|
|
|
The Journal of South Asian Non-Proliferation October, 2008 Editorial Staff
|
|
|
The Journal of
South Asian Non-Proliferation is an online compendium of non-proliferation
related publications.
It is a periodic compilation of news, official statements, and expert analyses
related to South Asian non-proliferation issues.
|
|
|
Supporting worldwide understanding of South Asian non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament issues. The Journal of South Asian Non-Proliferation CONTENTSNUCLEAR RELATED ISSUES Pakistan should convince world to sign
nuclear deal like India. Iran criticizes US-India nuclear deal. Airforce punishes generals after
nuclear arms review. Rice: US-India
nuclear deal to be signed soon. It is not
suitable for Iran to withdraw from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Chinese
official: Challenges ahead in peaceful use of nuclear energy. IAEA calls for non-nuclear Mideast in heated vote. N.Korea has helped arm 6 Mideast nations: Israel. Next President Should Take Nuclear Weapons Off
Alert. MISSILE RELATED ISSUES Air Force's New 'Killer Zombie' Drone.
Witness: Officer admitted
taking missile device. NKorea preparing to test
new long-range missiles: report. China
Says $6.5 Billion U.S. Arms Sale to Taiwan Will Hurt Ties OPINION / EDITORIAL SASSI Policy Brief No. 11 - The Henry Hyde
J. Act and the 123 Agreement: An Analysis. ENERGY RELATED ISSUES Russia's bid to control
Caspian energy The vicious Circle. CHEMICAL
& BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS RELATED ISSUES Compound Could
Help Detect Chemical, Biological Weapons At Long Distances Israeli official warns of chemical warfare against Syria SUMMARIES
Iran criticizes US-India nuclear deal.
TEHRAN, Iran: October 5, 2008 : Iran's official news agency says a
U.S.-Indian nuclear agreement violates the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
IRNA agency quotes Mohammad Saeedi, deputy head of Iran's atomic energy
department. Saeedi says nuclear-armed India has not signed the treaty and
that transferring nuclear technology to India would undermine it. U.S.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited India on Saturday to commemorate
— but not sign — the deal. U.S. officials say they will respect
the non-proliferation treaty. Washington says Iran's nuclear activities are
designed to build a bomb. Iran says its program is peaceful. Air Force Punishes Generals After Nuclear Arms
Review (Update1) Sept. 25
(Bloomberg) -- The Air Force has disciplined six generals, including the
former heads of logistics and missile acquisition, and nine lower-ranking
officers for what it called the lax management of the U.S. nuclear weapons
arsenal. The punishments came after a review ordered by Defense Secretary
Robert Gates. The investigation discovered lapses in the erroneous shipment
to Taiwan of devices that arm nuclear weapons and in other instances going
back a decade. The officers are not accused of ``intentional wrongdoing,''
Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz told reporters at the
Pentagon today. Still, ``the Air Force has no more solemn obligation than the
security and reliability of the nation's nuclear arsenal,'' Schwartz said.
``These are good people with otherwise distinguished careers but they did not
do enough to carry out their leadership responsibilities for nuclear
oversight,'' Schwartz said. Pakistan
should convince world to sign nuclear deal like India ISLAMABAD,
Sep 24 (APP): Advisor on Science and Technology and Minister of State,
Planning Commission of Pakistan Dr. Ishfaq Ahmad Wednesday said signing of
Indo-US nuclear deal, the world has now opened its doors for most advanced
technology to India therefore Pakistan should also try to convince
international community to sign similar deals with Pakistan. He was
addressing a seminar on ÒIndo-US Nuclear DealÓ her at Institute of Strategic
Studies in collaboration with the South Asian Strategic Stability Institute. Rice: US-India Nuclear Deal To Be Signed Soon. New Delhi - 04
October 2008: U.S. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, on a visit to India,
says a landmark civil nuclear agreement between the United States and India
will be concluded soon. However, the two countries did not sign the deal
during her visit. As Anjana Pasricha reports, the deal will overturn a
three-decade ban on civil nuclear trade with India. It is Not Suitable for Iran to
Withdraw from Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
Azerbaijan, Baku, 4 October/TrendNews, corr D. Ibrahimova, T. Jafarov/
Statements in the Iranian parliament about the possible suspension of
cooperation with IAEA in the wake of resolutions of the UN Security Council
and international sanctions, will not lead to IranÕs withdrawal from Non
Proliferation Treaty. ÒI am doubtful whether Iran will withdraw from Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),Ó American expert Ayesha Jalal said. ÒIt will
probably further accuse US of putting excessive pressure on IAEA and seek
help of European countries in the development of its ÒpeacefulÓ nuclear
programÓ. Foreign Minister of Iran Manuchehr Mottaki accused US of
disseminating false information on the goal of IranÕs nuclear program and
said Tehran is not going to stop cooperating with IAEA, Reuters reported on 3
October. Chinese official: Challenges ahead in peaceful use of
nuclear energy VIENNA, Oct. 4 (Xinhua) -- The
international community has to pay greater attention to the challenges facing
the rapidly growing civil nuclear projects, Chen Qiufa, director of Chinese
Atomic Energy Agency, said in a recent interview with Xinhua. The Chinese
official, who was here for a six-day General Conference of the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) starting on Sept. 29, said that every country is
entitled to the peaceful use of nuclear energy as long as it honors the
obligation of nonproliferation. Amid spiraling oil prices and global warming,
the international community has begun to re-evaluate the strategic role of
nuclear power in energy security and take it as an important alternative
energy source. The exploitation of nuclear power, however, poses many
challenges, such as the safety of nuclear power plant, reliable supply of
nuclear fuel, and safe disposal of nuclear waste, he said. How to prevent the
nuclear technologies falling into the hands of terrorists is another major
concern, he added. IAEA calls for non-nuclear
Mideast in heated vote. VIENNA (Reuters) - The
U.N. nuclear assembly on Saturday passed a resolution urging all Middle East
nations to renounce atom bombs in a vote most Arabs boycotted over amendments
they felt took pressure off Israel. The rare vote was 82-0 with 13 abstentions after
days of wrangling between Israel and Western nations on one hand and Arab and
Islamic states on the other that polarized a body that normally operates on
consensus. The decision at the annual assembly of the
International Atomic Energy Agency was non-binding but highlighted deep
tensions over Israel's presumed nuclear might and shunning of the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). A similar resolution a year ago passed
overwhelmingly last year but with 47 abstentions by Western and developing
nations. N.Korea has helped arm 6
Mideast nations: Israel. VIENNA (Reuters) - Sat
Oct 4, 2008 - Israel accused North Korea on Saturday of providing weapons of
mass destruction to six countries in the Middle East that ignored
arms-control commitments. The Jewish state spoke as the 145-nation assembly
of the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, adopted
a resolution unanimously urging North Korea to reverse steps it has taken to
revive its shutdown atom bomb program. Israel itself is the target of two
hotly disputed Arab-sponsored draft resolutions in the assembly urging it to
give up its nuclear arms monopoly in the Middle East, join the
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and accept full IAEA inspections. Next
President Should Take Nuclear Weapons Off Alert.
September 29, 2008: Campaigns, and
the media covering them, are continually (justly) criticized for trivialities
and for ignoring important issues. One topic, which strangely no one ever
mentions, but which is terrifying, is accidental nuclear war. The US has more
than 20,000 nuclear weapons --- thousands ready to launch within minutes (!)
[Carla Anne Robbins, NY Times, June 30, 2008, p. A18]. Of course Russia, for
which control of nuclear weapons is weaker, has roughly the same. One
accident, one mistake: our countries will be destroyed. And if we continue
this long enough that will happen. What is the reason for this immensely
dangerous policy? There isn't any. It is our policy and we are not giving it
up. And thinking about all these missiles is a lot of fun. Although many will
disagree the purpose of the military is to protect the country, not to satisfy
the emotional needs of people who love (among others) weapons, and certainly
not to endanger the country (no matter how thrilling that is). Actually this
country does not need politicians to run it; what it badly needs is
psychiatrists.
Air Force's New 'Killer Zombie' Drone.
October 04, 2008: Armed Predator
and Reaper drones have become the primary weapons in the fight against
Pakistani militants. But they can be pricey; the Reapers come in at around a hundred million dollars
each. Which is why the Air Force is working on a cheaper option: killer
zombies. Visit Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson, Arizona, and you'll
see rows upon of obsolete F-4 Phantom II aircraft – or at least their
gutted carcasses. This is the Aerospace Maintenance And Regeneration Center
or AMARC -- whatever you do, don't call it the Boneyard. For many years, it
has been common practice to resurrect these deceased planes as QF-4 unmanned
drones, so that they can have a brief and undignified existence as
"full-scale aerial targets." Everything in the inventory -- from
Sidewinder missiles to Patriots -- have been tested on one at some point,
even though some find it "kind of hard to shoot at such a magnificent
aircraft." Witness: Officer admitted taking missile device. MINOT,
N.D. (AP) 1st. October 2008 — An Air Force supervisor says a
Minot Air Force Base officer admitted taking a missile launch control device
as a souvenir because he thought it would be "a cool thing to
have." The Air Force is holding a hearing on the evidence against Capt.
Paul Borowiecki (bor-oh-WIK'-ee), a missile combat crew member assigned to
the base's 91st Missile Wing. The domino-sized device is now obsolete but
Borowiecki's supervisor says had the technology been compromised, it could
have accidentally detonated a nuclear missile. The 27-year-old is accused of
taking the device in 2005, rather than destroying it as required. Officials
say he admitted the theft in May and returned the device. NKorea preparing to test new long-range missiles: report. SEOUL (AFP) 2nd. October 2008 — North Korea
has been upgrading a missile launch site on its east coast in preparation for
a test launch of a new long-range missile, a news report said Thursday. South
Korea's Dong-A Ilbo newspaper, citing intelligence sources, said activities
at Musudan-ri on the coast of North Hamkyong province are focussed on
upgrading the site with new equipment or building new facilities.
Intelligence authorities believe this indicates the North is preparing to
test-fire a new long-range ballistic missile, an advanced model of the
Taepodong-2 which can theoretically hit the US west coast, Dong-A said. The
North alarmed its neighbours by test-launching a Taepodong-1 from Musudan-ri
in 1998 over Japan. It test-launched a Taepodong-2 from the same missile site
in 2006 but the missile failed. North Korea has replaced a tower on the
launch pad and reinforced missile supports, it quoted an intelligence source
as saying. It was also reportedly expanding facilities for assembling missile
parts and for inspections. China Says
$6.5 Billion U.S. Arms Sale to Taiwan Will Hurt Ties
Oct. 5 (Bloomberg) -- China
protested a proposed U.S. sale of $6.46 billion of weapons to Taiwan, saying
it would ``seriously damage'' U.S.-China relations. ``The Chinese government
and people firmly oppose this action,'' said Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu
Jianchao in a statement late yesterday. The arms sale interferes in China's
internal affairs and endangers its security, Liu said. While Liu called for
the sale to be canceled and reiterated China's position that Taiwan is part
of its territory, he also said that ``nobody could stop'' a new chapter of
peace in relations with the island. China and Taiwan have been administered
separately since 1949 and still haven't formally ended their civil war.
(September 2008) Maria Sultan &Mian Behzad Adil[1] The Henry Hyde J.
Act and the 123 Agreement: An Analysis. The approval by the US Congress will
be the last step in the conclusion of the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal[2].
Following which President George .W. Bush signature will be the final seal of
approval required to make IndiaÕs entry into the nuclear club a de jure
reality. This reality has followed a long and treacherous route with its
inception in the Henry .J. Hyde Act and the controversial 123 Agreement. The U.S. Atomic
Energy Act was amended by the Henry J. Hyde Act of December 2006. This
allowed the U.S. administration to conclude a 123 agreement with India for
commencing nuclear trade between Washington and New Delhi. The 123 agreement
provides the operational basis for the Indo-US nuclear deal and lays the
foundation for the eventual law that would allow US companies to commence
nuclear trade with India. However it is the congress which holds the greatest
importance in the Indo-US nuclear saga; it can be the only impediment to an
already slam dunk nuclear future for the two states. The U.S.
Congressmen will be looking for any inconsistencies between the Hyde Act and
the 123 agreement before any final decision is made. In the year long
negotiations over the final terms of the pact, it appeared that the Indian
government had been set to seek exceptions or privileges before it allowed
international access to its nuclear market. In several matters the sought
privileges went beyond most of other 123 agreements the U.S. has concluded
with foreign governments. This policy brief lists the concessions granted to
India in the 123 agreement and its comparison with the provisions in the Hyde
Act. The present
research attempts to compare the Hyde Act and the 123 Agreement. It has three
sections. The first section discusses concessions granted to India in the 123
agreement in the areas of nuclear tests, fuel assurances, and fuel
reprocessing. Second section details the provisions in the Hyde Act regarding
the above stated issues. Finally, the Indo-US deal has been analyzed in the
context of its implications for the regional security environment and the
international non-proliferation regime. Concessions to India: Nuclear Tests: IndiaÕs right to conduct nuclear tests was
one thing the Indian negotiators fought for. Although India pledged in July
2005 to continue a nuclear testing moratorium, New Delhi opposed any explicit
provision in the 123 agreement terminating cooperation if it conducts a
nuclear test in the future. Such termination provisions are standard features
of U.S. agreements with non-nuclear-weapon states. The U.S.-Indian
agreement does not contain the word Òtest,Ó nor is there an automatic trigger
to cease cooperation for any activity or violation by either country. Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh on 13 Aug 2007 asserted the pact Òdoes not in any way
affect IndiaÕs right to undertake future nuclear tests.Ó India could choose
to test, according to U.S. officials, but that does not mean that there would
not be repercussions. India has a sovereign right to test but that, under
U.S. law, the president would have Òthe right to end the agreement.Ó Article 2 of the
123 agreement maintains that countries will implement cooperation Òin
accordance with itsÉ national laws.Ó The U.S. Atomic Energy Act mandates an
end to nuclear trade with a non-nuclear-weapon state that conducts a nuclear
test. The president could waive such a termination but Congress has the power
to nullify that waiver by passing a resolution in opposition. Right of Return of Nuclear Exports: U.S. law also holds
that Washington retains a right of return of its nuclear exports if the
recipient conducts a nuclear test. But India fought against including such a
provision. The agreement does authorize each country to seek a right of
return in the event that it chooses to terminate the agreement, which
requires one yearÕs notice in writing and consultations before taking effect.
But the agreement also aims to dissuade such a move by stressing that
Òexercising the right of return would have profound implicationsÓ on the two
countriesÕ relations. Fuel Assurances: Another unique feature is the
inclusion of Òfuel assurancesÓ for India. These provisions commit the United
States to ÒsupportÓ New Delhi in establishing a Òstrategic fuel reserveÓ in
case foreign fuel supplies are ever halted. In such an event, the United
States pledged to assist India in acquiring nuclear fuel supplies from other
sources. The 123 agreement
specifies that the U.S. fuel assurances apply to Òany disruption.Ó Some
interpretations, however, hold that for U.S. to fulfill its pledge the
disruption need come from sources beyond India control, e.g. market
disruptions or inability on the part any American company to fulfill its
promise (Answers to the 45 questions provided on 16 July 2008). Moreover,
President Bush has said the U.S. fuel assurances to India are only Òpolitical
commitmentsÓ and shall not be mistaken for binding legal obligations. Fuel Reprocessing: In addition to fuel assurances, New
Delhi secured a U.S. commitment in principle to permit India to reprocess
U.S.-origin spent fuel. Reprocessing involves the separation of plutonium
from nuclear fuel after it has been used in a reactor. The U.S. policy is to
deny countries advance reprocessing rights because it is considered
proliferation risk (plutonium can be used to make nuclear weapons). By
securing this right of reprocessing U.S.-origin spent fuel India has become
the third country in the privileged league that formerly comprised only Japan
and the European consortium EURATOM. However, for this
India would be required to construct a new reprocessing facility under
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards to handle U.S.-origin
spent fuel, as well as that of other countries. Furthermore, it would require
that both governments agree on Òarrangements and proceduresÓ under which
India will be allowed to reprocess U.S.-origin spent fuel. The anticipated
period for such talks to begin after a request by either party is six months
and should conclude within one year. The agreement also
provides the option for the two countries to conclude future arrangements to
trade reprocessing and enrichment technologies. The Hyde Act limits such
transfers to India to the limited scenarios in which the recipient is a
multinational facility involved in an IAEA-approved project or a facility
involved in a multinational project to develop a Òproliferation-resistant
fuel cycle.Ó However, the 123 agreement is silent on this point. Essentially
US concessions to India under the 123 Agreement cover three points: ¤ the right to
terminate the Agreement if India conducts a nuclear test; ¤
assurances of the supply of nuclear fuel to India in
the event that India suffers a disruption in supply; and ¤ the reprocessing of
spent fuel produced from US-origin nuclear fuel. ¤ Hyde Act and the
123 Agreement The Henry Hyde Act gave the Bush Administration authority to waive
certain requirements of the US law in order to permit civilian nuclear
cooperation between the US and India. The legislation required that any
resulting agreement could only be implemented with congressional approval.
Therefore it is considered as an enabling Act. There are some
inconsistencies between the Hyde Act and the 123 Agreement. There are things
that are spelled out in the Hyde Act but not in the 123 agreement (such as
the testing issue). Again, the Hyde Act provided waivers for certain
provisions of the 1954 Atomic Energy Act and not for others. For example, it
provided a waiver to halt exports to India after the 1998 nuclear test, but
it does not make clear that U.S. nuclear assistance/exports will be suspended
in case India tests again. There are certain
provisions of the 123 agreement that don't appear to meet the requirements of
the Hyde Act or Atomic Energy Act. For example, giving India long-term,
advance consent to reprocess is not in sync with congressional intentions
when the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) was amended in 1978 to include "prior
approval" to reprocess U.S.-origin spent fuel. Similarly, Section
123 a. (4) of the Atomic Energy Act requires that the US has the right of
return if a non-nuclear weapon state conducts a nuclear weapon test, or
terminates or abrogates an IAEA safeguards agreement. The section regarding
termination of cooperation or the right of return in the 123 agreement with
India does not mention any of these circumstances. Rather, it urges both
parties to take into account whether there is a changed security environment
or whether actions (i.e., tests) were in response to similar actions by other
states. Furthermore, the
fuel assurances spelt out in the 123 agreement seemingly contradict the
Òsense of CongressÓ portion of the Hyde Act. Although nonbinding, it is
significant in terms of being a general Congressional guidance on the matter.
It states that the United States Òshould not seek to facilitate or encourage
the continuation of nuclear exports to India by any other partyÓ if the
United States ends cooperation under law. In addition, the U.S. legislators
in a joint explanation of the Hyde Act noted that any fuel assurances should
be relevent to disruptions caused by Òmarket failures or similar reasons, and
not due to Indian actionsÓ violating its commitmenst. The Hyde Act is
also clear on the issue of letting India develop a Òstrategic fuel reserveÓ—something
spelled out in both the 123 agreement and the India-IAEA safeguards
agreement. India vigorously pursued the inclusion of this provision in both
the agreement to safeguard itself against any future fuel disruptions (India
was denied fuel for its Tarapur reactor after in detonated a nuclear device
in 1974). The Hyde Act clearly states that Òany nuclearÉ..fuel reserve provided toÉ..IndiaÉ..should be commensurate
with reasonable reactor operating requirements.Ó Conclusion The Indo-US nuclear deal had to pass through various stages before it
reached where it is now. These include the Indian Nuclear Separation Plan
(March 2006), the Hyde Act (December 2006), the 123 Agreement (August 2007),
India-IAEA safeguards agreement (August 2008), and ultimately a waiver by the
NSG (September 2008). There have been differences of opinion with regards to
interpretation of the terms of reference and their respective understanding
with regards to these various agreements and arrangements including the Indian
propensity to conduct nuclear tests; fuel assurances; development of
strategic fuel reserves; and transfer of technology. Political statements by
both the parties are instrumental in giving insight into the way the deal is
likely to be implemented in effect. Thus while the Indian side insists on its right to conduct nuclear
tests in the future, the U.S. and other NSG member countriesÕ interpretation
of the arrangements suggests an understanding that a future Indian nuclear
test is most likely to result in the termination of agreement(in case New
Delhi chooses to exercise that right). Likewise, on the question of fuel
assurances to India there appears divergence in understanding for US
considers Ôconditions of supplyÕ as an indication of political good will and
part of US Òpolitical commitmentsÓ having no legal connotations or legal
obligations. Conversely, the Indian perspective on the issue is that it is a
necessary condition of supply and can lead to a termination of agreement by
India if need be so. Similarly on the issue of Ôtransfer of sensitive
technology to IndiaÕ, there appears/ exists a near consensus or a shared
opinion within the NSG member states to exercise Òutmost restraintÓ for the
transfer of technology to the recipient. Despite these reservations or other points of divergence exhibited by
the Indian position on the issue caused due to New DelhiÕs interpretation of
the various provisions in the agreement, nothing has stopped the de jure
acceptance of India in the nuclear club. Today, the international
non-proliferation community is once again poised to see the passage of India
to come to age as a legally accepted nuclear weapon state with full rights to
the global nuclear trade. In this context the last stage of U.S.
Congressional approval may prove to be the only impediment to this
acceptance. The Congress that is scheduled to adjourn by 26 September has
apparently decided not to follow its tradition 30 day discussion period in
the case of Indo-US deal hence creating a window of opportunity for the US
and India-nuclear deal lobbyists to
get the law passed within the US congress with least amount of
friction. In what appears to be positive development for India, some media
reports indicate that, given the economic stabilization package that is being
worked on, the Congress may not formally adjourn on September 26 but extend
for a week until October 3. In the face of this challenging and interesting
move to the success and ascent of India as the new nuclear state, the world
is not sure whether the Congress can be a serious impediment. Nonetheless,
the future of the non-proliferation regime and the strategic stability within
South Asia will be dependent on the US Congress to be the devilÕs advocate to
an already sure victory.
Russia's bid to control
Caspian energy October 4, 2008: RUSSIA'S
INVASION of Georgia in August inflicted a potentially severe blow to global
energy security by threatening export routes for Caspian energy. Russian
President Medvedev's declaration on Aug. 31 that Moscow has "privileged
interests" - read, a sphere of influence - in bordering countries
underscores that Moscow's aims stretch beyond Georgia. Among the targets are
the major producers of Caspian energy - Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and
Turkmenistan. Russia seeks a de facto veto over Caspian energy. This is
important because the Caspian Basin holds some of the largest reserves of
conventional oil and gas in the world after the Persian Gulf and Siberia.
Moreover, Georgia is a pivot of the "new Silk Road," a vital link
to world export markets avoiding Russia's control. Over 1 million barrels of oil per day are shipped from Azerbaijan and
Kazakhstan across Georgia to its Black Sea ports, and via the large
Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline to the Turkish port of Ceyhan on the
Mediterranean Sea, where supertankers operate. Exports through Georgia were
to increase to around 2 million barrels per day, and could eventually include
significant volumes of natural gas. With world oil consumption at 85 million
barrels per day, these volumes can affect world supplies and prices. Moscow
wants Caspian energy to flow only through channels it controls, and hence it
wishes Georgia to be permanently vulnerable. Russian military forces have
shown they can roam in Georgia and block its ports. The vicious Circle.
October 2, 2008: At the time of the First World War, Winston Churchill
formulated the fundamental principle of energy security as follows:
"Safety and certainty in oil lie in variety and variety alone."
While the actual concept of "energy security" appeared only much later
- during the oil crises of the 1970s - the wisdom of his words is widely
regarded to this day as immutable. But in recent years, the tendency to put
all one's eggs in one basket has increasingly undermined the long-term
security of natural-gas supplies. Producers and consumers have been
recklessly playing at "lose-lose." The issue has become one of the
most heatedly discussed items on the international agenda, even though the
proportion of gas crossing international borders is far lower than that of oil
(28 percent and 58 percent respectively). There are objective reasons for
this: As gas markets integrate and develop, an ever more important role in
the security of deliveries is assumed not only by technological factors, but
by institutional factors: the differences in regulation of gas markets in
different countries; conflicts of national interests; the problems of making
investments at the inter-governmental level. The development of
transcontinental markets and the need to transport gas through several
countries makes the question of secure transit ever more acute.
Compound Could Help Detect Chemical, Biological
Weapons At Long Distances ScienceDaily (Sep. 28, 2008) — A
light-transmitting compound that could one day be used in high-efficiency
fiber optics and in sensors to detect biological and chemical weapons at long
distance almost went undiscovered by scientists because its structure was too
difficult to examine. Luckily, scientists from U.S. Department of Energy's
Argonne National Laboratory and Northwestern University were able to
determine the structure of the compound using the uniquely suited Chemistry
and Materials beamline of the Center for Advanced Radiation Sources
(ChemMatCARS) at the Advanced Photon Source. "Like other such materials,
this material has an electrically polarized structure. The incident light
interacts with the electron cloud and in the process is disturbed,"
Argonne scientist Mercouri Kanatzidis said. "The disturbance changes the
wavelength of the emitted light and creates two beams: the original and the
second harmonic — a beam with half the wavelength and double the
frequency." This second-harmonic beam is 15 times more intense than that
produced by the best current material. This two-for-one wavelength boost is
paired with greater transparency, so the material can actually transmit the
whole higher-wavelength beam. This could have eventual real-world
applications in identifying biological and chemical weapons at long distances
and in optical communications. Israeli official warns of chemical warfare
against Syria. RAMALLAH: 18th September 2008: A
senior Israeli defense official warned that any future military conflict with
Syria may include chemical warfare and fighting against guerrilla and regular
army forces, a report said yesterday. The Israeli daily Yediot Ahronot quoted
Maj. Gen. Avi Mizrahi, head of the GOC Army Headquarters, as saying during
the Land Maneuver in the 21st Century conference that ÒSyria has a large,
equipped and trained regular army, and lately we have identified some
guerilla activity in its ranks.Ó The report came a day after Syrian Foreign
Minister Walid Muallem said that the fifth round of Turkish-mediated peace
talks between Syria and Israel this week has been postponed at IsraelÕs
request. But alongside the optimism surrounding the indirect talks with
Syria, Israel is gearing up for a far more pessimistic scenario, with senior
military officials estimating that the Jewish state would face a major
missile threat should a conflict break out. As for the possibility of a
preemptive strike, Mizrahi said Òif the air force can prevent (Syrian) forces
from making their way to the front lines, this will help our forces.Ó The
general added that a future military confrontation with Syria may include
chemical warfare.
|
|||||||||
|
|