CUWS Outreach Journal #1107

USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies (CUWS) Outreach Journal

Issue No. 1107, 21 March 2014 Welcome to the CUWS Outreach Journal! As part of the CUWS’ mission to develop Air Force, DoD, and other USG leaders to advance the state of knowledge, policy, and practices within strategic defense issues involving nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, we offer the government and civilian community a source of contemporary discussions on unconventional weapons. These discussions include news articles, papers, and other information sources that address issues pertinent to the U.S. national security community. It is our hope that this information resources will help enhance the overall awareness of these important national security issues and lead to the further discussion of options for dealing with the potential use of unconventional weapons. The CUWS is seeking submissions for its annual General Charles A. Horner award, which honors the best original writing on issues relating to Air Force counter-WMD and nuclear enterprise operations. The deadline for submissions is March 31, 2014. For more information, please visit our web-site. The following news articles, papers, and other information sources do not necessarily reflect official endorsement of the Air University, U.S. Air Force, or Department of Defense. Reproduction for private use or commercial gain is subject to original copyright restrictions. All rights are reserved.

FEATURED ITEM: “Nonstrategic Nuclear Weapons”. By Amy F. Woolf, Specialist in Nuclear Weapons Policy; January 3, 2014. Published by Congressional Research Service; 39 pages. http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/219954.pdf The FY2013 Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4310, Section 1037) indicates that it is the sense of Congress that “the United States should pursue negotiations with the Russian Federation aimed at the reduction of Russian deployed and nondeployed nonstrategic nuclear forces.” The United States and Russia have not included limits on these weapons in past arms control agreements. Nevertheless, some analysts and Members of Congress have argued that disparities in the numbers of nonstrategic nuclear weapons may become more important as the United States and Russia reduce their numbers of deployed long-range, strategic nuclear weapons.

Outreach Journal Feedback or sign-up request: [email protected] Return to Top

U.S. ARMS CONTROL 1. Russian Inspectors to Check U.S. Nuclear Cuts amid Ukraine Crisis

HOMELAND SECURITY/THE AMERICAS 1. Pentagon’s War Plans for Russia, China Exist for some Years 2. Inside the Ring: Pentagon Goes Hypersonic with Long-Range Rapid Attack Weapon 3. Infrared Technique Could Help Remotely Detect Dangerous Materials

ASIA/PACIFIC 1. PLA's Hypersonic Vehicle Can Travel 10 Times the Speed of Sound: Report 2. Philippine Pledges Not to Allow US to Bring Nuclear Weapons into its Territory 3. Nonnuclear States to Call on China to Join U.S.-Russia Arms Talks 4. N.Korea Fires 25 Missiles into East Sea 5. Analysis Points to China's Work on New Anti-Satellite Weapon 6. N. Korea, China Discuss Ways to Resume Nuclear Talks: Beijing 7. No Imminent Nuclear, Missile Tests in N Korea: US Think-Tank

EUROPE/RUSSIA 1. Scottish 'Yes' Vote 'Will Force Britain to Abandon Nuclear Weapons'

MIDDLE EAST 1. Iranian Intelligence Thwarts Sabotage Attempt at Nuclear Site, Official Says 2. U.S. Official: Iran Pursuing Banned Items for Nuclear, Missile Work 3. Iran Does Not Expect Nuclear Agreement in Latest Round of Talks 4. Senators Urge Obama to Block Iran's Path to Nuclear Weapons 5. Netanyahu Orders IDF to Prepare for Possible Strike on Iran during 2014 6. Russia Warns West it May Change its Stance on Iran 7. President Rouhani: Final Deal with World Powers Possible within 6 Months 8. Almost Half of Syria's Chemical Weapons Removed – OPCW 9. Why is Iran Building a Dummy Replica of a U.S. Aircraft Carrier? 10. Iran Meeting Nuclear Commitments, but Key Plant Not Ready

COMMENTARY 1. Ukraine and Nuclear Proliferation 2. Nuclear Lessons in Ukraine: Column 3. Ukraine Boosts Case for Nuclear Weapons, say Trident Supporters 4. Ukraine Fallout: Putin Hands the Pentagon a Rationale for New Nuclear Weapons 5. Trial Operational Deterrence

The Washington Free Beacon – Washington, D.C. Russian Inspectors to Check U.S. Nuclear Cuts amid Ukraine Crisis New START treaty on-site inspection takes place this week By Bill Gertz March 17, 2014 Russian arms officials will arrive in the United States on Monday to conduct an inspection of U.S. strategic nuclear facilities amid heightened tensions over Moscow’s military incursion into Ukraine and a U.S. ultimatum to withdraw the forces. Additionally, a team of Russian arms inspectors are set to arrive in San Francisco for the treaty-permitted inspection that will take place days after Moscow threatened to cancel similar U.S. inspections in Russia. The go-ahead for the inspection, which is being kept officially secret under rules outlined in the 2010 New START treaty, reflects the administration’s national security priority of supporting arms control treaties despite recent disclosures that Russia has failed to comply with several nuclear and military accords. Russia’s state-run RIA Novosti news agency reported March 8 that the Defense Ministry is considering a ban on U.S. nuclear inspections under the New START treaty if the administration suspends military cooperation with Russia over the Ukraine invasion. A State Department spokesman had no immediate comment. Allowing the arms inspection also appears to undermine Secretary of State John Kerry’s ultimatum to Moscow last week that it will face sanctions if Russian troops are not pulled back from Crimea and Ukraine’s eastern borders.

Issue No.1107, 21 March 2014 United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies | Maxwell AFB, Alabama http://cpc.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CUWS Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7226 2 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama Kerry told a Senate hearing Thursday that unless there is progress on the troop removal, “there will be a very serious series of steps on Monday.” Ukrainians in Crimea, where Russian troops were flown in over the past several weeks, voted Sunday on whether to align with Russia or remain an autonomous region under the Ukrainian government. On the threat to cancel U.S. inspections, a senior administration official told the Washington Free Beacon that the administration welcomed a recent statement by Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov that Moscow will abide by New START despite the Ukraine crisis. “Implementation of inspection activities under arms control agreements and confidence- and security-building mechanisms provides mutual predictability and promotes strategic stability,” the official said, adding that in the past, treaty implementation “has proceeded regardless of other political situations, and this practice should continue.” However, Thomas Moore, a former professional staff member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who specialized in arms treaties, said START inspections and all treaty compliance, while legally required, should be suspended due to the crisis. “There would be minimal harm to suspending New START until this all cools down, both inspections but more particularly any reductions,” Moore said in an email. “We don’t have to meet 1,550 deployed warheads until February 2018—long after Obama is gone and Putin may still be around.” The New START accord “should just be allowed to tick away into expiration, with forces, if not modern, then at least stable,” Moore said. “New START inspections haven’t been able to stop this crisis, and they won’t ever be able to do so.” Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, White House coordinator for defense policy, countering weapons of mass destruction, and arms control, told National Journal on Wednesday: “We see no reason that the tensions that exist over Ukraine should in any way obstruct the path toward fulfilling the commitments that we have made with the Russians to reduce nuclear weapons on both sides.” However, Sherwood-Randall said Russian military deployments to Crimea violate the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. That accord coaxed Ukraine into giving up its Soviet-era nuclear weapons in exchange for Moscow’s promise to respect Ukrainian sovereignty. “We are calling on Russia to abide by that commitment and the world is quite united in its expression of strong disapproval of the Russian current occupation of Crimea,” she said. State Department and White House officials declined to provide details on the locations to be visited by the Russian nuclear inspectors this week. The inspection is Russia’s second U.S. on-site inspection this year under New START. The 2010 treaty permits each country to conduct 18 on-site inspections per year, covering all three legs of the U.S. strategic triad—land-based missile bases, submarine-based missile facilities, and strategic bomber bases. A U.S. official familiar with the visit said the Russians will be escorted during the inspection by a group of U.S. officials and will be given unfettered access to treaty-covered nuclear sites. Nuclear weapons sites are spread out at scores of facilities in the United States. ICBMs are based in Montana, Wyoming, and North Dakota. Submarine bases are in Washington and Georgia, and bomber bases are located in Louisiana and Missouri. The New START treaty limits each side to 1,550 deployed strategic warheads and 800 deployed and non-deployed launchers.

Issue No.1107, 21 March 2014 United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies | Maxwell AFB, Alabama http://cpc.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CUWS Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7226 3 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama Two types of arms inspections are allowed under the treaty. Type I inspections cover reviews of operational systems and non-deployed systems. Type II inspections are limited to non-operational strategic weapons and forces, including bombers and warheads in storage. So far this year, Russia has conducted one Type II inspection and no Type I inspections, according to the State Department’s website. The treaty permits inspections to confirm numbers of warheads on missiles, non-deployed launchers, and weapons on bombers, and to confirm eliminations of weapons or facilities. In response to the Russian threat to freeze inspections, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said last week that “we would take very seriously and strongly discourage any Russian decision to cease implementation of its legally binding arms control treaty obligations and other military transparency commitments.” Russia currently appears in violation of the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces by developing a new medium- range cruise missile and for testing long-range missiles to INF ranges. U.S. officials have said there also are questions about Russian compliance with New START. For example, Moscow failed to provide the required 14-day advance notification for large-scale strategic bomber exercises in late June 2012 in the Russian arctic. The exercises included practice runs against U.S. missile defense facilities in Alaska. Obama last week ordered financial and visa sanctions on Russian officials linked to the military action against Ukraine. Moore, the former Senate arms control professional, noted that Russia threatened to suspend its inspections under New START but said “there are no other U.S. boots on the ground left in Russia to suspend.” Also, the inspections do nothing to address Russian INF treaty violations or Conventional Forces in Europe treaty breaches, he said. However, the on-site Russian inspections are “all we have” to check on Russian strategic forces under the treaty and therefore the administration is unlikely to suspend them. “There’s plenty of reasons for us to leave START inspections,” Moore said. “They’re fewer inspections than under START I; of less value; and we’ve had no access to Russian telemetric data on anything other than old Russian missiles used mainly for satellite launches under New START. It’s a Potemkin treaty; a useful diversion away from what matters.” Work by the military began in February for the removal of silo launch facility components for 50 Minuteman III missiles deactivated in 2008 at Montana’s Malmstrom Air Force Base. Under New START, 103 silos at Malmstrom, 50 at F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyoming, and three test silos at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, must be dismantled by February 2018. Russian inspectors visited Vandenberg in August for a secret inspection, raising intelligence-gathering concerns among U.S. officials. The base is the home to U.S. long-range missile defense interceptors—a known intelligence target for Russia. Another former Senate Foreign Relations Committee professional staffer, David S. Sullivan, said the Soviet Union and now Russia have a long history of cheating on every arms treaty. “From 1989 through 1992, former Soviet leaders actually admitted some of their most important arms control treaty violations,” said Sullivan, a specialist in treaty verification issues. “The U.S. should be publicly challenging their current noncompliance, rather than inviting Russians to inspect our always scrupulous, congressionally guaranteed, full compliance with arms treaties.” http://freebeacon.com/russian-inspectors-to-check-u-s-nuclear-cuts-amid-ukraine-crisis/

Press TV – Tehran, Iran Pentagon’s War Plans for Russia, China Exist for some Years Wednesday, March 19, 2014 US war planning for Russia and China “has been going on for some years,” says Bruce Gagnon from Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space. He made the remarks after The Hill reported American whistleblower Edward Snowden might disclose US “war plans to China and Russia.” According to former US intelligence officials, US officials might not know for years whether former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden divulged “war plans to China and Russia.” “This kind of war planning has been going on for some years and if it is released by Edward Snowden that would be a great thing because then more people around the world would learn about this and realize that this is the kind of planning and preparation that is indeed going on by the United States Pentagon,” Gagnon told Press TV on Wednesday. “The Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space that I work for has long been telling the story that every year, the US Space Command has a computer war game that they call the red team vs. the blue team and in that computer war game, the US launches first-strike attack on China said in the year 2016, using new space-directed technologies to coordinate the attack and a key component in that war game is so-called missile defense that obviously is the shield that is used after a US first strike attack in this case on China and certain that these war games are being practiced on the computer and in planning both against Russia and China and we know that today the United States military is surrounding those Russia and China with these so-called missile defense systems on land and on Navy,” he explained. “Their job is to knock out the retaliatory capability of Russia and China after a US first-strike attack tries to take out their nuclear weapons and when China or Russia would fire any retaliatory strike with their remaining nuclear weapons, these so-called missile defense systems’ job would be to take them out, giving the US a “successful first- strike attack,” Gagnon said. http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/03/19/355344/russia-china-war-plans-exist-for-years/ Return to Top

The Washington Times – Washington, D.C. Inside the Ring: Pentagon Goes Hypersonic with Long-Range Rapid Attack Weapon By Bill Gertz, The Washington Times Wednesday, March 19, 2014 An experimental scramjet-powered, ultrahigh speed strike vehicle is emerging as the Pentagon’s main choice for a new long-range, rapid attack weapon, a senior Pentagon official says. Alan R. Shaffer, principal deputy assistant defense secretary for research and engineering, told a defense industry conference that prototypes and recent tests proved concepts for hypersonic arms, and several systems are part of a high-priority effort by Pentagon weapons developers, despite the era of sharply-diminished defense spending. Hypersonic vehicles can deliver nuclear or conventional payloads in precision strikes against increasingly hard-to- penetrate air defenses of countries like China, Russia and Iran, he said.

Issue No.1107, 21 March 2014 United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies | Maxwell AFB, Alabama http://cpc.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CUWS Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7226 5 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama “We, the U.S., do not want to be the second country to understand how to have controlled scramjet hypersonics,” Mr. Shaffer told the Precision Strike Association’s annual review on Tuesday. The comments come 2 1/2 months after China’s surprise Jan. 9 test of a new hypersonic glide vehicle, dubbed the Wu-14. That ultrahigh speed maneuvering vehicle test represents a major challenge for current U.S. missile defenses, which are designed to counter non-maneuvering ballistic missile threats. Lee Fuell, a technical intelligence specialist with the Air Force National Air and Space Intelligence Center, told a congressional China commission hearing Jan. 31 that China’s hypersonic glide vehicle is a ballistic missile-launched system that glides and maneuvers to its target at speeds up to Mach 10 (about 7,611 mph). “At this point, we think that’s associated with their nuclear deterrent forces,” said Mr. Fuell, who noted the Chinese could use the system with conventional warheads for long-range precision strikes. Mr. Shaffer declined to comment on how the Chinese hypersonic test has changed U.S. plans for hypersonic weapons. But the senior weapons research official said the Pentagon’s most promising hypersonic vehicle is the X-51, a cruise missile-sized weapon powered by an advanced engine called a scramjet. The X-51, developed by Boeing, flies at up to 3,882 mph, or Mach 5.1, and is launched from under the wing of a B-52 bomber. The experimental aircraft is a good candidate to win this year’s Collier Trophy, the annual award recognizing the most significant recent achievement in air or space flight, Mr. Shaffer said. Mr. Shaffer said hypersonic weapons, when fully developed, will be less expensive than current jets and cruise missiles powered by complex turbine engines with many parts. A scramjet, or supersonic combusting ramjet, hypersonic vehicle has few moving parts. After three difficult tests, including one described awkwardly by testers as an “un-ignition event,” the X-51 scored a breakthrough last year. During a successful flight test, the vehicle flew for just 300 seconds but traveled several thousand miles and reached a height of 80,000 feet — considered near-space — at over Mach 5. “It’s the second time we have shown a scramjet can ignite and give positive acceleration,” Mr. Shaffer said. “That is a huge deal. That means we are now starting to understand hypersonics.” The next step is for weapons engineers to make the system affordable, and Mr. Shaffer urged engineers to tackle the problem. Another hypersonic weapon on the Pentagon’s drawing board is the HTV-2, or Hypersonic Technology Vehicle, that is boosted by a missile — like the Chinese WU-14 — and then maneuvers and glides to its target at very high speeds. Mr. Shaffer said that system in tests flew a long distance at very high speeds and made a controlled re-entry. Despite not meeting test goals, the tests generated substantial data. Another system is the Army’s Advanced Hypersonic Weapon, a missile-launched glide vehicle that had a successful test. It will fly at speeds faster than Mach 5. A fourth system is the hypersonic international flight research experimentation program or Hifire, a Mach 8 weapon being developed with Australia. A briefing slide during Mr. Shaffer’s talk emphasized the benefits of hypersonic weapons as — long range, high speed and effective payloads. The weapons will provide “rapid, responsive strike in anti-access/access denied environments” — the Pentagon euphemism for China’s high-technology weapons designed to push U.S. forces out of Asia. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/19/inside-the-ring-pentagon-goes-hypersonic-with- long/?page=all#pagebreak

Issue No.1107, 21 March 2014 United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies | Maxwell AFB, Alabama http://cpc.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CUWS Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7226 6 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama Return to Top redOrbit.com Infrared Technique Could Help Remotely Detect Dangerous Materials BYU research advances a technology to monitor nuclear production Brigham Young University March 21, 2014 For most people, infrared technology calls to mind soldiers with night-vision goggles or energy audits that identify where heat escapes from homes during the winter season. But for two Brigham Young University professors, infrared holds the potential to spot from afar whether a site is being used to make nuclear weapons. Statistics professor Candace Berrett developed a model that precisely characterizes the material in each pixel of an image taken from a long-wave infrared camera. The U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration funded the project through a grant awarded to BYU engineering professor Gustavious Williams. The government’s long-term goal for infrared technology is to remotely detect the exact materials, chemicals and gases coming and going from factories or other sites suspected of illegal nuclear production. Berrett and Williams tested their new method of analyzing infrared images with more basic materials using data taken by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The results appear in a report published by the journal Technometrics. Infrared cameras capture wavelengths of light that are not visible to the human eye. Hyper-spectral infrared cameras capture this light in hundreds of narrow bands. Since different materials reflect or absorb different bands of light, scientists can characterize the materials by analyzing the picture. Identification of materials would be straightforward if those were the only signals bouncing back at the camera. But other incoming signals, such as the object’s temperature and the weather conditions, muddle the analysis and add noise to the material’s light signature. The novelty of the BYU study is that it directly separates the incoming signals to provide the material’s unique signature. Other methods deal with the noise by matching the combined signals in a database. “What we wanted to know is if you didn’t know anything about the material in an image, and we had a number of pictures over time, could we let the algorithms figure out what the different materials are and separate them out,” Williams said. The resulting information is more akin to measuring the material with a spectrometer in a lab. Berrett’s model can also group together pixels that are related to each other to map out the various materials in an image. “If we apply this model we can get distributions on the physical characteristics of each of these pixels and, using those different characterizations, also cluster the pixels with like materials,” Berrett said. As the technique develops, this could do much more than spot a bomb-making plant. Imagine taking an infrared picture from above a city struck by an earthquake or tornado. In addition to spotting all the gas leaks, it could reveal the exact gases being leaked and their concentrations in different neighborhoods. “There are already instruments that can do this,” Williams said. “Our algorithms take a different approach but are still at a basic research stage. There are lots of places this research could go.” http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1113101094/nuclear-weapons-plant-detection-via-infrared-032114/ Return to Top

Want China Times – Taipei, Taiwan

Global Times –Beijing, China Philippine Pledges Not to Allow US to Bring Nuclear Weapons into its Territory Xinhua, March 16, 2014 By Agencies The Philippine government said on Sunday that it won't allow the United States to bring into the country nuclear weapons under a security agreement that will grant US forces access to military bases in Manila. Presidential Communications Operations Office Secretary Herminio Coloma Jr. said Philippine negotiators on the Agreement on Enhanced Defense Cooperation (AEDC) are guided by the principles of full respect for Philippine sovereignty, non- permanence of US troops, and no US basing in the Philippines, mutual benefits and respect for the Philippine Constitution, "including the prohibition against nuclear weapons." After the sixth round of talks, Manila and Washington were reportedly 80 percent completed in discussing the AEDC.

The Japan Times – Tokyo, Japan Nonnuclear States to Call on China to Join U.S.-Russia Arms Talks Kyodo March 17, 2014 A draft joint statement for a foreign ministerial meeting in Hiroshima next month involving Japan and other nonnuclear weapons states will call for countries including China to participate in the nuclear arms reduction talks between the U.S. and Russia, a government source said Sunday. The move is essentially aimed at China as the country is believed to be the only one of the five recognized nuclear weapons states under the global nonproliferation regime to be building up its nuclear warfare capabilities. The draft, which will call for progress on nuclear disarmament in a multilateral setting, reflects Japan’s preference, given that the meeting of the Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Initiative will be held symbolically in Hiroshima, according to the source. Japan is eager to raise its profile ahead of the review conference next year of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty because 2015 marks the 70th anniversary of the A-bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The draft statement at the meeting involving Japan, Australia and 10 other countries without nuclear arsenals will stress the importance of enhancing transparency among the countries that have nuclear weapons, including China, according to the source. It is also expected to call for each of the countries concerned to strictly control nuclear-related materials and technology in their possession so as not to help North Korea’s nuclear weapons development. The draft will make clear the readiness of the nonnuclear weapons states involved in the meeting to support the negotiations between Iran and the world’s major powers on Tehran’s nuclear program, according to the source. The foreign ministerial meeting will be held in Hiroshima on April 11 and 12, with Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida, who represents a constituency in the city, serving as chairman. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/03/17/national/nonnuclear-states-to-call-on-china-to-join-u-s-russia- arms-talks/ Return to Top

The Chosun Ilbo – Seoul, South Korea March 17, 2014 N.Korea Fires 25 Missiles into East Sea North Korea fired 25 short-range missiles into the East Sea on Sunday evening, the Defense Ministry here said. It was the fifth time since Feb. 21 that the North fired a salvo of missiles or other projectiles into the ocean as a form of protest against massive South-Korea-U.S. joint military exercises. A Defense Ministry official said the missiles were "Free Rocket Over Ground" types and "flew around 70 km before falling into the ocean." FROGs are outdated missiles North Korea apparently brought in from the Soviet Union in the 1970s.

Reuters – U.S. Analysis Points to China's Work on New Anti-Satellite Weapon By Andrea Shalal Monday, March 17, 2014 WASHINGTON, March 17 (Reuters) - A detailed analysis of satellite imagery published Monday provides additional evidence that a Chinese rocket launch in May 2013 billed as a research mission was actually a test of a new anti- satellite weapon based on a road-mobile ballistic missile. Brian Weeden, a former U.S. Air Force space analyst, published a 47-page analysis on the website of The Space Review, which he said showed that China appears to be testing a kinetic interceptor launched by a new rocket that could reach geostationary orbit about 36,000 km (22,500 miles) above the earth. "If true, this would represent a significant development in China's anti-satellite (ASAT) capabilities," wrote Weeden, now a technical adviser for Secure World Foundation, a Colorado-based nonprofit focused on secure and peaceful uses of outer space. "No other country has tested a direct ascent ASAT weapon system that has the potential to reach deep space satellites in medium earth orbit, highly elliptical orbit or geostationary orbit," he wrote, referring to orbital paths that are above 2,000 km (1,250 miles) over the earth. The article includes a previously undisclosed satellite image taken by DigitalGlobe Inc that shows a mobile missile launcher, or "transporter-erector-launcher" (TEL) at China's Xichang missile launch site. A TEL is used for mobile ground launches of ballistic missiles instead of a fixed pad. Given the new imagery and the absence of a different rocket at the Xichang site that could have carried out the 2013 launch, Weeden said there was now "substantial evidence" that China was developing a second anti-satellite weapon in addition to the previously known system designated as SC-19 by U.S. agencies. He said the new system may use one of China's new Kuaizhou rockets. RISKS OF REMAINING SILENT Weeden renewed his call for the United States to release more information about the Chinese weapons development program, arguing that more public dialogue was needed about efforts to develop and test anti- satellite weapons around the world. "Remaining silent risks sending the message to China and other countries that developing and testing hit-to-kill ASAT capabilities is considered responsible behavior as long as it does not create long-lived orbital debris," Weeden said. U.S. military officials have been increasingly vocal about China's development of anti-satellite weapons over the past year, but they have not been nearly as critical as they were after China destroyed a defunct weather satellite in orbit in 2007, creating more than 3,000 pieces of debris. After the May 2013 Chinese launch, the U.S. government issued a single statement saying it appeared to be on a ballistic trajectory nearly to geostationary orbit, and that no objects associated with the launch remained in space."

Yonhap News Agency – Seoul, South Korea March 19, 2014 N. Korea, China Discuss Ways to Resume Nuclear Talks: Beijing BEIJING, March 19 (Yonhap) -- China's top negotiator on the North Korean nuclear issue, Wu Dawei, has been holding talks with his North Korean counterpart in Pyongyang on restarting the six-party talks aimed at ending the North's nuclear weapons program, the Chinese foreign ministry said Wednesday. Wu arrived in Pyongyang on Monday, the North's state media said in a one-line report, without giving details of his itinerary. China's foreign ministry spokesman Hong Lei told reporters during a regular press briefing that Wu has been holding "consultations with the DPRK (North Korea) side." "The major topic of the consultations is the situation on the Korean Peninsula as well as the resumption of the six- party talks," Hong said. This week's visit by Wu to North Korea is his first this year and the first since North Korea shocked the world by executing the once-powerful uncle of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un last December. Since its third nuclear test in February last year, North Korea has repeatedly expressed its willingness to reopen the six-party talks "without preconditions," but Seoul and Washington have demanded Pyongyang demonstrate its sincerity first by taking steps toward denuclearization.

Channel NewsAsia.com – Singapore No Imminent Nuclear, Missile Tests in N Korea: US Think-Tank Recent satellite images of North Korea's nuclear and rocket test sites do not point to any imminent tests, a US think-tank said Friday, despite last week's threat by the communist state to flex its nuclear muscle. Agence France-Presse (AFP) 21 March 2014 SEOUL: Recent satellite images of North Korea's nuclear and rocket test sites do not point to any imminent tests, a US think-tank said Friday, despite last week's threat by the communist state to flex its nuclear muscle. The images indicate that excavation continues on a new tunnel at the remote Punggye-ri test site in the northeast, but there is little or no activity at other key parts of the facility, said the closely-followed 38 North website of the Johns Hopkins University's US-Korea Institute. "In short, there are no indicators that a new test will be conducted in the next few months," the website said. North Korea last week threatened to demonstrate its nuclear deterrence in a move that analysts say could indicate the regime is preparing to carry out a fourth atomic test amid long-stalled disarmament talks. The powerful National Defence Commission (NDC), chaired by leader Kim Jong-un, said the North would continue efforts "to bolster up its nuclear deterrence for self-defence". "And additional measures will be taken to demonstrate its might, one after another, as long as the US nuclear threat and blackmail persist as now," the NDC said in a statement carried by Pyongyang state media. The purpose of the ongoing excavation at Punggye-ri is unclear, 38 North said last month, adding that Pyongyang is unlikely to use this tunnel for its next test since two other tunnels at the site already appear complete. Construction continues at the gantry and launch pad of the Sohae Satellite Launching Station on the western coast, where two launches of the long-range Unha rocket were conducted in 2012, the think-tank said, with the work unlikely to be completed for several months. There is also no apparent test-related activity at the North's other long-range rocket launching site at Tonghae on the northeastern coast, which was last used for testing in 2009. However, a large amount of building material has arrived, indicating construction will soon resume on Tonghae's new assembly building, 38 North said. "While there are no signs of impending tests, activities at the three facilities indicate that Pyongyang is increasing its ability to conduct future tests," the website said. North Korea staged its third -- and most powerful -- nuclear test in February last year after two tests in 2006 and 2009. The reclusive communist state and its main ally China want a resumption of six-party talks on the North's nuclear weapons programme, but Washington and Seoul both insist that Pyongyang must first demonstrate some tangible commitment to abandoning nuclear weapons. http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/no-imminent-nuclear/1043910.html Issue No.1107, 21 March 2014 United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies | Maxwell AFB, Alabama http://cpc.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CUWS Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7226 12 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama Return to Top

The London Daily Telegraph – London, U.K. Scottish 'Yes' Vote 'Will Force Britain to Abandon Nuclear Weapons' Vice-Adml John McAnally says Scottish independence is “the biggest strategic threat faced by our Armed Forces” By Georgia Graham, Political Correspondent 16 March 2014 Britain will be forced to abandon its nuclear weapons if Scotland becomes independent, a senior admiral has warned. In an article for The Telegraph, Vice-Adml John McAnally said Scottish independence is “the biggest strategic threat faced by our Armed Forces”. He warned that Britain would lose its seat on the UN Security Council and England and Scotland would be reduced to “two struggling nations on Europe’s periphery”. Vice-Adml McAnally, a former commandant of the Royal College of Defence Studies, said there is “every possibility” Britain could be forced into unilateral nuclear disarmament. The Navy’s fleet of nuclear submarines is based at Faslane in Scotland which Vice-Adml McAnally warned could cost billions to relocate, leading to the loss of the fleet altogether. He said: “Today, we can still say with pride that the Armed Forces are one of the great UK brands… Dividing the Union would do them immense damage, leaving both Scotland and Britain with huge bills to make up for the gaps in lost infrastructure. "Our relationship with the United States, our status as a leading military power and even our permanent membership of the UN Security Council would all probably be lost. "We would be reduced to two struggling nations on Europe’s periphery, without the means to defend their now separate interests. Neither our allies nor posterity will forgive us if we get this wrong.” Vice-Adml McAnally, who joined the Navy in 1962 and served in 17 ships, also argued it would be almost impossible to create a new defence force in Scotland on the SNP’s proposed budget. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/10701826/Scottish-yes-vote-will-force-Britain- to-abandon-nuclear-weapons.html Return to Top

The Baltic Times – Riga, Latvia Putin Risks Restart of Nuclear Weapons Race March 17, 2014 From wire reports, RIGA “Neither the sanctions, nor the statements by Western leaders can have any influence on [Russian President Vladimir] Putin,” said Andrey Illarionov, economist and former advisor to President Putin, at a press briefing at the Ukraine Crisis Media Center on March 14. “Unfortunately, they do not understand Vladimir Putin’s psychological world. This is not an accident or a mistake that can be corrected with sanctions. In the Kremlin’s understanding, this is the highest mission of uniting the separated nations. Putin is convinced that half of Ukraine is historic Russian land, and views his own actions as the implementation of this mission. Europe’s statements and sanctions are simply incommensurable,” Illarionov said. Illarionov said the unfolding events can negate the 70 years’ work done by the international community to build a system of international relations and ensure global security: “This means that no country will be able to view any other country’s promises as an assurance of its integrity and security. In this case, nuclear weapons will become

MSN News.com State TV Says Russia could Turn US to 'Radioactive Ash' News anchor on Russian state television describes Russia as the only country capable of turning the US into “radioactive ash”; comment made after anchor says President Barack Obama is living in fear of Vladimir Putin By Agence France-Presse (AFP) Monday, 17 Mar 2014 Moscow: A leading anchor on Russian state television on Sunday described Russia as the only country capable of turning the United States into "radioactive ash", in an incendiary comment at the height of tensions over the Crimea referendum. "Russia is the only country in the world realistically capable of turning the United States into radioactive ash," anchor Dmitry Kiselyov said on his weekly news show on state-controlled Rossiya 1 television. Kiselyov made the comment to support his argument that the United States and President Barack Obama were living in fear of Russia led by President Vladimir Putin amid the Ukraine crisis. His programme was broadcast as the first exit polls were being published showing an overwhelming majority of Crimeans voting to leave Ukraine and join Russia. He stood in his studio in front of a gigantic image of a mushroom cloud produced after a nuclear attack, with the words "into radioactive ash". Crimea votes to join ‘former political master’ Russia "Americans themselves consider Putin to be a stronger leader than Obama," he added, pointing to opinion polls which then popped up on the screen. "Why is Obama phoning Putin all the time and talking to him for hours on end?" he asked. Kiselyov has earned a reputation as one of Russia's most provocative television news hosts, in particularly with his often blatantly homophobic remarks. But he is also hugely influential with his weekly news show broadcast at Sunday evening prime time. Putin last year appointed Kiselyov head of the new Russia Today news agency that is to replace the soon to be liquidated RIA Novosti news agency with the aim of better promoting Russia's official position. Kiselyov also made great play of Russia's so-called "dead hand" capability to fire nuclear-capable intercontinental missiles automatically in the case of attack. The system, also known as Perimeter, was in use during the Cold War but its use in post-Soviet Russia is not officially confirmed. But Kiselyov appeared to claim it remained active, giving Russia the chance to strike back even if its main command positions were taken out in a strike by the West. "Even if people in all our command posts after an enemy atomic attack cannot be contacted, the system will automatically fire our missiles from mines and submarines in the right direction," he added. The channel's graphic showed the line of a Russian missile heading towards the Pacific coast and the United States. Pro-opposition news site slon.ru did not mince its words in describing the implications of Kiselyov's comments. Issue No.1107, 21 March 2014 United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies | Maxwell AFB, Alabama http://cpc.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CUWS Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7226 14 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama "This evening... Dmitry Kiselyov threatened the United States with a nuclear strike if the conflict over Crimea deepens," it said. Russia and the United States are reducing their Cold War missile and nuclear warhead arsenals under the terms of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty that entered into force in 2011. http://news.in.msn.com/international/state-tv-says-russia-could-turn-us-to-radioactive-ash Return to Top

RIA Novosti – Russian Information Agency Moscow Opposed to NATO Presence on Historic Russian Territory 18 March 2014 MOSCOW, March 18 (RIA Novosti) – Russian President Vladimir Putin said Tuesday that the country was open to further cooperation with NATO, but remained opposed to the organization’s presence in historic Russian territories. “We are not opposed to cooperation with NATO, not at all, but we are opposed to a military alliance … hosted outside our fences next to our home or on our historic territories,” Putin said. The president made the comments during an address to both houses of parliament, as well as heads of Russian regions and representatives of public organizations at a special assembly in the Kremlin. Following the meeting, Putin signed a treaty with the leaders of Ukraine’s Crimea formalizing the reunification of the breakaway province with Russia. Crimea, where Russia maintains a major naval base at the port of Sevastopol, held a referendum on Sunday that saw voters overwhelmingly support secession and incorporation into Russia. The Russian leader added on Tuesday that NATO members “are great guys, but it’s better for them to come visit us in Sevastopol, than for us to visit them.” http://en.ria.ru/russia/20140318/188547088/Moscow-Opposed-to-NATO-Presence-on-Historic-Russian- Territory.html Return to Top

Balkans.com Anti-Missile Defense Shield in Romania would be Operational Next Year- USMDA By Balkans.com Business News Correspondent 19 March 2014 The US Missile Defense Agency told Radio Romania that the anti-missile defense shield in Romania would be operational next year on the set date. Elements of the shield are to reach the commune of Deveselu, in southern Romania, in July. Our correspondent to Washington, Ani Sandu, reports that based on the documentation received from Washington and on the talks with US officials from the Department of Defense, the US Court of Accounts has estimated delays in the implementation of the project in Poland and Romania. Technical delays registered so far have reduced the capabilities that the US Missile Defense Agency intends to send to these countries and have questioned the way in which those capabilities are going to be rendered operational, reads the Court of Account’s report, made public last week. As regards Romania, the report says that the system that is to be deployed in Deveselu will have a preliminary version of the arms system’s functioning program and the final version to be delivered in 2017 will be improved. Subsequent information that our correspondent got from the spokesman for the Missile Defense Agency, Richard Issue No.1107, 21 March 2014 United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies | Maxwell AFB, Alabama http://cpc.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CUWS Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7226 15 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama Lehner, has shown that the Aegis system has proven its capability for decades now, and the command center and the launching system, in its form adapted to ground conditions, are almost identical with the system on warships. Currently there are at least 24 Aegis systems installed on US military vessels, most of them patrolling the Pacific Ocean, and additional tests will be carried out this spring, which will demonstrate the capabilities of the ground system. The Aegis system, installed on military vessels and offshore rigs, has the role of intercepting short and medium-range missiles. The system is to be utilized for NATO’s anti-missile defense shield in Europe, with a view to foiling threats from such countries as Iran. NATO and the US have repeatedly underscored that the shield is no threat to Russia. According to the project, Aegis systems adapted for ground use (Aegis Ashore) will be fully deployed in Deveselu in Romania by 2018 as well as in Poland. The shield in Romania will benefit from the support of 500 US soldiers and implementation costs will stand at some 400 million dollars. Adding up will be another 20 million dollars per year, to ensure the functioning of the system. http://www.balkans.com/open-news.php?uniquenumber=190717 Return to Top

The Voice of Russia (VOR) – Moscow, Russia 20 March 2014 US Using Missile Defense System in Europe to Make Russia Change its Ukraine Policies The United States is again using its missile defense system in Europe as a tool to put pressure on Russia. Earlier, US Vice President Joseph Biden confirmed plans to deploy US missile defense components in Poland by 2018. Denmark said it too could offer its territory for US anti-missile weapons. Unable to force Russia to change its stance on Crimea, the West reverted to "Cold War"-style methods. Western politicians have so often repeated that there is no reason whatsoever for Russia to worry about US missile defense bases in Europe. Yet, as soon as any differences emerged between Moscow and the West, missile defense immediately moved to the foreground, creeping closer to the Russian border. "Missile defense is a long-standing problem. The sides – the US, NATO and Russia - have, up to now, failed to come to agreement. Russia demands legally binding guarantees that this system is not directed against its strategic potential. The West refuses to provide such guarantees. Tensions in Ukraine have aggravated the situation around missile defense. Differences between Russia and NATO on missile defense are really very acute. In a situation where the West needs tools to exert pressure on Russia, missile defense is again being pushed to the foreground. It’s kind of political gambling," Ivan Konovalov, Director of the Center for Strategic Conjuncture, told the Voice of Russia. The so-called Iranian threat served as the formal pretext for unfolding a US anti-missile defense umbrella over Europe. But despite progress at nuclear talks with Iran, the missile defense plans have not been scaled back. In February, the first US warship of the sea-based missile defense segment arrived at Spain’s Rota naval station. It will be joined by three more ships soon. Spain has approved the deployment of 1,400 US servicemen and their families on its territory. Last autumn, construction of the Romanian missile defense segment began. The question with Poland remained open for a long time. But judging from Biden’s latest statement, it has eventually yielded its positions in exchange for Washington’s promises to modernize the Polish army. Some reports say that the US has already deployed 12 F16 fighter jets, several military cargo planes and 300 servicemen on Polish territory. The Polish segment is intended to provide protection against medium-to-shorter-range missiles. Russia has no such missiles. They were scrapped in 1991 under a USSR-US treaty strategic arms reduction treaty signed in the late 1980s. By now, it’s clear to everybody that the Iranian nuclear program has absolutely nothing to do with the US missile defense bases in Europe. Against whom is it directed then?

National Journal NATO Chief Says Ukraine Events May Affect European Tactical Nuclear Reductions By Rachel Oswald March 20, 2014 The head of NATO says Russia's incursion into Ukraine may affect the prospects for nuclear arms control in Europe, which already faced political challenges. "Of course I cannot exclude that the events we have witnessed in Crimea will also have an impact on the thinking about arms control, including nuclear policies," NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said in Wednesday remarks at the Brookings Institution in Washington. The alliance leader did not say whether he was referring to potential changes in NATO's or Russia's positions on the potential for pull-backs of tactical nuclear arms in Europe, or both. Even before the events this month in eastern Ukraine, the increasingly frosty relationship between Moscow and Washington had dampened prospects for a new round of bilateral arms reductions that might include U.S. nonstrategic nuclear weapons dedicated to NATO defense. The Kremlin has shown little interest, in particular, in redeploying or eliminating its estimated 2,000 tactical nuclear arms with ranges that can reach European soil. By contrast, the United States fields approximately one- tenth of that size non-strategic atomic arsenal in a handful of allied nations in Europe, instead relying more on NATO's superior conventional capacity for defense. Russia military occupation of Crimea and subsequent annexation of the territory over the loud protests of Kiev has disturbed NATO to a degree not seen since the Cold War. The events of the past few weeks have triggered a significant rethink of the role of the Western alliance in deterring Russian military activity in Eastern and Central Europe.

RT (Russia Today) – Moscow, Russia Up in Arms: Poland Accelerates Missile Defense Plan amid Ukraine Crisis March 21, 2014 Amid growing tensions in neighboring Ukraine, Poland's Defense Ministry has announced the country will speed up its efforts for a missile defense system. Poland has announced it will boost the pace of its missile defense tender. The Thursday statement comes amid international tensions in and around Ukraine. "The issues related with Poland's air defense will be accelerated," Reuters quoted spokesman Jacek Sonta as saying. "Poland plans to choose the best offer for its missile defense in the next few weeks." The European NATO member was due to limit the number of existing bidders by June of this year. Yet, despite calls not to exacerbate tensions in the region, Poland decided to quicken the process, citing concerns over Ukraine. Current bidders for the missile defense system include: France's Thales with European group MBDA and the Polish state defense group; the Israeli government; American Raytheon; and the Lockheed Martin’s MEADS consortium. The spokesman clarified that Poland intends to sign the final agreement for the construction of the missile shield this year. The project is projected to be built by the end of 2022. Military experts estimate that the project will cost up to $13.1 billion. The shield is planned to be completed in stages. The first phase involves eight sets of mid-range interceptor rockets. The bill to ensure funding for the missile shield has already been passed, according to the spokesman. The Polish shield is not the same project as the proposed US missile shield to be installed in Poland by 2018. Issue No.1107, 21 March 2014 United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies | Maxwell AFB, Alabama http://cpc.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CUWS Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7226 18 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama Poland has been very vocal during the Ukrainian crisis, boosting war fears, with senior US officials such as Vice President Joe Biden paying a visit to the country and reassuring it of NATO’s commitments. The country has also recently served as a base for the US military. The Pentagon dispatched 12 warplanes and hundreds of troops to Poland following the Crimean referendum. Before the referendum, NATO also conducted war games in Poland. Polish President Bronislaw Komorowski said that "events to the east" provided a reason to protect military spending in an age of austerity, though he did not directly mention Crimea in his statement. Poland is a strategically important member of NATO, as it is a western neighbor of crisis-torn Ukraine. US Congressman Stephen Lynch spoke out in approval of Poland's decision. "I think the action in Crimea makes it abundantly clear that NATO needs to do more to upgrade its defenses, not just missile defenses," he said. http://rt.com/news/poland-accelerates-missile-shield-189/ Return to Top

The Jerusalem Post – Jerusalem, Israel Iranian Intelligence Thwarts Sabotage Attempt at Nuclear Site, Official Says Fars news agency reports that Iranian intelligence thwarted sabotage attempt at Arak facility. By JPOST.COM STAFF 15 March 2014 Iranian intelligence thwarted a plot to damage the Islamic Republic’s heavy water reactor in Arak, the semi-official Fars news agency reported over the weekend, without giving details. “Some cases of acts of sabotage in the industrial sector have been identified and foiled in the last few months through cooperation between the intelligence ministry and the security bodies,” an official with the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Asqar Zare’an, told Fars. Zare’an’s title is deputy chief for nuclear protection and security. The head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, Ali Akbar Salehi, said officials had monitored and then arrested a “number of saboteurs” before they could carry out their plan, according to the Mehr news agency on Saturday. “Four of these individuals were caught red-handed and their interrogations are ongoing,” he said. He did not identify which nuclear site they were planning to damage or when they were arrested. Last October, at least four people were arrested in Iran for trying to sabotage a nuclear site, an Iranian official said. Israel, widely believed to be the region's only nuclear-armed state, sees Iran's atomic work as a military threat and has said it will attack Iran's nuclear sites if it does not end its program. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu made some strong statements during his speech to the UN General Assembly last year in New York, raising tensions between Israel and Iran. “Israel will not allow Iran to get nuclear weapons. If Israel is forced to stand alone, Israel will stand alone,” Netanyahu said. Iran has long maintained that its nuclear activities are purely peaceful, though Netanyahu has said this is a ploy to avoid economic sanctions that have had a devastating affect on Iran's economy. In return, Iran accuses Israel and the West of being behind the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists and of trying to damage its program in other ways, such as by cyber attacks.

Ha’aretz Daily News – Tel Aviv, Israel U.S. Official: Iran Pursuing Banned Items for Nuclear, Missile Work Iran is still 'very actively' creating front companies and engaging in other activity to conceal procurements, says official. By Reuters March 16, 2014 Iran has pursued a longstanding effort to buy banned components for its nuclear and missile programmes in recent months, a U.S. official said on Sunday, a period when it struck an interim deal with major powers to limit its disputed atomic activity. Vann Van Diepen, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Non-Proliferation, said Iran was still "very actively" creating front companies and engaging in other activity to conceal procurements. The reported supplies do not contravene last year's breakthrough agreement between Tehran and six world powers to curb its most sensitive atomic activity in exchange for some limited easing of sanctions damaging its economy. But such trade would breach a 2006 UN embargo banning the provision by any nation to Iran of materials related to its nuclear and missile development work. Western experts say such low-profile procurement efforts by Iran date back many years, perhaps decades in the case of its nuclear activity. Asked if he had seen a change in Iranian procurement behaviour in the past six to 12 months, a period that has seen a cautious thaw in U.S.-Iranian relations after decades of hostility, Van Diepen replied: "The short answer is no. "They still continue very actively trying to procure items for their nuclear programme and missile programme and other programmes," he told Reuters in an interview. "We continue to see them very actively setting up and operating through front companies, falsifying documentation, engaging in multiple levels of trans-shipment ... to put more apparent distance between where the item originally came from and where it is ultimately going." Asked for reaction to the allegation, a senior Iranian official replied: "No comment." Van Diepen did not say what sort of components Iran had sought to obtain or which part of a government known for having competing hardline and moderate factions was responsible. In the past, Western officials said Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards and the Defence Ministry - both hotbeds of opposition to any rapprochement with the West - were believed to control clandestine nuclear procurement efforts. Iran denies Western allegations that it has long sought covertly to develop the means to produce nuclear weapons, saying its uranium enrichment programme is solely a peaceful endeavour to yield electricity as well as isotopes for medical treatments. Deterrent Diplomats have said that Iran is meeting its commitments under the November deal, under which Iran suspended its higher-grade enrichment and stopped increasing its capacity to produce low-refined uranium, among other steps. Uranium forms the core of a nuclear bomb if enriched to a high fissile purity.

The London Guardian – London, U.K. Iran Does Not Expect Nuclear Agreement in Latest Round of Talks • Foreign minister says no deal was on agenda for Vienna • Lawmakers urge no retreat from ‘rights of the Iranian nation’ Associated Press (AP) in Tehran Sunday, 16 March 2014 Iran’s foreign minister said on Sunday that his country does not expect to cement a final deal in the coming round of nuclear talks with world powers. Mohammad Javad Zarif spoke to reporters after meeting his Belorussian visiting counterpart, Vladimir Makei. “We don’t expect to reach a deal in this round of talks. Nor was a deal on the agenda for this round of talks. We have agreed to discuss a number of issues in this round,” Zarif said. Zarif said Tehran and world powers will discuss “dimensions” of Iran’s nuclear activities such as uranium enrichment and a heavy water reactor as well as sanctions in the Tuesday and Wednesday talks in Vienna. “We will also discuss international cooperation in the field of peaceful nuclear technology,” he said. Iran capped uranium enrichment after a deal in November for a six-month period, in return for easing sanctions by the West. That interim agreement is meant to lead to a final accord that minimises any potential Iranian nuclear weapons threat in return for a full lifting of sanctions. Meanwhile, 200 Iranian lawmakers issued a statement urging Tehran’s negotiators not to withdraw from the “rights of the Iranian nation”. Iran says it has the right under the United Nations’ Non-Proliferation Treaty to enrich uranium. Many Iranian hardliners believe the Iranian team has given too many concessions to the west in return for too little. The west suspects Iran’s nuclear programme has a military dimension. Tehran denies the charge, saying its nuclear programme has aimed at peaceful purposes such as power generation and medical treatment.

Chicago Tribune – Chicago, IL Senators Urge Obama to Block Iran's Path to Nuclear Weapons Reuters March 18, 2014 WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A majority of U.S. senators on Tuesday urged President Barack Obama to insist a final agreement on Iran's nuclear program contains a measure to prevent Tehran from ever having a path to nuclear weapons, as talks on the deal resumed in Vienna. "We believe any agreement must dismantle Iran's nuclear weapons program and prevent it from ever having a uranium or plutonium path to a nuclear bomb," 83 senators wrote in a letter to Obama on Tuesday. The initiative was spearheaded by Robert Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat and the chairman of the foreign relations committee, and Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican. Western powers fear that Iran's Arak planned research reactor, once operational, could provide a supply of plutonium, one of two materials including highly enriched uranium that can trigger a nuclear explosion. How to deal with Arak is one of the thorny issues expected to be tackled this week in the talks between Iran and six global powers over the nuclear program. The talks aim to work out a final deal in the decade-old nuclear dispute by late July. The U.S. Congress has long taken a harder line on Iran than the White House. Menendez has sponsored a bill to impose new sanctions on Iran, which Obama has threatened to veto if passed. It is stalled in the Senate. Iran has no inherent right to enrich uranium under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the senators said in the letter. That is another sticky issue that could complicate the talks. Iran insists it has the right to enrich low-level uranium for nuclear power plants. The senators also said Iran must not be allowed to circumvent sanctions during the six-month temporary deal implemented on January 20. Under that deal, which can be renewed, Iran agreed to curb its nuclear program in return for gaining access to more than $4 billion in oil revenues that had been frozen by Western sanctions. Backers of strong sanctions have complained that data showing Iran's oil exports increased in February reveals the temporary deal is allowing Iran to get more economic relief than originally thought. The Obama administration believes that Iran's oil shipments will fall in coming months and will be held to 1 million barrels per day on average from February to July. But the senators are not convinced. The months during talks on a final deal are "fraught with the danger of companies and countries looking to improve their commercial position in Tehran," the senators wrote. Reporting by Timothy Gardner; Editing by Stephen Powell http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-usa-iran-congress-20140318,0,2444502.story Return to Top

Ha’aretz Daily News – Tel Aviv, Israel

Issue No.1107, 21 March 2014 United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies | Maxwell AFB, Alabama http://cpc.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CUWS Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7226 22 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama Netanyahu Orders IDF to Prepare for Possible Strike on Iran during 2014 Despite talks between Iran and West, senior officers tell MKs 10b shekels ($2.9b) allocated to IDF to prepare for possible attack. By Barak Ravid March 19, 2014 Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon have ordered the army to continue preparing for a possible military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities at a cost of at least 10 billion shekels ($2.89 billion) this year, despite the talks between Iran and the West, according to recent statements by senior military officers. Three Knesset members who were present at Knesset joint committee hearings on Israel Defense Forces plans that were held in January and February say they learned during the hearings that 10 billion shekels to 12 billion shekels of the defense budget would be allocated this year for preparations for a strike on Iran, approximately the same amount that was allocated in 2013. Some MKs asked the army’s deputy chief of staff, Maj. Gen. Gadi Eizenkot, and planning directorate official Brig. Gen. Agai Yehezkel whether they felt there was justification for investing so much money in those preparations, said the MKs present at the meetings, who asked that their names be withheld because of the sensitivity of the issue. They said some lawmakers also asked whether the interim agreement reached between Iran and the six powers in November 2013, and the ongoing negotiations for a full nuclear accord, had caused any change in the IDF’s preparations. The IDF representatives said the army had received a clear directive from government officials from the political echelon – meaning Netanyahu and Ya’alon – to continue readying for a possible independent strike by Israel on the Iranian nuclear sites, regardless of the talks now happening between Iran and the West, the three MKs said. The IDF Spokesperson’s Unit declined to respond to questions by Haaretz on the matter, as did the Prime Minister’s Office. Ever since the interim accord between Iran and the six powers was reached, Netanyahu has stressed that Israel will not consider itself bound by it. In the last few weeks, as talks on a permanent accord have resumed, Netanyahu has upped his rhetoric on the Iranian issue, and is again making implied threats about a possible unilateral Israeli strike on the Iranian nuclear sites. “My friends, I believe that letting Iran enrich uranium would open up the floodgates,” Netanyahu said at the AIPAC conference earlier this month. “That must not happen. And we will make sure it does not happen.” Ya’alon recently indicated during a speech at Tel Aviv University that his view has shifed and he is now likely to support a unilateral Israeli strike on Iran, in light of his assessment that the Obama administration will not do so. “We think that the United States should be the one leading the campaign against Iran,” Ya’alon said this week. “But the U.S. has entered talks with them and unfortunately, in the haggling in the Persian bazaar, the Iranians were better. ... Therefore, on this matter, we have to behave as though we have nobody to look out for us but ourselves.” The second round of nuclear talks opened in Vienna on Tuesday, with the participation of European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Jawad Zarif and senior diplomats from the six powers. This was followed by a session involving the Iranian delegation and representatives of the six powers, and by separate meetings between Iranian representatives and representatives from each delegation. The U.S. and Iranian negotiating teams also met. After the first day of talks, Ashton’s spokesman, Michael Mann, described them as “positive, serious and substantive.” Iranian media reported that officials with the Iranian delegation said this round of talks will focus on

Time.com Russia Warns West it May Change its Stance on Iran Associated Press March 19, 2014 (MOSCOW) — Russia may revise its stance in the Iranian nuclear talks amid tensions with the West over Ukraine, a senior diplomat warned Wednesday. Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said, according to the Interfax news agency, that Russia didn’t want to use the Iranian nuclear talks to “raise the stakes,” but may have to do so in response to the actions by the United States and the European Union. The statement is the most serious threat of retaliation by Moscow after the U.S. and the EU announced sanctions against Russia over its annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea region. Ryabkov, who is Russia’s envoy to the Iranian talks, said that Russia considers the “reunification” with Crimea as far more important than the developments surrounding the Iranian nuclear program. Russia has cooperated with the United States and other Western nations in the Iranian talks, but Ryabkov warned that its attitude may now change. “We wouldn’t like to use these talks as an element of the game of raising the stakes taking into account the sentiments in some European capitals, Brussels and Washington,” Ryabkov was quoted as saying by Interfax. “But if they force us into that, we will take retaliatory measures here as well. The historic importance of what happened in the last weeks and days regarding the restoration of historical justice and reunification of Crimea with Russia is incomparable to what we are dealing with in the Iranian issue.” Ryabkov didn’t elaborate on how Russia’s position in the talks may change. Iran has agreed to curb its nuclear activities under the terms of a deal last November with six world powers, including Russia. Tehran insists that its nuclear program has peaceful goals and dismisses Western fears that it could be a cover for a bid to develop nuclear weapons. It has agreed to temporarily limit its atomic work in return for some sanctions relief. In the meantime, both sides are working on a fuller deal placing long-term restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for an end to all economic sanctions. http://time.com/30782/russia-warns-west-it-may-change-its-stance-on-iran/ Issue No.1107, 21 March 2014 United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies | Maxwell AFB, Alabama http://cpc.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CUWS Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7226 24 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama Return to Top

FARS News Agency – Tehran, Iran Thursday, March 20, 2014 President Rouhani: Final Deal with World Powers Possible within 6 Months TEHRAN (FNA) - Iranian President Hassan Rouhani reiterated that Tehran and the Group 5+1 (the US, Russia, China, Britain and France plus Germany) can attain a final and comprehensive agreement over the former's nuclear activities in 6 months. "We do not want to make anybody worried... today we are negotiating for a final agreement which is reachable within six months," Rouhani said, addressing a cabinet meeting in Tehran on Wednesday. Elsewhere, he noted that Iran enriches uranium to the level that would meet the country’s needs and that Tehran was ready to be more transparent about the process to allay any concerns, and added, "The world has admitted that Iran is, and will be, among the countries which have nuclear technology, including enrichment, and there is no doubt about this for anyone." His remarks came as Iran and the G5+1's representatives ended their two-day negotiations in Vienna on Wednesday. On November 24, Iran and the five permanent United Nations Security Council members sealed a six-month Joint Plan of Action to lay the groundwork for the full resolution of the West’s decade-old dispute with Iran over the latter's nuclear energy program. In exchange for Tehran’s confidence-building bid to limit certain aspects of its nuclear activities, the Sextet of the world powers agreed to lift some of the existing sanctions against Tehran and impose no nuclear-related sanctions on Iran during the six-month period. After the two sides wrapped up their Wednesday meeting in Vienna, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif underlined that Iran and the six world powers have still a difficult way ahead before striking a comprehensive deal over the former's nuclear activities, but meantime said today's talks showed promising signs. "On four topics (Arak heavy water reactor, removal of sanctions, nuclear cooperation and uranium enrichment) we see signs of reaching an understanding which will protect the rights of the Iranian nation and move towards removal of problems," Zarif told reporters after a meeting with EU Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton following two days of talks between Iranian negotiators and their counterparts from the Group 5+1 (the five permanent UN Security Council members plus Germany). He assured that in case of good will and political resolve, Iran and the sextet can attain a final, comprehensive agreement and then work on its implementation to end their decade-long nuclear standoff. Responding to FNA's question about the issues to be covered in the upcoming talks between the senior negotiators of the seven nations in Vienna on April 7-9, the Iranian foreign minister said that "Iran's access to (nuclear) technology, trade market and banking resources as well as the manner of inspections (of Iran's nuclear facilities) and the period of time needed for the final phase will be discussed in the next meeting." Zarif said "the main goal is normalizing Iran's case similar to every other member state of the NPT" (nuclear nonproliferation treaty). He said during the recent talks, the six world powers have grasped a better understanding of Iran's objectives for developing nuclear technology and now seemed to be convinced of Iran's civilian drive. Asked about the operation of Arak heavy water reactor which has been the focus of a part of the recent talks between Iran and the six world powers, he said the powers have now realized that Iran would never accept

BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) News – London, U.K. 20 March 2014 Almost Half of Syria's Chemical Weapons Removed – OPCW Almost half of Syria's declared stockpile of chemical weapons has now been removed, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons says. The latest consignment of the most dangerous chemicals was loaded on to cargo vessels at Latakia on Thursday, according to an OPCW statement. A total of 11 consignments have been shipped, including all of Syria's sulphur mustard, a blister agent. The OPCW aims to destroy or remove the country's entire arsenal by 30 June. The Syrian government approved the initiative last year after a chemical weapons attack outside Damascus left hundreds of people dead. Revised schedule The OPCW said three consignments of both "Priority 1" chemicals and less hazardous "Priority 2" chemicals have been shipped from Latakia over the past week. The 11 consignments represent 49.3% of all the chemicals that must be removed from Syria for destruction, including 34.8% of Priority 1 chemicals and 82.6% of Priority 2 chemicals. The OPCW said all stocks of sulphur mustard had now been removed. Sulphur mustard is a "unitary" agent that is stored in a form that can be deployed immediately. In contrast, Syria's nerve agent sarin is thought to be stored in a "binary" manner, meaning it is kept as two distinct chemical precursors that are combined just before use. Although the OPCW-UN Joint Mission said earlier this month that "good progress" is being made in the removal of the chemical stockpile even though the Syrian government has missed a series of deadlines. The removal of Priority 1 chemicals was initially due by 31 December, while the deadline for the shipment of Priority 2 material was 5 February. The Syrian government, which says the shipments have been delayed by security and logistical issues, has presented a revised schedule that aims to have them completed by 27 April. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-26662801

Ha’aretz Daily News – Tel Aviv, Israel Why is Iran Building a Dummy Replica of a U.S. Aircraft Carrier? American analysts say the vessel is a nonworking mock-up of a U.S. Nimitz-class aircraft carrier. By Haaretz March 21, 2014 Iran is building a mock-up of an American nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, possibly with the intention of blowing it up for propaganda value, according to a report in the New York Times. The vessel is being constructed in the Gachin shipyard, near Bandar Abbas on the Persian Gulf. United States intelligence analysts first noticed it last summer from satellite photos of Iranian military installations. The ship has the same distinctive shape and style of the Navy’s Nimitz-class carriers, as well as the Nimitz’s number 68 neatly painted in white near the bow. Mock aircraft can be seen on the flight deck. American officials said that the mock-up has no nuclear propulsion system and is only about two-thirds the length of a typical 1,100-foot-long Navy carrier. Intelligence officials do not believe that Iran is capable of building an actual aircraft carrier. “Based on our observations, this is not a functioning aircraft carrier; it’s a large barge built to look like an aircraft carrier,” said Cmdr. Jason Salata, a spokesman for the Navy’s Fifth Fleet in Bahrain, across the Persian Gulf from Iran. Intelligence analysts believe that the vessel is something that Iran could tow to sea, anchor and blow up — while filming the whole thing to make a propaganda point. Iran has previously used barges as targets for missile firings during training exercises, filmed the episodes and then televised them on the state-run news media, Navy officials said. The U.S. officials cited a photograph taken on late February in Bandar Abbas and a brief description in Persian of the vessel on a website for Iran’s Ministry of Industry, Mines and Trade. Iran has not taken any steps to hide the mock-up from Western satellites. The New York Times was unable to reach Iranian Navy officials for comment. http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.581161 Return to Top

Reuters – U.S. Iran Meeting Nuclear Commitments, but Key Plant Not Ready * Iran living up to its side of six-month deal with powers * But nuclear conversion plant not yet completed - IAEA * Facility designed to hold down uranium gas stockpile By Fredrik Dahl Friday, March 21, 2014 VIENNA, March 20 (Reuters) - Iran is meeting its commitments under a landmark nuclear pact with world powers but has yet to complete a facility it will need to fulfil the six-month deal, a U.N. agency report showed on Thursday. The planned plant is designed to convert low-enriched uranium gas (LEU) into a less proliferation-sensitive oxide form. The apparent construction delay means Iran's LEU stockpile is almost certainly continuing to increase for the time being, as its production of the material has not stopped.

Issue No.1107, 21 March 2014 United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies | Maxwell AFB, Alabama http://cpc.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CUWS Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7226 27 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama The confidential report - a monthly update on the interim deal's implementation - by the International Atomic Energy Agency to member states said Iran, in a letter on Monday, had informed the IAEA that the conversion facility would begin operations after commissioning due to start on April 9. The IAEA has a pivotal role in verifying that Iran is living up to its part of the accord that took effect two months ago, under which the country suspended its higher-grade uranium enrichment and agreed other measures to curb its nuclear programme in exchange for limited sanctions easing. Among other steps, Iran agreed to limit its LEU reserve. The new plant is meant to achieve that by turning it into oxide powder that is not suitable for further processing into highly-enriched bomb-grade uranium. Iran denies any military aims. Diplomats and experts say the matter is of no immediate concern since Iran's commitment concerns the size of the stockpile towards the end of the deal, in late July, meaning it has time both to complete the site and convert enough LEU. But they also say Iran's progress in building the conversion line will be closely watched as part of the implementation of its obligations under the accord reached in November with the United States, France, Russia, Germany, Britain and China. The longer it takes to complete it, the more Iran will have to process to meet the target in four months' time. The deal was designed to buy time for negotiations on a final settlement of the decade-old dispute over nuclear activity that Tehran says is peaceful but the West fears may be aimed at developing an atomic arms capability. Those talks started last month and a second round was held this week. "Iran seems to be fulfilling all its requirements under the agreement," one Vienna-based diplomat said. "However, this is a dynamic process and it will be kept under close review each month." HIGHER-GRADE NUCLEAR STOCKPILE DOWN While Iran under the half-year deal halted its most sensitive nuclear activity, enrichment to a fissile concentration of 20 percent, it is allowed to continue producing uranium refined up to 5 percent. The powers focused initially on securing a halt to the higher-grade enrichment as this represents a relatively short technical step from bomb-grade uranium. It would take much longer to reach that threshold from the 5 percent level. Enriched uranium can be used to fuel nuclear power plants, Iran's stated goal, but it can also provide atomic bomb material if refined more, which the West fears may be its ultimate aim. Experts say Iran potentially has enough LEU for a few nuclear weapons if refined much further. Limiting its overall enrichment capacity is expected be one of the thorniest issues in the negotiations on a long-term agreement. Thursday's IAEA report said that since the interim deal entered into force on Jan. 20, Iran had not produced any 20 percent enriched uranium. It has also continued to reduce its stockpile of the 20 percent material and has not conducted "any further advances" at its Natanz and Fordow enrichment sites or the Arak research reactor, the report said. Western officials are worried about Arak as it can yield plutonium - offering a second route to make bombs - once it is operational. Iran says it is only designed to produce isotopes for medical treatments. Editing by Andrew Roche http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/03/20/iran-nuclear-iaea-idINL6N0MH4R920140320 Return to Top

The Wall Street Journal – New York, NY

Issue No.1107, 21 March 2014 United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies | Maxwell AFB, Alabama http://cpc.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CUWS Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7226 28 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama OPINION/Review & Outlook Ukraine and Nuclear Proliferation Russia's invasion has made U.S. assurances seem meaningless. March 18, 2014 The damage to world order from Vladimir Putin's invasion of Crimea will echo for years, but one of the biggest casualties deserves more attention: the cause of nuclear nonproliferation. One lesson to the world of Russia's cost- free carve-up of Ukraine is that nations that abandon their nuclear arsenals do so at their own peril. This story goes back to the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Russia's nuclear arsenal was spread among the former Soviet republics that had become independent nations. Ukraine had some 1,800 nuclear weapons, including short-range tactical weapons, air-launched cruise missiles and bombers. Only Russia and the U.S. had more at the time, and Ukraine's arsenal was both modern and highly survivable in the event of a first strike. The U.S. was rightly concerned that these warheads could end up in the wrong hands, and the Clinton Administration made controlling them a foreign-policy priority. The result was the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances in which Ukraine agreed to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and return its nuclear arsenal to Russia in exchange for security "assurances" by Russia, the U.S. and United Kingdom. Those included promises to respect Ukraine's independence and sovereignty within its existing borders, as well as refraining from threatening or using force against Ukraine. Officials in Kiev clearly had the potential for Russian aggression in mind when they sought those assurances, which is one reason they wanted other nations to co-sign as well. China and France later added somewhat weaker assurances in separate attachments to the Budapest Memo. Ukraine also wanted to take many years to turn over its weapons, but the U.S. wanted quicker action and by 1996 Ukraine had given up its entire nuclear arsenal. It was an important victory for nonproliferation—a success rooted in the world's post-Cold War confidence in American power and deterrence. Contrast that with the current crisis. President Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron have blasted Russia for its clear violation of the Budapest accord, but those U.S. and U.K. assurances have been exposed as meaningless. That lesson isn't lost on Ukraine, but it also won't be lost on the rest of the world. Had Kiev kept its weapons rather than giving them up in return for parchment promises, would Vladimir Putin have been so quick to invade Crimea two weeks ago? It's impossible to know, but it's likely it would have at least given him more pause. Ukraine's fate is likely to make the world's nuclear rogues, such as Iran and North Korea, even less likely to give up their nuclear facilities or weapons. As important, it is likely to make nonnuclear powers and even close U.S. allies wonder if they can still rely on America's security guarantees. Japan and South Korea are sure to consider their nuclear options as China presses its own territorial claims. South Korean public opinion is already in favor of an independent nuclear deterrent. And several Middle East countries, notably Saudi Arabia, are already contemplating their nuclear options once Iran becomes a nuclear power. Ukraine's fate will only reinforce those who believe these countries can't trust American assurances. Perhaps the greatest irony is that President Obama has made nuclear nonproliferation one of his highest priorities. In April 2009 in Prague, he promised to lead a crusade to rid the world of nuclear weapons with treaties and the power of America's moral example. But documents and "assurances" have never kept any country safe from the world's predators. Only comparable military power or the protection of a superpower like the U.S. can do that. When the superpower's assurances are called into question, the world becomes a far more dangerous place. On present trend Mr. Obama's legacy won't be new limits on the spread of nuclear weapons. Instead he'll be the President who presided over, and been a major cause of, a new era of global nuclear proliferation.

USA TODAY.com OPINION/Columnist’s Opinion Nuclear Lessons in Ukraine: Column Russia's weapons expose Washington's weakness. By James S. Robbins March 19, 2014 Last weekend, while the lopsided vote on the Crimean referendum on joining the Russian Federation was underway, pro-Putin news anchor Dmitry Kiselyov hosted a segment on Rossiya 1 news channel in which he graphically showed how Russia is capable of turning the United States into "radioactive dust." This came two weeks after Russia tested a new intercontinental ballistic missile. The explicit message from Moscow was that nuclear diplomacy is alive and well, and that any debate about Western intervention in the crisis will have to factor in the possibility of Armageddon. Russia's implicit nuclear threats are particularly grating to Ukrainians. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Ukraine inherited part of Moscow's nuclear arsenal and overnight became the world's third-ranked nuclear power. America and other countries believed this was highly destabilizing, and Ukraine was pressed to give up its nuclear weapons in exchange for billions in assistance. This helped Ukraine stabilize its economy in the wake of the Soviet meltdown; and anyway in those heady, immediate post-Cold War days, strategists questioned the value of large nuclear arsenals. If there were no more enemies, who was there to deter? In 1994, Ukraine became a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and Russia, Britain and the U.S. signed the Budapest Memorandum guaranteeing Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. The United States then set about spending millions to destroy Ukraine's nuclear weapons. Paltry promises The problem with Ukraine trading its most potent weapons for Russia's promise of good behavior is now evident. Kiev gave up its means of deterring Russian aggression. Now, Ukraine is overmatched in conventional forces and would have difficulty fighting off a Russian incursion. Russia, on the other hand, has both the conventional force edge and escalation dominance. No matter what happens on the battlefield, Russia can always threaten the nuclear option. Washington is in a weak position to extend the U.S. nuclear deterrence umbrella over Ukraine. The Obama administration has pursued a nuclear "global zero" strategy, seeking to eliminate nuclear weapons and hoping other countries will follow. This has led to three destabilizing mistakes: drastically reducing U.S. nuclear capabilities to the point where their deterrent value is questionable; abandoning planned missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic, in favor of a program that significantly reduces the U.S. ability to defend NATO allies and partners from missile attacks; and legitimizing the recent Russian nuclear buildup and modernization under the flawed 2010 New START Treaty. The White House is now learning that the Cold War might be long over, but the rules of deterrence have not changed. Cold War rules Issue No.1107, 21 March 2014 United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies | Maxwell AFB, Alabama http://cpc.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CUWS Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7226 30 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama Kiev might want to turn back the clock. A few days ago, former Ukrainian foreign minister Vladimir Ogryzko recommended pulling out of the non-proliferation treaty and re-nuclearizing Ukraine, saying this would be "the only measure which could secure (Ukraine's) security." He might be right, but Kiev is on borrowed time. If Moscow mounts a large scale military intervention to reinstall ousted Ukrainian leader Viktor Yanukovych, re-nuclearizing will be off the table. The issue then will not be nuclear strategy, but whether Ukrainian freedom fighters will mount an insurgency as they did when Ukraine was reoccupied by the Soviet Union after World War II. The Ukraine crisis carries nuclear lessons for the rest of the world. For states pursuing nuclear capability, such as Iran, the message is to press on. For states with rudimentary nuclear capability, such as North Korea, the lesson is to build up. For those with healthy arsenals, India and Pakistan, it is never disarm. For states that could quickly achieve nuclear status if they wanted to, say Japan, the message is to give nuclear weapons serious consideration. And for America, the message is to give up the quixotic quest for "global zero," build up missile defenses and modernize the U.S. nuclear force. To live in the 21st century, the United States will need to relearn the lessons of the 20th. James S. Robbins, author of Native Americans: Patriotism, Exceptionalism and the New American Identity, is a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors. http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/03/19/nuclear-weapons-ukraine-putin-russia-column/6629775/ Return to Top

The London Guardian – London, U.K. OPINION/Defence & Security Blog Ukraine Boosts Case for Nuclear Weapons, say Trident Supporters • Supporters say Trident fleet needed as new cold war threatens • Critics say nuclear posture "illogical and paranoid" • Opportunity presented by next week's nuclear summit By Richard Norton-Taylor Thursday, 20 March 2014 The idea that the cold war would never come back has been demolished by the crisis in Ukraine, said the Tory MP, Julian Lewis. What if Putin threatened one of the Baltic states, all of which are members of Nato? Lewis, an inveterate defender of nuclear weapons, was speaking at a debate on the future of the UK's Trident nuclear missile fleet organised by the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. Britain needed a nuclear arsenal, with one Trident submarine continuously at sea as an "insurance policy against the unknown", and blackmail, said Lewis. Would Britain have dared to respond to the 1982 invasion of the Falklands had General Galtieri's Argentina possessed nuclear weapons?, he asked a question which suggests that every potential aggressor should try and get their hands on nukes. "You can never predict what's going to happen", Lord Alan West, a former head of the navy and security minister in the last Labour government, told the IISS meeting on Tuesday. "Some things are more important than cost", he added. Trident was was the "ultimate safeguard" in an "unpredictable and chaotic world". The former Liberal Democrat defence minister, Sir Nick Harvey, argued there was "a logic" at the time of the "balance of terror" during the (actual) cold war when there was a need to be able to strike at a moment's notice. But there was no need now to have a nuclear sub always at sea. Britain should maintain a "nuclear capability", Harvey said, but not with a Trident submarine on patrol, 24/7. Ah, Lewis responded, but we would not know whether the threat was imminent, and it would be too late to get a Trident sub ready in time. "Continuous at sea deterrence" or CASD, as it is called, was essential he implied.

Issue No.1107, 21 March 2014 United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies | Maxwell AFB, Alabama http://cpc.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CUWS Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7226 31 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama "Deterrence does not depend on uncertainty but on certainty", Lewis continued. But we were always told during the cold war that the whole point of the UK's nuclear arsenal, alongside America's, was that it created uncertainty in the minds of a potential aggressor. It is hard to imagine the circumstances when a British prime minister would be "certain" to order a nuclear strike and make the deterrent credible. The foreign secretary, William Hague, has described the Ukraine crisis as "the most serious test of European security in the 21st century so far". Instead of ramping up the rhetoric, world leaders could concentrate on genuine confidence-building measures at next week's Nuclear Security Summit in The Hague. After the IISS Trident debate, Harvey told the Guardian that instead of phasing out CASD, Britain had "sustained it at gargantuan effort and expense, waving it around on the high seas, pointing at no-one in particular and for no obvious practical utility". Britain's current posture on CASD was based on "an outdated and paranoid worldview. It is quite simply time to move down the nuclear ladder and end CASD patrols at the very least". Trident was a drain on a vastly-shrunken defence budget, Harvey added. When capital spending on a successor Trident fleet reached its height, sometime between 2017-2030, a range of other vast defence projects would be competing for very limited funds: new JSF planes for the aircraft carriers, Type 26 frigates, and new kit for the army – amongst many others. Balancing all of this is virtually impossible: something will have to give. "It is surely more important to participate in coalitions of the willing with our international partners than sustain the current level of deterrence. Maintaining Trident endangers [the special relationship with the US] so there is a choice to be made," Harvey said. The US has expressed concern about Britain's ability in future of the UK - not to threaten countries with nuclear weapons, but to conduct conventional (and more credible) military operations. For years, army chiefs, who now face a huge cut in the number of their soldiers to 82,000, have its lowest level since the Napoleonic wars, have questioned the relevance of Trident. General Sir Peter Wall, the head of the British army, told the Chatham House thinktank last week: "We have only got to look to the tension in the Ukraine to see a situation that was not foreseen and is confounding our previous assumptions about stability across Europe," What a deterrent was, he said, was "having ready [land-based] forces sends strategic messages to potential adversaries..." Well even that seems questionable with the west barely able to agree on limited economic sanctions on Russian individuals in protest against the decision to take Crimea away from Ukraine (or returning it to Russia depending on your point of view) There are those who say that Putin has managed to reinvigorate Nato, give it a new purpose, as it phases out its operations in Afghanistan. That seems a bit scary. Better, perhaps, to build up confidence-building measures, proposing - and guaranteeing - Ukraine's neutrality rather than provocatively holding out the possibility of its membership of Nato. Richard Norton-Taylor regularly contributes to BBC news and current affairs programmes. He writes for The Guardian on defence and security and until recently was the paper's security editor. http://www.theguardian.com/world/defence-and-security-blog/2014/mar/20/ukraine-russia-nato-nuclear Return to Top

Forbes.com OPINION/Contributor

Issue No.1107, 21 March 2014 United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies | Maxwell AFB, Alabama http://cpc.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CUWS Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7226 32 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama Ukraine Fallout: Putin Hands the Pentagon a Rationale for New Nuclear Weapons By Loren Thompson March 20, 2014 There’s a plausible case to be made that Russia’s reabsorption of Crimea after 60 years of being attached to the Ukraine isn’t all that important, and the West is over-reacting. Well don’t expect to find anybody in Washington pushing that view. Today’s Washington Post features a lead editorial entitled, “A Dangerous Russian Doctrine,” and all four essays on the op-ed page explore the ominous implications of what Vladimir Putin has done. The persistent drumbeat of disquieting coverage and commentary about Ukraine reminds me of a term I used often when I taught nuclear strategy at Georgetown — overkill. The North Atlantic Alliance isn’t likely to do anything direct or meaningful about Putin’s fait accompli, but the wheels are already turning within defense ministries and military think tanks about what indirect steps might be taken to deter further adventurism by Moscow. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out where this debate will end up in Washington: the delicate balance of terror — the nuclear balance — is back on the table as an active concern. Why? Because the White House was already reorienting (no pun intended) America’s military posture to East Asia, where both of our prospective adversaries possess atomic weapons, and now the world’s other nuclear superpower, Russia, has muscled its way back into U.S. military calculations. As chance would have it, this strategic shift occurs at precisely the moment when modernization of the U.S. nuclear arsenal has become a major issue among military planners. Washington hasn’t done much to renew its deterrent since the Cold War ended a quarter-century ago. Plans to build 132 stealthy B-2 bombers capable of chasing down Russian mobile launchers in a nuclear war were pared to a mere 20 planes when the Berlin Wall fell, the number of ballistic-missile submarines has been reduced, and so has the number of Minuteman III ballistic missiles sitting in silos across the upper Midwest. The Obama Administration has not built a single new nuclear warhead since it entered office, and has retired more warheads than China has in its entire arsenal. The U.S. can’t stay on this vector indefinitely without seeing its deterrent whither, because most of the nuclear bombers were built during the Kennedy Administration, the subs are due to start retiring around 2027, and the Minuteman missiles aren’t certified for operation beyond 2030. And then there’s the fact that tritium, the hydrogen isotope that boosts fission reactions to thermonuclear scale, has a radioactive half-life of only a dozen years (unlike plutonium, which pretty much lasts forever). The Pentagon has plans for developing new subs and bombers before the current arsenal has to be retired, but funding is problematic — particularly with spending caps imposed by the 2011 Budget Control Act. Although President Obama has not interfered with these plans, he has been more focused on arms control as a solution to the nation’s nuclear security. Obama first began advocating a world free of nuclear weapons when he was in college, and he carried that theme into his presidency. An arms agreement concluded during his first term would reduce the number of strategic warheads — warheads readily deliverable over long distances — to 1,550 by 2018, and he subsequently elicited support from the military for a further reduction to 1,000 warheads. The administration’s 2010 nuclear posture review called for reducing reliance on such weapons and endorsed “a multilateral effort to limit, reduce and eventually eliminate all nuclear weapons worldwide.” However, the same posture review stated that Washington needed to “strengthen deterrence of regional aggression and reassure allies and partners of U.S. commitment to their defense.” That goal looks a bit more demanding now that Moscow has accomplished the first forcible change in European borders since World War Two, and it is inevitable that Pentagon officials will use the Ukraine crisis to build political support for their nuclear plans. Providing better air and missile defenses for Eastern European partners is a start, but when it comes to deterring nuclear attack, there is no substitute for possessing a secure capacity to respond in kind. Survivable second-strike forces have been the centerpiece of U.S. nuclear strategy since the 1950s.

Issue No.1107, 21 March 2014 United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies | Maxwell AFB, Alabama http://cpc.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CUWS Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7226 33 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama What that means for the Navy is winning White House support of special appropriations to begin building a dozen new ballistic-missile submarines in the next decade. The subs are already being designed by the Electric Boat division of General Dynamics, which has been constructing undersea warships since 1900. The Navy wants to commence building the first replacement of current Ohio-class missile subs in 2021 and then buy one per year starting in 2026, but it hasn’t figured out how to fit the $5 billion boats into a shipbuilding plan that only averages $15 billion annually. Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jonathan Greenert warned the House Armed Services Committee last week that without some sort of special funding mechanism, his service would have to choose between nuclear deterrence and its myriad conventional missions. (Disclosure: General Dynamics and other builders of U.S. strategic systems contribute to my think tank; some are consulting clients.) What it means for the Air Force is keeping a secret “long-range strike bomber” on track, and perhaps accelerating the pace at which that airframe is equipped to deliver nuclear weapons. The Air Force wants to begin operating 80-100 of the stealthy bombers in 2025, but had hoped to avoid the cost of equipping them for nuclear operations until the venerable B-52 cruise-missile launcher starts retiring in 2040; if concern about a resurgent Russian threat persists, though, it may move up the date when the new bomber can contribute to nuclear deterrence. The Air Force also needs to decide how it can maintain its silo-based Minuteman missiles beyond 2030. The U.S. arm of British military behemoth BAE Systems recently won a long-term contract to sustain the Minuteman force, but major investment in upgrades or new missiles will be needed to keep the force ready and reliable beyond 2030. Collectively, these three types of nuclear systems — long-range bombers, land-based ballistic missiles and sea- based ballistic missiles — comprise what U.S. military planners call the strategic “triad.” The different characteristics of the three weapons categories are thought to assure a secure retaliatory force because it is too difficult for any adversary to wipe out all three in a surprise attack; knowing that, a rational adversary will be deterred from attacking in the first place. But preserving a credible deterrent requires funding a number of other costly items too, like airborne command-and-and control aircraft, and industrial complexes for refurbishing warheads. The Congressional Budget Office pegs the cost of sustaining the nuclear deterrent at $355 billion over the next ten years. The most important military consideration that Vladimir Putin overlooked in mounting his annexation of Crimea is how it would bolster the resolve of western nations to maintain their defenses. At a crucial moment in deliberations over the future of the U.S. nuclear force, Putin has reminded Washington that Moscow’s future behavior toward its neighbors cannot be predicted, and that it may take more than “boots on the ground” to deter an aggressor possessing thousands of atomic weapons (not just long-range ones, but also tactical systems stored near Ukraine). Many people in Washington might have been prepared to forego spending money on a new generation of nuclear weapons before Putin made his move, but he has now changed the strategic calculation. Loren Thompson focuses on the strategic, economic and business implications of defense spending as the chief operating officer of the non-profit Lexington Institute and Chief Executive Officer of Source Associates. http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2014/03/20/ukraine-fallout-putin-hands-the-pentagon-a-rationale- for-new-nuclear-weapons/ Return to Top

ArmsControlWonk.com OPINION/Article Trial Operational Deterrence By Jeffrey Lewis 21 March 2014 Yeah, that’s a weird title, huh? Well, it’s a weird idea. Bear with me.

Issue No.1107, 21 March 2014 United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies | Maxwell AFB, Alabama http://cpc.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CUWS Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7226 34 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama Over the course of my writing, teaching and corresponding about China’s nuclear forces, I kept stumbling over the same question: Why does China insist on calling the Second Artillery, China’s nuclear-armed missile force, the “core force” for China’s deterrent? “Core force” — and other similar phrases — imply the possibility of nuclear operations by the Chinese Air Force or Navy, even if China relies on the Second Artillery’s land-based missiles for the old minimum means of reprisal (or assured retaliation, if you prefer). Indeed, some training materials like Science of Second Artillery Campaigns make reference to joint nuclear operations. It seems impossible to imagine this is entirely anticipatory. But the United States intelligence community pretty clearly thinks China’s lone Xia-class nuclear submarine never became operational and that no Chinese aircraft have nuclear delivery as a primary mission. Of course, this may change once the new Jin-class SSBN is operational. I think nuclear-armed H-6 bombers, on the other hand, are less likely but can’t rule them out. But, again, these haven’t happened yet and it is hard to believe that China would use language like “core” force in an entirely anticipatory sense. So, I’ve always wondered: Why does Beijing uses the “core force” language and the refer to “joint” nuclear operations? I’ve come to think that the answer lies in the Chinese notion of “trial operational deployment.” Which sounds strange, and informs the title of the blog post. 1. Trial Operational Deployment In December 1980, China deployed two DF-5 ICBMs in silos. Yes, all of two. The full deployment of three brigades totaling 18 DF-5s didn’t occur until the mid-1990s. (May 1995 according to one source.) Why bother with two measly silos? In an alarming situation, two ICBMs are better than nothing. And Beijing viewed the international security situation in the 1970s are alarming. “To Beijing, the situation in the late 1970s was alarming,” John Lewis and Hua Di wrote, “The Soviet Union seemed to be on the offensive and prevailing, while the United States was retreating and losing. On October 30, 1979, Marshal Nie Rongzhen … directed the urgent deployment of all available strategic weapons systems, saying that ‘though a bit backward in performance, [the DF-4 and DF-5 missiles] would still be better than ‘millet plus rifles’ in fighting a war.” The phrase “millet plus rifles” is a reference to favorite remark of Mao about the relative unimportance of weaponry in deciding the outcome of a conflict, especially when compared to ideological factors. Here is an example from Mao in 1955: “We have an expression, millet plus rifles. In the case of the United States, it is planes plus the A-bomb. However, if the United States with its planes plus the A-bomb is to launch a war of aggression against China, then China with its millet plus rifles is sure to emerge the victor. The people of the whole world will support us. As a result of World War I, the tsar, the landlords and the capitalists in Russia were wiped out; as a result of World War II, Chiang Kai-shek and the landlords were overthrown in China and the East European countries and a number of countries in Asia were liberated. Should the United States launch a third world war and supposing it lasted eight or ten years, the result would be the elimination of the ruling classes in the United States, Britain and the other accomplice countries and the transformation of most of the world into countries led by Communist Parties. World wars end not in favour of the warmongers but in favour of the Communist Parties and the revolutionary people in all lands. If the warmongers are to make war, then they mustn’t blame us for making revolution or engaging in “subversive activities” as they keep saying all the time. If they desist from war, they can survive a little longer on this earth. But the sooner they make war the sooner they will be wiped from the face of the earth. Then a people’s united nations would be set up, maybe in Shanghai, maybe somewhere in Europe, or it might be set up again in New York, provided the U.S. warmongers had been wiped out.”

Issue No.1107, 21 March 2014 United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies | Maxwell AFB, Alabama http://cpc.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CUWS Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7226 35 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama Hence the image atop this post which is a modern interpretation of a painting by the artist Shi Lu, entitled Millet Plus Rifles. Mao’s point, and Nie’s, is that, as you know, you go to war with the Army you have. According to Lewis and Hua, the Chinese had a name for this notion of initial operational capability — ”trial operational deployment.” 2. Nuclear capable Aircraft China conducted nuclear weapons tests in the atmosphere through 1980, something that caused Beijing a lot of political grief. (In fact, China’s opposition to the Limited Test Ban Treaty is a large part of how “no first use” came to be a major diplomatic position for Beijing. But you’ll have to buy the book for that story.) China tried reasonably hard to move testing underground as soon as feasible, but despite a number of underground nuclear tests China continued atmospheric testing throughout the 1960s and 1970s. As a stop-gap measure, China conducted atmospheric nuclear tests using retrofitted bombers and specially manufactured fighter-aircraft. Dropping nuclear weapons from aircraft introduces some risk into tests. A test in 1979 failed when the parachute failed to open; here is a pretty cool first person account in Chinese. On the other hand, air bursts reduce the amount of radioactive fallout, which helps reduce the political fallout. For Beijing, the added risk of testing from aircraft was worth the political benefits. China Today: Aviation Industry, an official account of Chinese aircraft industry from the 1980s, describes in some detail the program to modify aircraft to serve as assets for the nuclear weapons testing program. China retrofitted one H-5 bomber, (probably) one H-6 bomber, and several Q-5 aircraft. Here are some comments on each program:  “In order to cooperate with the development and test of the atomic bomb the Bureau of Aviation Industry assigned the Xi’an Aircraft Factory a task in 1963 to retrofit a H-6 aircraft assembled by the Harbin Aircraft Factory in 1959 into a nuclear weapon carrier.”  “In September 1967 the government assigned a task for retrofitting the H-5 into a nuclear carrier which could be used both for nuclear test and operational missions.”  “In order to support nuclear test the Nanchang Aircraft Factory completed the manufacture of several nuclear weapon carriers which were derived from the basic Q-5 in 1970.” There is a curious little phrase — “ a nuclear carrier which could be used both for nuclear test and operational missions.” Operational missions? Really? Just one aircraft? (The reason I think it was only one aircraft is that the Harbin Aircraft Factory completed the retrofit with “intense work over half a year.”) Who the hell was going to fly that thing to Moscow, Major Kong? (I know, the range is a stretch. Work with me here.) I find it curious that China would consider a lone H5 bomber as an operational capability. Then again, I suppose in an emergency, just like two ICBMs, one bomber would be better than “millet plus rifles.” The H5 conversion predates the term “trial operational deployment,” which didn’t come around until 1974 according to Lewis and Hua, but its the same idea. 3. Xia-class SSBN That brings us to China’s lone SSBN for much of the past thirty years — the Xia-class SSBN. (China has a new fleet of three SSBNs just waiting for their shiny new SLBMs.)

Issue No.1107, 21 March 2014 United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies | Maxwell AFB, Alabama http://cpc.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CUWS Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7226 36 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama In October 2013, Xinhua showed off nuclear submarines, including the Xia-class SSBN. This struck me as strange, since the Xia-class submarine rarely leaves port and the United States has never considered it an operational platform. To bring targets into range, the Xia would have to sail long distances. Zhang Aiping, according to John Lewis and Hua Di, ridiculed the notion that it would sail as far as the Persian Gulf to bring Moscow into range. After all, Major Kong is already assigned to the H5 bomber. Yet, we have the Xia-class SSBN in Xinhua, accompanied by approving remarks by military analysts. “China says it has a no first use nuclear weapons policy,” Xinhua quoted a military officer named Yin Zhuo saying, “Nuclear submarines can effectively deter and fight back against those who want to launch nuclear attacks on China. It can reduce the danger of nuclear war.” Just like the two ICBMs in the early 1980s or the one retrofitted H-5 bomber, the one Xia-class SSBN is better than millet plus rifles. 4. Trial Operational Deterrence So, this was a pretty anemic triad in the early 198os — a couple of ICBMs, one submarine and one bomber. Sure, China had larger theater forces, but the overall force was very, very small. The Chinese built a number of test assets that neither we nor they consider “deployed.” The difference is that the Chinese think they get some measure of deterrence from even test assets. The notion that test or developmental assets – whether it is two ICBMs in silos, an H5 bomber or an SSBN that never leaves port — might confer some measure of deterrence might seem very strange. In Western academic literature, we tend to think the period when new nuclear forces are under development is the moment of maximum danger for a nuclear aspirant — a small number of provisional assets might be said to invite attack, not deter it. The Chinese, on the other hand, seem to think that even the most limited capability helps out. You just add it to the millet plus rifles and go. From an American perspective, we would place little reliance on test assets. ”You fight how you train” is a popular bit of wisdom. Sending forces with little training and no operational experience on a long, one-way journey to retaliate against a nuclear attack would seem, to a American perspective, like a fool’s errand. Our arms control treaties even make special provisions for test assets because, you know, they aren’t part of the “real” force. Then again, maybe the Chinese are right. Neither the United States nor the Soviet Union attacked China, despite Beijing’s prolonged period of vulnerability. Looking at declassified US intelligence estimates, we gave the Chinese credit for far more nuclear bombers than they probably manufactured. Perhaps the Chinese are right to think that deterrence depends far less on details like readiness, training and operational plans than we think in the United States. Regardless of who is right, Beijing’s references to other nuclear forces seem to refer to the possibility that it might press into service the Xia-class SSBN or aircraft modified for nuclear weapons testing in emergency. It’s an itneresting notion, one that colors how I think about the 1969 Sino-Soviet crisis — but that’s a conversation for another day. For now, I think it’s sufficient to note the history of Chinese trial operational deployments, even if they don’t always formally go by that name. China does not have a capital-T Triad on this basis — they don’t think of it that way, nor do we — but understanding the Chinese attitude toward developmental systems helps illustrate a broader point about how Chinese leaders have thought — or at least acted as though they thought — about nuclear weapons. Possession, or perhaps mastery, is the key with other details like number, posture or even readiness given less emphasis. That’s a broader mindset that helps explain why Chinese leaders have tended to treat strategic stability is a foregone conclusion, despite their own relatively small and vulnerable forces.

ABOUT THE USAF CUWS The USAF Counterproliferation Center was established in 1998 at the direction of the Chief of Staff of the Air Force. Located at Maxwell AFB, this Center capitalizes on the resident expertise of Air University, while extending its reach far beyond - and influences a wide audience of leaders and policy makers. A memorandum of agreement between the Air Staff Director for Nuclear and Counterproliferation (then AF/XON), now AF/A5XP) and Air War College Commandant established the initial manpower and responsibilities of the Center. This included integrating counterproliferation awareness into the curriculum and ongoing research at the Air University; establishing an information repository to promote research on counterproliferation and nonproliferation issues; and directing research on the various topics associated with counterproliferation and nonproliferation . The Secretary of Defense's Task Force on Nuclear Weapons Management released a report in 2008 that recommended "Air Force personnel connected to the nuclear mission be required to take a professional military education (PME) course on national, defense, and Air Force concepts for deterrence and defense." As a result, the Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center, in coordination with the AF/A10 and Air Force Global Strike Command, established a series of courses at Kirtland AFB to provide continuing education through the careers of those Air Force personnel working in or supporting the nuclear enterprise. This mission was transferred to the Counterproliferation Center in 2012, broadening its mandate to providing education and research to not just countering WMD but also nuclear deterrence. In February 2014, the Center’s name was changed to the Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies to reflect its broad coverage of unconventional weapons issues, both offensive and defensive, across the six joint operating concepts (deterrence operations, cooperative security, major combat operations, irregular warfare, stability operations, and homeland security). The term “unconventional weapons,” currently defined as nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, also includes the improvised use of chemical, biological, and radiological hazards. The CUWS's military insignia displays the symbols of nuclear, biological, and chemical hazards. The arrows above the hazards represent the four aspects of counterproliferation - counterforce, active defense, passive defense, and consequence management Return to Top