DOCSLIB.ORG

Ballistic Missiles and Conventional Strike Weapons: Adapting the Hcoc to Address the Dissemination of Conventional Ballistic Missiles

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ballistic Missiles and Conventional Strike Weapons: Adapting the Hcoc to Address the Dissemination of Conventional Ballistic Missiles Ballistic missiles and conventional strike weapons Ballistic missiles and conventional strike weapons: Adapting the HCoC to address the dissemination of conventional ballistic missiles The Hague Code of Conduct aims at curbing the proliferation of missiles capable of carrying weapons of HCOC RESEARCH PAPERS mass destruction. Today, with an important increase in ranges, these weapons are more and more used for a NO. 6 conventional mission, by a variety of states. This dissemination illustrates the fact that many stakeholders master the technologies necessary to build and sustain JANUARY 2020 these weapons. But it also raises questions on the possible destabilising effects of these arsenals, even when they are not linked to WMDs. This paper develops the factors that have led to a reconsideration of the use of ballistic missiles for conventional strikes, and evokes possible ways for the Stéphane Delory HCoC to react to this evolution. Specifically, it proposes three options for the HCoC. First, it could continue to draw attention to the proliferation of missiles, regardless of their vocation. Second, an extension of the scope of the Code could be considered, which could extend its field of action to include regional security and stabilisation. Third, the Code could focus less on the delivery vehicle itself and more on the payload, enabling it to refer to all missiles carrying WMDs. This final proposition is described as more complex but potentially interesting as it would provide for regulation of emerging technologies such as hypersonic glide vehicles. Ballistic missiles and conventional strike weapons DISCLAIMER This document has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union. The contents of this document are the sole responsibility of the Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique and can under no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of the European Union. 2 Ballistic missiles and conventional strike weapons CONTENTS Introduction 5 The main initiators of conventional ballistic strikes 7 The proliferation and dissemination of conventional ballistic missiles: Technological aspects 9 The utility of conventional ballistic systems 11 Integrating conventional ballistic missiles into the HCoC 15 3 Ballistic missiles and conventional strike weapons 4 Ballistic missiles and conventional strike weapons Introduction any ballistic missile2 is capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction.3 We must The Hague Code of Conduct was designed attempt to define the parameters involved at a time when the proliferation of ballistic in conventional applications of ballistic missiles was closely associated with that of missiles and decide how to take these into weapons of mass destruction. However, the account. HCoC is now faced with changes in ballistic By making no reference to payload or technology which fundamentally alter the range, the Code differs from the initial link between ballistic missiles and weapons approach of the Missile Technology Control of mass destruction. Over short ranges, Regime (MTCR). By defining minimal criteria ballistic missiles are increasingly used for (a range of 300 km and a payload of 500 conventional strike missions. The same kg), the MTCR distinguished between development holds true, more gradually, for 1 missiles subject to regulation and those longer-range missiles. weapons or technologies that could be The Code aims to prevent the proliferation freely exported. These criteria were heavily of ballistic weapons ‘capable of delivering inspired by the technical features of the SS- weapons of mass destruction’, and not 1c Scud and first-generation nuclear ballistic missiles per se. This phrasing weapons. They applied to the main types of suggests a possible distinction based on the missile proliferated by states in search of purpose of the missiles and, therefore, that delivery systems for weapons of mass no anti-proliferation mechanism exists for destruction, and were therefore probably missiles whose purpose is exclusively sufficient to halt the proliferation of such conventional. In this regard, the Code could systems in the 1980s and 1990s. However, be adapted to take into account these criteria have turned out to be poorly conventional ballistic missiles. But this suited to subsequent technological distinction is clearly specious: by definition, developments. They now apply to a majority 1. In this paper, very short-range missiles are defined these systems and ballistic missiles (in terms of as those with a range of less than 300 km, short- range, trajectory, and type of guidance system) is range missiles as those with a range of less than 800 fading. km, and long-range missiles as those with a range of 3. In fixing the payload limit for regulated missiles at over 1,000 km. In terms of conventional strikes, mis- 500 kg, the MTCR was guided by the minimum car- siles with ranges greater than 1,000 km are rare, and rying capacity of a first-generation nuclear missile. the majority are not precise enough to generate a However, proliferating nuclear powers and those predictable military effect on the target. Instead, they who are not members of the Treaty on the Non- are primarily used for “political” strikes—that is, Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) are now those aimed at civilian targets which are meant to capable of designing weapons whose mass is likely force the targeted political power to change its mili- lower. Furthermore, the Syrian conflict reminds us tary position in a conflict. that the use of chemical weapons remains a current 2. In speaking of ballistic missiles here, we include problem. The increasing precision of missiles makes those with manoeuvrable warheads and quasi- it possible to reduce the quantity of chemical agents ballistic missiles (which spend the majority of their needed to produce a significant military effect. We flight within the atmosphere). Guided heavy rockets should take heed of cases in which low-payload (missiles of 600 mm and above) are treated as ballis- delivery systems are used to carry chemical weapons. tic missiles, as the traditional distinction between 5 Ballistic missiles and conventional strike weapons of weapons and technologies whose programmes to acquire weapons of mass purposes are primarily conventional. By destruction. Resolution 1540, whose scope leaving the MTCR’s range and payload is more general, requires states to establish criteria unchanged, the Code has diverged measures to control the proliferation of fundamentally from the MTCR, whose both weapons of mass destruction and their implicit objective is to regulate the delivery systems. Like the Code and proliferation of missiles in their own right, previous resolutions, it makes a distinction and not just delivery systems for weapons between delivery systems in their own right of mass destruction. and delivery systems associated with weapons of mass destruction. Since there is The Code and the MTCR may reflect no international treaty prohibiting the different methodological approaches, but design, development, acquisition, and they face the same problem: How can export of ballistic weapons, all of these prevention and anti-proliferation measures actions are legal as long as they are carried take account of weapons and technologies out in conformity with the respective whose applications are primarily commitments of states to non-proliferation conventional? And how can these be agreements and international standards. distinguished from delivery systems for weapons of mass destruction? Until the 1990s, the acquisition of ballistic missiles for conventional strike purposes The question is far from merely rhetorical. was merely a theoretical issue, since such By focusing solely on ‘ballistic missiles weapons were extremely imprecise. But capable of delivering weapons of mass many examples of conventional ballistic destruction’, the Code emphasises a strikes have been recorded since 1973 (the fundamental principle: that states are date of the first use of an SS-1c, during the permitted the equipment of their choice in Yom Kippur War). In particular, these strikes order to defend themselves, as long as this occurred during the War of the Cities is not prohibited or restricted by between Iran and Iraq, by the Afghan forces international treaties. The MTCR does not of the Najibullah government to break the go against this principle, nor do the United siege of Jalalabad in 1989, during US Nations Security Council resolutions passed operations in Iraq in 1991 and 2003, and, during proliferation crises. The member more recently, in Yemen. These examples states of the MTCR voluntarily undertake to showed the partial political and, in some regulate certain types of exports, with no situations, military utility of ballistic missiles, normative consequences under even if they were imprecise and poorly international law. Security Council suited to a role as conventional strike resolutions, which ban particular states from weapons.4 Nonetheless, conventional acquiring ballistic missiles, establish a direct ballistic strikes were still primarily seen as a link between such missiles and illegal 4. The political utility is only partial because the use effects are real: most of the states concerned are of specifically conventional delivery systems only required to adapt their military strategies, both rarely requires targeted states to radically modify during and after the conflict.. their declaratory stances. However, the strategic 6 Ballistic missiles and conventional strike
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Iran's Evolving Military Forces
    CSIS_______________________________ Center for Strategic and International Studies 1800 K Street N.W. Washington, DC 20006 (202) 775-3270 To download further data: CSIS.ORG To contact author: [email protected] Iran's Evolving Military Forces Anthony H. Cordesman Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy July 2004 Copyright Anthony H. Cordesman, all rights reserved. Cordesman: Iran's Military forces 7/15/2004 Page ii Table of Contents I. IRAN AND THE GULF MILITARY BALANCE: THE “FOUR CORNERED” BALANCING ACT..........1 The Dynamics of the Gulf Military Balance ..........................................................................................................1 DEVELOPMENTS IN THE NORTH GULF ........................................................................................................................2 II. IRAN’S ERRATIC MILITARY MODERNIZATION.......................................................................................9 THE IRANIAN ARMY ...................................................................................................................................................9 THE ISLAMIC REVOLUTIONARY GUARDS CORPS (PASDARAN).................................................................................14 THE QUDS (QODS) FORCES ......................................................................................................................................15 THE BASIJ AND OTHER PARAMILITARY FORCES ......................................................................................................15 THE IRANIAN
    [Show full text]
  • Hezbollah's Syrian Quagmire
    Hezbollah’s Syrian Quagmire BY MATTHEW LEVITT ezbollah – Lebanon’s Party of God – is many things. It is one of the dominant political parties in Lebanon, as well as a social and religious movement catering first and fore- Hmost (though not exclusively) to Lebanon’s Shi’a community. Hezbollah is also Lebanon’s largest militia, the only one to maintain its weapons and rebrand its armed elements as an “Islamic resistance” in response to the terms of the Taif Accord, which ended Lebanon’s civil war and called for all militias to disarm.1 While the various wings of the group are intended to complement one another, the reality is often messier. In part, that has to do with compartmen- talization of the group’s covert activities. But it is also a factor of the group’s multiple identities – Lebanese, pan-Shi’a, pro-Iranian – and the group’s multiple and sometimes competing goals tied to these different identities. Hezbollah insists that it is Lebanese first, but in fact, it is an organization that always acts out of its self-interests above its purported Lebanese interests. According to the U.S. Treasury Department, Hezbollah also has an “expansive global network” that “is sending money and operatives to carry out terrorist attacks around the world.”2 Over the past few years, a series of events has exposed some of Hezbollah’s covert and militant enterprises in the region and around the world, challenging the group’s standing at home and abroad. Hezbollah operatives have been indicted for the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri by the UN Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) in The Hague,3 arrested on charges of plotting attacks in Nigeria,4 and convicted on similar charges in Thailand and Cyprus.5 Hezbollah’s criminal enterprises, including drug running and money laundering from South America to Africa to the Middle East, have been targeted by law enforcement and regulatory agen- cies.
    [Show full text]
  • Design Characteristics of Iran's Ballistic and Cruise Missiles
    Design Characteristics of Iran’s Ballistic and Cruise Missiles Last update: January 2013 Missile Nato or Type/ Length Diameter Payload Range (km) Accuracy ‐ Propellant Guidance Other Name System (m) (m) (kg)/warhead CEP (m) /Stages Artillery* Hasib/Fajr‐11* Rocket artillery (O) 0.83 0.107 6; HE 8.5 ‐ Solid Spin stabilized Falaq‐12* Rocket artillery (O) 1.29 0.244 50; HE 10 Solid Spin stabilized Falaq‐23* Rocket artillery (O) 1.82 0.333 120; HE 11 Solid Spin stabilized Arash‐14* Rocket artillery (O) 2.8 0.122 18.3; HE 21.5 Solid Spin stabilized Arash‐25* Rocket artillery (O) 3.2 0.122 18.3; HE 30 Solid Spin stabilized Arash‐36* Rocket artillery (O) 2 0.122 18.3; HE 18 Solid Spin stabilized Shahin‐17* Rocket artillery (O) 2.9 0.33 190; HE 13 Solid Spin stabilized Shahin‐28* Rocket artillery (O) 3.9 0.33 190; HE 20 Solid Spin stabilized Oghab9* Rocket artillery (O) 4.82 0.233 70; HE 40 Solid Spin stabilized Fajr‐310* Rocket artillery (O) 5.2 0.24 45; HE 45 Solid Spin stabilized Fajr‐511* Rocket artillery (O) 6.6 0.33 90; HE 75 Solid Spin stabilized Falaq‐112* Rocket artillery (O) 1.38 0.24 50; HE 10 Solid Spin stabilized Falaq‐213* Rocket artillery (O) 1.8 0.333 60; HE 11 Solid Spin stabilized Nazeat‐614* Rocket artillery (O) 6.3 0.355 150; HE 100 Solid Spin stabilized Nazeat15* Rocket artillery (O) 5.9 0.355 150; HE 120 Solid Spin stabilized Zelzal‐116* Iran‐130 Rocket artillery (O) 8.3 0.61 500‐600; HE 100‐125 Solid Spin stabilized Zelzal‐1A17* Mushak‐120 Rocket artillery (O) 8.3 0.61 500‐600; HE 160 Solid Spin stabilized Nazeat‐1018* Mushak‐160 Rocket artillery (O) 8.3 0.45 250; HE 150 Solid Spin stabilized Related content is available on the website for the Nuclear Threat Initiative, www.nti.org.
    [Show full text]
  • Examining 10 Warning Signs of Iran Nuclear Weapons
    International Committee In Search of Justice (ISJ) President: Dr. Alejo Vidal-Quadras Rue d’Arlon 63, B-1040 Brussels Belgium Tel : +32 2 400 1071 [email protected] www.isjcommittee.com EXAMINING 10 WARNING SIGNS OF IRAN NUCLEAR WEAPONS DEVELOPMENT NOVEMBER 20,2014 Dr. Alejo Vidal Quadras, Former Vice‐President of European Parliament, Professor of Atomic and Nuclear Physics: “An objective, thoroughly researched report on the core issue of the nature of Iranian nuclear program and its status”. Bob Jospeh, Former US Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, Senior White House Security Council staff on weapons of mass destruction: “A critically important report at a critically important time”. John Bolton, former US Ambassador to the UN, former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security: "A timely and well document report with alarming findings on Iran's nuclear program." Contents Executive summary Chapter 1: SPND (organ in charge of weaponization) Chapter 2: Procurement of dual purpose equipment and its possible use for military dimensions of nuclear program Chapter 3: Secret enrichment of uranium Chapter 4: Enrichment using laser technology Chapter 5: High explosives tests and trigger mechanism Chapter 6: Neutron initiator Chapter 7: Manufacturing uranium metal (uranium hemisphere) Chapter 8: Hydro-dynamic tests and explosion vessels at Parchin site Chapter 9: Research on nuclear warhead Chapter 10: Key scientists and researchers engaged in possible military dimensions of nuclear program International Committee In Search of Justice (ISJ) was initially formed in 2008 as an informal group of EU parliamentarians to seek justice for the Iranian democratic opposition.
    [Show full text]
  • Iran Under Khatami
    IRAN UNDER KHATAMI A Political, Economic, and Military Assessment Patrick Clawson Michael Eisenstadt Eliyahu Kanovsky David Menashri A Washington Institute Monograph THE WASHINGTON INSTITUTE FOR NEAR EAST POLICY All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, re- cording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. © 1998 by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy Published in 1998 in the United States of America by the Washing- ton Institute for Near East Policy, 1828 L Street NW, Suite 1050, Washington, DC 20036. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Iran under Khatami: a political, economic, and military assess- ment / Patrick L. Clawson ... [et al.]. p. cm. ISBN 0-944029-27-2 (pbk.) 1. Iran—Politics and government—1997- 2. Khatami, Muhammad. 3. Iran—Economic conditions—1997- 4. Iran—Foreign relations—1997- 5. Iran—Military policy. I. Clawson, Patrick, 1951- . DS318.9.I73 1998 955.05'43—dc21 98-39718 CIP Cover design by Monica Neal Hertzman. Cover image AFP Photo/ Jamshid Bairami/Corbis. CONTENTS Contributors v Preface vii 1 The Khatami Paradox Patrick Clawson 1 2 Whither Iranian Politics? The Khatami Factor David Menashri 13 3 Iran's Sick Economy Prospects for Change under Khatami Eliyahu Kanovsky 53 4 The Military Dimension Michael Eisenstadt 71 5 Opportunities and Challenges for U.S. Policy Patrick Clawson and Michael Eisenstadt 99 CONTRIBUTORS Patrick Clawson is director for research at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy and senior editor of the Middle East Quarterly.
    [Show full text]
  • The Gulf Military Balance in 2019: a Graphic Analysis
    Anthony H. Cordesman, Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy The Gulf Military Balance in 2019: A Graphic Analysis Anthony H. Cordesman and Abdullah Toukan With the Assistance of Max Molot Working Paper: Please send comments to [email protected] REVISED December 9, 2019 Photo: ARASH KHAMOUSHI/AFP/ Getty Images Introduction 2 The military balance in the Gulf region has become steadily more complex with time. Conventional forces have been been reshaped by massive arms transfers, and changes in major weapons, technology, and virtually every aspect of joint warfare, command and control, sensors, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems. Missile warfare is changing radically as diverse mixes of ballistic and cruise missiles, UAVs and UCAVs, and missiles are deployed. Precision-guided, conventionally armed missiles are becoming a key aspect of regional forces, and so are missile defenses. The threat of nuclear pro0liferation remains, and at least one state – Iran - is a declared chemical weapons power while the Assad regime in Syria has made repeated use of chemical weapons At the same time, asymmetric forces, “proxy” forces, and various forms of military advisory and support missions are playing a growing role in local conflicts and gray area operations. So are local militia and security forces – often divided within a given Gulf state by sect and ethnicity. Terrorist and extremist forces continue pose serious threats, as do political tensions and upheavals, and the weaknesses and failures of some regional governments to meet the needs of their people. The most serious sources of Gulf conflicts are now the tensions between Iran and the Arab Gulf states, and the role played by terrorists and extremists, but civil war and insurgencies remain an additional threat - as does the links between Iran, Syria, and the Hezbollah.
    [Show full text]
  • Security Council Distr.: General 27 January 2020
    United Nations S/2020/70 Security Council Distr.: General 27 January 2020 Original: English Letter dated 27 January 2020 from the Panel of Experts on Yemen addressed to the President of the Security Council The members of the Panel of Experts on Yemen have the honour to transmit herewith the final report of the Panel, prepared in accordance with paragraph 6 of resolution 2456 (2019). The report was provided to the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 2140 (2014) on 27 December 2019 and was considered by the Committee on 10 January 2020. We would appreciate it if the present letter and the report were brought to the attention of the members of the Security Council and issued as a document of the Council. (Signed) Dakshinie Ruwanthika Gunaratne Coordinator Panel of Experts on Yemen (Signed) Ahmed Himmiche Expert (Signed) Henry Thompson Expert (Signed) Marie-Louise Tougas Expert (Signed) Wolf-Christian Paes Expert 19-22391 (E) 070220 *1922391* S/2020/70 Final report of the Panel of Experts on Yemen Summary After more than five years of conflict, the humanitarian crisis in Yemen continues. The country’s many conflicts are interconnected and can no longer be separated by clear divisions between external and internal actors and events. Throughout 2019, the Houthis and the Government of Yemen made little headway towards either a political settlement or a conclusive military victory. In a continuation from 2018, the belligerents continued to practice economic warfare: using economic obstruction and financial tools as weapons to starve opponents of funds or materials. Profiteering from the conflict is endemic.
    [Show full text]
  • The Iranian Missile Challenge
    The Iranian Missile Challenge By Anthony H. Cordesman Working Draft: June 4, 2019 Please provide comments to [email protected] SHAIGAN/AFP/Getty Images The Iranian Missile Challenge Anthony H. Cordesman There is no doubt that Iran and North Korea present serious security challenges to the U.S. and its strategic partners, and that their missile forces already present a major threat within their respective regions. It is, however, important to put this challenge in context. Both nations have reason to see the U.S. and America's strategic partners as threats, and reasons that go far beyond any strategic ambitions. Iran is only half this story, but its missile developments show all too clearly why both countries lack the ability to modernize their air forces, which has made them extremely dependent on missiles for both deterrence and war fighting. They also show that the missile threat goes far beyond the delivery of nuclear weapons, and is already becoming far more lethal and effective at a regional level. This analysis examines Iran's view of the threat, the problems in military modernization that have led to its focus on missile forces, the limits to its air capabilities, the developments in its missile forces, and the war fighting capabilities provided by its current missile forces, its ability to develop conventionally armed precision-strike forces, and its options for deploying nuclear-armed missiles. IRAN'S PERCEPTIONS OF THE THREAT ...................................................................................................... 2 IRAN'S INFERIORITY IN ARMS IMPORTS ................................................................................................... 3 THE AIR BALANCE OVERWHELMINGLY FAVORS THE OTHER SIDES ........................................................... 4 IRAN (AND NORTH KOREA'S) DEPENDENCE ON MISSILES ........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Examining 10 Warning Signs of Iran Nuclear Weapons Development
    International Committee In Search of Justice (ISJ) President: Dr. Alejo Vidal-Quadras Rue d’Arlon 63, B-1040 Brussels Belgium Tel : +32 2 400 1071 [email protected] www.isjcommittee.com EXAMINING 10 WARNING SIGNS OF IRAN NUCLEAR WEAPONS DEVELOPMENT NOVEMBER 20,2014 Dr. Alejo Vidal Quadras, Former Vice‐President of European Parliament, Professor of Atomic and Nuclear Physics: “An objective, thoroughly researched report on the core issue of the nature of Iranian nuclear program and its status”. Bob Jospeh, Former US Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, Senior White House Security Council staff on weapons of mass destruction: “A critically important report at a critically important time”. John Bolton, former US Ambassador to the UN, former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security: "A timely and well document report with alarming findings on Iran's nuclear program." Contents Executive summary Chapter 1: SPND (organ in charge of weaponization) Chapter 2: Procurement of dual purpose equipment and its possible use for military dimensions of nuclear program Chapter 3: Secret enrichment of uranium Chapter 4: Enrichment using laser technology Chapter 5: High explosives tests and trigger mechanism Chapter 6: Neutron initiator Chapter 7: Manufacturing uranium metal (uranium hemisphere) Chapter 8: Hydro-dynamic tests and explosion vessels at Parchin site Chapter 9: Research on nuclear warhead Chapter 10: Key scientists and researchers engaged in possible military dimensions of nuclear program International Committee In Search of Justice (ISJ) was initially formed in 2008 as an informal group of EU parliamentarians to seek justice for the Iranian democratic opposition.
    [Show full text]
  • The Iran Backed Houthi Rebels Took Over the Yemeni Capital in September 2014 After Ousting President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi
    1 The Houthi "September offensive" against Saudi Arabia Shaul Shay (Senior research fellow at the International Institute for Counterterrorism (ICT) at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya and former deputy head of Israel’s National Security Council) Copyright: Research Institute for European and American Studies (www.rieas.gr) Publication date: 19 September 2020 Note: The article reflects the opinion of the author and not necessarily the views of the Research Institute for European and American Studies (RIEAS) The Iran backed Houthi rebels took over the Yemeni capital in September 2014 after ousting President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi. The Saudi lead coalition intervened in March 2015 to restore Hadi to power, sparking a war which has killed more than 100,000 people, displaced millions and still far from being over. The Houthi rebels claimed on September 10, 2020, they had launched an attack on an "important target" in Riyadh with ballistic missiles and drones. Spokesman for the Houthi military claimed that a Zulfikar ballistic missile and three Samad-3 drones were used to target a key site in the Saudi capital. "The attacks are a response to the enemy's permanent escalation and its continuing blockade against our country," he said on Twitter. He vowed to launch further attacks on the kingdom if Riyadh "continues its aggression" against Yemen. Saudi Arabia did not confirm the attacks.1 Earlier on the same day (September 10, 2020), the Arab Coalition intercepted and destroyed an explosive-laden drone launched from Yemen by the Houthi militia toward Najran in Saudi Arabia. 2 The attack on Riyadh followed five drone and missile attacks towards Saudi Arabia during the last week (6 – 11 September 2020).
    [Show full text]
  • Cold War Armored Fighting Vehicles Free
    FREE COLD WAR ARMORED FIGHTING VEHICLES PDF George Bradford | 96 pages | 26 Nov 2010 | Stackpole Books | 9780811706780 | English | Mechanicsburg, United States Cold War Tanks and Armoured Vehicles JavaScript seems to be disabled in your browser. You must have JavaScript enabled in your browser to utilize the functionality of this website. To counter the Soviet threat and that of their client States during the Cold War yearsthe American military deployed an impressive range of main battle tanks MBTs and armoured fighting vehicles AFVs. In support were armoured reconnaissance vehicles, progressively the M41 bull dog ; the Mthe M Sheridan and M3 Bradley Cavalry Fighting Vehicle Expert Cold War Armored Fighting Vehicles Michael Green covers all these vehicles and their variants in this informative and superbly illustrated Images of War Cold War Armored Fighting Vehicles work. The author has provided nice bite sized chunks of information on a huge swath of armour and presents it in an interesting manner. Michael Green is a very knowledgeable author on the subject of armoured vehicles and this is another very good addition to his contributions for the Images of War series. This website requires cookies to provide all of its features. For more information on what data is contained in the cookies, please see our Cookie Policy. To accept cookies from this site, please click the Allow Cookies button below. Fighting Vehicles of the Cold War Uh-oh, it looks like your Internet Explorer is out of date. For a better shopping experience, please upgrade now. Javascript is not enabled in your browser. Enabling JavaScript in your browser will allow you to experience all the features of our site.
    [Show full text]
  • Iran's Foreign and Defense Policies
    Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies Updated May 8, 2019 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R44017 SUMMARY R44017 Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies May 8, 2019 Iran’s national security policy is the product of many overlapping and sometimes competing factors such as the ideology of Iran’s Islamic revolution, perception of threats Kenneth Katzman to the regime and to the country, long-standing national interests, and the interaction of Specialist in Middle the Iranian regime’s factions and constituencies. Iran’s leadership: Eastern Affairs x Seeks to deter or thwart U.S. or other efforts to invade or intimidate Iran or to bring about a change of regime. x Has sought to take advantage of opportunities of regional conflicts to overturn a power structure in the Middle East that it asserts favors the United States, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other Sunni Muslim Arab regimes. x Seeks to enhance its international prestige and restore a sense of “greatness” reminiscent of ancient Persian empires. x Advances its foreign policy goals, in part by providing material support to regional allied governments and armed factions. Iranian officials characterize the support as helping the region’s “oppressed” and assert that Saudi Arabia, in particular, is instigating sectarian tensions and trying to exclude Iran from regional affairs. x Sometimes disagrees on tactics and strategies. Supreme Leader Ali Khamene’i and key hardline institutions, such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), oppose any compromises of Iran’s national security core goals. Iran’s elected president, Hassan Rouhani, and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif support Iran’s integration into regional and international diplomacy.
    [Show full text]