Given the choice between total nuclear destruction of the planet and a phony presidential straw poll among Iowa Republicans, the choice for the Washington press corps is clear.
Go to Des Moines.
That was evident last week when, just a few days after the political cognoscenti trooped back from a made-for-a-slow-news-period-event in Iowa, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) tried to entice the locals on the topic of nuclear destruction.
He would have done better simply offering freebies to next month’s Roger Whittaker concert at the Star Plaza Theater in Merrillville, Ind..
For sure, his hands weren’t totally, absolutely clean since he, too, is running for president and courting attention on any topic won’t hurt. Whether it’s “60 Minutes” or “Jenny Jones,” he might not be particular at this point.
So his staff got the word out by phone and fax that the boss, a very respected but dry-as-sandpaper fellow who faces problems raising funds for his presidential run, was chairing what apparently was the only hearing during a vacation week for Congress.
More Top Picks How To Teach A Dyslexic Child To Read At Home
Lugar sought to have newsies show up for two days of discussion on a topic of bonafide concern to him: the perils of “loose nukes,” or nuclear materials all-too-ripe for the stealing at hundreds of Russian plants.
There are huge quantities of nuclear weapons, plutonium and highly-enriched uranium stored in Russia, a nation in political and economic disarray. Several documented thefts suggest strongly that security there is woeful, unlike tighter-than-a-drum precautions in the U.S., and that the potential for smuggling materials to terrorists seems ample.
And once anybody possesses the key ingredients–which witnesses made clear could easily fit inside a soda can, softball or baseball–making a bomb ain’t difficult.
“Simply look at the seizures of stolen material that have already occurred,” said John Holdren, who chaired a presidential panel reviewing nuclear security in the former Soviet Union. “Ask yourselves: Would you want this plutonium and highly-enriched uranium in the hands of Saddam Hussein?”
The two-day session had opened with a seemingly unsettling analysis from the Central Intelligence Agency. Though some of its findings are classified, the gist delivered by David Osias, a big adviser on nuclear matters to the Secretary of Defense, framed subsequent testimony.
“The break-up of the Soviet Union, the opening of Russian society and its economic difficulties have subjected the security system to stresses and risks it was not designed to withstand,” Osias said.
Not only are there 8,500 long-range warheads in Russia, there are the makings of bombs in those several hundred facilities. Many of the workers with day-to-day responsibility for those bombs and materials are living in poor economic circumstances and might well be susceptible to even modest bribes.
“There is now a clear and present danger that the essential ingredients of nuclear bombs could fall into the hands of radical states or terrorist groups,” said Holdren.
In flat tones that belied the subject’s inherent peril, Holdren noted that he had briefed President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore on the conclusions of the security review. And while the report itself is classified, he offered an overview that didn’t leave much to the imagination.
For starters, “limited access to plutonium and highly-enriched uranium is the primary technical barrier to the spread of nuclear weapons . . . The ability to buy such materials on a nuclear black market could shorten a third-world bomb program from a decade to months, or even less.”
The amounts required are really small. Just a few kilograms of plutonium, or roughly three times that amount of highly enriched uranium, is enough for a nuclear bomb. A worker at a nuclear facility, said Holdren, “could simply put enough material for a bomb under his overcoat and walk out.”
Now, if the meaning of “enough material for a bomb” isn’t clear to the layman, two other witnesses, physicist Thomas Cochran of the National Resources Defense Council and Graham Allison, head of Harvard University’s Center for Science and International Affairs, put it simply enough for those of us who barely got past 8th grade geometry class.
Cochran took out a can of Coke. He said you could easily put 15 pounds of plutonium inside–an amount comparable to what was in the bomb dropped on Nagasaki. Take a six-pack, he said, and you’ve got yourself enough “for an arsenal.”
Allison took out a softball and a baseball to make similar points. Thirty pounds of highly-enriched uranium could be carried in the softball. Had a softball with the uranium been inside that same van parked in front of the Oklahoma federal building, “all of downtown Oklahoma City would have disappeared.”
Put the ball in the notorious van parked under the World Trade Center and you would have blown away all of lower Manhattan, he added.
Several witnesses cited documented incidents of nuclear material smuggling. In August 1994, for example, nearly a pound of plutonium was seized by cops at the Munich airport, carried by suitcase on a plane from Moscow. In December of that year, six pounds of high-enriched uranium was found in two metal containers in the back seat of a Saab parked on a Prague side street. Russian documents were near the containers.
As the litany of incidents was recited, several witnesses underscored how we, of course, don’t know what we don’t know. Is there a lot more stuff that has escaped detection?
Lugar came away convinced that the “loose nukes” in Russia are the biggest threat to our security. He clearly agreed with Harvard’s Allison that we, as a nation, err by assuming with the end of the Cold War, Russia does not present a direct risk.
Reflecting our naivete might be the minimal press coverage of the hearings. CNN was there for the first day, split on the second. There wasn’t a word in the Washington Post or The New York Times after either session.
“The thought that ordinary people carrying Coke bottles and destroying our cities, as ICBMs would, has not seeped through,” said Lugar.
No profile
In light of the conviction of Rep. Mel Reynolds, it seemed appropriate to search for the mercurial Gus Savage, whom a purportedly Mr. Clean (Reynolds) toppled from office in 1992 after several tries.
The race-baiting Savage, who now looks like Abe Lincoln compared to his political slayer, has kept a Howard Hughes-like low profile. One longtime friend in Chicago recalled Savage recently spurning the chum’s request to speak to a small group. Savage tells friends he’s working on a book and wants his privacy.
A call was placed to his apparent number in Washington.
“Hello.”
“Is this Gus Savage?”
“He’s in Chicago,” said a male voice.
More Top Picks Best Red Light Bulbs For Sleep
“How can I reach him?”
“His number is unlisted.”
“Is there some office or other place he can be reached.”
“His number is unlisted,” repeated the man, slamming down the phone.
Undaunted, a second call:
“This is (Tribune reporter). Are you Mr. Savage’s son?”
Hung up again.
Cokie Watch
The AMC Cancer Research Center is host and Emerson Electric Co. picks up the tab when ABC’s Cokie Roberts speaks at “The Women’s Event” Oct. 19 at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in St. Louis.
Clearly, the ABC newsies don’t seem to be slavishly following that new stricture on taking dough from for-profit firms. Then, again, maybe that’s of small concern when your bosses seemingly buckle while defending libel cases; witness ABC’s startling apology last week to Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds for asserting they “spike” cigarets with nicotine.
Last Monday, ABC’s Catherine Crier was the star at an “Evening for Women” at the Dayton Hudson in Minneapolis. A store spokesman confirmed she was paid for the appearance.