DHS Readies $3 Billion for Terrorism Preparedness

From Thursday, November 6, 2008 issue.

The U.S. Homeland Security Department yesterday announced plans to distribute more than $3 billion in terrorism and disaster preparedness grants to U.S. communities in fiscal 2009.  The latest tranche of funding would come with fewer restrictions than in past years, the Washington Post reported (see GSN, July 19, 2007).

Among a number of loosened restrictions, state and local recipients would be allowed to use 50 percent of the funds for personnel expenses, a figure previously capped at 25 percent.

The new guidelines appeared to recognize criticisms that the federal support focused too much on terrorism to the detriment of other crime-fighting activities, the Post reported.

“The economic crisis is placing a great strain on local resources, forcing officials to decide between, say, a school-lunch program and cops on the street,” said David Heyman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.  “This sounds like the department being very responsive to years of deep-seated complaints from local authorities about the enormous federal funding bureaucracy.”

“There is no more room for folks from state and local government to complain. They got pretty much what they wanted,” added a congressional aide to the House Homeland Security Committee (Spencer Hsu, Washington Post, Nov. 6).

The new funding reflects an evolving readiness strategy, said Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.

“Several years of investment have taken us largely from capability building to performance-based planning and investment,” he said in a release.   “This year’s funding priorities are consistent with last year, and reflect a mature and disciplined grants program.  We are now in the position of being able to inform high threat urban areas of their target allocations ahead of time, which will go a long way in helping their applications” (U.S. Homeland Security Department release, Nov. 5).

Back to top

Report Warns of “Future Military Failure”

From Thursday, November 6, 2008 issue.

By Bob Brewin
Government Executive

WASHINGTON — The Defense Science Board released on Tuesday a sobering report that called for the incoming Obama administration to focus on a small but complex set of defense issues, with protection of the country against weapons of mass destruction as the top priority of the new secretary of defense (see GSN, Nov. 5).

Weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear and biological armaments, imperil both the safety of the United States and its military forces, according to the report, "Defense Imperatives for New Administration."  The board urged the new defense leadership "to do everything possible to prevent the worst people from acquiring and using the worst weapons."

This must include a strongly stated and unambiguous policy of retaliation to punish any nation or group that launches a weapon of mass destruction attack against the United States, according to the report, whose lead author is Craig Fields, chairman of the Defense Science Board and former director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency in the late 1980s.

The new administration cannot ignore the pressing issues outlined in the report, which "could lead to future military failure," the Defense Science Board said.  "We are at war in Afghanistan and Iraq, with over 180,000 military personnel and perhaps 30,000 contractors at risk. ... We cannot know how militant Islamic jihadist terrorism will develop or what it will do.  Nations of concern, both rogue states and the largest nations, are enlarging their armories.  We need to feel a sense of urgency and act accordingly."

The science board also expressed strong concerns that terrorists could obtain supplies of the cesium 135 isotope, which is widely used in medical applications such as cancer treatments, to make a radioactive “dirty bomb.”  It urged the United States to encourage medical facilities to use another form of treatment to fight cancer.

The National Research Council issued a similar report in February, which called for the federal government to promote replacing cesium chloride, which is used in medical applications, with lower risk alternatives because of the compound's potential use in dirty bombs.

The science board said the new administration must mobilize forces worldwide to deter enemies and protect allies.  But the board emphasized that the United States' military and civilian information infrastructure remains highly vulnerable to cyber attack, which could deter force projection capabilities.

Poor defense business practices undermine military capabilities as they raise costs and impede "modernization that they threaten to compromise America's technology lead and force capability," said the report, which was dated August 2008 but released on Election Day.

The report also urged the new administration to focus on nation-building, stabilizing and reconstructing countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq, and on thwarting terrorist threats at home and around the world.

In addition, the Defense Department and other agencies such as the Homeland Security Department must devise better operational contingency plans to respond to domestic catastrophes, whether they are natural disasters such as hurricanes or attacks carried out by terrorist groups or foreign nations, the report said.

The Defense Science Board forecasted a grim scenario if an attack larger than Sept. 11 occurs or if the United States is hit by a natural disaster on the scale of Hurricane Katrina and the government's response is slow and ineffective.  The consequences, the science board predicted, would be a breakdown of civil order, leading to riots, vigilante actions and gang violence.

The new administration should reform "cumbersome business practices" within defense, which could cause a gradual long-term degradation of U.S. forces, "in effect a self-inflicted wound," the report said.  The Defense Science Board said a slow acquisition process limits ability of defense to take advantage of cutting-edge technology developed in the United States, and more agile adversaries can acquire technology quicker.

The Pentagon needs to adapt the best practices of the commercial sector to its missions and have an authoritative business plan that enforces discipline in the allocations of resources by mission purpose: what is to be done, with what resources and by when.

The Defense Department can no longer afford to perform its wide range of missions alone, the report said, and will have to work with other agencies and private sector partners at home and abroad.  Stabilization and reconstruction missions in foreign countries demand not only military skills to ensure public safety, but civilian skills needed to understand local cultures, histories and language, the report said.

Back to top

U.K. Rejects Students for Allegedly Seeking WMD

From Monday, November 3, 2008 issue.

British counterterrorism officials have turned away as many as 100 international students in the last year on suspicion that they were seeking chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear-weapon ingredients and know-how in the nation’s laboratories, the London Guardian reported yesterday (see GSN, July 22).

Under the Academic Technology Approval Scheme, a new system of background checks instituted in November 2007, the British intelligence agencies MI5 and MI6 prohibited applicants from studying in the United Kingdom with their authority “to stop the spread of knowledge and skills that could be used in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery,” according to a British Foreign Office spokesman.

“There is empirical evidence of a problem with postgraduate students becoming weapons proliferators,” the official added.  Some of the students likely came from Iran, Pakistan and other “countries of concern,” the Guardian reported.

MI5 previously said that al-Qaeda was seeking to enlist laboratory staffers who worked with lethal biological agents and other WMD materials. Michael Stephens, security chief for an organization of high-security British research facilities, said the group takes biological material protection “extremely seriously.”

It remained uncertain how many potential weapon proliferators could be working in the United Kingdom, the Guardian reported.  Rihab Taha, a former Iraqi biological weapons scientist also known as “Dr. Germ,” studied plant toxins at East Anglia University in Norwich (see GSN, March 14, 2006).

The new vetting system is working effectively, said a representative for Universities U.K., an organization of vice chancellors.  “It is important to protect the U.K. from people who may wish to use technology and materials here inappropriately,” the spokesman said.

The vetting program would impact only a small fraction of students who apply for postgraduate studies, the Foreign Office said.

In the United States, a proposed bill would prevent scientists born outside the country from working with deadly biological agents; British officials consider such a proposal unreasonable, the Guardian reported (Mark Townsend, London Guardian, Nov. 2).

Back to top

International Crises Await Obama

From Thursday, November 6, 2008 issue.

Upon his January inauguration, U.S. President-elect Barack Obama would inherit the leadership of a nation threatened by terror groups and political instability in nuclear-armed states, the McClatchy News Service reported (see GSN, Nov. 5).

"President Obama will be a wartime president from day one, and he will have to make immediate decisions and come to grips with immediate national security priorities," Anthony Cordesman, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, wrote yesterday.

Richard Haass, head of the Council on Foreign Relations, added that whether or not international leaders immediately challenge the next president, "the one thing I'm sure of is, events will test him. …  There will be coups. … There will be genocide. … There will be terrorism."

Obama is expected today to receive his first President’s Daily Brief, a confidential document authored by the country’s intelligence services, a high-level intelligence official said (Strobel/Linday, McClatchy News Service/Yahoo!News, Nov. 5).

In a letter sent late on Tuesday, National Intelligence Director Michael McConnell said the president-elect’s advisers would probably establish a temporary liaison group at his office, the Washington Post reported today.  "We are prepared to brief the team on the (intelligence community's) capabilities as well as on significant intelligence issues," the note states.

CIA Director Michael Hayden wrote in a memorandum to staffers that his agency now serves “two sets of customers,” Obama and President George W. Bush.  “Through expanded access, greater than what he had in his briefings as a candidate or as a senator, he will see the full range of capabilities we deploy for the United States,” he said (Kornblut/Cho, Washington Post, Nov. 6).

As president, Obama is expected to contend with North Korea, where the health of leader Kim Jong Il has cast uncertainty on efforts to denuclearize the country (see related GSN story, today), with Iran, which has refused to halt nuclear activities that could aid nuclear weapons development (see GSN, Nov. 3), and with al-Qaeda, which maintains a solid base along the Afghan-Pakistani border (see GSN, Oct. 28; Strobel/Linday, McClatchy).

He would also grapple with a resurgent Taliban, which has gathered strength in Afghanistan and allied with tribal militants in nuclear-armed Pakistan, the Associated Press reported.

"We're on our way to failure in Afghanistan and the consequences of losing are tremendous," said Paddy Ashdown, former secretary general of NATO.  "It means Pakistan falling and nuclear weapons getting into the hands of an Islamist government and the widening of the regional conflict and Afghanistan reverting to a playground for al-Qaeda."

Ashdown called on Obama to organize an international peace symposium early in his presidency with leaders from Iran, China and other nations.

“There will be a honeymoon because the world is longing for a U.S. president to give them a reason to love the United States again," Ashdown said.  "If he makes some bold moves, he can really take advantage of it" (Gregory Katz, Associated Press/Google News, Nov. 6).

According to the Americas editor for Jane’s Information Group, financial instability will probably limit Obama’s ability to dramatically shift the nation’s foreign policy, Agence France-Presse reported yesterday.

"Despite his accent during the election campaign on delivering change, Obama's foreign policy in practice is likely to be constrained by the effects of economic downturn and ongoing long-term commitments inherited from the Bush administration," Robert Munks said.  "The major difference from Republican foreign policy is therefore likely to be in presentation rather than substance.”

"On many ‘big ticket' issues there will be broad continuity, such as drawdown from Iraq, increased engagement in Afghanistan, the containment of Iran's putative nuclear weapons ambitions and cautious engagement with Beijing based primarily on trade.

"Countries where specific but nuanced policy shifts could be seen include Cuba, Colombia, Pakistan, Russia and Syria, and at the strategic level there is likely to be an increased focus on energy independence and environmental issues as factors affecting national security," Munks said (Agence France-Presse I/Khaleej Times, Nov. 5).

Arab League chief Amr Moussa yesterday urged Obama to base his Middle East policy on "honest brokership."

"We cannot talk about a Middle East free from nuclear weapons which applies to all but one,” he said, referring to Israel’s widely presumed possession of nuclear weapons.  “It's not serious, the policy of all but one has to come to an end" (Agence France-Presse II/Zawya, Nov. 5).

Meanwhile, Israel noted concern about Obama’s stated willingness to negotiate with Iran over its disputed nuclear efforts, Reuters reported.  Tehran insists its nuclear program is strictly peaceful, a position doubted by Jerusalem and the West.

"We live in a neighborhood in which sometimes dialogue — in a situation where you have brought sanctions, and you then shift to dialogue — is liable to be interpreted as weakness," Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said on Israeli radio when questioned on Obama’s Middle East positions.

Questioned on whether would endorse any U.S. talks with Iran, she said:  “The answer is no” (Jeffrey Heller, Reuters I, Nov. 6).

Iran yesterday said it would not tolerate U.S. incursions into Iranian airspace, a warning that one Iranian political figure said was directed more at Obama than the U.S. military presence in Iraq

"Recently it has been seen that American army helicopters were flying a small distance from Iraq's border with Iran and, because of the closeness to the border, the danger of them violating Iran's border is possible," state radio reported, referring to an Iranian army statement.  "Iran's armed forces will respond to any violation” (Parisa Hafezi, Reuters II, Nov. 5).

Back to top

Air Force Opens Nuclear Policy Office at Pentagon

From Tuesday, November 4, 2008 issue.

The U.S. Air Force on Saturday opened a new office at its Pentagon headquarters to oversee and integrate the service’s nuclear weapons policy (see GSN, Oct. 27).

Maj. Gen. Donald Alston, who recently directed a task force aimed at “reinvigorating” the service’s nuclear enterprise, has been named assistant chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration and will lead the Air Staff office, according to a release issued yesterday.

The initiative is one of many the service is undertaking following a string of operational and management lapses in its nuclear sector, including a mistaken shipment of weapons parts to Taiwan and the accidental transfer of nuclear-armed cruise missiles between two U.S. bases.  Last week, the Air Force disclosed that a fire had occurred at one of its nuclear weapons silos (see GSN, Oct. 31).

One of Alston’s first tasks will be to help create a new Air Force Global Strike Command, which is to take charge of the service’s nuclear weapons operations by next September (Elaine M. Grossman, Global Security Newswire, Nov. 4).

Back to top

Strategic Arms Funds Tilt Conventional in 2009

From Friday, November 7, 2008 issue.

By Elaine M. Grossman
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — With the U.S. Congress having eliminated funds for a Bush administration proposal to develop a new nuclear warhead for the second year in a row, the focus of the strategic arms budget for fiscal 2009 has largely turned to conventional weaponry (see GSN, Sept. 15).

The trend might just sit well with President-elect Barack Obama, who said last year that, if voted into the White House, he would “take the lead to work for a world in which the roles and risks of nuclear weapons can be reduced and ultimately eliminated.”

The impending rise of long-range conventional arms comes principally in the form of two futuristic efforts:  an Air Force “Conventional Strike Missile” and an Army “Advanced Hypersonic Weapon.”  These are the leading candidates to become “prompt global strike” weapons, which defense leaders envision as a partial alternative to nuclear arms under limited circumstances (see GSN, Oct. 29).

For the new fiscal year, Congress has appropriated nearly $82 million to develop prompt strike weapons, while zeroing a requested $33 million in Defense and Energy department funds for design work on a Reliable Replacement Warhead to upgrade the nuclear stockpile.

"A nuclear weapon is still a viable part of our inventory, but ... one size does not fit all," Gen. James Cartwright — at the time the top U.S. strategic commander — told a Senate Armed Services panel in March 2006.  "What we'd like to do is ... field a [conventional] weapon that will give us a broader and potentially more appropriate choice for the nation."

For the emerging conventional mission, the Defense Department seeks the capacity to attack targets anywhere around the world within 60 minutes of a launch order.  Commanders have said such a capability could be crucial if the nation were confronted by a serious but fleeting threat, such as a terrorist leader pinpointed at a safe house or a weapon of mass destruction being readied for firing by a rogue nation. 

Currently, the only U.S. weapons with sufficient range and speed to undertake the mission are nuclear-armed ballistic missiles.  As a U.S. president would be unlikely to launch a nuclear weapon against such targets, conventional ballistic missiles should be developed that might be used more readily, defense leaders have argued (see GSN, May 28).

“In light of the appropriately extreme reluctance to use nuclear weapons, conventional prompt global strike could be of particular value in some important scenarios in that it would eliminate the dilemma of having to choose between responding to a sudden threat either by using nuclear weapons or by not responding at all,” stated an August report by a National Academy of Sciences panel (see GSN, Aug. 15).

Focus on the Army and Air Force efforts has grown this year following congressional moves to shelve a Navy concept for modifying submarine-launched ballistic missiles.

Lawmakers have refused to fund a plan to equip 24 Trident D-5 missiles with conventional warheads, the Pentagon’s initial blueprint for prompt global strike.  Opponents of the Navy project argued that Russia or other nuclear powers might mistake the conventional Trident’s launch as a nuclear salvo and unleash a devastating response (see GSN, Dec. 13, 2007).

Gen. Kevin Chilton, now the top U.S. commander for strategic combat, recently acknowledged Capitol Hill concerns, mandating that the Air Force take over the lead for prompt global strike weapons (see GSN, Sept. 3).  Both the Air Force and Army missiles are being designed as new, ground-based weapons that would not have look-alike nuclear variants, potentially making them less likely to be misconstrued as atomic arms during a crisis.

The notional weapons would initially boost like missiles and then glide to their targets at hypersonic speeds.  Both are imagined as being maneuverable, a feature that could help avoid violating the airspace of third-party nations en route to their targets, proponents say.

Beginning in fiscal 2008, Congress consolidated $100 million in prompt global strike funds across the military services into a single, defense-wide account.  The multiservice funding pot allows the defense secretary’s office to parcel out money for strike technology projects to the services, in consultation with Capitol Hill (see GSN, April 3).

Lawmakers also chose to appropriate some funds for prompt global strike technologies directly to the services, outside of the defense-wide account, including more than $40 million for the Army’s hypersonic weapon (see GSN, Nov. 8, 2007).

The fiscal 2009 appropriations bill again funded prompt global strike via the pan-service account — and included a few more twists.

This year, neither the House nor the Senate Appropriations committees voted on a fiscal 2009 defense appropriations bill and lawmakers never met in a formal conference.  Only the respective defense appropriations subcommittees marked up their bills, according to congressional aides.

After committee leaders met behind closed doors this summer, the two chambers in late September passed a reconciled defense appropriations bill.  They appended the $487.7 billion in defense appropriations to a continuing resolution that combines funding measures for a number of agencies.

The enacted legislation included $74.6 million for the defense-wide account for prompt global strike in fiscal 2009, which began Oct. 1.  The conference figure matches the earlier Senate version of the appropriations bill, which cut $43 million from President George W. Bush’s $117.6 million request for the program.

Defense officials had told Congress the $43 million would have been spent on a Navy concept for a Medium-Lift Re-entry Body, described as a scaled-up version of designs for the controversial Trident modification program (see GSN, March 20).  The funds also would have gone toward a related Navy “Life Extension Test Bed-2” flight demonstration in 2009.

Critics said funding this alternative weapon would have renewed concerns about the “ambiguity” of ballistic missile launches from nuclear weapons-carrying submarines.

The House version of the 2009 bill, ultimately rejected in the reconciled bill, fully funded the president’s defense-wide prompt global strike request.  It also separately added a total of $9 million to Air Force and Army coffers for the services’ respective missile development projects (see GSN, Sept. 9). 

However, in similar fashion, the final House-Senate bill not only provided funds for defense-wide prompt global strike via its $74.6 million appropriation, but included additional funds for the mission outside the joint funding pot, in Army- and Air Force-specific line items.

For the Army, the conference bill appropriated an extra $2.4 million to help prepare a demonstration of Advanced Hypersonic Weapon technologies.  The Army this fiscal year expects to begin testing technology components that could contribute either toward its own weapon development effort or toward the Air Force project.

The increase was a congressional earmark sponsored by Republicans from Mississippi and Alabama, home to the Army’s Space and Missile Defense Command. 

In addition, the legislation stated that “not less than one-fourth” of the $74.6 million in the prompt global strike defense-wide account — nearly $19 million — must “be available” for the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon.  The combined total affords the Army more than $21 million for developing the weapon in fiscal 2009.

With the Army leadership’s funding priorities focused more on current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the service has never requested funds for the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon.

For the Air Force, the appropriations legislation included an additional $4.8 million, to be spent on a Conventional Strike Missile “mission integration demonstration.”  That service hopes to perform a first flight test of a “weaponized” Conventional Strike Missile “payload delivery vehicle” in 2010, according to Defense Department documents.

Representative Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.) sponsored the Air Force earmark, according to the appropriations report.

Even some of those who were critical of the now-shelved Navy prompt global strike concepts harbor reservations about the more politically popular Air Force and Army weapons.

Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists said he worries that the mission for conventional prompt global strike weapons could easily expand beyond limited scenarios.  U.S. intelligence might only rarely offer sufficient confidence about the nature and location of such critical targets in the short time frames discussed, said Kristensen, director of his organization’s Nuclear Information Project.

If based on less-than-perfect intelligence, a broader use of quick-strike weapons could increase unintended civilian casualties — perhaps of the kind seen recently as a result of U.S. air strikes in Afghanistan — and potentially intensify backlash against U.S. policies or presence around the globe, Kristensen said.

In “principle,” he said, “you’d be crazy not to” launch a prompt global strike attack under the urgent circumstances defense leaders describe for the mission.  However, Kristensen sees a slippery slope in which the weapons’ high value could make them deceptively attractive tools under a wider set of scenarios.

“It’s just really hard to separate the urgency and the honest requirement [for a limited tool] from the hype associated with this antiterrorism mission,” he said.

Regardless of which systems are ultimately embraced for prompt global strike, the NAS review recommended that the Defense Department analyze, prior to deployment, “the potential for inappropriate, mistaken or accidental use; the implications for nuclear deterrence and crisis stability (including ‘ambiguity’ considerations); the impact of overflight and debris; and the implications for arms control and associated agreements.”

The defense authorization conference bill, also enacted in late September, said the Pentagon must undertake a review of prompt global strike policies, in consultation with the State Department, to be submitted to Congress by Sept. 1, 2009. 

The report is to offer recommendations on how to mitigate the risk that such technology might be “misconstrued as a nuclear weapon or delivery system,” according to the authorization legislation.  The document must also include “an assessment of the intelligence needed to support the use of any [prompt global strike] concept.”

The defense secretary is also required to submit a separate report to Congress by April 1, 2009, describing the prompt global strike technologies to be developed during the fiscal year and how they might be used in combat.

The legislation also directs the Pentagon to submit a report on these strike technologies along with the fiscal 2010 budget request.

Meanwhile, the administration’s most closely watched nuclear weapons effort took another significant hit.

For the new fiscal year, House and Senate lawmakers denied the Navy’s entire $23 million request for integration work on the Reliable Replacement Warhead.  The Bush administration has argued that the United States should build the new warhead to boost the reliability, safety, security and maintainability of today’s nuclear stockpile.

This summer, the House and Senate also nixed $10 million in 2009 Energy Department appropriations for an RRW study (see GSN, July 10).

Lawmakers have repeatedly argued that funding a new nuclear warhead could undercut U.S. efforts to eliminate the development of atomic weapons abroad, particularly in regard to North Korea and Iran.  Congress has said it might consider allowing the development of a replacement warhead only after the executive branch has shown how it would fit into an overarching nuclear weapons strategy.

Obama’s administration is expected to conduct such a strategy assessment, called a “Nuclear Posture Review,” beginning next year.  As a candidate, Obama said he would not support "a premature decision to produce the RRW,” but he left open the possibility that his administration would pursue its development.

Congress did support a $10 million Navy request to begin conceptual design work on a new nuclear weapons-carrying vessel to replace today’s fleet of 18 Ohio-class submarines (see GSN, April 24).  The request to kick off the program was submitted without fanfare under the heading of an “Underwater Launch Missile System.”

Fourteen vessels in the current fleet, the so-called “SSBNs,” are capable of launching Trident D-5 nuclear-armed missiles.  The remaining four boats, dubbed “SSGNs,” carry conventional cruise missiles and special operations forces.

The defense authorization bill also called on the president to submit a report about “nuclear weapons worldwide” that details “each country’s nuclear weapons arsenal and [includes] an assessment of the various risks associated with nuclear weapons deemed to be attractive to terrorists, states, and other nonstate actors.”

The submission must also recommend “mechanisms and procedures to improve the security of such weapons, monitor and track such weapons, and identify options to transparently and verifiably dismantle and dispose of such weapons.”  Lawmakers said the unclassified report, due in one year, could include a “classified annex” in which sensitive data or issues might be discussed.

An unrelated atomic-weapons provision contained in the fiscal 2009 appropriations report prohibits the Defense Department from fitting its emerging missile defense system with nuclear-armed interceptors.

Back to top

U.S. Proposes Nuclear Warhead Limits to Russia

From Friday, November 7, 2008 issue.

The United States has submitted a new proposal to Russia to revise the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty that is set to expire in 13 months, the Wall Street Journal reported today.  A senior U.S. official said yesterday he would travel to Moscow this month to discuss the issue (see GSN, Oct. 20).

The 1991 pact allows the two nations to each deploy no more than 6,000 strategic nuclear warheads and a maximum of 1,600 delivery vehicles.  The U.S. proposal submitted last month offers an additional cap to the total number of warheads each side can field, acting Undersecretary of State John Rood told reporters yesterday.

Russia has expressed interest in expanding the scope of the treaty to include some conventional weapons, according to the Journal.

With a little more than two months remaining in President George W. Bush’s term, Rood acknowledged that the strategic talks would have to be continued by President-elect Barack Obama.  Still, Rood hoped to get the “ball rolling” (Jay Solomon, Wall Street Journal, Nov. 7).

Back to top

Mozambique Ratifies Nuclear Test Ban Treaty

From Thursday, November 6, 2008 issue.

Mozambique on Tuesday ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, becoming the 146th nation to fully adopt the pact banning all nuclear explosions, the treaty’s implementing body announced today (see GSN, Sept. 25).

Mozambique also ratified the African Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone Treaty this year (see GSN, March 27).

While 180 nations have signed the testing treaty, it cannot enter into force without ratification by 44 specific nations.  Nine holdouts remain:  China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan and the United States (Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization release, Nov. 6).

Back to top

North Korea Prepares for New U.S. President

From Friday, November 7, 2008 issue.

North Korea said yesterday it is prepared for whatever stance that U.S. President-elect Barack Obama takes in relations with the nuclear-armed Stalinist state, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Nov. 6).

"We have dealt with various U.S. administrations, including an administration that sought dialogue with us and an administration that attempted to isolate and contain us," nuclear negotiator Ri Gun said during a trip to New York.  "Whatever U.S. administration comes forward, we are ready to deal with that administration's policy" on Pyongyang.

"We will have dialogue if (the U.S.) seeks dialogue.  If it seeks isolation, we will stand against it,” Ri said later.

The envoy from Pyongyang met yesterday with U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, the Bush administration’s top negotiator at the six-nation talks on North Korea’s nuclear program, along with State Department official Sung Kim, special envoy to the diplomatic effort.

North Korea agreed last year to dismantle its nuclear sector in exchange for economic, diplomatic and security concessions from China, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the United States.  The process has appeared near collapse at times but presently seems to be moving forward.

The New York meetings addressed future moves toward nuclear dismantlement, AP reported.  The talks were “substantive, detailed and we look forward to continuing to keep in touch,” Ri said.

“We all agree (in) the exchange of views what we have to do more, and what is the next thing,” he added (Jae-Soon Chang, Associated Press/Washington Post, Nov. 7).

The six nations could conduct their next full round of talks early next month, Kyodo News reported.  Negotiations had been anticipated this month but might be delayed by other multinational events, said South Korean Foreign Minister Yu Myung-hwan.

“We can’t rule out the possibility the six-party talks are to be held in early December,” Yu said.  Participating nations hope to produce a written document setting out details of verification of North Korean nuclear activities as part of the denuclearization process (Kyodo News, Nov. 7).

Obama and South Korean President Lee Myung-bak agreed during a telephone conversation yesterday to cooperate in seeking an end to the North Korean nuclear matter, AP reported (Chang, Associated Press).

Obama has said he is ready to conduct “aggressive, sustained and direct diplomacy” with Pyongyang, the Yonhap News Agency reported.

“Early in the Obama administration, I expect Washington will make a high-level statement that the U.S. is prepared to normalize relations with Pyongyang and sign a peace treaty ending the Korean War, but only after North Korea has completely eliminated its nuclear weapons and dismantled its nuclear facilities,” said Gary Samore, vice president at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Pyongyang might see the Obama administration as more akin to the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who offered light-water reactors to North Korea under the Agreed Framework intended to end Pyongyang’s nuclear ambitions.  The Bush administration took a far harder stand on the regime, until the later stages of its term in the White House.

“For North Korea, eight years of waiting is over.  North Korea views Obama’s election as an opportunity to eliminate mistrust and hostile policies between the two sides,” said researcher Kim Seong-bae of the Seoul-based Institute for National Security Strategy.  “North Korea and the U.S. will have more direct negotiations.”

Obama might offer a “big deal” to Pyongyang, possibly including light-water reactors, in order to bring the nuclear standoff to a close, Kim said.

“I don’t think Obama’s election will automatically lead to a deal,” he said.  “It would take several months to form a new diplomatic team and have consultations with related nations on the North Korean issue.”

The new president is not likely to offer too much to North Korea, Samore said.

“I expect it to basically continue the current strategy to disarm North Korea through ‘action for action’ incremental steps under the auspices of the six-party talks,” he said by e-mail.

“Assuming that the disablement of the Yongbyon facilities and verification of North Korea’s plutonium declaration is completed (or almost finished) by the time Obama takes office at the end of January, the next important step will be declaration and verification of North Korea’s secret [uranium] enrichment program and proliferation activities,” according to Samore (Yonhap News Agency, Nov. 7).

The Obama administration might develop a program for North Korea similar to the Cooperative Threat Reduction effort used to secure and eliminate unconventional weapons and materials in former Soviet states, the Korea Times reported.

The U.S. Energy Department is expected to seek $300 million for a Cooperative Threat Reduction in North Korea initiative, Obama adviser Frank Jannuzzi said in October.

“Obama visited the sites where CTR was implemented in Europe and Jannuzzi is interested in CTR, so it’s possible that the new U.S. government may consider the initiative as part of North Korea policy after Obama takes office early next year,” said defense analyst Kim Chang-su of the Korea Institute for Defense Analysis.

A CTR program in North Korea would cost between $200 million and $500 million, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies.  Washington has paid roughly $7 billion for the existing program (Korea Times, Nov. 6).

Back to top

Audit Raises Concerns Over British Nuclear Plans

From Wednesday, November 5, 2008 issue.

British government auditors this week expressed concern, but not alarm, that plans to replace the nation’s nuclear-armed submarine fleet could face delays and budget overruns (see GSN, March 15, 2007).

Leaders have announced plans to replace the British fleet of four ballistic missile submarines by 2024 and to consider modernizing the missiles and warheads the vessels carry.

In a report issued Monday, the National Audit Office said, “there remain a number of major areas of uncertainty in the budget,” currently estimated at $24 billion to $32 billion.

Design and development decisions need to be made rapidly to keep the schedule, according to the audit, and strategies must be developed to induce suppliers, some of them monopolies, to deliver on time.

“There are considerable challenges in ensuring that the [defense] department’s suppliers perform effectively and that the new submarines are delivered on time and at an acceptable cost,” the report’s summary says.  “The department has, however, made good progress in establishing program management arrangements, coordinating all aspects of the future deterrent capability and engaging industry and other government departments (National Audit Office release, Nov. 3).

Back to top

Strike on Iran Debated in Washington

From Monday, November 3, 2008 issue.

U.S. lawmakers, think tanks and independent experts of various political backgrounds are weighing the need for military strikes on Iranian nuclear sites as well as new diplomatic alternatives aimed halting disputed elements of the country’s atomic program, according to a New York Times commentary today (see GSN, Oct. 31).

The United States suspects that Iran’s atomic efforts are geared toward weapons development, but Tehran insists that its nuclear work is strictly aimed at civilian energy development.

The incoming presidential administration “might have little time and fewer options to deal with this threat,” warns a report by the Bipartisan Policy Center.

The analysis examines measures such as a blockade that would prevent Iran from receiving gasoline, but adds that “a military strike is a feasible option and must remain a last resort.”

Use of military force “is an element of any true option,” although it should only be employed within a wider strategy, Ashton Carter, a high-level Defense Department official under former President Bill Clinton, wrote in a report for the bipartisan Center for a New American Security.

At a September meeting organized by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, unofficial representatives for Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) agreed that U.S. strategy should emphasize halting Iranian efforts to acquire nuclear weaponry rather than assuming Iran will become a nuclear power.

“John McCain won’t wait until after the fact,” said Max Boot, a columnist speaking for the Republican presidential contender.

Richard Danzig, speaking for Democratic candidate Obama, called a strike on Iran a “terrible” option, but added that “it may be that in some terrible world we will have to come to grips with such a terrible choice.”

Dennis Ross, Obama’s senior Middle East adviser, said the military option was emphasized before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.  Since that time, diplomacy’s failure to slow Iran’s nuclear progress has forced policy-makers to assume a more balanced perspective, he said.

“I want to concentrate the mind and make people understand, ‘Look, this is serious and you don’t want to be left with only those two choices,’” military action or deterring a nuclear-armed Iran, said Ross, who worked as a Middle East negotiator under the George H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations (Carol Giacomo, New York Times, Nov. 3).

In Israel, officials and experts are debating the option of an independent strike on Iran, the Los Angeles Times reported (see GSN, Oct. 27).

Some Israeli officials believe that other nations would prefer the country to strike if it could effectively destroy Iranian nuclear facilities.  There are great risks in such action, including Tehran’s repeated warning that it would respond forcefully.

“They will be very happy if we do their dirty work for them," said Efraim Inbar, head of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies in Israel.  "The world is moving into 'What can we do about it?' mode.  There is a strong instinct here to do it on our own."

Emily Landau of the Israel-based Institute for National Security Studies added:  “I don't know which direction this is going to go in Israel."

"Pressure is rising" within Israel for military action, but it might "move in the direction of more and more people in Israel concluding that a nuclear Iran is not something we can stop," Landau said.

"Time is running very, very short right now," said Ephraim Asculai, a former high-level Israeli nuclear official now at the Institute for National Security Studies (Khalil/Richter, Los Angeles Times, Nov. 2).

Back to top

Ahmadinejad Applauds Obama, Calls for Policy Shifts

From Friday, November 7, 2008 issue.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad yesterday sent a letter congratulating U.S. President-elect Barack Obama on his election victory and urging the incoming leader to base his administration’s policies on a “lack of intervention in the affairs of others,” the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Oct. 31).

Ahmadinejad congratulated Obama for "attracting the majority of voters in the election" and called on the president-elect to "use the opportunity to serve the (American) people and leave a good name for history."

The policies of President George W. Bush were "based on warmongering, occupation, bullying, deception and humiliation, as well as discrimination and unfair relations," Ahmadinejad wrote, adding that they have resulted in "hatred of all nations and majority of governments toward the U.S. leaders."

According to the letter, the international community expects Obama to adopt "an approach based on justice and respect, as well as lack of intervention in the affairs of others."

The United States has expressed concern that Iran’s nuclear program could involve weapon development, an allegation that Tehran denies.  Obama has supported holding direct talks with Iran over the dispute, a move the incoming leader said would either help resolve the impasse or improve the case for new economic penalties against the Middle Eastern state.

However, Israel cautioned the United States against engaging in direct dialogue with Iran, AP reported.

"Dialogue at this time is liable to broadcast weakness," said Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni.  "Early dialogue at a time when it appears to Iran that the world has given up on sanctions could be problematic."

The U.N. Security Council has issued three sets of sanctions against Iran for its refusal to halt sensitive nuclear activities.  However, its most recent resolution included no economic penalties.

Livni has expressed hope that international pressure would convince Iran to halt its disputed nuclear activities, but she has not ruled out a possible strike on the country’s nuclear sites (Nasser Karimi, Associated Press I/Yahoo!News, Nov. 6).

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak today offered a similar message, Agence France-Presse reported.

"We don't rule out any option.  We recommend others don't rule out any option either," Barak told reporters after meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.  "We are convinced that Iran continues to try to obtain a nuclear weapon and continues to cheat everybody by holding negotiations on the control of such weapons" (Agence France-Presse/Google News, Nov. 7).

Meanwhile, Washington yesterday said it would revoke Iran’s “U-Turn” license, effectively barring U.S. banks from moving funds through the United States on behalf of Iranian firms, AP reported.

"This regulatory action will close the last general entry point for Iran to the U.S. financial system," the Treasury Department said in a statement.

Until yesterday, banks and other entities in Iran could route money transfers through the United States if the transfers were initiated by a bank in neither country and passed from the U.S. banking system to a second third-party bank.

"Given Iran's conduct, it is necessary to close even this indirect access," said Treasury Undersecretary Stuart Levey.

The United States has previously taken actions aimed at preventing Iran from evading penalties targeting its nuclear and missile programs (Jeannine Aversa, Associated Press II/Google News, Nov. 6).

Back to top

Anthrax Mail Suspect Makes Bail

From Monday, November 3, 2008 issue.

A U.S. magistrate released accused anthrax mail hoaxer Marc Keyser on bail Friday after ordering the 66-year-old to keep a record of everything he mails, the Sacramento (Calif.) Bee reported (see GSN, Oct. 31).

Prosecutors had sought to keep the Sacramento resident in custody pending his next hearing on Nov. 19.  However, Judge Kimberly Mueller set bail at $25,000 and Keyser’s sister and brother-in-law signed the bond, according to the Bee.

Keyser is suspected of mailing about 120 packages, mostly to major media outlets, each containing a compact disc bearing the title “Anthrax:  Shock and Awe Terror” — perhaps a book title — as well as a sugar packet labeled “Anthrax sample.”  Investigators pinpointed the suspect because he included his name, phone number and Web site on many of the packages. 

Formally, Keyser has been charged with three counts of mailing hoax anthrax packages, one to the Atlantic magazine in Washington, D.C., one to the Charlotte Observer in North Carolina and one to the district office of a California congressman.

The mailings were apparently an effort to promote awareness of bioterror threats in the United States, said his appointed attorney, Assistant Federal Defender Rachelle Barbour.

“He wanted to make society aware of how vulnerable we are,” she told Mueller during Friday’s bail hearing.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Benjamin Wagner, however, cast doubt on that assertion.

“I don’t believe his motive is altruistic at all,” he said.  “He wants to draw attention to himself to generate traffic on his Web site so he can sell his book.”

Wagner expressed concern that the alleged mailings would continue, reporting that Keyser had prepared more letters during the four hours between an initial FBI questioning Wednesday and his arrest.

Barbour said Keyser’s actions during that period demonstrated that he was not a flight risk.

“If he wanted to flee, that would have been the time to flee,” she told the judge (Denny Walsh, Sacramento Bee, Nov. 1).

Back to top

Umatilla Depot Eliminates All VX Weapons

From Thursday, November 6, 2008 issue.

The Umatilla Chemical Depot in Oregon yesterday finished destroying its entire stockpile of munitions filled with VX nerve agent, the Hermiston Herald reported (see GSN, Oct. 15).

"We plan to complete the VX land mines disposal campaign today, which means the end of land mines, all VX agent, all nerve agent, and all munitions with explosive or energetic components here in Oregon," said Mike Strong, site  project manager at the Umatilla Chemical Agent Disposal Facility (Hermiston Herald, Nov. 5).

The U.S. Army has now eliminated 95 percent of its original arsenal of VX; the nerve agent remains in storage at only two U.S. locations (U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency release, Nov. 6).

Umatilla now must prepare to dispose of mustard agent.

“We're not done yet, and we won't let our guard down," Strong said. 

The facility is scheduled to be retooled over several months before it starts incinerating blister agent stored in 1-ton containers (see GSN, Nov. 4; Hermiston Herald).

The mustard agent campaign is expected to last between one and two years, the Tri-City, Wash., Herald reported.

Eliminating the VX munitions constitutes a significant safety improvement for the surrounding region, said depot spokesman Bruce Henrickson.  The base no longer has any chemical weapons with explosive parts and mustard agent is five times heavier than air, meaning it is not likely to travel off-base in vapor form, he said.

That argument did not stop a group of activists from suing to stop mustard incineration.  The Sierra Club and other organizations claim the operation would release mercury and other contaminants into the air (Annette Cary, Tri-City Herald, Nov. 6).

Back to top

U.S. Boosts Funding for Last Two CW Disposal Sites

From Thursday, November 6, 2008 issue.

By Chris Schneidmiller
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Defense Department has received its highest-ever budget for preparing two chemical weapons disposal sites that hold the key to meeting the congressional demand to eliminate the entire U.S. stockpile by 2017 (see GSN, July 8).

The $427.5 million provided to the Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives program for fiscal 2009 is a step in the right direction toward providing the money that will be needed to meet the deadline, one longtime observer said.

“We see the … budget request as a positive indication [against] the potential to shy away from what would be necessary to meet the shortened schedule; the heartburn that they would suffer would not be as great,” said Craig Williams, head of the Kentucky-based Chemical Weapons Working Group.

Funding for the agency this year is up from $407.1 million in fiscal 2008 and $349.2 million in fiscal 2007.

To meet the mandate set last year on Capitol Hill, the Pentagon is going to need to direct $450 million to $500 million annually in combined funding over the next nine years to the Blue Grass Army Depot in Kentucky and the Pueblo Chemical Depot in Colorado, Williams told Global Security Newswire.  The figures are based on discussions with informed sources, he said.

A Pentagon spokesman said the necessary funding levels are still being assessed.  The existing schedule has disposal operations finishing in 2020 at Pueblo and three years later at Blue Grass.

“While the DOD continues working to minimize the time to complete destruction of the remaining chemical weapons stockpile without sacrificing safety and security, the current approved [chemical demilitarization program] cost and schedule estimates are based on actual experiences, lessons learned, and adjustments associated with implementation of this most challenging program,” the Pentagon said in a June report to Congress.

The United States as of Wednesday had destroyed 57.5 percent of its total original stockpile of 31,500 tons of mustard blister agent and VX and sarin nerve agents.  Most of the weapons were produced in the World War II-era or later.

The disposal program, when first envisioned in 1985, was expected to be finished within a decade and cost roughly $1.8 billion.  Instead, it remains a going concern that is set to require roughly $36 billion.

As long as the lethal materials remain in existence, they present a potential danger to nearby communities and an attractive target for terrorists looking for a shortcut to a new capability.  Any stockpiles left after April 2012 would also violate the deadline set by the Chemical Weapons Convention, which requires full destruction of the U.S. chemical arsenal.

All operations to date have been handled at seven sites by the Army Chemical Materials Agency.  It received the bulk of the more than $1.6 billion appropriated for weapons destruction operations in the budget year that began Oct. 1.

The Army is not focused on meeting the congressional directive, but rather the deadline set by the international treaty.

Three storage depots have already finished off their stockpiles.  The latest disposal schedule, dating from April 2006, has the Army completing operations between 2015 and 2017 at incinerators in Alabama, Arkansas, Oregon and Utah.  “We’re moving these schedules to the left,” with the goal being 2012, said CMA spokesman Greg Mahall.

Paul Walker, security and sustainability program head for Global Green USA, estimated that the Army’s side of chemical weapons elimination is more likely to be finished in 2013 to 2014.

Mahall acknowledged the potential for unforeseen delays caused by technical breakdowns or operational errors.  A May 2000 incident involving the release of a minute amount of sarin from the Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal Facility in Utah led to a nine-month shutdown, he noted.

“Safety is our top priority.  We’re going to work that to the best of our ability.  And we get done when we get done,” Mahall said.

More than 520 tons of mustard, VX and sarin agents contained in several types of munitions are stored at Blue Grass, while Pueblo holds 2,600 tons of mustard agent.  The ACWA weapons processing sites, operated separately from the Army disposal operation, are to use chemical neutralization technology to eliminate the weapons material.

Plans for the actual work have been subject to major reversals of fortune in recent years.  While the Bush administration ordered preparation of the disposal plants to be accelerated following the Sept. 11 attacks, that mandate proved temporary in the face of expensive wars in two nations, cost overruns at operational chemical weapons incineration plants and orders for redesigns for the Colorado and Kentucky facilities.

The Pentagon placed both sites on “caretaker status” for the 2004-2005 budget year, leaving just enough money to sustain operations at ACWA headquarters at the Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland, Williams said:  “No money for design or construction, nothing that would move us forward toward the objective, which is to get rid of this material.  An ACWA spokeswoman said the agency received “limited” redesign funds that year and $70 million for “neutral site improvements” at Blue Grass and Pueblo.

Community and political pressure led the Pentagon to increase ACWA funding to roughly $150 million in the following fiscal year, and appropriations have continued to rise in subsequent budgets, Williams said.  This year, the agency received $144.3 million for construction at the two plants, and $288.2 million for research and development, which encompasses design, management, testing and other costs.

Design work on the Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant was 83 percent complete as of September, concrete was being poured for the main chemical neutralization plant and installation of equipment was under way.

The Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant is fully designed and construction continued on the two primary facilities needed for weapons disposal (see GSN, Oct. 30).

The agency in June submitted three options for addressing the 2017 deadline.  The first would simply maintain the existing schedule, while the second would involve moving the weapons from Colorado and Kentucky to states that have operating disposal facilities.  That plan would require changes to state and federal laws banning such shipments and has already proven extremely unpopular.

The third option calls for boosting personnel to enable more rapid completion of construction, testing the operational capability of equipment earlier than planned and conducting disposal operations 24 hours a day, seven days a week.  All mustard-agent munitions at Blue Grass would be destroyed using an explosive detonation chamber, allowing that disposal project to be operated simultaneously with destruction of nerve agent weapons.

“If implemented, destruction of the Colorado stockpile by December 2017 does appear possible; however, destruction of the Kentucky stockpile would require some additional time,” according to an ACWA document.  Work at Blue Grass is likely to continue into 2019, the agency told GSN.

The Pentagon is preparing a schedule assessment for the third option, which is to be included in the presidential fiscal 2010 budget request, due to be submitted early next year.

Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives has already sent a draft funding plan for that option to the Defense Department, Williams said.  “It is just a draft and I’ve been hearing some ugly rumors about how it’s being received over at the Pentagon,” he said.

“The Pentagon probably will only agree to that if we see the war costs wind down, and Congress makes some tough choices between other [defense] priorities,” Walker said.

The Pentagon stands to shave roughly $2.4 billion off the total cost for operations at Blue Grass and Pueblo if it can finish work by April 2017, Williams said.  The current cost estimate for the entire ACWA program, including construction, weapons elimination and plant closures, is roughly $8 billion. A revised estimate is being prepared, according to the agency.

“If we can start operations at this [Kentucky] plant in 2016 or even 17 rather than 2021, that’s a significant reduction in risk to this community.  Because it’s that number of years less that we’re sitting on this stuff,” Williams said.  “Any way you slice and dice this thing … it’s much more reasonable to accelerate this project, and that’s what we’re pushing for.”

Back to top

Missile Site Being Developed in N. Korea, South Says

From Tuesday, November 4, 2008 issue.

North Korea is nearing completion of an installation to launch more advanced long-range missiles, South Korean Defense Minister Lee Sang-hee said today (see GSN, Oct. 9).

The facility along the west coast of North Korea has been under development for eight years and is roughly 80 percent finished, Lee told lawmakers.  He said the site is probably intended to fire “a bigger-sized missile or satellite projectile” than is possible at the nation’s east coast missile site, the Associated Press reported.

North Korea is believed to possess roughly 200 Nodong missiles that could be used to hit Japan, along with more than 600 shorter-range Scud-type weapons that could be fired at South Korea.

The regime’s Taepodong 2 missile is intended to have a range of more than 4,160 miles, meaning it could strike the western United States,  AP reported.  However, the missile failed in a July 2006 test and is believed to be inaccurate and to have a limited payload (see GSN, July 5, 2006).

Tests this year of a long-range missile engine indicate North Korea’s continued interest in producing a weapon able to reach distant targets, according to AP (Associated Press/Google News, Nov. 4).

Back to top

U.S. Issues New Offer to Appease Russian Concern Over European Missile Defense Plans

From Friday, November 7, 2008 issue.

The United States this week submitted a new offer intended to ease Russian concerns about Bush administration plans to deploy missile defenses in Europe, the Wall Street Journal reported (see GSN, Nov. 6).

Tensions mounted this week after Russian President Dmitry Medvedev announced his intention to deploy short-range missiles near the Polish border.  U.S. plans call for deploying 10 missile interceptors in Poland and a radar facility in the Czech Republic.

The new U.S. proposal would give Russian officials even more access to the U.S. facilities than previously offered, said acting Undersecretary of State John Rood.  The hope is that Russian observers could confirm U.S. pledges that the sites would have no ability to threaten Moscow’s strategic deterrent.

Rood said he would travel to Moscow this month to discuss the new offer.

“We remain hopeful that we can find a solution,” he told reporters yesterday (Jay Solomon, Wall Street Journal, Nov. 7).

Back to top

Congress Chides U.S. Missile Defense Management

From Monday, November 3, 2008 issue.

By Elaine M. Grossman
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — U.S. lawmakers scolded the Missile Defense Agency for a number of management problems and trimmed its budget in a recently enacted fiscal 2009 appropriations bill (see GSN, Oct. 21).

The appropriations bill criticized several aspects of missile defense operations, including funding priorities in the MDA budget request, flight-test delays and cancellations, and the availability of target missiles for use in testing.

Overall, Congress gave $9.02 billion to the Defense Department’s missile defense arm for the new fiscal year, a figure that largely satisfied agency advocates.

“The reduction was only $320.6 million out of a $9.3 billion request,” MDA spokesman Rick Lehner told Global Security Newswire last week.  While some missile defense projects saw their annual budgets decreased, “the programs all were funded [at some level] … so we were pleased,” he said.

However, others characterized the level of funding as excessive.

“It’s too much money for missile defense,” said John Isaacs, executive director of the Council for a Livable World.  He said that despite billions of dollars in annual funding, long-range defense systems that receive the bulk of MDA money have not yet proven technically feasible at intercepting a complex attack.  Such attacks could include decoys or other countermeasures aimed at confusing missile defense sensors.

The Republican presidential nominee, Senator John McCain (Ariz.), “strongly supports the development and deployment of theater and national missile defenses,” according to his campaign Web site.  His Democratic counterpart, Senator Barack Obama (Ill.), has been more critical, charging last year that President George W. Bush’s administration “has in the past exaggerated missile defense capabilities and rushed deployments for political purposes.”

In an unusual move, congressional leaders in late September combined the new defense appropriations bill — which contains the missile defense provisions — with other 2009 funding legislation and attached them to a 2008 “continuing resolution.”  The measure allows for government spending from Oct. 1 of this year through March 6, 2009. 

Congress would have to act again to keep a host of defense, homeland security and other government programs running after that.  Presumably the fiscal 2009 program budgets set by the existing appropriations bill would remain largely the same, but any new legislation could open the door to possible alterations.

In the bill passed in September, lawmakers said the agency had shifted money into its more exotic, long-term technology development efforts, partially at the expense of fully funding missile defense systems being deployed today.

“In order to execute a balanced program, the Missile Defense Agency must continue to field the near-term missile defense programs, primarily Ground-Based Missile Defense, Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense, and Theater High-Altitude Area Defense programs,” the appropriations report states.  “Funding for fielding these programs, however, is sacrificed each year to pay for the development of futuristic missile defense programs.”

The bill sought to remedy the problem by shifting $120 million into the three near-term efforts, financed by reductions to the longer-term Multiple Kill Vehicle, Airborne Laser and Space Test Bed programs.  It directed the agency to report to Congress by Dec. 1 on how it would specifically allocate the additional funds.

Lawmakers also called on the agency to set as its “highest priority” providing additional Standard Missile 3 and THAAD interceptors to combatant commanders and to “budget accordingly” in its fiscal 2010 funding request. 

Lehner noted that one of the reductions in futuristic efforts that the appropriations bill made — a $70 million cut in the $354.5 million budget request for the Multiple Kill Vehicle — could slow progress that Congress in the past has emphasized as important.  The Multiple Kill Vehicle is envisioned as a single-launch intercept system that could destroy incoming clusters of warheads and decoys, a potentially useful tool against adversaries that might seek to overwhelm the U.S. defense architecture.

Given that such a scenario has been “one of Congress’ main concerns,” Lehner said his agency would strive to offer “better arguments” for the Multiple Kill Vehicle in the fiscal 2010 request.  That document is expected for delivery to Capitol Hill early next year.

The appropriations bill also rapped the Missile Defense Agency — one of the Pentagon’s largest research and development accounts — for having “established a pattern of cost, schedule and performance problems.”

With several tests having been delayed or canceled each year from 2006 to 2008, “it is not unreasonable to assume that some of the tests planned for fiscal year 2009 will likely slip into subsequent fiscal years,” legislators complained in the report.  “MDA’s fiscal year 2009 test schedule reflects 13 flight tests with 77 percent of these tests scheduled for the third and fourth quarters.”

The bill directs the agency to report to the congressional defense committees by Jan. 15, 2009, on its test schedule and whether any shortfalls exist that could contribute to further delays.

Postponed and canceled intercept flight tests of the currently fielded system, the Ground-based Midcourse Defense, have proved particularly worrisome on Capitol Hill.  No such intercept tests were carried out in fiscal 2008, with one scheduled for July scrapped because of faulty test equipment (see GSN, Aug. 8).

“We’d like to get to two [GMD intercept tests] a year,” said Lehner, noting that the objective has faced “extenuating circumstances,” such as unexpected delays in developing technology or problems with test gear.  “We conduct so few tests that we have to get the maximum amount of data … from each test that we do conduct.”

When Bush withdrew from the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty in December 2001, the Missile Defense Agency said a legal barrier had been removed that would allow more GMD flight tests, Isaacs noted.  However, he said, MDA officials have not been able to achieve a more ambitious test schedule.

“They said we could test much more now,” Isaacs said.  “Well, now they’ve tested less.”

In a related issue, lawmakers also cited problems in producing affordable and reliable mock warheads that the agency needs as targets for testing its defense systems (see GSN, Sept. 30).

“The Missile Defense Agency has renewed its focus and commitment to the target program and must continue this momentum in order to achieve optimal production and deliveries,” according to the appropriations report.

To help facilitate that effort, the bill added $32 million for a “flexible family of targets to initiate an inventory buildup of critical, long-lead hardware items,” and consolidated all target funding into a single program line.

Isaacs said he welcomed growing congressional interest in MDA oversight issues.  Leading up to the final conference report, both House and Senate defense appropriators “raised serious questions about management of the Missile Defense Agency,” he told GSN last week.

Lehner said his agency remained untroubled by the bill’s provisions.  “There was really nothing in there that we disliked,” he said. 

The Missile Defense Agency typically has “more oversight than any program in the Department of Defense,” he said, calling the level of monitoring “proper.”  MDA leaders frequently brief Capitol Hill staffs, the Government Accountability Office and various review commissions, Lehner noted.

“We are striving to ensure we provide the information Congress needs to meet its oversight responsibility,” Lehner subsequently added by e-mail.  “And we want to do better.”

The fiscal 2009 defense authorization conference bill, also concluded in late September, contained a number of missile defense reporting requirements.  Among them was a provision that prohibits the expenditure of funds for the deployment of missile defense installations in Europe, until host-nation agreements are ratified (see GSN, Oct. 31).

The appropriations bill funded the overall European missile defense effort at $467.2 million for the fiscal year.  A portion of that budget dedicated to long-lead procurement may go forward without limitation, according to the authorization bill.

An interceptor site is to be built in Poland and a midcourse radar element is to be established in the Czech Republic.  U.S. officials have said the system would help protect the United States and Europe against a potential missile threat from Iran, though Russian leaders have argued that the proposed deployments threaten their nation (see GSN, Oct. 23).

The authorization bill also requires a report by the Pentagon’s test director, certifying through flight demonstrations that the European system has “a high probability of working in an operationally effective manner and the ability to accomplish the mission,” before deployment funds can be released.

Isaacs termed the legislative conditions on the European missile defense system “real progress,” saying technology performance must be held to a high standard before being funded.

Lehner was unconcerned, though, that the MDA reporting requirement would pose a challenging hurdle for his agency to meet.

“It’s not a matter of proving anything,” he said.  Lehner noted that the proposed long-range interceptors slated for Poland use the same design as the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system deployed in California and Alaska, minus one stage of its three-stage rocket motor.  “It’s [just] a matter of demonstrating that two-stage rocket,” he said.

Lehner said upcoming tests of the European-based system would include a booster demonstration next summer or fall, and a first intercept test in fiscal 2010 or 2011.  The defense agency aims to deploy the system between 2011 and 2013, he said (see related GSN story, today).

Both presidential candidates have offered measured support for the European missile deployment plan.  Obama said the United States should “deploy missile defenses that would protect us and our allies … but only when the system works.”  For his part, McCain has said such missile defenses could safeguard “American forces and American allies” from “outlaw states like Iran.”

The authorization bill also echoed the appropriators’ concerns about lending greater priority to near-term missile defense programs, staying on schedule for flight tests and adequately funding missile-target programs.

Other missile defense-related reports required by the fiscal 2009 defense authorization bill include:

— A review by the defense secretary of overall ballistic missile defense policy and strategy, due Jan. 31, 2010;

— An independent study on boost-phase missile defense concepts and systems, to include the Airborne Laser and Kinetic Energy Interceptor, by the National Academy of Sciences, due 90 days after the bill’s enactment;

— A separate review by the Pentagon’s test director of the Airborne Laser’s performance in testing, due Jan. 15, 2010; and a related certification by the defense secretary that the system has proven through demonstrations to be “operationally effective, suitable, survivable and affordable” before funds can be expended for a second ABL aircraft that would carry the weapon; and

— A defense secretary report to the House and Senate armed services committees on the deployment of an AN/TPY-2 X-band radar to a classified location — which outside experts speculate could be Israel — before $89 million could be spent on the project.

Back to top

Energy Dept. Seeks to Expand Nuclear Waste Site

From Friday, November 7, 2008 issue.

The U.S. Energy Department is hoping to expand the capacity of a massive underground nuclear waste storage facility to be built in Nevada, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, July 16).

Given the long delays to the planned site at Yucca Mountain, the volume of high-level radioactive waste slated for indefinite storage there would immediately fill the underground caverns following their anticipated opening in 2020 or later, according to Edward Sproat, the department’s civilian nuclear waste director.  He spoke yesterday at conference hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

Current plans call for Yucca Mountain to house 77,000 tons of spent fuel from the nation’s nuclear power plants as well as highly radioactive waste from U.S. defense activities.  The power plants currently keep their spent fuel in on-site storage facilities, an arrangement that has long drawn environmental concerns and more recently has raised terrorism fears.

Opposition to Yucca Mountain, however, has delayed the project for decades, and Sproat said the amount of spent fuel in the United States would reach the 77,000-ton limit in just two years from now.

Therefore, the United States must expand Yucca Mountain’s capacity or establish a second storage site, Sproat said.  He said he would deliver a report to Congress soon outlining those choices as well as an option to not “do anything and let this whole thing just sit for another 10 to 20 years and see what happens.”

The department prefers the Yucca expansion option, Sproat said.

“We do think there is room for additional storage at Yucca.  How much, we’re not clear on,” he said.

One expert cautioned that considerations over seismic and volcanic activity at the site could limit expansion opportunities.

“There are geological constraints on Yucca Mountain,” said geologist Allison Macfarlane of George Mason University.  “It is not an endless sink for nuclear waste” (Josef Hebert, Associated Press/Google News, Nov. 7).

Back to top