Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies (CUWS) Outreach Journal

USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies (CUWS) Outreach Journal

CUWS Outreach Journal 1201 5 February 2016

Feature Item: “America’s Delicate Dance Between Deterrence and Assurance”. Authored by David Santoro and John K. Warden; published by The National Interest; February 1, 2016. http://nationalinterest.org/feature/americas-delicate-dance-between-deterrence-assurance- 15076?page=show U.S. security guarantees are extraordinary and complex commitments. The United States puts at risk its deployed forces and personnel, and potentially its homeland, for the sake of shared interests with allies. While the benefits of each alliance are unique, they provide the United States with security and economic partners that help to maintain international stability, promote economic growth and trade, and protect liberal values. But in extending deterrence to cover allies, the United States also increases its likelihood of being drawn into an unwanted war. As a result, the United States must sometimes deter its allies from undertaking certain actions and, conversely, assure its adversaries that it will behave in a measured manner. Plainly, it must balance assurance and deterrence both among and between its allies and potential adversaries.

U.S. Nuclear Weapons 1. Ex-Y-12 Contractor Cited for Mishandling Classified Documents

U.S. Counter-WMD 1. Russia’s Cutting-Edge S-500 Missile System to Begin Tests This Year 2. U.S. Missile Defense Agency Claims Success in Non-Intercept Test

U.S. Arms Control 1. Fresh START: US, Russia Should Resume Dialogue on Nuclear Arms Reductions 2. Under START-3 Russia to Cut Nuclear Arms Along with US — Academician

Homeland Security/The Americas 1. Exclusive: U.S. Budget Plan Includes over $13 Billion for New Submarine – Sources 2. Former Energy Dept. Employee Pleads Guilty in Nuclear Secrets Sting Case

Asia/Pacific 1. Senior Politician Calls for S. Korea to Have Nuclear Weapons 2. S. Korea Repeats Need for Deploying U.S. Missile Defense System 3. North Korea Says It Can Control Destructive Power of Hydrogen Bomb 4. North Korea Says It's Capable of Making Unlimited Hydrogen Bombs 5. China's Military Regrouped into Five PLA Theater Commands

Issue No.1201, 5 February 2016 United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies| Maxwell AFB, Alabama https://cuws.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CUWS Phone: 334.953.7538 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama

6. Russia Alarmed by S. Korea-U.S. Contacts over THAAD: Ambassador 7. Tokyo Orders SDF to Shoot Down North Korean Missile if Threat to Japan 8. NK Rocket Test Is to Hit any City in US Mainland 9. N.Korea 'Building H-Bomb Plant' 10. NK Readying Long-Range Missile Launch, Defense Ministry says 11. Telling Tales: Brother of Disgraced Chinese Presidential Aide Ling Jihua Defects to US and Reveals State Secrets, says Report 12. Park, Xi Discuss NK Threats 13. N. Korea Says It Has No Intent to Attack S. Korea with Nukes 14. North Has Prepared a Backup Missile: Sources

Europe/Russia 1. Russians to Skip Nuclear Terrorism Summit in March 2. Jeremy Corbyn Accused of Trying to Turn Trident into a 'Taxi Service'

Middle East 1. Iran Says It Has ‘Doubled’ Efforts to Develop Ballistic Missiles 2. IRGC to Show “Rational” Reaction to US Stance on Iran’s Missile Program 3. Leader Confers Badge of Honor on IRGC Navy Command for Capturing US Marines 4. “Extensive Information” Obtained from US Sailors Captured by IRGC 5. AEOI: Iran Hopes to Start Construction of 2 Nuclear Reactors This Year 6. Iran's Salehi, US's Moniz among 2016 Nobel Peace Prize Nominees: Report 7. US House Passes Bill Restricting Removal of Iran Sanctions 8. Iran after More Sophisticated Missile Program: Top General

India/Pakistan 1. India Is Putting Part of Its Nuclear-Missile Maker Up For Sale

Commentary 1. Build up Defense to Thwart US Provocation 2. Known Unknowns: Iraqi WMD, 13 Years Later 3. The Cyber Threat to Nuclear Deterrence 4. Pay Attention, America: Russia Is Upgrading Its Military 5. The Non-Existent Nuclear Weapons Debate

Return to Top

Knoxville News Sentinel – Knoxville, TN Ex-Y-12 Contractor Cited for Mishandling Classified Documents By Frank Munger of the Knoxville News Sentinel February 3, 2016 OAK RIDGE — The National Nuclear Security Administration this week cited B&W Y-12 — the government's former contractor at the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant — for repeated mishandling and improper disposal of classified documents. The preliminary notice identified three violations based on the U.S. Department of Energy's investigation of a "security event" uncovered in 2014. The report proposed fines totaling $240,000, but the NNSA waived the fines because of the contractor's timely response to concerns and because B&W was already penalized by having its management fee reduced for fiscal year 2014. In June 2014, a contractor worker at Y-12 reportedly identified a "work-related paper" that contained markings for "Secret/Restricted Data" in an unclassified waste bag. The waste bag had already been moved out of the plant's high-security "material access area." The bag contained about 19 additional papers that were either marked as classified or appeared to contain classified information. That discovery led to an examination of other waste containers, and more problems — with unclassified containers potentially bearing classified information — were found at Y-12. "B&W Y-12 then decided not to search any additional containers because they were, given the prior results, presumed likely to contain additional classified information and further searches would have added to the cost and potential safety concerns associated with low-level waste," the investigation report stated. The report said one of the three violations of classified security requirements was determined to be Severity Level I, with "actual or high potential for adverse impact on the national security." The other two violations were Level II, which "represent lack of attention or carelessness" in protection of classified information that can affect national security if not corrected. The investigation, based on talks with some workers, indicated the problem with improper disposal of potentially classified information at unclassified burial sites had been going on for years. The notice said containers were sent to an "off-site burial location" that was intended for unclassified waste, but the location was not specified. The DOE confirmed the investigation of the security event in 2014, and some aspects of the former contractor's missteps were reported in correspondence obtained at the time by the News Sentinel. At the time the problems were made public, Consolidated Nuclear Security — the contractor that replaced B&W on July 1, 2014 — emphasized an internal investigation had determined that no classified information had been "compromised" and told employees that news reports had exaggerated the concerns. According to the notice of violations, B&W Y-12 — during an enforcement conference held in April 2015 — disagreed with the "conclusions and representations" in the DOE investigation report. Issue No.1201, 5 February 2016 United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies| Maxwell AFB, Alabama https://cuws.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CUWS Phone: 334.953.7538 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama

Jud Simmons, a spokesman for B&W —now called BWXT — said the former Y-12 contractor carried out a corrective action plan during its tenure. He said it was "appropriate" the federal agency did not impose a civil penalty. "We do not intend to further contest the NNSA's conclusions," Simmons said. In February 2015, following the initial probe into the classification issue and another security incident, Steven Simonson,the DOE's director of enforcement, noted the problems occurred before Consolidated Nuclear Security took over as manager of Y-12 and that the DOE would not pursue enforcement against CNS. http://www.knoxnews.com/news/local/ex-y-12-contractor-cited-for-mishandling-classified- documents-2ae1ec4a-6f8c-3062-e053-0100007ff32d-367585991.html Return to Top

Sputnik International – Russian Information Agency Russia’s Cutting-Edge S-500 Missile System to Begin Tests This Year 01 February 2016 The first prototypes of the next-generation S-500 air defense system will reach completion and begin its pre-tests in 2016. This is a new generation system, capable of destroying aerial offensive targets as well intercontinental ballistic missiles and near space targets. The new system not only combines the best feats of the previous systems, but also offers completely new possibilities in the field of air, missile and space defense, according to the member of advisory council of the Military-Industrial Commission Viktor Murakhovski. Almaz-Antei Defense Company is working on a complex of S-500 ‘Promethey’ surface-to-air missiles from 2010. The long-range system is said to have a range of 600 kilometers (more than 370 miles). The system could simultaneously intercept up to ten ballistic missiles traveling at a speed of 5 kilometers per second. The technical aim consists of creating self-intercept medium-range ballistic missiles and intercontinental ballistic missiles with the possibility of changing trajectory midflight. The new complex also aims at destroying hypersonic cruise missiles and other aerial targets at speeds of higher than Mach 5 and as well as spacecraft. The Deputy Commander of the Russian Air Defense Lieutenant-General Sergei Razygraev said earlier that the S-500 can shoot down missiles in near space thus it will become an element of strategic missile defense. In June 2014 a long-range anti-missile for the new complex was tested successfully. http://sputniknews.com/military/20160201/1034050340/russia-missile-s500-test.html Return to Top

Space News – Alexandria, VA U.S. Missile Defense Agency Claims Success in Non-Intercept Test By Mike Gruss February 1, 2016 WASHINGTON – The U.S. Missile Defense Agency said it held a successful flight test of its ground- based interceptor Jan. 28, as part of an effort to correct long-standing problems with the missile’s kill vehicle. The test did not involve an intercept of a target, the agency said in a press release. Navy Adm. James Syring, the head of the MDA, said during a presentation at the Center for Strategic and International Studies on Jan. 19 that the primary purpose of the test was to gather more data about the kill vehicle’s divert and attitude control system, which helps steer the kill vehicle into its target. “This will be a great test in terms of engineering and learning,” Syring said. During the Jan. 28 test, an intermediate-range ballistic missile, full of countermeasures and decoys, was launched from an Air Force C-17 flying west of Hawaii. An AN/TPY-2 radar at the Pacific Missile Range Facility in Kauai, Hawaii and the Sea-Based X-band radar in the ocean north of Hawaii each tracked the target. The Ground Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system received the tracking data, which led to the launch of the interceptor from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, an MDA press release said. The interceptor released a Raytheon-built CE-2 Exoatmostpheric Kill Vehicle, or EKV, which then performed a series of maneuvers to demonstrate the divert thrusters in space. Industry and government teams were able to collect information on how the thrusters performed and were “thrilled” with the results, said Norm Tew, Boeing’s vice president and general manager of the ground-based midcourse defense system. “This was a remarkable data-collection opportunity,” Taylor Lawrence, president of Raytheon Missile Systems, said in a Jan. 28 press release. “These are among our industry’s most complex systems. Testing is critically important to ensuring the advancement of reliable kill vehicles for the protection of the U.S. homeland.” Boeing, the prime contractor on the GMD system, said that the test of thrusters is especially important because that technology could be used in the agency’s next-generation kill vehicle, known as the redesigned kill vehicle. A December 2010 intercept test that used the same kill vehicle variant, known as Capability Enhancement 2, failed in part because of the thrusters, Syring said. A 2014 Government Accountability Office study said the agency has spent more than $2 billion correcting and fixing problems associated with the CE-2. A 2014 test using the same kill vehicle variant resulted in an intercept and gave engineers a baseline for future improvements, industry officials said. The next intercept test of the CE-2 kill vehicle is expected before the end of the year, Syring said. http://spacenews.com/u-s-missile-defense-agency-claims-success-in-non-intercept-test/ Return to Top

Sputnik International – Russian Information Agency Fresh START: US, Russia Should Resume Dialogue on Nuclear Arms Reductions Retired Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that Russia and the United States should resume talks on reducing their nuclear arsenals. 02 February 2016 MOSCOW (Sputnik) – Russia and the United States should resume talks on reducing their nuclear arsenals, retired Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. James Cartwright said Tuesday. "First, we need to transition from a bilateral dialogue on nuclear nonproliferation to a multilateral dialogue," Cartwright said at a roundtable on the normalization of Russia-US relations in Moscow. The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) was enacted in 2011 to reduce the total number of deployed US and Russian nuclear warheads to 1,550 and heavy bombers, equipped with nuclear warheads, to 700 by February 2018. New START requires 18 annual on-site weapons inspections and information exchanges on the number of armaments every six months. Cartwright called for the two leading nuclear powers to "not stop on the goal of reductions" and continue toward further non-proliferation. "We need that dialogue restarted," he reaffirmed. Cartwright serves as the inaugural Harold Brown Chair in Defense Policy Studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank. He chairs the Global Zero nuclear weapons elimination campaign. http://sputniknews.com/world/20160202/1034095505/us-russia-nuclear-arms-reductions.html Return to Top

TASS Russian News Agency – Moscow, Russia Under START-3 Russia to Cut Nuclear Arms Along with US — Academician Open sources data show as of September 1, 2015, Russian had 526 deployed carriers and 1,628 warheads, the US had respectively 762 and 1,538 February 5, 2016 MOSCOW, February 5. /TASS/. The Russia - US Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START-3) does not require from Russia any unilateral cuts, which is of importance under present conditions of the limited economic resources, Russian Academician, head of the International Security Center, Alexey Arbatov told TASS on the eve of the 5th anniversary the document came into force. "For us under the current conditions of limited resources - even now that big money is allocated for nuclear weapons, and still the US and Russia can be hardly compared in economic opportunities - this treaty means we shall not cut anything unilaterally," the academician said. "The Americans will be cutting together with us. This is the unique feature of this agreement." "The advantage of the treaty is that conditions of parity are observed," he continued. "At the time, where the Americans could do nothing, while we would be cutting unilaterally anyway [due to outdated Russian strategic complexes - TASS]. The parity is most important for us. It means prestige, it means status, and it means military security."

"This parity is along all the other asymmetries - in the economy, in the allies, in the ordinary weapons - this is what we have not as a nuclear state, but as a nuclear super-state." "This agreement is also unique in the fact that for the first time in history of the strategic negotiations, which began back in 1968 from discussing the first treaty (followed by a chain of agreements, where some came into force, and some - not, but the negotiations continued all the time), the Americans were to cut less then Russia or the Soviet Union at that time," he said. "Every earlier treaty on strategic armaments stipulated more cuts from the USSR than from the US" "This paradigm was changed, and the Americans now have to make bigger cuts," he said. Russian and the US presidents signed START III on April 8, 2010 in Prague, and the document came into force on February 5, 2011 as it passed the Russian State Duma and the US Congress. Under the treaty, each side is to cut deployed strategic carriers (intercontinental ballistic missiles and heavy bombers) to 700 units and to 1,550 warheads. Open sources data show as of September 1, 2015, Russian had 526 deployed carriers and 1,628 warheads, the US had respectively 762 and 1,538. http://tass.ru/en/defense/854704 Return to Top

Reuters (U.S. Edition) – New York, NY Exclusive: U.S. Budget Plan Includes over $13 Billion for New Submarine - Sources By Andrea Shalal Tuesday, February 2, 2016 WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon's next five-year budget proposal seeks over $13 billion in funding for a new submarine to carry nuclear ballistic missiles, plus orders for more Boeing Co and Lockheed Martin Corp fighter jets, according to sources familiar with the plans. The plan also shifts the Navy's strategy for a new carrier-based unmanned drone to focus more on intelligence-gathering and refueling than combat strike missions, said the sources, who were not authorized to discuss it publicly before the budget's release. U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter plans to map out his spending priorities for the $583 billion 2017 defense budget on Tuesday ahead of the official budget release on Feb. 9. The Pentagon's plan will also underscore the need to fund all three legs of the U.S. strategic deterrent "triad" - a new Air Force bomber, a replacement for the Ohio-class submarines that carry nuclear weapons, and new nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missiles, said one of the sources. The Navy's proposed fiscal 2017 budget will fund procurement of materials for the new submarines that take a long time to acquire, with funding for construction of the first full new submarine to follow in fiscal 2021, said one of the sources. Over the next five years, the Navy would spend over $4 billion on research and development of the new submarines, plus over $9 billion in procurement funding, the sources said. General Dynamics Corp has the lead role on the new submarine to replace the current Ohio-class of submarines, together with Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc.

Boeing would receive well over $1 billion in new aircraft orders as it seeks to extend production at the company's St. Louis facility. The Navy will request funding for two Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets as part of the fiscal 2017 war budget, and 14 in the fiscal 2018 budget, said one of the sources. Navy officials also will likely add a request for 12 more Boeing Super Hornets to their annual list of "unfunded priorities" for fiscal 2017, said one of the sources. Those moves are aimed at filling a shortfall in the number of strike fighters available on aircraft carriers, given delays in the Lockheed F-35 fighter jet program and longer-than-expected repair times for current Boeing F/A-18 jets. The five-year budget plan calls for Lockheed to sell a total of 161 F-35 fighter jets to the Navy and Marine Corps - 64 C-model jets that take off and land on aircraft carriers and 97 B-model jets, which can take off from shorter runways and land like a helicopter, according to one of the sources. The proposal also narrows the mission of a new drone to be built by the U.S. Navy, the sources said. To reflect the change, the Navy plans to rename the new drone program the Carrier-Based Air Refueling System, or CBARS, instead of the Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) program, said one of the sources. The drones would have an initial limited strike capability, but more could be added in coming years, the sources said. Boeing, Lockheed, Northrop Grumman Corp, which makes the unmanned, unarmed X-47B plane that has been tested on U.S. carriers, and privately held General Atomics spent tens of millions of dollars to prepare for the previous tender. But the program was put on hold in 2014 pending a Pentagon-wide review of intelligence and surveillance programs. Reporting by Andrea Shalal; Additional reporting by Phil Stewart; Editing by Dan Grebler http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-budget-arms-idUSKCN0VA3RW Return to Top

The Washington Post – Washington, D.C. Former Energy Dept. Employee Pleads Guilty in Nuclear Secrets Sting Case By Spencer S. Hsu February 3, 2016 A former Energy Department employee accused of attempting to infiltrate the agency’s computer system to steal nuclear secrets and sell them to a foreign government pleaded guilty Tuesday to a reduced charge of attempting to damage protected government computers in an email “spear- phishing attack.” Charles Harvey Eccleston, a former employee at the department and at the independent Nuclear Regulatory Commission, was arrested March 27 by Philippine authorities after an undercover FBI sting operation. Eccleston, 62, a U.S. citizen who had been living in the Philippines since 2011, was “terminated” from his job at the NRC in 2010, according to the Justice Department. In January 2015, the Issue No.1201, 5 February 2016 United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies| Maxwell AFB, Alabama https://cuws.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CUWS Phone: 334.953.7538 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies (CUWS) Outreach Journal

department said, he targeted more than 80 Energy Department employees in Washington at four national nuclear labs with emails containing what he thought were links to malicious websites that, if activated, could infect and damage computers. The FBI said that no computer virus or malicious code was transferred into government computers. He was deported to the United States and indicted in April on four counts including wire fraud and attempted unauthorized access to defraud, extract information and cause damage to government and protected computers. If convicted on all counts, he faced a maximum of 50 years in prison. Eccleston was charged Friday in a superseding information with one count of attempting to knowingly cause damage to 10 or more protected computers. He faces a maximum prison sentence of 10 years, but in a plea deal with prosecutors both sides said a term of 24 to 30 months is appropriate at sentencing April 18 before U.S. District Judge Randolph D. Moss of the District. “Is it in fact the case that you did attempt to cause the transmission of code to cause or attempt to cause damage to a protected computer system without authorization?” Moss asked during a 30- minute plea hearing. “It is,” said Eccleston, dressed in an orange prison jumpsuit. U.S. Assistant Attorney General for National Security John P. Carlin said in a statement that Eccleston admitted to attempting “to compromise, exploit and damage U.S. government computer systems that contained sensitive nuclear weapon-related information.” The sting was launched after Eccleston offered to provide an unnamed foreign government with more than 5,000 email addresses of all Energy Department employees for $19,000, or else he would offer the information to China, Iran or Venezuela, according to court files. After the unnamed foreign government reported the incident, the FBI sting operation sent undercover employees posing as the country’s representatives to meet with Eccleston in 2013. Eccleston provided 1,200 publicly available email addresses in exchange for $7,000, including expenses, authorities said. Court documents say that in exchange for what he said would be $80,000, he later committed to design and send emails that he was led to believe would launch a cyberattack using a link to lure recipients, including some he said had access to information about nuclear weapons and materials. Eccleston told Moss that he originally offered only to provide non-classified email addresses before the FBI came to him with a more elaborate plot. “I never set out to do anything that this developed into,” Eccleston said, asserting that of many statements he had made to the FBI that he was “making it up.” Eccleston agreed to pay a judgment of $9,000 and faces a potential fine of as much as $95,000 at sentencing. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/former-energy-dept-employee- pleads-guilty-in-nuclear-secrets-sting-case/2016/02/02/3b5a6f92-c930-11e5-ae11- 57b6aeab993f_story.html Return to Top

Yonhap News Agency – Seoul, South Korea Senior Politician Calls for S. Korea to Have Nuclear Weapons 31 January 2016 SEOUL, Jan. 31 (Yonhap) -- A former leader of South Korea's ruling party demanded Sunday the government re-introduce tactical nuclear weapons in a bid to counter North Korea's nuclear and missile threats. Chung Mong-joon, who led the Saenuri Party from 2009-2010, stressed the need for the South to declare the end of an inter-Korean denuclearization deal and the withdrawal from the Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT). "(We) should consider and review 'all alternatives' before too late for our survival," he said on his blog. Chung, once a seven-term lawmaker, has long called for the South to go nuclear amid the North's continued development of its nuclear arsenal. The U.S. withdrew nuclear weapons from Korea in the early 1990s, when the two Koreas issued a joint declaration to keep the Korean Peninsula nuclear-free. Chung said the denuclearization deal has already become null and void as the North conducted four nuclear tests, most recently on Jan. 6. He stressed that peace can be maintained by countering nuclear threats with nuclear weapons. "It's a Cold War lesson," he said. "Talks to get rid of nukes are possible only when there is a strong means corresponding to nukes." Chung said sanctions and pressure on North Korea would have a limited effect and Pyongyang is expected to seek negotiations with Washington, bypassing Seoul, as a nuclear state. That's a reason why the South needs to withdraw from the NPT, he added, citing the Article X of the treaty. It says, "Each Party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country." In the wake of the North's latest provocation, calls have grown here for the South to have its own nuclear deterrence. Rep. Won Yoo-cheol, the floor leader of the Saenuri Party, openly said it's time for the South to have nuclear weapons for peace and self-defense. President Park Geun-hye said she understands such a sentiment but made clear that her administration will stick to the policy of denuclearizing the entire peninsula. http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/2016/01/31/0200000000AEN20160131002000315.html Return to Top

Xinhua News – Beijing, China S. Korea Repeats Need for Deploying U.S. Missile Defense System Source: Xinhua February 1, 2016 SEOUL, Feb. 1 (Xinhua) -- South Korea's defense ministry Monday reiterated the need for the deployment of a U.S. missile defense system on the Korean peninsula to better deal with ballistic missile and nuclear threats from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK). Moon Sang-Kyun, newly appointed spokesman of the defense ministry, told his first regular press briefing that it would be "of course" helpful to defense and security of South Korea if the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) is deployed on the peninsula. Moon said the THAAD deployment will help South Korea's national defense as the advanced U.S. missile defense system is one of tools to defend the country against the DPRK's nuclear and missile threats. His comments are the repetition of former spokesman Kim Min-Seok's remarks made last Friday during a press briefing. It indicated South Korea's possible change in position over the THAAD deployment as Seoul had stressed the development of its indigenous missile defense system. Asked whether the THAAD is necessary for South Korea even after completing the development of its indigenous missile defense system, Moon said that the THAAD deployment would be helpful to South Korea's security as the two are separate systems with different ranges and operational systems. South Korea's military plans to complete the development of its own missile defense system, called the Korea Air and Missile Defense (KAMD), with homegrown technology. The military is developing the long-range surface-to-air missile (L-SAM) and medium-range surface-to-air missile (M-SAM) to establish a multi-layered missile defense system. The L-SAM intercepts missiles at an altitude of 40 km or above. The THAAD, developed by the U.S.- based Lockheed Martin, is aimed at shooting down missiles as high as 150 km. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-02/01/c_135064489.htm Return to Top

TASS Russian News Agency – Moscow, Russia North Korea Says It Can Control Destructive Power of Hydrogen Bomb According to US and South Korean experts, the yield of the North’s recent nuclear test may have reached six kilotons while hydrogen bombs typically yield dozens, if not hundreds, of kilotons February 01, 2016 SEOUL, February 1. /TASS/. North Korea has claimed that it can control the destructive power of a hydrogen bomb. The website dprktoday.com said in a report on Monday that despite doubts expressed by foreign experts, Pyongyang did test a hydrogen bomb on January 6. "If our territory is as large as that of the United States and others, we can detonate a hydrogen bomb which is tens and hundreds of times

more powerful than that of their H-bombs," the report states and calls for US authorities to abandon its "hostile policy" toward North Korea. According to US and South Korean experts, the yield of the North’s recent nuclear test may have reached six kilotons while hydrogen bombs typically yield dozens, if not nudreds, of kilotons. North Korea announced on January 6 that it had successfully conducted a hydrogen bomb test. The country’s government said in a statement circulated by the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) the test had had "no adverse impacts on the environmental situation." Now, according to the statement, North Korea "possesses the strongest deterrent forces." North Korea previously conducted three nuclear tests: in 2006, in 2009 and in 2013. Following these tests, the United Nations Security Council imposed various sanctions on Pyongyang. In the past two years, North Korea refrained from nuclear tests limiting itself to ballistic missile launches as a response to the US-South Korea large-scale military drills. http://tass.ru/en/world/853544 Return to Top

United Press International (UPI) – Washington, D.C. North Korea Says It's Capable of Making Unlimited Hydrogen Bombs Pyongyang said Monday its thermonuclear weapon is capable of striking the United States. By Elizabeth Shim February 1, 2016 SEOUL, Feb. 1 (UPI) -- North Korea said it wants to resolve its nuclear issue through negotiations with the United States, while warning that it is capable of attacking the U.S. mainland with its tested hydrogen bomb. North Korean state media outlet DPRK Today published an article Monday that disparaged the United States for its "psychological avoidance" and its denial of Pyongyang's nuclear prowess, Newsis reported. "Experts the world over have said the development of a hydrogen bomb following the production of nuclear bombs is commonplace and have predicted North Korea would develop thermonuclear weapons technology. But the United States in its state of 'psychological avoidance' refuses to admit to [the reality]," North Korea said. Pyongyang said North Korea "had no need to test a hydrogen bomb" because the country already has the capacity to make nuclear weapons and update its current arsenal of WMDs, or weapons of mass destruction. "We have told the United States if they cease their aggressive invasion exercises aimed at [North Korea], we would hold off on a nuclear test," North Korea said. That didn't happen, according to Pyongyang, adding it has the capability of making an unlimited number of hydrogen bombs that can target the U.S. mainland, or something "more powerful." If North Korea's territory was as expansive as the United States, it could have tested a bomb that is a "hundred-fold" more powerful, state media said.

On Jan. 28, CNN reported the United States has reason to believe North Korea might have attempted to test components of a hydrogen bomb on Jan. 6, although multiple sources have suggested otherwise. Consensus is growing in Washington that a stronger response is necessary, and last week U.S. Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., sponsored a North Korea sanctions bill that passed unanimously at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The legislation includes penalties for North Korea cyber crime and sanctions for trade in precious metals that could go toward North Korea weapons manufacturing. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2016/02/01/North-Korea-says-its-capable-of- making-unlimited-hydrogen-bombs/9061454336686/ Return to Top

The People’s Daily Online – Beijing, China China's Military Regrouped into Five PLA Theater Commands (Xinhua) February 02, 2016 BEIJING, Feb. 1 -- Chinese President Xi Jinping conferred military flags to the five newly-established theater commands of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) on Monday. Xi, also chairman of the Central Military Commission (CMC), presented the flags to top officers of the five theater commands at a ceremony in Beijing. Commander Liu Yuejun and political commissar Zheng Weiping of the Eastern Theater Command; commander Wang Jiaocheng and political commissar Wei Liang of the Southern Theater Command; commander Zhao Zongqi and political commissar Zhu Fuxi of the Western Theater Command; commander Song Puxuan and political commissar Chu Yimin of the Northern Theater Command; and commander Han Weiguo and political commissar Yin Fanglong of the Central Theater Command all received flags. The CMC Vice Chairman Fan Changlong announced the appointment of leaders for the five theater commands, which was endorsed by Xi. CMC Vice Chairman Xu Qiliang presided over the ceremony. Xi called on the theater commands to keep their duties in mind and resolutely implement the country's military strategies. The principle of a newly implemented structure, in which the CMC takes charge of the overall military administration, theatre commands focus on combat and the different military branches pursue their own development, must be resolutely observed, Xi said. He further required building a joint battle command system that is "absolutely loyal, resourceful in fighting, efficient in commanding and courageous and capable of winning wars." Xi said the move to establish the theater commands and form the joint battle command system is a strategic decision by the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee and the CMC to realize the Chinese dream of a strong military. It is also a landmark progress in implementing the military reforms and building the PLA's joint battle system.

He said the five theater commands are responsible for dealing with security threats in their respective strategic scopes, maintaining peace, containing wars and winning wars, noting their pivotal role in safeguarding the country's overall national security and military strategies. The theater commands are directed to unswervingly act under the command of the Party and firmly uphold the CPC's absolute leadership over the armed forces, Xi said, urging the troops to strengthen political awareness and the awareness of safeguarding general interests. "The armed forces should maintain a high degree of conformity with the CPC Central Committee and the CMC, strictly obey political discipline and rules, and carry out their orders and instructions to the letter," he added. The newly-established commands should concentrate on fighting battles, Xi said, asking them to study the mechanism of winning modern wars, grasp the law of employing military forces, speed up the development of a strategy for the theater commands and enhance the training of joint operations and command in order to win the initiative in future wars. Xi urged the theater commands to improve their ability to command and strengthen joint command and action to complete the tasks of routine combat readiness and military actions. The commands should be prepared to fight at any time and always be ready to act in response to the call of the people and the Party, Xi noted. On behalf of their respective theater commands, the political commissars of the five theater commands vowed to firmly listen to the command of the CPC Central Committee, the CMC and Xi, and to perform their missions mandated by the party and the people. Other CMC members and representatives from various military units attended Monday's ceremony. China's military reform is aimed at establishing a three-tier "the CMC - theater commands - troops" command system and an administration system that goes from the CMC through various services to the troops. Before the reshuffle, China had seven military area commands headquartered in Shenyang, Beijing, Jinan, Nanjing, Guangzhou, Chengdu and Lanzhou, which will no longer be maintained, said China's Defense Ministry spokesperson Yang Yujun during a press conference on Monday. The five theater commands, under the administration of the CMC, are formed based on the functions and organs of the former military area commands, with the functions of command and logistics support improved, said Yang. The Army, Navy and Air force have already been set up within the theater commands, according to Yang. The newly-established commands are the top joint battle command agencies, performing the power and duties of taking unified command and control of the troops as entrusted by the CMC, said Yang. To ensure a smooth and effective command system and proper functioning of the commands, the PLA has vowed efforts on streamlining commanding relations and procedures, Yang added. The spokesperson also underlined that the reorganization of China's military administration structure and command system will not affect the country's defense policy, which is "defensive in nature." The move to establish the theater commands is determined by China's national security environment and the responsibilities taken by its military, Yang said, adding that it will facilitate the building of the joint battle system and strengthen joint command. Issue No.1201, 5 February 2016 United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies| Maxwell AFB, Alabama https://cuws.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CUWS Phone: 334.953.7538 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies (CUWS) Outreach Journal

"(The five theater commands) will better safeguard national sovereignty, security and interests while upholding regional stability and world peace," said Yang. According to Yang, the PLA has decided to establish a Transitional Work Office to serve veterans cadres and wounded or disabled officers, ensuring a smooth transition between the former and newly implemented structure and the stability of the military. http://en.people.cn/n3/2016/0202/c90785-9012526.html Return to Top

Korea Times – Seoul, South Korea Russia Alarmed by S. Korea-U.S. Contacts over THAAD: Ambassador February 02, 2016 Russia is opposed to the deployment of an advanced U.S. missile defense system in South Korea because it could destabilize the region's security landscape, Moscow's top envoy to Seoul said Tuesday. The Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system, or THAAD, has been a source of renewed controversy in Northeast Asia as South Korea is seen as moving to introduce it in response to North Korea's recent nuclear test. Russia and China have expressed strong opposition to the idea, anxious about an even greater U.S. military presence in the region. "This issue is drawing a lot of attention in Russia," Ambassador Alexander Timonin said during a meeting with reporters at the embassy. "We are paying close attention to the increased contacts over the issue between relevant organizations of the U.S. and the Republic of Korea." Washington is seeking to deploy a THAAD battery to South Korea, saying it is necessary to better shield its 27,000 troops in the country from North Korea's nuclear and missile provocations. Both Seoul and Washington, however, have repeatedly denied that formal talks are under way. China and Russia said a THAAD unit here would bring the region back to the Cold War-like tensions. "Russia believes that the deployment of THAAD to South Korea will not be helpful to peace and security in Northeast Asia nor to the resolution of the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula," Timonin said. "That is why Russia is urging all relevant nations to refrain from actions especially in the military field that could aggravate the situation." Following the North's nuclear test on Jan. 6, Russia, as a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, has joined consultations on a sanctions resolution against Pyongyang, but it has no plans to impose unilateral sanctions on the neighbor, the ambassador said. "Before we talk about sanctions, we must first determine the exact nature of the test North Korea conducted," he said. "North Korea claims it tested a hydrogen bomb, but Russia has no evidence to confirm that." At this stage, it would be too early to discuss the level or type of sanctions, he added. What's clear, however, is that Russia and China will likely adopt similar positions on the sanctions resolution because they share a "nearly identical" view on how to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue, according to the envoy.

China is reluctant to push the North too hard out of concerns for its own security interests, including the possibility of an influx of North Korean refugees or a U.S.-allied, unified Korea on its borders. Analysts say Beijing regards Pyongyang as a buffer against American hegemony in Northeast Asia. Timonin cast doubts over the effectiveness of any nuclear talks excluding the North, saying Russia believes it is impossible to resolve the nuclear issue without Pyongyang's participation. President Park Geun-hye proposed last month that South Korea, China, Japan, Russia and the U.S. hold five-way talks to bring the North back to the six-party negotiations on ending its nuclear program. The six countries last met in late 2008. The U.S. and Japan welcomed the proposal, while China and Russia effectively rejected it. (Yonhap) http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2016/02/205_197084.html Return to Top

The Japan Times – Tokyo, Japan Tokyo Orders SDF to Shoot Down North Korean Missile if Threat to Japan By Reiji Yoshida and Ayako Mie, Staff Writers February 03, 2016 Japan on Wednesday condemned Pyongyang’s plan to launch a space rocket, calling it a thinly disguised test of a long-distance ballistic missile. The government ordered Aegis ballistic missile defense warships of the Maritime Self-Defense Force and land-based Patriot PAC-3 rocket units to respond should projections show components falling in Japanese territory. “This will effectively mean the firing of a ballistic missile. It would be a clear violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions and a grave, provocative act against the security of our country,” Prime Minister Shinzo Abe told a Lower House session Wednesday. “Japan, in cooperation with the United States and South Korea, will strongly urge North Korea to refrain from (conducting) the launch,” Abe said. On Tuesday night, North Korea notified the International Maritime Organization that it plans to send a “satellite” into orbit between Feb. 8 and 25. It said the launch will take place on one of those days between 7:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. Japan time. Pyongyang conducted a fourth nuclear test on Jan. 6. The planned launch is widely seen as both a test and a demonstration of its advances in rocketry. Feb. 16 is the birthday of late leader Kim Jong Il, the father of current leader Kim Jong Un. Observers believe the launch window has been set around the day for domestic purposes — to bolster the nation’s morale. During a daily news conference, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga pointed out that the projectile, expected to be launched from a site in western North Korea, would fly over part of the Sakishima island chain of Okinawa Prefecture, which includes the islands of Ishigaki and Miyako. Japan lodged a formal protest with the North’s embassy in Beijing at 7:55 a.m. on Wednesday, Suga said. Issue No.1201, 5 February 2016 United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies| Maxwell AFB, Alabama https://cuws.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CUWS Phone: 334.953.7538 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies (CUWS) Outreach Journal

“U.N. Security Council resolutions have repeatedly banned any launch by North Korea that uses ballistic missile technologies,” Suga said. Meanwhile, Defense Minister Gen Nakatani ordered the Self-Defense Forces to destroy any parts of the rocket should they threaten to fall within Japanese territory. Japan has already deployed Aegis destroyers equipped with the SM-3 missile system at sea and Patriot PAC-3 air-defense units of the Ground Self-Defense Forces on land. Both systems are designed to intercept ballistic missiles. Their primary mission is seen as monitoring the launch, but the deployment also appears to be a gesture underlining Japan’s determination to defend its territory. Pyongyang’s declared plan would involve three parts of the rocket falling west of the Korean Peninsula, in the East China Sea southwest of the peninsula and in the Pacific Ocean east of the Philippines, respectively. The rocket is expected to fly over the Sakishima island chain, according to a map with navigation warnings posted by the Japan Coast Guard on its website. The course matches that of a ballistic missile Pyongyang launched in December 2012, Suga said. Later Wednesday, a high-ranking government official said Pyongyang may be preparing to launch the same type of missile as the one it used in 2012. A Defense Ministry white paper says Pyongyang fired a variant of its Taepodong-2 ballistic missile at that time. A missile of this type can fly more than 10,000 km if the warhead weighs less than a ton, the Defense Ministry said. If North Korea develops long-range ballistic missiles using the technologies tested in the launches, “the missiles could have ranges that potentially reach the central, western, and other areas of the U.S. mainland,” the Defense Ministry concluded in its 2015 white paper. Meanwhile, Washington and Seoul have both condemned Pyongyang’s plan. “The international community would regard a step like that by the North Koreans as just another irresponsible provocation and a clear violation of their international obligations,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters Tuesday in Washington. “The U.S. has worked closely not just with our allies in South Korea and Japan but also with our partners in China and Russia, to convey to the North Koreans the need to end their provocative actions,” he said. Earnest also maintained that China has “unique influence over the North Korean regime,” urging Beijing to join the U.S. and its allies to “counter this threat.” Urging Pyongyang to drop its plan, the government in Seoul said the move would be a serious breach of U.N. resolutions and a “direct challenge” to the international community. China on Wednesday expressed serious concern over North Korea’s plan, with Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang calling on Pyongyang to “exercise restraint” and not escalate tensions in the region. According to the Defense Ministry, Patriot PAC-3 air-defense units have been deployed at bases and facilities of the Self-Defense Forces in Asaka, Saitama Prefecture, Narashino, Chiba Prefecture, and

Naha and Chinen of Okinawa Prefecture, as well as at the Defense Ministry’s compound in Tokyo’s Ichigaya district. The ministry said that it will consider whether further deployment is necessary elsewhere. Aegis destroyers carrying the SM-3 missile system have been deployed in the East China Sea and the Sea of Japan. Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida met with U.S. Ambassador to Japan Caroline Kennedy over North Korea’s move Wednesday evening. “It’s important that Japan and the U.S. coordinate with each other closely. We hope to increase dialogue between us,” Kishida said during the meeting. Kennedy responded by emphasizing that the trilateral relationship among Japan, the U.S. and South Korea is “critical” to deal with North Korea’s provocations. Staff writer Tomohiro Osaki also contributed to this report http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/02/03/national/anger-sanctions-threats-greet-north- korea-rocket-launch-plans/#.VrKc7FP2ZDy Return to Top

The Korea Times – Seoul, South Korea NK Rocket Test Is to Hit any City in US Mainland By Yi Whan-woo February 3, 2016 It is believed that North Korea may launch a rocket with a range of 13,000 kilometers during its purported satellite launch scheduled for later this month, according to analysts and officials, Wednesday. It will likely be a three-stage rocket capable of carrying a satellite weighing up to one ton. If the test succeeds, North Korea could load a nuclear warhead onto the rocket that could theoretically hit a city on the U.S. mainland. It remains to be seen whether the rocket can withstand heat of up to 7,000 degrees Celsius caused if it re-enters the Earth's atmosphere after making it into outer space. The re-entry phase of a rocket to the Earth's atmosphere is essential as part of the inter-continental ballistic missile (ICBM) technologies that Pyongyang has pursued. It is also questionable whether North Korea's ICBM can hit a targeted area, most likely one on the U.S. mainland, even after it successfully re-enters the Earth's atmosphere. "It's convincing to say that North Korea will fire a rocket that has longer travel distance than the Unha-3 rocket, which is believed to have a range of 10,000 kilometers," said Yang Uk, a senior research fellow at the Korea Defense and Security Forum. North Korea has continued to make progress in its rocket program since December 2012 when it launched the Unha-3 rocket. Yang pointed out that the Kim Jong-un regime recently renovated the launch pad at its satellite launch station at Tongchang-ri, North Pyongan Province where the Unha-3 rocket was fired.

The launch pad is now 67 meters tall, up from 50 meters in December 2012. "The height of a launch pad varies depending on the height of a rocket," Yang said. "And the taller a rocket is, the farther it can travel." Kim Jong-dae, a military commentator, also said that the payload of a rocket increases if its height is taller. "Given that the Unha-3 rocket had a payload of 150 kilograms, I think the rocket to be launched this month can carry up to 1 ton of material," he said. "North Korea has repeatedly claimed it can miniaturize nuclear warheads, and if this is true, it means it may be able to load four nuclear warheads at the most this time." Kim and Yang joined military officials who remain skeptical about North Korea having technologies capable of building an ICBM that can endure the tremendous heat when re-entering the Earth's atmosphere at high speed. "It's likely that North Korea will fire a modified version of KN-08," Yang said, citing an ICBM that Pyongyang has been developing for years. "I wouldn't raise any doubts about KN-08's travel range of 13,000 kilometers but its endurance capability is a whole different story." Kin echoed a similar view. "An ICBM will fall to the Earth at higher speed if its travel range is longer and consequently its flight in space longer," he said. "The control of speed is what makes a successful ICBM. And I believe North Korea mainly has focused on range in its rocket program." If the launch goes as planned, it is likely that the rocket's first stage will fall in waters off the west coast of South Korea, and the second stage in waters east of the Philippines. But it is not certain whether the rocket can accurately and ultimately reach an intended target, according to officials. "North Korea's divert and attitude control system (DACS), which plays a key role for a rocket or an ICMB to land on a targeted area, is still questionable," an official said. http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2016/02/205_197224.html Return to Top

The Chosun Ilbo – Seoul, South Korea N.Korea 'Building H-Bomb Plant' February 4, 2016 A U.S. think tank claims North Korea is building a new nuclear facility to separate isotopes from spent fuel, including tritium, a key ingredient for hydrogen bombs. The Institute for Science and International Security in a report Monday said satellite photos of the North's Yongbyon nuclear facility taken on Jan. 25 show "external construction signatures" at the site.

"The signatures visible through a historical analysis of satellite imagery are consistent with an isotope separation facility, including tritium separation," the institute said. "This assessment is shared not only by an expert ISIS consulted but also by a government expert we consulted who has long experience in assessing activities at the Yongbyon site." It added that using tritium could enable North Korea to build a more powerful nuclear bomb than with uranium or plutonium. http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2016/02/04/2016020401372.html Return to Top

The Korea Times – Seoul, South Korea NK Readying Long-Range Missile Launch, Defense Ministry says February 4, 2016 Pyongyang is readying to launch a long-range missile at its Dongchang-ri base in the northwest, according to the Defense Ministry, Thursday. Ministry spokesman Moon Sang-gyun did not provide details, saying he was neither able to confirm nor deny a report from Japan's NHK that a mobile launcher loaded with a ballistic missile was seen moving along the east coast. NHK television, citing unidentified diplomatic sources, reported Thursday that it had been "confirmed that a mobile launch pad in North Korea's eastern coastal area was on the move" and that a ballistic missile was on the launch pad. Other media reports said the North was expected to complete loading the liquid-fuel on Sunday. The communist state notified U.N. agencies Tuesday it would launch an "earth observation satellite" between Feb. 8-25. Seoul and Washington see the launch as a disguised long-range missile test. The ministry spokesman said South Korea would intercept any North Korean missiles and debris that fell on South Korean land or sea territory. The military is boosting air defense readiness, he said. Seoul and Washington have deployed equipment to detect and trace North Korean missiles. http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2016/02/485_197354.html Return to Top

South China Morning Post – Hong Kong, China Telling Tales: Brother of Disgraced Chinese Presidential Aide Ling Jihua Defects to US and Reveals State Secrets, says Report American news website Washington Free Beacon also claims undercover mainland agents in the US have been trying to capture or kill Ling Wancheng, who has been hiding in the country Zhuang Pinghui Thursday, 04 February 2016

The younger brother of the disgraced former presidential aide Ling Jihua (令計劃) has reportedly defected to the United States and revealed some of China’s biggest state secrets – including those surrounding its nuclear weapons. The news website Washington Free Beacon reported on Wednesday that undercover Chinese agents in the US had been trying to capture or kill Ling Wancheng, who was suspected of one of the biggest intelligence breaches of the past 30 years. Ling Wancheng had revealed secrets involving procedures for Chinese leaders when using nuclear weapons, including the release codes for nuclear armaments and steps taken in preparing nuclear forces for attack, the report said. Other secrets he revealed included details about the Chinese leadership and its facilities, including the compound in Beijing known as Zhongnanhai, which is the headquarters of China’s central government and also the residence of the most senior Chinese leaders. This information would be valuable to US internet spies, specifically for cyber intelligence operations that targeted the secretive Chinese leadership, the report said. The Chinese government has been negotiating with the US over Ling Wancheng’s repatriation. The report said the defection of Ling Wancheng – a businessman and the youngest brother of Ling Jihua, who was a top aide to former president Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) – occurred last summer after his brother was investigated as part of President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) anti-corruption campaign. Ling Jihua was reported to have breached the Communist Party’s confidentiality rules and committed offences including stealing official secrets, state media reported. He held the post of chief of the secretariat of the Politburo under former president Hu until 2012, which had given him access to the most sensitive and confidential information that was available exclusively to senior Chinese leaders. Ling Jihua had secretly obtained about 2,700 internal documents and given them to his brother, Ling Wancheng, Washington Free Beacon reported. The same report, citing unidentified intelligence officials, said that Ling Wancheng would have in his possession the most privileged information of any Chinese national that had defected to the US in more than 30 years. Xu Guangyu, a retired major general and senior researcher at the China Arms Control and Disarmament Association, said even if there had been an intelligence leak, China would be able to manage the fallout. “I am sure the state security and military authorities can handle it well. There are always response plans to deal with such things,” said Yu. Ling Wancheng had been kept at a secretive location where he was being debriefed by US intelligence agencies since last autumn, the report said. Chinese officials regarded the case as a criminal matter, while the US government was treating the defection as an intelligence matter, which made Ling Wancheng’s repatriation unlikely. Jin Canrong, a government foreign affairs adviser from Renmin University, said there would be no way for Beijing to get Ling Wancheng back unless he volunteered to come back.

“He is a US citizen and the only option for China to get Ling Wancheng back is through political negotiation, but political negotiation will be very difficult, if not impossible, in this case,” said Jin. Secretary of State John Kerry met Chinese State Councillor Yang Jiechi (楊潔箎) in Beijing last week, but Ling Wancheng’s case was not discussed, the report said. The White House, FBI, CIA, and Department of Homeland Security all declined to comment. http://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-politics/article/1909266/telling-tales-brother- disgraced-chinese-presidential Return to Top

The Korea Times – Seoul, South Korea Park, Xi Discuss NK Threats By Kang Seung-woo February 5, 2016 President Park Geun-hye and Chinese President Xi Jinping discussed ways Friday to address North Korea's missile and nuclear weapons programs, Cheong Wa Dae said. The presidential office said that the two heads of state held a 45-minute phone conversation from 9 p.m. This was Park's first time speaking on the phone with Xi following Pyongyang's fourth nuclear test on Jan. 6. The phone conversation came about as the Kim Jong- believed to be a front for a long- un regime is preparing to launch a satellite ─ "Park stressed the need to deliver the international community's stern message to the North by range ballistic missile test ─ sometime between Feb. 8 and 25. adopting a strong and effective resolution to change the country at this time," Park's office said in a statement. A U.S.-led push for the toughest-yet sanctions on the North are underway at the United Nations (U.N.). "In this respect, President Park asked President Xi to join the move to punish the North because China is a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council and can exert its leverage on the North," it said. However, Cheong Wa Dae did not disclose how Xi reacted to Park's request. In the wake of last month's alleged hydrogen bomb test, Park sought to talk with Xi to ask China to help issue "substantive and effective" punishments against North Korea for its latest provocation, but the Chinese side remained inactive out of concern that strong sanctions could destabilize the conversations with U.S. President Barack Obama and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe the day afterNorth, the which North's in turn test, could in which hurt they Beijing's agreed national to a united interests and strong─ a sharp international contrast to response Park's phones to North Korea's reckless behavior. http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2016/02/116_197527.html Return to Top

Yonhap News Agency – Seoul, South Korea N. Korea Says It Has No Intent to Attack S. Korea with Nukes February 5, 2016 SEOUL, Feb. 5 (Yonhap) -- North Korea said Friday it has never threatened to attack South Korea with its nuclear weapons, claiming that its possession of nuclear bombs is for self-defense against the United States. The North has called on the U.S. to abandon its hostile policy toward North Korea, saying that its four nuclear tests were an act of deterrence against what it calls Washington's attempt at nuclear attacks. "The reason why we've had the nuclear deterrence is not for dropping nuclear bombs on people in the South," the Rodong Sinmun, North Korea's main newspaper, said in a commentary. "Our nuclear weapons program is aimed at crushing Washington's bid to stage a nuclear war and securing peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula." North Korea's latest nuclear test on Jan. 6 has startled the world, prompting the United Nations Security Council to work on a fresh resolution for sanctions against the North. The North has informed U.N. agencies that it will launch a satellite sometime between Feb. 8 and 25, widely seen as a covert test of ballistic missile technology. North Korea is banned from developing ballistic missiles under a series of U.N. sanctions. North Korea said last month that it is ready to detonate hydrogen bombs capable of wiping out the U.S "all at once," insisting that it has succeeded in developing miniaturized nuclear weapons. http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/2016/02/05/0200000000AEN20160205005800315.html ?input=www.tweeter.com Return to Top

Korea JoongAng Daily – Seoul, South Korea North Has Prepared a Backup Missile: Sources BY JEONG YONG-SOO February 6, 2016 North Korea has prepared two rockets in the event that the long-range ballistic missile launch it has planned initially fails, government sources monitoring the situation said on Thursday. Pyongyang alerted a number of international organizations, including the Geneva-based International Telecommunication Union, on Tuesday of its plans to conduct what it called the launch of an Earth observation satellite between Feb. 8 and Feb. 25 - a notification that was interpreted as a pretense for a long-range ballistic missile test. “Since last year, North Korea has carried rocket components from Pyongyang and Nampo to its Tongchang-ri launch site in North Pyongan Province,” said a government official who has tracked movement at the site. “The analysis of activities shows that it has two rockets.”

The official said North Korea transferred bulky components by train and small parts by truck, adding that the two rockets had been built separately and at different facilities at the launch site. “One rocket has finished assembly and is under final testing at a facility 150 meters [490 feet] away from the launch site,” the official added. “The other is suspected to be a reserve in a condition just before final assembly at another facility.” The beleaguered state has faced increased scrutiny from the international community since it notified various organizations this week of its intentions. Pyongyang was specific in its announcement, saying that the launch would occur sometime between 7 a.m. and noon local time between Feb. 8 and Feb. 25. The alert came less than a month after North Korea conducted its fourth nuclear test on Jan. 6, which Pyongyang claimed was the successful detonation of a hydrogen bomb. The United Nations Security Council is currently drafting a resolution in response that will provide a basis for stricter punitive measures. A military official who asked not to be named surmised that North Korea was preparing a reserve rocket in case faults in the main rocket are detected or to reduce the time preparing for a relaunch in the event the first launch fails. North Korea conducted a failed missile test in 2012, just two days before the 100th birthday on April 15 of North Korea’s late founder, Kim Il Sung. Later that year, five days before the anniversary of Kim Jong-il’s death on Dec. 17, the North fired a three-stage rocket, the Unha-3, and claimed that it had successfully put what it called a satellite into orbit. The United States confirmed that an object was launched into space. “An additional rocket costs a lot,” said Lee Chun-geun, a senior analyst at the Science and Technology Policy Institute and an expert on North Korea’s nuclear program. “It’s typical to build two rockets at a time, and it seems North Korea has adopted that system.” Such a system, Lee explained, makes it easy to replace components in the final process of assembly, where parts can be damaged or certain components found to be faulty. Unlike its previous tests, North Korea has put a cover on its missile launcher, making the situation inside difficult to detect. Considering the North’s pattern in its previous launches, some analysts have speculated that the rocket has been mostly completed except for the last step, fuel injection. Others believe the missile is already installed. In 2012, North Korea launched a long-range missile eight days after it reported the situation to the UN and seven days after it completed assembly. http://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=3014867 Return to Top

The Ottawa Citizen – Ottawa, Canada Russians to Skip Nuclear Terrorism Summit in March By David Pugliese, Ottawa Citizen January 31, 2016 Russia is taking a pass on the annual summit to deal with nuclear terrorism. It says it will not take part in the 2016 Nuclear Security Summit to be held in Washington, DC starting March 31. Senior Russian officials took part in previous summits, which were held in Washington in 2010, Seoul in 2012 and The Hague in 2014. But the Russians now sound dubious of the summits, which are supposed to deal with preventing nuclear terrorism. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova told Russian journalists that such summits “have played their role” but that role is now over. The Russians say the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) must be the main body “to coordinate the world’s efforts in global nuclear security.” Zakharova also noted the Russian view that such summits actually interfere with the work of IAEA. This is because the “opinions of a limited group of states” are imposed on other international organizations, Zakhorova stated. In a statement the White House noted that this is the last summit. It outlined the goals of the March summit as the following: The Summit will continue discussion on the evolving threat and highlight steps that can be taken together to minimize the use of highly-enriched uranium, secure vulnerable materials, counter nuclear smuggling and deter, detect, and disrupt attempts at nuclear terrorism. The planned outcomes of the Summit include a communiqué highlighting progress made and work still to be done to prevent nuclear terrorism. Leaders will also endorse plans to strengthen the enduring international institutions and initiatives that support nuclear security to enable them to carry forward and build upon the legacy of the Summits. -The U.S. seeks a strengthened global nuclear security architecture that is comprehensive, is based on international standards, builds confidence in nations’ nuclear security implementation, and results in declining global stocks of nuclear weapons-usable nuclear materials. http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/russians-to-skip-nuclear-terrorism- summit-in-march Return to Top

The London Telegraph – London, U.K. Jeremy Corbyn Accused of Trying to Turn Trident into a 'Taxi Service' Exclusive: Labour's defence review is considering plans to use Britain's Trident nuclear submarines to transport troops By Steven Swinford, Deputy Political Editor 01 February 2016 Labour is considering plans to strip Britain's nuclear submarines of their weapons and use them to transport members of the armed forces in a move described by critics as a "Trident taxi service". Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader and a lifelong pacifist, has previously suggested that Britain should follow Japan's example and deploy "submarines without nuclear weapons" rather than scrap them entirely. The move is seen by the Labour leader as a potential "third way" after he faced backlash from moderate MPs from within his own party and the unions over his opposition to Britain's Trident nuclear deterrent. The Telegraph understands the party's defence review is still considering the plans despite claims that they had been shelved because they are "impractical". Under the plans, which are due to be presented to the shadow cabinet today, the submarines would be retained as a "latent" threat which could be equipped with nuclear weapons if necessary. In the meantime the stealth submarines could be used to transport armed forces personnel across the World. John Woodcock, a Labour MP and Trident supporter, said: "Aside from the question of why exactly this would be needed given the Astute class submarines already convey special forces, defence experts have pointed out that the so-called Japanese option is a red herring because it would break the non-proliferation treaty. "You can't legally recreate the ability to make nuclear warheads once you've scrapped then and you can't claim to be a credible opposition if you want to spend billions on an underwater Trident taxi service for British troops. It is as if whoever keeps floating these barmy ideas is determined to make Labour a laughing stock." Labour's defence review is being overseen by Emily Thornberry, the shadow defence secretary and a unilateralist. She replaced Maria Eagle, a moderate Labour MP and Trident supporter, in the role in a reshuffle last month. Ms Thornbery's review, which will report in June, will also question whether the next generation of Britain's Trident nuclear submarines are fit for the future. It will raise concerns that the development of "swarms" underwater drones may mean that by 2050 nuclear submarines are unable to hide from the enemy. The Government is expected to hold a Commons vote on renewing Trident in March in a move that will put Mr Corbyn in direct conflict with members of his shadow cabinet. Up to 130 Labour MPs will defy Jeremy Corbyn and vote to renew Trident, anti-nuclear campaigners have estimated – challenging the leader’s belief the majority of the party backs his position.

After analysing thousands of public statements, past voting records and private conversations with activists groups, Trident opponents believe a majority of Labour MPs support renewal. The findings undermine arguments made by sources close to Mr Corbyn that despite opposition in the shadow cabinet he has the backing of most Labour MPs – as happened over Syrian air strikes. At that vote Mr Corbyn was blocked from whipping MPs to oppose bombing by senior frontbenchers but eventually saw the majority of Labour MPs support his position. It comes with the Labour leader, a lifelong campaigner against nuclear weapons, determined to change the party’s formal support for Trident. His internal critics see the issue as symbolic for the party, given the effective Tory attacks which came when they backed unilateral disarmament in the 1980s, and are fighting any change. Anti-nuclear campaigners are now targeting a cohort of 25 new Labour MPs they believe are swayable plus a further 30-40 other including “soft” critics of Trident they hope to win over. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/12134954/Jeremy-Corbyn-accused-of-trying- to-turn-Trident-into-a-taxi-service.html Return to Top

The Times of Israel – Jerusalem, Israel Iran Says It Has ‘Doubled’ Efforts to Develop Ballistic Missiles Top general says US attempts to curb advancement in weapons technology have only spurred Tehran to intensify its work By Times of Israel staff and Agencies January 30, 2016 Tehran has doubled its efforts to develop its ballistic missile capabilities in reaction to US attempts to stop it, a top Iranian commander said Saturday. “We doubled our activities and the American demands from Iran had an opposite result,” the country’s Press TV quoted Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, commander of the Revolutionary Guards’ (IRGC) Aerospace Force, as saying. “Today, the enemies are bringing up the issue of missile-related sanctions and expecting us to back down. But, the IRGC’s reaction to this American demand will be aggressive,” he said. Hajizadeh said the US was still a dangerous enemy to Iran, despite the signing and recent implementation of a nuclear deal between the sides, and the subsequent removal of many of the international sanctions on the Islamic republic. “Has the enemy abandoned its intentions for hostile moves? Does the Revolution have no problem anymore? That’s not the case,” he said. “Our enemies, especially America, are still saying, ‘all options are on the table. “They are after certain goals in a number of fields, including the military and war, targeting the country’s security, culture and economy because they have a problem with the essence of the establishment and their problem is not nuclear,” he said.

On January 17 the US announced new penalties related to Iran’s ballistic missile program after the lifting of punishing measures aimed at its atomic activities. The Treasury Department said that it was imposing the penalties against 11 firms and individuals based in the United Arab Emirates that had helped provide secret materials to Iran to develop their ballistic missile program, against a United Nations Security Council resolution. “Iran’s ballistic missile program poses a significant threat to regional and global security, and it will continue to be subject to international sanctions,” said Treasury Undersecretary Adam J. Szubin, according to a statement from the department. “We have consistently made clear that the United States will vigorously press sanctions against Iranian activities outside of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — including those related to Iran’s support for terrorism, regional destabilization, human rights abuses, and ballistic missile program.” The Treasury said it was imposing penalties against a network of six companies based in the UAE and China, as well as five Iranian individuals. Iran denounced the new sanctions as illegitimate. The Treasury said it was imposing penalties against a network of six companies based in the UAE and China, as well as five Iranian individuals. Iran denounced the new sanctions as illegitimate. “Iran’s missile program has never been designed to be capable of carrying nuclear weapons,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Hossein Jaber Ansari said, according to the ISNA news agency. In remarks shortly before the US announcement, Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani said that any new American sanctions would be “met by an appropriate response.” Under the nuclear deal, the UN arms embargo on the country continues, as do ballistic missile restrictions. However, Iran has test-launched ballistic missiles on at least one occasion since the nuclear deal was reached last July. Israel and other nations called on the US to take action against Iran after the tests, which broke a 2010 UN Security Council resolution, but the US did not follow through on pledges to impose penalties. Washington also offered no response to an Iranian navy rocket fired near a US warship in the Strait of Hormuz. The implementation of the nuclear deal is expected to pave the way for a new economic reality in Iran, now freed from harsh international sanctions. More than $30 billion in assets overseas will become immediately available to the Islamic Republic. Iran’s Central Bank Governor, Valiollah Seif, was quoted by the official IRNA news agency as saying that Iran will not transfer the cash and instead will use it to import the goods it needs. Official Iranian reports have set the total amount of frozen Iranian assets overseas at $100 billion. A European oil embargo on Iran will end. Already, some 38 million barrels of oil are in Iran’s floating reserves, ready to enter the market, according to the International Energy Agency. http://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-says-it-has-doubled-efforts-to-develop-ballistic-missiles/ Return to Top

Tasnim News Agency – Tehran, Iran IRGC to Show “Rational” Reaction to US Stance on Iran’s Missile Program January, 31, 2016 TEHRAN (Tasnim) – Commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Aerospace Force Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh downplayed US threats against Iran’s missile program, saying that the rational reaction to such demands would be the further improvement of the country’s defense capacities. “Today Americans raise the issue of imposing missile-related sanctions, and expect us to retreat,” General Hajizadeh said in an address to a ceremony held on Saturday in Tehran. However, he noted, Iran should improve its defense capabilities without any hesitation if it takes a common sense approach to their threats. “Therefore, the IRGC’s reaction to US demands about (the country’s) missile power would be rational and aggressive,” the Iranian commander added. The US Treasury Department on January 17 imposed fresh financial sanctions over Iran’s missile program, which Tehran insists is rightful and aimed at enhancing the country’s defense and deterrence capabilities. Washington imposed sanctions on 11 companies and individuals for supplying Iran’s ballistic missile program, the US Treasury Department said, Reuters reported on Sunday. The new sanctions came hours after termination of anti-Tehran sanctions following confirmations from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that Tehran had made good on its commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the nuclear agreement finalized by Iran and six world powers in July 2015. Shortly after the IAEA announcement, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and European Union’s Foreign Policy Chief Federica Mogherini announced in a joint statement that the implementation of the nuclear deal has officially been started. Earlier in January, the White House postponed the sanctions planned by the Treasury Department against individuals in Iran, Hong Kong, and the United Arab Emirates following Iran’s missile testing in October and November. Iran has repeatedly announced that test of missiles is an issue relating to defense of its territorial integrity and has nothing to do with the JCPOA. Iran has also underscored frequently that its military might poses no threat to other countries and that the Islamic Republic’s defense doctrine is entirely based on deterrence. http://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2016/01/31/986360/irgc-to-show-rational-reaction-to- us-stance-on-iran-s-missile-program Return to Top

Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) – Tehran, Iran 31 January 2016 Leader Confers Badge of Honor on IRGC Navy Command for Capturing US Marines Tehran, Jan 31, IRNA – Commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei on Saturday conferred badge of honor on IRGC Navy Commander Rear-Admiral Ali Fadavi and four other Navy commanders for capturing of US marines in the Persian Gulf waters. The Supreme Leader also ordered promotion of other commanders and personnel involved in the Navy operation to capture the US marines for violating Iranian territorial waters in the Persian Gulf. http://www.irna.ir/en/News/81943103/ Return to Top

Tasnim News Agency – Tehran, Iran “Extensive Information” Obtained from US Sailors Captured by IRGC February 01, 2016 TEHRAN (Tasnim) – Commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps Navy Rear Admiral Ali Fadavi said the forces extracted a lot of information from the confiscated cell phones and laptops of the US sailors recently captured by Iran after intrusion into the country’s territorial waters. “We have extracted extensive information from their (American sailors’) laptops and cell phones,” Admiral Fadavi said in a parliamentary session in Tehran on Monday. The IRGC commander went on to say that the information can be made public if a decision is made to that effect. Admiral Fadavi also noted that the IRGC has filmed the capture of the US sailors for several hours, the release of which would bring humiliation to the United States. If US officials say they are angry with and frustrated by the footage released, they would be 100 times more embarrassed if the IRGC releases other films of the capture, the Iranian commander said. Iran does not seek to humiliate any nation, he said, but stressed that if they want to humiliate Iran, the IRGC would publish the footage and make them even more embarrassed and humiliated. US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter had earlier said he was "very, very angry" when he saw footage of 10 US Navy sailors detained by Iranian authorities broadcast by Iranian television news. The Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Navy on January 12 captured the US Navy sailors inside Iran’s territorial waters in the Persian Gulf, but released them the next day following an apology and after technical and operational investigations indicated that the intrusion into Iranian territorial waters was “unintentional”.

Yesterday, Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei awarded the 'Medal of Fath (Conquest)' to Admiral Fadavi and four other IRGC commanders who made the “courageous and timely” move in the recent capture of American boats and sailors near Iran’s Farsi Island. http://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2016/02/01/987723/extensive-information-obtained- from-us-sailors-captured-by-irgc Return to Top

FARS News Agency – Tehran, Iran Monday, February 01, 2016 AEOI: Iran Hopes to Start Construction of 2 Nuclear Reactors This Year TEHRAN (FNA) - Atomic Energy Organization of Iran Chief Ali Akbar Salehi said two new nuclear reactors are scheduled to be built in the city of Bushehr in coming months. Tehran is planning to begin the construction of two more nuclear reactors in the southern Iranian city of Bushehr in the coming months, the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) said on Sunday. "In the construction of nuclear power plants…we hopefully, within the next few months, will be witnessing the launching of new reactors," Ali Akbar Salehi said. He added that Tehran and Moscow had signed agreements for the construction of two reactors in Bushehr. The Russian-built Bushehr nuclear power plant started operating in Iran in 2011 and reached full capacity the following year. The project for Bushehr-2 was presented by Russian nuclear experts in Tehran in September, 2014. In November, Iran signed a number of deals with Russia for the construction of two more nuclear reactors and an option for an additional six. http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13941111001513 Return to Top

Tasnim News Agency – Tehran, Iran Iran's Salehi, US's Moniz among 2016 Nobel Peace Prize Nominees: Report February, 02, 2016 TEHRAN (Tasnim) – Head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran Ali Akbar Salehi and US Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz are expected to be among the nominees of the 2016 Nobel Peace Prize, a report said. Kristian Berg Harpviken, head of the Peace Research Institute, Oslo, placed Salehi and Moniz on the list for their role in negotiating a nuclear deal between Iran and six world powers last year in July, Reuters reproted on Monday. Implementation of the nuclear deal was officially started on January 16. Based on the agreement, which had been finalized back in July 2015, all nuclear-related anti-Iran sanctions were removed. Issue No.1201, 5 February 2016 United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies| Maxwell AFB, Alabama https://cuws.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CUWS Phone: 334.953.7538 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama

Harpviken said that American surveillance whistleblower Edward Snowden is also on the list, adding, "2016 may finally be Edward Snowden's year ... His leaks are now having a positive effect.” He further said peace negotiators in Colombia or Greek islanders helping Syrian refugees may be among the other candidates. Thousands of people, including members of all national parliaments, former laureates and university rectors, can make nominations. Last year there were 273 nominees. The committee will have its first meeting on February 29 and announce the winner in October. http://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2016/02/02/988847/iran-s-salehi-us-s-moniz-among- 2016-nobel-peace-prize-nominees-report Return to Top

Press TV – Tehran, Iran US House Passes Bill Restricting Removal of Iran Sanctions Wednesday, February 3, 2016 The US House of Representatives has approved a bill aimed at hindering the implementation of Iran’s historical nuclear agreement with the P5+1 group of countries. On Tuesday, members voted 246-181 to pass the "Iran Terror Finance Transparency Act," which curbs President Barack Obama's ability to remove certain sanctions waiting to be removed in accordance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The bill was almost passed last month, but voting on the measure was canceled after nearly one third of lawmakers did not show up in time to cast their votes. The measures, being pushed by the Republican party, are not expected to become legislation as Obama has vowed a veto, arguing that they would derail the agreement. Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council – the United States, France, Britain, China and Russia – plus Germany started to implement the JCPOA on January 16. After JCPOA went into effect, all nuclear-related sanctions imposed on Iran by the European Union, the Security Council and the US were lifted. Iran in return has put some limitations on its nuclear activities. The nuclear agreement was signed on July 14, 2015 following two and a half years of intensive talks. http://217.218.67.231/Detail/2016/02/03/448480/US-Iran-House-bill-JCPOA/ Return to Top

Tasnim News Agency – Tehran, Iran Iran after More Sophisticated Missile Program: Top General February 04, 2016 TEHRAN (Tasnim) – Iran's Army Commander Major General Ataollah Salehi unveiled plans on Thursday for an upgrade in the country’s missile program, reassuring the neighbors that such capabilities are meant only to deter the hostile moves.

“Iran’s future missile program will become more precise and stronger, and these are the deterrent weapons that pose no threat to our neighbors and friends, but are against enemies,” the top Army officer told reporters in Tehran on Thursday. Asked about any possible resolution by the UN Security Council restricting Iran’s missile program, the general explained that Iran will not be bound to comply with those possible resolutions and the Armed Forces will not care about them. Back on December 31, 2015, President Hassan Rouhani ordered the Defense Ministry to continue production of missiles needed by the country’s Armed Forces “more quickly and seriously”. While the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), a lasting nuclear deal between Tehran and the Group 5+1 (Russia, China, the US, Britain, France and Germany) came into force on January 16, Iran has maintained that test of missiles is an issue relating to the defense of its territorial integrity and has nothing to do with the JCPOA. Iran has also underscored frequently that its military might poses no threat to other countries and that the Islamic Republic’s defense doctrine is entirely based on deterrence. http://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2016/02/04/991174/iran-after-more-sophisticated- missile-program-top-general Return to Top

Bloomberg Business News – New York, NY India Is Putting Part of Its Nuclear-Missile Maker Up For Sale By Nc Bipindra February 1, 2016 India wants to embrace more shareholder scrutiny for the sake of national security. The country is seeking to divest 20 percent of each state-owned defense company -- including nuclear-missile maker Bharat Dynamics Ltd. -- to boost their efficiency, Defence Production Secretary A. K. Gupta said. India also plans to cut its 75 percent shareholding in Bharat Electronics Ltd., he said. "We’re going ahead with the disinvestment so that we can have more transparency and accountability," Gupta, one of the defense ministry’s top bureaucrats, said in an interview in New Delhi. He was referring to Bharat Dynamics and didn’t give any timelines. India’s goal is an ambitious $150 billion modernization of its sometimes poorly equipped armed forces, including more local production to curb a flood of costly imports. One of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s challenges is to improve state defense companies, which account for the bulk of domestic weapons output but are strained and lack the most modern technology. Bharat Dynamics, based in the southern city of Hyderabad, is over four decades old and manufactures India’s strategic missiles such as the nuclear-capable Agni and Prithvi series. Its net income climbed 21 percent to 4.2 billion rupees ($62 million) in the 12 months ended March 2015 from a year earlier.

The government is also moving ahead with a long-pending proposal to sell a 10 percent stake in Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., India’s biggest defense contractor, Gupta said. The other government-controlled defense enterprises in Asia’s No. 3 economy are BEML Ltd., Mazagon Dock Ltd., Goa Shipyard Ltd., Garden Reach Shipbuilders & Engineers Ltd., Mishra Dhatu Nigam Ltd. and Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. The state controls about 54 percent of BEML, while the other companies are government owned. Investor Interest Modi’s policy changes to encourage domestic output include fewer curbs on foreign investment in defense, looser export controls and less red tape. His government has set a goal of boosting arms exports 20-fold in a decade to $3 billion. India is currently one of the world’s top importers. The changes have stirred investor interest. Bharat Electronics, whose products include naval systems, has surged 135 percent since the premier took office in May 2014. The benchmark S&P BSE Sensex index rose 1.3 percent over the same period. BEML, which makes everything from missile launchers to armored vehicles, advanced 81 percent. Zen Technologies Ltd., which sells training simulators to the armed forces, surged 764 percent. Astra Microwave Products Ltd., a maker of communications products, advanced 33 percent. "Divestment will provide capital for growth and enough transparency to drive efficiencies, though structural changes will be required for the state-run defense companies to be more attractive for investors," said Anurag Garg, a director of defense at Strategy&, a consulting group of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. Inefficiency Globally, defense and aerospace companies have about twice as many orders as revenue, Garg said. That can stretch to 10 times revenue at Indian state-run defense businesses, an indication of lagging performance that has affected the armed forces, he said. Government-managed defense contractors will face greater private-sector competition in the future, the defense ministry’s Gupta said. They thus "need to ensure optimal utilization of their resources in view of the fast obsolescence of their products, in order to remain financially viable," he said. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-01/nuclear-missile-maker-to-woo-investors- as-india-revamps-defense Return to Top

Global Times – Beijing, China OPINION/Editorial Build up Defense to Thwart US Provocation Source: Global Times February 1, 2016 The US on Saturday sent one of its naval vessels within 12 nautical miles of the Xisha Islands in the South China Sea. The move, according to the Pentagon, was about "challenging excessive maritime

claims that restrict the rights and freedoms of the United States and others." The Chinese side criticized the behavior of a "serious political and military provocation." Until recently, China-US frictions have been fixed on the Nansha Islands. The latest intrusion by US vessels is a high-profile US provocation that has expanded to the Xisha Islands. Xisha is under China's actual control and China has released the territorial sea baseline of the Xisha Islands, including Zhongjian Island. Therefore, the US provocation this time is more vicious. Currently, China and the US have been focused on making their own moves in the South China Sea disputes. China is building islands in accordance with the law, and the US cannot prevent China from doing so despite strong protests. The US sent warships to provoke, and China protests against it strongly, yet with few effective countermeasures. It is hard to evaluate the strategic nature of Sino-US confrontations in the South China Sea. China seems to have more room to maneuver, while the US apparently has more control over the overall situation. Since it happens at the door of China, China feels that the US is circling to contain it and the US vigilance against China is aggressive. There is a long way to go before China can have an equal footing with the US. Such equality can only be achieved with the build-up of strategic strength. China's military strength still significantly lags behind that of the US. If the US is ready for a face-off in the South China Sea, it can quickly gather its military strength despite the far distance. We also face similar setbacks in the East China Sea. We bear enormous pressure from Washington in our peripheral areas, and the relative backwardness of China's military might is the weakest link in our competition with the US. Chinese people must be clear about the broader strategic significance of this reality. The US provocation comes ahead of the 2016 two sessions which are scheduled in March. This reminds us that we must retain a high growth rate of military spending in spite of the economic downward trend. The defense expenditure of a big power must constitute a certain percentage of its overall expense. China's military budget only takes up 2 percent of its GDP, much lower than the US figure of 4 percent. Before we reach the same ratio as the US, we should hold a cautious attitude toward decreasing the defense budget. China needs to accelerate its speed of building up strategic strike capabilities, including a nuclear second-strike capability. The US provocation will not stop due to Chinese objections. In the short- term future, we will have limited means to counter the US. It will probably take China a dozen years or longer of military build-up before it faces a different situation in the South China Sea. http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/966648.shtml Return to Top

War on the Rocks.com – U.S. OPINION/Article Known Unknowns: Iraqi WMD, 13 Years Later By Al Mauroni February 1, 2016 “…it seems to me the president, given the facts he had from the intelligence community, made the right decision. In retrospect, they didn’t find large caches of chemical or biological weapons.” — Donald Rumsfeld, The Late Show, January 25, 2016 John Walcott recently reviewed a 2002 Pentagon memo written by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld — one of the many “snowflakes” that fell upon Pentagon staffers. Attached to the memo was a Joint Staff assessment of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program in the form of a seven-slide PowerPoint brief. In the memo, Rumsfeld wrote to Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: “Please take a look at this material as to what we don’t know about WMD. It is big.” It stands to reason that Gen. Myers had already read the assessment, but Rumsfeld was emphasizing his surprise to the chairman that there were so many known unknowns about Iraq’s WMD program. Walcott’s question is two-fold: Did Rumsfeld have a responsibility to tell the Bush administration that there was so much “unknown” about Iraq’s WMD Program? And does this have implications for the 2016 presidential race? Before I get into the central point of whether this memo is evidence of anything, let me make a few quick points. First, for all of you PowerPoint haters out there (you know who you are), this a great example of an information product that would have been better presented as a Word document than a PowerPoint presentation. I am a PowerPoint Ranger, but even I will agree that it was a mistake to use PowerPoint in this case. Second, I have no intent to re-litigate the issue as to whether there were WMD in Iraq in 2002 and what that meant for the justification of the war. My personal assessment is that the intelligence community did fail in its efforts to properly analytically determine the scope of an Iraqi WMD program in 2002, but it was a policy-neutral estimate. It remained a policy decision by the Bush White House that the possibility of Saddam Hussein giving WMD material to terrorist groups was an unacceptable risk at that time (and yes, we can argue as to the legitimacy of that rationale). Walcott argues that the debate on going to war would have been very different had the Joint Staff’s findings been shared more widely within the administration and Congress. I have to disagree. As a former analyst working on the Joint Staff’s nuclear/counter-proliferation division in 2002, I had a unique viewpoint of assessments being sent up to the secretary’s office. The J5 Strategic Plans and Policy directorate was responsible for providing “what if” assessments to the chairman and supporting U.S. Central Command in its preparations prior to going to war, and I was one of the action officers who specifically addressed chemical and biological warfare issues. For one, let’s not beat up on the J2 director for intelligence who drafted the PowerPoint brief. The J2 is the intelligence chief for the Joint Staff responsible for giving the chairman assessments on threats. As a staff agency, J2 receives its intelligence products from the Defense Intelligence Agency, and DIA’s assessment was included in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate. WMD issues were in vogue back then, but the focus was on what nations had in WMD stockpiles, not on what they could do with them. If you review Rumsfeld’s online papers and search for “WMD,” there are a large number of hits. I don’t get the impression that Rumsfeld really cared as to whether the administration’s rationale

was adequate or whether the military had an assessment that was contrary to the administration’s position. The intelligence community believed that Iraq had an active chemical and biological weapons program and would restart its nuclear weapons program once the international climate allowed. It said nothing about whether these capabilities were a threat to U.S. security interests or about the possible impact on U.S. forces during a military conflict between the two countries. The intel community didn’t do assessments of force-on-force operations, especially operations involving chemical or biological weapons. The models for assessing those kinds of impacts remain rudimentary and have not been validated. These were issues of policy and operational planning. Given U.S. knowledge of the Iraqi chemical-biological program and the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) finding that there was an inconsistency in Iraq’s accounting for tons of missing chemical and biological warfare agents and delivery systems, the assumption was that U.S. forces could be attacked by these unconventional weapons. That’s all Rumsfeld needed to know. Rumsfeld’s concerns were on ensuring the success of operational forces as they invaded Iraq and minimizing the impact of WMD on military operations. He was also concerned as to what the military should do if terrorists obtained WMD. We can argue as to whether other officials in the Defense Department were as apolitical when it came to WMD analyses, but my point is to separate Rumsfeld’s focus on operational concerns from the Bush administration’s political views. This very abbreviated intelligence summary from the Joint Staff would have changed no one’s position in the administration on going to war. The key decision-makers had already made up their minds that Saddam had to go. Gen. Tommy Franks and Gen. Myers assumed that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, and one of their charges was to eliminate the WMD threat through the process of regime change. At the same time, it’s clear that Rumsfeld was concerned that those WMD stockpiles weren’t being discovered in 2003. He knew that the failure to find WMD in Iraq would be a policy problem. Rob Farley effectively argues that uncertainty over Iraq’s WMD status actually played in the favor of the Bush administration. These officials were viewing Iraq’s potential capability and future intentions as threats to U.S. national security. None of their arguments were based on actual threats by Saddam against U.S. forces. As a result, the operational community could not argue with their strategic point of view, other than privately thinking that it was a very bad assumption upon which to base a policy decision. I don’t say this to give Rumsfeld a pass, but his motives were not to hide a military assessment from the administration. He probably didn’t think it was really an issue for the administration as much as it was an issue for the military servicemembers going into Iraq. None of us in the J5 Strategic Plans and Policy office thought that Saddam’s nascent chemical-biological warfare program — even in worst-case assessments — would seriously impact U.S. Central Command’s battle plan. Iraq had a small quantity of unconventional weapons, and our troops had significant protective equipment and counter-proliferation concepts far superior to what had existed in 1991. But that really wasn’t the point, was it? We all knew in late 2002 that we were going to war. The issue was about how serious the chemical-biological threat was to U.S. forces, and our assessment in the J5 shop was that the threat would be manageable. Lastly, does this Joint Staff assessment mean anything to those politicians running for president who had voted for or against going to war against Iraq? Let’s be clear — Walcott is pointing at Hillary Clinton. But her record’s already been established. She voted in favor of going to war because she believed that Saddam was rebuilding his WMD stockpile and pursuing nuclear weapons. We know the records of both Democrats and Republicans who voted to go to war. Since then, she’s stated that she regrets the vote. I doubt the general public will remember the Iraq WMD

debate, let alone use it as a distinguishing mark for or against any candidate. There are far more pressing contemporary issues. Al Mauroni is the Director of the U.S. Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies. He is the author of Where Are the WMDs? The Reality of Chem-Bio Threats on the Home Front and the Battlefront (2006). The opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Air University, U.S. Air Force, or Department of Defense. http://warontherocks.com/2016/02/known-unknowns-iraqi-wmd-13-years-later/ Return to Top

War on the Rocks.com – U.S. OPPINION/Article The Cyber Threat to Nuclear Deterrence By Matt Caylor February 1, 2016 In late 2010, when the Stuxnet worm was reported to have targeted and disabled nuclear enrichment centrifuges in Iran, a proverbial line in the sand was crossed that linked the rising awareness of cyber threats with that of the existing nuclear world. Though it is believed that Stuxnet was intended to slow the proliferation of Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program, the questions over nuclear stockpile vulnerability and the future role of nuclear deterrence were inevitable. Hollywood has already depicted the perils associated with hacking nuclear control systems in movies like Wargames and Blackhat. As a result, it was hardly surprising that both the U.S. and U.K. media interpreted the 2013 Defense Science Board’s recommendation to protect nuclear strike as a deterrent to indicate that cyber attacks posed a preeminent threat. For nuclear pessimists (people who don’t believe the United States needs a nuclear deterrent), the risk of cyber attacks against nuclear stockpiles underscores the inherent dangers that nuclear weapons present and ultimately undermine their role in international stability. The Global Zero movement, an international non-partisan organization of world leaders focused on eliminating all nuclear weapons, chooses to interpret these findings and the associated hype as another example of how nuclear deterrence is no longer relevant in the 21st century. In this case, their fundamental belief that all roads should lead to nuclear disarmament confuses the uncertainty of the cyber domain with the proven track record of global stability that nuclear weapons continue to provide after almost 70 years. The perception that cyber threats will ultimately undermine the relevance or effectiveness of nuclear deterrence is flawed in at least three keys areas. First among these is the perception that nuclear weapons or their command and control systems are similar to a heavily defended corporate network. The critical error in this analogy is that there is an expectation of IP-based availability that simply does not exist in the case of American nuclear weapons — they are not online. Even with physical access, the proprietary nature of their control system design and redundancy of the National Command and Control System (NCCS) makes the possibility of successfully implementing an exploit against either a weapon or communications system incredibly remote. Also, whereas the cyber domain is characterized by significant levels of risk due to a combination of bias toward automated safeguards and the liability of single human failures, nuclear weapon safety and surety

are predicated on balanced elements of stringent human interaction and control. From two-person integrity in physical inspections and loading, to the rigorous mechanisms and authority required for weapons release, human beings serve as a multi-factor safeguard while retaining the ultimate role to protect the integrity of nuclear deterrence against cyber threats. To a large degree, the potential vulnerabilities caused by wireless communications and physical intrusions into areas holding nuclear material are already mitigated via secure communications that are not linked to the outside and multiple layers of physical security systems. While there has been a great deal of publicity surrounding the Y-12 break-in of 2012, the truth is that the three people involved never got near any nuclear material or technology. Without state-level resourcing in the billions of dollars, the technical sophistication required to pursue a Stuxnet-like attack against nuclear weapons is most likely beyond the capability of even the most gifted group of hackers. For all intents, this excludes terrorist organizations and cyber criminals from the field of threats and restricts it to those nations that already possess nuclear weapons. Nuclear-weapon states, however, have the full-spectrum cyber threat capability referenced in the Defense Science Board report and would most likely be influenced by an understanding of the elements of classic nuclear deterrence strategy. In the case of first strike, no cyber weapon could be expected to perform at a rate higher than any conventional anti-nuclear capability (i.e., not 100 percent effective). Therefore, an adversary’s nuclear threat would be perceived to endure, thereby negating and dissuading the effort to use and employ a cyber weapon against an adversary’s nuclear force. Additionally, just as missile defense systems have been historically controversial due to perceived destabilizing effects, it is reasonable to conclude that these nuclear-weapon states would view the attempt to deploy a cyber capability against their nuclear stockpiles from a similar perspective. Finally, the very existence of nuclear weapons is often enough to alter the risk analysis of an adversary. With virtually no chance of remote or unauthorized detonation (which would be the desired results of a sabotage event), the most probable cyber threat to any nuclear stockpile is that of espionage. Attempted cyber intrusions at the U.S. National Nuclear Security Agency (NNSA) and its efforts to bolster cybersecurity initiatives provide clear evidence that this is already underway. However, theft of design information or even more robust intelligence on the location of stored nuclear weapons cannot eliminate the potential destruction that even a handful of nuclear weapons can bring to an adversary. Knowledge alone, particularly the imperfect knowledge that cyber espionage is likely to offer, is incapable of drastically altering an adversary’s risk calculus. In fact, quite the opposite is true. An adversary with greater understanding of the nuclear capabilities of a rival is forced to consider courses of action to prevent escalation, potentially increasing the credibility of a state’s nuclear deterrence. Despite the growing sophistication in cyber capabilities and the willingness to use them for espionage or in concert with kinetic attack, the strategic value of nuclear weapons has not been diminished. The insulated architecture combined with a robust and redundant command-and- control system makes the existence of any viable cyber threat of exploitation extremely low. With the list of capable adversaries limited by both funding and motivation, it is highly unlikely that any nation will possess, or even attempt to develop, a cyber weapon sufficient to undermine the credibility of nuclear weapons. In both psychological and physical terms, the threat of the megabyte will never possess the ability to overshadow the destructive force of the megaton. Although the employment of cyberspace for military effect has brought new challenges to the international community, the role of nuclear weapons and their associated deterrence against open and unconstrained global aggression are as relevant now as they were in the Cold War. Issue No.1201, 5 February 2016 United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies| Maxwell AFB, Alabama https://cuws.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CUWS Phone: 334.953.7538 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama

LCDR Matt Caylor is a student at Air Command and Staff College, undertaking a nuclear elective with the U.S. Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Air Force, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. http://warontherocks.com/2016/02/the-cyber-threat-to-nuclear-deterrence/ Return to Top

The National Interest – Washington, D.C. OPINION/Feature Pay Attention, America: Russia Is Upgrading Its Military The Kremlin's forces are in the midst of a historic overhaul. By Steven Pifer February 3, 2016 Russia is in the midst of a major modernization of its armed forces. This has been driven by Vladimir Putin’s ambition to restore Russia’s hard power and supported by the revenues that flowed into the Kremlin’s coffers between 2004 and 2014, when the price of oil was high. The modernization programs encompass all parts of the Russian military, including strategic nuclear, nonstrategic nuclear and conventional forces. The United States has to pay attention. Russia may be a power in long-term decline, but it retains the capacity to make significant trouble. Moreover, in recent years the Kremlin has shown a new readiness to use military force. But not all aspects of the modernization program are equally worrisome. Strategic Nuclear Russia is modernizing the three legs of its strategic triad. It is procuring eight Borei-class ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), and is halfway through a ten-year program to build four hundred intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs). It is also updating its Tu-160 Blackjack bombers, and officials have reportedly considered reopening the Blackjack production line. Placed in context, however, the strategic modernization program appears less worrisome. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Russian economy went into free fall for most of the ensuing decade. The defense budget received little in comparison to Soviet times, and most programs, including strategic nuclear forces, were starved for funds. That only began to change in the mid-2000s. The strategic modernization program is replacing a lot of old systems, systems that the Russian military would have preferred to retire earlier had it been able to pay to do so. For example, a large number of Russia’s strategic warheads sit atop SS-18, SS-19 and SS-25 ICBMs, all of which are scheduled to be retired by 2020. If the military had had the resources, it would have retired and replaced the SS-18s and SS-19s years ago. Four hundred ICBMs and SLBMs constitute a major program, but the number seems appropriate for a Russian strategic force that, under the 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), looks like it will deploy 400–450 strategic missiles.

The Borei-class submarines will replace Delta-class submarines, all of which were built prior to 1991. A combination of reliability and resource concerns has meant that most of the older boats performed deterrence patrols at dockside rather than at sea. That may change as more Boreis become operational. In comparison, the U.S. Navy normally maintains about half of its fourteen Ohio-class SSBNS at sea. The fact that Moscow is considering reopening the production line for its aging Blackjack bomber is interesting. Russia currently flies only a dozen of these aircraft (in addition to some sixty older Bear bombers). A decision to resume production of Blackjacks would indicate problems and delays with the next generation PAK-DA bomber, which was originally scheduled to have its first flight by the end of this decade. Nonstrategic Nuclear Moscow’s nonstrategic nuclear weapons are more worrisome. To begin with, there is Russia’s violation of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty by testing a ground-launched cruise missile to intermediate range. While such a missile likely will not pose a direct threat to the United States, it constitutes a treaty violation and would threaten U.S. allies, as well as other countries, in Europe and Asia. The outside world has less visibility regarding Russia’s nonstrategic arsenal than Russia’s strategic forces. It appears, however, that the military has developed a range of nonstrategic nuclear capabilities, including cruise missiles, short-range ballistic missiles and aircraft. By contrast, the United States has steadily reduced the number and types of weapons in its nonstrategic nuclear arsenal, which now consists solely of the B61 nuclear bomb. Of particular concern is Russia’s apparent focus on low-yield nuclear weapons—which one official has referred to as a “nuclear scalpel”—coupled with its nuclear “de-escalation” doctrine. That doctrine envisages escalating to de-escalate, that is, using low-yield nuclear weapons as a means to terminate a conventional conflict on terms favorable to the Kremlin. Russia’s unclassified national security strategy says that nuclear weapons would be used only in the event of an attack with weapons of mass destruction on Russia or one of its allies, or in the event of an attack on Russia with conventional forces in which the fate of the state is at stake. The “de- escalation” doctrine, Putin’s references to nuclear weapons in his public statements and the broad modernization of Russia’s nonstrategic nuclear forces suggest that the classified strategy could envisage use of those weapons in wider circumstances. That risks lowering the nuclear threshold. And once a nuclear weapon—any nuclear weapon—is used, the possibility of catastrophic escalation would increase dramatically. Conventional Russia is also modernizing its general-purpose forces, having set itself a goal of making 70 percent of the army’s equipment modern by 2020. This is coupled with changes in operational tactics, some of which were developed after the Russian army’s poor performance in the 2008 conflict with Georgia. The use of special operations forces in Crimea—referred to by Ukrainians as “little green men” for their lack of identifying insignia—proved effective. The Russians showed the ability to quickly mass fire on targets when regular army units entered Ukraine in August 2014 and again in early 2015. Russia’s conventional forces, however, face limitations. First, it is not clear how much progress Moscow is making in closing the technology gap with Western militaries. Some capabilities are Issue No.1201, 5 February 2016 United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies| Maxwell AFB, Alabama https://cuws.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CUWS Phone: 334.953.7538 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama

indeed modern, such as the sea-launched cruise missiles that the Russian Navy launched late last year against targets in Syria. Of course, that was a capability that the U.S. Navy demonstrated in force against Iraq in 1991. While the Russian Air Force drops some smart weapons against targets in Syria, the majority appear to be “dumb bombs.” In contrast, most U.S. weapons used against ISIS targets are smart. (This may also reflect Russian rules of engagement, which are less focused on limiting collateral damage.) Moscow faces a new problem of late: the sanctions imposed by the West following Russia’s aggression against Ukraine block certain exports to Russia’s defense industry. Closing the technology gap will likely remain a challenge. A related problem is the dependence of Russian naval shipbuilders on a Ukrainian manufacturer for ship engines, the supply of which has now been cut off. A second limitation, primarily for the army, is the fact that conscripts still make up a large portion of enlisted personnel. The military took in nearly 300,000 conscripts in 2015. (While Russian officials talk about a million-man military, estimates put total personnel at closer to 800,000.) Conscripts serve for only one year, which hardly suffices to give them the proficiency that their professional counterparts in Western armies achieve. Budget Woes A weak budget prevented the Russian military from conducting much modernization between 1991 and 2005. That could prove to be a crucial factor again. Faced with low oil prices and Western economic sanctions, the Russian economy contracted by nearly 4 percent in 2015. Most analysts expect it to contract further in 2016. The government budget for 2016 assumed an oil price of $50 per barrel. In January, the price closed at about $34 per barrel, after dipping to almost $28 per barrel. Russian ministries were told to cut budget expenditures by 10 percent, though it is not clear if this applies to the military. If the oil price remains soft, the defense budget may not escape unscathed. Alexey Kudrin, finance minister during Putin’s first two terms as president, recently said that defense spending cuts “cannot be avoided,” though they might be postponed a short while. That could hinder the military’s modernization effort. Responding to the Challenge None of this is to suggest that the United States and NATO should not pay heed to what the Russian military is doing. They must. But they should be clear-eyed about the Russian program and about what they must do in response. Russia’s strategic modernization program should not cause undue alarm, provided that two conditions hold. First, that the United States and Russia continue to observe the limits of New START, which constrain each to no more than 1,550 deployed strategic warheads on no more than seven hundred deployed ICBMs, SLBMs and bombers. Second, that the United States proceed with modernizing its own strategic forces. The Pentagon’s proposed modernization program, which will hit its stride in the 2020s, appears more than adequate to fill the bill. Some elements could be pared back, such as the Long-Range Strike Option, and may well have to be cut, given U.S. budget constraints. The United States and NATO should pay attention to the combination of Russia’s nonnuclear strategic weapons modernization program and its “de-escalation” doctrine. But NATO does not need to match the breadth or numbers of Russia’s nonstrategic arsenal. The F-35 and modernization of the B61 bomb are sufficient. The alliance must, however, think through how to adapt its strategy and doctrine to take account of Russia’s “de-escalation” doctrine. Issue No.1201, 5 February 2016 United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies| Maxwell AFB, Alabama https://cuws.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CUWS Phone: 334.953.7538 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies (CUWS) Outreach Journal

NATO should devote more resources to conventional territorial defense. The alliance has overall qualitative and quantitative advantages, but it must resource its conventional capabilities to maintain its edge. It needs a concept and force structure to deal with a crisis in the Baltics, where the Russian military has regional superiority. It also needs to ensure that NATO aircraft could operate successfully in a more contested air defense environment, given Russia’s deployments of advanced surface-to-air missile systems. This is not just about NATO forces, but about doctrine, and having the operational concepts to contend with new Russian capabilities. To the extent that the alliance maintains a strong conventional deterrent and defense posture, it will reduce the likelihood of a conventional clash—and of a situation in which Russia might consider using its nonstrategic nuclear weapons. Steven Pifer is a senior fellow and director of the Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Initiative at the Brookings Institution. http://www.nationalinterest.org/feature/pay-attention-america-russia-upgrading-its-military- 15094?page=show Return to Top

The Interpreter – Sydney, Australia OPINION/Post The Non-Existent Nuclear Weapons Debate By Heather Williams February 4, 2016 Moderation isn't sexy, particularly when it comes to nuclear weapons. But balance is exactly what is missing from contemporary nuclear debates. In his recent book, The Case for U.S. Nuclear Weapons in the 21st Century, Brad Roberts makes a nuanced argument that, while disarmament is the long- term objective, nuclear weapons remain crucial to U.S. security and for too long they have been neglected. According to Roberts, America's adversaries “may believe that they can engage in nuclear coercion and blackmail and that, in extremis, they could resort to nuclear employment.” This argument is likely to see Roberts placed in the pro-deterrence camp which opposes nuclear disarmament, which both proves a point and is also a shame: disarmament advocates and deterrence believers are talking past each other, to their mutual detriment. For experts, Roberts' book offers a thoughtful, straightforward approach to today's nuclear challenges. It will also provide insights to those wanting a deeper understanding of the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. policy, particularly as an extended nuclear deterrence guarantee to U.S. allies in Europe and Asia. The Case for Nuclear Weapons provides at least three important contributions to nuclear debates. First, in the course of making the case for US nuclear weapons, Roberts imparts first-hand experience about the nuclear policy-making process from his time working on the US Department of Defense's 2010 Nuclear Posture Review. This discussion includes the increasing influence and salience of US allies in nuclear decision-making.

Second, while many arguments in favor of maintaining and modernizing nuclear weapons focus on their “enduring value as insurance against the return of major power war,” Roberts instead focuses on the intellectual gap in considering what happens if deterrence fails. What if a seemingly irrational adversary believes that in extreme circumstances the use of nuclear weapons would serve their interests? What if they believe they can use nuclear weapons against the United States and not only survive, but also win the war? This is not a completely new argument, but it has been largely missing from nuclear debates. Lastly, Roberts offers a warning about the state of the U.S. arsenal after decades of neglect in investment and thinking, manifest in a series of recent mishaps involving U.S. nuclear infrastructure. Deterrence relies on credibility, and this requires investment in the arsenal. But neither of these last two points, nor Roberts's first-hand experience in policy-making, should put his argument squarely in the anti-disarmament camp. In the book's conclusion, the tone shifts from focusing on adversaries' “theories of victory” to calling for a “balanced approach” in nuclear debates. This would combine “political efforts to reduce and ultimately eliminate threats with military efforts to deter existing threats,” as argued in the 2009 Strategic Posture Commission report. Indeed, the United States is committed to “twin projects” to adapt nuclear deterrence to twenty-first-century threats whilst reducing the role of nuclear weapons. Such a balanced approach is noticeably absent in nuclear weapons debates at present, as evidenced by recent commentary over the North Korean nuclear test. While disarmament activists seized the opportunity to unfairly liken the Hermit Kingdom's nuclear program to the UK's Trident nuclear deterrent, those who believe nuclear weapons remain relevant are less vocal and tend to limit themselves to policy circles. Roberts calls this polarization an “advocacy mismatch.” Pragmatic debates are non-existent. What then, is the way ahead for bridging the gap between disarmament and deterrence? First, strategic patience on the part of those who want to see faster disarmament. Second, and related, Russia must be a partner in further reductions. The belief by some disarmament advocates that unilateral steps by the United States will prompt others to disarm is not realistic; according to Roberts, “Recent history is unkind to this hypothesis.” And lastly, real progress will be made towards disarmament by examining the security reasons underpinning nuclear possession and reliance. This is a role specifically for the United States as a leader for creating “the conditions of peace and justice that would make nuclear abolition possible.” Advocates for nuclear disarmament cannot ignore deterrence arguments, but neither can the policy community ignore the impatience and frustration among non-nuclear states with the lack of progress towards disarmament. There may be a case for U.S. nuclear weapons at present, but that does not rule out disarmament as a long-term objective. Moderation in nuclear debates might not be sexy, but extremism is ugly. Heather Williams is a MacArthur Fellow in the Centre for Science and Security Studies at King's College London. http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2016/02/04/The-Non-Existent-Nuclear-Weapons- Debate.aspx 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 a result, the Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center, in coordination with the AF/A10 and Air Force Global Strike Command, established a series of courses at Kirtland AFB to provide continuing education through the careers of those Air Force personnel working in or supporting the nuclear enterprise. This mission was transferred to the Counterproliferation Center in 2012, broadening its mandate to providing education and research to not just countering WMD but also nuclear deterrence. In February 2014, the Center’s name was changed to the Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies to reflect its broad coverage of unconventional weapons issues, both offensive and defensive, across the six joint operating concepts (deterrence operations, cooperative security, major combat operations, irregular warfare, stability operations, and homeland security). The term “unconventional weapons,” currently defined as nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, also includes the improvised use of chemical, biological, and radiological hazards. The CUWS's military insignia displays the symbols of nuclear, biological, and chemical hazards. The arrows above the hazards represent the four aspects of counterproliferation - counterforce, active defense, passive defense, and consequence management.

Issue No.1201, 5 February 2016 United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies| Maxwell AFB, Alabama https://cuws.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CUWS Phone: 334.953.7538