Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies (CUWS) Outreach Journal

USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies (CUWS) Outreach Journal

CUWS Outreach Journal 1236 7 October 2016

Feature Item: “Is North Korea Building a New Submarine?” A 38 North exclusive by Joseph S. Bermudez Jr.; Published by 38 North.com; 30 September 2016. http://38north.org/2016/09/sinpo093016/?utm_source=38+North+Bulletin+093016&utm_camp aign=38+North&utm_medium=email Commercial satellite imagery strongly suggests that a naval construction program is underway at North Korea’s Sinpo South Shipyard, possibly to build a new submarine. While there is no direct evidence that the program is for a boat to carry the ballistic missile currently under development, the presence of an approximately 10-meter-in-diameter circular component outside the facility’s recently renovated fabrication hall may be intended as a construction-jig[1] or as a component for the pressure hull of a new submarine. However, it is also possible the ring may be related to another construction project. If this activity is indeed to build a new submarine, it would appear to be larger than North Korea’s GORAE-class experimental ballistic missile submarine (SSBA), which has a beam of approximately 7 meters.[2]

U.S. Nuclear Weapons 1. NNSA Head: ‘All Bets Are Off for Warhead Modernization Under Sequestration’ 2. US Carries Out Two Successful Flight Tests Using Mock Nuke Bombs 3. Sled Track Simulates High-Speed Accident in B61-12 Test

U.S. Counter-WMD 1. THAAD Battery from Texas to Be Deployed in Seongju: Sources 2. DOD IG Auditing BMDS Supply Chain Risk Management

U.S. Arms Control 1. USAF Returns Mothballed B-52 Bomber to Service 2. USA's Hypersonic Programme Could Rile Russia and China 3. Russia-US Plutonium Treaty Halt to Have No Adverse Effect on Nuke Disarmament 4. Russia Adds Hundreds of Warheads Under Nuclear Treaty 5. Russia Calls on US to Return to Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty

Homeland Security/The Americas 1. Russian Tu-95 and Tu-22M3 Bombers to Patrol Airspace Between Hawaii and Japan

Asia/Pacific 1. North Korea Appears to Be Building Larger Ballistic Missile Submarine 2. North Korea’s Nuclear Program Prompts Some in South to Call for Own Deterrent 3. No Discussions Between South Korea, US about Preemptive Strike on North Korea: Amb. Ahn 4. US Experts on N. Korea Call for Direct Dialogue, Reciprocity 5. Chinese Physicists Develop Quantum Radar That Can Detect Stealth Jets 6. Top Secret Chinese Nuclear Base Opens to Foreigners 7. Here's Why North Korea's Missile Program is Far More Advanced Than You Think 8. ‘Activity Seen’ at N. Korean Nuclear Test Site 9. 60% of Americans Feel Threatened by N.Korean Nukes 10. China Scholars, Policy Makers Begin Talking about Supporting Surgical Strike on N.Korea 11. Rising Moves Detected in DPRK's Missile Launch Site: S.Korea 12. Pentagon Studied Future Japan Nuclear Arsenal and War with China

Europe/Russia 1. Nuclear Submarines Construction Set to Start 2. Russia Launches Massive Nuclear War Training Exercise that 'Involves 40 Million People'

Middle East 1. IAEA Chief Says Iran Sticking to Nuclear Deal 2. Iran Plans to Launch Three Satellites into Space 3. Iranian Space Agency Chief: Iran Interested in Connecting with NASA 4. US Democrats Pushing for Extension of Iran Sanctions 5. Persian Gulf Martyrs Brought US Humiliation 6. Iran, China Start Co-Op on Arak Facility

India/Pakistan 1. US Objects to Pak’s Nuclear Threat to India, Calls It ‘Irresponsible’

Commentary 1. The Arrogance of Ideology 2. Dumping America's ICBMs Would Be a Big Mistake 3. The Rise of Hypersonic Weapons

Return to Top

Defense News – Springfield, VA NNSA Head: ‘All Bets Are Off for Warhead Modernization Under Sequestration’ By Aaron Mehta October 4, 2016 WASHINGTON — If Congress does not ease budget caps for the coming fiscal year, it will be almost impossible to keep a quintet of vital nuclear warhead modernization program on track, warns the head of the National Nuclear Security Agency (NNSA). “If the relief we got through the Bipartisan Budget Act, which eased, modestly, the caps for fiscal year ‘16 and ‘17, are not reincarnated in some form for FY18, 19 and beyond, all bets are off. I’ll say that again: all bets are off. And god forbid if sequestration rears its ugly head again, they’re doubly off,” NNSA head Frank Klotz told an audience gathered at the Minot21 Conference on Capitol Hill Sept. 22. Concerns from arms of the military about the impact of sequestration are not new, but the NNSA is in a particularly precarious position, as they are laying the groundwork for a major re-working of the weapons that provide the core of America’s nuclear arsenal, while also facing major deferred infrastructure bills that have left some facilities literally crumbling around workers. The NNSA is a semi-autonomous department within the Department of Energy. While the Defense Department manages the delivery systems of the nuclear force — ships, planes and missiles — NNSA has oversight over the development, maintenance and disposal of nuclear warheads. The agency is perusing a modernization plan known as the “3+2 Strategy,” under which the NNSA is consolidating the American arsenal of warheads into five variants. Five bomb and cruise missile warhead types are being consolidated into two replacement warhead designs, the W80-4 and the B61-12. Meanwhile, the five ballistic missile warheads now in service are being consolidated into three new interoperable warheads known as the IW-1, IW-2, and IW-3. During a Sept. 27 visit from reporters to the Sandia laboratory complex at Kirtland AFB, Brad Boswell, senior manager for Sandia’s Weapon Systems Engineering group, said the fact the B61-12 design replaces the B61-3, -4, -7 and -10 variants will lead to a number of cost-saving benefits. “It actually reduces complexity form a military maintainer standpoint,” Boswell said. “it reduces the cost of the maintenance of the stockpile, because less variants result in a simple logistics train we have to follow.” And, Boswell noted, the weapons simply need to be updated as they get older. “We have some known aging degradations within the B61 family today,” he warned. “The design continues to meet all its requirements and its expected to throughout the remainder of it stockpile life… but as we understand where the aging degradations are, we’re making sure we replace those with the designs.” The B61-12 recently entered the production engineering phase, with the first production unit of the weapon is planned for fiscal year 2020. (Klotz said an updated cost estimate for that program is still being developed and declined to offer a preview of dollar figure.) Improvements on the W-88, a key part of the W80-4 development, will enter the production engineering phase in February of 2017, Klotz added. Issue No.1236, 7 October 2016 United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies| Maxwell AFB, Alabama https://cuws.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CUWS Phone: 334.953.7538 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama But keeping those programs on track is unlikely to happen under a more constrained budget environment, he warned. “The first thing that happens” under lowered budget caps, “is you cancel programs, whether it’s a weapons program or construction program or some other program, you cancel it because you don’t have the money to pay for it” Klotz said. “The other thing you do is peanut butter spreading, move things to the right, and everybody here knows if you move thing to the right, schedule slips, the customer doesn’t get what he or she needs when he or she needs it, and costs go up inevitably,” he continued. “The third thing that will come back is they’ll blame DoE and NNSA for that. So I’m here to tell you that we have to stay on budget, so that’s what we’ll be advocating, at least as long as I’m around to continue advocating that.” Boswell acknowledged that if the budget situation changes, a “harder conversation that gets above my paygrade” has to be held about prioritizing funding. But for now, he says the program “has the resources it needs” to complete on schedule. “From a B61-12 perspective, the nation has been very supportive through the congressional levels to get us what we needed, and as a result we’ve been able to, at least through this point in the program, fulfill our level of commitment,” he said. http://www.defensenews.com/articles/army-pushes-to-counter-drones-as-threat-grows Return to Top

RT (Russia Today) – Moscow, Russia US Carries Out Two Successful Flight Tests Using Mock Nuke Bombs 6 October 2016 Two surveillance flight tests that used mock B61-7 and B61-11 bombs have been accomplished successfully earlier this month, the US National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has announced. JTAs have no nuclear devices inside. Instead, they contain special recorders that gather information on the bomb performance during tests. The sensors and instruments inside the bombs enable the scientists and engineers to track their performance during the flight. Flight-tests are part of qualification process needed to approve modifications to the bomb. The data obtained from the tests is used in a computer simulator developed by Sandia National Laboratories to see how reliable the new systems are and if they function properly. “The B61 is a critical element of the US nuclear triad and the extended deterrent,” said Brigadier- General Michael Lutton, NNSA’s Principal Assistant Deputy Administrator for Military Application. “The recent surveillance flight tests demonstrate NNSA’s commitment to ensure all weapon systems are safe, secure, and effective.” Sandia and Los Alamos national laboratories worked jointly on the B61 assemblies that are manufactured at the Kansas City National Security Campus and assembled at the Pantex Plant in Amarillo, Texas. Russia has expressed concerns over the US plans to upgrade the nuclear bombs. The modification involves making the B-61s partly radio-controlled while the strikes would become more accurate and at the same time less powerful, the Russian Foreign Ministry said. This would make the B61 into a weapon the US would be tempted to use on a regular basis.

Russia is planning to discuss the modernization of nuclear weapons with the US, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said. On Wednesday, Moscow announced that the suspension of cooperation with the US in the nuclear and energy sectors. A special decree was signed by Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev and will come into force 90 days after the US responds with a respective notification. The move was explained by the US violation of the cooperation agreement by imposing sanction against Russia over Ukraine. https://www.rt.com/usa/361856-nuclear-bombs-modification-tests/ Return to Top

Science Daily – Rockville, MD Sled Track Simulates High-Speed Accident in B61-12 Test Investigators sent a mock B61-12 nuclear weapon speeding down the labs’ 10,000-foot rocket sled track to slam nose-first into a steel and concrete wall in a spectacular test that mimicked a high-speed accident. It allowed engineers to examine safety features inside the weapon that prevent inadvertent nuclear detonation. Source: Sandia National Laboratories October 6, 2016 Sandia National Laboratories has sent a mock B61-12 nuclear weapon speeding down the labs' 10,000-foot rocket sled track to slam nose-first into a steel and concrete wall in a spectacular test that mimicked a high-speed accident. It allowed engineers to examine safety features inside the weapon that prevent inadvertent nuclear detonation. Data analysis from the test continues. Sandia teams will use the information in collaboration with colleagues at Los Alamos National Laboratory to hone their understanding of how systems respond in abnormal environments -- accidents or other unexpected events. The test, part of a B61-12 abnormal environments series, used a test unit that resembled an actual weapon as much as possible, said test director Jason Petti. The high-fidelity unit contained standard components that make up a weapon, explosives and other hazardous materials, but did not contain any enriched uranium or plutonium, Petti said. The complex forward ballistic test used rocket motors to accelerate the sled along the track, releasing the B61-12 unit to a free-flight crash. The test met expectations and demonstrated the team's ability to design and implement high-consequence tests. It built on past success for the B61- 12 program from 2014 and 2015, when the labs crashed a rocket sled into a stationary mock weapon in a reverse ballistics test series, considered normal environment tests. "Abnormal environment tests are performed to benchmark the performance of safety features designed into weapons," said Matt Brewer, lead test engineer. The simulated accident collected data to ensure the weapon met its safety requirements.

Issue No.1236, 7 October 2016 United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies| Maxwell AFB, Alabama https://cuws.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CUWS Phone: 334.953.7538 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama Test evaluated weapon performance, helped computer models Sandia engineers designed the March 9 test both to evaluate the weapon's performance and to calibrate a computer model that predicts what can happen to a weapon under various conditions, Brewer said. John Sichler, lead for the Center Bomb Subassembly Product Realization Team, said designing a weapon system to remain safe even after an accident is extremely challenging. Test results help improve solid mechanics models, he said. Because tests are expensive and it's not feasible to re-create every possible accident scenario, computer models fill in the gaps by simulating other scenarios. "We will use the models to predict how our nuclear safety components will perform in numerous postulated accident scenarios without actually conducting tests," Sichler said. "Over the past five years we've been improving our models. It's remarkable how good they have become." Teams created plans unique to the forward ballistics test to determine how to conduct it safely, establishing safety thresholds and a precedent for future tests, said Heidi Herrera, B61-12 operations lead. Her role was created to understand and deal with potential hazards. "They needed someone whose sole job is safety to make sure we can do the test safely, securely and in a quality manner," Herrera said. She helped analyze the hazards, quantified potential risks and identified ways to control them. Planning for every contingency Mike Kaneshige, who worked on explosives safety for the test, said the team had data from past tests and an idea of what to expect. "But the environment we live in is very different than when those tests were done," he said. "The expectation is that we plan for every contingency and have a solid technical basis for the decisions we make." Brewer said analyzing potential chemical, explosive and mechanical hazards allowed the team to identify "what-can-go-wrong scenarios," such as how a sudden fire might affect the sensitivity of explosives used in the test. The test unit carried an internal data recorder, hardened so it could measure what happened during the impact and gather data to validate computer models. In the earlier reverse ballistic tests, cables connected sensors and recorders to a stationary test unit. However, the recorder was on board for the forward ballistics test because it's impossible to attach cables to a unit speeding down a track. The recorder itself was an engineering feat -- it had to be very fast, handle vast amounts of data and fit into a small space, Brewer said. The design will be used in future tests. The recorder also had its own battery, requiring extra safety oversight since the battery power was compatible with the rocket motors' ignitors, meaning the rocket motor would ignite if there was an electrical path between the battery and the motor's initiator, Petti said. The team built in multiple barriers to prevent unintentional ignition, he said. 'A lot of eyes on it' The test unit and setup contained numerous hazards, so all components of the system had to be evaluated to ensure safety from installation to impact to recovery. In addition, the system had to perform as designed. "There were a lot of eyes on it," Petti said. John Wharton, manager of B61-12 Hardware Management and Assembly, said complex planning went into recovering the unit after the test. "Since we couldn't be positive about how the unit would Issue No.1236, 7 October 2016 United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies| Maxwell AFB, Alabama https://cuws.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CUWS Phone: 334.953.7538 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies (CUWS) Outreach Journal

respond to the impact, we relied on models and informed engineering judgment. That planning paid big dividends during the post-test recovery. The team safely and successfully dealt with myriad post-test hazards including explosive, thermal, chemical, mechanical and other hazards." Test preparations took more than a year. That included a calibration test on the track last December using a B61 trainer, a shell the same weight as a real weapon, to assess plans for the actual test, Petti said. The calibration test proved the test setup and gave the team confidence they could provide the needed impact velocity, he said. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161006092308.htm Return to Top

Yonhap News Agency – Seoul, South Korea THAAD Battery from Texas to Be Deployed in Seongju: Sources October 2, 2016 SEOUL, Oct. 2 (Yonhap) -- The U.S. military is expected to move one of its operational Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) batteries from Texas to South Korea to better counter Pyongyang's evolving nuclear and missile threats, local sources said Sunday. Government sources said Washington is considering moving a battery from Fort Bliss to Seongju by late 2017 as part of an agreement with Seoul. The move will involve the deployment of the AN/TPY- 2 radar and associated equipment, a command and communications unit, and some six truck- mounted launchers with eight interceptors each. South Korea and the United States agreed to deploy a THAAD battery in July with Seoul announcing Friday that a country club near Mt. Dalma in North Gyeongsang Province being chosen as the site for the antimissile unit. The two allies are expected to iron out details of the deployment at the 48th Security Consultative Meeting set for Oct. 20 in Washington. An insider then said Washington has made clear it wants to set up the THAAD battery as soon as possible, to better assure South Korea that it is serious about defending the country from the North's missile and nuke capabilities. Reflecting this stance, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Russel remarked during a hearing before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific last week that Washington will do its utmost to upgrade its defensive systems. He said given the accelerating pace of North Korea's missile tests, the United States intends to deploy THAAD on an accelerated basis. Others in the defense ministry said there is the possibility that servicemen from the U.S. THAAD battery in Guam will man the Mt. Dalma battery on a rotational basis. "The soldiers at Guam are fully skilled in the THAAD system," an insider said. He estimated if these troops are assigned to South Korea they will stay some six months to a year. Besides such plans, one official said that while the Lotte Skyhill Country Club will likely be designated as a military facility, Seoul plans to keep the size of the base as small as possible.

Inside Defense – Arlington, VA DOD IG Auditing BMDS Supply Chain Risk Management By John Liang October 03, 2016 The Defense Department's inspector general recently began an audit of the risk management of the Ballistic Missile Defense System supply chain. "Our objective is to determine whether the Missile Defense Agency has implemented an adequate supply chain risk management program for the Ballistic Missile Defense System," according to a Sept. 13 DOD IG memo. The audit, the first in a planned series across DOD, is in response to a congressional requirement in the fiscal year 2017 defense policy bill. According to the report language accompanying the bill: The committee is concerned that, as a practical matter, it appears that the Department possesses very little real data about the supply chain associated with certain critical systems. It also appears that the Department largely relies on assurances it receives from prime contractors, but oftentimes those prime contractors rely on subcontractors and others for information regarding supply chains and there may be little or no actual data on which to base their assurances to the Department. Furthermore, the committee is aware that the Department recently promulgated DFARS Subpart 239.73 ("Requirements For Information Relating To Supply Chain Risk"), but the committee is concerned that there has been little practical progress in implementing these regulations. Moreover, even when implemented, an approach that relies primarily (or exclusively) on simply analyzing threat intelligence in Government databases will almost certainly not generate sufficient data about actual hardware and software components and subcomponents necessary to understand critical supply chains. Therefore, the committee directs the Inspector General of the Department of Defense to conduct an audit to evaluate the supply chain security and assurance of one network or system deemed critical in each of the Missile Defense Agency, Air Force Space Command, the nuclear command and control system, and a delivery system or platform for U.S. nuclear weapons. Furthermore, the committee directs the Inspector General to submit a final report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than May 1, 2017, on the supply chain security and assurance evaluation of such networks or systems. The committee further directs the Inspector General to provide an interim briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than July 1, 2016, on the manner in which it intends to conduct this evaluation. As part of the Inspector General's assessment, the following matters should be addressed: (1) Does the defense agency or military service responsible for the particular system or network conduct actual forensic evaluations of the supply chain associated with the system or network? Does Issue No.1236, 7 October 2016 United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies| Maxwell AFB, Alabama https://cuws.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CUWS Phone: 334.953.7538 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies (CUWS) Outreach Journal

the agency or service rely on the representations of U.S. suppliers or does it perform independent verification and validation of the source of supply for each critical component and subcomponent of U.S.-branded products or systems? (2) For software, firmware, and chip design that is deemed by the command or agency to be critical to the reliability and performance of the designated network or system, can the service or agency (or its suppliers) identify by name and nationality the developers involved? (3) How much diligence has been performed by the service or agency on second- and third-tier suppliers? https://insidedefense.com/insider/dod-ig-auditing-bmds-supply-chain-risk-management Return to Top

IHS Jane’s 360.com – London, U.K. USAF Returns Mothballed B-52 Bomber to Service Gareth Jennings, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly 03 October 2016 The US Air Force (USAF) has returned a Boeing B-52H Stratofortress strategic bomber aircraft to service that had been mothballed in the 'boneyard' at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base (AFB) in Arizona. The 55-year old aircraft, known as 'Ghost Rider' (tail number 61-007), was flown to its operating base at Minot in North Dakota on 27 September following a 19-month refurbishment by the 76th Aircraft Maintenance Group at Tinker Air Force Base (AFB) in Oklahoma. With approximately 45,000 man-hours having gone into restoring the aircraft to full operating capability, 'Ghost Rider' will now join the 5th Bomb Wing of the Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC). The USAF announced its plans to restore 'Ghost Rider' to service in February 2015 to maintain its 76-strong B-52H fleet following a mishap at Barksdale AFB in Louisiana in 2014 that left a B-52 severely damaged. Since work began, another B-52 was destroyed in an accident on the island of Guam, though no announcement has been made as to whether the USAF will repeat its effort in restoring another retired aircraft to service. At the height of its strength, the USAF B-52 forces comprised some 744 aircraft, although this number has been cut to just 76 (with 75 now in operation) in accordance with the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia. http://www.janes.com/article/64266/usaf-returns-mothballed-b-52-bomber-to-service Return to Top

Sputnik International – Russian Information Agency Russia-US Plutonium Treaty Halt to Have No Adverse Effect on Nuke Disarmament The suspension of a treaty between Russia and the United States regarding the disposal of weapons- grade plutonium will have no negative impact on the nuclear disarmament process, the director of the Russian Foreign Ministry's Department for Non-Proliferation and Arms Control said Tuesday. 4 October 2016 MOSCOW (Sputnik) — On Monday, the Russian government said the president had ordered to halt a bilateral Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement (PMDA) with the United States because of Washington's hostile actions. "We are being asked whether the decision we made will have any negative consequences for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. I can tell you that it will not," Mikhail Ulyanov said at the First Committee of the UN General Assembly in New York, as quoted by the Russian Foreign Ministry on its website. He stressed that Russia would not use the plutonium for military purposes, as a moratorium on producing weapons-grade plutonium had been in place in the country for the past quarter of a century. He also stressed that Russia suspended, not terminated the agreement. "We are ready to return to it as soon as the US deals with circumstances that have led to its suspension. Specific conditions for its resumption will be defined by Russia's Federal Assembly," Ulyanov said. According to Ulyanov, Washington did not officially inform Moscow about its plans to change the method of disposing plutonium under a 2000 pact. "Under the agreement, the disposal method can only be changed with the parties’ consent. Russia did not receive any official US request through diplomatic channels," Mikhail Ulyanov, the director of the ministry’s arms non-proliferation and control department, told the UN General Assembly in New York. He said that the disposal method was stipulated in the agreement and the 2010 protocol appendix, but the United States went for a potentially reversible method, which includes burying diluted plutonium in salt mines. According to the draft law on the State Duma website, the agreement may be resumed after the United States reduces its troops and military infrastructure in NATO member states that joined the alliance after September 1, 2000, to the levels they were at the time the original agreement first entered into force. Other provisions include the annulment of the Magnitsky Act and sanctions introduced by the United States over Russia’s alleged role in the Ukrainian crisis, as well as compensation of the losses Russia suffered due to the sanctions. https://sputniknews.com/politics/20161004/1045976305/treaty-us-russia-disarmament.html Return to Top

The Washington Free Beacon – Washington, D.C. Russia Adds Hundreds of Warheads Under Nuclear Treaty 61 new warheads since April under New START By Bill Gertz October 4, 2016 Russia increased its deployed nuclear warheads over the past six months under a strategic arms reduction treaty as U.S. nuclear warhead stocks declined sharply, according to the State Department. During the same period, the United States cut its deployed nuclear warheads by 114, increasing the disparity between the two nuclear powers. Russia’s warhead increases since 2011 suggest Moscow does not intend to cut its nuclear forces and will abandon the New START arms accord as part of a major nuclear buildup. “It is now highly unlikely that Russia intends to comply with New START,” said Mark Schneider, a former Pentagon nuclear weapons specialist now with the National Institute for Policy. At the same time, the Obama administration is continuing a program of unilateral nuclear disarmament despite promises by President Obama to modernize and maintain U.S. nuclear forces as long as strategic dangers are present. The latest Russian warhead increases coincide with increased tensions between Moscow and the West. The nuclear buildup is raising new fears Russia plans to break out of New START treaty limits rather than comply with the accord. Russian forces have deployed 249 warheads above the warhead limit set by the treaty to be reached by February 2018. Since the treaty went into force in 2011, Moscow increased its total warhead stockpile from 1,537 warheads to 1,796 warheads, an increase of 259 warheads. By contrast, the Obama administration has cut U.S. nuclear forces by 433 warheads during the same period. Air Force Gen. John E. Hyten, nominee to be the next commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, warned the Senate during a hearing last month that Russia is modernizing both its strategic and tactical nuclear weapons. “It seems clear that Russia has been making large investments in its nuclear weapon programs as well as modernizing both its strategic and non-strategic nuclear weapons,” Hyten stated in answers to questions posed by the Senate Armed Services Committee. “In addition to advancing nuclear capabilities, Russia is emphasizing new regional and strategic approaches, and declaring and demonstrating its ability to escalate if required,” he added. “Collectively, Russian development of advancing weapons capabilities and its evolving warfighting doctrine is concerning.” Under New START, the United States and Russia agreed to reduce deployed nuclear warheads to 1,550 warheads. Deployed land-based and submarine-launched missiles and bombers will be cut to 700. Missile launchers and non-deployed heavy bombers will be reduced to 800.

While U.S. nuclear forces are very old and in need of modernization, Russian nuclear forces are being modernized. By 2020, nuclear missile submarines, land-based missiles, and bombers will be modernized, with 70 percent of the nuclear forces replaced with advanced systems, according to U.S. officials. In a related development, Russia announced on Tuesday it is abandoning a 2000 agreement to reduce stockpiles of plutonium originally intended for nuclear weapons. “We’re disappointed with their decision,” Pentagon spokesman Peter Cook said of the Russian rejection of the plutonium agreement. The Russian action followed the State Department’s decision to cut off talks with Russia on Syria. Schneider, the nuclear weapons expert, said Moscow appears to be on a path to doubling its warheads. “With or without New START, Russian deployed strategic nuclear warheads are likely to increase to 3,000 by 2030,” he said. Other troubling signs of Russian nuclear weapons advances include intelligence reports that Moscow is expanding underground nuclear command bunkers, violating New START terms, and planning to double its warhead stockpiles for new multiple-warhead missiles. Schneider added that the sharp U.S. nuclear cuts indicate the Obama administration is moving ahead with a unilateral disarmament scheme. “I think it is also clear that the Obama administration has an unannounced program to implement Obama’s proposed one-third reduction in strategic nuclear forces from the New START level unilaterally,” he said. A strategic military balance that existed in 2011 when the treaty was approved has now been reversed by Russian increases and U.S. cuts. “In 2011, the United States had a lead of 263 deployed warheads,” Schneider said. “We are now 429 deployed warheads below Russia. The Russians will think this is quite important. It could impact Putin’s willingness to take risks.” Russia has adopted a new nuclear strategy that lowers the threshold for the use of nuclear arms in a conflict. Moscow calls the nuclear doctrine, escalate to de-escalate. Blake Narendra, spokesman for the State Department’s arms control bureau, dismissed the Russian warhead increase, saying it was part of a “business-like” implementation of the treaty provisions. “The United States and Russia continue to implement the New START treaty in a business-like manner,” Narendra said. “The treaty does not prescribe interim limits. We fully expect Russia to meet the treaty’s central limits by February 2018.” Narendra said current tensions with Russia highlight the need to abide by treaty provisions on verification and confidence-building measures. Without the treaty, the United States would lack information about Russian strategic forces that are currently being modernized, he said. “Fluctuations in the number of deployed warheads is an expected process as the Russians replace older missiles dating from the 1980s that are being retired and eliminated,” Narendra said.

Sputnik International – Russian Information Agency Russia Calls on US to Return to Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty Russia calls on the United States to return to the good-faith implementation of the Intermediate- Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty), the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Department for Non-Proliferation and Arms Control said. 5 October 2016 MOSCOW (Sputnik) — Ulyanov's October 4 speech at the UN General Assembly First Committee on disarmament and international security was published Wednesday on the ministry's website. "We call on Washington to immediately return to the impeccable and faithful implementation of the INF Treaty," Mikhail Ulyanov said. The 1987 treaty prohibits the development, testing, or fielding of ground-based cruise missiles with a range of 300 to 3,400 miles. Both Moscow and Washington have accused each other of violating the INF Treaty. https://sputniknews.com/military/20161005/1046016334/treaty-russia-us-nuclear.html Return to Top

Sputnik International – Russian Information Agency Russian Tu-95 and Tu-22M3 Bombers to Patrol Airspace Between Hawaii and Japan 6 October 2016 A new division of Tu-95MS and Tu-22M3 strategic bombers will soon appear in the Russian Far East to patrol the area over the Pacific Ocean inside the Japan – Hawaii – Guam triangle, Izvestia reported. Military experts see the creation of a new air group as a clear signal to the Asia-Pacific nations and the US that Russia is serious about is current pivot to Asia.

“The formation of the division is almost complete now. It consists of several squadrons of long- distance bombers deployed in the Eastern and Central military districts,” a Defense Ministry representative told the newspaper. It will be already the second heavy bomber air group in the Russian Aerospace Forces after a division of Tu-160, Tu-95MS and Tu-22M3 bombers that have been so successful mopping up terrorists in Syria, was added last year. The newly-formed division will include dozens of strategic and long-range bombers to be deployed in Irkutsk and Amur regions. “Back in the Soviet days our long-range bombers in the Far East had as their primary targets US military bases in Japan, on Guam Island, which then served as the main base of US strategic bombers in the Pacific, and also the US naval bases in Hawaii,” military historian Dmitry Boltenkov told Izvestia. He added that Soviet missile-carrying bombers patrolled those areas keeping an eye on “enemy activity.” These regular patrols were called off during the 1990s and early 2000s, but now it looks like Russian bomber flights inside the Japan-Guam-Hawaii triangle are back. Since 2014 Russian Tu-95MS bombers have regularly been spotted off the coast of Japan which scrambled fighter planes to intercept the Russian “Bears” (NATO reporting name for the Tu-95MS). In November a pair of Tu-95MS bombers circled the US island of Guam in the Western Pacific without straying into US airspace. Even though Guam is not a US state, it has been a US unincorporated territory since 1898. This Russian military beef-up in the Pacific means that Moscow is serious about its current pivot to Asia,” Anton Tsvetov, an expert with the Center of Strategic studies think tank, told the newspaper. “Even though Russia’s economic presence in Asia still has a long way to go, Moscow apparently wants to increase its military clout in the region, all the more so since regional security has always been a key element of Russia’s participation in multilateral organizations in Asia,” Tsvetov added. https://sputniknews.com/russia/20161006/1046060723/russia-bombers-division.html Return to Top

The Korea Herald – Seoul, South Korea North Korea Appears to Be Building Larger Ballistic Missile Submarine October 1, 2016 Recent satellite imagery indicates that North Korea may be building a new submarine larger than its current ballistic missile submarine, a U.S. website monitoring the North said Friday. "Commercial satellite imagery strongly suggests that a naval construction program is underway at North Korea's Sinpo South Shipyard, possibly to build a new submarine," 38 North said in a report based on analysis of imagery of the North's Sinpo Shipyard.

The Japan Times – Tokyo, Japan North Korea’s Nuclear Program Prompts Some in South to Call for Own Deterrent By JESSE JOHNSON, Staff Writer October 3, 2016 North Korea’s nuclear test last month rattled South Korea so much that some politicians are calling it an inflection point, with some now arguing openly that Seoul should develop nuclear weapons. South Korean Foreign Minister Yun Byung-se told foreign officials that the North’s nuclear test last month, its second of the year and most powerful yet, is being viewed by many in his country as “a kind of Sept. 11 attack,” the Yonhap news agency reported Sunday, citing official sources. The Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the U.S. defined security concerns there for a generation. Yun “has been comparing the Sept. 9 test to the al-Qaida attack in recent meetings with foreign officials,” a diplomatic source was quoted as saying. The source, who declined to be identified, said the purpose of linking the two events was to drive home the view in the South that “circumstances are extremely grave” in the wake of the North’s nuclear and missile tests. Pyongyang has also conducted a spate of ballistic missile tests this year, including one fired from a submarine in August that flew 500 km over the Sea of Japan. “Just as the United States’ perception of terrorism changed after the Sept. 11 attacks, the foreign minister is pointing out that the North’s nuclear capability must be viewed differently compared with the past,” the source added. “This is especially true since Pyongyang has threatened preemptive strikes.” The report cited the source as saying that Yun’s remarks highlighted the need for “drastic changes” in the way the world approaches North Korea.

It also comes after Yun met the top diplomats from 40 other countries on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly last month in an effort to drum up support for applying fresh pressure on the isolated nation. Washington and Seoul are working closely to develop more effective ways of reining in Pyongyang, officials say. However, unease has been growing in the South over the U.S. response to the latest test, as well as its commitment to protecting the country. There have even been calls from leading lawmakers in the South for the return of U.S. nuclear weapons to the peninsula or for Seoul to develop its own atomic arsenal. In a separate interview Sunday with Yonhap, Gyeonggi provincial Gov. Nam Kyung-pil, who is believed to be weighing a presidential bid with the ruling Saenuri Party, said the country should prepare to arm itself with nuclear weapons. Nam cited concerns over the U.S. potentially withdrawing its nuclear umbrella. “It’s time for us to consider various options, and one of them is to prepare for nuclear armament,” he was quoted as saying. “Preparations for nuclear armament should begin with the next government, or, in fact, now.” Republican U.S. presidential nominee Donald Trump has threatened to pull American troops out of South Korea and Japan if elected president, unless Seoul and Tokyo pay more for their presence. Trump has also suggested that the two Asian neighbors should have their own nuclear arsenals to make them less dependent on the U.S. for protection. Calls have also grown in the U.S. for Washington to hold direct talks with Pyongyang to negotiate a freeze on the communist nation’s nuclear and missile programs first before seeking to dismantle them. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/10/03/asia-pacific/north-koreas-nuclear-program- prompts-south-call-deterrent/#.V_VyOrTFvq0 Return to Top

Yonhap News Agency – Seoul, South Korea No Discussions Between South Korea, US about Preemptive Strike on North Korea: Amb. Ahn October 3, 2016 WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 (Yonhap) -- South Korea has had no discussions whatsoever with the United States about a preemptive strike on North Korea, Seoul's ambassador to Washington said. Amb. Ahn Ho-young made the remark during a parliamentary audit of his embassy on Saturday as talk of removing North Korea's nuclear facilities through a military strike has surfaced in the U.S. in the wake of Pyongyang's fifth nuclear test. "We've had no such discussions at least here in Washington," Ahn said during the audit held at the embassy. "We've never received a request from the U.S. government for discussions about a preemptive strike."

The Korea Times – Seoul, South Korea US Experts on N. Korea Call for Direct Dialogue, Reciprocity By Choi Sung-jin October 4, 2016 As North Korea speeds up its nuclear weapons development program, some U.S. experts have called for direct dialogue between Washington and Pyongyang, stressing sanctions without negotiations will not work. "Watching North Korea push ahead with nuclear tests, missile launches and the production of nuclear materials recently, it clearly shows, as in the past, the policy of sanctions without negotiations will never work," said Leon V. Sigal, director of the Northeast Asia Cooperative Security Project at the Social Science Research Council in New York. At an international conference in Seoul Monday to celebrate the ninth anniversary of the second inter-Korean summit on Oct. 4, 2007, Sigal also said: "If we force the North Korean government to take part in a dialogue on our terms, no dialogue will be made." The former official at the U.S. Department of State recalled that North Korea proposed to suspend nuclear tests temporarily if the United States put off joint military drills with South Korea, but Washington rejected the proposal in a few hours. "According to unofficial sources, however, North Korea was ready then to suspend not only nuclear tests but also missile launches and the production of nuclear materials," he said. Issue No.1236, 7 October 2016 United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies| Maxwell AFB, Alabama https://cuws.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CUWS Phone: 334.953.7538 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies (CUWS) Outreach Journal

"Only reciprocal steps can stop nuclear experiments and launches of missiles and satellites." Noting that what the U.S. and South Korea should want is not regime change in the North but peace on the Korean Peninsula, the U.S. expert said: "In this regard, the allies should not only negotiate and reconcile with Pyongyang but also normalize political and economic ties with it." Some think Kim Jong-un would take steps because of severe economic difficulties in North Korea but the North's economy has actually grown little by little under Kim's governance over the past several years, Sigal said. "Kim wants peace on this peninsula if for no other purpose than reducing military spending and improving North Koreans' standard of living," he said. "The only way to reduce the risks of additional military clashes on the Korean Peninsula is the peace process made simultaneously with the denuclearization of North Korea, not steps made before and after it. The allies ought to try new negotiations to repeal the North's nuclear and missile programs and, at the same time, push for three major goals of political normalization, deep economic involvement and regional cooperation on security, as manifested in the Sept. 19, 2005, joint statement." Meanwhile, two other U.S. experts also said the United States should hold direct talks with North Korea to negotiate a freeze on the communist nation's nuclear and missile programs first before seeking to dismantle them. Jane Harman, a former congresswoman who now heads the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, made the case in a joint article with the center's Korea expert, James Person, arguing that sanctions cannot force the North to end its nuclear program. "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result," the experts said in a sharp swipe at the U.S. policy of seeking change in the North's behavior through sanctions and Chinese pressure. The experts said the U.S. should "demonstrate some flexibility" and take security concerns about Pyongyang into consideration. They said the North learned a lesson from the Iraq War and NATO intervention in Libya, which was that no outlier state without nuclear deterrence is safe. "While the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula remains the long-term goal, we propose using this U.S. leverage to enter into talks with Pyongyang with the stated goal of negotiating a freeze of all North Korean nuclear and long-range missile tests and a return of International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors," the experts said. "Realistically, this can only be achieved through direct talks with North Korea, not a return to a six- party process that evoked too much mistrust among key stakeholders, especially between Pyongyang and Beijing," they added. https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2016/10/116_215317.html Return to Top

News.com.au – Sidney, Australia Top Secret Chinese Nuclear Base Opens to Foreigners By news.com.au October 6, 2016 IT’S A maze built to manufacture plutonium and house thousands of tonnes of explosives. The 826 Nuclear Military Plant, a former top-secret Chinese base, is almost 20km wide, with 178 caves and more than 130 roads and tunnels. The largest man-made cave in the world was commissioned in the 1960s, when Beijing feared an imminent nuclear attack from the Soviet Union. More than 60,000 engineering soldiers participated in the construction, and at least 100 of them were reportedly killed during the process. It’s hidden deep in the mountains of Fuling, in the Chongqing municipality of central China, and can reportedly withstand a magnitude 8.0 earthquake. The largest cave is nearly 80m high, or roughly the height of a 20-storey building, and the tunnels are wide enough to drive through. It sounds like the perfect lair for a Bond villain — with echoes of the silo where Pierce Brosnan first met sexy nuclear weapons expert Christmas Jones, played by Denise Richards, in the 1999 flick The World Is Not Enough. Interestingly, the project never saw the light of day — so to speak. The huge undertaking took 17 years to build, and was nearly completed when it was abruptly cancelled due to changes in Cold War politics in 1984. After lying dormant for many years, it was officially declassified in 2002. It’s just undergone an extensive renovation, and is now open to foreign visitors for the first time. Along with ultra-modern lighting and sound systems, it boasts a nuclear science centre as well as exhibitions devoted to patriotic education and history. Yang Yan, an administrator, told China Daily visitors must follow guides for the duration of the three-hour tour, or they could get lost in the mazelike cavern. You can’t help but wonder if the former military base is safe. “This base has never been put into operation or stored any nuclear material,” Mr Yang said. “There is no need to worry about radiation. It is safe to enter.” http://www.news.com.au/travel/world-travel/asia/top-secret-chinese-nuclear-base-opens-to- foreigners/news-story/2ab679cdfd44e04a7fdf01b1b3a1a61d Return to Top

Sputnik International – Russian Information Agency Here's Why North Korea's Missile Program is Far More Advanced Than You Think 6 October 2016 Some might be tempted to dismiss the North Korean missile program as something that lacks substance, but Russian defense analyst Vladimir Khrustalev wrote in a detailed analysis for Lenta.ru that Pyongyang has in fact made major progress and is close to building its own intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). Publicly available information shows that North Korea has almost all the components needed to produce a three-stage ICBM and a multistage launch system to deliver heavy payloads into space, he said. "Pyongyang is on the verge of becoming a major aerospace power, physically capable of reaching its adversaries on another continent and deploying its own orbit group. If the speed acquired in recent years remains the same, this will happen in the next five years," the analyst warned. Until 2012, there were virtually no signs that North Korea was close to developing a ballistic missile capable of travelling thousands of kilometers. On April 15, 2012, Pyongyang unveiled six three- stage missiles designated as Hwaseong-13 at home and KN-08 in the West. Three years later the North showcased another version of Hwaseong-13 which foreign analysts dubbed KN-14. The KN-14 was shorter and its warhead had a different shape, Khrustalev said, adding that the missile on display most likely had two stages instead of three. In March 2016, the world managed to take a sneak peek of North Korea's missile program when Pyongyang published several photos of Kim Jong-un meeting with experts on nuclear weapons and their methods of delivery. The images showed a mockup of a nuclear weapon, the dissembled KN- 08 and KN-14, as well as elements of their engine systems. Later that month, Pyongyang reported that it successfully tested heat insulation for the warhead of an ICBM under development. This, according to Khrustalev, is one of the key issues when it comes to building battle-ready long-range missiles. In April, the North announced that it successfully tested the engine for the new ICBM. "Combined with successful tests of the single stage Hwaseong-10, which is technologically quite similar to the Soviet R-27 Zyb (structural materials, fuel, engines), this indicates that North Korea is developing a multistage ICBM using same technologies," the analyst said. Khrustalev noted that although no information is available on the exact composition of the KN-08 and KN-14, experts agree that Pyongyang is capable of developing a multistage ICBM on these platforms using Hwaseong-10's technological base. "The most conservative estimates place its maximum theoretical range with a nuclear payload at 5,500-6,500 kilometers, with some saying that it could travel as far as 12,000," he said, with the majority of researchers saying that its range could be somewhere between 7,500 and 9,000 kilometers. In other word the missile will in theory be capable of reaching US soil. The North Korean missile program goes beyond military tasks. "There is a rather ambitious space program," Khrustalev said. "Analysts have often dismissed it as a fantasy, but reality begs to differ."

On September 20, 2016, Pyongyang unveiled a new large rocket engine that reportedly had a thrust of 80 tons. The news prompted the analyst to say that North Korea has a "powerful construction set to build different booster vehicles." If so, Pyongyang will be able to deliver low orbit heavy satellites. https://sputniknews.com/military/20161006/1046061057/north-korea-ballistic-missiles.html Return to Top

The Japan News – Tokyo, Japan ‘Activity Seen’ at N. Korean Nuclear Test Site Jiji Press October 7, 2016 WASHINGTON (Jiji Press) — Satellite images taken Saturday suggest activity around all three tunnel complexes at North Korea’s Punggye-ri nuclear test site, a U.S. research institute said Thursday. An image shows a large vehicle, possibly a truck, near the entrance of one of the three tunnels and a large canopy in the nearby parking area, according to the U.S.-Korea Institute at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies. The tunnel in question is believed to be the one in which North Korea conducted its fifth nuclear test on Sept. 9. Activity around the entrance of the northern tunnel “may be for a number of purposes including collecting post-test data, sealing the portal or preparing for another test,” the institute said. The image also shows unidentified material near a building at the northern tunnel site, but no signs can be seen of fresh excavation, the institute also said. Meanwhile, other images show what appeared to be mining carts near the entrance of the western tunnel and a group of people and vehicles around the southern tunnel’s entrance. Activity around the southern tunnel may be “ongoing work or maintenance,” the institute said. At a press conference in Tokyo on Friday local time, Defense Minister Tomomi Inada pointed to the possibility of further provocation by North Korea, with the country due to mark the 71st anniversary of the establishment of its ruling Workers’ Party of Korea on Monday. “We will continue necessary work to collect and analyze information on developments in North Korea with a strong sense of tension, while keeping in close contact with the United States and South Korea,” she said. http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0003267873 Return to Top

The Korea Times – Seoul, South Korea China Scholars, Policy Makers Begin Talking about Supporting Surgical Strike on N.Korea October 7, 2016 Chinese scholars and policymakers have begun talking about supporting surgical strikes on North Korea and removal of leader Kim Jong-un from power as a policy option, a Chinese professor said Thursday.

Zhe Sun, China initiative director of Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs, made the remark during a security forum in Washington, saying debates are under way among Chinese opinion leaders about how to deal with the North. "Some Chinese scholars and policy makers began to talk about supporting 'surgical strikes' and 'decapitation' by the U.S. and South Korea as one policy option," the professor said, adding that the newspaper Global Times even indicated that China should "make contributions" to such an effort in "destroying the nuclear capability." "More radical proposals indicate that China should change the leader, send troops across borders and station in DPRK, force DPRK into giving up nuclear and beginning opening up and reforming," the professor said during the seminar held at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Contrary to such hardline views, others argue that China should avoid showing a "chauvinistic" attitude towards the communist neighbor and seeing it as a country that China can do whatever it wishes to "correct" its behavior, the professor said. It is unusual for a Chinese scholar to talk about the possibility of a surgical strike or decapitation of leader Kim. That appears to show growing frustration China feels about the recalcitrant neighbor in the wake of Pyongyang's fifth nuclear test last month. The professor said that the debates in China about the North have focused on such points as whether the North is a strategic asset or liability; actual effects of international sanctions; potential nuclear safety problems; and refugee issues on the border with the North. "The consensus of the debate is to maintain the stability of the North Korean regime, expressed in the '3 Nos' policy (no war, no nuclear, and no chaos). The most controversial issue is how big of a price China should pay for supporting the Kim Jong-un regime," the professor said. "Clearly, China demonstrated its preference for North Korea's unstable yet controllable survival over its collapse and the subsequent developments," he said. (Yonhap) http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2016/10/485_215566.html Return to Top

The People’s Daily Online – Beijing, China Rising Moves Detected in DPRK's Missile Launch Site: S.Korea (Xinhua) October 7, 2016 SEOUL, Oct. 7 -- Rising moves of personnel and vehicles have been detected in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK)'s main missile launch site, indicating preparations for a long- range missile launch in the near future, Yonhap news agency reported on Friday. A senior South Korean government official was quoted as saying the moves in the DPRK's Tongchanr-ri missile base have remarkably increased recently, noting that strategic provocations, including a long-range missile launch, seemed to have been prepared.

The Washington Free Beacon – Washington, D.C. Pentagon Studied Future Japan Nuclear Arsenal and War with China Net Assessment think tank under scrutiny for obscure research By Bill Gertz October 7, 2016 Japan can quickly build a strategic arsenal of land-based and submarine-launched missiles capable of killing up to 30 million Chinese in a nuclear war, according to a Pentagon sponsored study. A report produced for the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment reveals Japan’s government could arm itself with nuclear weapons within a 10-year period, based on Tokyo’s advanced nuclear power infrastructure and its present day space launchers, cruise missiles, and submarines. Casualty estimates in the report outlining a Chinese nuclear attack on Japan indicate Tokyo would be no match in a future nuclear exchange. Japan would suffer up to 34 million deaths—27 percent of the island nation’s population—from Chinese nuclear missile strikes. Nuclear experts were unable to calculate accurately Japanese deaths from a nuclear war because of a disagreement among analysts on whether large blasts against cities would create firestorms and thus likely double the death rate. According to one briefing slide in the report, “Either way, Japan faces extinction” from a Chinese attack. Disclosure of the report comes amid growing tensions between Tokyo and Beijing over maritime disputes involving Japan’s Senkaku Islands, which lie in the East China Sea. China claims the islands as its own territory. Japanese and Chinese military forces have been engaged in cat-and-mouse naval and air activities near the islands for the past several years.

The study is a clear sign of concerns within the U.S. government that the Obama administration’s anti-nuclear policies have increased the danger of nuclear arms proliferation, as American non- nuclear allies consider developing their own nuclear arsenals. Japan has been building up its small military forces in recent years and has reinterpreted parts of the officially pacifist constitution to permit a wider range of military activities. In Havana Thursday, visiting Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe met with former Cuban leader Fidel Castro who agreed to seek a world free of nuclear arms. In April, Abe administration officials told the parliament that the Japanese constitution does not prohibit possessing nuclear arms. The United States currently uses its nuclear missiles, submarines, and bombers for extended deterrence in providing security to states like Japan and South Korea. U.S. nuclear forces are aging and in need of modernization. By contrast, Russia and China are aggressively modernizing their nuclear forces and North Korea also is building up nuclear forces and delivery systems. Under the Obama administration’s nuclear deal with Iran, Tehran will be able to develop nuclear arms after 10 years. According to the ONA report, the Pentagon’s interest in Japan’s nuclear options has taken on urgency because Japanese fears that current U.S. nuclear security guarantees against Chinese or North Korean nuclear attacks are weakening and could be insufficient in the future to deter Beijing or Pyongyang. According to the report, factors that could drive Japan to nuclearize include a major shift in U.S. deterrence policy, South Korean building nuclear arms, an Iranian nuclear test, or the use of nuclear arms by Russia or China. The findings were part of a workshop, “Nuclear operations and implications,” held in Washington on June 10, which included American defense and nuclear officials assessing how Japan would deploy and use nuclear missiles built from current space launchers and submarines. The workshop and subsequent report were organized by the defense contractor Long Range Strategy Group, a consulting group. The group’s president is Jacqueline Newmyer Deal, a friend of Chelsea Clinton, vice chair of the Clinton Foundation. According to private emails made public recently, Hillary Clinton sought to assist Deal in gaining consulting contracts with the State Department policy planning office and the Pentagon undersecretary of defense for policy seven years ago while she was secretary of state. The workshop was paid for by the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment, a government think tank that has come under fire in recent months for controversial research that critics say appears to have little utility for military planning or defense policymaking. A senior military official said ONA’s director, James Baker, who took over the office last year, is working to fix the perception within the Pentagon that the Office of Net Assessment is not producing relevant studies and is focused too much on contractor work. A defense official who defended the office said ONA is charged with engaging in unconventional thinking and research on national security issues. In addition to the Japan nuclear war study, other ONA contractors have produced studies that critics say lack relevance or have questionable value. According to Pentagon documents obtained by the Washington Free Beacon, among some of the more controversial ONA studies are: Issue No.1236, 7 October 2016 United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies| Maxwell AFB, Alabama https://cuws.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CUWS Phone: 334.953.7538 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama A report by the Long Term Strategy Group on Americans as a “warlike” people descended from a dominant and belligerent Scotch-Irish culture. The report cost more than $60,000 to produce. A two-year study of Russian and Chinese leaders’ facial and body movements called “movement pattern analysis” that sought to develop a capability to decode foreign leaders’ decision-making from their movements. The study cost between $300,000 and $800,000. A report by a global warming advocate on “Reconsidering Resources,” which examined how resources and population are declining and technology is increasing. The study cost more than $184,000. A report on Chinese movies, “A Neo-Letesian, Psycho-Cultural Analysis of Chinese Movies,” sought to understand Chinese culture through propaganda films. Two studies on anti-war intellectuals, “War and the Intellectuals: Trends in American Elite Attitudes Toward War,” and an accompanying workshop report, assert that the divide between cosmopolitan American elites and less-educated patriotic Americans could lead to civil violence in the future. The workshop and report cost around $100,000. The focus on contractor studies and a shortage of formal strategic military assessments by the office prompted Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to re-establish a separate net assessment capability within the Joint Staff, according to military officials. Dunford is reviving the Joint Military Net Assessment group as part of the effort. Dunford earlier this year produced a top-secret report known as the Chairman’s Risk Assessment that identified five “challenges” to the United States. The report discussed Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and the Islamic State terror group. Dunford, in congressional testimony in February, outlined the secret assessment, noting that military threats involve adversaries’ use of non-traditional military means, such as cyber attacks or covert information warfare operations. Examples cited include operations by Russia in taking over Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula, and China’s ongoing covert efforts to seize control of the South China Sea. Dunford’s report also identified major sources of U.S. military risk. Chief among the risks is the danger of U.S. forces having to fight more than one conflict at a time. Other key vulnerabilities for the military include shortages of intelligence resources, missile defenses, naval expeditionary forces, airborne command and control, air superiority forces, global precision strike weapons, and cyber warfare forces. A military official said Dunford reestablished the Joint Staff net assessment to better help him provide military advice to the president and defense secretary. The secretive Office of Net Assessment is tasked with producing strategic assessments of military balances between the United States and foreign states, as well as other threats like the Islamic State. But in its more than 40 years, ONA has become more of a defense consultancy, doling out between $10 million and $20 million a year to contractors, while producing few of the secret net assessments. Under its long-time director Andrew Marshall, however, ONA played a key role over the past decade in highlighting the growing threat posed by China. ONA studies on China corrected the widespread misperception among both military and defense officials that the Asian country was a benign power. Marshall retired last year. Formal net assessments are several hundred pages in length and differ from intelligence estimates by contrasting U.S. capabilities and weaknesses against other threats. The emphasis on U.S.

vulnerabilities is one reason net assessments were not made public. Doing so would assist foreign powers in developing forces and capabilities for defeating the United States in a future war. Net Assessment defended the Japan nuclear study as well as other contracting work in a statement to the Washington Free Beacon. “ONA is also charged with considering ‘uncomfortable questions’ that sometimes challenge U.S. policy preferences,” the statement said. “Recent research work includes everything from the implications of an expanded nuclear club of nations to the future of the international order to the impact of demographic shifts on Chinese military capacity.” The office’s research agenda is “robust and innovative,” and supports senior defense leaders with comparative analyses on military, technological, and other topics “affecting the future capability of the U.S. and other nations, with the goal of identifying emerging problems and opportunities that deserve the attention of senior defense officials,” the statement added. Other missions include war gaming, net assessments, studying the future security landscape, and pursuing emerging research topics, methods, and sources. Regarding contracts, ONA follows federal acquisition regulations that involve both internal ONA review as well as the Pentagon’s acquisition directorate. ONA staff and military officers also evaluate contracts based on whether they contribute to the office’s mission and whether the contractor can do the work. The office has used 90 contractors over the past decade. The Japan nuclear report, while unclassified, appears to provide an expert assessment for how Japan could best develop nuclear forces, taking into account the Pacific nation’s World War Two experience of conventional firebombing and two nuclear attacks. As a result of that experience, the report found that Japanese naval forces would likely choose a nuclear force built around off-shore based, nuclear-missile firing submarines, with a land-based component of road-mobile missiles. Japan’s current space launcher, the Epsilon, is similar to the ten-warhead capable U.S. MX missile, systems which were dismantled in 2005. A Japanese nuclear missile may not need multiple warheads, but Tokyo could develop the capability as China continues to pursue missile defense developments. Regarding warheads, Japan could build a warhead similar to the U.S. 1.2 megaton W-47 warhead. The attendees at the Japan nuclear forces conference were told that Japan likely would adopt a “deterrence by punishment” policy—threatening proportionate nuclear strikes if attacked—rather than deterrence by denial—dissuading nuclear strikes by hardening or hiding targets. The report discussed a briefing at the June conference that provided detailed casualty estimates for a nuclear war between China and Japan. In a nuclear exchange with the Chinese, Beijing would likely strike the 20 to 30 largest Japanese cities with 3 megaton weapons—the equivalent of 3 million tons of TNT—killing between 23 million and 33 million people.

BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) – London, U.K. Nuclear Submarines Construction Set to Start 1 October 2016 Construction of the UK's four new nuclear submarines is to begin, after the government announced £1.3bn of new investment with defence firm BAE Systems. The "Successor" is the proposed new generation of submarines to carry the UK's nuclear deterrent. Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said the deal would secure thousands of highly-skilled jobs across the UK. "This shows the government will never gamble with our national security." New deterrent The four new Successor submarines, which will carry Trident missiles, are to be built at BAE Systems' shipyard in Barrow-in-Furness. The project will move into a new phase from next week, with manufacturing beginning on structural steel work for the first vessel. The defence firm says they will enter service from the 2030s onwards and have a lifespan of at least 30 years. The Ministry of Defence says several hundred suppliers are expected to be involved in the new programme at its peak, securing jobs from Scotland to the south of England. Britain has four Vanguard class submarines that have been in operation since 1992, and had an intended service life of 25 years. One is always deployed at sea, while another undergoes maintenance and two are in port or on training manoeuvres. Issue No.1236, 7 October 2016 United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies| Maxwell AFB, Alabama https://cuws.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CUWS Phone: 334.953.7538 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies (CUWS) Outreach Journal

Commons vote In July, MPs voted to renew Britain's ageing nuclear weapons system by 472 votes to 117. The vote approved the manufacture of four replacement submarines at a current estimated cost of £31bn. Labour was split over the issue with 140 of its 230 MPs going against leader Jeremy Corbyn and backing the motion. Labour's policy is in flux amid continuing divisions at the top of the party, after endorsing Trident renewal at the last election but Mr Corbyn having been a lifelong opponent of nuclear weapons. 'Countering threats' The government says the UK's independent nuclear deterrent is essential to national security. Unveiling the new investment, Mr Fallon said Britain's ballistic missile submarines were used every day "to counter the most extreme threats". "We cannot know what dangers we might face in the 2030s, 2040s and 2050s so we are acting now to replace them." SNP MSP Bill Kidd said it was "wrong to pursue the renewal of such a morally objectionable weapons programme". "We don't want weapons of mass destruction based here in Scotland just a few miles from our biggest city, and we should be leading the world in getting rid of the obscenity of nuclear weapons once and for all," he said. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-37528951 Return to Top

The Independent – London, U.K. Russia Launches Massive Nuclear War Training Exercise that 'Involves 40 Million People' 'Schizophrenics from America are sharpening nuclear weapons for Moscow,' says Russian government-run TV network By Matt Payton October 6, 2016 The Russian government has launched a nationwide civil defence training exercise to ensure the country is properly prepared in the event of a nuclear, chemical and biological attack from the West. Amid growing international tensions, particularly over Russia's conduct in Syria, the Defence Ministry-run Zvezda TV network announced last week: "Schizophrenics from America are sharpening nuclear weapons for Moscow." Lasting three days, the exercise being run by the Ministry for Civil Defence, Emergencies and Elimination of Consequences of Natural Disasters (EMERCOM) will involve 200,000 emergency personnel and the co-operation of 40 million civilians.

Tasnim News Agency – Tehran, Iran IAEA Chief Says Iran Sticking to Nuclear Deal October 02, 2016 TEHRAN (Tasnim) - Iran has kept to a nuclear deal it agreed with six world powers last year, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said. "The deal is being implemented since January without any particular problem," IAEA Director- General Yukiya Amano told Le Monde in an interview published on Saturday. "There was a small incident in February: the stock of heavy water very slightly exceeded the limit set - 130 tons. But we immediately signalled that to Iran which took all the necessary measures," he said. "Apart from that, I can certify that Tehran respects its commitments to the letter. The Iranians are doing what they promised the international community," Amano underlined. While Iran nuclear deal (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) came into force in January, some Iranian officials have complained about the US and West's failure to fully implement the accord. Back in March, Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei said Americans have yet to fulfill what they were supposed to do as per the nuclear deal.

Iran still has problems in its banking transactions or in restoring its frozen assets, because Western countries and those involved in such processes are afraid of Americans, the Leader said at the time, criticizing the US for its moves to prevent Iran from taking advantage of the sanctions removal. http://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2016/10/02/1201846/iaea-chief-says-iran-sticking-to- nuclear-deal Return to Top

Press TV – Tehran, Iran Iran Plans to Launch Three Satellites into Space Tuesday, October 4, 2016 Head of the Iranian Space Agency (ISA) Mohsen Bahrami says the country is planning to send three home-made satellites into space. Speaking to reporters on Tuesday on the occasion of World Space Week, Bahrami said Sharif Sat would be put into orbit by the end of the current Iranian calendar year (March 20, 2017). He added that Amirkabir and Nahid I satellites would be put into space during the next Iranian calendar year. The ISA chief noted that Sharif Sat is a remote-sensing satellite and Nahid I is a communications satellites. He further stated that the preparation process for domestically-manufactured Sadr satellite is also underway. Iran successfully placed into orbit the domestically-made Fajr (Dawn) satellite in February, 2015 which is capable of staying in the space for 1.5 years while taking and transmitting high-quality and accurate pictures to stations on earth. Fajr satellite is technically characterized by an orbit which could promote from 250 to 450 kilometers through a thruster or an engine. It is the new generation of Omid (Hope) satellite, which was designed and manufactured by Iranian experts in 2009. Iran launched its first locally-built satellite, Omid, in 2009. The country also sent its first bio-capsule containing living creatures into space in February 2010, using Kavoshgar-3 (Explorer-3) carrier. The country is one of the 24 founding members of the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, which was set up in 1959. http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2016/10/04/487619/Iran-Space-Agency-Mohsen-Bahrami- Sharif-Sat-Amirkabir-Nahid-I-satellite Return to Top

Tasnim News Agency – Tehran, Iran US Democrats Pushing for Extension of Iran Sanctions October 06, 2016 TEHRAN (Tasnim) – US Senate Democrats are demanding Majority Leader Mitch McConnell bring up a straight 10-year extension of key Iran sanctions once lawmakers return to Washington next month. Seven Democrats — led by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (Conn.) — sent a letter to the Kentucky Republican asking that he "prioritize" a clean extension of the Iran Sanctions Act (ISA) during the Senate's end-of-year session, The Hill reported on Wednesday. "Passing this vital legislation before its expiration is crucial to ensuring with the utmost certainty that the United States will continue to have the sanctions enforcement mechanism our national security demands," they wrote in Wednesday's letter, a copy of which was also sent to Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) who chairs the Banking Committee. The Iran Sanctions Act will expire at the end of the year without congressional action. Though there is wide-spread support for extending ISA, lawmakers are deeply divided over what should be included in an extension.

Top Democrats, including Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Sens. Charles Schumer (N.Y.) and Ben Cardin (Md.), introduced an extension that would run through 2026 earlier the year. Meanwhile, Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) introduced a separate proposal that would let the Iran Sanctions Act expire after approximately eight years if Iran complies with the nuclear deal. Republicans want to tie the ISA extension to broader penalties against Iran amid lingering fallout over last year's separate nuclear agreement with Iran, and a string of recent missile tests by that country. Democratic Sens. Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.), Ron Wyden (Ore.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Martin Heinrich (N.M.), and Brian Schatz (Hawaii) also signed Wednesday's letter. http://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2016/10/06/1206365/us-democrats-pushing-for- extension-of-iran-sanctions Return to Top

Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) – Tehran, Iran 7 October 2016 Persian Gulf Martyrs Brought US Humiliation Tehran, Oct 7, IRNA – Commander of the navy forces of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC), General Ali Fadavi, says those, martyred in a battle with the US forces in the Persian Gulf, in fact brought the US forces humiliation. General Fadavi made the remark in a ceremony held to commemorate the martyrs. He said as a result of the incident, the US enemy had to acknowledge to its defeat. He quoted a US official as acknowledging to military power of Iranian armed forces and said deterrent power of Iran is as a result of perseverance and resistance of Iranian nation before enemies of God. He said the acknowledgement is the result of power of Islamic Iran. http://www.irna.ir/en/News/82259634/ Return to Top

Trend News Agency – Baku, Azerbaijan Iran, China Start Co-Op on Arak Facility By Emil Ilgar, Trend 7 October 2016 Tehran, Iran, Oct. 7 -- Iran and China have started cooperation on the Arak heavy water facility, Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Majid Takht-Ravanchi said, IRNA reported Oct. 7.

The Siasat Daily – Hyderabad, India US Objects to Pak’s Nuclear Threat to India, Calls It ‘Irresponsible’ Press Trust of India (PTI) October 1, 2016 Washington: The United States has strongly objected to threats of nuclear warfare made by Pakistan against India and has conveyed its displeasure to Islamabad in this regard. “We made that (American objection on nuclear threat) clear to them (Pakistan). Repeatedly,” a senior State Department official said. The official who spoke on condition of anonymity, however, would not reveal the level at which the message was conveyed to Pakistan. “It is very concerning. It is a serious thing,” the official said when asked about Pakistan Defence Minister Khawaja Asif’s assertions, twice in the last 15 days, that his country could use nuclear weapons against India. “We will destroy India if it dares to impose war on us,” Asif had told a Pakistani news channel in his latest interview. “Pakistan army is fully prepared to answer any misadventure of India.” “We have not made atomic device to display in a showcase. If a such a situation arises we will use it (nuclear weapons) and eliminate India,” Asif had said. The statements raised eyebrows in the Obama administration and are seen as “irresponsible” behaviour by top Pakistani leadership.

In a tacit acknowledgement that it has concerns over the safety of nuclear weapons in Pakistan, the official said the US is closely monitoring the safety and security of those weapons of mass destruction. “The safety of these weapons is always a concern for us. So we are always monitoring it, regardless of what they said on this particular occasion,” said the State Department official. Meanwhile, Deputy State Department Spokesman Mark Toner told reporters at his daily news conference that nuclear-capable states have “a very clear responsibility to exercise restraint regarding nuclear weapons and missile capabilities.” The United States, meanwhile, continued to urge both India and Pakistan to take steps to de- escalate tension following the Uri terror attack that has claimed the lives of 19 Indian soldiers. “At the same time we have made it very clear that what happened in the Indian army base (Uri) is an act of terror,” the senior State Department official said. According to another official of the department, “everyone knows” where the perpetrators of the Uri terrorist attack came from. At his news conference, Toner said the US continues to follow the situation on the ground very closely. “From our perspective, we urge calm and restraint by both sides. We understand that the Pakistani and Indian militaries have been in communication and we believe that continued communication between them is important to reduce tensions. “I think we certainly don’t want to see any kind of escalation and certainly any kind of break in that communication. We have repeatedly and consistently expressed our concerns regarding the danger that cross-border terrorism poses for the region, and that certainly includes the recent attacks – terrorist attacks in Uri,” he said. “We continue to urge actions to combat and de-escalate – and delegitimise terrorist groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba, Haqqani Network, as well as Jaish-e-Mohammad,” Toner said. http://www.siasat.com/news/us-objects-paks-nuclear-threat-india-calls-irresponsible-1032123/ Return to Top

National Institute for Public Policy (NIPP) – Fairfax, VA OPINION/Information Series; Issue No. 413 The Arrogance of Ideology By Franklin C. Miller & Keith B. Payne October 03, 2016 Long-time advocate of US nuclear disarmament Bruce Blair has once again taken to print, attempting to browbeat and shame President Obama into changing US nuclear deterrence policy that has been endorsed by every President, Republican or Democrat, since the beginning of the nuclear age, including President Obama in his 2010 Nuclear Posture Review. In a recent September 28 article appearing in Politico, Blair repeats his many earlier calls for President Obama to endorse a US no-first-use of nuclear weapons policy. Such a step may sound progressive; but in reality it would likely weaken America’s ability to deter massive military attacks by Russian, Chinese, and

Issue No.1236, 7 October 2016 United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies| Maxwell AFB, Alabama https://cuws.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CUWS Phone: 334.953.7538 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama North Korean forces. It would undercut Allies’ confidence in our extended deterrent, the US “nuclear umbrella,” potentially prompting the development of their own nuclear weapons programs. And it would tarnish the legacy of the President of the United States. None of these realities seem to concern Blair. Never himself having been in a position of responsibility for national policy or national security, he ridicules the advice given to the President by Secretary of Defense Carter, Secretary of State Kerry, and Secretary of Energy Moniz--all of whom have borne the mantle of responsible stewardship for decades and recently expressed their unanimous strong opposition to Blair’s favored no-first-use nuclear policy. Similarly, Blair dismisses the demarches made by many allies, including the governments of the United Kingdom, France, Japan, and South Korea, to maintain the existing policy of purposeful ambiguity regarding nuclear use. This purposeful ambiguity is intended to compel opponents to consider the US nuclear deterrent if they ever would contemplate attacking us or our allies with massive conventional forces or weapons of mass destruction. This deterrent has a proven record of preventing highly-lethal attacks and is valued greatly as such by many allies. Citing some polling results from Western European elites, Blair asserts that our NATO allies have no investment in maintaining the existing nuclear deterrent posture. This claim ignores the results of the recent NATO summit in Warsaw at which the leaders of all 28 NATO countries and the Alliance’s Secretary General not only supported current policy but strengthened it. Because Blair’s arguments in favor of no-first-use lack substance, he throws in one of the favorite red herrings employed by activists opposed to US nuclear weapons: that America’s nuclear deterrent does not protect against covert operations, little green men or cyberattacks. But here Blair criticizes US nuclear forces for not doing what they never were intended to do. His red herring is akin to criticizing Army tanks for not sinking enemy submarines, when of course tanks are not intended to sink submarines. US nuclear weapons never were, are not, and never can be an all- purpose deterrent: they are intended to deter a potential enemy’s attacks using major conventional military power and weapons of mass destruction against us or our allies. Other tools exist to deter those less-than-existential threats. In promoting his activist agenda, Blair seeks to mislead President Obama by declaring that moving to no-first-use would enhance President Obama’s legacy. Actually, the reverse is true. President Obama has made nuclear non-proliferation one of his national security priorities. Yet, moving to no- first-use would greatly unsettle key allies who rely on the US extended nuclear umbrella and thus threaten to kick-start new nuclear weapons programs, including in North East Asia, leaving the President’s legacy in tatters by promoting proliferation rather than stopping it. In addition, President Obama has cast himself as a leader of our longest-standing and most successful alliance: NATO. After a six month run-up to the recent NATO Warsaw Summit in which no- first-use was not discussed, and a successful summit at which no-first-use was not discussed, surprising NATO allies now with a last minute change of policy that many strongly oppose and would so endanger their security surely would tarnish the President’s reputation as a reliable and honest ally. And finally there is that “last minute” thing. Announcing major policy changes immediately before departing the White House has never reflected well on a President. Beginning with John Adams’ “midnight judges,” last minute acts have discredited the man and the office. Adopting a no-first-use policy now would similarly do so, and create serious new problems with allies and foes alike for the President’s successor. It’s a shame Blair seeks such a course for a President he professes to admire. Franklin C. Miller is a principal of The Scowcroft Group. He is a retired civil servant, having served 22 years in senior positions in the Department of Defense and four additional years on the National

Security Council staff as a special assistant to the President. Miller is a member of the Defense Policy Board and the US Strategic Command Senior Advisory Group. Keith B. Payne is president and co-founder of the National Institute for Public Policy, and professor and department head at the Graduate School of Defense and Strategic Studies at Missouri State University (Washington campus), and chair of the US Strategic Command Senior Advisory Group, Strategy and Policy Panel. He has served as deputy assistant secretary of defense, a commissioner on the Perry-Schlesinger Commission, and as a member of the State Department’s International Security Advisory Board. The views in this Information Series are those of the authors and should not be construed as official U.S. Government policy, the official policy of the National Institute for Public Policy or any of its sponsors. http://www.nipp.org/2016/10/03/miller-franklin-c-and-keith-b-payne-the-arrogance-of- ideology/ Return to Top

The National Interest – Washington, D.C. OPPINION/Feature Dumping America's ICBMs Would Be a Big Mistake The nuclear triad still needs all three elements—even if they’re reduced in size. By Tom Nichols and Dana Struckman October 5, 2016 Last week, former secretary of defense William Perry argued in the pages of the New York Times that it was time to remove land-based missiles from the American nuclear triad of missiles, bombers and submarine-launched weapons. We agree with Secretary Perry that it is time to ditch the nuclear habits of the Cold War, but we disagree that the ICBM force should be removed—at least not yet. American security can be guaranteed with a much smaller ICBM force, certainly fewer than the 450 currently deployed. We therefore believe that a gradual build-down, as conditions permit, of the ICBM inventory is a more stable approach, one that will enhance the U.S. deterrent and mitigate the stability issues that rightly concern Secretary Perry. Perry’s argument is based both in money and strategy. As he notes, updating the triad, including a new strategic bomber and a new class of ballistic missile–carrying submarines, is going to cost something on the order of a trillion dollars—a trillion—over the next twenty-five years. This is astoundingly expensive. A fair amount of this spending is unnecessary (including the creation of a new generation of nuclear cruise missiles, a weapon needed not for deterrence but for protracted nuclear war fighting). While America needs a new ballistic-missile submarine, the current bomber and land-based missile forces, even if reduced in number, can do the job Perry describes of backing up an American deterrent located largely at sea. Secretary Perry’s main argument is that the land-based ICBM force is destabilizing: Issue No.1236, 7 October 2016 United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies| Maxwell AFB, Alabama https://cuws.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CUWS Phone: 334.953.7538 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama If our sensors indicate that enemy missiles are en route to the United States, the president would have to consider launching ICBMs before the enemy missiles could destroy them; once they are launched, they cannot be recalled. The president would have less than 30 minutes to make that terrible decision. During the Cold War, this was a genuine concern, not least (as Perry notes) because of the possibility of a computer error or other malfunction that could mimic an attack against the ICBM force. This was especially dangerous when the United States and the Soviet Union relied heavily on their ICBMs for their and speed and their reliability. They are the only part of the triad that are virtually unstoppable, unlike subs that can be sunk or bombers that can be shot down—and both the United States and the USSR kept their land-based forces on dangerously high alert rather than risk losing them all in a first strike. But we are no longer in a tense Cold War standoff that requires highly accurate ICBMs to lead our retaliatory strikes. Likewise, the accuracy of sub-launched missiles no longer requires ICBMs to engage in “damage limitation” by quickly destroying enemy weapons in reserve or slated for follow- on strikes. Moreover, we believe that Secretary Perry severely understates the deterrent effect of a force based in the United States itself. The location of the ICBMs is the best protection against nuclear risk- taking by Russia or China precisely because it means that any attempt to neutralize the American deterrent will always necessarily require a direct attack on the continental United States. There can be no “limited” scenarios in which U.S. retaliation is thwarted by attacks on submarines at sea or by downing U.S. bombers with air defenses before they can attack their targets. Those who would argue for the elimination of ICBMs propose several objections. The most persuasive of these is Perry’s caution about errors and malfunctions. If U.S. leaders see—or believe they see—an attack on the ICBM force, this argument goes, they will have no choice but to launch them rather than lose them. Since the enemy’s weapons will arrive under a half hour, the president will have a matter of minutes to make a decision. This, however, is a straw man, based in now-defunct Cold War strategy. During the Cold War, an attack on the ICBMs would indeed necessitate launch, since it was the only leg of the triad fast and accurate enough to strike enemy strategic forces and other critical targets, and leave at least some hope of a cease-fire before the war collapsed into the spasmodic destruction of cities. Otherwise, a Cold War president would face only the options of surrender or an escalation to using less accurate weapons to incinerate enemy cities, and thus suffer apocalyptic damage in return. Perry makes a fair point that the accuracy of both the bomber and submarine force is on par with its land-based counterpart. But this, in turn, means that if America were to “ride out” a strike on the ICBM force, the submarines and bombers—as Perry admits—could do whatever tasks are left once the enemy has emptied its own ICBM force at us. The major virtue of the ICBM force, then, is not what it can do after an attack, but that that the enemy will have to take it into account before an attack, and consider the cost of starting an all-out nuclear exchange between the homelands. Moreover, if the ICBM force were targeted, the United States would still be able to attack, with great speed and precision, not only the remaining enemy strategic force but important parts of enemy military infrastructure. Russia or China would then be the ones to face the fateful decision to attack cities, a situation they will inevitably bring on themselves the moment they initiate the conflict— which is exactly the realization that should deter them in the first place. Another argument is that the deterrent effect of ICBM location in the United States itself is already accomplished by the bomber and submarine force, because no sane attacker will forego a strike on bomber bases and submarine pens in the United States. Again, this is a stronger argument if we were all still contemplating a full-on Cold War nuclear shootout. Unless we seriously believe that Issue No.1236, 7 October 2016 United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies| Maxwell AFB, Alabama https://cuws.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CUWS Phone: 334.953.7538 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies (CUWS) Outreach Journal

we would be attacked out of the blue, we should instead assume that during a crisis that our subs and bombers have been sent away from their bases (unless the plan is to leave subs in port like unprotected, expensive, floating ICBM installations, a move that makes no sense). If those subs and bombers have been dispersed—again, on the assumption that we are not at a full nuclear war from a standing-still position—the land-based ICBMs require the enemy to land nuclear weapons on American soil and kill millions of American citizens. This will ensure there can be no slow-motion attacks on bombers and subs, and eliminates the option of limited nuclear war against the U.S. deterrent on the cheap outside of North America. We are strong supporters of Secretary Perry’s efforts to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. national defense, and especially his efforts to combine fiscal prudence with strategic clarity. The current Minuteman force can serve us reliably until at least 2025, and perhaps beyond. We should explore the opportunity for perhaps a smaller, equally dispersed ICBM force, thus realizing significant savings while creating a more stable deterrent and pressing forward toward the ultimate goal that, ideally, would be shared by everyone—to move toward a future in which the major powers no longer rely on nuclear forces for their security. A smaller, but highly effective land-based ICBM force, at least for the next twenty years, can make a serious contribution to that effort. Tom Nichols is Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval War College and an adjunct at the Harvard Extension School. His most recent book is No Use: Nuclear Weapons and U.S. National Security (University of Pennsylvania, 2014). Dana Struckman (Colonel, USAF, ret) is Associate Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval War College. On active duty, he was a missileer and also worked in ICBM testing and acquisition. Additionally, he commanded a U.S. ICBM missile squadron at Minot AFB, North Dakota. The views expressed solely those of the authors. http://nationalinterest.org/feature/dumping-americas-icbms-would-be-big-mistake- 17946?page=show Return to Top

The Cipher Brief.com – U.S. OPINION/The Daily Cipher Brief The Rise of Hypersonic Weapons By WILL EDWARDS and LUKE PENN-HALL October 5, 2016 A hypersonic missile launched from mainland China could strike a U.S. carrier group located anywhere in the South China Sea in under 20 minutes. That’s a hypothetical right now, but hypersonics are poised to be the next big thing in defense technology. A hypersonic weapon is any projectile that is able to achieve and sustain speeds at or above Mach 5, which is to say, five times the speed of sound. Some weapons, like electromagnetic railguns, can fire munitions at these speeds – but the primary focus of current research efforts is the creation of hypersonic missiles. Cruise missile type hypersonic weapons could be fired from planes or ships and would be relatively cheap, whereas hypersonic glide vehicles are the final stage of an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile

Issue No.1236, 7 October 2016 United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies| Maxwell AFB, Alabama https://cuws.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CUWS Phone: 334.953.7538 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies CUWS Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama (ICBM), which makes it both effective and accurate at very long ranges. Both types would be extremely fast and maneuverable, which makes them very difficult to intercept. Hypersonic weapons are currently under development by the United States, Russia, China, and India, though each country intends to deploy them differently. The U.S. envisions that hypersonic weapons will be an integral piece of the prompt global strike regime; a concept that seeks to deliver a precision guided conventional strike anywhere in the world in as little as an hour. While a couple of U.S. projects have had measured success, the current focus is on the Tactical Boost Glide program recently awarded to Lockheed Martin. This joint effort, in conjunction with the Air Force and DARPA, seeks to not only develop boost glide vehicles capable of delivering warheads, but also a manned hypersonic vehicle seen as a successor to the SR-71 Blackbird, which would be capable of speeds as high as Mach 6. Russia sees nuclear armed hypersonic weapons as a way to stay ahead of U.S. missile defense systems. However, Russia is likely to first deploy conventional cruise missile type hypersonic weapons on Russian naval vessels as a way to strike other ships or land targets. The missile the Russians envision being used in that capacity, known as the Brahmos-II, is currently in joint development with India. China is currently only developing a hypersonic glide vehicle, of which it has conducted seven tests in the last two years. Such a weapon will be instrumental to its defensive anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) strategy for the South China Sea While hypersonic weapons allow for a considerable enhancement of a nation’s force projection capabilities, they are also extremely destabilizing. Hypersonic weapons are problematic for precisely the same reasons they are valued: they are fast and agile, which makes intercepting them considerably harder. Should key adversaries gain access to hypersonic weapons, then the missile defense systems that the United States and its allies use to protect themselves could be rendered obsolete. If this happens, it would have enormous ramifications for the ability of the U.S. to maintain security commitments abroad. Moreover, the nuclear and conventional versions of these weapon systems are virtually indistinguishable, and the speed of these weapons decreases reaction time, compounding the risk of a nuclear confrontation. However, hypersonic weapons do not need to be nuclear in order to be disruptive, as demonstrated by the United States’ focus on conventional hypersonic weapons. By some projections, conventional hypersonic weapons would be able to knock out a target’s nuclear capabilities fast enough and thoroughly enough to pre-empt any attempt at a retaliatory strike. As an added bonus, these weapons would be able to do so without causing any of the fallout – both nuclear and reputational—that helps to disincentivize the use of nuclear weapons. As a result, the deterrence- based assumptions that underlie many aspects of modern international relations would suddenly be in flux – thus adding more instability to an already destabilized system. Arms control efforts geared towards hypersonic weapons represent one path towards avoiding this outcome. David Wright, a co-director of the Global Security Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, believes it is important to pursue an arms control regime now before these weapons reach the deployment stage. A comprehensive test ban treaty, like the one in use for nuclear weapons, could be the basis of an international arms control regime for hypersonic weapons. However, no country is pursuing this, and it is unlikely to make any headway before the deployment of these systems. In the meantime, the hypersonic arms race is in progress and is likely to accelerate. The U.S., China, Russia, and India have already spent significant resources on hypersonic weapons development Issue No.1236, 7 October 2016 United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies| Maxwell AFB, Alabama https://cuws.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CUWS Phone: 334.953.7538 USAF Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies (CUWS) Outreach Journal

and will be able to deploy them within the next five to ten years. A secondary race, one that will involve defensive systems capable of defeating hypersonic weapons, is also likely. The cost of falling behind is too great for any of these countries to ignore. Each sees real strategic value in the capability of these weapons and a means of fulfilling their own national goals. Once hypersonic weapons are deployed, the global balance of power could change radically - depending on who gets there first - and the lag time before another power perfects its own system. Given Russian and Chinese interest in hypersonic weapons, it is clear that both countries view them as viable ways to counter American influence and challenge American hegemony. The strategic realities that form the foundation of hypersonic weapons’ appeal also represent a significant hurdle to any attempts at arms control or limitation that might prevent them from being developed fully. Simply put, the advantages of having them are numerous, and the risks of missing out are large. Will Edwards is an international producer at The Cipher Brief. https://www.thecipherbrief.com/article/rise-hypersonic-weapons-1095 Return to Top

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

Issue No.1236, 7 October 2016 United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies| Maxwell AFB, Alabama https://cuws.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CUWS Phone: 334.953.7538