***************************************************************** 11/11/01 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 9.266 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR WEAPONS CONTENTS 1 Depleted uranium: devastation at home and abroad 2 Osama claims he has nukes 3 Osama, tells Dawn newspaper he has chemical/nuke weapons 4 Bin Laden has nuclear weapons? 5 Ireland Starts Legal Action on Sellafield Nuke Plant 6 Is the US Using Nuclear Weapons in Afghanistan? 7 UNGA adopts Iraqi proposed DU resolution 8 Nuclear Threat Is Real, Experts Warn 9 Atomic leaks: The west fears Soviet bomb material could be stolen 10 Ukraine: Nuclear reactor's output reduced after pump failure 11 Text of Bin Laden interview 12 Unthinkable in Afghan war seems less remote 13 No to Nukes - SAS 14 The Seattle Times: Local News: Readers react harshly when stories point to nation's soft spotsFeatured 15 Bin Laden makes nuclear threat 16 Wamp works to restore OR safety 17 The nuclear option 18 Terrorists One Step Ahead 19 Russia: Nuclear Security Poses Challenges 20 Baby teeth may reveal fallout 21 Nuke Compensation Panel Questioned 22 Cause of Sub's Sinking Still Unknown 23 WH Notice on Continuation of WMD Emergency 24 Bin Laden Claims to Have Nuclear Arms 25 Musharraf: Nuclear Arsenal Safe 26 Radiological bomb most-feared nuke 27 Nuclear change of heart 28 Readers react harshly when stories point to nation's soft spots 29 Soviet nuclear stockpiles are easy pickings 30 Unthinkable in Afghan war seems less remote 31 50 bil. yen budgeted to fight terrorism 32 W. WARNS OF NUKE HORROR 33 Nuclear Neighbors Generating Alarm 34 Pakistan Moves Nuclear Weapons 35 U.S. to Boycott U.N. Meeting on Nuclear Test Ban 36 Initial move today against MOX plant 37 White House dismisses bin Laden nuclear threat - 38 Abraham wants to cut time, cost of Hanford cleanup 39 Lifting the veil on how Israelis got the A-bomb 40 New World Disorder: Radiating Fear 41 Cold War's little nukes are among most feared 42 Nuclear assets are in safe hands 43 EVIL WARLORD NOW A FRIEND OF THE WEST **************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 Depleted uranium: devastation at home and abroad Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 01:17:52 -0800 (PST) Depleted uranium: devastation at home and abroad by Leuren Moret “The little fox is still. The dogs of war have made their kill.” These are the words of famous Black poet and writer Langston Hughes, commenting on war. He couldn’t have said it better. Few communities have felt the impact of war more than Hunters Point. The impact of war is not felt just overseas, in a distant country. It is right here in our own backyards: death and illness from radiation exposure, chemical exposure, and the economic devastation that ensues when the military moves on and leaves the mess behind. The bombing of Afghanistan by U.S. government forces has direct ties to Hunters Point. It was at the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard that a radioactive material called depleted uranium (DU), currently being used in the bombing of Afghanistan, was first tested by the Navy. The United States now has hundreds of thousands of tons of depleted uranium piled in heaps outdoors at DOE facilities. It is 99.5 percent of what is left when the most fissionable isotope (one of three) is extracted from naturally occurring uranium. The extracted uranium is used in nuclear weapons or nuclear fuel for nuclear reactors. The 99.5 percent that is discarded cannot be put back into the mines it came out of because, after crushing and processing, the volume is greater than before it was removed from the mines. “Depleted uranium” does not mean it is not radioactive - it is very radioactive and very dangerous to all living things. The Department of Defense got the bright idea of using depleted uranium in weapons because: it is very dense, which gives it greater penetrating power to destroy tanks, etc.; it is “pyrophoric,” which means that upon impact, it explodes into fire and smoke, creating submicroscopic radioactive particles which travel great distances and can remain suspended until it is “rained out” of the atmosphere; it is cheap, and passes the responsibility for disposal from DOE on to civilians (that means us) and the environment. Since depleted uranium is so radioactive, it will continue acting internally on living things long after the battlefield has been cleared - with delayed effects, which impact soldiers and civilians for the rest of their lives. The half life of uranium is 4.5 billion years - in ten half-lives radioactivity becomes an insignificant amount. In 45 billion years it will no longer be a danger. In other words, it’s “fun” for the DOD, it’s “cheap” for the arms manufacturers (who reap good profits by making it), and “good riddance” says DOE (with 480,000 tons on hand). The Navy first tested depleted uranium munitions in 1977 at Hunters Point. From the USS Bigelow, the Phalanx Weapons System fired 3,000 rounds of depleted uranium penetrators per minute. The tests exceeded expectations and production started in 1978 to fill orders for 23 U.S. Navy and 14 foreign military systems. The Army A-10 Thunderbolt II, nicknamed “the Warthog,” fired most of the depleted uranium munitions in the Gulf War, between 300 to 800 tons. The Abrams Tank, the Marines M-60, the U.S. F-16 and U.S. Apache helicopters have been fitted to fire DU munitions. Many cruise missiles contain DU balance weights. The use of DU is not being covered up, but the health hazards have been. Gulf War Syndrome not only killed, maimed, and made soldiers sick, they brought it home. In a study of 251 Gulf War veterans’ families in Mississippi, 67 percent of their children were born without eyes, ears or a brain, had fused fingers, blood infections, respiratory problems or thyroid and other organ malformations. The U.S. has manufactured and tested depleted uranium in 39 states. The cleanup bill — just for the depleted uranium — at the Jefferson Proving Ground in Indiana would be $7.8 billion. The DU has not been cleaned up, but DOD has closed the area. Communities living near these test ranges will continue to be exposed and suffer health problems. For 40 years, the Sierra Army Depot in Northern California has burned millions of tons of old munitions — including 20 times more DU than was used in the entire Gulf War. The radioactive smoke and ash, full of heavy metals, phosgene gas and dioxins, contaminated local communities as well as that of many Native Americans living downwind — especially the Pyramid Lake Paiute Reservation. The health problems in those communities have been horrendous. The Sierra Army depot burned old munitions in open pits — and was the single largest contributor to air pollution in California — 17-23 percent. Norman Harry, former Pyramid Lake Tribal Chairman, and Nevada Senator Harry Reid, worked with others to shut it down. A month ago, Lassen County refused to renew the burn permit for the Sierra Army Depot — finally. The United States has used DU weaponry in the Gulf War, Kosovo, Serbia, Vieques Island, and Torishima Island near Okinawa, Japan; and sold DU to at least 23 countries at great profits. As mentioned earlier, DU is part of the arsenal the U.S. and British military forces are using against Afghanistan. The depleted uranium that has contaminated the Gulf States since the Gulf War can be detected on gamma meters in Greece and Bulgaria on windy days. It’s the weapon that “keeps giving”... and keeps killing. DU is also used as ballast in commercial and military planes. On Sept. 11, a hijacked plane crashed into the Pentagon. Dr. Janette Sherman, research associate with the Radiation and Public Health Project, had spoken a few days earlier at a Sept. 6 press conference in Hunters Point. After the Sept. 11 attacks, Dr. Sherman notified the Nuclear Information and Resource Service that she detected elevated levels of radiation in her home, located seven miles from the Pentagon. Dr. Sherman still had a gamma meter she had borrowed for her visit to Hunter’s Point. The EPA, the FBI, and other federal agencies, including HMRU (Hazardous Materials Response Units), USAR teams, the local fire department and the Virginia HAZMAT were notified, and an investigation began at the Pentagon. A pile of rubble from the crash was found to be radioactive, but EPA official Bill Bellinger of the agency’s Region III Environmental Radiation Monitoring Office was unconcerned when contacted by Diane D’Arrigo from the Nuclear Information and Resource Service. Bellinger indicated that it was probably depleted uranium and mentioned that americium 241could also be scattered around the crash site. He was convinced that depleted uranium is not radiologically toxic, but commented that it is more of a hazard when aerosolized. Firefighters, Pentagon personnel, and communities nearby did breathe the smoke and ash from the fire. The agencies that are supposed to be protecting us are not. There was no follow-up investigation. And what about the World Trade Center in New York? Radiation issues almost never get coverage from mainstream media. It is a taboo subject, a silent killer, as Hunter’s Point residents know too well. The true patriots in this country are two women: Barbara Lee for saying “no” to needless further devastation of an already war-torn country, and Dona Spring, who brought the issue to the table in the Berkeley City Council. Berkeley is the only city in the United States to pass a resolution calling for an end to the bombing of Afghanistan. Whether or not we agree with the military action in Afghanistan, our soldiers have fought for hundreds of years to give us the right to say yes … or no. War is how our “leaders” bleed us, too. It is economically, radiologically and chemically devastating at home as well as abroad. Leuren Moret, an environmental geologist and independent scientist, is president of Scientists for Indigenous People. Moret wrote the foreword to Akira Tashiro’s new book, “Discounted Casualties, The Human Cost of Depleted Uranium.” Tashiro, a Japanese journalist from Hiroshima, includes in this work over 40 interviews and color photos depicting the devastation caused by uranium in the U.S., the United Kingdom, the Persian Gulf, Kosovo, and Japan. The interviews can be read in English online, or you can request to receive copies via email by visiting www.chugoku-np.co.jp/abom/uran/index_e.html. Leuren Moret can be reached at leurenmoret@yahoo.com. Useful links: For an article about how DU is currently being used to bomb Afghanistan, visit www.zolatimes.com/V5.44/afghan_uranium.html. For information about the testing of DU in Hunters Point Shipyard via the USS Bigelow and the Phalanx Weapons System, visit www.spar.navy.mil/ships/ddg995/wep-phal.html. To read an article about the use of DU as ballast in commercial as well as military planes, www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/dhap997.html. The Radiation and Public Health Project website is located at www.radiation.org. Visit the Nuclear Information and Resource Service at www.nirs.org. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Find a job, post your resume. http://careers.yahoo.com ***************************************************************** 2 Osama claims he has nukes Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 11:01:52 -0600 (CST) Thanks Jan for pointer ============ http://www.dawn.com/2001/11/10/welcome.htm The Internet Edition of Dawn, a leading daily English newspaper of Pakistan. Dawn. 10 November 2001. Osama claims he has nukes: If US uses N-arms it will get same response. KABUL -- Osama bin Laden has said that "we have chemical and nuclear weapons as a deterrent and if America used them against us we reserve the right to use them". He said this in a special interview with Hamid Mir, the editor of Ausaf, for Dawn and Ausaf, at an undisclosed location near Kabul. This was the first interview given by Osama to any journalist after the September 11 attacks in New York and Washington. The correspondent was taken blindfolded in a jeep from Kabul on the night of Nov 7 to a place where it was extremely cold and one could hear the sound of anti-aircraft guns firing away. After a wait of some time , Osama arrived with about a dozen bodyguards and Dr Ayman Al-Zuwahiri and answered questions. Hamid Mir: After American bombing on Afghanistan on Oct 7, you told the Al-Jazeera TV that the Sept 11 attacks had been carried out by some Muslims. How did you know they were Muslims ? Osama bin Laden: The Americans themselves released a list of the suspects of the Sept 11 attacks, saying that the persons named were involved in the attacks. They were all Muslims, of whom 15 belonged to Saudi Arabia, two were from the UAE and one from Egypt. According to the information I have, they were all passengers. Fateha was held for them in their homes. But America said they were hijackers. HM: In your statement of Oct 7, you expressed satisfaction over the Sept 11 attacks, although a large number of innocent people perished in them, hundreds among them were Muslims. Can you justify the killing of innocent men in the light of Islamic teachings ? OBL: This is a major point in jurisprudence. In my view, if an enemy occupies a Muslim territory and uses common people as human shield, then it is permitted to attack that enemy. For instance, if bandits barge into a home and hold a child hostage, then the child's father can attack the bandits and in that attack even the child may get hurt. America and its allies are massacring us in Palestine, Chechenya, Kashmir and Iraq. The Muslims have the right to attack America in reprisal. The Islamic Shariat says Muslims should not live in the land of the infidel for long. The Sept 11 attacks were not targeted at women and children. The real targets were America's icons of military and economic power. The Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) was against killing women and children. When he saw a dead woman during a war, he asked why was she killed ? If a child is above 13 and wields a weapon against Muslims, then it is permitted to kill him. The American people should remember that they pay taxes to their government, they elect their president, their government manufactures arms and gives them to Israel and Israel uses them to massacre Palestinians. The American Congress endorses all government measures and this proves that the entire America is responsible for the atrocities perpetrated against Muslims. The entire America, because they elect the Congress. I ask the American people to force their government to give up anti-Muslim policies. The American people had risen against their government's war in Vietnam. They must do the same today. The American people should stop the massacre of Muslims by their government. HM: Can it be said that you are against the American government, not the American people ? OSB: Yes! We are carrying on the mission of our Prophet, Muhammad (peace be upon him). The mission is to spread the word of God, not to indulge massacring people. We ourselves are the target of killings, destruction and atrocities. We are only defending ourselves. This is defensive Jihad. We want to defend our people and our land. That is why I say that if we don't get security, the Americans, too would not get security. This is a simple formula that even an American child can understand. This is the formula of live and let live. HM: The head of Egypt's Jamia Al-Azhar has issued a fatwa (edict) against you, saying that the views and beliefs of Osama bin Laden have nothing to do with Islam. What do you have to say about that ? OSB: The fatwa of any official Aalim has no value for me. History is full of such Ulema who justify Riba, who justify the occupation of Palestine by the Jews, who justify the presence of American troops around Harmain Sharifain. These people support the infidels for their personal gain.The true Ulema support the Jihad against America. Tell me if Indian forces invaded Pakistan what would you do? The Israeli forces occupy our land and the American troops are on our territory. We have no other option but to launch Jihad. HM: Some Western media claim that you are trying to acquire chemical and nuclear weapons. How much truth is there in such reports? OSB: I heard the speech of American President Bush yesterday (Oct 7). He was scaring the European countries that Osama wanted to attack with weapons of mass destruction. I wish to declare that if America used chemical or nuclear weapons against us, then we may retort with chemical and nuclear weapons. We have the weapons as deterrent. HM: Where did you get these weapons from ? OSB: Go to the next question. HM: Demonstrations are being held in many European countries against American attacks on Afghanistan. Thousands of the protesters were non-Muslims. What is your opinion about those non-Muslim protesters ? OSB: There are many innocent and good-hearted people in the West. American media instigates them against Muslims. However, some good-hearted people are protesting against American attacks because human nature abhors injustice. The Muslims were massacred under the UN patronage in Bosnia. I am ware that some officers of the State Department had resigned in protest. Many years ago the US ambassador in Egypt had resigned in protest against the policies of President Jimmy Carter. Nice and civilized are everywhere. The Jewish lobby has taken America and the West hostage. HM: Some people say that war is no solution to any issue. Do you think that some political formula could be found to stop the present war ? OSB: You should put this question to those who have started this war. We are only defending ourselves. HM: If America got out of Saudi Arabia and the Al-Aqsa mosque was liberated, would you then present yourself for trial in some Muslim country ? OSB: Only Afghanistan is an Islamic country. Pakistan follows the English law. I don't consider Saudi Arabia an Islamic country. If the Americans have charges against me, we too have a charge sheet against them. HM: Pakistan government decided to cooperate with America after Sept 11, which you don't consider right. What do you think Pakistan should have done but to cooperate with America ? OSB: The government of Pakistan should have the wishes of the people in view. It should not have surrendered to the unjustified demands of America. America does not have solid proof against us. It just has some surmises. It is unjust to start bombing on the basis of those surmises. HM: Had America decided to attack Pakistan with the help of India and Israel, what would have we done ? OSB: What has America achieved by attacking Afghanistan ? We will not leave the Pakistani people and the Pakistani territory at anybody's mercy. We will defend Pakistan. But we have been disappointed by Gen Pervez Musharraf. He says that the majority is with him. I say the majority is against him. Bush has used the word crusade. This is a crusade declared by Bush. It is no wisdom to barter off blood of Afghan brethren to improve Pakistan's economy. He will be punished by the Pakistani people and Allah. Right now a great war of Islamic history is being fought in Afghanistan. All the big powers are united against Muslims. It is ' sawab ' to participate in this war. HM: A French newspaper has claimed that you had kidney problem and had secretly gone to Dubai for treatment last year. Is that correct ? OSB: My kidneys are all right. I did not go to Dubai last year. One British newspaper has published an imaginary interview with Islamabad dateline with one of my sons who lives in Saudi Arabia. All this is false. HM: Is it correct that a daughter of Mulla Omar is your wife or your daughter is Mulla Omar's wife ? OSB: (Laughs). All my wives are Arabs (and all my daughters are married to Arab Mujahideen). I have spiritual relationship with Mulla Omar. He is a great and brave Muslim of this age. He does not fear anyone but Allah. He is not under any personal relationship or obligation to me. He is only discharging his religious duty. I, too, have not chosen this life out of any personal consideration. ====================== *** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Feel free to distribute widely but PLEASE acknowledge the original source. *** ***************************************************************** 3 Osama, tells Dawn newspaper he has chemical/nuke weapons Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 12:28:17 -0600 (CST) Osama, tells Dawn newspaper he has chemical/nuke weapons Via NY Transfer News * All the News That Doesn't Fit Friday November 9 11:48 PM ET (via Yahoo) Paper Says Bin Laden Claims He Has Nuclear Weapons By Andrew Marshall ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pakistan's respected Dawn newspaper said on Saturday that Osama bin Laden claimed in an interview inside Afghanistan this week that he had nuclear and chemical weapons and might use them in response to U.S. attacks. "I wish to declare that if America used chemical or nuclear weapons against us, then we may retort with chemical and nuclear weapons. We have the weapons as deterrent," the newspaper quoted bin Laden as telling a well-known Pakistani journalist in Afghanistan on Wednesday night. Asked where he got the weapons, bin Laden replied: "Go to the next question," the newspaper said. Dawn said Hamid Mir, editor of Pakistan's Ausaf newspaper, had interviewed bin Laden on behalf of the two newspapers after being taken blindfold by jeep from Kabul on November 7. It was not immediately possible to verify the report, but Mir told Reuters his account of the interview was correct. The paper, which printed a photograph showing Mir with bin Laden, said it was the first interview the Saudi-born militant had granted to any journalist since the deadly September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon for which he is the prime suspect. Independent experts say it is unlikely bin Laden has developed a nuclear capability. Pakistan's government last month dismissed as absurd some international media reports that bin Laden had obtained nuclear material from the arsenal of the nuclear capable country. UNKNOWN LOCATION Dawn said Mir was taken to a location where it was extremely cold and where he could hear the firing of anti-aircraft guns. Bin Laden then appeared with about a dozen bodyguards and Ayman Zawahri, a top lieutenant in his al Qaeda network, the newspaper said. In the interview, bin Laden said the September 11 attacks were justified but did not claim responsibility for them. "The September 11 attacks were not targeted at women and children. The real targets were America's icons of military and economic power," bin Laden was quoted as saying. "The American people should stop the massacre of Muslims by their government." There was no way of telling when the photograph showing bin Laden with Mir was taken, but the editor is known to have never previously met bin Laden. The picture showed bin Laden wearing a white turban and a camouflage jacket over a long white tunic. A Kalshnikov assault rifle was propped up beside bin Laden on the cushions he was sitting on. The newspaper quoted bin Laden as saying he was fighting a defensive struggle to protect Muslims. "This is a defensive jihad. We want to defend our people and our land. That is why I say that if we don't get security, the Americans, too, would not get security," he was quoted as saying. "This is a simple formula that even an American child can understand. This is the formula of live and let live." Dawn reported that bin Laden said he was engaged in a historic struggle on behalf of Muslims. "Right now a great war of Islamic history is being fought in Afghanistan. All the big powers are united against Muslims," it quoted bin Laden as saying. ================================================================= NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us 339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org e-mail: nyt@blythe.org ================================================================= nytcov-11.10.01-01:30:17-26715 ***************************************************************** 4 [southnews] Bin Laden has nuclear weapons? Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 23:36:10 -0600 (CST) BBC News Online: World: South Asia Saturday, 10 November, 2001, 12:25 GMT Bin Laden 'has nuclear weapons' Bin Laden was in high spirits during the interview Osama Bin Laden has told the mass-circulation Dawn newspaper in Pakistan that his al-Qaeda group possesses chemical and nuclear weapons. But, while the English-language newspaper carries a clear message from Bin Laden that he has access to such weapons, he makes no such claim in an Urdu-language version of the interview. Pakistani journalist Hamid Mir, the editor of the Urdu-language newspaper Ausaf, conducted the interview with Bin Laden, who is widely held responsible for the suicide attacks on the United States two months ago. Dawn's English version quotes Bin Laden as saying: "If America used chemical and nuclear weapons against us, then we may retort with chemical and nuclear weapons. We have the weapons as a deterrent." Mr Mir then asks Bin Laden where he got the weapons, which the al-Qaeda leader declines to answer. But in the Urdu version of the article, Bin Laden does not threaten to use nuclear or chemical weapons. "The US is using chemical weapons against us and it has also decided to use nuclear weapons. But our war will continue," he says, according to the BBC's own translation of the Ausaf article. The two versions are otherwise very similar, says the BBC Monitoring unit. Mr Mir told the BBC he was wrapped in a blanket and taken by jeep to meet the al-Qaeda leader at a location about five hours drive from the capital, Kabul. He said Bin Laden was in high spirits and apparently healthy, but was surrounded by tight security. The Dawn newspaper said this was the first interview given by Bin Laden since the 11 September attacks. Bin Laden told Mr Mir al-Qaeda's mission was to spread the word of God, not to massacre people. He said: "I am ready to die. I know that they can bomb this place also. They are not aware that I am present here. But they are dropping bombs blindly everywhere. So I may get killed even with you. "But my cause will continue after my death. They think they will solve this problem by killing me. It's not easy to solve this problem. This war has been spread all over the world." Bin Laden refused to say whether or not he was behind the US attacks, describing the targets as the American icons of military and economic power. He accused the US and its allies of massacring Muslims in Palestine, Chechnya, Kashmir and Iraq and said they had the right to attack America in reprisal. He said the whole of America was responsible for what he called the atrocities perpetrated against Muslims. When asked about Pakistan's role, he said his group was disappointed by President Pervez Musharraf and the majority of Pakistan was against him. ---------- USAMA BIN LADEN INTERVIEW WITH DAWN and AUSAF DAWN - Karachi, Pakistan - Saturday, November 10, 2001 http://www.dawn.com/2001/11/10/top1.htm By HAMID MIR KABUL, Afghanistan, 9 November 2001 (DAWN): Osama bin Laden has said that "we have chemical and nuclear weapons as a deterrent and if America used them against us we reserve the right to use them" [against America]. He said this in a special interview with Hamid Mir, the Editor of Ausaf, for Dawn and Ausaf, at an undisclosed location near Kabul. This was the first interview given by Osama [bin Laden] to any journalist after the September 11 attacks in New York and Washington. The correspondent [Hamid Mir] was taken blindfolded in a jeep from Kabul on the night of Nov. 7 [2001] to a place where it was extremely cold and one could hear the sound of anti-aircraft guns firing away. After a wait of some time, Osama arrived with about a dozen bodyguards and Dr. Ayman Al-Zuwahiri and answered questions. Hamid Mir [HM]: After American bombing on Afghanistan on Oct. 7, you told the Al-Jazeera TV that the Sept. 11 attacks had been carried out by some Muslims. How did you know they were Muslims? Osama bin Laden [OBL]: The Americans [FBI] themselves released a list of the suspects of the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that the persons named were involved in the attacks. They were all Muslims, of whom 15 belonged to Saudi Arabia, two were from the UAE and one from Egypt. According to the information I have, they were all passengers. Fateha [prayer] was held for them in their homes. But America said they were hijackers. HM: In your statement of Oct. 7, you expressed satisfaction over the Sept. 11 attacks, although a large number of innocent people perished in them, hundreds among them were Muslims. Can you justify the killing of innocent men in the light of Islamic teachings? OBL: This is a major point in jurisprudence. In my view, if an enemy occupies a Muslim territory and uses common people as human shield, then it is permitted to attack that enemy. For instance, if bandits barge into a home and hold a child hostage, then the child's father can attack the bandits and in that attack even the child may get hurt. America and its allies are massacring us in Palestine, Chechenya, Kashmir and Iraq. The Muslims have the right to attack America in reprisal. The Islamic Shariat says Muslims should not live in the land of the infidels for long. The Sept. 11 attacks were not targeted at women and children. The real targets were America's icons of military and economic power. The Holy Prophet [Muhammad] (peace be upon him) was against killing women and children. When he saw a dead woman during a war, he asked why was she killed? If a child is above 13 and wields a weapon against Muslims, then it is permitted to kill him. The American people should remember that they pay taxes to their government, they elect their President, their government manufactures arms and gives them to Israel and Israel uses them to massacre Palestinians. The American Congress endorses all government measures and this proves that the entire America is responsible for the atrocities perpetrated against Muslims. The entire America, because they elect the Congress. I ask the American people to force their government to give up anti-Muslim policies. The American people had risen against their government's war in Vietnam. They must do the same today. The American people should stop the massacre of Muslims by their government. HM: Can it be said that you are against the American government, not the American people? OBL: Yes! We are carrying on the mission of our Prophet, Muhammad (peace be upon him). The mission is to spread the word of God, not to indulge in massacring people. We ourselves are the target of killings, destruction and atrocities. We are only defending ourselves. This is defensive Jehad. [Jehad is a war against terrorism and all other evils.] We want to defend our people and our land. That is why I say that if we don't get security, the Americans, too would not get security. This is a simple formula that even an American child can understand. This is the formula of live and let live. HM: The head of Egypt's Jamia Al-Azhar has issued a fatwa (edict) against you, saying that the views and beliefs of Osama bin Laden have nothing to do with Islam. What do you have to say about that? OBL: The fatwa of any official Aalim [government-controlled scholar] has no value for me. History is full of such Ulema [clerics] who justify Riba [interest], who justify the occupation of Palestine by the Jews, who justify the presence of American troops around Harmain Sharifain. These people support the infidels for their personal gain.The true Ulema support the Jehad against America. Tell me if Indian forces invaded Pakistan what would you do? The Israeli forces occupy our land and the American troops are on our territory. We have no other option but to launch Jehad. HM: Some Western media claim that you are trying to acquire chemical and nuclear weapons. How much truth is there in such reports? OBL: I heard the speech of American President [George W.] Bush yesterday (Nov. 7). He was scaring the European countries that Osama wanted to attack with weapons of mass destruction. I wish to declare that if America used chemical or nuclear weapons against us, then we may retort with chemical and nuclear weapons. We have the weapons as deterrent. HM: Where did you get these [nuclear and chemical] weapons from? OBL: Go to the next question. HM: Demonstrations are being held in many European countries against American attacks on Afghanistan. Thousands of the protesters were non-Muslims. What is your opinion about those non-Muslim protesters? OBL: There are many innocent and good-hearted people in the West. American media instigates them against Muslims. However, some good-hearted people are protesting against American attacks because human nature abhors injustice. The Muslims were massacred under the UN patronage in Bosnia. I am ware that some officers of the State Department had resigned in protest. Many years ago the U.S. Ambassador in Egypt had resigned in protest against the policies of President Jimmy Carter. Nice and civilized [people] are everywhere. The Jewish lobby has taken America and the West hostage. HM: Some people say that war is no solution to any issue. Do you think that some political formula could be found to stop the present war? OBL: You should put this question to those [anti-Muslim crusaders] who have started this war. We are only defending ourselves. HM: If America got out of Saudi Arabia and the Al-Aqsa mosque was liberated, would you then present yourself for trial in some Muslim country? OBL: Only Afghanistan is an Islamic country. Pakistan follows the English Law. I don't consider Saudi Arabia an Islamic country. If the Americans have charges against me, we too have a charge sheet against them. HM: Pakistan government decided to cooperate with America after Sept. 11, which you don't consider right. What do you think Pakistan should have done but to cooperate with America? OBL: The government of Pakistan should have the wishes of the people in view. It should not have surrendered to the unjustified demands of America. America does not have solid proof against us. It just has some surmises. It is unjust to start bombing on the basis of those surmises. HM: Had America decided to attack Pakistan with the help of India and Israel, what would have we done? OBL: What has America achieved by attacking Afghanistan? We will not leave the Pakistani people and the Pakistani territory at anybody's mercy. We will defend Pakistan. But we have been disappointed by Gen. Pervez Musharraf. He says that the majority is with him. I say the majority is against him. Bush has used the word crusade. This is a crusade declared by Bush. It is no wisdom to barter off blood of Afghan brethren to improve Pakistan's economy. He [General Pervez Musharraf, the corrupt dictator, tyrant, terrorist, murderer, rapist, crook, criminal and human rights abuser] will be punished by the Pakistani people and Allah [God]. Right now a great war of Islamic history is being fought in Afghanistan. All the big powers are united against Muslims. It is sawab [spiritual reward from God] to participate in this war. HM: A French newspaper has claimed that you had kidney problem and had secretly gone to Dubai for treatment last year. Is that correct? OBL: My kidneys are all right. I did not go to Dubai last year. One British newspaper has published an imaginary interview with Islamabad dateline with one of my sons who lives in Saudi Arabia. All this is false. HM: Is it correct that a daughter of Mulla [Muhammad] Omar is your wife or your daughter is Mulla Omar's wife? OBL: (Laughs). All my wives are Arabs and all my daughters are married to Arab Mujahideen. I have spiritual relationship with Mulla Omar. He is a great and brave Muslim of this age. He does not fear anyone but Allah [God]. He is not under any personal relationship or obligation to me. He is only discharging his religious duty. I, too, have not chosen this life out of any personal consideration. [) 2001 The DAWN Group of Newspapers] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: southnews-unsubscribe@egroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ***************************************************************** 5 Ireland Starts Legal Action on Sellafield Nuke Plant Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 00:17:00 -0600 (CST) Ireland Starts Legal Action on Sellafield Nuke Plant Via NY Transfer News * All the News That Doesn't Fit source - Jay Dooling Ireland Starts Legal Action on Sellafield PA 11/09/01 02:48 Copyright 2001 PA News By Andrew Woodcock Political Correspondent, PA News The Irish Government was today launching legal action against the United Kingdom over plans for a controversial new reprocessing plant at Sellafield. Ireland has long been concerned over the environmental impact of the Cumbria plant on the Irish Sea, and its worries have been heightened by the fear of terrorist attack since the September 11 strikes in the United States. The Republic was further infuriated by the UK Government's October 3 decision to allow the construction of the mixed plutonium and uranium oxide (MOX) plant. Today's legal action was taking place under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Ospar Convention on the Marine Environment. Deirdre Clune, environment spokesman for opposition party Fine Gael, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "We are delighted to see our Government taking this kind of action. "This is something that is of concern to everybody on this side of the Irish Sea. "Our chief worry prior to September 11 has always been environmental pollution, the threat of radioactivity being released into the Irish Sea, and we have had evidence of it sweeping across to our coasts. "Since September 11, the anxiety has heightened and there is a genuine fear of terrorist attack on Sellafield right now. "The British Government's announcement of the go-ahead for the MOX site created much anger." Similar nuclear plants in France had been equipped with ground- to-air missiles and armed guards since the terror attacks on the US, said Ms Clune. She added: "We don't see any evidence of additional security provided around Sellafield following September 11. "BNFL tell us they are reviewing security. It is a matter for the UK Government, if they believe there is a risk of terrorist attack on Sellafield it is a matter for them to review security at the plant." Jay Dooling (JayDooling@IrishAires.org) Irish Aires - 90.1FM KPFT in Houston http://IrishAires.org Irish Aires Email List http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Irish_Aires/emaillis.htm ================================================================= NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us 339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org e-mail: nyt@blythe.org ================================================================= nytenv-11.09.01-13:26:29-1504 ***************************************************************** 6 Is the US Using Nuclear Weapons in Afghanistan? Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 12:15:01 -0600 (CST) Is the US Using Nuclear Weapons in Afghanistan? Via NY Transfer News * All the News That Doesn't Fit source - Lorenzo Ervin November 11, 2001 THE REST OF THE NEWS: Is the U.S. Using Nuclear Weapons in Afghanistan? by Lorenzo Komboa Ervin In recent days there has been a government-manufactured hysteria in the American media that "Arab terrorists with nukes" are going to kill millions in the USA. But in truth, there has been only one country in the world which has used nuclear weapons on another country in a time of war, and that would be the United States, when it dropped two nuclear plutonium bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima in 1945. This was at the end of World War II and killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians. Since that time, government reports have surfaced that the American government and military strongly considered using tactical nuclear weapons in both the Korean-U.S. war in the 1950's and in Vietnam during the 1960's, when the U.S. was losing both wars. All of this begs the question of whether the U.S. is actually using nuclear weapons in Afghanistan, where it has been dropping a variety of aerial bombs, cruise missiles, and artillery. One such weapon is the so-called "bunker buster" bomb, announced on Oct. 11 by the Pentagon. This bomb was first employed in Iraq during the U.S. attack in the Gulf Region in 1991. A newer version of the bomb was used in Kosovo by NATO bombers there in 1999, but again very sparingly in comparison with Afghanistan, and then only the non-nuclear version, Guided Bomb Unit 28 (GBU 28). According to the Military Analysis Network of the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), "This...GBU 28 is a special weapon developed for penetrating hardened Iraqui command centers located deep underground. The bomb is a 5,000-pound laser-guided conventional munition that uses a 4,400-pound penetrating warhead." This is a laser-guided or so-called "smart bomb" fired from a B-2 bomber. But the latest version of this weapon is in fact a low yield nuclear weapon, a so-called "battlefield nuke" designed to destroy hardened bunkers. Not only myself but other researchers, such as the FAS and the Afrikan News Network, a website for Africans in America, have reported on this matter and are convinced that the Pentagon is using the nuclear version (designated B-61-11) against the Taliban. This nuclear bomb, Pentagon planners believe, will succeed in reaching underground bunkers of Taliban leaders where the GBU-28 non-nuclear device has apparently failed. So they are very quietly "going nuclear." The B-61-11 is in fact a "repackaged hydrogen bomb" from the 1960's, and can burrow 20-50 feet into the soil before detonating its 5-kiloton warhead. Although the Pentagon has always claimed that the weapon would "limit collateral damage," the truth is that the weapon would produce a large area of lethal fallout. If the Pentagon is deploying such a weapon, they really do intend to destroy Afghanistan and make parts of it uninhabitable. No crops could be planted and reaped in such soil, and no one could live in such areas without developing radiation sickness. Thousands would perish, the majority civilians. This is clearly in line with President Bush's desire to partition the country, if they cannot overthrow the Taliban regime, and also in line with the Bush/Cheney/Powell military doctrine of using tactical nuclear weapons in a conventional war in the third world. Of course, if the U.S. is using such weapons, it is in clear violation of both American and international law. For instance, a 1994 federal law prohibits the manufacture and use of such weapons. Furthermore, the various international treaties and United Nations resolutions prohibit it, including those of the International Atomic Energy Act, and various SALT and nuclear non-proliferation treaties. Thus, if nuclear weapons are being used or their use is even planned, it would be the U.S. who would be the rogue state and nuclear terrorist which it hypocritically denounces. I must honestly say here that I do not know for sure if these nuclear devices have actually been deployed in Afghanistan. I do know they have been created for such a purpose in a war in the 3rd world, and that even the manufacture *and possession* of "mini-nukes" by the US government is illegal under all existing international laws. But I don't want anyone to blindly accept my word, any more than we should gullibly believe President Bush or the Pentagon for whether this bombing of Afghanistan is justified as a "war against terorism." Do the research. But, it is an honest question as to whether the U.S. military is using nuclear devices, and an equally honest question of whether it is the use of such devices of mass destruction by the American military which might then *really* provoke the use of nuclear devices by guerrillas associated with Osama bin Laden or a so-called "Middle Eastern rogue state" in retaliation against the U.S. population centers. In fact, that is the only way I think it would happen. Once again, the American people would be hit with retaliatory guerrilla warfare from a fairaway conflict, just like on September 11th. In the real sense, only the U.S. *has proven* it will use nuclear weapons, and it's the one who currently threatens world peace. We cannot be blind to that. But the American media, in lockstep with the Pentagon and the Bush administration, blames the Middle East or Afghanistan. This is all designed to criminalize Arabs or Muslims throughout the world, terrorize the domestic population, and justify the harsh U.S. military response. It is wartime propaganda. In the USA especially, we cannot allow ourselves to be frightened by all the scare mongering gutter news reports of "Arab terrorists with nuclear devices." It is the worst type of racism and alarmism, when only the U.S. and its allies really have such weapons. I suggest the world's media and progressive movements read the report of the Federation of American Scientists on low yield nuclear weapons in the American arsenal, (http://www.fas.org/wmd), used as the source for this article as well as the related report on http://afrikan.net, the Air Force News Service Report at http://www.brook.edu/tp/projects/ nucwcost/alaska.htm, and an August 2001 article in the Progressive magazine. Then you make your mind up just who is guilty of "state terrorism." How can we really find out if the U.S. is using nuclear weapons in Afghanistan? Along with others, I believe that the International Atomic Energy Agency of the U.N. should be forced to begin an investigation of whether the U.S. military is using nuclear weapons in Afghanistan, instead of falsely accusing the Afghani government, Iraq, or alleged non-government guerrilla groups of using or seeking to use nuclear arms against the USA. We must demand that the IAEA investigate U.S. military use of this new type of nuclear bomb. We should send them complaint letters from all over the world.(info@iaea.org) Hopefully, opponents of the U.S. bombing campaign in the U.S. Congress, such as Barbara Lee and Cynthia McKinney of the Congressional Black Caucus will begin to hold public and Congressional hearings to challenge Bush and Powell on the use of these nuclear weapons. I also suggest everyone begin to write them now and urge them to do so: Barbara.lee@mail.house.gov and {Mckinney} cymck@mail.house.gov But the anti-war/peace and social justice movements should not wait for government hearings to use this knowledge as just *one more reason* why the bombing should cease, and this criminal war should end. We should hold their own tribunals now, and expose what these nuclear devices and all the bombs are doing to destroy Afghanistan, and also what the so-called "anti-terrorist" laws are doing to destroy human rights in the country we are living in: the USA. We cannot blame the Taliban for this, we should blame George W. Bush and the oil billionaries and war profiteers behind him. ================================================================= NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us 339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org e-mail: nyt@blythe.org ================================================================= nytcov-11.12.01-03:49:01-4407 ***************************************************************** 7 [southnews] UNGA adopts Iraqi proposed DU resolution Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 22:40:19 -0600 (CST) UN General Assembly adopts Iraqi proposed resolution From IRAQ DAILY Thursday, Nov 8, 2001 UN General Assembly adopts Iraqi proposed resolution UN, Nov. 7, INA Iraq had scored a strong diplomatic victory when the 1st Committee on disarmament has adopted the Iraqi proposal concerning the effects of using depleted uranium in armament in spite of the strong opposition of the US, Zionist entity and European states. The Resolution was adopted after 49 countries voted with, 45 voted against and 39 abstained. The Arab voice was effective when most Arab States supported the Iraqi proposal, along with the backing of other countries among which Cuba, Indonesia, Malaysia and India. The proposal calls on the Secretary General of the United Nations to survey the points of view of states and specialized organizations about the effects of using depleted uranium in armament from all sides and to report to the 57th Session of the General Assembly. The resolution takes into consideration the facts unveiled about using depleted uranium during the US led military aggressions in several regions of the World, as these ammunitions, when fired, is transformed into ionized particles and chemical dust that is transported to large areas and contaminates the soil, fauna and flora. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: southnews-unsubscribe@egroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ***************************************************************** 8 Nuclear Threat Is Real, Experts Warn November 11, 2001 The former Soviet stockpile is seen as a likely source of weaponry for terrorists. Specialists cite lax security, missing materials and attempted thefts. By DAVID WILLMAN and ALAN C. MILLER, Times Staff Writers WASHINGTON -- The guards who oversee the vast, remaining nuclear stockpile of the former Soviet Union have gone months at a time without pay. Highly enriched uranium--usable for a nuclear bomb--has disappeared. Among the buyers-in-waiting is the world's most wanted man, Osama bin Laden. President Bush last week underscored the threat, noting that Bin Laden has vowed to seek weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear bombs. Before the Sept. 11 suicide hijackings, many government officials assumed that terrorists would refrain from using radioactive materials because of the grave risk to themselves. This assumption now appears outdated, raising dire questions about the possibility of terrorist attacks that could kill tens of thousands or more civilians. "Absent a major new initiative, we have every reason to expect there will be an act of nuclear terrorism in the next decade, maybe sooner," said Graham T. Allison, an assistant secretary of Defense under President Clinton. Interviews and documents show that U.S. and Russian leaders over the last decade have taken incomplete steps to safeguard a potentially large nuclear shopping mart in which scientists or officials motivated by cash meet terrorists seeking the ultimate weapon. Although Bush said his administration "will do everything we can" to thwart Bin Laden's nuclear ambitions, past promises have fallen short: As a candidate, Bush vowed to increase spending for securing the former Soviet nuclear arsenal and to press for "an accurate inventory of all this material." As president, he has done the opposite--proposing spending cuts in his first budget. And Bush has not sought to use any of the $40 billion provided for anti-terrorism spending after Sept. 11 to better secure the coveted stockpile. With new urgency, experts are examining the widespread opportunities for terrorists to acquire nuclear materials and know-how from the former Soviet Union. A report prepared for the U.S. secretary of Energy early this year warned of "dozens" of worrisome incidents. Other government consultants have verified the disappearance of highly enriched uranium from an unguarded plant on the Black Sea, interviews and records show. A prominent U.S. physicist told The Times of being presented with an offer to buy neutron "guns," devices that can be used to detonate a nuclear bomb. And according to U.S. experts, neither the Russians nor the Americans have a complete inventory of all the highly enriched uranium and plutonium, another ingredient for a nuclear bomb. "I am concerned that weapons-usable nuclear material may have gone astray," said Rose Gottemoeller, who served as assistant secretary of Energy for nonproliferation and national security during the Clinton administration. Bin Laden Claims He Has Weapons For now, American officials say they do not know whether Bin Laden's international terror network, Al Qaeda, possesses either intact nuclear weapons or the materials to make them. But Bin Laden, in interviews in December 1998 with U.S. television and magazine reporters, said it was a "religious duty" to possess nuclear materials and chemical weapons. When Bin Laden and others were indicted in November 1998 for the bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa, federal prosecutors alleged that "from at least as early as 1993, Osama bin Laden and others known and unknown made efforts to obtain the components of nuclear weapons." On Friday, a leading Pakistani newspaper quoted Bin Laden as saying in an interview Wednesday that he has both nuclear and chemical weapons. "I wish to declare that if America used nuclear or chemical weapons against us, then we may retort with chemical and nuclear weapons. We have the weapons as deterrent," Bin Laden said, according to the account in the English-language newspaper, Dawn. Bin Laden declined to say where he might have acquired the weapons. Al Qaeda would not be the only terrorist group to pursue nuclear materials. Aum Shinrikyo, a wealthy doomsday cult based in Japan, recruited nuclear physicists from Moscow. Investigators determined that the group also tried to mine its own uranium in Australia and to buy Russian nuclear warheads. Some analysts speculate that Bin Laden or others also could seek nuclear materials from "rogue" states such as Iran and Iraq, suspected of fomenting attacks against the U.S. The shared border and Islamic ties between Afghanistan and Pakistan have helped spur conjecture that Bin Laden has gained assistance from two or more Pakistani nuclear scientists, who were recently detained for questioning and released. The government of Pakistan insists that its nuclear weapons have remained secure. For U.S. officials, the nature of the nuclear threat has evolved since December 1991, when the Soviet Union dissolved into Russia and 14 other independent states, with thousands of assembled nuclear weapons still aimed at North America. Properly securing and destroying many of those weapons remains an imperative. But what looms even larger for many security specialists are the separate and portable materials necessary to make a nuclear bomb--highly enriched uranium or plutonium. Also of great concern are other radioactive materials that could be used, with a conventional explosive, to construct a relatively simple "dirty" bomb. Such an explosive could inflict casualties on the scale of the Oklahoma City bombing, and the radioactive material could contaminate a large urban area. Ingredients for Disaster With just a few kilograms of radioactive material--which can be obtained from nonmilitary sources--a terrorist could make the crude device. Weapons specialists say it could be delivered with such low-tech means as a passenger van or boat. For a nuclear device, as little as 12 kilograms, or about 26.4 pounds, of highly enriched uranium, or four kilograms--less than a soda can full--of plutonium would be needed, along with other components that are available commercially. Building and detonating a nuclear device would take far greater scientific training than needed for the "dirty" bomb, and experts differ on how readily terrorists could execute such a mission. But the precision that the terrorists demonstrated Sept. 11 has challenged such assumptions. "We are now in a new arms race," Charles B. Curtis, deputy secretary of Energy under Clinton, said in an Oct. 29 speech to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna. "Terrorists and certain rogue states are racing to get weapons of mass destruction, and we are racing to stop them." Viewed from the vantage point of the Cold War, progress has been made in cooperatively identifying and reducing the former Soviet arsenal. Thousands of nuclear weapons have been dismantled. Hundreds of metrics tons of nuclear material have been placed under improved security. The U.S. has spent billions of dollars to assist the former Soviet republics in securing or eliminating nuclear weapons and material. And new efforts are expected to be discussed when Bush and Russian President Vladimir V. Putin begin talks Tuesday in Washington. Still, the U.S. has fallen short of the actions needed to avert the calamity invited by loose nuclear materials, more than a dozen leading experts said. They voiced dismay that the government is not ramping up its efforts in the aftermath of Sept. 11. "These materials pose a clear and present danger to the U.S. national security," said John P. Holdren, a Harvard University specialist who in 1995 headed a secret study for Clinton of the security of weapons-grade uranium and plutonium within the former Soviet Union. "We haven't done enough." Nuclear Material Found Missing Just a decade ago, the city of Sukhumi was known for its comforts. Located in the Abkhazia region of the former Soviet republic of Georgia on the eastern reach of the Black Sea, it was a "how-much-wine-can-you-drink place," in the fond memory of one visitor. Then came a rebellion by ethnic separatists. The disruption affected more than the resort atmosphere. Sukhumi, it turns out, also was home to a nuclear research facility. Amid the fighting and ensuing chaos, about two kilograms of highly enriched uranium disappeared, according to a team of researchers led by William C. Potter at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, an independent graduate school in California. A Russian-speaking researcher who assisted Potter, Emily Daughtry, said she confirmed the prior existence of the highly enriched uranium with both the former director of the Sukhumi nuclear research center and with Georgian Foreign Ministry officials whom she visited. She said the director told her that, in September 1993, as the city was being taken over by the Abkhazian separatists, "the scientists asked Georgian security forces for help in moving what [the director] characterized as radioactive materials out of the institute and out of the city." Daughtry, now a law student at UCLA, said the security forces were fighting the rebels and could not assist the scientists. "And so the scientists surrounded the material storage areas with concrete blocks, and then they left," she said. "They fled the city; they couldn't take it with them." When a team of Russian inspectors finally gained access to the Sukhumi facility, about 880 miles southeast of Moscow, in December 1997, they found it deserted, according to Potter. He said the inspectors found none of the highly enriched uranium, although other radioactive material was present. "This is an instance in which weapons-grade material is known to have disappeared," said Potter, who also is a consultant to the Energy Department's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. He said he shared his findings with U.S. officials. The Times was unable to reach the former director of the Sukhumi nuclear center. In Moscow, a spokesman for the Russian nuclear energy ministry, Yuri Bespalko, said he was unaware of weapons material missing from Sukhumi or any other location. "There is definitely a full inventory of all nuclear materials in Russia, and it is simply impossible that something could go missing," Bespalko said. "Today, nothing threatens Russia's nuclear installations. As for former Soviet republics . . . there may have been separate cases in the past, but today, according to our information, all nuclear materials are under a reliable protection." Current and former U.S. officials say the record suggests otherwise. The Monterey Institute has documented 11 cases of diversion and recovery of uranium and plutonium from 1992 to 1997. More recently, the International Atomic Energy Agency described six arrests or seizures of weapons-grade nuclear material linked to the former Soviet Union from 1999 through last January. The January report of a task force led by Republican Howard H. Baker Jr., a former U.S. senator and White House chief of staff, and Democrat Lloyd N. Cutler, a former White House counsel, referred to "dozens" of incidents of attempted theft. Culture of Deal-Making In 1998, the report said, employees of a Russian nuclear facility in Chelyabinsk were caught "attempting to steal fissile material of a quantity just short of that needed for one nuclear device." Also in 1998, a Russian employee at a lab in Arzamas was charged with "attempting to sell documents on nuclear weapons designs to agents of Iraq and Afghanistan for $3 million," according to the task force report. In January 2000, Russian agents arrested four sailors at a base on the Kamchatka Peninsula with a stash that included radioactive materials they were suspected of having stolen from their submarine. The regional head of Russia's Federal Security Service, or FSB, the main successor agency to the KGB, attributed the Arzamas case and others to the "very difficult financial position" of workers at the nuclear defense facilities, the report said. Indeed, specialists who commute to Russia say that a culture of deal-making persists. "People are trying to sell all various things," said Thomas L. Neff, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology physicist who pioneered a program that buys the Russians' highly enriched uranium and recycles it for nonmilitary purposes. Neff described an incident several years ago in which a Russian engineer he met outside a nuclear weapons facility in the town of Lesnoy offered to sell him 700 neutron guns, devices that can be used both for detonating a nuclear bomb and for oil drilling. Neff said he reported the overture to U.S. authorities. "That's just the tip of the iceberg," Neff said. "I had a number of experiences like that. . . . Engineers have come out and talked to me, brought me out samples of their stuff, which is pretty scary. . . . I mean, I could have been anybody." Just last month, Igor Volynkin, head of the defense agency responsible for protecting Russia's nuclear arsenal, told reporters that on two occasions in the last year, terrorists had staked out nuclear facilities. Security was beefed up in response, Volynkin said. Potter, who participated in two National Academy of Sciences studies of the security of the former Soviet nuclear facilities, said "the Russians maintain that they have accounted for everything. In fact, anybody who's ever been to one of these Russian facilities knows that that is a joke." Based on the volume of known theft attempts, Potter said, it is "likely that Western observers of the nuclear trafficking scene have missed significant instances of diversion and/or export." Russia and the rest of the former Soviet Union have a total of about 1,100 metric tons of weapons-grade, highly enriched uranium and 160 metric tons of plutonium at 123 sites, according to specialists and U.S. government reports. This includes 603 metric tons of weapons-grade material stored separately from nuclear weapons at 53 facilities. But neither Russia nor the U.S. has a complete inventory of the amount and location of all the highly enriched uranium and plutonium, U.S. experts say. "There's a great deal of anxiety in our community about that, probably in theirs too," said Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), co-sponsor of the most prominent U.S. program to reduce the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union. "We haven't accounted for everything. So that if something was taken, someone might not know it." Officials also have been unable to confirm the status of the former Soviet Union's portable nuclear explosives, called backpack bombs or suitcase bombs. "There were such bombs, absolutely," said Nikolai Sokov, who was a Russian negotiator for the START II arms control pact signed in 1993. "They should have been dismantled. We do not know for sure if they have been dismantled." Volynkin, the nuclear security chief, told reporters in October that Russia had 84 nuclear devices weighing 30 kilograms or less and that all had been destroyed or put under tight control. Gottemoeller, the former assistant Energy secretary, said the attempted theft of 1.5 kilograms of highly enriched uranium from a facility in Podolsk in 1992 "was a major wake-up call" for Russian officials. U.S. officials assigned to assist the Russians in the early 1990s "had a problem establishing working relationships," Gottemoeller said, until the Russians "got the fear of God put into them because some of their work force started walking out with pellets of uranium in their pockets." Glasnost, the opening of Soviet society, posed its own challenge. The old security regime was developed with closed borders and nuclear workers who were relatively well paid. This eroded quickly with the superpower's breakup into independent states with open borders and rampant corruption. Quick Fixes For Lax Security The Americans found stunningly lax security at the nuclear facilities they visited: Perimeter fences with holes or gaps. Hinges rusted off doors. Nuclear material stored in lockers with flimsy padlocks. Working with the Russians, they made quick fixes--bricking up windows, installing blast-proof doors, placing radiation detectors at the exits. More comprehensive improvements have been made at a smaller number of facilities--electronic sensors on fences, internal alarms, closed-circuit television monitors and electronic systems to screen visitors. But many of Russia's nuclear weapons storage sites remain off-limits to U.S. officials. The General Accounting Office reported in May that U.S. officials had yet to gain access to 104 of 252 nuclear-site buildings "requiring improved security systems." The Russians' reticence stems in part from nationalist sentiment. "Some people find it humiliating," said Igor Khripunov, who for 21 years was an official with the former Soviet Union's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and now is associate director of the Center for International Trade and Security at the University of Georgia in Athens, Ga. "You shouldn't underestimate this sense of national pride. We were this great superpower, and now we have to get money and assistance from the country we considered our adversary." Retired Brig. Gen. Thomas E. Kuenning Jr., who directs the Pentagon's program for reducing threats from the former Soviet Union's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, said in an interview that "Russia's security paranoia" is an impediment. Security Concerns at Civilian Facilities For the Americans, access is required to ensure that U.S. tax dollars are being spent appropriately, Kuenning said. The Russians, in turn, want reciprocal access to sensitive U.S. nuclear facilities. "But we're paying the bill," he said. In his view, reciprocity "is not an issue." Despite "steady, consistent progress," Kuenning said, "there are [security] vulnerabilities that we realize and the Russians realize. And we're working very hard to try to fix" them. John C. Reppert, a former defense attache to the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, said his greatest worry is vulnerabilities at the civilian Ministry of Atomic Energy test facilities and academic institutions. He said he suspected that security was "at best a padlock and a barbed-wire fence," with fewer guards who are less well trained than those at military locations. (Russia signed an agreement with the U.S. Energy Department in September to provide access to some sensitive Ministry of Atomic Energy facilities that had been closed to the Americans.) Even at the ostensibly premier military facilities, the reliability of the security guards is a constant concern. Some endured months-long gaps in pay in the mid-1990s. Kuenning said pay has improved--it's higher than salaries for ordinary soldiers--and the guard force has a high percentage of officers. But, he added, the tough economic conditions in the remote places where many guards live "add to the challenge" of securing the stockpile. A bipartisan congressional commission headed by former CIA Director John M. Deutch and Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) detailed some of those challenges in a July 1999 report: "Russia has no reliable inventory of its fissile material, and Russian vulnerability to an 'insider' threat is increased by power outages at Russian nuclear installations, by the need for unpaid guards and technicians to forage for food." The General Accounting Office reported in February that "hundreds of metric tons of [Russian] nuclear material remain unprotected." The report added: "We also observed instances where systems were not operated properly. For example, at one nuclear facility that we visited, an entrance gate to a building containing nuclear material was left open and unattended by guards." When members of the Baker-Cutler task force visited seven of the nuclear facilities in July 2000, they, too, found severe shortcomings. The task force concluded that the republics of the former Soviet Union remained "the most likely place" for terrorists to acquire nuclear materials. "Many of the Russian nuclear sites remain vulnerable to insiders determined to steal enough existing material to make several nuclear weapons and to transport these materials to Iran, Iraq or Afghanistan," the task force's report said. ". . . With the expertise required to make at least a crude nuclear bomb now widely available, it is critical that these materials be secured, neutralized, or eliminated." The U.S. government's capacity to detect diversions of nuclear material also has been undermined by policy shifts within the CIA, several recently retired agents said in interviews. They described specific directives to disband spy missions within the former Soviet Union, Pakistan, Germany and other nations where Islamic terrorists are now suspected to have operated. The directives came as the CIA shifted to a post-Cold War posture of spying less on presumed friends and of relying more on high-tech eavesdropping than on informants. "It's had a devastating effect," said one of the ex-agents, who worked inside the former Soviet Union, the Middle East and Europe. "We're out of the game. It terrifies me." Presidential Promises A succession of U.S. presidents and members of Congress has agreed upon the need to help the former Soviet Union better safeguard its nuclear materials--and strides have been made. The Defense Department's Cooperative Threat Reduction program, known as Nunn-Lugar after its two original Senate sponsors, has helped deactivate 5,708 nuclear warheads, destroy 435 intercontinental ballistic missiles and 483 air-to-surface missiles, and eliminate hundreds of bombers, submarines and missile launchers. Cost: $4 billion. The Energy Department has spent nearly $6 billion to improve overall security of the nuclear materials, reduce the amount of weapons-usable uranium and plutonium, and combat illicit trafficking in nuclear material. And a State Department program has provided grant money to about 34,000 weapons scientists and other workers to help steer them into civilian research. The U.S. has contributed about $134 million to this international effort. Without viable commercial opportunities, officials fear that some of the 50,000 scientists and engineers who worked to develop the Soviet nuclear arsenal would be tempted by offers from "rogue" states or terrorists. "There still is an environment out there where, despite some improvement in the economy, there are extremely limited choices for many of these people," said a senior State Department official. "Which means that if we can provide them an alternative to a bad guy walking through the door with a suitcase full of money, then this continues to be important." Yet the need to contain the resulting nuclear dangers remains unfulfilled, as highlighted in January by the Baker-Cutler task force report. The task force called for the U.S. to spend up to $30 billion over the next eight to 10 years to prevent the use of a nuclear weapon by terrorists against American troops or citizens. Based on his statements as a candidate, Bush recognized the need to act. Appearing on Nov. 19, 1999, at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Bush said: "Under the Nunn-Lugar program, security at many Russian nuclear facilities has been improved and warheads have been destroyed. Even so, the Energy Department warns us that our estimates of Russian nuclear stockpiles could be off by as much as 30%. In other words, a great deal of Russian nuclear material cannot be accounted for. The next president must press for an accurate inventory of all this material. And we must do more. "I will ask the Congress to increase substantially our insistence to dismantle as many of Russia's weapons as possible as quickly as possible." On Nov. 21, 1999, Bush explicitly called for higher funding for the Nunn-Lugar program. "We not only ought to spend that money, we ought to increase that amount of money in the budget to make the world safer," Bush said on NBC's "Meet the Press." Yet last Feb. 28, when Bush submitted his first budget as president, he proposed spending 9% less on the Nunn-Lugar program, reducing the total from $443.4 million to $403 million. And despite candidate Bush's vow to "press for an accurate inventory" of all the nuclear material, the new president's budget proposed significant reductions in related programs that are administered by the Energy Department. Bush proposed reducing by about 11%--from $872.4 million to $773.7 million--the department's overall nonproliferation efforts in the former Soviet Union. (Congress last month approved more money than Bush requested but less than the current funding level.) And Bush included no money in his budget for a U.S.-Russia inventory of all plutonium produced in Russia. The current budget, the last under Clinton, included $500,000 to launch the plutonium program. The administration also is using none of an initial $20-billion emergency package to better secure the Russian nuclear materials. The package is aimed at countering terrorism and assisting in the recovery from the Sept. 11 attacks. And Bush has not asked Congress for any funds for this purpose from an additional $20-billion spending request that is pending on Capitol Hill. Several nuclear security experts criticized Bush's approach. "This is a scandal," said Holdren, the Harvard specialist who chairs an arms control panel of the National Academy of Sciences. "It is far cheaper and more efficient to protect both the knowledge and the material at their source than to try to figure out how to intercept them once they've been manufactured into a nuclear bomb somewhere." Bush, Putin to Talk About Nuclear Threat An administration official said Bush is committed to reducing the threat of nuclear proliferation and expects to discuss the issue with Russia's Putin at this week's summit. "We are actively examining new and expanded efforts in these areas," the official said. The official did not directly address questions submitted by The Times about the contrast between Bush's campaign statements and his spending decisions. Pentagon officials defended Bush's approach to the Nunn-Lugar program. They say he sought the full amount they requested. Clinton raised spending for safeguarding the former Soviet nuclear stockpile throughout his presidency, but he, too, pledged more than he delivered. In his State of the Union address Jan. 19, 1999, Clinton said: "We must expand our work with Russia, Ukraine and the other former Soviet nations to safeguard nuclear materials and technology so they never fall into the wrong hands. Our balanced budget will increase funding for these critical efforts by almost two-thirds over the next five years." Clinton included spending increases in his two subsequent budget requests--but substantially less than two-thirds, with much of the money going toward programs that were not aimed at securing the nuclear materials. Some former aides say Clinton should have moved more boldly. Matthew Bunn, a leading authority on the Soviet nuclear arsenal who served as an advisor to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy in the mid-1990s, wrote last year: "President Clinton has said a few words about the high priority of these issues, and then has failed to follow through with the sustained commitments of money, personnel and political attention to get the job done." And Clinton's predecessor, George H.W. Bush, was hesitant to support the Nunn-Lugar initiative in 1991 and 1992. Lugar said that when he and then-Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) approached the administration to use U.S. funds to secure and dismantle nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union, Bush was preoccupied with other priorities as the nation emerged from the Persian Gulf War and the president confronted both a recession and his reelection bid. "It was not immediately adopted by the Bush administration as a plan of action," Lugar recalled. "They may not have seen rapidly the efficacy, or even the need, to do this." Cutler, the co-chairman of the task force report issued in January, said the country's leaders and the public remained complacent for a decade. "Before the 11th of September, you couldn't get anybody's attention on nuclear risks, especially the nonproliferation risks," Cutler said. "They thought that if the Cold War was over, it was over. They didn't realize how serious the risks are that the Russian material can either be stolen or sold, how primitive the security is." Staff writer Robyn Dixon in Moscow and researcher Janet Lundblad in Los Angeles contributed to this report. For information about reprinting this article, go to http://www.lats.com/rights/register.htm Copyright 2001 Los Angeles Times By visiting this site, you ***************************************************************** 9 Atomic leaks: The west fears Soviet bomb material could be stolen by terrorists, say Andrew Jack andClive Cookson: Financial Times; Nov 10, 2001 By CLIVE COOKSON and ANDREW JACK When expertsfunded by the US government began examining the security of military nuclear installations in Russia during the 1990s, they were shocked by what they found. Fences had collapsed, doors were not locked and guards were poorly paid or absent. Even officers from the Russian navy, usually reluctant to admit weaknesses, conceded privately that there was a risk of materials being stolen. "It is hard to describe the extraordinary sense of urgency," says Jack Caravelli, assistant deputy administrator of the US National Nuclear Security Administration, of the need to make these materials safe. The terrorist attacks of September 11, followed by the wave of anthrax mail in the US, have led President George W. Bush and other world leaders to warn of the consequences of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons falling into the hands of Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda network. And the crumbling remains of the former Soviet Union's military complex are widely seen as the most likely source of expertise and materials for terrorists seeking weapons of mass destruction. Many US politicians have reiterated warnings, such as that issued earlier this year by a bipartisan commission chaired by Howard Baker, a former senator, and Lloyd Cutler, former White House counsel: "The most urgent unmet national security threat to the United States today is the danger that weapons of mass destruction or weapons-usable material in Russia could be stolen and sold to terrorists or hostile nation states." Within Russia, the mood is relatively calm. Adding to a series of denials by senior officials over the past few weeks, President Vladimir Putin stressed on Wednesday that his country's stockpiles of biological weapons "were always in the Soviet Union - and are now in Russia - well guarded". He added that reports of the sale of nuclear secrets were undocumented "legends". Mr Putin's view is broadly shared by independent outside experts. Although the Inter-national Atomic Energy Agency warned last week that the world faced a serious risk of nuclear terrorism, IAEA staff say they have gathered no new evidence since September 11 of al-Qaeda or any other terrorists trying to obtain nuclear material. Mohamed El Baradei, IAEA director-general, says the warning is based simply on an assessment of the terrorists' psychology and ruthlessness: "The willingness of terrorists to sacrifice their lives to achieve their evil aims makes the nuclear terrorism threat far more likely than it was before September 11." Frightening reports in the media - for example, that al-Qaeda possesses 20 "suitcase bombs" capable of one-kilotonne nuclear explosions or that the Taliban regime has been offered small tactical weapons from the Soviet nuclear arsenal - "should be met with much scepticism", says Morten Bremer Maerli, a specialist on nuclear terrorism at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs. But Charles Curtis, president of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, an independent charitable organisation, told an IAEA seminar on terrorism last week: "The theft of potential bomb material is not just a hypothetical worry but an ongoing reality. This includes the attempted theft by a conspiracy of insiders of 18.5kg of highly enriched uranium from a weapons facility in the Urals. It includes nearly a kilogramme of HEU in the form of fast reactor fuel pellets seized last year in the republic of Georgia." Reports of former Soviet scien tists working for "rogue regimes" and thefts of nuclear or biological materials are very hard to verify independently. Limited details - of thwarted thefts or attacks - are often provided by military or security service officials without further information. Their remarks have sometimes been interpreted as efforts to boost their own image and morale or to seek additional funding. Matthew Bunn of Harvard University, a member of the Russian-American Nuclear Security Advisory Council, has monitored many "anecdotal" incidents over the past few years. "We don't have confirmed evidence (of theft)," he says. "But absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence." There certainly are huge risks. The Soviet Union's weapons complex, the largest the world has known, has left a dangerous legacy. Chemical stockpiles of 40,000 tonnes, of which about three- quarters are nerve agents, are held in seven main locations. While Russia claims to have destroyed its bioweapons stockpiles, there is no mechanism for independent verification and at least four military research centres are still operating today. Estimates of weapons-grade nuclear materials stored in dozens of sites across Russia range upwards of 600 tonnes, with a similar quantity still armed on about 40,000 weapons. Countless lower-grade radioactive sources could be used for terrorist purposes, such as making "dirty bombs" that spread nuclear contamination by means of conventional explosions. So far, attempts to destroy, decommission or safely reuse such materials have been limited. Substantial foreign aid, mainly from the US, has led to the construction of two new facilities designed to destroy chemical weapons. But they are not yet ready to begin work and Russia is already demanding a five-year extension of the 2007 decommissioning deadline set under the Chemical Weapons Convention that it ratified in 1997. Greater progress has been made with nuclear decommissioning, including a pioneering programme to convert and sell enriched uranium to a commercial US company to burn in power stations. Up to 2,000 weapons a year are also reportedly being dismantled, although the process remains opaque. Another significant risk comes not from theft but from leakage of intellectual property. Up to 70,000 people worked on the Soviet Union's biological re-search programme alone - much of it for military purposes. About 750,000 people live in 10 nuclear cities across the country designed specifically for weapons development. Mr Caravelli estimates conservatively there may be 10,000 to 25,000 scientists with expertise that could prove useful. Efforts to finance alternative commercial work for scientists, including biotechnology projects at Vektor, are under way but remain modest. Even so, there are encouraging signs. In 1999, the civilian-run Russian Munitions Agency took over responsibility for chemical weapons decommissioning, triggering a more energetic approach to the problem, and last year Mr Putin pledged political support. But some experts are demanding a greater sense of urgency. Mr Curtis, who was deputy energy secretary in the Clinton administration, wants Mr Bush and Mr Putin at their summit next week to "commit their countries to a course of action that would ensure that any nuclear, chemical and biological weapons are safe, secure and accounted for - with reciprocal monitoring to assure each other, and the world, that this is the case." Copyright: The Financial Times Limited 1995-1998 ***************************************************************** 10 Ukraine: Nuclear reactor's output reduced after pump failure BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Nov 10, 2001 Text of report by Ukrainian news agency UNIAN Kiev, 10 November: Output of generating set No 1 of the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant was cut following a technical failure at 0045 today [2245 gmt on 9 November], UNIAN learned from the State Committee for Nuclear Regulation's information centre. The set was operating at peak capacity when one of the pumps supplying cooling water to the reactor from a cooling pond failed. The set's output was reduced to 720 MW, which is 72 per cent of its rated capacity. The failure did not affect radiation level in and around the plant and posed no danger to the staff. The damaged pump is to be repaired over the weekend [10-11 November], after which the generating set's capacity will be restored. Out of the 13 reactors at [Ukrainian] nuclear power plants, 11 are now in operation. Generating set No 3 of the Zaporizhzhya power plant and set No 3 of the South Ukrainian nuclear power plant are undergoing repairs. Generating set No 1 at the Rivne nuclear power plant has reached its maximum output of 425 MW upon completion of repairs after the set's output fell last night [8 November] due to an electrical equipment failure. (The reactor's rated capacity is 440 MW, but the allowed capacity was reduced a few years ago due to tightened safety regulations). [The capacity of generating set No 3 at the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant was reduced to 60 per cent of the rated level, according to a report by Interfax-Ukraine news agency, Kiev, in Russian 0853 gmt 10 Nov 01, quoting the Ukrainian state-owned nuclear company Enerhoatom] Source: UNIAN news agency, Kiev, in Ukrainian 0739 gmt 10 Nov 01 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. World Reporter All Material Subject to ***************************************************************** 11 Text of Bin Laden interview Zawya.com arab business and finance ISLAMABAD, Nov 10 (AFP) - The following is the full transcript of the interview given by Osama bin Laden to Hamid Mir, editor of the Urdu daily Ausaf, and published on Saturday in the Pakistani newspaper Dawn: Question: After American bombing of Afghanistan on October 7, you told the Al-Jazeera TV that the September 11 attacks had been carried out by some Mulsims. How did you know they were Muslims? Bin Laden: The Americans themselves released a list of suspects of the September 11 attacks saying that the persons named were involved in the attacks. They were all Muslims, of whom 15 belonged to Saudi Arabia, two were from the United Arab Emirates and one from Egypt. According to the information I have, they were also passengers. Fateha (funeral) was held for them in their homes. But America said they were hijackers. Question: In your statement of October 7, you expressed satisfaction over the September 11 attacks, although a large number of innocent people perished in them, hundreds among them were Muslims. Can you justify the killing of innocent men in the light of Islamic teachings? Bin Laden: This is a major point in jurisprudence. In my view, if an enemy occupies a Muslim territory and uses common people as a human shield, then it is permitted to attack that enemy. For instance, if bandits barge into a home and hold a child hostage, then the child's father can attack the bandits and in that attack even the child may get hurt. America and its allies are massacring us in Palestine, Chechnya, Kashmir and Iraq. The Muslims have the right to attack America in reprisal. The Islamic Sharia (law) says Muslims should not live in the land of the infidel for long. The September 11 attacks were not targeted at women and children. The real targets were America's icons of military and economic power. The Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) was against killing women and children. When he saw a dead woman during a war he asked why was she killed? If a child is above 13 and wields a weapon against Muslims, then it is permitted to kill him. The American people should remember that they pay taxes to their government, they elect their president, their government manufactures arms and gives them to Israel and Israel uses them to massacre Palestinians. The American Congress endorses all government measures and this proves that the entire America is responsible for the atrocities perpetrated against Muslims. The entire America because they elect Congress. I ask the American people to force their government to give up the anti-Muslim policies. The American people had risen against their government's war in Vietnam. They must do the same today. The American people should stop the massacre of Muslims by their government. Question: Can it be said that you are against the American government, not the American people? Bin Laden: Yes! We are carrying on the mission of our Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). The mission is to spread the word of God, not to indulge in massacring people. We ourselves are the target of killings, destruction and atrocities. We are only defending ourselves. This is defensive Jihad (holy war). We want to defend our people and our land. That is why I say that if we don't get security, the Americans, too, would not get security. This is a simple formula that even an American child can understand. This is the formula of live and let live. Question: The head of Egypt's Jamia Al-Azhar has issued a fatwa (edict) against you saying that the views and beliefs of Osama bin Laden have nothing to do with Islam. What do you have to say about that? Bin Laden: The fatwa of any official Aalim (religious figure) has no value for me. History is full of such Ulema (clerics) who justify Riba (economic interest), who justify the occupation of Palestine by the Jews, who justify the presence of American troops around Harmain Sharifain (holy places in Saudi Arabia). These people support the infidels for their personal gain. The true Ulema support the Jihad against America. Tell me if Indian forces invaded Pakistan what would you do? The Israeli forces occupy our land and the American troops are on our territory. We have no other option but to launch Jihad. Question: Some Western media claim that you are trying to acquire chemical and nuclear weapons. How much truth is there in these reports? Bin Laden: I heard the speech of American President Bush yesterday (November 7). He was scaring the European countries that Osama wanted to attack with weapons of mass destruction. I wish to declare that if America used chemical or nuclear weapons against us then we may retort with chemical and nuclear weapons. We have the weapons as a deterrent. Question: Where did you get these weapons from? Bin Laden: Go to the next question. Question: Demonstrations are being held in many European countries against American attacks on Afghanistan. Thousands of protestors were non-Muslims. What is your opinion about these non-Muslim protestors? Bin Laden: There are many innocent and good-hearted people in the West. American media instigates them against Muslims. However, some good-hearted people are protesting against American attacks because human nature abhors injustice. The Muslims were massacred under the UN patronage in Bosnia. I am aware that some officers of the State Department had resigned in protest. Many years ago the US ambassador in Egypt had resigned in protest against the policies of President Jimmy Carter. Nice and civilized are everywhere. The Jewish lobby has taken America and the West hostage. Question: Some people say that war is no solution to any issue. Do you think that some political formula could be found to stop the present war? Bin Laden: You should put this question to those who have started this war. We are only defending ourselves. Question: If America got out of Saudi Arabia and the Al-Aqsa mosque was liberated, would you then present yourself for trial in some Muslim country? Bin Laden: Only Afghanistan is an Islamic country. Pakistan follows the English law. I don't consider Saudi Arabia an Islamic country. If the Americans have charges against me we too have a charge sheet against them. Question: Pakistan government decided to cooperate with America after September 11, which you don't consider right. What do you think Pakistan should have done but to cooperate with America? Bin Laden: The government of Pakistan should have the wishes of the people in view. It should not have surrendered to the unjustified demands of America. America does not have solid proof against us. It just has some surmises. It is unjust to start bombing on the basis of those surmises. Question: Had America decided to attack Pakistan with the help of India and Israel what would have we done? Bin Laden: What has America achieved by attacking Afghanistan? We will not leave the Pakistani people and the Pakistani territory at anybody's mercy. We will defend Pakistan. But we have been disappointed by General Pervez Musharraf. He says that the majority is with him. I say the majority is against him. Bush has used the word crusade. This is a crusade declared by Bush. It is no wisdom to barter off blood of Afghan brethren to improve Pakistan's economy. He will be punished by the Pakistani people and Allah. Right now a great war of Islamic history is being fought in Afghanistan. All the big powers are united against Muslims. It is 'sawad' (a good religious deed) to participate in this war. Question: A French newspaper has claimed that you had a kidney problem and had secretly gone to Dubai for treatment last year. Is that correct? Bin Laden: My kidneys are all right. I did not go to Dubai last year. One British newspaper has published an imaginary interview with Islamabad with one of my sons who lives in Saudi Arabia. All this is false. Question: Is it correct that a daughter of Mullah Omar is your wife or your daughter is Mullah Omar's wife? Bin Laden: (Laughs) All my wives are Arabs and all my daughters are married to Arab mujahiden. I have a spiritual relationship with Mullah Omar. He is a great and brave Muslim of this age. He does not fear anyone but Allah. He is not under any personal relationship or obligation to me. He is only discharging his religious duty. I, too, have not chosen this life out of any personal consideration. pm-cl/nj Copyright © 2001 Zawya.com Ltd. ***************************************************************** 12 Unthinkable in Afghan war seems less remote The Frontier Post From Peshawar Pakistan Updated on 11/10/2001 11:33:53 AM ISLAMABAD (NNI): Not since the height of the Cold War have Americans seriously considered they could come under nuclear attack.But when President Bush said Tuesday that Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda terrorist network is likely seeking weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear bombs, the possibility that the unthinkable could happen suddenly seemed less remote. How plausible is that threat? Right now, that’s all it appears to be - a threat. Terrorists might want nuclear weapons, but no credible evidence has emerged to suggest that any terrorist group possesses such weapons, according to the latest intelligence made public. Still, post-September 11, the potential can’t be dismissed. At an October 30 press conference in Vienna, Austria, Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, identified a shifting of strategy in the “fight against terrorism.” “The willingness of terrorists to sacrifice their lives to achieve their evil aims creates a new dimension in the fight against terrorism,” ElBaradei said. “We are not just dealing with the possibility of governments diverting nuclear materials into clandestine weapons programs,” he said. “Now we have been alerted to the potential of terrorists targeting nuclear facilities or using radioactive sources to incite panic, contaminate property, and even cause injury or death among civilian populations.” Imagined scenarios of nuclear attacks by terrorists generally fall into two categories. One: Terrorists unleash a nuclear or “dirty bomb,” a conventional bomb loaded with radioactive junk. Two: They ram the United States’ own nuclear facilities with a hijacked jetliner or truck bomb, causing toxic chemicals to disperse into the air. One source of fears is the former Soviet Union. When it collapsed, some of its nuclear weapons - including those that apparently could be carried in a suitcase or briefcase - went unaccounted for in subsequent inventories, according to Bruce Blair, president of the Center for Defense Information, an independent military research organization. Gen. Alexander Lebed, the Russian national security chief under President Boris Yeltsin, completed an inventory that “came up short by something between 50 and 100 suitcases,” Blair said. “No one has really, persuasively explained the discrepancy between Lebed’s count and what the Russian government said, which was, ‘Don’t worry, nothing’s missing.’” John Lepingwell, a nuclear expert with the Monterey Institute of International Studies, doesn’t give any credence to a suitcase-bomb threat. “There is no good evidence that any rebel group or terrorist has these,” he told Time magazine. Lepingwell also dismissed the possibility of terrorists building or getting their hands on a nuclear bomb and setting it off in the United States. “This threat is quite unlikely,” he said. Terrorists, he said, would have to surmount serious obstacles to carry off a nuclear- related attack. Obtaining plutonium or highly-enriched uranium, the fissionable material of nuclear bombs. They’d have to buy it, steal it or produce it, and each case poses its own difficulties. “While creating a design may be possible, turning a design into a functioning weapon is not easy and would require time and substantial effort,” Lepingwell said. “They would have to get it to the U.S. from wherever they built it,” Lepingwell said. “Sending it airfreight or by sea would take time, and would require a string of contacts and checks that might be detected by intelligence agencies.” And the dirty bombs? The Center for Defense Information’s Blair seems to think it’s possible. He recalled how, in 1995, Chechen separatists put a canister in a Moscow park containing a highly radioactive byproduct of nuclear fission. It was a stunt, performed apparently to show how vulnerable Moscow was, Blair said. The United States, said Blair, is just as vulnerable. “So with a dirty bomb, which could be a relatively small canister of nuclear waste that’s exploded with dynamite in a city, the major problem probably would be the widespread evacuation and panic that would ensue,” he said. Another source of concern: so-called rogue nations could supply terrorists with nuclear weapons. Former United Nations chief weapons inspector Richard Butler and his team went into Iraq to shut down Saddam Hussein’s efforts to build a nuclear bomb at the dawn of the Persian Gulf war. Just in time, he said. “I know with utter certainty that Iraq was months away from having nuclear weapons when we stopped them in 1990-’91,” Butler said. “One of the key defectors from Iraq to the West, a man who was in charge of elements of Saddam Hussein’s bomb program, actually said that he’s already made one - that Saddam has already put together a crude nuclear weapon.” But even if Hussein has a crude bomb, that doesn’t guarantee he’d be willing to hand it over to terrorists; or, as Lepingwell noted, that terrorists would be able to transport it undetected to their desired location. Another country watched closely by U.S. officials is the nuclear power Pakistan, according to Joseph Cirincione, nonproliferation project director for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a nonprofit organization that promotes U.S. interests in international relations. Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf has let U.S.-led forces use bases in Pakistan in support of the war on terrorists in Afghanistan. Cirincione fears backlash in Pakistan against the Musharraf government and the United States could lead to a coup by Muslim extremists sympathetic with the Taliban; if they succeeded in overthrowing Musharraf’s government, that would put nuclear weapons in their hands. Shirin Tahir-Kheli, delegate to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, however, said that’s not happening any time soon. “If the state begins to unravel, it’ll have to unravel very fundamentally before that becomes a eality,” she said. “And I don’t see that sort of nightmare scenario.” If nuclear weapons cannot be built or found, U.S. homeland security officials acknowledge terrorists could possibly attack U.S. nuclear plants using a hijacked plane or a large truck bomb. “This is far more likely, although the consequences are likely to be far lower,” said Lepingwell, who said that an attack on a nuclear facility does not guarantee a meltdown - the perceived goal of such an effort. “The terror dimension may turn out to be greater than the actual destruction in such a case.” Victor Dricks, spokesman for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said steps have been taken since September 11 to increase security around nuclear facilities. The facilities are on “highest alert,” he said. “In addition, we’ve issued more than half a dozen advisories in the last six weeks suggesting additional steps they could take to further increase security,” Dricks said. “We also have sent letters to the governors of 40 states urging them to establish channels of communication with National Guard units in the event they feel the need to call upon them for assistance. “And our emergency operation center has been manned around-the-clock for the past six weeks by people who remain in constant communication with law enforcement agencies, the intelligence community, state and local governments and the military,” he said. Not enough, said Paul Leventhal, a critic of nuclear proliferation who worked on Senate legislation to establish the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 1974 and now serves as president of the Nuclear Control Institute. He believes more needs to be done to protect nuclear facilities, including National Guard troops guarding every plant. Leventhal also recommends installing “anti-aircraft weapons like surface-to-air missile batteries” that could intercept a hijacked plane about to crash into a plant. September 11 was “a wakeup call and let’s just hope it’s not too late,” Leventhal said. “It’s been very frustrating getting politicians and the public to pay attention to the dangers of nuclear proliferation.” Ultimately, the attacks of September 11 that shook the United States awoke Americans to grave possibilities. Sam Nunn, chairman of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, said no matter how minuscule the chance of nuclear attack, there’s work to be done. “I don’t think it is likely to happen, but if the odds against that were 1,000-to-one, we want to make them 10,000-to-one,” he told CNN. “If they are 10,000-to-one against it happening we want to make it a million-to-one.” © Copyright 2001 The Frontier Post ***************************************************************** 13 No to Nukes - SAS SURFmagic - Article 09/11/01 By Richie Looks like we have been in for it recently in terms of "Nuclear anouncements". The current goverenment policy has turned distinctly pro-nuclear in recent times with the announcement of their intention to look into Nuclear energy as a viable future energy source. Hmm. Something a bit closer to us Surfers is the announcement that the Environment Agency today gave the official thumbs up to a plan that will see an increase in the amount of radioactive waste entering the River Tamar. Surfers Against Sewage have told us that they do not believe that this proposal by Devonport Management Limited (DML) should be allowed to go ahead and are urging the general public to appeal to the Secretaries of State to intervene. As part of an expansion at Devonport Dockyard that will see a new class of submarines coming into Plymouth for refit, DML have had to apply for a licence to increase the amount of radioactive waste they discharge from the site. The Environment Agency carried out a public consultation which ended on the 4th July and have now come up with a draft proposal which has been passed onto the Secretaries of State for Health and the Environment for their consideration. The concern for Surfers Against Sewage is a particular radioactive substance called tritium - a substance that official government experts say is harmless but which independent scientists say may be extremely hazardous, even in small amounts. Vicky Garner of SAS said today; " The way that the risk from low level radiation such as tritium is assessed does not appear to be watertight, there have been criticisms about the models used to determine the risk and certain assumptions have to be made when risks are calculated. If the degree of risk can't be calculated with accuracy, how can the authorities say that they think that the risk is acceptable?" "Our concerns are for the 250,000 residents of Plymouth and the large number of people using the waters around Plymouth for recreation. All SAS want to know is whether the concerns of independent scientists about tritium and its link to cancer and leukaemia are well-founded. If there is any doubt at all about the safety of tritium or if we are simply unable to establish the degree of risk at the present time, we should not be pumping the stuff into the water. Surely we must have learnt something from past mistakes?" "It will now be up to the Secretaries of State for Health and the Environment to make their final decision on the matter. If they take the step of holding a Public Inquiry, the ramifications for the nuclear industry could be huge; tritium is discharged from nuclear installations all over the UK, sometimes in vast quantities. It will be interesting to see if they are prepared to open what could be a very large can of worms". "At the beginning of this whole episode the MoD were quoted as saying that disapproval of the local population would be manageable, we now have a chance to show them that it's not. Letters to send to the Sec's of State can be found on the SAS website, so if you want this issue to receive a fair hearing, print off the letter, sign and send". Letters to the Sec's of State are available to download and print off from the SAS website at www.sas.org.uk For more information call SAS on 01872 553001 © 2001 Magicalia Ltd. ***************************************************************** 14 The Seattle Times: Local News: Readers react harshly when stories point to nation's soft spotsFeatured Destination: San Juan Island HOME Site index «Local news Sunday, November 11, 2001 - 12:00 a.m. Pacific Mike Fancher / Times executive editor Readers react harshly when stories point to nation's soft spots Calling America "a nation awakened to danger," President Bush last week offered some advice that is a good framework for evaluating news coverage of terrorist threats. "There is a difference between being alert and being intimidated. This nation will not be intimidated," he said. "A terrorism alert is not a signal to stop your life. It is a call to be vigilant." The president's words struck home with me as I was considering how to address reader concerns about security, secrecy and the press. The day after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, The Seattle Times reported on potentially deadly weaknesses in U.S. airport security that have been known and ignored for years. The next day, The Times wrote about the porous U.S.-Canada border. A few days later we reported about serious security lapses at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. Soon after that we reported that airlines, including those at Sea-Tac, routinely screen only a fraction of checked luggage for hidden explosives. Some readers questioned whether The Times should draw attention to such weaknesses in security systems. We got similar criticism when we reported on city officials discussing the vulnerability of uncovered water reservoirs to bioterrorism. "Don't you think matters of security are best discussed behind closed doors?" asked a reader. "If not, why doesn't The Times just print a 'Terrorist Primer' for those just getting started." That was before anthrax attacks made headlines and jarred already-shaky nerves. In the days since, there have been even more questions about the balance between being alert and alarmist. Two weeks ago The Times reported on "the nation's most vulnerable gateways — its 361 seaports." The story quoted a U.S. senator as calling seaport security "an embarrassment" and a danger to national defense. One reader complained, "Sure, The Times has the constitutional right to print whatever it wants. But highlighting security lapses on the front page to the general public is nothing more than helping terrorists plan their next attack. You even printed specific instructions on how a terrorist organization could blow up a cruise line. When you act in this manner, your suggestions and ideas border on treason." Nothing The Times has published about potential security threats has provoked as much reaction as last Sunday's story titled "Old poisons, new worries." It looked at Northwest sites that store nuclear fuel and chemical weapons. Here are a few representative comments: "Our country, in concert with the United Nations, spent years futilely trying to locate Iraq's weapons production and storage facilities. Your feature article on the front page of Sunday's paper gave would-be terrorists everything they need to know about two of this nation's largest weapons storage sites. What were you thinking? This is the worst case of irresponsible reporting I have seen in a long, long time." "All the terrorists need to plan their next attack is a copy of the Sunday Nov. 4 Seattle Times. Exact locations of Nuclear Reactors and germ storage depots and how much damage could result from a bomb or two. Complete instructions — the terrorists should send The Times a thank you note. (Be careful when you open it)." Given the reader response, I asked Craig Welch, the reporter who wrote the story, for his reaction. "In all honesty, there are really only four points that I had to make to myself before I felt comfortable writing about it," he said. "1: It IS all public record. It's not even difficult to find. It's no secret that Hanford or Umatilla are out there. The Army didn't even blink in giving me the data about how much is stored, and where all the other sites in the country are. And anyone else could look it up if they wished. "The Nuclear Regulatory Commission put out a formal statement declaring they'd never tested reactors for safety in the event of a 757/767 crash. Clearly, they felt a need to tell people that." "2: As a citizen, I WANT to know where/if we're vulnerable, and how. I don't want someone saying, 'Hey, don't worry. We got you covered.' Because, well, what if they don't? "3: After 1999, when the sirens went off at Umatilla warning of an accident that hadn't actually happened, the governor of Oregon created a new committee to oversee disaster response and make sure it works. The public's attention to weaknesses is what prompts governors, the Army, the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to strengthen those weaknesses. "Authorities decide to fix problems when those problems are exposed to the public. If Gary Locke reads that story and decides we've exposed something, then perhaps security will be tightened. If he reads it and doesn't change anything, then, perhaps, he's comfortable with the current level of security: Either of which should be comforting. "4: What if any of us knew something was unsafe and told no one and something did happen?" I consider those reasonable thoughts, but at least one reader was unconvinced. "You're missing the point. It's the TIMING of your feature that makes it so inappropriate," he wrote. "Osama Bin Laden and those who follow him are NOT PNW natives. They DON'T know the history of Hanford and Umatilla. They would have had to do a tremendous amount of homework to identify these sites as potential high-impact targets. Your article just made their jobs a LOT easier." So, how do President Bush's remarks help? Our awakening to danger needs to be sustained. All of the security problems The Times has reported have been known for years but left unattended. Perhaps they will be addressed as the press shines light on them. In the case of Sea-Tac Airport security, for example, one of the employees we quoted was interviewed by U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., the day after our story appeared. Hearings took place in Washington, D.C., days after that. Readers should tell us when stories disturb them, but they should also tell government officials that the substance of those stories is even more disturbing. The stories won't have increased our vulnerability if the problems they raise are addressed. Think of those stories as a call to be vigilant. Inside the Times appears in the Sunday Seattle Times. If you have a comment on news coverage, write to Michael R. Fancher, P.O. Box 70, Seattle, WA 98111, call 206-464-3310 or send e-mail to mfancher@seattletimes.com. More columns at www.seattletimes.com/columnists. Copyright © 2001 The Seattle Times Company More local news headlines E-mail this article Print this article Sponsored Links ServiceMagic Get matched to pre-screened, customer rated home contractors All Together Leather Quality leather at affordable prices. Bargain Dogs Get the best bargains delivered to your inbox! WhyNotOwn.com Car loans! Zero Down, Bad Credit, No Credit, OK! Online Apps seattletimes.com home Local news | Sports | Business & technology | Education | Investigation & special projects Nation & world | Personal technology | Obituaries | Editorials & opinion | Columnists | Arts & entertainment Northwest Life | Health & science | Travel | Northwest Weekend | Pacific Northwest magazine Home delivery | Contact us | Search archive | Site index NWclassifieds | NWsource | Advertising info Back to top ***************************************************************** 15 Bin Laden makes nuclear threat The Times SATURDAY NOVEMBER 10 2001 FROM STEPHEN FARRELL IN ISLAMABAD OSAMA BIN LADEN claims today that he has nuclear weapons and is ready to use them. “We have chemical and nuclear weapons as a deterrent and if America used them against us we reserve the right to use them,” two Pakistani newspapers quote him as saying. The threat was made during an interview on Wednesday with Hamid Mir, Editor of the Urdu-language Ausaf newspaper. The article appears with a photograph of Mr Mir with bin Laden “somewhere near Kabul” and another of bin Laden sitting beside his second-in-command, the Egyptian doctor Ayman al-Zawahiri. The interview, said to be the first with any journalist since September 11, is also published in the Islamabad-based English-language newspaper, Dawn. Mr Mir, who lives in Islamabad but is now in Kabul, has met bin Laden twice previously and claims to be writing a biography. He says that he is in regular contact with bin Laden through messengers who arrive in Islamabad with statements from al-Qaeda. In his article, Mr Mir says that he was taken blindfolded in a Jeep from Kabul on the night of November 7 “to a place where it was extremely cold and one could hear the sound of anti-aircraft guns”. Mr Mir says that bin Laden arrived with al-Zawahiri and a dozen bodyguards. Asked about Western reports that he was trying to obtain chemical and nuclear weapons, bin Laden said: “I heard the speech of American President Bush yesterday. He was scaring the European countries that Osama wanted to attack with weapons of mass destruction. I wish to declare that if America used chemical or nuclear weapons against us, then we may retort with chemical and nuclear weapons. We have the weapons as deterrents.” Asked: “Where did you get these weapons from?” bin Laden replied curtly: “Go to the next question.” Bin Laden went on to say that “according to the information I have”, the hijacking suspects were all passengers, not hijackers. At no point does he directly admit carrying out the September 11 attacks, but asked to justify them under Islamic law, he says that the strikes were aimed at America’s military and economic establishment. “If an enemy occupies a Muslim territory and uses common people as a human shield, then it is permitted to attack that enemy.” Copyright 2001 Times Newspapers Ltd. This service is provided ***************************************************************** 16 Wamp works to restore OR safety Nuclear cleanup heart of long-standing problems By Frank Munger, News-Sentinel senior writer OAK RIDGE - U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn., said Friday he is working urgently to help resolve safety issues at the government's Oak Ridge facilities, fearing that lingering problems will hurt funding for environmental cleanup. Wamp said he and his staff have met in recent days with top officials at the Department of Energy, Oak Ridge contractors and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board to discuss the problems and what needs to be done. "We need this to be resolved," Wamp said. DOE's Oak Ridge operations have been hammered with criticism from several fronts over the past month. Nearly all of the concerns have been related to safety - especially in the nuclear cleanup program. In the most recent instance, DOE halted some cleanup work at the K-25 Site because of deficiencies in a key safety document. BNFL Inc., which has a $238 million contract to dismantle equipment in three buildings previously used to process uranium, was told Thursday to stop activities in uranium areas until the safety issues are resolved. "We can't afford to miss a stride," Wamp said, noting that hundreds of jobs could be affected. U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., issued a statement Friday, saying, "Safety must be a top priority at all Oak Ridge facilities, now more than ever. I understand the contractors ... are working to resolve the problems identified by DOE, and I am confident they will reach a resolution soon so that the important work going on there can proceed." Oak Ridge's cleanup spending in fiscal 2002 will likely exceed $400 million. Wamp, who serves on the energy and water subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, helped increase the allotment by about $60 million over the initial proposal. Wamp said he would like to pursue a supplemental budget request to further boost the cleanup campaign, but that effort and funding for 2003 could be hampered if safety issues persist. John Conway, chairman of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, last month sent a scathing letter to DOE Undersecretary Robert Card criticizing Oak Ridge's "integrated safety management" program. In several instances, DOE's Oak Ridge management and Bechtel Jacobs, the environmental contractor, failed to correct long-standing problems, Conway said. Without proper controls in place for nuclear cleanup, it's impossible to say if workers, the public and the environment are being protected, Conway said. Also last month, Jessie Hill Roberson, DOE's assistant secretary for environmental management, sent a series of critical memos to Oak Ridge officials and revoked the field office's authority to approve safety plans. Wamp met with Roberson earlier this week. Asked if the issues reflect unsafe conditions at the Oak Ridge nuclear facilities, Wamp replied, "Not at this time. But, as Jessie Roberson said, if these practices persist, it could lead to unsafe conditions, and that's what they are trying to avoid." Leah Dever, DOE's Oak Ridge manager, said many of the safety concerns were identified earlier by DOE and its contractors, but they failed to correct them. "We're all disappointed in ourselves and the inaction that went on. We're going to fix it," she said. Dever said there now is a sense of urgency, and she indicated that Oak Ridge officials would be working through the weekend - including Monday, a federal holiday - on the problems. Frank Munger can be reached at 865-482-9213 or twig1@knoxnews.infi.net. Copyright 2001 The Knoxville News-Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 17 The nuclear option Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | It melts when you look at the alternatives Leader Saturday November 10, 2001 [http://www.guardian.co.uk] The safety of nuclear power plants has been a matter of such concern that hardly any have been built anywhere in recent years. But prior to September 11 the construction of new nuclear stations had started creeping back on to the agenda as a way of delivering "clean" energy amid growing worries about carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel stations. British firms have been pushing Whitehall to build six new nuclear stations while the Bush administration - not a signatory to the Kyoto proposals - has been considering building one new nuclear station a week. But the atrocities in New York and Washington may change all that. Voters are suddenly seeing nuclear stations as potential terrorist targets - with catastrophic consequences if they explode. Plants that reprocess nuclear waste, like Sellafield, are particularly vulnerable as they are home to large stocks of waste which would have devastating consequences over large areas if bombed. Sellafield is located by the sea, making it vulnerable to attack from sea, land and air. The potential consequences of the terrorist attacks ought to have injected a dose of realism into the government's current energy review. But there is no sign that it has. The main argument against nuclear power is not safety. It is cost. For decades the public has been hoodwinked about the real costs of nuclear power. They have nearly always turned out to be much more expensive than manufacturers claimed. The latest Cabinet Office figures suggest that by 2020 onshore wind farms will generate energy at 1.5p to 2.5p per kilowatt hour, offshore wind at 2p to 4p while nuclear will be 3p to 4.5p without including the costs of terrorism or the unsolved problem of waste disposal. You would think that in these circumstances a Labour government would go overboard for a long-term green solution. But not a bit of it. The new electricity trading arrangements (Neta) that started in April have resulted in a 41% fall in electricity generated by renewables and a 61% fall from units that combine heat and power in an efficient way. Why? Under Neta traders have to predict 3.5 hours in advance how much electricity they can deliver, an impossible task to do accurately with wind power or combination schemes. Britain has greater reserves of wind and wave power than the rest of Europe, yet we exploit them far less than places like Germany and Spain. If 60% of the £6bn cost of building six nuclear stations was spent instead on alternatives like wind, wave, solar, fuel cell, photovoltaics and massive conservation measures, it is highly unlikely there would be any need for a nuclear option. Every nuclear station that is put out to tender should be assessed against a rival bid from alternative energy producers. That would not only inject a note of new radicalism into the energy review but would also set a tough example to the energy guzzling Bush administration. Useful links [http://www.bnfl.co.uk/website.nsf/default.htm] [http://www.cnduk.org/] [http://www.hse.gov.uk/nsd/ilrwglos.htm] [http://www.ukaea.org.uk/] [http://www.nrpb.org.uk/] [http://www.uilondon.org/] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2001 ***************************************************************** 18 Terrorists One Step Ahead Friday, Nov. 9, 2001. Page 9 By Pavel Felgenhauer Following the Sept. 11 attacks, air traffic security has been strengthened. U.S. air defense forces have been ordered to shoot down passenger airliners without much paperwork if there is a real threat that the plane could ram an important military or civilian target. There is talk of putting armed guards on board passenger planes and of giving guns to pilots so that they would be able to fight possible hijackers. In short, a repeat of the Sept. 11 outrage is highly unlikely. However, the increased security has not been foolproof. Instead of air attacks, there has been a stream of anthrax-contaminated mail that did not kill many but terrorized a large number of people. The authorities again reacted after the fact. In several months, the United States will be x-raying and sterilizing all mail. In a year or so, most industrialized countries may be doing the same. Anthrax in envelopes will be dead on arrival. It seems as though we are winning the war. However, it's troubling that terrorists are each time one step ahead, as the authorities patch up the previous security loophole. Where will the clever "villains" hit next and will the authorities be as unprepared as before? During a joint news conference with French President Jacques Chirac on Tuesday, President George W. Bush said that Osama bin Laden has threatened in the past to use chemical, biological and even nuclear weapons. Bush also said that there is no evidence that bin Laden or his al-Qaida terrorist organization possess such weapons. In 1997, retired General Alexander Lebed (today the governor of Krasnoyarsk) surprised and alarmed the world when he announced that at the time of the demise of the Soviet Union, Moscow lost track of more than 100 suitcase-sized nuclear weapons. There have been reports that bin Laden may have obtained some of these Russian loose nukes. However, the Russian military strictly denied any nuclear weapons were unaccounted for, and the United States officially supported the denials. The State Department announced in 1997 that the United States did not place much credence in Lebed's remarks. A statement issued on the subject said "there is no evidence other than hearsay to support claims of portable Russian nuclear weapons gone missing." Bin Laden and al-Qaida may have no usable nuclear weapons yet, as U.S. authorities assume. However, experts from the International Atomic Energy Agency warn that there is a category of weapons that is in many respects worse than nukes and much easier to make: radioactive bombs. Such a weapon is, in essence, a device designed to inflict a deadly and massive dose of radioactive contamination on a large area without a nuclear explosion. This can be a mix of explosives with a highly radioactive substance such as spent nuclear fuel, cesium used in medicine or industry, or plutonium from a nuclear weapon or conventional nuclear power station that is unsuitable for weapons manufacture. The explosion of such a bomb creates a radioactive cloud that can cause severe and very long-lasting contamination. If such a thing happened in New York, humans might have to abandon parts of the city for hundreds, if not thousands, of years, as they have the town of Pripyat in Ukraine, near the Chernobyl disaster area. The Soviet Union tried to clean up Pripyat, but it is practically impossible to clean a modern city of radioactive dust. And it's impossible to live there. In the 1950s, when Russia and the United States did not have many nukes, radioactive weapons were developed and tested. They were later replaced by tens of thousands of regular nuclear bombs, but now the ease of making radioactive weapons and the terrifying results of their use may attract terrorists. It's much easier to obtain radioactive materials in the republics of the former Soviet Union than true nuclear bombs. Radioactive materials are plentiful and they are poorly guarded. As a scientist in Soviet times I easily obtained relatively large amounts of radioactive isotopes for research and no one ever seriously inquired about what I did with them next. Almost all recorded cases of nuclear smuggling from the former Soviet Union up to now have primarily involved radioactive substances, not weapons-grade nuclear materials per se. The use of radioactive weapons by terrorists would probably not cause mass deaths of civilians, but the ensuing panic and economic losses make radioactivity a tailor-made terrorist weapon -- as devastating, if not more, than anthrax, smallpox or other biological weapons. Pavel Felgenhauer is an independent defense analyst. www.moscowtimes.ru ***************************************************************** 19 Russia: Nuclear Security Poses Challenges By Tony Wesolowsky In the area of nuclear safety, Russia poses particular challenges. Experts agree much of its nuclear material is not well-guarded. Many of the country's so-called "nuclear cities" are struggling to cope without the lavish state support they once enjoyed. Many Russian nuclear researchers are underpaid, leaving them susceptible to outside offers for their services. As the global fight against terrorism continues, RFE/RL correspondent Tony Wesolowsky takes a closer look at the issue of nuclear security in Russia today. Vienna, 8 November 2001 (RFE/RL) -- The UN-affiliated International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) held a conference at its Vienna headquarters recently that focused on the risks of nuclear terrorism. The IAEA believes the threat of terrorists using nuclear weapons cannot be discounted in light of the scale of the terrorist attacks on the U.S. in September. At the Vienna conference, special attention was focused on Russia, because it inherited a huge nuclear weapons program following the collapse of the Soviet Union. David Kyd, a spokesperson for the IAEA, says Russia occupies a unique role in today's nuclear universe. "The position of Russia is somewhat special. First of all, they have a vast nuclear establishment even today. And 10 years after the end of the Cold War, it's estimated that about 1 million people still work in the nuclear industry and in the scientific dimension of nuclear affairs in Russia, and that is quite astounding. The number of laboratories is vast, so is the number of research reactors and other facilities." The stakes in Russia are high. Although no exact figures are available, Russia is believed to possess about 1,100 tons of highly enriched uranium and more than 160 tons of plutonium, the essential ingredients for building a nuclear bomb. The IAEA's Kyd spells out the challenge facing Russia today: "What, of course, is difficult today is to ensure that all the material generated and distributed through that vast network is properly protected. Now that is a Russian responsibility, primarily, but Russia recognizes that it does not have all the state-of-the-art equipment that the United States and other Western countries possess, and therefore there has been cooperation notably between Russia and the U.S." Matthew Bunn is a Russian nuclear expert at Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. Bunn is concerned about the security of Russia's nuclear intelligence and weapons stockpile. He says one of the problems of nuclear security in Russia is that Moscow's security system is still suited for the communist system under which it took form. "They had a perfectly sensible security system in Soviet times designed for a world that no longer exists. It was designed for a world with a closed society, closed borders, pampered, well-cared-for nuclear workers, everyone under close surveillance by the KGB. Now, it's largely the same security system having to face a world with an open society, open borders, rampant theft, crime, corruption, desperate unpaid nuclear workers. It's a totally different situation that the system was never designed to address." The U.S. is spending about $200 million a year to help Russia improve its nuclear security system. Noteworthy success, according to Kyd, has been achieved at Moscow's Kurchatov Institute -- Russia's principle nuclear research center -- and at the Obninsk Institute, a nuclear research institute southwest of the Russian capital. But Harvard University's Bunn, while applauding these measures, says they still fall short. He says U.S. and Russian officials privately admit that only about 40 percent of Russia's weapons-grade nuclear material has been secured as a result of these cooperative measures. But it's not just the security of nuclear material that concerns the IAEA and other nuclear agencies. Russia's vast nuclear intelligence, experts fear, could end up in the hands of terrorists or in the weapons labs of so-called pariah states, such as Iran and Iraq. Focus especially falls on nuclear workers employed in Russia, many of whom, as Bunn points out, only make about $300 a month, not much in today's Russia. The fear is that these workers could fall prey to the lure of exchanging nuclear intelligence for money. In October 2000, the UN Security Council announced that Russian security forces had foiled an attempt to recruit a Soviet-era nuclear expert then living in Central Asia. In another case, Bunn says an expert at one of Russia's premier nuclear weapons laboratories was arrested in 1998 and charged with spying on behalf of both Iraq and Afghanistan. In the latter case, Bunn says advanced conventional arms, not nuclear weapons, were involved. Another security challenge facing Russia is what to do with the 10 so-called "nuclear cities" set up in the Soviet era with the sole purpose of building nuclear weapons. Kyd describes these cities today as "rundown" and struggling to redefine their roles in a post-Cold War world. Bunn says some 750,000 workers still live in these antiquated communities. Experts believes Iraq and Iran are the most eager to acquire nuclear intelligence. Bunn says the West has been critical of Moscow's cooperation with Iran over construction of a nuclear power plant at Bushehr, believing Iran may use the technology for nefarious purposes. "Unfortunately, you have really two levels of cooperation. There's the official cooperation, which is entirely on civilian matters, and then there's the unofficial, 'under the table' cooperation, much of which is not directed by the Russian government, as it is in violation of much of Russia's own laws." For example, Bunn claims that in 1995, then-Minister of Atomic Energy Viktor Mikhailov -- while negotiating with Tehran on Bushehr -- cobbled together a secret protocol. Under its terms, Bunn says, Russia would provide Iran with a gas centrifuge enrichment plant. Such a facility could be used to enrich uranium to weapons grade. Bunn says the U.S. protested to Moscow once it heard of the plan, and the deal was eventually canceled. After the Gulf War, Bunn says Baghdad succeeded in acquiring from sources in Russia the gyroscopes for strategic ballistic missile guidance systems, which were taken directly from Russian missiles, all in violation of Russian law and UN sanctions on Iraq. It's not only nations that have turned to Russia to either recruit nuclear scientists or purloin nuclear material. The Japanese Aum Shinrikyo cult -- the architects of 1995's deadly nerve gas attack in the Tokyo subway -- reportedly explored different pricing operations for buying a nuclear warhead from Russia. And there are reports that Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda network has tried to acquire nuclear weapons from Chechen rebels. Bunn, however, does not believe any of these attempts have been successful: "I don't think those reports are particularly credible. I think if actual nuclear weapons had gone missing in Russia, we would know. I do think that the evidence that Osama bin Laden has been attempting to acquire enriched uranium to fabricate nuclear explosives from Russia is reasonably strong. Aum Shinrikyo, the Japanese terrorist sect, also attempted to acquire nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive material from Russia." And while experts may have a handle on the scope of the nuclear security risks in Russia, they are on much shakier footing when it comes to assessing the situation throughout the rest of the former Soviet Union. Kyd notes the nuclear establishment was spread throughout the Soviet Union. Today, Kyd says, many of the newly independent states are still trying to gauge just how much nuclear and radiological material they have on their territories. In some cases, some of the nuclear waste was left behind by Russian armed forces as they withdrew. Kyd gives Georgia as an example: "In Georgia, the Russian forces as they were pulling out simply tossed radioactive sources away, sometimes at military sites that they were abandoning, sometimes just by the roadside or lying in open fields. And we were able to detect some of those by getting French helicopters that are specially equipped and flying over Georgia detecting those and having them secured and taken away for storage." While Russia is now the focus of concern over nuclear security, it clearly is not the only former Soviet state with those problems. © 1995-2001 Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty, Inc., All Rights Reserved. http://www.rferl.org ***************************************************************** 20 Baby teeth may reveal fallout Orange County Register - Nation & World Discovery of 85,000 from the Cold War era will be analyzed for radiation. November 10, 2001 By WILLIAM ALLEN St. Louis Post-Dispatch Washington University researchers on a spring-cleaning mission in May swung open the door to a dark, musty ammunition bunker and rediscovered a scientific gold mine. The treasure -- 85,000 baby teeth collected from St. Louis children -- had been stored in the bunker at the university's Tyson Research Center since the 1970s. Scientists said the teeth will give them a unique chance to determine whether fallout from Cold War nuclear bomb tests caused cancer and other health problems years later. The teeth could settle a long scientific debate about whether the tests by the United States and the Soviet Union harmed civilians, especially those born from the mid-1950s to the mid-1960s. The teeth were part of the world-renowned St. Louis Baby Tooth Survey. In that study, thousands of children from the St. Louis region gave their baby teeth to science instead of the Tooth Fairy. From 1959 to 1970, they or their parents sent teeth to the Greater St. Louis Citizens Committee for Nuclear Information. Along with the teeth, they sent a card with their name, address, birthdate and other information. The Baby Tooth Survey was a unique citizen effort to help scientists determine whether children were absorbing radioactive fallout from nuclear bomb tests. The study found that kids were, indeed, absorbing radioactive material. The study received international attention and helped persuade the nation to adopt a 1963 treaty banning atmospheric bomb tests. Now, like IBM stock that Grandma stuck in a box in the attic and forgot about, teeth not ground up in the original study may pay dividends to a new generation of scientists. Researchers in New York have launched a project to find the "owners" of the St. Louis teeth and determine whether they've experienced health problems. "We flipped out when we heard about the 85,000 teeth," said Joseph Mangano, national coordinator of the Radiation and Public Health Project. Mangano is asking anyone born and living in St. Louis from the late 1940s through the 1960s, especially if they believe they submitted teeth, to contact his group. If matched with any of the baby teeth, the caller would be asked for a mailing address to receive a health questionnaire. After World War II, the U.S. government set off about 100 nuclear bombs in above- ground tests in the American West. Public concern about radioactive fallout rose as scientists began to find it in the environment and milk supply downwind from the explosions. Writing in the scientific journal Nature in 1958, Herman Kalckar, a scientist with the National Institutes of Health, proposed an international tooth survey to study accumulation of fallout material in children. Washington University biology professor Barry Commoner read the article and that same year engineered the St. Louis Baby Tooth Survey. Led by Washington University biochemist Harold Rosenthal, the survey gained fame for mobilizing, for the first time, massive public participation in a scientific project. Key to that response was widespread support from Washington and St. Louis universities' dental schools, elementary-school superintendents, churches, Scout groups, dentists, librarians and others. Rather than putting them under pillows, children or their parents mailed newly fallen baby teeth to the committee along with a form. The forms were handed out at schools and dental offices. A child inside a giant model of a tooth handed them out at department stores, too. The Baby Tooth Survey became so well-known that letters addressed simply "Tooth Fairy, St. Louis" got to the committee's office. In return for sending teeth, each child received a thank you note and a button that said: "I gave my tooth to science." In all, the St. Louis project collected nearly 300,000 baby teeth, mostly from within a 150-mile radius of St. Louis. Rosenthal's lab analyzed the teeth for strontium 90. That substance, created by the bomb blasts, was readily absorbed by the fast-growing teeth and bones of infants. It left a telltale sign of exposure to fallout just before and after birth. Put simply, Rosenthal's analysis showed how the strontium 90 in baby teeth rose and fell in unison over the years with bomb tests, declining rapidly after the tests ceased. "We still don't know the effect of that on health," Rosenthal said. When the grant was cut during the administration of President Nixon in 1970, the project stopped. Scientists shipped the remaining teeth to Tyson for long-term storage. Scientists with the project want to find the contributors of the baby teeth, most now in their 40s and 50s, for what is called a prospective study. Information from a simple health questionnaire filled out by baby-teeth contributors would be compared with fall out exposure data gained by analyzing each person's baby teeth with radiation counters much more accurate than those used four decades ago. The researchers might find that exposure to higher levels of strontium 90 is linked to certain slow-developing health problems in later years - thyroid cancer, for example. Currently the study has no funding, so the project is seeking grant support. Results of the study will be published in peer-reviewed medical journals, Mangano said. The Orange County Register ***************************************************************** 21 Nuke Compensation Panel Questioned Las Vegas SUN November 09, 2001 WASHINGTON (AP) - Labor advocates want more workers on a panel advising on compensation for people who were made sick building the nation's nuclear weapons arsenal. They also say the panel is too closely tied to the Energy Department. Unless changes are made, the advocates fear not enough people will get compensated. Carl "Bubba" Scarbrough, president of the Atomic Trades and Labor Council at the government's nuclear facility in Oak Ridge, Tenn., said workers can best understand - and therefore convey - the risks and working conditions of their jobs. "We should be advisers," he said. "For one thing, our heart would be in the right place." A law passed by Congress last year required the White House to appoint a panel that reflected "a balance of scientific, medical and worker perspectives." Ten people were selected, including scientists, doctors and engineers. Only one rank-and-file worker, Richard Espinosa, a metal shop steward at the Los Alamos lab in New Mexico, was named. Espinosa said he feels a sense of responsibility as the only laborer on the panel. "In ways I feel, maybe not burdened, I feel really proud that I got on the board," Espinosa said. White House spokeswoman Anne Womack defended the makeup of the board. "We think it's pretty balanced," she said. Womack added that one of the doctors on the panel, James Melius, works for a union in New York. After decades of denials, the government acknowledged two years ago that many workers who helped the Energy Department and its vendors build nuclear weapons during the Cold War probably got sick because of on-the-job exposure. Congress subsequently passed a law providing medical care and payments of $150,000 to sick workers or their families for exposure to cancer-causing radiation, or silica and beryllium, which cause lung disease. Many medical records are missing or incomplete, so the panel's primary task is to help determine how much radiation workers were exposed to on the job. If doses can't be estimated, the panel will help decide whether certain workers should be given the benefit of the doubt. Richard Miller, an analyst for the Government Accountability Project, a Washington-based watchdog group, said he's concerned by the fact that three members of the panel are tied to the Energy Department. He said he is not worried about Espinosa's independence from the agency, since he is protected by a union. Miller said lawmakers called for an "independent review process" and recognized Energy Department officials would have a conflict of interest. The legislation prohibited them from writing dose reconstruction guidelines. "I want people who have absolutely no connection to the Department of Energy on this committee," he said. Panelist Antonio Andrade, who is a radiation health expert at the Energy Department's Los Alamos lab, disagreed. He said people who are familiar with agency facilities are needed on the panel. "If anything, we bring truth, experience and knowledge about specific situations to the table," he said. Several lawmakers have asked the administration to add Mark Griffon, a health physicist who evaluates risks at nuclear facilities. "He would have an inclination to be quite supportive of people who have been exposed but also continue to use a scientific basis for making decisions," said Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-Ky., who made his case in a letter to White House Personnel Director Clay Johnson. Griffon said he received a call from the White House Friday asking him to submit an application. On the Net: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health compensation office: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/default.html [http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/default.html] All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 22 Cause of Sub's Sinking Still Unknown Las Vegas SUN November 09, 2001 MOSCOW- A month after the charred and mangled Kursk nuclear submarine was hoisted from an Arctic seabed, investigators still cannot pinpoint the cause of the catastrophe but say new evidence shows the crew struggled for life, donning oxygen masks and unrolling fire hoses to fight a blaze that reached more than 14,000 degrees. The submarine's hulk was hoisted from the Barents Sea floor Oct. 8 and brought to a dry dock near Murmansk more than a year after it exploded and sank during naval maneuvers, killing all 118 aboard. Investigators have pulled 56 bodies from the vessel since it was raised. Twelve others were removed by divers last year. Investigators discovered more bodies in the stern sections than expected, indicating some sailors from the forward compartments managed to race backward in the two minutes and 15 seconds that separated two blasts that crippled and sank the Kursk. Prosecutor General Vladimir Ustinov said the second explosion sent a huge fireball through the Kursk's hull, raising the temperature inside to 14,432 degrees and pulverizing all crew in the forward sections. "What happened inside these compartments was hell," Ustinov said. At least 23 sailors survived the explosions, according to letters found in the wreck, which described their agony in the pitch-dark, near-freezing sections of the stricken craft. Investigators who retrieved the bodies said some seamen put on oxygen masks and unfolded fire hoses in a desperate attempt to fight the blaze ignited by the explosions. Ustinov said that within eight hours of the blasts, the entire submarine was flooded by water seeping in through cracks in the hull. However, most men in the stern died earlier of carbon monoxide fumes from the fire. The main ship log and any notes left by Capt. Gennady Lyachin and other senior officers in the control room disappeared in the fireball. "We see absolutely nothing new inside the submarine now," said Deputy Prime Minister Ilya Klebanov, who is in charge of the Kursk probe in the Russian Cabinet. He said everything inside the submarine was simulated early last year. Officials have said for months that the Aug. 12, 2000, disaster was triggered by the explosion of a practice torpedo that led to the detonation of combat torpedoes in the bow. But they are still unable to settle on one of three possible causes of the initial explosion - an internal flaw in the practice torpedo or perhaps a collision with another vessel or a World War II mine. "There is no answer today," Klebanov said in the interview posted on Russia's official Web site about the Kursk. The Kursk's twin nuclear reactors have remained safely shut down and no radiation leaks have been reported. Specialists have retrieved 16 of the submarine's 22 Granit supersonic cruise missiles, and the navy is planning to cut out the remaining six. The disfigured torpedo section, which could contain a key to the cause of the disaster, was sawed off and left on the seabed out of fear it could break off during the salvage operation and destabilize the lifting. The navy plans to raise some of its fragments next year. Immediately after the disaster, Russian admirals insisted that the most likely cause was a collision with a Western submarine, which allegedly was stalking the Kursk in a Cold War-style cat-and-mouse game. Both the United States and Britain had their submarines in the Barents Sea, but both countries have denied any involvement in the catastrophe. The collision theory was ridiculed by many specialists, who pointed out that a foreign submarine wouldn't have been able to limp away from a collision with the much heavier, 18,000-ton Kursk, one of the world's largest submarines. When Russian television first showed the Kursk remains in dock, much attention was focused on a dent clearly visible on its forward part. But prosecutors quickly ruled out that it was a mark left by a collision. Klebanov said it could have been caused by the vacuum effect from explosions inside. Most experts agree that a torpedo malfunction was the most plausible cause of the disaster. The torpedo was propelled by highly volatile hydrogen peroxide, which in case of a leak could have caused a powerful explosion of the kind that shattered the Kursk. A leak of hydrogen peroxide from a burst pipe caused the 1955 sinking of the British submarine HMS Sidon, in which 13 men died. Britain stopped using the chemical after the accident, but Russia continued to use it. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 23 WH Notice on Continuation of WMD Emergency U.S. Newswire 9 Nov 21:45 White House Notice of Continuation of WMD Emergency To: National and International Desks, Defense Reporter Contact: White House Press Office, 202-456-2580 WASHINGTON, Nov. 9 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Following was released today by the White House: NOTICE - - - - - - - CONTINUATION OF EMERGENCY REGARDING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION On November 14, 1994, by Executive Order 12938, President Clinton declared a national emergency with respect to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States posed by the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons (weapons of mass destruction) and the means of delivering such weapons. Because the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, the national emergency first declared on November 14, 1994, and extended on November 14, 1995, November 12, 1996, November 13, 1997, November 12, 1998, November 10, 1999, and November 12, 2000, must continue in effect beyond November 14, 2001. In accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive Order 12938. This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress. GEORGE W. BUSH THE WHITE HOUSE, November 9, 2001. KEYWORDS: WHITE HOUSE, INTERNATIONAL, DEFENSE POLICY, GOVERNMENT Copyright 2001, U.S. Newswire ***************************************************************** 24 Bin Laden Claims to Have Nuclear Arms Las Vegas SUN November 10, 2001 ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) - Terror suspect Osama bin Laden claims he has nuclear and chemical weapons and will unleash them if the United States uses similar weapons against him, according to an interview published Saturday in one of Pakistan's largest newspapers. "I wish to declare that if America used chemical and nuclear weapons against us, then we may retort with chemical and nuclear weapons. We have the weapons as a deterrent," the Dawn newspaper quoted bin Laden as saying in an interview near the Afghan capital Kabul on Wednesday night. The United States, which is bombing positions of Afghanistan's ruling Taliban and bin Laden's al-Qaida network, says it has no evidence that bin Laden possesses nuclear weapons. Intelligence experts, however, believe his fighters have experimented with crude chemical weapons at a training camp in Afghanistan. "They're seeking chemical, biological and nuclear weapons," President Bush said in Washington on Friday. "Given the means, our enemies would be a threat to every nation and, eventually, to civilization itself." National security adviser Condoleezza Rice said the United States had "no credible evidence at this point of a specific threat of that kind." Hamid Mir, a Pakistani journalist sympathetic to the Taliban and bin Laden's biographer, conducted the Dawn interview. He said he asked bin Laden where he allegedly got the weapons. "Go to the next question," bin Laden replied. Mir said the interview was conducted at an "undisclosed location" near Kabul. Mir said he was blindfolded and driven in a jeep from Kabul on Wednesday night to a very cold place where he could hear the sound of anti-aircraft fire. Bin Laden eventually arrived, accompanied by a dozen bodyguards and his deputy, Ayman el-Zawahri. The Dawn published a photograph of Mir sitting with bin Laden on cushions on the floor against a brown backdrop. Bin Laden wore a white turban and scarf with a camouflage jacket. A Kalashnikov rifle lay at his side. The story was also published Saturday in Ausaf, a Pakistani Urdu-language newspaper that he edits, In the interview, Bin Laden did not admit responsibility for the attacks in which terrorists steered passenger planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a Pennsylvania field. But he said they were justified because Washington had been arming Israel, and was conducting "atrocities" against Muslims in Iraq, the dispute region of Kashmir and elsewhere. "The Sept. 11 attacks were not targeted at women and children," bin Laden said. "The real targets were America's icons of military and economic power." Bin Laden denied reports that he was suffering a kidney illness and praised Mullah Mohammed Omar, the Taliban's supreme leader. "He is not under any personal relationship or obligation to me," he said. "He is only discharging his religious duty. I, too, have not chosen this life out of any personal consideration." The United States believes bin Laden was behind the Sept. 11 terror attacks on New York and Washington that killed about 4,500 people. It launched air strikes Oct. 7 against the Taliban after it refused to hand over the suspect. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 25 Musharraf: Nuclear Arsenal Safe Las Vegas SUN November 10, 2001 UNITED NATIONS- Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf assured the world Saturday that his country's nuclear arsenal was in "safe hands." "Pakistan is fully alive to the responsibilities of its nuclear status," Musharraf said on the opening day of the annual General Assembly debate. "Let me assure you all that our strategic assets are well guarded and in safe hands," he said. Musharraf, whose Muslim country shares a long and porous border with Afghanistan, is a key partner in President Bush's campaign to capture Osama bin Laden, the chief suspect behind the Sept. 11 attacks who is believed to be hiding in Afghanistan. Musharraf, the military chief who seized power in a 1999 coup, was an early backer of the U.S.-led campaign against terrorism. But since the bombing campaign began on Oct. 7, growing protests by Islamic groups have sparked concerns about the stability of Musharraf's government. International observers also are concerned about the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons because of fears that some elements in the military remain sympathetic to the fundamentalist Islamic Taliban. Last month, Pakistani authorities detained and questioned two scientists about their links with the Taliban regime before determining that they were not involved in Afghanistan's weapons program. Musharraf also said Saturday that he was willing to discuss with neighboring India ways to reduce nuclear tensions in South Asia, which has the world's newest and, according to some experts, riskiest nuclear arsenal. Pakistan conducted unannounced nuclear tests in 1998 following similar tests by India. "Pakistan is opposed to an arms race in South Asia, be it nuclear or conventional," he said. Musharraf called for more international help for Pakistan, which earlier bore the fallout of the 10-year Muslim holy war against the Soviet forces that occupied Afghanistan in the 1980s, a war that sent 3 million Afghan refugees to Pakistan. "Our economy again faces a crisis of a fallout of the operations in Afghanistan," Musharraf said. He also called for an end to what many Muslims see as an unfolding campaign against their beliefs. "The religion of Islam, and Muslims in various parts of the world, are being held responsible for the trials the world is facing," Musharraf said. Frustration among Muslims was high because of the number of Muslim victims in many of the world's prominent conflicts including, Bosnia, the Middle East and Kashmir. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 26 Radiological bomb most-feared nuke Columbus Ledger-Enquirer November 10, 2001 Few ingredients, no expertise required to make bomb capable of killing thousands Associated Press -- NEW YORK - Among the terrorist weapons experts worry about, one device tops the list: the atom bomb. While chances are remote that a terrorist might obtain one of the suitcase-sized nuclear bombs produced by the United States or former Soviet Union, analysts worry that a crude but deadly device might be fashioned from stolen nuclear material and a few sticks of dynamite. Such a radiological bomb wouldn't yield a nuclear explosion but rather a plume of toxic radiation. "Had the terrorists at the World Trade Center used a radiological dispersal device, most parts of lower Manhattan would have been rendered uninhabitable," said Tariq Rauf, director of the nonproliferation program at the Monterey Institute of International Studies. Such a bomb requires neither knowledge of physics nor the rigors of smuggling weapons-grade uranium or plutonium. "It's not that hard to build a radiological bomb since all you have to do is disperse a bunch of radioactive material," said Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Highly radioactive material is stored at over 1,000 facilities in 50 countries, according to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The group says some facilities have insufficient security against would-be thieves looking for bomb ingredients. America's defense against nuclear smuggling consists of pressuring countries to bolster safeguards on weapons-usable and radioactive material, along with boosting border defenses in the United States and in countries on likely transit routes. The nuclear terrorism threat, however remote, remains serious enough for President Bush to describe it in a speech to eastern European leaders Tuesday. Court documents show that Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network has sought nuclear material. It is unclear whether the group succeeded. "The probability is not zero," said Tim Brown, an intelligence and military analyst with GlobalSecurity.org. "It's somewhere between zero and low." Three scenarios| Analysts who have examined the threat describe three separate scenarios. In the first, a so-called "suitcase nuke," probably from the ex-Soviet Union, could be sold to terrorists, who would seek to smuggle it into the United States, or within range of a U.S. overseas interest. In the depths of the Cold War, the United States and Soviet Union each produced a few hundred portable nuclear weapons, said Rauf. The U.S. munitions were intended to slow a hypothetical Soviet invasion of western Europe by demolishing bridges and railways, he said. Since the demise of the Soviet Union, rumors pointing to missing portable Soviet nuclear weapons have percolated through the defense community. None have been verified. One stems from 1997 statements by Russian General Alexander Lebed, who said some portable Soviet weapons were unaccounted for. In another, a pair of ethnic Russians were arrested in Miami in 1997 after offering to sell a suitcase nuke to undercover U.S. Customs agents. No evidence indicated the men had access to such a weapon, said Customs spokesman Dean Boyd. A second threat scenario involves a terrorist group building its own nuclear bomb using smuggled nuclear material. The International Atomic Energy Agency has documented 18 cases of weapons-grade nuclear smuggling since 1993, among hundreds of cases of trafficking in radioactive materials. None of the cases involved enough for a bomb. About a dozen countries have the material, but the largest amount - some 1,300 metric tons of plutonium and highly enriched uranium - sits in Russian weapons facilities and laboratories, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. "It's very hard to track," Wolfsthal said. "There's no way to verify that materials aren't already missing. The Russians themselves don't know themselves how much they have." Since 1992, U.S. agencies have spent more than $5 billion helping Russia upgrade security at the sites and making sure weapons scientists were peaceably employed. Still, a terrorist-made A-bomb is a low-probability threat. "Even Saddam Hussein's weapons program, after 10 years and several billion dollars in investments, was not able to make a nuclear bomb," Rauf said. The radiological bomb is a much simpler matter. Depending on its potency, a contamination-spewing radiological bomb could kill dozens, hundreds, possibly thousands. Its toxic plume could render a square mile or more uninhabitable for a decade or longer. It would cause a huge cleanup and demoralize a city, perhaps a nation. In the case of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear reactor meltdown, a six-mile belt around the reactor is still uninhabitable, Rauf said. "To a terrorist who is trying to create widespread panic, this option is more appealing," Rauf said. "You can see the white powder of anthrax, but not radiation. It can be carried by wind, by the water. In the public mind, a radiological device is more terrorizing." On the Net: IAEA: www.iaea.org/worldatom Carnegie Endowment: www.ceip.org Monterey Institute: http://cns.miis.edu Brookings: www.brookings.edu All content © 2000 Ledger-Enquirer ***************************************************************** 27 Nuclear change of heart azcentral.com - Joshua Trujillo/The Arizona Republic The Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station takes a prominent role in the growing power picture. Max Jarman The Arizona Republic Nov. 11, 2001 12:00:00 As National Guard troops stand sentry at many of the nation's nuclear power plants, the industry's newly rekindled hopes of building more reactors may seem far-fetched. But despite worries over sabotage in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, expansionist ideas continue to thrive. Industry observers contend that the fundamentals of nuclear energy as a relatively clean, low-cost and abundant source of electricity are too strong to be dismissed. And at least three companies are taking steps to build nuclear generators, the first in the United States in decades. No current plans exist to expand the nation's largest plant: Arizona's Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station. But the 15-year-old plant, 50 miles west of downtown Phoenix, is a prime candidate for future expansion. Its safety record is good, and it's strategically located near California, which banned nuclear plants yet has an enormous, growing population with a thirst for more energy. Bill Stewart, president of generation for Palo Verde operator Arizona Public Service Co., does not rule out eventual expansion. "It's an option we want to keep open," he said. "But it would ultimately depend on the need for the units and public acceptance." He added the utility intends to prolong the life of the existing units by seeking an extension of the plant's initial operating license, which expires in 2028. The renaissance of nuclear power began suddenly this year with the news of rolling blackouts and skyrocketing electricity prices in California. An industry long tainted by fears of more accidents, such as Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island in 1979 or the former Soviet Union's Chernobyl in 1986, reappeared on the menu of energy alternatives. President Bush proposed a plan that calls for more reliance on nuclear power, to lessen the impact of fossil- fuel burning on air quality and to increase electricity. After the attacks, higher security was ordered for all nuclear plants. The doubts re-emerged. But a survey conducted in October by the Washington, D.C.-based Nuclear Energy Institute found that 66 percent of the public say nuclear plants are safe, and 84 percent say licenses for existing plants should be renewed. "It's the first time in decades that we've had public support for new facilities," said Randy Hutchison, senior vice president of nuclear business development for Richmond, Va.-based Dominion Energy. Critics, however, assert that before any nuclear power expansion can take place, the plants must be made secure from enemy attacks and a safe way must be found to store their deadly, radioactive waste. "It's absurd and reckless to continue to create more toxic waste when we have no way to cope with it," said Harry Braun, chairman of the Phoenix-based Hydrogen Political Action Committee and a longtime nuclear power opponent. [Marv White] Joshua Trujillo/The Arizona Republic Marv White, senior reactor operator, prepares for a drill by resetting gauges in a simulator. Bush also proposed that federal agencies examine whether spent fuel from reactors could be reprocessed. Critics believe further development of nuclear energy is unsafe and that reprocessing spent fuel, which involves the extraction of plutonium, is unsafe because plutonium can be used to make bombs. The fears haven't stopped Exelon, Entergy or Dominion Energy from preparing to ask the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for early site permits for new plants. The requests are expected within a year. Proposals for new permits, part of an effort to speed construction of plants, would allow companies to apply for a site permit that could be used over 20 years. The pre-approved sites, along with combined construction-operating permits and pre-approved reactor designs, are expected to cut building time in half, to four years, from eight. The long construction time had been an impediment to building plants, Dominion's Hutchison said. Companies are looking at locating new reactors adjacent to existing nuclear plants. "The environmental (work) has been done, there is basic infrastructure and access to transmission," Hutchison said of the benefits of putting new facilities next to existing ones. But more important, those communities already are accustomed to living in the shadow of a nuclear power plant. "Public acceptance is essential," Hutchison said. The relationship between Palo Verde and Arizona residents has been calm in recent years. Except for occasional shutdowns for maintenance, repair and minor incidents, no major incidents have occurred, and the plant operates with little publicity. Few APS customers probably know that the nuclear plant generates more than one-third of their electricity. Palo Verde produces enough electricity for more than 3 million homes. It was planned to be larger. Keith Turley, former chairman of Pinnacle West Capital Corp., the parent firm of APS, initially planned a semicircle of five reactors that would have made up the world's largest nuclear power plant. Ultimately, three units were built, costing $9.3 billion. But the 4,000-acre Palo Verde site easily could accommodate more. APS, which owns about 29 percent of the plant, says there is enough water for more units. Related story • Are U.S. nuclear power plants secure? [http://www.arizonarepublic.com/business/articles/1111paloverdeside11.html] Palo Verde's pressurized-water reactors consume 20 billion gallons of the Valley's treated wastewater each year. Any plans to expand Palo Verde would likely arouse some of the fears and opposition that existed in the decades after the accident at Three Mile Island. But the nuclear industry's arguments that its reactors reduce greenhouse gases are winning converts. Carbon-based emissions from coal, oil and natural gas-fired power plants are blamed for global warming. "We're going to need 400,000 megawatts of new generation by 2020, and obviously nuclear has to be a part of the mix," said Mitch Singer, spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute. That 400,000 would represent roughly a 40 percent increase over America's present 750,000-megawatt capacity and involve the construction of hundreds of power plants, Singer said. Because uranium costs less than coal or natural gas, nuclear plants have lower operating expenditures than fossil-fuel generators. The biggest financial roadblock is the initial construction costs. With deregulated utilities such as Pinnacle West unable to automatically recover such costs from ratepayers, the investments are difficult to justify in the short term. New reactor designs by Westinghouse and General Electric are simpler to operate and build, though the models have never been operated in the United States. Other companies are taking a new approach to reactors. South Africa-based Eskom is working on a "pebble bed" reactor that uses radioactive balls, or pebbles, instead of fuel rods, and is cooled by helium instead of water. Mary Rucci, a spokeswoman for Exelon Corp., which plans to build a prototype of the reactor, said the pebble-bed units are safer because they don't get hot enough to "melt down." They also are smaller and less expensive, and their spent pebbles are easier to safely store than conventional fuel rods. Still unsettled is where to safely store the spent reactor fuel for the more than 10,000 years that it remains deadly radioactive. At Palo Verde, waste is being temporarily stored in underwater holding tanks. The tanks will be full in 2003, when any additional spent fuel will stored in dry containers in above-ground stainless-steel silos. Eventually, all of the nation's high-level radioactive waste would be moved to permanent storage at Yucca Mountain, Nev., a facility under construction for more than a decade. The federal government has proposed storing up to 77,000 tons of nuclear waste there, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. But the project has run into opposition from Nevada and a national coalition of environmental groups. There is no backup plan if Yucca Mountain is ultimately found to be an unsafe repository. Singer notes that U.S. plants have safely stored spent fuel on site for decades and that construction could move ahead without a national spent-fuel repository. But Paul Leventhal, founder of the Nuclear Control Institute in Cambridge, Mass., maintains the recent terrorist attacks create an urgent need to find a secure place for the waste. He adds that a safe way to transport spent fuel to a central depository also must be found. Flagstaff already said it would block any effort to ship spent fuel over rail lines or highways that pass through the northern Arizona community. Bush's energy plan does not address Yucca Mountain. If a safe place can be found to store the waste, and the plants can be adequately protected from terrorist attacks, Braun and Leventhal say they would support the use of nuclear power to meet a portion of the country's energy demand. "But if we can't secure the plants or the spent fuel, then there is no question they should be shut down," Leventhal said. "The risk is too great." Reach the reporter at max.jarman@arizonarepublic.com [max.jarman@arizonarepublic.com] or (602) 444-7351. ***************************************************************** 28 Readers react harshly when stories point to nation's soft spots The Seattle Times: Local News: Sunday, November 11, 2001 - 12:00 a.m. Pacific Mike Fancher / Times executive editor Calling America "a nation awakened to danger," President Bush last week offered some advice that is a good framework for evaluating news coverage of terrorist threats. "There is a difference between being alert and being intimidated. This nation will not be intimidated," he said. "A terrorism alert is not a signal to stop your life. It is a call to be vigilant." The president's words struck home with me as I was considering how to address reader concerns about security, secrecy and the press. The day after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, The Seattle Times reported on potentially deadly weaknesses in U.S. airport security that have been known and ignored for years. The next day, The Times wrote about the porous U.S.-Canada border. A few days later we reported about serious security lapses at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. Soon after that we reported that airlines, including those at Sea-Tac, routinely screen only a fraction of checked luggage for hidden explosives. Some readers questioned whether The Times should draw attention to such weaknesses in security systems. We got similar criticism when we reported on city officials discussing the vulnerability of uncovered water reservoirs to bioterrorism. "Don't you think matters of security are best discussed behind closed doors?" asked a reader. "If not, why doesn't The Times just print a 'Terrorist Primer' for those just getting started." That was before anthrax attacks made headlines and jarred already-shaky nerves. In the days since, there have been even more questions about the balance between being alert and alarmist. Two weeks ago The Times reported on "the nation's most vulnerable gateways — its 361 seaports." The story quoted a U.S. senator as calling seaport security "an embarrassment" and a danger to national defense. One reader complained, "Sure, The Times has the constitutional right to print whatever it wants. But highlighting security lapses on the front page to the general public is nothing more than helping terrorists plan their next attack. You even printed specific instructions on how a terrorist organization could blow up a cruise line. When you act in this manner, your suggestions and ideas border on treason." Nothing The Times has published about potential security threats has provoked as much reaction as last Sunday's story titled "Old poisons, new worries." It looked at Northwest sites that store nuclear fuel and chemical weapons. Here are a few representative comments: "Our country, in concert with the United Nations, spent years futilely trying to locate Iraq's weapons production and storage facilities. Your feature article on the front page of Sunday's paper gave would-be terrorists everything they need to know about two of this nation's largest weapons storage sites. What were you thinking? This is the worst case of irresponsible reporting I have seen in a long, long time." "All the terrorists need to plan their next attack is a copy of the Sunday Nov. 4 Seattle Times. Exact locations of Nuclear Reactors and germ storage depots and how much damage could result from a bomb or two. Complete instructions — the terrorists should send The Times a thank you note. (Be careful when you open it)." Given the reader response, I asked Craig Welch, the reporter who wrote the story, for his reaction. "In all honesty, there are really only four points that I had to make to myself before I felt comfortable writing about it," he said. "1: It IS all public record. It's not even difficult to find. It's no secret that Hanford or Umatilla are out there. The Army didn't even blink in giving me the data about how much is stored, and where all the other sites in the country are. And anyone else could look it up if they wished. "The Nuclear Regulatory Commission put out a formal statement declaring they'd never tested reactors for safety in the event of a 757/767 crash. Clearly, they felt a need to tell people that." "2: As a citizen, I WANT to know where/if we're vulnerable, and how. I don't want someone saying, 'Hey, don't worry. We got you covered.' Because, well, what if they don't? "3: After 1999, when the sirens went off at Umatilla warning of an accident that hadn't actually happened, the governor of Oregon created a new committee to oversee disaster response and make sure it works. The public's attention to weaknesses is what prompts governors, the Army, the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to strengthen those weaknesses. "Authorities decide to fix problems when those problems are exposed to the public. If Gary Locke reads that story and decides we've exposed something, then perhaps security will be tightened. If he reads it and doesn't change anything, then, perhaps, he's comfortable with the current level of security: Either of which should be comforting. "4: What if any of us knew something was unsafe and told no one and something did happen?" I consider those reasonable thoughts, but at least one reader was unconvinced. "You're missing the point. It's the TIMING of your feature that makes it so inappropriate," he wrote. "Osama Bin Laden and those who follow him are NOT PNW natives. They DON'T know the history of Hanford and Umatilla. They would have had to do a tremendous amount of homework to identify these sites as potential high-impact targets. Your article just made their jobs a LOT easier." So, how do President Bush's remarks help? Our awakening to danger needs to be sustained. All of the security problems The Times has reported have been known for years but left unattended. Perhaps they will be addressed as the press shines light on them. In the case of Sea-Tac Airport security, for example, one of the employees we quoted was interviewed by U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., the day after our story appeared. Hearings took place in Washington, D.C., days after that. Readers should tell us when stories disturb them, but they should also tell government officials that the substance of those stories is even more disturbing. The stories won't have increased our vulnerability if the problems they raise are addressed. Think of those stories as a call to be vigilant. Inside the Times appears in the Sunday Seattle Times. If you have a comment on news coverage, write to Michael R. Fancher, P.O. Box 70, Seattle, WA 98111, call 206-464-3310 or send e-mail to mfancher@seattletimes.com [mfancher@seattletimes.com] . More columns at www.seattletimes.com/columnists [http://www.seattletimes.com/columnists] . seattletimes.com home ***************************************************************** 29 Soviet nuclear stockpiles are easy pickings [PioneerPlanet] Published: Sunday, November 11, 2001 BY DAVID WILLMAN and ALAN C. MILLER Los Angeles Times WASHINGTON — The guards who oversee the vast remaining nuclear stockpile of the former Soviet Union have gone months at a time without pay. Highly enriched uranium — usable for a nuclear bomb — has disappeared. Among buyers-in-waiting is the world's most wanted man, Osama bin Laden. President Bush last week underscored the threat, noting that bin Laden has vowed to seek -- and use -- weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear bombs. Before the Sept. 11 suicide hijackings, many government officials assumed terrorists would refrain from using radioactive materials because of the grave risk to themselves. This assumption now appears outdated, raising dire questions about the possibility of terrorist attacks that could kill tens of thousands of civilians or more. "Absent a major new initiative, we have every reason to expect there will be an act of nuclear terrorism in the next decade, maybe sooner," said Graham Allison, an assistant defense secretary under President Bill Clinton. THE ULTIMATE WEAPON I nterviews and documents show that U.S. and Russian leaders over the past decade have taken incomplete steps to safeguard a potentially large nuclear shopping mart in which scientists or officials motivated by cash meet terrorists seeking the ultimate weapon. Although Bush said his administration "will do everything we can" to thwart bin Laden's nuclear ambitions, past promises have fallen short: As a candidate, Bush vowed to increase spending for securing the former Soviet nuclear arsenal and to press for "an accurate inventory of all this material." As president, he has done the opposite -- proposing spending cuts in his first budget. And Bush has not sought to use any of the $40 billion for anti-terrorism spending after Sept. 11 to better secure the coveted stockpile. With new urgency, experts are examining the widespread opportunities for terrorists to acquire nuclear materials and know-how from the former Soviet Union. An Energy Department report prepared early this year warned of "dozens" of worrisome incidents. Other government consultants have verified the disappearance of highly enriched uranium from an unguarded plant on the Black Sea, interviews and records show. A prominent U.S. physicist told the Los Angeles Times of being presented with an offer to buy neutron "guns," devices that can be used to detonate a nuclear bomb. INCOMPLETE INVENTORY A nd according to U.S. experts, neither the Russians nor the Americans have a complete inventory of all the highly enriched uranium and plutonium, another ingredient for a nuclear bomb. "I am concerned that weapons-usable nuclear material might have gone astray," said Rose Gottemoeller, who served as assistant energy y secretary for nonproliferation and national security in the Clinton administration. On Friday, a Pakistani newspaper quoted bin Laden as saying in an interview that he has nuclear and chemical weapons and is prepared to use them if the United States uses such weapons against Afghanistan. For now, American officials say they do not know whether bin Laden's international terror network, al-Qaida, possesses either intact nuclear weapons or the materials to make them. For U.S. officials, the nature of the nuclear threat has evolved since December 1991, when the Soviet Union dissolved into Russia and 14 other independent states, with thousands of assembled nuclear weapons still aimed at America. Properly securing and destroying many of those weapons remains an imperative. But what looms even larger for many security specialists are the separate and portable materials necessary to make a nuclear bomb -- highly enriched uranium or plutonium. Also of great concern are other radioactive materials that could be used, with a conventional explosive, to construct a relatively simple "dirty" bomb. Such a device could inflict casualties on the scale of the Oklahoma City bombing, while contaminating a large urban area. Progress has been made in cooperatively identifying and reducing the former Soviet Union's arsenal of nuclear weapons and material. Thousands of nuclear weapons have been dismantled. Tons of nuclear material has been placed under improved security. The United States has spent billions of dollars to assist the former Soviet republics in securing or eliminating nuclear weapons and material. And new efforts are expected to be discussed when Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin begin talks Tuesday in Washington, D.C. Still, the United States has fallen short of the actions needed to avert the calamity invited by loose nuclear materials, more than a dozen leading experts said. DISMAYED EXPERTS T hey voiced dismay that the government is not ramping up its efforts in the aftermath of Sept. 11. "These materials pose a clear and present danger to the U.S. national security," said John Holdren, a Harvard University specialist who in 1995 headed a still-secret study for Clinton of the security of weapons-grade uranium and plutonium within the former Soviet Union. "We haven't done enough." The Monterey Institute of International Studies, an independent graduate school in California, has documented 11 cases of diversion and recovery of uranium and plutonium in the former Soviet Union from 1992 to 1997. More recently, the International Atomic Energy Agency described six arrests or seizures of weapons-grade nuclear material linked to the former Soviet Union from 1999 through last January. William Potter, head of a research project at the Monterey Institute, who participated in two National Academy of Sciences studies of the security of the former Soviet nuclear facilities, said "the Russians maintain that they have accounted for everything. In fact, anybody who's ever been to one of these Russian facilities knows that that is a joke." © 2001 PioneerPlanet / St. Paul (Minnesota) Pioneer Press / TwinCities.com- ***************************************************************** 30 Unthinkable in Afghan war seems less remote The Frontier Post From Peshawar Pakistan Updated on 11/10/2001 11:33:53 AM ISLAMABAD (NNI): Not since the height of the Cold War have Americans seriously considered they could come under nuclear attack.But when President Bush said Tuesday that Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda terrorist network is likely seeking weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear bombs, the possibility that the unthinkable could happen suddenly seemed less remote. How plausible is that threat? Right now, that’s all it appears to be - a threat. Terrorists might want nuclear weapons, but no credible evidence has emerged to suggest that any terrorist group possesses such weapons, according to the latest intelligence made public. Still, post-September 11, the potential can’t be dismissed. At an October 30 press conference in Vienna, Austria, Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, identified a shifting of strategy in the “fight against terrorism.” “The willingness of terrorists to sacrifice their lives to achieve their evil aims creates a new dimension in the fight against terrorism,” ElBaradei said. “We are not just dealing with the possibility of governments diverting nuclear materials into clandestine weapons programs,” he said. “Now we have been alerted to the potential of terrorists targeting nuclear facilities or using radioactive sources to incite panic, contaminate property, and even cause injury or death among civilian populations.” Imagined scenarios of nuclear attacks by terrorists generally fall into two categories. One: Terrorists unleash a nuclear or “dirty bomb,” a conventional bomb loaded with radioactive junk. Two: They ram the United States’ own nuclear facilities with a hijacked jetliner or truck bomb, causing toxic chemicals to disperse into the air. One source of fears is the former Soviet Union. When it collapsed, some of its nuclear weapons - including those that apparently could be carried in a suitcase or briefcase - went unaccounted for in subsequent inventories, according to Bruce Blair, president of the Center for Defense Information, an independent military research organization. Gen. Alexander Lebed, the Russian national security chief under President Boris Yeltsin, completed an inventory that “came up short by something between 50 and 100 suitcases,” Blair said. “No one has really, persuasively explained the discrepancy between Lebed’s count and what the Russian government said, which was, ‘Don’t worry, nothing’s missing.’” John Lepingwell, a nuclear expert with the Monterey Institute of International Studies, doesn’t give any credence to a suitcase-bomb threat. “There is no good evidence that any rebel group or terrorist has these,” he told Time magazine. Lepingwell also dismissed the possibility of terrorists building or getting their hands on a nuclear bomb and setting it off in the United States. “This threat is quite unlikely,” he said. Terrorists, he said, would have to surmount serious obstacles to carry off a nuclear- related attack. Obtaining plutonium or highly-enriched uranium, the fissionable material of nuclear bombs. They’d have to buy it, steal it or produce it, and each case poses its own difficulties. “While creating a design may be possible, turning a design into a functioning weapon is not easy and would require time and substantial effort,” Lepingwell said. “They would have to get it to the U.S. from wherever they built it,” Lepingwell said. “Sending it airfreight or by sea would take time, and would require a string of contacts and checks that might be detected by intelligence agencies.” And the dirty bombs? The Center for Defense Information’s Blair seems to think it’s possible. He recalled how, in 1995, Chechen separatists put a canister in a Moscow park containing a highly radioactive byproduct of nuclear fission. It was a stunt, performed apparently to show how vulnerable Moscow was, Blair said. The United States, said Blair, is just as vulnerable. “So with a dirty bomb, which could be a relatively small canister of nuclear waste that’s exploded with dynamite in a city, the major problem probably would be the widespread evacuation and panic that would ensue,” he said. Another source of concern: so-called rogue nations could supply terrorists with nuclear weapons. Former United Nations chief weapons inspector Richard Butler and his team went into Iraq to shut down Saddam Hussein’s efforts to build a nuclear bomb at the dawn of the Persian Gulf war. Just in time, he said. “I know with utter certainty that Iraq was months away from having nuclear weapons when we stopped them in 1990-’91,” Butler said. “One of the key defectors from Iraq to the West, a man who was in charge of elements of Saddam Hussein’s bomb program, actually said that he’s already made one - that Saddam has already put together a crude nuclear weapon.” But even if Hussein has a crude bomb, that doesn’t guarantee he’d be willing to hand it over to terrorists; or, as Lepingwell noted, that terrorists would be able to transport it undetected to their desired location. Another country watched closely by U.S. officials is the nuclear power Pakistan, according to Joseph Cirincione, nonproliferation project director for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a nonprofit organization that promotes U.S. interests in international relations. Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf has let U.S.-led forces use bases in Pakistan in support of the war on terrorists in Afghanistan. Cirincione fears backlash in Pakistan against the Musharraf government and the United States could lead to a coup by Muslim extremists sympathetic with the Taliban; if they succeeded in overthrowing Musharraf’s government, that would put nuclear weapons in their hands. Shirin Tahir-Kheli, delegate to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, however, said that’s not happening any time soon. “If the state begins to unravel, it’ll have to unravel very fundamentally before that becomes a eality,” she said. “And I don’t see that sort of nightmare scenario.” If nuclear weapons cannot be built or found, U.S. homeland security officials acknowledge terrorists could possibly attack U.S. nuclear plants using a hijacked plane or a large truck bomb. “This is far more likely, although the consequences are likely to be far lower,” said Lepingwell, who said that an attack on a nuclear facility does not guarantee a meltdown - the perceived goal of such an effort. “The terror dimension may turn out to be greater than the actual destruction in such a case.” Victor Dricks, spokesman for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said steps have been taken since September 11 to increase security around nuclear facilities. The facilities are on “highest alert,” he said. “In addition, we’ve issued more than half a dozen advisories in the last six weeks suggesting additional steps they could take to further increase security,” Dricks said. “We also have sent letters to the governors of 40 states urging them to establish channels of communication with National Guard units in the event they feel the need to call upon them for assistance. “And our emergency operation center has been manned around-the-clock for the past six weeks by people who remain in constant communication with law enforcement agencies, the intelligence community, state and local governments and the military,” he said. Not enough, said Paul Leventhal, a critic of nuclear proliferation who worked on Senate legislation to establish the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 1974 and now serves as president of the Nuclear Control Institute. He believes more needs to be done to protect nuclear facilities, including National Guard troops guarding every plant. Leventhal also recommends installing “anti-aircraft weapons like surface-to-air missile batteries” that could intercept a hijacked plane about to crash into a plant. September 11 was “a wakeup call and let’s just hope it’s not too late,” Leventhal said. “It’s been very frustrating getting politicians and the public to pay attention to the dangers of nuclear proliferation.” Ultimately, the attacks of September 11 that shook the United States awoke Americans to grave possibilities. Sam Nunn, chairman of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, said no matter how minuscule the chance of nuclear attack, there’s work to be done. “I don’t think it is likely to happen, but if the odds against that were 1,000-to-one, we want to make them 10,000-to-one,” he told CNN. “If they are 10,000-to-one against it happening we want to make it a million-to-one.” © Copyright 2001 The Frontier Post ***************************************************************** 31 50 bil. yen budgeted to fight terrorism Daily Yomiuri On-Line Yomiuri Shimbun The government has appropriated about 50 billion yen in the fiscal 2001 draft supplementary budget to strengthen its preventive measures against possible terrorist activities. As fears over anthrax mount in the United States, about 6 billion yen was provided in the draft budget, which was approved by the Cabinet on Friday morning and submitted to the Diet later in the day, to deal with terrorism using nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, sources said. Part of the 6 billion yen will be spent on purchasing and stockpiling vaccines against smallpox for 3 million people in case of a bioterrorism attack. Under the supplementary budget, special police forces investigating nuclear, biological or chemical terrorism, which already have been established in the Metropolitan Police Department and the Osaka Prefectural Police Headquarters, will be newly organized in police headquarters in Hokkaido as well as Miyagi, Kanagawa, Aichi, Hiroshima and Fukuoka prefectures. The National Police, Fire Defense and Defense agencies will purchase more devices to detect biological agents and protective clothing to counter chemical weapons. The Defense Agency will also buy antibiotics for use in the treatment of anthrax for 1,000 of its personnel. In addition to preparing for bioterrorism, the government is putting a high priority on strengthening security throughout the nation, having decided to provide armored cars, ballistic-resistant vests and 1,379 submachine guns for police headquarters in 28 prefectures, the sources said. The Defense Agency also has decided to improve its equipment by purchasing more ballistic-resistant vests and small arms. The Japan Coast Guard will acquire 14 small patrol ships, and will armor its helicopters. Security fences will be strengthened and more alarm devices will be installed at nuclear power facilities in an attempt to prevent intruders from sneaking into such facilities, government officials said. The government is also moving to prevent hijackings by placing more security inspection devices at Narita and Kansai airports. Copyright 2001 The Yomiuri Shimbun ***************************************************************** 32 W. WARNS OF NUKE HORROR NYPOST.COM National News: By DEBORAH ORIN November 11, 2001 -- A tough-talking President Bush sternly warned the United Nations yesterday that the world risks nuclear apocalypse unless it stands up to terror - now. Bush later said terror kingpin Osama bin Laden's new boast that he has nukes is another reason why America needs to "get" him. "All the world faces the most horrifying prospect of all. These same terrorists are searching for weapons of mass destruction, the tools to turn their hatred into holocaust," Bush told the U.N. General Assembly here. "They can be expected to use chemical, biological and nuclear weapons the moment they are capable of doing so . . . This threat cannot be ignored. This threat cannot be appeased. Civilization itself, the civilization we share, is threatened." Asked later if he believes bin Laden's nuke boast, Bush told a news conference: "The only thing I know for certain about [bin Laden] is that he's evil." But Bush said bin Laden's claim is "all the more reason for us to pursue him diligently and to get him - and that's what we're gonna do." The president bluntly spelled out the "Bush Doctrine" - that any nation trying to have it both ways and "pick and choose its terrorist friends will know the consequences." He warned: "There is no such thing as a good terrorist." Those words were aimed at Iraq, Iran, Syria and Lebanon, Bush aides said. Today, Bush and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan go back to see the devastation that terror brings with a memorial at ground zero. Bush will also hail U.S. troops at a Veterans Day breakfast and meet Mayor-elect Michael Bloomberg, Mayor Giuliani and Gov. Pataki. Bush renewed his call for Palestinian statehood but stressed that first, all must "forever" swear off violence - a slap at Yasser Arafat, since the White House charges he continues to "hug" terrorists. "We are working toward the day when two states, Israel and Palestine, live peacefully within secure and recognized borders," Bush said. But he added, "Peace will only come when all have sworn off forever incitement, violence and terror." Arafat sat in a side wing of the huge General Assembly hall to hear Bush, and later said the speech was "important, positive and constructive." Arafat is to speak at the United Nations today. Bush seemed to confront - and reject - Palestinian justifications for violence, saying, "No national aspiration, no remembered wrong, can ever justify the deliberate murder of the innocent." Bush also told the United Nations it has put its own "moral authority" at risk by voting "the world's most persistent violators of human rights" onto its Commission on Human Rights. Libya, Cuba and Syria are members of that panel, but the United States got kicked off last May. And Bush denounced "outrageous conspiracy theories" and "malicious lies" about the Sept. 11 attacks - a clear reference to reports that appeared in many Arab newspapers blaming Jews or the Israeli secret service, Mossad. A column in Egypt's official newspaper Al Ahram claimed U.S. officials spread anthrax, and an Arafat-controlled radio station falsely claimed Mossad agents were arrested for the terror attacks. NEW YORK POST ***************************************************************** 33 Nuclear Neighbors Generating Alarm (washingtonpost.com) Some Residents Fear Area Plants Might Be Terrorist Targets By Fredrick Kunkle and Raymond McCaffrey Washington Post Staff Writers Sunday, November 11, 2001; Page C01 The night the sirens went off at the North Anna nuclear power plant near Mineral, Va., Peggy Hairfield's eyes snapped open. Her husband started awake, too. Lying there in bed, a few miles downwind of the nuclear plant, she tamped down panic and wondered: Is this the big one? A meltdown? An accidental release of deadly radiation? The couple held hands. They tuned the clock radio to an emergency broadcasting network to see whether they should evacuate their home about 90 miles southwest of Washington. But it was only a false alarm. Unable to find a babysitter, a dispatcher in the Louisa County sheriff's office had brought a child to work who accidentally triggered the sirens. The next day, life returned to normal, and for 3 1/2 years, the nuke next door became an afterthought -- until Sept. 11. Now the worries have started all over. "You think about it while you're lying there. You think: Am I going to wake up tomorrow? Or am I going to lie here and die? Then you try not to think about it till next time," said Hairfield, a clerk in Mineral's Town Office. At least the sirens worked. Last week, even as nuclear plant operators and government officials were on high alert, two-thirds of the sirens around the Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant, about 55 miles from the District in Southern Maryland, failed during a test. "I didn't hear one of them," Dale Maxwell said as he gassed up his car in nearby Lusby. Neither did anyone else in Calvert County, including people who live closest to the plant. Of 72 sirens within 10 miles, all 49 in Calvert remained silent during the test at noon Monday. A computer glitch was blamed. Nuclear power plants have been generating more than electricity since the Sept. 11 attacks. Indeed, soon after hijacked airliners crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, some officials initially feared that a fourth plane could be bearing down on Three Mile Island near Harrisburg, Pa. On Oct. 17, officials closed two nearby airports and scrambled fighter jets in response to a terrorist threat against TMI that was later deemed to be not credible. Around TMI, scene in 1979 of the nation's worst nuclear power accident, that was enough for some residents to clamor for potassium iodide tablets, which block the body's absorption of radioactive iodine. Lancaster County's Emergency Management Agency, which has stored enough tablets for emergency crews, has been referring callers to private labs. "Some of the general public are concerned," said Randy Gockley, Lancaster County's emergency management coordinator. "The vast majority of people feel comfortable with the plants." Maryland has one nuclear plant. Virginia has two, in Louisa and Surry counties, in central Virginia and Southside, respectively. Folks who live near them wonder what would happen if their nuclear neighbors became the next target. Just last week, Rita Steele's 16-year-old grandson offered to build her an underground fallout shelter. "Before, he would have never thought about it," said Steele, 50, who owns a bric-a-brac shop in Mineral. "Now, it even affects the kids, because they hear so much about it. It's scary." Arms folded over a T-shirt that says, "Wherever I go, God goes with me," Steele said she has not given a lot of thought to what she would do, except get in a car and drive. She worries that radiation would spread too fast anyway. "I'd probably try to get my nine dogs into the car. We probably wouldn't make it," she said. Her neighbors are suddenly paying attention to calendars mailed out by the company that owns the North Anna plant that include detailed instructions on what to do in a crisis. The calendar lists evacuation centers, school evacuation procedures, escape routes and placards that residents can prop in their windows to show that they have exited their homes or need assistance to leave. The calendar goes out to people in five counties surrounding the plant. "I've been reading that, too, and this is the first year I've ever paid attention," said Pat Martin, who runs the Country Roads Cafe in Mineral. For many, though, worry is an acceptable trade-off for facilities that provide more jobs than any other local business and pay at least 20 percent of the county's taxes. Others are simply fatalistic. "If it blows up, it blows up," said Joseph Boggs Sr., whose home sits about a half-mile across Lake Anna from the plant. One of the first to build on Lake Anna about 30 years ago, he's used to the low whine of the turbines coming across the glassy water like the hum of an air conditioner. Boggs, who owns the Lake Anna Marina, said he also likes the way the lights from the plant play across the water at night. "It's beautiful," he said. There are 103 commercial nuclear power plants operating in 31 states. The day of the attacks, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission urged all to go to Level III, its highest level of security. The NRC also reassured the public that nuclear power plants are built to withstand extreme events such as hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes. But in a Sept. 21 news release, the agency also acknowledged that it had not contemplated attacks by airliners as big as the Boeing 767s that slammed into the twin towers. The Federal Aviation Administration on Oct. 30 banned private aircraft below 18,000 feet and within 10 nautical miles of nuclear power plants. That order expired at midnight Tuesday. In Virginia, Gov. James S. Gilmore III (R) directed the National Guard and the state police to defend the state's nuclear plants. The Marine Resources Commission and the Game and Inland Fisheries Department are guarding waterways around the plants. The North Anna plant, on the shore of man-made Lake Anna, has a capacity of 1,842 megawatts -- enough electricity to light a city the size of Albuquerque. The Surry nuclear power plant, with a 1,625-megawatt capacity, is on the James River across from historic Jamestown. Both are operated by Richmond-based Dominion Virginia Power, a division of Dominion Resources Inc. That company serves more than 2 million customers in Virginia and North Carolina. Dominion intensified security before the NRC asked, said spokesman Richard Zuercher. Officials have conducted additional background checks on some employees. Media visits were banned. Public tours ceased. But the plants -- ringed by razor wire, concrete barriers to thwart truck bombs and armed security guards -- were safe even before Sept. 11, Zuercher said. The reactors and their cooling systems are below ground and encased in hardened structures, including a three-eighth-inch carbon steel liner. The domes -- whose shape is intended to minimize the impact from an aircraft crash -- are 2 1/2- to 3-foot-thick concrete reinforced with eight layers of steel bars. Calvert Cliffs, operated by Baltimore-based Constellation Energy Group's nuclear division, also closed its visitors center, and jets from Patuxent River Naval Air Station have soared overhead on guard. But plant officials declined to say much else. "We feel not discussing our security measures ourselves is in fact a security measure," plant spokesman Karl Neddenien said. Neighbors worry about plans to reactivate the Cove Point liquefied natural gas plant, about two miles from Calvert Cliffs. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's go-ahead, announced Oct. 11, has drawn widespread criticism. U.S. Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D) has urged the commission to rethink the notion of allowing foreign tankers to haul the fuel up the Chesapeake Bay past the nuclear power plant. On Friday, the agency agreed to reconsider its approval in light of national security concerns. "The closeness of the two facilities is a concern," said resident Leonard Addiss. "If one goes, the other goes with it." © 2001 The Washington Post Company ***************************************************************** 34 Pakistan Moves Nuclear Weapons (washingtonpost.com) Musharraf Says Arsenal Is Now Secure By Molly Moore and Kamran Khan Washington Post Foreign Service Sunday, November 11, 2001; Page A01 ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Nov. 10 -- Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf ordered an emergency redeployment of the country's nuclear arsenal to at least six secret new locations and has reorganized military oversight of the nuclear forces in the weeks since Pakistan joined the U.S. campaign against terrorism, according to senior officials here. Pakistan's military began relocating critical nuclear weapons components within two days of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the United States, fearful of possible strikes against the country's nuclear facilities, military officials said. Another reason for the movement, officials added, was to remove them from air bases and corridors that might be used by the United States in an attack on Afghanistan. Musharraf also created a new Strategic Planning Division within the nuclear program, headed by a three-star general to oversee operations. This decision, not previously disclosed, was part of the shuffle of top military and intelligence leaders just hours before the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan began on Oct. 7. The shake-up was designed to sideline officers considered too sympathetic to the Taliban or other extremist religious factions, officials said. Musharraf's actions were part of an effort to tighten security around Pakistan's nuclear weapons program in the face of widespread concerns that nuclear devices or fissile material could be vulnerable to attack or theft. In addition, the changes were intended to help keep control of the nuclear program out of the hands of religious hard-liners in the military if Musharraf is assassinated or ousted from office, officials said. "Nukes everywhere are susceptible to hijacking," said Pervez Hoodbhoy, a nuclear physics professor at Islamabad's Quaid-i-Azam University and one of the few vocal anti-nuclear activists in Pakistan. "There are special dangers here." Although Pakistan's nuclear program remains one of the world's most secretive, the country is believed to have the materials to assemble between 30 and 40 warheads and has test-fired intermediate-range missiles that potentially could be used to launch them, according to intelligence reports and nuclear experts. Pakistan and India, both nuclear powers, have fought three conventional wars, two of them over the contentious Kashmir border region. Both Pakistan and India tested underground nuclear devices in 1998, and the two countries are viewed by many security experts as the globe's most worrisome nuclear flashpoint. An escalation of attacks across the Kashmir border just over two years ago underscored the dangers between the distrustful neighbors. Pakistani fears of an Indian attack on its nuclear sites were so great in the summer of 1999, after Pakistani-supported guerrillas invaded Indian territory, that military officers here secretly contacted Taliban officials about the possibility of moving some nuclear assets west to neighboring Afghanistan for safekeeping, according to a recently retired Pakistani general officer familiar with the talks. "The option was actively discussed with the Taliban after some indications emerged that India may open hostilities at the eastern border," the official said. "The Taliban accepted the requests with open arms." The official also said the talks were "exploratory" and that no nuclear-related assets were placed in Afghanistan. At the time, Pakistan's military and intelligence services had close relations with the Taliban, providing training, weapons and other support. Concerned that the 1999 flare-up could lead to full-scale war between India and Pakistan, President Bill Clinton intervened, inviting Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan's prime minister at the time, to the White House for a July 4 meeting. Musharraf, who ousted Pakistan's civilian government in a nonviolent coup six months later, now controls the nuclear weapons program more by virtue of his position as army chief of staff than his title as president. Pakistan's nuclear program has always been under the control of the military, which has often hidden the most basic details of the program from civilian leaders. Since agreeing to assist the United States in the military and anti-terrorist operations in Afghanistan, Musharraf has remained solidly in control of Pakistan and its military. Speaking today before the U.N. General Assembly, he sought to reassure the world that his country's nuclear arsenal was secure. "Pakistan is fully alive to the responsibilities of its nuclear status," Musharraf said. "Let me assure you all that our strategic assets are well guarded and in safe hands." But some military leaders and political analysts have expressed concern about whether his grip will weaken if the conflict in Afghanistan continues. Pakistan in the past 25 years has endured two military coups, four dismissed governments and an attempted coupagainst the top civilian and military leadership. After the 1998 tests, Pakistan's civilian prime minister, Sharif, had promised to set up a national command authority over the nuclear arsenal, but his efforts stalled over over what role the army would allow civilian authorities to play, Pakistani officials said. With Musharraf's coup and military control over the country in 1999, the question of civilian control became moot. In February 2000, Musharraf established the National Command Authority over the nuclear program. Last month he further tightened oversight, creating the new division to handle the daily operations and control of the nuclear program, officials said. Gen. Khalid Kidwai, who answers directly to Musharraf, is now directing the operational security of the country's nuclear sites and weapons. Military officials said he has increased the number of troops and antiaircraft batteries guarding sensitive locations, and has supervised the relocation of nuclear devices and potential delivery vehicles, such as missiles and aircraft. Reports by the CIA and other sources say Pakistan stores its nuclear weapons devices and missiles separately. However, military officials here said that in emergency conditions, such as those of the past two months, equipment is repositioned to allow for rapid assembly. Pakistani officials said that in general the repositioning represented a dispersal of the materials, but details could not be learned. Pakistani officials have dismissed recent reports of alleged U.S. contingency plans to seize Pakistan's nuclear devices in the event that Musharraf is overthrown or assassinated by religious extremists. "It would be an unmitigated disaster," said Mushahid Hussain, a ranking official in the Sharif government at the time of Pakistan's nuclear tests. "You would be talking about waging war on Pakistan," he said, adding that if the United States had sufficient intelligence to locate Pakistan's nuclear sites, "we wouldn't have built the bomb." Still, for many Pakistanis, U.S. officials and international observers, one of the greatest concerns for the country's nuclear weapons program is the potential that extremist Islamic elements could either gain control of the nuclear weapons or materials, or share knowledge about them with hostile organizations or regimes. "Both India and Pakistan have their own fundamentalists," Abdul Qadir Khan, the now-retired founder of Pakistan's nuclear program, said in an interview earlier this year. "This is a serious matter, and we don't want to take any chances that they could fall into the wrong hands." Six years ago a group of Pakistani army officers, described at the time as holding "fanatic Islamic views," was arrested for plotting to overthrow then-prime minister Benazir Bhutto, as well as the army chief of staff, Gen. Abdul Waheed. Waheed had angered extremist elements in the military when he fired the chief of Pakistan's intelligence service for providing covert military support to Muslim rebels in about a dozen countries. Musharraf has likewise attempted to purge the military and intelligence services of officers he considers overly sympathetic to the Taliban and other extremist religious groups. He fired the country's top intelligence chief and reassigned other key officials two hours before the U.S. started bombing Afghanistan. Another sign of anxiety over the nuclear program was the unusual arrest last month of three Pakistani nuclear scientists, including one of the country's most decorated nuclear experts. Sultan Bashiruddin Mahmood, who held key appointments in each of Pakistan's three most important nuclear facilities in a career that spanned nearly three decades and earned him the country's second-highest civilian award, remains under investigation by Pakistan's military intelligence services for alleged meetings with Taliban officials and Arab nationals during three visits to Kandahar, the birthplace and spiritual capital of the Taliban, according to an official familiar with the probe. "The basic fact that Mahmood came in contact with some Arabs -- close to both [Taliban leader] Mullah Mohammad Omar and Osama bin Laden -- is enough to keep him under investigation," the official said. Pakistani officials said that throughout his interrogation by senior military intelligence officials, Mahmood insisted that his contacts with Taliban ministers and two Arab nationals in Kandahar were related to the work of Ummah Tameer-e-Nau [Islamic Reconstruction], a relief agency he helped establish last year for building roads and other construction projects in Afghanistan. The two other nuclear scientists who were arrested reportedly worked for the same charitable organization. One has been cleared of suspicion, while the other remains under investigation, officials said. A Pakistani government official said last week that all three men had been cleared of any wrongdoing, but officials involved in the investigation said it is continuing. "We would love to believe all . . . [Mahmood] says, but some questions like the satellite phone calls that he had received from Afghanistan in August this year are yet to be answered to our satisfaction," the official said. "It would still be premature to claim that Mahmood discussed his nuclear expertise with his foreign friends." Under questioning, Mahmood indicated that he became disillusioned with the Pakistani government when the Inter-Services Intelligence agency recommended his transfer from the sensitive position of the director of plutonium production at the Khushab atomic reactor to a desk job in the spring of 1999, according to the official. Senior Pakistani officials reportedly were concerned that Mahmood had been vocally advocating extensive production of weapons-grade plutonium and uranium enrichment to help equip other Islamic nations with nuclear arsenals. "Intelligence agencies had strongly recommended that it would be dangerous to allow Mahmood to hold a crucial appointment at the country's plutonium production facility," said a senior civilian official involved in Pakistan's nuclear program. A family friend, who asked that his name not be used, said Mahmood felt betrayed by the government he had served for 28 years. The friend said that in a recent conversation, Mahmood told him that his knowledge about Pakistan's nuclear program was a state secret, but not his expertise on enriching uranium and producing weapons-grade plutonium. Mahmood did not hide his personal views, which he articulated in numerous public speeches in the past several months, according to several associates. Khan reported from Karachi, Pakistan. Correspondent Pamela Constable and researcher Yesim Forsythe also contributed to this report. © 2001 The Washington Post Company ***************************************************************** 35 U.S. to Boycott U.N. Meeting on Nuclear Test Ban Friday November 9 10:07 PM ET By Irwin Arieff UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United States will stay away from a U.N. conference opening on Sunday to promote a global ban on nuclear weapons tests, a senior State Department official said on Friday. ``We will not attend the conference,'' said the official, who asked not to be named. He did not elaborate on the reasons. The aim of the conference is to review progress toward ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which would ban all nuclear blasts, whether in the atmosphere, in space or underground. The Pentagon, hoping to hasten the treaty's death, has been pressing the administration for months to sit out the meeting, which initially was scheduled for late September but postponed after the Sept. 11 suicide airliner attacks on New York and Washington. The CTBT has not yet entered into force because it has not garnered the necessary ratifications. It expands on a 1963 treaty barring tests in the atmosphere and a 1974 treaty setting limits on underground explosions. The George W. Bush administration worries that without testing, it cannot ensure the safety and reliability of U.S. nuclear arms. Critics say simulated testing conducted via computers and other technology is sufficient. U.S. officials insist Bush remains deeply concerned about nuclear proliferation and expects to continue abiding by a testing moratorium put in place by his father in 1992. But critics say a boycott of the U.N. conference will be a powerful message to allies strongly backing the CTBT that Washington wanted to go it alone on nuclear arms control. WASHINGTON WAS STRONG BACKER ``This will not be the last word. But it's a sad commentary on the Bush administration's approach to post-September 11 weapons-of-mass-destruction challenges,'' said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Washington-based Arms Control Association. ``Just as we cannot fight global terror alone, we cannot alone fight the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons,'' he told Reuters. Some 79 other nations have signed up to deliver speeches at the three-day CTBT event, but organizers said earlier on Friday they had not yet heard from Washington. The United States was for years a strong backer of the CTBT, which was 40 years in the making. The pact was approved by the 189-nation U.N. General Assembly and opened for signature five years ago. Under unusual approval procedures, the treaty cannot enter into force until it is signed and ratified by 44 states -- including the United States -- deemed nuclear arms-capable. To date, 31 of those 44 countries including avowed nuclear powers France, Russia and Britain have signed and ratified the pact. So 13 more must ratify before it can take hold. In that group, India, Pakistan and North Korea have neither signed nor ratified the treaty while the United States, China and eight others have signed but not ratified. Former President Bill Clinton was the first world leader to sign the accord, in 1996. But the Senate refused to ratify it in the partisan-charged run-up to the 2000 election. Jayantha Dhanapala, the top U.N. disarmament official, said nuclear rivals India and Pakistan have said they will sign the pact but still have not done so. No signings or ratifications are expected to be announced during the U.N. conference, he said. The meeting is to end in adoption of a declaration expected to call on nations that have not yet signed or ratified to do so as soon as possible. Copyright © 2001 Reuters Limited ***************************************************************** 36 Initial move today against MOX plant ireland.com - The Irish Times - IRELAND November 9, 2001 By Alison O'Connor, Political Reporter The Government's legal team will lodge papers today in relation to the case against the United Kingdom, claiming it has violated the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea by authorising the MOX (mixed oxide) nuclear fuel plant at Sellafield. The team will travel to Hamburg in Germany where the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea sits, to seek the injunction preventing the plant from starting operation. It will also seek a full hearing to determine the plant's future. A spokesman also confirmed last night that the Government had instructed its legal team handling the Sellafield issue to give advice and assistance to Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, whose legal challenge to try and prevent the start-up of the controversial plant began yesterday. An Irish representative will be attending as an observer throughout the court case, he said. The spokesman said last night "the gloves are now off" in relation to Sellafield. The Minister of State, Mr Joe Jacob, has accused the British government of violating numerous provisions of the UN Convention. It had failed in its obligations to consult Ireland, to assess the plant's impact on the environment and to protect the marine environment, he said. The Government formally served legal documents on the British government at the end of October. The legal action follows years of reluctance to do so, despite long-standing concerns over the operation of the Sellafield plant just 60 miles from Dublin. The change of attitude follows intense anger at the British decision this month to proceed with the new MOX fuel production plant, which would lead to the regular shipment of dangerous material through the Irish Sea. The MOX plant is designed to process nuclear reactor fuel from uranium and plutonium imported from a large number of countries. The Government is demanding an injunction preventing the plant from starting operations, and a full hearing then to determine the its future. The papers are being lodged today in advance of the proposed opening of the MOX plant at the end of the month. It hopes to obtain the injunction before that, unless Britain agrees to postpone activating the plant pending the full hearing, which would not reach a conclusion until the end of next year at the earliest. At the five-member arbitration tribunal, according to Mr Jacob, Ireland will accuse the UK of failing to take adequate measures to prevent pollution from the plant; to assess properly the risk of terrorist attack; to prepare a plan to respond to such an attack; to co-operate with Ireland and share information and to carry out a full environmental impact assessment. Ireland will seek a full environmental impact assessment and proof that the plant will bring no further radioactive pollution. It will also demand an agreed British-Irish strategy to prevent terrorist attacks or to respond to any terrorist attacks. The international action will take place in parallel with arbitration proceedings started in June in under the OSPAR convention, which are intended to obtain certain information on the MOX plant which the British government has refused to provide. The Government is also drafting papers with a view to taking a separate case against the UK in the European Court, claiming it is in breach of the Euratom Treaty. ***************************************************************** 37 White House dismisses bin Laden nuclear threat - November 10, 2001 CNN.com - NEW YORK (CNN) -- The Bush administration dismissed claims reported Saturday in a Pakistani English-language newspaper that suspected terrorist Osama bin Laden has nuclear and chemical weapons and will use them against the United States if attacked. In an interview with bin Laden published in Dawn -- said to have taken place November 7 -- the newspaper quoted bin Laden as saying: "I wish to declare that if America used chemical or nuclear weapons against us, then we may retort with chemical and nuclear weapons. We have the weapons as a deterrent." While citing "credible indications" bin Laden has sought to obtain such weapons, Bush administration officials said they do not believe the al Qaeda leader has weapons of mass destruction or the means to deliver them. "He has said for a long time he wants to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we have no choice but to take him seriously," National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack said. "And we will do everything we can to prevent his acquiring these weapons or the materials for these weapons." These remarks came shortly after President Bush addressed the United Nations General Assembly in New York, where he discussed the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, America's response and future terrorist threats. While he did not mention bin Laden by name, Bush said, "These same terrorists are searching for weapons of mass destruction, the tools to turn their hatred into holocaust. They can be expected to use chemical, biological and nuclear weapons the moment they are capable of doing so." Bin Laden: Attacks part of 'defensive Jihad' The interview, conducted by Pakistani newspaper editor and official bin Laden biographer Hamid Mir, was bin Laden's first since the September 11 attacks on the United States. Mir wrote that he was blindfolded and taken in a jeep from Kabul "to a place where it was extremely cold and one could hear the sound of anti-aircraft guns firing away." After a time, bin Laden arrived with a dozen bodyguards and Ayman el-Zawahri, his top lieutenant, and began answering questions. While never explicitly taking or denying responsibility, bin Laden repeats several times that the September 11 attacks were part of a "defensive Jihad." He says Muslims are defending themselves against American attacks on the Muslims around the world, including on Palestinians, Chechnya, Kashmir, Iraq, and Bosnia. "This is a simple formula that even an American child can understand," he says. "This is the formula of live and let live." Bin Laden also discounts criticism issued by other Muslims against him, saying they hold no meaning for him because true Muslims support the jihad against the United States. When asked where the nuclear weapons came from, bin Laden retorted, "Go to the next question." Bush had warned of bin Laden's threats to use weapons of mass destruction earlier in the week, saying, "This is an evil man that we're dealing with, and I wouldn't put it past him to develop evil weapons to try to harm civilization as we know it." When the Taliban's ambassador to Pakistan was asked about nuclear weapons this week, he replied, "We can't even make glass, so how can we make nuclear weapons?" ***************************************************************** 38 Abraham wants to cut time, cost of Hanford cleanup The Spokesman-Review.com - November 9, 2001 Abraham wants to cut time, cost of Hanford cleanup Energy secretary also says security is fine at nuclear reservation Nicholas K. Geranios - Associated Press Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham says he wants to dramatically cut the time and cost of cleaning up the Hanford nuclear reservation. In his first visit to the former nuclear weapons production site, Abraham also said Wednesday he believed security for radioactive materials there was adequate. Hanford for four decades made plutonium for nuclear weapons, and the nation's largest collection of radioactive wastes is stored at various locations on the 560-square-mile site. There have been concerns that terrorists might try to spew that waste into the environment. After a brief tour of the site, Abraham said he was satisfied that all potential security issues have been considered. "I won't provide a huge amount of information on counterterrorism efforts," Abraham added. Hanford is part of a review of all of the Department of Energy's nuclear weapons production sites that seeks to speed the environmental cleanup. That review should be completed by the end of the year, he said. An existing plan that calls for spending 70 years and $300 billion to clean the Hanford site "is unacceptable. It seems too long," Abraham said. "We can achieve significant cleanup faster, and without cutting corners," he said. New technology should be studied to see if it can be applied to the cleanup, Abraham said, even if the technology did not exist when the landmark 1989 agreement between the state and federal governments to manage the work was signed. Abraham expressed continued support for studying future uses of the Fast Flux Test Facility, a nuclear reactor that has been slated for closure for more than a decade because it does not have a mission. Supporters have proposed the reactor be used to make radioactive isotopes for medical use, a plan opposed by those who contend the isotopes are not needed and will create more waste. The Hanford watchdog group Heart of America Northwest criticized Abraham for studying the FFTF, saying those funds should be directed to cleanup. "He should get out of his tour bus and walk through the leaking high-level nuclear waste tank areas that threaten our Columbia River," said director Gerald Pollett. "The energy secretary is wasting time and attention on the unfundable schemes to restart the FFTF nuclear reactor." Abraham also announced that the DOE plans to extend for five years the contract of the company that runs the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory at Hanford. Battelle Memorial Institute of Columbus, Ohio, has done an "extraordinary job" running the research lab, Abraham said. The lab has 3,500 workers and an annual budget of about $540 million. Congress has approved a Hanford cleanup budget of more than $1.8 billion for the next fiscal year. Hanford officials are hopeful President Bush will approve the spending. ***************************************************************** 39 Lifting the veil on how Israelis got the A-bomb Press opens up on ill-kept secret By Dan Ephron, Globe Correspondent, 11/11/2001 JERUSALEM - In the twilight of their lives, a few people who took part in one of the most ambitious and secretive ventures in Israel's history are suddenly feeling the urge to talk about it. Some, like Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, seek credit for the role they played in the project, and hope it will secure their place in history. For others it's a more modest yearning, an almost obsessive need to unload secrets they have carried around for nearly 50 years. The result has been a steady erosion of the taboo surrounding discussion of Israel's nuclear weapons program, a project so furtive and so sensitive that it has never figured in the discourse of this country, an otherwise feisty democracy. In this age of increased concern over nuclear weapons falling into terrorist hands, Israel neither confirms nor denies making atom bombs at a sprawling nuclear plant near the southern desert town of Dimona. Israelis don't know basic things about their country's nuclear program, including where missiles are stored or how the nuclear waste is discarded. Journalists who write about the issue use a coded vernacular, never stating unequivocally that Israel has the bomb. The policy of ambiguity was crafted to deter Arabs from attacking Israel while avoiding the political fallout of becoming an avowed nuclear power. But an Israeli documentary screened last week, on the heels of a book published in the United States, opens a window on the early period of Dimona, when a country with barely enough resources to feed its people set out to accomplish what only the world's great powers had. The film, ''A Bomb in the Basement - Israel's Nuclear Option,'' strings together details that have mostly been published before outside Israel and includes a riveting interview with Peres, who signals more definitively than ever before that Israel has produced nuclear weapons. The documentary is remarkable for something else: Broadcast on Israeli television, it marks the first time the electronic media here have dealt with the issue candidly and comprehensively. ''It was some kind of taboo in Israel until now, and the media didn't touch it,'' said Michael Karpin, who directed the 90-minute film. ''Therefore nobody did anything with the topic.'' Karpin focuses on the intimate ties Peres forged with the French in the mid-1950s relations, based on the two countries' shared anxiety over burgeoning nationalist movements in North Africa. Israel feared that the rise of Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt would embolden an already formidable pan-Arab foe. And France faced a bloody insurrection in Algeria, one of its last colonies. Their interests converged in 1956, when Israel agreed to team up with France and Britain in a war to punish Nasser for nationalizing the Suez Canal. According to the film, Israel had already approached France to buy an atomic bomb factory. Now, in high-level talks outside Paris with the French prime minister, Guy Mollet, Israel made the nuclear deal a condition for its participation in the campaign. ''I said: `Friends, this is not a part of the negotiations, and we are taking a big risk, and here's what we ask.' And they agreed,'' Peres said, describing the meeting. ''And you asked for the reactor?'' Karpin's voice is heard saying off camera. ''I asked for more than that. I asked for other things, too. The uranium and those things. Peres said he went to the Israeli prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, and said: ''`It's settled.' And that's how it was.'' Military censors who watch over journalists here usually expurgate overt references to Israeli nuclear weapons. But when a French Defense Ministry official was asked later in the film about the deal, he said outright that Paris had decided Israel should be supplied with a nuclear bomb. It is unclear why the censors and other security agencies had allowed Karpin leeway while cracking down on others who had tackled the same subject. In the past six months, Israel has detained an academic over a book he had written about Israel's nuclear capacity and has jailed a retired general named Yitzhak Yaakov for talking to a journalist about the subject. Mordechai Vanunu, the former Dimona nuclear plant technician, is serving an 18-year sentence for telling the Sunday Times in 1986 that Israel had built more than 200 nuclear bombs at its sprawling desert facility. Israeli authorities ''want to give the impression of openness, but only the kind of openness the state wants,'' said Avner Cohen, who wrote ''Israel and the Bomb,'' an exhaustive history of Dimona that was published in 1998. Karpin concedes that his film rests to some degree on the data presented in Cohen's book. Israeli authorities made clear to Cohen after long talks that they would ban ''Israel and the Bomb,'' which was eventually published in the United States. Several people interviewed in Karpin's movie served as sources for Cohen's book. ''These people are getting old, and I found in them an existential need to talk about it and to tell about their own involvement, their own participation,'' Cohen said in a telephone interview from his home in Tacoma Park, Md. ''Getting credit is one element, but it's also a matter of releasing the deep and heavy story that has been there under secrecy for many decades. It's something like closure,'' he said. Some nuclear analysts here think the publication of Cohen's book forced censors to reassess Israel's policy of nuclear ambiguity and, as a result, to allow the film. But Karpin has another explanation. He thinks the censor's relative openness might have something to do with the terrorist attacks on the United States, a form of muscle flexing to counter the threat posed by Osama bin Laden. Karpin submitted the film to censors in early September and got it back about 10 days after the attacks on New York and Washington. He was surprised to find that only a few lines had been deleted. ''It could be that after September 11 they decided that perhaps the time has come to reveal a little bit more about the Israeli nuclear project,'' Karpin said. ''But this is only my speculation.'' © Copyright 2001 Globe Newspaper Company. ***************************************************************** 40 New World Disorder: Radiating Fear LA Weekly: In dire need of a plan to protect nuclear power plants by Michael Collins Governor Gray Davis drew ire last week for releasing a confidential FBI warning that four of California’s bridges could be terrorist targets. The governor, it seemed, was doing too much in the “war on terrorism.” For some time, though, environmental activists have criticized Davis for not doing enough to prevent attacks on the state’s two nuclear power plants — San Onofre and Diablo Canyon. Some perfunctory steps have been taken to protect the plants. For example, in response to the FBI’s security alert late last month, the FAA decreed that private planes could not fly within 12 miles — nor, vertically, below 18,000 feet — of 86 nuclear sites around the country. The ban ended Tuesday, worrying one of the world’s top nuclear-terrorism experts, Dr. Bennett Ramberg, vice chairman of the Los Angeles–based Center for Government and Public Policy Analysis and author of Nuclear Power Plants as Weapons for the Enemy: An Unrecognized Military Peril (University of California Press). He believes that by ending the FAA prohibition, the U.S. is failing to seriously address the threat to its 103 nuclear-power complexes in 31 states. “For over 20 years, I’ve tried to get the government to toughen up regulations,” Ramberg told the Weekly, “but even now they are moving at a snail’s pace, despite the obvious threat.” Ramberg went on to challenge the governor: “Davis should immediately send the National Guard to protect our plants, and they should be equipped with anti-aircraft batteries,” Ramberg said. “Even if the odds of attack are very low, the repercussions of reactor sabotage are extraordinarily high and [the effects] long-lasting.” It’s an idea that has gained a measure of support across the U.S. Thirteen states have stationed National Guardsmen, albeit without anti-aircraft weapons, at nuclear power plants. Congress is also considering legislation that would toughen up nuclear-plant security, including an increased role for the National Guard. Rep. Ed Markey (D-Massachusetts), who introduced the legislation, said guardsmen should be equipped with anti-aircraft artillery. The thinking is that all the conventional security in the world will do little to halt an attack from the air. (Jurisdiction over nuclear power plants usually falls to the federal government; on security issues, however, Congress, the governor or the president can issue orders to the National Guard.) Davis’ press secretary, Steve Maviglio, said the governor is considering a new plan for nuclear-plant security: “We have a plan under review, and we hope to make a decision shortly.” Regulations to guard plants are based on decades-old scenarios involving no more than “several” attackers acting as one team, with only one insider and using hand-held weapons and explosives. No plans to protect plants from planes or boats are in place. Indeed, if one or more bomb-laden private planes were to hit a reactor’s concrete dome or external power units, it could very likely cause a meltdown. If San Onofre’s two reactors were hit and melted down, it could cause hundreds of thousands of cancers and genetic defects, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The immediate damage of a Diablo Canyon meltdown could spread through San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara counties. The September 11 attacks on the World Trader Center and Pentagon have made the threat appear more real. Ahmed Ressam, an Algerian arrested as he crossed into the United States from Canada just before the new millennium, recently testified at the trial of another terrorist that the Osama bin Laden terrorist camps are training attackers in what they call “urban warfare” and “enemy installation,” including nuclear power plants. In late October, it was reported in the Times of London that the FBI sent information to its British counterpart, MI5, that the fourth plane that crashed in Pennsylvania may have been headed toward the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant. Nuclear-power facilities are vulnerable despite having walls of thick concrete meshed in re-bar. If the electrical power lines to a plant were cut, the reactor would automatically shut down unless relatively unfortified backup generators were disabled. This could lead to a meltdown. Likewise if saboteurs cut off or clog the water supply to the reactors. Spent nuclear-fuel dry casks and cooling ponds for “hot” fuel rods could be set afire with incendiary weapons, which makes them the most vulnerable targets at the plants. Southern California Edison, which operates San Onofre, maintains that the complex is safe despite the lifting of the FAA flight ban. The company has increased its use of automatic-gun-toting retired police and military personnel in and around the plant. The company has added concrete barriers and obstacles, and has a security boat patrolling the site’s Pacific Coast perimeter. A more elaborate system to identify employees has also been established. “We’re at the highest state of alert,” Steve Conroy, SCE’s manager of media relations, told the Weekly. Said Jeff Lewis, a spokesman for Pacific Gas &Electric, which operates Diablo Canyon, “People have told me that it’s easier to get into the White House.” But the safety record of nuke plants has been abysmal. Between 1991 and 1998, the NRC has conducted mock attacks at 68 plants. Nearly half the time, security measures flunked the test, even though the plants were warned of the simulated assaults six months in advance. Officials point out, however, that San Onofre is on U.S. Marine–owned land, and that troops would triumph in the advent of any attack. But a mock NRC assault on the facility before September 11 revealed that to “penetrate the perimeter fence and breach the access control barrier” took just 18 seconds. Longtime NRC critic Markey’s stringent nuclear-plant legislation passed out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee last week, but it could take as long as six months to finally make it to President Bush. Copyright © 2001, L.A. Weekly Media, Inc. All rights reserved. P.O. Box 4315, Los Angeles, CA 90078-9810 [ ] ***************************************************************** 41 Cold War's little nukes are among most feared Journalstar.com: Nation/World Sunday, Nov. 11, 2001 BY JIM KRANE The Associated Press NEW YORK -- Among the terrorist weapons experts worry about, one tops the list: the atom bomb. While chances are remote that a terrorist might obtain one of the suitcase-sized nuclear bombs produced by the United States or former Soviet Union, analysts worry that a crude but deadly device might be fashioned from stolen nuclear material and a few sticks of dynamite. Such a radiological bomb wouldn't yield a nuclear explosion but rather a plume of toxic radiation. "Had the terrorists at the World Trade Center used a radiological dispersal device, most parts of lower Manhattan would have been rendered uninhabitable," said Tariq Rauf, director of the nonproliferation program at the Monterey Institute of International Studies. Such a bomb requires neither knowledge of physics nor the rigors of smuggling weapons-grade uranium or plutonium. "It's not that hard to build a radiological bomb since all you have to do is disperse a bunch of radioactive material," said Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Highly radioactive material is stored at more than 1,000 facilities in 50 countries, according to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The group says some facilities have insufficient security against would-be thieves looking for bomb ingredients. America's defense against nuclear smuggling consists of pressuring countries to bolster safeguards on weapons-usable and radioactive material, along with boosting border defenses in the United States and in countries on likely transit routes. The nuclear terrorism threat, however remote, remains serious enough for President Bush to describe it in a speech to eastern European leaders on Tuesday. Court documents show that Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network has sought nuclear material. It is unclear whether the group succeeded. "The probability is not zero," said Tim Brown, an intelligence and military analyst with GlobalSecurity.org. "It's somewhere between zero and low." Analysts who have examined the threat describe three separate scenarios. In the first, a so-called "suitcase nuke," probably from the ex-Soviet Union, could be sold to terrorists, who would seek to smuggle it into the United States, or within range of an U.S. overseas interest. In the depths of the Cold War, the United States and Soviet Union each produced a few hundred portable nuclear weapons, Rauf said. The U.S. munitions were intended to slow a hypothetical Soviet invasion of western Europe by demolishing bridges and railways, he said. Since the demise of the Soviet Union, rumors pointing to missing portable Soviet nuclear weapons have percolated through the defense community. None has been verified. One stems from 1997 statements by Russian Gen. Alexander Lebed, who said some portable Soviet weapons were unaccounted for. Another originates in Russian press reports that Chechen rebels stole, or attempted to steal, small nuclear weapons from a military base. In a third case, a pair of ethnic Russians were arrested in Miami in 1997 after offering to sell a suitcase nuke to undercover U.S. Customs agents. No evidence indicated the men had access to such a weapon, said Customs spokesman Dean Boyd. "I'm not overly concerned about the suitcase bomb threat," said Jon Wolfsthal, an associate with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "The U.S. intelligence services have very high confidence that Russia has accounted for all its nuclear weapons." A second threat scenario involves a terrorist group building its own nuclear bomb using smuggled nuclear material. The International Atomic Energy Agency has documented 18 cases of weapons-grade nuclear smuggling since 1993, among hundreds of cases of trafficking in radioactive materials. None of the cases involved enough for a bomb. About a dozen countries have the material, but the largest amount -- some 1,300 metric tons of plutonium and highly enriched uranium -- sits in Russian weapons facilities and laboratories, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. "It's very hard to track," Wolfsthal said. "There's no way to verify that materials aren't already missing. The Russians themselves don't know themselves how much they have." Since 1992, U.S. agencies have spent more than $5 billion helping Russia upgrade security at the sites and making sure weapons scientists were peaceably employed. Border guards in the region trained by U.S. Customs already have seized radioactive materials, including, in 1999, 10 grams of weapons-grade uranium hidden inside a car traveling into Bulgaria. Still, a terrorist-made A-bomb is a low-probability threat. "Even Saddam Hussein's weapons program, after 10 years and several billion dollars in investments, was not able to make a nuclear bomb," Rauf said. The radiological bomb is a much simpler matter. Depending on its potency, a contamination-spewing radiological bomb could kill dozens, hundreds, possibly thousands. Its toxic plume could render a square mile or more uninhabitable for a decade or longer. It would cause a huge cleanup and demoralize a city, perhaps a nation. In the case of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear reactor meltdown, a 6-mile belt around the reactor is still uninhabitable, Rauf said. "To a terrorist who is trying to create widespread panic, this option is more appealing," Rauf said. "You can see the white powder of anthrax, but not radiation. It can be carried by wind, by the water. In the public mind, a radiological device is more terrorizing." Copyright © 2001, Lincoln Journal Star. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 42 Nuclear assets are in safe hands DAWN - Opinion; 12 November, 2001 The evolution of devolution Why bomb civilians? Chacha Abdul Baqi rides again By Dr. Hasan Askari Rizvi The recent statement of the foreign minister that Pakistan has installed comprehensive and foolproof arrangements for the security of nuclear weapons has to be viewed against the backdrop of speculations in the West that Pakistan's nuclear weapons or fissile material could slip into the hands of militant Islamic elements. The US secretary of state offered training for Pakistani personnel for security and protection of nuclear assets. Pakistan has accepted this offer. The official circles and the experts of South Asian security in the US are perturbed about the danger of Pakistan's nuclear weapons or fissile material falling into the hands of the extremist Islamic elements who are currently supporting the Taliban. What worries them is that if the current agitation by the militant Islamic elements intensifies it can destabilize the Musharraf government which may then find it difficult to protect the nuclear assets. The current speculation about the future of Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme can be traced to an article entitled "Watching the Warheads: The Risks of Pakistan's Nuclear Arsenal" by a well-known American journalist, Seymour M. Hersh, in the latest issue of the New Yorker (November 5, 2001). The author takes an alarmist view of what can happen to Pakistan's nuclear programme. Quoting the serving and retired US officials, the author claims that an elite US army unit "under Pentagon with CIA assistance" is getting training along with Israel's special operation unit, known as Unit 262, for taking control of or destroying Pakistan's nuclear weapons and installations if there arises a danger of their falling into the hands of extreme religious elements. This eventuality can arise, the article suggests, if Musharraf is dislodged in a coup by a section of the military and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) which sympathizes with the Taliban. The Musharraf regime may find it difficult to protect the nuclear programme if the on-going street agitation, currently limited to Islamic hard-liners, is joined by other political elements, Hersh maintains. In such a situation, some elements in the army and especially in the ISI who "have long-standing religious and personal ties" with the Taliban leaders may attempt a seizure of nuclear weapons. The JUI leader, Hafiz Hussain Ahmad, recently claimed that the Taliban could use nuclear weapons in their defence and that they were close to acquiring nuclear weapons capability. The Taliban ambassador to Pakistan denied this statement but this could not remove western apprehensions. The Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) called upon the nuclear states on November 1 to strengthen the safety of nuclear material in their possession. The IAEA feared that "Pakistan could become a source of hardware for terrorists planning to build a nuclear bomb, while the impoverished scientists from the former Soviet Union could provide the required know-how." This is not the first time that speculative and controversial stories about Pakistan's nuclear programme have surfaced in the media. The first controversy about its nuclear programme arose when it became known in 1978-79 that Pakistan was pursuing a clandestine nuclear weapons programme. Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme was described as the "Islamic bomb", suggesting that Pakistan could make the bomb or make its technology available to the Arab countries, some of which were said to have provided funds in the initial stages of the programme. This was bound to alert Israel and pro-Israel groups in the West who felt that any such transfer would undermine Israel's predominant military position in the Middle East. All Pakistani governments have rejected this insinuation and assured the international community that it would not transfer nuclear weapons technology or the weapon to any state and that its nuclear programme was meant only to strengthen its security vis-a-vis India. However, the issue of the "Islamic bomb" has surfaced from time to time. The latest reference to this was made during US Secretary of State Colin Powell's visit to New Delhi last month when an Indian journalist asked him a question about the security implications of Pakistan's "Islamic bomb." The second major speculation pertaining to Pakistan's nuclear programme is the possibility of an Indian attack on Pakistan's nuclear installations. The first such stories appeared in 1982-83, against the backdrop of Israel's air strikes against Iraq's nuclear installations in 1981. Pakistani media periodically talked of Indo-Israeli collaboration for such an operation. The Indian official sources have denied such stories but these continue to resurface in the Pakistani and international media from time to time. In December 1988, Pakistan and India signed an agreement for non-attack on each other's nuclear installations. But, occasional references to this possibility are still made in the press. The third well-known speculative report about Pakistan's nuclear weapons capability was narrated by Seymour Hersh in an article entitled "On the Nuclear Edge" published in the New Yorker, March 29, 1993. He alleged that India and Pakistan were close to nuclear confrontation in the spring of 1990 on the Kashmir issue. He claimed that Pakistan had loaded nuclear warheads on aircraft fearing a pre-emptive Indian nuclear strike. American intervention saved the situation. The Pakistani authorities, including the then army chief, General Mirza Aslam Beg, vehemently denied this story. India also rejected this report. The fourth major issue relates to western and Indian fears that religious extremists can take control of Pakistan's nuclear weapons. The latest New Yorker article has highlighted what is periodically discussed in western security circles since May 1998, when Pakistan carried out its tests to become an overt nuclear weapon state. Discussions have taken place at seminars and in the security circles in Washington and elsewhere in the US on the possibility of a take-over of Pakistan's nuclear weapons by militant Islamic groups. The concerned officials of the Pentagon and the state department have looked into this matter as one of the possibilities if Pakistan's internal drift continues unabated. In an interview in the CBS news programme "Sixty Minutes" in October 2000, General Anthony Zinni, former commander of US CENTCOM, expressed apprehensions that Pakistan's nuclear weapons "could wind up in the hands of extremist religious leaders." One can talk about the problems of safety of Pakistan's nuclear material as a worst case scenario. However, a number of factors militate against the possibility of the nuclear weapons falling into the hands of militant Islamic groups. The Pakistan army has been controlling the nuclear programme since 1977 when it assumed power under General Zia-ul-Haq. This pattern continued after the restoration of civilian government in 1985. This control became firmer when the military returned to power in October 1999 under General Pervez Musharraf. The army, like the navy and the air force, is a highly professional, cohesive and disciplined force and recognizes the responsibility the control of nuclear weapons impose on it. The recent changes in the army and ISI command structure have streamlined the hierarchy to deal with the post-September 11 situation. The desire to protect the nuclear assets is equally shared by the top brass, which ensures the safety of nuclear assets even if there is a change of government. The nuclear and missiles programmes are under the control of the National Command Authority (NCA) which comprises the Chief Executive, the top brass of the military and some top civilian policy makers. The NCA had set up an Employment Control Committee, a Development Control Committee, and a Strategic Plans Division (SPD). The SPD acts as the secretariat of the NCA and is responsible for, among other things, establishment of command, control, communication, computers and intelligence network for the NCA. A Strategic Force Command, headed by a serving general, is responsible for deployment of strategic missiles. Such an elaborate command and management system ensures that nuclear and missile arsenal programmes are handled with restraint and responsibility. The control of nuclear weapons is highly elaborate and centralized to ensure that there is no unauthorized, unintentional or accidental use and their security is fully guaranteed. Available information suggests that the nuclear weapons are not kept in assembled form. Their components are located in different places. Such a strategy enhances the security of the weapon. However, the components can be put together to assemble weapons at short notice. The ground security of all the nuclear installations has been strengthened since September 11. The air defence of these installations has also been reinforced as a precautionary measure. One can safely conclude that the speculations about the security of Pakistan's nuclear assets are exaggerated. The evolution of devolution By Ahmed Sadik The year 2001 has seen a new and far-reaching change in the district administrative and local bodies systems in Pakistan. Significantly enough, this new process which has been described as a devolution process has been conceived, prepared, introduced and put in place by the National Reconstruction Bureau (NRB) which is an important extension of the Chief Executive's secretariat. Consequently, there were high hopes among a lot of people that major improvements would immediately follow from the introduction and functioning of the devolution system. It was assumed at the time of the formulation of the devolution plan that the NRB (which took nearly two years devising the plan) must have looked into each and every detail and had anticipated and planned for all eventualities that the new system was likely to be confronted with. But first reports about the functioning and the performance of the new system that have appeared in the national press have been far from complimentary. This is indeed a far cry from all the predictions and expectations that the devolution process would straightaway produce the panacea for most of the ills that afflict our society. There are reports of not enough coordination and understanding existing between the three essential functionaries: the District Nazim(DN), the District Coordination Officer(DCO) and the relevant police officers(DIG or SSP as the case may be). Small issues have unnecessarily been allowed to occupy the centre of attention - issues such as who is going to get what sort of transport facility, what sort of house to live in and what sort of additional frills and perks. These are matters that are wholly unrelated to public welfare and should not have been treated as more than miscellaneous matters understandable at the starting point of any new system. At the same time, it needs to be said that had these prenatal problems merely been limited to the turf battles for more and better perks, it would not have been such a serious matter. But the situation is a lot more serious because the designers of the devolution programme never really took the trouble of trying out simulation exercises at lab level or local levels in respect of the changes that they tried to introduce in one go for the entire country. If one may say so, they made the serious mistake of going headlong into an ocean full of sharks without taking the trouble of testing the waters before taking the plunge. The plunge having been taken, there is obviously no going back as such on the devolution process at least for this government which has a very heavy stake in it in terms of public credibility, rising expectations of the electorate/taxpayers and, of course, institutional development. No one in his right mind can expect this government to suddenly say that the devolution scheme was all wrong and that it has consequently decided to do an about-turn on it. But surely there is need for course corrections. No humanly devised system can ever be perfect and it takes some long-haul to arrive at a given point of poise and balance and the same might very much be the case with the current devolution programme. The weaknesses in the existing devolution system are several and they need to be addressed post-haste if it is to survive and gather the needed momentum. Notwithstanding the initial loss of momentum, things can still be corrected if the NRB opens itself wide enough to considering course corrections and refrains from the temptation of believing that its plan is the last word on the subject of devolution. Most of the District Nazims are by and large suffering from a lack of confidence which emanates from their virtually having had no experience of government. This, coupled with the overall erosion of the erstwhile position of the DCO (the former DC) who was to act as the coordinator, has compounded and complicated matters. Most of the DCOs hail either from the District Management Group (DMG) or from the Provincial Civil Service (PCS). In the very early stages of its conception and before its launching, it was widely rumoured that the posts of DCOs would be open to officers from all services. But the federal and provincial governments in their wisdom decided to utilize the services of DMG and PCS officers in view of their experience in district management. This was overall a good decision. But the government will now have to seriously consider making some rectifications in the devolution scheme if it wants it to strike roots. First and foremost, the federal and provincial governments will have to make it crystal clear to all and sundry that there will be a system of collective responsibility for whatever goes on in the districts in respect of all key matters. The District Nazim-in-Council will have to carry with him not only a majority of the elected councillors but also the DCO and the DIG/SP. In the pre-devolution days this was an accepted principle in an informal sort of way for the then district triumvirate - the District Magistrate, the SP and the District and Sessions Judge - to function, and it functioned very well indeed during the British presence in the subcontinent. Secondly, the DCO - if he has to be of any use to the Nazim, to the federal and provincial governments as well as to the functioning of the machinery of the district government - he will have to be re-given an effective role in the law and order administration of the district. All power to the police is not going to work for the simple reason that this has resulted in a shift of the magisterial and quasi-judicial work relating to the maintenance of law and order to the lower judiciary which is really not designed to handle this sort of work. This would in essence mean the need for a return to the 1996 formula of the separation of the judiciary from the executive as was laid down and enunciated by the Supreme Court presided over by Justice Sajjad Ali Shah and which was implemented that year by the federal and provincial governments. Thirdly, all this hype about police reform of the sort that is prevalent in Japan needs to be called off. The notion about law and order commissions at several levels is a paper scheme that is not going to stand the test of the day- to-day rigours of crisis management. All that these commissions will provide is a few more jobs for various functionaries and make way for unelected politicians who would be vying for public importance at the cost of the District Nazims without contributing to any real advances in devolution. Fourthly, the services as recruited by the five Public Service Commissions in the country must be made to adhere to the original terms and conditions under which they were recruited and related to their respective job descriptions. There should be no abrupt changes in career patterns in mid-life so that there is effective stability in career prospects as originally offered to young men and women at the start of their careers. That would indeed be the surest way of eliminating politicization of the services. The experience of the 1970s when the controversial lateral entry scheme was introduced should be kept in mind in order to preserve the functional purity of the services. Fifthly, it does not behove well for any government to have a lopsided manning of the NRB which ought to inspire confidence in all the services across the board. Needless to say there is a serious contradiction today between the recruitment policies of the government and its promotion policies. These need to be straightened out and the sooner this is done the better. In recent times, we have seen far too many 'hop-step and jumpers' getting into jobs for which they were not trained, and in the process proposing policies for augmenting their otherwise marginal share in the scheme of things. If the devolution process is to prove its worth, it will have to show a great deal of flexibility and adaptability on its onward journey in the service of the people of this country. It will definitely have to be dynamic as well as resilient. Unfortunately, the NRB in its early take-off period carried with it too much of extra baggage consisting of a large number of novices and pre-opinionated consultants who were probably not best suited to advising the federal and provincial governments on so far-reaching and sensitive a programme as the devolution plan. In the current disturbed conditions as a consequence of the Afghanistan crisis, the situation offers the government both a challenge and an opportunity of adjusting the devolution plan to the exigencies of national requirements of peace and tranquillity in our region which is going to be turbulent for God knows how long. Essentially the devolution plan is an attempt at doing a productive marriage between the erstwhile general administration units and the local bodies; and for this marriage to be a successful one, there will have to be an evolution towards devolution in which pragmatism and frequent critiques followed by improvements and adjustments must not be precluded at any stage. Why bomb civilians? By Eric S. Margolis The 21st century went to war against the 11th Century in Afghanistan last week. The 11th century won. US warplanes cluster-bombed the usual natives, but the intensive air attacks failed to dislodge Taliban tribal warriors from positions north of Kabul. Osama bin Laden was not found. Hundreds of Afghan civilians were killed by off-target American bombs. The Red Cross in Kabul was hit for a second time. US aircraft attempted to assassinate Mulla Omar, Taliban's leader, but failed and killed his young son and two brothers. A major, 100-man US commando raid was a failure. Taliban very likely shot down a US helicopter. Mass defections from Taliban predicted by Washington's 'experts, didn't happen. Afghans flocked to join Taliban. Thousands of Pahtun tribesmen from Pakistan crossed into Afghanistan over the fabled Malakand Pass to fight the American invaders. In this same region during the early 20th century, British colonial troops battled two notorious Islamic devils, the Osama bin Ladens of their day: the ferocious but elusive Fakir of Ipi, and that scourge of Victorian imperialism, the 'Mad Mullah,' who led 20,000 wild Pashtun holy warriors down the Malakand to drive the infidel 'farangi' from Peshawar and the lands of Islam. Peshawar was only saved by British warplanes and artillery. America's new Afghan allies, the Northern Alliance, a motley, Russian-created force of former communists, opium dealers, bandits, and unwarlike tribesmen, struck ferocious poses for gullible western TV teams, but failed to advance an inch. Meanwhile, the US bombing of Afghanistan's main cities created many thousands more refugees at a time when four million Afghans are starving. Not exactly a proud week for American arms. Operation Ultimate Hubris was off to a poor start. At the Pentagon, spokesman Rear Admiral John Stufflebeem admitted with exasperation that Taliban "are proving to be tough warriors." Arrogance and ignorance are a deadly combination. Unfortunately, they are often hallmarks of US foreign policy. The Pentagon brass and President George Bush should have read a book about Afghanistan before launching a war against a fierce nation about which few in Washington know anything. Blinded by rage and the need to avenge the frightful crimes committed on September 11, the US charged into Afghanistan with no plan of action, and no exit strategy. Washington has every right to bring terrorists to justice through police and intelligence operations. But not to launch a general war against Afghans who had nothing to do with attacks on America. Who will replace Taliban? The Northern Alliance's Uzbeks, Tajiks, and Hazaras are feuding. When Tajik forces last ruled Kabul, they battled Uzbeks and Pashtuns, killed tens of thousands of civilians, and left the city in ruins. The late Tajik warlord, dashing Ahmad Masoud, assassinated on Sept. 9, was fawned on by the western media and hailed as 'the lion of Panjsher.' If he was the Lion of Panjsher, then I'm the Lion of Kabul. Masoud was hated by most non-Tajik Afghans as a traitor and long-time collaborator with the Soviets, Russians, and KGB. I recall vividly when he abandoned the jihad and went over to the Soviets. The Uzbek leader, Rashid Dostum, a former communist warlord, is a blood-thirsty criminal, mass murderer, and Washington's new best friend. Dostum unleashed his feared Uzbek-Mongol 'jawzjani' militia against Kabul in an orgy of slaughter, pillage and mass rape. Washington's main Pashtun ally, Abdul Haq, was captured by Taliban last week and promptly executed. To end the rapine and chaos, Pakistani intelligence helped create a force of religious seminarians, or Talibs, many of them orphans left from the struggle against Soviet occupation that killed 1.5 million Afghans. Taliban defeated the Northern Alliance and brought order - albeit a harsh, medieval order, to Afghanistan - but a traditional tribal order no different from the rest of Afghanistan, and many parts of Iran, Pakistan, and rural India. Taliban will probably be driven from Kabul. But Taliban represents Pashtuns, half the nation's population. The Talibs vow to fight from the mountains, and I certainly believe them. Who will keep a pro-US, pro-Russian regime in power in Kabul? American troops will likely be required. How will the American garrison be supplied? Just like the imperial British invaders, who were twice defeated by the Afghans, US forces will have to rely on vulnerable land supply lines at great distances from their depots that cross narrow mountain passes. The other alternative, air supply of an American garrison in Kabul, is a recipe for a Dienbienphu-like disaster. The Soviet Red Army tried everything from carpet bombing to poison gas and biological warfare to break the Afghans, but failed. Soviet garrisons were isolated and chewed up, one by one. I was in the field with Pashtun warriors who were so poor they could not afford shoes. These Mujahideen walked barefoot ten miles through deep mountain snow with 100 lbs of mortar shells on their backs, fired them at a Soviet base, and trekked back under air attack.I suggest the good Adm. Stuffelbeam go read Kipling's warning to British troops trying to fight their way through ferocious Afridi tribesmen guarding the Khyber Pass: "Save your last bullet for yourself." As it becomes increasingly evident the Sept 11 attacks were planned in Egypt and Germany, and delivered by Saudis, America's laying of fire and sword on Afghanistan makes less and less sense. The US should declare victory and decamp from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia before it gets stuck in an aimless, endless war.-Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2001 Chacha Abdul Baqi rides again By Khalid Hasan Mohammad Khalid Akhtar I have met only once. And that was way back in 1968 during a fleeting visit he paid one afternoon to the reporters' room of the old 'Pakistan Times' in Lahore. At the time, I hadn't read anything by him, not even his first novel 'Bees sau Gyara'. One can only hope he does not see this because I read the book for the first time last month after it arrived all the way from Karachi, airmailed at great cost by none other than the author and his friend and publisher Ajmal Kamal. 'Bees sau Gyara' was first published in 1950 in Lahore, a full fifty-one years ago. Isn't time frightening when you consider that fifty-one years is half a century, plus one! The book was reprinted in 1999 and is dedicated to Fahmida Riaz because, according to MKA - which is shorthand for Muhammad Khalid Akhtar - "apart from being a delightful poet and storyteller, she is also an affectionate friend with whom the author shares a love of art and a sense of judgment." MKA's crush is not new because when Fahmida Riaz first read the novel, she was just sixteen. So taken was she with this political fantasy that she wrote to MKA and declared that it was her favourite book and she had read it several times. "And this about a book which I wrote as a young man, with ease and without effort, in a dark and dingy basement of Kharadar, Karachi," writes MAK, adding, "So I give back this book to my friend who likes it, and because it really is hers, not mine. I am just the copyist." And there in the last line, in just five words, you have all of Mohammad Khalid Akhtar. MKA writes to me in 1997, "I was 78, this 23rd January, the year of Grace 1997. Wish to see the dawn of the coming Millennium and then call it a day." Well, someone up there who obviously likes him brought that particular wish to fulfilment. We should all feel better for the fact that MKA is very much here - though not in his native Bahawalpur but Karachi - and come 23rd January, the year of Grace 2002, he will be 82 years old, because if my sums are right, that is what being born in 1920 adds up to. Let's raise our glasses, Qazi Hussain Ahmed or no Qazi Hussain Ahmed, to MKA in anticipation of his birthday. One is told Gen. Musharraf likes to read, so no doubt he has read MKA. Wouldn't it be nice, therefore, for the state of Pakistan to honour a man who has brought so much joy and laughter to generations of readers. Let it no longer be said that the man who created the delightful Chacha Abdul Baqi is neglected (which he is). But before we turn to Chacha Abdul Baqi and his madcap - and somewhat fraudulent - money-making schemes, this is what MKA writes in that 1997 letter (prescient, isn't he?), "By the end of the new year (1998), the Taliban, the mad Mullahs of Afghanistan, after conquering their country, will turn their hawk eyes to the 'God-given kingdom' somewhere in the middle of 1999." In other words, he for one, could not have been surprised by the events that have the world glued to Ms Christiane Amanpour on TV, reporting from the trenches, though actually standing on the rooftop of Hotel Marriot, Islamabad. Chacha Abdul Baqi who with nephew Bakhtiar Khilji in tow comes up with a new scheme each week to make a financial killing has tried everything, from trading in leather to selling dried animal bones to speculating on salt to hawking fish but the gods have failed to smile on the duo. Once they set up a poultry farm but in Chacha's words, "because of the lack of imagination of my partners and the timidity and hesitancy of certain gentlemen with capital to spare, the scheme failed and, in the end, I had to dine on those chickens myself." Chacha Abdul Baqi's most celebrated scheme involved the import of young zebras from Africa which he was going to raise in Karachi and then sell to the city's victoria and tonga drivers. He was confident that in a few months, instead of the half-starved, bone-bundle, sickly brown horses doing victoria service, the world will see smart, healthy, on-the-run zebras jauntily pulling the city's victorias. The day of the horse is done, declared he. Nephew Khilji was to be sent to Nigeria to procure the animals and have them shipped. Chacha Abdul Baqi was convinced that the future of the horse was dark and the dawn of the age of the zebra was at hand. The man who offered to import African zebras for them was one Major A.R. Maskeen, who billed himself as a big game hunter. The major took their money and delivered the first shipment of zebras. All was well except that it rained one night and the zebras turned into the asses they were, their magnificent black and white stripes being washable paint. Then there was Chacha Abdul Baqi's fish scheme, introduced to nephew Bakhtiar Khilji in these words, "Dear nephew, my problem at the moment is investors who have the guts to invest. I tell you becoming a business magnate is no big deal. Do you have a cigarette on you?" They are sold a trawler of fresh which turns out to be not so fresh after all. The fish is loaded onto a camel cart and dumped in Chacha Abdul Baqi's backyard, but there are no buyers because of the machinations of a character named Maulvi Abdul Hanan a.k.a. Mohammad Ahsan Ashrafi. By the third day, the mountain of unsold fish is smelling to high heaven. The neighbours march in a delegation to Chacha Abdul Baqi and demand that the fish be removed because they can't even breathe because of the stink. Chacha Abdul Baqi is cool, as he always is in such situations. "This is my house. If I like, I can turn it into a horse stable, or a goat slaughterhouse. I may even decide to cultivate potatoes in my backyard. As owner of the house, this is my government-ordained right. If you so hate the smell of fish, you are welcome to move out of this neighbourhood. Speaking for myself, I love the smell of fish." Chacha Abdul Baqi's entry into the world of popular entertainment came in the form of the Baqi Bahadur Circus, Jahangir Park, Karachi. Half the animals turned out to be poor performers, including a most scatter-brained lion which may have been something else in a lion's skin. On top of it all, one night the big tent was burnt down. Most animals escaped. Some were recaptured and some unburnt pieces of the circus canopy retrieved. According to nephew Khilji, "If you buy some of the tentage, you will get with each purchase eight rabbits, two Australian parrots and three dozen guinea pigs." There were no takers. What with the goings on in Afghanistan, I need to bring a smile to MKA's face. Did he know what Dorothy Parker said of a novel she had been given for review? "This is not a novel to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown with full force." In the larger national interest, a list of such novels should be drawn up. If Iftikhar Arif was not busy looking so soulful and handing out yet another prize to retired banker Mushtaq Yusufi, one could have asked him to put the Academy of Letters to work. DAWN Group of Newspapers, 2001 ***************************************************************** 43 EVIL WARLORD NOW A FRIEND OF THE WEST Daily Record © 2001 Trinity Mirror Digital Media Scotland Limited or its licensors. November 12, 2001 NEW ALLIES IN AFGHANISTAN HE has a reputation even by Afghan standards for treachery and brutality. His forces raped women and children in Kabul and cut off their breasts. And he once punished a soldier caught stealing by crushing him under a tank. Yet General Abdul Rashid Dostum, 47, is not a member of the Taliban. He is a Northern Alliance warlord now feted by the US and UK. Described as a modern-day Attila the Hun, his soldiers recaptured the key town of Mazar-e-Sharif on Friday. The former plumber, who began his military career 23 years ago, was once even allied to the Taliban. His disloyalty is typical of the type of career warrior the Northern Alliance relies upon. The skinning alive of victims has been a favourite of warring groups, along with throwing prisoners of war down wells. Northern Alliance warlords are also key players in the drug trade, producing 83 per cent of Afghanistan's opium in 2000. Yet Washington's relationship with Dostum grows warmer by the day. President Bush says the Alliance is "our friend", and yesterday, Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon defended them. He said: "There have been stories about their behaviour in the past, which I have had checked out, and are not nearly as bad as people have been suggesting." But Hoon's claim does not fit the facts surrounding whisky-drinking ethnic Uzbek warlord Dostum, whose name is a byword for brutality. He's a serial turncoat - a specialist in the art of strategic friendship and betrayal. Since his career began in the Soviet-backed regime of President Najibullah in the 1980s, he's been funded by the USSR, Uzbekistan, Iran, Pakistan and Turkey. As an Uzbek, Dostum commands the loyalty of one of Afghanistan's most important minority groups. From his power base in Mazar-e-Sharif, he controlled 50,000 men before the Taliban seized control of the region. Human rights abuses were commonplace under his rule. Soldiers were allowed to murder, rape and loot. In May 1998, when the Taliban re-took Mazar-e-Sharif, Dostum fled to Turkey, leaving 3000 men to die and a further 3600 to be taken prisoner. More than 2000 were starved, tortured and executed, with many left to suffocate in containers or thrown down wells. But it is Dostum's "liberal" ideas, not his brutality, which the Taliban fear most. He loathes fundamentalism and when he controlled Mazar-e-Sharif, alcohol and music were permitted and women could work and study. With Friday's capture of Mazar-e-Sharif, the next step for the US is to ensure the end to Taliban-rule does not pave the way for a return to the atrocities of the past. The US is considering imposing a regime to avoid such bloodshed, otherwise it may be blamed for any future massacres. ***************************************************************** NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: *****************************************************************