If Kim were a woman, we'd be asking "When's the baby due"?
True.
It's entertaining to make fun of this little fat b*st*rd:
and I don't think he would last long in an all out exchange...
but I think his first punch might hurt a bit.
WAR 03-05-2016-to-03-11-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
True.
It's entertaining to make fun of this little fat b*st*rd:
and I don't think he would last long in an all out exchange...
but I think his first punch might hurt a bit.
Pod cast from Arms Control Wonk on Kim's "tour" and the stuff paraded out for all of us to see.....
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1201219/kim-jong-uns-bomb/
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1201219/kim-jong-uns-bomb/
Pod cast.... http://traffic.libsyn.com/armscontrolwonk/ACW_10_Mar_16.mp3
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/03/iran-ballistic-missiles-syria-israel-hebrew.html#
IRGC commander: We are not pulling troops from Syria
Russia’s entrance into the Syrian civil war in September began a large-scale offensive coordinated among Russia, the Syrian army, Hezbollah and Iranian forces against armed organizations opposed to the government of President Bashar al-Assad. The number of Iranian casualties has since dramatically increased, and Western media have speculated about how long Tehran would continue to send what it calls “advisers” to the frontlines.
Arash Karami
March 9, 2016
At a March 9 press conference, Amir Ali Haji-Zadeh, commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Aerospace Force, rejected all notions about troop withdrawals. Haji-Zadeh said, “We are with the people of Syria, but the rate of our help to the government and people of Syria is based on the request of the government of Bashar al-Assad.” He added that there has been no suspension in deploying troops to Syria.
Haji-Zadeh called the press conference to discuss the IRGC’s highly publicized testing of ballistic missiles that day. According to Haji-Zadeh, the missiles were launched from the Alborz Mountains, in the north, and traveled approximately 1,400 kilometers (870 miles) to the southeast of the country. Haji-Zadeh, IRGC commander Mohammad Ali Jaffari and deputy IRGC commander Hossein Salami were present at the launches, the second such tests in two days.
US officials have said they plan to respond to the missile tests. It is possible they will apply sanctions against individuals or companies working on Iran's ballistic missiles. UN Security Council Resolution 1929 (2010) prohibits Iran from activities involving ballistic missile technology.
Based on Haji-Zadeh’s comments at the press conference, the IRGC is already expecting a US reaction. “However much the enemy increases pressure and sanctions, the response of the IRGC will be increased,” he said. “After the nuclear deal, the enemy has targeted Iran’s national security, and the sanctions are meant to weaken Iran.”
The launches were Iran’s first ballistic missile tests since the Jan. 16 “implementation day” for the nuclear deal. The Fars News Agency wrote that the tests “were a clear answer” to actions taken to counter Iran’s defensive capabilities. One day after implementation day, the United States sanctioned 11 people and companies affiliated with Iran’s ballistic missile program.
When asked if ballistic missiles were being developed with Israel in mind, Haji-Zadeh said, “The Zionist regime is at the end of the line, and its life will not be long.” He added, however, “I believe that to get rid of the Zionist regime, missiles are not necessary, and over time, they will collapse and fall.” The notation “Israel will be wiped from the pages of time” was written in Hebrew on the missiles.
Haji-Zadeh stressed that Iran would not start a war, but that its leaders take its enemies seriously. He said, “[The] evils of the Zionist regime are clear for everyone, [and] the reason for designs of missiles with a 2,000-kilometer range is because of [Israel].” He also asserted, however, “Our primary enemy is America.”
The press conference was not without some of the partisan mockery that perhaps exemplifies the two competing political directions in the country. Before the launch, reporters and commanders posed in front of a missile. One IRGC commander reportedly said, “Some take pictures with a French Airbus, but we take pictures with Iranian domestic products that are a source of Iranian pride and dignity.”
The comment was in reference to a photo that went viral showing a group of Iranians posing in front of an Airbus at the Mehrabad airport. With the lifting of sanctions as a result of the efforts of President Hassan Rouhani's administration, Iran is scheduled to buy more than 100 Airbus passenger planes. Some have criticized the individuals for taking part in the picture, accusing them of acting as if it were the first automobile to arrive in the country.
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/03/iran-ballistic-missiles-syria-israel-hebrew.html#
IRGC commander: We are not pulling troops from Syria
Russia’s entrance into the Syrian civil war in September began a large-scale offensive coordinated among Russia, the Syrian army, Hezbollah and Iranian forces against armed organizations opposed to the government of President Bashar al-Assad. The number of Iranian casualties has since dramatically increased, and Western media have speculated about how long Tehran would continue to send what it calls “advisers” to the frontlines.
Arash Karami
March 9, 2016
At a March 9 press conference, Amir Ali Haji-Zadeh, commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Aerospace Force, rejected all notions about troop withdrawals. Haji-Zadeh said, “We are with the people of Syria, but the rate of our help to the government and people of Syria is based on the request of the government of Bashar al-Assad.” He added that there has been no suspension in deploying troops to Syria.
Haji-Zadeh called the press conference to discuss the IRGC’s highly publicized testing of ballistic missiles that day. According to Haji-Zadeh, the missiles were launched from the Alborz Mountains, in the north, and traveled approximately 1,400 kilometers (870 miles) to the southeast of the country. Haji-Zadeh, IRGC commander Mohammad Ali Jaffari and deputy IRGC commander Hossein Salami were present at the launches, the second such tests in two days.
US officials have said they plan to respond to the missile tests. It is possible they will apply sanctions against individuals or companies working on Iran's ballistic missiles. UN Security Council Resolution 1929 (2010) prohibits Iran from activities involving ballistic missile technology.
Based on Haji-Zadeh’s comments at the press conference, the IRGC is already expecting a US reaction. “However much the enemy increases pressure and sanctions, the response of the IRGC will be increased,” he said. “After the nuclear deal, the enemy has targeted Iran’s national security, and the sanctions are meant to weaken Iran.”
The launches were Iran’s first ballistic missile tests since the Jan. 16 “implementation day” for the nuclear deal. The Fars News Agency wrote that the tests “were a clear answer” to actions taken to counter Iran’s defensive capabilities. One day after implementation day, the United States sanctioned 11 people and companies affiliated with Iran’s ballistic missile program.
When asked if ballistic missiles were being developed with Israel in mind, Haji-Zadeh said, “The Zionist regime is at the end of the line, and its life will not be long.” He added, however, “I believe that to get rid of the Zionist regime, missiles are not necessary, and over time, they will collapse and fall.” The notation “Israel will be wiped from the pages of time” was written in Hebrew on the missiles.
Haji-Zadeh stressed that Iran would not start a war, but that its leaders take its enemies seriously. He said, “[The] evils of the Zionist regime are clear for everyone, [and] the reason for designs of missiles with a 2,000-kilometer range is because of [Israel].” He also asserted, however, “Our primary enemy is America.”
The press conference was not without some of the partisan mockery that perhaps exemplifies the two competing political directions in the country. Before the launch, reporters and commanders posed in front of a missile. One IRGC commander reportedly said, “Some take pictures with a French Airbus, but we take pictures with Iranian domestic products that are a source of Iranian pride and dignity.”
The comment was in reference to a photo that went viral showing a group of Iranians posing in front of an Airbus at the Mehrabad airport. With the lifting of sanctions as a result of the efforts of President Hassan Rouhani's administration, Iran is scheduled to buy more than 100 Airbus passenger planes. Some have criticized the individuals for taking part in the picture, accusing them of acting as if it were the first automobile to arrive in the country.
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/experts-islamic-state-group-expanding-libya-37568123
UN Experts Says Islamic State Group Is Expanding in Libya
By Edith M. Lederer, Associated Press
UNITED NATIONS — Mar 11, 2016, 12:13 AM ET
The political and security vacuum in Libya is being exploited by the Islamic State extremist group which has "significantly expanded" the territory it controls in the conflict-torn north African nation, U.N. experts said in a report circulated Thursday.
The experts monitoring U.N. sanctions against Libya said the militant group has successfully recruited marginalized communities in the central city of Sirte, which it controls. It has also increased its operational capacity in the city of Sabratha and the capital Tripoli through local recruitment reinforced by foreign fighters, the experts said.
"While ISIL does not currently generate direct revenue from the exploitation of oil in Libya, its attacks against oil installations seriously compromise the country's economic stability," the six-member panel said in the report. "Libyans have increasingly fallen victim to the terrorist group's brutalities, culminating in several mass killings."
Libya has effectively been a failed state since the 2011 ouster and death of longtime dictator Moammar Gadhafi, which led to the country's military collapse and fragmentation by powerful militias.
Since 2014, an internationally recognized government has convened in the far east of the vast, oil-rich country while a rival Islamist government is based in Tripoli. The United Nations has been trying to help forge a unity government to revive services to millions of people and confront IS extremists.
According to the experts, Libya has become increasingly attractive to foreign fighters and their presence in the south "is symptomatic of the regional dimension of the conflict." It added that countries in the region have been providing political support — and possibly more — to various groups, further fueling the continuation of fighting.
The experts said in the report to the U.N. Security Council that all parties in the conflict are continuing to receive illicit arms transfers, some with support from U.N. member countries.
These weapons are not only influencing the instability but are having "a negative impact on the security situation in Libya and its political transition," the report said.
The experts called for the arms embargo — which allows the government to seek exemptions — to remain in place and be enforced.
As for the financing of Libyan armed groups, the report said, "government salaries are continuing to be paid to enlisted combatants, regardless of their human rights record or their ties with spoilers or terrorist groups."
The experts said armed groups and criminal networks in Libya have further diversified their sources of financing, including through kidnapping and smuggling migrants, oil products, subsidized goods and profits from foreign currency exchange schemes.
As for other sanctions, the report said asset freezes and travel bans on individuals from the Gadhafi regime continue to be broken, with large amounts of assets remaining hidden and unfrozen and travel bans repeatedly violated.
Posted for fair use.....
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/experts-islamic-state-group-expanding-libya-37568123
UN Experts Says Islamic State Group Is Expanding in Libya
By Edith M. Lederer, Associated Press
UNITED NATIONS — Mar 11, 2016, 12:13 AM ET
The political and security vacuum in Libya is being exploited by the Islamic State extremist group which has "significantly expanded" the territory it controls in the conflict-torn north African nation, U.N. experts said in a report circulated Thursday.
The experts monitoring U.N. sanctions against Libya said the militant group has successfully recruited marginalized communities in the central city of Sirte, which it controls. It has also increased its operational capacity in the city of Sabratha and the capital Tripoli through local recruitment reinforced by foreign fighters, the experts said.
"While ISIL does not currently generate direct revenue from the exploitation of oil in Libya, its attacks against oil installations seriously compromise the country's economic stability," the six-member panel said in the report. "Libyans have increasingly fallen victim to the terrorist group's brutalities, culminating in several mass killings."
Libya has effectively been a failed state since the 2011 ouster and death of longtime dictator Moammar Gadhafi, which led to the country's military collapse and fragmentation by powerful militias.
Since 2014, an internationally recognized government has convened in the far east of the vast, oil-rich country while a rival Islamist government is based in Tripoli. The United Nations has been trying to help forge a unity government to revive services to millions of people and confront IS extremists.
According to the experts, Libya has become increasingly attractive to foreign fighters and their presence in the south "is symptomatic of the regional dimension of the conflict." It added that countries in the region have been providing political support — and possibly more — to various groups, further fueling the continuation of fighting.
The experts said in the report to the U.N. Security Council that all parties in the conflict are continuing to receive illicit arms transfers, some with support from U.N. member countries.
These weapons are not only influencing the instability but are having "a negative impact on the security situation in Libya and its political transition," the report said.
The experts called for the arms embargo — which allows the government to seek exemptions — to remain in place and be enforced.
As for the financing of Libyan armed groups, the report said, "government salaries are continuing to be paid to enlisted combatants, regardless of their human rights record or their ties with spoilers or terrorist groups."
The experts said armed groups and criminal networks in Libya have further diversified their sources of financing, including through kidnapping and smuggling migrants, oil products, subsidized goods and profits from foreign currency exchange schemes.
As for other sanctions, the report said asset freezes and travel bans on individuals from the Gadhafi regime continue to be broken, with large amounts of assets remaining hidden and unfrozen and travel bans repeatedly violated.
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.voanews.com/content/tali...stan-helmand-province-us-general/3230261.html
US General: Major Taliban Split Emerging in Afghanistan's Helmand Province
Carla Babb
March 10, 2016 7:40 PM
PENTAGON— The Taliban is fracturing in Afghanistan's Helmand province, a known Taliban stronghold, a U.S. general in Kabul said Thursday.
General Wilson Shoffner told reporters via telephone that the U.S. is seeing an "emergence of three separate Taliban groups" in northern Helmand, and that all three factions are largely not loyal to Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Mansour.
The splintering over the last few months "may provide opportunities for reconciliation" with the Afghan government, Shoffner said, or it may provide a chance for Islamic State-Khorasan fighters to try to infiltrate the different Taliban groups.
"That is a potential outcome, [but] we're seeing that primarily more in the east than we are in Helmand," the general said.
Islamic State has designated Afghanistan, Pakistan and parts of Iran as its so-called "Khorasan" province.
The U.S. continues to watch the different Taliban groups in Helmand "closely."
"It will be very interesting to see where the revenue goes amongst those three groups and where their loyalties lie," the general said.
A recent spike in fighting is expected to decrease later this month because of the start of the poppy harvesting season. The U.S. military estimates that more than half of the Taliban's income comes from poppies, which produce the highly addictive opium narcotic.
IS weakening in Afghanistan
Islamic State-Khorasan attempted to recruit and spread propaganda in Helmand in 2015, but the Taliban successfully stopped most of those attempts, according to Shoffner.
The group is contained in one district in eastern Afghanistan's Nangarhar province. Last month, Islamic State-Khorasan was in four or five districts in the province.
Nangarhar province is on the border with Pakistan, and many pledging allegiance to Islamic State-Khorasan are former members of the Pakistani Taliban, or TTP.
Shoffner estimated that current numbers of Islamic State fighters in Afghanistan are "probably on the lower end" of between 1,000 and 3,000.
Reasons for the decrease include a "substantially increased" number of U.S. airstrikes against the group and conflicts with the Taliban over revenue streams and ideology.
The White House gave the U.S. military legal authority to target Islamic State in Afghanistan in January.
Shoffner added that the group's brutal tactics have "backfired on them" and are seen as extremely unpopular with citizens in Nangarhar.
Related Articles
Afghan Taliban Stages Assault in Helmand
Afghan Taliban Urged to Join Peace Talks Without Conditions
US Appeals to Taliban to Join Talks, Warns of Increased Violence
Taliban Militants Cast Doubt on Peace Talks
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.voanews.com/content/tali...stan-helmand-province-us-general/3230261.html
US General: Major Taliban Split Emerging in Afghanistan's Helmand Province
Carla Babb
March 10, 2016 7:40 PM
PENTAGON— The Taliban is fracturing in Afghanistan's Helmand province, a known Taliban stronghold, a U.S. general in Kabul said Thursday.
General Wilson Shoffner told reporters via telephone that the U.S. is seeing an "emergence of three separate Taliban groups" in northern Helmand, and that all three factions are largely not loyal to Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Mansour.
The splintering over the last few months "may provide opportunities for reconciliation" with the Afghan government, Shoffner said, or it may provide a chance for Islamic State-Khorasan fighters to try to infiltrate the different Taliban groups.
"That is a potential outcome, [but] we're seeing that primarily more in the east than we are in Helmand," the general said.
Islamic State has designated Afghanistan, Pakistan and parts of Iran as its so-called "Khorasan" province.
The U.S. continues to watch the different Taliban groups in Helmand "closely."
"It will be very interesting to see where the revenue goes amongst those three groups and where their loyalties lie," the general said.
A recent spike in fighting is expected to decrease later this month because of the start of the poppy harvesting season. The U.S. military estimates that more than half of the Taliban's income comes from poppies, which produce the highly addictive opium narcotic.
IS weakening in Afghanistan
Islamic State-Khorasan attempted to recruit and spread propaganda in Helmand in 2015, but the Taliban successfully stopped most of those attempts, according to Shoffner.
The group is contained in one district in eastern Afghanistan's Nangarhar province. Last month, Islamic State-Khorasan was in four or five districts in the province.
Nangarhar province is on the border with Pakistan, and many pledging allegiance to Islamic State-Khorasan are former members of the Pakistani Taliban, or TTP.
Shoffner estimated that current numbers of Islamic State fighters in Afghanistan are "probably on the lower end" of between 1,000 and 3,000.
Reasons for the decrease include a "substantially increased" number of U.S. airstrikes against the group and conflicts with the Taliban over revenue streams and ideology.
The White House gave the U.S. military legal authority to target Islamic State in Afghanistan in January.
Shoffner added that the group's brutal tactics have "backfired on them" and are seen as extremely unpopular with citizens in Nangarhar.
Related Articles
Afghan Taliban Stages Assault in Helmand
Afghan Taliban Urged to Join Peace Talks Without Conditions
US Appeals to Taliban to Join Talks, Warns of Increased Violence
Taliban Militants Cast Doubt on Peace Talks
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/10/chin...fensive-power-from-spratlys-in-months-us.html
Defense
China able to project 'substantial offensive power' from Spratlys in months: US
3 Hours Ago
Reuters
China will be able to project "substantial offensive military power" from artificial islands it has built in the South China Sea's disputed Spratly Islands within months, the director of U.S. national intelligence said.
In a Feb. 23 letter to John McCain, chair of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee, James Clapper said Chinese land reclamation and construction work in the Spratlys had established infrastructure needed "to project military capabilities in the South China Sea beyond that which is required for point defense of its outposts."
"Based on the pace and scope of construction at these outposts, China will be able to deploy a range of offensive and defensive military capabilities and support increased PLAN and CCG presence beginning in 2016," Clapper said in the letter released this week, using acronyms for the Chinese navy and coastguard.
"Once these facilities are completed by the end of 2016 or early 2017, China will have significant capacity to quickly project substantial offensive military power to the region," Clapper added.
The United States has voiced concerns about China's assertive pursuit of territory in the South China Sea. The sea is one of the world's busiest trade routes and regional countries have rival claims, creating a potential flashpoint.
Visiting Washington in September, Chinese President Xi Jinping responded to U.S. worries by saying that China had no intention to militarize its outposts in the Spratlys.
Beijing has said their military roles will be defensive, but the head of the U.S. Pacific Command said last month China was "clearly militarizing" the South China Sea with the aim of achieving East Asian hegemony.
The text of Clapper's letter in response to questions from McCain was published on the news portal of the U.S. Naval Institute. U.S. officials confirmed the content.
Clapper said that while the United States had yet to observe deployment of significant Chinese military capabilities in the Spratlys, it had built facilities able to support them, including modern fighter aircraft.
China had already installed military radars at Cuarteron and Fiery Cross Reefs, and the infrastructure could also allow for the deployment surface-to-air missiles, coastal defense cruise missiles and an increased presence of warships, he said.
The United States had not seen Chinese air force activity in the Spratlys, but warships had stopped at its outposts including a guided-missile frigate and a guided-missile destroyer in December and January, Clapper said.
He said tank-landing ships had been employed widely in construction work and the landing of civil aircraft at Fiery Cross Reef in January showed the airstrip there was operational and able to accommodate all Chinese military aircraft.
Clapper said China continued its land reclamation in the Spratlys after Aug. 5, when its foreign minister claimed that it had been halted.
While there was no evidence that China has plans for any significant additional land reclamation in the Spratlys, Clapper said there was sufficient reef area in the Spratlys for it to reclaim more than 1,000 additional acres (400 hectares).
The Pentagon has said that Beijing has sought to bolster its claim to nearly all of the South China Sea with island building projects in the Spratlys that have reclaimed more than 2,900 acres (1,170 hectares) of land since 2013.
MORE FROM CNBC
North Korea claims to have miniaturized nuclear warheads
The rush to invest in this booming $400B market
Calls grow for Fed to hike rates in ... March?
Greece in two simultaneous crises: Opposition leader
Oil slump teaches Draghi a tough lesson
Myanmar's to-be puppet president clouds reform path
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/10/chin...fensive-power-from-spratlys-in-months-us.html
Defense
China able to project 'substantial offensive power' from Spratlys in months: US
3 Hours Ago
Reuters
China will be able to project "substantial offensive military power" from artificial islands it has built in the South China Sea's disputed Spratly Islands within months, the director of U.S. national intelligence said.
In a Feb. 23 letter to John McCain, chair of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee, James Clapper said Chinese land reclamation and construction work in the Spratlys had established infrastructure needed "to project military capabilities in the South China Sea beyond that which is required for point defense of its outposts."
"Based on the pace and scope of construction at these outposts, China will be able to deploy a range of offensive and defensive military capabilities and support increased PLAN and CCG presence beginning in 2016," Clapper said in the letter released this week, using acronyms for the Chinese navy and coastguard.
"Once these facilities are completed by the end of 2016 or early 2017, China will have significant capacity to quickly project substantial offensive military power to the region," Clapper added.
The United States has voiced concerns about China's assertive pursuit of territory in the South China Sea. The sea is one of the world's busiest trade routes and regional countries have rival claims, creating a potential flashpoint.
Visiting Washington in September, Chinese President Xi Jinping responded to U.S. worries by saying that China had no intention to militarize its outposts in the Spratlys.
Beijing has said their military roles will be defensive, but the head of the U.S. Pacific Command said last month China was "clearly militarizing" the South China Sea with the aim of achieving East Asian hegemony.
The text of Clapper's letter in response to questions from McCain was published on the news portal of the U.S. Naval Institute. U.S. officials confirmed the content.
Clapper said that while the United States had yet to observe deployment of significant Chinese military capabilities in the Spratlys, it had built facilities able to support them, including modern fighter aircraft.
China had already installed military radars at Cuarteron and Fiery Cross Reefs, and the infrastructure could also allow for the deployment surface-to-air missiles, coastal defense cruise missiles and an increased presence of warships, he said.
The United States had not seen Chinese air force activity in the Spratlys, but warships had stopped at its outposts including a guided-missile frigate and a guided-missile destroyer in December and January, Clapper said.
He said tank-landing ships had been employed widely in construction work and the landing of civil aircraft at Fiery Cross Reef in January showed the airstrip there was operational and able to accommodate all Chinese military aircraft.
Clapper said China continued its land reclamation in the Spratlys after Aug. 5, when its foreign minister claimed that it had been halted.
While there was no evidence that China has plans for any significant additional land reclamation in the Spratlys, Clapper said there was sufficient reef area in the Spratlys for it to reclaim more than 1,000 additional acres (400 hectares).
The Pentagon has said that Beijing has sought to bolster its claim to nearly all of the South China Sea with island building projects in the Spratlys that have reclaimed more than 2,900 acres (1,170 hectares) of land since 2013.
MORE FROM CNBC
North Korea claims to have miniaturized nuclear warheads
The rush to invest in this booming $400B market
Calls grow for Fed to hike rates in ... March?
Greece in two simultaneous crises: Opposition leader
Oil slump teaches Draghi a tough lesson
Myanmar's to-be puppet president clouds reform path
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.voanews.com/content/form...rea-could-sell-nuclear-materials/3230310.html
Former Intelligence Chief: N. Korea Could Sell Nuclear Materials
Eunjung Cho
March 10, 2016 10:22 PM
WASHINGTON—While North Korea’s recent claim that it has miniaturized nuclear warheads drew skepticism in the United States, there is growing concern in Washington that Pyongyang could transfer nuclear technology or materials to other countries.
Analysts say there may be mixed assessments of how advanced Pyongyang’s nuclear program is, but there appears to be little doubt that the country is expanding its nuclear stockpile. Nuclear experts at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies estimate that North Korea currently has between 10 and 16 nuclear weapons and it could possess as many as 100 weapons by 2020.
Leon Panetta, a former CIA director and former U.S. defense secretary, said Pyongyang’s nuclear transfer is a “very real concern.”
“What happened with a nuclear reactor that was built in Syria was largely done through technology from North Korea,” Panetta told VOA this week, referring to a secret nuclear reactor in Syria bombed by Israel in 2007.
Proliferation concern
Former Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair warned Pyongyang could be more tempted to sell its nuclear materials or technology to earn cash amid increased sanctions. Last week, the U.N. Security Council adopted a new resolution expanding sanctions against North Korea in response to Pyongyang’s recent nuclear test and long-range missile launch.
“I think they have more motivation now to increase their supply of hard currency any way they can, and the sale of nuclear materials, precursor materials or parts of weapons is certainly a possibility that has occurred to them,” Blair told VOA Thursday.
Given the danger such an attempt could pose, Pyongyang will face “military consequences” if it tried to sell nuclear materials, the retired Navy admiral said.
In an apparent response to the sanctions, Pyongyang has ramped up nuclear rhetoric. North Korean leader Kim Jong Un said his country has nuclear warheads to mount on ballistic missiles, according to the North’s state media on Wednesday.
“The nuclear warheads have been standardized to be fit for ballistic missiles by miniaturizing them,” the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) quoted Kim as saying.
State media repeatedly made that claim, but Kim’s comments marked his first mention of the claim.
Blair said it is uncertain if Pyongyang has such a capability, adding “it’s a logical next step” in the country’s nuclear development program.
Nuclear ICBM
U.S. military analysts say Washington’s primary concern is whether Pyongyang has the capability to fire an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) that could reach the U.S. mainland.
Admiral William Gortney, commander of the U.S. Northern Command, told a Senate committee Thursday it was “prudent” to assume Pyongyang had the ability to miniaturize a nuclear warhead and mount it on an ICBM that could reach the U.S.
U.S. officials say Pyongyang has not demonstrated the capability.
Blair said there is little chance that North Korea will use a nuclear weapon against the U.S. or its allies, even if Pyongyang had such a capability.
“The retaliation would devastate North Korea and it would be end of this regime,” he said.
On Friday, KCNA said Kim ordered his country to conduct more nuclear tests.
Brent Choi contributed to this report, which was produced in collaboration with VOA Korean Service.
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.voanews.com/content/form...rea-could-sell-nuclear-materials/3230310.html
Former Intelligence Chief: N. Korea Could Sell Nuclear Materials
Eunjung Cho
March 10, 2016 10:22 PM
WASHINGTON—While North Korea’s recent claim that it has miniaturized nuclear warheads drew skepticism in the United States, there is growing concern in Washington that Pyongyang could transfer nuclear technology or materials to other countries.
Analysts say there may be mixed assessments of how advanced Pyongyang’s nuclear program is, but there appears to be little doubt that the country is expanding its nuclear stockpile. Nuclear experts at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies estimate that North Korea currently has between 10 and 16 nuclear weapons and it could possess as many as 100 weapons by 2020.
Leon Panetta, a former CIA director and former U.S. defense secretary, said Pyongyang’s nuclear transfer is a “very real concern.”
“What happened with a nuclear reactor that was built in Syria was largely done through technology from North Korea,” Panetta told VOA this week, referring to a secret nuclear reactor in Syria bombed by Israel in 2007.
Proliferation concern
Former Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair warned Pyongyang could be more tempted to sell its nuclear materials or technology to earn cash amid increased sanctions. Last week, the U.N. Security Council adopted a new resolution expanding sanctions against North Korea in response to Pyongyang’s recent nuclear test and long-range missile launch.
“I think they have more motivation now to increase their supply of hard currency any way they can, and the sale of nuclear materials, precursor materials or parts of weapons is certainly a possibility that has occurred to them,” Blair told VOA Thursday.
Given the danger such an attempt could pose, Pyongyang will face “military consequences” if it tried to sell nuclear materials, the retired Navy admiral said.
In an apparent response to the sanctions, Pyongyang has ramped up nuclear rhetoric. North Korean leader Kim Jong Un said his country has nuclear warheads to mount on ballistic missiles, according to the North’s state media on Wednesday.
“The nuclear warheads have been standardized to be fit for ballistic missiles by miniaturizing them,” the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) quoted Kim as saying.
State media repeatedly made that claim, but Kim’s comments marked his first mention of the claim.
Blair said it is uncertain if Pyongyang has such a capability, adding “it’s a logical next step” in the country’s nuclear development program.
Nuclear ICBM
U.S. military analysts say Washington’s primary concern is whether Pyongyang has the capability to fire an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) that could reach the U.S. mainland.
Admiral William Gortney, commander of the U.S. Northern Command, told a Senate committee Thursday it was “prudent” to assume Pyongyang had the ability to miniaturize a nuclear warhead and mount it on an ICBM that could reach the U.S.
U.S. officials say Pyongyang has not demonstrated the capability.
Blair said there is little chance that North Korea will use a nuclear weapon against the U.S. or its allies, even if Pyongyang had such a capability.
“The retaliation would devastate North Korea and it would be end of this regime,” he said.
On Friday, KCNA said Kim ordered his country to conduct more nuclear tests.
Brent Choi contributed to this report, which was produced in collaboration with VOA Korean Service.
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-nuclear-idUSKCN0WC2YQ
Business | Thu Mar 10, 2016 11:38pm EST
Related: World, North Korea, Aerospace & Defense
North Korean leader Kim orders more nuclear tests: KCNA
SEOUL | By Jack Kim
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un watched a ballistic missile launch test and ordered the country to improve its nuclear attack capability by conducting more tests, the official KCNA news agency reported on Friday.
The report did not say when the test took place but it was likely referring to North Korea's launch of two short-range missiles on Thursday that flew 500 km (300 miles) and splashed into the sea.
"Dear comrade Kim Jong Un said work ... must be strengthened to improve nuclear attack capability and issued combat tasks to continue nuclear explosion tests to assess the power of newly developed nuclear warheads and tests to improve nuclear attack capability," KCNA said.
The North Korean leader was quoted in state media earlier in the week as saying his country had miniaturized nuclear warheads to mount on ballistic missiles.
Tensions have risen sharply on the Korean peninsula after the North conducted its fourth nuclear test in January and fired a long-range rocket last month leading to the U.N. Security Council to adopt a new sanctions resolution.
Conducting more nuclear tests would be in clear violation of U.N. sanctions which also ban ballistic missile tests, although Pyongyang has rejected them. North Korea has a large stockpile of short-range missiles and is developing long-range and intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).
Related Coverage
› North Korean nuclear test shook the earth but where's the proper proof?
South Korea's Unification Ministry spokesman Jeong Joon-hee said: "It's simply rash and thoughtless behavior by someone who has no idea how the world works," when asked about Kim's comments.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called on Pyongyang to "cease destabilizing acts," adding that Ban remained "gravely concerned" by the situation.
In China, North Korea's most important economic and diplomatic backer, the country's top newspaper, the People's Daily, urged all sides to be "patient and brave", show goodwill and resume the talks process.
South Korea said it did not believe that North Korea had successfully miniaturized a nuclear warhead or deployed a functioning intercontinental ballistic missile.
The U.S. Defence Department said this week it had seen no evidence that North Korea had succeeded in miniaturizing a warhead.
However, Admiral Bill Gortney, the officer responsible for defending U.S. air space, told a U.S. Senate panel on Thursday it was "prudent" for him to assume North Korea could both miniaturize a warhead and put it on an ICBM that could target the United States.
"Intel community gives it a very low probability of success, but I do not believe the American people want (me) to base my readiness assessment on a low probability," he said.
North Korea has issued nearly daily reports in recent days of Kim's instructions to fight South Korea and the United States as the two allies began large-scale military drills.
North Korea called the annual drills "nuclear war moves" and threatened to respond with an all-out offensive. Kim last week ordered his country to be ready to use nuclear weapons in the face of what he sees as growing threats from enemies.
The United States and South Korea remain technically at war with North Korea because the 1950-53 Korean War ended in a truce instead of a peace agreement.
(Additional reporting by Ju-min Park in Seoul, David Brunnstrom and David Alexander in Washington and Ben Blanchard in Beijing; Editing by Raju Gopalakrishnan)
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-nuclear-idUSKCN0WC2YQ
Business | Thu Mar 10, 2016 11:38pm EST
Related: World, North Korea, Aerospace & Defense
North Korean leader Kim orders more nuclear tests: KCNA
SEOUL | By Jack Kim
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un watched a ballistic missile launch test and ordered the country to improve its nuclear attack capability by conducting more tests, the official KCNA news agency reported on Friday.
The report did not say when the test took place but it was likely referring to North Korea's launch of two short-range missiles on Thursday that flew 500 km (300 miles) and splashed into the sea.
"Dear comrade Kim Jong Un said work ... must be strengthened to improve nuclear attack capability and issued combat tasks to continue nuclear explosion tests to assess the power of newly developed nuclear warheads and tests to improve nuclear attack capability," KCNA said.
The North Korean leader was quoted in state media earlier in the week as saying his country had miniaturized nuclear warheads to mount on ballistic missiles.
Tensions have risen sharply on the Korean peninsula after the North conducted its fourth nuclear test in January and fired a long-range rocket last month leading to the U.N. Security Council to adopt a new sanctions resolution.
Conducting more nuclear tests would be in clear violation of U.N. sanctions which also ban ballistic missile tests, although Pyongyang has rejected them. North Korea has a large stockpile of short-range missiles and is developing long-range and intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).
Related Coverage
› North Korean nuclear test shook the earth but where's the proper proof?
South Korea's Unification Ministry spokesman Jeong Joon-hee said: "It's simply rash and thoughtless behavior by someone who has no idea how the world works," when asked about Kim's comments.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called on Pyongyang to "cease destabilizing acts," adding that Ban remained "gravely concerned" by the situation.
In China, North Korea's most important economic and diplomatic backer, the country's top newspaper, the People's Daily, urged all sides to be "patient and brave", show goodwill and resume the talks process.
South Korea said it did not believe that North Korea had successfully miniaturized a nuclear warhead or deployed a functioning intercontinental ballistic missile.
The U.S. Defence Department said this week it had seen no evidence that North Korea had succeeded in miniaturizing a warhead.
However, Admiral Bill Gortney, the officer responsible for defending U.S. air space, told a U.S. Senate panel on Thursday it was "prudent" for him to assume North Korea could both miniaturize a warhead and put it on an ICBM that could target the United States.
"Intel community gives it a very low probability of success, but I do not believe the American people want (me) to base my readiness assessment on a low probability," he said.
North Korea has issued nearly daily reports in recent days of Kim's instructions to fight South Korea and the United States as the two allies began large-scale military drills.
North Korea called the annual drills "nuclear war moves" and threatened to respond with an all-out offensive. Kim last week ordered his country to be ready to use nuclear weapons in the face of what he sees as growing threats from enemies.
The United States and South Korea remain technically at war with North Korea because the 1950-53 Korean War ended in a truce instead of a peace agreement.
(Additional reporting by Ju-min Park in Seoul, David Brunnstrom and David Alexander in Washington and Ben Blanchard in Beijing; Editing by Raju Gopalakrishnan)
Prominant Russian millionaire found dead in DC hotel
Started by mzkittyý, 11-06-2015 04:22 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...nt-Russian-millionaire-found-dead-in-DC-hotel
Uh oh.......
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-mikhaillesin-idUSKCN0WC2W1
World | Thu Mar 10, 2016 10:41pm EST
Related: World, Russia
Former Russian press minister died in U.S. of blunt force injuries
WASHINGTON | By Ian Simpson
Former Russian Press Minister Mikhail Lesin, who was found dead in a Washington hotel room last year, died of blunt force injuries to the head, U.S. authorities said on Thursday.
Lesin who once headed the state-controlled Gazprom-Media, also had blunt force injuries to the neck, torso, arms and legs, the U.S. capital's Office of the Chief Medical Examiner and the Metropolitan Police Department said in a brief statement.
According to a police incident report, Lesin, who was President Vladimir Putin's press minister from 1999 to 2004, was found unconscious on Nov. 5 on the floor of his room in the Doyle Washington Hotel. The hotel is also known as the Dupont Circle Hotel.
An ambulance was called and he was pronounced dead at the scene.
Russia's RT television quoted family members at the time as saying he had died of a heart attack.
A U.S. law enforcement source said on Thursday the investigation into Lesin's death was being led by Washington, D.C. police.
The investigation was focused on Lesin's death, but that did not rule out a possible change to a murder probe, said the source, who declined to be identified when discussing the matter.
The source said when police first investigated the hotel room where Lesin's body was found, they did not find any damage or evidence indicating foul play.
A spokesman for the Russian Embassy in the United States said their officials for the past several months have requested through diplomatic channels information regarding the progress of the investigation.
"No substantial information has been provided. With regard to the document that has been released to the public today, we expect the American side to provide us with relevant official explanation," press secretary Yury Melnik said in an email.
ABC News has said Lesin had been accused of censoring Russia's independent media. He became head of Gazprom-Media Holding in 2013 but resigned the following year.
(Reporting by Ian Simpson; Additional reporting by Mark Hosenball; Editing by Peter Cooney)
Started by mzkittyý, 11-06-2015 04:22 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...nt-Russian-millionaire-found-dead-in-DC-hotel
Uh oh.......
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-mikhaillesin-idUSKCN0WC2W1
World | Thu Mar 10, 2016 10:41pm EST
Related: World, Russia
Former Russian press minister died in U.S. of blunt force injuries
WASHINGTON | By Ian Simpson
Former Russian Press Minister Mikhail Lesin, who was found dead in a Washington hotel room last year, died of blunt force injuries to the head, U.S. authorities said on Thursday.
Lesin who once headed the state-controlled Gazprom-Media, also had blunt force injuries to the neck, torso, arms and legs, the U.S. capital's Office of the Chief Medical Examiner and the Metropolitan Police Department said in a brief statement.
According to a police incident report, Lesin, who was President Vladimir Putin's press minister from 1999 to 2004, was found unconscious on Nov. 5 on the floor of his room in the Doyle Washington Hotel. The hotel is also known as the Dupont Circle Hotel.
An ambulance was called and he was pronounced dead at the scene.
Russia's RT television quoted family members at the time as saying he had died of a heart attack.
A U.S. law enforcement source said on Thursday the investigation into Lesin's death was being led by Washington, D.C. police.
The investigation was focused on Lesin's death, but that did not rule out a possible change to a murder probe, said the source, who declined to be identified when discussing the matter.
The source said when police first investigated the hotel room where Lesin's body was found, they did not find any damage or evidence indicating foul play.
A spokesman for the Russian Embassy in the United States said their officials for the past several months have requested through diplomatic channels information regarding the progress of the investigation.
"No substantial information has been provided. With regard to the document that has been released to the public today, we expect the American side to provide us with relevant official explanation," press secretary Yury Melnik said in an email.
ABC News has said Lesin had been accused of censoring Russia's independent media. He became head of Gazprom-Media Holding in 2013 but resigned the following year.
(Reporting by Ian Simpson; Additional reporting by Mark Hosenball; Editing by Peter Cooney)
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/national/11-Mar-2016/nuclear-programme-above-judicial-oversight-fo
Nuclear programme above judicial oversight: FO
Online
March 11, 2016
Comment
ISLAMABAD: Foreign Office spokesperson Nafees Zakaria on Thursday said Pakistan’s nuclear programme is a matter of its national defence and security which falls exclusively within its domestic jurisdiction and is therefore not to be called into question by any court, including the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
Also, he said providing security to the teams in World T20 Cricket is the responsibility of host country, India. Pakistan fulfilled its responsibilities by providing fool-proof security to teams in the past. On a separate issue, he said he does not have information regarding the offer to Chief of Army Staff General Raheel Sharif to lead the 34-nation military coalition formed by Saudi Arabia. To the question that Marshall Islands had sought to bring a case against nine countries, Britain, China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, and the United States in International Tribunal, the spokesperson said Pakistan is not a signatory to NPT, so it can’t come into its jurisdiction.
Zakaria said Republic of Marshall Islands (RMI), with which Pakistan maintains no diplomatic relations, has filed suits at ICJ against all the nine nuclear weapons states (NWS) of the world. However, in conformity with the Statute of the Court, only Pakistan, India and the United Kingdom have been asked to respond to the RMI’s suits since these countries recognised the jurisdiction of the court for certain specific issues at the time of their ratification of the Court’s Statute.
The case brought up by RMI does not fall within the scope of those specific issues over which Pakistan recognises the ICJ’s jurisdiction. The government of Pakistan has submitted a comprehensive written response to the court in the form of a Counter-Memorial, seeking dismissal of the RMI’s suit for lack of the court’s jurisdiction to entertain the RMI’s claims and the inadmissibility of the RMI’s application. Drafted pursuant to the rules and jurisprudence of the court and strictly limited to preliminary issues of the court’s jurisdiction and the admissibility of the RMI’s application, Pakistan’s Counter-Memorial emphasises that Pakistan’s nuclear programme is a matter of its national defence and security.
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/national/11-Mar-2016/nuclear-programme-above-judicial-oversight-fo
Nuclear programme above judicial oversight: FO
Online
March 11, 2016
Comment
ISLAMABAD: Foreign Office spokesperson Nafees Zakaria on Thursday said Pakistan’s nuclear programme is a matter of its national defence and security which falls exclusively within its domestic jurisdiction and is therefore not to be called into question by any court, including the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
Also, he said providing security to the teams in World T20 Cricket is the responsibility of host country, India. Pakistan fulfilled its responsibilities by providing fool-proof security to teams in the past. On a separate issue, he said he does not have information regarding the offer to Chief of Army Staff General Raheel Sharif to lead the 34-nation military coalition formed by Saudi Arabia. To the question that Marshall Islands had sought to bring a case against nine countries, Britain, China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, and the United States in International Tribunal, the spokesperson said Pakistan is not a signatory to NPT, so it can’t come into its jurisdiction.
Zakaria said Republic of Marshall Islands (RMI), with which Pakistan maintains no diplomatic relations, has filed suits at ICJ against all the nine nuclear weapons states (NWS) of the world. However, in conformity with the Statute of the Court, only Pakistan, India and the United Kingdom have been asked to respond to the RMI’s suits since these countries recognised the jurisdiction of the court for certain specific issues at the time of their ratification of the Court’s Statute.
The case brought up by RMI does not fall within the scope of those specific issues over which Pakistan recognises the ICJ’s jurisdiction. The government of Pakistan has submitted a comprehensive written response to the court in the form of a Counter-Memorial, seeking dismissal of the RMI’s suit for lack of the court’s jurisdiction to entertain the RMI’s claims and the inadmissibility of the RMI’s application. Drafted pursuant to the rules and jurisprudence of the court and strictly limited to preliminary issues of the court’s jurisdiction and the admissibility of the RMI’s application, Pakistan’s Counter-Memorial emphasises that Pakistan’s nuclear programme is a matter of its national defence and security.
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecu...to-publicly-blame-iran-for-cyberattack-on-dam
Report: US preparing to publicly blame Iran for NY cyberattack
By Katie Bo Williams - 03/10/16 02:02 PM EST
Comments 32
The Obama administration is preparing to publicly blame Iranian hackers for the 2013 cyberattack on a New York dam, according to CNN.
The Justice Department is preparing an indictment against the alleged hackers, U.S. officials familiar with the investigation told the news outlet.
The incident in question, revealed to the public in December, occurred amid a wave of Iranian hacks on U.S. banks and just three years after a computer worm believed to be built by the U.S. and Israel damaged nuclear infrastructure in Iran.
Investigators said the hackers didn’t take control of the dam’s system but were probing its defenses. The White House was alerted when officials initially believed the intrusion occurred at a much larger facility in Oregon.
The breach was still classified as of December, but it fits a pattern openly described by U.S. officials who warn that hackers from Russia, Iran and China are testing U.S. critical infrastructure networks for vulnerabilities.
The Department of Justice declined to comment on the reported indictments.
"We have no comment on the media claims regarding the 2013 incident at the Bowman Avenue Dam," the department said in a statement. "We take malicious activity in cyberspace seriously, and we will continue to use all the tools at our disposal to prevent, deter, detect, counter, and mitigate such activity."
The public attribution is part of an Obama administration strategy in recent years to identify the countries and, if possible, the individuals behind cyberattacks as a means of deterrence.
"The administration has converted to the idea that there has to be consequences for bad behavior and that they have to signal places like Iran about behaving in cyberspace," said James Lewis, an international cybersecurity expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
In 2014, the Justice Department indicted five Chinese military officials alleged to have hacked various U.S. industrial firms. In 2015, it publicly attributed the massive breach of Sony Pictures Entertainment to North Korea.
The reported indictments also come as officials continue to warn that U.S. critical infrastructure is vulnerable to nation-state hackers.
National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers told lawmakers last fall that China and “one or two” other countries would be able to shut down portions of critical U.S. infrastructure with a cyberattack. Researchers suspect Iran to be on that list.
In fiscal 2015, the Department of Homeland Security responded to 295 hacking incidents related to industrial controls, up from 245 the previous year.
--Cory Bennett contributed.
--This post was updated at 2:53 p.m.
Posted for fair use.....
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecu...to-publicly-blame-iran-for-cyberattack-on-dam
Report: US preparing to publicly blame Iran for NY cyberattack
By Katie Bo Williams - 03/10/16 02:02 PM EST
Comments 32
The Obama administration is preparing to publicly blame Iranian hackers for the 2013 cyberattack on a New York dam, according to CNN.
The Justice Department is preparing an indictment against the alleged hackers, U.S. officials familiar with the investigation told the news outlet.
The incident in question, revealed to the public in December, occurred amid a wave of Iranian hacks on U.S. banks and just three years after a computer worm believed to be built by the U.S. and Israel damaged nuclear infrastructure in Iran.
Investigators said the hackers didn’t take control of the dam’s system but were probing its defenses. The White House was alerted when officials initially believed the intrusion occurred at a much larger facility in Oregon.
The breach was still classified as of December, but it fits a pattern openly described by U.S. officials who warn that hackers from Russia, Iran and China are testing U.S. critical infrastructure networks for vulnerabilities.
The Department of Justice declined to comment on the reported indictments.
"We have no comment on the media claims regarding the 2013 incident at the Bowman Avenue Dam," the department said in a statement. "We take malicious activity in cyberspace seriously, and we will continue to use all the tools at our disposal to prevent, deter, detect, counter, and mitigate such activity."
The public attribution is part of an Obama administration strategy in recent years to identify the countries and, if possible, the individuals behind cyberattacks as a means of deterrence.
"The administration has converted to the idea that there has to be consequences for bad behavior and that they have to signal places like Iran about behaving in cyberspace," said James Lewis, an international cybersecurity expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
In 2014, the Justice Department indicted five Chinese military officials alleged to have hacked various U.S. industrial firms. In 2015, it publicly attributed the massive breach of Sony Pictures Entertainment to North Korea.
The reported indictments also come as officials continue to warn that U.S. critical infrastructure is vulnerable to nation-state hackers.
National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers told lawmakers last fall that China and “one or two” other countries would be able to shut down portions of critical U.S. infrastructure with a cyberattack. Researchers suspect Iran to be on that list.
In fiscal 2015, the Department of Homeland Security responded to 295 hacking incidents related to industrial controls, up from 245 the previous year.
--Cory Bennett contributed.
--This post was updated at 2:53 p.m.
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://38north.org/2016/03/thaad031016/
THAAD: What It Can and Can’t Do
By Michael Elleman and Michael J. Zagurek Jr.
10 March 2016
North Korea’s recent nuclear test and satellite launch have provoked a strong response from the United States, the Republic of Korea and the international community. One result has been a greater willingness on the part of South Korea to undertake negotiations with the United States on deploying the Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system on the peninsula to protect it from North Korean ballistic missile attacks. Adding THAAD to missile-defense deployments that already include Patriot systems would likely substantially enhance South Korea’s capacity to minimize the damage caused by a large North Korean missile attack. However, it is important to note that a layered defense will not be able to completely block such an attack. As a result, missiles armed with nuclear weapons could cause significant casualties as well as damage in the South.
The North Korean Ballistic Missile Threat
Ballistic Missile Defense in South Korea
Two Illustrative Layered Defense Deployments
Layered Defenses and Interceptor Efficiency
Some Significant Caveats
The Nuclear Option
Conclusion
The deployment of one or two THAAD batteries in South Korea would substantially enhance its capacity to defend against a North Korean missile attack. To be sure, there is no perfect defense against ballistic missile attacks, but the probability of greatly reducing the damage resulting from missiles with conventional warheads increases when THAAD is incorporated into the defense architecture. When viewed through the lens of providing maximum protection from a North Korean missile threat, accepting the American offer to provide THAAD to the Republic of Korea is a prudent and defensible policy decision for Seoul.
However, the added defensive capability will have to be weighed against other considerations. Chinese objections to the deployment of THAAD (an assessment of whether those objections are rebased on a realistic assessment of the system is beyond the scope of this article) are clear. The economics of missile defense must also be considered. It is considerably more expensive to deploy and operate THAAD to South Korea, than it will be for North Korea to grow the size of its arsenal or to quickly invest in additional missiles, missile launchers and trained crews in order to overwhelm the defenses. Last, as this analysis shows, any system designed to destroy incoming missiles will have leakage. If those missiles are armed with nuclear weapons, that leakage could have catastrophic results.
Officials in Seoul will have some difficult decisions ahead of them, but the analyses here should partially refute arguments that say THAAD will not significantly benefit South Korea when countering the short-range, Hwasong missile threat from North Korea in the immediate future.
Note on Methodology
Download the full report on PDF here.
Posted for fair use.....
http://38north.org/2016/03/thaad031016/
THAAD: What It Can and Can’t Do
By Michael Elleman and Michael J. Zagurek Jr.
10 March 2016
North Korea’s recent nuclear test and satellite launch have provoked a strong response from the United States, the Republic of Korea and the international community. One result has been a greater willingness on the part of South Korea to undertake negotiations with the United States on deploying the Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system on the peninsula to protect it from North Korean ballistic missile attacks. Adding THAAD to missile-defense deployments that already include Patriot systems would likely substantially enhance South Korea’s capacity to minimize the damage caused by a large North Korean missile attack. However, it is important to note that a layered defense will not be able to completely block such an attack. As a result, missiles armed with nuclear weapons could cause significant casualties as well as damage in the South.
The North Korean Ballistic Missile Threat
Ballistic Missile Defense in South Korea
Two Illustrative Layered Defense Deployments
Layered Defenses and Interceptor Efficiency
Some Significant Caveats
The Nuclear Option
Conclusion
The deployment of one or two THAAD batteries in South Korea would substantially enhance its capacity to defend against a North Korean missile attack. To be sure, there is no perfect defense against ballistic missile attacks, but the probability of greatly reducing the damage resulting from missiles with conventional warheads increases when THAAD is incorporated into the defense architecture. When viewed through the lens of providing maximum protection from a North Korean missile threat, accepting the American offer to provide THAAD to the Republic of Korea is a prudent and defensible policy decision for Seoul.
However, the added defensive capability will have to be weighed against other considerations. Chinese objections to the deployment of THAAD (an assessment of whether those objections are rebased on a realistic assessment of the system is beyond the scope of this article) are clear. The economics of missile defense must also be considered. It is considerably more expensive to deploy and operate THAAD to South Korea, than it will be for North Korea to grow the size of its arsenal or to quickly invest in additional missiles, missile launchers and trained crews in order to overwhelm the defenses. Last, as this analysis shows, any system designed to destroy incoming missiles will have leakage. If those missiles are armed with nuclear weapons, that leakage could have catastrophic results.
Officials in Seoul will have some difficult decisions ahead of them, but the analyses here should partially refute arguments that say THAAD will not significantly benefit South Korea when countering the short-range, Hwasong missile threat from North Korea in the immediate future.
Note on Methodology
Download the full report on PDF here.
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thebulletin.org/can-rouhani-deliver-iranian-nuclear-deals-economic-promise9219
Analysis
9 March 2016
Can Rouhani deliver on the Iranian nuclear deal's economic promise?
Amir Handjani
Last month, six weeks after implementation of the Iranian nuclear accord, parliamentary elections gave Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and reformist politicians a clear mandate. Despite recent successes, though, Rouhani can hardly rest on his laurels. Backers of the centrist cleric will now look to him to breathe new life into their country’s stagnating economy. While Iran boasts the second largest economy in the Middle East (after Saudi Arabia), it has been hit hard by years of sanctions, international isolation, and corruption. Since Rouhani was sworn into office in 2013, Iran’s economy has experienced modest growth; the GDP grew last year by 3.8 percent after three years of economic contraction. Inflation, which peaked at 40 percent in 2013, stands at 13 percent today. Yet the rate of youth unemployment is a staggering 25 percent. For a country of 77 million people who have endured tremendous hardship over the last decade, the nuclear deal represents Iran’s best opportunity to achieve much-needed economic reforms.
There has been considerable rancor, in some quarters, over the sanctions relief Iran received under the deal it signed with six world powers (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) in exchange for scaling back its nuclear program. Hawkish Republicans in the US Congress are in an uproar, believing that with some sanctions removed, Iran will use windfall profits from oil revenue to fund activities hostile to Western interests. This view shows they do not understand the challenges the Rouhani administration faces in trying to stabilize the Iranian economy after decades of mismanagement and amid a precipitous drop in oil prices. Indeed, Iran is reentering the world stage at a time when energy markets are saturated with excess barrels of crude oil, and its market share is being actively challenged by neighbors hostile to its prosperity.
Trapped funds. With the lifting of sanctions, Iran now has access to between $50 and $100 billion dollars of oil revenue in various banks around the world that was previously blocked. The question that has troubled those opposed to the nuclear deal is what Iran will do with these funds now that it has access to them. Will it use the money to rebuild its own economy?
The injection of such a large sum of liquidity directly into the Iranian economy would no doubt spark inflation, something the Rouhani administration successfully tamed and doesn’t want to revisit. Fortunately, Iran’s Vice President Mohammad-Bagher Nobakht has indicated that Iran will take the prudent course of action and keep most of these funds abroad in foreign banks in order to support Iranian companies looking to engage in international trade. It will do this by taking local currency from Iranian companies inside the country in return for opening letters of credit with foreign banks abroad and paying creditors with foreign currency. This prescription should jump start Iran’s trade with its European and Asian partners.
Energy investment. So much of the Rouhani administration’s economic plan to stimulate growth depends on foreign direct investment and the hope that now that sanctions are lifted, foreign firms will flock to the Iranian market. Iran’s energy sector is where foreign investment will most likely begin. According to Oil Minister Bijan Namdar Zangeneh, Iran needs between $150 billion and $200 billion dollars of capital investment to revitalize its antiquated energy infrastructure.
Before the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran produced close to six million barrels of crude oil a day. Today it is producing less than half of that. With energy prices at lows not seen in a decade, and the world swimming in excess barrels of crude, Western oil giants will be reluctant to enter a frontier market when they are cutting spending on existing projects and watching their profits dwindle. Thus, Iran must weather this storm and prepare itself for the day when oil prices are more robust and the Western oil companies are jockeying for access to a country with the fourth-largest proven reserves in the world. To that end, Iran has taken a major step in the right direction by instituting a new contract scheme—the Iran Petroleum Contract (IPC). The IPC will allow foreign companies to become joint venture partners with the state-owned National Iranian Oil Company, rather than contractors, which was their status under the much-maligned buy-back scheme of the last two decades. Absent the nuclear deal, it is difficult to imagine a scenario in which the government would have taken such a major step to lure foreign companies by offering better commercial terms.
Finance and banking. Perhaps no segment of Iran’s economy will feel the benefits of the nuclear deal as strongly as its banking sector. For the past three years, Iranian banks have been cut off from SWIFT, a Belgium-based financial clearing and communication network that is used by international banks for fund transfers. This, coupled with sanctions on Iran’s central bank, crippled the country’s financial sector, blocking access to hard currency and making it difficult to conduct trade. Now that these sanctions have been removed, banks in the European Union are allowed, once again, to transfer funds to and from Iranian banks.
However, difficult hurdles remain. The United States maintains non-nuclear-related sanctions on Iran and therefore American banks must continue to steer clear of all Iran-related commerce. Over the past decade, the US Treasury has levied heavy fines on European banks such as HSBC, BNP Paribas and Standard Charter for violating US sanctions on Iran. This has caused a chilling effect among Europe’s largest banks, which so far have decided to steer clear of Iran because of the regulatory and legal headaches that could complicate their existing business in the United States—the world’s largest economy. Iran can expect this void to be filled by smaller, more nimble European banks with a larger appetite for risk and not much exposure to the US market. While not ideal for Iran, this is a step up from where it was before the nuclear deal.
Sanctions have a silver lining. There is no doubt that sanctions have made the Iranian economy more resilient by forcing it to develop its own industrial base and reduce its dependence on crude oil exports. Today, energy exports account for only 15 percent of Iran’s GDP, compared to 55 percent for Saudi Arabia. In 2015, the Iranian government received more in tax revenue than oil revenue. Iran has the potential for robust growth, should President Rouhani be able to deliver on his plans to rein in corruption and liberalize large sections of the Iranian economy that have traditionally been under state control. If he does, the nuclear deal will continue to pay dividends.
This is not to say that all is rosy in Tehran. Despite the nuclear accord and recent election victory of centrist politicians, there are elements of the Iranian deep state that are extremely hostile to Rouhani’s agenda. They don’t want to see the country’s economy open up, or the people have greater connectivity to the outside world. Rouhani and his supporters will have to proceed with great care.
Amir Handjani is a fellow with the Truman National Security Project.
Posted for fair use.....
http://thebulletin.org/can-rouhani-deliver-iranian-nuclear-deals-economic-promise9219
Analysis
9 March 2016
Can Rouhani deliver on the Iranian nuclear deal's economic promise?
Amir Handjani
Last month, six weeks after implementation of the Iranian nuclear accord, parliamentary elections gave Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and reformist politicians a clear mandate. Despite recent successes, though, Rouhani can hardly rest on his laurels. Backers of the centrist cleric will now look to him to breathe new life into their country’s stagnating economy. While Iran boasts the second largest economy in the Middle East (after Saudi Arabia), it has been hit hard by years of sanctions, international isolation, and corruption. Since Rouhani was sworn into office in 2013, Iran’s economy has experienced modest growth; the GDP grew last year by 3.8 percent after three years of economic contraction. Inflation, which peaked at 40 percent in 2013, stands at 13 percent today. Yet the rate of youth unemployment is a staggering 25 percent. For a country of 77 million people who have endured tremendous hardship over the last decade, the nuclear deal represents Iran’s best opportunity to achieve much-needed economic reforms.
There has been considerable rancor, in some quarters, over the sanctions relief Iran received under the deal it signed with six world powers (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) in exchange for scaling back its nuclear program. Hawkish Republicans in the US Congress are in an uproar, believing that with some sanctions removed, Iran will use windfall profits from oil revenue to fund activities hostile to Western interests. This view shows they do not understand the challenges the Rouhani administration faces in trying to stabilize the Iranian economy after decades of mismanagement and amid a precipitous drop in oil prices. Indeed, Iran is reentering the world stage at a time when energy markets are saturated with excess barrels of crude oil, and its market share is being actively challenged by neighbors hostile to its prosperity.
Trapped funds. With the lifting of sanctions, Iran now has access to between $50 and $100 billion dollars of oil revenue in various banks around the world that was previously blocked. The question that has troubled those opposed to the nuclear deal is what Iran will do with these funds now that it has access to them. Will it use the money to rebuild its own economy?
The injection of such a large sum of liquidity directly into the Iranian economy would no doubt spark inflation, something the Rouhani administration successfully tamed and doesn’t want to revisit. Fortunately, Iran’s Vice President Mohammad-Bagher Nobakht has indicated that Iran will take the prudent course of action and keep most of these funds abroad in foreign banks in order to support Iranian companies looking to engage in international trade. It will do this by taking local currency from Iranian companies inside the country in return for opening letters of credit with foreign banks abroad and paying creditors with foreign currency. This prescription should jump start Iran’s trade with its European and Asian partners.
Energy investment. So much of the Rouhani administration’s economic plan to stimulate growth depends on foreign direct investment and the hope that now that sanctions are lifted, foreign firms will flock to the Iranian market. Iran’s energy sector is where foreign investment will most likely begin. According to Oil Minister Bijan Namdar Zangeneh, Iran needs between $150 billion and $200 billion dollars of capital investment to revitalize its antiquated energy infrastructure.
Before the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran produced close to six million barrels of crude oil a day. Today it is producing less than half of that. With energy prices at lows not seen in a decade, and the world swimming in excess barrels of crude, Western oil giants will be reluctant to enter a frontier market when they are cutting spending on existing projects and watching their profits dwindle. Thus, Iran must weather this storm and prepare itself for the day when oil prices are more robust and the Western oil companies are jockeying for access to a country with the fourth-largest proven reserves in the world. To that end, Iran has taken a major step in the right direction by instituting a new contract scheme—the Iran Petroleum Contract (IPC). The IPC will allow foreign companies to become joint venture partners with the state-owned National Iranian Oil Company, rather than contractors, which was their status under the much-maligned buy-back scheme of the last two decades. Absent the nuclear deal, it is difficult to imagine a scenario in which the government would have taken such a major step to lure foreign companies by offering better commercial terms.
Finance and banking. Perhaps no segment of Iran’s economy will feel the benefits of the nuclear deal as strongly as its banking sector. For the past three years, Iranian banks have been cut off from SWIFT, a Belgium-based financial clearing and communication network that is used by international banks for fund transfers. This, coupled with sanctions on Iran’s central bank, crippled the country’s financial sector, blocking access to hard currency and making it difficult to conduct trade. Now that these sanctions have been removed, banks in the European Union are allowed, once again, to transfer funds to and from Iranian banks.
However, difficult hurdles remain. The United States maintains non-nuclear-related sanctions on Iran and therefore American banks must continue to steer clear of all Iran-related commerce. Over the past decade, the US Treasury has levied heavy fines on European banks such as HSBC, BNP Paribas and Standard Charter for violating US sanctions on Iran. This has caused a chilling effect among Europe’s largest banks, which so far have decided to steer clear of Iran because of the regulatory and legal headaches that could complicate their existing business in the United States—the world’s largest economy. Iran can expect this void to be filled by smaller, more nimble European banks with a larger appetite for risk and not much exposure to the US market. While not ideal for Iran, this is a step up from where it was before the nuclear deal.
Sanctions have a silver lining. There is no doubt that sanctions have made the Iranian economy more resilient by forcing it to develop its own industrial base and reduce its dependence on crude oil exports. Today, energy exports account for only 15 percent of Iran’s GDP, compared to 55 percent for Saudi Arabia. In 2015, the Iranian government received more in tax revenue than oil revenue. Iran has the potential for robust growth, should President Rouhani be able to deliver on his plans to rein in corruption and liberalize large sections of the Iranian economy that have traditionally been under state control. If he does, the nuclear deal will continue to pay dividends.
This is not to say that all is rosy in Tehran. Despite the nuclear accord and recent election victory of centrist politicians, there are elements of the Iranian deep state that are extremely hostile to Rouhani’s agenda. They don’t want to see the country’s economy open up, or the people have greater connectivity to the outside world. Rouhani and his supporters will have to proceed with great care.
Amir Handjani is a fellow with the Truman National Security Project.
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...94d7b4-e774-11e5-a9ce-681055c7a05f_story.html
Asia & Pacific
Russia, China oppose US missile-defense in South Korea
By Associated Press March 11 at 5:35 AM
Comments 27
MOSCOW — The foreign ministers of China and Russia are opposing the possible deployment of an advanced American missile-defense system in South Korea.
Amid escalating tensions over North Korea’s nuclear arsenal, Washington and Seoul last week began formal talks on deploying the sophisticated THAAD system.
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told a news conference Friday after meeting with Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov that putting the system in South Korea would “inflict direct harm to the strategic security interests of China and Russia.”
Lavrov said deploying the system would be an overreaction.
“The plans, which the U.S. has been nursing together with the Republic of Korea, exceed any conceivable threats that may come from North Korea, even taking Pyongyang’s current actions into account,” he said.
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...94d7b4-e774-11e5-a9ce-681055c7a05f_story.html
Asia & Pacific
Russia, China oppose US missile-defense in South Korea
By Associated Press March 11 at 5:35 AM
Comments 27
MOSCOW — The foreign ministers of China and Russia are opposing the possible deployment of an advanced American missile-defense system in South Korea.
Amid escalating tensions over North Korea’s nuclear arsenal, Washington and Seoul last week began formal talks on deploying the sophisticated THAAD system.
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told a news conference Friday after meeting with Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov that putting the system in South Korea would “inflict direct harm to the strategic security interests of China and Russia.”
Lavrov said deploying the system would be an overreaction.
“The plans, which the U.S. has been nursing together with the Republic of Korea, exceed any conceivable threats that may come from North Korea, even taking Pyongyang’s current actions into account,” he said.
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nationalinterest.org/feature/what-beijing-gains-by-threatening-taiwan-now-15466
What Beijing Gains By Threatening Taiwan Now
Xi Jinping's latest remarks are a troubling sign.
Gordon G. Chang
March 11, 2016
Comments 237
On Saturday, at the opening of China’s annual meeting of the National People’s Congress, President Xi Jinping took on Taiwan, the self-governing state that Beijing considers its thirty-fourth province.
“We will resolutely contain the ‘Taiwan independence’ secessionist activities in any form,” he said to NPC delegates from Shanghai. “We will safeguard the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and never allow the historical tragedy of national secession to happen again.”
Taiwan analysts are now poring over Xi’s words to figure out whether he will push the issue in the near future. At first glance, his statements do not look as threatening as his other utterances on the topic, yet he introduced a new element in official thinking that may signal he is indeed planning to coerce the island. And his pronouncements come at a sensitive moment, just after Taiwan’s electorate resoundingly rejected closer relations with Xi’s People’s Republic. It’s not clear how far he will pursue his expansive claim to the island of twenty-three million people.
Many say they have heard all this before. “I don’t see anything new here,” said Robert Manning of the Atlantic Council to The Nelson Report, the Washington insider newsletter. Chinese leaders are expected to make ritualistic statements on Taiwan, and as Richard Bush of the Brookings Institution notes, “This is the stage of a sumo match when the wrestlers stomp around the ring, throwing sand or whatever they throw.”
Xi’s sand-throwing comments, his first on Taiwan since its historic January 16 election, could have been worse. After all, he did not repeat or amplify his October 2013 statement. “Increasing mutual political trust across the Taiwan Straits and jointly building up political foundations are crucial for ensuring the peaceful development of relations,” he told a Taiwanese envoy then. “Looking further ahead, the issue of political disagreements that exist between the two sides must reach a final resolution, step by step, and these issues cannot be passed on from generation to generation.”
Those words are now seen as the first public indication that Xi was committing himself to settle the Taiwan issue during his tenure as China’s leader, and they rattled many in the Taiwan-watching community. So far, however, Xi has not forced the issue of “reunification.”
People on Taiwan prefer the term “unification,” and the subtle difference highlights a major gap in perceptions. The Chinese Civil War, the struggle that started in the late 1920s between Xi’s Communist Party and Taiwan’s ruling Kuomintang, has in fact never ended. True, in 1949 the Kuomintang’s Chiang Kai-shek lost a full-scale military struggle to Mao Zedong and the Communists. Mao established the People’s Republic at the same time as Chiang fled to Taiwan and continued his Republic of China there.
After Chiang’s military failure, the ROC, as he called his state, included only the main island of Taiwan and scattered islets. Nonetheless, then as well as today, both Beijing and Taipei claim to be the legitimate government of all China.
In reality, the Communist Party rules the Chinese state and the Kuomintang is the governing party on “Taiwan.” Beijing, as noted, talks about “reunification,” but the word, is misleading because in fact the People’s Republic of the Communist Party has never exerted effective sovereignty over Taiwan.
Words matter for the two contestants in the ongoing Chinese Civil War, and Xi Jinping in his comments Sunday implied that Taiwan left the People’s Republic. He not only used the term “secessionist activities,” he also vowed to “never allow the historical tragedy of national secession to happen again.”
“When did the historical tragedy of national secession happen the last time?” asked the University of Miami’s June Teufel Dreyer in an e-mail to the National Interest. “Very strange.”
Strange indeed. In fact, if anyone seceded, it was Mao’s Communists, who left the Republic of China when they proclaimed their state in 1949 with a new name, new flag and new constitution.
“My gut tells me this is not just standard fare for domestic consumption but perhaps laying down a marker for more concerted action of some kind in the coming months,” said a U.S. government official speaking without attribution to the Nelson Report.
At the moment, everyone assumes the target for such action would be Taiwan. There, the electorate on January 16 decisively rejected Eric Chu, the candidate of the ruling Kuomintang, which had favored close relations with Beijing. More significantly, the ruling party lost control of the Legislative Yuan, the first time that had ever happened.
Beijing is obviously apprehensive. The Democratic Progressive Party of Tsai Ing-wen, the president-elect, wants good relations with Beijing but does not believe Taiwan is part of a greater Chinese nation. She and her party were carried to victory by voters who see themselves as “Taiwanese,” not “Chinese.” “Yes, Taiwan and China do have a special historic relationship, but Taiwan has developed its own identity and character,” said Gerrit van der Wees, editor of the Washington-based political journal Taiwan Communiqué, to the National Interest.
Because of that separate Taiwanese identity, nobody in Taiwan advocates “secession.” The victorious DPP believes that Taiwan, in Dreyer’s words, “is already an autonomous state and can’t secede from something it was never part of.”
Xi knows all that, so perhaps his words about secession were directed to another restive area, Hong Kong. Hong Kong is a “special administrative region” of the People’s Republic where many are now openly advocating independence from Beijing. Just as in Taiwan, increasing percentages of those in Hong Kong do not see themselves as “Chinese.” Increasingly harsh statements from Beijing are only fueling “localist” Hong Kong identity. The same dynamic is evident in the “minority” regions of Tibet and Xinjiang.
Xi’s Communist Party, therefore, is losing its grip on areas it considers its own. It demands that people on its periphery accept Beijing’s sovereignty over them, but that line has not been working recently. Taiwan Communiqué’s van der Wees says Xi Jinping needs “a new paradigm,” but it’s unlikely Xi, an insecure leader, can relinquish Beijing’s territorial claims, no matter how outdated or outlandish they may be.
“The Taiwanese people have more than earned self-determination,” Arthur Waldron told me recently. They have, but as the University of Pennsylvania professor says, Xi is “intoxicated” by his power and capable of “highly dangerous folly.” “The unelected and cossetted Beijing leadership,” Waldron notes, “is poorly educated, poorly informed, insulated from public opinion in China, lacks judgment, and may therefore make a terrible mistake.”
Gordon G. Chang is the author of The Coming Collapse of China. Follow him on Twitter @GordonGChang.
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nationalinterest.org/feature/what-beijing-gains-by-threatening-taiwan-now-15466
What Beijing Gains By Threatening Taiwan Now
Xi Jinping's latest remarks are a troubling sign.
Gordon G. Chang
March 11, 2016
Comments 237
On Saturday, at the opening of China’s annual meeting of the National People’s Congress, President Xi Jinping took on Taiwan, the self-governing state that Beijing considers its thirty-fourth province.
“We will resolutely contain the ‘Taiwan independence’ secessionist activities in any form,” he said to NPC delegates from Shanghai. “We will safeguard the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and never allow the historical tragedy of national secession to happen again.”
Taiwan analysts are now poring over Xi’s words to figure out whether he will push the issue in the near future. At first glance, his statements do not look as threatening as his other utterances on the topic, yet he introduced a new element in official thinking that may signal he is indeed planning to coerce the island. And his pronouncements come at a sensitive moment, just after Taiwan’s electorate resoundingly rejected closer relations with Xi’s People’s Republic. It’s not clear how far he will pursue his expansive claim to the island of twenty-three million people.
Many say they have heard all this before. “I don’t see anything new here,” said Robert Manning of the Atlantic Council to The Nelson Report, the Washington insider newsletter. Chinese leaders are expected to make ritualistic statements on Taiwan, and as Richard Bush of the Brookings Institution notes, “This is the stage of a sumo match when the wrestlers stomp around the ring, throwing sand or whatever they throw.”
Xi’s sand-throwing comments, his first on Taiwan since its historic January 16 election, could have been worse. After all, he did not repeat or amplify his October 2013 statement. “Increasing mutual political trust across the Taiwan Straits and jointly building up political foundations are crucial for ensuring the peaceful development of relations,” he told a Taiwanese envoy then. “Looking further ahead, the issue of political disagreements that exist between the two sides must reach a final resolution, step by step, and these issues cannot be passed on from generation to generation.”
Those words are now seen as the first public indication that Xi was committing himself to settle the Taiwan issue during his tenure as China’s leader, and they rattled many in the Taiwan-watching community. So far, however, Xi has not forced the issue of “reunification.”
People on Taiwan prefer the term “unification,” and the subtle difference highlights a major gap in perceptions. The Chinese Civil War, the struggle that started in the late 1920s between Xi’s Communist Party and Taiwan’s ruling Kuomintang, has in fact never ended. True, in 1949 the Kuomintang’s Chiang Kai-shek lost a full-scale military struggle to Mao Zedong and the Communists. Mao established the People’s Republic at the same time as Chiang fled to Taiwan and continued his Republic of China there.
After Chiang’s military failure, the ROC, as he called his state, included only the main island of Taiwan and scattered islets. Nonetheless, then as well as today, both Beijing and Taipei claim to be the legitimate government of all China.
In reality, the Communist Party rules the Chinese state and the Kuomintang is the governing party on “Taiwan.” Beijing, as noted, talks about “reunification,” but the word, is misleading because in fact the People’s Republic of the Communist Party has never exerted effective sovereignty over Taiwan.
Words matter for the two contestants in the ongoing Chinese Civil War, and Xi Jinping in his comments Sunday implied that Taiwan left the People’s Republic. He not only used the term “secessionist activities,” he also vowed to “never allow the historical tragedy of national secession to happen again.”
“When did the historical tragedy of national secession happen the last time?” asked the University of Miami’s June Teufel Dreyer in an e-mail to the National Interest. “Very strange.”
Strange indeed. In fact, if anyone seceded, it was Mao’s Communists, who left the Republic of China when they proclaimed their state in 1949 with a new name, new flag and new constitution.
“My gut tells me this is not just standard fare for domestic consumption but perhaps laying down a marker for more concerted action of some kind in the coming months,” said a U.S. government official speaking without attribution to the Nelson Report.
At the moment, everyone assumes the target for such action would be Taiwan. There, the electorate on January 16 decisively rejected Eric Chu, the candidate of the ruling Kuomintang, which had favored close relations with Beijing. More significantly, the ruling party lost control of the Legislative Yuan, the first time that had ever happened.
Beijing is obviously apprehensive. The Democratic Progressive Party of Tsai Ing-wen, the president-elect, wants good relations with Beijing but does not believe Taiwan is part of a greater Chinese nation. She and her party were carried to victory by voters who see themselves as “Taiwanese,” not “Chinese.” “Yes, Taiwan and China do have a special historic relationship, but Taiwan has developed its own identity and character,” said Gerrit van der Wees, editor of the Washington-based political journal Taiwan Communiqué, to the National Interest.
Because of that separate Taiwanese identity, nobody in Taiwan advocates “secession.” The victorious DPP believes that Taiwan, in Dreyer’s words, “is already an autonomous state and can’t secede from something it was never part of.”
Xi knows all that, so perhaps his words about secession were directed to another restive area, Hong Kong. Hong Kong is a “special administrative region” of the People’s Republic where many are now openly advocating independence from Beijing. Just as in Taiwan, increasing percentages of those in Hong Kong do not see themselves as “Chinese.” Increasingly harsh statements from Beijing are only fueling “localist” Hong Kong identity. The same dynamic is evident in the “minority” regions of Tibet and Xinjiang.
Xi’s Communist Party, therefore, is losing its grip on areas it considers its own. It demands that people on its periphery accept Beijing’s sovereignty over them, but that line has not been working recently. Taiwan Communiqué’s van der Wees says Xi Jinping needs “a new paradigm,” but it’s unlikely Xi, an insecure leader, can relinquish Beijing’s territorial claims, no matter how outdated or outlandish they may be.
“The Taiwanese people have more than earned self-determination,” Arthur Waldron told me recently. They have, but as the University of Pennsylvania professor says, Xi is “intoxicated” by his power and capable of “highly dangerous folly.” “The unelected and cossetted Beijing leadership,” Waldron notes, “is poorly educated, poorly informed, insulated from public opinion in China, lacks judgment, and may therefore make a terrible mistake.”
Gordon G. Chang is the author of The Coming Collapse of China. Follow him on Twitter @GordonGChang.
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://news.yahoo.com/clashes-rebels-yemens-besieged-city-taiz-kill-45-141433033.html
Clashes in Yemen's besieged city of Taiz kill more than 50
Associated Press
By AHMED AL-HAJ
22 minutes ago
SANAA, Yemen (AP) — Clashes intensified on Friday between Shiite rebels and local fighters in the besieged city of Taiz, killing at least 45 fighters on both sides and six civilians over the past 24 hours.
The city has seen heavy fighting between rebels known as Houthis and local resistance units financed and armed by the Saudi-led coalition that is backing Yemen's internationally recognized government. The local fighters have been advancing and have taken control of Taiz's western outskirts.
The medical officials said Friday that most of the 45 killed over the past 24 hours died in airstrikes by the Saudi-led coalition. They also said that six civilians were killed in random shelling of residential areas. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.
According to witnesses, Islamic militants who are fighting next to the local resistance have kidnapped a number of Houthi supporters and members of the ousted President Ali Abdullah Saleh's party in the city of Taiz after storming their houses and shops.
Al-Qaida in Yemen has posted videos before for its operations in Taiz. The group, along with Salafis, has been fighting side-by-side with the local resistance fighters.
The Houthis have besieged Taiz, widely known as Yemen's cultural center, for over a year now. Saudi-led coalition launched an extensive air campaign and send ground troops to roll back Houthis.
View Comments (2)
Related Stories
1. Yemeni rebels ask ally Iran to stop exploiting country's war Associated Press
2. Saudi-led airstrikes in Yemen kill over 30, mostly civilians Associated Press
3. Yemen war generates widespread suffering, but few refugees Reuters
4. 4 Catholic nuns, 12 others killed in Yemen retirement home Associated Press
5. Air strike on Yemen market kills 30 rebels, civilians: witnesses AFP
Posted for fair use.....
http://news.yahoo.com/clashes-rebels-yemens-besieged-city-taiz-kill-45-141433033.html
Clashes in Yemen's besieged city of Taiz kill more than 50
Associated Press
By AHMED AL-HAJ
22 minutes ago
SANAA, Yemen (AP) — Clashes intensified on Friday between Shiite rebels and local fighters in the besieged city of Taiz, killing at least 45 fighters on both sides and six civilians over the past 24 hours.
The city has seen heavy fighting between rebels known as Houthis and local resistance units financed and armed by the Saudi-led coalition that is backing Yemen's internationally recognized government. The local fighters have been advancing and have taken control of Taiz's western outskirts.
The medical officials said Friday that most of the 45 killed over the past 24 hours died in airstrikes by the Saudi-led coalition. They also said that six civilians were killed in random shelling of residential areas. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.
According to witnesses, Islamic militants who are fighting next to the local resistance have kidnapped a number of Houthi supporters and members of the ousted President Ali Abdullah Saleh's party in the city of Taiz after storming their houses and shops.
Al-Qaida in Yemen has posted videos before for its operations in Taiz. The group, along with Salafis, has been fighting side-by-side with the local resistance fighters.
The Houthis have besieged Taiz, widely known as Yemen's cultural center, for over a year now. Saudi-led coalition launched an extensive air campaign and send ground troops to roll back Houthis.
View Comments (2)
Related Stories
1. Yemeni rebels ask ally Iran to stop exploiting country's war Associated Press
2. Saudi-led airstrikes in Yemen kill over 30, mostly civilians Associated Press
3. Yemen war generates widespread suffering, but few refugees Reuters
4. 4 Catholic nuns, 12 others killed in Yemen retirement home Associated Press
5. Air strike on Yemen market kills 30 rebels, civilians: witnesses AFP
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.realcleardefense.com/art...clear_arms_race_is_alive_and_well_109131.html
March 11, 2016
The Nuclear Arms Race is Alive and Well
By Stratfor
Comment 1
Summary
Russia is determined to maintain its nuclear deterrence against the United States. Its navy plans to test 16 submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) in a single salvo from a nuclear submarine in the Barents Sea soon, according to a source quoted in Russian daily Izvestia, though the source did not provide a date. Other Russian media agencies have reported that only two missiles would be tested.
Launching 16 SLBMs would be notable; most tests launch only a single missile, maybe a handful at most. But it would also be risky and expensive. Regardless of how many missiles Russia launches, the point is the same: Moscow is brandishing its nuclear capability in response to U.S. advancements in anti-ballistic missile technology and nuclear modernization.
Analysis
Testing intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) is not uncommon. The United States tested an LGM-30G Minuteman III ICBM off the coast of California as recently as Feb. 25, its second Minuteman III test that month. Though nuclear testing has largely ended (the exception being North Korea) since the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty was adopted in 1996, testing of the delivery vehicles for nuclear warheads continues unabated.
Testing ensures that nuclear-capable missiles continue to work and have not deteriorated with age. It also broadcasts reliability to potential enemies, conveying a country's still-active capability to launch a nuclear strike. Finally, even though countries such as Russia and the United States are restrained by the New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, launches help modernize nuclear arsenals. As new missiles and bombs are built, they require tests to see whether they can effectively reach their target.
Deterrence figures prominently in the increase of missile testing as well. Russia's nuclear arsenal not only enshrines the country's position as a great power, it also guarantees security against potential foreign foes. Russian conventional military power is no longer an assurance against NATO's military prowess and China's rapidly modernizing conventional military force. Understandably, Russia's nuclear arsenal continues to be the top priority in its defense spending.
However, Russia is concerned by the possibility that the United States will undermine its nuclear deterrence. The United States is in the midst of an estimated $350 billion nuclear modernization program and is simultaneously pursuing anti-ballistic missile technology. Moscow fears that these efforts have the potential to break the nuclear balance between the countries, reducing its deterrence capabilities. Specifically, an increasingly precise U.S. nuclear arsenal coupled with a reliable anti-ballistic missile network could enable Washington to launch a decapitation strike, which would severely damage Russia's leadership structure and nuclear arsenal in a first strike, while leaving the United States able to intercept and destroy the surviving missiles that Moscow launched in retaliation. A viable nuclear scenario that leaves the United States largely unscathed in a nuclear attack could, in theory, induce Washington toward such an attack. Of course, the world would suffer terrible nuclear fallout, but military doctrine has to engage with worst-case scenarios.
https://www.stratfor.com/sites/defa...ges/Russia-ICBMs-030916 (2).png?itok=yVqMkHy1
It is hardly surprising, then, that Russia is determinedly modernizing its nuclear weapons program while simultaneously reminding the world of its capability. Last year, the Russians tested eight ICBMs, and earlier in January, Russian officials announced plans to test 16 ICBMs in 2016, 14 of which will be tests of missiles entering service in Russia for the first time. On the testing schedule are the recently introduced Bulava SLBM, which had considerable development problems, and also other land-based ICBMs such as the new SS-X-30 Sarmat. Moscow is counting on these new missiles to ensure its nuclear arsenal survives against the U.S. anti-ballistic missile network.
Russia is also looking to its past to enhance its nuclear survivability, revisiting old Soviet tactics. Moscow is now working to enhance missile mobility by shuttling them by rail. Moreover, it is reviewing the Fractional Orbital Bombardment System, which would enable Russia to use low Earth orbit to widen the range of its missiles to strike areas not protected by U.S. anti-ballistic missile systems.
Russia certainly benefits from the media's considerable interest in its ICBM tests, since it helps highlight its continued nuclear deterrence capability. But more important, any launch proves that although international treaties have largely curbed the quantity of warheads and missiles, the race to develop and maintain quality nuclear equipment and capabilities continues. It is why Russia and the United States are pursuing modernization programs — to refine their nuclear arsenals and contend with each other's increasingly viable anti-ballistic missile technology.
This article originally appeared at Stratfor.
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.realcleardefense.com/art...clear_arms_race_is_alive_and_well_109131.html
March 11, 2016
The Nuclear Arms Race is Alive and Well
By Stratfor
Comment 1
Summary
Russia is determined to maintain its nuclear deterrence against the United States. Its navy plans to test 16 submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) in a single salvo from a nuclear submarine in the Barents Sea soon, according to a source quoted in Russian daily Izvestia, though the source did not provide a date. Other Russian media agencies have reported that only two missiles would be tested.
Launching 16 SLBMs would be notable; most tests launch only a single missile, maybe a handful at most. But it would also be risky and expensive. Regardless of how many missiles Russia launches, the point is the same: Moscow is brandishing its nuclear capability in response to U.S. advancements in anti-ballistic missile technology and nuclear modernization.
Analysis
Testing intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) is not uncommon. The United States tested an LGM-30G Minuteman III ICBM off the coast of California as recently as Feb. 25, its second Minuteman III test that month. Though nuclear testing has largely ended (the exception being North Korea) since the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty was adopted in 1996, testing of the delivery vehicles for nuclear warheads continues unabated.
Testing ensures that nuclear-capable missiles continue to work and have not deteriorated with age. It also broadcasts reliability to potential enemies, conveying a country's still-active capability to launch a nuclear strike. Finally, even though countries such as Russia and the United States are restrained by the New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, launches help modernize nuclear arsenals. As new missiles and bombs are built, they require tests to see whether they can effectively reach their target.
Deterrence figures prominently in the increase of missile testing as well. Russia's nuclear arsenal not only enshrines the country's position as a great power, it also guarantees security against potential foreign foes. Russian conventional military power is no longer an assurance against NATO's military prowess and China's rapidly modernizing conventional military force. Understandably, Russia's nuclear arsenal continues to be the top priority in its defense spending.
However, Russia is concerned by the possibility that the United States will undermine its nuclear deterrence. The United States is in the midst of an estimated $350 billion nuclear modernization program and is simultaneously pursuing anti-ballistic missile technology. Moscow fears that these efforts have the potential to break the nuclear balance between the countries, reducing its deterrence capabilities. Specifically, an increasingly precise U.S. nuclear arsenal coupled with a reliable anti-ballistic missile network could enable Washington to launch a decapitation strike, which would severely damage Russia's leadership structure and nuclear arsenal in a first strike, while leaving the United States able to intercept and destroy the surviving missiles that Moscow launched in retaliation. A viable nuclear scenario that leaves the United States largely unscathed in a nuclear attack could, in theory, induce Washington toward such an attack. Of course, the world would suffer terrible nuclear fallout, but military doctrine has to engage with worst-case scenarios.
https://www.stratfor.com/sites/defa...ges/Russia-ICBMs-030916 (2).png?itok=yVqMkHy1
It is hardly surprising, then, that Russia is determinedly modernizing its nuclear weapons program while simultaneously reminding the world of its capability. Last year, the Russians tested eight ICBMs, and earlier in January, Russian officials announced plans to test 16 ICBMs in 2016, 14 of which will be tests of missiles entering service in Russia for the first time. On the testing schedule are the recently introduced Bulava SLBM, which had considerable development problems, and also other land-based ICBMs such as the new SS-X-30 Sarmat. Moscow is counting on these new missiles to ensure its nuclear arsenal survives against the U.S. anti-ballistic missile network.
Russia is also looking to its past to enhance its nuclear survivability, revisiting old Soviet tactics. Moscow is now working to enhance missile mobility by shuttling them by rail. Moreover, it is reviewing the Fractional Orbital Bombardment System, which would enable Russia to use low Earth orbit to widen the range of its missiles to strike areas not protected by U.S. anti-ballistic missile systems.
Russia certainly benefits from the media's considerable interest in its ICBM tests, since it helps highlight its continued nuclear deterrence capability. But more important, any launch proves that although international treaties have largely curbed the quantity of warheads and missiles, the race to develop and maintain quality nuclear equipment and capabilities continues. It is why Russia and the United States are pursuing modernization programs — to refine their nuclear arsenals and contend with each other's increasingly viable anti-ballistic missile technology.
This article originally appeared at Stratfor.
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20...-and-from-disputed-south-china-sea-next-year/
Asia Pacific
China set to begin operating civilian flights to and from disputed South China Sea next year
by Jesse Johnson
Staff Writer
Mar 11, 2016
China is set to begin operating civilian flights to and from a disputed island in the South China Sea within a year, state media reported Friday as Beijing ramps up infrastructure development in the contested waters.
The flights will be to Sansha City on Woody Island in the contested Paracel archipelago, the official Xinhua News Agency said, quoting a top Communist Party official, Sansha Mayor Xiao Jie.
Sansha was officially established in 2012 to administer several island groups, including the Paracels, Spratly Islands, Macclesfield Bank, and their surrounding waters in the South China Sea.
In January, Beijing said it carried out test flights to a newly constructed airfield covering reclaimed land on Fiery Cross Reef in the Spratly Islands, which are claimed by China, Vietnam and four other governments.
Quoting Xiao, the Xinhua report said the airfields on Woody Island and Fiery Cross Reef would “improve air traffic services in the South China Sea and provide more information about weather, aeronautics, communication, navigation and surveillance.”
The construction of airstrips in the area has stoked concerns that China is attempting to lay the groundwork for an air defense identification zone (ADIZ) in the waters, which would effectively put it in control of vital sea lanes.
Beijing claims most of the waters in the South China Sea, through which nearly $5 trillion in trade passes each year. Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam also have conflicting claims in the area.
The U.S. Navy conducted what Washington calls “freedom of navigation” operations near disputed islands in the South China Sea in October and late January.
The United States, Japan and other nations in the region have urged China to halt its massive land-reclamation projects and to refrain from militarizing the waters.
In February, the United States and Taiwan confirmed reports by U.S. media that Beijing had “recently” dispatched surface-to-air missiles and radar systems to Woody Island, which they said went against a vow by Chinese President Xi Jinping not to militarize its claims in the waters.
Some analysts have said that the radar and weapons systems could help China to establish an ADIZ, similar to the one it declared in the disputed East China Sea in November 2013.
Asia Pacific
◉North Korean nuclear test shook the earth — but where’s the proper proof?
◉Suu Kyi loyalist is confirmed for Myanmar presidential race
◉Talk of ‘decapitation strikes’ ups ante on Korean Peninsula
◉U.S. may need more missile defenses to counter growing threat: admiral
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20...-and-from-disputed-south-china-sea-next-year/
Asia Pacific
China set to begin operating civilian flights to and from disputed South China Sea next year
by Jesse Johnson
Staff Writer
Mar 11, 2016
China is set to begin operating civilian flights to and from a disputed island in the South China Sea within a year, state media reported Friday as Beijing ramps up infrastructure development in the contested waters.
The flights will be to Sansha City on Woody Island in the contested Paracel archipelago, the official Xinhua News Agency said, quoting a top Communist Party official, Sansha Mayor Xiao Jie.
Sansha was officially established in 2012 to administer several island groups, including the Paracels, Spratly Islands, Macclesfield Bank, and their surrounding waters in the South China Sea.
In January, Beijing said it carried out test flights to a newly constructed airfield covering reclaimed land on Fiery Cross Reef in the Spratly Islands, which are claimed by China, Vietnam and four other governments.
Quoting Xiao, the Xinhua report said the airfields on Woody Island and Fiery Cross Reef would “improve air traffic services in the South China Sea and provide more information about weather, aeronautics, communication, navigation and surveillance.”
The construction of airstrips in the area has stoked concerns that China is attempting to lay the groundwork for an air defense identification zone (ADIZ) in the waters, which would effectively put it in control of vital sea lanes.
Beijing claims most of the waters in the South China Sea, through which nearly $5 trillion in trade passes each year. Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam also have conflicting claims in the area.
The U.S. Navy conducted what Washington calls “freedom of navigation” operations near disputed islands in the South China Sea in October and late January.
The United States, Japan and other nations in the region have urged China to halt its massive land-reclamation projects and to refrain from militarizing the waters.
In February, the United States and Taiwan confirmed reports by U.S. media that Beijing had “recently” dispatched surface-to-air missiles and radar systems to Woody Island, which they said went against a vow by Chinese President Xi Jinping not to militarize its claims in the waters.
Some analysts have said that the radar and weapons systems could help China to establish an ADIZ, similar to the one it declared in the disputed East China Sea in November 2013.
Asia Pacific
◉North Korean nuclear test shook the earth — but where’s the proper proof?
◉Suu Kyi loyalist is confirmed for Myanmar presidential race
◉Talk of ‘decapitation strikes’ ups ante on Korean Peninsula
◉U.S. may need more missile defenses to counter growing threat: admiral
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://jakartaglobe.beritasatu.com/international/china-angered-us-approves-frigate-sale-taiwan/
China Angered as US Approves Frigate Sale to Taiwan
Beijing/Washington. China expressed anger on Friday (11/03) after the US State Department said it had authorized the sale of two surplus US Navy frigates to Taiwan for $190 million, subject to congressional approval, amid rising tension in the South China Sea.
China considers self-ruled Taiwan a wayward province, to be brought under its control by force if necessary. Defeated Nationalist forces fled to Taiwan in 1949 after the Chinese civil war.
US arms sales to democratic Taiwan always attract strong opposition from Beijing, though they have not ended up causing lasting damage to ties between China and the United States or between China and Taiwan.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said China had lodged a protest with the United States.
"The Chinese side has launched representations with the US State Department demanding the US side give a full account," Hong told a daily news briefing.
"The US has said that right now it has no plans to sell weapons to Taiwan and has not issued any statements. China's position on US arms sales to Taiwan is consistent, clear, and firm," he added.
Taiwan's Defense Ministry said the sale was part of a deal reached last year.
The Taiwan Relations Act commits the United States to ensuring Taipei can maintain a credible defense.
"The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region," the State Department said in a statement.
The plan comes amid rising concern over China's deployment of missiles and fighters on a number of artificial islands in the South China Sea. It also announced a rise of 7 percent to 8 percent in 2016 defense spending from the previous year.
In a rare public comment, Taiwan's Defense Ministry warned on Wednesday that countries in the region were spending more on bolstering their military strength as tension in the South China Sea increased.
In February, it said missile batteries had been set up on Woody Island in the Paracels chain, which has been under Chinese control for decades but is also claimed by Taiwan and Vietnam.
China is highly suspicious of Taiwan president-elect Tsai Ing-wen and her pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which won elections in January by a landslide. Tsai assumes office in May.
Last week, President Xi Jinping said China would never allow the historical tragedy of Taiwan being "split" off from the rest of the country to happen again, warning the island against any moves towards formal independence.
Japan ruled Taiwan as a colony for about five decades until the end of World War Two. China's last dynasty, the Qing, had ceded Taiwan to Japan in 1895 after losing the first Sino-Japanese war.
Additional reporting by J.R. Wu & Ben Blanchard
Reuters
Posted for fair use.....
http://jakartaglobe.beritasatu.com/international/china-angered-us-approves-frigate-sale-taiwan/
China Angered as US Approves Frigate Sale to Taiwan
Beijing/Washington. China expressed anger on Friday (11/03) after the US State Department said it had authorized the sale of two surplus US Navy frigates to Taiwan for $190 million, subject to congressional approval, amid rising tension in the South China Sea.
China considers self-ruled Taiwan a wayward province, to be brought under its control by force if necessary. Defeated Nationalist forces fled to Taiwan in 1949 after the Chinese civil war.
US arms sales to democratic Taiwan always attract strong opposition from Beijing, though they have not ended up causing lasting damage to ties between China and the United States or between China and Taiwan.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said China had lodged a protest with the United States.
"The Chinese side has launched representations with the US State Department demanding the US side give a full account," Hong told a daily news briefing.
"The US has said that right now it has no plans to sell weapons to Taiwan and has not issued any statements. China's position on US arms sales to Taiwan is consistent, clear, and firm," he added.
Taiwan's Defense Ministry said the sale was part of a deal reached last year.
The Taiwan Relations Act commits the United States to ensuring Taipei can maintain a credible defense.
"The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region," the State Department said in a statement.
The plan comes amid rising concern over China's deployment of missiles and fighters on a number of artificial islands in the South China Sea. It also announced a rise of 7 percent to 8 percent in 2016 defense spending from the previous year.
In a rare public comment, Taiwan's Defense Ministry warned on Wednesday that countries in the region were spending more on bolstering their military strength as tension in the South China Sea increased.
In February, it said missile batteries had been set up on Woody Island in the Paracels chain, which has been under Chinese control for decades but is also claimed by Taiwan and Vietnam.
China is highly suspicious of Taiwan president-elect Tsai Ing-wen and her pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which won elections in January by a landslide. Tsai assumes office in May.
Last week, President Xi Jinping said China would never allow the historical tragedy of Taiwan being "split" off from the rest of the country to happen again, warning the island against any moves towards formal independence.
Japan ruled Taiwan as a colony for about five decades until the end of World War Two. China's last dynasty, the Qing, had ceded Taiwan to Japan in 1895 after losing the first Sino-Japanese war.
Additional reporting by J.R. Wu & Ben Blanchard
Reuters
N.Korea publishes pictures of ‘miniaturized’ nuclear device
Started by Possible Impact, 03-08-2016 07:51 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...hes-pictures-of-‘miniaturized’-nuclear-device
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-deba...-to-return-u-s-nukes-to-the-korean-peninsula/
The Great Debate
North Korea is a nuclear power. Here’s why the world just has to live with it.
By Bennett Ramberg
March 10, 2016
What are Washington and its allies to do about North Korea? In January, Pyongyang tested its fourth nuclear device. It launched a satellite in February to gather additional data for developing an intercontinental ballistic missile. Meanwhile, North Korean engineers keep cranking out weapons material that could fuel dozens of nuclear bombs in years to come.
The international response continues to be ineffective. After much pouting from concerned countries, the United Nations Security Council recently responded to the new round of tests with an impressive new collection of sanctions.
The sanctions promise to halt the movement of contraband by monitoring North Korean commerce moving in and out of the country, prohibit the export of jet and rocket fuel to Pyongyang, block the North’s ability to conduct international financial transactions and ban the export of North Korean coal and minerals. But they are not enough. Even combined with the previous sanctions, this will not move the North off its nuclear pedestal. It is simply too late.
First, it is inconceivable that North Korean leader Kim Jong Un would give up the weapon that places his nation in the exclusive global nuclear club. Pyongyang has invested so much and come so far to mature a nuclear program that provides it with an atomic deterrent and a means of intimidation. Second, history repeatedly shows that sanctions are unlikely to be fully enforced or sufficient to squeeze North Korea.
Washington and its allies must now come to the realization that it is time to adapt.
Adaptation has already begun. South Korea has made a multi-year commitment to increase its military budget and modernize its conventional forces. It has begun deploying longer-range surface-to-surface missiles and is acquiring U.S. F-35 strike aircraft. Seoul is talking with Washington about installing the sophisticated missile defense system Terminal High Altitude Area Defense or THAAD. Collectively, beefing up of its conventional forces bolsters Seoul’s deterrence capabilities.
Yet many in South Korea still fear that Seoul’s military buildup will not be enough. Some conservative legislators and others both in and out of government have called for the country to go nuclear. Were that to occur, Seoul would follow the path of several countries — the Soviet Union, Britain, France and Pakistan — that responded in kind to their adversaries’ possession of nuclear weapons.
However, any move by South Korea to break its Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty vows would pit it against its crucial ally, Washington, which doggedly opposes nuclear proliferation whether by friend or foe.
In addition, nuclear acquisition would present South Korea with its own challenges. Though the country has the technical capacity to build a bomb, it could take years for it to perfect a delivery device and marshal an effective deterrent, or use doctrine. The effort would prove costly because it would divert scarce defense dollars from other vital security needs. It would also raise the ire of China.
Impressing upon North Korea that no good will come from its bomb remains critical. It raises the question of whether more good could come from Washington’s return of nuclear weapons to South Korea — the United States removed them in 1991 as the Cold War ended.
Given North Korea’s unabated nuclear development, is it time to reassess that 1991 decision? Re-installing the weapons would raise a host of additional issues: Would deployment enhance deterrence or make Pyongyang more trigger happy? Would it provide Seoul enough reassurance to eliminate any inclination to go nuclear? Or is offshore deployment enough?
Then, there is the matter of Beijing’s response. Would the return of the bomb to South Korean soil prompt a major dustup in Sino-U.S. relations? Or would it demonstrate Washington’s commitment to assure the security of all its East Asian allies?
These open questions deserve robust public debate in the United States and South Korea. But so does another matter, now even more off the radar. Is it time for the United States to reach out to North Korea, to formally concede what it cannot change — namely that North Korea is a nuclear-armed nation — not as any favor to the Stalinist regime but to generate a quid pro quo, the establishment of official liaison offices in the two countries’ capitals? This would put in place a permanent face-to-face communication link to defuse the risk of war should tensions mount.
The alternative — keeping North Korea ever more isolated — perpetuates the fantasy that Pyongyang still can be sanctioned or otherwise induced to give up its nuclear bombs. Rather, the challenge now is not to bolster quixotic policies but to nurture others that assure Kim’s bomb does not give birth to a 21st-century nuclear war.
Started by Possible Impact, 03-08-2016 07:51 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...hes-pictures-of-‘miniaturized’-nuclear-device
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-deba...-to-return-u-s-nukes-to-the-korean-peninsula/
The Great Debate
North Korea is a nuclear power. Here’s why the world just has to live with it.
By Bennett Ramberg
March 10, 2016
What are Washington and its allies to do about North Korea? In January, Pyongyang tested its fourth nuclear device. It launched a satellite in February to gather additional data for developing an intercontinental ballistic missile. Meanwhile, North Korean engineers keep cranking out weapons material that could fuel dozens of nuclear bombs in years to come.
The international response continues to be ineffective. After much pouting from concerned countries, the United Nations Security Council recently responded to the new round of tests with an impressive new collection of sanctions.
The sanctions promise to halt the movement of contraband by monitoring North Korean commerce moving in and out of the country, prohibit the export of jet and rocket fuel to Pyongyang, block the North’s ability to conduct international financial transactions and ban the export of North Korean coal and minerals. But they are not enough. Even combined with the previous sanctions, this will not move the North off its nuclear pedestal. It is simply too late.
First, it is inconceivable that North Korean leader Kim Jong Un would give up the weapon that places his nation in the exclusive global nuclear club. Pyongyang has invested so much and come so far to mature a nuclear program that provides it with an atomic deterrent and a means of intimidation. Second, history repeatedly shows that sanctions are unlikely to be fully enforced or sufficient to squeeze North Korea.
Washington and its allies must now come to the realization that it is time to adapt.
Adaptation has already begun. South Korea has made a multi-year commitment to increase its military budget and modernize its conventional forces. It has begun deploying longer-range surface-to-surface missiles and is acquiring U.S. F-35 strike aircraft. Seoul is talking with Washington about installing the sophisticated missile defense system Terminal High Altitude Area Defense or THAAD. Collectively, beefing up of its conventional forces bolsters Seoul’s deterrence capabilities.
Yet many in South Korea still fear that Seoul’s military buildup will not be enough. Some conservative legislators and others both in and out of government have called for the country to go nuclear. Were that to occur, Seoul would follow the path of several countries — the Soviet Union, Britain, France and Pakistan — that responded in kind to their adversaries’ possession of nuclear weapons.
However, any move by South Korea to break its Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty vows would pit it against its crucial ally, Washington, which doggedly opposes nuclear proliferation whether by friend or foe.
In addition, nuclear acquisition would present South Korea with its own challenges. Though the country has the technical capacity to build a bomb, it could take years for it to perfect a delivery device and marshal an effective deterrent, or use doctrine. The effort would prove costly because it would divert scarce defense dollars from other vital security needs. It would also raise the ire of China.
Impressing upon North Korea that no good will come from its bomb remains critical. It raises the question of whether more good could come from Washington’s return of nuclear weapons to South Korea — the United States removed them in 1991 as the Cold War ended.
Given North Korea’s unabated nuclear development, is it time to reassess that 1991 decision? Re-installing the weapons would raise a host of additional issues: Would deployment enhance deterrence or make Pyongyang more trigger happy? Would it provide Seoul enough reassurance to eliminate any inclination to go nuclear? Or is offshore deployment enough?
Then, there is the matter of Beijing’s response. Would the return of the bomb to South Korean soil prompt a major dustup in Sino-U.S. relations? Or would it demonstrate Washington’s commitment to assure the security of all its East Asian allies?
These open questions deserve robust public debate in the United States and South Korea. But so does another matter, now even more off the radar. Is it time for the United States to reach out to North Korea, to formally concede what it cannot change — namely that North Korea is a nuclear-armed nation — not as any favor to the Stalinist regime but to generate a quid pro quo, the establishment of official liaison offices in the two countries’ capitals? This would put in place a permanent face-to-face communication link to defuse the risk of war should tensions mount.
The alternative — keeping North Korea ever more isolated — perpetuates the fantasy that Pyongyang still can be sanctioned or otherwise induced to give up its nuclear bombs. Rather, the challenge now is not to bolster quixotic policies but to nurture others that assure Kim’s bomb does not give birth to a 21st-century nuclear war.
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-arabs-idUSKCN0WD1J7
World | Fri Mar 11, 2016 8:25am EST
Related: World, Iraq
Saudis walk out of Arab League meeting after Iraqi minister's comments
CAIRO
The Saudi delegation at the Arab League stormed out of a meeting after Iraqi Foreign Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari defended the Shi'ite Hashd Shaabi militia grouping, an Iraqi foreign ministry source told Reuters on Friday.
Tensions between Sunni and Shi'ite Muslim powers have been on the rise as sectarian wars rage in Syria, Yemen and Iraq, and the Arab League has become a forum for predominantly Sunni countries, led by Saudi Arabia, to air grievances with regional Shi'ite power Iran.
"The Saudi delegation withdrew from the meeting hall after the speech of Foreign Minister Al-Jaafari who rejected speaking against Hashd Shaabi and other resistance groups," the source said, declining to be named.
"In his speech he said that Hashd Shaabi and Hezbollah have preserved the dignity of the Arabs and those who call them terrorists are the terrorists," he said.
A Saudi foreign ministry spokesman could not be reached for comment.
In January, Iraq summoned the Saudi ambassador after he suggested Iranian-backed Shi'ite militias were exacerbating sectarian tensions in Iraq.
Morocco said last month that it would not host the 2016 Arab League meeting as scheduled, saying it wanted to avoid giving a false impression of unity in the Arab world.
(Reporting by Mostafa Salem; Writing by Asma Alsharif; Editing by Louise Ireland)
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-arabs-idUSKCN0WD1J7
World | Fri Mar 11, 2016 8:25am EST
Related: World, Iraq
Saudis walk out of Arab League meeting after Iraqi minister's comments
CAIRO
The Saudi delegation at the Arab League stormed out of a meeting after Iraqi Foreign Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari defended the Shi'ite Hashd Shaabi militia grouping, an Iraqi foreign ministry source told Reuters on Friday.
Tensions between Sunni and Shi'ite Muslim powers have been on the rise as sectarian wars rage in Syria, Yemen and Iraq, and the Arab League has become a forum for predominantly Sunni countries, led by Saudi Arabia, to air grievances with regional Shi'ite power Iran.
"The Saudi delegation withdrew from the meeting hall after the speech of Foreign Minister Al-Jaafari who rejected speaking against Hashd Shaabi and other resistance groups," the source said, declining to be named.
"In his speech he said that Hashd Shaabi and Hezbollah have preserved the dignity of the Arabs and those who call them terrorists are the terrorists," he said.
A Saudi foreign ministry spokesman could not be reached for comment.
In January, Iraq summoned the Saudi ambassador after he suggested Iranian-backed Shi'ite militias were exacerbating sectarian tensions in Iraq.
Morocco said last month that it would not host the 2016 Arab League meeting as scheduled, saying it wanted to avoid giving a false impression of unity in the Arab world.
(Reporting by Mostafa Salem; Writing by Asma Alsharif; Editing by Louise Ireland)
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-algeria-security-idUSKCN0WD1ZB
World | Fri Mar 11, 2016 2:15pm EST
Related: World
Algerian army kills suspected militants, seizes missiles
ALGIERS
Algeria's army said on Friday it had killed three Islamist militants near the eastern city of El Oued and seized a large quantity of weapons including six anti-aircraft missiles.
One of those killed in the operation late on Thursday was Kamel Arabiya, a senior militant and veteran of Algeria's civil war in the 1990s, the defense ministry said in a statement.
Arabiya led the local brigade of al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and according to news reports may have recently pledged allegiance to Islamic State.
The military said it had recovered six Stinger surface-to-air missiles, two explosive belts, three rocket-propelled-grenade launchers and more than 20 guns.
The Algerian military is on high alert because of the risk from neighboring Libya, where militants have taken advantage of a security vacuum to build their presence in the region.
A security source told Reuters the weapons seized on Thursday were "very likely from Libya, our biggest headache right now".
Following the fall of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, some intelligence experts estimated that as many as 10,000-15,000 man-portable air defense system (MANPAD) sets were looted from Libyan government stockpiles.
Algerian security services have previously found hundreds of MANPADs near the Libyan border. Such weapons can bring down aircraft with surface-to-air missiles.
Algeria has slowly emerged from a conflict with armed Islamists in the 1990s that left as many as 200,000 dead, and still sees occasional militant violence in parts of the country.
It is considered a key Western ally in the fight against Islamist extremism in North Africa.
(Reporting by Lamine Chikhi; Writing by Aidan Lewis; Editing by Andrew Roche)
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-algeria-security-idUSKCN0WD1ZB
World | Fri Mar 11, 2016 2:15pm EST
Related: World
Algerian army kills suspected militants, seizes missiles
ALGIERS
Algeria's army said on Friday it had killed three Islamist militants near the eastern city of El Oued and seized a large quantity of weapons including six anti-aircraft missiles.
One of those killed in the operation late on Thursday was Kamel Arabiya, a senior militant and veteran of Algeria's civil war in the 1990s, the defense ministry said in a statement.
Arabiya led the local brigade of al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and according to news reports may have recently pledged allegiance to Islamic State.
The military said it had recovered six Stinger surface-to-air missiles, two explosive belts, three rocket-propelled-grenade launchers and more than 20 guns.
The Algerian military is on high alert because of the risk from neighboring Libya, where militants have taken advantage of a security vacuum to build their presence in the region.
A security source told Reuters the weapons seized on Thursday were "very likely from Libya, our biggest headache right now".
Following the fall of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, some intelligence experts estimated that as many as 10,000-15,000 man-portable air defense system (MANPAD) sets were looted from Libyan government stockpiles.
Algerian security services have previously found hundreds of MANPADs near the Libyan border. Such weapons can bring down aircraft with surface-to-air missiles.
Algeria has slowly emerged from a conflict with armed Islamists in the 1990s that left as many as 200,000 dead, and still sees occasional militant violence in parts of the country.
It is considered a key Western ally in the fight against Islamist extremism in North Africa.
(Reporting by Lamine Chikhi; Writing by Aidan Lewis; Editing by Andrew Roche)
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-nuclear-idUSKCN0WC2YQ
Business | Fri Mar 11, 2016 2:09pm EST
Related: World, North Korea, Aerospace & Defense
North Korean leader Kim orders more nuclear tests: KCNA
SEOUL | By Jack Kim
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un watched a ballistic missile launch test and ordered the country to improve its nuclear attack capability by conducting more tests, the official KCNA news agency reported on Friday.
The report did not say when the missile test took place but it was probably referring to North Korea's launch of two short-range missiles on Thursday that flew 500 km (300 miles) and splashed into the sea.
"Dear comrade Kim Jong Un said work ... must be strengthened to improve nuclear attack capability and issued combat tasks to continue nuclear explosion tests to assess the power of newly developed nuclear warheads and tests to improve nuclear attack capability," KCNA said.
The North Korean leader was quoted in state media this week as saying his country had miniaturized nuclear warheads to mount on ballistic missiles.
Responding to the latest statement, Katina Adams, a spokeswoman for the U.S. State Department, repeated a call on North Korea "to refrain from provocative actions and rhetoric that aggravate tensions and instead focus on fulfilling its international obligations and commitments."
Tensions have risen sharply on the Korean peninsula after the North conducted its fourth nuclear test in January and fired a long-range rocket last month, spurring the U.N. Security Council to adopt a new sanctions resolution.
Conducting more nuclear tests would be in clear violation of U.N. sanctions, which also ban ballistic missile tests, although Pyongyang has rejected them. North Korea has a large stockpile of short-range missiles and is developing long-range and intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).
Related Coverage
› Russia and China to North Korea: Return to nuclear talks
South Korea's Unification Ministry spokesman Jeong Joon-hee said: "It's simply rash and thoughtless behavior by someone who has no idea how the world works," when asked about Kim's comments.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged Pyongyang to "cease destabilizing acts," adding that he remained "gravely concerned" by the situation.
North Korea has recently stepped up its cyber attack efforts against South Korea and succeeded in hacking the mobile telephones of 40 of its national security officials, said members of parliament who received a closed-door briefing by the country's spy agency.
South Korea has raised its alert against the threat of the North's cyber attacks and this week said it had intercepted attempts to attack its railway system.
In China, North Korea's most important economic and diplomatic backer, the top newspaper, the People's Daily, urged all sides to be "patient and brave", show goodwill and resume the talks process.
South Korea said it did not believe that North Korea had successfully miniaturized a nuclear warhead or deployed a functioning intercontinental ballistic missile.
The U.S. Defense Department said this week it had seen no evidence North Korea had succeeded in miniaturizing a warhead.
Related Coverage
› North Korean nuclear test shook the earth but where's the proper proof?
However, Admiral Bill Gortney, the officer responsible for defending U.S. air space, told a U.S. Senate panel on Thursday it was "prudent" for him to assume North Korea could both miniaturize a warhead and put it on an ICBM that could target the United States.
"Intel community gives it a very low probability of success, but I do not believe the American people want (me) to base my readiness assessment on a low probability," he said.
North Korea has issued nearly daily reports in recent days on Kim's instructions to fight South Korea and the United States as the two allies began large-scale military drills.
North Korea called the annual drills "nuclear war moves" and threatened to respond with an all-out offensive. Kim last week ordered his country to be ready to use nuclear weapons in the face of what he sees as growing threats from enemies.
The United States and South Korea remain technically at war with North Korea because the 1950-53 Korean War ended in a truce instead of a peace agreement.
(Additional reporting by Ju-min Park in Seoul, David Brunnstrom and David Alexander in Washington and Ben Blanchard in Beijing; Editing by Raju Gopalakrishnan, Clarence Fernandez and James Dalgleish)
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-nuclear-idUSKCN0WC2YQ
Business | Fri Mar 11, 2016 2:09pm EST
Related: World, North Korea, Aerospace & Defense
North Korean leader Kim orders more nuclear tests: KCNA
SEOUL | By Jack Kim
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un watched a ballistic missile launch test and ordered the country to improve its nuclear attack capability by conducting more tests, the official KCNA news agency reported on Friday.
The report did not say when the missile test took place but it was probably referring to North Korea's launch of two short-range missiles on Thursday that flew 500 km (300 miles) and splashed into the sea.
"Dear comrade Kim Jong Un said work ... must be strengthened to improve nuclear attack capability and issued combat tasks to continue nuclear explosion tests to assess the power of newly developed nuclear warheads and tests to improve nuclear attack capability," KCNA said.
The North Korean leader was quoted in state media this week as saying his country had miniaturized nuclear warheads to mount on ballistic missiles.
Responding to the latest statement, Katina Adams, a spokeswoman for the U.S. State Department, repeated a call on North Korea "to refrain from provocative actions and rhetoric that aggravate tensions and instead focus on fulfilling its international obligations and commitments."
Tensions have risen sharply on the Korean peninsula after the North conducted its fourth nuclear test in January and fired a long-range rocket last month, spurring the U.N. Security Council to adopt a new sanctions resolution.
Conducting more nuclear tests would be in clear violation of U.N. sanctions, which also ban ballistic missile tests, although Pyongyang has rejected them. North Korea has a large stockpile of short-range missiles and is developing long-range and intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).
Related Coverage
› Russia and China to North Korea: Return to nuclear talks
South Korea's Unification Ministry spokesman Jeong Joon-hee said: "It's simply rash and thoughtless behavior by someone who has no idea how the world works," when asked about Kim's comments.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged Pyongyang to "cease destabilizing acts," adding that he remained "gravely concerned" by the situation.
North Korea has recently stepped up its cyber attack efforts against South Korea and succeeded in hacking the mobile telephones of 40 of its national security officials, said members of parliament who received a closed-door briefing by the country's spy agency.
South Korea has raised its alert against the threat of the North's cyber attacks and this week said it had intercepted attempts to attack its railway system.
In China, North Korea's most important economic and diplomatic backer, the top newspaper, the People's Daily, urged all sides to be "patient and brave", show goodwill and resume the talks process.
South Korea said it did not believe that North Korea had successfully miniaturized a nuclear warhead or deployed a functioning intercontinental ballistic missile.
The U.S. Defense Department said this week it had seen no evidence North Korea had succeeded in miniaturizing a warhead.
Related Coverage
› North Korean nuclear test shook the earth but where's the proper proof?
However, Admiral Bill Gortney, the officer responsible for defending U.S. air space, told a U.S. Senate panel on Thursday it was "prudent" for him to assume North Korea could both miniaturize a warhead and put it on an ICBM that could target the United States.
"Intel community gives it a very low probability of success, but I do not believe the American people want (me) to base my readiness assessment on a low probability," he said.
North Korea has issued nearly daily reports in recent days on Kim's instructions to fight South Korea and the United States as the two allies began large-scale military drills.
North Korea called the annual drills "nuclear war moves" and threatened to respond with an all-out offensive. Kim last week ordered his country to be ready to use nuclear weapons in the face of what he sees as growing threats from enemies.
The United States and South Korea remain technically at war with North Korea because the 1950-53 Korean War ended in a truce instead of a peace agreement.
(Additional reporting by Ju-min Park in Seoul, David Brunnstrom and David Alexander in Washington and Ben Blanchard in Beijing; Editing by Raju Gopalakrishnan, Clarence Fernandez and James Dalgleish)
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-turkey-judiciary-erdogan-idUSKCN0WD1MD
World | Fri Mar 11, 2016 9:30am EST
Related: World, Turkey
Turkey's Erdogan warns top court after ruling on detained journalists
ISTANBUL
Turkey's President Tayyip Erdogan said on Friday a constitutional court ruling that led to the release of two detained newspaper editors was a step against the country and warned the court that repeating such actions could bring its very existence into question.
The constitutional court ruled last month that the detention of Can Dundar and Erdem Gul, editor-in-chief and Ankara bureau chief of the opposition Cumhuriyet newspaper, was "unlawful" and had violated their individual freedom and safety.
The two, who had been arrested in November on charges of intentionally aiding an armed terrorist organization and publishing material in violation of state security, were subsequently released.
"This institution, with the involvement of its president and some members, did not refrain from taking a decision that is against the country and its people, on a subject that is a concrete example of one of the biggest attacks against Turkey recently," Erdogan told a rally in the southwestern city of Burdur.
"I hope the constitutional court would not again attempt such ways which will open its existence and legitimacy up for debate," he said in a speech broadcast live on television.
Cumhuriyet published photos, videos and a report last May that it said showed intelligence officials transporting arms to Syria in trucks in 2014. Erdogan, who has cast the newspaper's coverage as part of an attempt to undermine Turkey's global standing, has said he will not forgive such reporting.
European leaders have warned Turkey, which aspires to membership of the European Union, over its record on freedom of expression, particularly since state-appointed administrators took over another opposition newspaper, Zaman, a week ago.
But the EU has faced criticism for compromising on that message after it struck a draft agreement with Ankara on Monday on curbing illegal migration, which could see Turkey receive 6 billion euros ($6.7 billion) in EU funding, visa-free travel an acceleration in long-stalled membership talks.
"I am obliged to ensure that the state organs work in harmony and that the constitution is executed," Erdogan said.
"Whoever breaches the boundaries on this would find me against them. And if the constitutional court chooses such a path, I would not shy away from expressing my objections."
(Reporting by Humeyra Pamuk; Writing by Nick Tattersall; Editing by Hugh Lawson)
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-turkey-judiciary-erdogan-idUSKCN0WD1MD
World | Fri Mar 11, 2016 9:30am EST
Related: World, Turkey
Turkey's Erdogan warns top court after ruling on detained journalists
ISTANBUL
Turkey's President Tayyip Erdogan said on Friday a constitutional court ruling that led to the release of two detained newspaper editors was a step against the country and warned the court that repeating such actions could bring its very existence into question.
The constitutional court ruled last month that the detention of Can Dundar and Erdem Gul, editor-in-chief and Ankara bureau chief of the opposition Cumhuriyet newspaper, was "unlawful" and had violated their individual freedom and safety.
The two, who had been arrested in November on charges of intentionally aiding an armed terrorist organization and publishing material in violation of state security, were subsequently released.
"This institution, with the involvement of its president and some members, did not refrain from taking a decision that is against the country and its people, on a subject that is a concrete example of one of the biggest attacks against Turkey recently," Erdogan told a rally in the southwestern city of Burdur.
"I hope the constitutional court would not again attempt such ways which will open its existence and legitimacy up for debate," he said in a speech broadcast live on television.
Cumhuriyet published photos, videos and a report last May that it said showed intelligence officials transporting arms to Syria in trucks in 2014. Erdogan, who has cast the newspaper's coverage as part of an attempt to undermine Turkey's global standing, has said he will not forgive such reporting.
European leaders have warned Turkey, which aspires to membership of the European Union, over its record on freedom of expression, particularly since state-appointed administrators took over another opposition newspaper, Zaman, a week ago.
But the EU has faced criticism for compromising on that message after it struck a draft agreement with Ankara on Monday on curbing illegal migration, which could see Turkey receive 6 billion euros ($6.7 billion) in EU funding, visa-free travel an acceleration in long-stalled membership talks.
"I am obliged to ensure that the state organs work in harmony and that the constitution is executed," Erdogan said.
"Whoever breaches the boundaries on this would find me against them. And if the constitutional court chooses such a path, I would not shy away from expressing my objections."
(Reporting by Humeyra Pamuk; Writing by Nick Tattersall; Editing by Hugh Lawson)
Hummm.....
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://rbth.com/international/2016/...ield-weapons-russian-arms-control-head_574961
Nuclear arms are becoming battlefield weapons – Russian arms control head
March 11, 2016 Yelena Chernenko, Kommersant
The Pentagon's new budget for 2017 has created a storm of controversy in the U.S. The objections primarily concern the large-scale plans to modernize the country's nuclear arsenal. Mikhail Ulyanov, director of the Russian Foreign Ministry's department for non-proliferation and arms control, explains why Washington's plans have also raised concerns in Moscow.
In a recent interview, U.S. Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security Rose Gottemoeller said that the modernization of American tactical weapons in Europe will help the U.S. reduce the overall amount of nuclear bombs located on the European continent and will not lead to the increase of these weapons' military potential. How would you comment on this?
It’s true that, in accordance with the updated 2010 nuclear doctrine, the U.S. has begun modernizing its nuclear aerial bombs in Europe, and is planning to create a unified B61-12 version based on the already existing four B-61 versions.
The new bomb, which will supposedly go into service in 2020, will have increased precision and will be suitable for both strategic and tactical aviation.
The U.S. is trying to create the impression that there is nothing extraordinary about this.
However, the analysis of the characteristics of the new aerial bombs indicates that putting them into service may considerably lower the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons. Instead of being a means of deterrence, such weapons are potentially becoming battlefield weapons, as was the case during the Cold War.
It is not by chance that in November 2014 former commander of the U.S. strategic command General James Cartwright said that as a result of modernization the B-61 bombs can become "more usable."
A very worrying statement was also made by former U.S. Under Secretary of Defense for Policy James Miller in January 2015.
He said that the presence of nuclear weapons with less capacity would help reduce the number of civilian victims in case they are used. He even called it a more "reliable and ethical" approach.
This sounds rather cynical since translated into normal language it means that American specialists close to the U.S. administration believe that the use of the new aerial bombs is more likely and more acceptable. In any case, the temptation to employ these weapons in certain situations may significantly increase.
According to the Federation of American Scientists, the overall amount of unified aerial bombs should be about 400 units, while currently there about 200 of them in Europe. It is possible that part of them will be stored on U.S. territory.
Do any international legal restrictions exist on the modernization of nuclear arsenals?
No, they do not. In principle, modernization is acceptable. What is particular though is that with the current U.S. administration it has assumed an unprecedented scale.
Basically, almost all the key elements of the American nuclear triad are being renovated simultaneously. New carriers are being created – the strategic bomber, the submarine and the intercontinental ballistic missile, as well as the new nuclear weapons they'll carry.
Besides the modernization of nuclear bombs, the Pentagon also plans to create a new nuclear guided missile. The total cost of the development, preparation and exploitation of these systems is estimated at about $1 trillion.
Yet there is a clear discrepancy between America's public declarations about the upcoming establishment of a nuclear-free world and its real policy in this sphere. It is enough to say that the realization of the entire modernization program will help the U.S. guarantee the effectiveness of all its nuclear weapons by 2070-80. By that time perhaps a new round of modernization will have arrived.
As for U.S. nuclear aerial bombs in Europe, in the context of your question I cannot help but say that their very existence, or, to be precise, the practice of handling them within the framework of NATO, violates the first two articles of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
In accordance with the articles, the nuclear powers committed themselves not to transfer – directly or indirectly – nuclear weapons to non-nuclear states, while the latter committed themselves not to receive such weapons, directly or indirectly.
These bans are being fully ignored in the course of NATO's "joint nuclear missions," as part of which pilots from the alliance's non-nuclear member countries are learning how to manage and use nuclear weapons.
In parallel with U.S. measures to modernize the aforementioned aerial bombs, five European states where these weapons have been placed are starting to upgrade their delivery aircraft fleets. Thus, NATO has embarked on a path towards a long-term breach of the NPT obligations.
What measures can Russia take in the event the B61-12s are deployed in Europe?
This question is more for my military colleagues. I can only say that as a rule in the military sphere each action generates a counteraction. I am convinced that Russia's response to putting new American aerial bombs into service will be appropriate, and its parameters will be determined by taking careful note of all circumstances.
First published in Russian in Kommersant.
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://rbth.com/international/2016/...ield-weapons-russian-arms-control-head_574961
Nuclear arms are becoming battlefield weapons – Russian arms control head
March 11, 2016 Yelena Chernenko, Kommersant
The Pentagon's new budget for 2017 has created a storm of controversy in the U.S. The objections primarily concern the large-scale plans to modernize the country's nuclear arsenal. Mikhail Ulyanov, director of the Russian Foreign Ministry's department for non-proliferation and arms control, explains why Washington's plans have also raised concerns in Moscow.
In a recent interview, U.S. Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security Rose Gottemoeller said that the modernization of American tactical weapons in Europe will help the U.S. reduce the overall amount of nuclear bombs located on the European continent and will not lead to the increase of these weapons' military potential. How would you comment on this?
It’s true that, in accordance with the updated 2010 nuclear doctrine, the U.S. has begun modernizing its nuclear aerial bombs in Europe, and is planning to create a unified B61-12 version based on the already existing four B-61 versions.
The new bomb, which will supposedly go into service in 2020, will have increased precision and will be suitable for both strategic and tactical aviation.
The U.S. is trying to create the impression that there is nothing extraordinary about this.
However, the analysis of the characteristics of the new aerial bombs indicates that putting them into service may considerably lower the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons. Instead of being a means of deterrence, such weapons are potentially becoming battlefield weapons, as was the case during the Cold War.
It is not by chance that in November 2014 former commander of the U.S. strategic command General James Cartwright said that as a result of modernization the B-61 bombs can become "more usable."
A very worrying statement was also made by former U.S. Under Secretary of Defense for Policy James Miller in January 2015.
He said that the presence of nuclear weapons with less capacity would help reduce the number of civilian victims in case they are used. He even called it a more "reliable and ethical" approach.
This sounds rather cynical since translated into normal language it means that American specialists close to the U.S. administration believe that the use of the new aerial bombs is more likely and more acceptable. In any case, the temptation to employ these weapons in certain situations may significantly increase.
According to the Federation of American Scientists, the overall amount of unified aerial bombs should be about 400 units, while currently there about 200 of them in Europe. It is possible that part of them will be stored on U.S. territory.
Do any international legal restrictions exist on the modernization of nuclear arsenals?
No, they do not. In principle, modernization is acceptable. What is particular though is that with the current U.S. administration it has assumed an unprecedented scale.
Basically, almost all the key elements of the American nuclear triad are being renovated simultaneously. New carriers are being created – the strategic bomber, the submarine and the intercontinental ballistic missile, as well as the new nuclear weapons they'll carry.
Besides the modernization of nuclear bombs, the Pentagon also plans to create a new nuclear guided missile. The total cost of the development, preparation and exploitation of these systems is estimated at about $1 trillion.
Yet there is a clear discrepancy between America's public declarations about the upcoming establishment of a nuclear-free world and its real policy in this sphere. It is enough to say that the realization of the entire modernization program will help the U.S. guarantee the effectiveness of all its nuclear weapons by 2070-80. By that time perhaps a new round of modernization will have arrived.
As for U.S. nuclear aerial bombs in Europe, in the context of your question I cannot help but say that their very existence, or, to be precise, the practice of handling them within the framework of NATO, violates the first two articles of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
In accordance with the articles, the nuclear powers committed themselves not to transfer – directly or indirectly – nuclear weapons to non-nuclear states, while the latter committed themselves not to receive such weapons, directly or indirectly.
These bans are being fully ignored in the course of NATO's "joint nuclear missions," as part of which pilots from the alliance's non-nuclear member countries are learning how to manage and use nuclear weapons.
In parallel with U.S. measures to modernize the aforementioned aerial bombs, five European states where these weapons have been placed are starting to upgrade their delivery aircraft fleets. Thus, NATO has embarked on a path towards a long-term breach of the NPT obligations.
What measures can Russia take in the event the B61-12s are deployed in Europe?
This question is more for my military colleagues. I can only say that as a rule in the military sphere each action generates a counteraction. I am convinced that Russia's response to putting new American aerial bombs into service will be appropriate, and its parameters will be determined by taking careful note of all circumstances.
First published in Russian in Kommersant.
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.rt.com/news/335197-nato-us-nuclear-breach-bombs/
NATO eyes long-term breach of nuke non-proliferation treaty, Russia to respond – senior diplomat
Published time: 11 Mar, 2016 03:51
Comments 499
The Russian military will have to “adequately” respond to Washington’s plan to upgrade its nuclear bombs in Europe in apparent violation of a nuclear arms non-proliferation treaty (NPT), a senior Foreign Ministry diplomat said in a media interview.
The renovation of the US’ nuclear arsenals in Europe masked as a “regular modernization” is in contradiction with the terms of the NPT, Mikhail Ulyanov, director of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Department for Non-Proliferation and Arms Control, said in an interview with Kommersant daily.
Washington’s plan to upgrade the 180 B61s strategic bombs stocked in European air bases to a modernized B61-12 version has been implemented as part of the US/NATO nuclear modernization program. The B61s were designed back in the 1960s to counter a possible Soviet threat and have since been kept at NATO air bases in Germany, Belgium, Italy, Turkey, and the Netherlands for about five decades.
The US Defense Department had long sought to improve its existing stockpile, arguing that the maintaining the aging electronic parts in the 50-year-old bombs have made their upkeep “unpredictable and irregular.” In the end, it didn’t come cheap for the NATO allies in Europe: the cost of replacing obsolete components is estimated at $28 million per bomb. The program is scheduled to be completed in mid-2020s.
READ MORE: Aging US atomic bomb caught in strategic tug-of-war
“Thus, NATO has set a course for a long-term violation of its responsibilities under the NPT,” Ulyanov argued.
Opponents of the program have argued that instead of scaling down atomic weapons stockpiles in accordance with the NPT, the overhaul is actually creating more states hosting modern nuclear power – a provocation that theoretically weakens Russia’s deterrent.
“Concerns in this regard, expressed not only by us, but also by the Non-Aligned Movement [NAM] member states, are basically ignored by NATO members,” stressed Ulyanov.
The official stressed that Russia will take all necessary steps to provide an adequate response to US plans to expand its nuclear potential.
“In the military sphere, as a general rule, any action forces a counter-reaction. I am certain that the Russian response to the deployment of new US bombs will be adequate, and its parameters will be determined by a thorough analysis of all circumstances,” the diplomat added.
The Non-Proliferation Treaty came into force in 1970. The signatories recognize only five states – the permanent members of the UN Security Council – as eligible to possess nuclear weapons. Since it was opened for signature in 1969, a total of 191 states have joined the agreement. Its ultimate goal is to reduce the possibility of a nuclear conflict by preventing the dissemination of nuclear weapons and promoting peaceful application of nuclear technology.
The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) was founded in 1961. Its members’ original goal was to preserve neutral status during the Cold War. Two-thirds of its 120 members are the signatories to the NPT, which makes it the largest group of states engaged in nuclear disarmament.
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.rt.com/news/335197-nato-us-nuclear-breach-bombs/
NATO eyes long-term breach of nuke non-proliferation treaty, Russia to respond – senior diplomat
Published time: 11 Mar, 2016 03:51
Comments 499
The Russian military will have to “adequately” respond to Washington’s plan to upgrade its nuclear bombs in Europe in apparent violation of a nuclear arms non-proliferation treaty (NPT), a senior Foreign Ministry diplomat said in a media interview.
The renovation of the US’ nuclear arsenals in Europe masked as a “regular modernization” is in contradiction with the terms of the NPT, Mikhail Ulyanov, director of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Department for Non-Proliferation and Arms Control, said in an interview with Kommersant daily.
Washington’s plan to upgrade the 180 B61s strategic bombs stocked in European air bases to a modernized B61-12 version has been implemented as part of the US/NATO nuclear modernization program. The B61s were designed back in the 1960s to counter a possible Soviet threat and have since been kept at NATO air bases in Germany, Belgium, Italy, Turkey, and the Netherlands for about five decades.
The US Defense Department had long sought to improve its existing stockpile, arguing that the maintaining the aging electronic parts in the 50-year-old bombs have made their upkeep “unpredictable and irregular.” In the end, it didn’t come cheap for the NATO allies in Europe: the cost of replacing obsolete components is estimated at $28 million per bomb. The program is scheduled to be completed in mid-2020s.
READ MORE: Aging US atomic bomb caught in strategic tug-of-war
“Thus, NATO has set a course for a long-term violation of its responsibilities under the NPT,” Ulyanov argued.
Opponents of the program have argued that instead of scaling down atomic weapons stockpiles in accordance with the NPT, the overhaul is actually creating more states hosting modern nuclear power – a provocation that theoretically weakens Russia’s deterrent.
“Concerns in this regard, expressed not only by us, but also by the Non-Aligned Movement [NAM] member states, are basically ignored by NATO members,” stressed Ulyanov.
The official stressed that Russia will take all necessary steps to provide an adequate response to US plans to expand its nuclear potential.
“In the military sphere, as a general rule, any action forces a counter-reaction. I am certain that the Russian response to the deployment of new US bombs will be adequate, and its parameters will be determined by a thorough analysis of all circumstances,” the diplomat added.
The Non-Proliferation Treaty came into force in 1970. The signatories recognize only five states – the permanent members of the UN Security Council – as eligible to possess nuclear weapons. Since it was opened for signature in 1969, a total of 191 states have joined the agreement. Its ultimate goal is to reduce the possibility of a nuclear conflict by preventing the dissemination of nuclear weapons and promoting peaceful application of nuclear technology.
The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) was founded in 1961. Its members’ original goal was to preserve neutral status during the Cold War. Two-thirds of its 120 members are the signatories to the NPT, which makes it the largest group of states engaged in nuclear disarmament.
Interesting Op-Ed out of Pakistan, by a woman academic .....
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://tribune.com.pk/story/1064112/being-islamic-and-nuclear/
Being Islamic and nuclear
In Western eyes, Pakistan will never be a normal state as long as it is an Islamic and nuclear power
By Reema Shaukat
Published: March 11, 2016
The writer works for the Islamabad-based think-tank Pakistan Institute for Conflict and Security Studies
In the late 1990s, when Pakistan was struggling to streamline its democratic identity through the political process, India detonated its second nuclear device in Pokhran, complicating the environment in the region. Meanwhile, the US was playing an important role between the two countries to sponsor a wide-ranging and reasonably objective agenda for Pakistan-India talks, which went into a stupor as a result of the Indian detonation. One thing was crystal clear. Pakistan’s reciprocal nuclear tests established nuclear parity, though at a cost that still haunts us unnecessarily. Thereafter, the US found it a good time to close down the parallel dialogue conducted by them with Pakistan and India.
Since Kashmir is the core foundation for the rallying of a nuclear programme by Pakistan, the solution of this long-standing issue lies, essentially, in asking Pakistan to lower its nuclear guards. Without doing so, the situation will not improve as desired by India and other global powers. The Kashmir conundrum is further convoluted when it is pooled in with ‘terrorism’ and the lack of international pressure on India regarding the religious fanaticism of the RSS. Such a one-sided approach by the global powers is not likely to address the nuclear deterrence phenomenon.
During her stints in power, Indira Gandhi cited Hidutwa as a right-wing threat to India’s solidarity and integrity, a challenge she believed had the support of the West — in earnest, the US. Indira Gandhi’s idea of Hindutva, a great challenge supported by the US, proves correct today because the US has compelled the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) members to accommodate India without catering for related nuclear protocols and relaxing regulations.
Yet again, new proposals are being mounted on Pakistan to restrict its testing and deployment of short- and long-range missiles, accept protocols of fissile materials being cut-off and even to unilaterally sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, without waiting for India. In exchange, officials and think-tanks in the west, specifically in the US, have been offering to support Pakistan’s desire to be treated as a ‘normal’ state in its quest for membership of the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group. To press further this demand from Pakistan, the US has asked Australia and Japan to accelerate supplies to India under a previously finalised civil nuclear deal. Pakistan’s early warnings that the Indian build-up would oblige it to enhance reliance on its nuclear and missile capabilities has already been brushed aside by the US which, regrettably, has continued attempts to restrict Pakistan’s defensive response rather than India’s aggressive armament. In view of this growing asymmetry, the National Command Authority has rightly reiterated the national resolve to maintain Full Spectrum Deterrence Capability in line with the dictates of Credible Minimum Deterrence to deter all forms of aggression, adhering to the policy of avoiding an arms race.
The subsequent quest for membership of the NSG is a fool’s errand. In Western eyes, Pakistan will never be a normal state as long as it is an Islamic and nuclear power. It is unlikely to be granted entry into the NSG without major concessions. In the Indo-Pacific field, China is not the only regional giant that is investing in nuclear systems, but it is chiefly India that is also at various stages of development, especially of short-range battlefield nuclear weapons aimed at Pakistan and China. India has hence enacted the necessary defense procurement reforms needed to equip Cold Start, with the tacit support of a variety of regional and global powers. The US and UK are in forefront in empowering India while Australia, Japan and Israel have provided necessary technology and expertise to enable India to carry out interdiction operations inside Pakistani territory under its well-articulated doctrine. Most importantly, Cold Start has already received political support required for it from the incumbent government led by Mr Modi. The US’s raised eyebrows at Pakistan’s nuclear arsenals and the subsequent agreement on providing F-16s, indicates its carrot-and-stick approach towards Pakistan.
Since the doctrine is not absolute, it must be continuously checked in light of improvements in technology and changes in the threat environment. From a military standpoint, the doctrine for the use of tactical nuclear weapons must be operationally credible so as to enhance deterrence. Pakistan’s need for a doctrine in specific regard to tactical nuclear weapons is rooted in these challenges, which are all genuine due to growing Indian conventional and nuclear capabilities. In such a situation, Pakistan has no option but to continue its nuclear doctrine while enhancing strategic relations with China and Russia.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 12th, 2016.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://tribune.com.pk/story/1064112/being-islamic-and-nuclear/
Being Islamic and nuclear
In Western eyes, Pakistan will never be a normal state as long as it is an Islamic and nuclear power
By Reema Shaukat
Published: March 11, 2016
The writer works for the Islamabad-based think-tank Pakistan Institute for Conflict and Security Studies
In the late 1990s, when Pakistan was struggling to streamline its democratic identity through the political process, India detonated its second nuclear device in Pokhran, complicating the environment in the region. Meanwhile, the US was playing an important role between the two countries to sponsor a wide-ranging and reasonably objective agenda for Pakistan-India talks, which went into a stupor as a result of the Indian detonation. One thing was crystal clear. Pakistan’s reciprocal nuclear tests established nuclear parity, though at a cost that still haunts us unnecessarily. Thereafter, the US found it a good time to close down the parallel dialogue conducted by them with Pakistan and India.
Since Kashmir is the core foundation for the rallying of a nuclear programme by Pakistan, the solution of this long-standing issue lies, essentially, in asking Pakistan to lower its nuclear guards. Without doing so, the situation will not improve as desired by India and other global powers. The Kashmir conundrum is further convoluted when it is pooled in with ‘terrorism’ and the lack of international pressure on India regarding the religious fanaticism of the RSS. Such a one-sided approach by the global powers is not likely to address the nuclear deterrence phenomenon.
During her stints in power, Indira Gandhi cited Hidutwa as a right-wing threat to India’s solidarity and integrity, a challenge she believed had the support of the West — in earnest, the US. Indira Gandhi’s idea of Hindutva, a great challenge supported by the US, proves correct today because the US has compelled the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) members to accommodate India without catering for related nuclear protocols and relaxing regulations.
Yet again, new proposals are being mounted on Pakistan to restrict its testing and deployment of short- and long-range missiles, accept protocols of fissile materials being cut-off and even to unilaterally sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, without waiting for India. In exchange, officials and think-tanks in the west, specifically in the US, have been offering to support Pakistan’s desire to be treated as a ‘normal’ state in its quest for membership of the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group. To press further this demand from Pakistan, the US has asked Australia and Japan to accelerate supplies to India under a previously finalised civil nuclear deal. Pakistan’s early warnings that the Indian build-up would oblige it to enhance reliance on its nuclear and missile capabilities has already been brushed aside by the US which, regrettably, has continued attempts to restrict Pakistan’s defensive response rather than India’s aggressive armament. In view of this growing asymmetry, the National Command Authority has rightly reiterated the national resolve to maintain Full Spectrum Deterrence Capability in line with the dictates of Credible Minimum Deterrence to deter all forms of aggression, adhering to the policy of avoiding an arms race.
The subsequent quest for membership of the NSG is a fool’s errand. In Western eyes, Pakistan will never be a normal state as long as it is an Islamic and nuclear power. It is unlikely to be granted entry into the NSG without major concessions. In the Indo-Pacific field, China is not the only regional giant that is investing in nuclear systems, but it is chiefly India that is also at various stages of development, especially of short-range battlefield nuclear weapons aimed at Pakistan and China. India has hence enacted the necessary defense procurement reforms needed to equip Cold Start, with the tacit support of a variety of regional and global powers. The US and UK are in forefront in empowering India while Australia, Japan and Israel have provided necessary technology and expertise to enable India to carry out interdiction operations inside Pakistani territory under its well-articulated doctrine. Most importantly, Cold Start has already received political support required for it from the incumbent government led by Mr Modi. The US’s raised eyebrows at Pakistan’s nuclear arsenals and the subsequent agreement on providing F-16s, indicates its carrot-and-stick approach towards Pakistan.
Since the doctrine is not absolute, it must be continuously checked in light of improvements in technology and changes in the threat environment. From a military standpoint, the doctrine for the use of tactical nuclear weapons must be operationally credible so as to enhance deterrence. Pakistan’s need for a doctrine in specific regard to tactical nuclear weapons is rooted in these challenges, which are all genuine due to growing Indian conventional and nuclear capabilities. In such a situation, Pakistan has no option but to continue its nuclear doctrine while enhancing strategic relations with China and Russia.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 12th, 2016.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.stratfor.com/image/russia-reminds-world-its-nuclear-capability
Russia Reminds the World of Its Nuclear Capability
Media Center, Image
March 11, 2016 | 17:57 GMT
https://www.stratfor.com/sites/defa.../images/Russia-ICBMs-030916.png?itok=1aLHhdVA
Russia Reminds the World of Its Nuclear Capability Click to Enlarge
Russia is determined to maintain its nuclear deterrence against the United States. To that end, it is brandishing its nuclear capability in response to U.S. advancements in anti-ballistic missile technology and nuclear modernization.
Testing intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) ensures that nuclear-capable missiles continue to work and have not deteriorated with age, and it broadcasts a country's capability to launch a nuclear strike. Russia's nuclear arsenal not only enshrines the country's position as a great power, it also guarantees security against potential foreign foes.
Today Russia is concerned that the United States will undermine its nuclear deterrence. It is hardly surprising, then, that Moscow is determinedly modernizing its nuclear weapons program while simultaneously reminding the world of its capability. Last year, the Russians tested eight ICBMs, and earlier in January, Russian officials announced plans to test 16 ICBMs in 2016, 14 of which will be tests of missiles entering service in Russia for the first time. On the testing schedule are the new Bulava submarine-launched ballistic missiles, which had considerable development problems, and also other land-based ICBMs such as the new SS-X-30 Sarmat. Moscow is counting on these new missiles to ensure its nuclear arsenal survives against the U.S. anti-ballistic missile network.
Meanwhile, Russia is benefiting from the media's considerable interest in its ICBM tests, since the exposure helps highlight its continued nuclear deterrence capability. But more important, any launch proves that although international treaties have largely curbed the quantity of warheads and missiles, the race to develop and maintain quality nuclear equipment continues.
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.stratfor.com/image/russia-reminds-world-its-nuclear-capability
Russia Reminds the World of Its Nuclear Capability
Media Center, Image
March 11, 2016 | 17:57 GMT
https://www.stratfor.com/sites/defa.../images/Russia-ICBMs-030916.png?itok=1aLHhdVA
Russia Reminds the World of Its Nuclear Capability Click to Enlarge
Russia is determined to maintain its nuclear deterrence against the United States. To that end, it is brandishing its nuclear capability in response to U.S. advancements in anti-ballistic missile technology and nuclear modernization.
Testing intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) ensures that nuclear-capable missiles continue to work and have not deteriorated with age, and it broadcasts a country's capability to launch a nuclear strike. Russia's nuclear arsenal not only enshrines the country's position as a great power, it also guarantees security against potential foreign foes.
Today Russia is concerned that the United States will undermine its nuclear deterrence. It is hardly surprising, then, that Moscow is determinedly modernizing its nuclear weapons program while simultaneously reminding the world of its capability. Last year, the Russians tested eight ICBMs, and earlier in January, Russian officials announced plans to test 16 ICBMs in 2016, 14 of which will be tests of missiles entering service in Russia for the first time. On the testing schedule are the new Bulava submarine-launched ballistic missiles, which had considerable development problems, and also other land-based ICBMs such as the new SS-X-30 Sarmat. Moscow is counting on these new missiles to ensure its nuclear arsenal survives against the U.S. anti-ballistic missile network.
Meanwhile, Russia is benefiting from the media's considerable interest in its ICBM tests, since the exposure helps highlight its continued nuclear deterrence capability. But more important, any launch proves that although international treaties have largely curbed the quantity of warheads and missiles, the race to develop and maintain quality nuclear equipment continues.
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/...y-jordan-launches-first-strike-isis/81646504/
In a first, U.S. forces in Jordan have attacked ISIS in Syria
Andrew Tilghman, Military Times 2:41 p.m. EST March 11, 2016
U.S. troops in Jordan launched a GPS-guided rocket artillery attack into Syria for the first time on March 4, defense officials said, revealing an new facet of the American-led coalition’s ground-based fight against Islamic State militants.
The rockets came from a small detachment of fewer than 100 troops deployed near Jordan’s border with Syria. They used an M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, or HIMARS, which is a truck-mounted, guided-missile system with a range of up to 185 miles. Both the U.S. Army and Marine Corps operate HIMARS.
The strike was launched in support of Syrian rebels who seized an ISIS military base near the border city of al-Tanf, where the borders of Syria, Iraq and Jordan converge, according to Army Col. Steve Warren, a Defense Department spokesman in Baghdad.
The border town was held by ISIS since May 2015 and provided a key link between ISIS territories in Syria and Iraq and an alternative to the Euphrates Valley, where U.S. and Iraqi forces are gaining ground.
Those rebels crossed into Syria from Jordan, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a Britain-based war monitor.
Map
The HIMARS detachment was deployed to Jordan for the first time during the past several months, Warren said.
U.S. troops last year deployed HIMARS guided missiles to Iraq, specifically al Assad air base and al Taqaddum air base in Anbar province, and have fired several hundred missiles on ISIS targets in Iraq. Yet the March 4 strike marked the first time those weapons were launched from Jordan onto targets inside Syria, Warren said.
Virtually all other U.S. strikes on ISIS in Syria come from manned and unmanned aircraft, but Warren said there was no particular reason for the use of land-based artillery for the March 4 strike.
“That's what the weaponeers decide. There wasn't a big strategic reason or anything, it was just the system available. You know, that weapon system worked for that target set,” Warren said at a press briefing Friday.
The location near Palmyra, not far from the Syria capital Damascus, suggests it was within range of the Syrian regime’s formidable air defense system.
Yet Warren said the decision to use the HIMARS “had nothing to do with air defenses, nothing to do with any opposition situation. It was simply 'Hey, we've got this system, it's right here. We can use our aircraft somewhere else where the HIMARS can't reach.' So it was simply a practical decision.”
U.S. aid to Jordan has increased in recent years, topping $1 billion for the first time in 2014 when the Islamic State advanced across Iraq, according to the Congressional Research Service.
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/...y-jordan-launches-first-strike-isis/81646504/
In a first, U.S. forces in Jordan have attacked ISIS in Syria
Andrew Tilghman, Military Times 2:41 p.m. EST March 11, 2016
U.S. troops in Jordan launched a GPS-guided rocket artillery attack into Syria for the first time on March 4, defense officials said, revealing an new facet of the American-led coalition’s ground-based fight against Islamic State militants.
The rockets came from a small detachment of fewer than 100 troops deployed near Jordan’s border with Syria. They used an M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, or HIMARS, which is a truck-mounted, guided-missile system with a range of up to 185 miles. Both the U.S. Army and Marine Corps operate HIMARS.
The strike was launched in support of Syrian rebels who seized an ISIS military base near the border city of al-Tanf, where the borders of Syria, Iraq and Jordan converge, according to Army Col. Steve Warren, a Defense Department spokesman in Baghdad.
The border town was held by ISIS since May 2015 and provided a key link between ISIS territories in Syria and Iraq and an alternative to the Euphrates Valley, where U.S. and Iraqi forces are gaining ground.
Those rebels crossed into Syria from Jordan, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a Britain-based war monitor.
Map
The HIMARS detachment was deployed to Jordan for the first time during the past several months, Warren said.
U.S. troops last year deployed HIMARS guided missiles to Iraq, specifically al Assad air base and al Taqaddum air base in Anbar province, and have fired several hundred missiles on ISIS targets in Iraq. Yet the March 4 strike marked the first time those weapons were launched from Jordan onto targets inside Syria, Warren said.
Virtually all other U.S. strikes on ISIS in Syria come from manned and unmanned aircraft, but Warren said there was no particular reason for the use of land-based artillery for the March 4 strike.
“That's what the weaponeers decide. There wasn't a big strategic reason or anything, it was just the system available. You know, that weapon system worked for that target set,” Warren said at a press briefing Friday.
The location near Palmyra, not far from the Syria capital Damascus, suggests it was within range of the Syrian regime’s formidable air defense system.
Yet Warren said the decision to use the HIMARS “had nothing to do with air defenses, nothing to do with any opposition situation. It was simply 'Hey, we've got this system, it's right here. We can use our aircraft somewhere else where the HIMARS can't reach.' So it was simply a practical decision.”
U.S. aid to Jordan has increased in recent years, topping $1 billion for the first time in 2014 when the Islamic State advanced across Iraq, according to the Congressional Research Service.
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/2...move-troops-closer-to-the-front-lines-in-iraq
Military developing plans to move troops closer to front lines in Iraq
By Kristina Wong - 03/11/16 03:33 PM EST
Military commanders in Iraq are drafting plans for U.S. troops to accompany Iraqi brigades as they move to retake Mosul from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, according to two U.S. defense officials.
If the plans are approved, it would be a significant change for U.S. troops, who would be able to get much closer to the front lines of what is expected to be a fierce battle for Iraq's second largest city.
U.S. forces are working with Iraqi security forces at the division-level or above with a few exceptions. President Obama has said U.S. forces will be kept out of combat.
The new plan would see small US. teams of about 15 troops embedded with Iraqi brigades as they move closer to Mosul and establish headquarters in preparation for the pending battle.
It would stop short of combat operations, but would put troops closer to harm’s way.
Iraqi commanders estimate the Mosul offensive will take between eight to 12 brigades — which would mean approximately 180 U.S. troops could take part.
The teams would work with Iraqi brigade commanders to order airstrikes, and provide intelligence, logistics, tactics, and fire support.
Officials said having U.S. troops work at this level with Iraqi troops would greatly help the Iraqi Army, which was routed by ISIS when the terrorist group’s fighters took Mosul.
“It would make a massive difference,” said Michael Knights, Iraq expert and the Lafer fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
Other countries are already partnered at lower levels with Iraqi forces, officials say.
Retired Army Lt. Col. Peter Mansoor, who served as retired Army Gen. David Petraeus' executive officer during the Iraq surge, said he’s actually heard calls for U.S. troops to partner with Iraqi forces at the battalion-level, which is even lower.
“These train, advise and assist missions at the brigade and division level are really important, I just don't think they go down far enough,” said Mansoor, who is currently the General Raymond E. Mason Jr. Chair of Military History at the Ohio State University.
Still, it would almost certainly expose U.S. troops to more risk.
“The risk is you move off these protected forward operating bases and these troops could be, not just killed, but kidnapped,” said Mansoor. “There are plenty of Shiite militias that would be happy to take American service members captive.”
The headquarters for the Iraqi troops could be “pretty close to the battlefield,” said James F. Jeffrey, former U.S. ambassador to Iraq and the Philip Solondz distinguished fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
“The way the Iraqis do it...a brigade headquarters would get pretty close,” he said.
One U.S. defense official said the plan is still in the early phases, since the Mosul offensive has not begun.
Gen. Lloyd Austin, commander of U.S. Central Command, said earlier this week at a Senate hearing that he recently provided recommendations on how to retake Mosul and Raqqa, ISIS’s stronghold in Syria, to his leadership.
A U.S. defense official said the recommendations have been submitted to the staffs of both Carter and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, and will work their way up.
Another official said there are about 10 recommendations to accelerate the campaign, and they include the recommendation to advise, assist and accompany at the brigade level.
Austin offered comments at the hearing that suggested additional U.S. troops would benefit the Mosul operation.
“We could develop...better human intelligence. We could perhaps provide more advise and assist teams at various levels,” he said. “We could increase our assistance in terms of providing help with some logistical issues. And we could increase some elements of the special operations footprint.”
Jeffrey said he doubted the president would allow U.S. forces to get too close the battlefield, but Defense Secretary Ash Carter has spoken candidly of his — and the president’s — desire to do more to accelerate the fight against ISIS.
“I don't think anybody's satisfied with the pace of the — that's why we're all looking to accelerate it. Certainly, the president isn’t,” Carter said on Feb. 9. “And so my instructions are very clear, from my president — he wants to get this done, and I think that that is widely shared.”
It's not clear yet exactly which forces would carry out the mission at the brigade level, since doing so has not even yet been approved, a U.S. defense official said.
However, the official said the plan would envision some of them coming from within Iraq, and some from outside Iraq, which would raise the number of U.S. troops in Iraq.
The official noted that U.S. forces have worked with Iraqi forces at the brigade level before, at Al-Taqqadum Air Base temporarily during the successful fight to retake Ramadi. They have also previously worked at the “team” level only one kilometer from the front lines in the effort to secure Mount Sinjar.
But experts and officials say the fight to retake Mosul is expected to be far more difficult than the fight for Ramadi.
Mosul is ten times larger than Ramadi, and ISIS fighters have been dug in at Mosul since June 2014, while ISIS held Ramadi for only six months.
“Ramadi is a village compared with Mosul and so Mosul's going to be a tough nut to crack there's no doubt,” said Mansoor.
“The bulk of the troops that were the cutting edge of the combat force [in Ramadi] were the Iraqi special operations forces, not their regular Army units,” he added. "We are banking on the Iraq army to be a lot more effective in the battle for Mosul than it has proven to be in the past.”
Posted for fair use.....
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/2...move-troops-closer-to-the-front-lines-in-iraq
Military developing plans to move troops closer to front lines in Iraq
By Kristina Wong - 03/11/16 03:33 PM EST
Military commanders in Iraq are drafting plans for U.S. troops to accompany Iraqi brigades as they move to retake Mosul from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, according to two U.S. defense officials.
If the plans are approved, it would be a significant change for U.S. troops, who would be able to get much closer to the front lines of what is expected to be a fierce battle for Iraq's second largest city.
U.S. forces are working with Iraqi security forces at the division-level or above with a few exceptions. President Obama has said U.S. forces will be kept out of combat.
The new plan would see small US. teams of about 15 troops embedded with Iraqi brigades as they move closer to Mosul and establish headquarters in preparation for the pending battle.
It would stop short of combat operations, but would put troops closer to harm’s way.
Iraqi commanders estimate the Mosul offensive will take between eight to 12 brigades — which would mean approximately 180 U.S. troops could take part.
The teams would work with Iraqi brigade commanders to order airstrikes, and provide intelligence, logistics, tactics, and fire support.
Officials said having U.S. troops work at this level with Iraqi troops would greatly help the Iraqi Army, which was routed by ISIS when the terrorist group’s fighters took Mosul.
“It would make a massive difference,” said Michael Knights, Iraq expert and the Lafer fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
Other countries are already partnered at lower levels with Iraqi forces, officials say.
Retired Army Lt. Col. Peter Mansoor, who served as retired Army Gen. David Petraeus' executive officer during the Iraq surge, said he’s actually heard calls for U.S. troops to partner with Iraqi forces at the battalion-level, which is even lower.
“These train, advise and assist missions at the brigade and division level are really important, I just don't think they go down far enough,” said Mansoor, who is currently the General Raymond E. Mason Jr. Chair of Military History at the Ohio State University.
Still, it would almost certainly expose U.S. troops to more risk.
“The risk is you move off these protected forward operating bases and these troops could be, not just killed, but kidnapped,” said Mansoor. “There are plenty of Shiite militias that would be happy to take American service members captive.”
The headquarters for the Iraqi troops could be “pretty close to the battlefield,” said James F. Jeffrey, former U.S. ambassador to Iraq and the Philip Solondz distinguished fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
“The way the Iraqis do it...a brigade headquarters would get pretty close,” he said.
One U.S. defense official said the plan is still in the early phases, since the Mosul offensive has not begun.
Gen. Lloyd Austin, commander of U.S. Central Command, said earlier this week at a Senate hearing that he recently provided recommendations on how to retake Mosul and Raqqa, ISIS’s stronghold in Syria, to his leadership.
A U.S. defense official said the recommendations have been submitted to the staffs of both Carter and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, and will work their way up.
Another official said there are about 10 recommendations to accelerate the campaign, and they include the recommendation to advise, assist and accompany at the brigade level.
Austin offered comments at the hearing that suggested additional U.S. troops would benefit the Mosul operation.
“We could develop...better human intelligence. We could perhaps provide more advise and assist teams at various levels,” he said. “We could increase our assistance in terms of providing help with some logistical issues. And we could increase some elements of the special operations footprint.”
Jeffrey said he doubted the president would allow U.S. forces to get too close the battlefield, but Defense Secretary Ash Carter has spoken candidly of his — and the president’s — desire to do more to accelerate the fight against ISIS.
“I don't think anybody's satisfied with the pace of the — that's why we're all looking to accelerate it. Certainly, the president isn’t,” Carter said on Feb. 9. “And so my instructions are very clear, from my president — he wants to get this done, and I think that that is widely shared.”
It's not clear yet exactly which forces would carry out the mission at the brigade level, since doing so has not even yet been approved, a U.S. defense official said.
However, the official said the plan would envision some of them coming from within Iraq, and some from outside Iraq, which would raise the number of U.S. troops in Iraq.
The official noted that U.S. forces have worked with Iraqi forces at the brigade level before, at Al-Taqqadum Air Base temporarily during the successful fight to retake Ramadi. They have also previously worked at the “team” level only one kilometer from the front lines in the effort to secure Mount Sinjar.
But experts and officials say the fight to retake Mosul is expected to be far more difficult than the fight for Ramadi.
Mosul is ten times larger than Ramadi, and ISIS fighters have been dug in at Mosul since June 2014, while ISIS held Ramadi for only six months.
“Ramadi is a village compared with Mosul and so Mosul's going to be a tough nut to crack there's no doubt,” said Mansoor.
“The bulk of the troops that were the cutting edge of the combat force [in Ramadi] were the Iraqi special operations forces, not their regular Army units,” he added. "We are banking on the Iraq army to be a lot more effective in the battle for Mosul than it has proven to be in the past.”
U.S. says North Korean submarine missing
Started by MC2006, Today 01:23 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?486984-U.S.-says-North-Korean-submarine-missing
Hummm.....
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://news.usni.org/2016/03/11/u-s-official-north-korean-submarine-is-missing-presumed-sunk
U.S. Official: North Korean Submarine is Missing, Presumed Sunk
By: Sam LaGrone
March 11, 2016 4:00 PM
This post will be updated as more information becomes available.
A North Korean People’s Navy submarine is missing and presumed sunk, a U.S. official told USNI News on Friday.
The unknown class of submarine was operating off the North Korean coast in the last several days when the submarine went missing.
“About week ago it went missing and the speculation is that it sank,” the official told USNI News.
“The North Koreans have not made an attempt to indicate there is something wrong or that they require help or some type of assistance.”
The official was reluctant to give specific details on the presumed loss of the boat due to sensitivities on how the military was tracking the vessel.
A second U.S. official confirmed the basic facts of the missing submarine.
The North Korean military operates a fleet of about 70 submarines ranging in sizes to midget boats with only a few sailors to larger boats that can hold a crew of up to 30 or 40.
The Kim Jong Un regime has emphasized its submarine force in the last several years as a threat to South Korea, scrambling a large percentage of its attack boats in August.
While North Korea has its own domestically produced submarines, the bulk of its fleet is made up of decades old Russian designs with limited capability. However, anti-submarine warfare is a major capability gap in the South’s Republic of Korea Navy. In 201o the ROK Navy corvette Cheonan was sunk by a torpedo presumably from a North Korean midget submarine killing 46 sailors.
Started by MC2006, Today 01:23 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?486984-U.S.-says-North-Korean-submarine-missing
Hummm.....
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://news.usni.org/2016/03/11/u-s-official-north-korean-submarine-is-missing-presumed-sunk
U.S. Official: North Korean Submarine is Missing, Presumed Sunk
By: Sam LaGrone
March 11, 2016 4:00 PM
This post will be updated as more information becomes available.
A North Korean People’s Navy submarine is missing and presumed sunk, a U.S. official told USNI News on Friday.
The unknown class of submarine was operating off the North Korean coast in the last several days when the submarine went missing.
“About week ago it went missing and the speculation is that it sank,” the official told USNI News.
“The North Koreans have not made an attempt to indicate there is something wrong or that they require help or some type of assistance.”
The official was reluctant to give specific details on the presumed loss of the boat due to sensitivities on how the military was tracking the vessel.
A second U.S. official confirmed the basic facts of the missing submarine.
The North Korean military operates a fleet of about 70 submarines ranging in sizes to midget boats with only a few sailors to larger boats that can hold a crew of up to 30 or 40.
The Kim Jong Un regime has emphasized its submarine force in the last several years as a threat to South Korea, scrambling a large percentage of its attack boats in August.
While North Korea has its own domestically produced submarines, the bulk of its fleet is made up of decades old Russian designs with limited capability. However, anti-submarine warfare is a major capability gap in the South’s Republic of Korea Navy. In 201o the ROK Navy corvette Cheonan was sunk by a torpedo presumably from a North Korean midget submarine killing 46 sailors.
Last edited:
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/11/europe/isis-document-leak/index.html
German media: Paris attackers mentioned in leaked ISIS documents
By Steve Almasy, CNN
Updated 4:35 PM ET, Fri March 11, 2016 | Video Source: CNN
(CNN)—The names of three Paris attackers are found among 22,000 purported ISIS documents that surfaced this week, German public broadcasters reported Friday.
The trove of documents includes mentions of Samy Amimour, Ismael Omar Mostefai and Foued Mohamed Aggad, regional broadcasters NDR, WDR and BR reported, according to the Tagesshau news service.
Amimour and his co-conspirators attacked the Bataclan theatre on November 13, killing 89 of the people who died in the series of terror attacks that night in Paris.
The trio died in the attacks.
It's important to note that French authorities already knew the Bataclan trio had joined ISIS well before the Paris attacks, so the discovery of their names in the ISIS files would not have prevented the attack, CNN terrorism analyst Paul Cruickshank.
French authorities knew Amimour, Mostefai and Aggad were with ISIS in Syria. It has not been established how and when the trio returned to France.
According to French police documents obtained by CNN, Mostefai and Amimour entered Turkey together on their way to Syria on September 6, 2013. Aggad traveled to Syria separately with a group from Strasbourg in December 2013, according to court documents cited by French newspaper Le Monde.
The others in Aggad's travel group were arrested on their return to France in 2014 but Aggad elected to stay. His picture was found by French investigators in one of their cell phones in which he was smiling and wearing an ISIS head band, the newspaper reported.
Tagesshau said the ISIS documents showed the three entered into ISIS-controlled territory between 2013 and 2014. The report didn't disclose how the broadcasters obtained the documents.
Workers at the broadcasters are still going through the 22,000 pages, Tagesshau said.
Leaked ISIS documents reveal recruits' blood types, obedience levels
Other reports on leaked documents
Germany's intelligence agency, a Syrian newspaper and other news organizations, including Britain's Sky News, obtained batches of leaked ISIS documents, which CNN could not authenticate and which seemingly could be replicated easily on many computers.
Zaman Al-Wasl, a newspaper supportive of forces fighting against both Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's troops and terror groups such as ISIS, published 122 pages of documents it said came from an ISIS defector. These 122 documents, out of more than 1,700 overall reportedly obtained by the same publication, only pertain to self-identifying suicide attackers.
While they include lines to be filled out later -- such as the site and time of a person's death -- the content mostly consists of questions and answers posed at a border crossing into territory controlled by the so-called Islamic State, according to Zaman Al-Wasl.
German intelligence officials said they, too, have similar if not identical documents, though they didn't detail how they got them.
Markus Koths, a spokesman for the German Federal Criminal Police, said the documents appear to be authentic.
One of the questions on the documents is "Who recommended you?" That information could benefit intelligence authorities, one expert told German public broadcaster ARD.
"It is not often known who are the recruiters. Or, if you know it, it is not provable," Guido Steinberg of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs said, according to ARD's translation. "The great hope is now that we come to the people who sent the young people to Syria from France, Germany or Britain because of these personal data."
Opinion: ISIS is losing the war
CNN's Sara Mazloumsaki and Alba Prifti contributed to this report.
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/11/europe/isis-document-leak/index.html
German media: Paris attackers mentioned in leaked ISIS documents
By Steve Almasy, CNN
Updated 4:35 PM ET, Fri March 11, 2016 | Video Source: CNN
(CNN)—The names of three Paris attackers are found among 22,000 purported ISIS documents that surfaced this week, German public broadcasters reported Friday.
The trove of documents includes mentions of Samy Amimour, Ismael Omar Mostefai and Foued Mohamed Aggad, regional broadcasters NDR, WDR and BR reported, according to the Tagesshau news service.
Amimour and his co-conspirators attacked the Bataclan theatre on November 13, killing 89 of the people who died in the series of terror attacks that night in Paris.
The trio died in the attacks.
It's important to note that French authorities already knew the Bataclan trio had joined ISIS well before the Paris attacks, so the discovery of their names in the ISIS files would not have prevented the attack, CNN terrorism analyst Paul Cruickshank.
French authorities knew Amimour, Mostefai and Aggad were with ISIS in Syria. It has not been established how and when the trio returned to France.
According to French police documents obtained by CNN, Mostefai and Amimour entered Turkey together on their way to Syria on September 6, 2013. Aggad traveled to Syria separately with a group from Strasbourg in December 2013, according to court documents cited by French newspaper Le Monde.
The others in Aggad's travel group were arrested on their return to France in 2014 but Aggad elected to stay. His picture was found by French investigators in one of their cell phones in which he was smiling and wearing an ISIS head band, the newspaper reported.
Tagesshau said the ISIS documents showed the three entered into ISIS-controlled territory between 2013 and 2014. The report didn't disclose how the broadcasters obtained the documents.
Workers at the broadcasters are still going through the 22,000 pages, Tagesshau said.
Leaked ISIS documents reveal recruits' blood types, obedience levels
Other reports on leaked documents
Germany's intelligence agency, a Syrian newspaper and other news organizations, including Britain's Sky News, obtained batches of leaked ISIS documents, which CNN could not authenticate and which seemingly could be replicated easily on many computers.
Zaman Al-Wasl, a newspaper supportive of forces fighting against both Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's troops and terror groups such as ISIS, published 122 pages of documents it said came from an ISIS defector. These 122 documents, out of more than 1,700 overall reportedly obtained by the same publication, only pertain to self-identifying suicide attackers.
While they include lines to be filled out later -- such as the site and time of a person's death -- the content mostly consists of questions and answers posed at a border crossing into territory controlled by the so-called Islamic State, according to Zaman Al-Wasl.
German intelligence officials said they, too, have similar if not identical documents, though they didn't detail how they got them.
Markus Koths, a spokesman for the German Federal Criminal Police, said the documents appear to be authentic.
One of the questions on the documents is "Who recommended you?" That information could benefit intelligence authorities, one expert told German public broadcaster ARD.
"It is not often known who are the recruiters. Or, if you know it, it is not provable," Guido Steinberg of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs said, according to ARD's translation. "The great hope is now that we come to the people who sent the young people to Syria from France, Germany or Britain because of these personal data."
Opinion: ISIS is losing the war
CNN's Sara Mazloumsaki and Alba Prifti contributed to this report.
Uh oh.....
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/0...bers-killed-at-el-salvador-training-camp.html
The Americas
4 suspected gang members killed at El Salvador training camp
Published March 11, 2016 · Associated Press
SAN SALVADOR, El Salvador – Authorities in El Salvador say four suspected gang members have been killed at a training camp in the western part of the country.
The attorney general's office said Friday that police and soldiers killed members of the Barrio 18 gang in the township of San Julian in Sonsonate department.
It said the federal forces found the gang training camp in a forest acting on an anonymous tip and were fired on when they arrived. National police commissioner Mauricio Arriaza Chicas said two gang members escaped.
Elsewhere in El Salvador, authorities said the bodies of two suspected members of the Mara Salvatrucha gang were found with their hands and feet bound on the side of a highway in the country's northeast.
More than 1,500 people have been killed here this year.
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/0...bers-killed-at-el-salvador-training-camp.html
The Americas
4 suspected gang members killed at El Salvador training camp
Published March 11, 2016 · Associated Press
SAN SALVADOR, El Salvador – Authorities in El Salvador say four suspected gang members have been killed at a training camp in the western part of the country.
The attorney general's office said Friday that police and soldiers killed members of the Barrio 18 gang in the township of San Julian in Sonsonate department.
It said the federal forces found the gang training camp in a forest acting on an anonymous tip and were fired on when they arrived. National police commissioner Mauricio Arriaza Chicas said two gang members escaped.
Elsewhere in El Salvador, authorities said the bodies of two suspected members of the Mara Salvatrucha gang were found with their hands and feet bound on the side of a highway in the country's northeast.
More than 1,500 people have been killed here this year.