(CUWS) Outreach Journal 1185

USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies (CUWS) Outreach Journal

CUWS Outreach Journal 1185 2 October 2015

Feature Item: “Satellites, Warheads and Rockets: Is North Korea’s Space Program Really about Missile Development?” Authored by John Schilling; published by 38 North.org; 28 September 2015. http://38north.org/2015/09/schilling092815/ When the Soviet Union shocked the world and opened the Space Age on October 4, 1957, it was not a coincidence that its first satellite was launched into orbit on a modified R-7 intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). For many observers, that was the message of Sputnik—the rocket that did this, can deliver hydrogen bombs to your cities. Nor was the message sent only once. The first 96 Soviet satellite launches were conducted using modified ICBMs, before Russian engineers bothered to design a rocket specifically for space missions. China still hasn’t bothered to field a space launch vehicle (SLV) that isn’t also a ballistic missile. On the other side of the world, every ICBM design the United States has ever put into service has been adapted to launch satellites at some time or another. So when North Korea launched its first satellite on December 12, 2012, many observers thought the message was clear: the rocket that did this, can deliver atomic bombs to your cities. And indeed it can. But is this really the purpose of the Unha-3? Is it an ICBM masquerading as an SLV, or an SLV that might someday be repurposed as a missile? There is precedent for both. Or, as Pyongyang claims, is the Unha-3 intended purely for peaceful space exploration?

U.S. Nuclear Weapons 1. US Poised to Station Nukes in Estonia? 2. No New US Nuclear Weapon Elements at German Airbase — Ambassador 3. Timeout Called on Talks in Pantex Plant Strike 4. Frank Munger: Y-12 Workers Keeping Watch on Pantex

U.S. Counter-WMD 1. Polish Parliament Greenlights Deal on US Anti-Missile Base 2. US Not Looking for Balance of Interests with Russia on Missile Shield Issues — Lavrov

U.S. Arms Control 1. Rail Phantom: Russia Developing Invisible 'Death Trains' With Nukes 2. Russian Nuclear Sub Carrying Bulava Missiles Arrives in Kamchatka 3. Nuclear Sub Vladimir Monomakh to Be Transferred to Russia's Pacific Fleet in 2016

Homeland Security/The Americas 1. Bomber Paves Way for USAF Acquisition Shift 2. Air Force Delays New Bomber Contract by ‘Couple of Months’

USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama Asia/Pacific 1. Analyst: North Korean Military's Status Declining under Kim Jong Un 2. N. Korea Slams S. Korea for Infringing upon Right to Launch Satellite 3. Additional 150,000 US Troops Necessary if N. Korea Collapses: US Think Tank 4. North Korea’s Envoy to Britain: Pyongyang Ready to Launch ‘Satellite’ into Space at Any Time 5. Seoul to Develop 800km Missile by 2017 6. Despite Predictions, Still No Detectable Moves toward North Korea Rocket Launch 7. Sources: North Korean Train Transported Mystery Shipment to Missile Launch Site 8. DPRK Seeks US Peace Treaty to Normalize Ties with Washington, UN 9. Long March-11 Built Based on China's Ballistic Missiles: Expert

Europe/Russia 1. Corbyn Suffers Humiliating Defeat as Labour REFUSES to Even Consider his Plan to Scrap Britain's Nuclear Deterrent 2. Russian Navy to Get 2nd Yasen Class Nuclear Sub One Year Behind Schedule — Source 3. Putin Expresses Doubt about Running for President for 4th Time 4. Jeremy Corbyn: I Would Never Use Nuclear Weapons if I Were PM

Middle East 1. Head of Space Agency: Orbiting Home-Made Satellites Iran's Priority 2. Iran Warns US to Avoid Obstruction of JCPOA 3. Special Commission to Release Final Report on JCPOA on Sunday: MP 4. Pentagon Caught Surprised By Iraq's Intelligence-Sharing Accord with Russia, Iran, Syria 5. Iranian Legislators Protest at Zarif-Obama Handshaking 6. Iranian MPs Urge Administration to Meet National Interests in Nuclear Agreement 7. Iran to Allow No More IAEA Visit to Parchin: Shamkhani 8. Leader Urges Enhanced Military Preparedness 9. Israel Says Won't Allow Iran to Join 'Nuclear Weapons Club'

Commentary 1. Atomic Nightmare: Welcome to Pakistani Nuclear Weapons 101 2. Welcome to North Korean Nuclear Weapons 101 3. How Moscow Forces Washington's Hand (Op-Ed) 4. America Needs a Global Missile Defense Plan

Return to Top

Sputnik International – Russian Information Agency US Poised to Station Nukes in Estonia? 26 September 2015 In a potentially provocative move, the US has deployed a number of its nuclear-capable A-10 ground attack planes in Estonia in direct vicinity of the Russian border. The A-10 “tank busters” arrived at the Ämari Air Base as part of a flying training deployment in support of NATO’s Operation Atlantic Resolve on August 22.

In Moscow, defense expert and political analyst Ivan Konovalov described the stationing of US ground attack aircraft close to the Russian border as nothing short of a provocation. “We have to see whether these A-10s are going to be armed with nuclear weapons… The Americans have around 200 B61 nuclear bombs scattered across Europe. Bringing them to Estonia would cause a major scandal. Russia will be the first to protest. Defending a country’s airspace is one thing, but ground attack planes target ground forces. Is somebody expecting a ground invasion there?” Ivan Konovalov told Sputnik on Friday. Konovalov said he expected a further buildup of NATO and US forces close to Russia’s borders. The Estonian government has offered the Ämari base as a facility to be used to conduct NATO’s Baltic Air Policing patrols. In April 2014 the mission began with the arrival of four Danish F-16s. In September 2015, several Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor fighters were deployed at Ämari. http://www.sputniknews.com/europe/20150926/1027580647/estonia-planes-analyst.html Return to Top

TASS Russian News Agency – Moscow, Russia No New US Nuclear Weapon Elements at German Airbase — Ambassador The diplomat noted that expired components of deployed nuclear weapons are being replaced in order to keep the weapons in safe condition September 28, 2015 MOSCOW, September 28. /TASS/. The US is replacing old components on nuclear weapons at the Buchel air base in south-west Germany and no new arms are being deployed, Germany’s ambassador to Russia told a TASS news conference on Monday. "There’s nothing new here, as this is not the expansion of what is there. This concerns the replacement of those components the service dates of which have expired," Ruediger Freiherr von Fritsch said in comments to media reports. The diplomat stressed that "this serves the goals of keeping the weapons in safe condition. "This is in everyone’s interests," he said. Germany’s ZDF television reported earlier this month that the Buchel airbase in Rheinland-Pfalz federal land has launched preparations for the deployment of new US nuclear bombs of the B61-12 type. The TV channel said some 20 new nuclear bombs have the total explosive power 80 times greater than that of the atomic bomb that was dropped on Japan’s Hiroshima in 1945. http://tass.ru/en/defense/824154 Return to Top

USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama Longview News-Journal – Longview, TX Timeout Called on Talks in Pantex Plant Strike September 29, 2015 AMARILLO — Federal mediators have ordered a brief break in labor talks as a strike at the Pantex nuclear weapons plant near Amarillo reached the one-month mark. Scot Beckenbaugh, deputy director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, said the break would give officials from the Metal Trades Council and Pantex operating contractor Consolidated Nuclear Security an opportunity to review information. Both sides will resume talks later this week, but he said a time and place haven't been decided. Saturday marked the 30th day of the strike, which began when the labor council rejected a management proposal to compare Pantex workers' benefits with those of other Texas Panhandle businesses. Metal Trades Council members Aug. 8 voted down a four-year contract proposal from Consolidated Nuclear Security. http://www.news-journal.com/news/2015/sep/29/timeout-called-on-talks-in-pantex-plant-strike/ Return to Top

Knoxville News Sentinel – Knoxville, TN Frank Munger: Y-12 Workers Keeping Watch on Pantex By Frank Munger October 2, 2015 As noted in previous reports, the ongoing labor situation at the Pantex nuclear weapons plant in Texas has ramifications at Pantex’s sister plant, Y-12, in Oak Ridge. About 1,100 union workers have been on strike at Pantex since late August, a work stoppage that’s tied mostly to concerns about proposed changes in the benefits packages. Workers represented by the Metal Trades Council twice rejected “best-and-final” contract offers from Consolidated Nuclear Security — the government’s managing contractor at both plants. Meanwhile, in Oak Ridge, about 1,100 union workers at Y-12 are awaiting the start of negotiations between CNS and the Atomic Trades and Labor Council, and they’re keeping watch on happenings at Pantex. Talks at Y-12 have been put on hold while CNS attempts to reach a settlement at Pantex — where the Federal Mediation and Consolidation Service has gotten involved because of national security concerns. Of interest at both plants was a letter that U.S. Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, sent last week to Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz. Thornberry, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, wants the leadership of the U.S. Department of Energy to re-evaluate DOE Order 350.1 — a policy that restricts the amount of money spent on contractor employee benefits. DOE contractors are restricted to spending 105 percent of what other, comparable organizations are spending on employee benefits. Pantex and Y-12 were reportedly out of compliance with the DOE order when CNS took over management of the plants on July 1, 2014, and the contractor implemented various changes for non-bargaining unit employees at both plants to bring down those costs. “While it would be difficult to exempt single facilities, I hope DOE will review its policies to understand their full impact on employees and the nuclear enterprise mission,” Thornberry wrote in the Sept. 25 letter to Moniz. “The workers and their mission at Pantex are vital to national security, and I hope they will return to work very soon.”

Ron Ault, head of the Metal Trades Department, AFL-CIO, which is labor parent of the ATLC in Oak Ridge and the Metal Trades Council at Pantex, earlier blasted the DOE for a “ridiculous” policy that restricts benefits for people working at high-hazard nuclear facilities. He said the DOE’s market-based formula is flawed. It’s not yet clear what impact, if any, Thornberry’s understated request to Moniz will have on the labor contract at Pantex — or at Y-12, where health care and other benefits are also expected to be a focal point once negotiations begin there. But workers are anxious to find out. http://www.knoxnews.com/news/columnists/frank-munger-y12-workers-keeping-watch-on- pantex_75555434 Return to Top

Sputnik International – Russian Information Agency Polish Parliament Greenlights Deal on US Anti-Missile Base 26 September 2015 Poland’s lower house of parliament has authorized President Andrzej Duda to ratify a technical agreement on establishing a US anti-missile base in the north of the country. The document outlines technical conditions for the US anti-missile base’s operation on Polish soil, such as restrictions on the height of the buildings that can be built around the base, the use of devices emitting electromagnetic waves, and flights of military aircraft over and around the future facility. Washington wants to expand the European anti-missile defense system (AMD) by putting land- and sea-based radar and interceptors in the village of Redzikowo near the northern Polish town of Slupsk. The deal stipulates that Poland will host some 24 vertical-launch SM-3 missiles each. The construction of AMD components in Poland is set to start next year and be completed by 2018. In 2009, a year after Warsaw and Washington signed the agreement, President Barack Obama assured that the deal would be canceled if the issue with Iran over its nuclear program was sorted out. However, despite the agreement with Tehran, which curbed its controversial nuclear program in exchange for the easing of international sanctions, the NATO-backed European AMD plan is set to go forward. http://www.sputniknews.com/europe/20150926/1027573846/poland-missiles-mps.html Return to Top

TASS Russian News Agency – Moscow, Russia US Not Looking for Balance of Interests with Russia on Missile Shield Issues — Lavrov Russia and US-led NATO have been in a long dispute over US missile shield plans in Europe October 02, 2015 MOSCOW, October 2. /TASS/. The United States is not displaying its readiness to reach the balance of interests with Russia concerning the issues of the American missile shield plans, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in an interview with the Venezuelan state television. "There are situations when we are ready to actively seek consensus on the most difficult global problems and the Iranian problem was considered almost unresolvable," Lavrov said. "But from time to time our partners Issue No.1185, 2 October 2015 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

USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama are not ready for talks, without which it is impossible to reach consensus. For example it is the US missile shield plans." The top Russian diplomat said that since 2007 President Vladimir Putin repeatedly spoke with then-President of the United States George Bush on the issue and "proposed him various options of the joint work on the creation of the anti-missile defense from all risks, which can evolve in the sphere of missile proliferation." "We were told that they were ready for such joint work," Lavrov said. "But then it all ended up with Americans laying on the table their own plan, which raised serious concerns among our military officers since it was detrimental to our security, posed risks to our system of nuclear deterrence and then we were told that the ‘plan covers any concern that might arise among us’ and proposed cooperation basing on that plan. In other words, it was more like an ultimatum," Lavrov said. "Of course, no cooperation followed as a result," Lavrov said. "It was not because we did not want to, but because the Americans did not display at all their readiness for search of balance of interests and only insisted that their vision of the task should be followed without any alterations." Russia and US-led NATO have been in a long dispute over US missile shield plans in Europe, which the United States said was aimed to defend its allies from possible missile threats emerging from Iran and North Korea. Russia viewed the deployment of the missile shield near its borders as a threat to its national security and in 2011 then-President Dmitry Medvedev announced a set of measures to counter the US-proposed missile defense system in Europe. The measures particularly included the construction of new air-defense radar systems and deployment of Iskander missiles in Russia’s Kaliningrad Region, which borders on Europe. http://tass.ru/en/politics/825492 Return to Top

Sputnik International – Russian Information Agency Rail Phantom: Russia Developing Invisible 'Death Trains' With Nukes 26 September 2015 For the first time since 2005, Russia is set to resume the manufacturing of its "death trains" - covert railway complexes with ballistic missiles - but on a higher technological level which will make them even more untraceable now. The Soviet Union decided to produce combat railway missile complexes (BZhRKs) with ballistic missiles in 1969 in response to the US' powerful system of nuclear-capable submarines. The USSR operated 12 BZhRKs with three missile launchers each, and it was an efficient and intimidating solution. The vehicles travelled across the system of railroads on the country's vast territory and closely resembled ordinary cargo trains, bringing to naught the capabilities of satellite surveillance. As it was impossible to precisely determine the place where they could fire a nuclear missile, they were dubbed as "death" or "phantom" trains. In 2005, Russia decommissioned the trains. Ten years later Moscow has decided to embark on the idea again. Russian military industry official Viktor Murakhovsky explained the advantages of the next-generation nuke trains: "They will not need any specific big cars. They will completely coincide with the existing parameters of railcars and will therefore be completely hidden from a foe's reconnaissance and surveillance. Moreover, the system will enable launches virtually everywhere on the railway bed in contrast with the previous system that required special launch conditions." The new project, codenamed "Barguzin," will carry six ICBMs RS-24 Yars (a land equivalent of the submarine- launched Bulava).

A Russian BZhRK's cars can resist an explosion of a nuclear warhead just several hundred meters away. Such a train can run for a month autonomously and pass up to 1,000 kilometers daily at the speed of nearly 100 kmph. http://www.sputniknews.com/military/20150926/1027575725/russia-death-phantom-nuclear-train.html Return to Top

TASS Russian News Agency – Moscow, Russia Russian Nuclear Sub Carrying Bulava Missiles Arrives in Kamchatka The Russian Navy commander, Admiral Viktor Chirkov, welcomed the Alexander Nevsky at the pier built especially for the submarine September 30, 2015 PETROPAVLOVSK-KAMCHATSKY, September 30. /TASS/. The newest nuclear-powered submarine The Alexander Nevsky (project 955 Borei) has completed its voyage from the Northern Fleet to the Pacific Fleet and arrived in the port of Vilyuchinsk, in the Kamchatka Peninsula. The Russian Navy commander, Admiral Viktor Chirkov, welcomed the submarine at the pier built especially for the submarine. Also present at the ceremony were the families of the submarine’s crewmembers, who made the voyage on board the sub. The Alexander Nevsky was built in 2004. During the period of trials the submarine made twelve sea voyages. It is the first serially produced (second in line) strategic nuclear missile carrying submarine of Project 955 Borei. Its design incorporated the latest achievements in science and engineering reducing noise levels. The submarine is carrying a new generation missile complex armed with the inter-continental solid propellant ballistic missile Bulava. http://tass.ru/en/defense/824811 Return to Top

TASS Russian News Agency – Moscow, Russia Nuclear Sub Vladimir Monomakh to Be Transferred to Russia's Pacific Fleet in 2016 Another Borei class submarine — the Alexander Nevsky, that has entered service with the Pacific Fleet, was put on combat duty in the city of Vilyuchinsk on September 30 September 30, 2015 PETROPAVLOVSK-KAMCHATSKY, September 30. /TASS/. The third nuclear-powered submarine of the Borei project — the Vladimir Monomakh ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) — will arrive to the Pacific Fleet in 2016, in accordance with the plan, Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy Admiral Viktor Chirkov said on Wednesday. The second Borei class submarine — the Alexander Nevsky, that has entered service with the Pacific Fleet, was put on combat duty in the city of Vilyuchinsk on Wednesday. "We hope that the whole shipbuilding program, laid down and approved by the president, will be implemented and next year another boat — the Vladimir Monomakh — will arrive here in accordance with the plan," Chirkov said.

USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama Two Borei class submarines were originally planned to enter service with the Pacific Fleet this year, however, the transfer of the Vladimir Monomakh boat has been postponed. Borei class is a Russian fourth-generation nuclear-powered missile submarine. It is intended to eventually replace the ageing Delta III and Typhoon class submarines and become an important deterrent of the Russian Navy. It is the first class of submarines developed by Russia since the Soviet era. Designated Project 935, it began in 1996 to manufacture the first unit of the Borei class submarine. The project name was changed to Project 955 and the submarine was redesigned to accommodate the new submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) Bulava (SS-NX-30), in place of the abandoned R-39UTTH Bark missile. Yury Dolgoruky, Alexander Nevsky, Vladimir Monomakh and Knyaz Vladimir are the four submarines ordered under this project. These vessels were designed by Rubin Marine Equipment Design Bureau and built by Northern Machine Building Enterprise (Sevmash shipyard). Russia has plans to build eight Borei class submarines for its naval fleet. The Alexander Nevsky is the first production Project 955 Borei class ballistic missile submarine and the second one in the series. It embodies the latest noise reduction solutions. The submarine carries the advanced Bulava solid-propellant intercontinental ballistic missile (NATO reporting name SS-NX-30). The Russian Navy commissioned the lead ship of the Borei family, the Yuri Dolgoruky, in 2012. "The second production submarine, the Vladimir Monomakh, is in its sea trials with the Northern Fleet and is gearing up for the deployment to Kamchatka. The Borei-class Knyaz Vladimir, Knyaz Oleg and Generalissimo Suvorov SSBNs are sitting on the slipways of the Sevmash shipyard in various stages of completion. The Russian Navy operates three Borei-class submarines, the flag ship Yury Dolgoruky, Alexander Nevsky and Vladimir Monomakh. The first two were commissioned in 2013, while the latest one is in active service since December 2014. The first submarine of the Project 955-A Borei-II class, dubbed Knyaz Vladimir, is expected to enter service in 2017. By 2020, the Russian Navy plans to operate a total of eight Borei class ballistic missile submarines, three Project 955 subs and five Project 955-A vessels. The Borei class submarines are expected to remain in service for decades to come, at least until 2040. http://tass.ru/en/defense/824865 Return to Top

Defense News – Tysons Corner, VA Bomber Paves Way for USAF Acquisition Shift By Lara Seligman September 28, 2015 WASHINGTON — Faced with rapid advances by potential enemies like Russia and China, the US Air Force is launching an effort to speed up delivery of weapons to troops. Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James outlined the initiative, dubbed “should schedule,” during the Air Force Association’s annual air and space exposition earlier this month. The pilot program will offer incentives to weapon makers to beat milestones and deliver programs ahead of schedule. The service will start small, with low-dollar programs, and ramp up after proving the approach works. “Unfortunately, today it takes too long to develop and field our systems,” James said. “If we can collectively beat the historical developmental schedules and reward the behavior in government and industry that speeds things up, we have a real chance to make a difference.” But long before the Air Force officially rolled out “should schedule,” leadership was already experimenting with ways to streamline the clunky acquisition process. The Air Force recently revealed that the effort to procure a next-generation Long Range Strike Bomber is unusually mature for a program at such an early stage of development. Although the Air Force has not yet

Issue No.1185, 2 October 2015 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 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies (CUWS) Outreach Journal awarded a contract to one of two competitors — Northrop Grumman and a Boeing-Lockheed Martin team — the service already has two robust designs in hand and has completed much of the necessary risk reduction. “What we’ve focused on with LRS-B is trying to make sure the technology is more mature than we’ve ever started a program [with],” Lt. Gen. Arnie Bunch, the Air Force’s deputy assistant secretary for acquisition, said during an event hosted by AFA. “Based on where we are at and what industry partners have done, we are confident this is going to be more mature, technology-wise, than any new development program we’ve ever started.” The Air Force has revealed very little about the mysterious effort to replace its aging B-1 and B-52 bombers. What is known is that the Air Force plans to buy 80-100 bombers at a startlingly low unit cost of $550 million in fiscal 2010 dollars. The service expects to announce the winner of the contract in the next few weeks. As new details about LRS-B emerge, it is becoming increasingly clear that the Air Force is using the program as a sort of test bed for best practices in acquisition. “Is [LRS-B] a model for the new initiatives that we are trying to go forward with? I think there are lessons learned that we’re going to get out of this that we’re going to port over into other things,” Bunch said. Gen. Ellen Pawlikowski, head of Air Force Materiel Command, also indicated in an interview with Defense News that the Air Force is using lessons learned from the LRS-B effort to drive efficiency into other programs. The Air Force is starting to put a much stronger focus on development planning, Pawlikowski said. As part of this effort, the service is increasingly working with industry to better define requirements around what is needed, what technology is available and how fast goals can be reached. “I love to steal good ideas and make them work,” Pawlikowski said, adding that the effort to incorporate more modeling and simulation upfront “is directly applying some of the lessons we learned in terms of formulating LRS-B.” The Air Force is also beginning to re-evaluate its goals regularly throughout the acquisition cycle, she emphasized. “You get to the point where some of the technology now becomes not just models and simulations, but experimentation,” Pawlikowski said. For example, “maybe once a year we cycle back and look at our planning, and you say, ‘this really works and the technology is pretty mature, and we could probably put this on the F- 35 in 2025 — we do not need to wait until 2030.’” This is similar to what the Air Force has been doing with LRS-B, she said. In the same vein, the Air Force last year stood up an Office of Transformational Innovation, headed by Camron Gorguinpour, whose mandate is to think about acquisition outside the box. Gorguinpour’s office attempts to engage industry early in the process, in effect enabling industry to help shape a program’s requirements. Gorguinpour has four pilot projects: the T-X trainer replacement; the Long Range Standoff Weapon; a follow- on to the Space-Based Infrared System; and the Multi-Domain Adaptable Processing System, which connects fourth- and fifth-generation fighter jets. “The idea of the office is to try to [do] ‘swing for the fences’-type of acquisition changes, things that go beyond sort of the traditional things we think about with acquisition reform,” Gorguinpour told reporters during a presentation at the recent AFA symposium, calling the office “Skunk Works for bureaucrats.” T-X is a perfect example of how the Air Force is tweaking its approach to acquisition. The Air Force released the requirements for T-X 10 months earlier than is normal, and has held multiple meetings with the

USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama companies proposing designs. Another new initiative in the T-X program: Whenever an industry team asks for clarification on a certain point, the Air Force releases the answer publicly. “From the beginning, we’ve been very open and transparent on this T-X program with industry to let them know why we need this new generation trainer, what the requirements are and to talk to them specifically about what we are trying to achieve,” Lt. Gen. Darryl Roberson, commander of Air Education and Training Command, said during a presentation at AFA. In order to further tighten timelines, the Air Force is also focused on owning the technical baseline for major programs and requiring that new projects incorporate open mission systems, Bunch said. But most important to the Air Force’s efforts to reduce costs and speed up delivery time is transparency and dialogue with industry, Bunch emphasized. “We are trying to get feedback from industry on what we are trying to do to see if what we are doing is made out of unobtanium, or if there are things that we really are trying to achieve that we just aren’t approaching the right way,” Bunch said. http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/air-force/2015/09/27/bomber-paves-way-usaf- acquisition-shift/72794220/ Return to Top

DoD Buzz – New York, NY Air Force Delays New Bomber Contract by ‘Couple of Months’ By Brendan McGarry Tuesday, September 29th, 2015 The U.S. Air Force is delaying the award of a contract to develop a next-generation bomber by a “couple of months,” a general said. The latest schedule slip was acknowledged on Tuesday by Lt. Gen. Arnold Bunch, military deputy for the office of the assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition, during a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee’s Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee. “This is a case, sir, where we need to go slow to go fast,” he said. “We’ve got a fair, deliberate, disciplined and impartial process anytime that we do a competition. And we’ve been transparent and working with industry trying to get this thoroughly done and documented so we can make that decision. It’s coming soon. That’s about as good as I can give you.” The general was then pressed by the subcommittee’s chairman, Randy Forbes, a Republican of Virginia. “Do we have any idea whether that’s going to be two months, 10 years? When what do we think?” the congressman asked. “Sir, my hope is it’s within the next couple of months,” Bunch said. “But we have details that we still have to work through to make sure we’re doing it fair and make sure we’re going through he process.” The so-called Long Range Strike-Bomber, or LRS-B, is one of the most closely watched defense acquisition programs underway. The contract was initially expected to be announced in the spring, then summer and now fall. The service wants to buy between 80 and 100 new bombers at no more than $550 million apiece to replace its aging fleet of B-52 Stratofortresses made by Boeing Co. and a least a portion of its B-1 fleet. A team led by Northrop Grumman Corp., maker of the B-2 bomber, is competing against another headed by Boeing Co., the world’s largest aerospace company, and Lockheed Martin Corp., the world’s largest defense contractor.

Forbes also asked Bunch and Randall Walden, director of the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office, about the mistaken cost estimates for the program submitted to Congress. The Air Force this year estimated the so-called Long Range Strike Bomber, or LRSB, would cost $58 billion over a decade, up from a previous estimate of just $33 billion — though the correct figure is closer to $42 billion. Walden said he was “very confident” in the program office’s ability to provide accurate cost estimates, which he said were relatively stable at $41.4 billion in 2015 and $41.7 billion in 2016. Bunch acknowledged it was a “regrettable error” and that officials are conducting a review of the process to determine what led to the mixup. http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/09/29/air-force-delays-new-bomber-contract-by-couple-of-months/ Return to Top

United Press International (UPI) – New York, NY Analyst: North Korean Military's Status Declining under Kim Jong Un By Elizabeth Shim | September 26, 2015 SEOUL, Sept. 26 (UPI) -- North Korea's "Songun" or military-first policy is being used as a system of ideas, rather than being placed into practice, according to a South Korean analyst. Kim Dong-yup of the University of North Korean Studies in Seoul wrote in a recent report that the status and role of Pyongyang's military is changing under the rule of Kim Jong Un, Yonhap reported. Under Kim, his father's military-first policies are gradually being altered in favor of plans that focus on economic growth, the South Korean analyst said in an article addressing the changes facing the North Korean military. Since Kim came to power, the status of the military has declined and the ruling Workers' Party has strengthened its grip of a military-affiliated trading company and has pushed for control of its directorship, the South Korean analyst said. Kim Dong-yup also wrote North Korea continues to promote the old policies in its statements because the notion that military-first policies as a survival strategy persists in the reclusive country, and it is an effective means of retaining the regime's power. The North's pursuit of nuclear weapons development, however, may mean Pyongyang is seeking to rebuild a more efficient military centered on weapons of mass destruction. North Korea's traditional ideas of nation building, centered on its ideology of self-reliance and the leadership of generations of Kims are still an active part of political life in the country. South Korean outlet No Cut News reported new statues of North Korean founder Kim Il Sung and his son Kim Jong Il were erected in Hyesan, near the China border. Top North Korean official Kim Yong Nam said at the unveiling ceremony the statues "shined a light on the revolutionary career and achievements" of the past leaders, according to KCNA. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2015/09/26/Analyst-North-Korean-militarys-status- declining-under-Kim-Jong-Un/4111443319936/ Return to Top

USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama Yonhap News Agency – Seoul, South Korea N. Korea Slams S. Korea for Infringing upon Right to Launch Satellite September 28, 2015 SEOUL, Sept. 28 (Yonhap) -- North Korea on Monday slammed South Korea for infringing upon its sovereign right to launch a satellite, after Seoul labeled the move a provocation. The Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), Pyongyang's official media monitored in Seoul, carried an article in the main newspaper, Rodong Sinmun, which said the planned satellite launch is "the legitimate exercise of independent rights as a sovereign country which no one can slander or infringe upon." North Korea is expected to launch what it says is a satellite around the 70th founding anniversary of the ruling Workers' Party on Oct. 10. Experts say, however, the move may be a cover for ballistic missile tests. The newspaper article pointed out that South Korea is calling the launch "a provocation" and is demanding "joint counteraction" with the United States, and that such a course of action by the South is "a provocation of robbers." "The South Korean authorities should clearly know that their act of deliberately slandering and challenging the DPRK's exercise of its independent rights is nothing helpful to the efforts to improve the inter-Korean relations and they deserve condemnation," the article went on, according to the KCNA's English-language report. DPRK is short for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the North's official name. "We will never allow the reckless moves of the South Korean authorities to achieve their sinister scenario through cooperation in putting pressure upon the dignified DPRK, vilifying its exercise of independent rights," the report added. North Korea has been reiterating its resolve to carry out the launch, defending the move as an exercise of its sovereign right. South Korea, the United States and China have warned that North Korea's missile launch would be a grave violation of the U.N. Security Council resolutions banning its nuclear and missile tests. http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/search1/2603000000.html?cid=AEN20150928003200315 Return to Top

The Korea Times – Seoul, South Korea Additional 150,000 US Troops Necessary if N. Korea Collapses: US Think Tank By Chang Jae-soon September 29, 2015 WASHINGTON (Yonhap) — An additional 150,000 U.S. troops would be necessary to cope with the aftermath in the event of North Korea’s collapse, such as securing the communist nation’s nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction (WMD), a U.S. think tank said Tuesday. “North Korea might suddenly collapse — either as a result of war or the failure of its economy and government. After such a collapse, a key U.S. concern would be to find, seize, secure, and remove its WMD, in particular its nuclear weapons,” RAND Corp. said in a report, titled “Building the Army We Will Need.” “In such an event, the greatest burden would likely fall on U.S. forces to eliminate these weapons … We estimate that a North Korean collapse would require an additional 150,000 U.S. troops over and above the forces already stationed and presumed to be available in the Asia-Pacific region,” it said. Currently, about 28,500 American troops are stationed in South Korea to help deter threats from North Korea, a legacy of the 1950-53 Korean War that ended in a truce, not a peace treaty, which left the divided peninsula still technically at war.

The U.S. Army plans to cut troop levels from the current 490,000 to 420,000 by 2019 due to budget constraints known as “sequestration,” but the think tank said that the Army’s troop levels should rather increase to at least 545,000 to cope with such contingencies. The institute also said that South Korea and the U.S. have been focused on coping with North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile threats, but they should pay greater attention to the North’s artillery capabilities and come up with countermeasures. North Korea has more than 13,000 artillery pieces and multiple rocket launchers, about 8,000 of which are garrisoned within 100 miles of South Korea in protected underground facilities, RAND said. In addition to the prospect of nuclear weapons, North Korean artillery can fire a variety of chemical weapons, it said. “North Korea may launch many shorter-range missiles against South Korea or Japan, potentially saturating their ballistic missile defenses. Worse, the U.S. strategy does not directly address the artillery threat to Seoul, including the potential use of North Korean artillery to employ WMD,” the report said. That is to say, North Korea might use artillery to deliver nuclear weapons. “Opinions differ about how close the North Koreans are to building a miniaturized weapon capable of fitting within their long-range missiles, but their recently revealed ability to separate uranium could give them the ability to build gun-assembled fission weapons similar to the W-33 the U.S. Army deployed in 1956,” the think tank said. “This weapon was small enough to be fired from an 8-inch artillery tube, yet produced yields of up to 10 kilotons. If North Korea produced such a weapon, Seoul could be in range of nuclear weapons fired from existing, hardened, artillery sites,” it said. http://www.koreatimesus.com/additional-150000-us-troops-necessary-if-n-korea-collapses-us-think-tank/ Return to Top

The Japan Times – Tokyo, Japan North Korea’s Envoy to Britain: Pyongyang Ready to Launch ‘Satellite’ into Space at Any Time Kyodo October 1, 2015 LONDON – North Korea is prepared to launch a controversial satellite “at any time,” the country’s ambassador to Britain said Wednesday. Hyon Hak Bong told an audience in London that North Korea is ready to launch the satellite — suspected by the international community to be a ballistic missile test — despite the threat of increased sanctions. He told a gathering at the international think-tank Chatham House, “Launching a satellite is the work performed by every country. It’s the legitimate right of a sovereign state to develop space programs. Our launching of a satellite is for peaceful purposes. “We are prepared to launch it at any time, any place. European countries launch satellites and our neighboring countries.” Asked about the threat of sanctions, he said, “We have nothing to be afraid of. If they pass a resolution or (impose) sanctions this is another provocation which makes the situation worse.” North Korea has indicated that it may launch a satellite on or around Oct. 10 to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the founding of the ruling Workers’ Party.

USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama The United States and Japan believe this could be a test for a long-range ballistic missile and have urged North Korea to refrain from any launch. North Korea promised to abandon all nuclear weapons and nuclear programs after a 2005 session of the six- nation talks made up of the United States, Japan, South Korea, China, Russia and North Korea but later flouted it by conducting nuclear tests and test-launching ballistic missiles believed designed to deliver a nuclear warhead. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/10/01/asia-pacific/north-koreas-envoy-britain-pyongyang-ready- launch-satellite-space-time/#.Vgx741NzNDx Return to Top

The Korea Herald – Seoul, South Korea Seoul to Develop 800km Missile by 2017 By Song Sang-ho October 1, 2015 South Korea plans to complete its development and deployment of a ballistic missile with a range of 800 kilometers by 2017, as it seeks to counter the evolving nuclear and missile threats posed by North Korea. Military sources said that the state-run Agency for Defense Development had put forward the plan in its five- year policy outline, which was adopted right after the Park Geun-hye administration assumed office in February 2013. “Currently, we have developed ballistic missiles with a range of up to 500 km, and the plan means extending the range to 800 km,” a military source told the media. “We are aiming to deploy the missile with an 800 km range by 2017.” If fully developed, the missile with an extended range will be able to put all military targets in the North within striking range. Calls have been mounting for Seoul to bolster its strike capabilities to bridge the “missile gap” with its northern neighbor. The North has hinted that it would carry out a satellite launch around Oct. 10, the 70th anniversary of the founding of the ruling Workers’ Party. The launch, if it goes ahead, is expected to further enhance its ballistic missile technology. The North’s latest “satellite” launch in December 2012 was regarded as a success. Analysts say that the long- range rocket carrying what the North called a research satellite is believed to have a range of 10,000 km -- far enough to strike the U.S. mainland. Seoul’s push for longer-range missiles gathered momentum in October 2012 when Seoul and Washington agreed on revising a bilateral guideline to allow the former to develop more powerful ballistic missiles with a range of up to 800 km, up from the previous 300 km. Seoul pushed for the revision of the guideline -- first forged in 1979 and amended in 2001 -- as it did not reflect the changing security environment where neighboring states including the North have increasingly formidable missile capabilities. The 2012 revision came after grueling negotiations with Washington which was apparently reluctant over the revision as it could undermine America’s global initiatives of nonproliferation and arms control, and could provoke China, Russia and Japan, not to mention the North. After the revision, the South successfully launched the Hyunmoo-2B missile with a range of more than 500 km in July this year. Those missiles -- including the 800 km-range missile to be deployed by 2017 -- would be an integral part of the so-called Kill Chain preemptive strike program that Seoul has been pushing to establish to better handle Pyongyang’s nuclear and missile threats. Issue No.1185, 2 October 2015 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 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies (CUWS) Outreach Journal

The missile gap between the two Koreas is known to be big as Pyongyang has been pushing for longer-range strike capabilities to ensure its regime survival and raise stakes in negotiations with the U.S.

The North now has a relatively large assortment of ballistic missiles that can threaten South Korea, Japan, the U.S. and other potential adversaries. The North successfully test-fired and deployed a Rodong ballistic missile with a range of 1,300 km in 1993. It has also deployed the Musudan missile with a range of 3,000-4,000 km since 2007. The Musudan, in theory, can strike Guam, a key U.S. strategic base in the Asia-Pacific region. In 2009, the North carried out a test of the Taepodong-2 missile, which is presumed to have a range of more than 6,700 km, enough to hit parts of Alaska. It also conducted rocket tests in April 2012 and December that year, all of which helped further enhance its overall long-range missile capabilities. http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20151001001154 Return to Top

The Hankyoreh – Seoul, South Korea Despite Predictions, Still No Detectable Moves toward North Korea Rocket Launch Rocket launch requires 7-10 days of preparation, meaning launch around Oct. 10 would need to start soon By Park Byong-su, senior staff writer October 1, 2015 Reports on North Korea’s lack of immediate preparations for a rocket launch are raising questions about its aims in repeatedly announcing plans for one during the Chuseok holiday. If North Korea is planning a launch for the seventieth anniversary of the foundation of its Workers’ Party on Oct. 10, as some have predicted, then it would need to begin preparations shortly. The total procedure of transporting the rocket, installing a launch pad, and fueling for a launch typically takes a week to ten days. Yet sources have reported no activity to date that could be interpreted as launch preparations. A military officer said the “combined assets of South Korea and the US are closely monitoring North Korea’s activities.” “To date, I am not aware of any detection of train activity to transport a rocket from the munitions factory in Pyongyang’s Sanum neighborhood to the launch site at Tongchang Village,” the authority said. Over the Chuseok holiday, North Korea repeatedly announced plans for a launch, which it defended as an “exercise of autonomy by a sovereign state.” It has also made recent efforts to justify a launch, including its decision to reveal its new satellite control center in Pyongyang to Western media for the first time and characterization of its plans as being for a “peaceful satellite launch.” Analysts said the lack of immediate activity may mean Pyongyang is watching to see the public opinion response from the international community. “The biggest issue may be the fact that [Chinese President] Xi Jinping came out personally to request that [North Korea] refrain from a rocket launch, which would be a big hassle for North Korea,” said an administration official. Xi previously issued an open warning to Pyongyang in a joint press conference after a Sept. 25 summit with US President Barack Obama.

USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama “We oppose any action that might cause tension in the Korean peninsula or violate U.N. Security Council resolutions,” Xi said at the time. Other analysts suggested North Korea may attempt its rocket launch after the Foundation Day events on Oct. 10. Indeed, previous launches have not happened precisely on the dates of major events. Both launches carried out since current leader Kim Jong-un took office occurred a few days before their respective events: the 2012 launch of Kwangmyongsong-3 Unit 1 took place on Apr. 13, two days before Kim Il-sung’s birthday (known in North Korea as the “Day of the Sun”), while ignition for the Kwangmyongsong-3 Unit 2 launch in December of that year took place five days before December 17, the anniversary of Kim Jong-il’s death. The facts have led some to speculate that the North may be planning to stage a large-scale military review on the actual event day, while observing the international community’s reaction to holding on to the rocket launch “card” for use around an upcoming South Korea-US summit on Oct. 16. http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_northkorea/710944.html Return to Top

The Asahi Shimbun – Tokyo, Japan Sources: North Korean Train Transported Mystery Shipment to Missile Launch Site By YOSHIHIRO MAKINO, Correspondent October 02, 2015 SEOUL--North Korea appears to have transported unknown materials to a long-range ballistic missile site in an attempt to prepare a missile launch or just to confuse foreign intelligence agencies, sources said. The intelligence agencies of Japan, South Korea and the United States have confirmed that a North Korean freight train traveling from an arms factory, likely the Sanumdong one in Pyongyang, to the launch site in Tongchang-ri, North Pyongan province, by Oct. 1, the sources said. However, the agencies could not determine what was on the train, they said. Pyongyang has indicated it would launch a satellite-carrying rocket around the 70th anniversary of the founding of the Workers’ Party of Korea on Oct. 10. Before its previous launch of a long-range missile in December 2012, North Korea transported parts of the upgraded Taepondong-2 ballistic missile from the Sanumdong factory to launch site on a freight train. The missile, 30 meters long and with range of at least 6,000 kilometers, was then assembled at the Tongchang-ri site. In mid-September, the director of North Korea’s space agency announced that the development of a new Earth observation satellite had entered the final stage, indicating the country would launch a rocket around the time of the anniversary. However, with fewer than 10 days to go, it is unlikely that the country can assemble and prepare the missile for a launch before the anniversary, the sources said. By August, North Korea had extended the launch pad at the Tongchang-ri site to enable the launching of missiles larger than the upgraded Taepondong-2, but preparations for an actual launch have since shown no progress. Pyongyang also appears to have scaled down the Oct. 10 anniversary ceremony, requesting participant countries to reduce the size of their delegations and send officials ranked lower than initially planned. South Korean government sources said North Korea has been forced to reduce costs for the ceremony amid its foreign currency shortage and the hostile international environment.

The scaling-down of the ceremony is also aimed at easing the burden on North Korea’s young leader, Kim Jong Un, in greeting foreign dignitaries. Representatives from only around five of countries, including Mongolia and Cuba, will likely attend the ceremony, the sources said. “As the Kim Jong Un administration has failed to achieve any visible accomplishments, the ceremony is posing an increasing burden on Pyongyang,” a South Korean government source said. http://ajw.asahi.com/article/asia/korean_peninsula/AJ201510020026 Return to Top

Global Times – Beijing, China DPRK Seeks US Peace Treaty to Normalize Ties with Washington, UN Source: Xinhua October 2, 2015 The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) told the UN General Assembly's general debate on Thursday that Pyongyang seeks a peace treaty with the United States to end the 1950-1953 Korean War and "address the abnormal relations between the DPRK and the UN." "If the United States makes policy change with courage, a dramatic improvement will be affected in the security environment on the Korean Peninsula and will eventually lead to addressing security concerns of the United States," said DPRK Foreign Minister Ri Su Yong, in an apparent reference to Pyonyang's nuclear threat. "This is the best option we can afford." "The DPRK is strongly convinced that the urgent replacement of the armistice agreement with a peace treaty is a way to ensure peace and security on the Korean peninsula and address the abnormal relations between the DPRK and the UN," he said. The "abnormal relations" he referred to has to do with the U.S. forces in South Korea technically part of a UN Command. The 1950-1953 Korean War was silenced not by a peace treaty but a cease-fire and Washington has long insisted the only way it will negotiate with Pyongyang is through the Six Party Talks, involving representatives from China, DPRK, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the United States. "Late last August the situation on the Korean Peninsula once again headed to the brink of war," Ri said, referring to tensions heightened during annual joint military exercises held by South Korean and U.S. militaries. "What measures can the UN take when it is a UN commander who commands the large-scale exercises that create a vicious cycle of heightened tensions," Ri asked, adding that lodging complaints with the world body is to no avail because the United States as a permanent member of the Security Council holds veto power. http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/945354.shtml Return to Top

USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama Want China Times – Taipei, Taiwan Long March-11 Built Based on China's Ballistic Missiles: Expert By Staff Reporter October 02, 2015 China is transforming its ballistic missiles such as the DF-21 and DF-31 into rockets for the nation's space program, Vasily Kashin from the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies based in Russia told Sputnik News on Sept. 23. Kashin said it is easier for China to launch rockets designed based on the ballistic missiles from more primitive launch sites. The design of the missiles also gives the rockets a longer shelf life, he said. The Long March-11 rocket launched on Sept. 25 from the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center was designed based on the DF-31 intercontinental ballistic missile, Hong Kong's Ta Kung Pao reported. The Long March-11 is the first solid fuel rocket to be built by the China Aerospace Science & Industry Corporation. With the capability to carry 35 tons of fuel and a maximum thrust of 120 tons, the rocket launched last Friday carried four micro-satellites into space to be used mainly for testing. It took only 24 hours to prepare for the launch, Ta Kung Pao said. "In terms of performance, the engine has stronger propellant capability. The propel process is very easy as long as we add a little more propellant. Solid fuel engines have been widely used in the aerospace industry abroad," said Wang Jianru, deputy chief designer of the Long March-11 told state broadcaster CCTV two days prior to the launch. Kashin said China's success in the development of rocket may present a potential challenge to Russia in the future. http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news/content?id=20151002000005&cid=1101 Return to Top

Daily Mail.com – London, U.K. Corbyn Suffers Humiliating Defeat as Labour REFUSES to Even Consider his Plan to Scrap Britain's Nuclear Deterrent Policy chaos at Labour conference as frontbenchers threaten to quit New Labour leader is opposed to renewal of Britain's nuclear deterrent But more than a dozen members of the shadow cabinet oppose his stance Lord Falconer, Hilary Benn and Tom Watson all committed to Trident By Matt Chorley, Political Editor and Tom McTague, Deputy Political Editor for MailOnline 27 September 2015 Jeremy Corbyn suffered his first humiliating defeat as Labour leader this afternoon after delegates rejected his bid to overhaul the party's support for Britain's nuclear deterrent. The Labour leader, who this morning condemned Trident as a 'weapon of mass destruction', wanted to push through a motion calling for the party to abandon its commitment to renewing the nuclear deterrent. But Labour delegates today refused to even consider Mr Corbyn's controversial proposal to abandon Trident. It means the Labour party's official support for renewing the nuclear weapons system will remain in place - despite Mr Corbyn's public opposition. One Labour MP told MailOnline the development was a 'right kick in the teeth' for the Labour leader.

Mr Corbyn's bid debate scrapping Trident was scuppered by the Unite and GMB unions which backed his leadership bid but have both vowed to vote down his peacenik policy. The Labour leader today made his debut on BBC One's Andrew Marr show since taking over the party, after pulling the plug on a planned appearance two weeks ago. His first conference as leader risks being dominated by policy rows, with Mr Corbyn's own views clashing with those of his frontbench. Lord Falconer, the shadow justice secretary, today threatened to resign if the party opposes Trident renewal. He told the Sunday Telegraph: 'As far as Trident is concerned, it is really important to me. It would give rise to me having considerable difficulties [remaining in the shadow cabinet] if we didn't accept it.' Shadow foreign secretary Hilary Benn and deputy leader Tom Watson are among senior figures backing Trident renewal. More than a dozen members of the shadow cabinet are said to be ready to quit if the Labour leader forces them to back his position. Today Mr Corbyn appeared to admit that the party will be split on the issue. 'We are going to come to an accommodation of some sort. It may end up being a difference of opinion,' he told Andrew Marr.' 'Is it so disastrous that politics has two opinions?,' he added. However Len McCluskey, general secretary of Unite, which has thousands of members in the defence industry, said his main focus will be the protection of jobs. 'I understand the moral case and the huge cost of replacing Trident, especially in this era of austerity, but the most important thing for us is jobs and the defence of communities. 'We will vote against any anti-Trident motion. I don't think this will be a problem for Jeremy Corbyn. He is a great democrat and we are already seeing a refreshing change to the Labour conference, with open debates,' he said. The GMB and other leading unions are also expected to oppose any move to scrap Trident, making it virtually certain that any motion would be defeated. However, it could be disastrous for the Labour leader if he is unable to present a united front on a major policy decision affecting national security for decades to come. 'I understand colleague's views, I hope to persuade them that a nuclear free world is a good thing. That fulfilling our obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and promoting the nuclear weapons convention is a good thing. 'They are all signed up to multi-lateral nuclear disarmament by the way. There are many people, military thinkers who are very concerned, indeed opposed to Trident, because they don't see it as part of modern security or defence. 'Because they don't see any situation in which Trident would become an option you would think about using. 'This is a weapon of mass destruction.' The Tories seized on Mr Corbyn's remarks to repeat their claim that Labour poses a threat to national security. Business Secretary Sajid Javid said: 'The Labour leader confirmed that he would weaken our defences by scrapping our independent nuclear deterrent and that he would damage our economy by putting up taxes on jobs, earnings, investment and people's homes.

USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama 'This shows the Labour Party are a serious risk to our national security, our economic security and to the security of all working people.' Mr Corbyn vowed to overhaul the way policy is decided, giving more power to members and the annual conference. The issue of Trident is due to be debated this week and is seen as a major first test of Mr Corbyn's leadership. Mr Corbyn said he expected the motion would involve a 'series of alternatives' rather than a straight choice on scrapping nuclear weapons. Mr Corbyn also detailed plans to open up the party's policy-making process to the thousands of new members, many of whom supported the radical left-wing platform on which he stood in the leadership election. Asked whether 'Trotskyists' thrown out during former leader Lord Neil Kinnock's reforms to the party would now be allowed back in, Mr Corbyn said: 'Anyone is welcome to join the Labour Party, providing they support the principles of the party and be content with that. 'Thousands have joined the Labour Party in the last few weeks, 50,000 maybe 60,000 since I was elected two weeks ago, 150,000 since the general election. 'This is a growing, enthusiastic, optimistic party.' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3250765/This-weapon-mass-destruction-Corbyn-steps- opposition-Trident-admits-t-persuade-MPs.html Return to Top

TASS Russian News Agency – Moscow, Russia Russian Navy to Get 2nd Yasen Class Nuclear Sub One Year Behind Schedule — Source Originally, the Russian Navy was to receive the sub in 2017 September 29, 2015 MOSCOW, September 29. /TASS/. The Russian Navy will receive the Kazan multipurpose nuclear submarine, the first submarine of the upgraded Project 885M Yasen-M class one year behind the schedule - in 2018, a source in the military-industrial complex told TASS on Tuesday. "Under the contract, the Kazan sub is to be delivered to the Navy in 2017, but now it is clear that this deadline will not be met. The Navy will receive this nuclear submarine only in 2018," the source said. According to him, the reason for another delay is "the novelty of the project." "The head boat is always built much longer than a series one," said the source. "In addition, the industry capacity, including in terms of import substitution, are insufficient, as the Kazan sub should have exclusively Russian-made electronic equipment and other ‘stuff.’" Meanwhile, the CEO of the Sevmash shipyard that is building the Kazan submarine, Mikhail Budnichenko, told reporters this summer that the submarine would be delivered to the customer in 2017. The head boat of Project 855 - the Severodvinsk - was received by the Russian Navy in 2014. The second Yasen class submarine has been laid down under the modernised project, the same as the Novosibirsk and the Krasnoyarsk subs in 2013 and 2015. The Yasen class fourth-generation multipurpose nuclear submarines have surface displacement of 8,600 tonnes and submerged displacement of 13,800 tonnes. They have the maximum diving depth of 600 metres with submerged speed of about 30 knots. The Yasen-class submarines may carry as many as 30 torpedoes. Unlike most Soviet submarine designs, the Yasen-class boats do not make use of a double-hull-instead it has hybrid design with a lighter structure over the vessel’s pressure hull. Another unique feature for a Russian Issue No.1185, 2 October 2015 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 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies (CUWS) Outreach Journal vessel is that it incorporates a spherical bow sonar called the Irtysh-Amfora for the first time. As a result, Severodvinsk has its torpedo tubes located at about mid-ship like U.S. submarines. The vessel has eight torpedo tubes, four of which are 650mm tubes while the rest are 533mm tubes. The Yasen class submarines are armed with the Oniks and Kalibr cruise missiles as well as homing torpedoes. http://tass.ru/en/defense/824589 Return to Top

The Moscow Times – Moscow, Russia Putin Expresses Doubt about Running for President for 4th Time By Daria Litvinova September 29, 2015 President Vladimir Putin expressed doubt he would run for office a fourth time in an interview with the U.S. journalist Charlie Rose for the CBS network this week. The full text of the interview was published on the official Kremlin website Tuesday. Rose asked Putin how long he planned to remain president, and Putin said it depended on several factors, including his own feelings. "The period of my service will depend on two conditions. Firstly, of course, there are rules stipulated by the Constitution, and I will certainly not infringe on them," the president said. "But I am not sure whether I should take full advantage of these constitutional rights. It will depend on the specific situation in the country, in the world and my own feelings about it," he added. It was not the first time Putin had been asked about the possibility of him entering the presidential race for a fourth time in 2018. The Wall Street Journal cited him as telling foreign journalists in 2012 that he considered the prospect of it "normal, if everything is going fine and if people want it." Putin's third term as president ends in 2018. It is the first presidential term in Russia to have been set at six years instead of four, after a law extending the presidential term from four to six years was signed in 2008 by then-President Dmitry Medvedev. Putin became president in 2000, was re-elected in 2004 and stayed in the Kremlin until 2008, when Medvedev was elected president. Under Russian law, presidents cannot stay in power for more than two consecutive terms. At the end of Medvedev's term in 2012, the two men said they had agreed years ago to swap roles, and Medvedev stepped down accordingly. Putin won the election, sparking mass protests in Moscow. If he becomes president for a fourth time and stays in office for another six years, his rule will be the longest in Russian history since that of Soviet dictator Josef Stalin. http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/putin-expresses-doubt-about-running-for-president-for- 4th-time/535903.html Return to Top

USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama The Guardian (U.S. Edition) – New York, NY Jeremy Corbyn: I Would Never Use Nuclear Weapons if I Were PM Labour leader also reiterates his opposition to £100bn renewal of the ‘obsolete’ Trident weapons system in BBC interview By Patrick Wintour Political editor Wednesday, 30 September 2015 Jeremy Corbyn would instruct the UK’s defence chiefs never to use the Trident nuclear weapons system if he became prime minister in 2020, the new Labour leader has confirmed. Corbyn made his statement in an interview with BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on Wednesday in which he said he had a mandate from his election to oppose the replacement of Trident and the use of nuclear weapons. It is likely Corbyn will come under pressure from those who will question why he would not even fire back at nuclear weapons being trained on the UK. He said: “I am opposed to the use of nuclear weapons. I am opposed to the holding of nuclear weapons. I want to see a nuclear-free world. I believe it is possible.” Asked if he would use nuclear weapons, he said: “No.” His remarks underscore his longstanding opposition to nuclear weapons, but put into perspective the long-term nature of the debate about whether the Commons should vote next year to replace Trident, a process that is not due to be completed until 2028. Corbyn said: “There are five declared nuclear weapon states in the world. There are three others that have nuclear weapons. That is eight countries out of 192; one hundred and eighty-seven countries do not feel the need to have nuclear weapons to protect their security. Why should those five need them to protect their security? We are not in the cold war any more. “I don’t think we should be spending £100bn on renewing Trident. That is a quarter of our defence budget. There are many in the military that do not want Trident renewed because they see it as an obsolete thing thing they don’t need. They would much rather see it spent on conventional weapons.” The Labour leader said he recognised that other shadow cabinet members held opposing views on the issue, saying: “I am very well aware of the views of a large number of party members and supporters who were quite prepared to vote for me knowing full well my views on nuclear weapons. It would be dishonest of me to say anything less than my honest view on it.” In other broadcast interviews, Corbyn did not rule out giving MPs a free vote on the possible air bombing of Syria, stressing that such a vote was hypothetical. His close ally John McDonnell said in a Guardian fringe meeting on Tuesday night that efforts to reach consensus in the party were continuing but MPs might end up having to “agree that we can’t agree”. McDonnell said: “When you are sending people to potential loss of life, I think it is a conscience decision. It is a moral decision. On Syria, my view is it should be a free vote on the basis of conscience.” Corbyn also defended his decision not to mention the deficit during his first conference speech as leader, saying he did not believe there was a way to cut Britain to prosperity. He argued instead that it was better to grow to prosperity. He said Labour had not been clear enough at the last election and suggested that the 36% of people who did not vote were not sufficiently persuaded by Labour’s offer or the clarity with which it opposed the deficit. He refused to endorse remarks by the shadow home secretary, Andy Burnham, that Labour had not faced up to the unpopularity of the free movement of workers inside the European Union and this was one cause of the popularity of Ukip. He said instead that services needed to be improved in areas of high immigration. “People who have migrated to this country over many years have made an enormous contribution to our society, helped our economic

FARS News Agency – Tehran, Iran Sunday, September 27, 2015 Head of Space Agency: Orbiting Home-Made Satellites Iran's Priority TEHRAN (FNA) - Head of the Iranian Space Agency (ISA) Manouchehr Manteqi announced that building and orbiting national satellites is his agency's priority. "Orbiting satellites is our priority; generally we have strategies for different levels and we will start from lower to the higher orbits," Manteqi, who used to serve as the managing director of Iran Aviation Industries Organization (IAIO), told FNA on Sunday. He also announced plans to promote the students projects to build satellites. In relevant remarks in April, Communications and Information Technology Minister Mahmoud Vaezi called on the ISA and other relevant bodies and universities to double efforts to build and orbit at least one national satellite for communication purposes. "We need at least one national satellite and we should understand our existing weaknesses to materialize this goal," Vaezi said. Noting that four new satellites built by Iranian experts were on the country's launch list at present, he said, "ISA will choose one of these four satellites to send it into the space." Vaezi also informed that in addition to Sharif Sat and Tadbir (Wisdom) satellites, other satellites have also been built by the Iranian Space Research Center and Amir Kabir University of Technology, and all the four will be launched in the near future. Iran has taken long strides in recent years to develop its space industry and to build different types of satellites and explorers.

USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama In February, Iran’s domestically-made National Fajr (Dawn) Satellite was launched into orbit and started transmitting data to its stations on earth. The satellite made its first contact with its ground stations hours after it was put into the orbit Fajr satellite is technically characterized by an orbit which could promote from 250 to 450 kilometers through a thruster or an engine. Equipped with GPS navigation system, Fajr, weighing 52 kilos, is the fourth Iranian-made satellite which was put into orbit after three others between 2009 and 2012. After Iran launched its first locally-built satellite, Omid (Hope), in 2009, it put two other satellites including, Rasad (Observation), and Navid-e Elm-o Sanat (Harbinger of Science and Industry) into space. http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13940705000344 Return to Top

Tasnim News Agency – Tehran, Iran Iran Warns US to Avoid Obstruction of JCPOA September 28, 2015 TEHRAN (Tasnim) – Iranian foreign minister said he has voiced Tehran’s discontent in a meeting with his US counterpart about the irritating comments by some American politicians that only pose obstacles to implementing a comprehensive deal over Iran’s nuclear program. Speaking in a televised interview from New York on Sunday, Mohammad Javad Zarif said the main theme of his recent meeting with US Secretary of State John Kerry –held on the sidelines of the 70th annual session of the United Nations General Assembly- was the implementation process of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), a lasting deal that Iran and the Group 5+1 (Russia, China, the US, Britain, France and Germany) finalized back in July. Zarif said he has also voiced Iran’s concern about “certain remarks in the US political arena over the past two months, made by different people, including the US government individuals.” The top Iranian diplomat added that such comments “could make it impossible or difficult for calmly implementing the JCPOA along with confidence building.” Zarif said he has warned Kerry of the consequences of such conduct. The Iranian top diplomat added that he has also spoken with Kerry about the need for the US to honor its commitment to terminating the anti-Iran sanctions under the nuclear accord. He further unveiled plans for a meeting with the Group 5+1 representatives in New York to discuss carrying out the JCPOA. The upcoming meeting, Zarif explained, will include talks on details of bylaws about the lifting of sanctions and the procedures for assuring international investors and entrepreneurs about cooperation with Iran in the post-sanctions era in a calm situation and without any limitation or obstructionism. While Iran and the Group 5+1 (also known as the P5+1 or E3+3) managed to finalize the text of a lasting deal on Tehran’s nuclear program on July 14, some US officials have not stopped making provocative comments about weakness of the JCPOA or a need for confronting Iran militarily. http://www.tasnimnews.com/english/Home/Single/873344 Return to Top

Islamic Republic News Agency – Tehran, Iran 29 September 2015 Special Commission to Release Final Report on JCPOA on Sunday: MP Tehran, Sept 29, IRNA – Member of Parliament Hossein Naqavi Hosseini said Tuesday that the parliamentary commission in charge of examining the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) will release its views on Sunday. Naqavi Hosseini, the spokesman of the commission, said the report was due to be delivered to the Parliament chamber on Monday (yesterday), but the commission could not prepare the report on time because of technical aspects of the JCPOA. He said that the JCPOA is very complicated that needs to be thoroughly examined. Naqavi Hosseini noted that the special commission will not approve or reject anything and will not put the JCPOA to vote. The commission only offers its assessment of the deal and it is up to the lawmakers to make decisions based on the commission's report, Naqavi Hosseini said. http://www.irna.ir/en/News/81778730/ Return to Top

Xinhua News – Beijing, China Pentagon Caught Surprised By Iraq's Intelligence-Sharing Accord with Russia, Iran, Syria (Xinhua) September 30, 2015 WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 (Xinhua) -- The Pentagon said on Tuesday it was surprised and concerned after knowing that Iraq joined an intelligence sharing accord with Russia, Syria and Iran. "We were caught by surprise that Iraq entered into this agreement with Syria and Iran and Russia," said Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work at a congressional hearing. In its latest move to expand political and military influence in Syria, Russia announced on Sunday that it had reached an understanding with Iraq, Syria and Iran to share intelligence about the extremist group the Islamic State (IS). "Obviously, we are not going to share intelligence with either Syria or Russia or Iran. So we are in the process of working to try to find out exactly what Iraq has said," Work told U.S. lawmakers. "We're not going to provide any classified information to help those actors on the battlefield," he insisted. Just like Russia's recent military buildup around Syria's coastal province Latakia, the accord was reached without notice to the United States. Russia's latest move also cast doubts on relations between the United States and Iraq, a crucial U.S. ally in the fight against the IS. Unlike NATO member Bulgaria, who under the U.S. pressure earlier this month closed its airspace to Russian flights to Syria, Iraq was still allowing Russia to use its airspace despite U.S. protests.

USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama "We did not violate any of our commitments toward the international community," The New York Times cited Iraqi Foreign Minister Ibrahim al-Jafari as saying on Friday. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2015-09/30/c_134672909.htm Return to Top

FARS News Agency – Tehran, Iran Wednesday, September 30, 2015 Iranian Legislators Protest at Zarif-Obama Handshaking TEHRAN (FNA) - The Iranian parliamentarians are preparing a statement to voice protest at Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif's shaking hand with US President Barack Obama at the UN headquarters, the first handshake between a high-ranking Iranian official and a US president in over 30 years. "The lawmakers are signing a statement to voice protest at the foreign minister's shaking hand with the US president," Mojtaba Rahmandoust, a senior MP, told FNA on Wednesday. Noting that the general atmosphere prevailing over the parliament condemns the hand-shaking with Obama, he underlined that the entire world should know that Zarif's act doesn’t mean Iran's hand-shaking with the US. Zarif, the head of Iran’s diplomacy apparatus who played an important role as the country’s chief nuclear negotiator in securing the landmark nuclear agreement between Tehran and the world powers this summer, shook hands with Obama on Monday on the sidelines of the UN general assembly. It was the first time a high-ranking Iranian official had shaken hands with an American president in over three decades. The Iranian foreign ministry explained that this was not a planned action and had happened by accident, when Zarif was leaving the UN headquarters at noon time and incidentially ran into the US delegation headed by President Obama. The principlist camp is furious at Zarif's reaction, stressing that he should have declined to shake hand with the head of an arrogant, aggressive state. The United States and Iran broke diplomatic relations in April 1980, after Iranian students seized the United States' espionage center at its embassy in Tehran. The two countries have had tense relations ever since. Tehran has been under Washington sanctions after the 1979 Islamic Revolution that toppled a US-backed monarch in the country. The two countries' relations deteriorated following Iran's progress in the field of civilian nuclear technology. Washington and its Western allies accuse Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons under the cover of a civilian nuclear program, while they have never presented any corroborative evidence to substantiate their allegations. Iran denies the charges and insists that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. Tehran stresses that the country has always pursued a civilian path to provide power to the growing number of Iranian population, whose fossil fuel would eventually run dry. Also during the 2009 post-election events in Iran, Iranian officials found a number of documents as well as a series of confessions extracted from the detainees substantiating US attempts to stoke unrests in the country. But the nuclear deal which was clinched in Vienna on July 14 made Tehran and Washington to hold several rounds of bilateral talks in the past two years within the framework of nuclear negotiations between Iran and the Group 5+1 (the US, Russia, China, Britain and France plus Germany). In a recent case, Zarif held talks with US Secretary of State John Kerry in New York on Saturday on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly meeting.

After the meeting, Zarif reiterated that his country would not discuss anything, but the nuclear issue, in talks with Washington. "We had said since the beginning that our negotiations with the US would be limited to the nuclear issue and we don’t talk about other issues," Zarif said in an interview with the state TV on Sunday night. Yet, he said the US officials sometimes had tried to raise other issues in the talks, "but we have always emphasized that our bilateral negotiations are limited to the nuclear issue based on the framework specified by Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution (Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei)". "We didn’t enter negotiations on Syria or other regional issues in our talks with Kerry," Zarif said. http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13940708000722 Return to Top

Trend News Agency – Baku, Azerbaijan Iranian MPs Urge Administration to Meet National Interests in Nuclear Agreement By Fatih Karimov, Trend News 30 September 2015 A number of Iranian MPs have prepared a bill which will require the administration to meet national interests in the nuclear agreement. The bill suggests that the acceptation of limiting the country’s nuclear activities should not be construed as the confirmation of following a non-civilian nuclear program by Iran, Iran’s Fars news agency reported Sept. 30. Instead, it should be a means for lifting all unjust sanctions in a single stage. So, the administration should take the following issues into consideration: issues related to possible military dimensions (PMD) of Iran's nuclear program should be terminated. All sanctions, including banking, financial, and economic ones should be lifted. The implementation of the Additional Protocol should be voluntarily for only two years. Any access of IAEA inspectors to military sites and facilities will be forbidden. The country’s missile program and the sale of conventional weapons to anti-Israel battlefront should be continued. http://en.trend.az/iran/politics/2438696.html Return to Top

Tehran Times – Tehran, Iran Thursday, October 1, 2015 Iran to Allow No More IAEA Visit to Parchin: Shamkhani Tehran Times Political Desk TEHRAN - No other visit from Iran’s Parchin military site will be permitted at any level, Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council Ali Shamkhani said Wednesday.

USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama Referring to International Atomic Energy Agency chief Yukiya Amano’s recent visit of Parchin, Shamkhani said the visit was by no means an inspection, Fars reported. Parchin, located near the capital city of Tehran, is where the UN body claims Iran might have conducted nuclear-related tests more than a decade ago. But Iran has repeatedly denied any nuclear activity at Parchin. Iran's Ambassador to the IAEA Reza Najafi said on Sept. 21 that the visit by Amano and his deputy was an ordinary visit that was done as a formality. “They did not have any equipment even a mobile phone and their visit did not last for more than a few minutes,” he stated. http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=249754 Return to Top

Tasnim News Agency – Tehran, Iran Leader Urges Enhanced Military Preparedness October 01, 2015 TEHRAN (Tasnim) – Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution on Thursday called on the Iranian armed forces to speed up their progress and boost their preparation to gain such power that enemies would not even think of attacking the country. In a meeting with Iranian Army commanders and officials in the northern city of Noshahr, Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei described as “valuable” Iran’s current military achievements in different fields, but at the same time urged accelerated progress due to the “historical lags” in the country’s development. “By accelerating their progress and boosting their preparedness, (Iran’s) Armed Forces should create such power that enemies would not even dare to think of any (anti-Iran) offensive,” Ayatollah Khamenei said. The Leader further referred to the Iranian nation’s resistance against the policies of Global Arrogance as the main reason behind the hostilities towards the country, rejecting as “incorrect” the perception that the enmities would fade away if the country backs down on its positions. “The enemy is seeking the surrender of the Islamic Establishment, and the hostilities would not end by giving in to them,” the Leader stressed. In relevant remarks last year, Ayatollah Khamenei had underscored that the Iranian nation will never give in to pressures of the US and other world powers. “The (world) powers should know that the Iranian nation will not be brought to its knees, because it is a lively nation, and the youth of the country are moving ahead in the right direction,” the Leader said at the time. http://www.tasnimnews.com/english/Home/Single/876391 Return to Top

Reuters (U.S.) – New York Israel Says Won't Allow Iran to Join 'Nuclear Weapons Club' By Louis Charbonneau and Hugh Bronstein Thursday, October 1, 2015 UNITED NATIONS -- Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu used his annual United Nations address on Thursday to launch an all-out assault on the historic nuclear deal with Iran, warning that his country would never let the Islamic Republic join the nuclear weapons club.

Speaking at the yearly gathering of world leaders at the U.N. General Assembly, Netanyahu reiterated Israeli criticism of a deal between Iran and major world powers aimed at curbing Tehran's nuclear program. He said that, once international sanctions are lifted, "unleashed and unmuzzled, Iran will go on the prowl." Israel, Netanyahu said, would never allow Iran "to break in, to sneak in, or to walk into the nuclear weapons club." Israel has repeatedly warned it is prepared to use military force to prevent Iran from acquiring atomic weapons. Tehran denies wanting nuclear arms and insists its nuclear program is peaceful. U.S. President Barack Obama's administration has vigorously defended the July 14 nuclear agreement with Iran against criticism from Republicans in Congress, who tried unsuccessfully to kill the deal, and Israel, describing it as the best way to avoid a new war in the Middle East. Netanyahu said, "We see a world celebrating this bad deal, rushing to embrace and do business with a regime openly committed to our destruction." The Israeli leader held up a copy of the latest book by Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei that he said was a "400-page screed detailing his plan to destroy the state of Israel." Diplomatic sources have said that Israel and Iran's regional rival, Saudi Arabia, have been discussing how to respond to the nuclear deal and their fear that the lifting of sanctions, expected in the coming months, will embolden Iran to pursue a more aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East. Without naming countries, Netanyahu said Israel was in touch with Arab states about Iran. "Israel is working closely with our Arab peace partners to address our common security challenges from Iran and also the security challenges from ISIL (Islamic State) and others," he said. Most of Netanyahu's 43-minute speech was focused on the threat posed by Iran. But toward the end, he responded to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' U.N. speech on Wednesday, in which Abbas said recent Israeli security actions at the Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem could ignite a religious war. Netanyahu told the General Assembly that Abbas should stop "spreading lies about Israel’s alleged intentions on the Temple Mount," and return to direct negotiations to secure peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. "Temple Mount," where Al-Aqsa is located, is the Israeli term for the location. It is one of the holiest sites in Islam and Judaism. Abbas had accused Israel of undermining U.S. attempts at brokering peace, though Netanyahu placed the blame on the Palestinians. Netanyahu also accused the General Assembly and the U.N. system as a whole of engaging in incessant, unjustified "Israel-bashing." Twice during his speech - once at the beginning and again in the middle - he silently stared at the 193-nation General Assembly with an angry look on his face. His second staredown with the assembly lasted for 45 seconds. The prime minister also made clear that Israel would continue to use military force to repel attacks from Syria and to prevent the Iranian-backed Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, which is fighting in Syria alongside government forces, from acquiring key weapons.

USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama "Israel will continue to respond forcefully to any attacks against it from Syria," Netanyahu said, adding that it would also "prevent the transfer of strategic weapons to Hezbollah from and through Syrian territory." Additional reporting by Parisa Hafezi, Michelle Nichols and David Brunnstrom; Writing by Louis Charbonneau and Michelle Nichols; Editing by Jonathan Oatis http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/01/us-un-assembly-israel-idUSKCN0RV57K20151001 Return to Top

The National Interest – Washington, D.C. OPINION/Feature Atomic Nightmare: Welcome to Pakistani Nuclear Weapons 101 Five things you need to know regarding one of the world's fastest-growing nuclear weapons programs. By Daniel R. DePetris September 26, 2015 Could Pakistan be more of a nuclear security threat to Israel than Iran? Conventional wisdom suggests that a nuclear-armed Iran is the most pressing potential nuclear threat to Israel. It’s a country run by a Shia theocracy espousing invective for Israel on a daily basis. Indeed, Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei ranted about the possibility of Israel’s forthcoming destruction as recently as this week. However, Azriel Bermant, a research associate at the Tel Aviv-based Institute for National Security Studies, offered a different take earlier this year in a column he wrote for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz: the real threat might come from Pakistan. Bermant postulated that despite the worries of both Israeli and American policymakers alike, Iran may not be the nuclear threat that Israel should focus on. After all, Tehran doesn’t have a single nuclear weapon at its disposal. Further, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action signed in July will forestall the Iranians from the nuclear threshold for the next fifteen to twenty-five years. Rather, Bermant argues, “one could argue that Islamabad poses more of a threat to Israel than Tehran does.” It’s worth considering because the Pakistani government possesses a fairly large nuclear arsenal. Over the years, President Barack Obama has expressed reservations about the continuing growth and stability of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program. Only three months into his first term in April 2009, President Obama voiced his concerns: “We have huge…national-security interests in making sure that Pakistan is stable and that you don’t end up having a nuclear-armed militant state.” Here is why the United States likely continues to have those worries, nearly seven years later: 1. Pakistan’s Growing Arsenal There are thousands of nuclear weapons in the world today. According to the latest count from the Federation of American Scientists, the five original nuclear powers have a combined 15,465 nuclear weapons between them, most of which are divided amongst the United States and Russia. Yet the fastest growing nuclear arsenal in the world is not included in this number. While Pakistan has a range of 100-120 nuclear weapons in its possession — a figure that pales in comparison to the United States or Russia — Islamabad has devoted a tremendous amount of its military budget to growing its arsenal and procuring the associated delivery systems that are needed to launch them. More alarming than Pakistan’s current stockpile is the projected growth of its arsenal over the next decade. In a wide-ranging report for the Council on Foreign Relations, professor Gregory D. Koblentz of George Mason University assessed that Pakistan had enough highly enriched uranium to increase its stockpile to 200 nuclear weapons by 2020 if fully utilized. Percentage wise, this would mean that the Pakistani army would be projected to increase its nuclear weapons arsenal by roughly sixty-seven percent over the next five years. In other words, Pakistan could have as many nuclear weapons as the United Kingdom by 2020. Moreover, Pakistan falls outside the purview of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Issue No.1185, 2 October 2015 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 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies (CUWS) Outreach Journal

To guarantee that they the ability to rapidly expand their stockpile, the Pakistani military is investing in reprocessing plutonium in addition to enriching uranium. In January 2015, the Institute for Science and International Security reported that the Pakistanis opened up their fourth plutonium facility at Khushab, which provides Islamabad with an additional channel to construct nuclear bomb material in a relatively short period of time. “Its expansion appears to be part of an effort to increase the production of weapons-grade plutonium,” the ISIS report (not to be confused with the terrorist group) reads. “Allowing Pakistan to build a larger number of miniaturized plutonium-based nuclear weapons that can complement its existing highly enriched uranium nuclear weapons.” 2. Pakistani Nukes a Major U.S. Intelligence Priority To say that the U.S. intelligence community is closely monitoring the development of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program would be an understatement. The U.S. government is doing more than just monitoring: they are actively preparing for a terrible catastrophe and engaging Pakistani officials in the hopes that they will stop pouring resources into the expansion of their program. The last thing Washington wants or needs is a nuclear crisis flashpoint in a dangerous and unpredictable region filled with an alphabet soup of Islamist terrorist groups. The U.S. government under both George W. Bush and Barack Obama has been trying to prevent such a crisis scenario from occurring. Thanks to the 2010 Wikileaks disclosures, we can glean how seriously the State Department took the problem. In September 2009, on the margins of a nuclear security meeting among the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, Undersecretary for Arms Control Ellen Tauscher discussed with China’s foreign minister about how intransigent Islamabad had been in implementing the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT). In response to Tauscher’s concerns, China’s representative agreed to discuss the treaty problems with Islamabad directly. The prospect of Pakistan losing control of its nuclear materials has been a persistent headache for the United States. It is a scenario that military planners and intelligence officials have been planning for even before the September 11, 2001 attacks. NBC News ran a long investigative piece on U.S. plans to unilaterally secure Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal if a situation erupted that would put U.S. interests at risk — whether it included nuclear materials being stolen by a terrorist group; extremists infiltrating the ranks of the Pakistani army or a quick escalation of violence between Pakistan and India. The investigation found that “Pakistan’s weaponry has been the subject of continuing discussions, scenarios, war games and possibly even military exercises by U.S. intelligence and special operations forces regarding so-called ‘snatch-and-grab’ operations.” The safety of Pakistan’s nuclear stockpile remains a key action item for the U.S. intelligence community today — so much so that Pakistan-specific analytical cells were created in order to address the lack of information that America’s intelligence professionals were receiving about Islamabad’s proliferation activities. 3. Nukes Have Gotten Pakistan Into Trouble With the U.S. Pakistan’s high enrichment of uranium is not a new problem — it has complicated the U.S.-Pakistan bilateral relationship since the mid 1970’s, when U.S. lawmakers first enacted a strict set of economic sanctions on Islamabad’s nuclear weaponization activities. The 1977 Glenn amendment added to the Foreign Assistance Act was the first of many congressional efforts to pressure Pakistan (and any other non-nuclear weapons state not party to the NPT) to refrain from conducting a nuclear explosive test. That legislation came in handy in May 1998, when President Bill Clinton enacted sanctions on Pakistan in retaliation for a nuclear test that occurred two weeks after India’s own testing (New Delhi was also sanctioned at the time). Those sanctions prevented the U.S. from sending any foreign assistance to Pakistan — a restriction that was eventually eased later in the year under a new statute. President Clinton’s predecessor also had his run-ins with the Pakistanis when it came to nuclear proliferation. In 1990, President George H.W. Bush was unable to certify to Congress that Pakistan did not possess a nuclear device. Because President Bush could not make the certification required under U.S. law, Washington was compelled to substantial cut off military and economic assistance to the Pakistani Issue No.1185, 2 October 2015 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

USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama Government — a provision that was in effect until 1996, when the Brown amendment relaxed the restrictions on economic aid. All of the country-wide sanctions were in addition to the numerous penalties on companies who violated U.S. arms control export policies, which forbid corporations around the world from delivering “material, equipment, or technology…to be used by Pakistan in the manufacture of a nuclear explosive device.” Dealings between Washington and Islamabad were very tense over the nuclear issue throughout the 1980’s and 1990’s. That all changed after 9/11, when Washington enlisted Pakistan’s support against Al-Qaeda. 4. Pakistan Needs Nukes for its Defense Pakistan likes to fancy itself as a peer competitor to its historical rival India in the South Asia region. But if we’re going to be perfectly honest, Islamabad cannot compete with India in conventional capabilities. By virtue of New Delhi’s large population, impressive economic growth, and potential to continue improving its GDP in the years ahead, Pakistan will always be second-fiddle to its principal adversary in terms of army strength, battle tanks and combat jets. India spent nearly $50 billion on modernizing and building up its armed forces in 2014; Pakistan spent slightly more than $10 billion. The figures are not even close. And that is why the Pakistani military views its nuclear weapons with such importance. For Islamabad, ensuring that nuclear weapons of all types — from stand-alone strategic weapons to tactical battlefield nukes — are primed and ready for use in a short period of time is a way to keep a vastly more powerful India in check. Unlike India, Islamabad has refused to accept a “no first use” doctrine, meaning that the Pakistani army is authorized to deploy nuclear weapons on the battlefield if the country’s national security is seriously at risk from an Indian incursion. Keeping the nuclear stockpile on stand-by is a way for the Pakistani Government to deter an India that is more populated, wealthier and has more men in uniform. 5. The Bottom Line Despite all of the attempts from the nuclear non-proliferation community, Pakistan will continue to develop and strengthen its nuclear deterrent as long as the high brass in the Pakistani military continues to have an India-centric mindset in its defense policy. India and Pakistan have fought three wars since Islamabad’s independence in 1947, and in each case, the Pakistanis were the either the losers are forced into a stalemate before acceding to a ceasefire (the 1971 breakaway of eastern Pakistan, which would later be named Bangladesh, was an especially embarrassing defeat for the Pakistanis). Islamabad hasn’t forgotten these cases ever since. And for the Pakistanis, the lessons of these past conflicts are all the same: we cannot repeat history. India-Pakistan relations remain a sore spot for both nations, from the ongoing and never-ending Kashmir dispute to allegations of meddling in one another’s domestic affairs (India continues to strongly believe that the Inter-Services Intelligence directorate fosters a deep partnership with a number of anti-India terrorist groups, while Islamabad has levied accusations about India’s covert connections with the Pakistani Taliban). With so much bad blood between the two, it’s unfathomable to believe that Pakistan would voluntary cap the number of nuclear warheads or agree to put its entire nuclear program under IAEA supervision. President Obama recognized this dynamic early in his presidency, telling Joe Klein with Time magazine that the Kashmir conflict is a constant irritant to peace in South Asia and that a special U.S. envoy may need to be appointed in order to prod both sides to start negotiating a long-term solution in a serious way. Progress on that front, however, has been nonexistent: violence in Kashmir still flares up occasionally, and with every death, the Indo-Pakistani relationship suffers another blow. In the current environment, we all better get used to Pakistan becoming the third-largest nuclear weapons state in the world. Daniel R. DePetris is an analyst at Wikistrat, Inc., a geostrategic consulting firm, and a freelance researcher. He has also written for CNN.com, Small Wars Journal and The Diplomat. http://nationalinterest.org/feature/welcome-pakistani-nuclear-weapons-101-13942?page=show Return to Top

The National Interest – Washington, D.C. OPINION/Feature Welcome to North Korean Nuclear Weapons 101 The scariest "class" you may ever take. By Kyle Mizokami September 26, 2015 The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) has pursued a nuclear weapons program for decades. In 2006, despite sanctions and economic hardship, North Korea tested its first nuclear weapon. It has since conducted two more successful tests in 2009 and 2013. That is pretty much the extent of unclassified knowledge about Pyongyang’s nuclear arsenal. North Korea openly admits it has nuclear weapons. In fact, the hermit kingdom brags about its arsenal and regularly threatens to annihilate its enemies. Other than that, North Korea has been vague about its nukes and declines to discuss details. It’s no surprise that little is known about North Korea’s nuclear program. Information about a country’s nukes can be hard to come by, even in free societies like Israel’s. But the Stalinist-inspired North Korean dictatorship is one of the most isolated regimes on Earth, and information coming in and out of the country is tightly controlled. As a result, almost all discussion about the North Korean nuclear program is based on guesses and estimates. We can make some very good guesses about the country’s nuclear goals, but invariably some guesses will be better than others. Here are five guesses we can make about the North Korean nuclear program. 1. Nuclear weapons are meant to guarantee the security of the regime The 1991 Persian Gulf War was not just a disaster for Saddam Hussein. On the other side of the world, the North Korean regime stood by and helplessly watched as the Iraqi military — outfitted similarly to the Korean People’s Army — was destroyed in a matter of days. A revolution in military affairs, combined with a new generation of weapons and tactics demonstrated the increasing irrelevance of sheer numbers. The lesson was clear: the days of North Korea’s military might protecting the regime were over. Kim Jong Il, who assumed power in 1994, made the production of nuclear weapons — and the means to deliver them — his number one priority. Being described as a member of the “Axis of Evil” in 2001 undoubtedly added to his sense of urgency. Nor did Allied military action in 2011 against Muammar Gaddafi’s Libyan regime after it gave up its program to develop weapons of mass destruction reassure Pyongyang. Kim succeeded in his plan. Thanks to North Korean nuclear weapons and the uncertainty surrounding them, the United States and South Korea seem unlikely to undertake major military action against Pyongyang, lest it trigger a nuclear response from the DPRK. The North Korean regime is now virtually invulnerable to outside threats. The North Korean bomb is now a key part of the regime’s survival strategy. It may be the survival strategy. 2. The number of North Korean nuclear weapons is unknown We know the North has had at least three nuclear weapons — the three it tested. We don’t know how many more it has stockpiled. North Korea has not stated how many nuclear weapons it has, and nobody outside of Pyongyang knows for sure. Estimating North Korea’s nuclear arsenal is made even more difficult because its early weapons may have been inefficient designs with a relatively low explosive yield.

USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama In 2008, North Korea declared it had 38.5 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium. It also has highly enriched uranium (HEU) that it can use to build a nuclear weapon, but the DPRK has not declared how much of the material it has. North Korea also claims it restarted the Yongbyon nuclear plant in 2013, meaning it has been producing fissionable material for the last two years. In 2012, analyst David Albright estimated North Korea had enough material to build up to eleven nuclear weapons. In 2015, the US-Korea Institute at SAIS estimated it had between ten and sixteen devices, of those between six and eight were made of plutonium and another four to eight made out of HEU. Further, the institute claimed that under the projected worst case scenario, North Korea could have 100 weapons by 2020. 3. Current methods of delivery for the North’s nukes are unknown There are a limited number of ways to deliver a nuclear weapon to a target. Bombs, artillery shells, and missiles based on aircraft, ships or ground vehicles are all possible delivery systems. Most, but not all, require miniaturization and ruggedization to allow them to survive the journey to the target. North Korea may have mastered none of these systems, or it may have mastered all of them. North Korea has worked for decades to improve its missile force, turning intermediate-range ballistic missiles into something that can hit the United States. It has also been working on making a weapon small and durable enough to arm a missile. North Korea claimed that its 2013 nuclear test involved miniaturizing a weapon. In its 2014 defense white paper, South Korea stated the North Korean regime has the ability to place a nuclear weapon atop a ballistic missile. Joel Wit and Sun Young Ahn of the U.S.-Korea Institute assess the North as being able to fit a nuclear weapon on a Nodong medium range nuclear missile or Taepodong-2 long- range ballistic missile. Even if miniaturization has eluded the DPRK, there remain other ways it could deliver a nuclear weapon. It could simply dig a tunnel and set off a weapon somewhere south of the demilitarized zone. Nor is Incheon or Seoul that far away from the border. Another option would be to load it onto a commercial ship and slip it into the port city of Busan. 4. The North’s nuclear doctrine is unknown Under what circumstances would North Korea use nuclear weapons? Does it have a “no first use” policy? Does it consider nukes offensive or defensive weapons? Maybe both? Are Pyongyang’s nukes strategic or tactical? Outsiders — which is everyone outside of North Korea — have no firm answers, a disturbing notion since understanding under what circumstances North Korea would use a nuclear weapon is essential to avoiding a nuclear war. Other countries are more explicit. China and India, for example, have both made a pledge of “no first use” of nuclear weapons. Neither will use nuclear weapons unless they are nuked first. It’s an admirable policy of restraint and pre-tension signaling. North Korea, not surprisingly, has taken a different tack and nuclear ambiguity has become an essential part of the Kim’s nuclear strategy. Not understanding the terms under which North Korea will use nukes has a chilling effect on any potential military action. Tit-for-tat artillery exchanges in retaliation for bombarding South Korean territory might potentially trigger a nuclear war. Rolling the combined might of the South Korean and U.S. armies up to the entrance of the Ryugyong Hotel might not trigger nuclear war. We really don’t know. Which just might be the whole point. 5. Giving away nukes would probably end the Kim regime Nuclear weapons have become the guarantor of the Kim dynasty. But by pushing so hard for nuclear weapons, the Kims may have fallen into a trap of their own making. North Korea has long maintained that it preserves the “real” spirit of the Korean people. It safeguards this gem of Koreanness from the imperialist United States and the puppet government in Seoul. That’s the whole point of heavily arming itself and cutting itself off from the outside world.

The Kim dynasty has defined the United States as the antithesis of Koreanness. The Yankee imperialist enemy has helped legitimize multi-generational rule by the Kim family, as well as justify repressive security measures, harsh living conditions, lack of economic progress and the generally low level of prosperity. If Kim Jong Un were to cut a deal with the United States and other powers to relinquish his nuclear weapons, he would be acknowledging that the existential threat no longer exists. And if there’s no longer a threat to North Korea, why should the people tolerate deprivation, sacrifice and the Kims? North Korea’s nuclear arsenal is not going away anytime soon. It will likely continue to grow. Getting to the bottom about the many uncertainties about Pyongyang’s nuclear program will help the rest of the world deal with as ever more dangerous and complex situation. Ambiguity may conceal weakness. It may also conceal strength. Kyle Mizokami is a defense and national security writer based in San Francisco who has appeared in The Diplomat, Foreign Policy, War is Boring and The Daily Beast. In 2009 he cofounded the defense and security blog Japan Security Watch. http://nationalinterest.org/feature/welcome-north-korean-nuclear-weapons-101-13940?page=show Return to Top

The Moscow Times – Moscow, Russia OPINION/Commentary How Moscow Forces Washington's Hand (Op-Ed) By Alexander Golts September 28, 2015 We are witnessing the birth of Russia's new diplomatic strategy — namely, if Moscow cannot offer anything constructive to the international dialogue, it must create new problems in order to remain relevant. It was clear from the start that President Vladimir Putin could not offer anything positive that would serve as the basis of negotiations with the U.S. president. As viewers learned from Putin's recent interview on U.S. television, Moscow cannot withdraw its support for the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad or the separatists in Donbass. What's more, Putin's initiative to form an international coalition to fight the Islamic State remains an empty gesture. Instead, Russia suddenly sent warplanes to Syria. And while those aircraft clearly cannot tip the scales in the war against the Islamic State, they can create a problem for U.S. President Barack Obama. If U.S. and Russian aircraft simultaneously perform combat missions in the same air space, any number of dangerous and undesirable incidents might result. In an even worse scenario, Washington could order an attack against Assad's forces and Russian troops could receive instructions to defend them. Therefore, Obama reluctantly agreed to meet with Putin despite his earlier emphatic refusals. However, the subsequent squabble between Russia and the U.S. over who first requested the meeting leaves little hope of a successful outcome. No doubt Moscow will have to create more "negative incentives" in the near future to force Washington to give it the attention it desires. In all likelihood, Moscow will raise the issue of tactical — that is, non-strategic — nuclear weapons in Europe as its next "negative incentive." Only days before Putin left for New York, the Foreign Ministry suddenly recalled that for the last five years the insidious U.S. has been implementing a program to modernize more than 200 nuclear bombs stationed in Europe. And even though another five years remain before the program's completion, Moscow chose this moment to sound the alarm. Issue No.1185, 2 October 2015 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

USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova announced that the U.S. stands in violation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) for adapting the B61-12 bomb for use on the "Tornado" aircraft used by its European allies. Putin's spokesman Dmitry Peskov immediately joined the chorus, saying, "It can lead to a violation of the strategic balance in Europe, and of course it would therefore require Russia to take countermoves and countermeasures to restore the balance and parity." Unidentified sources with close ties to the Defense Ministry rushed to inform reporters that this meant the deployment of Iskander tactical missile systems to the Kaliningrad region and the repositioning of Tu- 22M3 long-range bombers closer to Russia's western borders. And then Putin rolled out the heavy artillery. In response to a question about the Russian military presence in Ukraine, he told U.S. television interviewer Charlie Rose: "Let us not forget that there are U.S. tactical nuclear weapons in Europe. Does that mean that the U.S. has occupied Germany or that the U.S. never stopped the occupation after World War II and only transformed its occupation troops into NATO forces? And if we keep our troops on our territory at the border with some state, do you see that as a crime?" Honestly, those claims hold little water. American atomic bombs have been stationed in Europe for decades and, according to a special agreement between Washington and its European allies, the U.S. military maintains complete control over those bombs in peacetime. In all those years, it never once entered the mind of a single Moscow official that those bombs violated the NPT. If, on the other hand, Moscow could find some new factor at play, it might argue that the U.S. bombs violate the strategic balance in Europe. That was the thrust of Soviet-era diplomacy during the debate over intermediate- and shorter-range missiles. The logic was simple: U.S. non-strategic missiles can reach Moscow and St. Petersburg whereas Russian missiles of the same class cannot reach the U.S. However, that ignores the fact that, according to most experts, Russia has significant superiority in tactical nuclear weapons. Thus, any reckoning of the true balance of power must consider the fact that Russian weapons can strike any target on the territory of Washington's European allies. That is exactly what gives symbolic meaning to the deployment of U.S. bombs on the continent: They demonstrate Washington's willingness to prevent nuclear aggression against NATO's European members. It is worth noting in this regard that Washington has been offering for years to begin talks with Moscow on non-strategic nuclear weapons. However, the Kremlin clearly did not want to hold such talks, insisting as a precondition that the U.S. pull its bombs out of Europe and reposition them at home — thereby stripping the negotiations of any meaning. Russia's threats are no less illogical. Over the past eight or nine years, Moscow threatened to deploy Iskander missiles every time a conflict arose with Washington. As a result, the deployment of those missiles — simply a result of regular modernization — is inevitably seen as an act of confrontation. It is not even worth repeating here what nonsense some State Duma deputies gave vent to concerning the U.S. bombs. If the Kremlin dares to withdraw from the New START treaty or the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), it risks unleashing an arms race like the one that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. So, while the Kremlin has yet to find any really new "negative incentives," it is a matter of deep concern that Moscow is focusing exclusively on that approach. Alexander Golts is deputy editor of the online newspaper Yezhednevny Zhurnal. http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/how-moscow-forces-washingtons-hand-op- ed/535783.html Return to Top

The Hill – Washington, D.C. OPINION/Congress Blog September 30, 2015 America Needs a Global Missile Defense Plan By Mira Ricardel The Iran deal marks a new phase in the nuclear age: the advent of new nuclear states. It dramatically increases the probability of Iran joining nuclear weapons to its substantial ballistic missile inventory — either when the agreement ends or sooner, should Iran decide to “break-out” of the deal. At the same time, there are nuclear developments in Russia, China and North Korea with serious implications for U.S. defense requirements. Russia has a broad modernization of its nuclear weapons and delivery systems underway, China is expanding its ballistic and cruise missile programs in number and type, and North Korea has announced a resumption of nuclear testing and has deployed a mobile ICBM. Despite the rapidly changing and increasing threat, the main elements of U.S. missile defense have remained mostly static over the past decade and funding, especially of advanced programs, has been reduced significantly since 2008. Notably, the administration has chosen to deploy a more limited defense system in Poland than originally planned, abandon plans to deploy a powerful radar in the Czech Republic, and cancel the Airborne Laser (ABL), developed to destroy ballistic missiles in their boost phase. The US must address this threat urgently with a comprehensive missile defense plan focused on development, deployment and diplomacy. On the development front, the U.S. should develop alternatives for low-cost interceptors and lower cost sensors. Given that U.S. interceptors cost upwards of $12 million, radars more than $200 million, it is not surprising that few of our allies are investing in missile defenses. By comparison, the Israeli Arrow Weapon System is highly capable, and its components cost a fraction of U.S. interceptors and land-based radars. A natural expansion of the current arrangement — where U.S. Defense Department funds support Israeli missile defense systems development — would be to license these systems for production in the United States and export to friends and allies. The next step would be to develop small satellites for missile tracking and surveillance. The advances in small satellite technology make this an attractive option, providing needed coverage from space, replacing the defunct Precision Tracking and Surveillance System program, and lessening American vulnerability to Chinese and Russian anti-satellite systems. The Airborne Laser’s 2010 shoot down of a boosting ballistic missile demonstrated that directed energy is applicable to the missile defense mission. However, its cancellation combined with cuts to other directed energy programs has prevented the U.S. from fielding high energy laser systems. With additional monies a range of lasers could be utilized for multiple purposes such as augmenting short range defense systems like Israel’s Iron Dome. While it would be extremely expensive to entirely replace the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system that protects the U.S. homeland against long-range ballistic missiles, its components should be modernized on a regular basis and tested with more frequency to ensure reliability and effectiveness. Turning to deployments, an expanded U.S. missile defense architecture must encompass land-based and sea- based systems, as well as space-based systems. At a minimum, the U.S. must establish a third GMD site — preferably in the Northeast. This site would provide additional time and battle space to defeat a potential Iranian ballistic missile attack.

USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama Facing an immense threat from the North, South Korea is considering indigenously developing its own missile defense system. But missile defense is a costly, complex and time-consuming endeavor; the U.S. has already invested over $170 billion in missile defense research, development and deployment during the past three decades. Even with a crash effort and billions of dollars, South Korea is unlikely to achieve an effective missile defense capability on its own within a decade. We should offer to assist South Korea in procuring and deploying an appropriate and effective missile defense system. The 20 international cooperative agreements negotiated by the U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA), provide a framework for global missile defense diplomacy. These agreements should be expanded to allow for co- development, information sharing and additional deployments. Japan is an ideal candidate for cooperation and co-development with the U.S. in directed energy technologies. To ensure success, such an effort should not be limited to government agencies, but encompass industry from both countries. Also, U.S. export control mechanisms should enable, rather than cripple such endeavors. More can also be done with Israel, in particular co-production and selective export of U.S.-assisted and funded Israeli systems. Such a deal would supplement Israeli production capacity -- a visible and meaningful demonstration of U.S. support -- and also provide less costly options to friends and allies. Washington’s diplomatic efforts should include a review of the Obama administration’s 2009 decision to redesign the missile defense system planned for Europe. The motive was to deploy a less capable system politically acceptable to Russia. Given Russia’s behavior, options to augment the planned missile defense system should be considered as part of a missile defense “reset.” Finally, providing America’s allies and friends with greater access to our global network of sensors — used to monitor hostile missile developments and operations in near real-time — would significantly improve their missile defenses. While it is a near certainty that the Obama administration will not embrace such a plan, the U.S. Congress should begin to lay the foundation for the next administration by: robustly funding missile defense and directed energy programs, amending the export control process to facilitate U.S.-allied cooperation on missile defense technologies, and appropriating funds to establish a third GMD site in the Northeast United States. A global network of robust and integrated missile defenses is the only real insurance and protection against the mounting ballistic missile threat. A U.S. global missile defense action plan is not just an option, it is an imperative. Mira Ricardel served as acting assistant secretary of Defense for International Security Policy from 2003-2005. http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/255375-america-needs-a-global-missile- defense-plan Return to Top

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