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.