Archive By Date | Today's Links to Search By
Activists' News | Nuclear | Depleted Uranium | Military | Police
Alternative Energy Etc. | From Subscribers
NUCLEAR
Are these really years of living dangerously?
U.S. Used Deadly Sarin in Hawaii Test - Pentagon
Pentagon Aide Plans Nuclear Talks in Korea, Japan
Duratek
U.S. Eyes N.Korea for Missile Tests
Russia Disappointed by Pyongyang Nuclear Stance
South Sees Long Way to Go on North Korea Nukes
Pentagon Aide Plans Nuclear Talks in Korea, Japan
U.S. May Speed Up Hoped-for Scud Nemesis
U.S. Needs More Missile Defenses, General Says
New Patriot System Speed-Up Sought
More U.S. Anti - Missile Rockets Urged
Terror Victims Seek Frozen Assets
From the Lab to the Battlefield?
Neb. Appeals Ruling in Nuke Lawsuit
MILITARY
American Legion: Billions For Baghdad, Nothing For Veterans
US reportedly ties Libya missiles to Serbia
Belgrade Accused of Involvement in Arms Sales to Baghdad
Pentagon: Military tested nerve agent in 1967 in Hawaii
China 'ready' for Taiwan air link
Looking at a MacArthur-type occupation in Iraq
Fight Carefully Then Go, Iraq Opposition Urges US
Iraq Reopens Saudi Crossing After 12 Years
Israeli Labor ministers resign
Profile: Israel's kingmakers
Sharon opts for defence hardliner
NATO says could launch pre-emptive strikes
The legacy of Athens, Pakistani-style
New Russia-U.S. war ties revealed
3 Nations Oppose U.S. Demand on Iraq
No Veto Threat From Security Council
Army Sec.: Troops Ready for Iraq
Air Force Dispatches B-2 Shelters
Bracing for 'Primordial Combat'
At Sea, an Aircraft Carrier Is Ready for a 911 Call
American Muslim TV
POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS
Justice cracks down on voter fraud
Kabul to Send Team to Check on Afghans Held at Guantánamo
U.S. Navy Sonar System Blocked by Federal Court
U.S. Called the Loser in War on Drugs
Ottawa Says U.S. Relents on New Security Rules
As Terror Sweep Begins, Chechens in Russia Say Police Single Them Out
Al-Qaeda changes, as does its threat
Al Qaeda Message Traffic Now Like Before 9 / 11 - Spy
Ridge: Future Attacks Inevitable
ENERGY AND OTHER
Experts Question New Energy Sources
Dell offers recycling option to consumers
World Plants Near Extinction Close to 50 Pct - Study
Indian Innovator Awarded Top UN Environment Prize
Agency Puts Hunger No. 1 on List of World's Top Health Risks
Albanian and Russian observers sent to monitor American elections
ACTIVISTS
Argentina Nuke Accord Stirs Protest
Thousands Protest Free - Trade Talks in Ecuador
-------- NUCLEAR
-------- accidents and safety
Are these really years of living dangerously?
10/31/2002
By Mark Memmott,
USA TODAY
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-10-31-danger-usat_x.htm
Smaller threats have replaced the big threat of nuclear holocaust during the Cold War. Experts say Americans are actually safer - even in these seemingly nerve-racking times.
That's because with the Cold War long over, the threat of a nuclear holocaust has diminished and, thanks to medical and scientific breakthroughs, the greatest risks that Americans face every day - from disease to accidents - keep getting smaller.
But this age still feels, to many, like the most dangerous in history. True, there's far less of a chance there will be a nuclear war that wipes out most, if not all, of life on the planet. Up against that, though, are an increasing number of smaller threats that added together make these anxious times. However, psychologists and other health experts say it's important that Americans not focus so much on the new dangers that they ignore the positive trends.
No one can dismiss the seriousness of the dangers in the world today. Last week, a report from the Council on Foreign Relations warned that the next terrorist attack on the United States will likely "result in even greater casualties and widespread disruption to American lives and the economy" than the Sept. 11 attacks.
That report was produced by a task force co-chaired by former senators Warren Rudman and Gary Hart. They also had co-chaired a separate, government-sponsored commission that warned in 1999 of an attack on U.S. soil by terrorists that would likely cause "large numbers" of deaths. The Council on Foreign Relations, based in New York, is one of the nation's most influential think tanks. The non-partisan organization's 4,000 members are drawn from the United States' top lawmakers, executives and academics.
The White House, in a report released Sept. 17 that outlines the administration's national security strategy, said the world isn't necessarily more dangerous. Even so, it said the grave danger of the past, that a U.S.-U.S.S.R. war would wipe out most life on the planet, has been replaced by a less dire, but more probable threat.
"New deadly challenges have emerged from rogue states and terrorists. None of these contemporary threats rival the sheer destructive power that was arrayed against us by the Soviet Union. However, the nature and motivations of these new adversaries, their determination to obtain destructive powers hitherto available only to the world's strongest states, and the greater likelihood that they will use weapons of mass destruction against us, make today's security environment more complex and dangerous."
Balanced against the terrorist threat are positive changes:
- The end of the Cold War and the continuous improvement in relations between the United States and Russia. "We've traded 'the big one,' " the possibility of a nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union that destroys much of the planet, "for a lot more, but smaller, threats," says P.J. Crowley, a special assistant to the president for security affairs in the Clinton administration and now a vice president at the Insurance Information Institute in New York.
Even the spread of nuclear weapons to nations such as India, Pakistan and possibly North Korea hasn't raised the risk of a nuclear holocaust to Cold War levels, says Linda Rothstein, editor of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, based in Chicago. Since 1947, that bulletin has kept a "Doomsday Clock" that scientists use as a gauge to warn of the chances of a nuclear war. It reached two minutes to midnight in 1953.
The "safest" point the clock has reached came in 1991, when the United States and the U.S.S.R. signed the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty and the time was set at 17 minutes to midnight. Now it's at seven minutes to midnight.
- A sharp decline in the numbers of conflicts and all-out wars around the world in the past 10 years. In the early 1990s, in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was a surge in ethnic and regional fighting. But the number of hot spots has fallen by about one-third. There were 34 wars raging in the years 1991-94, estimates the International Peace Research Institute in Oslo. In the years 1998-2001, there were 22 wars.
"The world is not boiling over, even though some (terrorists) may want it to," says Adrian Karatnycky, president of Freedom House, which monitors human rights and conflicts around the globe from its New York headquarters.
- Dramatic advances in medical and safety technology that have helped improve and lengthen most people's lives. Much still needs to be done. In Africa, for instance, an HIV/AIDS pandemic has claimed 17 million lives and threatens millions more.
But the positive effects of medical breakthroughs show clearly in the U.S. data. Life expectancy is up 22% since 1940. The infant mortality rate is down 76% since 1950. The leading causes of death - heart disease and cancer - are primarily illnesses that afflict an older population. The death rate from car accidents each year is down 35% - to 15 deaths for every 100,000 people - from its peak of 23 in 1978, thanks partly to airbags and other innovations.
Though statistics paint a comforting picture about the dangers of the modern world, especially when compared with the threats faced during the Cold War or the past century's two World Wars, even experts admit emotions can be difficult to overcome.
"Rationally, as a historian, I feel the world is a safer place," says Michael Flamm, a history professor at Ohio Wesleyan University in Delaware. "Emotionally, I'm not so sure." His nerves, like everyone's, get rattled by "the issue of control. It just seems like we have less control over the world."
Others say the positive trends don't matter when weighed against the new evils.
"It is a more dangerous world. Wars between countries may be less frequent ... but now civilians are being targeted" by terrorists with global reach, says Warren Haffar, director of the International Peace and Conflict Resolution Program at Arcadia University in Glenside, Pa.
It's logical and healthy for Americans to be worried about the threat of terrorist attacks, the implications of a war with Iraq or murder sprees such as the sniper shootings around Washington, D.C., say many psychologists, therapists and other experts.
To ignore such dangers would be irrational. But the experts also say these apparently dangerous times and the new threats need to be put in perspective so that fear doesn't dominate people's lives and Americans can form well-rounded opinions about security issues being debated in Washington and at state capitals.
"By being more informed" about the relative level of danger in the world today, "your reasoning side can do better battle with your emotional side and you're better off," says David Ropeik, director of risk communication at the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis and co-author of the new book Risk: A Practical Guide for Deciding What's Really Safe and What's Really Dangerous in the World Around You.
"There's a lot of value in looking at problems from multiple perspectives" and acknowledging, for example, that terrorist attacks may be a greater threat than before but that modern medicines save and extend millions of lives annually, says Baruch Fischhoff, a psychologist and risk expert at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. "So long as that does not lead you to trivialize your legitimate fears."
"We all have to remember," says Stephen Cimbala, political science professor at Pennsylvania State University, "things were never as good or as safe as they seemed in the past, and they're not as bad as they seem right now."
----
U.S. Used Deadly Sarin in Hawaii Test - Pentagon
October 31, 2002
By Charles Aldinger
Reuters
http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=topnews&StoryID=1664221
WASHINGTON - The U.S. military in 1967 conducted tests using the deadly sarin nerve agent in a Hawaiian rain forest as part of a sweeping Cold War series of chemical and biological experiments on land and sea, the Pentagon said on Thursday.
Military units involved in the Hawaii test, dubbed "Red Oak, Phase 1," were not identified and there was no indication of harm to troops or civilians from explosions to determine the effectiveness of artillery shells using sarin in the jungle.
But the Defense Department, releasing five new reports in a continuing series on tests conducted in the 1960s and 70s, urged any troops involved who might have suffered ill-effects to contact the Pentagon.
The Red Oak tests in April and May of 1967 were conducted in both the Upper Waiakea Forest Reserve on Hawaii and near Fort Sherman in the Panama Canal Zone. The Panama phase used only a simulated nerve agent, not sarin.
Sarin is a volatile, deadly nerve agent that can be inhaled or absorbed through the eyes and skin. A sufficient dose within minutes causes difficult breathing, runny nose, confusion and dimming vision -- then coma and death.
Very little information is available involving the long-term effects of low-level exposure to sarin.
The Pentagon on Thursday also released details on four other tests -- three in the Panama Canal Zone and a fourth in an unspecified jungle environment -- but said none used deadly chemical or biological agents.
MAJOR COLD WAR PROGRAM
In addition to the riot-control agent tear gas, however, some of the tests used normally occurring bacteria that more recent information has indicated can cause acute infections of the ear, brain lining, lung, urinary tract and other body sites.
The tests were all part of a major U.S. military review put in motion by former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara in 1961 shortly after President John F. Kennedy's inauguration. That study consisted of 150 separate projects.
"As part of the Project 112 review, the Joint Chiefs of Staff convened a working committee that recommended a research, testing and development program for chemical and biological weapons," the Pentagon said in the five new fact sheets.
The United States acknowledged in reports during the summer and earlier this month that it carried out a sweeping Cold War-era test program of chemical and germ warfare agents at sea in the Pacific and on American soil and in Britain and Canada.
The tests of such nerve agents as sarin, soman, tabun and VX were carried out from 1962 to 1973 both on land and at sea "out of concern for our ability to protect and defend against these potential threats," an earlier Pentagon statement said.
An unknown number of civilians were also exposed at the time to "simulants," or what were then thought to be harmless agents meant to stand in for deadlier ones, the Defense Department said. Some of those were later discovered to be dangerous.
More than 5,500 members of the U.S. armed forces were involved, including 5,000 who took part in ship-board experiments in the Pacific.
To date, more than 50 veterans have filed claims related to symptoms they associate with exposure to the tests, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
All of the tests were coordinated by an outfit called the Deseret Test Center at Fort Douglas, Utah.
-------- asia
Pentagon Aide Plans Nuclear Talks in Korea, Japan
Reuters
Thursday, October 31, 2002
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A45015-2002Oct31?language=printer
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A senior Pentagon official will visit Japan and South Korea next week to discuss North Korea's nuclear weapons program and other issues in the region, U.S. defense officials said on Thursday.
The officials told Reuters that Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith would depart Washington on Sunday or on Monday. Feith will talk with top officials in Tokyo and Seoul about rising tensions on the Korean peninsula sparked by Pyongyang's admission this month that it was conducting a secret program to enrich uranium that could be used to build nuclear weapons.
The U.S. officials did not discuss details, but one said Feith was also likely to exchange views on U.S. plans to hold Defense Consultative Talks with China in Beijing later this year or early next year.
Those talks were put on hold after the April collision last year between a Chinese fighter jet and an a U.S. Navy reconnaissance plane over the South China Sea.
Despite recent calls from Pyongyang for direct talks with Washington, the United States has ruled out negotiations with the North Koreans until they dismantle the uranium enrichment program.
But the United States has also said it wants a peaceful solution and is maintaining contacts with the North through its U.N. mission.
-------- business
Duratek
TechNews.com
Oct 31, 2002
Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32245-2002Apr11.html
Duratek, a Columbia, Md., company that provides technologies to manage nuclear and radioactive waste, earned $3.9 million (20 cents per share) in the third quarter, compared with $921,000 (4 cents) in the same period of 2001. Quarterly revenue rose to $72.8 million from $66.7 million. Duratek shares rose 69 cents, to $6.69. [Duratek]
-------- korea
U.S. Eyes N.Korea for Missile Tests
By John J. Lumpkin
Associated Press Writer
Thursday, October 31, 2002; 1:41 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A44170-2002Oct31?language=printer
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-US-NKorea-Missiles.html
WASHINGTON -- U.S. intelligence is watching for signs that North Korea will conduct a flight test of a ballistic missile capable of delivering a nuclear warhead to American soil.
The missile, the Taepo Dong 2, is far enough along in development that intelligence agencies believe the North Koreans could launch one in a test fairly quickly.
For now, U.S. intelligence officials say they have no evidence that Pyongyang is preparing for such a test.
A deployed weapon, while somewhat further off, would threaten the continental United States and probably hasten U.S. efforts to deploy a missile defense system. The North Koreans may also sell it to other countries, including Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya and Egypt, as they have many of their other long-range missiles.
Since 1999, the North Koreans have been under a self-imposed moratorium on long-range missile test flights, which are usually a prerequisite to deploying a usable weapon. While earthbound missile tests have continued, North Korean leaders have repeatedly reaffirmed the flight moratorium in public statements.
The most recent declaration came Sept. 17, when North Korea announced it would extend the moratorium until after 2003.
But Pyongyang has also said the flight-test moratorium is contingent on U.S.-North Korean talks moving forward, and the North Korean acknowledgment earlier in October that they were pressing ahead with a nuclear weapons program has scrambled the two countries' relations.
North Korea admitted to a U.S. delegation that it had a program aimed at enriching enough uranium to make nuclear weapons. The CIA believes North Korea probably already has one or two nuclear weapons using plutonium.
Since the admission, U.S. and North Korean officials have been accusing each other of violating the eight-year-old Agreed Framework that was designed to contain North Korea's weapons effort.
Some U.S. experts regard the North Korean acknowledgment of a renewed nuclear program as a strategy to gain new economic and other concessions for the impoverished nation, and the United States and other powers are attempting to address the issue diplomatically with the North Koreans. A test of a Taepo Dong 2 missile could increase the pressure from Pyongyang, intelligence officials said.
Such a test probably would be a space launch similar to the 1998 test of a Taepo Dong 1, in which the North Koreans launched a missile in a failed attempt to put a satellite into orbit, according to U.S. intelligence. Intercontinental ballistic missiles and space rockets are based on many of the same principles.
Daniel Pinkston, a Korea expert at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, suggested domestic considerations as well as international ones might drive North Korean leader Kim Jong Il to order a Taepo Dong 2 test.
Inside North Korea, the 1998 test was portrayed as a successful and glorious first venture into space, rather than part of a weapons program, Pinkston said. It served to raise the stature of Kim, who has portrayed himself a tech-savvy leader.
"It ushered in Kim Jong Il's era, his formal rise to power," Pinkston said.
A military two-stage Taepo Dong 2 would be able to hit Alaska, Hawaii and possibly the western continental United States. A three-stage version, which would be more difficult to engineer, could hit targets anywhere in the United States, according to intelligence analyses.
A functional Taepo Dong 2 also would provide North Korea with a commodity highly sought by a host of countries, many of them unfriendly to U.S. policy.
North Korea, which is short on hard currency and things to export, has sold missile expertise and equipment to Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya and Egypt. A senior administration official recently described North Korea's activities in spreading missile technology as "a sort of 'Missiles-R-Us.'"
In particular, Iran's Shahab-3 missile program, one watched closely by U.S. intelligence agencies, is believed to be based on North Korean No Dong missile technology. The missile, which is still in testing, gives the Iranians the capability to strike Israel and U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia and parts of Turkey.
Any ICBM potentially available for sale gives the North Koreans new leverage in negotiations with the United States, as they would be expected to demand concessions for keeping it off the market.
----
Russia Disappointed by Pyongyang Nuclear Stance
Reuters
Thursday, October 31, 2002
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A47142-2002Oct31?language=printer
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-russia-korea.html
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Moscow is disappointed by Pyongyang's response to its request for information on North Korea's nuclear program, Interfax news agency quoted a senior Foreign Ministry official as saying on Thursday.
Russia has formally asked Pyongyang to come clean on the state of its nuclear weapons program after Washington said North Korea had admitted it was pursuing nuclear research in breach of a 1994 agreement to freeze it.
"There is certain ambiguity in the statements made by North Korean representatives," Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Losyukov told Interfax.
"We think this ambiguity is very dangerous as it leads to mutual suspicion and will have a negative impact on the situation on the Korean peninsula," he said.
Under the 1994 deal, North Korea agreed to freeze its nuclear weapons programs in exchange for fuel oil and the promise of two light-water nuclear reactors to generate electricity, all under U.N. supervision.
Losyukov said Pyongyang had sent Moscow its comments on what happened during talks with U.S. envoy James Kelly, which led Washington to accuse North Korea of developing nuclear weapons.
"There has been no public admission that North Korea is pursuing its program to enrich uranium and it is not even clear such an admission was made in talks with the Americans," Losyukov said.
"It sounded more like there was neither admission nor denial," he said.
"We would like both sides to try to act in a way to clarify the issue," Losyukov said. "I also mean the United States because the Russian side has received no convincing evidence that the program exists after all."
In Washington, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher welcomed Losyukov's criticism of North Korea.
"We're obviously pleased to see that the international community is so together on this issue. ... It's important that Russia is part of that," he told a daily briefing.
Moscow, a key Pyongyang ally in Soviet days, has undertaken to resurrect ties with the hermit state after years of cool relations.
President Vladimir Putin became the first world leader to pay an official visit to Pyongyang in 2000. He has met secretive North Korean leader Kim Jong-il twice since then.
The two countries are working with Seoul to rebuild a railway line linking South Korea with the Trans-Siberian railway to boost South Korea's exports to Europe with both Moscow and Pyongyang standing to reap millions of dollars in transit fees.
----
South Sees Long Way to Go on North Korea Nukes
Reuters
Thursday, October 31, 2002
By Paul Eckert
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A44426-2002Oct31?language=printer
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-korea-north.html
SEOUL (Reuters) - South Korea said on Thursday it was confident there would be a diplomatic solution to the problem of North Korea's nuclear weapons, but acknowledged that it was still early days in the impasse with the communist state.
South Korean President Kim Dae-jung's chief spokeswoman reiterated Kim's demand a day earlier that North Korea take "verifiable action" to defuse a crisis raised by its recently unveiled covert nuclear arms program.
Seoul would proceed with diplomacy with the unanimous backing Kim had won at an Asia-Pacific summit last weekend in Mexico, spokeswoman Park Sun-sook told reporters.
"There is an agreement on the route to resolving the North Korean nuclear problem," Park said. "There is a long road ahead of us. Verifiable action by North Korea is necessary," she added.
Kim flew home on Wednesday after attending a summit of the 21-member Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) grouping in Los Cabos, Mexico, and holding consultations with allies Japan and the United States and with Pyongyang's old ally, China.
The APEC leaders gave strong backing for Seoul's demand that Pyongyang give up a covert uranium enrichment scheme North Korean officials had admitted to in early October.
Kim acknowledged that the diplomatic support was merely a beginning in efforts to pre-empt what could be the second nuclear crisis triggered by North Korea in a decade, telling his country "the ball is now in North Korea's court."
NORTH REBUFFS JAPAN
But North Korea rebuffed the first allied attempt since APEC to raise the nuclear issue on Thursday. Pyongyang officials told Japanese counterparts the North needed nuclear arms to cope with a U.S. threat and would only deal with Washington.
The two-day talks on normalizing ties between Japan and North Korea ended with the two sides at odds, but they agreed to discuss security issues in a new forum to be created next month and reconfirmed Pyongyang's interest in dialogue on nuclear arms.
North Korea's revelation that that it was reprocessing uranium for weapons use, experts said, put Pyongyang in violation of four nuclear non-proliferation agreements, including the pivotal 1994 Agreed Framework.
Under that accord, North Korea agreed to freeze its nuclear weapons ambitions in exchange for fuel oil and the promise of two light-water nuclear reactors to generate power.
The United States says it has not yet decided how to persuade Pyongyang to abandon its uranium enrichment program, other than through diplomatic pressure in conjunction with South Korea, Japan, China and Russia.
In Washington on Wednesday, a small group of lawmakers wrote to President Bush urging him to impose sanctions on North Korea and to nullify the Agreed Framework.
In response to local media reports that the United States had indeed scrapped the landmark pact, a senior South Korean Foreign Ministry official told reporters there had been no changes.
"No decision has been taken by South Korea, the United States and Japan with regards to the fate of the Agreed Framework," the official said on Thursday.
South Korea has so far rejected any sanctions and has kept up exchanges with North Korea in the wake of the nuclear revelation.
A North Korean economic mission is now touring South Korea, while Seoul has sent construction ministry officials to Pyongyang to discuss industrial projects and Red Cross officials to the North's Mount Kumkang to discuss reunions of divided families.
--------
Pentagon Aide Plans Nuclear Talks in Korea, Japan
October 31, 2002
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-korea-usa-feith.html
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A senior Pentagon official will visit Japan and South Korea next week to discuss North Korea's nuclear weapons program and other issues in the region, U.S. defense officials said on Thursday.
The officials told Reuters that Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith would depart Washington on Sunday or on Monday. Feith will talk with top officials in Tokyo and Seoul about rising tensions on the Korean peninsula sparked by Pyongyang's admission this month that it was conducting a secret program to enrich uranium that could be used to build nuclear weapons.
The U.S. officials did not discuss details, but one said Feith was also likely to exchange views on U.S. plans to hold Defense Consultative Talks with China in Beijing later this year or early next year.
Those talks were put on hold after the April collision last year between a Chinese fighter jet and an a U.S. Navy reconnaissance plane over the South China Sea.
Despite recent calls from Pyongyang for direct talks with Washington, the United States has ruled out negotiations with the North Koreans until they dismantle the uranium enrichment program.
But the United States has also said it wants a peaceful solution and is maintaining contacts with the North through its U.N. mission.
-------- missile defense
U.S. May Speed Up Hoped-for Scud Nemesis
By Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 31, 2002; Page A19
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A43523-2002Oct30?language=printer
Top Pentagon officials, worried about the vulnerability of U.S. troops to Iraqi Scuds and other short-range ballistic missiles, want to speed up production of a new anti-missile weapon despite a series of test failures earlier this year.
The weapon is an advanced version of the Patriot system, first used in the Persian Gulf War in 1991 to counter Scuds fired at U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia and civilian neighborhoods in Israel. Under development since the mid-1990s, the system known as PAC-3 (Patriot Advanced Capability-3) has a more accurate interceptor as well as improvements in radar and communication links.
But the weapon performed poorly in flight tests between February and May. Interceptors failed to fire in several cases, and when they did, they missed nearly as often as they hit. As recently as last summer, program officials had expected that the test failures would force at least a year's delay in plans to double production of the interceptors from the current six per month.
Nevertheless, aides to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld have signaled a desire in recent days to boost production without waiting for another round of tests that would confirm the latest fixes and validate performance. With only 38 of the new interceptors in the Army's inventory and just 15 more due by December, senior defense officials are concerned that U.S. stocks could be depleted quickly if war with Iraq erupts next year.
"Indeed, we are looking at ways to accelerate the production of PAC-3 out of concern for near-term vulnerability," Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz said in a speech last week to the Frontiers of Freedom, a missile defense advocacy group.
While Rumsfeld has yet to make a decision, Pentagon officials have notified Congress that there may be a request to shift about $120 million from other missile defense programs into PAC-3. Some of this money would go toward speeding up interceptors in production, and toward sustaining a jump in the number of interceptors rolling out of Lockheed Martin's assembly facility in Camden, Ark.
Congress already has approved upping PAC-3 production by about two interceptors per month. In the 2003 defense appropriations act passed earlier this month, lawmakers added $50 million to the $622 million originally sought by the Bush administration for PAC-3 development and procurement. The extra funding under consideration by the Pentagon would allow for an even larger boost in production and faster turnout rate.
But support is not unanimous within the Pentagon. Officials responsible for overseeing the testing of new weapons caution that a green light to rush out more PAC-3's might take pressure off the program to continue with planned improvements and demonstrate the system can meet all its performance requirements.
Already the program has received Pentagon waivers allowing limited production of PAC-3 interceptors whose performance still lags, particularly against more advanced ballistic missiles and cruise missiles. Plans call for these shortfalls to be addressed in later versions of the interceptor.
Also questionable is the extent to which a boost in PAC-3 production now could make much difference in the number of interceptors available to U.S. troops in any war with Iraq next year. Usually about a year and a half is required to manufacture an interceptor, according to industry and congressional sources.
Still, with strong bipartisan congressional backing for the program, Pentagon officials are unlikely to encounter much, if any, opposition should they decide to move ahead more quickly. They can point to assertions by PAC-3 program managers that nothing is wrong with the weapon's design.
Nearly all the recent test glitches, program officials say, can be attributed to bad luck and rare anomalies. If the test scenarios occurred under combat conditions, these officials argue, the PAC-3 system would have fired more interceptors than were allowed in the tests, thereby improving significantly its chances of success.
During the Gulf War, the military's inability to destroy a single mobile Scud ranked as its single biggest failure. U.S. and British intelligence analysts estimate that Iraq now has only 12 to 25 mobile Scuds, and it is not clear whether any are capable of being fired. Still, among the Pentagon's biggest concerns is the prospect of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, confronted with a U.S. offensive aimed at removing him from power, launching missiles armed with chemical or biological agents.
In recent years, the Army has kept two Patriot batteries in the Persian Gulf region guarding U.S. military facilities and troops in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. But none is equipped with PAC-3 interceptors. If President Bush orders an invasion of Iraq, additional Patriot batteries armed with whatever PAC-3s are available are expected to be among the first units deployed.
----
U.S. Needs More Missile Defenses, General Says
Reuters
Thursday, October 31, 2002
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A45837-2002Oct31?language=printer
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States should buy new Lockheed Martin Corp. anti-missile weapons as fast as it can to counter a growing threat from states like North Korea, Iraq, Iran and Libya, the head of the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency said on Thursday.
"It's not about the Soviet Union," Air Force Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish told a defense writers' breakfast. "It's about North Korea. It's about Iraq. It's about Iran. It's about Libya and others that might threaten us."
Information-sharing among nations seeking ballistic missiles, which can deliver biological-, or chemical-, nuclear-tipped warheads, "seems to be pretty good," he said.
"They are making significant progress. And they are moving from a capability of having very good systems in the short-range missiles to the intermediate- and longer-range missiles. That's the trend," he said.
President Bush labeled this year Iran, Iraq and North Korea "an axis of evil," while Libya has made some moves to improve relations after years of enmity.
Kadish said he was recommending increased production and purchases of an advanced version of the Patriot system, first used in the 1991 Gulf War to counter short-range Iraqi Scud missiles fired at U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia and population centers in Israel.
Under development since the mid-1990s, the interceptor known as PAC-3, or Patriot Advanced Capability-3, is now performing well in operational tests after problems last year.
"My recommendation has been and will continue to be to buy Patriot 3s as quickly and as fast as we can afford to buy them because they're ready to be bought," he said. The PAC-3 is a speedy missile designed to smash into a ballistic missile.
With deployment of more PAC-3 missiles, in addition to Israel's Arrow system and earlier-generation PAC-2 interceptors, Kadish said he was confident of being able to defend against any Iraqi Scud launches in any new war over President Saddam Hussein's suspected banned weapons programs.
The defenses of the United States and its allies represent a "quantum change from what we had in the Gulf War," he said. U.S. and British intelligence analysts estimate Iraq now has only 12 to 25 mobile Scuds.
Keeping Iraq from causing any harm to Israel with them is a key U.S. goal in an effort to prevent Israel from entering any Gulf war. U.S. officials fear Israel's involvement would fracture any alliance with moderate Arab states that might otherwise go along with a U.S.-led drive to disarm Saddam.
----
New Patriot System Speed-Up Sought
By Matt Kelley
Associated Press Writer
Thursday, October 31, 2002; 11:56 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A45714-2002Oct31?language=printer
WASHINGTON -- With the prospect of war with Iraq looming, the Pentagon wants to increase production of its newest Patriot anti-missile system, the head of the Defense Department's Missile Defense Agency said Thursday.
Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish said the United States has about 40 of the latest Patriots, called Patriot Advanced Capability III.
Currently, contractors Lockheed Martin and Raytheon can make about two PAC-III interceptors per month, and that capability is unlikely to speed up much until next year, Kadish told reporters. Still, "we ought to buy them as rapidly as we can," he said.
Kadish said he was confident the PAC-III missiles would work, despite a series of "extremely annoying" problems that caused several failures during tests earlier this year. Those failures were caused by production problems including improper soldering of electronic components that made a missile fail to fire, Kadish said. Lockheed Martin makes the missiles, while Raytheon makes the sensors and other electronics that guide the interceptor to its target.
"I am very confident we have those problems fixed," Kadish said. The PAC-III missiles already manufactured have been retrofitted to fix the problems, he said.
The PAC-III missile is designed to shoot down cruise missiles and missiles with a range of 620 miles or less.
Those include the Scud missiles that Iraq used during the Gulf War - and which the U.S. believes Saddam Hussein still has an arsenal of up to two dozen. Iraq also has an unknown number of missiles with ranges of 95 miles or less, which they were allowed to continue making under post-Gulf War U.N. sanctions.
Missiles, particularly ones loaded with chemical or biological weapons, are one of Iraq's biggest threats to U.S. forces and allies in the region. Iraq's shortest-range missiles, for example, can easily hit Kuwait, where thousands of U.S. troops are massing in preparation for a possible invasion.
The United States has batteries of Patriot II missiles in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region, but some Pentagon planners worry there aren't enough Patriots to shoot down all the missiles Iraq has. Kadish said Thursday he would like to have even more PAC-III missiles to meet the threat from Iraq and other hostile countries such as Iran, North Korea and Libya.
On the Net:
Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency: http://www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/
--------
More U.S. Anti - Missile Rockets Urged
October 31, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Missile-Threat.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Pentagon is working to solve problems with its most advanced anti-missile rockets and increase production so the newest Patriots will succeed where their predecessors didn't in destroying Iraqi Scuds, the Missile Defense Agency chief said Thursday.
Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish said the United States has only about 40 of its most advanced Patriot missiles to defend against short-range ballistic and cruise missiles. Experts suspect Iraq alone has several times that many Scud and other short-range missiles, which could be topped with chemical or biological warheads.
Earlier versions of the Patriot missile failed to stop deadly Iraqi Scud attacks against Israel and U.S. positions in Saudi Arabia during the 1991 Gulf War. The latest Patriot is meant to overcome those shortcomings, but a round of operational tests this year ended with many of the rockets failing to fire or missing their targets.
Kadish said the problems have been fixed and the Pentagon needs many more of the advanced Patriots to counter threats from North Korea, Iran and Libya as well as Iraq.
The main contractors on the latest Patriot, known as Patriot Advanced Capability 3, can make two of the rockets per month, Kadish said. The Pentagon hopes to speed up that process, but doing so will take time, he said.
``My recommendation is to buy PAC-3s as fast as we are able to buy them,'' Kadish told reporters. Outside experts estimate each rocket costs about $2.7 million, although that cost drops as the production increases.
Congress has already approved increasing PAC-3 production, adding $50 million to the $622 million the Pentagon originally requested for the program for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1. Pentagon officials have told Congress they plan to shift another $120 million from other missile defense programs to the PAC-3.
Kadish called this year's PAC-3 test problems ``extremely annoying'' and said they included improper soldering of electronic components.
``I am very confident we have those problems fixed,'' Kadish said. The PAC-3 missiles already manufactured have been retrofitted to fix the problems, he said.
The PAC-3 missile is designed to shoot down cruise missiles and ballistic missiles with a range of 620 miles or less.
Those include the Scud missiles that Iraq used a decade ago during the Gulf War. The United States believes Saddam Hussein still up to two dozen of them. Iraq also has an unknown number of missiles with ranges of 95 miles or less. Iraq was allowed to continue making them under U.N. sanctions imposed after the Gulf War.
Iraq's shortest-range missiles can easily hit Kuwait, where thousands of U.S. troops are massing in preparation for a possible invasion.
The United States has batteries of Patriot II missiles in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region, but some Pentagon planners worry there aren't enough Patriots stationed there to shoot down all the missiles Iraq has. The United States has nearly 500 Patriot batteries and thousands of the missiles but they are spread widely around the globe.
Israel, hit by 39 Iraqi Scuds during the Gulf War, also has Patriot missile batteries, plus stocks of the Arrow anti-missile system developed with the United States. The United States has pledged to help defend Israel against Iraqi missile strikes in case of a war to topple Saddam, possibly including supplying more anti-missile weapons to Israel.
North Korea is one of America's biggest missile threats, Kadish and other U.S. officials say, because it is developing long-range missiles and has been willing to sell its missile technology to virtually any country with the cash to pay for it.
Kadish said the United States is concerned by evidence that North Korea is continuing to develop long-range missiles that could hit U.S. territory.
North Korea said last month it would extend a flight test moratorium on long-range missiles through 2003, but it also has said the moratorium will apply only if talks with the United States move forward.
The bilateral relations were scrambled by North Korea's early October acknowledgment that it had a program aimed at enriching enough uranium to make nuclear weapons. The CIA believes North Korea already has one or two plutonium-based nuclear weapons.
A test of the long-range Taepo Dong 2 missile could increase North Korea's pressure for U.S. concessions, intelligence officials said.
The two-stage Taepo Dong 2 could hit Alaska, Hawaii and possibly the western continental United States. A three-stage version, which would be more difficult to engineer, could hit targets anywhere in the United States, intelligence analyses say.
That's a big reason behind the U.S. drive to build an anti-missile testing facility in Alaska, which within two years will have five prototype interceptors in silos near Fairbanks.
While the prototypes would provide a ``residual capability'' against North Korean missiles, the United States would not rely on them alone, Kadish said.
``Along the way, if we get threatened by North Korea, I think the American people understand we would not just sit by with five missiles in the hole and do nothing,'' Kadish said.
North Korea has sold missile expertise and equipment to Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya and Egypt, U.S. intelligence officials say.
Iran's Shahab-3 missile program is believed to be based on North Korean No Dong missile technology. The missile, still in testing, would enable the Iranians to strike Israel and U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia and parts of Turkey.
``Iran continues to test, continues to make progress,'' Kadish said. ``They're moving from the capability of having very good systems in the short range to intermediate and long-range missiles.''
Kadish said he also worries about Libya.
``The Libyans have been pretty active in trying to get missile capability, and not just short-range,'' Kadish said. ``They have enough money to buy it. Their indigenous capability is not as good as they thought it was.''
On the Net:
Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency: http://www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/
-------- terrorism
Terror Victims Seek Frozen Assets
By Melissa B. Robinson
Associated Press Writer
Thursday, October 31, 2002; 2:09 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A44203-2002Oct31?language=printer
WASHINGTON -- Held as a human shield to prevent enemy strikes on an Iraqi uranium enrichment complex, Avo Boyamian would wake at night, soaked in sweat.
Now the Boston-area businessman, captured on a 1990 trip to Kuwait, could get compensated for his mental anguish. If a provision to a terrorism insurance bill passes into law, victims of terrorism could be paid off from over $3 billion in foreign assets frozen in the interests of national security and foreign policy.
Boyamian, 58, sued Iraq under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which was amended in 1996 to allow Americans injured in terrorist acts to sue the seven foreign countries the State Department classifies as supporting terrorism.
The State Department opposes the provision by Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, on the grounds that frozen assets have proven useful in diplomatic negotiations and shouldn't be liquidated for individual claims.
"It would undermine our fight against terrorism," said Brenda Greenberg, a department spokeswoman. The hope of getting assets back is an incentive for states to stop supporting terrorism, she said.
Boyamian's judgment is one of at least 190 outstanding across the country - the vast majority against Iraq for injuries sustained by Americans caught in the Aug. 2, 1990, invasion of Kuwait that precipitated the Persian Gulf War. A handful are against Iran for various acts of terrorism, including a 1996 bus bombing in Israel. The average award sought is $500,000; some victims are seeking millions of dollars.
"It was very frightening," said Paul Pawlowski, 60, of Providence, R.I., an architect forced into hiding in Kuwait City with his wife and young daughter. His family was released after nearly six weeks, but Pawlowski was holed up with colleagues for months.
Congress will consider Harkin's provision after it returns Nov. 12. If it becomes law, about $210 million is expected to be paid out for current judgments. It's unclear if judicial or administrative appeals could be employed to stop the payments.
Over time, more victims could benefit if they get judgments against designated terrorist states - besides Iraq and Iran they are Cuba, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria - or organizations. Among the pending lawsuits is one against Libya for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed 270 people.
Blocked assets are among the economic sanctions employed by the U.S. government against targeted countries, terrorists, international drug traffickers and those engaged in activities related to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
While the title to bank accounts, securities and other property in the United States is retained by the targeted country or individual, there is an across-the-board ban, imposed by the Treasury Department, on any transfers or dealings with the property.
The State Department maintains that frozen assets were fundamental to resolving the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis, because Iran wanted assets released in exchange for hostages. During normalization talks with Vietnam, blocked assets were used as a bargaining chip to gain information about U.S. soldiers held prisoner or missing from the Vietnam War.
Blocked assets can be given back to a country, as happened in Afghanistan after the Taliban were driven out of power.
The Bush administration favors paying victims with U.S. funds, but there is precedent for distributing frozen assets.
A 2000 law gave access to frozen Cuban assets - over the State Department's objections - to families of workers for Brothers to the Rescue, an exile fliers group whose plane was shot down off the coast of Florida by Cuban jets in 1996. Some Iranian terrorism victims, including former hostage and Associated Press correspondent Terry Anderson, were paid from the U.S. Treasury, with the money to be recouped from Iran.
Victims say the U.S. strategy of trying to stop terrorism by hoarding assets has been a failure, and it makes even more sense to compensate them with foreign assets in wake of the U.S.-funded compensation offered to the Sept. 11 families.
"We are willing to take taxpayer dollars to compensate people," said Frank Amos, 47, of Gilmer, Texas, whose father Charles was captured by Iraqis as an oil-drilling worker in Kuwait and held at a power plant where emissions were so strong they ate holes in his clothes. "But yet, we're not willing to release funds from people who have actually done that kind of damage."
On the Net:
Sen. Tom Harkin: http://harkin.senate.gov/
State Department: http://www.state.gov/
2001 terrorist asset report: http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/reports/
-------- u.s. nuc weapons
From the Lab to the Battlefield?
Nanotechnology and Fourth-Generation Nuclear Weapons
Disarmament Diplomacy
Issue No. 67, October - November 2002
Opinion & Analysis By André Gsponer
The Acronym Institute.
http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd67/67op1.htm
Introduction
In Disarmament Diplomacy No. 65, Sean Howard warned of the dangers of enhanced or even new types of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) emerging from the development of 'nanotechnology', an umbrella term for a range of potentially revolutionary engineering techniques at the atomic and molecular level.1 Howard called for urgent preliminary consideration to be given to the benefits and practicalities of negotiating an 'Inner Space Treaty' to guard against such developments. While echoing this call, this paper draws attention to the existing potential of nanotechnology to affect dangerous and destabilising 'refinements' to existing nuclear weapon designs. Historically, nanotechnology is a child of the nuclear weapons labs, a creation of the WMD-industrial complex. The most far-reaching and fateful impacts of nanotechnology, therefore, may lie - and can already be seen - in the same area.
The Strategic Context
Two important strategic lessons were taught by the last three wars in which the full extent of Western military superiority was displayed: Iraq, Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan. First, the amount of conventional explosive that could be delivered by precision-guided munitions like cruise missiles was ridiculous in comparison to their cost: some targets could only be destroyed by the expenditure of numerous delivery systems while a single one loaded with a more powerful warhead would have been sufficient.2 Second, the use of weapons producing a low level of radioactivity appears to be acceptable, both from a military point of view because such a level does not impair further military action, and from a political standpoint because most political leaders, and shapers of public opinion, did not object to the battlefield use of depleted uranium.3
These lessons imply a probable military perception of the need for new conventional or nuclear warheads, and a probable political acceptance of such warheads if they do not produce large amounts of residual radioactivity. Moreover, during and after these wars, it was often suggested that some new earth-penetrating weapon was needed to destroy deeply buried command posts, or facilities related to weapons of mass destruction.4
It is not, therefore, surprising to witness the emergence of a well-funded scientific effort apt to create the technological basis for making powerful new weapons - an effort that is not sold to the public opinion and political leaders as one of maintaining a high level of military superiority, but rather as one of extending human enterprise to the next frontier: the inner space of matter to be conquered by the science of nanotechnology.
The Military Impact of Nanotechnology
Nanotechnology, i.e., the science of designing microscopic structures in which the materials and their relations are machined and controlled atom-by-atom, holds the promise of numerous applications. Lying at the crossroads of engineering, physics, chemistry, and biology, nanotechnology may have considerable impact in all areas of science and technology. However, it is certain that the most significant near term applications of nanotechnology will be in the military domain. In fact, it is under the names of 'micromechanical engineering' and 'microelectromechanical systems' (MEMS) that the field of nanotechnology was born a few decades ago - in nuclear weapons laboratories.
A primary impetus for creating these systems was the need for extremely rugged and safe arming and triggering mechanisms for nuclear weapons such as atomic artillery shells. In such warheads, the nuclear explosive and its trigger undergo extreme acceleration (10,000 times greater than gravity when the munition is delivered by a heavy gun). A general design technique is then to make the trigger's crucial components as small as possible.5 For similar reasons of extreme safety, reliability, and resistance to external factors, the detonators and the various locking mechanisms of nuclear weapons were increasingly designed as more and more sophisticated microelectromechanical systems. Consequently, nuclear weapons laboratories such as the Sandia National Laboratory in the US are leading the world in translating the most advanced concepts of MEMS engineering into practice.6
A second historical impetus for MEMS and nanotechnology, one which is also over thirty years old, is the still ongoing drive towards miniaturisation of nuclear weapons and the related quest for very-low yield nuclear explosives which could also be used as a source of nuclear energy in the form of controlled microexplosions. Such explosions (with yields in the range of a few kilograms to a few tons of high-explosive equivalent) would in principle be contained - but they could just as well be used in weapons if suitable compact triggers are developed. In this line of research, it was soon discovered that it is easier to design a micro-fusion than a micro-fission explosive (which has the further advantage of producing much less radioactive fallout than a micro-fission device of the same yield). Since that time, enormous progress has been made, and the research on these micro-fusion bombs has now become the main advanced weapons research activity of the nuclear weapons laboratories, using gigantic tools such as the US National Ignition Facility (NIF) and France's Laser Mégajoule. The tiny pellets used in these experiments, containing the thermonuclear fuel to be exploded, are certainly the most delicate and sophisticated nano-engineered devices in existence.
A third major impetus for nanotechnology is the growing demand for better materials (and parts made of them) with extremely well characterised specifications. These can be new materials such as improved insulators which will increase the storage capacity of capacitors used in detonators, nano-engineered high-explosives for advanced weaponry, etc. But they can also be conventional materials of extreme purity, or nano-engineered components of extreme precision. For instance, to meet NIF specifications, the 2-mm-diameter fuel pellets must not be more than 1 micrometer out of round; that is, the radius to the outer surface can vary by no more than 1 micrometer (out of 1,000) as one moves across the surface. Moreover, the walls of these pellets consist of layers whose thicknesses are measured in fractions of micrometers, and surface-smoothnesses in tens of nanometers; thus, these specifications can be given in units of 1,000 or 100 atoms, so that even minute defects have to be absent for the pellets to implode symmetrically when illuminated by the lasers.
The final major impetus for MEMS and nanotechnology, which has the greatest overlap with non-military needs, is their promise of new high-performance sensors, transducers, actuators, and electronic components. The development of this field of applications is expected to replicate that of the micro-electronic industry, which was also originally driven by military needs, and which provides the reference for forecasting a nano-industrial boom and a financial bonanza. There are, however, two major differences. First, electronic devices which can be manufactured in large quantities and at low cost are essentially planar, while MEMS are three-dimensional devices which may include moving parts. Second, the need for MEMS outside professional circles (medical, scientific, police, military) is quite limited, so that the market might not be as wide as expected. For example, the detection and identification of chemical or biological weapon threats through specificity of molecular response may lead to all sorts of medical applications, but only to few consumer goods.
Near and Long-Term Applications and Implications of Nanotechnology
Considering that nanotechnology is already an integral part of the development of modern weapons, it is important to realise that its immediate potential to improve existing weapons (either conventional or nuclear), and its short-term potential to create new weapons (either conventional or nuclear), are more than sufficient to require the immediate attention of diplomats and arms controllers.
In this perspective, the potential long-term applications of nanotechnology (and their foreseeable social and political implications) should neither be downplayed nor overemphasised. Indeed, there are potential applications such as self-replicating nano-robots ('nanobots') which may never prove to be feasible because of fundamental physical or technical obstacles.7 But this impossibility would not mean that the somewhat larger micro-robots of the type that are seriously considered in military laboratories could never become a reality.8
In light of these extant and potential dangers and risks, every effort should be made not to repeat the error of the arms-control community with regard to missile defence. For over thirty years, that community acted on the premise that a ballistic missile defense system will never be built because it will never be sufficiently effective - only to be faced with a concerted attempt to construct such a system! If some treaty is contemplated in order to control or prohibit the development of nanotechnology, it should be drafted in such a way that all reasonable long-term applications are covered.
Moreover, it should not be forgotten that while nanotechnology mostly emphasises the spatial extension of matter at the scale of the nanometer (the size of a few atoms), the time dimension of mechanical engineering has recently reached its ultimate limit at the scale of the femtosecond (the time taken by an electron to circle an atom). It has thus become possible to generate bursts of energy in suitably packaged pulses in space and time that have critical applications in nanotechnology, and to focus pulses of particle or laser beams with extremely short durations on a few micrometer down to a few nanometer sized targets. The invention of the 'superlaser', which enabled such a feat and provided a factor of one million increase in the instantaneous power of tabletop lasers, is possibly the most significant recent advance in military technology. This increase is of the same magnitude as the factor of one million difference in energy density between chemical and nuclear energy.9
In the present paper, the long-term impact of nanotechnology will not be further discussed. The objective is to emphasise the near- to mid-term applications to existing and new types of nuclear weapons.
Nanotechnological Improvement of Existing Types of Nuclear Weapons
Nuclear weapon technology is characterised by two sharply contrasting demands. On the one hand, the nuclear package containing the fission and fusion materials is relatively simple and forgiving, i.e. rather more sophisticated than complicated. On the other hand, the many ancillary components required for arming the weapon, triggering the high-explosives, and initiating the neutron chain-reaction, are much more complicated. Moreover, the problems related to maintaining political control over the use of nuclear weapons, i.e. the operation of permissive action links (PALs), necessitated the development of protection systems that are meant to remain active all the way to the target, meaning that all these ancillary components and systems are submitted to very stringent requirements for security, safety, and reliable performance under severe conditions.
The general solution to these problems is to favour the use of hybrid combinations of mechanical and electronic systems, which have the advantage of dramatically reducing the probability of common mode failures and decreasing sensitivity to external factors. It is this search for the maximisation of reliability and ruggedness which is driving the development and application of nanotechnology and MEMS engineering in nuclear weapons science.
To give an important example: modern nuclear weapons use insensitive high-explosives (IHE) which can only be detonated by means of a small charge of sensitive high-explosive that is held out of alignment from the main charge of IHE. Only once the warhead is armed does a MEMS bring the detonator into position with the main charge. Since the insensitive high-explosive in a nuclear weapon is usually broken down into many separate parts that are triggered by individual detonators, the use of MEMS-based detonators incorporating individual locking mechanisms are an important ingredient ensuring the use-control and one-point safety of such weapons.10
Further improvements on existing nuclear weapons are stemming from the application of nanotechnology to materials engineering. New capacitors, new radiation-resistant integrated circuits, new composite materials capable to withstand high temperatures and accelerations, etc., will enable a further level of miniaturisation and a corresponding enhancement of safety and usability of nuclear weapons. Consequently, the military utility and the possibility of forward deployment, as well as the potentiality for new missions, will be increased.
Consider the concept of a "low-yield" earth penetrating warhead. The military appeal of such a weapon derives from the inherent difficulty of destroying underground targets. Only about 15 % of the energy from a surface explosion is coupled (transferred) into the ground, while shock waves are quickly attenuated when travelling through the ground. Even a few megatons surface burst will not be able to destroy a buried target at a depth or distance more than 100-200 meters away from ground zero. A radical alternative, therefore, is to design a warhead which would detonate after penetrating the ground by a few tens of meters or more. Since a free-falling or rocket-driven missile will not penetrate the surface by more than about ten meters, some kind of active penetration mechanism is required. This implies that the nuclear package and its ancillary components will have to survive extreme conditions of stress until the warhead is detonated.
Fourth-Generation Nuclear Weapons
First- and second-generation nuclear weapons are atomic and hydrogen bombs developed during the 1940s and 1950s, while third-generation weapons comprise a number of concepts developed between the 1960s and 1980s, e.g. the neutron bomb, which never found a permanent place in the military arsenals. Fourth-generation nuclear weapons are new types of nuclear explosives that can be developed in full compliance with the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) using inertial confinement fusion (ICF) facilities such as the NIF in the US, and other advanced technologies which are under active development in all the major nuclear-weapon states - and in major industrial powers such as Germany and Japan.11
In a nutshell, the defining technical characteristic of fourth-generation nuclear weapons is the triggering - by some advanced technology such as a superlaser, magnetic compression, antimatter, etc. - of a relatively small thermonuclear explosion in which a deuterium-tritium mixture is burnt in a device whose weight and size are not much larger than a few kilograms and litres. Since the yield of these warheads could go from a fraction of a ton to many tens of tons of high-explosive equivalent, their delivery by precision-guided munitions or other means will dramatically increase the fire-power of those who possess them - without crossing the threshold of using kiloton-to-megaton nuclear weapons, and therefore without breaking the taboo against the first-use of weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, since these new weapons will use no (or very little) fissionable materials, they will produce virtually no radioactive fallout. Their proponents will define them as "clean" nuclear weapons - and possibly draw a parallel between their battlefield use and the consequences of the expenditure of depleted uranium ammunition.12
In practice, since the controlled release of thermonuclear energy in the form of laboratory scale explosions (i.e., equivalent to a few kilograms of high-explosives) at ICF facilities like NIF is likely to succeed in the next 10 to 15 years, the main arms control question is how to prevent this know-how being used to manufacture fourth-generation nuclear weapons. As we have already seen, nanotechnology and micromechanical engineering are integral parts of ICF pellet construction. But this is also the case with ICF drivers and diagnostic devices, and even more so with all the hardware that will have to be miniaturised and 'ruggedised' to the extreme in order to produce a compact, robust, and cost-effective weapon.
A thorough discussion of the potential of nanotechnology and microelectromechanical engineering in relation to the emergence of fourth-generation nuclear weapons is therefore of the utmost importance. It is likely that this discussion will be difficult, not just because of secrecy and other restrictions, but mainly because the military usefulness and usability of these weapons is likely to remain very high as long as precision-guided delivery systems dominate the battlefield. It is therefore important to realise that the technological hurdles that have to be overcome in order for laboratory scale thermonuclear explosions to be turned into weapons may be the only remaining significant barrier against the introduction and proliferation of fourth-generation nuclear weapons. For this reason alone - and there are many others, beyond the scope of this paper - very serious consideration should be given to the possibility of promoting an 'Inner Space Treaty' to prohibit the military development and application of nanotechnological devices and techniques. Notes and References
1. Sean Howard, 'Nanotechnology and Mass Destruction: the Need for an Inner Space Treaty', Disarmament Diplomacy No. 65 (July/August 2002), pp. 3-16.
2. The decades-long "change from the importance of the big bang to the importance of accuracy" was emphasised by Edward Teller in a paper written shortly after the 1991 Gulf War: "Shall one combine the newly acquired accuracy with smaller nuclear weapons (perhaps even of yields of a few tons) to be used against modern weapons such as tanks and submarines?" Edward Teller, American Journal of Physics, Vol.59, October 1991, p.873.
3. Depleted uranium (DU) munitions were primarily designed to stop a massive tank attack by the nuclear-armed Warsaw Pact Organisation. Their first use during the 1991 Gulf War broke a 46-year long taboo against the intentional use or induction of radioactivity in combat.
4. Most literature related to earth-penetrating weapons refers to devices with a yield in the low kiloton range. However, some experts have argued that much less powerful devices would suffice: "A small-yield nuclear weapon (15 tons or less) would be militarily useful: it could destroy deeply buried targets that otherwise could be readily reparable, and it would do so without placing US forces at greater risk. It would also be politically useful, serving notice to the proliferant that the United States will engage it and, if necessary, escalate the conflict." Kathleen C. Bailey, 'Proliferation: Implications for US Deterrence', in Kathleen C. Bailey, ed., Weapons of Mass Destruction: Costs Versus Benefits, Manohar, New Delhi, 1994, pp. 141-142.
5. The smaller an electro-mechanical system, the higher its resistance to acceleration. This explains why it is possible to design a shock-proof wrist-watch, while a wall-clock falling on the ground is certain to be damaged.
6. Pictures of the 50-micrometer gears of Sandia's intricate safety lock for nuclear missiles were published in Science, Vol.282, October 16, 1998, pp. 402-405.
7. Richard E. Smalley, 'Of chemistry, love and nanobots', Scientific American, Vol.285, September 2001, pp. 68-69.
8. Keith W. Brendley and Randall Steeb, 'Military applications of microelectromechanical systems', Report MR-175-OSD/AF/A, RAND Corporation, 1993, 57 pp. Johndale C. Solem, 'On the mobility of military microrobots', Report LA-12133, Los Alamos National Laboratory, July 1991, 17 pp.
9. Using the language of Endnote No. 7, one can say that photons (i.e., particles of light) are, contrary to atoms, neither "fat" nor "sticky": they can be concentrated in unlimited numbers so that a very localised and brief light pulse can contain huge amounts of energy - so large that a table-top superlaser can initiate nuclear reactions such as fission or fusion.
10. As routinely defined by the US Department of Defense: "A nuclear weapon is one-point safe if, when the high explosive (HE) is initiated and detonated at any single point, the probability of producing a nuclear yield exceeding four pounds of trinitrotoluene (TNT) equivalent is less than one in a million." See, for example, http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/ pdf/3150m_1296/p31502m.pdf.
11. André Gsponer and Jean-Pierre Hurni, The Physical Principles of Thermonuclear Explosives, Inertial Confinement Fusion, and the Quest for Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons, INESAP Technical Report No.1, Presented at the 1997 INESAP Conference, Shanghai, China, 8-10 September 1997, Seventh edition, September 2000, ISBN: 3-9333071-02-X, 195 pp.
12. André Gsponer, Jean-Pierre Hurni, and Bruno Vitale, 'A comparison of delayed radiobiological effects of depleted-uranium munitions versus fourth-generation nuclear weapons', Report ISRI-02-07, due to appear in the Proceedings of the 4th Int. Conf. of the Yugoslav Nuclear Society, Belgrade, Sep.30 - Oct.4, 2002, 14 pp. Available at http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0210071.
Dr. André Gsponer is Director of the Geneva-based Independent Scientific Research Institute (ISRI), founded in 1982 to study the arms-control/disarmament implications of emerging technologies. The author thanks his colleagues at ISRI for their research and comments related to this paper.
-------- u.s. nuc facilities
-------- nebraska
Neb. Appeals Ruling in Nuke Lawsuit
The Associated Press
Thursday, October 31, 2002; 12:01 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A43932-2002Oct31?language=printer
LINCOLN, Neb. -- The state on Wednesday appealed a federal judge's order that it pay $151 million for blocking construction of a dump for low-level radioactive waste.
The motion before the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals also asks for a chance to present the case to a jury.
In a Sept. 30 ruling, Judge Richard Kopf denied Nebraska's request for a jury trial, and said that former Gov. Ben Nelson, a Democrat who is now a U.S. senator, engaged in a politically motivated plot to keep the dump from being built in Nebraska.
Nebraska officials argued that they refused to license the dump because of concerns over possible pollution and a high water table at the proposed site near the South Dakota border.
The dump was to hold waste from Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska and Oklahoma - which formed the Central Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact in 1983.
On the Net:
Central Interstate Low Level Radioactive Waste Compact Commission: http://www.cillrwcc.org/
U.S. District Court for Nebraska: http://www.ned.uscourts.gov
-------- MILITARY
American Legion: Billions For Baghdad, Nothing For Veterans
U.S. Newswire
31 Oct 8:30
http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/prime/1031-102.html
To: National and State Desks Contact: Steve Thomas, 202-263-2982, Pager 800-759-8888, PIN 115-8679, or Joe March, 317-630-1253; Pager 317-382-7745, both of the American Legion
WASHINGTON, Oct. 31 /U.S. Newswire/ -- "I just don't get it!" American Legion National Commander Ronald F. Conley said, referring to the failure of congressional conferees to ignore the specter of a presidential veto and to approve concurrent-receipt legislation before Election Day.
"President George W. Bush said we have billions of dollars to rebuild Baghdad, not to mention Afghanistan," said Conley, whose 2.8-million member Legion is the nation's largest veterans organization. "At the same time, his non-veteran advisors are saying they will encourage him to veto any legislation that corrects the inequity of concurrent receipt, because it is a budget buster. Well, 402 House members and 82 Senators did not think so when they voted for correcting a 100-year-old travesty. The travesty is that service-disabled military retirees, by law, are the only group of Americans who have to give up their retirement pay dollar-for-dollar to collect their disability pay."
The 2003 National Defense Authorization that conferees will deal with after the election contains concurrent-receipt provisions that would allow service-disabled military retirees to receive their full military retired pay as well as their disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Under a federal law passed in the 1890s, service-disabled military retirees receive a cut in their retired pay equivalent to their VA disability compensation.
Consider the case of two service members in the same wartime military unit. One is injured during military service, leaves the military after a five-year enlistment and is awarded VA disability compensation while working a federal civilian job, and continues to collect full disability after retirement.
The other is injured also, and is given a disability rating by VA after retiring with 20 years of military service. Both veterans are federal retirees. But the military retiree is the only federal retiree that receives a cut in retired pay equal to the amount of disability compensation.
"Obviously this is wrong," Conley said. "I'll tell you something else that's wrong. Two weeks before a major national election, the power brokers in Congress stalled the conference committee, so that no version of concurrent receipt could reach the president's desk prior to November 5.
"These same non-veteran advisors to the president claim that paying disability and retirement would jeopardize national defense. My response to that is this: There is money budgeted in the House version and even if there wasn't, no civilized nation can afford to send its young men and women to war, and then play the budget shell game with them after 20 or 30 years of service defending our nation.
"What signal does this send our brave young men and women who are now going to war? Is it, 'Don't get wounded, don't get shot, and don't get ill, because we didn't budget for that?' If we didn't budget for concurrent receipt, then perhaps we should rebuild the Baghdads of this world tomorrow and take care of our veterans today.
"It is the same old story as told by the English poet Rudyard Kipling, when speaking about the British soldiers referred to as Tommys when he said: 'Tommy this and Tommy that. Chuck him out, the brute. But he is the savior of his country when the guns begin to shoot.'"
-------- arms sales
US reportedly ties Libya missiles to Serbia
By Reuters
10/31/2002
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/304/nation/US_reportedly_ties_Libya_missiles_to_SerbiaP.shtml
BELGRADE - The United States has complained to Belgrade that a network of Yugoslav firms has been helping Libya develop long-range cruise missiles capable of striking Israel, according to a report citing what it said was a confidential US document.
The three-page document, published yesterday by the Yugoslav weekly Nedeljni Telegraf, says the firms may also have helped Iraq develop its missiles, but it provides no details.
The technologies in question were capable of helping the delivery of weapons of mass destruction and their export is restricted under the 1987 Missile Technology Control Regime.
''The US opposes all missile-related cooperation with Libya and Iraq and works actively to impede their access to missile-related equipment and technology,'' the document said.
Serbia is the dominant republic of Yugoslavia, which also includes tiny Montenegro.
The US Embassy in Belgrade declined all comment on the publication, a new twist in a week-old scandal over sanctions-busting military aviation exports to Iraq.
A Serbian military analyst speculated that the technologies may have included propulsion and guidance systems to convert aging MiG-21 fighters into unmanned flying bombs.
The document said the Libyan missile was designed to carry a payload of 1,100 pounds over a range of 900 miles and would significantly enhance Libya's potential threat to the Middle East and southern Europe.
Three Serbian firms extensively assisted the program over a number of years, the report said.
----
Belgrade Accused of Involvement in Arms Sales to Baghdad
October 31, 2002
By DANIEL SIMPSON
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/31/international/31BELG.html
BELGRADE, Serbia, Oct. 30 - Two years after Slobodan Milosevic was ousted, many features of his rule are still hampering Yugoslavia's integration into the world community - especially the sale of arms to President Saddam Hussein of Iraq.
Since the United States uncovered evidence that a state-owned company in Bosnia's Serb republic was shipping weapons material to Iraq with help from Belgrade, officials in Yugoslavia and neighboring Bosnia have tried to repair the damage by firing the people responsible.
But there remain plenty of unanswered questions about the links between an aircraft factory in Bosnia, the Yugoslav state trading company and a ship seized in Croatian waters that was found to contain 208 tons of nitrogen-based explosive powder used for artillery and missiles.
In a confidential complaint sent to senior Yugoslav officials this year and reprinted in the Belgrade weekly Nedeljni Telegraf, the United States said it had evidence that "a network of Yugoslav firms" was helping both Iraq and Libya to develop missiles.
But American officials have repeatedly declined to comment on the charges, which cover technologies that could bew used to deliver weapons of mass destruction and are subject to export restrictions under the 1987 Missile Technology Control Regime. Violations of that embargo would put Yugoslavia at risk of American sanctions, but diplomats stress that such an outcome is not being considered at this stage.
"We have been encouraged by the response so far," a Western diplomat said. "We have to give them time to complete investigations, but we are pressing them every day."
Military experts in Serbia, the dominant republic in what was left of Yugoslavia after the Balkan wars of the 1990's, question whether the country has the ability to supply cruise missiles to anyone.
"There is definitely not the technological capability to produce cruise missiles here, and I doubt that Yugoslavia even has the know-how," a retired senior Yugoslav military official said.
Yugoslavia's military links to Baghdad date to the 1980's, when American, French and British companies also armed Mr. Hussein's Iraq against Iran.
But concrete evidence that this trade was continuing was amassed only last week when NATO troops raided the offices of Orao, a state-run aviation company in Bosnia that has retained close links to Belgrade.
Diplomats said papers seized from Orao showed that it was continuing to send spare parts and technicians to Baghdad to refit an aging Soviet-era fleet of MIG-21 planes.
But when the Croatian police, acting on American intelligence, impounded and searched a ship in the port of Rijeka, they said they had found nothing that could be linked to aircraft or their engines.
According to officials quoted by the Croatian magazine Nacional, the Tonga-registered Boka Star was carrying nitric acid, which can be mixed with kerosene to obtain fuel for Scud missiles, which Iraq fired into Israel during the Persian Gulf war in 1991.
Whatever the actual nature of the weaponry being sold, the greatest source of concern for American officials has been the involvement of Yugoimport, a state-run trading company whose director was fired last week for his role in the affair.
Although no one is accusing the Belgrade government of approving trade with Baghdad, its failure to clamp down has exposed its reluctance to tackle reforms of its military apparatus and the enduring presence of many Milosevic-era personnel.
-------- chemical weapons
Pentagon: Military tested nerve agent in 1967 in Hawaii
10/31/2002
Associated Press
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2002-10-31-secret-tests_x.htm
WASHINGTON (AP) - The military secretly tested sarin nerve agent in a Hawaii forest preserve in 1967, the Pentagon acknowledged Thursday in the latest disclosures about Cold War-era testing of biological and chemical weapons.
Other secret tests in Hawaii in 1966 and the Panama Canal Zone in 1963 released a germ meant as a harmless stand-in for the bacteria that cause anthrax, the Defense Department said. A 1966 experiment in an undisclosed "tropical jungle type environment" involved spraying tear gas on unprotected U.S. military volunteers.
The Defense Department released summaries of five chemical and biological weapons tests Thursday. The disclosures were part of an effort to research and make public such tests from the 1960s and 1970s to alert veterans who may have been exposed. (Related item: Descriptions of some of the tests.)
The tests were part of Project 112, a military program in the 1960s and 1970s to test chemical and biological weapons and defenses against them. Parts of the testing program done on Navy ships were called Project SHAD, or Shipboard Hazard and Defense.
The United States scrapped its biological and chemical weapons programs in the early 1970s.
Some of those involved in the tests say they now suffer health problems linked to their exposure to dangerous chemicals and germs. They are pressing the Veterans Affairs Department to compensate them.
The Pentagon this year acknowledged for the first time that some of the 1960s tests used real chemical and biological weapons, not just benign stand-ins.
The Defense Department has identified about 5,000 service members involved in tests at sea and an additional 2,100 involved in the tests on land, Dr. Jonathan Perlin of the Veterans Affairs Department said this month. He said 53 veterans had filed health claims for their exposure during the tests. The agency has sent letters to 1,400 veterans involved in the tests at sea, Perlin said.
The test using sarin in Hawaii was named "Red Oak" and conducted in the Upper Waiakea Forest Reserve on the island of Hawaii in April and May 1967. The testers detonated sarin-filled 155 mm artillery shells to study how the nerve agent dispersed in a tropical jungle.
Sarin is the deadly nerve agent used in the 1995 terrorist attack on the Tokyo subway that killed a dozen people. Even small amounts can cause a thrashing, choking death.
The health effects of long-term exposure to low levels of sarin have not been determined, the Pentagon said.
Other tests made public Thursday involved the use of Bacillus globigii bacteria, which are related to the Bacillus anthracis germ that causes anthrax. Although at the time officials believed that BG was harmless, researchers later determined that it can cause life-threatening infections in people with weakened immune systems.
In a test called "Yellow Leaf," officials detonated 20 "bomblets" filled with BG in the Olaa Forest, also on the island of Hawaii, during April and May of 1966. The test had been planned for the Panama Canal Zone - a strip of what was then U.S. territory - but "international considerations" forced the Defense Department to move it to Hawaii, a Pentagon statement said.
In a test called "Big Jack, Phase A," U.S. planes sprayed BG on an area near the Fort Sherman Military Reservation in the canal zone in February and March 1963.
Both of those tests were to determine how biological weapons would disperse in the tropical jungle.
The military used tear gas in a test called "Pin Point," conducted at an undetermined jungle test site. The Pentagon statement said officials were trying to determine precisely where the test occurred.
During Pin Point, volunteers from the Army, Air Force and Marine Corps were sprayed with tear gas to measure how it dispersed in the jungle.
Tear gas, which causes skin, eye and throat irritation but is not considered deadly, is not banned under the international chemical weapons treaty and is still in the U.S. arsenal for crowd control and other such uses. Military recruits, for example, are exposed to tear gas during chemical weapons training.
-------- china
China 'ready' for Taiwan air link
Thursday, 31 October, 2002
BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2380189.stm
China has said it may be prepared to allow charter flights to and from rival Taiwan early next year, according to a senior official.
Taiwanese mother holds her son's ears as they watch a plane land at Taipei domestic airport (AP) Travellers currently have to fly via a third place He was speaking to the official Xinhua news agency after Taiwan said the two governments should discuss lifting the ban, which it imposed more than 50 years ago.
But Li Weiyi, the spokesman for China's Taiwan Affairs office, stressed the flights could only take place if they were not described as being "country to country".
Beijing views Taiwan as a breakaway province and refuses any suggestion the island is a sovereign state.
"As long as the Taiwan administration accepts the one China principle, the two sides may resume contacts and talks," Mr Li said.
He also said any talks on direct links should be held at a non-government level, and should be economic, not political.
Business booming
On Thursday, Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian renewed his call for talks with China on lifting the ban.
"The two sides must sit down and talk if the problems regarding the 'three links' are to be solved," he said, referring to transport, trade and postal services.
But he also said Taiwan "should not be marginalised or relegated to a local government."
China and Taiwan split amid civil war in 1949, and Taiwan cut the direct links for what it called security reasons. The two sides have no official diplomatic ties.
Business links have thrived, but the lack of direct travel means businesspeople have to travel via a third place, usually Hong Kong or Macau.
Earlier this month, Mr Chen said the ban on direct links could end "very soon" after China's Vice Premier, Qian Qichen, said the links could be referred to as cross-Strait rather than a "domestic issue".
-------- iraq
Looking at a MacArthur-type occupation in Iraq
Lee Poh Ping,
New Straits Times
http://www.emedia.com.my/Current_News/NST/Thursday/National/20021031082734/Article/
Oct 31: IT was reported recently that the US plans to have a military occupation of Iraq after Saddam Hussein has been overthrown, based on the experience of the American occupation of Japan under General Douglas MacArthur after the Second World War.
That occupation was deemed to be a success for its achievement of the American objectives of turning Japan into a democracy and of preventing it from committing aggression again. One cannot say for certain how serious the Bush administration will be regarding the implementation of this plan.
The impression is that it may have been hastily hatched to counter the argument of critics that the Bush administration has not really considered what would happen to Iraq after an American attack. Still the fact that it has been considered raises the question as to whether the two cases are comparable.
The answer is that apart from the fact that in both cases the defeated nations had and will have a military occupation imposed on them, the differences are significant. The first concerns the psychology of the defeated nation. The nation that greeted MacArthur as he arrived in Japan shortly after the Japanese surrender was one that had accepted defeat after many years of war, and was prepared to accept American rule.
This was particularly so when MacArthur absolved Emperor Hirohito from war guilt and did not force his abdication. Rather MacArthur put the blame on a bunch of militarists and their allies as those who manipulated the Emperor into taking Japan into war.
MacArthur's decision to spare the Emperor had been a controversial one, particularly among the Asian allies, and may have been an important reason why Japan has not really come to terms with its war past as compared to Germany where the Nazis were completely purged by the occupation authorities.
Nevertheless, the Japanese people were greatly relieved as this meant that only a small group, and not they, were responsible for the war. It is no wonder they became receptive to MacArthur's rule and the democratic reforms he pushed on them.
The Iraqi situation is, however, less clear cut. It may be that, as the Bush administration hopes, the Iraqis will be so weary after so many years of Saddam Hussein that they will welcome his overthrow in the way that the Afghans welcomed the defeat of the Taliban. Then the Iraqis will accept, like the Japanese, an American military commander who will impose democratic reforms on them.
But equally likely will be an angry and resentful population resorting to various forms of resistance against American rule. It must also not be forgotten that Iraq can split after Saddam for unlike Japan, Iraq has a very heterogeneous population.
Second, the US in Iraq faces a different regional and even global context from that of Japan after the Second World War. There was very little sympathy for Japan from their regional neighbours such as China, Korea and Southeast Asia who were the victims of Japanese aggression.
They and the other allies such as Britain and Australia demanded that Japan be appropriately punished by, among other things, the payment of heavy reparations. The Americans on the other hand tried to shield Japan from such allied pressures by moderating the reparation payments and ensuring that Japan could get on its feet economically as soon as is possible.
The latter course of action accelerated when the Cold War began when Japan became an ally of the US while the erstwhile ally China became an enemy. Unable to develop any regional sympathy, the Japanese then became more reliant on the Americans, thus making it easier for MacArthur to govern.
In the Iraqi case, almost the entire Middle East, if not much of the globe, are not terribly sympathetic to an American attack, particularly if done without UN approval, and could be deeply affected by an attack. This may not matter to the Americans as they believe an overwhelming display of American military might, particularly if it would result in the swift overthrow of Saddam, would so overawe Iraq's neighbours that they would acquiesce to the new order the US will impose on the Middle East.
Yet another scenario is also possible. The entire Middle East could be turned into great instability by an Iraq breaking up and by an Iraqi counterattack against its neighbours. There is also the possibility of Saddam using chemical and biological weapons if he is cornered. And equally likely, Saddam or other embittered Iraqis and Arabs could link up with global terrorists. In such a scenario, the US will not find Iraq easy to govern.
Finally, it must not be forgotten that personality counts. Vainglorious that MacArthur was, he was already a legend when he arrived in Japan. In addition he had some knowledge of Asian affairs. He had the charisma and authority and some understanding of the Japanese psyche to govern effectively.
Tommy Franks, the putative MacArthur in Iraq, is not a household name and also not known for his knowledge of Arab affairs. How effective he will be in ruling a defeated Iraq remains to be seen.
The writer is a professor at Ikmas, UKM
----
Fight Carefully Then Go, Iraq Opposition Urges US
October 31, 2002
By Michael Georgy and Parisa Hafezi
Reuters
http://reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=politicsnews&StoryID=1662911&fromEmail=true#
LONDON/TEHRAN, Iran - Iraqi opposition leaders said Thursday only U.S. military might could oust President Saddam Hussein -- but the less force they used and the sooner they let Iraqis run their country, the better.
In London and Tehran, they said that if Washington used too much firepower or tried to run Iraq for too long, the gratitude of ordinary Iraqis would soon turn into hostility.
"The opposition alone is not able to overthrow Saddam and needs international support," said Jalal Talabani, who heads the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan which controls part of a Kurdish enclave in northern Iraq outside Baghdad's control.
He was in Tehran for what he called fruitful talks with fellow opposition leader Ayatollah Mohammad-Baqir Hakim, head of the Iran-based Shi'ite Supreme Council of the Islamic Republic.
Opposition figures in London told Reuters they also had no doubt that nothing short of U.S. firepower would be needed to remove the Iraqi president after more than 20 years in power.
But they urged the United States to show restraint, fearing a full-blown war would destabilize Iraq and undermine chances to recruit potentially rebellious army officers.
"This should not be treated as a war but as an organized regime change. Our concern is that the Americans will not differentiate between loyalist forces surrounding Saddam and others who may want to change sides," said Sharif al Hussein, a senior member of Iraqi National Congress.
"If the Americans wage a blanket campaign to destroy the Iraqi army they will be viewed as occupiers not liberators," he said on behalf of the main Iraqi opposition group.
TARGET THE GUARDS
Opposition figures said the key to U.S. success would be to choose targets carefully to focus on the intelligence services, the 100,000-strong Special Republican Guard and the regular Republican Guard who make up Saddam's core defense units.
"The United States should attack the mechanism of oppression that holds back military units from attacking Saddam so that they will be able to rebel against the regime," Hussein said.
Current chairman of the INC's leadership council, he said the United States should give some officers in the elite Guard guarantees they would not be attacked to entice them to rebel.
The U.S. build-up for a possible campaign has raised fears a war could unleash chaos and bloodshed in a country with volatile ethnic lines and a pervasive state security apparatus.
Aside from balancing the interests of Iraq's Kurds, the majority Shi'ites and Sunni Muslim minority who control Iraq, the United States must let the opposition play a big role in rebuilding after war, INC leaders said.
"In the first few weeks the country will be full of euphoria, then daily reality dawns on people and they will need to see familiar faces," said Nabeel Musawi, a member of the INC and a political adviser to its effective leader, Ahmad Chalabi.
"It would be quite difficult for a (U.S.) officer who has spent most of his life based in Texas to deal with the civilian population in Iraq," he told Reuters.
U.S. TROOPS SHOULD NOT STAY
The PUK's Talabani said U.S. troops should not stay behind.
"There is no need for American forces to remain in Iraq after the attack. The Iraqi opposition can control Iraq after the collapse of Saddam's regime," he told reporters.
Regional governments, particularly Iran, worry that a pro-Washington regime will be installed on their doorstep at a time of growing anti-U.S. sentiment in the Middle East.
Talabani tried to allay such fears by saying a post-Saddam government in Iraq would not simply dance to Washington's tune.
"Iraq's next government will not be Washington's enemy but that does not mean it would be America's puppet," he said.
Holding the country together could be difficult. Kurds and Shi'ites have long memories of the Iraqi troops who crushed their uprisings after Iraq was defeated in the 1991 Gulf War.
Western critics have expressed concern that Iraq's opposition is too fragmented to form an effective government.
Around 200 officials from Iraq's various opposition groups will meet in Brussels on November 15-22 to try to forge a common post-Saddam policy, fearing that the alternative to democracy could be a new, but more pro-American strongman.
Talabani said the opposition wants a democratic, pluralist and federal Iraq, he said, trying to allay outside fears -- especially in Turkey and Iran -- of a separate Kurdish state.
----
Iraq Reopens Saudi Crossing After 12 Years
October 31, 2002
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-iraq-saudi.html
AR'AR, Iraq (Reuters) - Iraq reopened a border crossing with Saudi Arabia on Thursday, letting through people and goods for the first time since the frontier was shut after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990.
The reopening is one of several signs that Baghdad, facing a the prospect of a U.S. and British military campaign, wants to improve its relationship with its former Gulf War foe.
``The opening of the crossing is a step forward toward promoting and strengthening trade ties with Saudi Arabia,'' Iraq's trade Minister Mohammed Saleh told reporters at Ar'ar.
Saleh said Saudi Arabia is among countries that supply Iraq with goods such as cooking oil, soap and milk powder under a U.N.-administered oil-for-food scheme that allows Baghdad to distribute rations to Iraqis burdened by U.N. sanctions.
Witnesses at the crossing said 100 Saudi trade officials and businessmen crossed into Iraq to attend Baghdad's 10-day trade fair, due to open on Friday.
It is the largest such delegation to come to Baghdad since the two former Arab allies severed ties over Iraq's invasion of Kuwait 12 years ago.
Iraqi trade sources said 43 major Saudi firms plan to take part in Baghdad's trade fair. The border point will allow Saudi Arabia's exports, usually sent to Iraq through neighboring countries, to cross directly into Iraq.
The crossing, 210 miles southwest of Baghdad, was once a major route for goods in and out of Iraq before the Gulf War. During the war, U.S. and coalition troops staged attacks on Iraq from bases in Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia asked Iraq to reopen the border crossing in October 2000 and Baghdad gave its approval last June.
Five years ago there was no trade between Saudi Arabia and Iraq but trade between the two states is expected to reach $1 billion in 2002. Saudi Arabia's exports to Iraq under the oil-for-food program stood at $298 million in 2001.
The Ar'ar crossing will be the fifth authorized entry point for humanitarian goods brought with proceeds of Iraqi oil sales under the U.N. deal. U.N. sanctions were imposed on Iraq in 1990 for its invasion of Kuwait.
The four other crossings are at the Iraqi towns of Trebil on the Jordanian border, Al-Walid on the Syrian border, Zakho on the Turkish border and at Um-Qasr on the Gulf.
-------- israel / palestine
Israeli Labor ministers resign
By Joshua Mitnick
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
October 31, 2002
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20021031-75817032.htm
JERUSALEM - Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's government collapsed yesterday when his defense chief and other ministers from the Labor Party quit in a dispute over funding for Jewish settlers.
The demise of the 20-month alliance between Mr. Sharon's Likud Party and Labor makes a general election likely in the coming months, even as war looms in the Persian Gulf and fighting with the Palestinians continues with no end in sight.
To continue to rule, Mr. Sharon must cobble together a narrow majority in parliament based on a new alliance with small parties that are far more hard-line than his own Likud, including religious parties and splinter factions.
The Labor ministers' resignations do not take effect for 48 hours under Israeli law, giving both sides a grace period to ponder a compromise.
But analysts said that reconciliation appeared unlikely, given the acrimony of yesterday's exchanges.
Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer led the revolt at the end of a day of marathon talks in which Likud and Labor teetered between divorce and reconciliation.
The dispute was over a Labor demand to redistribute $147 million from subsidies for Jewish settlers in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to poorer groups inside Israel. As expected, Mr. Sharon managed to win enough votes to defeat the Labor proposal and pass a budget.
But he now is expected to call elections early in the new year instead of November 2003.
Addressing parliament before a preliminary vote on next year's budget, Mr. Sharon lambasted Mr. Ben-Eliezer for stopping just a few words short of a compromise.
"Over this you are breaking up the unity government? I ask you," Mr. Sharon roared as he slammed his hand on the podium.
"At this critical time for the Israeli economy, what is required of us, both in the coalition and the opposition, is to vote on behalf of the budget. Enough. There is a limit to the disgrace," he said.
Parliament must vote two more times to pass the budget.
Mr. Ben-Eliezer rejected charges that he used the spat over settler subsidies - an insignificant fraction of the spending plan - as an excuse to move into the opposition, where he could improve his chances of beating a challenge to his leadership of the Labor Party expected next month.
"I understand the prime minister didn't expect this. He expected we would continue to be his lackeys," Mr. Ben-Eliezer said after the breakdown.
"If the Labor Party is so important and stability is so important, why didn't [Mr. Sharon] step in our direction?" he said.
Mr. Ben-Eliezer isn't the only one facing a leadership challenge. A general election will force Mr. Sharon into a pre-election showdown against former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is still widely popular among the Likud faithful.
The winner of that contest would be the favorite to become the next prime minister, according to opinion polls, which show Likud winning the largest number of votes in the next election.
Despite the daily carnage with the Palestinians and a painful recession, Mr. Sharon's unity coalition was preferred by a majority of Israelis who saw neither Labor nor Likud as capable of providing an answer to the Palestinian uprising.
"The coalition was incoherent because it was not based around a policy," said Ron Dermer, an Israeli political consultant. "It was unity for the sake of unity."
National elections have been held three times since 1996 because of the unstable coalitions created by the country's election system.
"We must fight terror, but this is the day when we have to present a diplomatic horizon," Mr. Ben-Eliezer said. "The prime minister is unable to present a diplomatic horizon."
Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, who led Labor for much of the past two decades and has been a key supporter of the unity government, tried to convince Mr. Ben-Eliezer to back down.
When the attempt failed, Mr. Peres resigned along with Mr. Ben-Eliezer and four other Labor Party ministers.
In Washington, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said, "The United States views the events in Israel as part of Israel's internal democratic process, and we have no comment beyond that."
----
Profile: Israel's kingmakers
Lieberman's party rejects any notions of land for peace
Thursday, 31 October, 2002
BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2380283.stm
Ariel Sharon is courting the right-wing National Unity-Yisrael Beiteinu Party, an amalgam of three small ultra-nationalistic factions.
The party holds seven seats in the Knesset and could provide the prime minister with enough support to limp along with a marginal majority.
Jewish settlers National Unity-Yisrael Beiteinu advocates Jewish sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza National Unity-Yisrael Beiteinu Party was formed in 1999, bringing together Moledet, Tkuma and Yisrael Beiteinu.
Mr Sharon's attempts to co-opt National Unity-Yisrael Beiteinu and avoid going to the polls could be short-lived.
The party's chairman and founder of the Yisrael Beiteinu faction, Avigdor Lieberman, has previously balked at the idea of rejoining Mr Sharon's government, favouring new elections instead.
Mr Lieberman, who was Mr Sharon's national infrastructure minister, pulled the party out of the coalition in March 2002, in protest against Mr Sharon's decision to lift the siege of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's compound in Ramallah.
Netanyahu ally
The Moldovan-born politician - who earned a reputation as an anti-Arab militant during his student days - is also an ally of Mr Sharon's rival for the leadership of the Likud Party, Binyamin Netanyahu, having served as Mr Netanyahu's chief-of-staff during his tenure as prime minister.
National Unity-Yisrael Beiteinu is implacably opposed to the Oslo peace accords and any territorial compromise with the Palestinians.
Last October, the party resigned from the government in protest after Mr Sharon pulled the Israeli army out of Palestinian areas of the West Bank city of Hebron, but retracted its decision two days later following the assassination by Palestinian militants of Israeli Tourism Minister Rehavam Ze'evi, who was the leader of Moledet.
Mr Ze'evi was succeeded as party leader by Benny Alon.
The faction is perceived as the political heir to the anti-Arab Kach movement, which is banned under Israeli law.
'Transfers'
Its most controversial policy is that of "transferring" the Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza to Jordan as a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Moledet joined Tkuma in 1999 to form the National Unity Party, led by Benny Begin, the son of former right-wing Prime Minister Menachem Begin.
The bedrock of National Unity-Yisrael Beiteinu Party's policies are a belief in the integrity of Jerusalem as Israel's capital and extending Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza.
The party has made it clear that if it props up Mr Sharon's Government, it will be for a price.
----
Sharon opts for defence hardliner
Mofaz has a reputation for adopting harsh tactics
Thursday, 31 October, 2002
BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2383887.stm
Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has offered former army chief General Shaul Mofaz the post of defence minister to replace Labor Party leader Binyamin Ben-Eliezer.
The hawkish General Mofaz has a reputation for adopting a harsh line towards the Palestinians and has advocated the expulsion of leader Yasser Arafat.
Mofaz on one side, Ya'alon on the other and Sharon over them, what do you imagine will happen in the region?
Yasser Arafat Senior Israeli officials, including Sharon aide Arnon Perlman, said General Mofaz had accepted the post.
The move has sparked warnings from Mr Arafat, who said that the Mid-East conflict would get worse with a narrow right-wing coalition running Israel.
Mr Sharon is looking to ultra-nationalist and religious parties to shore up his shaky government after the moderate Labor Party quit the coalition over a budget row.
For the past two years General Mofaz has been in charge of combating the Palestinian uprising. His tactics have brought increasing criticism from left-wingers and human rights groups.
Under his command Israeli troops have stepped up targeted assassinations of suspected terrorists, demolitions of their homes and blockades of Palestinian towns and villages.
Ariel Sharon Sharon needs coalition partners
General Mofaz has accused the Palestinian leadership of "being infected from head to toe with terror".
According to Israeli media his appointment must be approved by the government and parliament, probably next week.
Moshe Ya'alon, previously General Mofaz's deputy, succeeded him in July as army chief of staff, and shares his hardline stance towards the Palestinians.
Mr Arafat said the appointments did not bode well for the peace process.
"Mofaz on one side, Ya'alon on the other and Sharon over them, what do you imagine will happen in the region?" Mr Arafat told the Arabic satellite television station al-Jazeera.
Mr Arafat said he expected a military escalation against the Palestinians.
Majority lost
Following Labor's departure from the government coalition Mr Sharon has been left with the support of just 55 members of the 120-strong Knesset (parliament).
To regain a majority he has been seeking the support of ultra-nationalist and religious parties.
Israel radio reported that Mr Sharon has made contact with the ultra-nationalist National Union-Yisrael Beiteinu Party, which commands seven seats in the Knesset, enough to restore the prime minister's majority.
Its chairman, Avigdor Lieberman, however, has previously made clear his party would prefer to take part in elections rather than join Mr Sharon's government.
Mr Lieberman is an ally of Mr Sharon's rival for leadership of the Likud Party, Binyamin Netanyahu, who quit Mr Sharon's coalition earlier this year.
US relations
By and large the political parties that Mr Sharon is courting oppose negotiations with the Palestinians and advocate Jewish settlement expansion in the West Bank.
Israeli troops detain a Palestinian Arafat says he fears a military escalation
But the BBC's Barbara Plett in Jerusalem says most observers do not expect radical policy changes.
Our correspondent says Mr Sharon is eager to protect his strategic relationship with the United States and Washington has drawn some pretty clear red lines.
A narrow right-wing government would probably continue the military policy against the Palestinians and bury even more deeply the chances of reviving a political process.
Despite the loss of Labor, Mr Sharon said he would continue leading the country.
"I plan to make every effort to establish an alternative government," he told Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot.
"I have no intention of initiating early elections," he added.
Mr Sharon's narrow ad-hoc coalition faces its first crucial test in a no-confidence vote which the left-wing Meretz Party has tabled for Monday.
-------- nato
NATO says could launch pre-emptive strikes
By Adam Tanner
October 31, 2002
Reuters
http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/Swissinfo.html?siteSect=143&sid=1429052
BERLIN (Reuters) - NATO, founded as a defensive alliance against possible Soviet attack, may one day take pre-emptive military action against perceived threats, a senior alliance official says.
"I would not exclude the possibility of NATO acting pre-emptively at some point in the future," the official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told journalists in Berlin on Thursday.
"But I would also not say that this is the answer to every situation that NATO would face. Certainly it depends on the situation."
U.S. President George W. Bush has moved beyond Washington's half-century-old strategy of deterrence and said the country will launch pre-emptive military strikes when necessary rather than waiting to be attacked by terror groups or rogue states.
But most European allies oppose the idea of pre-emption, especially without a United Nations mandate to use force.
Under the logic of deterrence, an adversary is kept from taking hostile action by fear of massive military retaliation.
"The deterrent power of the United States did not seem to deter al Qaeda in attacking us," the official said. "Pre-emptive action, in certain circumstances, when you have good intelligence, may be the way forward.
"But we are not asserting as a country, as a government, that that is the answer to every security problem around the world."
COLLECTIVE DEFENCE VS PRE-EMPTIVE ACTION
The suggestion of a new approach comes as NATO prepares to accept new members of the former Soviet Bloc at a November summit in Prague. Until now NATO officials have said that the defining principle of the 19-nation alliance -- collective defence -- would remain intact.
Whether European allies would follow Washington's lead in taking offensive military action to eliminate the potential threat of another state or group is far from clear. NATO's rules require all members to agree before taking military action.
Most European allies are reticent about or flatly opposed to a possible U.S.-led strike against Iraq, with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder coming from behind in polls to win narrow re-election last month boosted by his firm opposition to war.
The alliance's charter calls on member countries to "refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations".
At the NATO summit in Prague, allies will launch a new initiative to build military capability, setting out specifically which countries should do what and by when.
-------- pakistan
The legacy of Athens, Pakistani-style
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
October 31, 2002
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20021031-12821896.htm
Former Ambassador George Bruno's Sunday Forum column, "There's still no democracy in Pakistan" (Commentary), unfortunately sees Pakistan's democracy as a glass half empty. Contrary to what he perceives, the reality is markedly different and facts prove that a jaundiced perception of the recent elections cannot be borne by what is actually occurring in the country's body politic.
Observers both domestic and international agree that the elections were conducted in a fair, free and transparent manner. The results further proved that many of the bigwigs who were perceived to be the government's favorites lost their seats in their home constituencies.
The victory of the Mujtahida Majlis-i-Amal or MMA (an alliance of six religious parties) should not be seen as an ominous political development. The demographic profile of votes cast in favor of the MMA is emblematic of the collective sense of angst in the Pashtun areas because of ethnic power policies across the border, economic disruptions in the border areas caused by the anti-terrorism campaign, and ennui of voters in general with other political leaders and their legacy of misgovernance and malfeasance.
The performance of the present government has received kudos from the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, especially in stemming the hemorrhaging economy. Unemployment, inflation, hard currency reserves, remittances, trade balance and debt servicing all have shown record improvements under extremely trying circumstances without provoking any civil disturbances. This is no mean achievement, bearing in mind Pakistan's domestic, regional and international milieu.
The political developments, especially the constitutional amendments, have in no way neutered the legislature. Rather, these enactments have restored the checks and balances and institutional safety valves that existed from 1988 to 1998. Far from being an impotent body, the parliament has the prerogative to impeach the president and also amend the constitution with a two-thirds majority.
Finally, unlike tangible military and developmental assistance, democracy is germane to each socioeconomic and psychosocial geographic entity and cannot be "imported" or "exported." Rather, it develops intermittently, with fits and starts, because representative government and political pluralism are the products of a historical process, dependent upon the country's political culture.
ASAD HAYAUDDIN
Press attache Embassy of Pakistan Washington
-------- russia / chechnya
New Russia-U.S. war ties revealed
Cooperation in Afghanistan extends deeper than thought
By Michael Moran and Robert Windrem,
MSNBC
Oct. 31
http://www.msnbc.com/news/828715.asp
Sea, land and air links -- in yellow, red and blue -- supplying U.S. troops in Afghanistan, according to Central Command documents obtained by MSNBC.com.
NEW YORK, - In an unprecedented sign of the growing anti-terrorist alliance between the United States and Russia, MSNBC.com learned Thursday that Moscow gave its consent for American ammunition and other war supplies to pass through Russia by rail en route to the war in Afghanistan.
MILITARY DOCUMENTS obtained by MSNBC.com indicate that for months now, huge shipments of American war materiel have been passing through Russian territory by rail, from northern European ports in Murmansk and Helsinki, and from the Russian Far Eastern port of Vladivostok. Not since World War II, when the United States and the Soviet Union allied to fight Hitler's Germany, has the American military had such a presence on Russian soil.
The documents, including PowerPoint maps from the U.S. military's Central Command that show main resupply routes for the Afghan campaign, indicate Russian railroads have been used extensively to keep troops supplied. The supplies appear to be destined for U.S. bases in former Soviet parts of Central Asia, particularly Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. The documents indicate that the shipments include ammunition, and probably food, medical supplies and other equipment needed to sustain the 7,000 American soldiers in Afghanistan and several thousand more in neighboring Central Asian states.
Other main supply routes run through the Persian Gulf state of Oman, through Pakistan and the former Soviet Republic of Georgia.
The shipments, until now undisclosed by either government, also shed new light on the complex horse-trading under way over the Iraq resolution at the Security Council, where issues of international law and nuclear proliferation are mingling with oil interests, national pride and the desire of some Council members to exercise a check on unilateral American action.
Asked to comment on the shipments, Sgt. Charles Portman, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command, said, "We leave it up to coalition countries to discuss any participation" in the U.S.-led Afghan campaign. He referred calls to the Russian Embassy, where several calls for comment went unanswered.
'ANOTHER LEVEL'
Dick Melanson, a professor of national security strategy at the National War College in Washington, D.C., said that if Russia has been helping ship American war supplies to the battle zone, "that takes the relationship to another level."
Ties between Russia and the United States, former Cold War enemies, warmed considerably in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Russian President Vladimir Putin helped clear the way for U.S. forces to use former Soviet bases in Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, and he used his influence after the war to persuade the Russian-backed factions within the Afghan Northern Alliance to support Hamid Karzai as their new president.
It was widely believed, however, that most of the Russian assistance took place behind the scenes.
"Apparently the Russian authorities don't want to emphasize it," said Moscow-based military analyst Pavel Felgenhauer, who noted that Russian nationalists would seize upon the shipments in political attacks on the Kremlin.
U.N. TALKS
Experts also suggested that this kind of cooperation would be considered an important Russian "chit" in the complex negotiations over a new U.N. resolution on Iraq.
Iraq: Order of the battle
"I think that probably makes the Bush administration's efforts to get a new Iraq resolution with teeth that much more difficult," said Melanson, who stressed that his was his own view and not that of the military. "In some ways, the administration is paying the price for not deciding whether the priority is defeating global terrorism, or unseating Saddam Hussein. I can see where the Russians could exploit that."
An Arab diplomat attached to his nation's U.N. delegation confirmed this: "There is more going on than meets the eye between them," the diplomat said, speaking on condition of anonymity. "Oil, geopolitical considerations, and especially their mutual interest in fighting what they call terrorism."
Felgenhauer described the Afghan campaign as an area of particular agreement: "The Russians are apparently ready to help, because the al-Qaida and Taliban remnants in Afghanistan remain common enemy," he said.
Russia, along with France, has been reluctant to allow approval of a new resolution on Iraq that would allow the United States to use military force against Baghdad without further consultation at the Security Council should Baghdad fail to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors. The United States accuses Iraq's regime of secretly pursuing nuclear weapons and stockpiling chemical and biological weapons in defiance of pledges it made at the end of the Gulf War in 1991 and U.N. resolutions passed since then.
REMOTE REGION
Securing Russia's cooperation ahead of last October's conflict in landlocked Afghanistan was considered a major breakthrough by the Bush administration, which prior to Sept. 11, 2001, had been on shaky footing with Moscow.
Locating reliable supply lines for American troops operating in northern Afghanistan, in particular, had been a major concern of American military planners. Operations in the southern part of the country are supplied largely through Pakistan. But in the mountainous north, air supply would be prohibitively expensive.
"It's cheaper to use rail than to take it all by air, so it makes sense," said Felgenhauer, the Russian military analyst. "Russia can offer a united rail network, left over from the Soviet Union," that still joins far-flung ports in Vladivostok and Murmansk to the now independent states of Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, which have become important garrisons for American operations inside Afghanistan.
MSNBC.com's Preston Mendenhall in London contributed to this report.
-------- un
3 Nations Oppose U.S.