U.S. Alters Estimate Of Threats
Non-Missile Attacks Likelier, CIA Says
washingtonpost.com
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 11, 2002; Page A01
[fl: the page referenced above also contains a sidebar with many useful references to source documents and news articles concerning the missile defense issue]
The United States is more likely to suffer a nuclear, chemical or biological attack from terrorists using ships, trucks or airplanes than one by a foreign country using long-range missiles, according to a new U.S. intelligence estimate.
While stating that the threat to the United States from a missile with a mass-destruction warhead is "higher" than it was two years ago, the National Intelligence Estimate says for the first time that "U.S. territory is more likely to be attacked" with weapons of mass destruction by countries or terrorist groups using "ships, trucks, airplanes or other means."
The new estimate reveals the extent to which the Sept. 11 attacks have altered the thinking of U.S. intelligence agencies about the threat posed not only by terrorist groups but also by nontraditional weapons. The attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, it says, "have caused the intelligence community to focus significantly more resources on the threat from terrorism, and we are obtaining more information on potential terrorist actions."
In the last publicly released National Intelligence Estimate, in September 1999, the report only mentioned in passing that "several other means to deliver weapons of mass destruction to the United States have probably been devised, some more reliable than ICBMs."
The new report, released yesterday, represents the current assessment of the CIA and 10 other agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community of the latest intelligence on ballistic missile developments and threats against the United States or its forces overseas.
The new estimate could affect the debate over the Bush administration's $8 billion increase this year in spending on missile defense research to meet what it has argued is the growing threat of an intercontinental ballistic missile attack from North Korea, Iran, Iraq or other "rogue" states.
In their report, the intelligence agencies note several reasons why they now judge a non-missile attack more likely than one from an intercontinental ballistic missile. Topping the list is that delivery systems such as a truck, plane or boat "are less expensive than developing and producing ICBMs." Unlike missiles, non-missile systems "can be covertly developed and employed" with the source being "masked in an attempt to evade retaliation," the estimate says.
For smaller countries or non-state groups, the non-missile approach is more accurate than a missile, because testing and manufacturing reliable missile components takes years, the report says. It adds that nontraditional weapons have another advantage in that they "would avoid missile defenses," if the United States had any deployed.
A classified version of the intelligence estimate was sent yesterday to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which has required the report every year since 1999; an unclassified version was made public for the first time since 1999.
The new report updates several areas that drew more emphasis in the version made public three years ago.
Between now and 2015, North Korea, Iran and "possibly" Iraq will remain the most likely threat of launching a missile attack "barring significant changes in their political orientations," it says. It disclosed that one intelligence agency, which it did not identify, dissents from the idea that Iran could develop an ICBM before 2015.
North Korea, it notes, has said it would voluntarily delay flight testing its long-range Taepo Dong-2 missile until 2003, "provided that negotiations with the U.S. proceed."
On Iraq, the intelligence agencies were unanimous that President Saddam Hussein "could test different ICBM concepts before 2015 if U.N. prohibitions were eliminated in the next few years." But "most agencies" say such a move by Iraq is unlikely.
Iran, according to the estimate, has one of the largest ballistic missile inventories in the Middle East, mostly short- and medium-range in size. The intelligence agencies agree that Tehran "does not yet have a nuclear weapon . . . [but] could have one by the end of the decade," with one agency saying it would take longer.
In discussing Iran and Iraq, the estimate says that both countries are building missiles because of hostile relations with neighboring countries. The report does not mention Israel, which possesses nuclear weapons and various ranges of ballistic missiles.
Russia's nuclear arsenal "will decline to less than 2,000 warheads by 2015, with or without arms control," according to the estimate, "unless Moscow significantly increases funding for its strategic forces." It puts Moscow's current warhead count at "only 4,000," with 3,000 warheads on 700 ICBMs and 900 on 200 submarine-launched ballistic missiles.
Dealing with a major concern of some arms control experts, the report says that "an unauthorized or accidental launch of a Russian strategic missile is highly unlikely" if "all procedural and technical safeguards [are] in place."
China's modernization program is ongoing and by 2015 "most of China's strategic missile force will be mobile," and more difficult to target. Today, two-thirds of Beijing's 30, aging, liquid-fueled, silo-based, single-warhead ICBMs are aimed at the United States, with the remainder targeted at Russia and Asian countries, primarily India, it says.
Over the next 15 years, the report says its expects the Chinese warhead total to range "from about 75 to 100" deployed "primarily" against the United States. It notes that China continues to emphasize and increase its ballistic missile force deployed against Taiwan.
India and Pakistan continue to develop short- and medium-range missiles to deter each other, with India also viewing them "as a hedge in a confrontation with China," the report says.
© 2002 The Washington Post Company |
