#93 21 Aug 2001 USAF COUNTERPROLIFERATION CENTER CPC OUTREACH JOURNAL Air University Air War College Maxwell AFB, Alabama Welcome to the CPC Outreach Journal. As part of USAF Counterproliferation Center’s mission to counter weapons of mass destruction through education and research, we’re providing our government and civilian community a source for timely counterproliferation information. This information includes articles, papers and other documents addressing issues pertinent to US military response options for dealing with nuclear, biological and chemical threats and attacks. It’s our hope this information resource will help enhance your counterproliferation issue awareness. Established here at the Air War College in 1998, the USAF/CPC provides education and research to present and future leaders of the Air Force, as well as to members of other branches of the armed services and Department of Defense. Our purpose is to help those agencies better prepare to counter the threat from weapons of mass destruction. Please feel free to visit our web site at www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-cps.htm for in-depth information and specific points of contact. Please direct any questions or comments on CPC Outreach Journal to Lt. Col. Michael W. Ritz, CPC Intelligence/Public Affairs or JoAnn Eddy, CPC Outreach Editor, at (334) 953- 7538 or DSN 493-7538. The following articles, papers or documents do not necessarily reflect official endorsement of the United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or other US government agencies. Reproduction for private use or commercial gain is subject to original copyright restrictions. All rights are reserved Baltimore Sun August 18, 2001 Nations To Continue Talks On Biological Weapons Ban GENEVA - Major powers have agreed to more talks on strengthening a ban on biological weapons despite Washington's rejection of a draft protocol at negotiations in Geneva, the negotiating committee chairman said yesterday. The Bush administration dashed hopes of clinching a verification agreement when it announced last month that the draft protocol, produced after 6 1/2 years of negotiations, was "unfixable." Washington Post August 18, 2001 Pg. 10 Scientist Challenges Censorship Agencies Bar Part Of Weapons Book By Associated Press ALBUQUERQUE, Aug. 17 -- The government has cleared for publication 85 percent of a book written by Danny Stillman, a former Los Alamos National Laboratory scientist, about China's nuclear program, Stillman's attorney said today. Stillman headed the lab's intelligence division for nearly 14 years before retiring in 1993. He wrote his 500-page book, "Inside China's Nuclear Weapons Program," based on nine trips he made to China from 1990 to 1999. "I was not operating as an intelligence officer or agent of the United States," Stillman said in documents filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. "I was merely a loyal American citizen who served as a voluntary source of information" in debriefings after returning from China. Stillman, 67, said he wrote the book in a way that would exclude classified information. Stillman's attorney, Mark Zaid, has asked the court to order a public evidentiary hearing to determine whether the Defense Department, Defense Intelligence Agency and CIA have the right to withhold the remaining 15 percent of the book. New York Times August 21, 2001 Pg. 1 U.S. Balks On Plan To Take Plutonium Out Of Warheads By Matthew L. Wald WASHINGTON, Aug. 20 - A program conceived by the Clinton administration to rid the world of 100 tons of American and Russian weapons-grade plutonium is likely to be abandoned by the Bush administration, according to people who have been briefed about the project. Under the plan, which was first proposed in the mid-90's, 50 tons of American plutonium and 50 tons of Russian plutonium would be taken out of nuclear weapons and either converted into fuel for nuclear reactors or rendered useless for weapons by mixing it with with highly radioactive nuclear waste, a process known as immobilization. When the plan was drafted, Clinton administration officials said the program would reduce the risk that the plutonium would fall into the wrong hands, where it could easily be turned into weapons. By reducing the availability of weapons-grade plutonium, the project had the added benefit of bolstering treaties between the United States and Russia to cut the number of nuclear warheads deployed by each side, by making it harder to turn plutonium from decommissioned weapons back into warheads. Bush administration officials deny the program is dead, but acknowledge that it has difficulties, primarily financial ones. ``The issue is under review,'' said an administration official who would speak only if not identified. ``We've made no secret of that. But no decisions have been made.'' But the official continued, ``It's no secret that there are a lot of equities to balance here.'' One major equity, he said, is money. Early this year the Energy Department predicted a cost of $6.6 billion, about triple the initial estimates, to convert the American stocks to fuel for civilian nuclear reactors. It put Russia's cost at $1.76 billion, which is money Russia does not have. The expectation under the Clinton administration was that the United States and other rich countries would help pay, but no concrete pledges were ever made. In 1999 the Clinton administration did agree to pay a consortium of power companies $130 million to use plutonium that the government would convert into fuel. But the conversion factories are not yet built, and the conversion itself was contingent on an agreement with the Russians to take similar steps to dispose of plutonium from their weapons. Despite the program's expected benefits, the Bush administration's proposed Energy Department budget this spring did not include the money needed to mix some of the plutonium with nuclear waste. The second path - converting it to fuel for American nuclear reactors, the strategy the Clinton administration hoped would induce the Russians to do the same - also appears likely to be dropped soon. sv29,2if,,v29 ``There is no enthusiasm for it whatsoever,'' said a Congressional aide who was briefed by officials of the National Security Council, referring both to the current strategy of immobilization and to conversion to reactor fuel. The issue of what to do with plutonium from decommissioned nuclear weapons has haunted policy makers for years. One particular fear is that the material from Russian weapons would be bought or stolen by terrorists or a ``rogue'' government who could construct a nuclear bomb. In recent years, the security of bomb materials in Russia has been improved markedly by joint Russian-American efforts, administration experts say. Bush administration officials insist they share the goal of disposing of American and Russian plutonium. ``There's no philosphical shift that says suddenly we're perfectly fine with surplus plutonium laying around - we're not,'' said an administration official familiar with the Clinton-era program. But, he added, conversion to fuel for existing reactors or mixing with waste are ``not the only options for disposing of it safely.'' As an alternative, the Bush administration appears to be considering a variety of untested technical options, including a new generation of nuclear reactors that could burn plutonium more thoroughly. ``They're trying to improve on it by giving up on getting started any time soon,'' said Matthew G. Bunn, a nuclear expert at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, who was an adviser to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Clinton administration. He and other experts are skeptical that a new generation of reactors, which was also mentioned in President Bush's energy plan as a way to dispose of nuclear waste, would ever be built. Construction on the last nuclear plants built in the United States country was begun more than 25 years ago. ``We're back at Square 1 with the program, and they're looking at imaginary options, like advanced reactors,'' said Tom Clements, executive director the Nuclear Control Institute, a nonprofit group that opposes the use of plutonium for reactor fuel. ``For financial reasons, it's not going to be viable.'' Though the administration is considering dropping the program to convert or immobilize weapons- grade plutonium, a separate Russian-American program to reduce the inventory of another Russian bomb fuel, highly enriched uranium, is continuing. In fact, uranium that was intended for Russian bombs now meets more than half the needs of American power reactors. But diluting uranium to the type used in power plants is technically far simpler and cheaper than the process required for plutonium, which must be converted from the metal form used in weapons to a plutonium-uranium ceramic used in American power plants. In fact, enriched uranium has economic value as reactor fuel, while converting plutonium appears to be a money- losing proposition. Even so, Russian officials have said repeatedly that they view plutonium as an asset and would like to build new breeder reactors, so named because they produce plutonium faster than they consume the other main reactor fuel, uranium. The end of the plutonium program would be mixed news for groups concerned with proliferation. For example the Nuclear Control Institute has pushed vigorously for immobilization and against converting plutonium to reactor fuel, which is known as mixed oxide, or MOx. Officials of the institute say conversion to MOx is very expensive and would encourage international commerce in weapons material. Washington Times August 21, 2001 Pg. 1 Missile-Shield Test Site Gets Pentagon OK Alaska base to house facility By Bill Gertz, The Washington Times The Pentagon has given the go-ahead for construction to begin in the next few weeks on a missile-defense test site in Alaska.