------- Index of Articles

NUCLEAR
Daybook
Powell fears showdown on Kashmir
CIA: China Expected to Target U.S.
Report: Chinese Nuke Arsenal to Grow by 2015
IAEA inspectors to visit North Korea nuclear plant
Nobel physics laureate Prokhorov dies
Former Nuclear Plant Worker Arrested for Threats
Fired nuclear worker jailed for threats
Special DoD News Briefing on the Nuclear Posture Review
Nuclear Arms Plan: Saving, Not Scrapping
Nuclear Review Recommends a Reserve, Reports Say
Nuclear Plan Would Store Warheads
White House Wants New Nuke Rules
White House Seeking Funds to Dismantle Nuclear Arms
Evaluation of test site in motion
Road reopening under tight guard
Powell highlights challenges of 2001, goals for 2002
Senators Back Attack on Iraq
Pentagon Study Urges Arms Shift, From Nuclear to High-Tech

MILITARY
Poland to auction old Soviet tanks
NYT Buries Story of Airstrikes on Afghan Civilians
Top tier of Taliban offers to surrender
Armed Men Ordered Off Kabul Streets
Elite troops scout foes, intelligence
War Wrap: Latest news at a glance
Bombing Necessary Despite Toll on Civilians, U.S. Envoy Says
British al-Qaida suspects disappear
Powell singles out Somalia
Israels boosts military ties with India
US: Palestinian weapons ship not the first
China-Pakistan alliance starting to look shaky
Web site answers bioterror fears
McDonnell Douglas wins $480 million contract for smart bombs
Falloff of military plane orders masks gains in other sectors
China - The key to Asian stability
Colombia Gets Helicopters
UPI hears ...
It All Points to Arafat
Israel Faces Tide of Skepticism After Ship Seizure
S.Korea to launch first military satellite
Warning to Slovakia
Pakistan Says It Has Not Cut Troops on the Afghan Border
More Carnage in Chechnya
Bad Intelligence Causing Pentagon-CIA Rift
U.S. Is Building Up Its Military Bases in Afghan Region
Plane With 7 Marines Aboard Crashes on Way to Pakistan Base

POLICE / PRISONERS
Computer models to aid defense
Afghan Prisoners Going to Gray Area
Army Updates Dress Code, Adding Bit of Color
High Court Rebukes South Carolina Over Death Penalty Sentencing
Sept. 11 Terror Suspect Requests Televised Trial

ENERGY AND OTHER
GM car, reported government plan boost fuel cell stocks
U.S. Ends Car Plan on Gas Efficiency; Looks to Fuel Cells
Feds Dump Fuel Efficiency for Fuel Cells
Attorneys general urge Bush not to ease power plant emissions standards
BP WILL NOT DRILL LIBERTY OIL FIELD
AMMONIA SPILL KILLED 1.3 MILLION FISH IN IOWA
'Sudden death' blight may target Californian redwoods
Method may quicken cancer diagnosis

ACTIVISTS
Missile Protesters Plead Guilty
Myanmar Junta Frees Opposition
Downwind, a Crusade Resurfaces, Mainstream
Hiroshima, Nagasaki rap U.S. nuclear tests



-------- NUCLEAR

Daybook

Washington Times
January 9, 2002
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20020109-761676.htm

Defense Department briefing - 3 p.m. - The Defense Department holds a news briefing on the results of the Nuclear Posture Review.
Location: Pentagon Briefing Room 2E781.
Contact: 703/697-9312.
Press releases and/or tanscripts at http://www.defenselink.mil/

-------- asia

Powell fears showdown on Kashmir

By Ben Barber
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
January 9, 2002
http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20020109-11744578.htm

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said yesterday there was no certainty war could be avoided between India and Pakistan.

Speaking after completing a phone call with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, Mr. Powell noted that even Pakistan's longtime ally China - which has supplied it with nuclear and missile technology - was advising Pakistan to stand down and end support for terrorism.

"It is a very tense and dangerous situation," Mr. Powell told reporters and editors of The Washington Times at a State Department interview.

"Any situation where you have forces that have mobilized and are in proximity to one another and are at something of a war footing is a dangerous situation."

Fighting continued in disputed Kashmir yesterday with attacks by an Islamic fundamentalist group that India and the United States had labeled "terrorist" but which Pakistan's army had armed and protected for many years.

U.S. pressure on Gen. Musharraf has led him to crack down on two militant groups blamed by India for the Dec. 13 attack on its Parliament that left 14 dead. But India said yesterday the crackdown was not enough.

"I don't see any shift in their position on terrorism as directed against India. I think the time has come for Pakistan to shed the ambivalence it continues to maintain on such issues," Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Nirupama Rao said in New Delhi.

"What we expect from Pakistan is concrete, serious, substantial steps to deal with cross-border terrorism and groups that operate from Pakistani soil. We have yet to see satisfactory action taken."

Mr. Powell said: "I still think there is every opportunity for a political and diplomatic solution. Both sides have said that they are desirous of solving this through political and diplomatic means."

He noted that China "is playing a responsible role in trying to reduce the tensions and not taking one side or the other. ... So far, we have prevented a conflict from breaking out."

President Bush on Monday called for Gen. Musharraf, an army commander who seized power from a corrupt civilian government in 1999, to clamp down on Pakistan-based and -controlled militant groups that have left up to 60,000 dead in 10 years of guerrilla warfare and terrorism in Indian-held portions of Kashmir.

Mr. Powell said yesterday that he speaks regularly to Gen. Musharraf to talk "about possibilities with respect to reaching a point where the two sides can say, 'All right, let's start to de-escalate.'"

"We're not at that point yet, but I think there are some elements of progress that I have seen in the last several days that suggest to me that we still have time to find a political and diplomatic solution."

After the attack on the Parliament in New Delhi, Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee sent hundreds of thousands of troops toward the Pakistani border, propelling the two countries to their biggest confrontation in 15 years.

India, with more than 1 billion people and a much larger army than Pakistan, is likely to win a conventional war, as it has in all three conflicts the two nations have fought since independence from Britain in 1947.

But both sides now possess nuclear weapons, which they tested in May 1998. Mr. Powell said he has spoken to India and Pakistan about the importance of avoiding the use of nuclear weapons.

"I think both sides recognize the seriousness of this situation and the seriousness of letting it become an armed conflict," he said. "That message has been given to both sides clearly, to include the nuclear aspects of it."

Analysts believe Pakistan would be the first to use nuclear weapons, but only if faced with dismemberment and occupation by India.

India therefore is likely, in the event it does attack, to limit its focus to terrorist and militant sites such as training camps, offices and armories, both in Pakistan-controlled Azad Kashmir and in Pakistan itself.

Mr. Powell has confirmed published reports that Gen. Musharraf plans to speak to his nation in a few days, when he will announce an anti-terrorism plan he hopes will assuage Indian anger.

But Pakistan's long commitment to liberating Kashmir from Indian control makes it hard for Gen. Musharraf to completely renounce support for the armed struggle there.

"Pakistan is a responsible and peace-loving nation, but in case of any aggression, we will respond with complete national will and resolve," he was quoted as telling his army corps commanders at general headquarters.

A group of U.S. senators met with Gen. Musharraf and called on India to respond to his efforts to stop terrorism by arresting about 200 militants - including the leaders of the two major militant groups Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed.

"I hope that the leadership of India ... will listen carefully to President Musharraf's words in the next few days, and I hope they will find something there to lead them to want to at least sit down and begin negotiations," said Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, Connecticut Democrat and former vice-presidential candidate.

Diplomatic activity continues.

Chinese Prime Minister Zhu Rongji is to visit India next week, when he is likely to be presented with evidence that Chinese ethnic-Uighur Muslim separatists were captured fighting in Kashmir and with al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan.

Indian Home Minister Lal Krishna Advani was heading to Washington yesterday, and was to be followed by Defense Minister George Fernandes next week.

-------- china

CIA: China Expected to Target U.S.

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
January 9, 2002
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A21810-2002Jan9?language=printer
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Missile-Threat.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- China is expected to have between 75 and 100 long-range nuclear missiles pointed at the United States by 2015, roughly quadruple the current number, according to a CIA report released Wednesday.

Many of those intercontinental ballistic missiles will be on mobile launchers, helping China maintain a nuclear deterrent against the vastly larger U.S. missile force, says the report, titled ``Foreign Missile Developments and the Ballistic Missile Threat Through 2015.''

Echoing earlier intelligence estimates, the report also says North Korea and Iran will probably have long-range missiles capable of reaching the United States by 2015. These assessments have been used to justify U.S. plans for multibillion-dollar missile defense systems capable of shooting down a limited ICBM attack on the continental United States.

The report draws together information and analyses from the CIA and other U.S. intelligence.

Currently, China has about 20 silos with CSS-4 nuclear ICBMs capable of reaching the United States, the report says. It also has a few medium-range, submarine-launched ballistic missiles and probably one submarine from which to launch them.

The Chinese military is developing three new missile systems, all of which could be fielded by 2010, the report says. The Chinese may also be able to mount multiple-independent re-entry vehicles -- MIRVs -- on its older silo-based missiles. These enable a single missile to launch warheads at several targets, vastly increasing potential damage.

China sees an expanded ICBM force necessary to overcome a U.S. missile defense system, maintaining its ability to strike the U.S. mainland. This would provide a deterrent during a conflict over Taiwan. While U.S. officials insist the missile defense program is to defeat strikes by North Korea and other ``rogue'' nations, some of those proposed defenses might have been sufficient to shoot down all 20 Chinese ICBMs. Eighty missiles would be too many, however.

China also is expanding its short-range ballistic missile force, and will probably have several hundred by 2005, the report says. These are armed with conventional warheads which could be used to bombard Taiwan from the Chinese mainland.

North Korea, meanwhile, has halted missile flight-testing until at least 2003, although it continues to develop the Taepo Dong-2, a two-stage missile that would be capable of reaching the western United States. North Korea also probably has one or two nuclear weapons that could be mounted on those missiles, the report says.

Iran, meanwhile, might be able to test a long-range missile around 2005, the report says, but more likely won't have the capability to do so until 2010.

The report reflects some differences of opinion between U.S. intelligence agencies, with one unidentified agency arguing that Iran won't be able to test missiles able to reach the U.S. mainland even by 2015. Its projections also assume each country's political direction will not change significantly during the next 13 years.

Ongoing U.N. prohibitions prevent Iraq from importing most of the equipment and expertise it needs to create an ICBM, the report says, but if those were lifted, Iraq could rapidly develop such weapons with substantial foreign assistance.

Russia's strategic missile force will continue to get smaller, but Russia will still have far and away the largest nuclear missile inventory capable of hitting the United States, the report says.

Terrorists aren't expected to employ long-range missiles to deliver nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction on the United States, the report says.

``Ships, trucks, airplanes and other means may be used,'' it says.

--------

Report: Chinese Nuke Arsenal to Grow by 2015

January 9, 2002
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-arms-missiles-usa.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - China could increase its arsenal of nuclear warheads capable of reaching the United States from about 20 now to 100 in the next 15 years, a U.S. intelligence report said Wednesday.

The National Intelligence Estimate, a combined analysis by various intelligence agencies, looked at foreign missile developments and projected the missile threat through 2015. The classified report was issued in December and an unclassified version was released on Wednesday.

``The IC (intelligence community) has differing projections of the overall size of Chinese strategic ballistic missile forces over the next 15 years, ranging from about 75 to 100 warheads deployed primarily against the United States,'' the report said.

China currently has about 20 intercontinental ballistic missiles armed with a single nuclear warhead capable of reaching targets in the United States, the report said.

It also has about a dozen long-range missiles as a deterrent against targets in Russia and Asia, it said.

China is developing three new mobile missiles and could begin deploying the DF-31 during the first half of the decade, the report said.

The United States is trying to develop a missile defense shield to protect against any long-range missile attack by hostile forces such as North Korea, Iran and Iraq.

An attack on U.S. territory by a biological, chemical, or nuclear weapon was more likely to be delivered by non-missile means because it would be less expensive and probably more reliable, the intelligence report said.

China and Russia have opposed a U.S. missile defense shield, saying it could lead to a renewed arms race.

The United States plans to cut its nuclear arsenal over the next decade to between 1,700 and 2,200 from about 6,000 weapons. Russia plans to make matching reductions.

Russia's nuclear arsenal would decline to below 2,000 warheads by 2015 ``with or without arms control'' unless Moscow significantly increased funding, the report said.

Before 2015, the United States would ``most likely'' face long-range ballistic missile threats from North Korea and Iran, and ``possibly'' from Iraq, the report said.

Iraq and Iran were years away from producing a nuclear weapon, while North Korea had one or two in its arsenal, it said.

Iraq has retained a small force of Scud-type missiles and launchers, but most of the intelligence analysts believed it was unlikely to test any long-range ballistic missile that could threaten the United States by 2015.

And Baghdad had not yet developed a nuclear weapon, the report said. ``The intelligence community estimates that Iraq, unconstrained, would take several years to produce enough fissile material to make a weapon,'' it said.

Iran could test an intercontinental ballistic missile about mid-decade, but was more likely to take until the second half of the decade, the report said.

Iran could have a nuclear weapon by the end of the decade, but one intelligence agency judged it would take longer, the report said.

North Korea's long-range Taepo Dong-2 missile capable of reaching parts of the United States with a nuclear warhead may be ready for flight testing, but the country is currently observing a voluntary flight-test moratorium, the report said.

Long-time nuclear rivals India and Pakistan, where tensions periodically flare, had mainly short- and medium-range ballistic missiles.

India has most of the components needed for a long-range missile available in its space program and could develop one within two years if it made that decision, the report said.

Pakistan acquired M-11 short-range missiles from China in the 1990s and medium-range missiles from North Korea, it said.

-------- korea

IAEA inspectors to visit North Korea nuclear plant

AUSTRIA: January 9, 2002
REUTERS
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13976/story.htm

VIENNA - International experts will visit a nuclear laboratory in North Korea for the first time later this month but will not be allowed to inspect the facility, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said on Tuesday.

A spokeswoman for the Vienna-based organisation said the visit by a team of three inspectors was a small step towards normalising relations with communist North Korea, which pulled out of the world nuclear watchdog in 1994.

"We consider this to be small step in the right direction although there is still a long way to go," spokeswoman Melissa Fleming told Reuters.

The inspectors will begin their four-day trip to North Korea on January 15, visiting a nuclear laboratory in Nyongbyon for the first time. The communist state says the plant produces isotopes for medical and industrial use.

IAEA experts have been monitoring nuclear activity in North Korea since 1994 but have not yet been allowed to conduct thorough plant inspections. The watchdog estimates it would take at least three years to inspect North Korea's nuclear programme.

North Korea, which is on a U.S. list of states accused of sponsoring terrorism, agreed a framework accord with the U.S. after leaving the IAEA in which it committed itself to freezing its plutonium production programme.

In return, Washington agreed to replace the state's graphite-moderated reactors with two light-water reactors, which are less useful in making bomb-grade material.

A condition of the deal was that North Korea would allow the IAEA to inspect several nuclear waste sites and make sure all plutonium was under international safeguards. Without these inspections the nuclear reactors cannot be completed.

-------- missile defense

Nobel physics laureate Prokhorov dies

World Scene
Washington Times
January 9, 2002
Combined dispatches and staff reports
http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20020109-10526932.htm

MOSCOW - Russian Nobel laureate Alexander Prokhorov, an inventor of laser technology and a leading light in the Soviet Union's space defense program, died yesterday at age 85, the Academy of Sciences said.

Mr. Prokhorov won the Nobel Prize in physics in 1964, along with fellow countryman Nikolai Basov and U.S. scientist Charles Townes for laying the groundwork for the invention of the laser.

The research institute that he headed was also a key contributor to the Soviet program to counter President Reagan's plans for a "star wars" defense system - so called because it would destroy ballistic missiles in space.

-------- terrorism

Former Nuclear Plant Worker Arrested for Threats

Wednesday January 9 9:40 AM ET
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/htx/nm/20020109/ts/crime_nuclear_dc_4.html

SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, Calif. (Reuters) - A former nuclear plant worker with an arsenal of assault rifles and other weapons was arrested for allegedly threatening to shoot former co-workers at the San Onofre nuclear plant in Southern California, sheriff's department officials said on Wednesday.

The 43-year-old male plant worker, who was not named, was taken into custody on Tuesday, and deputies later found a cache of more than 200 weapons and thousands of rounds of ammunition at his home in Laguna Niguel and a storage facility in San Juan Capistrano, Orange County Sheriff's Lt. Colin Murphy said.

``The employee was recently terminated. At the same time, he had made some threats to the company and to fellow employees at the power plant,'' Murphy said.

Orange County sheriff spokesman Jim Amormino told MSNBC said the man made repeated threatening phone calls. The director at the plant in turn notified the sheriff's department.

``Apparently, he called several times to the plant. He made threats to employees and supervisors that he had a lot of guns and he would come back and shoot them,'' Amormino said.

Murphy said the man would be charged under a California law that bans people from making ``terrorist threats.''

Sheriff's deputies found 54 weapons at the man's home during a search on Tuesday. They raided the storage shed on Wednesday and found 150 weapons, including assault rifles, small arms and several ammunition cans, Murphy said. Some of the assault rifles were illegal to own in California.

Three sheriff's deputies searching the storage unit at about 1 a.m. PDT (0800 GMT) were treated and released from a nearby hospital after inhaling an unidentified yellow vapor that came out of an ammunition can opened in the search, he said.

``The deputies described the effect of the vapor as almost like a tear gas,'' he said.

The vapor was tested by the fire department, and was not tear gas. But tests were pending to determine exactly what the vapor was. The San Onofre plant, located near Camp Pendleton Marine Corps base about 55 miles south of Los Angeles, is jointly owned by Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas and Electric and the cities of Riverside and Anaheim, California. Southern California Edison is a unit of Edison International.

--

Reuters Photo of San Onfore

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/p/nm/20020109/ts/mdf109964.html http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/nm/20020109/mdf109964.jpg

A former nuclear plant worker was arrested for allegedly making terrorist threats against the San Onofre nuclear plant to company and plant workers, a sheriff's department spokesman on January 9, 2002. The plant worker was taken into custody, and deputies later found a cache of 54 weapons at his home in Laguna Niguel and about 150 other weapons in a storage facility in San Juan Capistrano, Orange County Sheriff's Lt. Colin Murphy said. The San Onofre Nuclear Generating plant is shown in an undated photo. (Southern California Edison via Reuters)

---

Fired nuclear worker jailed for threats

1/9/2002 12:41 PM
UPI
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=09012002-115710-7403r

SAN ONOFRE, Calif., Jan. 9 -- A California man was arrested late Tuesday on charges of possessing illegal weapons and making terrorist threats against employees at a nuclear power plant.

Authorities said they believe the threats were personal in nature and were not aimed at the plant.

"The threat is directed at employees and supervisors at the plant," Orange County sheriff's spokesman Jim Amormino said Wednesday. "He had said that he had a lot of guns and was going to come back and shoot them."

The suspect's name was not released. He was arrested in Laguna Niguel, a few miles north of the San Onofre nuclear plant located on the border between Orange and San Diego counties.

A search of the suspect's home and a storage room he had rented in San Juan Capistrano yielded nearly 250 guns and more than 4,000 rounds of ammunition. Orange County sheriff's deputies said they were continuing their search for evidence at dawn Wednesday. Investigators said the 43-year-old man was fired from his job as a pipe fitter at San Onofre a few weeks ago. He allegedly made several subsequent phone calls to the plant in which he threatened revenge against his former co-workers and supervisors. Investigators said they did not know why the suspect was fired.

San Onofre is jointly owned by Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric Co. and provides power to the Los Angeles and San Diego areas.

"After the attacks on Sept. 11, security has been tightened at ... all nuclear power plants," Amormino said. "The security at San Onofre is extremely tight. Their security department acted swiftly and appropriately by notifying authorities right away. If he was going to in fact do this, we took away all of his means to accomplish that."

During a search of the storage room, two deputies were exposed to an unidentified yellow substance that gave them breathing difficulties and watery eyes, Amormino said. The deputies were treated at a nearby hospital.

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

Special DoD News Briefing on the Nuclear Posture Review

J.D. Crouch,
ASD ISP
Wednesday, Jan. 9, 2002
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/arms/stories/review.htm

Also participating: Rear Adm. Barry M. Costello, deputy director for Strategy and Policy, Joint Staff; John Harvey, director, Office of Policy, Planning, Assessment and Analysis, Department of Energy; Richard McGraw, principal deputy assistant secretary of Defense for Public Affairs

Full-size slides shown in this briefing are on the Web at http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2002/g020109-D-6570C.html. The cover letter forwarding the NPR to Congress was made available during the briefing and is on the Web at http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2002/d20020109npr.pdf.

McGraw: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. It's time for a very titillating subject, I'm sure, for all of you: the second Nuclear Posture Review, the first one done in 1994, I think. To give you a briefing and answer your questions is Mr. J. D. Crouch, the assistant secretary of Defense for International Security Policy.

J.D.?

Crouch: Great. Thank you.

So, thank you very much. I see some faces that I've traveled with recently. It's my pleasure today to brief you on the findings of the Nuclear Posture Review. Before I get started on that, I'd like to put this report a little bit in context.

A great deal of what we did in this report is really an outgrowth of two things: one, the president's tasking to us to transform the U.S. military and to transform it into a set of capabilities that is more suitable, more effective for the security challenges that we will face in the 21st century; and second, and perhaps particularly in the context of this NPR, it's -- this report was conducted against the backdrop of a completely new relationship with Russia, a relationship that the president has been working on very hard since the beginning of this administration and which has borne a great deal of fruit in terms of cooperative activities and the like.

There's a great deal in this report. It's currently been delivered to Capitol Hill. It's a congressionally mandated report, and -- in classified form. And what I'm obviously going to be presenting today is sort of some of the unclassified findings in summary.

I'm going to go over the congressional requirements. You understand that that was really the genesis of the report. This is the first congressionally mandated Nuclear Posture Review. But the report is much more fulsome and goes into a number of topics well beyond what was required by the congressional legislation. And again, that was, I think, mandated both by the president's tasking to us to transform the military and the major changes in the international security environment that have occurred over the last couple of years. I'll also talk about that security environment and the context in which we think the changes in our forces that we're recommending will be unfolding over the next decade or so, conclusions about the need for a capabilities-based force, and applying the approach of a capabilities-based force to our strategic forces and talk a little bit about our long-term goals, commitments, initiatives and the like.

The congressional requirement was simply to do a Nuclear Posture Review and to provide a written report from the secretary of Defense to the Congress. This was conducted by the department in full consultation with the Department of Energy. There was a broad team that was put together to do this study. We also had additional requirements levied on us in the FY '02 budget, which we completed in this report, as well as providing a report on sustainment and modernization of our strategic forces.

Before I get into this, what I'd like to do is make a couple of comments about some of the people who were involved in this. The Office of the Secretary of Defense [OSD] -- I chaired a senior steering group on this issue, along with the director for Strategic Plans in the Joint Staff, that sort of guided the process. Additionally, we had a co-chair from the NNSA, National Nuclear Security Administration, Dr. John Gordon, who was a co-chair for nuclear issues. All OSD organizations that anything to do with these issues were involved, as well as all the individual services, Strategic Command, and other commands, as appropriate. It was a very broad-based participation.

And another thing I would point out is that while the review has a number of decisions in it, which we're -- I will brief to you, there's actually quite a bit of implementation that will have to be done -- follow-on implementation and decisions that will come out of this report. So it's an ongoing process.

The slide that you see is really a contextual slide to show how we see the difference between the world in which our current strategic triad was built for, the Cold War world, and the context of that -- basically, a known, single ideological peer opponent; the idea that there would be prolonged conflict, a limited number of potential contingencies in which the United States and its strategic forces would have to be involved.

And the implications of that for us was that we relied not exclusively but very heavily on our offensive nuclear forces, and we had a threat-based approach to nuclear planning, both because we had to, we had a -- the focus was on the Soviet Union, which of course is no longer with us, and because everything else was sort of a lesser included case -- any other potential contingencies were lesser included cases.

Today we have a very different situation. We have situation where the United States may face multiple potential opponents, but we're not sure who they might be. There are multiple sources or potential sources of conflict.

We also have a new relationship with Russia, which is heading down a more positive course, a much more positive course.

And the implications of this are that, on the one hand, while it's very hard to know the who and when of when we might have to use our military forces broadly and even our strategic forces more narrowly, we do or ought to plan the how -- that is to say, what are the kinds of capabilities that we need to counter the potential adversaries or the capabilities of potential adversaries that are either extant today or that will emerge in the years to come?

And so our conclusion here is basically that we -- the NPR underscored the need for the continued main defense goals of the QDR [Quadrennial Defense Review], to assure, dissuade, deter and defeat.

And in the nuclear planning context, we adopted the concept of a capabilities-based force. We underscored the need for greater flexibility for a range of contingencies that will be harder to know, and we also will be making changes in how we plan, not just our nuclear forces, but the other components of the strategic capability that I'll talk about in a second.

Among the extant and emerging threats to the United States, our friends and allies -- I've put this slide up, you've seen these kinds of things before at briefings. But one of the things we want to focus on is the problem of weapons of mass destruction. I think one of the things that came out of the NPR is that there is not a single solution to the problem of weapons of mass destruction. It is not entirely a military problem, it also is a diplomatic problem. It is also a problem that will involve other aspects of national power. But from the military standpoint, we are concerned about the growing capabilities of various states in the biological, chemical, nuclear and ballistic-missile delivery area. And obviously, we are also concerned explicitly about certain states that are developing those capabilities.

The new security environment. This sort of focuses a little bit on the security environment in which -- and the direction that the president gave us to conduct our NPR. Obviously, first and foremost we are trying to encourage a positive relationship with Russia. And we believe that we can do that by establishing a new framework of relations that sets aside the sort of Cold War hostilities, in particular the idea of ending the relationship with Russia that is based on mutual assured destruction. This seems to be a very inappropriate relationship given the kinds of cooperation, for example, that have been evinced in the last few months in the campaign against global terrorism.

We also underscored the fact that the Cold War approach to deterrence, which was highly dependent upon offensive nuclear weapons, is no longer appropriate, which is not to say that we think that nuclear weapons don't continue to play a role in that. We think they play an important role, a fundamental role. But we also believe that other kinds of capabilities will be needed in the future.

The other thing the president gave us, obviously, was to try to develop a framework in which we were able to reduce to the lowest possible number of operationally deployed nuclear weapons. And the number, of course, as you know, that we came up with, or the number that he released was, in fact, informed by this review, and that is 1,700 to 2,200 operationally deployed nuclear weapons. And additionally, we are trying to achieve these reductions without having to wait for Cold War arms-control treaties, and placing greater emphasis both on missile defense capabilities and also on the development of advanced conventional capabilities.

This slide, you will be familiar with the titles in each block. This is, in fact, the QDR defense goals. And what we attempted to do here -- and I'm not going to go through the slide in detail -- but what we attempted to do here was provide a overview of the kinds of capabilities that were needed in each one of these particular defense goals.

I would note, under "Assuring Allies and Friends," we believe that developing credible non-nuclear and nuclear response options were necessary to supporting U.S. commitments. Under "Dissuading Competitors," maintaining a more diverse -- or developing a more diverse portfolio of capabilities would help to deny a payoff from competing with the United States directly in this area. And under "Deterring Aggressors," we -- we note not only the need for nuclear and non-nuclear options, but also defenses to discourage attack by frustrating enemy attack plans and the like.

So these are sort of the broad goals around -- and capabilities around which we conducted the analysis.

This slide talks a little bit about our approach in terms of the distinction between a traditional threat-based approach and a capabilities-based approach. As you can see, under the threat-based approach, the size of our force was primarily reflected -- was a reflection of a specific threat. There was an emphasis on nuclear offensive forces. There was clearly some flexibility in our planning, but the requirement for flexibility and adaptability, particularly under sort of real-time conditions, was not really there during the Cold War, and missile defenses were considered by some in this time frame as impractical or destabilizing.

The capabilities-based approach argues that there may be multiple contingencies and new threats that we have to deal with. We're focusing on how we will fight, how we will have to fight, not who or when, and we don't really know. We expect to be surprised, and so we have to have capabilities that would deal with a broad range of the potential capabilities that adversaries may array against us.

These capabilities are not required to be country-specific. Indeed, in some cases, it's -- it would be difficult for them to be country-specific. You know, one example out of -- out of today's situation, obviously, is Afghanistan, where we would not have expected to be in Afghanistan maybe six months earlier.

We also believed it was very important to include new components or new kinds of capabilities in this approach, including active and passive defenses and non-nuclear capabilities. The non-nuclear strike forces, we believe, have the potential, if fully exploited, fully developed, to reduce our dependency on nuclear forces for the offensive-strike leg of the -- of the component. And even defenses give us more options and will allow us to do the same.

The last bullet is extremely important, because it talks about effectiveness of command control, intelligence and adaptive planning.

We believe that by improving -- investing in these areas and improving in these particular areas we're going to create a more efficient capability, one that, in fact, will allow us to reduce our forces overall but to maintain the overall capability that will be necessary as we move forward in the 21st century.

I'll let you stare at this for a second. This is a pictogram that is designed to kind of tell you where we are and where we want to be. And there's a transition that's going to go on here; it's not something that's going to happen overnight. Our strategic forces today continue to be arrayed around a triad that looks very much like it did during the Cold War: ICBMs [intercontinental ballistic missiles], bombers and SLBMs [submarine-launched ballistic missiles]. We would like to transition to what we call a new triad, a triad of forces that includes non-nuclear and nuclear strike capabilities, and notice that the smaller triad is, in fact, embedded in this. We will continue to maintain a balanced nuclear force triad, but at a much smaller or reduced level.

In addition to that, we think it's important to augment those capabilities with a -- defensive systems that in some cases may offer a president more options, may also reduce our reliance on offensive systems, both active and passive defensive systems, and a responsive infrastructure. When I use that term, I'm not strictly talking about the nuclear infrastructure, I'm talking about a responsive defensive infrastructure that can respond to -- in time frames that are not in the sort of 15-20 year time frame that we are used to thinking about the development of new systems, in much shorter time frames to critical problems as well as repairing our nuclear infrastructure and supporting the forces that we currently have deployed. So -- and that responsive infrastructure is very critical to -- repairing it is critical to being able to reduce risk as we bring the operational force down to lower and lower levels of nuclear forces.

So basically, what we have here is a concept of reductions of our nuclear forces, but the introduction of some new elements that help to mitigate risks as we introduce new elements to the force.

Now, in a capabilities-based approach we had to determine a way to size the nuclear component of the force. And we did that by essentially adopting a completely new approach to this problem.

And what we posited is that there are sort of immediate and potential contingencies that we will have to deal with. In fact, there's a broad range of contingencies. Immediate things in that category may be rogue states that we would have to deal with, WMD, states with WMD, and the like.

And we will maintain an operationally deployed force for immediate and unexpected contingencies. Obviously, anything that is unexpected, you're going to have to deal with, with your operationally deployed systems. In addition to that, any sort of immediate threats that you would identify would also be dealt with with these systems. And these essentially can be thought of as, at the nuclear level, bombers and missiles that would be available right now, in minutes, to days to a few weeks.

We also are going to maintain a responsive capability. Now, this is not a separate force, it's the ability to augment the operationally deployed force in a way where, over weeks, months and even years, that we could respond to changes. What kinds of changes? Potentially changes in the security environment that were more adverse than we thought. Technological surprise. Changes in our assumptions about how well we can introduce or field new elements of the triad.

Planning in all this continues to be a very important -- important idea. We will continue to do pre-planning for our immediate and potential contingencies, but one of the important things that came out of the QDR is it's necessary to develop new tools for adaptively -- in a timely way adaptively creating plans for situations that may arise very quickly in an unexpected way. And again, that was not something we had to think about in the Cold War. We didn't think about adaptive planning in the kinds of short time-frames that we have to think about it now, because we knew who the opponent was going to be, we knew that it was going to be sort of a -- not very much time to make decisions and we would in fact have to execute very much preplanned kind of options.

Our goal is to reach the level of 1,700 to 2,200 operationally deployed warheads within a decade to meet these requirements for the new defense policy goals. And I think another key point that comes out of this is the idea that the force size that we have here was not driven by an immediate contingency involving Russia, because of assumptions we've made about where we think our relationship with Russia is headed and the path that Russia is on, both politically and also in terms of its own nuclear reductions.

But we will maintain the force structure and the warheads that we take off these systems as part of that responsive force; and how we look at immediate and potential contingencies over the future will change.

We will reassess our situation continually and in an ongoing way and probably more formally periodically.

We -- this slide basically talks a little bit about the sustainment of our current nuclear forces. To give you some idea of what's in the budget, we are currently projecting to keep the nuclear forces that we have to 2020 and beyond -- and longer, and beyond. If you look at the average ages of some of these systems, you can see that they're as old or maybe older than some of the people in this room -- certainly as old as I am, in some cases. We have life-extension programs that we are funding for those now that are necessary, and we are planning on life-extension programs for those that will need them in the out years.

We are also looking at study alternatives for follow-on systems at this point, but at this point, we are planning on going with the existing force of ICBMs -- submarine-launched ballistic missiles on SSBNs [ballistic missile submarines] and bombers. We will be fully funding the Trident D-5 SLBM life-extension program in this five-year defense plan, and we'll also be, I know, accelerating -- DOE is planning on accelerating its test- readiness program. I point out one item on there: No change in the administration's policy at this point on nuclear testing. We continue to oppose CTBT [comprehensive test ban treaty] ratification. We also continue to adhere to a testing moratorium, and I know that I have a colleague here from the Department of Energy who will be happy to talk about their program in a little bit more detail, if you have any questions about that.

This slide gives you some additional background on additional -- the new components of the new Triad and some of the -- some of the initiatives that we have in the report. Again, I don't want to go over all of it. I would point, under "Non-nuclear Strike," you're probably aware of our initiative to convert four Trident submarines for cruise-missile carriage. Under "Missile Defense," we have an ongoing, robust RDT&E program. And under the "Command Control and Planning," we have a number of initiatives that we think will help to create better intelligence, more efficient command and control and faster and adaptive planning.

This slide is designed to kind of give you a picture of how all these two things come together -- the reductions on the one hand but the implementation of the new Triad on the other. As we bring the force down from START I levels, which is essentially where we are now at around 6,000 warheads, down to the president's goal of 1,700 to 2,200 operationally deployed strategic nuclear weapons, we will be making decisions. And you notice that we see periodic assessment points. We'll be making decisions along the way about what our force structure will look like, how -- what the composition of it will be, and the like.

And we have made initial decisions right now, including the Peacekeeper elimination, which you see there; the taking down -- taking four Trident submarines out of strategic service; and taking away the requirement for the B-1 to maintain a nuclear capability. We've also made additional decisions, which will result in additional reduction in warheads to FY '07.

At the same time, we are going to be introducing new kinds of capabilities. And again, this is not something that's going to happen overnight. There's no particular order for the things you see at the bottom, but I think one of the most important elements -- and you'll see this reflected in -- when the president submits his budget, I think you will see this reflected, is to try to repair our infrastructure so that we have a more responsive infrastructure. We will be putting dollars against the command, control and planning. And as time goes on, we hope to be able to field limited missile defense capabilities and improve our conventional strike capabilities.

The assessment points are very important. We have a responsive force. We may decide at -- somewhere along the line that we have to flatten out our reductions because changes have been made in the strategic environment that require us to do that. We may decide that we would have to increase our forces. We may also decide that we could decrease our forces further, or bring our forces down much faster, depending upon the security environment, depending upon technological surprise, and depending upon our ability and our confidence in developing new elements or fielding new elements of the triad. So we are going to be assessing along the way, along this journey, as we reach the president's goal of 1,700 to 2,200 operationally deployed warheads in a decade.

This just summarizes for you the decisions that have been made. We have been over most of those. I would also say that we're planning on downloading warheads from both the operationally deployed ICBMs and SLBMs. And these planned reductions are going to be completed in phases. In addition to the 1,300 START accountable warheads that will come off the force as a result of the retirement of Peacekeeper, the Tridents and the like, we will be taking additional operationally deployed warheads off existing ICBMs and SLBMs down to a level of about 3,800 by FY '07. And beyond FY '07, we'll be making the force structure decisions on how we will be bringing down the force to 1,700 to 2,200 operationally deployed warheads.

Just in concluding, I want to hit a couple of high points that I think were reflected in the review. First, this new triad concept, we think, can both reduce in the long run our dependence on nuclear weapons and improve our ability to deter attack in the face of a proliferating WMD capability. We think the combination of these new capabilities along with a smaller nuclear capability is more appropriate to the kind of security environment that the United States will enter -- has entered and will see over the next 10 to 20 years. And so in that context, I also think it's important to point out that this new triad concept really was also a way for us to draw down the force by lowering -- and lowering risk as we did -- as we draw down the force, reducing that dependence on nuclear weapons, but making the force -- the nuclear force that we retained as safe, reliable, and effective as it can be.

And with that I will open the floor to questions. I would also like to ask Admiral Costello from the Joint Staff and John Harvey from the Department of Energy to join me up here. They may have some additional insights and be able to answer some technical questions that I'm -- that are beyond me.

How do we do this, in terms of the calling? Am I the guy?

Q: Yeah.

Q: Yeah.

Crouch: And this guy goes first always, right? (laughter) Okay, good.

Q: How are we to know who's talking?

Crouch: Well, you usually don't.

Q: My question is, there are many critics who say that while you are announcing sharp reductions in nuclear weapons here, that since you aren't going to destroy the weapons -- the warheads that you're pulling off these weapons or removing from aircraft, that you aren't really reducing nuclear weapons. Correct me if I'm wrong, you already have thousands of warheads on the shelf, in addition to the 6,000 that are deployed. What would you say to people who say that since you're not destroying these weapons, you really aren't reducing the nuclear force, if these weapons are ready to put back on planes quickly?

Crouch: Right. We are in fact -- right now, as you say, there are weapons in the stockpile -- and we refer to this as an active and an inactive stockpile. There are a number of weapons in that stockpile. Many of them are in the queue for dismantlement and destruction.

Q: Could you -- I'm sorry. I don't mean to break in. Could you give us a ballpark figure on how many there are in addition to --

Crouch: That's one thing we can't do. (laughs) But what I can say is that, you know, as -- there have been no final decisions made at this point on what the size of our responsive capability would be, and also there have been no final decisions made on the overall size of the active stockpile and the inactive stockpile. Those things will shift over time.

And they are a function of a number of factors. One of them is restoring the health of our infrastructure. In fact, one of the interesting facts is that it's necessary to restore that infrastructure not only to be able to maintain our own -- the nuclear forces that we have, but it's the same infrastructure that in fact dismantles and retires weapons. And so one of the things we'll -- our ability to put weapons through that process, that dismantlement process, is in some way shaped by the health of that infrastructure.

We have been taking -- we have taken weapons all throughout the history of arms control off of systems. I don't think there's a single arms control treaty that required you to actually destroy the weapons. The unilateral reductions that were announced by President -- the first President Bush back in '90, '91, we -- they did mandate destroying weapons. And there will be weapons that will be destroyed as a result of our reductions. Which -- what we will end up with is a situation where some weapons will move off and stay in the responsive capability of the United States, others will be earmarked for destruction and will be put in the queue for destruction, and others will remain in the inactive stockpile.

So this is going to shift over time. It's also going to shift as a result of factors that we cannot foresee at this time frame.

But I think the fact that -- the important fact -- and that's why I left it for last -- is that we are actually taking weapons off of the operationally deployed force. This is the force that, you know, would be -- could be or would be used in an extreme situation, and consequently I think that is a very positive benefit, and I believe in fact the Russians will be doing a very similar thing.

Q: So just briefly, you are denying that the 1,700 to 2,200 figure would be -- then be misleading, since you're going to have more than 1,700 to --

Crouch: That -- I don't think it's misleading.

In fact, I think I've done a -- we have all done a very good job of explaining to you and everybody else exactly what it is. We're certainly not trying to mislead anybody. We think it's very important, and that one of the advantages -- and we've had a situation, really since the signing of START I, where both sides have kept very high force levels on both sides and that are on operationally deployed systems. We think it is a major step in the right direction that we're able to move those forces down to significantly lower levels, and we also think it is a prudent thing on the other side to have, in a very uncertain period, some responsive capability that we could respond to unforeseen contingencies.

Q: Sir?

Crouch: Yes?

Q: Could you give us a rough percentage, perhaps, of the 3,800 missiles that you -- warheads that you'd be taking off, what amount of those you would keep in the responsive force? And could you also sketch out for me what you mean, our -- philosophically our dependence on nuclear weapons, because I didn't really get it. I mean, you've used them only one time, in World War II, so how are we dependent on them? What do you mean by that?

Crouch: Okay. Let me take the second question first.

When I talk about dependence on nuclear weapons, I'm talking about the fact that during the Cold War, where we were dealing with a country -- single country, essentially, a nuclear-armed country, although it had allies that were not nuclear armed -- a single armed country that had many thousands of nuclear weapons, conflict, I mean the avoidance of conflict with that country was really dependent upon offensive retaliation. And so the fact that we -- the happy fact that we did not -- we have only used nuclear weapons once, at the end of the Second World War, does not reduce or mitigate the fact that we were, I think, very dependent upon our strategic nuclear force capabilities to deter that kind of an attack on ourselves and our allies. So when I talk about dependence, I'm certainly not indicating that there were not roles and needs for other kinds of military capabilities. There certainly were during the Cold War period. But I think that today those circumstances have changed and --

Q: We can no longer depend on nuclear weapons to deter our future aggressors, like September 11th --

Crouch: I think I would put it slightly differently; that I think we need a broader array of capabilities, including nuclear forces, to deter and, if deterrence were to fail, to defend against potential adversaries. And I also think it's important to underscore that we continue to need nuclear forces as well as other elements of the new triad, both to assure our friends and allies of U.S. security commitments and to dissuade potential competitors from competing with the United States in ways that are harmful to U.S. security and allied security.

Q: And the percentage of the warheads in a responsive force?

Crouch: Oh. At this point no decisions have been made exactly on the character of that responsive force. And as I said, there will be ongoing assessments on that. And that number itself will probably change over time.

Yeah.

Q: Following on your previous answer to Pam, in the -- one statement, "a diverse portfolio of capabilities denies payoff from competition," can you give us an example of what you mean by that?

Crouch: Well, I think that what we want from the standpoint of dissuasion is to be in a position where other -- countries that might try to challenge the United States or might try to find sort of asymmetrical ways of attacking the United States are going to find it very difficult for two reasons. One is we will maintain sufficient nuclear forces to put us, in effect, beyond their reach in terms of being able to develop themselves as a peer competitor to the United States. But secondly, and I think this is more important for -- is that there are going to be a lot of cases where offensive retaliatory deterrence may not be appropriate or we may need other capabilities in the event deterrence fails, and that's where non-nuclear strike capabilities and our defensive capabilities would come into play and hopefully being able to shape -- so, for example, limited but effective defenses could well help us along with other tools to dissuade countries from investing in large numbers of ballistic missiles that might threaten the United States or our allies and friends.

I don't know, do I go row by row here, or what's the -- sure, you'd like that, right? We'll do this one, and then we'll go back.

Q: Could you explain what the difference is, if there is a difference, between inactive and the responsive force? When you refer to -- whatever, some of the -- the current operational force going into the responsive force, is that different from being in an inactive status?

Crouch: Unfortunately, these are not terms that are necessarily separate baskets. When I talk about the immediate -- the operationally deployed force to deal with immediate and unexpected contingencies, those are, in fact, the forces that are deployed on a day-to-day basis that can respond in anywhere from minutes to days and a few weeks. The responsive capability would be able to augment that force. And it essentially will be additional warheads that could be uploaded back onto that force if necessary and, obviously, if the president were to make a decision to do that. And that would take weeks, months, even years to do that, depending upon the system and the character of the threat.

Q: Presumably we have weapons in that status now, correct? Warheads that are -- that have been removed from delivery systems that are available to be uploaded --

Crouch: Well, we have weapons that are in the inactive stockpile. That is correct.

Inactive stockpile -- and I don't know, John, do you want to maybe talk a little bit about the distinction between the active and inactive stockpile?

Harvey: Sure.

Crouch: I think that might help this -- that's sort of a DOE question, but I think that will maybe give you a flavor for the distinction here.

Harvey: It's a very straightforward distinction. The active stockpile is a unit, a weapon which is available, fully ready to be deployed and used.

The inactive stockpile, typically the limited-life components that go into a nuclear warhead, such as tritium, neutron generators, things that live for a relatively short period of time in comparison with the weapon, are typically removed, and when the weapon is transitioned to the active stockpile from the inactive, those components are reinstalled in the weapon. So the inactive weapon consists of those weapons that are not fielded with limited-life components.

Crouch: And there are a number of things in that inactive stockpile, including weapons that are in that dismantlement, you know, earmark or --

Q: So -- I'm sorry. Can I ask just one more? Would -- in a responsive stockpile, would the tritium be removed, or would these simply be warheads that are removed from the delivery vehicle?

Crouch: The responsive capability would reside in the active stockpile. Right? So, in other words, those forces would be maintained at -- with the critical components that John was talking about available. Otherwise, it wouldn't be responsive, if you follow me.

Yeah?

Q: I sense that there's a -- that you want to accelerate DOE's testing readiness, but at the same time, you want to maintain a moratorium on testing. Does that indicate that you're moving in the direction of testing, if you want to accelerate readiness?

Crouch: The two were actually very distinct things. We are continuing the current administration policy, as I said, which is we continue to oppose ratification of the CTBT; we continue to adhere to a test moratorium. And the testing readiness issue really came out of -- in fact, a number of studies that had been done prior to the NPR, including, I think, what was it, the Foster Panel, which was a congressionally mandated study, which said that two to three years from a decision to test is too long; that if you were to have a problem with a weapon system that you needed to rectify using a test, you would want to be able to do that faster.

And so one of the recommendations that came out was that -- has nothing to do with the issue of whether we would conduct a nuclear test, but that if there was in fact a determination that we needed to conduct a nuclear test, what would be the time period -- what would be an appropriate time period? And we're continuing to study what that time period would be. And -- but one thing that the NPR does state is that we need to improve our readiness posture to test from its current two to three year period to something substantially better.

Do you have anything you want to add to that?

Harvey: That got it.

Crouch: Okay.

Yes?

Q: Preserving the existing triad, are you going to be abandoning the counting rules that you use right now under START, or -- and does that mean that you're going to be counting strictly the number of warheads and not counting a bomber as a certain number of warheads and a submarine as a certain number of warheads?

Crouch: START I will continue to be in force, and all of its applicable rules, including the verification provisions as well as the counting rules, are still in force. However, when we talk about 1,700 to 2,300 operationally deployed systems, we are talking -- this is what we might call truth in advertising. There are no phantom warheads here. This is the actual number of weapons that we will deploy on the force.

Now, those two things are not inconsistent, because obviously START force levels are at about 6,000 weapons, and we're going to be -- we are in fact drawing down to force levels that are not only below START I, but are below what would have been deployed under START II.

Q: When you say the number of weapons that will be deployed, weapons and warheads then are interchangeable there; you mean the number of warheads that will be deployed?

Crouch: Warheads.

Somebody in the back. This lady, here?

Q: Yeah. Mr. Harvey, what is the status of the stockpile stewardship program, and is that going to change after the NPR is approved?

Harvey: We have two main responsibilities for the -- to the Department of Defense. One is we have to assure that the stockpile is safe and reliable. And two, we have to make sure that we respond to any requirements that the Department of Defense has with regard to modifications, refurbishments, et cetera, of nuclear warhead systems.

We have a very aggressive stockpile stewardship program designed to surveil the nuclear weapons stockpile, to be able to assess and fix problems on a time scale relevant to DOD needs. We -- as part of that stockpile stewardship program, we intend to do this -- we feel confident we can do this without nuclear testing, but there are no guarantees. We need to retain, as part of stockpile stewardship, an ability to, if the president so decides in response to a possible problem in the stockpile that can't be fixed without testing, that we have to be able to be prepared to carry out a test, and we maintain the readiness to do so. Currently, that readiness is 24 to 36 months.

That's a key element of stockpile stewardship.

In addition, with regard to the program itself, we have a long ways to go to restore some of the capabilities we need later this decade to be able to refurbish elements of the stockpile in connection with our sustaining the force levels that J.D. talked about earlier, including elements of our SLBM force, the W-76 warhead for Trident, elements of our air-delivered systems, our cruise missile systems, the W-80 warhead for the air-launched cruise missile and the advanced cruise missile, and also some of our air-dropped bombs, the B-61 in particular. We will need to establish and recover production capabilities in order to be able to refurbish that element of the stockpile later on this decade, and that's one of our key challenges in the future.

Q: Mr. Crouch? Mr. Crouch? Mr. Crouch?

Crouch: Yes?

Q: May I ask a question? I know you probably think you might have answered it, but just for the average American, average public, without getting into technical terms, provided you can even avoid the word "triad", would you just explain the -- exactly what it is that you are doing and why it is important, if you can? Just summarize what it is and why is it important.

Crouch: Right. The Cold War is over. We have a nuclear capability that was built then. And what we are doing is we are transforming our forces in a way that I think will make -- that is much more appropriate to the security environment and the threats that we believe we will face in the future. And as a result of that, I think we will have a U.S. military uniformly, because of that military transformation, and in this particular piece of that transformation in this new strategic triad, we will have a capability that will make the United States safer, will give the president more effective options for dealing with crises and managing crises. And I think that that benefits every American.

Q: And why is this being done? Is it strictly because of Russia, or is this also the best plan?

Crouch: (laughs) I think it's definitely the best way to arrange or to array our forces for the future. And -- but I want to underscore that one of the -- I mean, one of the things that enabled us to -- gave us the opportunity to do this was our improved relationship with Russia. So I think the two sort of go hand in hand.

How about this gentleman?

Q: Thank you. I think this is a question for Mr. Harvey. What do you see our tritium supply looking like over the next 10 years, taking into account that we're going to be -- a lot of these weapons are going to be deactivated?

Harvey: We're currently reestablishing a capability to produce tritium. For the time being, given the dramatic reductions over the past 10 years of weapons moving from the active to the inactive stockpile -- that is, weapons that don't require tritium -- we've been able to free up quite a bit of tritium to be able to sustain ourselves until we can resume production. We're currently scheduled to resume production sometime later on this decade, and I believe we're in good shape with regard to being able to support the DOD requirements.

Q: Does that mean that you won't be needing TVA to produce any tritium? And does it also mean we won't have to import any?

Harvey: Our approach to producing tritium is to use a commercial light-water reactor, the TVA reactor approach. And no, we -- that is our approach to producing it, and that's the capability that we'll require in the future.

Q: One more question. With -- and Mr. Crouch said that not all of them would be destroyed. I'm still not sure exactly what he means by "destroyed." But does this reinforce or boost the need to get the MOX process up and -- MOX or immobilization going?

Harvey: Basically, when we talk about destroying, we talk about dismantling the warheads, taking the components that are not needed and disposing of them, but making sure that we still can take good care of the safety and security of nuclear weapon materials from the warhead. So we will need to continue, obviously, to store those components that have special nuclear materials in them -- we call them enriched uranium or plutonium --

McGraw: We can take two more questions.

Harvey: -- until such times as they can be disposed of.

McGraw: Excuse me. Didn't mean -- two more questions, folks.

Q: Sir, is there a doctrine of retaliation that is now replacing assured destruction, or is it just a doctrine of, you know, more options for the president?

And specifically, when you talk about missile defense, it seems as though you're heading for a potentially very odd scenario. Right now, if somebody were to attack the United States with a ballistic missile and weapon of mass destruction, it's assumed, I think generally, that there would be a severe retaliation, probably nuclear. You seem to be implying that if a future country were to do that, and the missile were intercepted, that country would be, quote, unquote, "rewarded" with a lesser level of retaliation, because there hasn't been actual destruction caused to the United States. That seems to be what you're implying when you're talking about this new menu of options for the president.

Crouch: If that's what you think I was implying, that's certainly not what I was implying. What I was stating is that by providing, in this particular example, an additional capability to the president, a missile defense capability, the president would be in a position to defeat the attack of a weapon of mass destruction on the United States.

The lady earlier mentioned, you know, what's in this for the United States and what's in this for the American people? And it seems to me while deterring an attack of a weapon of mass destruction against the United States is something that we have to continue to have forces and capabilities to do, and we will certainly maintain forces and capabilities to do that, being able to defeat that attack, whether it were to come out of the Middle East or some other place, would be a far more preferable option and does not, in fact, foreclose any other options that the president might have.

So I don't think I'm implying that we would be rewarding a country for shooting a ballistic missile. What we would be doing, hopefully, is -- in the long run, is dissuading them from developing those missiles because to have them would be fruitless because we would have the ability to defeat them -- defeat an attack on the United States. And I think that's a very positive outcome.

McGraw: One more --

Q: It just seems to me -- if I can follow this -- this clear implication that the macabre business of massive retaliation is being gotten rid of. And yet, your answer just now seems to indicate that it's not, that it's still there; that you would still, in addition to intercepting the missile, retaliate massively against -- is there a doctrine that tells a president, a future president, what do to in circumstances like this?

Crouch: No, the president will have a -- one of the things that will come out of this is the president, hopefully, will have a much wider range of options that he can deal with. And that's why one of the initiatives here was not only to maintain a smaller nuclear force, but also to develop additional non-nuclear strike capabilities that would also be part of a -- sort of this diverse portfolio of options that the president could draw from.

We're certainly not -- there's nothing in the review that talks about what the president's options are or are not are. Those are really up to the president. The main idea was that we feel we need to give the president and future presidents a broader portfolio of responses and options to deal with the kinds of uncertainties. You know, we thought we knew fairly confidently how to deter the Soviet Union during the Cold War. I think one of the reflections here is that we're not as confident that we will be able or we will know how to deter the kinds of attacks that might be presented in the United States in the future. And if September 11th doesn't underscore that, since I don't -- most of us did not expect that, I think nothing else would.

(cross talk)

Crouch: How about somebody way in the back?

Q: When you talk about taking warheads off of the operationally deployed force, but keeping them available for return, are you effectively saying that they're going to be de-alerted? And also, will warheads that are on missiles or ships that are in overhaul be considered part of the operationally deployed force?

Crouch: De-alerting usually refers to taking off alert the weapons platforms that you have decided to retire. All right? So in this context, no, because the -- basically we're actually -- and those, of course, could be brought back up to alert in a few minutes to, you know, maybe a few hours. What we're talking about is a responsive capability that would take, at the very least weeks but likely months and even years to be able to regenerate -- would not be something that you would respond, let's say, under a tactical threat. It would be a major change in the security environment, for example.

And to answer your second question, we are planning on maintaining a trident SSBN fleet of 14 submarines. Two of those submarines will be in overhaul at all times, and those submarines will not have missiles available to fire, and they will not be part of the operationally deployed nuclear weapons.

Thank you very much.

Q: Can I just clear up one thing you said about the 2020? You said you'd planned to maintain the current force until 2020 -- the current force. Does that mean you're not going to try to develop smaller nuclear weapons, earth-penetrators, and other things that -- but that you will go with conventional forces to do that kind of thing for the short term?

Crouch: (to McGraw) And I'm violating your rule. I shouldn't do this, right?

(to press) At this point, there are no recommendations in the report about developing new nuclear weapons. The -- so I don't know whether that answers the question, but I think that's where we stand. Now, we are trying to look at a number of initiatives. One would be to modify an existing weapon, to give it greater capability against deep and hardly -- or hard targets and deeply-buried targets. And we're also looking at non-nuclear ways that we might be able to deal with those problems.

Q: Thank you.

This transcript was prepared by the Federal News Service Inc., Washington, DC. Federal News Service is a private company.

This site is produced and maintained by the U.S. Department of State's Office of International Information Programs (usinfo.state.gov). Links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein.

-------

Nuclear Arms Plan: Saving, Not Scrapping
Many Weapons Covered by Bush-Putin Pact Would Go Into Reserve, Congress Told

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 9, 2002; Page A04
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16547-2002Jan8.html

The Bush administration told Congress yesterday that many of the warheads, bombs and intercontinental missiles involved in the president's promised two-thirds reduction of deployed strategic nuclear forces over the next 10 years would be kept in reserve under its new strategic policy, according to congressional sources.

In a top-secret briefing on the results of the Bush administration's year-long Nuclear Posture Review, J.D. Crouch, assistant secretary of defense for international security policy, said it had not yet been determined how many of the roughly 4,000 nuclear warheads and bombs and hundreds of land- and submarine-based intercontinental missiles taken out of operational use would be destroyed and how many would be stored and available for redeployment, the sources said.

At his summit meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in December, Bush announced the United States would reduce its deployed nuclear warheads from today's 6,000 to between 1,700 and 2,200 over the next decade. He did not say how many of those weapons would be destroyed and how many would be put in reserve as a "hedge" against some unforeseen future threat, as the Clinton administration had done with its reductions under the START I agreement.

One senior Democratic congressional expert on nuclear weapons said yesterday after the closed briefing that he believed the only firm plans disclosed yesterday were for destruction of the 50 Peacekeeper ICBM silos, an arrangement agreed upon under the still-unratified START II treaty. "They did not tell us how the remaining promised reductions would be made; they did not know what the remaining nuclear force structure would look like; and they were not sure how many would be stored or destroyed," he added.

A Republican source said details remain "to be fleshed out, but the administration was taking a good first step." Because the briefing was classified, this source declined to comment on any details but said many were contained in the highly classified report that was distributed at the sessions. They were attended mostly by House and Senate staff members because Congress is in recess.

Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, said yesterday that based on what he had heard from the briefing, "if the reduced nuclear weapons are kept intact and available for redeployment, it makes a mockery of the reductions."

Crouch, according to congressional sources, also said the administration would seek additional funds to increase the speed at which nuclear testing could resume if needed, as reported yesterday. But Crouch insisted, as Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld did in talking to reporters earlier yesterday, that the administration has no immediate plans to resume testing.

Rumsfeld said the Bush administration would continue for now to observe a self-imposed 1992 U.S. moratorium on nuclear testing. But, the defense secretary added, "Any country that has nuclear weapons has to be respectful of the enormous lethality and power of those weapons, and has a responsibility to see that they are safe and reliable."

"To the extent that can be done without testing, clearly that is the preference. And that is why the president has concluded that, thus far, that is the case," Rumsfeld added.

An administration source said yesterday the administration had not determined how much more money would be needed to reduce the present two-year guideline for the estimated time it would take to resume underground nuclear testing. "The administration will work with Congress to determine the appropriate funding level," said a spokesman for the National Nuclear Security Administration, the Energy Department agency that runs the nuclear weapons complex.

The preliminary costs for preparing underground nuclear tests are "substantial," according to a former senior official of the Clinton Energy Department. This ex-official added that unless a test is for policy reasons, "because they want to resume testing," it also would take a year or more to decide what type of test is needed, "particularly if it is to correct some problem in an existing weapon."

The prospect that the Bush administration is considering a resumption of testing to maintain the reliability of its scaled-back operational nuclear arms stockpile yesterday caused a stir among arms control advocates.

Stephen Schwartz, publisher of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, said the Energy Department "has yet to make a public case as to how nuclear testing would be better than the current arrangement. If the Bush administration wants to develop new nuclear weapons, it should be honest and make the case publicly. If the administration is afraid of making waves, if it feels it cannot justify the change it seeks to make, then perhaps there is something wrong with the policy."

Seeking additional funds to enable a faster resumption of testing "will produce a policy debate in Congress" on testing, according to Kimball of the Arms Control Association. "Since it would amount to giving prior approval for testing, the debate would be substantial," he added.

Robert B. Barker, who ran the Pentagon's nuclear weapons programs in the first Bush administration, said yesterday that the original test moratorium was forced on the former president by a congressional amendment passed by Democrats and a few Republicans.

A day before leaving office [in 1993], Bush sent a classified report to Congress as required by the amendment, Barker said recently. "In it Bush called the cessation of testing a mistake and called for the repeal of the legislation."

------

Nuclear Review Recommends a Reserve, Reports Say

January 9, 2002
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-arms-nuclear-usa.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon's top-secret proposal to overhaul U.S. nuclear policy advocates a sharp reduction in dependence on nuclear weapons, but does not call for the destruction of weapons removed from its arsenal, according to published reports.

Citing officials familiar with the military's Nuclear Posture Review, The New York Times reported on Wednesday that that the Pentagon review recommends shifting from nuclear dependency to more reliance on the use of conventional precision arms and a proposed missile defense system.

The Times quoted congressional officials who were briefed on the review as saying that it proposes a 10-year schedule for reducing the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

The Washington Post, in its Wednesday editions, quoted sources who attended the briefing as saying that some nuclear forces would be kept in reserve. The sources told the newspaper that they were told no determination had been made on how many nuclear warheads taken out of operational use would be destroyed and how many would be stored and available for redeployment.

The Post quoted a senior Democratic congressional source as saying he thought the only firm plans disclosed in the briefing were for the destruction of 50 Peacekeeper ICBM silos.

``They did not tell us how the remaining promised reductions would be made; they did not know what the remaining nuclear force structure would look like; and they were not sure how many would be stored or destroyed,'' the source told the Post.

A Republican source told the newspaper that details remain ''to be fleshed out, but the administration was taking a good first step.''

Both newspapers reported the review recommends that the United States continue its moratorium on nuclear weapons tests.

Sources told the Post that Pentagon officials said they plan to seek addition funds to increase the speed at which nuclear testing could resume if needed.

The nuclear policy review was sparked in part by President Bush's promise to sharply cut the U.S. nuclear arsenal, already declining from levels attained during the Cold War.

Russia's President Vladimir Putin has also proposed cuts by both countries to a range of 1,500 to 2,200 on each side.

The New York Times, citing sources, said the Pentagon review drew heavily on a report released last year by the National Institute for Public Policy, a Washington research group. The paper said the institute's report argued that conventional precision weapons had become so accurate that they could replace nuclear weapons in destroying certain targets.

But the report also warned that conventional bombs and missiles might be ineffective against deeply buried bunkers or very large military targets.

------

Nuclear Plan Would Store Warheads

January 9, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Nuclear-Strategy.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration's new strategic nuclear plan would keep in storage thousands of warheads being removed from the active nuclear arsenal under a pledge given by President Bush, congressional and private sources said Wednesday.

The administration's Nuclear Posture Review makes no estimate of how many warheads would be destroyed over the next decade and how many would retained, according to officials briefed on the plan.

The Defense Department was to release an unclassified summary of the report later Wednesday.

The review also calls for increased spending for preparation for future underground nuclear bomb tests, should they be needed, although it reiterates that the administration has no plans to resume testing.

White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said Bush has not ruled out conducting nuclear testing ``to make sure the stockpile, particularly as it is reduced, is reliable and safe. So he has not ruled out testing in the future, but there are no plans to do so.''

From what has been learned ``this is a surprisingly modest effort'' to revamp the nation's strategic nuclear plan ``given that President Bush ...had promised a fundamental rethinking of our nuclear weapons posture,'' said Ivo Daalder, a nuclear arms specialist at the Brookings Institution.

Last November, after meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Bush pledged to cut the U.S. long-range nuclear arsenal by two-thirds, to between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads. The new strategic nuclear plan reflects those numbers, said congressional sources briefed on the plan Tuesday.

Nuclear arms control advocates called the failure to actually destroy more warheads disappointing.

``We are taking weapons that are being put largely if not wholly into storage ... for a rainy day,'' said Daalder. ``We may never get to 2,200 (warheads).''

Some nuclear nonproliferation advocates also saw the call for increased preparation for nuclear testing as evidence of a growing division within the administration over whether bomb testing is needed to assure the reliability of a dwindling number of warheads.

Underground nuclear testing was banned in 1992 under a moratorium imposed by the first President Bush and reaffirmed by President Clinton in 1996.

While the current President Bush has said he has no intention of resuming detonations at the Nevada Test Site, defense officials, in a classified briefing, expressed concern about the lag time to prepare for future testing. It takes two to three years to resume activities at the nation's nuclear weapons labs and at the Nevada site.

The debate over testing reflects concern within the administration -- and among some members of Congress and the defense establishment -- over the ability to ensure that warheads will work as expected if they are used.

So-called stockpile stewardship by the Energy Department and its nuclear weapons laboratories has become more complex and challenging without tests. The need to certify that aging warheads will perform as expected becomes increasingly important as their number is reduced, contend those who argue for a resumption of testing.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld reiterated Tuesday the administration's commitment to the ban on underground tests. ``It certainly doesn't recommend resuming testing,'' Rumsfeld said when asked about the Nuclear Posture Review.

Still, the nuclear plan appeared to raise the specter of renewed testing, said test-ban supporters.

John Isaacs, president of the Council for a Livable World, another nuclear proliferation watchdog group, said while the administration's nuclear review does not call for renewed testing it's ``part of a pattern that they want to move toward nuclear testing.''

As a substitute to testing, the Energy Department is developing technology that will allow scientists to use the world's most powerful computers and most sophisticated lasers to simulate nuclear detonation as they keep track of warhead performance.

But it will be years before those systems are fully in place.

Recently, several internal audits by the Energy Department's inspector general raised concern about the department's current programs for finding flaws and defects in warheads. Investigators found backlogs of as much as 18 months in testing, inspections and monitoring.

``If these delays continue the department may not be in a position to unconditionally certify the aging nuclear weapons stockpile,'' wrote DOE Inspector General Gregory Friedman.

------

White House Wants New Nuke Rules

By H. Josef Hebert
Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, January 9, 2002; 4:41 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17924-2002Jan9.html

WASHINGTON -- Although committed to a continued moratorium on underground nuclear weapons testing, the Bush administration says the country should reduce the time it will take to resume such tests should they be needed.

Nuclear nonproliferation advocates see the declaration, part of the administration's latest strategic nuclear plan, as evidence of a growing division within the administration over whether bomb testing is needed to assure the reliability of a dwindling number of warheads.

Members of Congress were briefed Tuesday on the latest, highly classified Nuclear Posture Review. The Defense Department was to provide an unclassified summary of the document Wednesday.

The review takes into account plans for deep cuts in the U.S. nuclear arsenal over the next decade as promised by President Bush in November, according to congressional sources who attended the briefing.

After meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Bush pledged to cut the U.S. nuclear arsenal by two-thirds, to between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads. The new strategic nuclear plan reflects those numbers, said the sources, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The Bush administration told Congress that many of the warheads, bombs and intercontinental missiles involved in the reduction of strategic nuclear forces over the next 10 years would be kept in reserve, The Washington Post reported in Wednesday's editions.

The Nuclear Posture Review annually certifies the reliability of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. But some defense officials and weapons scientists have complained such certification has become increasingly difficult since no bomb actually has been detonated underground for nearly a decade.

Underground nuclear testing was banned in 1992 under a moratorium imposed by the first President Bush and reaffirmed by President Clinton in 1996.

While the current President Bush has said he has no intention of resuming detonations at the Nevada Test Site, defense officials, in a classified briefing, expressed concern about the lag time to prepare for future testing. It takes two to three years to resume activities at the nation's nuclear weapons labs and at the Nevada site.

The debate over testing reflects concern within the administration - and among some members of Congress and the defense establishment - over the ability to ensure that warheads will work as expected if they are used.

So-called stockpile stewardship by the Energy Department and its nuclear weapons laboratories has become more complex and challenging without tests. The need to certify that aging warheads will perform as expected becomes increasingly important as their number is reduced, contend those who argue for a resumption of testing.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld reiterated Tuesday the administration's commitment to the ban on underground tests. "It certainly doesn't recommend resuming testing," Rumsfeld said when asked about the Nuclear Posture Review.

Still, the nuclear plan appeared to raise the specter of renewed testing, said test-ban supporters.

"Many war hawks who are weary of the U.S. decision to drastically cut nuclear arsenals ... are using (concerns about warhead reliability) to champion underground testing," said James Wyerman, executive director of 20/20 Vision, a disarmament advocacy group.

John Isaacs, president of the Council for a Livable World, another nuclear proliferation watchdog group, said while the administration's nuclear review does not call for renewed testing it's "part of a pattern that they want to move toward nuclear testing."

As a substitute to testing, the Energy Department is developing technology that will allow scientists to use the world's most powerful computers and most sophisticated lasers to simulate nuclear detonation as they keep track of warhead performance.

But it will be years before those systems are fully in place.

Recently, several internal audits by the Energy Department's inspector general raised concern about the department's current programs for finding flaws and defects in warheads. Investigators found backlogs of as much as 18 months in testing, inspections and monitoring.

"If these delays continue the department may not be in a position to unconditionally certify the aging nuclear weapons stockpile," wrote DOE Inspector General Gregory Friedman.

----

White House Seeking Funds to Dismantle Nuclear Arms

New York Times
January 9, 2002
By ADAM CLYMER
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/09/international/europe/09NUKE.html

WASHINGTON, Jan. 8 - The Bush administration, initially dubious about the nuclear nonproliferation programs it inherited, plans to ask Congress for 37 percent more money this year than it sought a year ago for Energy Department programs to safeguard and dispose of weapons- grade nuclear materials.

Lesser increases will be sought for parallel operations by the Defense and State Departments, which are considerably smaller than those at Energy. The Defense Department deals with the dismantling of former Soviet weapons, and the State Department handles programs that find jobs for displaced Soviet nuclear and biological scientists so they will not be tempted to peddle their expertise to unfriendly countries.

While declining to discuss numbers, Mitchell E. Daniels, director of the Office of Management and Budget, said last week, "We will be requesting some additional growth" in fiscal year 2003, which begins Oct. 1.

This decision was signaled on Dec. 27 by a White House announcement that it had concluded that most of the programs "work well, are focused on priority tasks and are well managed." The statement cited four programs that should be expanded but gave no hint about how much.

For the Energy Department programs, President Bush's budget for fiscal 2003 will seek $1.04 billion, up from $750 million requested for the current year, according to experts who have been briefed on the figures.

Congress is likely to approve at least that much. Last year it all but ignored the administration's request and settled on $847 million in regular appropriations in October, then added $223 million in a supplemental bill last month. In all, the proposed $1.04 billion is 3.2 percent less than Congress voted last year.

Senator Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico, one of many Republicans who challenged the administration on the issue, said: "The president is doing the right thing to continue the upward trend. Whether it's enough, I don't know."

One program in particular, to degrade and dispose of plutonium and enriched uranium, is slated for a 27 percent increase, to $384 million.

Administration officials insisted that neither Congressional pressure nor requests for help from President Vladimir I. Putin of Russia caused the increases. "The idea that we have been bludgeoned into supporting these programs is just plain wrong," a senior official said.

The new requests will include increases in spending by the Defense Department (above the $403 million appropriated for fiscal 2002) and by the State Department (above its $54 million, before the supplemental appropriation of $30 million).

The increases reflect a deep change in thinking about Russia, especially since Russia supported the United States' response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. These programs matter to Russia, both because of what they do and because they provide a stream of dollars.

But the administration came into office more concerned with European and Asian allies, pursuing a tough, somewhat distant relationship with Moscow and announcing a review of the programs.

The measures are known as Nunn- Lugar, after the former Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia and Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, who led the effort to help Russia safeguard its nuclear facilities with legislation in 1991. Those measures appeared to be one casualty of the chilly relations.

Washington announced that it would review the 30 or so programs to see if they were working, and called for spending cuts of about $140 million from 2001 levels.

Mr. Daniels insisted Friday that those cuts were independent of the review, but were made because hundreds of millions appropriated in past years had not yet been spent.

He cited as one reason for the delay the time it took to make arrangements with Russia. Another is the failure or delay by the Defense Department in submitting reports to Congress that are required before some operations can begin.

Those backlogs have not disappeared. Indeed, counting the $403 million appropriated last month, the Defense Department has $1.03 billion on hand to help dismantle and secure former Soviet nuclear weapons, mainly in Russia but also in Ukraine and Kazakhstan.

Regardless of the cause, the proposed cuts produced sharp criticism from senators, including Mr. Lugar and Mr. Domenici, who considered the programs effective.

But by the time they were adding funds in the supplemental appropriation bill, the administration was coming around to their view and did not fight the increases.

-------

NUCLEAR MORATORIUM: Evaluation of test site in motion'
Report looks at how to cut lag time to resume testing

By STEVE TETREAULT DONREY WASHINGTON BUREAU
Wednesday, January 09, 2002
Las Vegas Review-Journal
http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2002/Jan-09-Wed-2002/news/17831582.html

WASHINGTON -- Nevada Test Site managers are putting together a report on what would be needed to speed the government's ability to resume underground nuclear testing if President Bush deems it necessary, officials said Tuesday.

The report was ordered by the director of the federal nuclear security agency. It would flesh out a suggestion by Bush administration officials, contained in a new report, to cut the lag time to prepare for nuclear detonations following a moratorium that has lasted almost 10 years.

"A review of the capability is already in motion," said Troy Wade, a Nevadan who directed defense programs at the Energy Department for President Reagan.

Wade is chairman of the Nevada Alliance For Defense, Energy and Business, a trade association of contractors that work at the test site and Nellis Air Force Base.

He said the study was ordered last year by retired Gen. John Gordon, director of the National Nuclear Security Administration, which manages the complex.

The prospect that Bush might consider ending a nuclear testing moratorium initiated in 1992 is raised by reports of a nuclear policy review sent to Congress on Tuesday.

Pentagon officials would not discuss the highly classified Nuclear Posture Review, but a general briefing was scheduled for later this week, and an unclassified version reportedly was being prepared.

Congressional officials confirmed that the review says the United States needs to be able to resume underground testing in less time than a two- to three-year standby period set by President Clinton.

While the report is not specific, the Bush administration wants to reduce the period to a year or less.

"What is it going to take to shorten that time? That internal NNSA review is under way," Wade said.

He said the review is headed by Jay Norman, a deputy director at the nuclear security administration's Nevada Operations Office.

Darwin Morgan, a spokesman for the nuclear security administration, said about 1,800 people work at the test site on a daily basis, working with an annual budget of about $400 million. At the end of 1992, the last year of full-scale nuclear testing, between 8,000 and 9,000 people worked with a budget of about $1 billion, he said.

Wade, other experts and lawmakers said Tuesday they didn't know how much it would cost to reposition the test site for underground detonations or what it might take in terms of personnel or equipment.

"It would be nothing exorbitant" in a defense budget request that may total $370 billion in fiscal 2003, said Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Reid, a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said he would support a Bush budget request to boost spending for test site readiness.

"We should have the test site ready for resumption within one year, judged on its own merits," he said.

Resuming actual testing would be a "big step" that should be taken only after consultations with allies, he said.

Reid said he would consider supporting resumption of nuclear testing, although he said he has been satisfied with the workings of the stockpile stewardship program, established during the moratorium to measure weapon reliability short of causing a nuclear chain reaction.

Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., said he would support resumption of underground nuclear testing if the president says it's necessary to maintain the safety and reliability of the nuclear stockpile.

"We should listen to the experts," he said. "We're talking national defense, and that's not something to be determined by political whims."

Reps. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., and Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., were out of the country Tuesday and could not be reached for comment.

Defense Secretary William Rumsfeld on Tuesday reasserted the Bush administration's support for the nuclear testing moratorium, but he left open the possibility that underground testing might be needed in the future.

"The president is observing the moratorium and has said so," Rumsfeld said. But, "any country that has nuclear weapons has to be respectful of the enormous lethality and power of those weapons and has a responsibility to see that they are safe and reliable," he said.

"To the extent that can be done without testing, clearly that's the preference. And that is why the president has concluded that, thus far, that is the case."

Asked whether the Nuclear Posture Review contained a formal recommendation to resume testing, he replied, "Absolutely not."

The Bush administration floated the idea to Congress of speeding test site readiness early in 2001, according to Martin Butcher, director of security programs for Physicians for Social Responsibility, an arms control group.

Lawmakers "wanted to wait for the nuclear posture review to be finished," Butcher said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

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

-------- florida

Road reopening under tight guard

By Irene Brown
UPI Science News
1/8/2002
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=08012002-055450-5844r

COCOA BEACH, Fla., Jan. 8 (UPI) -- The military is preparing to ease stringent, post-Sept. 11 security measures and reopen a prime 6-mile stretch of oceanfront highway to commuter traffic.

Motorists, however, can forget about soaring down picturesque SR A1A, which connects tourism-fed Cocoa Beach to neighboring towns in Brevard County's southern beachfront. Travel is restricted to one lane in each direction; the speed limit has dropped from 55 mph to 35 mph; and traffic will be under constant surveillance. Pickup trucks, minivans and sport utility vehicles will be inspected before being allowed on the road and box trucks, 18-wheelers and recreational vehicles are banned.

"I'm sure there are going to be some bugs in the beginning," said Steve Homan of the Florida Department of Transportation. "But a little bit of delay is a whole lot better than a detour."

Since Sept. 20, traffic has been rerouted onto a narrow residential road or the mainland highway US 1 while the Air Force developed plans to increase security at Patrick Air Force Base, which is located on the west side of SR A1A. The prime concern was the Air Force Technical Applications Center, which contains equipment to monitor nuclear explosions around the world.

"AFTAC is peculiar, in terms of being an intelligence agency that you could drive right up to its front door," said John Pike, of the Arlington, Va.-based Global Security research organization.

In addition to the traffic restrictions, the Air Force built a 2,000-foot-long, 7-foot-high barrier on the west side of the median in front of the facility. The barrier was constructed with wire-like mesh and gray plastic-like sheeting and filled with dirt and other materials Air Force officials declined to reveal.

In addition, the building's east windows are being covered with steel.

"Eventually it's all going to be steel," Air Force spokesman Maj. Mike Rein said. "We're not going to have any windows there."

The facility oversees a network of more than 80 sensors worldwide to detect nuclear weapons testing, accidents and other incidents. The information is collected at sent to the Patrick Air Force Base facility for analysis.

"The AFTAC campus is certainly one of the more physically vulnerable intelligence facilities," said Pike. "But on the other hand, AFTAC performs a strategic, rather than an operational or tactical function. If AFTAC were destroyed, it would not degrade America's war-fighting abilities."

"It's odd that they're doing all that to protect AFTAC and nothing is being done to protect the Supreme Court," Pike added.

-------- us politics

Powell highlights challenges of 2001, goals for 2002

January 9, 2002
Washington Times
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020109-99893288.htm

Following are excerpts from an interview with Secretary of State Colin L. Powell at the State Department by reporters and editors of The Washington Times yesterday:

Question: The first year of this administration is now over. What are the three most important things that you see as the best achievements of this administration, foreign policywise?

Answer: I think we have structured a very strong relationship with Russia. I think that the meetings that President Bush has had with President [Vladimir] Putin and the dialogue that has taken place between me and my colleague, [Defense Secretary] Don Rumsfeld and his colleague, and at a variety of levels, have positioned us for a very positive continuing relationship with Russia.

The way that Russia responded to the events of September 11th I think is reflective of that. The way in which we agreed to disagree on the [Anti-Ballistic Missile] Treaty after spending 11 months telling them where we were going, making clear to them that we were going there and nothing would deter us; is there a way we can do it together and is there a way that you can accept what we have to do? And at the end of the day, we agreed to disagree and the United States notified Russia that we were going to be withdrawing from the treaty. I notified Foreign Minister [Igor] Ivanov. He and I talked about it for two days. The president then called President Putin, and President Putin and I arranged the manner in which we would make all of these announcements. And guess what? The world did not end, an arms race did not break out, and there is no crisis in U.S.-Russia relations. I think that is reflective of the way in which we will be working together with Russia in the future.

And then the last piece of evidence I would give you for my assertion is the way in which we have worked through NATO-Russia working at 20 - a lot of discussion, a lot of debate of what that was all about. But the fact of the matter is we came to an agreement with the Russians as to how we can pursue this dialogue at 20, and we are on a track to see if we can have it in place at the time of the Reykjavik [Iceland] ministerial [meeting]. I think that's a success.

China success

I think another success is the way we have ended the year with China.

Remember also, we came through the spy crisis. Hard to believe that we had a spy crisis with Russia. These things come and go. You get 48 hours and that's it. It's over. It's gone. You have a big spy crisis and everybody was writing, "That's it. It's over. We can't do anything with the Russians."

So, in a similar vein, we had the same thing with the Chinese with the reconnaissance plane crisis and the human rights crisis and the proliferation crisis. And so it looked like things were going to be in difficulty with China. But we came through that because there are things that both countries have to do with each other to be successful, that we have to do economically. So we encouraged Chinese economic development and accession to the World Trade Organization. I had a visit in the summer to Beijing that set the groundwork, I think, for the president's visit, which had to be abbreviated because of the terrorist attack; but, nevertheless, he was determined to go to Asia and he did go to Shanghai and had a good meeting with [President] Jiang Zemin and the others.

And I think we ended the year on a good note with China. And we have been working with them closely now, for example, on the India-Pakistan situation. Maybe we'll call Foreign Minister [Jiaxuan] Tang and have a good discussion, make sure our policies are, you know, at least understood. And they are supporting us, as I saw in the press reporting today. The Chinese are supporting the approach that the rest of the international community has taken; they're not trying to be a spoiler. And we saw the same thing as we got into the Afghanistan situation. All that comes as a result of us building this relationship over the last 11 months, 12 months now. But we never walked away from our commitment to human rights; we never walked away from the argument that if China really wants to continue in this vein with us, they have to do something about proliferation activities. We never walked away from the position that we don't think your political system is the right one for the 21st century.

And we trust that in due course, as your economic development continues and as you see what benefits there are of being part of a world that rests on the rule of law, it will benefit the Chinese people.

You want a third one? I can give you a third one. I think that we have also been rather successful in bringing the Europeans to a calmer level of concern with respect to the United States. There was a lot of concern earlier in the year that because we took some unilateral positions that were positions of principle for us - Kyoto [climate treaty], for example - that somehow the United States was going off into the wild blue yonder and leave Europe. We didn't.

And the president's speech in Warsaw, the president's participation in G-8 meetings, the European Union summit and at the end of the year, the president was able to pull this whole coalition together against terrorism. I think we showed the world that where it serves our interests and when it serves the interests of the world for us to be multilateral, to use the cliched term of art, we will be so. And when, on a matter of principle, we cannot join with others on a position as a matter of principle, we will stand on that principle. And I think the president has given to the international community a pretty good demonstration of who he is and what he is and what this administration is all about.

I could list other successes. I think we had a success with respect to our relations here in our hemisphere. There are some dark clouds now, Argentina being one, developments in Venezuela that I'm not happy with. But by and large, I think there have been quite a few successes, successes that will be built upon in the months and years ahead.

You haven't asked me about problems, but I would be delighted to shift, segue, right into problems.

Problem areas

Q: That's fine.

A: We have some vexing problems that we have to deal with. The two that occupy an enormous amount of my time are, of course, the Middle East, the situation between Israel and the Palestinians, and most recently between India and Pakistan.

On the Middle East, we will stay engaged. The president has been engaged from day one, but we weren't drifting into this thinking that all it took was a special envoy going back and forth and everything is solved, or a summit meeting and everything would be solved. No, the first thing we had to do was to get security for the people of Israel, security for the people in the region, so that a cease-fire can come in place, and then we can find a basis to move forward to confidence-building and then negotiations to create a state for the Palestinian people, living side by side next to a Jewish state called Israel I have not lost that vision, that hope. The president laid it out in the U.N. speech that he gave in November. And I laid it out in my speech. Gen. [Anthony] Zinni has been acting on that vision and will continue to do so.

There are setbacks from time to time. One deeply disturbing problem that we have seen in the last several days is the ship that was captured by the Israelis. By the way, just as a former soldier, let me compliment the Israelis on a neat piece of work. But beyond that, it is deeply troubling to see the kinds of weapons that were being introduced into this volatile area.

And I think there is a heavy burden on Chairman [Yasser] Arafat and the Palestinian Authority to explain what they know about this and get to the bottom of this, because this is an escalation. And so we have seen some of the evidence and information and we are looking to receive more information and evidence. We have an Israeli team coming here tomorrow [Wednesday]. But this kind of action is condemnable and I do condemn it. And General Zinni raised it with Chairman Arafat the very next day.

Next phase

Q: I know that you are not talking much about what's next in the war on terrorism because, as far as we know, there have been no recommendations made to the president. But in terms of foreign policy, what kinds of things is the United States doing in this area, in your area, to prepare for the next phase?

A: We're working with, obviously, my colleagues in the administration - the Defense Department, George Tenet at the [CIA], and with [National Security Advisor] Condoleezza Rice and others, and especially now with Attorney General [John Ashcroft] and the Director of the FBI [Robert S. Mueller III]. It's all sort of one thing now. It's transnational. It's cross-border. We're working with the INS even more than we usually do.

And so, what we are trying to do in the foreign policy side is to help analyze where these terrorist cells are belonging to al Qaeda, who may be harboring them or providing haven, what countries, what groups. We have gone after banks, financial institutions. We have gone after these so-called charitable foundations who were essentially fronts for providing financial activity to these kinds of organizations.

And we are looking carefully at those countries that may be a place where these al Qaeda cells might find haven. And one that immediately comes to mind that's been mentioned particularly is Somalia, because it is quite a lawless place without much of a government and because of past affiliation with such activity. It's a place we're watching very, very carefully, as I said to another interviewer recently, not just because it's a weak, broken state. That's not a reason to go there. It's because terrorist activity might find some fertile ground there, and we don't want that to happen.

There are other nations that we're working with who have their own kind of terrorist problems. The Philippines has terrorist problems - not quite the same, but the president made it clear to the American people and to the world that this is a campaign against terrorism throughout the world, not just al Qaeda. And so we're working with the Philippine government, we're working with the Indonesians and we're working with the Yemenis to see how we can assist them.

We're working with the Sudanese, a country we have had some great difficulties with. But ever since September 11th, and even before that, we had started to have discussions with the Sudanese and point out to them, "What do you get for this? What do you get for letting people like this hang out in the Sudan? What does it do for you, except bring down the condemnation of the entire world? It does not put one bowl of rice in front of anyone. And so let's start trying to move in a new direction."

The Sudanese have been somewhat forthcoming. Have I said, "Gee, the problem is solved"? No, we've got a major problem in the Sudan. But some new opportunities were opened up. And so part of the new front, as you say, is to work with countries like the Sudan - not being naive, not being unmindful of the problems that exist there - throwing in other assets, diplomatic assets, [former] Senator [John] Danforth and others, but at the same time, cooperating with them more than we had before on intelligence and law-enforcement activities and things of that nature.

And so we have not made any recommendation to the president yet, and the president has not made any decisions yet with respect to a military action in any other location. And there are other actions that are taking place in other locations, but they are of a diplomatic, political, financial, law-enforcement and intelligence nature.

Countries like Iraq always are subject No. 1. We know that they are a state sponsor of terrorism. It's been on our list for many years. But beyond that, we know that they are continuing to try to develop weapons of mass destruction, and so our strategy remains clear with respect to Iraq.

For my part of the portfolio, I am trying to make sure that sanctions stay in place and get better. And after a year of struggling with this, I can look at two achievements. One, the sanctions regime did not fall apart. We put it on life support. And we will have smart sanctions before this current period expires. We're working on the list with the Russians to get some satisfaction on the list, get satisfaction of what [U.N. weapons] inspectors must be allowed to do.

And then on other parts of our strategy with Iraq that don't have to do with the U.N., we still believe in regime change and we are constantly reviewing our plans, our intelligence activities, military options and other options with respect to regime change.

South Asian standoff

Q: I want to go back to India and Pakistan. How do you view the likelihood of conflict breaking out? Have you received any assurances from the Indians that they will not launch an attack?

A: It is a very tense and dangerous situation. Any situation where you have forces that have mobilized and are in proximity to one another and are at something of a war footing is a dangerous situation. However, I still think there is every opportunity for a political and diplomatic solution. Both sides have said that they are desirous of solving this through political and diplomatic means.

A lot is going on. [British] Prime Minister [Tony] Blair just returned from the region and we have been in touch with his people this morning. I was delayed coming in because I was talking to [Pakistani] President [Pervez] Musharraf - one of our regular phone calls discussing the political and military situation and talking about possibilities with respect to reaching a point where the two sides can say, "All right, let's start to de-escalate." We're not at that point yet, but I think there are some elements of progress that I have seen in the last several days that suggest to me that we still have time to find a political and diplomatic solution.

Weapons ship

Q: It sounds like you're accepting the fact that the weapons shipment seized by Israel was destined for the Palestinians.

A: I don't know where else it might have been going. It was destined for the region. The Israelis have put forward a case that you all saw on television, just as I did, and they have given us additional information, and they will be giving us more information tomorrow [Wednesday]. And General Zinni presented that case, as much as he had of it, Sunday or Monday before he left to come back. And so it seems that I have no reason to believe that the ship was not heading to the region.

Q: But you're not specifying whether it might not be belonging - people are saying to Lebanon?

A: Seems logical to me.

Q: And what about Iran? Nobody is saying very much. I mean, Iran was the shipper. How do you view that?

A: Deeply troubling. It's entirely a new element that complicates an already complicated situation. And the best information I have, which comes from the Israelis, who got it all, is that it's clear from everything I've seen the shipment originated in Iran. Now, more information will be coming forward and the secrets of all hearts will be known when this one is over.

Q: With respect to India again, everyone is afraid that a conflict could become nuclear. Pakistan is more likely to resort to nuclear weapons because it's the weaker state militarily and more likely to lose a conventional war. Have you discussed with Mr. Musharraf the urgency of not resorting to nuclear weapons?

A: Without buying into your statement of military strategy I have spoken to both sides about the dangers of sliding into a conflict in South Asia between India and Pakistan. We have had such success over the last four months in this war on terrorism and reshaping that whole region - a new U.S.-Pakistani relationship, a reinvigorated U.S.-Indian relationship, a new interim authority in Kabul [Afghanistan], the destruction of the Taliban, the destruction of al Qaeda in that part of the world. We haven't rounded them all up yet. There's a lot more work to be done. There is still al Qaeda and Taliban running around loose. But there is a new government in Kabul and it has an international security force and it also has the United States armed forces and others in the region

This is a remarkable change in the relationship of the Central Asian nations that is different than it was four months ago. This remarkable success should not be allowed to just be torn apart because of a war between India and Pakistan. So we have made it clear to both sides the strategic consequences of such a conflict. And they are both nuclear armed, and so there is always that possibility, and I think both sides recognize the seriousness of this situation and the seriousness of letting it become an armed conflict.

And so, yes, that message has been given to both sides clearly, to include the nuclear aspects of it.

Q: In the past, China has supplied Pakistan with nuclear and missile materials. Is China now trying to dampen down Pakistan?

A: China is trying to dampen down the tension in the region in their meetings with President Musharraf and the conversations that I've had with Foreign Minister Tang and in the subsequent reporting I've seen, China is playing a responsible role in trying to reduce the tensions and not taking one side or the other. Everybody can see this. All of us can see that this serves no one's interest. And could one side or the other prevail in such a conflict? You've got to solve this diplomatically and politically, and that is the focus of our energy and attention. So far, we have prevented a conflict from breaking out.

Q: You said you spoke with General Musharraf just now. In fact, he's going to make a major address this week. Did you talk about this? Do you know what kinds of things he's going to say?

A: Mm-hmm.

Q: And they are? (Laughter.)

A: Please, please, a little discretion here.

Q: On background?

A: No, he will give a speech and it will be an important speech. He and I have been - we can talk about a couple of these. He understands the seriousness of the situation, and I will wait and see what he says.

Q: I was wondering if you could talk a bit about the future U.S. involvement in Afghanistan itself. There was a report this morning [Tuesday] that we had had discussions of an oil pipeline going through Afghanistan. How engaged is the United States going to be there, and does oil fit into the picture?

A: We are going to be very engaged, as I think Don Rumsfeld and [commander of the operation] General [Tommy] Franks have indicated, we see many months of work ahead militarily. Beyond that, when Operation Enduring Freedom eventually ends - that will be General Frank's judgment and his recommendation to the president - we will continue to be engaged. We will have to help the Afghan government build an army, an army that is the right kind of army, not just a bunch of warlords thrown together. We will have to help them rebuild their society, help them rebuild an economy.

I am going to a reconstruction conference next weekend in Tokyo, where we will try to raise billions of dollars to help them with this effort. And as the president has said from the very beginning, there really are three parts to our Afghan strategy, perhaps more than three: One, fight the war and defeat al Qaeda and the Taliban; two, provide humanitarian assistance to the people of Afghanistan, and that is starting to go rather well now.

The third part is to help them to set up the new government, which we've done. And fourth reconstruction. And so we will remain engaged.

With respect to the oil pipeline, there have been many ideas over the years about a pipeline going through Afghanistan, and I am sure it is an idea that will surface again. And there are oil companies that have expressed interest in this previously, but I don't have any current information to [offer].

----

Senators Back Attack on Iraq

By PAUL GARWOOD,
Associated Press Writer
Wednesday January 9 10:40 AM ET
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/htx/ap/20020109/wl/attacks_ships_15.html

ABOARD THE USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT (AP) - The United States should consider attacking Iraq and ousting Saddam Hussein after its campaign in Afghanistan, senior U.S. senators said Wednesday.

The comments came as Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and several other senators visited this aircraft carrier in the Arabian Sea.

``Next up Baghdad!'' McCain yelled during a tour of the flight bridge.

Later McCain told a reporter that Iraq presents ``a clear and present danger'' to the United States.

``I think Iraq is going to have to be considered'' as a target after Afghanistan, McCain said.

Before taking military action, the United States should give Iraq every opportunity to show it has disposed of weapons of mass destruction, he said.

Hawks have been pressing the Bush administration to take on Saddam. They say the Iraqi president is rebuilding the chemical and biological weapons programs he was supposed to dismantle after the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

McCain is touring the region with eight other senators, including Joseph Lieberman.

Lieberman, D-Conn., said that for many Americans, the war against terrorism will not be over until Osama bin Laden, the prime suspect in the Sept. 11 attacks, has been killed or captured.

Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., said the United States should have international backing for any military action in Iraq.

``I think it would be wrong, very shortsighted and very dangerous for the United States to unilaterally move on Iraq,'' he said.

However, he said, it is clear the Iraqi president is a threat and ``is going to have to go.''

Another Republican senator, Fred Thompson of Tennessee, said all states that harbor terrorists must be dealt with, not just Iraq. He mentioned the African nation of Somalia.

Whether or not Saddam is directly connected to the events of Sept. 11, he has ties to al-Qaida and ``we have to address it,'' Thompson said.

The senators spent about three hours on the USS Theodore Roosevelt, meeting senior naval officers and addressing the crew from a stage in the giant hangar deck.

----

Pentagon Study Urges Arms Shift, From Nuclear to High-Tech

New York Times
January 9, 2002
By JAMES DAO
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/09/international/09PENT.html

WASHINGTON, Jan. 8 - A classified Pentagon review of nuclear policy calls for sharply reducing United States dependence on nuclear weapons by expanding the use of conventional, precision arms and building a missile defense system, according to officials familiar with the document.

The study, the Nuclear Posture Review, outlines a new post-cold-war concept of deterrence that is intended to justify slashing the United States' nuclear arsenal to 1,700 to 2,200 weapons, from about 7,000, as President Bush has pledged.

But the review does not call for destroying the weapons removed, Congressional officials who received a briefing on the review said today. That raises the likelihood that warheads would be simply put in storage, where they could be reactivated on relatively short notice.

Many Democrats and arms control advocates contend that unless the nuclear warheads are completely dismantled, proposals to cut the stockpile will do nothing to encourage the Russians to reduce their arsenal of about 6,000 weapons.

Still, Pentagon officials said the review lays the groundwork for a new strategic relationship with Russia, something President Bush first promised during the 2000 campaign when he asserted, "Our mutual security need no longer depend on a nuclear balance of terror."

At the time, Mr. Bush advocated the deployment of a missile defense shield as a protection against nuclear attack, rather than relying solely on large-scale nuclear retaliation. The document prepared by the Pentagon suggests for the first time, however, that improvements in munitions could allow the military to substitute powerful, highly accurate conventional bombs and missiles to deter an enemy strike.

"We're looking at a transformation of our deterrence posture from an almost exclusive emphasis on offensive nuclear forces to a force that includes defenses as well as offenses, that includes conventional strike capabilities as well as nuclear strike capabilities, and includes a much reduced level of nuclear strike capability," said the deputy secretary of defense, Paul D. Wolfowitz.

Congressional officials said the review proposes a 10-year schedule for reducing the American arsenal, which Democrats and arms control advocates say is too slow.

The review recommends that the United States continue its moratorium on nuclear weapons tests, officials said. But it also says that if the moratorium is lifted, the time to prepare for tests should be reduced from two years to one year or less. Many Pentagon officials contend that testing will become more important if the arsenal is much smaller.

Many senior military commanders have resisted the idea of deep cuts to the nuclear arsenal, arguing that the threat of overwhelming nuclear retaliation is needed to deter attacks - whether nuclear, biological, chemical or conventional.

The Nuclear Posture Review, the first since 1994, could allay those fears by showing how improved non- nuclear munitions, missile defense and, most important, warmer relations with Russia have made nuclear weapons less crucial.

But by not calling for the destruction of nuclear weapons, the review seems to reflect the concerns of many conservatives and military officials that Russia could one day again become a nuclear rival, or that China could amass enough nuclear weapons to pose a threat.

Mr. Wolfowitz acknowledged those concerns, saying, "Recognizing that the world can change in dangerous and unpredictable ways, we are putting more emphasis than we have in the last 10 or 15 years on that underlying infrastructure that allows you, including in the nuclear area, to rebuild capabilities or build new ones if the world changes."

Mr. Bush pledged to reduce the arsenal during meetings in November with President Vladimir V. Putin, who said he planned to order deep cuts in Russia's arsenal, too.

At a news conference at the time, Mr. Bush appeared to commit himself to destroying many if not most of the nuclear warheads removed from the active arsenal. But his remarks were later amended by Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, who said that only some of the weapons would be destroyed.

Arms control advocates said that simply storing weapons would encourage a similar move in Russia, where the government's control over its nuclear stockpile is considered less than secure.

"If we put ours into storage, the Russians will probably do the same," said Tom Zamora Collina, director of the Global Security Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Officials said the Pentagon review drew heavily on a report by the National Institute for Public Policy, a Washington research group. Several people involved in writing that report now hold senior positions in the administration, including Stephen J. Hadley, the deputy national security adviser; Robert Joseph, a national security aide involved in fighting arms proliferation; and Stephen Cambone, a senior policy adviser to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on nuclear issues.

The institute's report, released last year, argued that conventional precision weapons had become so accurate that they could replace nuclear weapons in destroying certain targets, from communications centers to military bases to weapons plants. But the report also warned that conventional bombs and missiles might be ineffective against deeply buried bunkers or very large military targets.


-------- MILITARY

Poland to auction old Soviet tanks

January 9, 2002
Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20020109-10526932.htm

WARSAW - The Polish military announced yesterday an auction of aging Soviet-designed T-55 tanks for use to combat the recent heavy snowfall that has paralyzed much of the country.

Offered at a price of $6,865 apiece, the tanks "could be utilized against snow or fires, or to build dikes to prevent floods," said the military's property agency, which is charged with selling surplus equipment.

The T-55 weighs in at 36 tons and can attain a maximum speed of 30 mph.

"Considering the difficult weather conditions, it is a good time for the sale," the agency's spokesman Wieslaw Rozbicki was quoted as saying by the Polish news agency PAP.

Heavy snowfall paralyzed traffic throughout Poland last week.

-------- afghanistan

NYT Buries Story of Airstrikes on Afghan Civilians

January 9, 2002
FAIR ACTION ALERT
http://www.fair.org/activism/nyt-niazi-kala.html

On December 30, U.S. airstrikes hit the village of Niazi Kala (also called Qalaye Niaze) in eastern Afghanistan, killing dozens of civilians. The attack was major news in several U.K. newspapers, with the Guardian and the Independent running front-page stories. The headlines were straightforward: "U.S. Accused of Killing Over 100 Villagers in Airstrike" (Guardian, 1/1/02); "U.S. Accused of Killing 100 Civilians in Afghan Bombing Raid" (Independent, 1/1/02); "'100 Villagers Killed' in U.S. Airstrike" (London Times, 1/1/02).

In contrast, the New York Times first reported the civilian deaths at Niazi Kala under the headline "Afghan Leader Warily Backs U.S. Bombing" (1/2/02).

The U.N. estimated that 52 civilians were killed by the U.S. attack, including 25 children, and disputed Pentagon claims that those killed were linked to Al Qaeda. According to the U.N., "unarmed women and children" were "chased and killed by American helicopters," some "as they fled to shelter" and others "as they tried to rescue survivors" (London Times, 1/4/02). Noting that "innumeracy, rapid burial, damage to bodies, propaganda" and "remoteness" make it difficult to reach a precise count of any of the civilian deaths in Afghanistan, the Guardian reported that surviving villagers estimated anywhere between 32 and 107 dead, with the higher number coming from staff at the local hospital (1/7/02).

The Pentagon contends that the village was a legitimate military target because it sheltered Taliban leaders, Al Qaeda fighters and an ammunition dump, and reporters who toured the destruction saw evidence of a substantial weapons cache. But local residents denied links to the Taliban or Al Qaeda, and said that in fact many of those killed were guests in town for a wedding. As the Los Angeles Times has pointed out (1/8/02), the attack "raises difficult questions about the accuracy of the local information the United States is getting about the whereabouts of remaining Al Qaeda fighters."

Descriptions of the destruction in Niazi Kala from reporters on the scene have been shocking. Guardian correspondent Rory Carroll (1/7/02) reported seeing "bloodied children's shoes and skirts, bloodied school books, the scalp of a woman with braided grey hair, butter toffees in red wrappers, wedding decorations." Similarly, the Los Angeles Times' Alissa J. Rubin reported "fragments of skull with black braided hair decorated with silver thread-- an accessory common among women in this region," a child's "severed shoe" and other evidence that "makes clear that women and children were killed by the U.S. bombing" (1/8/02).

The New York Times, however, has shied away from such graphic accounts. In its January 2 article, the Times treated reports that "up to 100 villagers in Paktia Province had been killed" not so much as a story in its own right, but as background to the issue of whether Hamid Karzai, head of the interim Afghan government, was holding firm in "his support for the war against terrorism." Further details on the killings at Niazi Kala were scarce, but Times readers did learn that "part way through the interview, an aide entered carrying two scones" sent by Karzai's sister-in-law in Baltimore. The Times apparently included this information to support Karzai's contention that "things now seemed quite organized and civilized" in Afghanistan.

The following day, the New York Times provided more information about Niazi Kala, but once again nestled the story within an article on a related topic, this one about accusations that warlord Pacha Khan Zadran has provided false information to the U.S., leading to the airstrikes that last month struck a convoy of tribal leaders (1/3/02). The attack on Niazi Kala-- which some have suggested was also targeted on Zadran's recommendation (Independent, 1/4/02)-- came up when the Times reported Zadran's "assessment" that the villagers had been linked to the Taliban and therefore legitimate targets. Commendably, the Times did contrast Zadran's version on the story with the U.N.'s "far more chilling account of the human cost of destroying the weapons stash," quoting the report at some length. Unfortunately, these important details were buried in the middle of the page A15 story, reflected neither in its headline nor its lead.

In response to international pressure, including a British Member of Parliament's formal demands for an inquiry, the Pentagon has agreed to investigate the attack on Niazi Kala (Guardian, 1/4/02, 1/7/02). So far, the New York Times has not reported this fact.

The Times' poor reporting of this story comes in the midst of a general failure of the mainstream U.S. press to seriously investigate the extent of civilian casualties in Afghanistan and the legality of the U.S. attacks.

ACTION: Please contact the New York Times and encourage it to cover civilian casualties caused by U.S. attacks on Afghanistan, like those at Niazi Kala, as an important story in their own right. You might also ask them to follow closely and critically the Pentagon's investigation into the attack on Niazi Kala.

CONTACT: New York Times 229 West 43rd St. New York, NY 10036-3959 mailto:nytnews@nytimes.com Toll free comment line: 1-888-NYT-NEWS

As always, please remember that your comments are taken more seriously if you maintain a polite tone. Please cc fair@fair.org with your correspondence.

----

Top tier of Taliban offers to surrender

By Ted Anthony
ASSOCIATED PRESS
January 9, 2002
http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20020109-82084032.htm

KABUL, Afghanistan - Afghan officials yesterday weighed a reported surrender offer from top Taliban figures, including the former defense minister.

In the southern city of Kandahar, a heavily armed al Qaeda fighter blew himself up rather than be captured as he tried to escape from a hospital where he and six comrades had taken over a ward, refusing to surrender to the city's new rulers.

The fighter - identified as Mohammed Rasool - jumped from the second-story window at Mir Wais Hospital, found himself surrounded by guards and detonated a grenade. The al Qaeda fighters in the hospital have held off guards for weeks by threatening to kill themselves if approached.

Cmdr. Sadozai, a high-ranking security official for Gov. Gul Agha, said in Kandahar that top Taliban officials sent a messenger three or four days ago saying they wanted to discuss a surrender. The names of the Taliban members and their location were not disclosed, but former Taliban Defense Minister Mullah Ubaid Ullah is said to be among them.

Mr. Agha and others were in a tribal council meeting yesterday to decide how to handle the surrender offer, said Cmdr. Sadozai, who uses one name only.

At the Pentagon, Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said U.S. officials were checking into the reported surrender offer.

"Obviously individuals of that stature in the Taliban leadership are of great interest to the United States, and we would expect them to be turned over," Gen. Myers said.

[Terrorist kingpin Osama bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar are probably still in Afghanistan, but Kabul has no information on where they might be hiding, interim Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah told Reuters news agency yesterday.]

Gen. Myers said U.S. troops would not act "unilaterally" on Pakistani soil, and Islamabad said yesterday it needed no help to catch al Qaeda members.

"We have made all arrangements that those who sneak into Pakistan are arrested," said Mohammed Aziz Khan, a Pakistani government spokesman.

Allowing troops on Pakistani soil could be sensitive for many Pakistanis and other countries concerned about the spread of U.S. military operations.

Pakistan has said its troops arrested 23 foreign fighters trying to cross from Afghanistan over the weekend. At least 350 al Qaeda members, including more then 300 Arab nationals, have been arrested in Pakistan after crossing the border.

The exiled former king of Afghanistan, Mohammed Zahir Shah, who is to play a symbolic role in creating a new, longer-term government, intends to return to his homeland before the end of March, a top aide said in Rome.

King Zahir Shah, who was ousted in 1973, will convene a grand national assembly, or loya jirga, on June 22 to craft a new government. "His majesty has decided to go before the Afghan new year, which is March 25," the aide, Zalmai Rassoul, said.

Illustrating Afghanistan's deep suffering even after the end of the Taliban regime, an Associated Press reporting team discovered a village in remote northern Afghanistan where people are struggling to survive on bread made from grass. Mothers whose milk has dried up feed their babies grass porridge.

The United Nations said thousands of refugees who returned home to Afghanistan from Pakistan and Iran are turning back because there is no food.

----

Armed Men Ordered Off Kabul Streets

By KATHY GANNON
Associated Press Writer
JANUARY 09, 10:00 ET
http://wire.ap.org/APnews/center_story.html?FRONTID=ASIA&STORYID=APIS7GU5M080

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) - The government has ordered armed men to get off the streets of the Afghan capital within three days or be thrown in jail, Interior Minister Younus Qanooni said Wednesday.

The order would allow only uniformed police on Kabul's streets to carry arms, in an attempt to bolster the new government's authority in the capital, where armed men from various factions bristling with rocket launchers and automatic weapons have moved freely since the departure of Taliban on Nov. 13.

Prime Minister Hamid Karzai ordered armed men to return to their barracks within 72 hours or face arrest, Qanooni said. The order took effect Tuesday night, the minister said.

Only police - all of whom will be in uniform - will be allowed to carry weapons, Qanooni told The Associated Press by telephone.

Karzai has repeatedly said his interim government's priority will be security and the first order of business was to get the men with guns out of the city.

The U.N.-brokered agreement that set up the government and allowed the deployment of international peacekeepers in Kabul required the withdrawal of all military personnel from the capital.

But some of the barracks to which the armed men would return under the new order are located in the heart of the city. International observers say those barracks must be emptied.

``These barracks are not new. They have been here for decades. This is where our military stays,'' Qanooni said.

The only exceptions to the order are for Cabinet ministers' bodyguards, Qanooni said. Each minister will likely be allowed a maximum of four bodyguards, although no formal decision has been made, he said.

----

Elite troops scout foes, intelligence

By Susan Sevareid
ASSOCIATED PRESS
January 9, 2002
http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20020109-63982856.htm

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan - Crouching in the back of a dusty black pickup truck, a U.S. Army Special Forces soldier trains his rifle on two Afghans, one armed with a machine gun, found inspecting a Soviet-era T-55 tank abandoned in a dry river bed.

Two other Americans step out of the truck and cautiously approach, rifles ready, as a third Afghan pops into view.

In a country where alliances change faster than the dust clouds settle, who is a friend isn't always apparent, especially around the former Taliban stronghold of Kandahar.

The rifles lower slightly when the men on the tank, and two buddies who join them, greet the American soldiers warmly, assuring them there are no Taliban in the area. One shows a gaping bullet wound in his lower leg.

"They say they scared 'em away. That's how he got this," said Mike, who hauls a medical pack from the truck and begins cleaning and wrapping the leg, explaining with a few words of Pashto and a lot of hand gestures what he is doing and how to care for the wound.

The men of the U.S. Army Special Forces, known as the "quiet professionals," are reluctant to talk about their operations, and allowing journalists access to the teams for the first time was a difficult decision for their commanders. To protect the men, the Army did not allow them to be fully identified or for photographs to reveal their faces.

Not long ago, the elite soldiers were in the thick of the war against the Taliban regime, advising and training opposition forces and sometimes fighting alongside them, taking a central role in a war fought thus far largely without conventional U.S. ground forces.

Fighting has quieted, and now the Americans spend more time on reconnaissance missions like the one that led the members of team Python 36 to the tank.

They survey old battlegrounds for unexploded munitions and weapons and keep an eye out for signs of trouble. They search dusty valleys for Taliban or al Qaeda fighters and for discarded documents and other materials that might provide information on Osama bin Laden's terror network, blamed for the September 11 attacks on the United States.

They have nonmilitary tasks, too. Trained in languages and culture, the teams spend time talking to residents and shopkeepers about food and water supplies, crime and the availability of schools, police stations and other services.

"My team understands that what they recommend shapes government policy," said Paul, a 29-year-old captain from Tennessee who commands Python 36.

In Kandahar, his team's soldiers watch the city from the rooftop of a building they have called home since Dec. 10. Gunfire occasionally is heard, and they keep an eye out for suspicious vehicles that venture too close. Afghan guards outside move people along.

The sparse quarters are more comfortable than usual for a team whose members have seen action in Kuwait during the Gulf war, as well as in Haiti, Bosnia and other hot spots. Other teams, operating from makeshift camps in the rugged mountains and deserts across Afghanistan, are searching for senior Taliban and al Qaeda members.

Teams in the Kandahar area have been in close calls, losing friends when a U.S. bomb went astray north of Kandahar on Dec. 5, killing three Special Forces soldiers. A Special Forces soldier was killed in an ambush in eastern Afghanistan Friday.

Frank, a 37-year-old staff sergeant from West Virginia, said the men bond regardless of age or rank. "If it's us against the world, it's us against the world - there's a lot of brotherly trust."

As they slowly cruise Kandahar's dirt streets, their beards scruffy and their heads wrapped in Afghan scarves, the men of Python 36 wave at grocers, old men drinking tea, boys on bicycles and armed men in passing vehicles.

----

War Wrap: Latest news at a glance

January 9, 2002
Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/07012002-022730-4722r.htm

Here are the latest developments in the situation in Afghanistan:

Gen. Richard Myers said the transfer of al Qaida and Taliban detainees from Afghanistan to the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, could begin as soon as Wednesday.

U.S. investigators said a captured al Qaida leader who helped rung Osama bin Laden's training camps in Afghanistan has been "most cooperative." U.S. officials aboard the USS Bataan are interrogating Ibn Al-Shaykh al-Libi.

U.S. Envoy to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalizad, said the airstrikes against al Qaida and Taliban targets must continue to stop the extremists from regrouping to threaten the new interim Afghan government. He said the interim government fully supports the bombing.

An al Qaida fighter attempting to escape from a Kandahar hospital killed himself Tuesday rather than be captured alive. Another six al Qaida fighters remain holed up inside the hospital.

The first contingent of 70 German troops is due to arrive Wednesday in Afghanistan to join the international stabilization force.

The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said Osama bin Laden probably has fled to Pakistan. Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., said the Pakistani government was supporting the U.S. effort to catch bin Laden.

----

KABUL
Bombing Necessary Despite Toll on Civilians, U.S. Envoy Says

New York Times
January 9, 2002
By MARK LANDLER
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/09/international/asia/09AFGH.html

KABUL, Afghanistan, Jan. 8 - Two days after he arrived in Afghanistan, the new United States special envoy today defended the continued bombing of this country, even though it was causing civilian casualties. The envoy, Zalmay Khalilzad, said that "you have to weigh the risks of ending the conflict prematurely with the costs of continuing it," adding, "I have no doubt, on balance, that we will continue until we achieve our goals."

Mr. Khalilzad, an Afghan-born American citizen, said the Bush administration deeply regretted that civilians had been hit by wayward bombs. But he placed the blame on Al Qaeda and the vanquished Taliban government, which he held responsible for the war.

"We do not target civilians, but civilians unfortunately do get affected, even killed," said Mr. Khalilzad, in his first formal briefing for reporters here. "War is a very imperfect business."

The arrival of Mr. Khalilzad, who by birth is a member of the dominant Pashtun ethnic group, is being closely watched. As a former member of the White House National Security Council, he was one of the architects of the Bush administration's tough policy toward Afghanistan and the Taliban in the days after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Today, wearing an American flag pin in the lapel of his tailored suit, Mr. Khalilzad stuck to the official White House line on the American- led war. "It's very important that the war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban continue until it succeeds," he said. "If the remnants of Al Qaeda and the Taliban survive, they are likely to regroup and pose a challenge to the new order."

Mr. Khalilzad said the United States had evidence that pockets of Taliban were still active in the southern and eastern provinces of Afghanistan. On Monday, American warplanes bombed suspected Al Qaeda hideouts in the east.

Hamid Karzai, the interim leader of Afghanistan, said today that his government might request additional peacekeeping forces from foreign countries. Speaking to the BBC, Mr. Karzai said, "The delegations I receive keep asking for a larger number of international security forces, and to be deployed in other provinces, other cities of Afghanistan. As need arises, we might ask for that."

About 70 German troops are scheduled to arrive in Afghanistan on Wednesday to join the British-led peacekeeping force.

Mr. Karzai added, however, that he had not asked the United States to curtail its bombing campaign while it pursues Osama bin Laden, the elusive head of Al Qaeda, or Mullah Muhammad Omar, the Taliban leader.

In Kabul, far from the American bombs, Mr. Khalilzad is part of a growing contingent of American civilians. A delegation of senators met with Mr. Karzai on Monday night at Bagram air base, north of Kabul. On Thursday, Joseph R. Biden Jr., the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is scheduled to lead another delegation here.

----

British al-Qaida suspects disappear

Rory Carroll in Kabul
Wednesday January 9, 2002
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,629676,00.html

Three Britons accused of being al-Qaida fighters are thought to have been spirited away by Afghan authorities, along with dozens of other Taliban and al-Qaida suspects, and are beyond the reach of human rights monitors and diplomats.

The governor of a Kabul jail admitted yesterday that at least 70 inmates had been moved, but refused to say where they were being held. Aid agencies complained of being obstructed in their efforts to track prisoners.

The International Committee of the Red Cross said that American troops at Bagram airport, 25 miles north of Kabul, had received a batch of prisoners but had refused its requests for access.

Two other agencies, which asked not to be identified, claimed that a pattern was emerging: Afghan officials were blocking access to give US agents time and space to interrogate the suspects, especially Arabs and westerners.

Abdul Qayum, governor of Kabul's third directorate jail, opened his cells to the Guardian after reports that three Britons and other foreigners were among his captives. Mr Qayum had raised suspicions by banning journalists and the Red Cross from the cells, but he made an exception yesterday to show he had nothing to hide, he said.

Past two metal doors, the governor walked into a dark basement corridor lit by only two gas lamps. In the first cell were squeezed three single beds shared by 11 Pakistanis.

Pale, they appeared to have been briefed about what to say by Mr Qayum, who monitored the interview. He had already admitted that his inmates were beaten during questioning, but the Pakistanis, aged 22 to 75 and mostly from Quetta, professed to being very well treated. They had enough food and blankets and the guards were kind, they said.

The next cell contained 10 Pakistanis who seized the opportunity of Mr Qayum's momentary absence to complain of hunger and being kicked and thrashed with planks, often while sleeping. A scruffy young man with spectacles blundered into the cell. In English he said: "I'm an Arab and I share a secret cell with five other Arabs. No one knows we are here, please tell someone about us." He ran out. Mr Qayum returned and the tour was ended.

In December, the governor said he had more than 100 inmates, but yesterday he refused to number the present population. "You have seen them all, or maybe not. If I told you, I would be a liar."

Marco Garatti, a doctor with the Italian charity Emergency, was also allowed in yesterday and treated about 30 prisoners, mostly for diarrhoea, malnutrition and bruises. He had no idea how many other inmates were in the jail, he said.

An Afghan male nurse with ointments, disinfectant and a large box of bandages had been waiting in Mr Qayum's office, but none of the prisoners seen by the Guardian required such treatment.

The governor refused to say whether the missing 70 prisoners were in another part of the basement or in another jail. He denied a Mail on Sunday report that he had three British prisoners.

A British embassy official in Kabul said that diplomats were investigating the reports of British prisoners, but had received little guidance from the authorities. Red Cross visitors to Shibergan prison, near the northern city of Mazar- i-Sharif, registered three inmates who claimed to be Britons from the west Midlands, but the embassy has yet to confirm that.

Michael Kleiner, a Red Cross spokesman, said access to the prison in Kabul had been denied since al-Qaida suspects from the Tora Bora mountain complex were moved there three weeks ago.

Many in the group, thought to be at least 20 strong, were hurt, but the Red Cross persuaded the authorities to allow two seriously wounded men, one of them British, to stay in a hospital in Jalalabad, near Tora Bora, he said.

"The fact that we haven't been informed of the whereabouts of these prisoners, or been allowed access, is causing worry," Mr Kleiner said. US forces recently moved some prisoners to Bagram air base, but again the Red Cross was not granted access, Mr Kleiner said. "This is of concern to us."

Another aid agency sug gested that about 20 foreign prisoners were at Bagram, and that the Americans were citing lack of manpower as a reason to block access.

· An al-Qaida fighter barricaded in a Kandahar hospital in southern Afghanistan blew himself up yesterday rather than surrender. The man's body was found in a garden outside the ward where several wounded fighters, mostly Arabs, have been holed up since early December.

It was unclear how many fighters were left in the ward. Some say seven remain. The men have threatened to blow themselves up if anyone except a doctor enters. Reuters

-------- africa

Powell singles out Somalia

By Nicholas Kralev
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
January 9, 2002
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020109-931348.htm

The United States is telling several countries - particularly Somalia - they must deny safe haven to terrorists if they hope to avoid becoming battlefields in the U.S. war on terrorism, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said yesterday.

The warnings are part of a major diplomatic effort aimed at countries that either harbor terrorists or are likely to attract them, Mr. Powell said in an interview with editors and reporters of The Washington Times.

"And one [country] that immediately comes to mind and that has been mentioned particularly is Somalia," Mr. Powell said. He described Somalia as a "lawless place" that has a "past affiliation with such activity."

Mr. Powell said Somalia "is a place we are watching very, very carefully. Not just because it's a weak, broken state - that's not a reason to go there. It's because terrorist activity might find some fertile ground there, and we don't want that to happen."

The Times, quoting intelligence sources, reported last week that U.S. and allied military forces were stepping up aerial reconnaissance over Somalia. Some 100 members of Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network were identified recently in that East African country, according to intelligence reports.

The terrorists belonged to an Islamic group there known as Al-Ittihad Al-Islam, U.S. officials told The Times. The Mogadishu-based group, known as AIAI, is linked to Somali warlord Hussein Mohammed Aideed and has close ties to al Qaeda.

A senior State Department official said yesterday that U.S. military activity in the region has been complemented by diplomatic initiatives.

"We are working with its neighbors and various authorities in Somalia" to prevent terrorist cells from being able to operate there, the official said.

The diplomatic offensive also is aimed at persuading other governments not to open their borders to members of al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations. Washington is helping those that already have terrorist cells on their territories to dismantle them, Mr. Powell said.

The Philippines, Indonesia, Yemen and Sudan are the four countries where the administration has focused its attention and efforts. In spite of "some great difficulties" with the Sudanese, "they have been somewhat forthcoming" since the September 11 attacks in New York and Washington, the secretary said.

"We've got a major problem in the Sudan, but some new opportunities were opened up," he said. "We have started to have discussions with the Sudanese and point out to them, 'What do you get for letting people like this hang out in the Sudan? What does it do for you, except bring down the condemnation of the entire world? It does not put one bowl of rice in front of anyone. And so let's start trying to move in a new direction.'"

On Iraq, another potential target for the anti-terror campaign, Mr. Powell said the administration is "constantly reviewing our plans, our intelligence activities, military options and other options with respect to regime change."

Mr. Powell, who spoke in a functional conference room next to his seventh-floor State Department office suite, also said he considered progress in resolving the Middle East conflict as crucial to America's anti-terror efforts.

Israel's seizure last week of a ship carrying 50 tons of weapons - a military action the retired army general described as a "neat piece of work" - served to "escalate" that conflict, he said.

"Beyond that, it is deeply troubling to see the kinds of weapons that were being introduced into this volatile area," he said.

The secretary said that "evidence and information" the United States received from the Israelis indicated the shipment originated in Iran and was going to the Palestinians, though not necessarily Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority.

"I have no reason to believe that the ship was not heading to the region," he said. "There is a heavy burden on Chairman Arafat and the Palestinian Authority to explain what they know about this and get to the bottom of this, because this is an escalation."

Visiting Israeli Justice Minister Meir Sheetrit yesterday called Mr. Arafat, who had denied knowledge of the weapons, a cheat and a liar who would not fool the United States.

"It's cheating, and that's very bad," he said after a meeting with Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. "The [U.S.] administration doesn't like people who cheat on them or lie to them."

The administration expects to learn more about Thursday's incident when an Israeli intelligence team meets with U.S. officials in Washington today, Mr. Powell said.

The U.S. envoy for the Middle East, Gen. Anthony Zinni, conveyed Washington's "condemnation" of the arms-smuggling effort in a meeting with Mr. Arafat on Friday.

Gen. Zinni, who returned to Washington on Monday after four days in the region, was expected to brief Mr. Powell on his latest mission. "Then we'll send him back in due course in the very near future," the secretary said.

"We have to reach a situation where a single car bomber or a single guy shooting a pistol in the air cannot derail this process," he said in reference to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's insistence on seven days of complete peace before new negotiations. "We are not there yet, but things have quieted significantly."

Mr. Powell expressed satisfaction that all the major international players - the United States, the United Nations, the European Union, China and Russia - "have been able to communicate with almost one single, coherent voice to both the Palestinians and to the Israelis."

All those players are telling both sides that the best route to peace "is the Mitchell plan," he said, referring to last year's report of a committee headed by former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell.

Reviewing the Bush administration's first year in office, Mr. Powell cited three main foreign-policy achievements:

•Structuring "in a very strong way" the U.S. relationship with Russia despite America's decision to pull out of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

•Ending the year "on a good note with China" after that nation's seizure of a U.S. spy plane in the spring and its detention of U.S.-based scholars.

•Bringing the Europeans "to a calmer level of concern with respect to the United States."

"There was a lot of concern earlier in the year that because we took some unilateral positions that were positions of principle for us that somehow the United States was going off into the wild blue yonder and leave Europe. We didn't," he said. He cited as an example the rejection of the Kyoto treaty on climate change.

Mr. Powell, who noted he will attend an Afghanistan reconstruction conference in Tokyo Jan. 21- 22, said the United States will remain "very engaged" in the war-ravaged country long after the military operation there is over.

"We will have to help the Afghan government build an army that is the right kind of army, not just a bunch of warlords thrown together," he said. "We will have to help them rebuild their society, help them rebuild an economy."

-------- arms sales

Israels boosts military ties with India

Ben Lynfield In Jerusalem
Wed 9 Jan 2002
The Scotsman
http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/international.cfm?id=28852002

A FINE line between profiteering and fighting terrorism was blurred yesterday as Shimon Peres, the Israeli foreign minister, met Indian leaders in New Delhi amid signs of a burgeoning military co-operation.

Mr Peres' visit is aimed at enhancing Israel's role as India's number two weapons supplier, after Russia. If the recent history of relations offers any indication, Israel could play a significant role in weapons supplies and intelligence provision if an Indo-Pakistani war breaks out.

The visit came as India said it saw no change in Pakistan's stance towards the confrontation, despite President Pervez Musharraf's condemnation of terrorism in all its forms.

"I think the time has come for Pakistan to shed the ambivalence it continues to maintain," the Indian foreign ministry spokeswoman said.

Mr Peres, meanwhile, met George Fernandes, the Indian defence minister, and stressed the strength of Israeli-Indian ties, which evolved into full relations only eight years ago.

He urged that the dispute with Pakistan be resolved by dialogue and voiced faith in India's leadership. "The world is no longer divided between east and west," Mr Peres told reporters. "The new division is between countries that harbour terrorists and countries which fight them."

"You should fight terrorism in a determined manner and in different ways than to fight a war because the terrorists use different ways," Mr Peres told a television interviewer. "While fighting terrorism, you should have a political horizon and conduct a dialogue."

Meanwhile, in Tel Aviv, an Indo-Israeli commission on "combating terrorism" met yesterday. "India finds it immensely beneficial to learn from Israel's experience in dealing with terrorism, since Israel too has long suffered from cross border terrorism," said the Indian foreign ministry spokeswoman in New Delhi.

There are economic imperatives behind the rhetoric. "Aviation and military industries need customers," said Alon Liel, former director-general of the Israeli foreign ministry. "When one isn't available any more, the need for alternatives is greater."

He was referring to Washington's blocking two years ago of an Israeli sale of Falcon AWACS surveillance planes to China, a step the US feared could imperil its troops in the event of fighting with Beijing. "I would put India among the three most important countries for Israel's aviation and military industries," said Dr Liel. "And the level of warmth in the political dialogue is amazing."

Part of Mr Peres' visit is to consummate an Israeli sale of 2-4 Falcon planes to India for more than a billion dollars. According to Jane's Defence Weekly, Israel was an ammunition supplier during India's border war with Pakistan in 1999.

"Russia delivers the hardware - tanks, aircraft and ships - and Israel provides the weapons systems, the radar, the electronic control systems and other hi-tech add-ons," Jane's quoted an Indian military official as saying.

According to Jane's, Israel was an ammunition supplier during India's border war with Pakistan in 1999, and last March, the weekly said Israeli security officials were regularly visiting the Kashmir border regions. It added that India was to help upgrade about 600 Russian T-72 battle tanks and to provide hi-tech fencing for sensitive military bases in Kashmir.

Tamar Gozansky, a left-wing member of the knesset, criticised the weapons sales to India and the idea that the two countries are linked in fighting terrorism.

"I would like to see the co-operation be focused on agriculture and developing water sources, not in buying and selling weapons," she said, adding that when Israel has based its foreign relations on weapons provision, as was the case with South Africa's apartheid regime, it has backfired.

More Middle East conflict:
http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/topics.cfm?tid=13

Websites:
Israeli Government peace process site
http://www.info.gov.il/eng/sub-TZRS-peace.asp

Palestinian National Authority
http://www.pna.net/

UN Relief & Works Agency for Palestinian refugees
http://www.un.org/unrwa/

US Dept of State Bureau for Near Eastern Affairs
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/

UK Foreign Office peace process site
http://www.fco.gov.uk/news/keythemehome.asp?13

Hamas
http://www.palestine-info.com/hamas/

----

[Hopefully the press will become as diligent in reporting arms sales to Israelis and other "allies" as to Palestinians and other "terrorists". et]

US: Palestinian weapons ship not the first

By Richard Sale
UPI Terrorism Correspondent
January 8, 2002
http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/08012002-050932-1217r.htm

U.S. intelligence sources said Tuesday a ship seized by Israel in the Red Sea last week was the third vessel involved in attempts to smuggle arms to Palestinian-controlled areas and that the first two had escaped capture.

"We think that there have been at least two additional such missions and perhaps more," a U.S. intelligence analyst said.

The Karine-A was seized in the Red Sea by an Israeli boarding party last Thursday. Its cargo included Katyusha long- and short-range surface rockets, long- and short-range mortar bombs, anti-tank mines, C-4 explosives, Sagger and LAW anti-tank rockets, U.S. officials said. Israel said the arms were meant for the Palestinian Authority. On Tuesday, the PA set up a high-level panel to investigate the incident.

The origin of the arms remained unclear. One senior administration official said Tuesday, "I think, based on the evidence that we have at the moment that the Israelis released, it certainly seems to be of Iranian origin."

But this official was nonetheless cautious.

"You can have shipping crates that have farsi on the outside -- that could be disinformation."

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Tuesday that Israeli reports that the ship was headed for Gaza were "credible." He added, however, that U.S. officials were still determining the facts of the matter.

"We don't know who hired it, who was the recipient. Those are the kind of pieces of information we're looking for," Boucher said. "But as I stressed, beyond the information, we want to make sure that those who would use weapons like this, that the terrorist groups that operate are dismantled."

U.S. intelligence and administration sources also said that Egyptian military intelligence aided the PA in arms smuggling attempts.

"The feeling is that the Egyptians have turned a blind eye to what's been going on," said one U.S. government official.

A congressional staffer added that Egyptian forces at Alexandria, Egypt, would have had to identify the ship and its cargo by the time it transited the Suez Canal.

"The Egyptians knew and they tolerated it," he said.

He added that the PA has a weapons storage site at el-Arish, in the northeastern part of the Sinai.

An Egyptian Embassy spokesman denied the allegations: "We have no idea of any of this," he said.

In the meantime, debate continued over whether the PA or the Iran-backed Hezbollah guerilla group was to be the ultimate recipient of the weapons. Some administration officials told United Press International the Bush administration "lacks any clear proof" that the 50 tons of weapons were destined for the PA rather than the Lebanon-based Hezbollah.

Whoever the end-user was to be, it is clear the arms were for use against Israel. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld Tuesday said in an interview on C-Span TV, "From the standpoint of the ship that the Israelis intercepted ... They clearly had very good intelligence that those weapons were going to be used against them."

On Wednesday, a delegation of Israeli military intelligence officials will brief U.S. intelligence officials on the ship incident among other things.

In Israel, the captain of the ship, Omar Akawi, said in jailhouse interviews that he had taken his orders from a Greece-based weapons agent of the PA, Abdel Mughrabi, and that he knew his cargo was meant to arm Palestinians.

But a State Department official who had read of the captain's complete confession commented that the statement "is simply one piece of evidence -- not a smoking gun."

This source added: "We have to think of the circumstances. Under what conditions was the captain talking? Is he talking simply to get himself out of jail?"

Jerry Bremer, a prominent U.S. counter-terrorism expert, said that Israel had established "beyond doubt" that the ship belonged to the PA, purchased in Lebanon for $400,000.

He also pointed to the fact that the PA has verified that Akawi was a mid-ranking member of its naval unit, even as it denied any knowledge of the weapons shipment.

"I think it's entirely plausible that the weapons were destined for the Palestinian Authority. It's an entirely plausible scenario," Bremer said, though he added that there was no conclusive proof of this.

Asked about possible Iranian involvement, administration officials were cautious, "The ship made many stops; and we are not sure of the exact point the weapons were put aboard," one U.S. source said.

Another said, "We can't pin down Iran's direct involvement, or any state-sponsorship by Iran. We can't identify Iran as the origin of the shipment."

He pointed to the fact that Akawi had not directly implicated Iran in his confession, though he said the Palestinian had established a link between the shipment and the Hezbollah, an Iranian-funded and supported group.

U.S. officials confirmed that a high-ranking member of Hezbollah was captured aboard the Karin-A.

Another administration official urged caution in judging Iran: "There is no benefit for Iran to become an adversary of Israel or the United States to the degree implied by the shipments -- Iran is making new efforts to rejoin the community of law-abiding nations."

According to Israeli media accounts, Akawi said he was ordered to drop anchor in the Persian Gulf near the Iranian border at which time the weapons were loaded by a crew which contained a member of the Hezbollah known personally to Akawi.

Israel has said the capture of the arms was evidence that Arafat and his regime had joined the international terrorist conspiracy against Israel led by Hezbollah and Iran.

But many U.S. sources remained skeptical. Former CIA chief of counter-terrorism, Vince Cannistraro, commented that Iran had never before shipped weapons to the Palestinian Authority. "There is not a single case that I know of," he said.

He added that he believes the arms were destined for the Palestinian groups Islamic Jihad and Hamas: "That's what the current evidence seems to indicate," he said, adding that if the Hezbollah was involved, it was only "as an intermediary in the deal."

A U.S. intelligence official agreed with Cannistraro that while Iran has consistently provided financial support to all three groups, it has never shipped weapons to the two Palestinian organizations. "It would be quite a departure from usual practice," he said.

Stan Bedlington, a former CIA counter-terrorism expert agreed: "Iran doesn't ship arms to Hamas or the Islamic Jihad. It's contrary to its methods of operation."

Bedlington said that given the size of the shipment, "which could equip a small army of terrorists," Hezbollah was the probable end-client. "They are the only group capable of absorbing a shipment of that magnitude," he said.

An administration analyst added that Iran has never used ships for transport arms to any anti-Israel group before. For years, he said, Tehran transported weapons for the Hezbollah to Syria by air. From there the weapons went by truck overland through Lebanon's Bekaa Valley.

That particular route was disrupted for a time after the United States persuaded Turkey to close its air space to Iranian freight flights to Syria, but Iranian flights of weapons to Syria have resumed, the official said.

If there wasn't complete agreement about which group was to get the arms, the half dozen U.S. government officials interviewed by UPI agreed that Iran's covert assistance to the Hezbollah runs anywhere from $7 million to $30 million per year, with no signs of being reduced, in spite of the war on terrorism.

In recent media reports, Tehran has publicly denied any involvement, one Iranian official calling the charge "absurd." Lebanese officials, meanwhile, insist on a distinction between terrorist groups, and what they call resistance organizations like Hezbollah.

(With Eli J. Lake reporting in Washington)

-------- asia

China-Pakistan alliance starting to look shaky

1/9/2002
Insider notes from United Press International for Jan. 9 ...
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=09012002-122141-8542r

The China-Pakistan alliance is starting to look a little shaky, as Beijing premier Zhu Rongji starts packing for his 6-day visit to India next week. Worried by what could become a very long-term U.S. presence in Pakistan, particularly at the Jacobabad and Pasni air bases, China is threatening to back away from a long-planned project to upgrade Pakistan's port of Gwadar near the Iranian border (much to India's relief). Also, China has not exerted any serious pressure in support of Pakistan's bid to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, simply saying Russia's objections were too strong to Pakistani membership of the 6-nation group that unites Russia, China and four Central Asian countries in a security cooperation agenda that includes a joint campaign against Islamic fundamentalism. On the other hand, the deliveries of 40 Chinese-built F-7 fighters, sufficient for two squadrons, plus spares, appears to be going ahead despite official Pakistani denials.

-------- biological weapons

Web site answers bioterror fears

January 9, 2002
By Ellen Sorokin
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20020109-30793838.htm

Can Americans trust new smallpox vaccines that have never been tested on humans, or can terrorists use crop dusters to kill thousands of people?

Those are some of the questions people can now answer at the new Bioterrorism Learning Center, a Web site that shows video presentations of physicians and scientists discussing the threats of bioterrorism facing the United States since the anthrax crisis in October.

"This is really about getting information to the mother of three kids who hears something on the news and starts worrying about the kids, or the guy who sits in the office and wants to get more information on bioterrorism," said Brian Whitfield, chairman and chief executive officer of DigiScript Inc., a Nashville, Tenn.-based company that designed the site.

"This is one good place where they can go to answer the questions they have by medical experts," Mr. Whitfield said.

The center, reachable through http://bioterrorism.digiscript.com, was primarily set up to teach people how to tell the difference between the myths and realities of bioterrorism.

For example, the site features Amy E. Smithson, a director of the Chemical and Biological Weapons Nonproliferation Project, talking about the difficulties of using crop dusters to disseminate a biological-warfare agent.

In another video segment, Lawrence J. Halloran, staff director and counsel to the subcommittee on national security, veterans affairs and international relations of the House Committee on Government Reform, talks about the dangers involved in using a new vaccine that has never been tested on humans. The current presentations are: understanding and addressing bioterrorism proliferation; responding to bioterrorism; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention clinical laboratory's response to bioterrorism; and responding to bioterrorism.

The center is also another resource physicians can use as a reference. So far, only the American Society of Clinical Pathologists (ASCP) and the College of American Pathologists (CAP) have provided content for the site. Other medical associations, including the American College of Preventive Medicine, will soon include their speakers on the site.

Mr. Whitfield concedes the Bioterrorism Learning Center is one of many sites that have popped up since the terrorist attacks. But he said his site is different because the information is unedited and comes directly from physicians and scientists who have studied biological and chemical warfare.

"There's a lot of content out there that is a mile wide and an inch deep," Mr. Whitfield said. "Our content already has a respect factor, because it comes from respected medical associations."

The presentations are shown in their entirety, so that visitors to the center can decide how much of the information is important to them. The center also includes an index of hyperlinks and a keyword search that lets visitors navigate to specific points of interest. The service is free.

CDC officials said they support any center or Web sites that teaches people facts, not fiction. The CDC has also been updating medical information about bioterrorism since the anthrax incidents.

"We are very supportive of people having access to any information that would help them be prepared for any potential attack and to quickly come up to speed with bioterrorism," said CDC spokeswoman Kathy Harben.

Physicians said they like the site because it allows them to keep up with the latest medical information about bioterrorism.

"It's very important to have this kind of technology available for people and anyone in the medical profession to watch and learn about what's out there right now," said Dr. Jared Schwartz, a pathologist in Charlotte, N.C. "There is a tremendous amount of information that needs to be put out to the public, especially now."

-------- business

McDonnell Douglas wins $480 million contract for smart bombs

Wednesday January 9, 5:05 AM
Reuters
http://in.news.yahoo.com/020108/64/1d3cw.html

WASHINGTON - McDonnell Douglas, a unit of Boeing Co., has won a $480 million fixed-price contract to provide 11,332 satellite delivery systems for joint direct attack munitions (JDAMs), the U.S. Defense Department said Tuesday.

The Pentagon announced the contract, which was awarded on Dec. 27, 2001, saying the JDAM satellite-guidance system would give the U.S. Air Force and Navy improved delivery capability for existing 1,000- and 2,000-pound bombs.

The JDAM weapon system is a strap-on-kit that turns conventional bombs into so-called "smart bombs." These have been the most heavily used munitions in the U.S. war against Afghanistan.

The Pentagon said Boeing would complete work on the contract by October 2003.

----

Falloff of military plane orders masks gains in other sectors

ASSOCIATED PRESS
January 9, 2002
Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/business/20020109-1327131.htm

A big drop in demand for military airplanes pushed factory orders down in November. But a wide range of goods - including computers and cars - posted gains, suggesting better days may lie ahead for the battered manufacturing sector.

Even though the Commerce Department's report yesterday showed that orders to U.S. factories fell by 3.3 percent in November, economists were encouraged because orders rose for so many other categories, including the hard-hit high-tech sector.

Manufacturers have borne the brunt of the ailing national economy, which slid into a recession in March. To cope, they have cut production, trimmed hours and laid off workers. Last year, factories shed 1.3 million jobs, or about 7 percent of their work force.

But economists said the report, with other recent data, indicate that the worst may be over for the beleaguered industry. "It's looking to me like the manufacturing sector has hit a bottom," said economist Clifford Waldman of Waldman Associates. "But it is questionable how long manufacturing will be at the bottom. I think we'll see a slow, grudging climb from here."

A more forward-looking report released last week by the Institute for Supply Management, formerly the National Association of Purchasing Management, showed that a rise in new orders to factories helped push a key gauge of manufacturing activity higher in December, suggesting the sector is emerging from a 17-month slump.

-------- china

China - The key to Asian stability

January 9, 2002
Asia Times
By Francesco Sisci
http://www.atimes.com/china/DA09Ad01.html

BEIJING - If India and China see the logic of stronger bilateral ties, the United States will have to face the possibility of these two Asian giants adopting an anti-American stance. Washington could avoid this by building a new long-term commitment in Asia, while considering the region as a whole and not just pieces of it, such as Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Here the US focus can't be anything but, again, China, the only East Asian country whose geography reaches to Central, South, Southeast and North Asia. Its geography is complemented by its present economic dynamism and its huge population, which gives it the manpower and economic muscle for the projection of its influence.

Stronger China-India ties would help stabilize Central Asia, and stem the Muslim fundamentalist wave. These new ties could also be a strong guarantee for the stabilization of Pakistan. They could, furthermore, guarantee a US presence in Central Asia and strengthen Russia's position as a bridge with Europe.

We could have, then, both a stronger India-China relationship and stronger China-US relations. The whole purpose would be to strengthen, using Chinese jargon, the material and spiritual development of Asia, by which we mean furthering the economy and a more liberal political system.

Richard Holbrooke, the former US ambassador to the United Nations, argued early this month in the Washington Post ("A defining moment with China", January 2) for a new agreement with China that goes beyond the issue of Taiwan, the centerpiece of past US-China agreements. In fact, if the focus of the relationship is Central Asia and the stabilization of Pakistan, then the issue of Taiwan and possibly even of Japan become secondary.

However, this Central Asia is different from the one taken into consideration by former US secretary of state Zbigniew Brzezinsky in his 1997 book The Grand Chessboard. He underscored the centrality of China but considered its risks.

"A cautious cultivation of China is much to be preferred over any American-led effort toward the direct containment of China," wrote Brzezinsky. "In fact, the notion of an American-led strategy to contain China, or even the idea of an informal balancing coalition confined to the island states of Taiwan, the Philippines, Brunei, and Indonesia, backed by Japan and America, has had no significant appeal for the Japanese foreign policy establishment. In the Japanese perspective, any effort of that sort would not only require an indefinite and major American military presence in both Japan and Korea but, by creating an incendiary geopolitical overlap between Chinese and American-Japanese regional interests, would be likely to become a self-fulfilling prophesy of a collision with China. The result would be to inhibit Japan's evolutionary emancipation and threaten the Far East's economic well-being.

"By the same token, few favor the opposite: a grand accommodation between Japan and China. The regional consequences of such a classical reversal of alliances would be too unsettling: an American withdrawal from the region as well as the prompt subordination of both Taiwan and Korea to China, leaving Japan at China's mercy. This is not an appealing prospect, save perhaps to a few extremists."

In this scenario, the focus is the possible Chinese projection toward the sea, of which the acquisition of Taiwan would be a first step toward a threat to Japan. This doctrine is grounded on Japanese fears that as development in Japan brought about Japanese expansion to China, so Chinese development would bring about Chinese encroachment on Japan. But this needn't be the case if we see that for now - and for a long time - the focus of stability will be Central Asia and the threat of Islamic fundamentalism.

In fact, the major threats to global stability within 20 years will not come from China or India. Even a nuclear clash involving Taiwan or Pakistan - a remote possibility anyway - would have very serious consequences regionally, but the global consequences would be marginal, as the Americas, Europe and Africa would be unscathed by such wars.

The danger of a global Chinese threat seems much smaller now after the September 11 attacks and this puts into perspective the matter of China's economic growth. In the next 20 years China could quadruple its gross domestic product, but this would bring China to a GDP of about US$4 trillion, around the present level of Japan's GDP. But such a feat would require an average annual growth rate of 8 percent, something that seems at present beyond possibility for China. A more realistic projection is a 6-7 percent annual growth rate that would bring China to a GDP of about $3 trillion by the year 2020.

In the meantime, in 2020, the US GDP, now standing at $8 trillion, could very well be over $12 trillion, and possibly even over $15 trillion. Therefore, in a generation China will not yet have caught up with Japan and will have a GDP one-quarter or one-fifth that of the United States. This will hardly put China in a position to challenge the US, which could still count on its alliances with Japan and Europe, making up a combined GDP of something well over $30 trillion. These calculations are rough and do not take into account the technological innovations that could increase the advantage of US industry over the rest of the world.

While China will not have become an industrial power large enough to take on the US, the demographic explosion of Islamic countries could by the same time have created immense problems in those nations whose economy is either faltering or ruled by a corrupt elite. Egypt and Iran might have well over 100 million people each. Algeria could have 60 million people, more than its former master, France. Pakistan and Bangladesh might have in all more than half a billion inhabitants. Indonesia could have over 300 million people and Saudi Arabia, the holiest land of Islam, could have 40-50 million people.

The Afghan war has wakened the world to the reality that Saudi Arabia, for whose safety the West fought the Gulf War, is a hotbed for terrorism.

"At least four times in the last six years, Saudis who were trained or recruited in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Kosovo or Bosnia have been among the terrorists who carried out bombings of US targets - in Saudi Arabia, Kenya, Tanzania and Yemen," wrote Douglas Jehl of the New York Times last month. "But not until October, after the US military campaign in Afghanistan began, did Saudi Arabia detain young men trying to join that fight."

The large ideological threat of the Wahabi movement, born in Saudi Arabia, suggests an Arab Sunni ambition to take over the leadership of the Islamic movement, which for a generation was taken up by the Shi'ites in Iran. This ambition may be coupled by threats against the West. The anthrax case has demonstrated the power of terror; the anthrax incidents originated in the US, and possibly were even unrelated to the September 11 attacks, but for months managed to multiply the scare wave that hit the US after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

The next 20 years will see a very tangible threat coming from fundamentalism in Islamic countries, while the threat to stability posed by China will be iffy. In this situation, US General George C Marshall after World War II had the idea of lining up the Allies' former enemies, Germany, Japan and Italy, against the new enemy, the Soviet Union. The strategy worked so well that not only was the USSR ultimately defeated but Germany and Japan are now bulwarks of Western power in the world. The same could now be accomplished by bringing China and India into an attempt to rein in Islamic fundamentalism.

Such an accomplishment would be delicate and efforts toward it need a lot of fine-tuning, but the opportunity must not be missed. September 11 showed the direction of the wind, and the huge task facing the world: to stem the fundamentalist threat and encourage the tolerant traits of Muslim culture. For it must be remembered that it was from Islamic culture that the West learned the meaning of tolerance: at a time when Christians saw the burning of infidels and dissenting fellow Christians as a shortcut to paradise, Muslims tolerated other religions within their borders.

-------- colombia

Colombia Gets Helicopters

WORLD In Brief
Associated Press
Wednesday, January 9, 2002; Page A16
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17048-2002Jan8?language=printer

TOLEMAIDA ARMY BASE, Colombia -- The U.S. ambassador to Colombia handed over 14 Black Hawk combat helicopters to the Colombian military, pledging support for the country's war against drug producers.

The helicopters are to be used against drug crops -- but because those fields are protected by leftist rebels and rival paramilitary forces, the gift has raised fears that the United States may be inching its way into Colombia's 38-year-old civil war.

The helicopters will not see action until May, after Colombian crews complete flight training, said army Col. Carlos Alberto Murillo.

-------- iraq

UPI hears ...

Published 1/9/2002 12:47 PM
Insider notes from United Press International for Jan. 9 ...
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=09012002-122141-8542r

Prospects of U.S. military action against Iraq, already receding, look even slimmer after the Turkish military has starting lobbying hard against it. "Forget about an operation against Iraq," Turkish Chief of Staff Gen. Huseyin Kivrikoglu told reporters in Ankara Tuesday. "A new sphere of influence should not be given to Iran." The Turkish military's worries will be high on the agenda when Turkish premier Bulent Ecevit sees President Bush in Washington next week. The Americans have already signaled one important concession to the Turkish military, telling Ankara that it will lift earlier objections to Israel supplying Turkey with the Arrow 2 anti-missile missile. One of the few outcomes of the 1980s-era Strategic Defense Initiative that works, the Arrow 2 is a joint U.S.-Israeli project, including missiles, interceptor launcher batteries, the Green Pine radar and the Citron Tree fire-control system, and it cost a relatively cheap $1.3 billion to develop. A big improvement on the Patriot missile, it was developed to stop Scud missile attacks, and Israel now wants to cut costs even further by setting up a joint production line in Turkey, and selling the Arrow 2 to its new friend, India.

-------- israel / palestine

It All Points to Arafat

By Michael Kelly
Washington Post
Wednesday, January 9, 2002
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A16937-2002Jan8?language=printer

At 4:45 in the morning of Jan. 3, the 4,000-ton freighter Karine A was cruising in the Red Sea less than 300 miles from Israel. The Karine A's captain, Omar Akawi, an officer in Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority miniature navy, was asleep in his bunk, as was most of the 13-man crew. He heard a noise, he later told Israeli interrogators, and woke up to find himself staring at armed commandos of the Israeli navy.

In the holds of the Karine A the Israelis discovered more than 50 tons of military arms, including long-range Katyusha rockets, high explosives, anti-tank missiles, mortars, sniper rifles and mines. All of this -- reportedly between $10 million and $15 million of materiel -- was packed in 83 crates sealed in watertight plastic, ready for offloading in coastal waters.

Despite the personal publicity efforts of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, the seizure of the Karine A made relatively little news. This was due in part to some confusion about for whom the arms of the Karine A were intended. The Israeli government claimed to have "unequivocal, clear and undeniable" proof that the Palestinian Authority was responsible for the smuggling. Palestinian Authority officials denied any involvement and suggested that the shipment had been intended for the Lebanese terrorist force Hezbollah. U.S. officials seemed at first to support that suggestion.

The picture by now has become a great deal clearer. The evidence is close to overwhelming that the Karine A mission was financed and organized at the highest levels of the Palestinian Authority, most likely sanctioned by Arafat himself -- and that Arafat allowed the mission to proceed after he called for cessation of all armed actions against Israel on Dec. 16.

• As the Palestinian Authority has confirmed, Capt. Akawi is an officer in the tiny fleet of coastal patrol boats the Palestinian Authority calls its navy. In jailhouse interviews arranged on Monday with Western news agencies, Akawi identified himself as "a Palestine officer of the Authority," adding "I am taking my salary and [am an] employee of the Palestinian Authority." He said that he had been a member of Arafat's own group Fatah since 1976 and that "Abu Amar [Arafat's nom de guerre] is my president and my commander and chief." He said he was acting directly on the orders of the Authority: "I'm a soldier. I have to obey my orders." He said he expected to be ordered to stop the mission after Arafat called for a truce, but the order never came.

• Akawi further said that the operation was organized and supervised by senior Palestinian Authority official Adel Awadallah, also known as Adel Mughrabi, who is based in Greece. He said that Awadallah had arranged the purchase of the Karine A for $400,000 and that Awadallah had personally given him his initial orders. Israeli Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer testified Monday before the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that Israel has "incontrovertible evidence" that the Palestinian Authority purchased the ship on Oct. 10, "a month after the attack on the twin towers in New York."

• Akawi said subsequent control of the mission was in the hands of Fathi El-Razem, who is known by the nickname Fathi El-Bahriyeh (The Navy) because he is the deputy commander of the Palestinian Authority navy: "I took my orders from Fathi El-Bahriyeh," said Akawi. "He took his orders from Adel Awadallah." The Montreal Gazette reported Tuesday that El-Razem, "who has been Arafat's chief weapons smuggler since the 1970s," was captured with Akawi aboard the Karine A.

• Akawi affirmed that the munitions were headed for Gaza, and for the Palestinian Authority, not for Lebanon and Hezbollah: "I knew that the weapons were intended for the Gaza Strip," he said. The plan had been to transfer the crates to three smaller boats at a location near the Egyptian port of Alexandria; the small boats would carry the arms to a spot off the Gaza coast or just south of it, off the Sinai, where they would be picked up by Palestinian navy officers disguised as fishermen.

Akawi said that he thought Arafat himself did not know of the mission. This seems more of a politic statement than a heartfelt one, given the amount of money involved and given that the men who commanded Akawi answered directly to Arafat.

Not surprisingly, Arafat supports the rogue operation theory. He reportedly tried to sell it to U.S. envoy Anthony Zinni that the whole thing was a renegade affair, not under his control. The Jerusalem Post said Zinni was "very unconvinced." Yes.

--------

Israel Faces Tide of Skepticism After Ship Seizure

January 9, 2002
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-mideast-ship.html

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel thought it had a blockbuster on its hands in the tale of a commando raid to seize a boat full of arms in the Red Sea. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon even gave it a title worthy of Hollywood: ``The Ship of Terror.''

Yasser Arafat, Israel's ostensible partner in the search for peace, was cast as the criminal mastermind and paymaster of a crew linked to his Palestinian Authority.

But to the directors' dismay, critics poked holes in the plot, and the State Department said the jury was still out.

Some unanswered questions posed by journalists: Who owned the ship? Where was the proof Arafat ordered the weapons? Where did they come from? Who were the actual intended recipients? Perhaps the Palestinians on board were renegades? Maybe they worked for the Lebanese guerrilla group Hizbollah?

Arafat and his Palestinian Authority denied any involvement in what Israel said was an attempt to smuggle 50 tons of Iranian-supplied arms, including Katyusha rockets, to Palestinian-controlled areas of the Gaza Strip.

Israel said Tuesday it would produce documents within a day or two linking Arafat to the alleged smuggling attempt. It gave no reason why it had not made such papers public immediately after the seizure Thursday.

Was the world supposed to believe that a wily Arafat had expected to sneak a vessel past U.S. forces in the Gulf, Israeli intelligence in the Red Sea and the Egyptians in the Suez Canal?

Yes, said Israel, indignant that the biggest haul of arms it had ever put on show was not seen as proof that the Palestinians were more interested in terrorizing Israeli cities with Katyusha rockets than negotiating a viable peace deal, as they maintain.

Since the Karine-A was captured and paraded before the media while a U.S. envoy tried to salvage a truce plan, jubilation at the success of ``Operation Noah's Ark'' has given way to griping over a failure to sell it as such to the world.

Sharon, who flew diplomats down to the Red Sea port of Eilat to inspect the munitions cache, is resigned, in public at least, to the fact the international media may have bigger fish to fry.

``There are many other problems in the world,'' he said on Tuesday. ``And besides that, it's not a new thing that there was smuggling. So if there is any disappointment that that is not the main headline in all the press in the world, I don't worry.''

Others in the government are less restrained.

``Everyone in the world knows who the arms were destined for,'' fumed Ephraim Sneh, a former general now serving as Sharon's Transport Minister, in an interview with Army Radio.

If so, they are keeping quiet.

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY

Sharon's bid to style Arafat as an irrelevant, bitter enemy unworthy of a place at the negotiating table looks to be falling on deaf ears among the foreign powers anxious to spare no effort in their attempt to stop the search for peace being abandoned.

The State Department initially said it wanted ``to know the facts'' before ``speculating and drawing grand conclusions'' about the shipment. It later said it found evidence of some Palestinian involvement ``deeply troubling.''

Israel dispatched Tuesday military intelligence officers to brief U.S. officials on the seizure.

The European Union, America's chief ally in the push for a truce and eventual peace talks, was also reserved.

``The question of the ship is not over,'' EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said Tuesday. ``It is just beginning.''

The capture of a ship some 500 km (300 miles) from Israeli shores had an instant impact on the national psyche, arousing memories of 1976, when Israeli commandos rescued passengers from an Air France flight from Tel Aviv to Paris that was hijacked to Entebbe, Uganda.

U.S. Middle East envoy Anthony Zinni, whose recent truce mission was overshadowed by the ship's seizure, declined to discuss it in public.

``Boat or no boat, we have to reach a cease-fire,'' he said.

-------- korea

S.Korea to launch first military satellite

By Jong-Heon Lee
UPI Correspondent
Washington Times
January 9, 2002
http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/09012002-053443-5001r.htm

SEOUL, South Korea, Jan. 9 (UPI) -- South Korea will launch its first military satellite in 2005, the Ministry of Information and Communication announced Wednesday.

The Defense Ministry and state-run KT (Korea Telecom) Corp. have agreed to manufacture "Koreasat 5" as a combined commercial-military satellite, ministry officials said.

"The satellite will be used for communications for the military," a KT official said. The satellite will be South Korea's fourth Koreasat, but the first specifically designed for military use.

"The ministry named the fourth satellite Koreasat 5 because the figure four is a homonym with a word that means death in Korean," a ministry official said. All the South Korean satellites were put into orbit abroad by foreign-manufactured rockets.

South Korea has planed to spend $100 million to build its own space center designed to launch a satellite on an island off the country's southern coast, government officials said. Rockets launched from the site would not fly over other countries' air space, adding that the land can easily be secured because of its isolated locale, they said.

Experts say missile technology can be easily applied to rocket development for satellite launches. Under an agreement with the United States, South Korea was allowed to build missiles with a range of up to 187 miles and a payload of 227 pounds. Seoul test-fired last November a missile with a 62-mile range that landed in the Yellow Sea between South Korea and China.

Seoul's Defense Ministry has said that it would develop cruise missiles and unmanned reconnaissance planes to increase its ability to spy on rival communist North Korea.

The North test-fired a ballistic missile over Japan in mid-1998, stunning South Korea and neighboring countries. It insisted the launch was aimed at putting a satellite into orbit, but warned that it could be used for the military unless the United States and its allies give up anti-Pyongyang policies.

-------- nato

Warning to Slovakia

January 9, 2002
Embassy Row
James Morrison
http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20020109-71172594.htm

The U.S. ambassador to Slovakia is warning Slovaks against restoring Vladimir Meciar's party to power if they want to join NATO.

Ambassador Ronald Weiser this week told Slovakia's Pravda newspaper that a rejection by NATO would also likely doom Slovakia's chances to join the European Union.

"The forming of the future government will influence whether Slovakia gets a NATO invitation or not. In 1998, Slovakia had a government that had different values than the alliance. If the situation repeats itself, there will not be an invitation," Mr. Weiser said.

Mr. Meciar, whom the United States considers an authoritarian demagogue, was replaced as prime minister by a coalition government headed by Mikulas Dzurinda. Mr. Meciar's Movement for a Democratic Slovakia drew 43 percent of the vote in the 1998 election, which was more than any other party but too little to form a government. His party remains an electoral threat to Mr. Dzurinda in upcoming fall elections.

Mr. Weiser, according to press reports from Slovakia, said more than NATO membership hinges on the election.

"If it will be a government that has the same values as NATO, then there will be an invitation [to join the alliance]," he said. "If Slovakia is not going to be a NATO member, its entry into the EU will be significantly delayed or won't happen at all."

Meanwhile, Mr. Meciar is staking out a strong pro-NATO and EU position.

"We regard Slovakia's efforts toward membership in the [NATO] alliance and the European Union as a complex and historic strategic interest for the country," he said in a speech last month.

"One process is not possible without the other, and both have great meaning for stability in Central Europe. We also see the support of our citizens for Slovakia's full membership into NATO as exceptionally important."

Mr. Meciar also said the terrorist attacks on the United States have given NATO a "new security dimension as a system of collective defense."

-------- pakistan

Pakistan Says It Has Not Cut Troops on the Afghan Border

New York Times
January 9, 2002
By ERIK ECKHOLM
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/09/international/09CND-STAN.html

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Jan. 9 - Despite a tense confrontation with India, Pakistan has not reduced the number of troops searching for Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders along the border with Afghanistan, Pakistani military officers said today.

But in the event of an Indian attack, the officers warned, a majority of the 61,600 troops now devoted to sealing the Afghan border, scouring nearby mountains and protecting American air forces based in Pakistan, would have to be shifted to national defense.

"Pakistan has not yet moved even a single soldier who is committed to duty alongside the Americans," a Pakistani military intelligence officer said, disputing news media reports that the border search for Osama bin Laden and other fugitives had been crippled as the country mobilizes against India.

"However," he added, "we have placed those troops on short notice so they can quickly be moved to the eastern front if there is an attack."

India has massed hundreds of thousands of troops near Pakistan, threatening war if the Islamabad government does not act to crush militant Islamic groups using terror tactics against Indian rule in Kashmir.

Pakistan has mustered large forces in response, but has also detained hundreds of domestic extremists since the Dec. 13 suicide attack on the Indian Parliament that touched off the current crisis, and it has called on India to engage in talks.

Today's unusual disclosure of troop deployments, in a briefing with The New York Times, appeared intended to encourage the United States and allied powers to apply more pressure on India to step back from the brink of war.

President Pervez Musharraf has started a crackdown on militant Islamic groups and promised to spell out his strategy for curbing extremism in a major speech in the days ahead.

American officials say they believe Mr. Musharraf is serious in his drive against terrorism, though the cause of Kashmir "liberation" remains a political sacred cow here. In recent days, in addition to encouraging Mr. Musharraf to take even stronger measures, the United States and Britain have urged India to back off and start talking.

"We're telling both sides that this is madness, let's de-escalate," a Western diplomat here said today.

The diplomat agreed that the border chase for fugitives had not been impaired by troop shifts, at least so far. While Pakistan has withdrawn some soldiers from the zone near Afghanistan, he said, "there are still lots of Pakistani troops up there."

"Enough troops remain to do the job," the diplomat said. "That's what our people in the area think." American special operations teams are accompanying Pakistani units in the rugged terrain near the border, where some say Mr. Bin Laden or other wanted men may be hiding.

Pakistani reserve forces from near Afghanistan have been moved to the Indian front, the Pakistani officers acknowledged. Other troops have been sighted moving eastward from the many bases in northwest Pakistan, but these were not necessarily involved in the border search, officials here said.

The Indian government has detected the eastward movement of anti-aircraft batteries from near the Afghan border, an Indian official said today. But India, too, believes that Pakistan has not yet shifted enough forces to undercut the search for Afghan outlaws, he said.

As evidence of the effectiveness of their watch, the Pakistani officers said that of the 300 Taliban and Al Qaeda prisoners being held by American forces at their base in Kandahar, Afghanistan, 240 had been apprehended by Pakistan's forces as they crossed the border.

A total of 61,600 Pakistani troops are stationed on or near the Afghan border and dedicated to assisting the coalition campaign, the officers said.

These include 4,000 regular army troops and 31,000 frontier corpsmen whose main task is to guard the border. They are drawn mainly from tribes in the northwest mountains who know the local terrain and speak the local languages.

Another 19,000 men, including 15,000 regular forces and 4,000 from the frontier corps, are involved in operations inside the border, searching mountain trails, caves and ravines for fugitives, they said. These troops are accompanied by unspecified numbers of American Special Forces.

Pakistan has posted 600 elite "rapid reaction forces" in the region to respond to emergencies or opportunities. Finally, the officers said, 7,000 Pakistani soldiers are protecting the several air bases the United States has set up to support its Afghan operations.

If fighting with India does break out, the Pakistani officers said, most of the frontier corps and other troops near the Afghan border would have to be moved to the east, mainly to guard bridges and other sensitive installations.

Detailing India's large deployments of infantry, armor, jets and missiles all along the 1,800-mile border between the two countries, the military officers said Pakistan was outnumbered in conventional forces.

They said two additional Indian divisions were still in transit from the distant province of West Bengal.

The officers said India had deployed 600 aircraft in 10 air bases near Pakistan and had placed 100 of its Prithvi-1 missiles in six locations, three in Kashmir, two in Punjab and one in Rajasthan. The missiles are in striking range of all of Pakistan's cities, they said.

The officers would not provide details of Pakistan's air forces, which are smaller than India's, nor of its missile forces.

Some defense experts say that Pakistan's missile forces are if anything superior to India's, and they could serve an important deterrent role despite its disadvantage in troops and warplanes.

Both India and Pakistan have tested nuclear weapons and may have aircraft or missiles able to deliver them. But neither side has uttered nuclear threats in the current confrontation, and officials from both sides say they do not believe the face-off could lead to nuclear war.

-------- russia / chechnya

More Carnage in Chechnya

Wednesday, January 9, 2002; Page A18
Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17091-2002Jan8?language=printer

ANOTHER UPDATE is due on the much-celebrated shift by Russian President Vladimir Putin toward partnership with the West. Since his last meeting with President Bush two months ago, Russian authorities have tried to shut down the country's last independent television network and have convicted a critical journalist on trumped-up charges of espionage. Moscow has again refused to cooperate with a U.S. initiative to tighten United Nations sanctions on Iraq, and it has again rejected requests that it curtail supplies of weapons and nuclear materials to Iran. Now Mr. Putin's army has embarked on another bloody offensive in Chechnya, besieging the republic's third-largest city and killing scores of civilians with artillery barrages and helicopter assaults.

According to Russian human rights groups, the offensive began Dec. 30, while most of the world was distracted by New Year's celebrations. Russian forces swept into the village of Tsotsin-Yurt and, according to the group Memorial, began shooting Chechen men indiscriminately. According to the official Russian account, more than 100 were killed over the course of several days; the independent Glasnost organization reported finding 200 corpses of civilians. "None of them was identified as a rebel," the group reported, "but relatives were not allowed to take the bodies for burial unless they signed a testimony that the killed person belonged to the Chechen rebels." The Russian forces then sealed off the town of Argun, beginning Jan. 3, and launched a "cleansing operation," in which hundreds are typically rounded up, beaten and in many cases killed; the survivors are released to their relatives in exchange for ransom payments. The Argun operation, which is still going on, has been particularly rough: According to official Russian reports, helicopter gunships were used to attack apartment houses where rebels were believed to be hiding.

According to Mr. Putin, this brutal war, which by Russia's account has killed 11,000 Chechens since October 1999, is now an integral part of the war on terrorism; in fact, he recently suggested that Russia's campaign is more scrupulous than that of the United States in Afghanistan, as it did not "use aircraft or heavy bombers on settlements" -- an assertion quickly belied in Argun. Before his visit to the United States last fall, Mr. Putin appeared to agree with Mr. Bush that not all the Chechen rebels were terrorists, and he called for negotiations; but after a single low-level meeting the process broke down, largely because of the Kremlin's insistence that the rebels, who are seeking self-rule, surrender and disarm before negotiations begin.

The Bush administration says it is following these developments, and it has criticized Mr. Putin's latest moves against the press. It clearly would like Mr. Putin to respect democratic freedoms and human rights. The question is whether such behavior will be a condition of a Russian-Western partnership or merely a fond wish. Mr. Bush hasn't been clear on that point; meanwhile, Mr. Putin acts as if he knows the answer.

-------- us

Bad Intelligence Causing Pentagon-CIA Rift

020109
Strategic Forecasting - Stratfor.com
http://freedomofpress.tripod.com/stratfor15.htm

Summary

A jury-rigged and underdeveloped intelligence system in Afghanistan is providing little solid information in the hunt for Taliban and al Qaeda leaders. Inexperienced field agents and poor analysis of raw intelligence are slowing the U.S. military's progress in the search while creating tension between the Pentagon and the intelligence community.

Analysis

After the rapid success in removing the Taliban from power, the U.S. military is having greater difficulty apprehending individual Taliban and al Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan. The slow progress, due in part to unreliable information coming out of Afghanistan, appears to be a significant source of friction between the Pentagon's military planners and the U.S. intelligence community.

Although this divide has largely been kept under wraps, the internal argument broke into the open during a Jan. 7 Pentagon briefing. Rear Adm. John Stufflebeem, a Pentagon spokesman and deputy director for operations, suggested a shift in U.S. military operations when he remarked, "We're going to stop chasing the shadows of where we thought [Osama bin Laden] was and focus more on the entire picture of the country,'' according to the Associated Press. Victory and Beyond for Washington

The U.S. strategy of denying sanctuary to al Qaeda has been and will continue to be successful. However, the price for such a victory will be high. In order to liquidate the threat of terrorism, Washington will have to strengthen global players who might turn against the United States in the future.

Analysis

Events in Afghanistan have shown that the United States can defeat al Qaeda in the long run but that the cost of victory will be substantial. Click here to continue.

Related Analysis:

Fog, Uncertainty and Coalition Warfare -12 December 2001

Stufflebeem's not-so-subtle public lambasting of U.S. intelligence agencies -- including the CIA -- comes after numerous widely reported but so-far fruitless searches for bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar. Constant media reports predicting the imminent capture of top Taliban or al Qaeda leaders are unduly raising the expectations of the American public, putting the White House and Pentagon at risk of losing credibility if further publicized operations achieve few concrete results.

The Pentagon is essentially admitting it doesn't know the locations of bin Laden or Omar. Even worse, it now apparently has little confidence that U.S. intelligence will find them anytime soon. Complaints about "chasing shadows" are a swipe at all intelligence operatives who have been flooding the Pentagon with unconfirmed reports straight from the mouths of Afghan sources who often have their own agendas and limitations.

The Pentagon's patience may have finally reached its limit after the most recent operation to apprehend Omar. U.S. military forces spent the weekend doing house-to-house searches in the southern Afghan city of Baghran, looking for the Taliban leader or some of the reported 1,000 loyalist fighters protecting him.

But Omar was nowhere to be found, and the latest reports now approach the ridiculous, suggesting that he escaped the area on a motorcycle and took along $1 million for gas money. In the past month, U.S. intelligence had Omar hiding in several locations throughout the Helmand and Oruzgan provinces. But each time after focusing its efforts on a specific location, the U.S. military came away empty-handed.

The Pentagon has a legitimate gripe. The CIA and other agencies had very few assets -- especially human sources -- in Afghanistan before Sept. 11 and had to slap together a working intelligence network as fast as possible in the aftermath. Relationships and procedures that normally take months to establish were thrown together in days.

What resulted was a quick rise in the quantity of information flowing back to Washington. The Pentagon's point is that this pipeline has produced an awful lot of sludge and very few gems.

There is a strong possibility that much of the bad intelligence is coming from individual Afghans who are manipulating inexperienced U.S. field agents for their own gain. Right now the CIA has dozens of 30-something, earnest field agents running around Afghanistan, keeping one hand on a satellite phone and the other on a case full of hundred dollar bills.

Most of these agents were shifted to Afghan duty within the past few months and plan to use hard work to make up for inexperience. Few speak the local dialects, and even fewer have long-term relationships with any of their sources.

On the other side of the payoff are cagey and ruthless Afghan clan leaders or warlords, who trade purported knowledge of the whereabouts of Omar or bin Laden for cash, weapons or food. They know how to exploit the inability of many field agents to distinguish between credible and obviously false reports. If he is particularly skillful, a good tribal leader can also convince an operative that a local rival is actually harboring Omar and should be bombed.

The result is that the CIA is confronted with a deluge of reports of indeterminate credibility, a complicated but not necessarily unusual situation. The problem is not only in the reporting but also in the analyzing of information.

The CIA does not seem to have an efficient, centralized analytic apparatus, one that can distinguish credible intelligence from fantasy. Instead, it appears that most of the raw intelligence is simply being forwarded to the Pentagon, where it is causing a great deal of consternation.

It is unclear whether Stufflebeem's comments are a signal of a shift in military tactics in Afghanistan or simply a public warning to the intelligence community to shape up. In either case the Pentagon still cannot afford to ignore much of the intelligence it is getting, but it may take more consideration before sending troops to search for merely another potential "shadow."

----

U.S. Is Building Up Its Military Bases in Afghan Region

By ERIC SCHMITT and JAMES DAO
New York Times
January 9, 2002
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/09/international/asia/09BASE.html

WASHINGTON, Jan. 8 - Even as the air war in Afghanistan wanes and American-backed forces hunt down pockets of Al Qaeda and Taliban resistance there, the United States is preparing a military presence in Central Asia that could last for years, military officials say.

The United States and its allies are building an air base in Kyrgyzstan, a neighboring former Soviet republic, that the commander of the military campaign in Afghanistan described last week as a "transportation hub" to house up to 3,000 troops and accommodate warplanes and support aircraft.

Engineers are also improving runways, lighting, communications, storage and housing at bases in Uzbekistan and Pakistan where American forces are stationed, signaling a long-term commitment, or at least the ability to redeploy forces quickly.

"The job is still not done," said Rear Adm. Craig R. Quigley, senior spokesman at the United States Central Command in Tampa, Fla. "There is great value, for instance, in continuing to build airfields in a variety of locations on the perimeter of Afghanistan that over time can do a variety of functions, like combat operations, medical evacuation and delivering humanitarian assistance."

The Pentagon has also approved a request by Gen. Tommy R. Franks, the commander of the military operation in Afghanistan, to station two aircraft carriers and thousands of marines aboard ships in the northern Arabian Sea through March, officials said. Navy officers expect that request could be renewed every three months.

In another sign that American forces are settling in, each branch of the armed services has adopted policies to rotate troops through the region, typically every 90 days to six months, General Franks said.

However many troops the Pentagon ultimately stations in Afghanistan and nearby, General Franks and the Joint Chiefs of Staff are looking to expand American military engagement by increasing technical support and training exercises with their counterparts in the region.

"Their function may be more political than actually military," the deputy secretary of defense, Paul D. Wolfowitz, said in an interview. He said bases and exercises would "send a message to everybody, including important countries like Uzbekistan, that we have a capacity to come back in and will come back in - we're not just going to forget about them."

The willingness of the Pentagon to put a long-term footprint in Central Asia underscores a broader shift by President Bush. During the 2000 presidential campaign, he criticized the Clinton administration's extensive overseas troop deployments, saying the military was being stretched too thin.

Many military analysts argue that a significant American military presence is needed around Afghanistan because the interim government does not seem intent on rooting out the remnants of Al Qaeda and Taliban forces, and the British-led peacekeeping forces are clearly counting on American firepower to back them up. But too large or too long-term an American military presence could alarm Russia and China to the north, and anger the Afghans, who often bridle at foreign military activity in their nation.

There is no better symbol of the long-term commitment of the United States military to Afghanistan than the recent arrival of the 101st Airborne Division at Kandahar airport to relieve about 1,500 marines there.

Like the marines, the 101st Airborne is intended for rapid deployment. But unlike the marines, Army troops are typically dispatched to hold territory for long periods - months, if not years. Army units tend to establish more permanent bases and more extensive supply systems.

At Kandahar airport, the 101st is likely to set up a semipermanent tent city known as a force provider or, more colloquially, a "city in a box." These portable units include sturdy, pop-up canvas structures to house and feed hundreds of troops. Latrines, water-purifying systems and work facilities are included.

Similar encampments have already been established at Bagram air base north of Kabul and at Khanabad air base in Uzbekistan, where more than 1,000 soldiers from the 10th Mountain Division have been helping to guard and repair runways.

Initial plans call for about 1,000 soldiers from the 101st to secure Kandahar airport, guard hundreds of Al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners and protect the airstrip for cargo planes carrying food, medicine and military supplies. But Pentagon officials said the 101st contingent could easily double in size if the number of prisoners grew sharply, or if American forces were needed to capture terrorists.

What remains to be seen is whether the encampments at Kandahar and Bagram will become as permanent as those in Kosovo, for instance, where the United States has 5,400 troops, or in Bosnia, where there are 3,100 American soldiers.

Two and a half years ago, Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo was little more than a village of tents. Today it is a small, self-contained city with wooden barracks and command centers, helicopter maintenance buildings, a water-treatment plant, a movie theater, gymnasiums and a hospital.

The military is patterning its deployments in Central Asia on that model.

The United States and Uzbekistan announced an accord in October that gave the American military flexibility in operating from bases there in return for Washington's assurance that it would protect Uzbekistan's security.

But the Americans who arrived at Khanabad found a pitted airfield and insufficient runway lighting and traffic-control equipment. Extensive work was needed.

Much focus is now on an allied air base springing up on 37 acres near Manas International Airport, outside of Bishkek, the capital of Kyrgyzstan. Since Dec. 16, about 200 American, French and British troops have been building a tent city to house 2,000 to 3,000 troops by next month, and preparing for air operations by month's end. The tents have floors and are heated.

"We're establishing a mini-air force base from which we can fly a variety of military missions, mainly airlift, aerial refueling and tactical air," Brig. Gen. Christopher A. Kelly, leader of the 376th Air Expeditionary Wing, said in a telephone interview from Kyrgyzstan.

American transport planes from Europe have flown in firetrucks, cargo loaders, tractors and de-icing equipment. General Kelly said the airfield itself was in good condition.

Early plans called for as many as two dozen fighter-bombers at Manas, including F-15E's, FA-18's and perhaps French and Danish strike jets.

But after a more detailed analysis of the taxiways, the 13,000-foot runway and the fuel system, General Kelly said, he recommended a smaller deployment. The final size and mix has not been decided, but cargo and refueling planes could begin arriving within a week or so, military officials said.

Manas would give allied forces increased flexibility: American warplanes would have a northern route into Afghanistan if tensions between India and Pakistan shut down southern air corridors for carrier-based warplanes, and the base could be used to ferry relief supplies.

"The purpose is to be able to use this as a transportation hub, essentially to get closer to Afghanistan so that we can bring large airplanes in and then be able to change their loads into smaller airplanes," General Franks said on Friday.

Unlike the arrangements with many other regional allies, the one- year agreement signed last month with the Kyrgyz government does not limit the type of aircraft or missions that allied forces can fly from Manas. "There are no restrictions," General Kelly said.

--------

Plane With 7 Marines Aboard Crashes on Way to Pakistan Base

New York Times
January 9, 2002
By TERENCE NEILAN
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/09/international/09CND-PLANE.html

A Marine Corps refueling plane with at least seven marines aboard crashed into a mountainside today on a landing approach to Shamsi, in southwest Pakistan.

There was no immediate word on any survivors, the United States Central Command said, and the names of those on board were withheld until relatives had been informed.

Rescue workers were reported to be on their way to the scene of the crash, about 120 miles south of the city of Quetta, but some hours away over rough terrain. The crash occurred in darkness at about 7:45 p.m. in Pakistan.

The White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, said the Defense Department was investigating the cause of the crash.

"It just breaks your heart," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said at the Pentagon.

"It is a tough, dangerous business over there and they are doing difficult things and they are doing them darned well," he said, referring to the three months of American military action in Afghanistan.

The plane, a KC-130 Lockheed Hercules, was approaching a United States base at Shamsi when it crashed. The aircraft is used mainly for in-flight refueling of helicopters but can be used to refuel other planes as well. The KC-130 is also used for troop and cargo delivery, evacuation missions and special operations support, including radio jamming.

The plane had taken off from the town of Jacobobad, Pakistan, and was making a number of stops, Maj. Chris Hughes of the Marine Corps said at a briefing in Kandahar, Afghanistan.


-------- POLICE / PRISONERS

Computer models to aid defense

January 9, 2002
By Tom Ramstack
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washingtontimes.com/business/20020109-570580.htm

The federal government plans to use computer-simulated attacks on the nation's infrastructure to develop national security defenses.

This week, the National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center is being incorporated into the Bush administration's Office of Homeland Security.

Until now, it has operated out of Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico as a program to help urban planners measure the effects of their decisions in a computer before taking action.

Details of how the center will fit into national security remain secret. But Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for the Office of Homeland Security, described the center as a "valuable asset. " The program's director, Darrell Morgeson, is leaving Los Alamos to join the homeland security staff in Washington this week.

Scientists and engineers at the center are putting together a computer simulation of airlines, railroads, gas pipelines, telecommunications and other networks in what the program's overseers call an "acupuncture map" of the nation's critical infrastructures. The goal is to determine the best responses to attacks or breakdowns of the systems that keep the United States working.

"The idea is that everything now is so interconnected that we don't really know what happens when some accident or mishap occurs in one place that could affect something else, " said Michael Anton, National Security Council spokesman.

He cited the July 19, 2001, CSX Transportation train derailment and fire in a Baltimore tunnel as an example. The fire, which was fueled by dangerous chemicals, burned out fiber optic cables running through the tunnel. Not only was railroad traffic along the East Coast disrupted for days, but the Internet also shut down in parts of the Midwest until the fiber optic cable connections were restored.

An infrastructure map could be particularly important for the Washington region, which is a hub for airlines, Internet traffic, urban transit, railroads and highways.

"A lot of fiber optic cable goes through Northern Virginia, about 55 percent of the world's Internet traffic, " said Josh Levi, policy director for the Northern Virginia Technology Council. Among the corporate residents is America Online.

Currently, he said, determining choke points of critical infrastructure is easily done by "evil-intentioned people."

The center's headquarters at Los Alamos National Laboratory shares facilities with the nation's nuclear weapons research and development.

Early successes with computer modeling persuaded the Transportation Department to expand the program to include airlines, pipelines and other infrastructure. In recent months, the effects of a terrorist attack have played more prominently in the laboratory's computer equations.

"The September 11 attack focused our attention more aggressively in this direction, " said Nancy Ambrosiano, spokeswoman for Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Mortimer Downey, deputy transportation secretary during the Clinton administration, recommended that details of the computer model remain a closely guarded national secret. Otherwise, it could become "a road map for terrorists, " he told The Washington Times.

"I don't think you want to post the detailed location of all the pipelines on the Internet, " Mr. Downey said.

The September 11 failure of New York City's telephone system demonstrated the importance of the map, he said.

"In the first World Trade Center blast, one of the unintended outcomes was all the telephone service in Lower Manhattan went out, " Mr. Downey said. "People said, 'how could that be, there were three telephone carriers.' It turned out all three of them were going through one point right next to the World Trade Center."

Some industry representatives are worried the infrastructure map could turn into another government program that tells them how to run their businesses.

"The telecom infrastructure in this country for the most part is owned by the private sector, " said Dan Bart, a senior vice president for the Telecommunications Industry Association. "The owners would be concerned that how they protect their infrastructure is their business."

----

Afghan Prisoners Going to Gray Area
Military Unsure What Follows Transfer to U.S. Base in Cuba

By Steve Vogel
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 9, 2002; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A16565-2002Jan8?language=printer

As the Pentagon prepares to move al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners to a U.S. Navy base in Cuba, it is embarking on a legally and logistically uncharted course that senior defense officials acknowledge is being undertaken without a clear idea of what comes next.

More than 1,000 U.S. troops have begun moving to the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay to bolster security and build facilities to hold as many as 2,000 detainees from the war in Afghanistan.

The number of Taliban and al Qaeda prisoners held by U.S. forces has grown to 364, and the military plans to start transferring "the first contingent" to Guantanamo Bay "soon," Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said yesterday.

But the legal status of the detainees remains unclear. The United States has not recognized them as prisoners of war, nor has it charged them with any crimes. Up to now, U.S. military and intelligence personnel have focused on interrogating them for information on the whereabouts of senior al Qaeda and Taliban figures and any planned terrorist attacks.

"It's fair and accurate to say that we are still determining what types of people go into what kind of basket," said Victoria Clarke, the Pentagon spokeswoman.

Senior defense officials said they expect some of the detainees will face military tribunals, but that many -- perhaps a majority -- will eventually be repatriated to their home countries.

"For the long term, you don't want to have them in Afghanistan," another senior defense official said. "Until we can figure out the long-term plan, this is the right thing to do."

Although the Bush administration says it has not made any decisions about where to hold military tribunals, defense officials and legal analysts said Guantanamo Bay is the likely spot to try detainees, and possibly imprison them if they are convicted.

"I can't imagine why we'd hold the detainees there and try them somewhere else," a senior defense official said.

Military legal specialists say that holding trials at Guantanamo Bay, which has been leased from the Cuban government since 1903 and is not on U.S. soil, would work in the government's favor because the prisoners would not be allowed to challenge their detention in U.S. federal court.

"The government wants to keep them out of any place in the U.S. where they can claim protections," said Michael F. Noone, a former Air Force attorney who is a professor of law at Catholic University here.

The Pentagon is preparing to hold detainees at Guantanamo Bay for a long time if necessary, defense officials said. "This is not going to be a short-term operation," said Army Lt. Col. Bill Costello, a spokesman with a military joint task force at the base.

The base, which has a population of about 2,700 Americans, including military family members and contractors, is bracing for a big influx. Arriving troops are building interim facilities to hold the detainees, converting an area that between 1994 and 1996 held 50,000 Cuban and Haitian refugees considered to be relatively low security risks. "They're beefing them up so that they will serve as temporary high-security facilities," said Navy Chief Petty Officer Rick Evans, the base spokesman.

Soldiers are setting up several perimeters of chain link and razor wire fences. The detainees will be held in "individual cell-type structures" that will have overhead cover to protect them from sun and rain, Evans said.

There are plans to replace the interim facilities with more permanent structures as soon as possible, officials said.

An initial allotment is being made for $30 million to $40 million on construction of the detention center, and an additional $20 million to $30 million for operations, a defense official said. Court facilities would have to be built if tribunals are held at Guantanamo Bay.

The transfer of the prisoners to a base across the globe from Afghanistan is an enormous undertaking.

"I don't think anything like this has ever happened before," said Steve Lucas, a spokesman for the U.S. Southern Command in Miami, which has responsibility for Guantanamo Bay. "For the movement of these kinds of prisoners, people who are murderously suicidal, I don't think there's precedent."

Senior defense officials said a first group of 40 to 50 detainees will likely be sent to Cuba in the next few days, and the rest over the next several weeks. Defense officials describe the preparations for up to 2,000 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay as an outside contingency, but they say the number eventually taken to the base may be significantly more than the 364 in U.S. custody as Afghan forces and the Pakistan government turn over additional Taliban or al Qaeda members.

"We've been going up 20 to 25 every day," a senior defense official said. "We don't expect that to change in the near-term."

The growing numbers present a dilemma for the Pentagon. "We're not interested in keeping a large number of detainees," Clarke said.

Eventually, some may be classified as prisoners of war, meaning they would likely be released once hostilities are deemed to have ended. But for now, the Pentagon insists on calling them detainees.

"Pretty early on, the administration was careful to say these people could not claim the protections of the Geneva Convention," which governs the treatment of prisoners in wartime, Noone said.

To qualify as prisoners of war, combatants must meet criteria laid out by the Geneva Convention, including adhering to conventions of warfare, wearing a uniform with recognizable insignia, being subject to a chain of command, and carrying arms openly.

Military law experts said there are legitimate legal questions as to whether the al Qaeda and Taliban fighters meet that definition. "If you don't fit those requirements, you're not a POW," said Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice. "It's not as if the government is doing a tap dance."

Pentagon officials said they are treating the detainees as prisoners of war in all but name, allowing visits from Red Cross officials, providing medical care and allowing religious observances. "We're acting as if the Geneva Convention applies," a senior defense official said.

The detainees will be flown from Kandahar aboard U.S. military aircraft, guarded by a heavy contingent of military police. The movement of the first contingent may take several days, one defense official said.

"It's a very, very sensitive and high-security movement, not only because of the fact they've demonstrated a willingness to abrogate surrender terms and kill other people, but because they have sympathizers at large," Lucas said.

Hundreds of people, including a CIA operative, died after a prisoner uprising at Mazar-e Sharif in northern Afghanistan in November, and more than a dozen were killed when al Qaeda prisoners wrestled weapons from their Pakistani captors in another incident last month.

"We plan to use the necessary amount of constraint so that those individuals do not kill Americans in transport or in Guantanamo Bay," Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said last week.

Military police being sent to Cuba are undergoing specialized training to prepare for the mission, Lucas said.

A senior defense official said he considered it unlikely that John Walker, the American Taliban soldier captured in the fighting around Mazar-e Sharif, would be transferred to Guantanamo Bay. "It's not for American citizens," the official said. "He's in a category all by himself."

The United States seized Guantanamo Bay in 1898 during the Spanish-American War. After Spain's defeat, Cuba gave control of the base to the United States. The base was later leased in perpetuity to the United States, an agreement that can only be revoked if both countries agree.

Since the communist revolution in 1959, Cuba has objected to the continued U.S. presence. But President Fidel Castro has not raised objections to the Bush administration's plans to use of Guantanamo Bay to hold detainees, telling two visiting U.S. senators last week that Cuba wishes to cooperate with the United States in the war on terrorism.

Guantanamo Bay, which Rumsfeld described last month as "the least worst place we could have selected," affords the administration a number of advantages that other bases in the United States or elsewhere in the world do not.

Most obvious is the security that comes with its isolation, on an island controlled by a communist government, and the base's perimeter secured by a heavily guarded no-man's land. "Unless the Cubans attacked us, they'd have to come by sea or air," a senior defense official said.

--------

Army Updates Dress Code, Adding Bit of Color

January 9, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/09/national/09ARMY.html

WASHINGTON, Jan. 8 - As the Army prepares to release the first update to its dress code in 10 years, the rules about nail polish are clear. Women should tone it down, and men should skip it. Camouflage polish is forbidden.

The revised code approves of braids and cornrows but still bans dreadlocks.

The new Army Regulation 670-1, Wear and Appearance of Army Uniforms and Insignia, incorporates many changes to uniform and appearance standards for soldiers. Officials expect it to take effect in four months, after the Army secretary has signed it.

The revisions incorporate many updates that the Army has issued since 1992, said Lt. Col. Margaret Flott, chief of the individual readiness policy division.

The Army, which has always had rules on hair length, will accept braids and cornrows.

"As they've become a lot more acceptable in society," Colonel Flott said, "the Army has seen that they've presented a professional appearance that really allows women to groom their hair and maintain it."

Multitone or flamboyant nail polish is also out. Fire-engine red, purple, blue, black and white are among the prohibited colors, as are khaki and camouflage. Men are not allowed to wear nail polish at all.

The current regulation, issued in 1992, says little about cellphones. The new rules state that just one "electronic device," whether a telephone, pager or personal digital assistant, may be attached to a uniform. The device must be black, no larger than 4 by 2 by 1 inches and carried solely for official duties.

Other updates include these rules:

¶Dyed hair has to "look natural." Purple, blue, pink, green, orange, neon and fire-engine red colors are prohibited.

¶Baldness, natural or otherwise, is authorized. One Army official pointed out that the update became necessary as more men began shaving their heads.

¶Tinted or colored contact lenses are prohibited unless they are opaque lenses prescribed for eye injuries. Clear corrective vision lenses are allowed.

¶Men are not allowed to show body piercing on military installations.

"We have to balance individuality with organizational needs," Colonel Flott said. "The uniform is the one thing worn closest to all of us. So it's important we get a lot of input and feedback. We're very sensitive to the individual's desire to wear a uniform they're proud of and the organization's desire to have it worn in a way that is easily recognized."

-------- death penalty

High Court Rebukes South Carolina Over Death Penalty Sentencing

New York Times
January 9, 2002
By DAVID STOUT
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/09/national/09CND-SCOTUS.html

WASHINGTON, Jan. 9 - The United States Supreme Court today spared the life of a convicted killer, at least temporarily, as it took South Carolina's high court to task for the third time over its sentencing procedures in death-penalty cases.

In a 5-to-4 ruling, the justices found that jurors at a 1996 trial had not been instructed clearly enough that the killer, whom the prosecutor described as an extraordinarily dangerous "butcher," could never be paroled if he were sentenced to life in prison.

The jurors decided that the killer, William Arthur Kelly, should be put to death for kidnapping a pregnant woman, binding her hands behind her back and torturing her with a knife before slashing her throat. Mr. Kelly's lawyer appealed the sentence, contending that it had not been spelled out for the jury that the defendant would be ineligible for parole if given a life term.

The South Carolina Supreme Court ruled against him, but the United States Supreme Court said today the state court was wrong. The justices did not overturn the conviction, but they did return the case to South Carolina for another sentencing hearing - in which the death penalty could be imposed again.

Today's decision did not address any fundamental issues on the constitutionality of capital punishment itself. But it was interesting for trend-watchers because it marked the third time that the United States Supreme Court has rebuked the South Carolina Supreme Court, beginning with a decision in 1994.

That decision specified that whenever the prosecution made an issue of a murder defendant's future dangerousness, the jury must be informed that life without parole meant no possibility of release.

Under South Carolina law, once a jury has found that a particular murder qualifies for the death penalty, the jurors' only options are to impose that sentence or life without parole. In the words of the state statute, no one who receives the life sentence "is eligible for parole, community supervision or any early release program," including time off for good behavior.

Last March, the United States Supreme Court overturned, 7 to 2, a South Carolina high court ruling that a trial judge's refusal to clarify this point did not really amount to a violation of a convicted murderer's right to due process.

Today's majority decision in Kelly v. South Carolina, 00-9280, was written by Justice David H. Souter and joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist dissented, as did Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

The decisions can be read on the high court's web site: www.supremecourtus.gov. After Mr. Kelly's conviction, the prosecutor told the jurors, who were about to weigh what sentence should be imposed, that the defendant had made a knife while in prison and taken part in an escape attempt that included plans to hold a female guard hostage. The prosecutor's questioning of a psychologist elicited testimony about the defendant's deep-seated sadism and his continuing rages to kill.

The prosecutor described the defendant as "cold blooded" and "a butcher" and told the jurors that he hoped they would never again have the experience of "being some 30 feet away from such a person."

By that and similar language the jury was "invited to infer" that the defendant "is a vicious predator who would pose a continuing threat to the community," Justice Souter wrote. Moreover, the justice wrote, the trial judge failed utterly to clarify matters, and the state high court erred in not voiding the death sentence.

In his dissent, Chief Justice Rehnquist said the prosecutor had a right to point out the danger of the defendant to prison guards and other inmates, not just to society at large. And in a separate dissent, Justice Thomas said the majority ruling was an attempt to "micro-manage state sentencing proceedings" with no constitutional justification.

-------- terrorism

NATIONAL
Sept. 11 Terror Suspect Requests Televised Trial

January 9, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/09/national/09CND-TRIAL.html

ALEXANDRIA, Va., Jan. 9 - A federal judge said today that it would be Tuesday at the earliest before she would rule on whether the trial of a French citizen accused of conspiring with Osama bin Laden in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks can be televised.

A lawyer for the accused accomplice, Zacarias Moussaoui, was joined by television networks in seeking to overturn a ban on cameras in the courtroom.

The lawyer, Edward MacMahon Jr., told United States District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria, Va., that his client believes televising the proceedings would provide "an added layer of protection" in guaranteeing a fair trial.

Mr. Moussaoui is the only person so far accused of conspiring with Mr. bin Laden and the hijackers to kill and maim thousands. He sat at the defense table today in a green prison jumpsuit, cocking his head slightly to hear the arguments.

Most of the oral arguments during the half-hour hearing were conducted by a lawyer for Court TV and C-Span in favor of live coverage and a lawyer from the Justice Department opposing it.

Lee Levine, a lawyer for the television networks, said, "The entire nation has a direct interest in these proceedings, if not the entire world." He contended that the ban, which was first imposed on still cameras in 1946, is unconstitutional.

A Justice Department attorney, Elizabeth Collery, said the government is concerned that witnesses' testimony would be affected if they knew they were on live television. That, in turn, she said, could affect the jurors.

Judge Brinkema said she is also concerned about the security of witnesses and other participants in the trial. Having not only television pictures but permanent images of witnesses, the judge and others on the Internet long after the trial "could be a chilling problem," she said.

Mr. Levine said neither radio nor the openness of the trial to those sitting in the courtroom provided the same public access as television.

"The right to observe is the right to observe what goes on in the courtroom," he said. "Observation is seeing as well as hearing."

He said the public, because so many state and local trials are televised, "is now comfortable that television is an unobtrusive medium" in the courtroom.

Ms. Collery, however, said, "There is not a longstanding tradition of cameras in the courtroom." While public seating is often limited, she said, it has never been necessary to hold trials "in amphitheaters."

At least some courts in every state allow televised state and local trials. Others news media organizations supporting a trial broadcast include the Radio-Television News Directors Association, CNN, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, NBC, CBS and ABC.

While the position of the news organizations was hardly a surprise, the issue took on a higher profile when Mr. Moussaoui's lawyers filed a motion contending that live broadcast would help guarantee a fair trial.

Federal prosecutors countered that everyone involved would be endangered by live television because Al Qaeda members almost certainly would be tuned in.

Mr. Moussaoui, who faces indictments on six counts, faces a possible death penalty if convicted. He entered no plea to the charges but Judge Brinkema entered a not guilty plea on his behalf.

Television experts said a televised trial would probably get extensive, if not gavel-to-gavel, coverage on CNN, Fox News Channel and MSNBC. Broadcast networks were less certain of their plans, in part because jury selection is not scheduled until Sept. 30.


-------- OTHER

-------- alternative energy

GM car, reported government plan boost fuel cell stocks

USA: January 9, 2002
Reuters
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13962/story.htm

NEW YORK - Alternate energy source stocks soared on Tuesday as General Motors Corp. unveiled a new energy efficient car at Detroit's annual auto show on Monday and on reports that the U.S Department of Energy plans to invest in research of fuel cells as an energy substitute, analysts said.

Across the board on Tuesday, shares of companies which develop technology that use fuel cells to create electricity from hydrogen, saw double-digit percentage increases.

The Canadian firm Ballard Power Systems , which analysts said could benefit the most from the expected announcement because its technology is developed for automotive use, saw its stock jump $4.55, or nearly 15 percent, to a 10-week high of $34.96.

"The stocks are moving on expectations of the U.S. Department of Energy's announcement," said Marko Pencak of Credit Suisse First Boston. "Our view is that Ballard Power is in the best position to benefit because it is in the automotive rather than stationary energy sector."

But nonetheless, companies with stationary alternate energy interests rose as well, including Danbury, Connecticut-based FuelCell Energy Inc., whose shares rose $3.93, or nearly 22 percent, to $21.85 and Plug Power Inc., which bounced $3.38, or 39 percent, to $12.04.

"These stocks normally move in tandem," said Erc Prouty analyst at Adams, Harkness & Hill, saying they all surged during last year's California energy crisis. "The sector has been beaten up recently and was due for a bit of a bounce."

GM on Monday unveiled a new car it called the Autonomy, which uses fuel cell technology.

The U.S. Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham was expected to announce a program on Wednesday with the heads of GM, Ford Motor Co. and the Chrysler arm of DaimlerChrysler AG .

Under the program, expected to be called "Freedom Car," the government would fund research into fuel cells, which use hydrogen to produce electricity without creating pollution as gasoline engines do.

A half a dozen other stocks received a boost from the news, including Millennium Cell Inc. , Energy Conversion Devices Inc. , H Power Corp. , Electric Fuel Corp. , Active Power Inc. and IMPCO Technologies Inc.

But some analysts said the markets were overreacting.

Gary Holdsworth of Wedbush Morgan Securities said he has been concerned investors do not understand that efforts to develop fuel cell-powered cars must still overcome major obstacles such as building an infrastructure to supply hydrogen. He said investors may be expecting too much from Wednesday's announcement.

Holdsworth noted that Wednesday's announcement at the Detroit auto show does not involve any major energy companies.

"That tempers my enthusiasm a little bit. The stocks had a nice run today, but they could easily give up half of it (Wednesday)," he said. "It may not be what people are envisioning such as a call to arms like a Manhattan Project."

---

U.S. Ends Car Plan on Gas Efficiency; Looks to Fuel Cells

New York Times
January 9, 2002
By NEELA BANERJEE with DANNY HAKIM
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/09/business/09FUEL.html

The Bush administration is walking away from a $1.5 billion eight- year government-subsidized project to develop high-mileage gasoline- fueled vehicles. Instead it is throwing its support behind a plan that the Energy Department and the auto industry have devised to develop hydrogen-based fuel cells to power the cars of the future, administration and industry officials said yesterday.

The new effort, to be announced in Detroit today by Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, aims at the eventual replacement of the internal combustion engine. Fuel cells use stored hydrogen and oxygen from the air to create electricity, and the only emission from engines they power is water vapor.

Environmentalists and some energy experts favor the research. But critics said that the new program would let Washington and Detroit focus on vague, long-term aims while avoiding the more difficult task of improving the mileage of existing cars and sport utility vehicles in the short term. Experts say that commercial production of cars with fuel- cell engines is 10 to 20 years away.

With hearings scheduled in the Senate next month on a Democratic alternative to President Bush's energy program, it has been unclear how either party will address fuel economy standards, which are equally unpopular with carmakers and organized labor.

Yesterday, an administration official speaking on the condition of anonymity said that the Transportation Department would offer a proposal later this year on tightening those standards. But he added that since any changes would be years in the making, the fuel-cell project could make them "a nonissue."

The original program, begun in 1993, aimed to develop affordable cars that got 80 miles to a gallon of gasoline. Vice President Al Gore, its most vocal backer in the Clinton administration, likened the project, known as the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles, to the Apollo space program in its technological complexity. In addition to about $1.5 billion in government subsidies, the Big Three automakers - General Motors (news/quote), Ford Motor (news/quote) and DaimlerChrysler (news/quote) - together spent about $1 billion a year on related technologies.

The carmakers all developed prototype vehicles that got at least 70 miles a gallon, and the project nurtured advances in aerodynamics and lighter composite materials now used in auto manufacturing.

But none of the Big Three came close to commercial production of an 80-mile-a-gallon car. The average fuel economy of cars and trucks for sale in the United States has, meanwhile, steadily dropped, so that this year's fleet - with its growing proportion of sport utility vehicles - gets the worst gas mileage in 21 years, according to the government.

The new program, called Freedom Car, will not require the automakers to produce a fuel-cell powered vehicle, according to the Energy Department. Energy experts expressed concern yesterday that without such clear targets, it too would do little to alleviate the country's growing dependence on oil.

"I think fuel cells are a useful long- term goal," said Steven Nadel, executive director of the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, a research and advocacy group in Washington. "But the big problem I have is that the Bush administration proposal doesn't seem to address anything for the next 10 years. There's a lot of technology that can go into cars in 2006 or 2007."

The new initiative was disclosed yesterday by The Detroit News. The administration said it would not discuss its proposed spending on the project until President Bush's 2003 budget proposal was released in February, but the program it replaces was to receive $127 million in federal funds this year.

Although gasoline prices are now low, the conflict in Afghanistan has thrown a spotlight once more on America's enormous appetite for fuel and has renewed calls for reducing American dependence on foreign oil. The United States, with only 5 percent of the world's population, consumes 25 percent of its oil, mostly in the form of gasoline.

Mr. Abraham, in remarks prepared for delivery today at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit, said the new project was "rooted in President Bush's call, issued last May in our National Energy Plan, to reduce American reliance on foreign oil." He added, "The eventual goal of this research are technologies that aim to solve many of the problems associated with our nation's reliance on petroleum to power our cars and trucks."

While the Clinton administration program focused on developing high- mileage family sedans - vehicles that fell out of favor with consumers as the research progressed - Mr. Abraham said the new project would give automakers the flexibility to use the fuel-cell engines in a range of vehicles.

"We should be developing energy- efficient components that can be adapted for use in several models throughout our fleet," he said.

The stocks of several companies that are developing fuel cells surged yesterday on news of the administration initiative. Shares in Ballard Power Systems (news/quote), probably the best known of these companies, jumped 15 percent, to $34.96. FuelCell Energy (news/quote) rose 22 percent, to $21.85; Plug Power was up 39 percent, to close at $12.04.

The Big Three automakers are expected to introduce so-called hybrid vehicles, using gasoline-electric engines, by 2004. Toyota (news/quote) and Honda - which did not share in the Clinton-era program's subsidies - already have hybrids getting at least 40 miles a gallon.

The auto industry has steadily resisted government-mandated increases in fuel economy, with some carmakers arguing that such requirements would divert investment from fuel-cell research. Government standards, unchanged for more than a decade, require each automaker's cars to average 27.5 miles a gallon and light trucks - including pickups, minivans and sport utility vehicles - to average 20.7 miles a gallon.

Kara Saul Rinaldi, the deputy policy director for the Alliance to Save Energy, a bipartisan advocacy group in Washington, said that she welcomed the investment in fuel cells but hoped the administration would explore improvements in fuel-economy standards. "We're looking at long-term technology when we haven't made the first step," she said. "Raising fuel-economy standards is the first step."

----

Feds Dump Fuel Efficiency for Fuel Cells

January 9, 2002
ENS
http://ens-news.com/ens/jan2002/2002L-01-09-04.html

DETROIT, Michigan, The federal government is changing its emphasis regarding developing cleaner vehicles, shifting from high fuel economy cars to hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicles.

Addressing an audience of auto industry executives, reporters and the public at the Detroit Auto Show, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham today announced a new cooperative automotive research partnership between the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the U.S. Council for Automotive Research (USCAR).

Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham (Photo courtesy DOE)

"I am pleased to announce a new public private partnership between my department and the nation's automobile manufacturers to promote the development of hydrogen as a primary fuel for cars and trucks," Abraham said, noting that hydrogen powered vehicles would help reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

"Under this new program, which we call Freedom CAR, the government and the private sector will fund research into advanced, efficient fuel cell technology which uses hydrogen to power automobiles without creating any pollution," explained Abraham. "The long term results of this cooperative effort will be cars and trucks that are more efficient, cheaper to operate, pollution free and competitive in the showroom."

The Freedom CAR - CAR stands for Cooperative Automotive Research - project is intended to replace the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) program, launched by the Clinton administration to promote the development of high fuel efficiency vehicles.

Gasoline powered 2002 Nissan Altima wins car of the year at the North American International Auto Show. Jed Connelly and Bill Kirrane of Nissan display the award. (PRNews photo by Jerome Magid)

In March, 2000, America's Big Three automakers - General Motors, Ford Motor Company and Daimler Chrysler Corporation - unveiled concept cars which achieved close to 80 miles per gallon of gasoline using hybrid gasoline-electric engines. The vehicles met some of the goals of the PNGV, but were still years away from commercial production.

Secretary Abraham said that Freedom CAR will focus on the research needed to develop technologies such as fuel cells and hydrogen from domestic renewable sources. The program's long term goal is to develop technologies for hydrogen powered fuel cell vehicles that will require no foreign oil and emit no harmful pollutants or greenhouse gases.

The transition of vehicles from gasoline to hydrogen is viewed as critical both to reducing carbon dioxide emissions and to reducing U.S. reliance on foreign oil, the DOE says. America's transportation sector is 95 percent dependent on petroleum, with transportation consuming 67 percent of the petroleum used in the U.S.

"Freedom CAR isn't an automobile, it's a new approach to powering the cars of the future," said Abraham. "It will be a big win for everyone - for consumers, for auto workers, for the environment and for our nation's energy security."

Freedom CAR will require a significant financial investment by both the federal government and the auto industry, and will involve a concerted long term effort. A formal partnership agreement is expected within the next few months.

DaimlerChrysler Necar fuel cell powered car (Photo courtesy Fuelcells.org)

David Hawkins, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's Climate Center, said the program "is pointed in the right direction, but by itself it's going nowhere."

Noting that it is expected to take at least 10 years to bring a fuel cell powered car to market, during which time Americans will buy about 150 million vehicles, Hawkins warned that the U.S. "can't afford another research program that just gives billions of dollars in subsidies to the automobile industry with no commitment from them to actually produce advanced vehicles for consumers to buy."

"We have the technology to raise fuel economy standards now for the cars that Americans will buy in the next decade," added Hawkins. "Doing that will save billions of barrels of oil while fuel cell vehicles are being developed."

Earlier this week, the conservation group Environmental Defense released a comprehensive study of fuel cell vehicles published by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), detailing the hurdles to be crossed before fuel cell vehicles can see market success.

"Compared to other long run options, fuel cells hold great promise to address multiple concerns, including air pollution, oil dependence, and global warming, while efficiently meeting car customers' growing needs for on board electricity," said John DeCicco, a senior fellow with Environmental Defense.

But the study found that the absence of market wide requirements for higher fuel economy blocks progress on many vehicle technologies, including fuel cells.

Several auto makers have committed to putting fuel cell vehicles on the road by 2005. But the report identifies a "deployability gap" of another 10 to 15 years before a business case can be made for mass market fuel cell cars.

"Closing this gap entails speeding up progress along several challenging technical pathways," said DeCicco.

At the Detroit Auto Show's media preview on Monday, General Motors unveiled its newest concept car - the AUTOnomy, a car powered by a hydrogen fed fuel cell. GM says the AUTOnomy could achieve the fuel efficiency equivalent of more than 100 miles per gallon, while producing no emissions other than plain water.

The automaker is seeking 24 patents related to the AUTOnomy, and hopes to have a working test model of the car by the end of the year.

Fuel cell vehicles already in existence are pictured at: http://www.fuelcells.org/fct/galtrans.html

-------- environment

Attorneys general urge Bush not to consider easing power plant emissions standards

Wednesday, January 09, 2002
By Shannon McCaffrey,
Associated Press
http://enn.com/news/wire-stories/2002/01/01092002/ap_46075.asp

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is considering relaxing clean-air standards for power plants, which environmentalists and Northeastern states strongly oppose and the energy industry favors.

Attorneys general from six Northeastern states traveled to Washington Tuesday to warn that they will sue if the Clean Air Act is weakened. "We will absolutely go to court to forestall these new rules and regulations," said New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.

Northeastern states say they are victims of Midwest power plant emissions that drift east on prevailing winds, polluting the air and water and exacerbating health problems such as asthma.

The White House did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment Tuesday. But the Energy Department released a report recently that found Clean Air Act requirements for carbon dioxide emissions from power plants would cost companies billions of dollars and add to energy costs.

In the spring, the Bush administration began re-evaluating requirements mandating that power companies upgrade their plants when they put in place more stringent pollution controls.

The attorneys general said one of the most alarming revisions being considered by the administration involves changing the definition of routine maintenance so that it would allow massive overhauls but not require more pollution controls.

The attorneys general also complained they have been left out of discussions on the issue, while energy lobbyists - some with close ties to the administration - have been allowed in.

Among those lobbyists is former Montana Gov. Marc Racicot, recently tapped by President Bush to take over the Republican National Committee. Additionally, Bush's point man on energy policy is Vice President Dick Cheney, the former chief executive of Halliburton Co., a Dallas-based oil company.

In addition to Spitzer, attorneys general from Connecticut, Maryland, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Rhode Island were in Washington. Attorneys general from Massachusetts, Maine, and New Jersey submitted statements of support.

Northeastern states already have sued 11 power pants in the Midwest, alleging they are not complying with Clean Air Act requirements.

----

BP WILL NOT DRILL LIBERTY OIL FIELD

January 9, 2002
ENS
http://ens-news.com/ens/jan2002/2002L-01-09-09.html

ANCHORAGE, Alaska, Oil company BP announced Monday that it is dropping plans to develop the controversial Liberty oil field in Alaska.

Conservation groups including Greenpeace have campaigned for years against BP's proposal to develop the Liberty oil field in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, 40 miles to the east of where the Norsthstar oil field was developed.

Like Northstar, Liberty would have involved an artificial drilling island located six miles off Alaska's north coast, with a undersea pipeline carrying oil ashore to the Trans Alaska Pipeline. The oil would be shipped via pipeline to Valdez, Alaska, and then carried by oil tankers to the lower United States and Asia.

"BP's action today confirms what the American public has been saying all along: We do not support drilling for oil. We need to focus new energy developments on renewables like solar and wind," said Melanie Duchin, a Greenpeace campaigner in Anchorage. "Plans by the Bush administration and some in Congress to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will meet a similar fate."

Since 1997, Greenpeace has been campaigning around the globe to halt Northstar and Liberty, because they are new, or frontier, oil developments in the Beaufort Sea. Greenpeace has opposed this new oil frontier development on the grounds that it will increase global warming and delay the transition to renewable forms of energy such as solar and wind.

Alaska Governor Tony Knowles said he was disappointed by BP's decision to reduce its Alaska workforce and retreat from the development of frontier fields.

"While I concur with BP's confidence in existing fields, I disagree with their approach on frontier development," Knowles said. "BP remains a significant holder of exploration leases and the state will work with the company to fulfill its commitments that these areas are aggressively explored."

Knowles pledged to maintain a "full court press on development in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge," which he has called vital to the state's economic future.

----

AMMONIA SPILL KILLED 1.3 MILLION FISH IN IOWA

January 9, 2002
ENS
http://ens-news.com/ens/jan2002/2002L-01-09-09.html

LIVERMORE, Iowa, A ruptured pipeline carrying ammonia killed almost 1.3 million fish in Iowa waterways last month, the state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) says.

The final count of dead fish from the spill in Kossuth and Humboldt Counties was estimated at 1.295 million fish, more than twice the amount of the previous high recorded for an accident related spill in Iowa.

The fish kill, caused by a ruptured pipeline of anhydrous ammonia near Whittemore on December 14, killed 1,156,066 fish along 31 miles of Lotts Creek valued at $118,431. Another 139,139 fish valued at $29,282 were killed along about 17 miles of the East Fork of the Des Moines River.

The total for the two waterbodies was 1,295,205 fish valued at $147,731.

The DNR has been data basing fish kill information since the 1980s, and the agency says the December accident was the highest total ever recorded. The previous high recorded for a manmade spill was in Winnebago and Kussuth Counties in 1996, when a manure spill killed about 586,000 fish.

A natural fish kill due to oxygen depletion occurred in 1989 at Coralville Reservoir, killing an estimated one million fish.

Despite the large fish loss, the incident at Lotts Creek and the East Fork of the Des Moines River could have been worse, DNR said. A dam constructed near the confluence of the creek and the East Fork prevented the contamination from going any farther downstream, reducing the ultimate toll on fish.

The DNR will seek restitution money for the fish killed from the appropriate responsible party, which the agency has not revealed. An investigation into the incident is continuing and further enforcement actions may be taken at a later time.

----

'Sudden death' blight may target Californian redwoods

USA: January 9, 2002
REUTERS
Story by Andrew Quinn
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13965/story.htm

SAN FRANCISCO - California's mighty redwoods may be susceptible to the same "sudden death" blight that has killed tens of thousands of coastal oak trees around the state since 1995, scientists said on Tuesday.

In worrisome news for both the state's $1.3 billion per year timber industry and environmentalists fighting to save California's dwindling stands of old-growth redwood forest, two University of California researchers said they had found DNA from spores of the "Sudden Oak Death" pathogen in coastal redwood sprouts in Big Sur and in Berkeley.

"We do believe that it is very probable that redwoods will be a host," Professor Matteo Garbelotto, a forest pathologist at the University of California-Berkeley, told Reuters.

Garbelotto has been a leading researcher in Sudden Oak Death syndrome and is credited with linking the devastating disease to the Phytophthora ramorum microbe, a contagious algae-like organism related to the species responsible for Ireland's potato famine of the mid-1800s.

He cautioned Tuesday that the redwood results, which were obtained from samples collected by University of California, Davis, plant pathologist David Rizzo, were preliminary and said further laboratory tests were needed before it could be said conclusively that the tiny organism posed a threat to the tallest trees in the world.

But Garbelotto said initial examination of redwood sprouts collected from the stumps of fallen trees showed the microbe to be "colonizing the tissue" - a sign that the giant trees may indeed be at risk.

"We think, unfortunately, that we are on the right track," he said.

FIRST IDENTIFIED IN 1995

If confirmed, the scientists' discovery would open a frightening new chapter in California's battle against Sudden Oak Death, which was first identified in Marin County north of San Francisco in 1995.

Since then, researchers have repeatedly revised and expanded the list of plants effected by the fungal spores as well as their geographic range.

Originally thought to threaten only three types of oak trees along the California coast, researchers now say that the "Sudden Death" microbe has also been found in rhododendrons, California bay laurel trees, Shreve's oak, madrones and wild huckleberries.

This year scientists said the fungus had also been found in big-leaf maple and manzanita trees - possibly using them as a "springboard" to the oaks.

While infested oaks die quickly, other plant carriers of the disease can exhibit less severe symptoms, including blotching leaves and withering of branches and new sprouts, leaving the tree alive but less able to regenerate and propagate.

It is this less severe form which the researchers suggest may be affecting the redwood sprouts they have examined. More study will be needed to determine if and how the spores are affecting adult trees.

So far the spores have been found in at least 10 California counties as well as in southern Oregon. Scientists are still unclear as to how it is spread, although they note that it appears highly transmissible in water or in mud on shoes or vehicle tires. It is believed to be able to travel for short distances through the air.

If its presence is confirmed in redwoods - the first conifer found with signs of the microbe - it could spell trouble for the timber industry.

Oregon has already imposed a quarantine on nursery stock and wood products from infected species while California regulates movement and sale of infected timber products from the affected counties.

Further regulatory restrictions on timber sales could be damaging, industry analysts said.

While the state's most famous old-growth redwoods - which can be thousands of years old and grow more than 300 feet (100 meters) tall - have exerted a powerful pull on the imaginations of environmentalists and nature lovers all over the world, the tree is also a cornerstone of the state's timber industry.

The Western Wood Products Association said while California's redwood production has been declining steadily in recent years, it still reached 578 million board feet (192 million meters) in 2000, the last year for which statistics are available.

A spokesman for the association said redwood products were generally higher priced, and estimated they could account for about 25 percent of the $1.36 billion that California's wholesale timber sales earned in 2000.

-------- health

Method may quicken cancer diagnosis

By LIDIA WASOWICZ
UPI Senior Science Writer
1/9/2002
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=09012002-061516-9774r

LIVERMORE, Calif., Jan. 9 (UPI) -- A unique DNA diagnostic technique that uncloaks minuscule genetic changes inside tumor cells holds the potential to speed up detection of some cancers, birth defects and radiation exposure, as well as to improve plant breeding and refine basic cell research, scientists said.

The method, which can pinpoint a single mutation in billions of normal genetic arrangements, is the most rapid, sensitive and precise of its kind, said its developers at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Northern California.

Such microscopic changes can prove lethal as they trigger a chain of cellular events that culminate in malignancy. The new way can detect these tell-tale signs in hours, instead of days, scientists told United Press International.

The advance, which builds on a technique called rolling circle amplification, developed at Yale University to identify very small genetic shifts, takes this system of scientific sleuthing to new depths -- right inside the cell -- where it can make a life or death difference, researchers said. Previously, such insight was restricted to genetic material isolated from its natural cell environment.

"Until now, there hasn't been any way of doing DNA testing inside cells with the level of resolution that we have been able to achieve," said Livermore biomedical scientist Jim Tucker. "Previous DNA testing techniques couldn't easily, or on a routine basis, tell us which molecular changes were present in tumor cells. Now we have the basic techniques to develop tools to improve cancer diagnosis and cancer therapy."

"The work of the Livermore group is a very significant advancement for detecting genetic variations in individual cells with high efficiency," Joel Bedford, professor of radiological health sciences at Colorado State University in Fort Collins, Colo., told UPI. "There are many applications. Wherever it is useful to detect the presence of mutations or variations in the sequence of bases (order of the chemical alphabet that spells out an organism's genetic makeup) in the genes of individual cells, whether they are from bacteria, plants, animals or humans, the method is equally useful."

The scientists jumped a series of technical hurdles for more than 18 months before being able to zero in on a single mutation -- one DNA base -- among the 6.6 billion in a normal human cell. They can also find one cell gone awry among mounds of normal cells.

"The key message is that the smallest of all genetic changes inside cells can be accurately identified using this very fast and highly specific DNA diagnostic test," Tucker told UPI. "This technology is expected to lead to improvements in human health care, including cancer treatments and diagnoses of birth defects and infectious disease. Furthermore, anyone seeking to identify tiny genetic changes in any virus, bacteria, plant, animal, or human should benefit by using this new technology."

The wide-ranging potential applications have already attracted at least one company that has expressed interest in licensing the technology, for which a patent is pending. Hopeful scientists envision possibilities for:

Cancer diagnosis. "This technique could greatly speed efforts to measure the effectiveness of treatments in killing tumors and would improve the ability of physicians to individualize cancer treatments," Tucker said. "The technique can be used to monitor the effectiveness of treatments to see how much of the tumor remains."

Plant breeding. Agricultural companies could employ the method for screening large number of plants to figure out which ones have the desired genetic traits without having to wait for the plants to mature. While some current technologies, such as polymerase chain reaction or PCR, carry such power, the new technique is especially well suited for finding genetic changes that are smaller than those usually identified by the other methods. "Companies are always trying to make better strains of rice, corn, carrots or even Douglas fir trees, but until now they have lacked the rapid DNA diagnostic tests they've needed," Tucker said.

Scientific research. "Investigators are already finding this technique useful for their ongoing genetic studies of cells and animals. The method is so much faster, and so much more precise, that colleagues of ours are finding it a practical way to solve some of their research problems," Tucker said.

When the team, whose findings were reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, set out to plunge into cancer's birthplace in late 1999, they faced some challenging obstacles.

"We wanted to find a way to identify and characterize small genetic changes inside tumor cells. This is important because cancer forms when such changes occur," Tucker recalled. "We sought to develop new methods, or to improve existing methods, to accomplish this goal."

They took the RCA technique to the next level, developing a way to eliminate one of the two strands in the double helix of DNA to achieve more maneuverability for the enzyme to make copies of the genetic material.

"We knew that this method only worked on isolated DNA, not on DNA inside cells. We then set out to find a way to make RCA work in cells," Tucker explained. "We reasoned that the problem might be due to physical interference of the key enzyme known as DNA polymerase. We thought the polymerase might be having trouble working where it was not free to move. Since polymerases work around double-stranded 'target' DNA which is rather stiff, we thought that by making the DNA target to be single-stranded, and hence flexible, the enzyme would be free to move. We appear to have been right because our solution worked."

It is too early to tell when the full power of the technique can be brought from the laboratory to the market place, researchers cautioned.

"But for some cancers such as leukemia where it is easy to get the cancer cells -- a blood sample is all that is needed -- and where specific molecular changes have been identified, I would expect that this method could be used in the not-too-distant future," Tucker said.

"Because RCA is rapid, application of this technology would mean that treatments could be started sooner, possibly saving lives in the process," he added.

As expected additional funding becomes available, the researchers plan to proceed with animal studies on breast cancer.


-------- activists

Missile Protesters Plead Guilty

By Leon Drouin Keith
Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, January 9, 2002; 1:29 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17358-2002Jan9?language=printer

LOS ANGELES -- Greenpeace USA promised Tuesday not to break the law at U.S. military installations involved in missile-defense work in a plea agreement that allowed activists arrested last year at a protest to avoid felony charges.

Fourteen Greenpeace activists from eight countries and two free-lance journalists each pleaded guilty in federal court to one charge of misdemeanor conspiracy to enter a military base. They face up to six months in jail when sentenced.

The defendants - and one other activist who was unable to appear in court Tuesday because of illness - had faced felony charges stemming from entering the "safety zone" of a Vandenberg Air Force Base missile launch July 14.

"People have the right to vigorously, but lawfully, protest government actions," U.S. Attorney John S. Gordon said. But, he added, the defendants "unlawfully and dangerously trespassed into the safety zone designated under the flight path of a missile being launched as part of a test deemed vital to national security."

Greenpeace USA, which is distinct from the international organization, agreed not to break the law at military installations doing missile-defense work in the United States for the next five years. If it breaks the consent decree, it faces a $500,000 penalty.

"We were very careful in negotiations not to agree to anything that would set a bad precedent, either for Greenpeace or the public interest movement at large," said John Passacantando, executive director of Greenpeace USA.

The defendants were from the United States, Australia, Canada, England, Germany, India, New Zealand and Sweden.

----

Myanmar Junta Frees Opposition

JANUARY 09, 09:52 ET
By AYE AYE WIN
Associated Press Writer
http://wire.ap.org/APnews/center_story.html?FRONTID=ASIA&STORYID=APIS7GU5IBO0

YANGON, Myanmar (AP) - Myanmar's military junta said Wednesday it freed five opposition members, including a cousin of opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, in an apparent conciliatory gesture as the two sides continued talks to end 12 years of political deadlock.

The releases bring to 207 the number of political prisoners freed since reconciliation talks began in October 2000 between the junta and Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy.

Neither side has divulged details of their talks, but the NLD is reportedly frustrated by a lack of progress. It recently demanded that the junta start a ``meaningful political dialogue.''

The NLD won general elections in 1990 but has never been allowed to take power.

Suu Kyi, who won the 1991 Nobel Peace prize for her nonviolent struggle to bring democracy to her country, has been under house arrest since September 2000, when she attempted to travel outside the capital of Yangon in defiance of official restrictions.

Foreign Minister Win Aung denied that the talks between the two sides were stuck.

``We cannot expect everything to be resolved very quickly,'' Win Aung told reporters from a meeting in Thailand. ``I don't think we are running (away). But creating a quality atmosphere is very important.''

He said the cases of all political prisoners were being reviewed regularly. Asked when Suu Kyi would be released, he said: ``The time will come one day.''

The five released Wednesday from various prisons are ``in good health and back together with their respective families,'' a government statement said.

Among those freed was Suu Kyi's cousin and former liaison officer, Cho Aung Than. He was arrested in 1997 and accused of helping send money from a U.S. labor rights group to Suu Kyi. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison under an emergency law and another law banning unlawful association.

The current group of ruling generals came to power in 1988 after crushing a pro-democracy uprising. The military has been in power in Myanmar since 1962.

----

OUR TOWNS
Downwind, a Crusade Resurfaces, Mainstream

New York Times
January 9, 2002
By DAVID HALFBINGER
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/09/nyregion/09TOWN.html

FISHKILL, N.Y. -- It's just under 19 miles north, as the crow flies - or the radioactive cloud drifts - from the Indian Point nuclear power plant to Connie Hogarth's house here on a hill overlooking the Hudson. Not nearly enough to survive a meltdown, she says sweetly, offering a teaspoon or two of horror as she pours a visitor a cup of coffee.

The smile on Ms. Hogarth's face is the same as in the pictures lining her living room wall, scattered among portraits of heroes like Fidel Castro and Jesse Jackson and her neighbor in Fishkill, Pete Seeger. There she is, demonstrating in front of Indian Point after the Three Mile Island accident. Marching on the Shoreham nuclear plant. Getting busted in Washington who-knows-when while protesting who-remembers-what.

It's the smile of someone who knew long ago that something very bad could happen and has been waiting for everyone else to wise up.

Ms. Hogarth, 75, the closest thing to a patron saint of the political left in the northern suburbs, is perhaps best known as the longest-serving leader of the Hudson Valley's antinuclear movement, a small but committed core of activists with a taste for the theatrical, like "die-ins" at Indian Point's gates. Before Sept. 11, she says, the group's few dozen members were mainly ignored by their neighbors, except for the 1,500 workers who stood to suffer if the power plant, in Buchanan, was shut down.

The workers' union mounted some fierce counterdemonstrations. But most anyone else she would raise the subject with would respond with "the glazed look," Ms. Hogarth says: "Either they'd say it wasn't their issue, or it wasn't important enough, or it wasn't really dangerous, or they weren't convinced."

Since Sept. 11, of course, otherwise apolitical people in the Hudson Valley have looked anew at the nuclear plant in their midst, appalled by the possibility of a terrorist attack there. Thousands have signed petitions. Local governments have passed resolutions calling for its closure.

"It sounds so crude to say it, but what's considered Osama bin Laden's dirty work has opened up an incredible opportunity," Ms. Hogarth says.

Yet unlike the whippersnappers of the Indian Point opposition, Ms. Hogarth tempers her feelings of vindication and optimism with the caution learned from years of ups and downs. A Dec. 13 hearing that drew 300 Indian Point protesters to White Plains was trumpeted as a massive turnout for Westchester County, but she remembers when 2,000 showed up at Indian Point after Three Mile Island in 1979. She was arrested, spent two weeks in jail and went on a hunger strike. But interest quickly waned.

The 1986 accident at Chernobyl revived fears of a similar disaster at Indian Point, she says, but its after- effects were "half a world away," so again, the movement's momentum fizzled. It picked up again when former Gov. Mario Cuomo presided over the decommissioning of the Shoreham plant on Long Island in the early 1990's. But Mr. Cuomo was never so responsive on Indian Point. "He just turned his back on us," Ms. Hogarth says.

STILL, when Mr. Cuomo named a sympathetic official to head the State Power Authority, "We thought the Messiah had come," Ms. Hogarth says. But again, there was a letdown: his replacement in the Pataki administration never even granted a meeting, she says.

If Ms. Hogarth and others were marginalized by supporters of Indian Point, it did not help her cause that she looked the part of a liberal kook. (Like a good grandmother, she has a snapshot of 4-year-old Brady on her refrigerator. Next to one of Che Guevara.)

"The died-in-wool activist types were a blessing and a curse," said Steve Kent, a friend of Ms. Hogarth's who got involved two years ago and saw the need to appeal to a broader audience. "They raised the issue and kept it alive, but the vast majority of people saw them as tree-huggers fighting for a grab bag of liberal causes they didn't identify with."

The post-Sept. 11 bandwagon has piled so high now, of course, that mainstream politicians like Paul Feiner, the supervisor of Greenburgh, and Assemblyman Richard L. Brodsky have come out for shutting down Indian Point. Ms. Hogarth gets a chuckle out of this. "I know Brodsky since he got out of law school," she said. "Every time I used to testify at the N.R.C., I'd be confrontational: `How do you guys sleep at night?' Dick would say, `Quiet it down.' He felt it was ineffective.

"But my job as a community activist is to make a fuss," Ms. Hogarth said. "Because somebody's got to say it."

----

Hiroshima, Nagasaki rap U.S. nuclear tests

Wednesday, January 9, 2002 at 09:30 JST
Kyodo News
http://www.japantoday.com/

HIROSHIMA - Residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the two cities hit with atomic bombs by the United States during World War II, expressed indignation Tuesday over the looming possibility of the U.S. resuming underground nuclear tests.

Haruko Moritaki, 62, an antinuclear activist, said, "I'd been afraid this moment would come some day because there have been some indications since (President George W) Bush took power."

-------

------- OneList (submissions from subscribers)

------- Depleted Uranium Keeps On Killing!