberg, Tribune national correspondent HONOLULU -- The giant radar, so powerful it can tell which way a baseball is spinning 3,000 miles away and so cutting edge it has been billed as the nation's best chance at comprehensive missile defense, came to the historic port of Pearl Harbor for what was advertised as a quick stopover for minor repairs and a paint job. That was eight months ago. Now, even as the weeks pass and the price tag creeps toward $1 billion, the Sea-Based X-Band Radar shows little chance of actually making the voyage to its intended port in Alaska--considered the optimal location for monitoring potential North Korean missile launches--until at least later this fall. Even more, a recent independent assessment obtained by the Tribune lists dozens of concerns from naval and defense experts about the design and administration of the radar vessel, a cornerstone in the Bush administration's oft-criticized push to fast-track the development of a yet-unproven ballistic missile defense system. Among the findings: *The sensitive radar -- known as the SBX--is mounted atop a vessel that might need to be towed to safety in the event of rugged Alaskan seas, but its one towing bridle likely would be underwater and impossible for a rescue ship to use anytime waves reached more than 8 feet. *Although the SBX may be hundreds of miles away from support ships, it lacks a quickly deployable rescue boat in the event of a man overboard, does not have a helicopter landing pad certified for landing the most common U.S. Coast Guard and Navy rescue helicopters, and its crews have not been trained "for heavy weather or cold-weather operations." *And, ironically, the X-Band, considered one of the nation's foremost technologies in defending against foreign missiles, has minimal security itself. Many critics speculate that it is vulnerable to attack by enemy nations or terrorist groups. The Missile Defense Agency, the arm of the Department of Defense that is responsible for the radar, has said it has addressed or is addressing the majority of concerns raised in the independent assessment. But the problems that have plagued the SBX since it was unveiled as part of the administration's nearly $43 billion missile defense system have led critics to dub it "Son of Star Wars," a derisive moniker drawing on President Ronald Reagan's unrealized dream of developing a space shield that could stop incoming enemy missiles. The Bush administration has faced significant skepticism about its missile defense goals. The president in 2002 ordered that a missile defense system be operational within two years, though the technology was considered shaky after tests showed the system often failed. Those who had questioned whether it was wise to put a radar as intricate as the X-Band on a vessel bound for some of the world's roughest waters only had their arguments bolstered this year when the massive SBX sustained damage during its first long ocean voyage from the Gulf of Mexico to Hawaii. "That radar is absolutely packed with sensitive electronics, and . . . salt water, wind and waves don't go well with sensitive electronics," said Philip Coyle, who as assistant secretary of defense from 1994 to 2001 was the Clinton administration's chief weapons evaluator. He went on: "The bottom line is that the designers of this system didn't begin to contemplate the realistic conditions under which the X-Band would have to operate. When you look at all the facts, you really have to wonder what the people who designed this thing were thinking." The SBX's radar sphere--a 27-story white globe that looks like a giant golf ball--is mounted atop a sea-based, partly submersible oil rig. Its powerful high-frequency radar, which makes detailed, long-range imagery possible, is intended to detect the launch of missiles from hostile nations and then guide U.S. missiles to intercept the threat. Fears about violent weather The SBX is to be based in the Aleutian Islands in Alaska, an ideal place from which to monitor the trajectory experts believe a North Korean missile would take en route to the U.S. This summer, North Korea did a test launch of its most advanced missiles and is feared to have missiles that could reach U.S. bases in Japan, the American territory of Guam and potentially Hawaii or Alaska. But the Aleutians lie in an unforgiving portion of the Bering Sea where winter weather can be so violent that the islands have been nicknamed "the birthplace of winds." Therein lie many of the concerns associated with the SBX. Although virtually all experts agree the SBX is a rugged vessel, many worry that some of its designs fail to fully take into account conditions routinely present around Adak Island, Alaska, the radar's destined home. They raise a number of concerns: There is no refueling station for rescue or resupply aircraft, despite the fact the SBX routinely could be up to an 8-hour helicopter flight from a Coast Guard station; the emergency communication system depends on satellite communications that can occasionally fail; vital backup electrical systems on deck are not protected from water or cold; the propulsion system will not allow the vessel to move quickly. An official said recently that the Missile Defense Agency was "taking to heart" the dozens of recommendations made in the independent assessment. Chet DeCesaris, deputy program manager for the agency's ground-based missile defense program, said the vessel is getting certified for Coast Guard and Navy rescue helicopters to land on it, its crew has been extensively training in cold-weather operations and damage incurred during the voyage to Hawaii has been repaired. "The overriding thought in the assessment was that the SBX is a robust vessel," he said, adding that the converted oil rig the radar is mounted on was designed for service in the harsh conditions of the North Sea. He said the agency was studying whether to implement other major changes, such as adding a second bridle to increase odds that the SBX could be towed away from a violent storm. But he argued that a permanent mooring platform would be built for the SBX within about a year and there was a "low risk" that a storm would significantly damage the vessel before that. "I don't think, I know, there is no risk going up there for the winter," DeCesaris said, adding that should a significant enough storm arise that it threatens the radar, the SBX would be "taken anywhere in the world" to ensure its safety. Despite the setbacks, DeCesaris insisted the SBX would be in Alaska sometime in November. Previously the Missile Defense Agency had assured Congress that it would be in place by late summer, and some experts have said a move in late fall will be difficult because of the early arrival of winter in Alaska. There are doubts that the SBX will ever make it to Alaska. "I increasingly suspect it may not ever leave Hawaii," said Coyle, the former assistant secretary of defense. Even if all the SBX's design challenges are addressed, there remains an overarching question: Can the radar actually detect a hostile missile in real time, under real-life circumstances? A number of defense experts have voiced skepticism, saying the preliminary testing done on missile defense radar systems is inherently flawed because the tests are so carefully scripted that radar operators often know beforehand what kind of missile to look for, where it will be flying and what kind of radar signature it gives off. A scathing report by the Government Accountability Office this spring took the Missile Defense Agency to task for not yet proving its system works, even though the Pentagon plans to spend an additional $58 billion, or 14 percent of its projected research budget, on missile defense in the coming six years. Security issue What most worries many observers is what happens the day the SBX is declared operational. The vessel now is protected by a security detail with a handful of small-arms weapons. DeCesaris deflected questions about the vessel's security by saying that the Missile Defense Agency leaves security issues to the armed forces; in reality, though, the vessel belongs to the agency and is not under the jurisdiction of any military branch. "If North Korea or China actually believed this thing worked, one of the first things they would take out would be the X-Band if aggressions developed," Coyle said. "Those .50-cal [machine guns] they have on board aren't going to be able to do anything to protect them." http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0608270359aug27,1,4210359.story

(Return to Articles and Documents List)