CUWS Outreach Journal #1110

USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies (CUWS) Outreach Journal

Issue No. 1110, 11 April 2014 Welcome to the CUWS Outreach Journal! As part of the CUWS’ mission to develop Air Force, DoD, and other USG leaders to advance the state of knowledge, policy, and practices within strategic defense issues involving nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, we offer the government and civilian community a source of contemporary discussions on unconventional weapons. These discussions include news articles, papers, and other information sources that address issues pertinent to the U.S. national security community. It is our hope that this information resources will help enhance the overall awareness of these important national security issues and lead to the further discussion of options for dealing with the potential use of unconventional weapons. The following news articles, papers, and other information sources do not necessarily reflect official endorsement of the Air University, U.S. Air Force, or Department of Defense. Reproduction for private use or commercial gain is subject to original copyright restrictions. All rights are reserved.

FEATURE ITEM: “Missile Defense: Mixed Progress in Achieving Acquisition Goals and Improving Accountability”. Report to Congressional Committees, by the Government Accountability Office; April 2014, 49 pages. http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/662194.pdf In fiscal year 2013, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) made mixed progress in achieving its acquisition goals to develop, test, and produce elements of the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS). For the first time, MDA conducted an operational flight test that involved warfighters from several combatant commands using multiple BMDS elements simultaneously. The agency also successfully conducted several developmental flight tests that demonstrated key capabilities and modifications made to resolve prior production issues. However, the Aegis BMD and Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) continued to experience testing and development challenges.

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

Return to Top

U.S. NUCLEAR WEAPONS 1. U.S. Nuke Force Got High Marks in Study 2. Pentagon: B-61 Bomb Update Faces Possible Delays 3. Navy Extends Trident II D5 Nuclear Missile Service Life

U.S. COUNTER-WMD 1. Navy's European Missile Sites Move Forward 2. US to Freeze Cooperation with Russia under Nunn-Lugar Program 3. The Pentagon Is Revising Its WMD Strategy

U.S. ARMS CONTROL 1. U.S. Plans Balanced Cuts to Nuclear Launchers under Treaty with Russia

HOMELAND SECURITY/THE AMERICAS 1. Fired Nuke Commander Will Retire at Lower Rank 2. Klotz Confirmed as NNSA Head

ASIA/PACIFIC 1. Japan Quietly Deploys Destroyer in Response to N. Korea's Missile Launch 2. U.S. to Send Two More Destroyers to Japan by 2017 3. Water Woes Endanger North Korean Reactor 4. S. Korea, U.S., Japan Issue Joint Warning to N. Korea Issue No.1110, 11 April 2014 United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies| Maxwell AFB, Alabama http://cpc.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CUWS Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7226 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama 5. Philippine, United States Reach Agreement on New Security Deal

EUROPE/RUSSIA 1. Trident Renewal Support Lowest among 18-35-Year-Olds 2. Russia Warns Ukraine against Missile-Technology Sale 3. Russia’s Ace in the Hole: a Super-Missile It Can Sell to Iran 4. Russian Nuclear-Missile Shield Uses Domestic Components - Ruselectronics Chief 5. Russian Lawmakers Demand Criminal Case Against Gorbachev Over Soviet Union Collapse

MIDDLE EAST 1. Police Swoop on Chinese Businessman Accused of Iran Nuclear Smuggling Plot 2. Iran, Powers Likely to Draft Final Nuclear Deal Next Month: Official 3. Kerry: US Would 'Respond Immediately' to Nuclear Breakout in Iran 4. Supreme Leader: Iran Not to Stop Nuclear R&D Activities 5. IAEA Chief: Iran Deal Implemented ‘as Planned’ 6. Iran’s Ballistic Missiles May Become Hurdle in Nuke Talks 7. Iran, Major Powers Conclude Third Round of Nuclear Talks 8. Iran Clears up Ambiguities over Arak Reactor: AEOI

INDIA/PAKISTAN 1. Will ‘Revise and Update’ India’s N-Doctrine, says BJP Manifesto 2. Pakistan Procurement Decisions Face East and West

COMMENTARY 1. What the Air Force Can Learn from the Nuclear Cheating Scandal 2. Is India About to Abandon Its No-First Use Nuclear Doctrine? 3. Need to Revisit India’s Nuclear Doctrine as a Lot Has Changed Since 2003 4. Obama Administration Decision Weakens New START Implementation 5. China’s Nuclear Modernization and the End of Nuclear Opacity

Albuquerque Journal - Albuquerque, NM U.S. Nuke Force Got High Marks in Study By Robert Burns, Associated Press (AP) Saturday, April 5, 2014 WASHINGTON – A retired general chosen to explore flaws in U.S. nuclear forces signed off one year ago on a study describing the nuclear Air Force as “thoroughly professional, disciplined” and performing effectively – an assessment service leaders interpreted as an encouraging thumbs-up. The overall judgment conveyed in the April 2013 report by a Pentagon advisory group headed by retired Gen. Larry Welch, a former Air Force chief of staff, appears to contradict the picture that has emerged since then of a nuclear missile corps suffering from breakdowns in discipline, morale, training and leadership. That same month last year, for example, an Air Force officer wrote that the nuclear missile unit at Minot Air Force Base, N.D., was suffering from “rot,” including lax attitudes and a poor performance by launch officers on a March 2013 inspection. It’s unclear whether the Air Force took an overly rosy view of the Welch assessment, which was not uniformly positive, or whether his inquiry missed signs of the kinds of trouble documented in recent months in a series of Associated Press reports. Whichever the case, Welch is again at the forefront of an effort – this time at Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel’s personal direction – to dig for causes of problems that Hagel says threaten to undermine public trust in the Issue No.1110, 11 April 2014 United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies | Maxwell AFB, Alabama http://cpc.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CUWS Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7226 2 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama nation’s nuclear arsenal. The most recent such problem is an exam-cheating scandal at a nuclear missile base that prompted the Air Force to remove nine midlevel commanders and accept the resignation of the base’s top commander. Dozens of officers implicated in the cheating face disciplinary action, and some might be kicked out. Welch began the new Hagel-directed review in early March, teaming with retired Navy Adm. John C. Harvey, who was not involved in the earlier reviews but has extensive nuclear experience. Much rides on what they find, not least because Hagel and the White House want to remove any doubt about the safety and security of the U.S. arsenal and the men and women entrusted with it. Hagel’s written instruction to Welch and Harvey in February said they should examine the nuclear mission in both the Air Force and the Navy, focusing on “personnel, training, testing, command oversight, mission performance and investment” and recommend ways to address any deficiencies they identify. A fighter pilot by training and a former top nuclear commander, Welch also is known for integrity and honesty. Hagel “believes there is no one better-suited to examine these issues than Gen. Welch,” Hagel’s press secretary, Navy Rear Adm. John Kirby, said Friday. “Like his partner Adm. Harvey, he’s tough and pragmatic. And he flat-out knows his stuff.” Welch led the initial outside review of arguably the most startling nuclear failure of recent years, the unauthorized movement in August 2007 of six nuclear-armed cruise missiles from an air base in North Dakota to Louisiana. Welch led that inquiry as chairman of a special task force of the Defense Science Board, a group of outside experts that advises the secretary of defense on a wide range of technical issues. The panel’s report was published in February 2008. The same task force, again under Welch’s direction, published follow-up assessments in April 2011 and April 2013. Each of those examined both sides of the nuclear Air Force – strategic bombers as well as the intercontinental ballistic missile, or ICBM, forces whose problems have gained wide attention over the past year. The April 2011 study cited morale issues among missile crews. “They perceive a lack of knowledge of and respect for their mission from within the larger Air Force,” it said. The April 2013 report ticked off numerous significant improvements. It found that senior leaders were paying more attention, with more clarity of responsibility for the nuclear mission than in the years leading up to the 2007 mishap. The system of inspections and the support for nuclear personnel, logistics and facilities had improved. Yet at that point, the first signs of new trouble had begun to emerge, including the mass suspension of 19 launch officers at Minot in April 2013, followed by a failed inspection in August at another nuclear missile base in Montana. Welch’s report also cited “enduring issues that require more responsive attention.” And he said the Air Force needed to prove that the nuclear mission is the No. 1 priority it claims it to be. He also found that groundwater intrusion into nuclear missile silos and the underground launch control posts to which they are connected had done major damage, including collapsing electrical conduits. The bottom-line conclusion, however, was this: “The nuclear force is professional, disciplined, committed and attentive to the special demands of the mission.” The AP made a request last week through Pentagon channels for comment by Welch about his 2013 task force report, but he did not respond. Shortly after Welch’s group completed that review, he briefed the Air Force chief of staff, Gen. Mark Welsh. Welsh mentioned the briefing in an email to other generals in which he said the conclusions were reassuring. “His view of mission performance was positive and didn’t identify any concerns that would lead me to believe there is a larger, hidden problem in this area,” Welsh wrote.

Global Security Newswire Pentagon: B-61 Bomb Update Faces Possible Delays By Diane Barnes, Global Security Newswire April 7, 2014 U.S. Defense Department experts see a danger of delays in work on a key nuclear-bomb component under development at multiple federal agencies. Preparation of the new B-61 gravity bomb "tail kit" is currently proceeding on schedule, but the project's time line faces "risks" from separate work under way at the Defense and Energy departments, according to the Pentagon's Systems Engineering office. "Interdependencies" involving a range of activities at the two departments "present technical challenges and will require close attention and development," the Pentagon office said in a report last month. The potential coordination hurdles threaten to bog down progress, says the annual assessment for fiscal 2013. The developmental component for the bomb's tail section is intended to improve the accuracy of the B-61 bomb's forthcoming Mod 12 variant, which is now in its second year of development. The refurbished bomb would eventually stand in for several earlier versions, some of which are fielded at bases in several European countries. Ultimately, the possible issues may cause the project to miss a goal date for entering full production, as well as a deadline for delivering the first completed tail kit, the document warns. Both goals were scheduled for 2019, the Pentagon said in a Selected Acquisition Report from December 2012. The authors of last month's analysis added that a "limited number of developmental test flights" could complicate efforts to ensure that the tail kit meets reliability standards. Project managers are already "mitigating 11 risks related to schedule, performance, production, integration and cost," they noted. http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/pentagon-b-61-bomb-update-faces-possible-delays/ Return to Top

Defense Tech.org Navy Extends Trident II D5 Nuclear Missile Service Life By Kris Osborn April 11, 2014 National Harbor, Md. — The Navy is modernizing its arsenal of Trident II D5 nuclear missiles in order to ensure their service life can extend for 25 more years aboard the Navy’s nuclear ballistic missile submarine fleet, service leaders said. The 44-foot long submarine-launched missiles have been serving on Ohio-class submarines for 25 years, Vice Adm. Terry Benedict, director of Strategic Systems and Programs said April 7 at the Navy League’s Sea Air Space exposition. The missiles are also being planned as the baseline weapon for the Ohio Replacement Program ballistic missile submarine, so the Navy wants to extend their service life for at least an additional 25 years, Benedict said.

Defense News.com Navy's European Missile Sites Move Forward April 6, 2014 By DAVID LARTER The military could speed up deployment of a land-based missile defense shield in Europe to hem in a resurgent Russia, the Navy 3-star in charge of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency said in early April. Vice Adm. James Syring said it was possible to speed up the deployment of the second Aegis Ashore installation, planned for Poland in 2018, but such a move would require some help from Congress. “We’d need some additional funds in the [fiscal year 2015] budget, and we’d need to move up the development of the [Standard Missile-3 Block ]IIA,” Syring said, referring to the faster, larger interceptor missile being developed

Issue No.1110, 11 April 2014 United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies | Maxwell AFB, Alabama http://cpc.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CUWS Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7226 5 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama for the Aegis Ashore system being built in Poland. The first site is being stood up in Romania and is slated to go live in 2015. Raytheon is developing the SM3-IIA. It’s development is on track for a 2018 deployment, company spokesperson Heather Uberuaga said, but she declined to speculate on whether speeding up the development was possible. Elaine Bunn, deputy assistant secretary of defense for nuclear and missile defense policy, said the missile shields in the Mediterranean and the planned deployment to Romania and Poland were designed to counter threats from Iran, not Russia. Russia is banned from owning or developing medium- and intermediate-range missiles by a Reagan-era treaty. But U.S. intelligence has indicated that Russia may be violating the treaty and testing a new ground-launched cruise missile, according to a January report in the New York Times. Russian President Vladimir Putin declared the treaty obsolete in 2007, though it has never been formally scrapped. Russia has vehemently objected to the deployment of missile shields in central Europe, even threatening to use “destructive force” if the shields are put in place. The plan to deploy sea- and shore-based missile shields in Europe is part of the Obama administration’s plan to protect Europe from ballistic-missile attack. The first Aegis Ashore site will be up and running by 2015 in Romania, followed by another installation in Poland in 2018. They will complement the missile defense work provided by BMD-capable ships. As part of this, the Navy has begun moving four destroyers to Rota, Spain, to serve as in-theater BMD patrol assets. The Donald Cook arrived in February and will be joined by destroyers Ross, Porter and Carney over the next two years. The Navy is now seeking sailors to man the Romania site, set to come online next year. The duty, especially the operational time, is sure to be demanding. The Aegis Ashore sites will be run round-the-clock by three crews. Each shift has an 11-person watch team, including rates that typically work in a ship’s combat information center: fire control technicians, operations specialists, and cryptologic technicians (technical). One watch officer will oversee them. Officials plan to deploy three of these specially trained watch teams for six months at a time. This will be an operational tour, similar to a ship’s cruise, and won’t come with permanent change-of-station orders or the possibility of bringing dependents to Romania. All of the watch teams will be assigned to a stateside command and will deploy from there. Their workups are four months of indoctrination and team trainers, culminating in a BMD certification. The first watch teams will go through the trainers starting in early 2015 and are set to deploy in the early summer, Navy officials said. The battery’s commanding officer, executive officer and command master chief will stay in Romania and oversee the rotating teams on yearlong orders. http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140406/DEFREG02/304060014/Navy-s-European-Missile-Sites-Move- Forward Return to Top

The Voice of Russia – Moscow, Russia 8 April, 2014 US to Freeze Cooperation with Russia under Nunn-Lugar Program The United States is planning to curtail cooperation with Russia under the renewed version of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, known as the Nunn-Lugar program, because of the situation around Ukraine, Anne

Defense One.com The Pentagon Is Revising Its WMD Strategy By Diane Barnes, Global Security Newswire April 10, 2014 The U.S. Defense Department may be “weeks” from updating an 8-year-old strategy for countering weapons of mass destruction, a senior official says. The new armed forces plan for fighting unconventional threats is in its “final stages of the approval and signature process,” Rebecca Hersman, the deputy assistant secretary of Defense for countering weapons of mass destruction, said on Tuesday. The plan would replace a 2006 version as soon as it receives the final clearances, Hersman said at a hearing of the House Armed Services Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee. “We would expect in a matter of weeks to a month or two for signature,” she added in an answer to a question from Representative James Langevin (D-R.I.), the subcommittee’s ranking member. Andrew Weber — the Pentagon’s assistant secretary for nuclear, chemical, and biological defense programs — added that the new strategy would include changes to address “the global nature of these threats.”

The Moscow Times – Moscow, Russia U.S. Plans Balanced Cuts to Nuclear Launchers under Treaty with Russia Reuters April 08 2014 WASHINGTON — The U.S. will scale back its land, sea and air nuclear missile launchers under the New START treaty with Russia, but it will not retire a ballistic missile squadron as some lawmakers had expected, U.S. officials told Reuters. The U.S. military will disable four missile launch tubes on each of its 14 nuclear submarines, convert 30 B-52 nuclear bombers to conventional use and empty 50 intercontinental ballistic missile silos, senior administration officials said on condition of anonymity. The plan is expected to be formally announced on Tuesday. One official said the government wanted to maintain flexibility across its land, sea and air weapons systems. "It provides us a bit of a hedge," the official said. The New START treaty, which was agreed in 2010 and went into force on Feb. 5, 2011, called for the U.S. and Russia to cut their deployed nuclear weapons to 1,550 apiece by 2018, down from the previous ceiling of 2,200. The U.S. total nuclear stockpile, including deployed and nondeployed, tactical and strategic nuclear weapons was 5,113, the government said in 2010. Some lawmakers had voiced concerns that an entire ballistic missile squadron would be eliminated under the treaty. "Because they [cuts] will be spread across the three different bases, we will not close a squadron," another official said, also on condition of anonymity. The New START treaty also calls for each side to reduce its total number of nuclear delivery systems to no more than 800. U.S. weapons makers are keeping a close eye on the U.S. government's plans to modernize its nuclear weapons and the platforms that carry them, an effort estimated by analysts to cost $355 billion in coming decades. Boeing has teamed with Lockheed Martin to compete against Northrop Grumman to build a new bomber to carry nuclear weapons. General Dynamics is leading early design work on a new submarine to replace the Ohio-class submarines that carry nuclear weapons. Huntington Ingalls Industries is also likely to get a large share of the work. The U.S. currently has 886 deployed and nondeployed delivery systems, the senior administration officials said, comprising 454 Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles, 336 Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missiles and 96 B-2 and B-52 bombers. To eliminate the 86 excess launchers and reach the total 800 deployed and nondeployed systems, the Pentagon will alter four launch tubes on each of the 14 Trident submarines to render them unusable, eliminating 56 delivery systems. It also will convert 30 B-52 bombers to conventional use, the officials said. Issue No.1110, 11 April 2014 United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies | Maxwell AFB, Alabama http://cpc.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CUWS Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7226 8 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama To ensure the number of total deployed launchers is no more than 700, the Defense Department will have two Trident ballistic missile submarines in overhaul at any given time, which would mean their 40 missiles would be nondeployed. It would maintain six nuclear bombers in nondeployed status, including three test aircraft. The Air Force has four missile silos for testing that would be considered nondeployed, the officials said. In addition it would remove the missiles from 50 launchers at the three U.S. nuclear bases: F.E. Warren in southeast Wyoming, Minot in North Dakota and Malmstrom in Montana, the officials said. http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/us-plans-balanced-cuts-to-nuclear-launchers-under-treaty-with- russia/497757.html Return to Top

The Washington Post – Washington, D.C. Fired Nuke Commander Will Retire at Lower Rank By Associated Press (AP) Thursday, April 10, 2014 WASHINGTON — The two-star Air Force general fired last fall as commander of the nuclear missile corps because of alcohol-fueled misbehavior will retire in June at a lower rank, the Air Force said Thursday. Maj. Gen. Michael Carey was commander of 20th Air Force, with responsibility for the entire fleet of 450 Minuteman 3 nuclear missiles, when he was fired last October following an official investigation of his actions while leading a U.S. government delegation to a nuclear security exercise in Russia last July. Carey will retire as a brigadier general, one rank below major general. He did not immediately respond to an Associated Press request for comment. Investigators determined that Carey had engaged in "inappropriate behavior," including heavy drinking, rudeness to his hosts and associating with "suspect" women, according to the investigative report made public last December. After the Russia trip, a member of his delegation lodged a complaint about Carey's behavior. That person, described as a female staff member in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, asserted to investigators that on the delegation's first night in Moscow, Carey was drinking and speaking loudly in a hotel lounge about how he was "saving the world" and that his forces suffer from low morale. The investigators said Carey, whom they interviewed at length on Sept. 4, seemed to forget substantial portions of what happened in Russia. The report also said that at times he clammed up or gave testimony at odds with others in the delegation. After being relieved of command, Carey was allowed to remain in the Air Force; he has been serving as a staff officer at Air Force Space Command, where he has no responsibility for nuclear weapons. An Air Force spokesman, Maj. Mathew Hasson, said Carey's final duty day is Friday and he will retire June 1. By retiring one notch below his current rank Carey will lose a substantial amount in retirement pay. An officer with Carey's length of service is entitled to about 75 percent of his active-duty base pay, which would mean approximately $111,000 a year in retirement pay for a one-star, or about $18,000 a year less than for a two-star retiree. The decision to not allow him to retire as a major general was made by Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James, who said on March 27 that she would make the final call based on what the military terms an "officer grade determination," which comes into play when an officer's conduct raises questions about the quality of his service.

Warren Sentinel – Cheyenne, WY Klotz Confirmed as NNSA Head By Marc V. Schanz, Air Force Association Thursday, April 10, 2014 The Senate confirmed retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Frank Klotz on Tuesday as the Department of Energy's under secretary for nuclear security and administrator for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), where he will oversee the management, maintenance, and security of the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz praised Klotz's experience in the nuclear weapons enterprise, noting it makes him "uniquely suited to lead the NNSA," according to an April 8 NNSA release. Moniz said Klotz takes over management of the nuclear stockpile at a critical point for the DOE. President Barack Obama nominated Klotz to take over the NNSA last August. He comes to the agency from a post at the Council on Foreign Relations. Klotz served in a range of senior positions prior to his appointment at NNSA, and was the former commander of Air Force Global Strike Command from 2009 to 2011, as well as former vice commander of Air Force Space Command and head of 20th Air Force. Klotz has deep experience in arms control as well, serving as the Director for nuclear policy and arms control on the National Security Council from 2001 to 2003. He also served as defense attaché at the US Embassy in Moscow. http://www.warrensentinel.com/v2_news_articles.php?heading=0&page=83&story_id=4379 Return to Top

The Asahi Shimbun – Tokyo, Japan

Issue No.1110, 11 April 2014 United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies | Maxwell AFB, Alabama http://cpc.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CUWS Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7226 10 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama Japan Quietly Deploys Destroyer in Response to N. Korea's Missile Launch By The Asahi Shimbun April 05, 2014 Japan sent a Maritime Self-Defense Force Aegis destroyer to patrol the Sea of Japan on April 3 in response to North Korea’s launch of two Rodong medium-range ballistic missiles on March 26. Although Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera ordered the SDF to intercept any North Korean missile that threatens Japan, the central government did not publicly announce the deployment, reflecting Tokyo’s desire not to whip up hysteria ahead of the next round of talks slated with Pyongyang. The interception order, based on the Self-Defense Force Law, will be effective through April 25, the 82nd anniversary of the founding of the Korean People's Army. Based on the order, the SDF Aegis destroyer Kirishima, carrying Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) interceptors, is routinely patrolling the Sea of Japan under the guise of conducting military exercises. In April last year, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s government issued an interception order after North Korea deployed Musudan medium-range ballistic missiles and Rodong missiles. Although two Aegis destroyers were sent to patrol the Sea of Japan last year, the government sent only the Kirishima this year. The government also decided not to deploy the surface-to-air guided Patriot PAC-3 missiles, which were installed last year in the compound of the Defense Ministry in central Tokyo. The latest interception order is the fifth since 2009. All were issued to counter North Korean missile launches. Since Pyongyang did not issue an actual launch warning last year, Tokyo also held back announcing its interception order. But the Defense Ministry showed deployed PAC-3 missiles to the media in a show of its counter-missile preparedness. The government proceeded with the deployment without fanfare this time and held back deploying PAC-3 missiles because it “wants to make necessary responses out of public view,” according to a government source. Government officials have explained that efforts had been made “not to stir up public anxiety and give strong consideration to the diplomatic relations between Japan and North Korea.” Japan and North Korea resumed official high-level talks in late March in Beijing, attended by bureau chiefs of their respective foreign ministries. Confidential, closed-door negotiations are also under way. The Abe administration has set the settlement of the abduction of Japanese nationals by North Korea as one of its primary political goals. It apparently does not want to irritate Pyongyang by playing up its counter-missile responses. Meanwhile, neither Japan, South Korea nor the United States predicted the launch of the Rodong missiles on March 26. As of April 4, Japan had not detected any sign that Pyongyang is preparing another launch. http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/politics/AJ201404050042 Return to Top

The Wall Street Journal – New York, NY U.S. to Send Two More Destroyers to Japan by 2017 Chuck Hagel Says the Move Would Counter North Korea's Provocative Actions By Dion Nissenbaum April 5, 2014

Issue No.1110, 11 April 2014 United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies | Maxwell AFB, Alabama http://cpc.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CUWS Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7226 11 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama TOKYO—The U.S. said it planned to bolster its missile-defense systems in Asia and counter North Korea by sending two more advanced destroyers to Japan by 2017. After meeting with top Japanese officials, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said on Sunday that the U.S. would boost the number of Aegis ballistic-missile-defense destroyers based in Japan to seven. He said the decision comes in response to "Pyongyang's pattern of provocative and destabilizing actions" that have angered its neighbors, including recent tests of missiles capable of reaching Japan. The announcement came on the first full day of Mr. Hagel's visit to Asia, his fourth trip to the region since taking over at the Pentagon a year ago. On Monday, he heads to Beijing for his first trip to China as defense secretary. He said he planned during his three days of meetings to send a message to China's leaders that they can't unilaterally redefine their boundaries without risking conflict. China's recent attempts to expand its influence in the South China Sea and East China Sea have increased the chances of confrontation, and U.S. allies in the region have been watching with concern as the U.S. has taken a measured response to Russia's annexation of Crimea. The U.S. declaration that it didn't see a military response to Russia's actions in Ukraine has raised questions for America's Asian allies about Washington's commitment to defending them. While Ukraine isn't a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, it is a longtime partner of the military alliance. Mr. Hagel came to Tokyo to reassure America's longtime ally that the U.S. would honor its treaty commitments to defend Japan. He said on his way to Tokyo that the U.S. had a "complete and absolute commitment to the security of Japan." On Sunday, he reaffirmed the point during a news conference with Japanese Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera. "You cannot go around the world and redefine boundaries and violate territorial integrity and sovereignty of nations by force, coercion, and intimidation, whether it's in small islands in the Pacific or large nations in Europe," Mr. Hagel said. "Great powers have great responsibilities," he added. "And China is a great power." China and its smaller neighbors are embroiled in long-standing disputes over who controls waters and islands in both the East China Sea and South China Sea. The disputed areas include Japanese-held islands known as Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China. Last year, China sought to extend its control by declaring an air-defense zone over those islands. The U.S. pushed back by flying two B-52 bombers over the islands in a direct challenge to China's declaration. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has said he wants to revise Japan's interpretation of its constitution to allow collective self-defense, meaning Japanese forces could come to the aid of the U.S. in a military conflict even if Japan weren't directly attacked. Japanese officials said Mr. Abe discussed the subject when he met Mr. Hagel on Saturday, and Mr. Hagel welcomed the Japanese leader's efforts. Mr. Hagel is preparing for tense talks with China that are expected to include discussions about the air-defense zone, cyberattacks, and North Korea. The trip is part of America's campaign to shift more military and diplomatic might to Asia as 13 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan draw to an end. Japan is central to the U.S. effort. The U.S. is already installing a second early warning radar system in Japan to help the country detect missile launches from North Korea. It is also sending a small number of Global Hawk surveillance drones to help Japan keep tabs on its adversaries in the region. The U.S. decision to send two more destroyers comes less than two weeks after North Korea carried out a test of two midrange rockets capable of hitting Japan.

The Japan Times – Tokyo, Japan Water Woes Endanger North Korean Reactor Analysts question safety after recent flooding Associated Press (AP) April 08, 2014 WASHINGTON – North Korea may have temporarily shut down a plutonium reactor earlier this year as it wrestled with water supply problems that could threaten the safety of its nuclear complex, a U.S. research institute said Monday. The North restarted the 5-megawatt reactor at the Nyongbyon complex only last year, backtracking on a commitment of previous aid-for-disarmament negotiations and raising fresh alarm over its nuclear weapons program. A constant water supply from a nearby river is essential to cool the reactor, which can produce fissile material for bombs, and would be needed for the safe operation of another reactor under construction at the same complex. The U.S.-Korea Institute at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies says recent commercial satellite imagery show the recently restarted reactor may have been temporarily shut down or operated at a lower power level for repairs after flooding caused the river to change course. The reactor appears to have been operational again by mid-February, according to the analysis by Nick Hansen, a retired intelligence expert who closely monitors developments in the North’s weapons programs. The findings were published on the institute’s website, 38 North. The safety of the North’s nuclear facilities adds to international worries over Pyongyang’s nuclear ambitions. North Korea has conducted a total of three nuclear test explosions, the latest in February 2013, and recently warned, without elaborating, it may carry out a “new form of nuclear test.” International negotiations on denuclearization have been stalled since 2009, and envoys of the U.S., Japan and South Korea met in Washington on Monday to discuss policy toward the North. In late March, South Korean President Park Geun-hye said that because of the concentration of nuclear facilities at Nyongbyon, a fire there could cause a disaster potentially worse than the nuclear meltdown at Chernobyl in 1986. Analysts for 38 North dispute that claim because of the relatively small sizes of the reactors at Nyongbyon, but warn that a failure of the cooling system could cause a fire in the graphite core of the reactor and release radioactivity into the atmosphere and the nearby Kuryong River. They say the risks are potentially greater for a 30-megawatt experimental light-water reactor once it begins operations in perhaps one or two years’ time because the North lacks experience operating such a reactor. Sufficient water supply is another major concern. Judging from overhead imagery, the two reactors depend on the same cooling system using water pumped from the river.

Yonhap News Agency – Seoul, South Korea S. Korea, U.S., Japan Issue Joint Warning to N. Korea April 8, 2014 By Lee Chi-dong WASHINGTON, April 7 (Yonhap) -- In a show of unity in dealing with North Korea, South Korea, the U.S. and Japan jointly warned the communist nation Monday not to take any more provocative steps. "If North Korea goes ahead with another nuclear test, we, along with the international community, will make it pay the price for that," South Korea's top nuclear envoy Hwang Joon-kook told reporters in Washington, D.C. "North Korea's nuclear test would be a direct challenge to the international community, and a threat to peace and security in the world." He was briefing media on the results of a trilateral meeting with his U.S. and Japanese counterparts -- Glyn Davies and Junichi Ihara. The tripartite session, the first in five months, came as the unpredictable communist nation threatens to carry out a "new type" of nuclear test. It was a follow-up on a summit agreement between the leaders of the three regional powers in The Hague, the Netherlands, last month. The three regional powers agreed to make "united and effective" efforts to prevent North Korea from taking further provocative steps, according to Hwang. Simultaneously, they will keep exploring ways to restart the six-party talks for the substantial denuclearization of North Korea, he added. The U.S. State Department also said the three nations urged Pyongyang to "refrain from further threatening actions." "These discussions reflect the close ongoing cooperation between our three countries, as well as our common values and interests across the Asia-Pacific region," the department said in a media note. It added Seoul, Washington and Tokyo reaffirmed their commitment to the Sept. 19, 2005 Joint Statement of the six-way talks and its core goal: the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner. Under the deal, North Korea is obliged to abandon its entire nuclear program in return for political and economic incentives from South Korea, the U.S., China, Japan and Russia. But its viability has been questioned, with the six-party talks in limbo for more than five years.

Reuters – U.S. Philippine, United States Reach Agreement on New Security Deal By Manuel Mogato Friday, April 11, 2014 MANILA (Reuters) - The Philippines and the United States reached agreement on Friday on a new security accord allowing American military forces to share local bases for maritime and humanitarian operations, a senior Philippine defence officials said. The two oldest allies in the Asia-Pacific region had been negotiating a new military deal for nearly eight months to increase U.S. rotational presence in the Philippines and improve its former colony's defence capability. The pact will also raise the level of protection against China, which has strengthened its naval presence in disputed areas in the South China Sea after seizing control of Scarborough Shoal in 2012. Pio Lorenzo Batino, Undersecretary of Defence and chair of the Philippine negotiating panel, said both sides had reached a "consensus on key points" during an eighth round of talks. "The draft provisions on key points of an enhanced defence cooperation will be submitted to the president for his review," Batino said in a statement. The accord is expected to be signed during President Barack Obama's April 28- 29 visit to Manila. The agreement will be a highlight of Obama's visit to Asia, underscoring the U.S. "rebalance" to Asia despite preoccupations elsewhere, including Ukraine, Iran and Syria. "No, I don't think there should be any doubts to the U.S. rebalance to Asia," said Jose Cuisia, the Philippine ambassador to the United States. Cuisia said the Philippines stood to receive more U.S. military assistance once the pact was signed. For this year, the U.S. allocated about $50 million in foreign military financing, nearly double the previous year's sum. "It's up to the Philippine Armed Forces to determine what they need," Cuisia said. "I think they are looking at getting newer vessels." He said Washington also promised to help acquire long-range maritime patrol aircraft to enable the Philippines to keep closer watch on its maritime borders in the South China Sea. Military sources said the agreement would increase ship visits and deployment of surveillance aircraft. Last year, there were 149 U.S. navy ship vists, up from 68 in the previous year. Batino said the agreement complied with the Philippine constitution, meaning U.S. forces will have no permament presence and will set up no military bases. "United States access to and use of the armed forces of the Philippines facilities and areas will be at the invitation of the Philippines," he said.

The London Guardian – London, U.K. Trident Renewal Support Lowest among 18-35-Year-Olds Survey by WMD Awareness suggests 6% of voters believe defence spending should be a priority over the next 10 years By Richard Norton-Taylor Monday, 7 April 2014 UK adults who have grown up after the cold war are strongly opposed to a like-for-like renewal of the Trident nuclear missile system and only a small fraction believe spending on defence should be a priority over the next 10 years, according to a poll. Thirty-three per cent of over-35-year-olds believe the UK's weapon system should be renewed to maintain its size and capacity. Support among 18-35s is even lower at 19%. Only 38% agree with the proposition that nuclear weapons protect countries that possess them from modern threats such as terrorism, and just 6% believe spending on defence should be the government's priority over the next 10 years. The poll, of 4,207 adults aged over 18 in the UK (including 1,108 aged 18-35), was carried out by ComRes for WMD Awareness, a campaigning group set up to promote a debate about the future of Trident and other weapons of mass destruction. Though the government has spent more than £300m on design work for a new fleet of Trident submarines, a final decision on whether to go ahead will not be made until 2016, after next year's general election. A new Trident system is widely estimated to cost between £80bn and £100bn over a 25-year lifetime. The poll comes a day after Nato's secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, said in an article in the Telegraph that members of the alliance should spend more on defence and modernise their armed forces as Russia tried "to turn back the clock and carve up Europe into new spheres of influence". The attempt by WMD Awareness to encourage debate on Trident was welcomed by James Arbuthnot, chairman of the Commons defence committee and a former Conservative defence minister, and Sir Nick Harvey, former Liberal Democrat defence minister. "Public engagement about a topic of such importance to the defence of the country is vital and I am pleased that WMD Awareness is helping to widen the debate to include potential first-time voters. I am proud to be part of this worthwhile initiative," Arbuthnot said. Harvey said it showed the government's support for the "outdated cold war nuclear deterrent" was out of touch with young voters.

The Moscow Times – Moscow, Russia Russia Warns Ukraine against Missile-Technology Sale By Anna Dolgov April 08 2014 The Russian Foreign Ministry has warned Ukraine against a reportedly planned sale of technology for long-range missiles, saying the Kiev administration was illegitimate but still needed to act responsibly on the world stage. Citing two international nonproliferation treaties, to which Ukraine is a signatory — the International Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation and the Missile Technology Control Regime — the ministry told Ukraine to "exercise particular reserve" when considering the transfer of "technologies for creating missiles capable of carrying a payload of more than 500 kilograms for more than 300 kilometers." "Despite the difficult domestic political situation in Ukraine and the absence of a legitimate supreme authority," the ministry hopes "the current leaders of that country will show proper responsibility and will refrain from steps that can undermine the current nonproliferation regime," the statement said. While the Foreign Ministry said it had learned about the sale from the media, it was not immediately clear which reports it may have been referring to, though some Russian bloggers have accused Ukraine of planning to sell its technologies for the missiles — known by the NATO classification as Satan — to Turkey. Satan missiles, which were built in Ukraine during Soviet times, are in service with the Russian army, and their maintenance is still provided by Ukrainian experts, BBC reported. Ukraine's First Deputy Prime Minister Vitaliy Yarema said Friday that Kiev would curb its military cooperation with Russia, following Moscow's annexation of Crimea and amid fears that Russia may dispatch its troops to eastern Ukraine as well. "Manufacturing products for Russia that will later be aimed against us would be complete insanity," Yarema said. The Russian-Ukrainian cooperation on the maintenance of the Satan appeared to be drawing to an end even before the Crimea crisis. The commander of Russia's Strategic Missile forces said in December that the country would deploy a new type of long-range missile called the Sarmat in 2018 to replace the Satan. http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/russia-warns-ukraine-against-missile-technology- sale/497707.html Return to Top

The Daily Beast.com Russia’s Ace in the Hole: a Super-Missile It Can Sell to Iran It’s Washington’s nightmare scenario: an aggressive Moscow deciding it’s time to arm Tehran with sophisticated weapons. And it may be closer to reality than you think. By Eli Lake April 8, 2014 Tensions between Russia and the West are hitting a new peak. And in this face-off, Moscow has an extraordinary piece of leverage: a super-sophisticated, bomber-killing missile that it once threatened to sell to Iran.

Issue No.1110, 11 April 2014 United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies | Maxwell AFB, Alabama http://cpc.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CUWS Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7226 17 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama Last week, Reuters first reported Russia was preparing an oil-for-goods deal with Iran worth up to $20 billion. An unnamed Iranian official told the news service that the barter would include Russian weapons. And that was before further signs of Russia’s shadow invasion of Ukraine emerged Monday, when crowds spontaneously appeared in three major eastern cities to welcome the troops amassed over the border. The Daily Beast reported that associates of Viktor Yanukovych, the deposed and Kremlin-friendly Ukrainian president, were meeting with pro-Russian activists. One keen-eyed photographer captured a man wearing a Russian Airborne forces tee-shirt at one of the protests. The trade between Moscow and Tehran would alleviate the economic pressure on Iran that the White House has said helped bring the Islamic Republic to the bargaining table. It may even sink the talks President Obama is hoping will persuade Iran to defang its nuclear program. If those talks fail, then Russia has the leverage to equip Iran with the missile that could defend its centrifuges and reactors from allied air strikes, the S-300. “I could see as part of this deal [between Tehran and Moscow] that they would agree to transfer advanced missiles to Iran,” said Mark Dubowitz, the executive director of the hawkish Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and an expert in the Iran sanctions. “If [Russian president Vladimir] Putin became angry enough over the West’s financial punishment of Russia, he could put in play the S-300 deal.” The S-300 has long been Moscow’s top-of-the-line air defense system. The current model is comparable to U.S. Patriot missile batteries. The S-300 deploys sophisticated radars, launch vehicles and missiles to shoot aircraft and even ballistic missiles out of the sky. Russia has also threatened to sell the system to Syria, whose hapless air force was hacked by Israel in 2007, rendering its anti-aircraft defenses useless when Israel bombed the al-Kibar nuclear facility. In the second term of the George W. Bush, Russia came close to selling and training Iran’s military on how to use the sophisticated S-300 system. But then in 2010, the Russians pulled back from the sale during negotiations over U.N. Security Council resolution 1929, the resolution the Obama administration used to persuade banks and finance ministries all over the world to isolate most of Iran’s economy. Moscow ended up supporting that resolution and cancelling the sale—which was considered a triumph of the Obama administration’s foreign policy at the time. But Russia also negotiated an important loophole. While the resolution bans almost every possible arms sale imaginable, it still technically allows U.N. member states to sell Iran air defense weaponry such as the S-300 system. “There was no prohibition of the S-300 in the resolution,” said Michael McFaul, who left his post earlier this year as the U.S. ambassador to Russia and played a role in 2010 as a senior White House staff member in negotiating the Iran resolution. McFaul said Russia’s president at the time, Dimitry Medvedev, at first privately and then publicly said the spirit of the resolution would prohibit the sale of the S-300. “But he was not obligated to do that by the resolution itself,” McFaul said. McFaul declined to comment on whether he suspected Russia would actually provide Iran with the air defense system. Dubowitz, however, says he is concerned Moscow could renege on its promise not to sell Iran the S-300. One Obama administration official told The Daily Beast the United States has seen no evidence to date that Russia would renege on its promise not to sell Iran the S-300 system. But signals from Moscow and Tehran have already drawn concern from Congress. On Monday, the two senators who drafted the crippling sanctions legislation Obama has implemented against Iran urged the White House to re- impose some of the sanctions it temporarily lifted this fall when the nuclear talks with Iran began. In the letter, Sen. Mark Kirk, a Republican, and Sen. Robert Menendez, a Democrat, wrote that they were alarmed the barter agreement reported by Reuters “may provide for the transfer to Iran of items of significant value to Iran’s military and its nuclear program.”

ITAR-TASS News Agency – Moscow, Russia Russian Nuclear-Missile Shield Uses Domestic Components - Ruselectronics Chief “Our top-priority task is to create manufacturing facilities for the electronic component base,” the director general of the Ruselectronics says Russia, April 09, 2014 MOSCOW, April 09. /ITAR-TASS/. Russia does not buy electronic components for its nuclear-missile shield abroad; the components are designed and manufactured only domestically, the director general of the Ruselectronics holding company, a subsidiary of the Russian state corporation Rostec, said Wednesday. “Our top-priority task is to create manufacturing facilities for the electronic component base, which is required for critical niches in the sphere of the country’s defense capacity,” Andrey Zverev said, adding that the nuclear-missile shield is an example of such a niche. “Here, this task has currently been solved in full: 100% of the component base for these purposes is designed and manufactured in the Russian Federation,” Zverev said. The Ruselectronics chief recalled that most electronic components used in the world are produced in Southeast Asia, with 70% of all global electronic devices manufactured by Taiwan. Ruselectronics is part of strategically important dual-purpose assets of the Rostec corporation. As a holding and management company, Ruselectronics unites 123 enterprises of the radioelectronic industry. http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/727135 Return to Top

RIA Novosti – Russian Information Agency Russian Lawmakers Demand Criminal Case Against Gorbachev Over Soviet Union Collapse 10 April 2014 MOSCOW, April 10 (RIA Novosti) – Members of Russia’s lower house of parliament have filed a request with the prosecutor general demanding the breakup of the Soviet Union be declared illegal and those responsible be prosecuted, including former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, Russian media reported Thursday. According to the Izvestia newspaper, the request, filed by members of several parties, says that in a 1991 referendum Soviet citizens voted to maintain the state’s territorial integrity, but the country’s leaders then committed illegal acts that led to the collapse. In November 1991, a criminal proceeding was launched against Gorbachev, but the charges were dropped on the next day. One of the initiators of the request, United Russia deputy Yevgeny Fyodorov, told RIA Novosti that the move was driven by a necessity to investigate the mechanisms of coups staged from abroad in the wake of current events in Ukraine. The deputies hope that an investigation will result in a number of criminal cases, including against Gorbachev.

The London Telegraph – London, U.K. Police Swoop on Chinese Businessman Accused of Iran Nuclear Smuggling Plot British police have arrested a Chinese businessman at Heathrow Airport in connection with an alleged plot to smuggle parts for Iran's nuclear programme By Patrick Sawer, and Josie Ensor 05 April 2014 An alleged plot to smuggle nuclear parts to the Iranian regime has been foiled by British police working alongside their US counterparts. Officers from the Metropolitan Police arrested a Chinese businessman at Heathrow Airport as part of an investigation into attempts by the Iranian government to evade sanctions over their nuclear programme. Sihai Cheng, 34, from Shanghai, has been charged by the American authorities with supplying thousands of parts to a company involved in Iran’s nuclear programme, in violation of US sanctions. Following what sources have described as an “intelligence led operation”, Mr Cheng is being held in custody at a central London police station, after being arrested on a US provisional warrant issued by Westminster Magistrates Court as he was transiting through Heathrow Airport in February. He will appear before Westminster magistrates in June to face a special court hearing to determine whether he should be extradited to the US. The US indictment, details of which were revealed for the first time on Friday, comes as Iran and six world powers are trying to strike a permanent deal to address Western concerns that Tehran is secretly trying to develop a nuclear weapon. The Iranian has always insisted it only wants nuclear energy. Mr Cheng - who is based in Shanghai - is alleged to have conspired with an Iranian to illegally supply US-made pressure transducers to Iran through China. These transducers - a special type of sensors - are said to have been sold to a “front” company for the Iranian nuclear programme.

The People’s Daily Online – Beijing, China Iran, Powers Likely to Draft Final Nuclear Deal Next Month: Official • Iran and major world powers are likely to start drafting a final agreement next month. • "The next round will address all available issues in more detail," Araqchi said. • Baeidinejad said expert-level talks between Iran and world powers have been useful. (Xinhua) April 07, 2014 TEHRAN, April 6 -- The Islamic republic and major world powers are likely to start drafting a final agreement over Tehran's nuclear program next month, Press TV quoted a senior Iranian nuclear negotiator as saying on Sunday. Issue No.1110, 11 April 2014 United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies | Maxwell AFB, Alabama http://cpc.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CUWS Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7226 21 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama "We hope that in the upcoming talks, we would be able to bring the views closer and narrow the differences regarding major issues, so we could get to the details and start writing the text," Abbas Araqchi was quoted as saying. Araqchi, also a deputy foreign minister, added that Arak heavy water plant and Iran's uranium enrichment activities, which were subjects of debate in the previous rounds of talks, will be among topics addressed in the next round, according to semi-official Mehr news agency. "The next round will address all available issues in more detail," he said, adding that other issues not covered in previous rounds will also be discussed. Araqchi's remarks followed a three-day meeting of nuclear experts from Iran and the P5+1 group, namely Britain, China, France, Russia, the United States plus Germany, which concluded in Vienna on Saturday. After the talks, head of Iranian negotiation team Hamid Baeidinejad said that "the useful technical talks helped the parties to understand each other's stance better." In the meantime, Marzieh Afkham, Iran's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, warned against any "unproductive" remarks by western officials about the ongoing negotiations which might negatively impact the talks. "Threats against and pressure on the Iranian nation have had no results," Afkham said, adding that "only negotiation based on mutual respect ... and recognition of the absolute rights of the Iranian nation would yield results," according to Press TV on Sunday. The spokeswoman repeated Tehran's stance that it had the legal right to use peaceful nuclear energy but also was willing to allay any "real and logical concerns." Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad-Javad Zarif said Iran was against the proliferation of the weapons of mass destruction, semi- official Fars news agency reported on Sunday. "Nuclear weapons are not in compliance with the religious tenets and defense doctrine of Iran," Zarif said. Iran and the P5+1 group held a two-day nuclear meeting in Vienna in March. Both EU Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton and the Iranian foreign minister called the talks "substantive" and "useful." The West demanded that Iran significantly scale back its nuclear program to ensure its peaceful nature, while Iran wants the West to relieve their sanctions imposed on the country. Both sides have agreed to reconvene the next round of high- level talks in Vienna on May 7, in which they will continue to discuss tough issues, including Iran's heavy water reactor. Iran and the six major states struck a six-month interim deal in Geneva last November, according to which Iran will suspend some controversial nuclear activities starting from last January, while Western states will lift some sanctions imposed on Iran. http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90777/8590897.html Return to Top

The Jerusalem Post – Jerusalem, Israel Kerry: US Would 'Respond Immediately' to Nuclear Breakout in Iran As talks resume in Vienna, US secretary of state says he is "not expressing optimism" at prospect of reaching nuclear deal. By MICHAEL WILNER 08 April 2014 NEW YORK – US Secretary of State John Kerry told his former colleagues in the US Senate on Tuesday that he was “not expressing optimism” on the prospect of a deal with Iran over its nuclear program.

Issue No.1110, 11 April 2014 United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies | Maxwell AFB, Alabama http://cpc.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CUWS Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7226 22 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Kerry said he remained “agnostic” on how the talks in Vienna would conclude. Those negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 – the US, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China and Germany – resumed in Austria on Tuesday, with both the US and Iran expressing the belief that talks were “on pace” to begin drafting a final deal next month. Pressed by committee chairman Sen. Robert Menendez (D-New Jersey) on reports that the US might be willing to settle on Iran’s retention of a limited enrichment capability, Kerry said that achieving “lead time” on Iran’s ability to enrich weapons-grade uranium would constitute significant progress. “A deal that would ultimately unravel the entire sanctions regime for a six-to-12-month lead time is not far from where we are today,” Menendez said to Kerry. But Iran requires only two months to break out to that nuclear capability today, Kerry noted in response. The secretary then clarified to the Senate panel what “breakout” technically means: Iran’s decision to produce enough weapons-grade material for a single weapon. “I think it’s public knowledge today that we’re operating with a time period for a so-called ‘break-out’ of about two months,” Kerry said. “That’s been in the public domain.” That does not include weaponization, warhead construction or preparation for delivery, he added. Nevertheless, he continued, Iran’s decision to break out would be a “huge, consequential decision” that would prompt US President Barack Obama to “respond immediately.” To lengthen the potential breakout timeline, world powers in Vienna want Iran to cut back the number of centrifuges it operates to refine uranium, and the overall amount of enriched uranium it produces, as well as to limit its research into new technologies and submit to inspections by the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog. Israel’s position on lengthening that breakout time came up for discussion on Tuesday as well, when Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz met with British Foreign Minister William Hague in London. Steinitz emphasized the importance of preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear threshold state, insisting that its uranium enrichment facilities must be dismantled. If Iran retains its facilities, Steinitz said, it will remain a nuclear threshold state, because these facilities would allow it to produce a nuclear weapon in a short amount of time. Such an arrangement, he asserted, “is unacceptable.” He warned that a nuclear Iran would soon lead to a regional nuclear arms race. European Union high representative Catherine Ashton and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif chaired the opening session of the Vienna talks Tuesday before handing over the reins to their deputies. “What matters most to us is that there is a good agreement. Clearly we want to make progress as fast as possible, but the most important thing is the quality of the agreement,” said Ashton’s spokesman, Michael Mann. “It has to be a good agreement that everyone is happy with. So we will work as hard as we can to achieve that.” The interim deal forged in Geneva last fall gave the powers six months, until July 20, to negotiate. “We’re still in an exploratory phase,” one Western diplomat told reporters in Vienna. “In the end, things will happen in July.” Tovah Lazaroff and Reuters contributed to this report.

FARS News Agency – Tehran, Iran Wednesday, April 09, 2014 Supreme Leader: Iran Not to Stop Nuclear R&D Activities TEHRAN (FNA) - Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei stressed Iran's determination to continue talks with the world powers, but meantime, underlined that the country won't halt its nuclear research and development programs. "(Iran's) Agreement with the negotiations was aimed at breaking the hostile atmosphere created by the arrogance front against Iran and these negotiations should continue, but everyone should know that the Islamic Republic of Iran's activities in the field of nuclear research and development will not stop at all and none of the nuclear achievements can be closed while relations between the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Iran should stay conventional and should not grow extraordinary," Ayatollah Khamenei said, addressing directors and experts of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) in a meeting held in Tehran on Wednesday to mark the National Day of the Nuclear Technology. "Negotiations don’t mean that the Islamic Republic of Iran will withdraw from its scientific nuclear move and the Iranian negotiators should insist on continued nuclear research and development (in their talks with the world powers)," he added. "None of Iran's nuclear achievements can be shut down and no one has the right to make a deal over them and no one will do so," the Leader said, calling on the AEOI experts and officials to continue their progress seriously and powerfully. Elsewhere, he rejected the western claims that their differences with Iran and sanctions against the country are just rooted in Tehran's nuclear activities, and said if no nuclear issue existed, they would raise other excuses as now, during the course of the negotiations, the Americans raise human rights issues as an excuse and if the human rights issue is settled, they will seek other excuses." He underscored the necessity for continued talks with the world powers, but just over the nuclear issue, and said Iran knows that the West is just seeking excuses for its animosity towards the Islamic Republic, but it continues the talks in a bid to show the world its goodwill and also disclosed the reality of the West's unreal allegations against Iran's nuclear activities. Yet, the Leader stressed that "our negotiators shouldn’t accept any bullying words from the other side". The Leader's remarks came as representatives of Iran and the Group 5+1 (the US, Russia, China, Britain and France plus Germany) started another round of talks on a comprehensive nuclear agreement in Vienna on Tuesday morning. The fresh round of talks comes after a breakthrough temporary deal between Tehran and the sextet in Geneva in November followed by two rounds of talks between experts of Iran and the six power and two sets of meetings between senior negotiators of the seven nations. http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13930120001380 Return to Top

Al Arabiya – Dubai, U.A.E. IAEA Chief: Iran Deal Implemented ‘as Planned’ Staff writer, Al Arabiya News Wednesday, 9 April 2014

Saudi Gazette – Jeddah, Saudi Arabia Iran’s Ballistic Missiles May Become Hurdle in Nuke Talks Reuters Wednesday, April 09, 2014 VIENNA – Iran’s reluctance to discuss limits to its missile program in nuclear negotiations with world powers highlights the weapons’ strategic importance for a country facing US-backed regional rivals boasting more modern arsenals. But while it is not at the heart of the talks over Iran’s nuclear program, which center on the production of fissile material usable in atomic bombs, Tehran’s longer-range missiles could become one of several stumbling blocks ahead. For the United States and its allies, they are a source of concern as they could potentially carry nuclear warheads. Washington wants the issue addressed in the quest for a comprehensive agreement in the decade-old nuclear dispute. Iran denies accusations that it is seeking the capability to make nuclear weapons. It insists that the missiles are part of its conventional armed forces and rules out including them on the agenda for the nuclear discussions.Iran has one of the biggest missile programs in the Middle East. “Iran will likely refuse to negotiate constraints on its missiles,” Michael Elleman, a senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) think-tank, said. It was unclear whether the matter would come up during the latest round of negotiations between Iran and the six big powers – the United States, France, Germany, Britain, China and Russia – that got under way in Vienna on Tuesday. Washington and Tehran earlier this year set out contrasting positions on whether missiles should be raised at all during talks on a long-term solution to Iran’s nuclear work that began in February and are supposed to yield an agreement by late July. Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, a senior member of Tehran’s negotiating team, was in February quoted by state media as saying Iran’s defense issues were not negotiable and it had no intention of discussing missile capabilities with the powers.

Wall Street Journal – New York, NY Iran, Major Powers Conclude Third Round of Nuclear Talks Intensive Work Needed To Seal Accord By July 20, Both Sides Say By Laurence Norman April 9, 2014 Iran and six major powers wrapped up a third round of talks Wednesday aimed at a final, comprehensive nuclear agreement with both sides saying that there must be "intensive" work ahead to seal an accord by the July 20 target date. "Following our meetings last month…we have now held substantive and detailed discussions covering all the issues which will need to be part of" a final deal, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif and European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said in a joint closing statement. "A lot of intensive work will be required to overcome the differences which naturally still exist at this stage in the process." Baroness Ashton, who is the chief negotiator for the six power group, said nuclear talks will resume on May 13 in Vienna. She didn't say how long those discussions will last.

Press TV – Tehran, Iran Iran Clears up Ambiguities over Arak Reactor: AEOI Thursday, April 10, 2014 Iran has offered a scientific and logical proposal to clear up any ambiguities over the country’s Arak heavy-water reactor, a senior Iranian official says. After the signing of the Geneva deal dubbed the Joint Plan of Action between Iran and six world powers, Tehran put forward a scientific plan to resolve the West’s alleged concerns over the Arak reactor, whose closure had been demanded by the Western states, said Head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) Ali Akbar Salehi on Wednesday. In November 2013, Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council - the US, France, Russia, China and Britain - plus Germany sealed an interim deal in Geneva to set the stage for the full resolution of the dispute over the Islamic Republic’s nuclear energy program. “In our plan, we explained that we would redesign the heart of the Arak reactor, so that its production of plutonium will decrease drastically. They (Iran's negotiating partners) were surprised when they saw our scientific and logical reaction,” Salehi said. The Arak reactor, which uses natural uranium to produce radio medicines, is planned to gradually replace the Tehran Research Reactor, which produces medical radioisotopes for cancer patients. Commenting on Tehran’s cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Salehi said that Iran has no problems with the agency over its nuclear program, adding, “We have answered all their technical questions regarding nuclear issues.” Under an agreement reached between Iran and the IAEA in November 2013, the agency’s inspectors visited the Arak heavy water production plant on December 8, 2013. The IAEA inquiry is separate from, but complementary to higher-level talks between Iran and the six nations, which are aimed at reaching a final agreement over Tehran’s nuclear energy program. http://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/04/10/357954/iran-clears-ambiguities-over-arak/

The Indian Express – New Delhi, India Will ‘Revise and Update’ India’s N-Doctrine, says BJP Manifesto It also says that the party would “maintain a credible minimum deterrent that is in tune with changing geostatic realities”. Written by Shubhajit Roy April 8, 2014 New Delhi -- Sixteen years after the Vajpayee government carried out the Pokhran-II tests, the BJP on Monday said it intended to “revise and update” India’s nuclear doctrine, including the ‘no first use’ (NFU) policy, if it came to power. The nuclear doctrine was formulated by the BJP-led NDA a year after the 1998 nuclear tests, with no first use and non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states as its pillars. India also announced a unilateral moratorium on further testing. The draft doctrine, framed under the leadership of strategic affairs analyst K Subrahmanyam and Vajpayee’s National Security Adviser Brajesh Mishra, was released in August 1999, and finally adopted in January 2003. Monday’s announcement by the BJP came days after Prime Minister Manmohan Singh proposed an international no first use convention among nuclear weapons states. Sheshadri Chari, convener of the BJP’s foreign affairs cell and a member of the group that formulated this section of the party’s manifesto, said: “Why should we tie our hands into accepting a global no first use policy, as has been proposed by the Prime Minister recently?” The BJP has seemingly leaned towards a growing view in strategic circles that India needs to revisit its NFU doctrine in the light of Pakistan’s reported effort to increase stocks of tactical nuclear weapons. The other fear is of Pakistan-based jehadi groups or rogue generals getting their hands on a nuclear weapon and using it against India, experts say. Former foreign secretary Kanwal Sibal, now dean of the Centre for International Relations and Diplomacy at Delhi’s Vivekananda International Foundation, said, “If India reconsiders its no first use policy, it would be a useful lever to push Pakistan towards a no first use policy.” Under India’s existing nuclear doctrine, “the fundamental purpose of Indian nuclear weapons is to deter the use and threat of use of nuclear weapons by any state or entity against India and its forces”. India, it says, “will not be the first to initiate a nuclear strike, but will respond with massive retaliation should deterrence fail. India will not resort to the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons against states which do not possess nuclear weapons, or are not aligned with nuclear weapons powers”. Under the head “Independent strategic nuclear programme”, the BJP’s manifesto released on Monday says that it would “study in detail India’s nuclear doctrine, and revise and update it, to make it relevant to challenges of current times”. It also says that the party would “maintain a credible minimum deterrent that is in tune with changing geostatic realities”. The BJP’s chief spokesperson Ravi Shankar Prasad, a key member of the manifesto drafting group, said that “without whittling down” the legacy of the Vajpayee-led government, the party would like to “revisit and review in the context of present challenges”. Chari told The Indian Express that India needed to re-consider the no first use policy, keeping in view changes in strategic realities and threat perceptions. “We are at liberty to do it,” he said.

Defense News.com Pakistan Procurement Decisions Face East and West By USMAN ANSARI April 10, 2014 ISLAMABAD — Pakistan faces potential conflict on two fronts that calls for different types of equipment, but funding issues restrict its choices. Counterinsurgency equipment to fight the Taliban is needed, but Pakistan must remain mindful of Indian acquisitions. Though on balance analysts say Pakistan has reasonable deterrent capabilities, the outcome of the Indian general election could raise tensions. Despite some improvement, Pakistan’s economy remains beleaguered. Consequently, a senior defense official told Defense News that Pakistan’s procurement efforts are split between counterterrorism and general capacity building, with the former being prioritized. “Today our priorities are those capacity-building efforts where our counterterrorism operations are involved. The others are either on hold or on go-slow because we cannot have everything on the same priority,” he said. In terms of building capabilities, gifted or cut-price surplus equipment, such as additional Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates and F-16 fighter jets, have helped Pakistan maintain a fair level of conventional capability. Major deals also have been undertaken, such as the F-22P frigate deal with China, which was done on a technology- transfer basis. As a result, analyst Usman Shabbir of the Pakistan Military Consortium think tank said the military is reasonably well equipped, with counterinsurgency equipment “trickling in” and “training and tactics that are now taught as part of a standard syllabus.” While wary of India, Shabbir said “larger items, like towed and [self propelled] artillery, induction of new tanks and upgrade of old ones” allow Pakistan breathing space vis-a-vis India. Former Australian defense attache to Islamabad, Brian Cloughley, concurred, but partly because of to India’s failings, which would tell in a new Indo-Pak conflict. “If the war were to remain conventional it is entirely likely that Pakistan could achieve major successes on the ground. India’s artillery is totally inadequate for any conflict, and its tanks, although numerous, are by no means as effective as most of those of Pakistan. The Indian Army has severe problems,” he said.

The Washington Post – Washington, D.C. OPINION/The Post’s View What the Air Force Can Learn from the Nuclear Cheating Scandal By Editorial Board April 6, 2014 BEFORE THEY go on duty with U.S. nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missiles, officers are trained in classrooms and simulators. They are schooled in weapons systems, missile code handling and emergency war orders, among other things. For decades, these missileers have been surrounded by a mystique. They were at the front lines of the Cold War — the officers in the silo who get the codes from a president and turn the keys to launch a nuclear-armed missile. But this mystique has been clouded with the discovery that officers at the 341st Missile Wing at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana were cheating on routine tests. The base is home to 150 Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles, about one-third of the nation’s land-based force. Each month, the missileers are required to take and pass a 20- to 30-question knowledge test in each of three subjects: weapons systems, code handling and emergency war orders. To pass, they must get a minimum score of 90 percent.

The Diplomat – Tokyo, Japan OPINION/Article Is India About to Abandon Its No-First Use Nuclear Doctrine? The BJP election manifesto suggests that India may soon adopt a more aggressive stance on nuclear weapons. By Zachary Keck for The Diplomat April 09, 2014 The presumed next Indian government could drop India’s no-first use (NFU) nuclear doctrine, if its new election manifesto is any guide. Ahead of the start of elections in India this week, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)—which is widely expected to win a plurality of seats and form a government under Narendra Modi—released its 2014 election manifesto. In a section entitled, “Independent Strategic Nuclear Program,” the BJP promised that, if elected, it would “study in detail India’s nuclear doctrine, and revise and update it, to make it relevant to challenges of current times.” It also stated that it would “maintain a credible minimum deterrent that is in tune with changing geostatic realities.” The BJP is a pro-Hindu, nationalistic political party that has generally taken a much more strident stance on nuclear issues relative to the Congress Party that is currently in power. It was under BJP Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee that India conducted its 1998 nuclear tests, formally declaring itself to be a nuclear weapons state. It is widely believed that Vajpayee had been planning on testing nuclear weapons during his previous 13 day stint as India’s premier in 1996, but was booted out of office before preparations were complete. By contrast, under the current Congress-led government, India has focused more on developing its civilian nuclear energy sector, including signing the historic U.S.-India civilian nuclear deal. Moreover, just last week Prime Minister Manmohan Singh called for a global convention in which each nuclear-armed country adopted a no-first use

Issue No.1110, 11 April 2014 United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies | Maxwell AFB, Alabama http://cpc.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CUWS Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7226 31 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama doctrine. This would allow nuclear weapons to be taken off hair-trigger alert and theoretically could reduce the potential for accidental launches. In the manifesto released on Monday, the BJP sought to reframe the nuclear debate by declaring: “BJP believes that the strategic gains acquired by India during the Atal Bihari Vajpayee regime on the nuclear program have been frittered away by the Congress. Our emphasis was, and remains on, beginning of a new thrust on framing policies that would serve India’s national interest in the 21st century. We will follow a two-pronged independent nuclear program, unencumbered by foreign pressure and influence, for civilian and military purposes, especially as nuclear power is a major contributor to India’s energy sector.” Most news reports on the nuclear section of the manifesto said that the terminology was meant to signal that a BJP government would abandon India’s no-first use (NFU) nuclear doctrine if it prevails in the elections. In its 1999 draft nuclear doctrine, written by the BJP-led government that initiated the nuclear tests a year earlier, India adopted a no-first use nuclear doctrine and pledged to maintain a defense-oriented credible minimum deterrence. That no-first use pledge was broadly upheld in a 2003 update to the nuclear doctrine, with the caveat that India reserved the right to use its nuclear arsenal to respond to chemical and biological weapons attacks. China also maintains a no-first use nuclear doctrine, but Pakistan has stated that it may use its nuclear arsenal under a number of different circumstances including to fend off a conventional attack and even if India tries to strangle it economically. There are also widely held suspicions that Pakistan is planning to deploy tactical nuclear weapons to blunt an Indian conventional attack. Pakistan’s position, as well as fears that China is shifting its own nuclear doctrine, has spurred calls among some Indian analysts for a rethink of its own nuclear doctrine. Shashank Joshi has called attention to an alternative nuclear doctrine outlined by the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies (IPCS) in Delhi in 2012. That report called for India to declare: “In adherence to a policy of no first use, India will not initiate a nuclear strike.” However, as Joshi points out, the report goes on to define initiate as “mating component systems and deploying warheads” with the possible intent of carrying out a nuclear strike. Joshi explains that this “means that if Pakistan mates its warheads to missiles as part of nuclear alerting during a crisis, it can be understood to have ‘initiated’ a nuclear strike. That denudes NFU of all meaning.” The same report advocates labeling allies of nuclear- armed countries as nuclear weapon states themselves, paving the way for India to launch nuclear strikes against them as well. It’s unclear how Pakistan would react to India abandoning its NFU nuclear doctrine. Its options would presumably be somewhat constrained by its already aggressive nuclear doctrine. Still, there is little doubt that India’s abandonment of the NFU nuclear doctrine would heighten Pakistan’s concerns of an Indian first strike against its arsenal. This would convince Islamabad of the necessity of continuing to expand and diversify its arsenal, as well as engage in risky behavior to keep Indian defense planners guessing. Another troubling scenario is that China would respond to a change in India’s nuclear doctrine by also loosening restrictions on the circumstances in which it would use nuclear weapons. This could in turn intensify the nuclear triangle between China, India and Pakistan. However, a Chinese response is not guaranteed as Beijing has sought to diminish India’s status by largely refusing to recognize Delhi as a nuclear weapon states. Still, the NFU controversy underscores that the world may witness a more muscular Indian foreign policy should Modi and the BJP prevail in the current elections. Zachary Keck is Associate Editor of The Diplomat where he authors The Pacific Realist blog. He also writes a monthly column for The National Interest. http://thediplomat.com/2014/04/is-india-about-to-abandon-its-no-first-use-nuclear-doctrine/ Return to Top

The Economic Times – Mumbai, India

Issue No.1110, 11 April 2014 United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies | Maxwell AFB, Alabama http://cpc.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CUWS Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7226 32 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama OPINION/Comments & Analysis Need to Revisit India’s Nuclear Doctrine as a Lot Has Changed Since 2003 By Admiral Raja Menon 9 April, 2014 There is a need to revisit India's nuclear doctrine because the circumstances that prevailed when it was issued in 2003 have changed. Perhaps not dramatically, but enough for our national security options to be degraded, if we don't alter the doctrine. Those who advocated making the bomb were clear thinkers. They were ahead of their time while pushing for a nuclear India, but at the same time they were careful not to repeat the bad experiences of the cold war. They avoided a first strike doctrine, which would necessarily have been counter - force and predicated on a hair-trigger alert. It would also have led inevitability to an arms race. The fact that both China and India avoided the cold war traps has led to a more relaxed nuclear environment in Asia, as compared to Europe and the US during the cold war. There is however, a problem with Pakistan, the roots of which go back to their training and arming jehadis to be pushed into Afghanistan and Kashmir. As predicted at the time, there was a blow back effect, when many jehadis went out of control of their mentor and patron - the ISI. Today, there is a fair consensus that the jehadis and militants are divided into two groups - broadly speaking. There are those who attack the Pakistani state, as their primary target and those who are apparently under the control of the ISI, and maintained as a second line of defence against India. This division is arbitrary and perhaps notional, according to Carlotta Gall, who believes that both the jehadi and the ISI can be found on both sides of the dividing line. David Headley, for instance, gave evidence in a US court that the Mumbai attackers were 'linked' to serving members of the ISI. So what does India do, if faced with another successful and major terrorist strike? To not use India's superior conventional military power to punish Pakistan, and turn the other cheek, would destroy the credibility of the state and the government, besides enraging India's people. This was the dilemma faced by Prime Minister Vajpayee in 2002 and by Manmohan Singh in 2008. Indian strategic thinkers believe that, in response to a major strike, there is space below Pakistan's nuclear threshold to punish the state, particularly if the action is taken swiftly in the aftermath of the terrorist strike. Hence the cold start doctrine as articulated by Army Headquarters, but never confirmed by the civilian leadership. In other words, India believes that there is 'space' for conventional war, below Pakistan's doctrine of First Use of nuclear weapons. The erstwhile head of Pakistan's Strategic Plans Division has now launched that country into making tactical nuclear weapons, like the Nasr. What is implicit in fielding the Nasr, is that Pakistan does not think that limited nuclear use on an advancing Indian Tank column, within Pakistan, would lead to India's Massive Retaliation (MR) as promised in the Indian doctrine. Those Indians who shelter behind India's Massive Retaliation doctrine fail to understand that MR was found to have failed during the cold war too - as evidenced by the US' loss in Vietnam and the USSR's loss in The important idea, to understand, is that the use of a small and limited tactical use by Pakistan has to be deterred by a credible response. Will India destroy all Pakistan's cities and cause five million casualties in response to losing, say, 12 tanks? This issue needs to be discussed, and since the earlier BJP government issued the nuclear doctrine, it has the full authority to 'revisit' it. Pakistan's Nasr and other tactical weapons were developed after Islamabad's adherence to the CTBT and therefore these are untested new designs, which normally would have reduced credibility. All the same, they are a factor to be included in discussions by a committee that should be tasked to revise the doctrine, if found necessary.

Federation of American Scientists (FAS).com OPINION/FAS Strategic Security Blog Obama Administration Decision Weakens New START Implementation By Hans M. Kristensen April 9, 2014 After four years of internal deliberations, the U.S. Air Force has decided to empty 50 Minuteman III ICBMs from 50 of the nation’s 450 ICBM silos. Instead of destroying the empty silos, however, they will be kept “warm” to allow reloading the missiles in the future if necessary. The decision to retain the silos rather than destroy them is in sharp contrast to the destruction of 100 empty silos currently underway at Malmstrom AFB and F.E. Warren AFB. Those silos were emptied of Minuteman and MX ICBMs in 2005-2008 by the Bush administration and are scheduled to be destroyed by 2016. A New Development The Obama administration’s decision to retain the silos 50 silos “reduced” under the New START treaty instead of destroying them is a disappointing new development that threatens to weaken New START treaty implementation and the administration’s arms reduction profile. And it appears to be a new development. A chart in a DOD’s unclassified report to Congress shows that the plan to retain the 50 non-operational ICBM launchers is different than the treaty implementation efforts so far, which have been designed to “eliminate” non- operational launchers.

The plan to retain non-deployed ICBM launchers is different than other aspects of the U.S. New START implementation plan Indeed, a senior defense official told the Associated Press that the Pentagon had never before structured its ICBM force with a substantial number of missiles in standby status. Reducing Force Structure Flexibility The decision to retain the 50 empty silos is also puzzling because it reduces U.S. flexibility to maintain the remaining nuclear forces under the New START limit. The treaty stipulates that the United States and Russia each can only have 700 deployed launchers and 100 non-deployed launchers. But the 50 empty silos will count against

Other than the decision to retain, rather than dismantle, the excess 50 ICBM silos, there are no real surprises. The reductions in actual nuclear forces are very modest. Moreover, the June 2013 Nuclear Weapons Employment Strategy of the United States, which is intended to look beyond 2018, ordered no additional force structure reductions below the New START limits, yet determined that the United States could meet its national and international obligations with up to one-third fewer deployed weapons (1,100 warheads on 470 launchers). Strategic Implications What would be the scenario in which the United States would have to redeploy missiles in the extra 50 “warm” silos that the administration has decided to retain? Notwithstanding the crisis in Ukraine, it is hard to envision one. Unlike the United States, Russia is already well below the New START limit and currently has about 140 ICBMs in silos and another 170 on mobile launchers for a total force of a little over 300 missiles. Despite Russian deployment of new missiles, this ICBM force is likely to drop well below 300 by the early 2020s.

The Diplomat – Tokyo, Japan OPINION/Article China’s Nuclear Modernization and the End of Nuclear Opacity Could a more modern arsenal encourage China to allow more nuclear transparency? By Nicholas Giacometti April 10, 2014 Recent events in late 2013 and early 2014, including China’s demonstration of its nuclear submarine force, have once again brought the issue of the country’s policy of nuclear opacity to the fore. Among the P5 (the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council), China officially communicates the least about the size, status and capabilities of its nuclear forces. Indeed, although some uncertainty remains, the other members of the P5 all give public approximations of the size and characteristics of their deployed arsenal. Beijing’s policy of nuclear opacity or nuclear secrecy is often noted in official reports and mentioned by specialized NGOs as limiting the possibility for strategic dialogue with other great powers (especially the U.S.) and as arousing suspicions and misperceptions about China’s intentions. Indeed, an absence of information favors the development of alarmist reports about the modernization of China’s nuclear arsenal, which is depicted by some analysts as dangerous, aggressive and destabilizing. Although some of the concerns of those who increasingly worry about Beijing’s nuclear capabilities are surely legitimate, there is an alternative view: the potential for China’s nuclear modernization to remove some of the incentives driving the opacity policy. Since the first Chinese nuclear test in 1964, opacity has been a strategic tool for Beijing to compensate for the material shortcomings and limitations of its nuclear forces in terms of survivability and destructive power, and thus to increase their overall deterrent effect on would-be aggressors (mainly the Soviet Union/Russia and the U.S.). Until 2006, China’s only ballistic missile able to deliver a nuclear warhead to the continental U.S. was the liquid- fuelled and silo-based DF-5A, which existed only in very limited numbers (20 or so). These characteristics made the Chinese ICBM force highly vulnerable to a disarming first strike, especially in the absence of an efficient early Issue No.1110, 11 April 2014 United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies | Maxwell AFB, Alabama http://cpc.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CUWS Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7226 36 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama warning system. Indeed, liquid-fuelled missiles take more time to launch than their solid-fuelled counterparts because the missile must be fueled first. This operation takes at least a few hours, during which the missile remains in the silo and is vulnerable to a direct hit. As such, various actions were required to increase the survivability of the missiles to guarantee they wouldn’t be destroyed before launch. If this aim wasn’t achieved, there could be no credible threat of retaliation against an adversary that could have launched a disarming first strike. Thus, among other possibilities that included for example the building of mock silos, secrecy about the numbers and location of ICBMs helped create uncertainty in enemy planning processes that made a disarming first strike more difficult to plan and execute. Similarly, the very limited number of missiles capable of reaching the continental U.S. (especially after a potential destruction of some of them through a U.S. preemptive strike) limited the credibility of the threat China could issue against its rivals. The handful of nuclear warheads Beijing could have launched against the U.S. appeared very limited when compared to the total obliteration that the U.S. could have inflicted upon China. Again, secrecy could act as a palliative to the limitations of China’s arsenal, by introducing ambiguity into the mind of enemy decision- makers about actual Chinese strength. This ambiguity would then have a deterrent effect on any cautious decision- maker who would not easily embark on aggression against China without a thorough knowledge of the intensity of the retaliatory strike he might have to face. Overall, in broad terms, China’s fundamental nuclear inferiority compared to other great powers created structural pressure on Beijing to adopt a policy of opacity during and after the Cold War. A Modernized Arsenal Notwithstanding this observation, it appears from all relevant sources that China has been, is, and will modernize its nuclear arsenal in a way that precisely addresses the shortcomings outlined above. The pace of this modernization is slow and China’s nuclear forces are still the least developed of the P5, but their survivability and destructiveness is growing steadily, slowly enabling China to reach a capacity of assured retaliation it has been seeking for so long. In this process, the introduction of the DF-31A and DF-41 ICBMs and the development of a ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) force have been and will be particularly critical. Several developments protect China’s nuclear forces from a disarming first strike and give them an assured capacity to retaliate. The increasing size of Beijing’s arsenal makes it statistically harder to destroy entirely in a first strike. Indeed, the number of Chinese missiles able to reach the continental U.S. has increased to around 40 today, a number that is expected by the U.S. intelligence community to grow to around 100 in the mid-2020s. Although U.S. intelligence has often exaggerated the Chinese threat, it is clear that the number of threatening missiles will increase in the foreseeable future. Additionally, the replacement of the silo-based and liquid-fueled DF-5A ICBM with the solid-fueled and mobile DF-31A ICBM since 2006 (a process that is still ongoing) critically reduces the preparation time of missiles that could now theoretically be launched immediately if the warheads were already fitted, which means that they are no longer vulnerable during a prolonged preparation process. Moreover, the mobility of the DF-31A makes it much more difficult to attack as its location can be changed quickly. Finally, the DF-31 introduces new countermeasures and capacities that would help it evade a U.S. missile defense shield. This capacity will probably be increased by the hypothetical DF-41, which might include multiple independent reentry vehicles (MIRV). Finally, the slow (and difficult) development of China’s SSBN/SLBM force is a process that is progressively giving the country an assured second strike capability because of the relative undetectability of nuclear submarines. Similarly, the ongoing modernization and evolution of China’s nuclear arsenal also increases its destructive power. As already explained, the number of Chinese missiles able to reach the entirety of the continental U.S. is growing. As such, although China will not catch up with the U.S. or Russia in terms of absolute numbers of warheads (something Beijing is not aiming to do anyway), it would be increasingly capable of inflicting tremendous and unacceptable damage upon the U.S. This in turn would increase the credibility of Chinese nuclear deterrence by establishing what resembles mutual assured vulnerability and destruction.

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