WAR 02-20-2016-to-02-26-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2016/02/what-is-thaad-what-does-it-do-and-why-is-china-mad-about-it/

What Is THAAD, What Does It Do, and Why Is China Mad About It?

Hint: It’s not about the THAAD interceptor missiles themselves.

By Ankit Panda
February 25, 2016

693 Shares
9 Comments

Over the past months–and particularly in the days since North Korea’s latest nuclear and satellite tests–there has been a lot of ink spilled on South Korea’s interest in deploying what is known the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system. A lot of mainstream coverage of the issue, which has China and South Korea at loggerheads, correctly notes that China is worried about the system, but doesn’t quite get at what exactly THAAD is, what it does, and why its deployment on the Korean peninsula is so threatening to China. China’s anxiety over THAAD has gotten to the point where its ambassador to South Korea would suggest that its implementation would destroy their bilateral relationship in “an instant.”

THAAD is a relative recent addition to the United States’ anti-ballistic missile/interceptor toolkit. It entered production in 2008 and is primarily tasked with taking out threatening ballistic missiles in what’s known as their “terminal” phase (the ‘T’ in the acronym). This is actually the first part where a clarification is due. As Jeffrey Lewis recently highlighted in a Foreign Policy column, THAAD, and systems like it, including the Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC-3) interceptor, are designed to hit things as they zoom downward toward the earth–not as they go up.

This may seem like a trivial point, but Japan made a show of deploying its PAC-3 interceptors in Tokyo ahead of North Korea’s latest satellite launch. Of course, the Kwangmyongsong satellite had a one-way ticket out of the atmosphere and wouldn’t be coming back, making PAC-3, or hypothetically THAAD, useless. (North Korea does have a bunch of short- and medium-range SCUDs that THAAD would be great against, though.)

THAAD is particularly well-suited to intercept and destroy short, medium, and intermediate-range ballistic missiles in their terminal phase. Rod Lyon, in a recent post at the National Interest, helpfully catalogues some of THAAD’s tried-and-tested abilities, which attest to that fact. THAAD’s overall operation is similar to many other missile interceptor and surface-to-air missile systems: an X-Band active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar (AN/TPY-2) kicks off THAAD’s interception, detecting the target projectile. THAAD’s fire control and support equipment identifies, verifies, and initiates the launcher. The launcher–a road-mobile erector launcher, to be precise–finally releases the infrared seeker head-equipped THAAD missile which, according to the system’s manufacturer, then uses “kinetic energy to destroy [the] incoming missile.” In plain English, missile meets missile in mid-air; both missiles go “Boom.”

There’s a lot more to THAAD’s feature set. The “high altitude” part of the acronym isn’t there for show: THAAD is able to intercept incoming missiles at endo- and exo-atmospheric altitudes, with a maximum engagement altitude of roughly 93 miles above the earth’s surface. The missile itself can travel at speeds over Mach 8, placing it in the “hypersonic” category. Indeed, THAAD manufacturer Lockheed Martin is interested in developing an extended range THAAD variant to counter hypersonic glide vehicles, including China’s own WU-14.

Keeping this feature set in mind, why is China so upset about a potential THAAD deployment? The answer, I think, has to do more with the monitoring capabilities that are part of the THAAD package. Beijing isn’t, for instance, worried that a THAAD deployment in South Korea would threaten any ballistic missiles it would plausibly fire at the United States–again, THAAD only works against ballistic missiles in the terminal phase and not against inter-continental ones anyway. Lyon evaluates China’s concerns:

China’s right to believe that THAAD surveillance data could be transferred to other BMD assets protecting [the continental United States (CONUS)]. Indeed, one of THAAD’s missions would be to strengthen U.S. defenses against the possibility of North Korean ballistic missile attack on CONUS. So it has to be able to transfer data to CONUS-based radars and interceptors. But the United States already has a THAAD battery deployed on Guam, two AN/TPY-2 radars deployed in Japan (at Shariki and Kyogamisaki), space-based assets, plus a range of ship-borne radars and larger land-based radars in other parts of the Pacific theatre. Would a THAAD deployment in South Korea change much? The short answer is that it could improve early tracking of some Chinese missiles, depending on their launch point. Still, that might not make actual interception of those missiles much easier. ICBM warheads move fast. And sophisticated penetration-aids help to confuse missile defenses.

So, from the Chinese perspective, a THAAD deployment could shift the strategic stability needle ever so slightly away from its status quo equilibrium and advantage the United States, giving Washington better early warning and tracking of Chinese ICBMs. That, in itself, doesn’t seem like a serious impingement on China’s security or its nuclear deterrent. What’s interesting is reading China’s worries about a THAAD and AN/TPY-2 deployment on the Korean peninsula together with murmurs that Beijing is growing increasingly interested in a launch-on-warning nuclear posture. Does a THAAD deployment affect the credibility of China’s second-strike capabilities by giving the United States a greater early warning edge? Perhaps, but, as Lyon notes above, the difference would be marginal given the AN/TPY-2s already in Japan.

Assessing China’s position on THAAD in light of the system’s real capabilities, we should concede that Beijing does have some legitimate reasons to be upset, but I question if the negative implications for China’s security really outweigh the diplomatic cost to the bilateral relationship with South Korea, which had seen a sharp uptick over the past year. Moreover, it’s clear that South Korea’s security would benefit in important ways from a THAAD deployment–Pyongyang’s Toksa, SCUDs, and No Dong missiles would be a lot less threatening.

China and South Korea should be able to come to an understanding, but this won’t be possible as long as Beijing holds to its maximalist position on THAAD, refusing to abide a deployment of the interceptor on the peninsula. Are there alternatives? If you ask South Korea and the United States, then the answer is yes: China could change its approach to North Korea, making this THAAD business less necessary in the short-term. I wouldn’t count on that happening anytime soon, despite news of the United States and China making some progress on harsher sanctions.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2016/02/chin...could-destroy-south-korea-ties-in-an-instant/

China Warns THAAD Deployment Could Destroy South Korea Ties 'in an Instant'

China’s ambassador to South Korea sends a dire warning about the impact of THAAD on bilateral ties.

By Shannon Tiezzi
February 25, 2016

444 Shares
47 Comments

China’s ambassador to South Korea recently warned the opposition Minjoo Party of Korea (MPK) that the deployment of a U.S. missile defense system could “destroy” the China-South Korea relationship. MPK spokesperson Kim Sung-soo quoted Ambassador Qiu Guohong’s comments, made in a meeting with MPK chairman Kim Chong-in, to the Korean media this week, saying Qiu had asked that his comments be made public.

China has strenuously objected to the deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense System (THAAD) on the Korean Peninsula for years. The United States and South Korea say THAAD is a purely defensive system, and a necessary means of protecting against the North Korean missile threat. China, however, believes THAAD would also be used to monitor Chinese missile deployments, posing threat to China’s national security.

In the wake of North Korea’s nuclear test in January and rocket launch a month later, however, South Korea and the United States have moved closer to THAAD deployment. For the first time, the two sides are poised to begin official negotiations on the details of setting the system up in South Korea. That has sparked a backlash in China, including dire warnings of escalation that could spark a potential arms race in the region.

Qiu’s comments to the MPK fit squarely in that vein. According to Kim Sung-soo, Qiu said that THAAD deployment could negate the advances made in China-South Korea ties in the past three years under Presidents Xi Jinping and Park Geun-hye. “Much effort has been made to develop bilateral ties to today’s level, but these efforts could be destroyed in an instant with a single problem,” Qiu said, warning that ties “could take a long time to recover.”

He also warned that THAAD deployment would “create a vicious cycle of Cold War-style confrontations and an arms race,” and urged South Korea to take that into account when deciding if THAAD truly makes the country safer.

In particular, Qiu expressed concern about the level of U.S. control over the system. He said China would trust South Korea to limit the functions of THAAD so as not to target China, but did not believe similar assurances from the United States. “I do not deny the fact that THAAD would play a role in protecting [South] Korea, but it will inevitably target China and Russia,” Qiu said.

China’s Foreign Ministry made a similar point on Wednesday, with spokesperson Hua Chunying telling reporters that “the Chinese side understands the ROK’s reasonable security concerns, but no country can pursue its own security interests at the expense of others.” THAAD deployment “will have a direct impact on China’s national security interests,” Hua added.

In response to the latest round of protests from China, South Korean presidential spokesperson Jung Youn-kuk said that THAAD deployment “is a matter we will decide upon according to our own security and national interests.”

“The Chinese had better recognize this point,” Jung added. The floor leader of the ruling Saenuri Party, Rep. Won Yoo-chul, went further, calling Qiu’s comments “blackmail.”

South Korea has been frustrated that close ties with China — the “best-ever national ties in history,” according to Xi — haven’t resulted in any willingness to apply more pressure on North Korea. South Korea’s movement on THAAD is a signal to China that Seoul will do what it must to defend itself—that the way to stop THAAD deployment is to stop North Korea’s missile and nuclear programs.

However, the United States and South Korea recently postponed the start of talks on THAAD deployment, calling off a ceremony scheduled for Tuesday that would have seen both sides sign an agreement on the talks. A spokesperson for South Korea’s Defense Ministry refused to comment on speculation that the official start of THAAD talks was delayed to avoid upsetting U.S.-China negotiations over UN sanctions on North Korea. Instead, he said the allies had yet to finalize all the details of the joint working group that will carry out the talks.

Qiu, though, made it clear that the THAAD issue was affecting the UN Security Council talks. “Without the THAAD issue, a new UN resolution would have been adopted already,” he told MPK officials.

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm........

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...s-in-south-china-sea/articleshow/51130326.cms

Vietnam invites India to explore resources in South China sea

By Dipanjan Roy Chaudhury, ET Bureau | Feb 25, 2016, 02.00 AM IST

NEW DELHI: Vietnam has invited India to explore and exploit natural resources within its 200-nauticalmile exclusive economic zone in the South China Sea region where China has deployed fighter jets and surfaceto-air missiles to the consternation of other countries.

The country's ambassador to India Ton Sinh Thanh on Wednesday said that Vietnam has sovereign rights and jurisdiction within 200 nautical miles of the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf in accordance with the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

"We are determined to protect our rights and maintain regular activities in our sovereign waters. Accordingly, we shall continue to cooperate with other countries, including India, to explore and exploit resources within our 200-nautical-mile EEZ," Thanh told a select gathering in Delhi.

The comments came at a time when fresh reports from the United States said that Chinese Shenyang J-11 and Xian JH-7 warplanes have been spotted on Woody Island in the disputed Paracel Islands chain over the past few days in the SCS region.

Vietnam claims sovereignty over both Paracel and Spratly Islands. "We have full historical evidence and legal foundation to confirm our sovereignty over these islands, which in fact have been owned and controlled peacefully and continuously by Vietnam since the 17th century when no other countries claimed their sovereignty over these islands. We are determined to protect our sovereignty over these islands," Thanh said.

The Vietnamese government had awarded India oil blocks in the SCS region amid growing defence partnership between the two countries that saw India placing a satellite tracking system in the country. Despite China's protests India continues to be present in these oil blocks from where ONGC Videsh Limited supplies oil to Vietnam. South China Sea is rich in hydrocarbons and marine wealth, including fisheries.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://in.reuters.com/article/southchinasea-usa-missiles-idINKCN0VW2FI

World | Wed Feb 24, 2016 8:33am IST
Related: World

China gearing up for East Asia dominance - U.S. commander

WASHINGTON | By David Brunnstrom and Arshad Mohammed


China is "changing the operational landscape" in the South China Sea by deploying missiles and radar as part of an effort to militarily dominate East Asia, a senior U.S. military official said on Tuesday.

China is "clearly militarizing the South China (Sea)," said Admiral Harry Harris, head of the U.S. Pacific Command, adding: "You'd have to believe in a flat Earth to think otherwise."

Harris said he believed China's deployment of surface-to-air missiles on Woody Island in the South China Sea's Paracel chain, new radars on Cuarteron Reef in the Spratlys and its building of airstrips were "actions that are changing in my opinion the operational landscape in the South China Sea."

Soon after he spoke, U.S. government sources confirmed that China recently deployed fighter jets to Woody Island. It was not the first time Beijing sent jets there but it raised new questions about its intentions.

U.S. Navy Captain Darryn James, spokesman for U.S. Pacific Command, said China's repeated deployment of advanced fighter aircraft to Woody Island continued a disturbing trend.

"These destabilizing actions are inconsistent with the commitment by China and all claimants to exercise restraint from actions that could escalate disputes," he said. "That's why we've called for all claimants to stop land reclamation, stop construction and stop militarization in the South China Sea.”

But U.S. and Chinese foreign ministers signaled that despite disagreements over the South China Sea, they were near agreement on a U.N. resolution against North Korea for its recent nuclear and missile tests and stressed their cooperation on economic and other issues.


'HEGEMONY IN EAST ASIA'

Speaking before the meeting in Washington between Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, Harris said China was escalating the situation in the South China Sea with new deployments. Asked about its aims, he said: "I believe China seeks hegemony in East Asia."

Responding to another question, Harris said Chinese DF-21 and DF-26 anti-ship missiles could pose a threat to U.S. aircraft carriers, but added the vessels were resilient and that the United States had "the capability to do what has to be done if it comes to that."

Harris also said he supported regular U.S. air and naval patrols to assert freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, a vital waterway through which more than $5 trillion in global trade passes every year.

At a news conference with Kerry, Wang said there had been no problems with freedom of navigation and China and countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations - several of which have competing claims with China - "have the capability to maintain stability in the South China Sea."

He said militarization was not the responsibility of one party alone and added in apparent reference to U.S. patrols: "We don’t hope to see any more close-up military reconnaissance, or the dispatch of missile destroyers or strategic bombers to the South China Sea."


'ESCALATORY CYCLE'

Kerry said steps by China, Vietnam and others had created an "escalatory cycle."

"What we are trying to do it break that cycle," he said.

"Regrettably there are missiles and fighter aircraft and guns and other things that have been placed into the South China Sea and this is of great concern to everyone who transits and relies on the South China Sea for peaceful trade," he added.

A U.S. think tank reported on Monday that China may be installing a high-frequency radar system on the Cuarteron Reef in the Spratly Islands that could significantly boost its ability to control the strategic sea.

Last Thursday, the United States accused China of raising tensions by its apparent deployment of surface-to-air missiles on Woody Island. China has also built military-length airstrips on artificial islands in the South China Sea.

China's Foreign Ministry said ahead of Wang's visit that Beijing's military deployments in the South China Sea were no different from U.S. deployments on Hawaii.

China's Ministry of Defense said on its microblog on Tuesday that China had established "necessary defensive facilities" that were "legal and appropriate."


(Reporting by David Brunnstrom; Additional reporting by Phil Stewart, Andrea Shalal, Roberta Rampton and Mark Hosenball; Editing by Frances Kerry, Tom Brown and Peter Cooney)

 

[OldArcher]

HC, do you think we have long, before the missiles fly?

OA

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/732271.html

[Interview] Japanese expert says, �"sanctions aren�'t an end in themselves�"

Posted on : Feb.26,2016 16:11 KST
Modified on : Feb.26,2016 16:11 KST

Hitoshi Tanaka argues that financial pressure on North Korea must be accompanied by negotiations

Hitoshi Tanaka, one of the top strategists in the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japanese Research Institute (JRI) Institute for International Strategy president, talked about Seoul�fs hard-line policies against Pyongyang since North Korea�fs fourth nuclear test in January. Sanctions, he said, were �ga method of solving problems, not an end in themselves.�h It was a recommendation that suggested a more flexible stance from South Korea to achieve the ultimate goal of solving the North Korean nuclear issue.

Tanaka explained more on the role of sanctions in a Feb. 23 interview with the Hankyoreh.

A former director-general of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Asian and Oceanian Affairs Bureau and Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, Tanaka is considered a realist diplomat who is responsible for bringing about then-Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi�fs visit to North Korea in Sept. 2002 and the subsequent Pyongyang Declaration.

Hankyoreh (Hani): The situation in East Asia has been changing fast since North Korea�fs fourth nuclear test and rocket launch. The US and China in particular are in a heated conflict over plans to deploy THAAD (a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense anti-missile system) in South Korea.
�@
Hitoshi Tanaka: The balance of world power is shifting. Here in East Asia, China has been pushing very aggressive maritime policies in areas like the South China Sea, and North Korea has another round of nuclear and missile tests. The thing I feel most urgently when I look at the situation around the Korean Peninsula is that the power of the different countries to really attempt to confront and coordinate policies to solve the North Korean nuclear issue has diminished a lot. If the current situation keeps up, North Korea is going to keep growing its nuclear and missile capabilities. It�fs a vicious cycle that has to be stopped. There are a lot of risks right now, but I think it could also be an opportunity.

Hani: South Korea, the US, and Japan have all impose harsh sanctions on North Korea. Seoul in particular made an ultra-hard-line move by shutting down the Kaesong Industrial Complex.

Tanaka: What I find significant about shutting down the Kaesong Complex is that it showed the end of South Korea�fs commitment to continuing operations no matter what North Korea does. I also feel like the South Korean government should adopt the basic position that the complex can be restored, even expanded, depending on how North Korea acts. When a government takes actions, it is to achieve an ultimate goal; sanctions aren�ft an end in themselves. So I think they should be looking at the Kaesong Complex from a longer-term perspective. Since a military solution against North Korea is out of the question, there has to be a scenario for diplomatic negotiations. That kind of plan has to be in place if forceful sanctions are to have any meaning.

Hani: What would be a practicable process for solving the North Korean nuclear issue?

Tanaka: A clear plan needs to worked out through policy coordination among Japan, the US, and South Korea. China also needs to be included. One entry into negotiations could be moratorium on nuclear and missile testing. You could start there, and then I think a good approach would be to work on returning to the September 19 Agreement from the Six-Party Talks in 2005 and trying one more time to implement concrete plans for executing its terms. Instead of dragging things out, they should be returning to discussions toward enforcing the various measures agreed upon in 2005. One of the reasons that agreement hasn�ft really been followed is the matter of verifiable denuclearization. In other words, it�fs about verification measures. To date, Japan, the US, and South Korea think that North Korea kept developing nuclear weapons and missiles behind their backs even after the agreement, so they feel they can�ft trust it. So we should start right away with a solution within a framework where there are clear sanction measures, preconditions for discussions, and time elements toward a solution.

Hani: China is ultimately an important part of this. Some people in South Korea are saying it�fs a mistake to push for a THAAD deployment on the Korean Peninsula at a time when we need China�es cooperation to solve the North Korean nuclear issue.

Tanaka: China�fs argument is that its own security guarantees would be compromised by THAAD. But I think South Korea is right to argue that it has to push for missile defense like THAAD when North Korea is improving its nuclear and missile capabilities the way it�es doing now. Obviously, there�fs also the possibility of a technical debate in South Korea over whether THAAD is really an effective option when North Korea is so close.

The root of the issue is North Korea�es denuclearization, and bringing China into that discussion. There may be no need to bring THAAD in at all costs. If Beijing is so adamant, then it should be playing a role in getting North Korea to give up its nuclear program, since it has leverage. Right now, we have high-profile politicians in South Korea calling for nuclear armament, and people are talking about how that could trigger a nuclear domino situation that could spread to Japan and Taiwan. If China works on using its leverage to get North Korea to denuclearize, there�fs no need for South Korea to discuss nuclear armament or THAAD.

By Gil Yun-hyung, Tokyo correspondent
Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]

 

[Housecarl]

HC, do you think we have long, before the missiles fly?

OA

It's anyone's guess as I see it; there are just too many moving parts with too many egos and amateurs mixed up with professionals.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20160226000540

Debate heats up over Korea's nuclear armament

Published : 2016-02-26 11:38
Updated : 2016-02-26 11:38

A debate is heating up over whether South Korea should pursue nuclear armament after North Korea has fueled security jitters here by conducting a fourth nuclear test last month.

Experts and politicians are sharply divided as they contemplate the potential benefits and perils of the South's nuclearization, which they say is bound to reshape the contours of regional politics and security.

The Seoul government has said that its vision of a nuclear-free peninsula will remain unchanged with the U.S.' security backing, and that it would abide by its obligations under an international non-proliferation regime.

Calls for a nuclear deterrent resurfaced after what Pyongyang claims to be a hydrogen bomb test on Jan. 6. A recent survey, commissioned by Yonhap News Agency and local broadcaster KBS, found more than 50 percent of South Koreans were in favor of their country's nuclear armament.

Proponents have been calling for Seoul to either develop its own nuclear weapons or ask its ally, Washington, to redeploy tactical nuclear arms that were withdrawn from the peninsula shortly before an inter-Korean denuclearization accord took effect in 1992.

"We cannot borrow the (nuclear) umbrella whenever it rains. We, ourselves, should have a sturdy rain coat," Rep. Won Yoo-chul, the floor leader of the ruling Saenuri Party, said during his parliamentary speech earlier this month.

His remarks followed the repeated argument by former ruling party leader Chung Mong-joon that Seoul should call for the redeployment of tactical U.S. nuclear arms here. "Seoul can no longer deal with a neighboring rogue state armed with a machine gun when it has only a stone to hurl," he has said.

Supporters for nuclearization argue that the South should secure reliable deterrence by creating a "balance of terror" with the North -- a condition under which one dares not initiate nuclear warfare that would lead to mutual annihilation.

Others claim that a nuclear-power status would enable the South to bolster national pride, reduce its security reliance on the U.S., secure a more balanced relationship with the superpower ally and curtail heavy expenditures on its conventional military buildup.

They also say nuclear weapons would serve as a bargaining chip to pressure the North to denuclearize when the communist regime does not regard the non-nuclear South as a legitimate negotiating partner.

"Time has come for Seoul to consider nuclear armament from the standpoint of self-defense rather than relying only on the U.S. nuclear umbrella or U.N. Security Council sanctions," Cheng Seong-chang, senior research fellow at the state think tank Sejong Institute, said in his contributing article to Shindonga, a local magazine.

Arguments in favor of going nuclear reflect growing misgivings about U.S.' security commitment to the South, analyst said. As the financially-strained U.S. employed a "retrenchment" policy of reducing international engagement and expenditures, security concerns here have increased.

"Calls for nuclear arms here send a strong message to the U.S. that the South has doubts about the U.S.' security guarantee in the event of a contingency on the peninsula," said Yang Wuk, a senior research fellow at the Korea Defense and Security Forum.

"From the U.S.' reluctance to promptly intervene in the cases of Crimea, Libya and Syria to its ongoing moves to transform the U.S. troops in Korea into an expeditionary force from a hitherto static force wholly responsible for deterring the North, all these have stoked the misgivings."

Those against nuclearization warn of serious military, diplomatic and economic ramifications.

They said the pursuit of nuclear weapons would trigger a regional nuclear arms race and deal a serious blow to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) -- only to infuriate the U.S. to the extent that it wants to terminate the alliance treaty with the South.

"The NPT has been a major vehicle for limiting nuclear proliferation. The withdrawal of a major U.S. ally from the NPT would be a major embarrassment for the United States, and cause many other countries to question whether they should also withdraw," Bruce Bennett, senior defense analyst at the U.S.-based Rand Corp., said.

"Therefore, there would be considerable pressure both within the United States and internationally for the country to punish South Korea for this action, in part to discourage other countries from withdrawing from the NPT."

Bennett added that the cancellation of the alliance would mean the withdrawal of U.S. troops and all of their military equipment from the peninsula, which would seriously compromise the South's defense capabilities.

"(The South's nuclearization) could well lead to the termination of the alliance -- the United States withdrawing its forces from South Korea and shedding the infrastructure that allows U.S. forces to flow to Korea if a conflict develops," he said. "In short, if U.S. forces leave, they are unlikely to come back, even if South Korea is invaded by the North."

Balbina Hwang, a political scientist at American University and former U.S. State Department official, said that a decision to go nuclear would make the South as much a "pariah state" as the North. She stressed the decision should be based on serious contemplation and rational considerations, "not hysteria or emotion."

"The decision to become a nuclear weapons state would crucially jeopardize the entire future of the Republic of Korea, and endanger its current status as an acknowledged, respected, and even admired leading member of the global community," she said.

The scholar highlighted the enormous economic ramifications of international sanctions for nuclearization, saying the export-driven South Korean economy would collapse "immediately." Exports contribute about 70 percent of South Korea's annual economic growth.

"Can the ROK economy bear the economic costs of international sanctions and economic isolation? Absolutely not, as the South Korean economy is still highly dependent on its open ties to the international economy," she said.

Some analysts repudiated the claim that the South's possession of nuclear arms would enable the nuclear "balance of terror" with the North. They said such a Cold War-era deterrence strategy would only work based on the premise that a potential adversary would think "rationally" and would not risk a nuclear exchange.

"The balance of terror is a very unstable condition in light of the fact that we can't expect the North to think rationally. North Korea is particularly dangerous given that its unpredictable leader Kim Jong-un calls all the shots," Park Won-gon, security expert at Handong Global University, said.

"On top of this, a war could be precipitated due to miscalculations and misperceptions, which would make it difficult to expect peace from the balance of terror."

Some point to practical concerns such as finding storage facilities for nuclear arsenal, which would likely be placed in the crosshairs of Pyongyang's nuclear forces.

"I have to ask: which South Korean community or communities will volunteer to become the storage locations for South Korean nuclear weapons?" said Bennett of the Rand Corp. "They would do so knowing that they would become nuclear target number one of at least the North Korean nuclear weapons." (Yonhap)

 

[OldArcher]

It's anyone's guess as I see it; there are just too many moving parts with too many egos and amateurs mixed up with professionals.

Thank-You, Sir. GBY&Y's

Maranatha

OA

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/2...r-russia-wants-to-rewrite-international-order

Top US commander: Russia wants to 'rewrite' international order

By Rebecca Kheel - 02/25/16 04:10 PM EST
Comments 171

The era of trying to work with Russia is over, the top U.S. commander in Europe said Thursday while arguing for the rebuilding of U.S. forces in that region.

“Russia does not want to challenge the agreed rules of the international order,” Gen. Philip Breedlove told the House Armed Services Committee. “It wants to rewrite them.”

Breedlove was on Capitol Hill defending the Pentagon’s budget request for fiscal 2017, which includes a fourfold increase in funding for the European Reassurance Initiative (ERI) to deter an aggressive Russia.
The increase would bring the initiative's funding to $3.4 billion.

Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas), chairman of the committee, questioned whether the initiative is an adequate deterrence to Russia.

“We had a hearing a couple of weeks ago talking about Russia,” he said. “Among the witnesses, for example, was your predecessor and the question was raised, is ERI to really deter Russia? Or is it to make our allies feel better? And maybe it will be one, the latter, but not the former.”

Breedlove argued that the initiative does both. But, he added, it will take time to reverse the downsizing of U.S. forces in Europe.

“That 20 years of change will not be overcome in one or two steps,” he said. “ERI is one of the steps along the way.”

Work needs to be done in five areas, Breedlove added: building infrastructure such as ports, rail yards and training areas; prepositioning equipment; increasing rotational forces; building NATO allies’ capacities; and doing training and exercises alongside allies.

Still, Breedlove said, he doesn’t see a turn to a Cold War-era force posture.

“This is not the Cold War,” he said. “But I do believe we are not where we need to be now in the mixture of permanently forward-stationed forces and prepositioned stock so that we can rapidly fall in on it.”

U.S. relations with Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin, soured after the Kremlin annexed Crimea in 2014. Russia’s intervention in the Syrian civil war in support of Syrian President Bashar Assad further strained relations.

Breedlove warned that Russia is “weaponizing” the Syrian refugee crisis. Russian airstrikes are hitting civilians, causing them to flee and overwhelm Europe.

“What I am seeing in Syria in places like Aleppo and others are what I would call absolutely indiscriminate, imprecise bombing,” he said. “Almost zero military utility, designed to get people on the road and make them someone else's problem. Get them on the road, make them a problem for Europe to bend Europe to the will of where they want them to be.”

 

[Housecarl]

This is not the first time this problem has been brought up in the media.....And in that long thread on diesel electric subs we noted that SSKs optimized for the SCS, which would also make them very useful for the Arabian and Red Seas and the Persian Gulf along with the Med and Baltic, would go a long way in making up the difference in numbers vs price point...Think in terms of a scaled up USS Dolphin optimized for mass production......

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nationalinterest.org/blo...as-great-submarine-shortage-the-pacific-15318

Danger: America's Great Submarine Shortage in the Pacific
Dave Majumdar
February 25, 2016
Comments 39

The United States Navy needs more submarines, intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) capacity, as well as more anti-ship missile capability in the Pacific to counter rising Chinese militarization of the South China Sea. Submarines, especially, are the best way to counter the People’s Liberation Army Navy—but the problem is that the United States does not have enough Virginia- or Seawolf-class attack submarines.

“I don’t have the submarines that I feel I need,” Adm. Harry Harris Jr., commander of the United States Pacific Command (PACOM) told the House Armed Services Committee on February 24. “But that’s a function of the total number of submarines that the United States Navy has and the global demand for that platform.” The U.S. Navy currently operates about 40 subs, but only around fifteen are the most modern Virginia- or Seawolf-class designs.

If given a choice between permanently deploying an additional aircraft carrier and its air wing or more submarines to the Pacific, Harris said that the best way to counter Chinese naval forces would be more submarines. “Submarines are the original stealth platform—they clearly give us an asymmetric advantage,” Harris said. “Our asymmetry in terms of warfare because of submarines is significant. In the modernizing sense, we need to maintain that asymmetric advantage.”

While Harris said that as a combatant commander he would never turn down an additional aircraft carrier strike group, there are fiscal, political and technical hurdles to basing another flattop in the Western Pacific. However, in lieu of another carrier, the United States could consider basing additional nuclear-powered attack submarines and major surface combatants in the Pacific. “We could put in maybe the new destroyer—the DDG-1000s—and move them forward,” Harris said. “There are a lot of things we can do short of putting a full carrier strike group in the Western Pacific.”

Major surface combatants like the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class are best types of vessels to conduct the U.S. Navy’s operations in the South China Sea. The heavily armed warships can conduct the type of freedom of navigation operations close to China’s newly constructed islands without being forced to retreat if challenged. The ships are, Harris explained, “highly capable, the right kind of weapons and the right kind of systems to ensure the freedom of navigation operations are conducted well and the ship is well able to defend itself should those operations go awry.”

Harris also noted that he needs more persistent ISR and cyber warfare capability in the region. Additionally, the U.S. Navy needs a new long-range anti-ship missile as soon as possible. Adding anti-surface mode to the long-range SM-6 surface-to-air missile helps greatly, but the Navy still needs dedicated long-range anti-ship systems. “I spoken about the need for a long-range anti-surface missile that can out-stick—if you will—Chinese missile systems in the Pacific,” Harris said. “I’m pleased in the FY17 budget there is funds put against development of LRASM—the Long Range Anti-Surface Missile.”

The combination of those additional resources should be enough to deter China in the Western Pacific, Harris said.

Dave Majumdar is the defense editor for the National Interest. You can follow him on Twitter: @davemajumdar.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...ext-red-october-russias-lethal-new-subs-15307

The Hunt for the Next Red October: Russia's Lethal New Subs

Dave Majumdar
February 24, 2016
Comments 277

Though the Project 705 Lira-class attack submarine—better known in the West as the Alfa-class—is perhaps most famous for starring as the main antagonist in the movie The Hunt for Red October, the ill-fated boats have left an outsized legacy independent of the silver screen. That’s because Moscow’s future submarine fleet will be far more automated than current designs—continuing a trend that was pioneered in the late 1970s by the Soviet Union’s Project 705 Lira-class attack boats.

While the Alfa-class boats were in many ways an unsuccessful experiment, the fast titanium-hulled submarines pioneered many innovative technologies. Their strong hulls gave them tremendous speed—close to 45 knots according to some sources—and they could dive to impressive depths. Indeed, the Liras had a never-exceed depth of around 3,900ft, but operationally rarely exceeded 2,000ft. Moreover, the submarines were relatively tiny—displacing only 3,200-tons submerged.

Other than the titanium hull—which was a huge innovation for the time—the Lira-class boats featured two other innovations. One was a very compact liquid-metal cooled reactor, which could generate enormous amounts of power. In all, two types of lead-bismuth cooled fast reactors were used on the Lira—the OK-550 and BM-40. Both reactors produced about 155-MW of power giving the boat more than 40,000shp. The result was blistering speed and acceleration—but at the price of being extremely noisy (though the boats had a pair of 100kW electrical propellers for low speed tactical maneuvering).

The other major innovation introduced by the Lira-class was automation. Because the Soviet wanted a small, fast interceptor submarine, a small crew-size was mandatory. The Soviets did manage to reduce the crew-size to about thirty-two officers, but no enlisted crew. Ultimately, however, the Lira-class was a technological bridge too far—safety was a major concern. “We spent twenty years using the Lira (Project 705) subs during the 1970s through 1990s. . . . It was a very promising project but it was eventually shelved due to the abundance of new technological ideas simultaneously implemented in one boat,” Lenta.ru quoted an unnamed defense source, according to state-owned Sputnik.

But while the Lira was a failure, the technology from those boats paved the way for the later Sierra (Project 945) and Akula-classes (Project 971Shchuka-B), and ultimately the Project-885 Yasen-class (Severodvinsk-class submarine). Indeed, compared to U.S. Navy submarines, the Russian submarines have a very small crew-size. The Yasen-class only carries ninety crew members while future Russian nuclear submarines such the new “interceptor” and “SSGN” designs that are currently in the works will have fewer still. “The crew of such a sub could be down to 50 or 55 people and could ultimately be reduced to between 30 and 40,” the source told Lenta.ru.

Of course, given Russia’s economic conditions, it is hard to say when those new submarines will materialize—if they ever do.

Dave Majumdar is the defense editor for The National Interest. You can follow him on Twitter: @davemajumdar.

A good write up on the follow on SIERRAs is here at Covert Shores.....

Russian SIERRA Class Titanium-hulled attack sub

Sun 07 February 2016
By H I Sutton
http://www.hisutton.com/Russian SIERRA Class Titanium-hulled attack sub.html

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.businessinsider.com/thes...d-change-everything-in-the-middle-east-2016-2

These two ISIS battles could change everything in the Middle East

The Fiscal Times
Riyadh Mohammed, The Fiscal Times
11h
Comments 14

The number 562 is relatively meaningless to most people.

But not to those who marked the 562nd anniversary of the conquest of Istanbul by the Ottoman Turks last May.

Hundreds of thousands reportedly gathered in a field outside the city where a parade of jets painted the sky with red and white smoke—the colors of the Turkish flag.

Bands played, flags flew, and Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, declared, “Resurrection again, rising again.”

The celebration was great theater. But this was no act by the new Turkish president. His desire to return the country to its glory days resulted in a massive power grab in the name of Islam, followed by charges of corruption in his administration amounting to $100 billion.

In 2014, when he was prime minister, Erdogan was accused of high treason for supplying weapons to al-Qaeda and ISIS that included 1,000 mortar shells, 1,000 rifled artillery shells, 50,000 machine gun rounds and 30,000 rifle bullets.

It’s no surprise, then, that Turkey is currently playing a dangerous game of poker with Russia, the United States, and its neighbors in the region.

Video

Two crucial battles against ISIS in the Middle East could change the balance of power in the region. Aleppo, Syria’s largest city, and Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city, are both at risk. Exploiting the situation is America’s ally, Turkey, which is jeopardizing the US-led coalition in its fight against ISIS and creating further trouble between the West and Russia.

There is so much at stake for the US and the West in this evolving drama. Defeating ISIS is an expensive undertaking, both militarily and politically. But if America’s allies lose faith in the coalition, ISIS will gain more than territory — it will gain stature, and therefore more recruits from around the world.

Aleppo: Since the spring of 2013, Syria’s largest city in the north has been divided between the Syrian Alawite government forces that control the western parts of the city and the Sunni rebels who control the eastern parts.

Supported by direct Russian intervention in Syria, the Syrian government decided to launch a major assault on the city to weaken the rebels and claim their territory. In the last few days, Islamic State fighters have cut off the supply route to government-controlled areas.

The Syrian Kurds, who fought against ISIS and al-Qaeda in Syria, decided to take advantage of the government campaign to expand their area of control in order to connect a Kurdish pocket in northwest Syria with the rest of the Kurdish territories in northern Syria by the Turkish border. The Syrian Kurds tried to control a strategic town called Azaz last summer, located 25 miles to the north on the supply line to Aleppo.

Turkey considers the Kurds (whether Turkish Kurds or Syrian Kurds) the main threat to the Turkish national security.

The Kurdish aspiration to autonomy and independence is viewed as endangering Turkey’s sovereign unity. Turkey has anxiously observed the gains Syrian Kurds achieved over the last few years. For Turkey, ISIS is the lesser of two evils when compared with Kurds.

As a result, Turkey bombed the Syrian Kurds to prevent them from capturing the city. Turkey’s shelling of the Syrian Kurds was condemned by most of the world, including the United States and the United Nations’ Security Council. Even so, Turkey has not backed down.

Instead, Turkey arranged for hundreds of Syrian Sunni Arab fighters to cross its border to Turkey then come back to Syria from another border center, to the town of Azaz, to join the fight against the Kurds.

http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/56cfe8902e52651d008b9c05-1500-1852/battle-for-aleppo.png

The Syrian Kurds are America’s most reliable ally on the ground in Syria in the fight against ISIS. The more the Turks bomb them, the more likely they will ask for support. But with the U.S. still withholding support, took advantage of Russian air strikes.

If as a result the Kurds align themselves with the Russia and the Syrian government, the U.S.-led coalition against ISIS in Syria could be jeopardized.

As if Turkey’s military involvement is not enough, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Bahrain announced their readiness to deploy ground forces in Syria to fight ISIS.

They were alarmed by the Syrian government’s recent successes and wanted a Sunni Arab army in Syria to stand against the Alawite regime. For them, ISIS is also the lesser of two evils compared with an Iranian backed Syrian regime.

Turkey is supportive of the Saudi move. Egypt is not. The Syrian foreign Minister has said that those who dare to step into Syria will return home in coffins, and histrionic headlines shout, “World War III Could Start This Month: 350,000 Soldiers in Saudi Arabia Stand Ready to Invade Syria.”

A US-Russia brokered temporary ceasefire is scheduled to take place this weekend. However, the deal doesn't include ISIS that controls close to half of the country, or al-Nusra Front, al-Qaeda's arm in Syria. Al-Nusra is one of the strongest rebel group in the country.

It is hard to imagine how this agreement will be implemented without the support of these groups. Importantly, Turkey says the Syria ceasefire is not binding if it threatens their security.

Mosul: ISIS captured Iraq’s second largest city in June 2014 in the north and much of the Sunni territories in the war-torn country. However, Iraqi government forces, the Shiite militias and the Iraqi Kurds have achieved several victories lately. The cities of Ramadi to the west of Baghdad, Baiji, and Sinjar to the north were liberated.

To liberate Mosul, several other cities and towns must be taken to the east and south of the city.

They were trained and equipped recently with the help of the US-led coalition against ISIS. Kurdish forces have been fighting alongside the coalition and recently regained ground around Mosul with the help of US air strikes.

The speaker of Iraqi parliament, Salim al-Jubouri, said in a message broadcast from an Iraqi army radio station that the liberation of the city will begin within days. The US forces in Iraq said that the operation has already started.

All that sounds like great news. Yet, Turkey is proving to be as problematic in Iraq as it is in Syria. Last December, a Turkish army battalion deployed to the north of Mosul over the protests of the Iraqi government, the United States, and the United Nations.

Iraq also threatened to fight the Turkish invaders. The Americans said that the Turkish deployment was not part of the US-led coalition against ISIS. None of that could persuade the Turks to back off.

Turkey claimed that its forces in northern Iraq protected the Iraqi Sunni forces from attacks launched by ISIS. But Turkey’s interests in Iraq are similar to its interests in Syria. They want to make sure that the Kurds will not expand their territories in the Arab Sunni regions or the Turkmen areas. Turkey also wants assurance that it will have a say in Mosul’s political structure after the liberation.

In addition, the Shiite militias are still pushing to participate in the coming operation. Iraq’s Sunnis reject that demand because it would inflame sectarian tensions. The U.S. has made it clear to the Iraqis that this would mean the end of U.S. air support.

Turkey’s ambitions in Syria and Iraq -- as suggested by its military involvement in both Iraq and Syria -- could reawaken memories of four centuries of Ottoman occupation that were ended during World War I by British and French allied forces.

It is no secret that the Turkish president Erdogan has Ottoman ambitions. It is more disturbing that he seems willing to enable ISIS if that will help contain the Kurds and further his dreams of empire.

This story was originally published by The Fiscal Times.

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm......Why do I get the feeling this isn't going to "chill things out"?....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-N...ea-ships-ahead-of-UN-resolution/9091456415441

China blocking North Korea ships ahead of U.N. resolution

China has shown commitment to sanctions since the North launched an "earth observation satellite" into space in early February.

By Elizabeth Shim | Feb. 25, 2016 at 11:30 AM
Comments 13

SEOUL, Feb. 25 (UPI) -- The United States and China are expected to pass the most stringent set of North Korea sanctions at the United Nations Security Council, but Beijing could be taking its own measures against reclusive Pyongyang.

After weeks of negotiations, the two sides have reached an agreement on a draft resolution that could penalize North Korea, a Security Council diplomat told CNN.

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power is expected to present the draft sanctions Thursday, according to Kurtis Kooper of the U.S. mission to the U.N.

China has shown commitment to sanctions since the North launched an "earth observation satellite" into space in early February but has said dialogue with the North and regional stability is a priority.

But after a recent meeting between Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, Beijing turned a corner on the sanctions issue, and the two sides agreed a tougher resolution is necessary.

"We hope and believe this resolution will curb the further development of nuclear missiles" in North Korea, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said. "China is willing to work with relevant parties to promote denuclearization of the peninsula."

Beijing may be working independently toward stricter regulations against the North.

Pyongyang depends heavily on China's hubs for trade, but on Thursday South Korean television network SBS reported North Korean ships have been banned from docking at ports in Dandong, China's border city that faces the North.

Dandong is a major gateway for North Korean iron ore and anthracite coal, but Pyongyang's vessels are no longer allowed to dock and transfer goods to China.

An unidentified Dandong port worker told SBS ships typically brought in 3,000 tons of raw materials, but a new state ordinance forbids North Korea shipments for the next two years.

Local sources said the ban is a response to North Korea's nuclear test and missile launch.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://in.reuters.com/article/mideast-crisis-syria-ghouta-idINKCN0VZ0XN

World | Fri Feb 26, 2016 9:40pm IST
Related: World, Syria

Al Qaeda in Syria calls for more fighting as deadline nears

BEIRUT/MOSCOW | By Tom Perry and Lidia Kelly


Syria's branch of al Qaeda, one of its most powerful Islamist rebel groups, called for an escalation in fighting against the government and its allies, adding to the dangers facing an agreement to halt fighting set to start on Saturday.

The government and rebel groups have agreed to take part in a U.S.-Russian "cessation of hostilities" accord that is due to begin at midnight (2200 GMT on Friday). Warring parties had been required to accept by noon.

Under the measure, which has not been signed by the Syrian warring parties themselves and is less binding than a formal ceasefire, the government and its enemies are expected to stop shooting so aid can reach civilians and peace talks begin.

The truce does not apply to jihadist groups such as Islamic State and the al Qaeda-linked Nusra Front, and the Damascus government and its Russian allies say they will not halt combat against those militants. Other rebels seen as moderates by the West say they fear this will be used to justify attacks on them.

The Nusra Front on Friday urged insurgent groups to intensify their attacks against President Bashar al-Assad and his allies.

Nusra's leader, Abu Mohamad al-Golani, said in an audio message on Orient News TV that insurgents should "strengthen your resolve and intensify your strikes, and do not let their planes and great numbers (of troops) scare you".

Unlike Islamic State, which controls defined areas of territory in central and eastern Syria, the Nusra Front is widely dispersed in opposition-held areas in the west, and any escalation would add to the risks of the truce collapsing.

Nusra is bigger than nearly all the factions taking part in the cessation, with fighters across western Syria.

As the deadline for the cessation of hostilities approached, heavy air strikes were reported to have hit rebel-held areas near Damascus while fighting raged across much of western Syria.

The Syrian government has agreed to the cessation plan. The main opposition alliance, which has deep reservations, said it would accept it for two weeks but feared the government and its allies would use it to attack opposition factions under the pretext that they were terrorists.

President Vladimir Putin said Russia had received information that all parties expected to take part in the cessation of hostilities had said they were ready to do so, Russian news agencies reported.

Putin stressed that combat actions against Islamic State, the Nusra Front and other groups which the Syrian government regards as terrorists would continue.

"I would like to express the hope that our American partners will also bear this in mind ... and that nobody will forget that there are other terrorist organisations apart from Islamic State," he said in Moscow.


BREATHING SPACE

The United Nations hopes the pause in fighting will provide a breathing space to resume peace talks in Geneva, which collapsed this month before they began.

A Russian Foreign Ministry official said the Geneva talks could resume on March 7. In New York, diplomats said the U.N. Security Council would vote on Friday on a resolution endorsing the planned pause in fighting.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a British-based monitoring organisation, on Friday reported at least 26 air raids and artillery shelling targeting the town of Douma in rebel-held Eastern Ghouta near Damascus.

Rescue workers said five people were killed in Douma. Syrian military officials could not immediately be reached for comment.

Eastern Ghouta is regularly targeted by the Syrian army and its allies. It is a stronghold of the Jaish al-Islam rebel group, which is represented in the main opposition alliance, the High Negotiations Committee. The area has been used as a launch pad for rocket and mortar attacks on Damascus.

The HNC groups political and armed opponents of President Bashar al-Assad, and many groups fighting in northern and southern Syria have authorised it to negotiate on their behalf.

The Observatory also reported artillery bombardment by government forces and air strikes overnight in Hama province, and artillery fire by government forces in Homs province.

Fighting also resumed at dawn between rebels and government forces in the northwestern province of Latakia, where the Syrian army and its allies are trying to take back more territory from insurgents at the border with Turkey.

A spokesman for President Tayyip Erdogan said Turkey has serious worries about the plan to halt violence in Syria because of the continued fighting on the ground.

Turkey's role in the ceasefire has been complicated by its deep distrust of the Washington-backed Syrian Kurdish YPG. Ankara sees the group as a terrorist organisation and has shelled YPG positions in northern Syria in recent weeks in retaliation, it says, for cross-border fire.

Washington has supported the YPG in the fight against Islamic State in Syria.

U.S. President Barack Obama said on Thursday the United States was resolved to try to make the cessation of hostilities deal work but that "there are plenty of reasons for scepticism".


(Additional reporting by John Davison, Denis Dyomkin, Dmitry Solovyov, Jack Stubbs, Tom Miles, Tulay Karadeniz, Humeyra Pamuk, Leila Bassam and Louis Charbonneau; writing by Giles Elgood; editing by Peter Graff)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.voanews.com/content/china-rights-zhang-kai/3209346.html

China Televises Christian Rights Lawyer's ‘Confession’

Joyce Huang
February 26, 2016 10:06 AM

A prominent Christian rights lawyer in China has become the latest to have his “confession” to alleged crimes aired on state television. The confession comes after six months of being held in seclusion, denied access to his lawyers and family, and even before he has been indicted or tried in court.

Last August, Beijing-based attorney Zhang Kai was seized by police on suspicion of “gathering and disturbing social order” and “endangering state security,” after he had provided legal support to Christian churches in Zhejiang province who have been battling a controversial government decision to remove crosses from churches since late 2013.

Zheng appeared on the Wenzhou News Network late Thursday admitting to his alleged crimes, which include instigating church goers to protest the government’s demolition of crosses and accepting funds from China Aid – a U.S. non-profit group promoting religious freedom and rule of law in China - while defending more than 100 churches there.

“I felt remorseful for what I have done. I plead guilty. And I hope that the government can give me a chance to correct my wrongdoings,” Zhang said. He added, “I will repent sincerely, be committed to abiding by national laws and thoroughly break off relations with overseas [forces],” Zheng said.

It isn’t clear if the televised confession was made freely and without coercion.

In the confession, Zhang said that fortune and fame was the true reason why he participated in the fight against the removal of more than 1,200 crosses and some churches in Wenzhou. He urged his legal peers not to follow his bad example.

“I’d like to warn those so-called rights lawyers to not to collude with overseas [forces]. Don’t accept overseas money and don’t engage in any activity that will endanger state security and benefits,” he said.

In the name of religious freedom, foreign forces were meant to smear the human rights record in China and attack the Chinese government, the lawyer said in the video confession.

Confession seen as coerced

Bob Fu, founder and president of China Aid, said it’s clear that Zhang was under coercion.

“This confession is made like (looked like) an ISIS-style confession under tremendous pressure,” Fu said, referring to the Islamic State militant group.

These are typical interrogation strategies employed by Chinese police to manipulate the situation, convict the innocent and even question the authenticity of Zhang’s Christian faith, the right activist added.

Fu said that Zhang was prepared to go to jail in spite of the fact that he could have acquired more fame and fortune from other cases that are not as controversial.

And the courage Zhang has exhibited, he added, will only motivate right activists to stand firmer in their pursuit of true religious freedom in China.

“We will neither be intimidated, nor cease to continue to promote religious freedom and the rule of law to all in China more tirelessly,” Fu said.

Zhang’s lawyer Li Guisheng argued that the police in Wenzhou should have been the ones detained after having deprived Zhang of his legal representation – a clear violation of the nation’s Code of Criminal Procedures.

Li said he and two other lawyers have been repeatedly denied requests to meet with Zhang. Zhang’s family was also not allowed to see him.

“One hundred and eighty days have gone by without anything having been disclosed to us lawyers. Now the police allow reporters to talk to Zhang? This is absolutely ridiculous,” Li said.

“On the basis of what law could the police have granted the interview?,” Li asked.

Both Fu and Li expect Zhang to be released on bail in early March following his televised confession.

Zhang’s parents both declined to talk on Friday, although they had planned to earlier.

U.S.-based activist Zhou Fengsuo, who was one of those helping Zhang’s mother to reach out to the international media, said she has likely been ordered to remain silent.

“His mother has been very supportive of what her son had done and believed he has done the right thing,” Zhou said.

US urges release

The U.S. government and rights groups have long urged the Chinese government to release Zhang without any precondition.

Mervyn Thomas, chief executive of Christian Solidarity Worldwide, said that this alleged confession “is another concerning development in the ongoing crackdown against those who seek to peacefully uphold human rights” in China.

As of last Friday, at least 317 lawyers and activists have been arrested, detained or missing since July of last year.

 

[Housecarl]

Firebombs, paint thrown at police station in Berlin
Started by Millwrightý, Today 05:37 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ombs-paint-thrown-at-police-station-in-Berlin


For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/02/26/germany-says-it-doesnt-know-whereabouts-130000-refugees.html

Refugees

Germany says it doesn't know the whereabouts of 130,000 refugees

Published February 26, 2016
· FoxNews.com
Comments 52

German authorities revealed that they do not know the whereabouts of 130,000 people that entered their country last year, according to a parliament document viewed by AFP on Friday.

Out of the 1.1 million asylum seekers that flowed through German borders in 2015, "about 13 percent did not turn up at the reception centers to which they had been directed," the government said in a written reply to a lawmaker’s question.

https://w.graphiq.com/w/9q2u2RXIFSZ?data-uid=&data-campaign=329b0a9a67

Some of the refugees may have returned to their home countries, have gone on to another country, or went underground, the document said, in addition to the possibility of some repeated registrations of individuals, AFP reports.

A spate of New Year's Eve thefts and assaults on women in the city of Cologne, blamed largely on foreigners, caused public uproar. More than 1,000 criminal complaints were filed, more than 400 of those alleging sexual crimes. Two men were convicted of theft and given suspended sentences Wednesday in the first trials linked to those crimes.

New measures approved by parliament Thursday aim to address the issue of tracking asylum seekers by including plans to issue an identity document upon the arrival of a refugee and store personal data under a common database, an interior ministry spokesman said.

The German government is also moving to make it easier to deport foreign criminals. The changes would mean that even a suspended prison sentence would be grounds for deportation if someone is found guilty of certain crimes -- including bodily harm, sexual assault, violent theft or serial shoplifting.

Click for more from AFP.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/kim-jong-un-bankrolls-nuclear-144819754.html#

How Kim Jong Un bankrolls his nuclear ambitions

CNBC
By Heesun Wee
3 hours ago

The international community is working to rein in North Korea through tightened sanctions after the rogue nation launched a fourth nuclear test in January. But how is leader Kim Jong Un even funding such military activity? Where is the money coming from?

A key source of income is exported commodities, namely minerals. Other sources of cash flow include exported North Korean slave labor to China, and as far away as Europe. Plus, there's a growing financial ecosystem that crosses borders and includes the use of outside commercial banks, as well as front and shell companies. This expanding financial web allows the ruling elite to move money and acquire everything, from luxury goods to weapons of mass destruction components, according to United Nations documents, congressional testimony and research by North Korea experts.

For years, confronting a problem like North Korea has fallen under key talking points — security and denuclearization, financial sanctions and human rights abuses. Now, after the nuclear test and a long-range rocket launch earlier this month, these issues are evolving and overlapping with growing urgency.

Read More Kim Jong Un stokes a world crisis: Can he handle blowback?

"I think the countries of the world have to have a multiple approach to the issue," said Michael Kirby, chairman of the United Nations Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in North Korea. Kirby made the comments last week in Washington.

Kirby, a former justice of the Australian High Court, authored a landmark U.N. report in 2014 that found wide-ranging human rights violations. The report accused the North Korean regime of "crimes against humanity." An estimated 80,000 and 120,000 political prisoners are detained in four political prison camps, akin to modern-day gulags.

"We can't expect North Korea to bargain its way out of the current attraction to nuclear weapons," Kirby told CNBC.com. "We have to continue to prepare for rendering accountable those who defy humanity and defy the institutions of humanity which include the [UN] Security Council, which has adopted very strong resolutions that North Korea has simply ignored."

More recently, North Korea's nuclear program and human rights have come under tighter sanctions.

"In fact, many of the country's human rights abuses underwrite its weapons program including forced labor, through mass mobilizations, political prisoners and overseas labor contracts, and food distribution policies that favor the military and lead to chronic malnourishment among its citizens," said Tom Malinowski, assistant U.S. secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor. Both Malinowski and Kirby made the comments last week at the Center for Strategic & International Studies in Washington.

The Obama administration, meanwhile, believes it must address both Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions and human rights violations that have received more attention since the groundbreaking U.N. investigation. The report by the U.N. commission of inquiry accused the North Korean government of multiple offenses against its citizens, and concluded "the gravity, scale and nature of these violations reveal a state that does not have any parallel in the contemporary world."

And one key nation in the cross hairs of security and human rights is China, by far North Korea's largest financial ally. China has long sought engagement with North Korea. But Pyongyang's recent activity is testing its relationship with Chinese leadership.

China provides North Korea with the "lion's share" of financial access, said Daniel Glaser, assistant U.S. treasury secretary for terrorist financing. He made the comments in January 2015 at a House Foreign Affairs Committee briefing on North Korea's potential cybersecurity threats after the Sony data breach in 2014.

Read More Targeting North Korea's financial allies

On Thursday, the U.S. and China agreed on a draft resolution that would expand U.N. Security Council sanctions against North Korea, diplomats told Reuters.

"I think the Chinese are very frustrated with Kim Jong Un's behavior," Victor Cha, a longtime Korea watcher, told CNBC.com. "They don't want the regime to collapse. Saying they're caught between a rock and a hard place would be underestimating how difficult it is for them," said Cha, senior advisor and Korea chair for CSIS.

The North's economy has actually expanded under Kim — a young ruler who has been in power for roughly four years. And that's mainly due to the influx of Chinese currency.

Most average North Korean citizens rely on large black markets as a key source of food and other staples including rice, beer and school supplies. Some markets are quite large and have become fixtures in the economy. In open markets, people use Chinese yuan for transactions.

"The [North Korean] economy has grown, but that is not a function of reform," said Cha, a Georgetown University professor. "That's largely a function of Chinese money."

The largest driver of the North's economy is commodity exports including iron ore, nickel and rare earth minerals in the northern part of the Korean peninsula.

The category of minerals called rare earth is a misnomer. The chemical elements are available throughout the world, and are key to everyday tech gadgets and growing innovations, such as smartphones, high definition TVs, hybrid cars, missiles — even the extraction of natural gas known as fracking. The North's mineral exports are targeted at nearby Chinese provinces. The size and value of the minerals market are difficult to estimate because the North releases no official data about its economy.

When foreign visitors to the capital Pyongyang return, "they say the city looks pretty good," said Cha. "There are people in the streets, there's food on the shelves. But that's all largely a function of Chinese hard currency that's coming into the country because of these deals that were done on the minerals."

Read More Why China wants North Korea's rare earth minerals

North Korea also exports slave labor to Africa, east and southeast Asia, the Middle East and even Europe. But the vast majority of the workers are employed in China and Russia.

It's believed that forced laborers earn North Korea $1.2 billion to $2.3 billion a year, according to a September 2015 U.N. update on the North's human rights situation. Workers earn on average $120 to $150 a month, while employers pay significantly more to the North Korean government. North Koreans work up to 20 hours daily, with only one or two rest days a month. Daily food rations are insufficient, according to the U.N. update.

According to various studies, an estimated 50,000 workers from the North operate abroad. They are forced to work abroad in mining, logging, textile and construction industries. Host authorities allegedly never monitor the working conditions of overseas workers, according to the U.N. data.

"That is a substantial amount of money that we have reasonable cause to believe goes into bankrolling the North's nuclear and missile programs," Cha told House Foreign Affairs Committee on Jan. 13. "They are sent abroad with the sole rationale of circumventing sanctions and earning the regime currencies it sorely needs."

Another important source of key hard-currency income has since been recently shut down by the South Korean government, the Kaesong industrial complex between the two Koreas. The joint economic complex opened in 2004 with hopes of economic cooperation and reconciliation.

But over the past decade, South Korean companies have invested some $900 million into the complex, said Thomas Byrne, president of the New York-based Korea Society. By comparison, South Korean companies have invested around $6 billion in Vietnam in just the first 10 months of 2015.

The assumption was foreigners would come in and invest in the region. "Backward linkages to the North Korean economy never materialized. The Kaesong industrial complex remained an enclave sealed off from North Korea except for the labor input into production," said Byrne, who previously worked at Moody's Investor Services with a focus on Asia and the Middle East.

And unlike other export processing zones in East Asia, Kaesong workers remained on the assembly line and didn't climb the management ranks. "The South Korean government came to the conclusion that Kaesong would not catalyze genuine economic reform," Byrne said.

Earlier this month, President Barack Obama signed a bill that tightens sanctions on North Korea, with targets including non-Korean companies that do business with the North.

A thread that emerged in a 2014 U.N. Security Council report was the North's ability to conduct business abroad. That includes the use of foreign-based individuals, front and shell companies, and joint ventures involved in legitimate business to mask illicit activities related to sourcing nuclear, ballistic missile and other weapons of mass destruction.

It appears even leader Kim — a basketball-loving leader of 25 million people — is no man on an island without connections or a vast network.

While North Korea has been under sanctions for years, the recent U.S. legislation is more pointed. It mandates frozen assets and travel bans on those engaged in trade or financial transactions that support the North's nuclear weapons program, human rights abuses and cyberthreats.

"Once you start talking about accountability and human rights, and tying it to the money they make off of human rights abuses, it leads to a much broader set of sanctions — mostly financial that penetrate the regime," said Cha.

The new sanctions are also mandatory if there's justifiable cause. Congress in the past had given the White House discretion in its actions.

Beyond sanctions and other diplomatic efforts, cracking the North Korea problem likely includes unlocking the regime's monopoly on information.

Change in North Korea is incremental. Many adults who grew up and lived predominantly under Kim's father and grandfather have little or no knowledge of the outside world. But even that's changing, especially for the younger generation.

Comparable to the way Soviet dissidents hand copied banned books for distribution during the Cold War, North Korean activists and nonprofits help smuggle technology, largely from China, into the North, where the goods can be bought in black markets or just discreetly passed among friends and family. A single memory card can stores dozens of books.

Recent defector surveys indicate that before leaving the North, more than 92 percent of surveyed participants had watched a foreign DVD, more than 70 percent had access to a mobile phone, and nearly 30 percent had listened to a foreign radio broadcast, according to the State Department's Malinowski.

"I have a feeling," Malinowski said, "that there are people within the North Korean leadership who recognize that the future of their regime is uncertain, that one day the peninsula may look very different."


Read More How millennials are shaking North Korea's regime

 

[vestige]

HC, do you think we have long, before the missiles fly?

OA

It is really touch and go in the minds of lottsa people:

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-ne...ited-states-will-start-world-war-iii_02262016

America Will Force Russia’s Hand: The United States Will Start World War III: “Imminent”
Jeremiah Johnson
February 26th, 2016


As these words are being written, the U.S. and its NATO allies continue to posture themselves in Europe and in the Middle East prior to the “big one” being kicked off. As mentioned in previous reports and articles, the flash points are becoming much more defined: The Senkaku Islands, the Donbass Region of Ukraine, Syria, and the Korean Peninsula. While the world watches, each side in these potential hot spots continues to build their forces in the regions and make preparations for conflict. When we examine responses for those preparations, it is obvious that war is imminent.


The United States has been posturing troops in the former SSR nations on Russia’s Western border. Supplies of tanks, artillery pieces, aircraft, ammunition, and American troops continue to pour into Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Poland, among others. The posturing amounts to a regeneration of NATO/USSR Cold War lines with one major difference: with the SSR’s no longer in existence, the NATO lines are that much closer now to Russia. Before those Soviet satellite nations provided a physical buffer, but those former buffers are now nations that openly host NATO and U.S. troops.


While claiming to have a ceasefire, the U.S. turns a blind eye to the fact that Russia is still pounding away at the “rebels,” as Newspeak terms them. They’re really insurgents, trying to topple an established government that will not knuckle under to the likes of the Nulands and McCains as Ukraine did. Furthermore, the Russians are backing Assad with no plans of pulling out of his corner.


Turkey is another matter, and Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan has been pushing the envelope with deployments of troops to the Syrian border and incursions that mimic “Fabian” tactics – small-scale, limited engagements comprised of small unit skirmishes and then a quick retreat back to the safety of the Turkish border. Still, Turkey is amassing sizable numbers of men and large quantities of materials and it doesn’t take much cognition to deduce that Turkey is preparing to invade. Recently President Vladimir Putin declared his willingness to use tactical nuclear weapons if faced with a Turkish and/or Saudi invasion of Syria.


Ladies and gentlemen, this is serious, as Russia proved with the Crimea in 2014. Crimea is decried by the West as conquest and occupation, but this is not accurate: moreover, it’s a lie. The U.S. attempted to institute a coup d’état by deposing the rightfully elected leader of Ukraine and inserting Yatsenuk. They wanted to cut of Sevastopol, Russia’s strategic naval base that enables the Black Sea Fleet to enter the Mediterranean. The West also paints a picture of imposed servitude over the populace, while “neglecting” to mention that almost 90% of Crimea are Russians ethnically, speaking Russian as their first language.
Russia didn’t play softball. They won’t be playing wiffleball, either, when things kick off in Syria. This is not to say there aren’t economic influences that prompt Russia to act; however, they are secondary to the aggressive and imperialistic actions taken by the phony coalition of NATO at the behest of the IMF and the Military-Industrial Complex.


Forbes recently posted a piece by Adam Ereli entitled “Putin’s Newest Satellite State,” in which the following is written:

“…Russia quietly signed a sweeping air defense agreement with Armenia, accelerating a growing Russian military buildup that has unfolded largely under the radar. It was the most tangible sign yet that Putin is creating a new satellite state on NATO’s border and threatening an indispensable U.S. ally [Turkey].”
Now Mr. Ereli is listed as a former deputy spokesman of the State Department, and his carefully-chosen words act as if Russia is the aggressor against Turkey. He also wrote:

“…as Russia’s war in Syria and pressure on Turkey has intensified…The growing Russian military presence in Armenia is but the latest indicator of a worrisome trend: Putin’s threat to NATO and America’s interests in Europe.”
Last check, Mr. Ereli, it was Turkey that shot down Russian aircraft and helicopters. Not to mention the fact that with all of these NATO exercises and additional troop deployments, what is Russia supposed to do? Not defend its interests?


Ereli finishes off his piece with this:

“In July 2015, Turkey and the U.S. finalized an agreement to work cooperatively to combat Islamic State terrorists in Syria and Iraq.”

Perhaps Ereli is referring to the terrorists that the U.S. created, trained, and funded that have been wreaking havoc throughout the Middle East, now, since the Arab Spring began. To address the more infuriating issue, the “unfolded largely under the radar” statement, there is nothing that is happening or has happened that is anything other than deliberate and purposeful.

Under the radar, such as TARS being removed from the Gulf Coast and Southern Border of the U.S. Under the radar: the mothballing of planned Air Defense installations in Czechoslovakia and other Eastern European nations. Under the radar, such as when Obama told Medvedev to tell Putin how he (Obama) would “have more leeway [with U.S. ICBM’s] after the election,” a statement as treasonous as they come. Under the radar for the removal of the SR-71, the Tomahawk Cruise Missile, and the A-10 Tank Killer. Under the radar for the cashiering of General Officers and Senior Noncommissioned Officers (the word “cashiering” being readily substitutable for the word “purging,” a more applicable and accurate term) from the U.S. military command structure.

The RAND Corporation recently released a study that concluded that Russian forces could overrun the Baltics in under 72 hours. (bold by vestige) War games were run by RAND for several months in 2014-2015 and the studies concluded that the NATO forces were so ill-equipped and understrength that a loss would be inevitable. An article published this month chronicles the gist of the RAND study, entitled If Russia Started a War in the Baltics, NATO Would Lose — Quickly, by Dan De Luce,