DoD News Briefing
Tuesday, December 2, 1997 - 1:30 p.m.
Captain Mike Doubleday, DASD (PA)
.....................
Q: Could you comment on the report in the New York Times? Does the Defense Department agree with the assertion that the building that's going on and the potential hide-away for Libyan military or chemical weapons?
A: This is a very large project which we're watching with all of our usual care, but this project at this point appears to be an irrigation project.
Q: So you see no evidence at this point that it has been used or could be used as a troop movement mechanism?
A: At this point I am aware of no indications that we have that the project has been used for the movement of troops or military equipment. The one thing I noticed from the article, there does not appear to be, as far as any reporting in the article, any kind of ventilation systems which would be required for large-scale movement of human beings.
Q: How about building a chemical weapons plant in a pipeline? Does that seem like a logical possibility? Do you have any evidence that that has occurred or might be occurring?
A: There is no evidence that I'm aware of that there is a chemical weapons facility within this system.
Q: What about up at Tarhunah? Do you see any more construction of that facility going on?
A: No. In Tarhunah the facility was never functional there and the construction activity has ceased.
Q: What about Rabta? Just as long as we're going around the horn on our favorite Libyan sites. Is that still a functional chemical weapons facility?
A: I don't have anything with me on Rabta but I think it is in our latest publication, and we'll get back to you with an answer on that one.
Q: So is it safe to say then that you do not believe that these 13 foot irrigation pipes could be used for the movement of troops?
A: It is safe at this point to say that we are watching this project carefully. We're always attentive to what is happening in Libya, but at this point we have seen no indication that that's the purpose for which this project is being used.
Q: Different subject. Do you have any comment on President Yeltsin's apparent announcement that he intends to cut nuclear weapons?
A: We don't have all the details on this, but certainly at this point, knowing what we do based on press reports, we would welcome a decision by Russia to reduce overall nuclear warhead inventories. Assuming that the Russian decision includes tactical as well as strategic nuclear warheads, such a move would bring Russia's overall stockpile numbers more in line with ours. Under START I the U.S. and former Soviet Union are committed to reduce accountable strategic warheads by roughly 40 percent. When ratified, START II will mean a further 40 percent reduction.
The United States, as you're aware has slashed its tactical nuclear weapons by roughly 75 percent since 1990, and we, at this point, are looking forward to the initiation of START III negotiations once Russia has ratified START II.
Q: These seem to be unilateral steps. Does this indicate to you some hope that he has of getting this treaty ratified in the Duma?
A: As I say, our information at this point is just based on the press reports, so we don't have any information that goes beyond what we've seen in the press.
Q: What number level does this bring... Do you have any...
A: Under START I the limits were 6,000 deployed strategic warheads. Under START II the limits are 3,000 to 3,500 deployed strategic warheads, and the guidelines for START III, which were agreed at the Helsinki summit, puts the limits at between 2,000 and 2,500 warheads.
...............
.................|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
