Even though there's only [a] 1 percent chance such measures would succeed, we should make [a] 100 percent effort.

--Chinese special envoy to the Middle East Wu Sike, on resolving the nuclear standoff with Iran through diplomacy.

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Air Force plans to spend more than $800 million to build a new nuclear-armed cruise missile for its bomber aircraft, according to little-noticed details buried inside the Obama administration's fiscal 2011 budget request delivered last month to Capitol Hill (see GSN, Dec. 16, 2009).

(Mar. 9) - An AGM-86B Air Launched Cruise Missile. The Obama administration has budgeted more than $800 million for development of a new, nuclear-armed cruise missile to replace the weapon system (U.S. Air Force photo).

A "Follow-on Long-Range Stand-off Vehicle," or LRSO for short, would replace 375 aging AGM-86B Air Launched Cruise Missiles, expected to retire from the fleet by 2030. The Defense Department has estimated the new effort could cost a total $1.3 billion, Global Security Newswire has learned.

"The current system is experiencing obsolescence of parts [and] components," the Air Force stated in one budget document. "Missile components and support equipment are becoming non-supportable."

The service is closely monitoring "critical components" -- such as the missile's fuse, guidance and electrical power systems -- for age-related malfunctions, according to the text. It calls a service life extension of the Air Launched Cruise Missile "essential" to meeting war-plan requirements.

At the same time, the Air Force is conducting an "analysis of alternatives" aimed at weighing technical options for replacing the AGM-86B, which was first deployed in 1982. The document shows that the Pentagon is expected to make a formal acquisition decision around October 2012 on how to proceed.

The budget documents indicate a service intention to sharply ramp up research-and-development funds for the nuclear-capable weapon between fiscal 2013 and 2015, culminating in an estimated half-billion dollars to be spent on the LRSO effort in fiscal 2015 alone.

For the near term, though, the Air Force is requesting $3.63 million in 2011 to complete the ongoing technical studies on the new cruise missile.

Inclusion of the funds in the White House budget request is sure to rankle lawmakers on the left flank of President Barack Obama's political base, who have supported his commitment to taking "concrete steps" toward the eventual global elimination of nuclear weapons. Obama laid out this vision in a major speech last April in Prague, an event frequently cited as helping him win a Nobel Peace Prize.

On the other side of the aisle, Republicans can be expected to welcome the cruise missile plans as a potential indication of the administration's intent to modernize the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The Senate's entire GOP contingent in December told Obama that their support for the president's arms control agenda would rest on his commitment to funding modern replacements or updates for U.S. nuclear weapons (see GSN, Dec. 17, 2009).

Today's Air Launched Cruise Missiles are launched from the B-52 bomber, which is slated to remain in service through 2040. The aircraft can carry six cruise missiles under each of its wings and eight internally on a rotary launcher, giving each B-52 a capacity of 20 missiles.

The cruise missile flies roughly 550 mph and has a range of more than 1,500 miles, allowing the bomber to stand off at a safe distance from its target.

Though a future LRSO weapon's capabilities have not yet been publicly defined, a new cruise missile might be expected to ride aboard either a B-52 bomber or a future Long-Range Strike aircraft, which could be manned or unmanned (see GSN, Dec. 18, 2009).

Whether the future bomber itself proceeds -- and on what time line -- is uncertain. It is also not known yet if a new aircraft would be nuclear-weapon capable, like today's B-52 and B-2 planes, or instead be limited to conventional missions, like today's B-1 bomber.

The Defense Department is expected to announce its plans for a future Long-Range Strike aircraft as part of a major Nuclear Posture Review. The congressionally directed review of atomic forces, strategy and readiness has been repeatedly delayed but is anticipated for release in the coming weeks (see GSN, March 1).

Air Force budget documents for the first time include a funding line item for development of the new bomber. Budget dollars for the aircraft rise on a schedule roughly parallel to the proposed new cruise missile. The service expects to fund the new bomber at nearly $200 million in fiscal 2011, with program expenditures totaling $1.74 billion through 2015.

The service has not revealed exactly how it would use these large sums over that period or when bomber production would begin. Nor has the Air Force officially divulged a total program cost estimate for the proposed new bomber or an LRSO cruise missile.

The documents submitted to Congress on Feb. 1 state that Air Force studies on how to maintain the Air Launched Cruise Missile "identified system components that cannot be sustained beyond the initial missile service life," but that date has long since passed.

When the missile first entered the fleet in 1982, its service life was expected to be 10 years, according to a Pentagon official's response to written questions from Global Security Newswire. In 1998 -- six years after that anticipated retirement date -- the Air Force began a "service life extension program."

Current expectations are that "the Air Launched Cruise Missile will be retained through FY-20 with an option through FY-30," the official said in an e-mailed response, released on condition of anonymity. "Presently, ALCM is mission-ready and sustainable through 2030."

At the same time, the Defense Department appears to be leaving open the possibility that some of the first cruise missiles to enter the force might encounter age-related malfunctions prior to 2030.

"The ALCMs will age out as limited life components fail," the Pentagon official stated, without offering specifics. "Additional future investment and [service life extension program] actions would determine the actual time frame for obsolescence."

To keep the bomber leg of the nuclear triad useful and viable in the years to come, the Air Launched Cruise Missile must be replaced with a new weapon that offers similar stand-off launch capability, according to Christopher Ford, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.

"You don't want to fly B-52s over anything but tribal militias these days. That's a good way to lose B-52s," he said in an interview last week, suggesting the bombers are increasingly vulnerable to advanced surface-to-air missile technologies. "Hence we need a stand-off capability."

In fact, without a nuclear cruise missile, the utility of the bomber leg of the triad could significantly decline and eventually disappear, according to some issue experts. Lacking an ALCM replacement, the Pentagon could ultimately convert all its bombers to solely conventional use, leaving the nation with a "dyad" of submarine-launched ballistic missiles and ICBMs, insiders say.

Ford commended the Obama team for taking steps to ensure that key facets of the nuclear arsenal remain viable into the long term, even if that means alienating liberals in the White House's political base.

"This would be an interesting wrinkle that the Obama administration is at least contemplating modernizing nuclear delivery systems," Ford said. "The United States has been the only major world power not modernizing its delivery systems."

Others argue there is no urgent need for Washington to modernize its nuclear delivery platforms because they remain quite capable today and could continue functioning reliably for years to come.

"I think the president has quite clearly said no new nuclear weapons," said Hans Kristensen, who has closely tracked annual funding for a cruise missile replacement. Though liberal and conservative pundits alike tend to focus on whether and how nuclear warheads are modernized, "a nuclear warhead won't have much effect without a delivery platform," he said.

Kristensen, director of the Federation of American Scientists' Nuclear Information Project, said that even if the Nuclear Posture Review envisions a continued role for a nuclear-armed bomber for the time being, funding the future cruise missile would seem to "fly in the face of the president's pledge."

"Who are we kidding?" he said in an interview last week. "We're telling the world we're not going to produce new nuclear weapons, and in the first budget of the administration there is a new nuclear weapon."

In fact, the Pentagon official also would not rule out the possibility that a replacement cruise missile could carry a warhead other than the W-80, which is fitted on today's Air Launched Cruise Missile and on the Navy's Tomahawk Sea-Launched Cruise Missile. The latter weapon system is widely expected to retire soon from the U.S. arsenal (see GSN, Feb. 22).

The Air Force suspended an effort to extend the service life of the W-80 warhead in fiscal 2006, deferring work to what the Bush administration at that time anticipated would be a multiservice Reliable Replacement Warhead. The pause in the W-80 overhaul also allowed the nuclear complex to initiate a life-extension effort on another warhead, the Navy's W-76 weapon, the Pentagon official said.

Though Congress ultimately eliminated the RRW effort -- citing concerns that the new warhead could undermine Washington's nonproliferation objectives -- work to refurbish the W-80 has not resumed, according to the Defense Department.

The service has "archived" its previously conducted study of W-80 life-extension options, pending a "possible late FY-11 restart decision," according to the Pentagon official.

"While the W-80 is an obvious candidate" for use in a weapon that replaces the Air Launched Cruise Missile, "the LRSO study will help inform that decision," the official said.

Should the W-80 remain in the U.S. arsenal, it is likely to require another major life extension beginning in the 2030 time frame -- just as the last Air Launched Cruise Missiles retire -- according to a 2008 planning document compiled by the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration.

That document, obtained by GSN, shows initial studies beginning late in fiscal 2029 and overhaul work on the nuclear explosive package and firing set commencing in 2036.

Russian and U.S. representatives have started a new round of discussions on replacing the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which expired in December, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, March 8).

(Mar. 9) - Technicians work on a U.S. W-76 nuclear warhead in a training exercise. The United States and Russia today resumed talks on replacing a 1991 arms control treaty that expired in December (U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration photo).

The sides convened today, said Michael Parmly, spokesman for the U.S. mission in Geneva, Switzerland.

U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Medvedev pledged last July to cut their nations' respective strategic arsenals to between 1,500 and 1,675 deployed nuclear warheads under the START successor. Negotiators have reportedly also agreed to reduce each state's arsenal of nuclear delivery vehicles -- missiles, submarines and bombers -- to between 700 and 800, down from the 1,100-vehicle limit set by the leaders.

The sides remained at odds over U.S. plans to field missile defenses in Eastern Europe, a high-level Russian official said last week, when the previous round of talks was suspended.

Parmly said the United States was "committed to concluding negotiations," but he refused to predict when Moscow and Washington would reach agreement on the pact (Associated Press/Google News, March 9).

A Russian diplomat expressed hope that this session, involving dozens of participants from the two former Cold War rivals, would conclude the talks, Reuters reported.

"We hope so, let's keep our fingers crossed," he said. A tentative version of the document could be prepared "hopefully by early April," the diplomat added.

It remains to be seen where and when Obama and Medvedev might meet to sign the pact, which would still require approval from lawmakers in Moscow and Washington (Stephanie Nebehay, Reuters, March 9).

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov today appeared to point blame toward the U.S. side for the delay in finalizing the new document, RIA Novosti reported.

"When everyone was saying that the presidents had issued instructions to prepare it (a new agreement) in December, that was feasible, had the negotiators followed the principles agreed upon by the presidents," Lavrov said.

"If they do this (now), this could be completed quite soon," he added. "We believe that everything could be completed within the next two or three weeks" (RIA Novosti I, March 9).

Lavrov said that the new pact would "of course" make a connection between nuclear cutbacks and missile defenses, RIA Novosti reported. Moscow has increasingly appeared concerned about the Obama administration's plan to deploy sea- and land-based interceptors around Europe as a hedge against Iranian short- and medium-range missiles.

The Kremlin's top diplomat said the link would be "legally binding." Washington, though, has said the treaty would not restrict its missile defense activities, and observers say any such linkage could be a hard sell to the U.S. Senate (RIA Novosti II, March 9).

Japan today acknowledged signing an agreement with the United States decades ago to allow stopovers at the island nation's ports by U.S. military vessels carrying nuclear weapons, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, March 5).

(Mar. 9) - Japanese Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada speaks to reporters today after the release of a report on undisclosed agreements Japan had reached with the United States. The report acknowledges that Tokyo secretly permitted nuclear-armed U.S. warships to stop at Japanese ports (Yoshikazu Tsuno/Getty Images).

The announcement was Tokyo's first formal confirmation of the pact's existence. A coalition government led by the left-of-center Democratic Party of Japan launched an investigation of undisclosed agreements with outside powers last year, after the coalition took power from the nation's long-entrenched Liberal Democratic Party.

The secret pact was believed to a contravene a decades-old, self-imposed ban on manufacturing, possessing or permitting the presence of nuclear weapons on Japanese territory.

"It's regrettable that such facts were not disclosed to the public for such a long time, even after the end of the Cold War era," Japanese Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada said.

Public revelation of the pact's existence would not alter security arrangements permitting the presence of 50,000 U.S. military personnel on Japanese territory, he said.

Before the United States decided in 1991 to withdraw nonstrategic nuclear weapons from its warships and submarines, Washington might have acted on the deal by moving nuclear-armed vessels through Japan, Okada added (Mari Yamaguchi, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, March 9).

"While I don't want to imagine it, we are in a situation where we cannot confidently say no nuclear weapons were brought in," Kyodo News quoted Okada as saying. "I cannot dispel that suspicion."

"The United States will depend less on nuclear (weapons). I don't think their introduction into Japan will happen in the future," he said (Kyodo News I, March 9).

Japan and the United States are likely to have shared an implicit understanding on permitting nuclear-armed vessels at Japanese ports, although the sides might have had diverging views on the deal, according to the experts panel that investigated the secret pacts.

Fears of damaging the Japanese-U.S. security relationship prevented the sides from explicitly questioning the terms of the nuclear pact, according to the panel (Yamaguchi, AP).

A separate Cold War-era deal permitted the United States to field nuclear weapons in Japanese territory during a crisis; the arrangement was not considered "secret," though, because it reflected the basic policy position expressed in a 1969 joint statement by the countries, the commission asserted (see GSN, Feb. 25; Kyodo News II/Breitbart.com, March 9).

Former Japanese Prime Minister Eisaku Sato in 1969 expressed "regret" that Tokyo had ruled out the possibility of hosting nuclear weapons on its territory, the panel found (see GSN, Dec. 23, 2009).

Sato was open to the option of pursuing a Japanese nuclear deterrent, the commission learned. The deceased former statesman held office from 1964 to 1972 (Kyodo News III/Breitbart.com, March 9).

Russia's strategic missile forces today launched a three-day drill expected to simulate the use of nuclear weapons, RIA Novosti reported (see GSN, Sept. 9, 2009).

Russian military personnel would follow procedures in the nation's recently adopted military doctrine for dealing with nuclear and conventional conflict, said strategic missile forces spokesman Col. Vadim Koval (see GSN, Feb. 9).

"The SMF are conducting command-and-staff drills on March 10-12 in line with the annual training program," he said. "A total of more than 2,000 servicemen and 150 theater- and tactical-level command-and-control centers take part in the drills," Koval added.

The missile forces carried out 11 major drills and two strategic missile test-firings last year, according to RIA Novosti.

Within six years, Moscow intends to upgrade the command-and-control infrastructure of its strategic missile systems to make the nation's deterrent less susceptible to enemy missile interceptors and bolster the resilience of its delivery systems.

The Russian strategic missile forces possess 538 ICBMs, a number that includes 306 SS-25 Sickle missiles, 88 SS-18 Satan missiles and 56 Topol-M missiles, RIA Novosti reported (RIA Novosti, March 10).

ITAR-Tass, though, reported that the group holds 466 ICBMs that could carry 1,357 nuclear warheads (ITAR-Tass, March 10).

North Korea has established a new army detachment that oversees the country's recently developed arsenal of medium-range missiles that can travel more than 1,860 miles, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, Oct. 29, 2009).

Relying on an anonymous South Korean government source, the Yonhap News Agency reported that Pyongyang's People's Army created the division to manage the fielding of missiles that could be used to strike U.S. military installations in locations including Guam and Japan.

The missiles could be intended to keep the United States from moving Pacific-based troops to the Korean Peninsula should conflict break out with the North, said Seoul-based analyst Baek Seung-joo. The U.S. Defense Department already has nearly 30,000 personnel in South Korea.

No information was provided as to the number of missiles in the new division or where they are deployed.

The South Korean Defense Ministry today said it could not affirm the Yonhap report. A 2009 report from the agency indicated that North Korea was fielding a new kind of intermediate-range missile that was thought to have been publicly exhibited at a 2007 military parade.

Should the report prove accurate, it would indicate that the aspiring nuclear state had been able to create additional intermediate-range missiles over the last three years and now required a larger unit to oversee those weapons, South Korean analyst Ohm Tae-am said.

Last spring, North Korea carried out a rocket launch that the international community said contravened a U.N. Security Council resolution that bars the nation from carrying out any ballistic missile-related work. The North responded to the criticism by leaving nuclear disarmament negotiations and conducting its second nuclear test (Hyung-Jin Kim, Associated Press/Washington Post, March 9).

U.S. Senator Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) on Friday urged the Homeland Security Department to renew its efforts to complete in the next two years the goal of scanning all cargo that is shipped by sea to the United States (see GSN, Dec. 3, 2009).

Menendez submitted a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who in December told lawmakers it was not possible to meet the July 2012 deadline for checking all U.S.-bound cargo for WMD materials. Napolitano cited the high cost and absence of certain technologies among the reasons why the agency would need an extension of the schedule.

Menendez prepared the provision included in legislation intended to implement national security recommendations made by the Sept. 11 commission. He argued that Homeland Security "has done little to even examine how to get to 100 percent," according to a press release from his office.

"Congress created this mandate for a purpose -- it is not a suggestion or an aspiration, but a law," Menendez stated in his letter. "The Department of Homeland Security under the Bush administration repeatedly ignored this law, and I urge this administration to change course and work to find a way to get us on the path to 100 percent scanning. We cannot just continue to respond to the last threat; we must think ahead in order to try to prevent the next one."

To illustrate the danger, Menendez noted that top U.S. intelligence officials recently testified that terrorists were "certain" to attempt an attack on the United States within the next six months (see GSN, Feb. 3) and that the congressionally mandated Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism has repeatedly warned of the threat that extremists could acquire an unconventional weapon (U.S. Senator Robert Menendez release, March 5).

Syria and Israel both announced their intentions today to pursue atomic energy capabilities, which for Jerusalem could lead to more international scrutiny on its widely assumed but always undeclared nuclear weapons program, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Sept. 29, 2009).

The two Middle Eastern rivals shared their plans at a Paris conference on atomic energy.

Both countries' proclamations bring up the possibility of their atomic development being closely monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency to verify that the programs do not stray into weapons activities. Iran has been under such scrutiny in the years since it acknowledged its nuclear effort (see related GSN story, today).

Israeli Infrastructure Minister Uzi Landau said nuclear sites constructed in his country would have to follow rigorous security and safety protocols. He added that Jerusalem would like to establish nuclear facilities in collaboration with specialists from "our Arab neighbors."

Landau said Israel was pursuing nuclear power as a means to ensure adequate energy resources and to fight climate change. Questioned whether his nation would allow international inspectors to monitor all new nuclear sites, Landau deputy Chen Ben Lulu said Jerusalem would adhere to all applicable rules.

Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faysal Mekdad said Damascus was interested in "alternative energy sources, including nuclear energy" to provide for its expanding power needs.

"The peaceful application of nuclear energy should not be monopolized by the few that own this technology but should be available to all," Mekdad said. He did not expand on particular atomic energy plans in his country.

The U.N. nuclear watchdog has been investigation Syria's atomic activities in the years since a 2007 Israeli airstrike on a suspected nuclear reactor. The agency has recently complained of lack of cooperation by Damascus, which says the destroyed facility was not a nuclear site (see GSN, March 4).

Of the two neighboring nations, Israel is thought to be nearer to achieving a nuclear energy capability by measures of its technological knowledge and infrastructure (Angela Charlton, Associated Press I/Google News, March 9).

Israel is not a signatory of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which seeks to place a cap on the number of nuclear-armed nations. It does, however, have official representation at the International Atomic Energy Agency, Reuters reported.

There should be no issue with Israel constructing a civilian nuclear reactor even though it has not joined the nuclear treaty, Landau said.

"There are many countries who are not signatories to the NPT and they are doing fine. There are others which are signatories and the world community did not really take proper care against proliferation," the minister said in a likely reference to Iran (Rabinovitch/Balmer, Reuters/New York Times, March 8).

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said yesterday that underdeveloped nations need atomic energy. He called on wealthy backers to assist in the financing of a worldwide nuclear power movement, AP reported.

Sarkozy acknowledged the potential for nuclear accidents and proliferation and criticized those who "cheat" by employing nuclear technology to produce bombs. He said the international community must be "steadfast in its opposition to those countries that violate the standards for collective security."

The French president also called for an "enhanced" International Atomic Energy Agency with an expanded mandate that would grade foreign reactors on safety.

Mycle Schneider, who studies France's large nuclear industry, said Sarkozy's proposal would be "a phenomenal boost toward technology proliferation."

"Even if you don't start building a nuclear plant tomorrow, or in 10 years or 20 years, as soon as you sign a nuclear cooperation agreement, the know-how can flow," Schneider said (Keller/Charlton, Associated Press II/Yahoo!News, March 8).

Russia yesterday indicated it hopes by the end of this year to supply an initial quantity of low-enriched uranium for a nuclear fuel enrichment center to be overseen by the International Atomic Energy Agency, RIA Novosti reported (see GSN, Nov. 30, 2009).

The fuel bank would enable countries to purchase nuclear power plant fuel on an apolitical basis as an alternative to developing fuel production capabilities that could also generate nuclear-weapon material. The U.N. nuclear watchdog's 35-nation governing board last year backed creation of the facility, which Moscow has proposed to establish at its Angarsk complex in Siberia.

"I believe that the first part of these reserves could be formed by the end of this year," Russian atomic energy chief Sergei Kiriyenko said during a nuclear power conference in Paris (see related GSN story, today). "We want to initially build LEU reserves that would ensure the operation of at least one 1,000-megawatt reactor."

Moscow has indicated the bank would provide nuclear fuel "to any IAEA member country that honors its nonproliferation commitments" (RIA Novosti, March 9).

"If the fuel is of Russian origin, we are ready to propose leasing solutions over the entire lifespan of the nuclear plant," Agence France-Presse quoted Kiriyenko as saying. "We would take the spent nuclear fuel for treatment. ... I think many countries will propose leasing solutions. It's essential to ensure nonproliferation and safety" (Agence France-Presse/Spacewar.com, March 8).

Moscow could sign a comprehensive deal with the U.N. nuclear watchdog on the planned fuel bank in April or May, according to Kiriyenko (RIA Novosti).

There is an ongoing disagreement between the U.S. Army and the Defense Department over the future of a $19 billion missile defense system that is intended to replace the Patriot system, the Washington Post reported today (see GSN, June 2, 2005).

After multiple, unsuccessful efforts to halt work on the Medium Extended Air Defense System, the Army is reportedly attempting one more time to cancel the program operated by the United States, Germany and Italy.

Army issues with the system include its cost, its extended development period and the necessity to have Rome and Berlin sign off on any modifications to the program.

The Army said in a February memorandum that the MEADS program, which has bee in development for more than 10 years, "will not meet U.S. requirements or address the current and emerging threat without extensive and costly modifications." The memo advised abandoning the program.

Even so, Pentagon officials have sought $467 million in congressional funding to continue work on the system in fiscal 2011. Officials said it would cost too much now to halt the project as that would force the Defense Department to pay $550 million to $1 billion in fines to the international group of contractors developing the system.

Italy, Germany and the United States are expected in 2018 to receive delivery of the system, which is being developed to bring down incoming short-range and cruise missiles in addition to targeting drones and planes. Compared to aging Patriot missile interceptors, the Medium Extended Air Defense System is movable and can be carted around a battlefield. Its radar can turn in a full circle to follow incoming projectiles.

According to the terms of the 2004 MEADS agreement, Washington pays 58 percent of the development costs of the program, Germany pays 25 percent and Italy covers 17 percent.

Analysts said abandoning the program would harm the Defense Department's ties with Rome and Berlin, which want the system to take the place of their older missile defense apparatus.

Heritage Foundation research fellow Baker Spring said complications in developing a missile defense system with two other nations are worth the benefit of having a system that all three allies could use in a military conflict.

"It's almost inconceivable to me that the U.S. military would be in an expeditionary operation where it won't be working with coalition partners in some form or another," Spring said.

The Army is expected to reach to a decision this week on whether to keep overseeing work of the new missile defense system or to pass management to the U.S. Missile Defense Agency. The Army declined to speak about those internal discussions.

"Right now there is no decision to cancel that program," Army spokesman Lt. Col. Jimmie Cummings said (Craig Whitlock, Washington Post, March 9).

A team of inspectors from the international organization charged with overseeing implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention traveled to Colorado last week for the yearly audit of munitions stored at the Pueblo Chemical Depot, the Pueblo Chieftain reported (see GSN, March 2).

Inspectors from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons spent four days examining every storage igloo at the depot, which houses 780,000 munitions filled with mustard blister agent. Disposal of the weapons is scheduled to begin in 2015.

"This operation was a smooth and professional endeavor," Pueblo Depot Treaty Compliance Officer Lisabeth Wachutka said. "All parties involved worked together to execute a highly successful inspection."

The Blue Grass Army Depot in Kentucky passed its own an annual OPCW inspection last month (see GSN, March 5; John Norton, Pueblo Chieftain, March 9).

Japanese authorities have identified an additional fatality in the 1995 terrorist attack in which sarin nerve agent was released inside the Tokyo subway system, Jiji Press reported Saturday (see GSN, Feb. 17).

The person has become the 13th confirmed death in the strike by the Aum Shinrikyo doomsday cult. The identification follows enactment of 2008 legislation on compensation for the incident.

The newly recognized victim was in the area of the attacks and afterward showed signs of exposure to sarin. The unidentified person died in a bathtub two days after the incident.

While evidence in the case might not have met the level needed for a criminal prosecution, it did point to exposure to sarin as the case of death, sources said (Jiji Press, March 6).

A 41-year-old British truck driver pleaded guilty yesterday to charges including production of the biological agent ricin and preparing for acts of terrorism, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, June 8, 2009).

White supremacist Ian Davison and his teenage son were detained in June 2009. Authorities discovered minute amounts of ricin in a jam jar at Davison's house. The intended targets in the terrorism plot have not been made public.

Nicky Davison, 19, faces the count of possessing information likely to be useful to a terrorist. He is expected to go to trial in April. His father would be sentenced once the trial is complete (Associated Press/USA Today, March 8).

Ian Davison, of Burnopfield, was in possession of digital manuals of "the anarchist's handbook," "kitchen complete" and "mujahideen's explosives handbook," the Newcastle Journal reported today. These materials provided directions on making and employing explosives and violated the British law on possessing information potentially valuable to a person plotting a terrorist act.

He also confessed to ownership of an illegal weapon -- a spray canister discovered at his house.

Ricin is derived from castor beans and can be produced in a number of forms, including a powder or a liquid when mixed with water or a low-strength acid, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Even minute amounts can be lethal and there is no known antidote to the toxin (Newcastle Journal, March 9).