• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

DoD News Briefing

........................

Q: A couple of quick questions on Iraq. Has the situation changed at all? Does it still remain stable?

A: In Iraq?

Q: In Iraq, the whole region.

A: The situation is this. First of all, Iraq continues to say that it will not grant full access to sensitive sites in Iraq. That is, it will not allow UN inspectors to go in and look in places like presidential palaces or certain military installations. Without that access, these inspectors will not be able to do their job of finding out whether Iraq is complying with UN mandates to stop its work on deadly chemical and biological weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. That's the first point.

As you know, Richard Butler, the person who heads the UN Special Commission known as UNSCOM is on his way to Iraq. I think he's supposed to arrive tomorrow. He will meet with them. First he'll meet with his team of inspectors on Saturday, and then he'll meet with Iraqi officials on Sunday and Monday and try to see if he can convince Iraq that it's important for them to comply with the UN Security Council resolutions.

Second, on the military side, Iraq is continuing to move surface-to-air missiles around in a way that makes it difficult for us to know where they are, and in a way that can be seen as either a defensive measure to prevent them from being targeted, or as an offensive measure, to give them a greater element of surprise.

Second, its ground troops. Republican Guard units primarily are still widely disbursed from their barracks and bases. That means that the troops themselves and their equipment are spread out in an arrangement that is defensive, primarily. We believe. That does tend to reduce their military effectiveness because they can't operate together as units when they and their equipment are spread out.

On our side, we maintain a very robust military force. More than 29,000 American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines in the area. We have over 300 military aircraft there, more than 200 of them are combat aircraft, the other are support aircraft. And of course we have a large armada of ships led by two aircraft carriers -- the NIMITZ and the USS GEORGE WASHINGTON.

Q: What's it going to take to have those other assets pull back?

A: Right now we are there waiting to see what happens with Iraq in terms of compliance with the UN Security Council Resolutions.

I should add one other point, which is that the U-2s have been flying in support of UNSCOM on a fairly regular basis, and they've been flying largely without challenge. The latest U-2 flight spent about four and a half hours above the 33rd Parallel surveying Iraqi installations in support of the UN inspectors.

Q: What do you mean, largely unchallenged?

A: Unchallenged.

Q: Do you still consider the Iraqis' threat to shoot down the U-2 viable, or have they pulled back?

A: Their rhetoric about the U-2 has been less menacing over the last couple of weeks than it was in early November, late October. But the fact that they are continuing to move around their SAMs, including SA-2s which are the only missiles they have that can reach the altitude of the U-2 is worrisome because, as I say, there is an offensive side to this type of movement.

Q: Do you know anything about mass executions in Iraq that have been reported over the last several days?

A: I'm afraid I don't.

Q: Has access been barred to the UN up to this point, from any place they've asked to go?

A: My understanding is that since UNSCOM got back in they have been able to go wherever they've applied to go. They have not yet applied to go to any of the so-called sensitive sites. Iraqi officials, including the Oil Minister and others, have said that we will not be allowed, that UNSCOM officials will not be allowed to go to sensitive sites.

One of the things that Ambassador Butler is going to try to sort out when he gets there is exactly what the facts are, and he's going to make it very clear, I saw him on television just before I came in here, he's going to make it very clear to Iraq that he expects full compliance with the UN Security Council Resolutions.

................

........................

Q: Back on China. There was a report today that the Chinese had informed the White House that they are no longer assisting other nations in building or developing nuclear weapons. Is that an issue in the talks currently going on...

A: It was a primary issue in the talks between President Jiang and President Clinton. As you know, much of the commentary afterwards in their press conference and elsewhere dealt with that topic. I'm not aware of this latest statement, and I guess you should appropriately ask the White House that statement.

Non-proliferation is one of the topics that will be discussed by Lieutenant General Xiong and the Americans with whom he's meeting. That is one of the primary issues that we will bring up and discuss with the Chinese in the course of these talks.

Q: Another Cuba-related question. I apologize for prolonging the briefing, but my understanding is there have been funds allocated for the Department of Defense to build a radiation monitoring station in Florida in the event of a nuclear accident involving a nuclear power plant in Cuba that's apparently unfinished. I'm wondering if you can tell us if this monitoring station is, in fact, going to be built and how serious the threat is of any sort of nuclear accident in Cuba that the threat could send a radioactive cloud over the United States.

A: This is my understanding. First, there is a provision in the fiscal 1998 Defense Appropriations Bill designating $3 million to be spent on a project to monitor hazards posed by nuclear reactors in Cuba. I understand that Cuba began building two nuclear reactors in the early 1980 -- 1982 or 1983 -- and that these reactors have not yet been finished. Indeed, very little work has been done on the sites since 1992.

We estimate that if they were to begin work again they could not finish the first reactor prior to December 2000. But of course they might not begin work, and they might never complete the reactors, or they could be completed well after that.

The purpose of the reactors, obviously, was to substitute for imported fuel on which Cuba is totally dependent. That's why they set out to build two 440 megawatt nuclear power reactors near the town of Cienfuegos, I believe, on the south central coast of Cuba which is about 180 miles from Key West.

It's also my understanding that there is no nuclear fuel in Cuba to run these reactors, and if my understanding is correct it probably reflects the fact that because the reactors are so far from being finished, there is no need to have the fuel there. It may also reflect Cuba's economic problems and the difficulty of paying for the completion of the reactors or the purchase of the fuel.

Q: Why spend $3 million to monitor...

A: This was an act of Congress. This was included in the appropriations bill. I've asked for the language of the House Report, 105.206, but I didn't get it before the briefing. I thought it might shed some light on why this provision was included, but it's certainly something you could find out by reading House Report 105.206.

Q: I guess my question was, is the monitoring project going to go forward or is it on hold for the moment or is it something you don't need to start right away anyway?

A: I think our goal is to follow the law, and we'll try to comply with the law in a way that makes sense. I don't know where we stand in this. It's one part of a fairly major appropriations bill and I don't know where we stand on getting to this particular requirement.

Press: Thank you.