-------- NUCLEAR (by country)

U.S. Shield Plans Under Heavy Fire
Putin Assails National Effort As Zhu Raises Taiwan Issue

International Herald Tribune
Paris, Friday, July 7, 2000
By Sharon LaFraniere Washington Post Service
http://www.iht.com/IHT/TODAY/FRI/FPAGE/protest.2.html

MOSCOW - Chinese and Russian leaders are stepping up their criticism of U.S. proposals on missile defenses, with Beijing denouncing a theater missile defense project that would protect Taiwan and Russia criticizing Washington's tentative plans to build a national missile defense system to protect the entire United States.

In Rome, the Chinese prime minister, Zhu Rongji, said Thursday that China was ''categorically opposed'' to U.S. missile defense plans.

Mr. Zhu, speaking at a news conference, said that the Washington plan for ''theater defense'' would draw Taiwan into its sphere of protection, and that this ''would be a blatant interference in Chinese affairs.''

The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, in one of his strongest condemnations, said earlier that a U.S. decision in favor of the national missile defense system would ''signify an undermining'' of the global military balance.

President Jiang Zemin of China, who discussed the U.S. plan with President Putin at a regional security summit meeting in Central Asia on Wednesday, agreed that the 1972 treaty controlling missile defenses should not be altered to allow the United States to proceed, according to a Kremlin official.

Mr. Putin and Mr. Jiang talked for 50 minutes in Dushanbe, the capital of Tajikistan.

The summit meeting was also attended by the leaders of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, former Soviet republics near China.

The two leaders, who first met last year when Mr. Putin was the Russian prime minister, have previously warned that the United States could provoke a new arms race if it went ahead with its tentative plan to set up radar and 100 ''missile interceptors'' in Alaska.

President Bill Clinton has promised to decide in coming weeks whether to approve the $60 billion project, and the Pentagon has scheduled a crucial test of a ''missile killer'' on Friday over the Pacific.

Washington contends that it needs the missile interceptors to defend the United States not against Russia or China but instead against unpredictable smaller powers like North Korea, Iraq or Iran, some with missile capabilities.

But Beijing argues that the defensive missiles would cancel out China's small force of long-range missiles and compel it to build a stronger nuclear-strike force.

The United States contends that Russia has the firepower to overwhelm a limited national defense.

Russia agrees with that, but it argues that the American system, as visualized, would undercut the very foundation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972.

The premise of that treaty was that both sides were equally vulnerable to missile attack by the other.

Mr. Putin said at a new conference that Russia would consider it highly significant if Washington proceeded with the project despite the Russian Parliament's recent ratification of the START-2 Treaty, and also his own suggestion that Russia and the United States could create a joint missile defense system.

In an interview published Wednesday, Colonel General Vladimir Yakovlev, head of Russia's strategic missile forces, said that Russia might respond to a U.S. missile shield by increasing the number of warheads on its long-range Topol-M missiles or by reviving a program to build medium-range ballistic missiles.

The presidents of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan joined Mr. Putin and Mr. Jiang in a declaration that the 1972 ABM Treaty must not be altered.

The issue of the missile defense system is expected to come up again on Friday when China and the United States resume arms control talks after a year's interruption.

-------- asia

ASEAN urged to protest Star Wars test

Friday, July 7, 2000
By United Press International
http://enn.com/news/wire-stories/2000/07/07072000/upi_starwars_14534.asp

The international environmental watchdog and anti-nuclear group Greenpeace today urged Southeast Asian governments to oppose a scheduled test of the U.S. Star Wars missile defense program.

The appeal came shortly before the U.S. military planned an attempt to shoot down a missile warhead in space fired from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.

The Minuteman intercontinental missile with a dummy warhead was scheduled to be launched toward the Pacific Marshall Islands. A U.S. "hit-to-kill" weapon was then to be fired from Kwajalein Atoll to intercept the warhead about 120 miles above the Earth. The Pentagon's third and final preliminary test of the system was scheduled for between 0200 GMT and 0600 GMT Saturday.

The test is a key step toward deciding whether to quickly begin building a limited missile defense aimed at foiling attacks by states such as North Korea, Iran and Iraq.

"We reject this proposed Star Wars missile system because it will spark a new nuclear arms race and destroy the international arms control and disarmament regime," said Athena Ballesteros, regional campaigns coordinator for Greenpeace Southeast Asia. Ballesteros urged the ten-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), which supports a nuclear free zone treaty, to express their governments' concerns about the impact of the Star Wars testing on their nuclear non-proliferation efforts.

"We are calling on the Philippines and Thailand, in particular, to urge their ASEAN neighbors to come together and express their opposition to the continued expansion of nuclear weapons by the world's nuclear powers led by the U.S.," she said in a statement.

Greenpeace warned that if the Star Wars plan goes ahead, there will be a reversal of the deep reduction already made in nuclear arsenals around the world as a result of the end of the Cold War. It said one of the most serious consequences will be a collapse of existing arms control and nuclear disarmament treaties such as the U.S.-Russian 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.

"Let us not forget that a crucial component of nuclear non-proliferation efforts is to develop non-nuclear energy sources instead," Ballesteros said. "Abandoning a reactor program that could have produced plutonium for nuclear weapons would mean more funds for energy alternatives."

-------- business

Nuclear Missile Defense: Corruption and Conflicts of Interest

July 7, 2000,
www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports.html.

Thanks,

Frida Berrigan, ATRC <BerrigaF@newschool.edu> Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 10:50:55 -0400

Nuclear Missile Deception: Corruption and Conflicts of Interest in the National Missile Defense (NMD) Test Program

I. Fraud and Incompetence in Missile Defense Programs

"It's not a defense of the United States . . . It's a conspiracy to allow them to milk the government. They are creating jobs for themselves for life." Former TRW Engineer Nira Schwartz, quoted by William Broad, New York Times, March 7, 2000

"We rigged the test," the scientist said. "We put a beacon with a certain frequency on the target vehicle. On the interceptor, we had a receiver." In effect the scientist said, the target was talking to the missile, saying, "Here I am, come get me . . . The hit looked beautiful, so Congress didn't ask any questions." Scientist involved in the Pentagon's June 1984 missile defense test, quoted by Tim Weiner, New York Times, August 18, 1993

The spectacular failure of the Pentagon's latest National Missile Defense (NMD) test on July 8th dramatically underscores the fact that this deeply flawed program is simply not up to the task of defending the United States from even a small number of ballistic missiles armed with nuclear warheads. The NMD project has now failed two of its first three "hit-to-kill" tests, in which an interceptor vehicle is supposed to destroy a mock nuclear warhead in mid-flight. And even in the one "successful" test, last October, it was later revealed that the interceptor vehicle had originally honed in on a large, brightly illuminated decoy balloon that in effect helped guide it to the mock warhead. Despite this dismal track record, the Clinton administration is still seriously considering moving towards deployment of an NMD system by preparing to award contracts for long lead-time procurement to begin construction on a key NMD radar system in Shemya, Alaska in the spring of 2001.

What's the rush? Why move full speed ahead on a system with no demonstrated capability for actually protecting the United States against ballistic missiles? The short answer is politics. In the short-term, the Clinton administration is seeking to inoculate Al Gore from Republican charges of being "soft on defense" by throwing money at the defense budget generally and missile defense projects in particular. But now Vice President Gore, who has tried to carve out a reputation for himself as a knowledgeable reformer of costly and inefficient government programs and practices, is in danger of being charged with being "soft on defense contractors" as he stands by in silence while billions of dollars of missile defense contracts are doled out to companies that have records of fraud, corruption, and mismanagement. Given their recent performance, it would be risky to buy a used car from these companies, much less trust them to build one of the most technically demanding and costly weapons programs ever undertaken by the Pentagon.

Fraud is nothing new in missile defense research. But the Clinton Administration's National Missile Defense initiative is permeated with fraud to a degree not seen since the heyday of Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) in the 1980s. Under persistent pressure from conservative true believers and cash hungry contractors, the Clinton/Gore NMD plan has been an ad hoc undertaking from the start, characterized by scientific fraud, exaggerated threat assessments and political manipulation. Hopefully, the mounting revelations of fraud and mismanagement in the NMD program will force Congress, the Executive Branch, and the defense industry to stop the mad rush to deploy this dangerous and ill-conceived system BEFORE U.S. taxpayers waste tens of billions of dollars pursuing what John Isaacs of the Council for a Livable World has aptly described as "a new Maginot Line."

On March 7th of this year, in a front page article entitled "Ex-Employee Says Contractor Faked Results of Missile Test," New York Times science writer William Broad revealed that Nira Schwartz, a senior research scientist at TRW, had filed suit against the company alleging that she had been fired for refusing to falsify basic research findings on the essential question of whether an NMD interceptor could tell the difference between a decoy and a nuclear warhead. On May 11th, after conducting the only independent scientific analysis to date on test data released pursuant to Dr. Schwartz's lawsuit, Dr. Theodore Postol of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology sent a letter to White House Chief of Staff John Podesta presenting evidence of "criminal fraud" in the NMD testing program.

More than two months later, after another failed NMD test, Dr. Postol's charges have yet to yield a serious, substantive response from the Clinton administration. Instead, the Pentagon and the White House have countered with political spin control, arguing that Dr. Postol would change his mind if only he knew of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization's (BMDO) full, classified plans for addressing the decoy problem. The Department of Defense has also engaged in a clumsy and counterproductive effort to chill public discussion by declaring Postol's May 11th letter itself to be classified.

At a May 25th press briefing in Washington, DC, Postol urged the White House to "stop playing politics with an important decision that directly effects the security of the nation," and called for the establishment of "a team of scientists who are truly independent in their fields and independent of the Pentagon . . . to look into this matter." Postol urged the Department of Defense's Inspector General to "investigate and determine whether the BMDO classified the May 11, 2000 letter to the White House in order to hide waste, fraud, and abuse in the BMDO." While the White House has failed to act on Postol's charges, they have resonated on Capitol Hill, where 53 House members led by Representatives Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and John Conyers (D-MI) have called for an FBI investigation of potential fraud in the NMD program. Meanwhile, Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) has put forward an amendment that would require the Pentagon to test the NMD system in realistic conditions against multiple decoys before making any decisions about deployment.

Durbin's amendment responds in part to further revelations by Postol regarding the Pentagon's "dumbing down" of the test series for the NMD interceptor from now through 2005. Postol persuasively demonstrates that the BMDO redesigned the test series to purposely exclude the numbers and types of decoys that the interceptor had been unable to tell from the mock warhead during preliminary tests. In fact, Postol noted, the large, balloon shaped decoy that had played a part in the only successful NMD intercept to date acted not as a decoy but as a "beacon" which assisted the kill vehicle in its efforts to locate the mock warhead.

The test of July 8th was no better -- it failed despite the Pentagon's best efforts to ensure a positive outcome. As Mark Thompson noted in the July 10th issue of Time magazine (released on July 3rd), the latest test of the system used a similar decoy to the one that served as a beacon in last fall's test (the decoy balloon failed to inflate during the test). In addition, the other parameters of the test were so carefully scripted that Thompson rightly suggested that the experiment is all but rigged:

There are virtually no unknowns in the procedure. The Pentagon knows the type of rocket launching the target as well as the nature of the target; it knows how powerful the rocket's engine is, where it is coming from, and when it is being launched. The crew launching the interceptor will even get to listen in on the countdown of the warhead's rocket as it takes place. All that is valuable intelligence -- and much, if not all of it, would be denied to the U.S. if a rogue state decided to strike. Such advantages "place significant limitations" on the value of the test, says Philip Coyle, the Pentagon's chief weapons tester.

If the NMD system can't even pass a test that is "all but rigged," how would it fare in a more realistic test environment involving multiple decoys? The extreme difficulties involved in discriminating decoys from warheads and the inadequacy of the Pentagon's current testing regime have been highlighted in a major joint study by scientists affiliated with MIT and the Union of Concerned Scientists, in a statement by the American Physical Society (the largest organization of physicists in the U.S.), and in a recent letter by 50 American Nobel Laureates organized by the Washington-based Federation of American Scientists which also underscores the strategic risks of proceeding with NMD. But, much like Richard Nixon's "secret plan" for peace in Vietnam, the BMDO's sole response to this avalanche of informed technical criticism has been to claim that it has classified plans for dealing effectively with decoys that cannot be revealed at this time for fear of tipping off potential adversaries.

The Pentagon's continued stonewalling in the face of valid technical critiques of NMD underscores the need for an independent assessment of the program by scientists and organizations that do not stand to profit by ignoring the system's glaring weaknesses. Unfortunately, the NMD testing program as currently structured does just the opposite: it maximizes the authority and influence of companies like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon which stand to make billions of dollars if a decision is made to go full speed ahead towards deployment.

II. Nonstop Money Dispenser: The Corporate Role in NMD Fraud

As the debate over whether or not to deploy the Clinton Administration's National Missile Defense (NMD) system heats up, it's worth taking a good, hard look at the companies responsible for building the Pentagon's most sophisticated and demanding weapon system yet. Since Ronald Reagan gave his March 1983 speech touting a new missile defense program that could render nuclear weapons "impotent and obsolete," the U.S. has spent over $70 billion researching and developing the various mutations of missile defense.

According to the Congressional Budget Office the first two phases of the Clinton administration's NMD system will cost taxpayers at least another $60 billion (counting the costs of dual use communications and tracking satellites). The Council for a Livable World has suggested that the multi-tiered approach favored by George W. Bush could cost $120 billion or more. Even by the standards of the Pentagon, that's a hell of a lot of money.

For the four "lumbering behemoths of the apocalypse" -- the military mega-firms Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, and TRW, which despite splitting over $30 billion per year in Pentagon contracts are still struggling financially -- a lead role in the NMD program offers a glitzy new set of projects and a major stream of potential new revenues to lure back investors and skilled personnel who have been turned off by the companies recent track records of corruption, cost overruns, and mismanagement. These four companies dominate the missile defense program at this point, accounting for 60% of total missile defense contracts issued by the Pentagon during the last two fiscal years -- a total of over $2.2 billion during that time period. Since the results of the missile defense tests they are helping to carry out will determine whether they start reaping lucrative, multi-billion dollar NMD production contracts, these major corporate players in the NMD testing program have serious and direct conflicts of interest.

Boeing/TRW

As noted above, recent news reports indicate that TRW, a subcontractor for NMD, faked tests and evaluations of a key component in the NMD system, the "hit-to-kill" vehicle that is supposed to seek out and destroy incoming nuclear warheads against a backdrop of chaff and decoys. The whistle-blower, former TRW senior engineer Dr. Nira Schwartz, served on TRW's anti-missile team in 1995 and 1996. Schwartz contends that in test after test the interceptors failed to discriminate decoys from warheads, but management at TRW refused to report these failures to the Pentagon. After repeated appeals to her boss and colleagues to alert industrial partners and the military to her findings, Schwartz was fired.

Schwartz's allegations revolve around the interceptor being developed for the NMD system. In using computer programs to certify to the government that TRW's interceptor would pick out enemy warheads from decoys, Schwartz found that the proposed interceptor could do so only 5 to 15% of the time rather than 95% of the time, the performance goal established by the BMDO.

Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon has tried to wave off charges of fraud involving the TRW "hit to kill" vehicle by arguing that a different vehicle, being developed by Raytheon, has been chosen for inclusion in the final NMD system. However, Bacon and his colleagues at the Pentagon have consistently failed to mention that Boeing, which is now the Lead Systems Integrator for the entire NMD project, designed the TRW interceptor vehicle that has been the subject of the fraud allegations. Indeed, Boeing proudly notes on its web site that the Boeing/TRW interceptor is still a "hot backup" in case the Raytheon version fails to perform adequately.

Furthermore, as Theodore Postol pointed out in his May 25th press briefing, "BMDO continues to make transparently false statements about the capabilities of the Raytheon Kill Vehicle relative to the Boeing Kill Vehicle. The Raytheon Kill Vehicle was NOT selected over the Boeing vehicle for technical reasons, as claimed by BMDO. It was selected because a Boeing employee illegally obtained sensitive Raytheon technical documentation on their Kill Vehicle." Postol's charge is particularly damning in the light of Boeing's central role in the biggest defense contracting scandal of the 1980s, Operation Ill Wind, in which the company and several of its key employees were at the center of a network of contractors and Pentagon employees trading in classified information in order to rig bids on major Pentagon weapons development programs.

Boeing's record of fraud and manipulation is especially troubling when one considers how dependent the Pentagon's Ballistic Missile Defense Organization has become on the company for carrying out even the most basic tasks relating to the testing program. As the Lead Systems Integrator for the NMD program, Boeing has unprecedented authority: the company is in charge of organizing and evaluating the entire BMD test series and supervising the work of key prime contractors and subcontractors involved in the research program. To cite one small recent example of the BMDO's dependence on Boeing, the New York Times reported on July 6th that journalists who want to view the July 7th NMD test via satellite would have to do so at Boeing's auditorium in the DC area because the Pentagon lacks the necessary equipment and facilities to provide simultaneous viewing of the test.

Whether Boeing colluded with TRW's manipulation of test results or merely overlooked them, it doesn't bode well for its role as the principal monitoring agent for subcontractors involved in NMD and the chief architect of the entire NMD testing program. Indeed, the most recent report on the NMD program by Philip Coyle, Director of the Pentagon's Independent Office of Testing and Evaluation, found that in its role as Lead Systems Integrator Boeing failed to establish a system for evaluating the testing program OR supervising the myriad subcontractors involved in NMD research and development.

For all practical purposes the fox is guarding the chicken coop: If Boeing is able to orchestrate a series of seemingly credible tests, it stands to make billions of dollars in production contracts for decades to come.

As the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) has demonstrated in a series of recent reports on waste and mismanagement in the defense sector, "until contractors improve their performance record and eliminate fraud, oversight remains crucial for protecting the public purse." POGO cites DOD Inspector General Eleanor Hill's similar concerns: "While we understand the many benefits of the new emphasis on Government/industry teamwork, the Department should not assume that procurement fraud no longer occurs. To the contrary, our criminal investigators report that their proactive undercover efforts regularly reveal significant fraudulent activity . . . Many advocates of drastic changes in Government acquisition practices are unaware of, or choose to ignore, the fact that procurement fraud remains a threat to the DOD and the U.S. taxpayer." For example, another POGO report notes that between 1994 and 1996, the defense industry returned more than $850 million to the government just to settle fraud cases under the False Claims Act.

Lockheed Martin

Lockheed has long been associated with the best and the worst of defense contracting, from successful programs like the F-16 fighter and the SR-71 reconnaissance plane to emblematic episodes of fraud and mismanagement like its bailout by the U.S. government in the early 1970s, its central role in the foreign bribery scandals in the mid-1970s, and its infamous role as the provider of the $600 toilet seat in the 1980s. Which Lockheed Martin will we see in the NMD program -- the world class weapons producer or the world class purveyor of cost overruns and contract manipulation? A few examples may help shed light on this conundrum.

· Lockheed Martin was in charge of the 1984 Homing Overlay Experiment (part of Reagan's Star Wars) that was later exposed as fraudulent (see source notes for further details).

· Lockheed Martin agreed to pay $13 million to settle government accusations that it violated arms export laws by sharing satellite technology with China. The violations date back to 1994 and cover 30 charges concerning dealings with Hong Kong-based Asia Satellite. Lockheed Martin provided Asia Satellite Telecommunications with technology that State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said could be used in missile development.

· An independent review of expensive and well-publicized launch failures of Lockheed Martin's rockets and satellites found that the company focused too heavily on cutting costs and not enough on supervising the quality of its work. More than $2 billion worth of military and private satellites were either destroyed or deployed into useless orbits after launch from Lockheed's Titan, Centaur and Athena rockets. Lockheed Martin provided the booster for the failed test of July 8th. The test was delayed for several hours due to a problem with a fuel cell in the Lockheed Martin booster rocket, and when it was finally launched the kill vehicle failed to separate from the booster, which in turn triggered the failure of the kill vehicle to destroy the mock warhead.

Lockheed Martin will pay the government $5 million to settle claims that two subsidiaries overcharged the Navy for anti-submarine devices. U.S. Attorney Paul Gagnon stated that the government paid between $1.8 million and $3.8 million too much for products from Nashua-based Sanders, a Lockheed Martin Company, and Marietta, Georgia-based Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. He also noted that the settlement would save the government the expense of a court battle over Lockheed's pricing practices.

· A rash of last-minute technical problems prevented Lockheed Martin's new rocket from lifting off in May of this year. It was the third delay in three days for the Atlas III, the first U.S. rocket to be equipped with a Russian engine. A broken radar thwarted the following try. In addition to the diplomatic and political issues raised by the professed willingness of the Clinton/Gore administration and the Bush campaign to share missile defense technology with Russia, the problems with the Atlas III raise an additional warning flag regarding such cooperative efforts.

· Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor for the PAC-3 theater missile defense system, which is running more than 30% over budget (or approximately $233 million). Lockheed Martin may have to pay about $70 million to cover its portion of the cost overrun.

· Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor for the Army's troubled Theater High Altitude Area Defense system (THAAD), which has succeeded in only 2 of 8 tests to date and was plagued by such serious problems that there was talk in late 1998 of taking the program away from Lockheed Martin and giving it to another contractor. A $15 million fine against Lockheed Martin for poor performance was lifted last year after THAAD scored two hits after six consecutive failures. Despite the history of problems in the program, Lockheed Martin recently received clearance to proceed to the Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase of the THAAD project, which could be worth up to $4 billion in contracts to the firm.

Raytheon

Raytheon, which just a few years ago seemed like the "most likely to succeed" among the new breed of military mega-firms, has been plagued by its own problems lately, ranging from an embarrassing "recall" of hundreds of Patriot missiles it had sold to U.S. allies after the 1991 Persian Gulf War to an admission that it had not engaged in proper testing of electronic components provided to the Pentagon.

The Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV) being developed for the NMD program has been the object of serious concern and criticism. The Welch panel stated, "The visit to the Raytheon facility in Tucson highlighted the impacts of the 'hardware-poor' nature of the EKV program. There were no spares, no development articles, and no articles available for parallel activities that could significantly reduce development and test risk. The first article built appears to be the one that will fly." The panel also pointed out that the EKV may not be able to withstand the shock loads once mounted on the actual Ground Based Interceptor booster, which will not be demonstrated until 2003 when the integrated GBI (operational version of the booster and EKV) will be tested.

· Other technical problems with the EKV have included fuel leaks, problems with the Inertial Measurement Unit (which independently guides the test kill vehicle in flight), and failure of components of the IR sensor system on the EKV. The failure of the July 7th NMD test was due in large part to the failure of the Raytheon kill vehicle to separate properly from the Lockheed Martin booster rocket. As a result, the sensors used to hone in on the mock warhead were never turned on, and the vehicle sailed wide of its target.

· The Army had to replace hundreds of PAC-2 missiles after problems with components of the missile. While the Army is working with Raytheon to find the root of the problem, so far they were able to pinpoint it to the missile's black box, or the radio frequency downlink, which sends signals back and forth to the ground station and the missile.

· As part of a settlement with the government, Raytheon will pay back $1.06 million to the federal government for cutting corners on tests of electronic weapons components.

· Raytheon Aerospace Co., a subsidiary of Raytheon Co., has agreed to settle allegations that it used a security firm to spy on a small competitor in Alabama three years ago. Raytheon agreed to pay $16 million to AGES Group, of Boca Raton, FL, to settle allegations that it had engaged in at least three days of industrial spying that included video and audio surveillance and thefts of documents.

· Raytheon agreed to pay the federal government more than $400,000 to settle a claim that its Beech Aerospace Services subsidiary overcharged the Pentagon on a 1991 aircraft maintenance contract. The government claimed that Raytheon double-billed for certain parts in maintenance work that was performed at various sites around the world.

The Bottom Line: Still Rushing to Failure

Given their inherent conflicts of interest and their recent histories of fraud and mismanagement, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, TRW and Raytheon must be closely monitored -- by both the Pentagon and by a panel of outside experts on ANY testing and research and development work they undertake on the NMD program. Until an effective monitoring system can be established, the Clinton Administration should suspend the NMD program and take it off what the first Welch panel rightly described as its "rush to failure."

Selected Sources (consult the authors for additional details):

These source notes include selected excerpts from key articles along with a list of some of the major sources consulted in the production of this report. For additional information, consult www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms, as well as the web sites of the Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers (www.crnd.org), the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (www.ceip.org, click on Nonproliferation Project), and the Federation of American Scientists (www.fas.org, click on Space Policy Project).

· New York Times by Tim Weiner, August 27, 1993 "Last year, the GAO audited seven 'Star Wars' tests between 1990 and 1992. The auditors found that three of the tests were accurately described to Congress. Those three tests were complete or partial failures. The missile defense program's officials told Congress the other four tests were successes. That was untrue, the auditors said.

The inaccurate claims included the success rate of experiments, the progress of the programs, the sophistication of the tests, the ability of interceptor missiles to distinguish between a target and a decoy and the missiles' achievement of accuracy and altitude goals, the GAO reported.

'They have lied about certain functions that their missiles are supposed to perform,' said a Federal investigator who agreed to speak only if he was not identified. 'They've used things to enhance the target. The fact is that you've got something up there solving your guidance problem. And you've got an incentive to deceive. That's how you keep your program going.'

A former Reagan administration official, a nuclear physicist who closely studied the missile defense program in the 1980s, said it was characterized by 'secrecy, greed, self-deception, deception of Congress and actually even of the President.' The former official, who remains a Pentagon consultant and who spoke on condition of anonymity, is not among the accusers in the debate."

-------- china

China answers critics with a book of nuke Web sites As arms talks with the US resume today, China says nuclear 'secrets' are easy to find.

Christian Science Monitor
FRIDAY, JULY 7, 2000
Kevin Platt (plattk@csps.com) Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/2000/07/07/fp7s1-csm.shtml

BEIJING

As China renews talks with the US on weapons proliferation, it is deploying an unusual strategy to counter accusations it stole American nuclear secrets.

Still stinging from charges that Chinese spies acquired the designs for seven of Washington's most advanced nuclear warheads, the Beijing-based China Nuclear Information Center has released a cyber-directory to show how much information on thermonuclear weapons is freely available on the Internet.

"Foreign Nuclear Web Sites," which costs 30-yuan (about $3.75), is a treasure trove for would-be explorers of nuclear information stored in computers throughout the US and the world.

Within its 77 pages are Web addresses for the US Department of Energy's Office of Fusion Energy Sciences and all major American nuclear weapons labs, including one entry titled "Group T-2 (Nuclear Theory and Applications) of the Theoretical Division of the Los Alamos National Laboratory."

China's use of the "Internet defense" is rich in irony. Since the 1949 Communist revolution, Beijing has jailed thousands of Chinese on charges of leaking state secrets to foreigners by revealing information that was in fact printed in local newspapers. And the party is now trying to impose draconian controls on Internet users throughout China.

Talking points

During discussions between the US and China, which resume July 7-8, a range of proliferation issues is expected to be covered by John Holum, the State Department's top arms control expert, and his Chinese counterparts.

Beijing suspended weapons talks after US jetfighters bombed Beijing's Embassy in Belgrade in May 1999, killing three Chinese and wounding two dozen others.

The Beijing talks will cover China's effort to buy advanced radar systems from Israel and the US proposal to build a national missile shield to guard against a nuclear attack.

The discussions also will likely address "suspicions that China transferred nuclear weapons technology to North Korea and nuclear and missile technology to Pakistan," says Charles Ferguson, a nuclear weapons expert at the Federation of American Scientists in Washington.

China's harshest critics in Congress have charged that the world's last communist titan used myriad types of espionage to pilfer American weapons material, and that it might have sold that data to enemies of the US.

Congress is set to vote soon on a bill that would outline a series of sanctions against China if the proliferation charges are proven. That vote comes one year after a US Congressional panel headed by Rep. Chris Cox (R-Calif.) released a two-volume report that accused China of stealing a wide array of top-secret blueprints for thermonuclear bombs.

Li Tao, a technology division chief at China Nuclear, says that one reason the nuclear Web site directory was published was to refute the Cox Report.

Much of the information China was alleged to have stolen "is not secret - it's all published on the Internet," says Mr Li.

His comments echo an earlier statement issued by China's State Council, which stated that "the structure, size, weight, shape, power, and circular error probability ... of seven US nuclear warheads, including the W-88, listed in the Cox Report, in fact, can be found in many open documents and on the Internet."

Some open secrets

Stan Norris, co-author of "The Internet and the Bomb," says that "probably some of the information [China was charged with stealing] in the Cox Report is available on the Internet."

"If you have fissile material ... smart people and enough resources, you can build a bomb based on information available on the Internet," adds Mr. Norris, a senior analyst at the New York-based Natural Resources Defense Council.

China Nuclear's cyber-manual lists weapons research labs by four out of the world's five nuclear powers (interestingly, there is no weapons information about China - the fifth power), along with a Russian site called "A Primer on Fissile Materials and Nuclear Weapons Design."

"This is just incredible," says a Western diplomat. "We've seen people make nuclear devices based on publicly available information ... and the Chinese have certainly done a lot of research in this area," he adds. "But it's still astounding that they would sell this kind of directory on the open market."

China Nuclear's Li says he has no qualms about issuing the directory. "We're not worried about terrorists using this book. You could find even more information by doing a search for nuclear weapons on Yahoo." Li adds: "The nuclear directory we published is not exposing any secrets - countries don't put their military and state secrets on the Internet."

A Beijing-based diplomat says that while he's surprised by the publication of China Nuclear's weapons directory, he concedes that "the US would not put its most advanced weapons designs on open Web sites." He adds that the US "maintains a firewall between public Web sites and internal government computers, and continuously upgrades its defenses against the theft of secrets by hackers."

But the diplomat adds that the Internet could still be a valuable tool for spies or merchants of advanced weapons designs. "Before the Internet, spies had to worry about not only how to steal information, but also how to transfer that information to the end-user," he says. "But now, the transfer of any kind of information is just a click away."

---

Clinton Puts U.S. on Knees in China

NewsMax.com
Friday July 7, 2000
Dan Frisa
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/7/7/142553

An advance U.S. diplomatic mission to China has arrived on bended-knees in preparation for a visit by Secretary of Defense William Cohen. The entire purpose of this effort is a major mistake, fraught with danger for our national security.

With the stated goals of seeking the assistance of China in dissuading North Korea from its aggressive military posture on the one hand, and reassuring China about our own plans for a missile defense shield on the other, the U.S. has no leverage, and no business, in conducting this trip.

Yet again the ineptitude of team Clinton in the field of foreign affairs is making itself obvious at a time that is rife with serious negative implications for U.S. interests. Exacerbating the problem is a poor track record over the past seven and a half years that has only made the current state of our international standing weaker than at any time in more than twenty years.

Recall that early in the first Clinton term Jimmy Carter was dispatched to North Korea in an attempt to defuse their nuclear saber-rattling. The "solution" was for the U.S. to agree to sanction the construction of nuclear power generation solely for "domestic energy needs" while we gave them millions of dollars, ostensibly for coal production.

As should have been expected, shortly thereafter the North Koreans did exactly what any thinking person should have known they would do: they proceeded with the development of nuclear warheads, which China has strongly and publicly supported, with financial and technological help.

Now Clinton naively expects China to exert its influence to stop North Korea from continuing on this belligerent course. Why should they and why would they? Their position can only be strengthened with the presence of another threat to America in the region, which is why they so encouraged and assisted their communist ally in the first place.

As to our own missile defense shield - which has yet to be finalized - why is it our concern what China thinks? I'll tell you right now they don't like it and they don't want it. Therefore, there is nothing to discuss.

Unless, of course, you're Bill Clinton and the election of your Vice Cheerleader is imperative to both your own legal self-preservation (by maintaining control at the Department of Justice) as well as the enhancement of your historical legacy.

These motivating factors, combined with a record of highly questionable - and likely illegal - dealings with China in the campaign finance scandal, the Los Alamos nuclear secrets giveaway, and the Loral warhead technology transfer, have all worked together to put the U.S. on its knees this week in Beijing.

The United States of America need never, ever, get on its knees before any nation, for any reason. A U.S. administration that would even contemplate such a posture - no less actually adopt it -- has abrogated its responsibility and trust, and should be replaced at the next appropriate opportunity.

That time will come this November and, hopefully, will be looked upon as a day that will live in glorious triumph over the sad follies of a sorry man who left an even sorrier legacy.

Dan Frisa represented New York In the United States Congress and served four terms in the New York State Assembly. E-mail: danfrisa@newsmax.com

---

U.S., China Open Arms Control Talks

Yahoo News
Friday July 7 9:07 AM ET
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20000707/ts/china_us_2.html

BEIJING (AP) - U.S. and Chinese officials opened their first arms-control talks in 19 months Friday, discussing China's assistance to Pakistan's missile program and arms proliferation in North Korea.

A team led by John Holum, the chief U.S. arms-control negotiator, also was expected to bring up American ambitions to build a missile defense system, something China opposes. China in turn was likely to talk about its No. 1 weapons proliferation issue: U.S. arms sales to rival Taiwan.

Washington and Beijing have tried for years to hold regular talks on arms control. Their last formal session was held in Nov. 1998. Nearly six months later, China broke off the dialogue after the U.S. bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade.

``We are here to resume the dialogue on strategic and national security issues. It's very important to us,'' Holum told reporters before the meeting.

Holum will spend much of his time discussing China's alleged role in helping Pakistan build a missile threat to neighboring India, one U.S. official said on condition of anonymity. A U.S. intelligence report last year revived controversy over China's weapons exports, saying it sent Pakistan nuclear-capable M-11 missiles in the early 1990s.

The Clinton administration is trying to avoid imposing the sanctions that may be required under U.S. law after such a finding. But pressure is building in Congress for Chinese concessions. Proposed legislation in the Senate calls for monitoring of China's weapons proliferation and possible sanctions.

Holum hopes to gain Chinese commitments to strengthen missile and nuclear arms monitoring, said the U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

China has pledged not to export missiles and denies selling them to Pakistan. But it has declined to sign the international Missile Technology Control Regime or abide by its ban on sales of missile components.

The Chinese side is led by Vice Foreign Minister Wang Guangya. Holum also is to meet Lt. Gen. Xiong Guangkai, deputy chief of the general staff of China's military, and top foreign policy experts.

---

US arms control negotiator begins non-proliferation talks with China

Yahoo News
Friday, July 7 5:13 PM SGT
http://sg.dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/asia/article.html?s=singapore/headlines/000707/asia/afp/US_arms_control_negotiator_begins_non-proliferation_talks_with_China.html

BEIJING, July 7 (AFP) - The top US arms control negotiator reopened non-proliferation talks with China Friday, signaling an end to a moratorium sparked by the NATO bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade more than a year ago.

John Holum, undersecretary of state for security and arms control, met with Chinese leaders early Friday after arriving Thursday evening, US Embassy spokesman John Berry said.

The talks are aimed at paving the way for a visit to China by US Defense Secretary William Cohen next week, which will be the first by a US defense secretary since the bombing.

Holum's visit and Cohen's scheduled trip are indications both countries are ready to resume normal, top-level arms control discussions.

Military talks and contact, along with human rights dialogue, were frozen following the May 7, 1999 bombing, which killed three Chinese nationals, injured more than 20 embassy staff and seriously damaged Sino-US relations.

Diplomatic sources said Friday that top items on the agenda for Holum and his counterparts included China's objections to US desires to build a missile defense shield to protect itself and a shield to protect its allies in Asia, including Taiwan.

China has voiced strong opposition to the US plans, saying they would lead to an arms race. Beijing has objected even more adamantly to Taiwan being included in the US defense system, saying that would be a blatant interference in China's internal affairs.

The island, ruled separately since the Nationalists fled there after losing a civil war with the Communists in 1949, is seen by Beijing as an inseparable part of China which must be returned to the mainland, by force if necessary.

The US side, sources said, would be seeking to encourage Beijing to bring about a peaceful resolution to the stalemate between Beijing and Taiwan's newly-elected president, Chen Shui-bian.

Chen has rejected China's demand that he accept a policy recognizing Taiwan as a part of China's sovereignty, and China has rejected Chen's offer to return to a compromise the two sides reached in 1992 in which neither would define the one-China principle.

US officials also may raise with Chinese leaders findings which allege China has resumed selling missile technology to Pakistan, sources said.

Though it remains to be seen how much can be achieved in the restart of arms controls talks between the two countries, China's neighbors in the region are applauding the start of discussions.

"This is a good sign. The dialogue will make a good atmosphere in the region," said Yang Changsoo, first secretary responsible for disarmament and non-proliferation matters in the South Korean Embassy in Beijing.

Yang said Asian countries are watching closely for results of the talks, but believe good will come out of the meetings even if nothing concrete is achieved.

"This time is just to exchange views. It's been a long gap since the two sides last held security dialogue in November 1998," Yang said.

Analysts said the resumption in dialogue was largely brought about by the recent US Congress decision to grant permanent normal trade relations status to China, which will negate the need for China to win approval for trade privileges with Washington every year.

Holum reportedly met with China's Assistant Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Guangya and Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Yang Jiechi Friday.

He is also scheduled to meet with People's Liberation Army's deputy chief of general staff Lt. General Xiong Guangkai and the Chinese Communist Party's foreign affairs expert Liu Huaqiu before leaving Beijing Sunday for Singapore and Tokyo.

China refuses to accept the US explanation that the Belgrade embassy bombing was a mistake caused by human error and outdated maps, despite having accepted compensation for the loss of lives and property.

---

Anti-Missile Test Looms Over China-U.S. Arms Talks

Yahoo News
Friday July 7 6:18 AM ET
By Paul Eckert
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000707/pl/china_usa_dc_5.html

BEIJING (Reuters) - Chinese and U.S. officials resumed long-frozen arms control talks on Friday as the United States prepared to test an anti-missile system that has united China, Russia and others in strident opposition.

The two sides reopened a dialogue on disarmament and non-proliferation China angrily broke off last May after NATO warplanes bombed the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia.

But the two-day meeting in Beijing straddles a key $100 million test over the Pacific Ocean of a planned U.S. National Missile Defense (NMD) plan that China bitterly opposes.

On Saturday, the U.S. military will try to shoot down a missile warhead in space -- a key step toward President Clinton's decision whether to begin building a limited missile defense against states such as North Korea, Iran and Iraq.

Touring Europe, where the plan has sparked fears of a new arms race, Prime Minister Zhu Rongji fired a salvo at a closer-to-home version of NMD: the U.S.-proposed Theater Missile Defense (TMD) for its allies and troops in Asia.

``China is categorically opposed to the TMD,'' Zhu told a news conference in Rome on Thursday.

``The system would aim to put Taiwan in a sphere of protection. This would be blatant interference in Chinese affairs,'' he said. He and Italian premier Giuliano Amato had common positions on both NMD and TMD, Zhu said.

Normalisation With New Disputes

China fears the TMD, intended to defend U.S. troops and Asian allies against perceived missile threats from North Korea, will be used to shelter Taiwan and embolden resistance there against Beijing's determination to bring it back into its fold.

Zhu's criticism came after the Chinese Foreign Ministry said NMD would upset the global strategic balance and TMD would set off an arms race in Asia. Talks on Friday and Saturday between a U.S. delegation led by senior arms control adviser John Holum and Chinese officials headed by Vice Foreign Minister Wang Guangya aim to improve relations and deepen bilateral arms control and non-proliferation dialogue.

``Restarting the talks is in itself good and we hope to get as much into the nitty-gritty as time allows,'' a U.S. official said.

But China is fuming not only at NMD and TMD, opposition to which has helped bind its new-found friendship with Russia. Both fear that NMD could evolve to neutralize their nuclear missiles.

Beijing also resents U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, an island which it claims as a wayward province and has threatened to attack if it declares independence.

Pakistan, Israel Cast Shadows

China is also upset about U.S. legislation that would require the United States to impose sanctions against the Chinese government, companies and other groups if they help countries develop or acquire nuclear bombs or other weapons of mass destruction.

Senate support for the nonproliferation bill has increased in recent days amid new allegations that China sold missile technology to Pakistan. Beijing and Islamabad have denied the accusations.

Another arms spat is brewing over China's $250 million deal to buy Phalcon airborne early warning radar systems from Israel. The United States fears the technology could be used against Taiwan and has lobbied hard to scupper the deal.

China suspended the arms control and non-proliferation talks and dialogue on human rights, as well as military-to military contacts, after NATO's bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in May 1999.

Military contacts were resumed in January with the visit of a top Chinese general to the United States and the return to normality will be completed next week when Defense Secretary William Cohen travels to Beijing.

---

U.S. Wants China to Curb North Korea

NewsMax.com
Friday, July 7, 2000
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/7/7/75617

Declaring North Korea is a military threat to the United States, Defense Secretary William Cohen is asking Communist China to intervene with its communist neighbor.

A high-level U.S. delegation is already in Beijing, laying the groundwork for Cohen to put the request directly to President Jiang Zemin and Defense Minister Chi Haotian next week.

The Clinton-Gore administration wants them to try to persuade North Korea to dismantle its missile programs - that China has helped it create - in exchange for billions in U.S. financial aid to Pyongyang.

Paving his own way to Beijing, Cohen said in advance of his arrival Tuesday:

"North Korea historically has had one of the largest militaries in the world, forward deployed. It does still pose a threat to not only South Korea" but also has the "capability of posing a threat to the United States and others in the future.

"We have to look at not only their words today, but their capabilities. And so we have to continue to provide for our security issues, and we will take that into account as the situation unfolds."

This will be Cohen's first trip into the mainland since U.S.-China military relations went sour in the wake of the American-led air war in Yugoslavia in which the Chinese embassy in Belgrade was bombed - accidentally, the Pentagon insists.

The secretary's mission holds considerable significance:

• It takes advantage of the thawing of those icy relations.

• It follows on the Clinton-Gore administration's efforts to persuade both houses of Congress to approve permanent normal trade relations with China.

• It precedes the coming November election, in which one of the major issues will revolve around the Clinton-Gore administration's cozy relations with illegal Chinese campaign contributors, China's record of military espionage within the United States, and the extent to which the next president is willing to go to the military aid of Taiwan should Beijing make good on its threat to attack.

• It seizes the opportunity to influence North Korea's military posture on the heels of unprecedented face-to-face talks between the hostile leaders of North and South Korea.

On the ground in Beijing, the U.S. advance delegation, led by John Holum, who is Clinton's arms-control adviser, is urging Beijing to ease off on its own assistance to missile programs in Iran, Syria and other Middle East countries known to be hostile to the United States.

Also on their agenda is the Clinton-Gore administration's plan for a limited missile defense, intended to ward off a nuclear attack from North Korea and other "rogue states."

In addition to Russia, China is opposed to that plan, on grounds it may be used against it in event of war between Beijing and Taipei.

There is, thus, a lot of asking on the part of Americans knocking on official doors in Beijing in the next week or so. How much giving they are prepared to do in response to the inevitable asking in return by the Chinese has not yet surfaced.

---

Pressure Builds on Senate to Vote on China Pact

Yahoo News
Friday July 7 4:55 PM ET
By Adam Entous
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000707/pl/china_congress_dc_8.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With time running out in the congressional session, the White House and big business will ratchet up pressure on Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott next week to schedule a July vote on a landmark China trade bill before it gets bogged down in election politics.

The Republican-led Senate returns on Monday from its weeklong Independence Day recess, and despite weeks of lobbying by business, Lott has yet to set a date for legislation granting permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) to China.

Instead, Lott said the Senate's first order of business would be a controversial sanctions measure aimed at curbing alleged Chinese weapon sales to Pakistan and other nations. Lott also wants the Senate to complete work on key spending bills to fund the federal government before turning to PNTR.

The delay has outraged business groups, the White House and pro-trade Senate Democrats, who fear Republicans will sideline the trade bill until just before the November election to maximize pressure on Democratic presidential hopeful Al Gore (news - web sites). Gore's support for PNTR has put him at odds with organized labor, a key Democratic constituency which fears closer ties with China will lead to massive U.S. job losses.

But lobbyists were increasingly confident Lott would back down, clearing the way for a final vote on the trade bill before the Senate recesses for the month of August and the presidential and congressional races heat up.

``We're picking up momentum on the issue of bringing it to a vote sooner rather than later,'' said Lonnie Taylor, chief lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has threatened to reassess its financial support for lawmakers, Republican or Democrat, who hold up the trade bill.

There is little doubt over the outcome of the Senate vote once one is scheduled.

Unlike the House, where two out of three Democrats voted against measure, the trade bill enjoys broad bipartisan support in the Senate. Sixty-three lawmakers in the 100-member Senate said in a recent Reuters poll that they would vote in favor of PNTR, enough to override a vote-blocking filibuster.

Once approved by the Senate and signed into law by President Clinton, PNTR would end the annual ritual of reviewing Beijing's trade status and guarantee Chinese goods the same low-tariff access to U.S. markets as products from nearly every other nation.

In exchange for the trade benefits, China would open a wide range of markets, from agriculture to telecommunications, to U.S. businesses under the terms of a landmark agreement signed in November 1999. That agreement was a major step in China's bid to join the World Trade Organization.

But hurdles remain.

Despite a White House veto threat, Lott of Mississippi is pressing for passage next week of legislation that would require the United States to impose sanctions on the Chinese government or private companies if they help nations develop or acquire nuclear, chemical and other weapons.

Senate Democrats, led by Max Baucus of Montana, have threatened to hold up the measure until Lott schedules a vote on the trade bill. But Lott's spokesman said the Majority Leader had no ``imminent'' plans to announce a date on PNTR.

Senate aides said the appropriations process could bog down, forcing Lott to put off a vote on the trade bill until September or later. China's critics in the Senate could also delay final passage for months by adding amendments to PNTR, which would force the House and the Senate to negotiate a final compromise and vote again.

---

U.S. Negotiators Start Arms Talks in Beijing

New York Times
July 7, 2000
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/00/07/07/late/07china-us-arms.html

BEIJING -- U.S. and Chinese officials opened their first arms-control talks in 19 months Friday, discussing China's assistance to Pakistan's missile program and arms proliferation in North Korea.

A team led by John Holum, the chief U.S. arms-control negotiator, also was expected to bring up American ambitions to build a missile defense system, something China opposes. China in turn was likely to talk about its No. 1 weapons proliferation issue: U.S. arms sales to rival Taiwan.

Washington and Beijing have tried for years to hold regular talks on arms control. Their last formal session was held in Nov. 1998. Nearly six months later, China broke off the dialogue after the U.S. bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade.

"We are here to resume the dialogue on strategic and national security issues. It's very important to us," Holum told reporters before the meeting.

Holum will spend much of his time discussing China's alleged role in helping Pakistan build a missile threat to neighboring India, one U.S. official said on condition of anonymity. A U.S. intelligence report last year revived controversy over China's weapons exports, saying it sent Pakistan nuclear-capable M-11 missiles in the early 1990s.

The Clinton administration is trying to avoid imposing the sanctions that may be required under U.S. law after such a finding. But pressure is building in Congress for Chinese concessions. Proposed legislation in the Senate calls for monitoring of China's weapons proliferation and possible sanctions.

Holum hopes to gain Chinese commitments to strengthen missile and nuclear arms monitoring, said the U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

China has pledged not to export missiles and denies selling them to Pakistan. But it has declined to sign the international Missile Technology Control Regime or abide by its ban on sales of missile components.

The Chinese side is led by Vice Foreign Minister Wang Guangya. Holum also is to meet Lt. Gen. Xiong Guangkai, deputy chief of the general staff of China's military, and top foreign policy experts.

----

Anti-Missile Test Looms Over China-U.S. Arms Talks

Reuters
July 7, 2000 Filed at 1:59 a.m. ET
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-china-u.html

BEIJING (Reuters) - Chinese and U.S. officials resumed long-frozen arms control talks on Friday as the United States prepared to test an anti-missile system that has united China, Russia and others in strident opposition.

The two sides reopened a dialogue on disarmament and non-proliferation China angrily broke off last May after NATO warplanes bombed the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia.

But the two-day meeting in Beijing straddles a key $100 million test over the Pacific Ocean of a planned U.S. National Missile Defense (NMD) plan that China bitterly opposes.

On Saturday, the U.S. military will try to shoot down a missile warhead in space -- a key step toward President Clinton's decision whether to begin building a limited missile defense against states such as North Korea, Iran and Iraq.

Touring Europe, where the plan has sparked fears of a new arms race, Prime Minister Zhu Rongji fired a salvo at a closer-to-home version of NMD: the U.S.-proposed Theater Missile Defense (TMD) for its allies and troops in Asia.

``China is categorically opposed to the TMD,'' Zhu told a news conference in Rome on Thursday.

``The system would aim to put Taiwan in a sphere of protection. This would be blatant interference in Chinese affairs,'' he said. He and Italian premier Giuliano Amato had common positions on both NMD and TMD, Zhu said.

NORMALISATION WITH NEW DISPUTES

China fears the TMD, intended to defend U.S. troops and Asian allies against perceived missile threats from North Korea, will be used to shelter Taiwan and embolden resistance there against Beijing's determination to bring it back into its fold.

Zhu's criticism came after the Chinese Foreign Ministry said NMD would upset the global strategic balance and TMD would set off an arms race in Asia.

Talks on Friday and Saturday between a U.S. delegation led by senior arms control adviser John Holum and Chinese officials headed by Vice Foreign Minister Wang Guangya aim to improve relations and deepen bilateral arms control and non-proliferation dialogue.

``Restarting the talks is in itself good and we hope to get as much into the nitty-gritty as time allows,'' a U.S. official said.

But China is fuming not only at NMD and TMD, opposition to which has helped bind its new-found friendship with Russia. Both fear that NMD could evolve to neutralize their nuclear missiles.

Beijing also resents U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, an island which it claims as a wayward province and has threatened to attack if it declares independence.

PAKISTAN, ISRAEL CAST SHADOWS

China is also upset about U.S. legislation that would require the United States to impose sanctions against the Chinese government, companies and other groups if they help countries develop or acquire nuclear bombs or other weapons of mass destruction.

Senate support for the nonproliferation bill has increased in recent days amid new allegations that China sold missile technology to Pakistan. Beijing and Islamabad have denied the accusations.

Another arms spat is brewing over China's $250 million deal to buy Phalcon airborne early warning radar systems from Israel. The United States fears the technology could be used against Taiwan and has lobbied hard to scupper the deal.

China suspended the arms control and non-proliferation talks and dialogue on human rights, as well as military-to military contacts, after NATO's bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in May 1999.

Military contacts were resumed in January with the visit of a top Chinese general to the United States and the return to normality will be completed next week when Defense Secretary William Cohen travels to Beijing.

----

Anti-Missile Test Looms Over China-U.S. Arms Talks

Yahoo News
Friday July 7 1:59 AM ET
By Paul Eckert
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000707/wl/china_usa_dc_1.html

BEIJING (Reuters) - Chinese and U.S. officials resumed long-frozen arms control talks on Friday as the United States prepared to test an anti-missile system that has united China, Russia and others in strident opposition.

The two sides reopened a dialogue on disarmament and non-proliferation China angrily broke off last May after NATO warplanes bombed the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia.

But the two-day meeting in Beijing straddles a key $100 million test over the Pacific Ocean of a planned U.S. National Missile Defense (NMD) plan that China bitterly opposes.

On Saturday, the U.S. military will try to shoot down a missile warhead in space -- a key step toward President Clinton's decision whether to begin building a limited missile defense against states such as North Korea, Iran and Iraq.

Touring Europe, where the plan has sparked fears of a new arms race, Prime Minister Zhu Rongji fired a salvo at a closer-to-home version of NMD: the U.S.-proposed Theater Missile Defense (TMD) for its allies and troops in Asia.

``China is categorically opposed to the TMD,'' Zhu told a news conference in Rome on Thursday.

``The system would aim to put Taiwan in a sphere of protection. This would be blatant interference in Chinese affairs,'' he said. He and Italian premier Giuliano Amato had common positions on both NMD and TMD, Zhu said.

Normalisation With New Disputes

China fears the TMD, intended to defend U.S. troops and Asian allies against perceived missile threats from North Korea, will be used to shelter Taiwan and embolden resistance there against Beijing's determination to bring it back into its fold.

Zhu's criticism came after the Chinese Foreign Ministry said NMD would upset the global strategic balance and TMD would set off an arms race in Asia.

Talks on Friday and Saturday between a U.S. delegation led by senior arms control adviser John Holum and Chinese officials headed by Vice Foreign Minister Wang Guangya aim to improve relations and deepen bilateral arms control and non-proliferation dialogue.

``Restarting the talks is in itself good and we hope to get as much into the nitty-gritty as time allows,'' a U.S. official said.

But China is fuming not only at NMD and TMD, opposition to which has helped bind its new-found friendship with Russia. Both fear that NMD could evolve to neutralize their nuclear missiles.

Beijing also resents U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, an island which it claims as a wayward province and has threatened to attack if it declares independence.

Pakistan, Israel Cast Shadows

China is also upset about U.S. legislation that would require the United States to impose sanctions against the Chinese government, companies and other groups if they help countries develop or acquire nuclear bombs or other weapons of mass destruction.

Senate support for the nonproliferation bill has increased in recent days amid new allegations that China sold missile technology to Pakistan. Beijing and Islamabad have denied the accusations.

Another arms spat is brewing over China's $250 million deal to buy Phalcon airborne early warning radar systems from Israel. The United States fears the technology could be used against Taiwan and has lobbied hard to scupper the deal.

China suspended the arms control and non-proliferation talks and dialogue on human rights, as well as military-to military contacts, after NATO's bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in May 1999.

Military contacts were resumed in January with the visit of a top Chinese general to the United States and the return to normality will be completed next week when Defense Secretary William Cohen travels to Beijing.

---

Battle Brews Over Chinese Weapon Sales

Yahoo News
Thursday July 6 7:02 PM ET
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000706/pl/china_congress_dc_7.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Republican leaders are pressing for passage next week of legislation that would combat weapon sales by China, despite objections from the White House and business leaders who see it as a threat to commercial ties with Beijing.

Introduced by Republican Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee and co-sponsored by Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott of Mississippi, the legislation would require the United States to impose sanctions against the Chinese government, companies and other groups if they help nations develop or acquire nuclear bombs and other weapons of mass destruction.

Senate support for the nonproliferation bill has increased in recent days amid new allegations that China sold missile technology to Pakistan. Beijing has called the allegations groundless.

``The protections (the nonproliferation bill) affords American national security are more important now than ever,'' said John Czwartacki, Lott's spokesman.

Czwartacki said he expected the nonproliferation bill to pass as early as Tuesday, even though it is opposed by most Senate Democrats and faces a White House veto. Opponents argue that the bill was too provocative and could backfire on U.S. business.

Thompson had initially threatened to add the nonproliferation initiative to legislation granting permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) to China. Instead, Lott and Thompson agreed to bring it up as a ``free-standing'' bill, rather than as an amendment to PNTR.

But Senate Democrats, led by Max Baucus of Montana, have threatened to hold up Thompson's measure until Lott schedules a final vote on the trade bill.

Senate aides said the standoff had created a new hurdle to passage of PNTR, but doubted it would derail the trade bill. Czwartacki said Lott still intended to call up PNTR before the end of July.

Once approved by the Senate and signed into law by President Clinton, PNTR would end the annual ritual of reviewing Beijing's trade status and guarantee Chinese goods the same low-tariff access to U.S. markets as products from nearly every other nation.

In exchange for the trade benefits, China would open a wide range of markets, from agriculture to telecommunications, to U.S. businesses under the terms of a landmark agreement signed in November 1999. That agreement was a major step in China's bid to join the World Trade Organization.

-------- korea

Engagement Is Not Appeasement

By Michael O'Hanlon
Friday, July 7, 2000; Page A27
http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/2000-07/07/046l-070700-idx.html

In his recent op-ed article ["Evil Without End?"], Fred C. Ikle provides just the latest example of a line of criticism directed at the Clinton administration's policies toward Stalinist North Korea in recent years. The charge, in essence, is that these policies amount to appeasement.

The critics are wrong. It is now clear that a carrot-and-stick policy toward North Korea has been the right approach, and has produced a significant foreign policy success for the Clinton administration.

Consider how bad the situation in Korea was only a short time ago. During much of the 1990s, the U.S. intelligence community considered the Korean peninsula the world's number one flash point, constantly perched on the brink of a vicious war that would immediately involve the 37,000 American troops stationed there--as well as the hundreds of thousands of U.S. reinforcements sure to follow.

Until 1994, North Korea was probably on its way to developing a nuclear arsenal. As late as 1998, it launched a three-stage rocket over Japan, raising the fear that not only could it strike that country but that it also might develop an intercontinental missile capable of delivering a nuclear warhead against the United States.

Many Republicans and some hawkish Democrats would have taken a counterproductive approach to this crisis situation. For example, the Bush administration's national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft, and former undersecretary of state Arnold Kanter publicly advocated prompt strikes against North Korean nuclear facilities in 1994 unless Pyongyang immediately and unconditionally accepted "continuous, unfettered" monitoring.

The critics did not relent even after the Clinton administration worked out a deal for monitoring--and in fact shutting down--those facilities in 1994. Known as the Agreed Framework, it was not, as Scowcroft and Kanter had demanded, unconditional. But it was smart just the same. It called for South Korea, Japan and the United States to provide North Korea with heavy fuel oil to replace the energy that the nuclear reactors would have produced, and eventually to build North Korea new nuclear reactors with less capability for contributing to a nuclear weapons program. Yet Republicans in Congress have constantly resisted providing the heavy fuel oil--even though the likely alternative was to see North Korea resume its nuclear program.

Belying the charge of appeasement, the administration never ruled out stern measures toward North Korea. In 1994, Defense Secretary William Perry stated that the United States would not allow North Korea to develop a nuclear arsenal--implicitly threatening strikes against its reactor complex if a negotiated settlement could not be found. There was no talk of reducing U.S. troops in Korea; American weaponry on the peninsula was increased and upgraded; and Tokyo and Washington fashioned an accord to make U.S. bases in Japan more dependable in a Korean crisis.

But while strengthening its deterrent, the administration also held out an olive branch to the inscrutable North Korean regime. In addition to developing the Agreed Framework in conjunction with Seoul and Tokyo, Washington maintained discreet diplomatic contacts with Pyongyang. It teamed with other aid donors to alleviate famine in the North. And it held out the promise of lifting trade sanctions if North Korea would agree to a moratorium on its long-range missile testing.

This balanced approach has clearly worked. Today North Korea's nuclear program remains frozen. The country that assassinated part of the South Korean cabinet and engaged in other barbaric activities in the 1980s continues to refrain from new acts of terrorism, according to U.S. intelligence.

Pyongyang has indeed imposed a moratorium on its long-range missile flight testing. And a highly promising, if still nascent, process of detente is underway between the peninsula's leaders, Kim Dae Jung of South Korea and Kim Jong Il of North Korea.

To be sure, some Republicans have played a constructive role in the U.S.-Korea policy process. And the Clinton administration does not deserve complete credit. Although it ultimately produced an effective Korea policy, it did so in a tentative manner at first.

But the larger message, leaving aside the partisan issues, is that engagement with North Korea has been working. Contrary to Ikle's suggestion, it should clearly be continued. Assuming that visits between divided Korean families on opposite sides of the Demilitarized Zone occur soon, we should then move to an expanded engagement policy. Seoul, Tokyo and Washington should offer North Korea targeted economic aid if Pyongyang agrees to a conventional arms control treaty that might slash weaponry on the peninsula by 50 percent or more.

Unfortunately, such proposals could be stymied by U.S. domestic politics, if those who wrongly charge the Clinton administration with appeasement are allowed to carry the day.

The writer is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

-------- u.s. nuc facilities

-------- california

Congress and the NIF: Budget Honeymoon May Be Ending

Fri, 7 Jul 2000
by Marylia Kelley - marylia@earthlink.net
from Tri-Valley CAREs' July newsletter, Citizen's Watch

On June 1, 2000, the Dept. of Energy (DOE) missed its Congressionally-mandated deadline to deliver a certified "rebaseline" of the full cost to taxpayers for the problem-plagued National Ignition Facility (NIF), currently under construction at Livermore Lab.

Instead, DOE requested a three-month extension, until mid-September. This conveniently puts off delivery of the NIF rebaseline until after Congress finishes with the Fiscal Year 2001 budget. So, we taxpayers and lawmakers alike are asked to take it on faith that DOE will control NIF's ballooning costs and successfully resolve the mega-laser's various mission, managerial and technical uncertainties.

On June 27, the NIF faced its first serious budget challenge when two conscientious Congressmen, Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), offered an amendment to cut $74.1 million from NIF's construction funding.

There would be only 36 hours between the time the Rules Committee allowed their amendment and the vote on the floor of the House.

The two Representatives were gathering substantial support from both parties, momentum was building to cut NIF and, as the public got wind of it, there was an encouraging grassroots response.

Still, it seemed an impossibly short turn around time, and the vote wouldn't actually come to the floor until after 10 PM Tuesday. These factors would hamper the valiant efforts of Ryan and Kucinich to achieve the amendment's passage.

Kudos are in order for the fine speeches made by both Representatives, covering all of the following: the multi-billion dollar cost overruns; schedule slippages of a half-decade or more; scientific uncertainties; the pending GAO report; the missing rebaseline; the myth of NIF's necessity to maintenance of the arsenal; its proliferation risks; its role in promoting a return to full-scale U.S. nuclear testing and more.

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Oakland) submitted testimony citing NIF's radioactive wastes and stating eloquently that NIF "symbolizes the American failure to lead the way on global arms control."

On the other side, Livermore Lab and DOE pulled out all the stops in order to defeat the amendment. Interestingly, but not unexpectedly, several Reps. who rose to oppose cutting NIF offered arguments taken directly from Livermore Lab's lobbying materials, in some cases reading them word for word off the page.

Leading the charge to oppose the amendment was Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Livermore), who relied on the same old fallacies that Livermore Lab has been selling since 1995, namely that NIF is a "cornerstone" of Stockpile Stewardship, and "the best way to ensure the safety and reliability of our nuclear weapons." (See box with quotes from prominent scientists, below.)

The one novel argument Tauscher offered was that the U.S. had already spent nearly a billion on NIF and that in and of itself justified spending more.

The House Appropriations Committee Chair, Ron Packard (R-Oceanside), spoke against the amendment but expressed misgivings about the NIF program. The jury is still out, he said.

All in all, the Ryan-Kucinich NIF amendment made a strong showing, but failed on a voice vote.

Now the budget debate will move to the Senate. Upon its return from the July 4th holiday, the Senate is expected to vote on its Appropriations bill. That vote will specify how big a check the Senate is willing to write for NIF.

If the Senate cuts (or increases) NIF's budget, then any differences between the House and Senate funding levels would be negotiated in committee.

Stay tuned.

--

Scientists on NIF

Experts decry the myth that NIF is needed for maintaining nuclear weapons "safety" & "reliability"

Edward Teller, known as the father of the hydrogen bomb, when asked about the NIF's utility for this task, replied: "None whatsoever." Los Alamos physicist Rod Schultz wrote in a lab publication that NIF's touted importance to the weapons stockpile does "not reflect the technical judgment of the nuclear weapons design community." Sandia Lab's former vice-president Bob Peurifoy called NIF "worthless" for maintenance of the arsenal. In a separate interview with another newspaper, Livermore weapons scientist Seymour Sack called NIF "worse than worthless" for that task. Ray Kidder, another Livermore Lab physicist, said: "As far as maintaining the stockpile is concerned, [NIF] is not necessary." (Sources: Tri-Valley Herald, Contra Costa Times, Albuquerque Tribune & Science Magazine.)

Marylia Kelley Tri-Valley CAREs
(Communities Against a Radioactive Environment)
2582 Old First Street Livermore, CA USA 94550
http://www.igc.org/tvc/ - is our web site, please visit us there!
(925) 443-7148 - is our phone (925) 443-0177 - is our fax

-------- new mexico

Feds Think Lee Used Atomic Data for Resume

NewsMax.com
Saturday, July 7, 2000
UPI
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/7/7/151826

LOS ANGELES - Recently filed court documents indicate federal investigators may no longer suspect that scientist Wen Ho Lee was acting as a foreign spy when he copied reams of secret nuclear information from the computer system at the Los Alamos National Laboratory but rather may have been simply beefing up his resume.

A two-page document filed in federal court in Albuquerque said that prosecutors believed Lee was "interested in seeking employment abroad" and downloaded a large amount of sensitive nuclear weapons information to show off for potential employers, the Los Angeles Times reported Friday.

The document, filed by U.S. Attorney Norman C. Bay, is the first formal declaration of the prosecution's theories regarding Lee, who faces trial Nov. 6 in Albuquerque on 59 felony counts involving the alleged mishandling of some 400,000 pages of classified documents.

Lee has not been charged with espionage, although the high-profile investigation has centered on the possibility that Lee passed U.S. nuclear secrets on to China or some other foreign government.

Lee, who was employed at Los Alamos for 19 years, has denied any wrongdoing.

Bay said in his filing that Lee had sent out letters seeking employment to universities and private companies in European and Asian nations, including his native Taiwan, in 1993 "at or about the time of the first offenses charged."

Investigators believe Lee wanted to use the vast number of classified pages to prove his knowledge of nuclear research to prospective employers.

The Times said the job-hunting theory surfaced in December after it was learned that Lee had been informed in 1993 that his job could be eliminated because of budget cuts.

Bay, however, reiterated the government's contention that Lee had also made contact with representatives of China's Institute of Applied Physics and Computational Mathematics, which is involved in research into nuclear weapons computer simulations.

The document was still considered a victory by Lee's defense team.

"It's absurd for the government to submit in a written document that it may seek to prove Dr. Lee was assisting countries like Australia and Switzerland," attorney Mark Holscher told the newspaper. "The idea that he is aiding countries that don't even have nuclear programs is bizarre."

A former FBI agent, Paul D. Moore, told the Times that the documents Lee is accused of copying could also give a foreign nation's nuclear program a major boost.

A hearing was scheduled before the trial judge on July 12 on a defense motion that would force prosecutors to disclose the allegedly stolen classified information to the jury.

---

U.S. Names Some Countries Los Alamos Scientist Might Have Tried to Help

New York Times
July 7, 2000
By JAMES STERNGOLD
http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/070700los-alamos-lee.html

LOS ANGELES, July 6 -- After months of resisting, federal prosecutors today identified an array of countries, from Australia to Switzerland to China, as some of the nations that a scientist accused of mishandling nuclear weapons secrets from the Los Alamos National Laboratory might have tried to assist.

Lawyers for the scientist, Wen Ho Lee, immediately ridiculed some entries on the list.

"These are not countries which anyone other than the prosecutors have identified as presenting any kind of nuclear threat to the United States," Mark Holscher, one of the lawyers, said.

But the filing, which came only after Judge James A. Parker of Federal District Court ordered it, reinforced a government theory that Dr. Lee might have improperly downloaded the trove of secret data because he wanted to enhance his job prospects with a foreign agency after being told by the laboratory in the early 1990's that he might be laid off.

Dr. Lee's lawyers flatly rejected the charges. He has pleaded not guilty and is being held without bail. Dr. Lee faces life in prison if convicted at a trial set for November.

In its filing today, the government said that in about 1993, Dr. Lee wrote letters to institutions in Australia, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Singapore, Switzerland and Taiwan seeking employment.

The government also stated that Dr. Lee had made contact with officials from the Institute of Applied Physics and Computational Mathematics in China, though it did not provide a reason.

Patricia Chavez, a spokeswoman for the United States Attorney's office in Albuquerque, where the case is being heard, said prosecutors would not comment beyond the three-page document.

For some time, Dr. Lee's lawyers have demanded that the prosecutors provide a so-called bill of particulars, specifying which countries the government believed Dr. Lee was trying to assist.

Those details are important, because Dr. Lee was charged not just with improperly downloading the data, but doing so with the intention of aiding a foreign country and harming the United States.

George A. Stamboulidis, the assistant United States attorney who is leading the prosecution, tried to walk a legal tightrope in his filing today, leaving the government maximum flexibility by keeping its case vague.

Mr. Stamboulidis argued that Dr. Lee had not necessarily decided which country he intended to assist when he downloaded the weapons data. He also contended that the government need prove only that Dr. Lee intended to harm the United States, and not necessarily that he intended to provide an advantage to another country.

Mr. Stamboulidis also said the government could add names to the list.

Dr. Lee, who is 60, was originally the subject of a sweeping investigation because of concerns that he might have given China the secret to developing a miniaturized American warhead known as the W-88. Because of those concerns, he was fired in March 1999.

But when Dr. Lee was indicted on 59 felony counts in December, it was not for espionage. Instead, he faces charges that he had improperly downloaded the data from a secure to an unsecure computer, then placed the information on portable computer tapes. Seven of those tapes have never been recovered, though Dr. Lee has said that, in keeping with laboratory policy, he destroyed them.

Dr. Lee's lawyers have not disputed that he received a notice saying he might be laid off, or that he contacted some agencies about jobs.

They have said, though, that Dr. Lee's contact with the scientific institute in China was an official trip paid for and sponsored by the laboratory. And they rejected the idea that any downloading Dr. Lee did had anything to do with improving his job prospects.

"To me, the most noteworthy thing about this is that after all those months investigating him and seven months after indicting him, they still don't have a theory on what he was doing or who he was trying to help," Nancy Hollander, another lawyer for Dr. Lee, said.

-------- new york

COMMUNIQUE No. 1 provided exclusively by New York Nuclear Corporation

UraniumOnLine.com
July 7, 2000
http://www.uraniumonline.com/nynco/uol2/UOL_Updates/Communique_1/communique_1.html

July 7, 2000

Great Neck, N.Y. - This is an introductory communiqué from UraniumOnLine that in the future will be published and sent on a regular basis to inform you of the exciting concepts and events at UOL.

A UOL auction facilitates "pure" price competition for uranium because all terms and conditions other than price are fixed. Sellers can compete only with one number, and many of you saw those numbers flicker down on your computer screens during the July 6 auction.

While delivery for this deal will occur this year, UOL can provide the same "pure" price competition for uranium for deliveries further out in time - for deliveries in 2001, 2002, 2003 or beyond.

Regulated utilities focus on paying no more than published prices at the time of delivery and feel comfortable with market related long term contracts. Price risk is passed on to the ratepayers. Deregulated utilities must bear price risk themselves and thus have a need to minimize uncertainty.

How can deregulated buyers be assured of getting the lowest fixed price available? Through a UOL auction of course!

Call us to see how you can lock in the best future prices now. For additional information or if you would like to be removed from our email list, please contact Rebecca T. Battle, rb@nynco.com

-------- washington

Study: Hanford chemical seeping into Columbia doesn't harm salmon

The Oregonian
Friday, July 7, 2000
By Jonathan Brinckman of The Oregonian staff
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/news/oregonian/00/07/cu_61plume07.frame

A toxic chemical seeping into the Columbia River from closed nuclear reactors at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation poses no danger to salmon, according to preliminary results of a study released this week.

The findings are important because the Hanford Reach, a 51-mile stretch of the Columbia running past and through the nuclear reservation, is the spawning grounds for 80 percent of the river basin's remaining wild fall chinook. Those fish, whose numbers have exceeded 150,000 in recent years, are the mainstay of the Columbia's sport and tribal fisheries.

The federally funded study found that levels of hexavalent chromium up to 266 parts per billion do not kill salmon eggs or young salmon or cause deformities. Although hexavalent chromium levels as high as 400 parts per billion have been found in a spring seeping into the river, chromium has never been found at levels above 130 parts per billion in the river gravel where salmon spawn.

Although the drinking water standard for chromium is 100 parts per billion and the standard for protecting aquatic organisms is even more stringent, at 11 parts per billion, the study found that the higher levels of chromium did not harm developing salmon. Scientists think that's because chromium affects gills; salmon eggs and newly hatched salmon do not have gills.

Hexavalent chromium is a toxic chemical added to water used to cool reactors. Huge volumes of cooling water were used, and the spent coolant was discharged into the river or into the ground, contaminating the ground water.

Hexavalent chromium is one of the two chemicals or radioactive elements leaking into the Columbia from the site that Hanford managers are most worried about.

The other is strontium-90, a radioactive element that has leaked into cooling water used in nuclear reactors. Hanford officials said that neither has been found at levels that would threaten fish.

But a scientist who works for a Seattle-based advocacy group said thorium, another radioactive element from Hanford, is present in the riverbed at levels high enough to threaten fish.

Norm Buske, a physicist consulting for the group Government Accountability Project, said Wednesday that he has found elements from the decay of radioactive thorium at dangerously high levels for fish. Buske, a longtime Hanford watchdog, made headlines in 1990 when he mailed strontium-contaminated mulberry jam made from mulberries picked at Hanford to the U.S. energy secretary and the governor of Washington.

Although neither strontium nor chromium poses an immediate threat, Buske said, thorium is worrisome. "We don't see anything in the springs that is a public health problem or environmental hazard at this time," he said. "It looks like the biggie is thorium."

However, Michael Thompson, acting manager of the U.S. Department of Energy's groundwater cleanup project at Hanford, said Buske is wrong about thorium. "We haven't found thorium in the environment at levels of concern," Thompson said. "He's brought this issue up before, and it doesn't hold water."

Hanford was established in 1943 to produce plutonium for the first nuclear weapons used in World War II. It is the most contaminated of the Energy Department's nuclear weapons complexes, with 60 percent of the nation's high-level nuclear waste and 80 percent of its spent fuel rods for nuclear reactors.

Waste disposal practices through the 1970s were poor. Water contaminated with toxic chemicals or radioactive elements, for example, was usually discharged into trenches called "cribs" and allowed to seep into the ground untreated.

Now, the ground water beneath 100 square miles of the 560-square-mile Hanford site is contaminated by toxic chemicals or radioactive elements at levels higher than permitted in drinking water.

The cleanup program at Hanford costs about $1 billion a year. Of that, $7 million is being spent to pump and treat contaminated ground water. The Energy Department monitors contamination seeping into the Columbia.

"We are finding some localized areas of concerns where we have treatment systems in place," Thompson said. "The focus of my energy today is what has not reached the ground water yet. We have to get our hands around that."

Two radioactive elements are detected in the river at higher levels downstream from the Hanford site than upstream, but Hanford managers said neither poses a risk to human health or to wildlife.

Tritium is found in river water at 75 picocuries per liter to 100 picocuries per liter at Richland, below Hanford. That compares with 25 picocuries per liter to 40 picocuries per liter at Priest Rapids Dam, above Hanford. Tritium is permitted in drinking water at levels up to 20,000 picocuries per liter. A picocurie is one-trillionth of a curie, the unit used in measuring radioactivity.

Iodine-129 is also found in river water at slightly higher concentrations at Richland compared to levels at Priest Rapids Dam. But concentrations are extremely low, far below the water quality standard.

Further information about these contaminants in Hanford ground water and the Columbia River can be found at two Web sites: http://hanford.pnl.gov/groundwater and http://hanford.pnl.gov/envreport.

You can reach Jonathan Brinckman at 503-221-8190 or by e-mail at jbrinckman@news.oregonian.com.

-------- us nuc politics

Delay missile shield
Whether it works is just one of the questions

Bergen Record
Tuesday, July 11, 2000
http://www.bergen.com/editorials/miss20000711.htm

THE LATEST TEST of the controversial missile defense shield was an unexpected, embarrassing failure. Yet President Clinton is apparently still intent on deciding in the next few weeks whether to begin actual deployment of the shield. That would be a huge and costly mistake.

The $100 million test over the weekend was a disaster. The "interceptor," which was supposed to target and destroy another missile, never separated from its booster rocket. This failure of one of the most elementary parts of the technology meant the actual ability of the rocket to intercept the target was never tested. So after three tests of the system, two of which have failed, we have no clear sense of whether it could work.

Clearly, far more testing is needed. But this big question mark has not stopped proponents of the missile shield from pressuring the White House to move forward anyway. They want the president to sign off on construction next spring of a radar station in Alaska, which would be the first phase of the missile shield, designed to be working by 2005.

But even preliminary construction on the radar station site would cause grave problems. Relations with Russia, China, and our European allies are already strained over the shield. Deploying it would violate the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty with Russia, and Russian officials strongly oppose amending the treaty, despite intense pressure from the United States. They correctly point out that U.S. action on the shield could destabilize international relations and start another arms race.

In fact, disagreement over the shield has already threatened talks with Russia on nuclear arsenal reductions. It is incredibly foolhardy to jeopardize world peace for a defense system that may not even work.

The missile shield is supposed to protect the United States from "rogue" missiles fired by North Korea, Iran, or Iraq. Defense specialists say North Korea could have long-range capability by 2005, but as of now, that nation is observing a moratorium on missile testing.

Is a missile shield even necessary? There is vast disagreement over whether a system that would cost as much as $60 billion is too much protection or not enough. George W. Bush and many Republicans in Congress want a much wider shield that would protect against all-out nuclear attack. Al Gore says he will wait and see what Mr. Clinton decides.

The president, who does not want to appear soft on defense for Mr. Gore's sake, has the choice of either giving the Alaska radar station the green light or leaving the decision to the next president. Given the large number of questions that surround the missile defense shield, the best decision -- for both Mr. Clinton and his successor -- is to wait, and to explore strategic alternatives that involve cooperation with other nations, ones that would be far less likely to threaten world balance.

---

Greenpeace Urges Protest of Star Wars Test

NewsMax.com
Friday, July 7, 2000
UPI
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/7/7/94134

BANGKOK, Thailand - The international environmental watchdog and anti-nuclear group Greenpeace urged Southeast Asian governments to oppose a scheduled test of the U.S. Star Wars missile defense program Friday.

The appeal came shortly before the U.S. military planned an attempt to shoot down a missile warhead in space fired from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.

The Minuteman intercontinental missile with a dummy warhead was scheduled to be launched toward the Pacific Marshall Islands. A U.S. "hit-to-kill" weapon was then to be fired from Kwajalein Atoll to intercept the warhead about 120 miles above the Earth. The Pentagon's third and final preliminary test of the system was scheduled for between 0200 GMT and 0600 GMT Saturday.

The test is a key step toward deciding whether to quickly begin building a limited missile defense aimed at foiling attacks by states such as North Korea, Iran and Iraq.

"We reject this proposed Star Wars missile system because it will spark a new nuclear arms race and destroy the international arms control and disarmament regime," said Athena Ballesteros, regional campaigns coordinator for Greenpeace Southeast Asia. Ballesteros urged the ten-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), which supports a nuclear free zone treaty, to express their governments' concerns about the impact of the Star Wars testing on their nuclear non-proliferation efforts.

"We are calling on the Philippines and Thailand, in particular, to urge their ASEAN neighbours to come together and express their opposition to the continued expansion of nuclear weapons by the world's nuclear powers led by the U.S.," she said in a statement.

Greenpeace warned that if the Star Wars plan goes ahead, there will be a reversal of the deep reduction already made in nuclear arsenals around the world as a result of the end of the Cold War. It said one of the most serious consequences will be a collapse of existing arms control and nuclear disarmament treaties such as the U.S.-Russian 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.

"Let us not forget that a crucial component of nuclear non-proliferation efforts is to develop non-nuclear energy sources instead," Ballesteros said. "Abandoning a reactor program that could have produced plutonium for nuclear weapons would mean more funds for energy alternatives."

---

Activists Try To Stop Missile Test

Associated Press
July 7, 2000 Filed at 8:26 a.m. EDT
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/w/AP-Missile-Defense-Protest.html

VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. (AP) -- Anti-nuclear activists were hoping to halt Friday evening's test of a national missile defense system by positioning a ship in an area of the Pacific where a rocket stage is expected to splash down.

Greenpeace planned to station a vessel about 110 miles offshore from Vandenberg Air Force Base, said Steve Shallhorn, campaign director for Greenpeace USA.

The Air Force has asked pilots and mariners to avoid the area during the test or risk damage or injury but said the test could continue even with a ship in the zone.

``We think Star Wars is a step in the wrong direction. It's going to make the world a more unstable place,'' Shallhorn said. ``We're sending a message to President Clinton asking him to take a finger off the Star Wars button and cancel the program.''

The $100 million test called for a Minuteman II missile to be launched at 7:01 p.m. PDT and be destroyed over the ocean about 20 minutes later by an interceptor launched from the South Pacific. One previous test succeeded and the other failed.

Critics say the technology is not advanced enough to work and could lead to another arms race. Supporters argue the system, if deployed, could protect all 50 states from long-range nuclear missiles launched by rogue nations such as North Korea.

Clinton has yet to make a decision on whether to deploy the system.

Twenty-three people from more than a dozen nations were aboard Greenpeace's 164-foot Arctic Sunrise, the ship being stationed in the hazard zone in the Pacific.

Air Force Master Sgt. Tyler Foster, a Vandenberg spokesman, said the test could continue even with the vessel there.

``Quite frankly, our launch commander can make the determination to launch even if there is a boat in the zone,'' Foster said.

Greenpeace activists also set up camp outside Vandenberg's main gate, about 180 miles northwest of Los Angeles. And a group of protesters not affiliated with Greenpeace threatened to delay the launch by breaking into the base.

---

Predicting the missile defense fallout Some fear a U.S. plan could fuel worldwide escalation Dr. Jacques Gansler, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, meets reporters at the Pentagon on Tuesday.

MSNBC
07/07/00
By Walter Pincus
THE WASHINGTON POST
http://www.msnbc.com/news/429910.asp?cp1=1
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59882-2000Jul6.html

WASHINGTON, July 7 - On Tuesday morning, in a conference room on the seventh floor of CIA headquarters, Director of Central Intelligence George J. Tenet will convene a meeting of the heads of U.S. intelligence agencies to hash over their differing analyses of how foreign governments might react to a U.S. national missile defense.

'The question is whether (national missile defense) will really make China beef up, or whether they planned to ramp up anyway.' - UNNAMED OFFICIAL

DEEP DISAGREEMENTS have delayed the intelligence community's effort to produce an authoritative, collective assessment, known as a National Intelligence Estimate. Originally scheduled to be delivered to the White House in June, it is now expected to be given to the White House in late July, still in time to play a role in President Clinton's decision whether to proceed with construction of the system.

The NIE is supposed to address some of the toughest, and most important, questions about missile defense: whether it would cause Russia to abandon arms control agreements, sow dissension among NATO allies and prompt China to enlarge its tiny nuclear arsenal, possibly setting off an arms race with India and Pakistan.

ASSESSING THE NEW THREATS

An annex to the document will update last year's intelligence estimate of the missile threat to the United States, the underlying rationale for building a missile shield. New attention, in particular, is being paid to the question of how soon North Korea, Iran and Iraq might possess intercontinental ballistic missiles.

In 1998, a congressionally appointed panel headed by former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld selected 2005 as the earliest date by which North Korea might possess a missile capable of hitting the United States. But intelligence officials said that neither last year's intelligence estimate, nor the annex to the new document, adopts that date. Rather, the document says the timetable could vary enormously depending on whether North Korea resumes long-range missile testing and how much help it receives from Russia and China.

Without 2005 as a firm deadline, the pressure on Clinton to move ahead with construction may ease. On the other hand, sources said, proponents of missile defense are likely to argue that North Korea could be ready to fire a missile even before 2005, and that there is always the risk of an accidental missile launch by Russia or China.

Anti-missile test fails

"The NIE may provide more questions than answers," a senior administration official said yesterday, "because all these questions are somewhat imponderables."

Among those who will gather at CIA headquarters Tuesday are the heads of the Defense Intelligence Agency, the electronic intelligence-gathering National Security Agency, the satellite-managing National Reconnaissance Office, the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, and other active and retired personnel.

SECOND-GUESSING CHINA

At a previous meeting of this so-called National Foreign Intelligence Board last Friday, members argued over the effect of a U.S. missile defense shield on China and Russia as well as on NATO allies such as Britain, France, Germany and Denmark.

In particular, participants disagreed over whether a national missile defense, or NMD, would prompt Beijing to increase its strategic nuclear force from 24 fixed-silo intercontinental missiles to several hundred mobile ones with multiple warheads - or whether China is already planning such a modernization.

"The question is whether NMD will really make China beef up, or whether they planned to ramp up anyway," said one official. Another official familiar with the discussions said Beijing appears to be less concerned with a missile shield covering the 50 states than with the possibility that the Pentagon might someday provide a so-called theater missile defense system to protect Taiwan.

China furious over U.S. missile shield plans

RUSSIAN THREATS

The intelligence community is also divided on how seriously to take Russian threats that if the United States creates a missile defense, Moscow will resume building intermediate-range SS-20 missiles to threaten Europe. One official argued that the threat is hollow because Russia's finances and construction capacity are so limited that it could build either SS-20s or longer-range SS-27s, but not both.

Another bone of contention is NATO allies' opposition to missile defense. The Pentagon's proposed network of interceptor missiles, high-speed computers and advanced radars would require upgrading early-warning radar stations in territory controlled by Britain and Denmark, which have questioned the need for a U.S. missile shield.

China

China has about 20 nuclear missiles capable of reaching the U.S., an arsenal regarded as primarily defensive. However, some believe a limited missile shield would be enough to invalidate China's small arsenal and spur Beijing to launch into a major nuclear weapons buildup.

Source: MSNBC.com and NBC News

---

Critics Asking Clinton to Stop Advancing Missile Plan

New York Times
July 7, 2000
By ELAINE SCIOLINO
http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/global/070700missile-test.html

WASHINGTON, July 6 -- A leading critic of national missile defense, Theodore A. Postol, said in a letter to President Clinton today that Mr. Clinton's advisers had made misleading statements about the proposed shield and urged creating an independent commission of top scientists to evaluate the plan.

Three major science groups also opposed the plan. The American Physical Society, with 42,000 physicists; the Federation of American Scientists; and the Union of Concerned Scientists jointly announced that they urged Mr. Clinton not to deploy a missile defense system, regardless of how its ground-based interceptor performs in a test on Friday night.

An antinuclear organization, Greenpeace, announced that it was sending a Dutch icebreaker, the Arctic Sunrise, to a "hazard zone" designated by the Air Force off the launching site at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., to try to stop the test.

"Mr. President, you have the finger on the Star Wars button," Greenpeace wrote in a letter to Mr. Clinton. "We urge you take it off and make the world a safer place."

To the Pentagon, the attacks might look like the revenge of the scientists. Fifty Nobel laureates have said any movement to deploy a missile defense system would be "premature, wasteful and dangerous."

The most relentless and detailed criticism has been from Dr. Postol, a professor of science and national security studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He contended in his letter Clinton that Pentagon officials have in recent weeks "made numerous technologically illiterate and highly misleading statements" about the missile proposal.

Dr. Postol said a statement by the under secretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, Jacques Gansler, at a news conference on June 20 that the system's X-band radar could discriminate between a real target and a decoy was based on faulty science.

Dr. Postol added that the contention at that news conference by Lt. Gen. Ronald T. Kadish of the Air Force, director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization at the Pentagon, that the decoy to be used on Friday was "representative" of the expected decoy threat was also false.

In statements today, the Pentagon defended the integrity of its program without addressing Dr. Postol's specific statements.

"Dr. Postol has raised issues that the independent review team and the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization are addressing," a spokesman for the Pentagon, Kenneth H. Bacon, said in a statement. "Developing a national missile defense system poses difficult technical challenges."

Defense Secretary William S. Cohen "is confident that his team is following a systematic and reasonable course to solve these problems," Mr. Bacon added.

A spokesman for the National Security Council, P. J. Crowley, said, "We've asked the Pentagon for an analysis of the questions he raises, and the Pentagon is in the process of getting back to us."

The Pentagon said that weather conditions appeared good and that the test on Friday was on schedule.

-------- us nuc waste

Red Chip Review Starts Coverage of American Ecology Corporation Independent Equity Research Firm Specializes in Small-Cap Opportunities

Business Wire
Friday July 7, 5:59 am Eastern Time
Company Press Release
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/000707/id_america.html

BOISE, Idaho--(BUSINESS WIRE)--July 7, 2000--Jack Lemley, chairman, CEO and president of American Ecology Corporation (Nasdaq:ECOL - news), today announced that Red Chip Review has initiated research coverage of the company.

``We are extremely pleased that an independent equity research firm of this caliber has elected to cover American Ecology,'' Lemley stated, adding, ``We are also pleased that the investment community can now access an independent perspective on American Ecology's performance and future business prospects.''

Headquartered in Portland, Oregon, Red Chip Review also has offices in Minneapolis, San Francisco, Los Angeles and New York. Its internet site, www.redchip.com, was recently recognized by Forbes as the ``Best of the Best'' among the top small-cap, financial internet sites.

``The decision by Red Chip Review to initiate stock research coverage is a further indication of increased interest by the investment community in American Ecology Corporation,'' Lemley concluded.

American Ecology Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides radioactive, PCB, hazardous and non-hazardous waste services to commercial and government customers throughout the United States, such as nuclear power plants, medical and academic institutions, agricultural companies and petro-chemical facilities. The company provides scientific solutions that protect people and the environment from radioactive and hazardous materials. Headquartered in Boise, Idaho, the Company is the oldest radioactive and hazardous waste services company in the United States.

This press release does not and shall not constitute express or implied agreement or endorsement of any statements, analyses, projections or other information provided by Red Chip Review now or in the future. American Ecology has no duty or obligation to update any forward-looking statement made herein. Please refer to American Ecology Corporation's most recent quarterly and annual reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Contact:

American Ecology Corporation Jim Baumgardner, 208/331-8400 info@americanecology.com

-------- u.s. nuc weapons

Watershed For Missile Defense Test Tonight Heralds Big Policy Decisions

By Roberto Suro
Washington Post
Friday, July 7, 2000; Page A01
http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/2000-07/07/184l-070700-idx.html

Sometime between 10 p.m. and 2 a.m. tonight, a dummy warhead is to be borne aloft on a missile fired from the California coast, and about half an hour later an interceptor launched from a South Pacific atoll will try to find the target and slam into it about 140 miles above the Earth.

Regardless of whether it is a hit or a miss, the results of tonight's $100 million flight test will be closely analyzed from Capitol Hill to the Kremlin because it is the last practice run before the Clinton administration decides whether to begin building the controversial National Missile Defense system.

The otherwise routine exercise has taken on extraordinary significance as officials, even within the administration, debate whether a costly, high-tech shield to defend the nation from ballistic missile attacks is necessary, whether it will work as planned and whether the potential diplomatic damage outweighs its benefits.

Advocates, including presidential candidate George W. Bush and many other Republicans, argue that a missile shield is essential to protect the United States and that the administration's plans do not go far enough. Critics, including several prominent scientists and former Clinton defense officials, contend that the system has too many technical problems and that it will set off a new arms race.

Meanwhile, Russia and China complain that if the United States builds its own missile defense, it will negate their countries' strategic deterrents and give America too much power in the world. The European allies quietly grumble that no real threat exists to justify the effort and that the shield could cause Americans to go their own way in foreign policy without sufficient consideration of their allies.

The process of sifting through these issues will go into high gear moments after the "kill vehicle" and the target warhead race toward each other in the night sky at a combined speed of more than 15,000 miles an hour. Within a few weeks the Pentagon will deliver an assessment of the system's technical capabilities.

By the end of the month the nation's top intelligence officers are due to resolve deep differences over the potential threat of ballistic missile attack and the likely reaction of key nations if President Clinton presses ahead.

Tonight's test will be only the third attempt at an actual intercept. Since the score thus far is one hit and one miss, tonight's result will help shape the verdict on feasibility. This also will be the most complete test of the system because in past attempts the interceptor received more help to find its target than it will tonight.

A key aspect of the test is gauging how well the missile carrying the kill vehicle can be guided toward the incoming warhead by computers rapidly processing data from a high-powered X-band radar and other sensors. In the final seconds, infrared sensors aboard the kill vehicle will attempt to distinguish the warhead from a decoy and home in on the target. If it's a direct hit, the 120-pound kill vehicle will destroy the target simply by kinetic energy, not explosives.

"There's not yet enough evidence to show that the system will work, and Friday's test won't change that," said Robert Park of the American Physical Society, who joined representatives of the Federation of American Scientists and the Union of Concerned Scientists in releasing statements yesterday urging Clinton not to make a deployment decision because the system has not proved its feasibility.

Focusing on the foreign policy implications, 50 American Nobel laureates sent the president a letter yesterday arguing that "the system would offer little protection and would do grave harm to this nation's core security interests" by igniting an arms race with China and Russia.

The proposed missile shield is a much smaller version of President Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative, dubbed "Star Wars" by critics, a system that was never built and quietly faded once the threat of nuclear war diminished with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Interest in missile defense revived after a congressional commission reported in 1998 that North Korea, Iran or Iraq could develop a ballistic missile threat against the United States within five years of deciding to acquire such a capability.

Demanding action from the White House and the Pentagon, a bipartisan majority in Congress enacted legislation last year requiring the creation of a missile shield to cover the 50 states as soon as technically feasible. The administration set a target date of 2005 to have a system operating based on intelligence estimates projecting that North Korea could have a long-range missile capability by then.

While declaring confidence in their ability to create an effective defense eventually, senior Pentagon officials have repeatedly warned that the administration's schedule is highly accelerated and very risky because development and testing of the system will continue even as construction and manufacturing are underway.

"I think one of the things we have to guard against is, if we hit tomorrow night, then there might be a natural tendency for many to throw up their hands and say, 'We did it! It worked just fine,' but such a declaration would be way premature," said Rear Adm. Craig Quigley, a Pentagon spokesman, during a news briefing yesterday.

Whether the kill vehicle slams into the target warhead as planned will be evident immediately tonight, but missile defense officials will assess the data from the test for at least two weeks before reporting to Defense Secretary William S. Cohen on the system's readiness.

"We're going to have to take the time in that next couple of weeks to take a real hard look at the data to see which systems performed as we wanted them to and which performed below par, and take a really hard look to be cautious of being overly optimistic as we take a look at what actually happened tomorrow night," Quigley said.

Clinton has said he will consider Cohen's recommendation on the feasibility of the shield, along with input from the State Department and intelligence agencies on the nature of the ballistic missile threat, as well as assessments of the potential foreign policy implications before deciding whether to authorize the first construction work in Alaska. Given the short building season there, the president must give the go-ahead by late November to keep the project on schedule.

Critics contend that tests of the system, including tonight's planned intercept, are unrealistic because only one simple decoy accompanies the target warhead, while any nation capable of launching a long-range ballistic missile would also be capable of much more challenging countermeasures.

"In essence, the Pentagon is asking the wrong question to get the answer they want," said Lisbeth Gronlund, a research fellow in security studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Speaking for the Union of Concerned Scientists at a news conference yesterday, Gronlund said, "they have defined the threat to be less than what it might actually be in the real world."

How the Test Should Work

1. Target missile launches from Vandenberg Air Force base in California.

2. Satellite detects plume from launch and notifies battle management center in Colorado Springs.

3. Center analyzes data and authorizes battle management node in Kwajalein to launch kill vehicle.

4. Kwajalein launches interceptor missile and activates X-band radar.

5. Kill vehicle separates from booster, takes star sightings to determine its coordinates, and receives updated information on the target's location from the X-band and early warning radars.

6. Kill vehicle becomes autonomous and uses on-board electronics to distinguish the target from a decoy and debris and homes in.

Past Tests

Jan. 17, 1997: Booster carrying kill vehicle failed to launch because of communication malfunction.

July 7, 1997: Repeat of Jan. 17 test demonstrated kill vehicle's ability to identify and track objects in space, using infrared sensor.

Jan. 15, 1998: Again tested kill vehicle's ability to identify and track objects in space.

Oct. 2, 1999: Made a hit on target warhead, despite a failure in the star tracker.

Jan. 18, 2000: Missed target after infrared sensors failed on kill vehicle because of a problem with a cooling system.

SOURCE: Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, Federation of American Scientists

----

US to carry out missile test despite protests

Irish Times
Friday, July 7, 2000
From Joe Carroll, in Washington
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/2000/0707/wor9.htm

THE US: The results of a rocket test over the Pacific Ocean today may determine if the US will go ahead with a controversial nuclear missile shield. Russia and China have protested to the US that such a system would violate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty (ABM).

The Chinese Prime Minister, Mr Zhu Rongji, has warned the US that China is "categorically opposed" to a theatre missile defence system which could be used to defend Taiwan. This would be a "blatant interference in Chinese affairs," he said yesterday.

But the US will put forward arguments for a limited anti-missile defence (AMD) against countries such as North Korea when arms control talks resume today between Was