USAF Counterproliferation Center CPC Outreach Journal #134
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
#134 17 Dec 2001 USAF COUNTERPROLIFERATION CENTER CPC OUTREACH JOURNAL Air University Air War College Maxwell AFB, Alabama Welcome to the CPC Outreach Journal. As part of USAF Counterproliferation Center’s mission to counter weapons of mass destruction through education and research, we’re providing our government and civilian community a source for timely counterproliferation information. This information includes articles, papers and other documents addressing issues pertinent to US military response options for dealing with nuclear, biological and chemical threats and attacks. It’s our hope this information resource will help enhance your counterproliferation issue awareness. Established here at the Air War College in 1998, the USAF/CPC provides education and research to present and future leaders of the Air Force, as well as to members of other branches of the armed services and Department of Defense. Our purpose is to help those agencies better prepare to counter the threat from weapons of mass destruction. Please feel free to visit our web site at www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-cps.htm for in-depth information and specific points of contact. Please direct any questions or comments on CPC Outreach Journal to Lt Col Michael W. Ritz, ANG Special Assistant to Director of CPC or 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 CONTENTS U.S. Sets Missile Treaty Pullout Bush Offers China Talks On Arms As U.S. Pulls Out Of ABM Treaty Withdrawal Gives U.S. More Latitude In Defense Tests Facing Pact's End, Putin Decides To Grimace And Bear It China Voices Muted Distress At U.S. Blow To ABM Pact GAO Report Expected To Dismiss Allegations Of Missile Defense Fraud Seoul Balks At U.S. Push To Link North To Terror Could Nuclear Plants Be Terrorists' Next Target? Army's Anthrax Material Surprises Some Experts Army Confirms Experiments With Anthrax At Utah Facility Official: DOD Not Ready To Announce New Structure For Homeland Security Nuclear Nightmares Beyond Duck And Cover Russia's Putin Is Likely To Weather U.S. Departure From ABM Treaty Poison Multiplies Terror Anthrax found in State Dept. mail pouch in Austria Scientists Focus on How Smallpox Could Spread House approves $2.9 billion anti-terrorism measure Chemical Plants Feared as Targets Designs of mass destruction Greece orders smallpox vaccine stockpile Washington Whispers Hiding Arms Is Easy Anthrax Likely Came From U.S. Source Bioterror Attack Raises More Questions Washington Post December 14, 2001 Pg. 1 U.S. Sets Missile Treaty Pullout Russia Calls Bush Decision 'Mistaken' By Steven Mufson and Dana Milbank, Washington Post Staff Writers President Bush gave Russia formal six-month notice yesterday that the United States would withdraw from the Anti- Ballistic Missile Treaty, laying aside a cornerstone of U.S.-Russia nuclear strategy to clear the way for unrestricted U.S. tests of various missile defense plans. "I have concluded the ABM Treaty hinders our government's ability to develop ways to protect our people from future terrorist or rogue-state missile attacks," said Bush, in a statement he read from the damp and gray Rose Garden. A somber Russian President Vladimir Putin, appearing on television, called the U.S. move "mistaken," but said that it would not threaten Russia's national security. Signaling a commitment to U.S. relations, Putin said, "the present level of bilateral cooperation between Russia and the United States should not only be preserved but also used for quickly working out new frameworks of strategic cooperation." Bush administration officials hailed the relatively mild Russian response as evidence that even though months of negotiations had failed to produce an agreement over missile defense tests and the 1972 treaty, the talks had nonetheless eased Russian anxieties over the effects of such missile defense systems. "The key point here is that an arms race has not been set off by the United States' indicating its intention to withdraw from the ABM Treaty. Quite the contrary," said Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. He called Putin's comments "very encouraging" and said the two sides would push ahead with plans for deep cuts in offensive nuclear strategic weapons. Indeed, Putin yesterday put forward a Russian proposal that the two nuclear superpowers reduce the size of their strategic nuclear arsenals to a range between 1,500 and 2,200 warheads, overlapping with the 1,700 to 2,200 range proposed by Bush at the Crawford, Tex., summit between the two leaders last month. Powell called for the two nations to "move forward aggressively to put this into a legal framework so the two presidents can bind the two nations at this lower level." A senior Bush aide said the president will visit Moscow in the spring with the goal of signing a formal accord that codifies the reductions in nuclear arsenals. Russia wants to make the reductions permanent and binding, while Bush officials prefer flexibility. "We'll work on that," the official said of the debate over permanent cuts. "It'll be a formal agreement." China's reaction was as big a concern for the Bush administration as Russia's. Many experts warned that scrapping the ABM Treaty would spark an arms race in Asia, where China's more modest nuclear arsenal of about two dozen warheads could be neutralized if the United States ever succeeded in developing even a limited missile defense system. If China improves and expands its nuclear weapons, then its rival India might add to its own. Taiwan and Japan might build nuclear weapons of their own too. Sensitive to that possibility, Powell said that on Wednesday he phoned Chinese Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan and hosted China's ambassador to the United States, Yang Jiechi, at the State Department for a "long conversation" about U.S. intentions. "I hope they will come to the same conclusion that the Russians came to, that this action is not intended against them," Powell said. "It is not a threat against their strategic deterrence." Despite the administration's assurances, Bush's announcement met with a volley of criticism from key Democrats and arms control experts, who said the president had needlessly increased nuclear instability and soured relations with Moscow for the sake of unproven technology and tests that would not have to violate the treaty for years. "There was absolutely no reason to do this under the treaty," said John Rhinelander, a lawyer who helped negotiate the treaty under President Richard M. Nixon. "This group doesn't want to be under any treaty obligations and wants to run free and clear." "Unilaterally abandoning the ABM Treaty is a serious mistake," said Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.). "There is no missile defense test the U.S. must conduct in the near future that would require us to walk away from a treaty that has helped keep the peace for the last 30 years." Biden said that the "real threat" to national security came from weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists, who he said would not deliver them with missiles. "Today's decision misplaces our priorities and our resources, and has the potential to set off a dangerous, new arms race in Asia," he said. While Bush has the power under the ABM Treaty to decide on his own whether to withdraw from it, Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) criticized the president for failing to consult Congress. It did not help that Bush's ABM announcement followed executive decisions on the civil rights of terror suspects and coincided with Bush's first claim of executive privilege. He invoked the privilege to block Congress from access to documents sought by a House committee investigating a 30-year-old Boston mob case and Clinton administration campaign finance abuses. "Shutting Congress out of the decision-making process involving agreements among nations is a dangerous and corrosive course of action," Byrd said. "It effectively undermines the intent of the framers of our Constitution. Monarchs make treaties. American presidents propose treaties." Some arms experts said pulling out of the ABM Treaty carried risks beyond the Putin era. They said Russia might one day add multiple warheads to land-based intercontinental missiles, a measure barred by the START II strategic arms reduction agreement, which was being followed even though it was never ratified in final form by both legislatures. "Some may think that if the Russians swallow this, it's okay. But the Russian position on this at the moment is not crucial to deciding whether this is in the long-run interests of the United States, keeping in mind it will influence the strategic relationship long beyond the time of the Bush and Putin administrations," said Leon Fuerth, who was Vice President Al Gore's national security adviser. Many arms experts believe that if the United States ever deploys a working missile defense system, given holes in Russia's early warning system, it could prompt Russia to leave more nuclear weapons on hair trigger-alert status, increasing rather than decreasing the dangers of a nuclear exchange. Many arms experts said that Russia muted its reaction after calculating that the United States would need years and scores if not hundreds of billions of dollars to make missile defense technology work.