WAR 06-03-2017-to-06-09-2017_____THEWINDSofWAR

Housecarl · Jun 3, 2017

(271) 05-13-2017-to-05-19-2017_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...19-2017_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(272) 05-20-2017-to-05-26-2017_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...26-2017_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(273) 05-27-2017-to-06-02-2017_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...02-2017_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

-----

North Korea Main Thread - All things Korea June 3rd - June 9th
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ain-Thread-All-things-Korea-June-3rd-June-9th

The United States and NATO Are Preparing for a Major War With Russia
Started by*rmomaha‎,*Today*12:57 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ATO-Are-Preparing-for-a-Major-War-With-Russia

Europe: Politics, Trade, NATO. June 2017
Started by*northern watch‎,*Yesterday*09:34 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?518218-Europe-Politics-Trade-NATO.-June-2017

Europe: Politics, Trade, NATO June 2017
Started by*Plain Jane‎,*05-31-2017*01:54 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?518079-Europe-Politics-Trade-NATO-June-2017

Putin Has Had Enough of the Blame Game - "Isn' There a Pill They Can Give You?" (to Megyn)
Started by*Seeker‎,*Yesterday*10:24 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...There-a-Pill-They-Can-Give-You-quot-(to-Megyn)

China’s next step to destroy the dollar
Started by*Sam2‎,*Yesterday*07:40 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?518212-China’s-next-step-to-destroy-the-dollar

Media Blackout as US Senators Meet in Secret with Global Elite Only Miles from White House
Started by*Sam2‎,*Yesterday*07:48 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...with-Global-Elite-Only-Miles-from-White-House

ISIS 2017 threats, rumors and attacks, etc.
Started by*Lilbitsnana‎,*05-31-2017*10:38 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?518067-ISIS-2017-threats-rumors-and-attacks-etc.

The Four Horsemen - 05/29 to 06/05
Started by*Ragnarok‎,*05-29-2017*04:21 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?517972-The-Four-Horsemen-05-29-to-06-05

Two arrested after suspected explosive devices seized in inner city [Dublin, Ireland]
Started by*Melodi‎,*Yesterday*01:17 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...e-devices-seized-in-inner-city-Dublin-Ireland

Zapad-17 Causing Concern In The Baltics
Started by*skip1‎,*02-20-2017*10:29 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?512417-Zapad-17-Causing-Concern-In-The-Baltics

Resorts World Manila: Explosions, gunfire reported in Philippines
Started by*Shacknasty Shagrat‎,*06-01-2017*11:04 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...la-Explosions-gunfire-reported-in-Philippines

UK, reported explosion, gunfire at Ariana Grande show at Manchester Arena
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...Ariana-Grande-show-at-Manchester-Arena/page14

Israel preparing a plan for partial evacuation in case of conflict with Lebanon
Started by*Lilbitsnana‎,*05-28-2017*09:59 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...l-evacuation-in-case-of-conflict-with-Lebanon

Main Russia/Ukraine invasion thread - 8/11/16 Ukraine Military On "Combat" Alert
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ne-Military-On-quot-Combat-quot-Alert/page467

-----
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-asia-security-idUSKBN18U015

World News | Sat Jun 3, 2017 | 3:37am EDT

Mattis praises China's efforts on North Korea, dials up pressure on South China Sea

By Idrees Ali and Lee Chyen Yee | SINGAPORE

The United States is encouraged by China's efforts to restrain North Korea but Washington will not accept Beijing's militarization of islands in the South China Sea, U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said on Saturday.

The comments by Mattis, during the annual Shangri-La Dialogue, show how U.S. President Donald Trump's administration is looking to balance working with China to restrain North Korea's advancing missile and nuclear programs while dealing with Beijing's activities in the South China Sea.

U.S. allies have been worried by Trump's actively courting Chinese President Xi Jinping to restrain North Korea, fearing Washington might allow China a more free rein elsewhere in the region.

Some allies have also expressed concern that Washington's withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific trade partnership and the Paris global climate accord signals the United States is diluting its global leadership role.

Speaking at the dialogue, Asia's premier security forum, Mattis said the United States remained fully engaged with its partners.

"Like it or not, we are a part of the world," he said. "What a crummy world if we all retreat inside our borders."

Nevertheless, reversing or slowing North Korea's nuclear and missile programs has become a security priority for Washington, given Pyongyang's vow to develop a nuclear-tipped missile capable of hitting the U.S. mainland.

The Trump administration has been pressing China aggressively to rein in its reclusive neighbor, warning all options are on the table if North Korea persists with its weapons programs.

"The Trump administration is encouraged by China's renewed commitment to work with the international community toward denuclearization," Mattis said.

"Ultimately, we believe China will come to recognize North Korea as a strategic liability, not an asset."

However, Mattis said seeking China's cooperation on North Korea did not mean Washington would not challenge Beijing's activities in the South China Sea.

The U.N. Security Council on Friday expanded targeted sanctions against North Korea after its repeated missile tests, adopting the first such resolution agreed by the United States and China since Trump took office.

In another sign of increased pressure on North Korea, Japan's navy and air force began a three-day military exercise with two U.S. aircraft carriers in the Sea of Japan on Thursday.

Japanese Defense Minister Tomomi Inada, speaking at the Singapore forum, said Tokyo backed the United States using any option to deal with North Korea, including military strikes, and was seeking a deeper alliance with Washington.

But she also said she was concerned about the situation in the South China Sea and in the East China Sea.

China's claims in the South China Sea, through which about $5 trillion in ship-borne trade passes each year, are contested by Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam. China and Japan both claim islands in the East China Sea.

LOW-KEY
China, which sent only a low-key delegation to the forum, said its ties with the United States were vital for the region.

"I believe that if China and the United States can ensure no conflict, as well as maintain mutual respect, cooperation and trust, it will contribute greatly to security in the Asia Pacific and the world," Lt Gen He Lei, the head of Beijing's delegation, told reporters.

Related Coverage
Japan defense minister backs all U.S. options on North Korea, seeks deeper alliance

Allies around the world have been concerned about the commitment of the United States since Trump took office on Jan. 20 because of his "America First" rhetoric and expectations that he would concentrate on a domestic agenda.

Mattis sought to ease concerns for allies in the Asia-Pacific, saying the region was a priority and the primary effort was alliance building. He added, however, that countries must "contribute sufficiently to their own security."

In a sign of the U.S. commitment to the region, Mattis said that soon about 60 percent of overseas tactical aviation assets would be assigned to the region and he would work with the U.S. Congress on an Asia-Pacific stability initiative.

Mattis said the United States welcomed China's economic development, but he anticipated "friction" between the two countries.

"While competition between the U.S. and China, the world's two largest economies, is bound to occur, conflict is not inevitable," Mattis said.

While eager to work with China in dealing with North Korea, Mattis said the United States did not accept China placing weapons and other military assets on man-made islands in the South China Sea.

"We oppose countries militarizing artificial islands and enforcing excessive maritime claims," Mattis said. "We cannot and will not accept unilateral, coercive changes to the status quo."

Without giving details, Mattis also said the United States would take further steps to protect the U.S. homeland.

Earlier this week, the United States carried out a successful, first-ever missile defense test involving a simulated attack by an intercontinental ballistic missile, in a major milestone for a program meant to defend against a mounting North Korean threat.

(Additional reporting by Masayuki Kitano and Greg Torode; Editing by Raju Gopalakrishnan and Lincoln Feast)

Housecarl · Jun 3, 2017

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-security-manchester-idUSKBN18U08H

World News | Sat Jun 3, 2017 | 4:32am EDT

UK police make new arrest over Manchester attack, 11 in custody

British police said on Saturday that they had made a further arrest in connection with last month's suicide bombing on a concert in Manchester which killed 22 people.

The arrest, which was made in Manchester, took to 11 the number of people being held in custody over the attack, all of them men, the police said.

A further six people who were arrested since the attack on May 22 have been released without charge.

(Writing by William Schomberg; Editing by Edmund Blair)

Housecarl · Jun 3, 2017

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2017/06/can-a-new-us-surge-stabilize-afghanistan/

Can a New US Surge Stabilize Afghanistan?

Trump is considering sending more troops to Afghanistan, but that won’t solve the underlying problems.

By Ali Reza Sarwar
June 01, 2017

President Donald Trump and his top policy advisers are worried about America’s longest war, in Afghanistan. The people of Afghanistan are worried as well. The question of*whether the country’s fragile, corruption-ridden, and politically polarized National Unity Government (NUG) can survive its many foes*–including an emboldened insurgency, crippling political division among the countries’ elites, and devastating tensions with its neighbors*— is a common one*among political analysts, ordinary people, and even government employees. In the last months, the Taliban has launched some of the most complicated and deadliest attacks that left not only scores of soldiers and civilians dead, but also humiliated the Afghan government and its partners. This week’s deadly bombing in Kabul was just the latest tragic incident.

Last month’s attacks on military base in northern Afghanistan, in which between 160 to 500 soldiers were killed or*wounded, raised a simple question: is there a government with basic statecraft and functional apparatuses in Afghanistan? The Taliban claimed that four of the attackers involved in the raids on the military base were the group’s “moles,” who had infiltrated the Afghan National Army’s ranks and had credible insider knowledge about the base’s structure and vulnerability. A similar claim was made after the assaults on the military’s largest hospital in Kabul. The politicization of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) and the loose recruitment mechanism has practically paralyzed the ANSF, destroyed its intelligence and command structure, and shifted the war equation in Taliban and*the Islamic State’s favor. According to latest report, the government controls less than 60*percent of the country, which is alarming.

The future of the U.S.-Afghan strategic partnership is critical to Afghanistan’s survival. The longevity of the war and its massive human and financial costs have, however, generated a deepening sense of confusion, attrition, and disappointment among Afghanistan’s strategic partners. President Ashraf Ghani’s NUG*has significantly invested in its foreign relations, particularly with the United States*and NATO, with considerable successes. But the continuity of such relationship depends on tangible and immediate changes in the war theater, improving governance, state building, and restoring basic security to the country. Ghani and his team have failed to deliver on any of these fronts.

In its last summit, NATO leaders conditioned their assistance to Afghanistan on eradicating administrative corruption, which persists because of many structural flaws in the Afghan government, including a centralized political system, extremely patronage-based appointments in the government’s leadership, and*the absence of political will among top leadership to take serious actions against those involved in stealing public money and property. So far, the government has not prosecuted any high-profile corruption cases and the perpetrators often enjoy impunity and are protected by mafias with unlimited access to power.

Afghanistan was not a top priority during the U.S. presidential election. However, for*Trump, who campaigned to restore isolationism to U.S. foreign policy, the complexity of the situation in Afghanistan seems to have re-engaged Washington*in the Afghan war. The United States is considering sending more soldiers to assist and train the Afghan army. In addition to the grave security situation in Afghanistan, the nature of Trump’s administration, which is dominated by senior military strategists with previous experience fighting in Afghanistan, has played a role in shifting Washington’s attention to Afghanistan again. Defense Secretary*Jim Mattis, both the former and current national security adviser, and Secretary of Homeland Security John F. Kelly, who also lost a son in Afghanistan, have all fought in Afghanistan. They are familiar with the brutal nature of the Taliban and their dangerous ideology and agenda beyond Afghanistan. Plus, on a more basic level, military leaders*always want to win a war.

But will the new surge, if happens, alter the calculus*on the battlefield in the government’s favor? The answer to this question should go beyond mere military calculations. The war in Afghanistan is complicated, with many actors and divergent causes. If the interplaying causes and actors are not properly managed, the protracted war will continue and the surge and the U.S. prolonged engagement with Afghanistan will not succeed. The reasons are obvious.

First, Afghanistan’s war continues with little success because Afghan national politics is in serious disarray and crisis. Continued ethnic, linguistic, and political clashes have eroded ANSF’s morale and ability to fight with strength and internal cohesion. Corruption in the army is rampant —*ranks and promotions are sold, military equipment is stolen, and meritocracy in recruiting and promotions is commonly compromised. Ghani’s crusade against corruption has not curbed the*epidemic to a level acceptable to the Afghan people and international partners. ANSF enjoys superiority in numbers and weaponry*over the Taliban, but the force is often stabbed in the back by its own leadership and the dirty politics that often permit unqualified and corrupt individuals to receive leadership position. The president’s disappointing decision, for instance, to appoint the former defense minister and military chief of staff as ambassadors after their resignations following the attacks on 209 Shaheen Military Corps confirms the bloody nature of Afghan politics and the ignominious culture of deal-making. With the current structure in place, a U.S. surge can hardly yield any positive change. There is a need for fundamental restructuring and reforms in ANSF if the force is to stand up to the grinding insurgency, desertions, and high casualty rates.

Second, the reinvigorated return of the Taliban is incubated by the treacherous political environment in the region. Much has changed since 2001, when the majority of actors in the region supported Afghanistan’s push for stability. The Afghanistan-Pakistan relationship*has reached its*lowest point, with both countries unable to overcome their profound differences. Pakistan has smartly utilized its strategic links and affinity with extremist militants to undermine the Afghan government’s efforts to control and govern. In Pakistan’s national security and foreign policy calculations, Afghanistan is often viewed as “strategic depth,” a client state where Pakistan can project its power to deter separatists, entangle India, contain Afghan nationalists who refuse to accept the Durand Line as the official border between the two countries, and maintain Pakistan’s relevance to regional and international politics under the guise of fighting global terrorism. Pakistan already receives substantial financial aid from the United States for the war against terrorism, though Pakistan does not uphold its end of the bargain. The*Afghan government has had little or no luck in formulating a consistent strategy toward Pakistan and its destabilizing role in Afghanistan. While popular sentiments against Pakistan’s interference in Afghanistan are*high, Afghan elites and core decision-makers are ambivalent about how to handle a densely populated and nuclear neighbor that also happens to operate*a massive terror factory. The souring relationship between the two countries jeopardizes any hope of sustainable and meaningful peace in Afghanistan and the greater region.

Third, Trump’s consideration of deploying more troops in Afghanistan coincides with the United States’ own confusion*about its foreign policy, particularly engagement in the Middle East and Asia. Trump’s “America First” slogan repudiates his tenacious and abrasive foreign policy attitude. Trump*paid his first foreign visit to Saudi Arabia, where he signed an unprecedented $110 billion arms deal with the*Saudi monarchy. He also reaffirmed the United States’*unconditional military and diplomatic support to Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Arab states in their rivalry with Iran. Trump’s closeness to Saudi Arabia has augmented fears about two possible outcomes. First, Saudi Arabia may become*more aggressive and use its extensive networks of extremists in the Middle East and around the world to promote its political agenda against Iran and Pakistan. Iran, on the other hands, may retaliate by*drawing closer to Moscow and unifying and supporting its proxies in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon to fight the axis of the United States and Saudi Arabia. As Iran and Saudi Arabia’s rivalry intensifies, countries with fragile political system like Afghanistan will suffer. Both Saudi Arabia and Iran have long been fighting in Afghanistan. With the new political environment, the war enters a bloodier phase. Afghanistan’s geography and mountains have been tempting sanctuaries for Islamists and extremist groups who find it difficult to fight in their own countries because of oppressive and ubiquitous government apparatuses.

In such a situation, sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan may provide temporary physiological relief and quell insurgency for short time, but the fundamental solutions to Afghanistan’s war should be sought in political reforms, building inclusive institutions, containing Pakistan’s support for terrorism,*and convincing external powers to stop exploiting Afghanistan’s soil for competing political rivalries. The world needs to hear good news about Afghanistan. The ground situation indicates, however, that such a story*will take a long time to be told.

Ali Reza Sarwar is a Political Analyst and Researcher based in Kabul. Reza was a Fulbright Scholar at Texas A&M University and a Researcher at Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington D.C.

Housecarl · Jun 3, 2017

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/t...in-raqqa-pentagon-source-says/article/2624695

'The s--t is about to go down in Raqqa,' Pentagon source says

by Jamie McIntyre | Jun 1, 2017, 2:26 PM

Video

The long-awaited offensive by U.S.-backed Syrian forces to liberate the self-proclaimed Islamic State capital of Raqqa, Syria, will begin in days, Pentagon officials told the Washington Examiner Thursday.

While the Pentagon is not saying publicly when the offensive will kick off, it has acknowledged that all the forces are in place, small arms are being handed out to the Syrian Democratic Forces, and civilians have been told to get out of Raqqa so they are not caught in the crossfire.

"The SDF is poised around Raqqa. They are within 3 kilometers [1.8 miles] from the north and the east, and are about 10 kilometers [6 miles] from the city to the west," said Col. Ryan Dillon, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad.

"The Syrian Democratic Forces have given instructions to the citizens of Raqqa to vacate," Dillion told reporters at the Pentagon, noting that so far almost 200,000 people have left the city for nearby refugee camps and settlements.

The U.S. has also begun distributing small arms and ammunition to the Syrian fighters, but has not yet provided anti-tank weapons, an indication that the planned offensive, while coming soon, is not imminent.

Dillon said the distribution of weaponry will be carefully inventoried and limited to what is needed for specific combat objectives, and that a list of what was provided to the Syrian fighters will be shared with Turkey, a NATO ally that is upset that the U.S. is providing arms to some Kurdish elements it considers terrorists.

The U.S.-led coalition has also stepped up airstrikes in recent days, conducting nearly 60 strikes targeting ISIS fighting positions, construction equipment, artillery systems, and command and control nodes, Dillon said.

The beginning of the Raqqa offensive comes as the operation to liberate the Iraqi city of Mosul is drawing to a close.

Fewer than 1,000 ISIS fighters are left in west Mosul, where they hold about six square miles, but are surrounded in three neighborhoods in the old city section with no escape.

But 80,000 to 150,000 civilians are also trapped in the densely populated city center, as Iraqi forces prepare for what is expected to be some of the most ferocious urban combat of the campaign.

Those Mosul residents have been told not to drive cars or motorcycles so they won't be mistaken for vehicle bombers, the weapon of choice of ISIS.

Housecarl · Jun 3, 2017

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://warontherocks.com/2017/06/t...-pacific-are-the-u-s-military-services-ready/

The Future of War is Fast Approaching in the Pacific: Are the U.S. Military Services Ready?

Michael Horowitz
June 2, 2017

Editor’s Note: This article is adapted from the author’s remarks delivered on May 23, 2017 at the Association of the U.S. Army Institute of Land Warfare Professional Development Forum on Landpower in the Pacific.

Is the era of unparalleled U.S. conventional military superiority coming to an end? Many senior U.S. military leaders are worried. The ongoing general proliferation of precision strike capabilities, cross-domain threats from cyber, space, and beyond, rising operational competence in potential adversaries, and the anticipation of rapidly diffusing new commercial technology with military relevance is placing American conventional overmatch at risk. Moreover, this is not just a story about air and naval superiority. As U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley said in October 2016, “[W]e are on the cusp of a fundamental change in the character of warfare, and specifically ground warfare.” The future conventional battlefield will be more contested than the battlefields U.S. ground forces have become accustomed to over the last generation. A complex environment featuring adversaries with the capacity to launch attacks in multiple domains will further require an American military able to do the same. Thus, senior U.S. military leaders such as Milley and Adm. Harris, as well as a number of commentators, increasingly recognize the need for a “multi-domain” approach to the security environment.

What does responding to a multi-domain world mean? Criticisms of the breadth of a multi-domain frame risk missing the way multi-domain battle is socializing key insights that will aid the U.S. military. Harnessing the capabilities of the future will place more cognitive demands on the warfighter, as they have to fight and make decisions at machine speed. This means preparing and training, not just developing new technological widgets, especially when America’s adversaries will increasingly have their own advanced capabilities. It also means that one role of technology will be helping relieve that cognitive complexity, as Deputy Secretary of Defense Bob Work argues.

The prerequisites for adopting multi-domain battle are thus more human and bureaucratic than anything else. They are about the willingness of institutions – in this case mostly the Army and Marine Corps – to adapt to an uncertain security environment and keep their edge over adversaries.

The force development challenge is therefore crucial in determining whether the U.S. military, and especially its ground forces, get from here to there. End strength, modernization, and readiness come into budgetary tension, but all are necessary to build the capacity to fight and win wars in the Pacific and beyond. The FY18 budget submission to Congress, unfortunately, is not enough to overcome the modernization deficit facing the land forces.

Senior U.S. military leaders and others, including people writing in War on the Rocks, have already done an excellent job laying out the threat to the joint force, and the ground forces in particular. For example, as Grant and Benfield argue, cross domain adversary capabilities generate particular vulnerabilities for U.S. ground forces and mandate a joint and cross domain response. This is not a minimization of air and naval power, but a recognition that ground forces must significantly adapt.

Scenarios for landpower deployments in the Pacific and beyond are extremely diverse. Just in the Pacific, ground forces have to prepare for contingencies ranging from the Korean Peninsula to potential distributed operations in Southeast Asia to protecting Guam. This means the United States military needs diverse ground forces as well – capable of walking and chewing gum as they deter conflicts from occurring, and winning conflicts if they start.

Adversaries that might use cyber-attacks to slow naval support of land forces or the electromagnetic spectrum to attack ground units, represent a clear cross domain threat. This is a different asymmetric test than that posed by the Taliban, al-Qaeda, various Shia militias, the self-proclaimed Islamic State, or any of the other actors that U.S. land services have spent much of the last 15 years confronting. Those conflicts are not going away either, meaning that U.S. military preparations for the future cannot come at the expense of fighting today’s wars.

But, the Future is Coming on Fast.

We are approaching a period where commercial markets will cause bleeding edge technologies to spread faster than the key technologies of the past generation, such as stealth or precision guidance. Here, I am talking about technologies that are part of the third offset strategy – artificial intelligence, robotics, 3D printing, cyber, directed energy, and others. As Sgt. Jonathan Gillis recently described in War on the Rocks, militant groups are employing modified commercial drones to threaten ground forces, which represents an early manifestation of commercial diffusion informing cross-domain threats.

In general, the larger the commercial applications of a technology, the faster it spreads due to market forces. We need to internalize that these emerging technologies are more like the combustion engine than a new type of rifle. They will be part of everything, and thus many will have access to them, from allies and partners to adversaries.

The rapid diffusion of militarily-relevant dual-use technologies means we can expect more countries to acquire anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) networks and other capabilities that challenge U.S. access to space and cyberspace, as well as the ability of the United States to project power over distance – a vital necessity in the Pacific.

As others also argue, successfully addressing the threat will require more than jointness as the U.S. military has conceived of it over the last few decades. Instead, the Pentagon should place a larger emphasis on joint integration that also allows for small unit creativity and innovation. This does not minimize the role that each service and domain plays – and it will also involve more collaboration with allies and partners. U.S. military leaders thinking about multi-domain battle should now engage the following three issues: the broad organizational challenge of adoption, how to leverage technology without relying on it, and what multi-domain battle may mean for force planning.

The Broad Organizational Challenge

The United States military is the best in the world, in large part because of its highly trained, talented personnel. Yet, adaptation is hard for a leading military power like the United States. After all, rising powers like China have less to lose by taking chances, sometimes giving them an edge when it comes to experimentation regarding tactics and doctrine. It’s hard to generate the bureaucratic impetus to adapt when you wake up every day and are already the best. But the national security establishment cannot take U.S. conventional military superiority for granted.

Thus, the U.S. military needs develop what I call the “adoption capacity” to respond to a changing world. This is a world where rapid cross-domain fires —the ability of forces in one domain (e.g. land) to attack targets in another domain (e.g. sea) — are essential, meaning the Army needs to be ready to sink ships.

The good news is that multi-domain battle represents, in a way, going back to organizational basics – combined arms for the 21st century fueled by emerging technologies that empower the warfighter. The critical task focus necessary to master and implement multi-domain battle concepts should be consistent with the Army and Marine Corp’s DNA, something that will hopefully speed adoption.

Leveraging Technology, Without Depending On It

Emerging technologies provide an opportunity to bolster the effectiveness of U.S. land forces through multi-domain operational concepts. In the area of autonomous systems, terms like killer robots and autonomous weapon systems conjure images of the Terminator, but that’s not the reality for the way autonomous systems will help U.S. land forces fight at machine speed. Precision targeting systems and autonomy-enabled defense already enable the current generation of human-machine teaming to make land forces faster, more efficient, and more accurate. There’s not a magical line between that and the next generation of autonomy – though incremental changes can add up.

The important thing is that humans must still control the strategy, the rules of engagement, and the decisions, especially when it comes to complex risk analysis and the use of force. Machines can be invaluable tools to save lives and money, eliminate wasted time, and make human forces more effective when used in the service of strategy, but they can’t make complex decisions. The bet behind the third offset strategy, and one that is often not well understood, is that human-machine teaming, by harnessing the human capital of the U.S. military, will provide greater effectiveness and reliability than pure reliance on algorithms.

Ultimately, technology in any form is a tool to be used by the military and the civilian leadership, and people are ultimately accountable for its use. The best thing we can do is understand the possibilities better than our adversaries. The worst thing we can do is pretend it’s not coming or abdicate our responsibility to control the strategy and higher-level choices.

In the Pacific and Beyond

A key part of adoption involves building flexible, resilient formations within the U.S. military. Ground forces need cross-domain fires. In that vein, modifying the Army Tactical Missile System to enable it to fire on ships is a step in the right direction for the Pacific in particular, as is the potential for linking together Army and Navy radars and precision fires.

The interaction of maneuver and fire will be more vital than ever on a contested battlefield. It is therefore critical that the Army push ahead with the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle, the Paladin Integrated Management program, and the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle. An issue, though, is whether those capabilities will be fielded fast enough.

Smaller units will need more and faster access to cross-domain capabilities: Active protection systems for the defense, harnessing robotics and autonomous systems for the offense – as well as precision fires. Speed and resupply are going to be critical for these units – think human-machine teaming that leverages autonomy, and utilizing capabilities such as 3D printing to facilitate resupply on the battlefield.
Stepping back, the increase in research and development funding in the Trump administration’s FY18 defense budget request is a start from a long-term perspective, but more clearly bolstering modernization in particular is necessary. Moreover, adjusting force structure is not enough on its own, especially if funding active duty end strength for the Army comes at the expense of modernization and readiness.

A new approach is also necessary because the ground forces are going to need to control more forces in a multi-domain world. A consequence of emerging capabilities being based on commercial technology is that adversaries will be able to catch up faster when the U.S. military innovates. As innovation cycle timelines shrink, the United States will need to produce faster, and in mass, to stay ahead. Not a mass army, but soldiers controlling, or working with the other services who control masses of sensors, shooters, and other equipment.

The FY18 defense-wide budget includes about $300 million in additional funding for the Strategic Capabilities Office to pursue cutting edge technologies, such as “enabling systems to cross or blur domains, creating teams of manned and autonomous systems, and leveraging enabling commercial designs and technologies”, and could represent progress. It continues a trend started during the Obama administration. The U.S. military *must change the cost exchange ratio when the United States uses force. It cannot use Patriot missiles that cost about $3 million per shot to take down Amazon quadcopters, as a U.S. partner reportedly did in early 2017.

In other ways, as referenced above, this shift is going to make the small unit commander and the battalion commander more important than ever for two reasons. First, as the technology becomes more complicated, commanders will have to make rapid decisions that incorporate a greater understanding of how different capabilities interact across domains. This means the selection and promotion of commanders must emphasize those with the knowledge to fight in a multi-domain environment.

Second, in a world of proliferated precision strike where adversaries can rapidly generate fires across domains is a world that will mandate, as Gen. Milley says, a more spartan approach to warfare, with ground units constantly on the move. That means decentralizing operations. This will be particularly difficult in the Pacific, where maneuver itself can require joint integration just to move forces.

Conclusion

There is a temptation in every generation to say that the threats of today are more complicated and difficult than those faced by our predecessors. While contemporary threats are undoubtedly complex, including for land forces, there are also many opportunities – and addressing them starts with joint integration. Multi-domain battle also has implications for procurement, training, and doctrine. And for the concept to succeed, it will require adoption in a way that not only shapes the force’s end strength, but military modernization and readiness as well.

More generally, implementation of multi-domain battle means rhetoric about supporting creativity and experimentation within the land forces has to become even more of a reality. We know this from U.S. military history. Carrier warfare in World War II did not emerge from smoke. Rather, it emerged from two decades of table-top gaming and real-world operational experiments. Similarly, AirLand Battle wasn’t conjured into reality – it was forced there by a generation of commanders that did the hard bureaucratic work necessary to train and equip the force for the late Cold War battlefield.

This also suggests that whether the next influential warfighting concept for the ground forces is multi-domain battle as currently conceptualized or not, what matters most is the characterization of the security environment that drives the demand signal for new doctrine. At the end of the day, multi-domain battle represents a critical recognition by the land forces that cross-domain threats, emerging technologies, and the diffusion of precision strike capabilities are shaping the likely future conventional war environment in a way that mandates a joint and multi-domain response. The most important features of the multi-domain battle concept, in the long run, may therefore be socializing key ideas about the character of the future battlefield, as well as creating and sustaining bureaucratic support for a necessary suite of capabilities. Essentially, even if the draft multi-domain battle concept ends up by the wayside, the muscle movements generated by the discussion could have productive effects that enhance the ability of the U.S. military to fight and win the nation’s wars over the next generation.
*
Michael C. Horowitz is associate professor of political science and associate director of Perry World House at the University of Pennsylvania. He is also a senior editor of War on the Rocks. You can find him on twitter @mchorowitz.
Image: U.S. Army photo by*pl. Jessica Collins

Housecarl · Jun 3, 2017

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://iswresearch.blogspot.com/201...eport:+May+19+-+June+1,+2017&utm_medium=email

Friday, June 2, 2017

Syria Situation Report: May 19 - June 1, 2017

By ISW Syria Team and Syria Direct

ISIS launched a wave of spectacular attacks in Western Syria prior to the start of Ramadan on May 26. ISIS detonated one VBIED targeting the majority-Alawite Zahraa District of Homs City on May 23. On the same day, pro-regime forces intercepted two bombers wearing SVESTS near the Shi’a Sayyida Zeinab Shrine in Damascus. ISIS also conducted a double SVEST - IED attack targeting a meeting of Salafi-Jihadist group Ahrar al-Sham in Eastern Idlib Province on May 22. These attacks follow a major ground attack by ISIS against two majority-Ismaili towns in Eastern Hama Province on 18 MAY. The attack wave demonstrates that ISIS retains the capability and intent to intensify its operations against both pro-regime and opposition forces in Western Syria despite its continued withdrawal from large stretches of Southern and Central Syria towards Eastern Syria.*

NATO leaders agreed to formally join the Anti-ISIS Coalition in Iraq and Syria during the NATO Summit in Brussels on May 25. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg stated that the agreement sends a “strong signal” of “commitment to fight global terrorism” but stressed that the bloc will not “engage in combat operations” against ISIS. NATO will instead expand its "airspace management" and aerial refueling mission for coalition aircraft as well as the deployment of special forces teams to train local partner forces. NATO will also establish a "terrorism intelligence cell" to improve information-sharing on foreign fighters. The decision likely aimed to meet the priorities of U.S. President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly questioned the value of the alliance while stressing the need to expand its counter-terrorism capabilities. The measure remains largely symbolic.

This graphic marks the latest installment of our Syria SITREP Map made possible through a partnership between the Institute for the Study of War and Syria Direct. This graphic depicts significant recent developments in the Syrian Civil War. The control of terrain represented on the graphic is accurate as of May 31, 2017.

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-oobLx88_...Q5DYmWZb2Hxj1N4wCLcB/s1600/May+19+-+31-01.png

Housecarl · Jun 3, 2017

http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...-York-Times-Just-Outed-The-CIA’s-Top-Iran-Spy

Merde....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thefederalist.com/2017/06/02/new-york-times-just-outed-cia-chief-iran/#.WTHg1v4tocB.twitter

The New York Times Just Outed The CIA’s Top Iran Spy

June 2, 2017 By Bre Payton

In an article published Friday, The New York Times*outed the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) top spy overseeing the organization’s efforts in Iran. The paper justified its outing of the undercover CIA spy and his role within the agency by saying it was necessary since the agent is “leading an important new administration initiative against Iran.”

Yes. That really happened.

In an article*entitled “C.I.A. Names New Iran Chief in a Sign of Trump’s Hard Line,” the newspaper of record revealed that*Michael D’Andrea, who previously led the hunt for Osama bin Laden, will now be in charge of the agency’s operations in Iran.

As the Times explained in its report, Iran is “one of the hardest targets” for the CIA to keep tabs on.

“The agency has extremely limited access to the country — no American embassy is open to provide diplomatic cover — and Iran’s intelligence services have spent nearly four decades trying to counter American espionage and covert operations,” the article noted.

So the Times has apparently made it the newspaper’s mission to make the agency’s work much more difficult and far more dangerous by publicly identifying the man in charge of its covert operations in the Persian country. The paper’s rationale? The report’s authors claimed that because the newspaper already outed D’Andrea in 2015 as the official in charge of a CIA drone program, ignoring desperate pleas from the CIA at the time to keep his name secret in order to protect both the agent and overall national security, it was kosher to out him as the agency’s new Iran chief in 2017.

Here’s what the Times article says (emphasis added):

The C.I.A. declined to comment on Mr. D’Andrea’s role, saying it does not discuss the identities or work of clandestine officials. The officials spoke only on the condition of anonymity because Mr. D’Andrea remains undercover, as do many senior officials based at the agency’s headquarters in Langley, Va. Mr. Eatinger did not use his name. The New York Times is naming Mr. D’Andrea because his identity was previously published in news reports, and he is leading an important new administration initiative against Iran.

The bolded portion of the excerpt above links to a*piece dated April 25, 2015, in which*D’Andrea is identified as the man in charge of growing the CIA’s drone programs in Yemen and Pakistan. But the paper’s real reason for outing D’Andrea, who was depicted as a character known only as “The Wolf” in the film “Zero Dark Thirty,” is that he’s an Iran hawk likely to oppose the previous administration’s attempts to normalize the nation by giving it billions of dollars, trading it terrorists for hostages, and blessing its nuclear program.

The*Times‘s flimsy rationale doesn’t make sense.

Just because the paper said he was in charge of handling drone strikes in a few other countries in a two-year-old article doesn’t justify outing him as the CIA’s top spy in a country that is now considered to be the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism.

As The Israel Project’s Omri Ceren pointed out on Twitter, the fact that the CIA officials who spoke to the Times did so under the condition of anonymity*because D’Andrea is still undercover means that the newspaper article is indeed outing him. And his safety is now likely in jeopardy thanks to the Times.

Omri Ceren @omriceren
"Mr. D'Andrea remains undercover... The New York Times is naming Mr. D'Andrea"
https://
twitter.com/omriceren/stat
us/870684316191174656*
…
10:56 AM - 2 Jun 2017
136
136 Retweets
78
78 likes

Omri Ceren @omriceren
Iran proxies kidnapped & tortured to death CIA's Lebanon station chief. Mailed US officials tapes of the torture
http://
canadafreepress.com/2006/thomas102
506.htm*
…
https://
twitter.com/omriceren/stat
us/870684316191174656*
…
10:16 AM - 2 Jun 2017
180
180 Retweets
100
100 likes

In 1984, longtime CIA operative Bill Buckley, who was working as the agency’s station chief in Lebanon, was kidnapped by Hezbollah and tortured to death. In 2011, over a dozen CIA spies were captured in Lebanon by the terrorist group Hezbollah. The spies were reportedly working to uncover details about Iran’s nuclear program at the time. In 2010, the CIA’s bureau chief in Afghanistan, who was at the time tracking down leads on the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden as well as Al Qaeda cells throughout the world, was forced to leave the country after his name was released. And just a year after that, the Obama administration accidentally included the name of the CIA’s Kabul station chief in a press release, exposing the undercover agent to possible kidnapping or assassination by Islamic terrorist groups.

In 2003, after the name of CIA employee Valerie Plame was revealed in an article by journalist Robert Novak, congressional Democrats demanded criminal investigations and eventual prison time for the individual responsible for leaking Plame’s name. No elected Democrats have yet called for a criminal investigation to determine who illegally leaked the name of the CIA’s top spy overseeing U.S. efforts in Iran.

Bre Payton is a staff writer at The Federalist. Follow her on Twitter.

Photo screengrab/Zero Dark Thirty

Housecarl · Jun 3, 2017

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...cond-day/ar-BBBOTbp?li=AA4Zpp&ocid=spartanntp

Kabul protest that left several dead enters second day

Video
By AMIR SHAH, Associated Press
3 hrs ago

Video by Reuters
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — A demonstration in downtown Kabul that left several people dead has entered a second day.

More than a thousand people demonstrated Friday demanding more security in the capital following a powerful truck bomb attack in the city that killed 90 people and wounded more than 450.

Scores of protesters passed the night under two big tents on a road near the presidential palace and the blast site. All roads toward the palace and diplomatic areas are being blocked Saturday by police and there is limited movement of vehicles and people.

On Friday, demonstrators rushed toward police who fired warning shots and when they attempted to move closer to the palace, police sprayed them with hoses from a water tanker and later fired tear gas.

Housecarl · Jun 3, 2017

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.voanews.com/a/kabul-bla...-victim-leaves-at-least-10-dead-/3885439.html

Kabul Blast at Funeral for Protest Victim Leaves at Least 10 Dead

June 03, 2017 8:57 AM
VOA News

At least 10 people were killed Saturday in Kabul when three explosions hit the funeral of a senator’s son who was killed during protests Friday in Afghanistan's capital city.

Several government officials and members of parliament, including Afghan chief executive Abdullah Abdullah, were in attendance at the funeral for the son of Sen. Alam Ezadyar.

The funeral attack came as a large portion of Kabul is on lockdown following protests Friday that have continued into Saturday. At least four Afghans were killed Friday when protesters demanding better security clashed with riot police in Kabul.

Witnesses say police fired live rounds into the air to disperse hundreds of stone-throwing demonstrators.

Public anger has been mounting since a devastating truck bomb explosion Wednesday at the beginning of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. One of the worst attacks since 2001 killed 90 people and wounded more than 450 others.

More than a thousand demonstrators, many carrying pictures of bomb victims, gathered Friday near the site of the blast and marched toward the presidential palace, demanding the resignation of the Afghan government. Some protesters burned effigies of President Ashraf Ghani.

Riot police used water cannons and tear gas to push the protesters back and also fired live bullets over the heads of the crowd. Hospital workers say at least four people died.

No one has yet claimed responsibility for the either the attack Wednesday or the Friday funeral explosions.

Possible Impact · Jun 3, 2017

The Spectator Index‏ @spectatorindex 3h
HISTORY: On this day in 1839,
Chinese officials destroyed 1 million kg of opium confiscated from British traders,
leading to the Opium War.

Housecarl · Jun 4, 2017

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.realcleardefense.com/art...ill_amid_tension_from_north_korea_111515.html

Japan Holds Evacuation Drill Amid Tension From North Korea

By Associated Press
June 04, 2017

TOKYO (AP) — A Japanese town conducted an evacuation drill Sunday amid rising fear that a North Korean ballistic missile could hit Japanese soil.

More than 280 residents and schoolchildren from Abu, a small town with a population of just over 3,400 on Japan’s western coast, rushed to designated school buildings to seek shelter after sirens from loudspeakers warned them of a possible missile flight and debris falling on them.

The drill follows three consecutive weeks of North Korean missile tests. Last week, a missile splashed into the sea inside Japan’s 200-mile exclusive economic zone off the country’s western coast.

It was the second such drill since March, when Tokyo instructed local governments to review their contingency plans and conduct evacuation exercises.

A similar drill was conducted Sunday in the neighboring prefecture of Fukuoka in southern Japan, and others are planned over the next few months.

Housecarl · Jun 4, 2017

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.realcleardefense.com/art...g_the_a-10_nato_article_v_and_gmd_111511.html

Weekly Recon – Keeping the A-10, NATO Article V, and GMD

By Blake Baiers
June 03, 2017

Good Saturday morning and welcome to Weekly Recon. On this day in 1864, Union General Ulysses S. Grant makes what he later recognizes to be his greatest mistake by ordering a frontal assault on entrenched Confederates at Cold Harbor.*The result was some 7,000 Union casualties in less than an hour of fighting. Grant’s Army of the Potomac and Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia had already inflicted frightful losses upon each other as they wheeled along an arc around Richmond—from the Wilderness to Spotsylvania and numerous smaller battle sites—the previous month.*

Keep on Brrrrt’n in the Free World – President Trump’s defense budget could be dead in the water, but it has shed light on the administration’s military and defense priorities. One big winner is the venerable A-10 Warthog. For years the plane has been threatened with retirement, and for years it has evaded the budget ax. Trump’s budget proposal allocates the fleet enough money to keep the plane flying for the foreseeable future. This follows a recent trend, which began this year in February when the Air Force announced that the A-10 would keep flying until at least 2021It’s unclear how familiar with the plane Trump was before taking office, but Rep. Martha McSally of Arizona, a former A-10 pilot, could take credit for boosting the plane’s profile on the President’s radar. Speaking at the Center for Security and International Studies, McSally told an audience that she had described the A-10 to Trump as, “A badass airplane with a big gun on it.” This is an even more effective pitch than Fairchild’s original line, “The closer it gets, the better it is for our troops on the ground.” Trump is sold on the plane, but it cannot be denied that the fleet is old and will need to be replaced.*

The Air Force will run an experiment this summer designed to guide their future approach to close air support (CAS). Contrary to some headlines, this experiment, titled OA-X, is not designed to replace the A-10. Instead, it aimed at supplementing existing CAS capabilities by offering a platform designed to operate specifically in “low-intensity” conflicts at a lower cost than aircraft like the A-10 or F-35. The OA-X competitors will include two turboprop aircraft, the Embraer, and Sierra Nevada Corp. A-29 Super Tucano and Beechcraft’s AT-6 Wolverine, and Textron Airland’s Scorpion light attack jet. Air Force Chief of Staff General David Goldfein said earlier this year that OA-X could be “a more sustainable model” for future CAS, but it will be competing against more strategically important platforms, like the B-21 bomber, for funding. Thus, integrating the OA-X winner into the force is no sure thing.*

Potential Step Toward Defining an “Act of Cyberwar” – Article V of the NATO charter has been discussed at great length following President Trump’s recent visit to Brussels but buried beneath the headlines dissecting what Trump did or didn’t say. In his speech was news that NATO officials believe that Article V could be invoked in the wake of a major cyber attack, akin to the massive 2007 cyber attack on Estonia, believed to have been carried out by Russia. Coming nearly a year after NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg championed the same idea in an interview. If NATO institutionalized criterions for what sort of cyber attack would warrant inciting Article V, it would be a major step in defining “cyberwar,” which still has no commonly accepted definition. It is beneficial for many states not to define cyber war as it permits them greater operational latitude in the so-called fifth-domain. Although public definitions remain elusive, it can be assured that individual states have uniquely calibrated red lines vis-à-vis cyber attacks. The danger arises from this ambiguity as anything, and nothing can amount to an act of “cyberwar.”*

The GMD Intercepts an ICBM – As of Tuesday, following 18 years and $40 billion in development, the Ground-based Midcourse Defense anti-ballistic missile system has officially intercepted an ICBM. This milestone is a much-needed win for the beleaguered program, especially given provocations from North Korea. Writing for RealClearDefense, Rebeccah Heinrichs of the Hudson Institute began an article this week stating, “If North Korea launches an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) at the U.S. population, the United States will destroy it mid-flight.” The successful test indeed proves the weapons viability, but the testing conditions need to be considered in light of Heinrichs’ unequivocal assertion.*

The successful test was also one of narrow scope and sophistication. There was a single target for the interceptor to search out. In a real-world scenario, it could be expected that dummy munitions would accompany the real weapon to confuse missile-defense systems. Furthermore, the test was long planned and expected by the defenders. In a real-world scenario, this is unlikely to be the case. This test was merely the beginning, however, and the military is already planning more sophisticated tests for the future. As Tom Karako of CSIS points out, “The most “realistic” test would be for North Korea to attack, but that is a degree of realism for which no one should wish.”

The recent test serves as validation for a program that has come under fire for its rocky track record and soaring costs. This proof of technology test could serve as a green light for increased spending on the program. An increase was not represented in the Trump Administration’s budget request submitted last month before the test took place. In fact, the request left spending on the program around the same level as President Obama’s final budget request. Heinrichs contends that “This will not do.”*This point is driven home by the head of the Missile Defense Agency, VADM James Syring, who on Wednesday said that this test proves the U.S. can effectively defend against existing and advancing threats “through*2020.” There is no rest in missile defense.

Housecarl · Jun 4, 2017

Multiple terrorist attacks in London
Started by*eXeý,*Yesterday*02:41 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?518259-Multiple-terrorist-attacks-in-London/page9

Terror warning shuts German rock festival on opening night Friday June 2nd
Started by*fairywellý,*Yesterday*07:17 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ock-festival-on-opening-night-Friday-June-2nd

Two arrested after suspected explosive devices Ireland [update IRA]
Started by*Melodiý,*06-02-2017*01:17 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...uspected-explosive-devices-Ireland-update-IRA

Copenhagen: Gunman shot after rampage in Tivoli Gardens
Started by*mzkittyý,*Yesterday*07:43 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...n-Gunman-shot-after-rampage-in-Tivoli-Gardens

--

Russia Tests Missile Which Makes Western Defences Obsolete
Started by*rmomahaý,*Yesterday*02:37 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...Missile-Which-Makes-Western-Defences-Obsolete

-----

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-paramilitary-iraq-idUSKBN18V0C6

World News | Sun Jun 4, 2017 | 9:50am EDT

Iraqi Shi'ite paramilitaries take Baaj town west of Mosul from Islamic State: army

By Maher Chmaytelli | BAGHDAD

Shi'ite paramilitaries have captured the Iraqi town of Baaj from Islamic State, further shrinking the northern region under jihadist control as part of a U.S.-backed campaign to retake the city of Mosul, the Iraqi military said on Sunday.

Eight months into the Mosul offensive, Islamic State (IS) militants have been dislodged from all of the city except an enclave along the western bank of the Tigris river.

IS's grip on the Iraqi side of the northern region along the border with Syria, a desert area where Iraqi and U.S. sources believe IS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is hiding, has been ebbing as forces fighting on the side of Iraq's government have advanced.

The Iraqi air force provided cover for the thrust into Baaj of the Shi'ite paramilitaries known as Popular Mobilisation, said a statement from the Iraqi joint operations command.

Popular Mobilisation is steered by neighbouring Shi'ite regional power Iran, an adversary of the United States, but is playing a part in the campaign to defeat Islamic State, an enemy of both, in Mosul and the surrounding province of Nineveh.

Iraqi government armed forces are focusing their effort on dislodging insurgents from remaining pockets in Mosul, since 2014 Islamic State's de facto capital in Iraq.

While reporting nominally to Iraq's Shi'ite-led government, Popular Mobilisation has Iranian military advisers, one of whom died last month fighting near Baaj.

Securing border territory between Iraq and Syria is important for Iran to reopen a land route to supply Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's army with weapons in his protracted war with rebels and militants.

A statement published by Popular Mobilisation announcing the capture of Baaj came from Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, a prominent leader of the paramilitary with longstanding ties to Iran.

Iran has helped to train and organise thousands of Shi'ite militiamen from Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan in Syria's war. Fighters from Lebanon's Shi'ite Hezbollah are also working closely with Iranian military commanders in Syria.

Islamic State is still in control of a desert stretch alongside the border south of Baaj, including the crossing of al-Qaim which connects its territory in Iraq and Syria.

Also In World News
London attackers kill seven, PM May says 'enough is enough'
Trump urges end to political correctness in wake of London attack

U.S. and Iraqi officials believe IS leader al-Baghdadi has left operational commanders behind with diehard followers to fight on in Mosul and is now focusing on his own survival.

The fall of Mosul would, in effect, mark the end of the Iraqi half of the self-styled caliphate declared in 2014 by Baghdadi from the pulpit of one of its old mosques.

But it would still control two smaller Iraqi urban centers: Tal Afar, a city populated by ethnic Turkmen west of Mosul, and Hawija, a pocket between Mosul and Baghdad, the Iraqi capital 400 kms (250 miles )to the south.

In Syria, Kurdish forces backed by U.S.-air strikes are besieging Islamic State forces in the city of Raqqa, the militants' de facto capital in that country.

(Reporting by Maher Chmaytelli; editing by Mark Heinrich and Angus MacSwan)

Next In World News

North Korea says rejects new sanctions, to continue nuclear program
SEOUL North Korea "fully rejects" the latest U.N sanctions against its citizens and entities as a "hostile act" and will continue its nuclear weapons development without a delay, its foreign ministry spokesman said on Sunday.

Southeast Asian nations step up cooperation as Islamic State threat mounts
SINGAPORE Southeast Asian nations plan to use spy planes and drones to stem the movement of militants across their porous borders, defense officials said at the weekend, as concerns rise over the growing clout of Islamic State in the region.

Learn from us on democracy, Taiwan tells China on Tiananmen anniversary
TAIPEI/HONG KONG Taiwan's president on Sunday offered to help China to transition to democracy, on the 28th anniversary of China's bloody crackdown on pro-democracy protests in and around Beijing's Tiananmen Square, as thousands gathered in Hong Kong for an evening vigil.

Trending Stories
1
London attackers kill seven, PM May says 'enough is enough'
2
North Korea says rejects new sanctions, to continue nuclear program
3
Trump urges end to political correctness in wake of London attack
4
All eyes on Cosby accuser as sexual assault trial begins
5
UK PM May calls for beefed up terror response after London attack

Pictures

Pictures of the week

Housecarl · Jun 4, 2017

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://gulfnews.com/news/mena/libya/libya-strongman-s-forces-take-southern-air-base-1.2038164

Libya strongman’s forces take southern air base

Haftar’s forces now control all the major cities and military bases in the desert south of the North African country

Published: 15:13 June 4, 2017
AFP

Benghazi: Forces loyal to east Libyan strongman Khalifa Haftar said on Saturday they had taken an air base in the south, boosting their presence in the vast Libyan desert.

Haftar’s self-styled Libyan National Army seized Al Jufra base 500 kilometres south of Tripoli, LNA spokesman Khalifa Al Abidi said.

The base had been occupied by the Benghazi Defence Brigades coalition, a rival to Haftar’s forces that includes Islamists driven out of Libya’s second city.

Abidi said the LNA also took the nearby towns of Houn and Soukna where they found ammunition depots and vehicles.

There was no immediate information about casualties.

Haftar’s forces now control all the major cities and military bases in the desert south of the North African country.

On May 25, they seized the Tamenhant base near Sebha after driving out a militia loyal to the internationally recognised administration, the Tripoli-based Government of National Accord (GNA).

The LNA had vowed to avenge an attack on its Brak Al Shati air base northeast of Tamenhant, in which 141 people including civilians were killed.

The GNA condemned that deadly assault, said it had not ordered it and announced an inquiry.

Libya has been wracked by chaos since the 2011 uprising that toppled and killed longtime dictator Muammar Gaddafi, with rival authorities and militias battling for control of the oil-rich country.

Housecarl · Jun 4, 2017

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/New...ommander-of-an-extremist-group-in-Libya-.html

How did a former Egyptian officer come to head an extremist group in Libya?

Staff writer, Al Arabiya English
Sunday, 4 June 2017

Libyan army spokesperson Colonel Ahmed Al-Mesmari said Hisham Ashmawi, a former Egyptian officer who is currently the commander of an extremist group in Darnah in northeastern Libya, seems to be involved in the Minya bus attack which killed 29 Copts last week.

In a press conference on Friday, Mesmari said Ashmawi was suspended from the Egyptian army in 2012 and is now leading terrorist operations from Darnah.

The 35-year-old was a lieutenant colonel in the Egyptian army and he served in Sinai for around 10 years. He was suspended from the army based on a judicial decision that was made after he began spreading extremist ideas among soldiers.*
Terrorist cell*

Ashmawi, who is also known as Abu Omar al-Mohajer, then formed a terrorist cell which included four suspended army officers and others in the army. He then joined Ansar Bait al-Maqdis which later renamed itself the Sinai Province after it pledged allegiance to ISIS.

Ashmawi was accused of most terrorist operations which happened in Egypt such as the attempt to assassinate former interior minister Mohammed Ibrahim. He was also accused of planning and participating in the 2014 Sinai ambush where 22 soldiers were killed.

ALSO*READ: Egypt says Christian massacre attackers trained in Libya

In 2013, he traveled to Darnah in Libya and announced his defection from Sinai Province and joined Al-Mourabitoun which supports Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.

Ashmawi recruited members from Egypt and trained them in Darnah so they can carry out operations in Egypt. He is now one of the most wanted men, considering the security threats he poses for Egypt.

This report is also available in Arabic.
Last Update: Sunday, 4 June 2017 KSA 13:25 - GMT 10:25

Housecarl · Jun 4, 2017

Hummm....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelledeen/2017/06/03/defeating-new-nuclear-enemies/#729adbae21c4

Jun 3, 2017 @ 05:21 PM 378

Defeating New Nuclear Enemies

Michael Ledeen , Contributor
I write about Italy, Iran and fascism.
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

The North Koreans have tested yet another missile.* It’s certainly an important event, but I have yet to see any report that reminds us about the Iranian connection.* This,* in turn, bespeaks a failure, both of our punditocracy, and of our leaders, to see clearly what is going on.

Anyone who has followed such matters knows that Iran and North Korea have a joint nuclear program.* This has been going on for years,* possibly decades.* Each sends observers to the other’s test—whether of missiles or bombs—so they can advance the joint venture.

According to usually reliable sources, including John Bolton, North Korea—and therefore Iran as well—is on the threshold of obtaining nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missile capable of hitting Europe and the United States. *Estimates suggest that this could be fulfilled next year (!)

Both regimes have long believed that if they could accomplish that, it would ensure the survival of the current political system and render both countries immune from American attack.* When we drove Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, the Iranians said that if he had had nuclear weapons, we wouldn’t have dared.* They certainly believe that once they have nukes and reliable missiles, they are safe from us.

I think this would be a red-hot issue, as it should be, if we stopped looking at our various challenges one by one, and looked at the global coalition arrayed against us.* It should be automatic to see North Korean nuclear developments alongside Iran’s race to nuclear status, but that rarely, if ever, occurs.

So what, if anything, do we propose to do?* President Trump promised 54 Arab Muslim countries that the United States would prevent Iran from going nuclear.* Did that include the North Koreans?* If Pyongyang and Tehran become nuclear powers next year will we make more promises, or will we do something?* Ambassador James Jeffries has some clear thoughts about our options*

To succeed with any policy toward Iran, the United States must set clear final goals. Does it merely want to push back on Tehran's regional aggression, as it did with Slobodan Milosevic in the 1990s? Or does it seek a long-term containment policy to effect fundamental policy changes in Iran (i.e., George Kennan's initial prescription for the Cold War), or even regime change? If so, how would this policy be carried out in practice?

Likewise, North Korea.* What to do?

If you look at the recent appointments at the national security council, you will find a surfeit of military men, General McMaster’s buddies. *And if you listen to Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, you will hear his familiar thoughts about the proper use of military power.* We’re going to “annihilate” ISIS and so forth.* Does that apply to nuclear powers too?* Or are the Iranians right to believe we will not mess with them under those circumstances?

Indeed, we might not mess with them even now.* We’re selling lots of weapons to the Sunni Arabs, clearing hoping that they will bear the burden of settling the Iranian account.* So far, I haven’t heard of McMaster and his team calling for aggressive action against the mullahs;* insofar as we have an Iran policy, it consists of sanctions, speeches, and arming Sunnis.* That road leads to a very ugly set of alternatives:* either open armed conflict, or appeasement of one sort or another.
*
As Jeffrey cautiously puts it, there’s “even regime change,” which is most often dismissed by the Washington foreign-policy establishment, including the current crowd.* And yet it’s the best policy, as it has been for a long time.* If we could bring down the Soviet Empire by supporting Gorbachev’s internal opposition, it should be even easier to bring down the Islamic Republic of Iran with the same strategy.

Somebody should tell Trump, Tillerson, and all those generals.* Don’t finesse yourselves into having to choose between sending Americans into battle, or appeasing Khamenei et al.

Housecarl · Jun 4, 2017

Hummm....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/po...r-arms-race/QlgPJLsn01ru4SaHFuGicM/story.html

The idea of a nuclear cruise missile raise old fears

By Christopher Rowland Globe Staff* June 03, 2017
Comments 62

WASHINGTON — President Trump has called for a new global arms race, and the Pentagon is ready. It has a nuclear weapon on the drawing board that the military considers essential but that critics fear could put the United States on the inside lane to Armageddon.

The new weapon is the planned update of the Air Force’s nuclear cruise missile. Price tag: at least $20 billion. Fear factor for arms-control advocates: maximum.

Trump’s newly released budget for 2018 contains hundreds of millions of dollars to speed up development of the Long Range Stand Off missile — a jet-propelled nuke designed to be launched from an airborne bomber and stealthily zip to a target virtually anywhere in the world.

It will carry a “variable yield’’ warhead that can be adjusted to deliver an atomic blast ranging from 5 to 150 kilotons — that is, from about one-third of a Hiroshima-sized bomb to as much as 10 Hiroshima bombs.

The ability to limit the scope of devastation and highly flexible targeting offer a powerful allure to Air Force generals, but are also precisely what worry antiproliferation specialists. They contend these capabilities make the idea of a “limited’’ nuclear strike on a target like Iran or North Korea — aggressive provocateurs but not superpowers — more likely, with a high risk for catastrophic escalation. It could also give Pentagon planners an intriguing option as they study ways to deter Russia’s ambitions to reassert sway over Eastern Europe.

The new missiles are part of a $1 trillion upgrade of America’s nuclear arsenal kicked off by President Barack Obama, replacing missiles, submarines, and planes that have been in service for decades. Now Trump is positioning the military to pursue those plans aggressively, with $1 billion in his new budget to keep the Pentagon on an accelerated course for updating warheads, including a refurbished warhead for the 1,000 new, improved cruise missiles.

“It is very dangerous to have this excessive, unnecessary rebuilding of the arsenal take place under the Trump administration,’’ said Tom Collina, policy director at the Ploughshares Fund, a nonprofit organization that advocates for the reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons development. “The United States wants a new arms race, and is willing to push for it, and willing to pay for it, and we’re going to see other countries including Russia respond in kind, which is not good for global security.’’

The potential for nuclear brinkmanship and a war “goes up when you have weapons that are perceived as less risky to use in a first strike,’’ he said.

Under an order Trump signed soon after he took office, the Pentagon is beginning a Nuclear Posture Review, due for completion by the end of the year. It gives the new administration a chance to articulate the president’s nuclear vision and decide what atomic weapons and strategies he deems most important.

Trump’s White House has not yet provided details of the president’s views, but in some of his remarks, he appears prepared to push the United States closer to a Cold War footing, a shift in tone and possibly in tactics that could have an impact on global nuclear security long after he leaves office.

“Let it be an arms race,’’ Trump, then president-elect, was quoted by MSNBC as saying in December. “We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all.’’

Tough talk, or something more? Certainly the tone runs sharply counter to the trend over the last three decades. Since the destruction of the Berlin Wall, there has been a sharp reduction in nuclear arms deployed by the United States and Russia.

Obama’s own 2010 Nuclear Posture Review concluded that the United States should continue seeking to reduce the balance of nuclear weapons in the post-Cold War era, not add new nuclear weapons systems to the mix of intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-based missiles, and missiles on long-range bombers. But to win Republican support for the ratification of the New START arms control treaty with Russia in 2010 — which limited both sides to 1,550 strategic warheads and set up new inspection regimes — Obama softened his stance and agreed to the sweeping modernization of the smaller nuclear force. The $1 trillion price tag, coming due over 30 years, includes new strategic bombers, submarines, and rebuilt intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Among all the nuclear systems, the plan to update the air-launched cruise missile is the most controversial, because of what critics consider its “destabilizing’’ effect. The missile is designed to be used in a survivable, limited nuclear conflict — survivable, meaning it doesn’t result in mutual annihilation. Intended to replace an existing, less capable system built in the 1980s, it would be widely deployed by 2030, with the first one ready by 2025.

It could be shot thousands of miles away from enemy territory, and then fly low and fast to its target. The new version will have a stealthy profile and skin, making it difficult to detect by radar.

Proponents in the Air Force have said the missile is indispensable because it eliminates the need for long-range strategic bombers to enter enemy airspace. They contend it can act as an even stronger deterrent than ballistic missiles.

“We want our adversaries to think we have the capability — and the will — to use our nuclear weapons,’’ said Adam Lowther, director of the Air Force’s School for Advanced Nuclear Deterrence Studies, at Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico. With the new missile, he said, “we’re not in a situation where it is all or nothing.’’
It is in America’s interest to keep the Russians guessing if the “crazy Americans’’ will pull the trigger, he said. Enemies know that America will be extremely reluctant, he said, to deliver an atomic blast from an ICBM, given the almost certain retaliation that would follow.

Unlike Obama’s review, which called for reductions in the risks of global annihilation, the Trump review is expected to highlight the benefits of nuclear weapons to America’s power, Lowther predicted. He anticipates the review will be “a more positive view of the role of nuclear weapons, and nuclear deterrence.’’

Critics say the cruise missile makes the frightening logic of deterrence all the more fragile.

“This weapon makes fighting nuclear wars even more possible. Its accuracy and potency will be greater. We don’t need it. It’s dangerous. And the weapons that we have already can do the job,’’ said Senator Edward Markey, the Massachusetts Democrat and longtime proponent of a freeze and reduction on nuclear weapons.
“We’re going to ask other countries to engage in restraint while we’re making .*.*. nuclear war-fighting even more possible, even more imaginable,” he said.

Markey has sponsored Senate legislation that would cap development money for the next-generation nuclear cruise missile at current levels until Trump’s Nuclear Posture Review is complete. The bill has little chance of passage. Most of the Republicans who control Congress and a number of Democrats whose states depend on jobs and military bases that support nuclear weapons favor a full-speed-ahead approach.

North Dakota is home to the B-52 bombers that carry the old nuclear cruise missiles. Both of the state’s senators, Democrat Heidi Heitkamp and Republican John Hoeven, were among a bipartisan group who wrote the Pentagon last summer urging that the full nuclear modernization continue.

They wrote the letter after published reports said Obama was thinking about scaling back the modernization in his last year in office, including canceling the new cruise missile.

“We must modernize these forces to preserve their deterrent capabilities,’’ Hoeven, Heitkamp, and the other senators wrote. “We .*.*. need a new [air-launched cruise missile] to hold the broadest possible array of targets at risk.’’

The gears of Pentagon procurement bureaucracy are already turning, supported by weapons manufacturers.

Early development of the cruise missile’s updated warhead is under way at Sandia National Laboratories . Requests for bids for the full missile systems were issued last year; prime bidders are expected to be Waltham-based Raytheon, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and Lockheed Martin, according to defense trade journals.

Christopher Rowland can be reached at christopher.rowland@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @GlobeRowland.

Housecarl · Jun 4, 2017

Venezuela’s hunger crisis is for real. How Things Are Worsing For People....
Started by China Connection‎, Yesterday 02:49 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...s-for-real.-How-Things-Are-Worsing-For-People....

Hummm.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwor...uros-regime-collapse-on-its-own/#351f9d163e7a

JUN 4, 2017 @ 10:48 AM 1,347

No To US Sanctions On Venezuela - Let Maduro's Regime Collapse On Its Own

Tim Worstall , CONTRIBUTOR
I have opinions about economics, finance and public policy.

Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

Donald Trump's administration is reportedly considering economic sanctions against Venezuela, something I consider an extremely bad idea. Yes, the situation there is disastrous but we should and must let the nonsense that is Bolivarian socialism run its course. Not in the sense that Venezuelans deserve anything of the chaos and poverty engulfing them but we need to stay away from any action that allows our own idiot socialists to shout that it could have worked if it weren't for the Yanqui imperialist economic war or whatever. The disaster that is befalling the country was not imposed from outside, it is not because of anything we have done, it's an inevitable outcome of the economic system that was put in place by first Chavez and then Maduro. The way to--aid at least--in inoculating our own economies from such nonsense is to leave it be, to show that it just does not work and any failure is not because the capitalists this or that. It fails on its own for its own internal reasons.

Venezuelan Foreign Minister Delcy Rodriguez (R) and Minister of Communications Ernesto Villegas (L) walk before a press conference in Caracas on February 15, 2017.Venezuela lodged a diplomatic complaint with the United States on Wednesday over Washington's sanctions against its vice-president for alleged drug trafficking. Foreign Minister Delcy Rodriguez handed over official protest notes during a meeting with Lee McClenny, charge d'affaires at the US Embassy in Caracas. / AFP / JUAN BARRETO (Photo credit should read JUAN BARRETO/AFP/Getty Images)

Yes, a harsh call and yet--Podemos in Spain spent several years praising those Venezuelan economic actions, there are apologists for it all in the US (David Sirota and Mark Weisbrot come to mind), parts of Syriza in Greece advocate similar policies, Owen Jones and various Corbynistas would gladly enact some of this stupidity in the UK. We must indeed stand ready to do anything at all to make good the damage, that simply being a good human being. But we should not do anything to make it worse, to make the regime collapse. We really do want people to get the message that this new economics--actually a very old delusion--just does not work and so no one should try it elsewhere.

Not even because the basic underlying wish was a bad one. There's nothing wrong, nothing wrong at all, with deciding that perhaps the poor should have a larger slice of the economic cake. It's not that and it's not the oil price collapse--the disaster started before that did--and we should not let it be said that it was capitalist reaction which caused Bolivarian socialism to plunge a nation into penury. It's the methods used, the near abolition of the price, thus market, system, which will plunge any economy which tries it into the same destitution. It isn't even socialism as against capitalism that has engulfed the country. It's entirely possible, even if not particularly desirable by my lights, to have a socialist economy that works, our own economies are full of socialist organisations and they work just fine. It is not possible to have a functioning economy without markets and a price system.

Thus I do not back this idea:

The Trump administration is considering possible sanctions on Venezuela’s vital energy sector, including state oil company PDVSA, senior White House officials said, in what would be a major escalation of U.S. efforts to pressure the country’s embattled leftist government amid a crackdown on the opposition.

The idea of striking at the core of Venezuela’s economy, which relies on oil for some 95 percent of export revenues, has been discussed at high levels of the administration as part of a wide-ranging review of U.S. options, but officials said it remains under debate and action is not imminent.

That attractions of ending the suffering are of course myriad. But it's not obvious that sanctions would in fact shorten the pain, and there is, as above, the desire to leave the apologists no way out.

Maduro's government says the United States and Venezuela's opposition are seeking to oust him from power.

Well, the opposition are, obviously, that's what oppositions are for. But we should, I am certain, stay away from the idea that the US should do so too. Far too much of Latin American history has been justified by the idea that anything the US doesn't like must be good. Interference would just perpetuate that for another cycle.

Possibilities could include a blanket ban on Venezuelan oil imports and preventing PDVSA from trading and doing business in the United States, which would have a severe impact on PDVSA's US refining subsidiary Citgo.

Oil sanctions don't really work on an oil exporting nation. Iranian sanctions had some effect but that was a denial of the entire advanced world banking system to allow the use of said banking system. Oil is fungible meaning that if one country says no oil from this source then that denied can be sold elsewhere, with supplies arriving at the place doing the denying from other sources now displaced. It's true that it is a little more complicated for Venezuela, given the nature of the crude and the way the US Gulf refineries are set up to deal with it but that's not a major point. Sanctions would be more of a political gesture than a crippling blow anyway. But that very gesture would be enough excuse to keep that economic dream alive, that there is some other manner of running an economy other than with prices and markets.

As I say above the problem with Bolivarian socialism isn't the socialism. The socialism/capitalism divide is about who owns. And the US and UK economies both have large supermarket chains, as examples, which are socialist organisations. They are worker owned cooperatives and the work just fine. There is also absolutely nothing wrong at all with deciding that the poor should have better lives. It may not be to everyones' taste, to be sure, but it's legitimate enough to divert the tax revenues disproportionately to the poor. But that isn't what the Chavistas did. Instead, cheered on by large swathes of the European and American left they decided to fix prices and in doing so destroy the price system and thus the market as a method of information and distribution.

The destruction of the price system, of that information system, is something that an economy cannot and will not survive. We simply do not have any other method of allocating scarce resources to sate human needs. That's the point of Hayek's Nobel Lecture, that's why West Germany was 3 or 4 times richer than East in 1989, both of them starting from the equal point of having been bombed flat in 1945. That's why those dreadfully poor countries out in what we used to call the Third World are now growing, even Bangladesh has been growing at 6% pa for two decades now--price systems work, central planning does not. China started 1978 about as rich as England was in 1600 AD. Today it's about where England was in 1960. This is not because the Chinese Communist Party manages the economy, it's because it manages very much less of it than it used to, the market part of China is today perhaps the most viciously free market on the planet.

Venezuela is simply the latest example of this. Zimbabwe went before, the 20th century experiment with Soviet socialism gave the same answer to the question. And in order to inform the leftists of the Democratic Socialist Party of America, Podemos, Syriza, Momentum and other assorted cliques and deluded factions that this is so, again, we need to leave Venezuela's Bolivarian socialism to end on its own. To impose sanctions would just be to give them, again, an excuse as to why it didn't work other than the basic unworkability of the underlying idea. It is as with the Cuban blockade, that has been the biggest US mistake over the decades. It has provided the excuse for people to not have to recognise that the abject poverty of the island is caused by the internal economic arrangements, not by anything imposed from outside.

If the US imposes sanctions then those will be blamed for the inevitable demise of the Maduro, Bolivarian socialist, regime. So no sanctions, let it collapse on its own without providing any excuses.

Shacknasty Shagrat · Jun 4, 2017

This has potential to be a nasty, convoluted dust up and involve US bases in the area.
One suggestion is that this is a chip in Saudi/Israel vs Turkey/Iran, but I see sunni Turkey as not friendly to shia Iran.

SS

'Bahrain cuts ties with Qatar for meddling in internal affairs
Reuters Monday, 5 June 2017 (about an hour ago)
DUBAI (Reuters) - Bahrain said on Monday it cut diplomatic relations with Qatar, accusing its fellow Gulf Arab state of backing terrorism and interfering in Bahrain's internal affairs.

Bahrain cuts diplomatic ties to Qatar as Gulf rift deepens
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — Bahrain says it is cutting diplomatic ties to Qatar amid a deepening rift between Gulf Arab nations. Bahrain’s Foreign...
Seattle Times 19 minutes ago - Front Page

Twitter
pic

sassygirl914 RT @ReutersWorld: Bahrain cuts ties with Qatar for meddling in internal affairs https://t.co/m5KXbacra0 15 seconds ago

RJtraxx RT @RT_com: BREAKING: ‘Meddling in internal affairs’: Bahrain & Saudi Arabia cut diplomatic ties with Qatar https://t.co/bUsAwNlPlq https:/… 18 seconds ago
pic

Sreekanth MM RT @RT_com: BREAKING: ‘Meddling in internal affairs’: Bahrain & Saudi Arabia cut diplomatic ties with Qatar https://t.co/bUsAwNlPlq https:/… 21 seconds ago
pic

Rayan RT @zaidbenjamin: #Bahrain cuts ties with #Qatar - Saudi and Emirate Media Outlets 21 seconds ago
pic

Yazeed RT @RT_com: BREAKING: ‘Meddling in internal affairs’: Bahrain & Saudi Arabia cut diplomatic ties with Qatar https://t.co/bUsAwNlPlq https:/… 22 seconds ago
pic

Suresh R The Saudis and Bahrainis both.... https://t.co/bFx3IaubMS 24 seconds ago
http://www.onenewspage.com/n/World/75eadoggh/Bahrain-cuts-ties-with-Qatar-for-meddling-in.htm

--------
' Al Arabiya English Monday, 5 June 2017
Text size A A A

The Arab coalition has said it has suspended Qatar’s participation in all efforts to restore legitimacy in Yemen, a source confirmed to Al Arabiya News Channel. '
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/New...-suspends-Qatar-s-participation-in-Yemen.html
-----
Steve Herman‏Verified account @W7VOA

Steve Herman Retweeted العربية عاجل

#Bahrain cuts diplomatic ties with #Qatar, halts transportation links with Doha.

Steve Herman‏Verified account @W7VOA 18m18 minutes ago

Steve Herman Retweeted Steve Herman

This puts US in an awkward position: @USNavy 5th Fleet based at #Bahrain while @CENTCOM has thousands of personnel in #Qatar.

Steve Herman‏Verified account @W7VOA 23m23 minutes ago

Steve Herman Retweeted سكاي نيوز عربية-الآن

#Egypt also now reported to have cut diplomatic ties with #Qatar.

Steve Herman‏Verified account @W7VOA

Steve Herman Retweeted واس

Saudi Arabia cuts diplomatic relations with #Qatar, says move is a matter of national security.

https://twitter.com/W7VOA

Housecarl · Jun 5, 2017

Saudi Arabia and Bahrain break diplomatic ties with Qatar over 'terrorism'
Started by*Pinecone‎,*Yesterday*08:25 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...plomatic-ties-with-Qatar-over-terrorism/page2

----------

Hummm......

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...venezuela-in-the-news/?utm_term=.2c067be4a3ba

Why Mexico’s government wants to keep Venezuela in the news

By David Agren
June 5 at 5:00 AM

MEXICO CITY — One of Mexico's most cherished political principles is “nonintervention.” Mexican governments have*traditionally stayed silent on the internal matters*of other nations — and showed little patience for international scrutiny of its own affairs.*But when it comes to Venezuela, Mexico is suddenly getting loud.

Mexico and Venezuela are fighting an escalating war of words as Mexico assumes the uncharacteristic role of chief regional critic of Venezuela, where the economy has cratered and street protests have been violently suppressed.*Mexican Foreign Minister Luis Videgaray condemned Venezuela last week as undemocratic for imprisoning political opponents and showing “authoritarian traits.”*His Venezuelan counterpart, Delcy Rodríguez, shot back: “The most dangerous country in the world doesn’t have the moral authority to speak of Venezuela,” she said.

Analysts say the shift is down to simple politics. Andrés Manuel López Obrador, a left-wing populist and two-time presidential candidate often nicknamed “AMLO,” leads some early polls for the 2018 vote and campaigned hard in recent weeks in a neck-and-neck gubernatorial race in Mexico state, the most populous in the country. (The election was held Sunday, and preliminary results seemed to show Morena narrowly*losing to President Enrique Peña Nieto’s Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI.)

López Obrador is often painted by political opponents as his country's version of late Venezuelan leader Hugo Chávez. So for Mexico's unpopular leader, Peña Nieto, keeping blood-soaked images from Venezuela in the news cycle and condemning human rights violations have become props in his attempt to stop the country from swinging left.

López Obrador's proximity to power spooks political and business elites — “the mafia in power,” he calls them — and political opponents and a cadre of columnists attack him endlessly.

“This is a foreign policy issue turned into a domestic political issue,” said Carlos Heredia, a professor at the Center for Teaching and Research in Economics, a public university. “It isn’t really about democracy in Venezuela. I wish it were. It’s about painting López Obrador as the Mexican Chávez.”

Opponents have tried to tie López Obrador, a former mayor of Mexico City, to Chávez and Venezuela for more than a decade.*Attack ads calling him “a danger for Mexico” and comparing him to Chávez torpedoed his 2006 presidential campaign — a race he refused to concede after losing by less than a percentage point. He again finished second in 2012 and again refused to concede.

López Obrador denies sharing any sympathies or connections with Venezuela, but he has done little to distance himself or his party, from the regime of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.*Venezuelan officials, meanwhile, have openly embraced Morena. Venezuela’s ambassador to Mexico, María Urbaneja Durant, met with members of the party last week. The*Venezuelan Embassy then boasted of the meeting on Twitter.*

“We celebrate the accompaniment of the Morena party, its solidarity and unreserved support for the Bolivarian Revolution. ¡Viva México y Venezuela!” the embassy tweeted. It later deleted the tweet.

The Morena party later denied having links to Venezuela and said it supported the idea of nonintervention, but there is a significant pro-Venezuela faction in the party. “There are groups within Morena that are really committed to Venezuela regardless of how many human rights violations happen,” said Rodolfo Soriano-Núñez, a sociologist in Mexico City.

And the politics of Mexico's fractious left wing mean López Obrador cannot simply fight the*Chávez comparison by disavowing that pro-Venezuela wing. The Mexican left has a*love-hate relationship with López Obrador, and those with pro-Venezuela sympathies have been some of his strongest supporters.

“They have been extremely loyal when the rest of the Mexican left was unwilling to support AMLO,” Soriano-Núñez said. “That wing was there with him through thick and thin.”

*So for now, the attacks — and the government's tough talk — will continue. Videgaray, the foreign minister, told a conference in Miami earlier in May: “What is occurring in Venezuela is extraordinarily grave. As a Mexican, I wouldn’t like it if suddenly in Mexico there was such a serious attack on democracy as canceling elections, not recognizing the Congress, imprisoning the opposition, utilizing military tribunals to judge those protesting against the government.”

But those criticisms have also raised uncomfortable questions for Peña Nieto’s administration, which supposedly*showered special attention on Mexico state in the lead-up to Sunday's election. The PRI has been accused of bribing poor voters with giveaways ranging from cash to water tanks to prepaid cards.

Peña Nieto’s press office pointed to statements from the foreign relations secretary, when asked for comment on the change in posture on Venezuela.

Read more:*
Andrés Manuel López Obrador: Mexico will wage a battle of ideas against Trump
A Mexican populist rises to face Trump’s America
*An election in the heartland of Mexico’s ruling party shows where country may be headed

Housecarl · Jun 5, 2017

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201706050014.html

Unsure of U.S., Asia builds new alliances to counter China

REUTERS
June 5, 2017 at 11:35 JST

SINGAPORE--Several Asian nations are seeking to bolster informal alliances among themselves, regional diplomats and officials said, unsettled by growing fears that the United States could not be relied on to maintain a buffer against China's assertiveness.

Countries including Australia, Japan, India and Vietnam are quietly stepping up discussions and co-operation, although taking care they do not upset Beijing, the diplomats said. No one was yet talking about a formal alliance.

Inaugurating the weekend Shangri-La Dialogue, the region's premier security forum, Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said: "In this brave new world we cannot rely on great powers to safeguard our interests.

"We have to take responsibility for our own security and prosperity, while recognizing we are stronger when sharing the burden of collective leadership with trusted partners and friends."

His comments resonated through the three-day meeting that ended on Sunday.

Regional officials and analysts said there was growing mistrust of the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump, especially because of his withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) on trade and then, last week, the pullout from the Paris climate accord.

Many fear Trump is signaling a deeper retreat from a traditional U.S. security role that has underpinned the region for decades.

U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis told the Singapore forum that Washington remained committed to the region and insisted it would oppose China's militarization of the disputed South China Sea, one of Asia's most volatile hotspots.

Regional officials said they were worried by Trump's unpredictability and concerned that his warm praise of Chinese President Xi Jinping after their first summit meeting in April would influence any decisions on Asia.

"We trust Mattis and we trust (U.S. Pacific Commander Harry) Harris but at the very top? The trust gap is very wide," said one senior Asian military officer.

"Our fear is driven by the reality that it is only the U.S. that is powerful enough to set red lines with China."

Malaysian Defense Minister Hishammuddin Hussein said Asia was still trying to figure out Trump's policy in the region.

"I would like to know very clearly what are the true intentions of the new administration," he said.

FIVE POWERS

In broad terms, Singapore Defense Minister Ng Eng Hen confirmed accelerated co-operation among partners, but he also said he welcomed Mattis' reassurances.

"Countries look at the landscape and you adjust, and that's what good leadership does ... you put yourself in a position so if there are changes, you are not caught completely off-guard," Ng said at a news conference on Sunday.

Australia, New Zealand, Britain, Malaysia and Singapore re-energized their Five Powers Defense Agreement at the weekend, with officials saying they wanted to better link new military capabilities, as well as boosting counter-terrorism efforts and maritime security.

Tim Huxley, a regional security expert, wrote in a newspaper article last week that the five countries needed to improve the interoperability of their militaries as the regional balance of power shifted.

While China was becoming richer and more assertive, U.S. strategy and policy had entered "a period of, at best, uncertainty under President Donald Trump," he said.
"Amid this uncertainty, most states in the region are seeking to increase their military capabilities."

India did not send a government delegation to the Shangri-La forum but has been active in strengthening cooperation in the region.

It sent four ships and a P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft to naval exercises with Singapore last month, and is discreetly improving Vietnam's defenses. Several Indian defense companies attended the International Maritime Defence Exhibition and Conference in Singapore last month, including the manufacturers of short-range missiles.

New Delhi rejected an Australian request to join its Malabar naval exercises next month with Japan and the United States for fear of antagonizing China, which has warned against expanding the drills, navy officials and diplomats said.

But officials say the exercises will expand gradually, noting that India has bilateral defense agreements with countries including Australia, Singapore and Vietnam.
"There are different strands of cooperation. At some point they will come together," one Indian official said.

Beijing sent a low-key delegation to the Shangri-La forum this year, but its officials were warily watching developments and warning of "Cold War thinking" behind moves to strengthen alliances.

"It's a Cold War mentality to use alliances to check on China," said Senior Colonel Zhao Xiaozhuo, of the People's Liberation Army's Academy of Military Science.

"It's creating some sort of threat and using China as a threat is a huge mistake."

Housecarl · Jun 5, 2017

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://freebeacon.com/national-secu...nuclear-capabilities-heightening-time-weapon/

Iran Developing Advanced Nuclear Capabilities, Heightening Time to Weapon

Report: Iran stockpiling illicit nuclear parts to reduce time to weapon

BY: Adam Kredo
June 5, 2017 5:00 am

Iran is believed to be developing advanced nuclear-related capabilities that could significantly reduce the time it needs to build a deliverable nuclear weapon, according to statements by Iranian officials that have fueled speculation among White House officials and nuclear experts that the landmark accord has heightened rather than reduced the Islamic Regime's nuclear threat.

The head of Iran's nuclear program recently announced the Islamic Republic could mass produce advanced nuclear centrifuges capable of more quickly enriching uranium, the key component in a nuclear weapon. Work of this nature appears to violate key clauses of the nuclear agreement that prohibits Iran from engaging in such activity for the next decade or so.

The mass production of this equipment "would greatly expand Iran's ability to sneak-out or breakout to nuclear weapons capability," according to nuclear verification experts who disclosed in a recent report that restrictions imposed by the Iran deal are failing to stop the Islamic Republic's nuclear pursuits.

The latest report has reignited calls for the Trump administration to increase its enforcement of the nuclear deal and pressure international nuclear inspectors to demand greater access to Iran's nuclear sites.

It remains unclear if nuclear inspectors affiliated with the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, have investigated Iran's pursuit of advanced centrifuges, according to the report, which explains that greater access to Iran's sites is needed to verify its compliance with the deal.

The report comes amid renewed concerns about Iran's adherence to the nuclear agreement and its increased efforts to construct ballistic missiles, which violate international accords barring such behavior.

"Iran could have already stockpiled many advanced centrifuge components, associated raw materials, and the equipment necessary to operate a large number of advanced centrifuges," according to a report by the Institute for Science and International Security. "The United States and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) need to determine the status of Iran's centrifuge manufacturing capabilities, including the number of key centrifuge parts Iran has made and the amount of centrifuge equipment it has procured."

Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, bragged in April that Tehran is prepared to mass-produce advanced centrifuges on "short notice." Work of this nature would greatly increase the amount of nuclear fissile material produced by Iran, prompting concerns the country could assemble a functional nuclear weapon without being detected.

The issue is complicated by the lack of access international nuclear inspectors have to Iran's contested military sites, according to the report.

Salehi's declaration highlights the "profound weaknesses in the JCPOA which include lack of inspector access, highly incomplete knowledge of Iran's centrifuge manufacturing capabilities and output, and too few centrifuge components being accounted for and monitored," according to the report.

Iran already has manufactured more centrifuge parts than needed for the amount of nuclear work permitted under the agreement.

The terms of the agreement permit Iran to operate one advanced IR-8 centrifuge. However, Iran is known to have assembled more than half a dozen such centrifuges.
Iran also is working to construct IR-6 centrifuges, which also point to an increased focus on the production of enriched nuclear materials.

"These numbers are excessive and inconsistent with the JCPOA," according to the report. "Moreover, in light of Salehi's comments, the excessive production of [centrifuge] rotors may be part of a plan to lay the basis for mass production."

Iran's work on "any such plan is not included in Iran's enrichment plan under the JCPOA," according to the report.

Inspectors affiliated with the IAEA should immediately investigate the total number of centrifuge parts in Iran's possession and determine exactly how many of these parts are currently being manufactured, the report states. The IAEA also should attempt to keep tabs on any clandestine nuclear work Iran may be engaging in.

Iran may be misleading the world about its centrifuge production and it still has not declared all materials related to this work, as is obligated under the nuclear deal.

"A key question is whether Iran is secretly making centrifuge rotor tubes and bellows at unknown locations, in violation of the JCPOA, and if it takes place, what the probability is that it goes without detection," the report concludes.

Additionally, "the United States and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) need to determine the status of Iran's centrifuge manufacturing capabilities, including the number of key centrifuge parts Iran has made and the amount of centrifuge equipment it has procured," the report states.

"They need to ensure that Iran's centrifuge manufacturing is consistent with the intent of the nuclear deal as well as the deal's specific limitations on advanced centrifuges," according to the report. "Moreover, the Iranian statement illuminates significant weaknesses in the Iran deal that need to be fixed."

When asked to address the issue, a State Department official told the Washington Free Beacon that Iran's centrifuge work remains very "limited" under the nuclear agreement.

"Under the JCPOA, consistent with Iran's enrichment and enrichment and [research and development] plan, Iran can only engage in production of centrifuges, including centrifuge rotors and associated components, to meet the enrichment and R&D requirements of the JCPOA," the official said.*"In other words, Iran's production of centrifuges and associated components are limited to be consistent with the small scale of R&D that is permissible under the JCPOA."

If Iran is in violation of the deal, the United States will take concrete action to address this once the Trump administration finishes its interagency review of the Iran deal.

"The Trump administration has made clear that at least until this review is completed, we will adhere to the JCPOA and will ensure that Iran is held strictly accountable to its requirements," the official said.

This entry was posted in National Security and tagged Iran, Iran Nuclear Deal, Nuclear Weapons. Bookmark the permalink.

Adam Kredo * Email Adam | Full Bio | RSS
Adam Kredo is senior writer for the Washington Free Beacon. Formerly an award-winning political reporter for the Washington Jewish Week, where he frequently broke national news, Kredo’s work has been featured in outlets such as the Jerusalem Post, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, and Politico, among others. He lives in Maryland with his comic books. His Twitter handle is @Kredo0. His email address is kredo@freebeacon.com.

**

Housecarl · Jun 5, 2017

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.realcleardefense.com/art..._and_the_russian_nuclear_buildup__111520.html

The Nuclear Posture Review, New START, and the Russian Nuclear Buildup

By Mark B. Schneider
June 05, 2017

In April 2017, the Russian UN Mission Charge d’affaires Petr Ilyichev declared, “Currently we are systematically getting to the full-scale implementation of the New START [Treaty].”[1]* Unfortunately, Russians actions contradict this statement.* For example, in May 2017, President Vladimir Putin announced, “The Strategic Missile Force is smoothly switching over to Yars mobile and silo-based systems...Such modern systems already account for 62% of the armament of the Strategic Missile Force and their share will rise to 72% by the end of the year.”[2] *A ten percentage point increase in just seven months represents about a doubling of the highest previously announced deployment rate.* The Strategic Missile Force (the ICBM force) comprises 60% of Russia’s strategic nuclear delivery vehicles which it declared to be 523 on March 1, 2017.[3]* A ten percentage point increase in the modernized portion of the Strategic Missile Force in seven months requires the deployment of over 30 multiple warhead (MIRVed) RS-24 Yars ICBMs.* By comparison, Russia announced that in 2014 it had deployed 16 Yars and 23 in 2016.[4]* The Russian numbers for 2014 and 2016 are for an entire year, not just seven months.

Russia’s accelerated modernization rate is significant because it is exactly the opposite of what Russia should be doing if it intends to comply with the New START Treaty.* Russian New START data for March 1, 2017, eleven months before the deadline when the New START numerical limits come into legal effect, indicated that Russia had moved from below the New START deployed warhead limit of 1,550 at New START entry-into-force in 2011 to 215 warheads above it.* (At New START entry into force Russia had 1,537 deployed warheads.)* We are now only eight months away from the deadline.* Putin’s programmatic announcement will probably increase the number of Russian warheads that have to be removed from accountability by February 5, 2018, to over 300 because Russian single-warhead SS-25 ICBMs are being replaced by Yars ICBMs carrying at least four warheads.[5] *The remaining eight months includes a long, cold Russian winter, hardly ideal weather for making the type of changes necessary for Russia to comply with New START.

A few days after Putin’s speech, General of the Army Sergei Shoigu, Russia’s Defense Minister, revealed unprecedented details about Russia’s near-term nuclear buildup.* It was more bad news made worse by its linkage to the next stage of Russian defense modernization.* He said that by 2021, a period in which the New START Treaty will be in force, Russia will add eight regiments of Yars ICBMs (9 to 10 missiles each) and four more Borey-class ballistic missile submarines carrying 16 six-warhead Bulava-30 nuclear ballistic missiles to its existing force of “modern” ballistic missile submarines and the deployment won’t end in 2021.[6] *He also noted, “Advanced strategic missile systems being developed now will start arriving for the troops.”[7] *This reportedly is a reference to “the completion of three intercontinental ballistic missile development programs: the RS-26 Rubezh (a development of the Yars-M), [the] RS-28 Sarmat and the rail-based Bagruzin by 2020.”[8]* All these systems will have multiple warheads.* Sputnik News, an official news agency, reports that the RS-26 carries four 300-kiloton warheads.[9] *(Russia has been reticent about the number of RS-26s it plans to deploy, possibly because there are arms control compliance issues associated with it.)[10]* According to TASS, Russia’s main official news agency, the 46 planned new Sarmat heavy ICBMs, will be deployed beginning in 2018 and will carry “no fewer than 15” nuclear warheads each.[11]* This is obviously a ridiculous decision if Russia has any intent of complying with the New START Treaty because the Sarmat deployment would consume about half of the allowed warheads under New START.* TASS also reports that the Bagruzin will employ the Yars ICBM,[12] stating a new missile division is being created for the Yars.[13] *TASS reporting indicates a Bagruzin division will reportedly carry 120 warheads, assuming four warheads per missile.[14]* The Russians will claim that the Bagruzin is not subject to New START, but the rest of their new ICBMs clearly are.* Thus, it is increasingly clear that the Russian strategic nuclear modernization program is not a reasonable program if Russia intends to comply with New START.*

General Shoigu also stated that Russia would modernize four to five strategic bombers per year.* That will not increase the number of New START accountable warheads, but it will increase the overall Russian nuclear capability.* Moreover, TASS reports that starting in 2020, two-to-three new Tu-160M2 heavy bombers will be produced each year.[15]* These will count as one warhead each but can carry many more.

The probability of Russian compliance with New START is low.* What are the Russians going to do?* They could legally withdraw from New START as late as August 2017 and avoid a violation.* This is not very likely.* They could illegally “suspend” their obligations under New START (as they did with the Conventional Forces in Europe [CFE] Treaty), probably using the U.S. missile defense program as an excuse.* That is more likely but not probable.* What seems most likely is a lie and cheat approach – providing the U.S. with a bogus Russian deployed warhead number and depending upon the inadequacy of the New START Treaty verification regime to protect them from a U.S. response.

The tradition of a bipartisan unclassified Senate Select Intelligence Committee Treaty report ended with New START.* The reason was apparently that, irrespective of ordinary political spin, it was impossible to produce a halfway accurate assessment of the New START verification regime that would not have sunk Treaty ratification.* Unable to state his views in an official Committee report, then-Senator Christopher (Kit) Bond (R-MO) took the floor of the Senate and delivered this assessment of the New START Treaty: “The Select Committee on Intelligence has been looking at this issue closely over the past several months. As the vice chairman of this committee, I have reviewed the key intelligence on our ability to monitor this treaty and heard from our intelligence professionals. There is no doubt in my mind that the United States cannot reliably verify the treaty’s 1,550 limit on deployed warheads.”[16] *He pointed out one of the most amazing things about the New START Treaty is the inability of any inspection that can be conducted under the New START Treaty to prove a violation of the New START Treaty.* As he explained, “As an initial hurdle, the ten annual warhead inspections allowed under the treaty permit us to sample only 2 to 3 percent of the total Russian force. Further, under New START, unlike its predecessor, any given missile can have any number of warheads loaded on it. So even if the Russians fully cooperated in every inspection, these inspections cannot provide conclusive evidence of whether the Russians are complying with the warhead limit.”[17]

The reason for this is that, unlike the START and INF Treaties, the New START Treaty contains no attribution rules.* Let me explain.* Under the START Treaty, each type of strategic missile was attributed a specific number of warheads.* The total number of accountable warheads was the number of deployed launchers of each missile type multiplied by the attribution number for that missile type.* This allowed information from Russian data declarations, inspections and national technical means of verification to be used to count treaty accountable warheads.* If during a warhead inspection, the inspectors saw more warheads on a missile than it was attributed with, this was a treaty violation.* Not so under New START.

There are easy and relatively safe cheating scenarios which would allow Russia to go well beyond the number of deployed ballistic missile warheads allowed under New START (the number of actual bomber weapons is almost unlimited.)* According to General Shoigu’s statement cited above, Russia now has nine regiments of MIRVed Yars ICBMs.* A large percentage of them are mobile ICBMs.* To hide excess warheads, Russia could have two classes of Yars missiles – some deployed with less than the maximum number of warheads the missile can carry and some with the maximum number.* For the Yars, the maximum number is apparently six now, but it may increase to ten.[18]* To prevent missiles with six or even ten warheads from being inspected, all the Russians would have to do is to drive the missiles outside of the base.* Under New START, they have up to 24 hours to do this, a significant increase from the 9 hours allowed in the START Treaty.* This would be a treaty violation but so what?* Nothing normally happens to Russia when it violates arms control treaties.* The Obama administration, after saying it would respond to Russia’s INF Treaty violations, did nothing and left office without telling the American people that the Russians had begun the actual deployment of the prohibited ground-launched cruise missile.[19]*

There is also an easy cheating scenario with regard to silo-based or submarine-based ballistic missiles.* During warhead inspections, warheads can be covered by covers that are supposed to be small enough so that no more than one warhead could fit under them.* To cheat, all you have to do is to have covers that are large enough to conceal two or more warheads.* This is not a hypothetical cheating option.* The Russians actually used oversized covers under the START Treaty and got away with it.* According to the 2005 Department of State compliance report, “Russian RV [reentry vehicle] covers, and their method of emplacement, have in some cases hampered U.S. inspectors from ascertaining that the front section of the missiles contains no more RVs than the number of warheads attributed to a missile of that type under the Treaty.”[20]* Indeed, in 2010, in response to a Senator’s question about Russian START violations, the Intelligence Community indicated that among the most numerous Russian violations of the START Treaty were in warhead counting inspections.[21]*

Russia is apparently well positioned to cheat using oversized warhead covers.* This is easier if the missile carries two warhead sizes.* Some Russian missiles are reported to carry two types of warheads.* For example, the Liner SLBM carries both “medium” and “light” warheads, according to its manufacturer, the numerical difference being four “medium” vs. 9-12 “light.”[22]* This clearly implies the “light” warheads are much smaller and lighter than the “medium” warheads.* The future Sarmat heavy ICBM is reported to be able to carry both “heavy” and “medium” nuclear warheads.[23]

Another cheating possibility is a covert mobile ICBM force.* The Reagan administration concluded that the Russians probably did this with their SS-16 mobile ICBM, whose deployment was prohibited under the SALT II Treaty.[24]* The January 1984 Presidential noncompliance report stated, “While the evidence is somewhat ambiguous, and we cannot reach a definitive conclusion, the available evidence indicates that Soviet activities at Plesetsk are a probable violation of their legal obligation not to defeat the object and purpose of SALT II prior to 1981 during the period when the Treaty was pending ratification and a probable violation of a political commitment subsequent to 1981.”[25]* While we insisted on a serious mobile ICBM verification regime in START, very little of it survived in New START.[26] *

Even with the START verification regime, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reported that, “…U.S. intelligence will have less than high confidence in its monitoring of such areas as non-deployed mobile ICBMs, the number of RVs actually carried by some ICBMs and SLBMs, and some provisions relating to cruise missiles and the heavy bombers that carry them.”[27]* Significantly, we lost continuous monitoring of mobile ICBM production in New START; indeed, we had not monitored Russian mobile ICBM production since 2009 when START expired.*

In addition, the START Treaty inspection regime for the actual elimination of mobile ICBMs was deleted from New START.* In 2016, Bill Gertz reported, “During the recent visit to a Russian missile base, U.S. technicians found critical components of SS-25s—road-mobile, intercontinental ballistic missiles—had been unbolted instead of cut to permanently disable the components. Additionally, American inspectors were unable to verify missiles slated for elimination had been destroyed. Instead, only missile launch canisters were inspected.”[28]

The Russians may already have exploited the limitations of the New START verification regime. *In December 2014, ICBM Force Commander Colonel General Sergey Karakayev said, “There are currently around 400 missiles [ICBMs] with warheads on combat duty.”[29] *This is not an isolated statement.* Yet, Russia’s declared strategic force numbers make it impossible for Russia to have more than about 300 ICBMs “with warheads on combat duty,” unless Russia has a covert force of mobile ICBMs.* If Russia is cheating on deployed ICBM numbers, it is also cheating on the deployed warhead numbers.

Another easy way to cheat is to put long-range nuclear cruise missiles on shorter range aircraft and not declaring them to be heavy bombers as required by New START.* In 2012, Colonel General Alexander Zelin, then-commander of the Russian Air Force, said that the new Su-34 long-range strike fighter would be given “long-range missiles…Such work is underway, and I think that it is the platform that can solve the problem of increasing nuclear deterrence forces within the Air Force strategic aviation.”[30]* The START Treaty had a verification regime for conventional air-launched long-range cruise missiles.* New START does not.* If there has been a single launch of a nuclear-capable long-range cruise missile from the Su-34, Russia would now be in violation of the New START Treaty.

In May 2017, the Russian government-owned newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta reported that the Tu-22M3M (the improved Backfire bomber) was being modified to launch the KH-101 long-range air-launched cruise missile, a missile that Putin and the Russian Defense Ministry have said is nuclear capable.[31]* This revelation came after about a decade of Russia characterizing the KH-101 as a conventional cruise missile, which is what one would do if one intended to cheat.

The revelations relating to the Su-34 and the Backfire potentially mean that Russia will have hundreds of accountable warheads and delivery vehicles above the New START Treaty limit and likely will have an even a greater number of actual nuclear warheads.

One of the key issues in the 2017 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) is how many strategic nuclear warheads Russia will have over the next 10-20 years.* If we simply assume Russian New START compliance, agreed New START Treaty extension and ignore the Russian legal circumvention options due to New START loopholes, the number of Russian strategic nuclear warheads projected in the NPR could be a small fraction of what will actually exist 10-20 years in the future.* Government threat assessments will obviously be made using more than open sources, but what we currently know from open sources suggest a serious review is in order.*

Even if the Russians do not cheat, their strategic nuclear force will certainly not be near the notional 1,550 warheads allowed under New START due to loopholes in the Treaty and Russian circumvention.* Indeed, in 2016, Hans Kristensen and Robert Norris credited Russia with 2,600 actual deployed strategic nuclear warheads, mainly due to the undercounting of bomber weapons under New START.[32] *(They estimated that the U.S. has 1,590 deployed strategic nuclear weapons.)[33]* As RIA Novosti, a Russian government news agency, pointed out, “Under the Treaty, one nuclear warhead will be counted for each deployed heavy bomber which can carry 12-24 missiles or bombs, depending on its type.”[34]* Ten to fifteen years from now we are likely to see 3,000-3,500 operationally deployed Russian strategic nuclear warheads the way they were counted under the Bush administration’s 2002 Moscow Treaty, which was far more realistic than New START.* If the potential increase in Russian capabilities is ignored, we will truly be in arms control never-never land.* If we add to this the ten-to-one Russian advantage in tactical or non-strategic nuclear weapons, Russia would have clear nuclear superiority, and this advantage would likely grow.

If the Trump administration seeks to reaffirm a requirement for nuclear parity with Russia, an accurate assessment of the number of deployed Russian strategic nuclear warheads is very important.* If there is large-scale Russian cheating under New START, the number of excess Russian ballistic missile warheads would be hundreds, and eventually perhaps thousands, of weapons above the New START limit.* They can increase their warhead number through circumvention, but it would cost a lot more.

When the growth of Russian strategic warheads is linked to an arms control compliance issue, an accurate assessment suddenly becomes more difficult to make.* Sven Kraemer, who served on the NSC longer any other person in history and who was Director of Arms Control Policy during the Reagan administration, records that, “new interagency efforts to assess Soviet violations of the SALT II agreement were blocked by the Department of State during 1981” and that there were “delaying tactics and resistance within the government bureaucracy, especially in the State Department, ACDA, and parts of CIA.”[35] *He reported that the Department of State developed, and applied to the Soviet Union, what he called the “Al Capone” defense under which the Soviet Union “would be [in] ‘net compliance’ with the U.S. tax code as long as he adhered to a majority of its detailed provisions, even while violating others.”[36]*

Insight into the impact of the arms control noncompliance on defense policy is provided in a declassified memorandum summarizing the Reagan-era NSC meeting on the issue of whether or not the U.S. would continue to observe the SALT I Interim Agreement on Strategic Offensive Forces and the SALT II Treaty (being observed under a “no-undercut” policy which had been agreed on with Moscow) in the face of Soviet violations of these agreements.* Terminating these agreements (as President Reagan eventually did) would allow the U.S. to continue its relatively inexpensive nuclear air-launched cruise missile program. *The document records that “Secretary Shultz stated it would be a great error to give up some sense of constraint associated with the two treaties [the SALT I Interim Agreement and SALT II] since that would drastically change the environment.* At the same time given clear violations, some response is called for.”[37]* Secretary Shultz’s suggestion was to field the “Midgetman” ICBM, an expensive program that soon died because of the cost.* His argument was the same as the one being made today regarding continued U.S. observance of the INF Treaty, despite Russian violations that the State Department declared were “a very serious matter.”[38]

What was the “sense of constraint associated” with SALT I and II that Secretary Shultz thought so valuable?* At the meeting, Director of Central Intelligence William Casey said: “continuing interim restraint policy would do little to restrain the Soviets – they have broken the bank – they can have 12,000 warheads by 1990, and we can do little to change in [the] near term.”[39]* This sounds a lot like current events although on a much larger scale.* Ambassador Steven Pifer of the Brookings Institute observes, “Russia has violated the [INF] Treaty by testing and deploying a ground-launched cruise missile of intermediate range. The Obama administration sought to bring Russia back into compliance, but its efforts failed.” [40]* Pifer would stay in the Treaty and try to talk the Russians into compliance.* The prospect of this is probably close to zero. *His proposal is essentially the same as Secretary Shultz made in 1985 (and Reagan rejected).*

In an obvious reference to ground-launched cruise missile production, General Shoigu, in his May 2017 speech, noted, “Last year alone, military units were supplied with 40 delivery vehicles for precision-guided weapons and 180 long-range cruise missiles.”[41]* Instead of the promised INF Treaty’s “missile zero,” we are now getting 180 “long-range” cruise missiles a year.*

The “Al Capone defense” is apparently alive and well in State Department talking points.* In 2016, a senior U.S. combatant commander, probably using them, stated that Russia was “largely” complying with the New START treaty.* Since the limitations were not legally in effect in 2016, the only thing the Russians could be in non-compliance with is the verification regime.* Just what the Russian New START violations are, and their significance for concealing excess Russian warheads should be carefully looked at in the NPR.

Trump administration NPR decision-makers should develop an accurate assessment of how much cheating is possible under New START and how high Russian warhead levels may go in the next twenty years if Russian solves its New START Treaty numerical problems with the lie and cheat approach.* My advice to them is first to review the 2010 New START National Intelligence Estimate.* Another document that should be reviewed is the 1991 START Treaty National Intelligence Estimate.* That will provide them with a feel for how much monitoring we lost in the New START Treaty.

If we do not regain nuclear parity, the chances of Putin or his successor initiating the limited use of nuclear weapons to support aggression may substantially increase over the next 15 years, a period in which, under the best case scenario, the U.S. nuclear deterrent will erode because of aging, lack of modernization and the deployment of increasingly advanced missile and air defenses by Russia and China.
*
Dr. Mark Schneider is a Senior Analyst with the National Institute for Public Policy. Before his retirement from the Department of Defense Senior Executive Service, Dr. Schneider served in a number of senior positions within the Office of Secretary of Defense for Policy including Principal Director for Forces Policy, Principal Director for Strategic Defense, Space and Verification Policy, Director for Strategic Arms Control Policy and Representative of the Secretary of Defense to the Nuclear Arms Control Implementation Commissions.* He also served in the senior Foreign Service as a Member of the State Department Policy Planning Staff.

References:
[1] “Reasons Why Russia Will Not ‘Recklessly’ Decrease its Nuclear Arsenal,” Sputnik News, April 5, 2017, available at https://sputniknews.com/politics/201704051052313367-us-russia-nuclear-disarmament/.
[2] “Putin: Advanced ballistic missile systems to beef up Russia’s strategic forces,” TASS, May 18, 2017, available at http://tass.com/defense/946489.
[3] “Russia’s strategic missile system Sarmat will go operational 2019-2020,” TASS, December 15, 2016, available at http://tass.com/defense/919518.: U.S. Department of State, “New START Treaty Aggregate Numbers of Strategic Offensive Arms,” U.S. Department of State, April 1, 2017, available at https://www.state.gov/t/avc/newstart/ 269406.httm.
[4] “Sixteen Yars missile systems will enter service in Russia before year-end - RVSN commander,” Interfax, December 14, 2014, available at http://dialog.proquest.com/professional/docview/1625077118?accountid =15550: “Russian Strategic Rocket Forces get 23 Yars silo, mobile missile launchers in 2016 – commander,” Interfax, December 15, 2016, available at http://dialog.proquest.com/professional/docview/1849130 589? Accountid=155509.
[5] “Russia successfully tests latest ‘YARS’ intercontinental ballistic missile,” Russia Today, December 24, 2013, available at https://www.rt.com/news/yars-missile-russia-launch-729/.
[6] “Russian Navy Aims to Increase Number of Strategic Subs Armed With Missiles,” Sputnik News, May 24, 2017, available at https://sputniknews.com/military/201705241053929379-russia-strategic-submarines/.: “Nine Russian missile regiments rearmed with advanced ICBM systems,” TASS, May 24, 2007, available at http://tass.com/ defense/947377.; U.S. Department of State, “START Aggregate Numbers of Strategic Offensive Arms,” Bureau of Verification, Compliance, and Implementation, April 1, 2009, available at https://2009-017.state.gov/t/avc/rls/ 121027.htm.https://2009-2017.state.gov/t/avc/rls/121027.htm.
[7] “Defense Ministry reports on Russian army’s 2016 picks,” TASS, May 24, 2017, available at http://tass.com/ defense/947309.
[8] Matthew Bodner, “Russia’s Putin drafts new rearmament program,” Defense News, May 26, 2017, available at http://www.defensenews.com/articles/russias-putin-drafts-new-rearmament-program.
[9] “Doomsday Weapon: Russia’s New Missile Shocks and Dazzles US, China,” Sputnik News, March 9, 2016, available at http://sputniknews.com/russia/20160309/1036002714/russia-missile-shocker.html.
[10] Mark B. Schneider and Keith B. Payne, “Russia Appears to Be Violating the INF Treaty,” National Review.com, July 28, 2014, available at http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ing-inf-treaty-mark-b-schneider-keith-b-payne.
[11] “Formidable Sarmat: Satan’s successor that can pierce any defense,” TASS, October 25, 2016, available at http:// tass.com/defense/908575.
[12] “Russia’s railroad-based missile system to be equipped with Yars missiles — source,” TASS, February 12, 2016, available at http://tass.ru/en/russia/777265.
[13] *“Russia’s Strategic Missile Forces to get new division with railway-based missile system,” TASS, May 07, 2015, available at http://tass.com/russia/793389.
[14] “Russia’s railroad-based missile system to be equipped with Yars missiles — source,” op. cit.
[15] “Russia: Russia’s fifth-generation fighter jets to start arriving for troops in 2019,” Asia News Monitor, May 25, 2017, available at http://dialog.proquest.com/professional/docview/1901745124?accountid=155509.
[16] Senator Christopher Bond, “The New START Treaty.” The Congressional Record, November 18, 2010,
available at http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r111:34:./temp/~r111MwN34p.
[17] Ibid.
[18] “Russian expert views dispute over developing solid or liquid propellant missile,” BBC Monitoring Former Soviet Union, April 21, 2011, available at http://dialog.proquest.com/professional/docview/862831822?Accounttid=155 509.*
[19] Michael R. Gordon, “Russia Deploys Missile, Violating Treaty and Challenging Trump,” The New York Times, February 14, 2017 available at https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/world/europe/russia-cruise-missile-arms-control-treaty.html.: ADM Harry B. Harris, Jr., “WEST 2017 Keynote: ‘The View from the Indo-Asia-Pacific’,” Pacom, February 22, 2017, available at http://www.pacom.mil/Media/Speeches...eynote-the-view-from-the-indo-asia-pacific/.; Steve Holland, “Trump wants to make sure U.S. nuclear arsenal at ‘top of the pack’,” Reuters, February 24, 2017, available at http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-idUSKB N1622IF?il=0&utm _source= ailthru&utm_medium=email&utm.
[20] U.S. Department of State, Adherence to and Compliance with Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Disarmament Agreements and Commitments (Washington, D.C.: Department of State, August 2005), p. 13, available at https:// www.state.gov/t/avc/rls/rpt/51977.
[21] “The New START Treaty (Treaty Doc. 111–5),” Senate Foreign Relations Committee (April 29, May 18, 19, 25, June 10, 15, 16, 24, and July 15, 2010), p. 262, available at www.foreign.senate.gov/download/?id=A0C2E5F0-8CB7-46B8.
[22] “Russia Thursday successful tested its new sea-based intercontinental ballistic missile, the defence ministry said,” IANS/Ria Novosti, September 30, 2011, available at http://www.india-forums .com/news/europe/362058-russia-tests-ballistic-missile.htm.
[23] “New Heavy ICBM to Be Put Into Service in 2018 - Expert (Part 2),” Interfax, May 5, 2011, available at http:// www.interfax.co.uk/russia-cis-milit...lish/new-heavy-icbm-to-be-put-into-servicein-
2018-expert-part-2-2/: “Russia to build RS-20 ‘Voyevoda’ successor,” Interfax-AVN, July 21, 2011, available at http://www.interfax.co.uk/russia-ci...ish/russia-to-build-rs-20-voyevoda-successor/.
[24] The President’s Report to the Congress on Soviet Noncompliance with Arms Control Agreements, The White House, January 1984, p. 5.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Mark B. Schneider, New START: The Anatomy of a Failed Negotiation, (Fairfax Va.: National Institute Press, 2012), pp. 31-38, available at http://www.nipp.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/12/New-start.pdf.
[27] Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, “Capability of the United States to Monitor Compliance with the START Treaty,” Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, September 29, 1992, p. 3, available at http://intelligence.senate. gov/pdfs102nd/102431.
[28] Bill Gertz, “Russians Violating New START Arms Treaty,” The Washington Free Beacon, June 9, 2016, available at http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russians-violating-new-start-arms-treaty/.
[29] “Some 400 ICBMs are on combat duty in Russia - RVSN commander,” Interfax, December 16, 2014, available at http://dialog.proquest.com/professional/docview/1636586745?accountid=155509.
[30] “Russian strategic aviation to be reinforced with Su-34 frontline bombers,” Interfax-AVN, March 19, 2012, available at http://dialog.proquest.com/professional/docview/929015018?accountid=155509.
[31] “Russia: First Tu-22M3M bomber due 2018, 30 to be upgraded,” BBC Monitoring Former Soviet Union, May 21, 2017, available at http://dialog.proquest.com/professional/docview/1900529954?accountid=155509: “Meeting with Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu,” Kremlin.ru, December 8, 2015, available at http://en.kremlin.ru/events/ president/news/50892.; “In the course of the last 24 hours, aircraft of the Russian Aerospace Forces have performed 82 combat sorties engaging 204 terrorist objects in Syria,” Defense Ministry of the Russian Federation, December 9, 2015, available at http://eng.mil.ru/en/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12071355 @egNews.
[32] Hans M. Kristensen & Robert S. Norris, “Russian nuclear forces, 2016,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 72, No. 3, April 16, 2016, p. 226, available at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00963402.2016.1170359.
[33] Hans M. Kristensen and Robert S Norris, “United States Nuclear Forces,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, December 14, 2016, available at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2016.1264213.
[34] Ilya Kramnuk, “New START Treaty based on Mutual Russian–U.S. Concessions,” RIA Novosti, April 12, 2010, available at http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20100409/158499862.html.
[35] Sven F. Kraemer, “The Krasnoyarsk Saga,” Strategic Review, Vol. 18, No. 1 (Winter 1990), pp. 27-29.
[36] Ibid.
[37] National Security Council, Meeting June 3, 1985 on “Interim Restraint Restraint Policy,” available at http:// www.thereaganfiles.com/19850603-nsc-on-interim.pdf.
[38] Department of State, “Daily Press Briefing - July 29, 2014,” available at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/ 2014/07/22 9907.htm.
[39] National Security Council, Meeting June 3, 1985 on “Interim Restraint Restraint Policy,” op. cit.
[40] Steven Pifer, “How to get Moscow back to compliance with the INF Treaty,” Brookings Institute, April 26, 2017, available at https://www.brookings.edu/blog/orde...-respond-to-russias-missile-treaty-violation/.
[41] “Army; Share of modern weapons in Russian nuclear triad is 60% - Shoigu,” Interfax, May 24, 2017, available at *http://dialog.proquest.com/professional/docview/1902122205?accountid=155509.

--

1 comment
Real Clear Defense
Login

Recommend
Share
Sort by Best

Join the discussion…

−

a new hope • an hour ago
Russia has violated the INF treaty and us violating the New Start treaty
There are a few things the US could do right now which are relatively inexpensive and straightforward to do.
Increase the number of minute man missiles back to 450 and remirv them.
Renuclearize the B-1 and B-52
Go back to 24 launch tubes per ballistic missile submarine
Bring back the nuclear tomahawk
Create a nuclear surface to surface version if the SM-3 IIA
It is all there.
Why are we adhering to treaties Russia us violating?

•
Reply
•
Share ›

Lilbitsnana · Jun 6, 2017

Conflict News‏ @Conflicts 2h2 hours ago

BREAKING: US-led coalition strikes pro-regime forces in Syria: official - AFP

Conflict News‏ @Conflicts 2h2 hours ago

SYRIA: @CJTFOIR confirms airstrike against 'pro-regime forces' inside de-confliction zone near Al-Tanf.
statement: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBqIHbRWsAEYwtI.png:large

Conflict News‏ @Conflicts 2h2 hours ago
Replying to @Conflicts

MORE: Coalition says it warned pro-gov troops to turn back. Destroyed 2 artillery pieces, anti-aircraft weapon, damaged tank - @leloveluck

Possible Impact · Jun 7, 2017

Russian personnel are with the Syrian forces operating in the area.
(they also fly Combat Air Patrols now in this region)

Lavrov Denounces US Claims On De-Confliction Zone
In Southeastern Syria

06.07.2017
https://southfront.org/lavrov-denou...-syria/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Russia considers the US-led coalition actions against pro-government forces in Syria
an act of aggression and rejects the justification for the Tuesday attack issued by
the Pentagon, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Wednesday.

“Of course, this is an aggressive act, which violates the sovereignty
and the territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic and which
voluntarily or involuntarily targeted those forces that represent
the most effective forces struggling with terrorists on the ground.

This causes our concern,” the Russian state-run news agency quoted Lavrov
as saying. “There was information and I believe that it was close to reality
that these pro-government forces were advancing to the relevant
area to prevent the destruction of two bridges linking Syria with
Iraq.“

The Pentagon justified the attack on government forces saying that
they were advancing inside some kind of de-confliction zone.

Lavrov rejected this claim.

“I don’t know anything about such zones. This must be some territory,
which the coalition unilaterally declared [de-confliction zone]
and where it probably believes to have a sole right to take action.
We cannot recognize such zones,” the minister said.

Earlier this year, Russia, Turkey and Iran signed a deal to establish de-confliction zones
in several parts of Syria. This effort was coordinated with the Syrian government.
However, no de-confliction zone was established in the area claimed by the US.

Housecarl · Jun 7, 2017

https://twitter.com/KingstonAReif?ref_src=twsrc^tfw&ref_url=http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/

Kingston Reifþ*
@KingstonAReif
Follow

More
2017 DoD China military power report references (for 1st time) PLA writings on the value of launch on warning
https://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/D...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBr6JS9W0AMMCcA.jpg

Click to expand...

Retweets
12
Likes
6

7:51 PM - 6 Jun 2017
1 reply
12 retweets
6 likes

Reply
1
Retweet
12

Like
6

Kingston Reifþ*@KingstonAReif 12h
12 hours ago

More
Replying to @KingstonAReif
"In July 2016, Chinese official media confirmed China’s intent to go forward w/mid-course missile defense capabilities on both land and sea"

Lilbitsnana · Jun 7, 2017

Well, that should make things a bit more interesting.

I'm also not surprised and have been expecting it for a few years now.

Conflict News‏ @Conflicts 28m28 minutes ago

IRAQ: Iraqi Kurds to hold independence referendum on September 25: statement - AFP

Lilbitsnana · Jun 7, 2017

Nasir Kazmi‏ @AliNasirSyed 2h2 hours ago

#China’s second international base after its facility in #Djibouti will likely be in #Pakistan. @MultaniSaint

High Priestess‏ @JazzibaeNazar 2h2 hours ago
Replying to @JazzibaeNazar @SoheilKhanzada

#Djibouti is the first #Chinese military base and this leak is intended to justify the solidification of #IndoUS nexus in and around #Afg.

Sohail Khanzada‏ @SoheilKhanzada 3h3 hours ago

1/ A thread on Pentagon report about Chinese military base in Pakistan - a news story that has been not widely discussed in Pakistan.

Sohail Khanzada‏ @SoheilKhanzada 3h3 hours ago

A Pentagon report has suggested that China is all set to establish its military base in Pakistan - a close & "all-weather" friend of China.

Sohail Khanzada‏ @SoheilKhanzada 3h3 hours ago

3/ Pentagon report about Chinese military base in Pakistan signals that China is coming out of "closet".

Sohail Khanzada‏ @SoheilKhanzada 3h3 hours ago

4/ And is keen to establish its military presence in Arabia sea, Persian gulf, Africa & beyond. It also amplifies it's increasing influence.

Sohail Khanzada‏ @SoheilKhanzada 3h3 hours ago

5/ It suggests that China who had "regional" ambitions so far is now aspiring for global leadership & has the capacity for the same.

Sohail Khanzada‏ @SoheilKhanzada 3h3 hours ago

6/ This all happening in the backdoor of Trump ditching America's closest allies & reducing America to a non-player in global order.

Sohail Khanzada‏ @SoheilKhanzada 3h3 hours ago

7) This development is going to irk India who believes that China has military objective in the region, in disguise of development projects.

Sohail Khanzada‏ @SoheilKhanzada 3h3 hours ago

8/ This military base is supposed to be an extension of billion dollars CPEC that has already rung the bell in New Dehli's power corridors.

Sohail Khanzada‏ @SoheilKhanzada 3h3 hours ago

9/ CPEC is part of OBOR project that's being considered a new world order, powered by Chinese development projects.

High Priestess‏ @JazzibaeNazar 2h2 hours ago

This revelation may beget #US permanent Base in #Afghanistan and #India may ramp up development of #Chabahar as a counter move.

Housecarl · Jun 8, 2017

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1693945-af-new-icbms-get-upgraded-guidance-circuitry

Video

Air Force Reviews Vendor Bids to Build New ICBMs Engineered With High-Tech Upgrades

Scout Warrior
SCOUT WARRIOR
Yesterday at 7:16 PM

Air Force plans to build at least 400 new high-tech ICBMs intended to preserve millions of lives by ensuring annhiliation of anyone choosing to launch a nuclear attack. The idea is to prevent major power wars.

Air Force officials say the service will award some contracts as part of its ongoing evaluation of formal proposals from three vendors competing to build hundreds of new, next-generation Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles designed to protect the US homeland well into the 2070s and beyond, service officials said.

Submissions from Northrop, Boeing and Lockheed are now being reviewed by Air Force weapons developers looking to modernize the US land-based nuclear missile arsenal and replace the 1970s-era Boeing-built Minuteman IIIs. Service officials told Scout Warrior a contract award is expected later this year.

The new effort to build ICBMs, what the Air Force calls “Ground Based Strategic Deterrence,” aims to construct durable, high-tech nuclear-armed missiles able to serve until 2075.

The new weapons will be engineered with improved guidance technology, boosters, flight systems and command and control systems, compared to the existing Minuteman III missiles. The weapon will also have upgraded circuitry and be built with a mind to long-term maintenance and sustainability.

“Solid rocket fuel ages out after a period of time. You need to have an upgraded guidance package for sustainability and warfighting requirements. Looking at the current technology, it has moved faster than when these were first developed.

Civilian industry has leapfrogged so we want the ability to use components that have already been developed,” , Lt. Gen. Jack Weinstein, Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic Deterrence and Nuclear Integration, said in an interview with Scout Warrior several months ago.

Do Nuclear Weapons Save Lives? Philosophical Context
If one were to passively reflect upon the seemingly limitless explosive power to instantly destroy, vaporize or incinerate cities, countries and massive swaths of territory or people -- images of quiet, flowing green meadows, peaceful celebratory gatherings or melodious sounds of chirping birds might not immediately come to mind.

After all, lethal destructive weaponry does not, by any means, appear to be synonymous with peace, tranquility and collective happiness. However, it is precisely the prospect of massive violence which engenders the possibility of peace. Nuclear weapons therefore, in some unambiguous sense, can be interpreted as being the antithesis of themselves; simply put – potential for mass violence creates peace – thus the conceptual thrust of nuclear deterrence.

It is within this conceptual framework, designed to save millions of lives, prevent major great-power war and ensure the safety of entire populations, that the U.S. Air Force is now vigorously pursuing a new arsenal of land-fired, Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles, or ICBMs
Weinstein cited famous nuclear strategist Bernard Brodie as a way to articulate the seismic shift in thinking and tactics made manifest by the emergence of nuclear weapons.

Considered to be among the key architects of strategic nuclear deterrence, and referred to by many as an “American Clausewitz,” Brodie expressed how the advent of the nuclear era changes the paradigm regarding the broadly configured role or purpose of weaponry in war.

Weinstein referred to Brodie’s famous quote from his 1940s work “The Absolute Weapon: Atomic Power and World Order.” --- "Thus far the chief purpose of our military establishment has been to win wars. From now on, its chief purpose must be to avert them. It can have almost no other useful purpose.”

The success of this strategy hinges upon the near certainty of total annihilation, should nuclear weapons be used. ICBMs are engineered to fly through space on a total flight of about 30 mins before detonating with enormous destructive power upon targets.

“If another nation believes they can have an advantage by using a nuclear weapon, that is really dangerous. What you want to do is have such a strong deterrent force that any desire to attack with nuclear weapons will easily be outweighed by the response they get from the other side. That's the value of what the deterrent force provides,” Weinstein said in an exclusive interview with Scout Warrior.

Althought Weinstein did not take a position on the pior administration's considerations about having the U.S. adopt a No First Use, or NFU, nuclear weapons policy, Air Force Secretary Deborah James has expressed concern about the possiblity, in a news report published by Defense News. Limiting the U.S. scope of deterrence, many argue, might wrongly encourage potential adversaries to think they could succeed with a limited first nuclear strike of some kind.

Ground-Based Strategic Deterrence
It is within the context of these ideas, informing military decision-makers for decades now, that the Air Force is in the early stages of building, acquiring and deploying a higher-tech replacement for the existing arsenal of Minuteman III ICBMs.

Weinstein pointed out that, since the dawn of the nuclear age decades ago, there has not been a catastrophic major power war on the scale of WWI or WWII.

“When you look at the amount of people who died in WWI and then the number of people who died in WWII, you're talking about anywhere between 65 and 75 million people. WWI killed about 1.8 percent of the world's population. WWII killed 2.8 percent of the world's population. “What you want is to have a really strong capability so that they're used every day to prevent conflict. If you use one, then you've failed,” Weinstein said.

Weinstein added that, in total, as many as 45 million people died during WWII.

“All you need to do is look at pictures of what Dresden looked like and what Stalingrad looked like. These are major powers fighting major powers,” he said.

Nevertheless, despite clear evidence in favor of deploying nuclear weapons, modernizing the US arsenal has long been a cost concern and strategic liability for US strategic planners. In fact, Weinstein said there is concern that both Russian and Chinese nuclear arsenals are now more modern and advanced than existing U.S. Minuteman IIIs.

Citing a Congressional Research Service report, a story in National Defense Magazine says the GBSD the program is expected to cost $62 billion from 2015 through fiscal year 2044. That breaks down to about $14 billion for upgrades to command-and-control systems and launch centers, and $48.5 billion for new missiles, the report says.

In keeping with the NEW START Treaty, the US plans to field 400 new missiles designed to replace the aging 1960s-era Minuteman IIIs.

The new ICBMs will be deployed roughly within the same geographical expanse in which the current weapons are stationed. In total, dispersed areas across three different sites span 33,600 miles, including missiles in Cheyenne, Wyoming, Minot, North Dakota and Great Falls, Montana.

“If you look at the ICBM field, it's 33,600 square miles. That's how big it is. We sometimes say it's the size of the state of Georgia. It was developed that way for a specific reason. You didn't want them too close together. You wanted it so if the adversary were to attack at one time, you'd still have ones that would survive,” Weinstein explained.

Nuclear Deterrence
Earlier this year, the commander of U.S. Strategic Command, Air Force Gen. John E. Hyten, said the United States has about the right numbers of nuclear weapons, but they need to be modernized.

A Pentagon statement said the General asked reporters to imagine what the world was like in the six years preceding the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. “In those six years, the world in conflict killed somewhere between 60 million and 80 million people,” he said. “That’s about 33,000 people a day, a million people a month.”

The world has seen bloody conflicts -- Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom were awful, but nowhere near the level of carnage the world had experienced, he said.

“The submarines are the most survivable element of it; the ICBMs are the most ready; the bombers are the most flexible,” he said. “When you put those pieces together, it gives our nation the ability to withstand any attack and respond if we are attacked, which means we won’t be attacked.”

Visit Warrior
Kris Osborn can be reached at Kris.Osborn@Scout.com.
To Ask Military Expert KRIS OSBORN Questions, VISIT THE WARRIOR FORUMS.

Possible Impact · Jun 8, 2017

cross-post from:

[FONT=Verdana,Arial]AFP: US-led coalition strikes pro-regime forces in Syria: official [/FONT]
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...orces-in-Syria-official&p=6491297#post6491297
^ Starting back a couple of posts

Aldin Abazović &#55356;&#56807;&#55356;&#56806;‏ @CT_operative 17m
Full statement by @CJTFOIR about 3rd strike
against SyrianArmy & allied forces in Al-Tanf area of Syria

Crispin Burke
@CrispinBurke
@USArmy Aviator,
defense blogger, self-described pocketful of awesomeness.
#INTJ.
Does not represent the views of @DeptOfDefense.
RT/Like ≠ Endorsement.
Fort Bragg, North Carolina

linkedin.com/in/crispin-bur…
Joined May 2009

Crispin Burke‏ @CrispinBurke 33m
US troops have not come under aerial bombardment from the enemy
since the Korean War. That streak may soon end.

Crispin Burke‏ @CrispinBurke 30m
And by "pro-regime", likely Iran.
Iranian drones have been spotted over Israel (2006)
and Iraq (2009).

Crispin Burke‏ @CrispinBurke 29m
Also, see the recent hot-dogging
between an Iranian drone and a US Reaper over Syria the other day.

^^^ Syrian mil posted video of the intercept...

Housecarl · Jun 9, 2017

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/06/08/trumps_nuclear_posture_in_europe_111547.html

Trump’s Nuclear Posture in Europe

By Matthew J.A. Shoemaker
June 08, 2017

President Trump arrived back in the United States last week after his first international trip as leader of the free world. While abroad, he visited NATO headquarters in Mons, Belgium and met with the heads of all 27 other member states as part of his grand tour. In his speech dedicating the new NATO headquarters, the president called on all members of the alliance to live up to their commitment to spend at least 2% of their respective GDP on defense. Although some in the European press labeled it a diplomatic faux pas at best or an insult to the Alliance at worst, the American and British press largely praised President Trump’s bold stand against NATO freeloaders.

Only five NATO members currently meet the agreed upon 2% GDP target according to 2016 figures provided by NATO: the United States (3.61% or about $522 billion), Greece (2.3% or about $7.5 billion), the United Kingdom (2.2% or about $56 billion), Estonia (2.2% or about $500 million), Poland (2.1% or about $10 billion). All other members fall well below the 2.0% threshold including the most egregious offenders: Germany (1.2% or about $37 billion), Italy (1.1% or about $22 billion), and Spain (0.9% or about $14 billion).

Although NATO leaders primarily discussed coordinating efforts against the threat of terrorism, NATO’s raison d’être has always been and will continue to be a collective defense against nuclear threats.

Since Russia’s incursion into Ukraine in 2014, NATO has focused most of its attention on its eastern borders. Understandably, Moscow’s military assertiveness and updated nuclear posture lowering the threshold for using nuclear weapons is a cause for concern, especially for the former Warsaw Pact members. More recently, however, Iran and North Korea have pulled focus away from a Euro-centric nuclear threat. Indeed, prior to the past few months with North Korea’s nuclear saber-rattling, NATO’s focus has been almost entirely fixated on Russian nuclear modernization.

Over in Washington, the Pentagon is conducting its own nuclear posture review headed by the Deputy Secretary of Defense and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff with a report due to the president by the end of the year. The administration will have to juggle the conflicting demands for a credible American nuclear deterrent against some of its NATO allies who argue for a reduction in nuclear weapons (e.g., Germany). Additionally, European NATO members are themselves divided about how forcefully to respond to the perceived Russian threat. Regardless of the competing interests, American nuclear plans will primarily focus on its own modernization efforts with the upgrades to the Air Force’s Minutemen missiles, the Navy’s Columbia nuclear submarine deterrent, and upgrades to the B-61 tactical gravity bombs.

Part of America’s nuclear deterrent in Europe is the approximately 180 B-61 nuclear gravity bombs stationed in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey. In the event of a crisis, Germany or Italy would place the B-61 onto one of their nuclear-capable F-16 or Typhoon aircraft; however, these planes are set to be retired in the next 5-10 years and be replaced by the F-35 fighter. At present, it would cost an additional $5 million per plane to make the F-35 nuclear capable yet neither Germany nor Italy has orders in to make their F-35s nuclear capable. Once again, by willfully choosing not to provide funding for their own security, they will rely on and demand that the United States sacrifice its own planes, pilots, and treasure to drop weapons that would protect the European way of life if the situation demanded it.

Consider, for a moment, a horrible yet plausible scenario in which Russia attacks NATO members in the Baltic or perhaps Poland itself. In the early days of the conflict, both NATO and Russian forces would focus their conventional weapons on the immediate battlefield. If the situation deteriorates and tactical nuclear weapons come into play, without any central European nuclear capable aircraft, the Americans or the British would be forced to send their own nuclear-capable aircraft to pick up the B-61s in Germany or Italy. From there, the aircraft would have to fly into enemy territory, drop the payload directly over the military target, and fly back to base. Since the F-35’s range is about 1,380 miles, it is quite possible it would have to refuel over hostile territory—placing the American or British pilot in an incredibly vulnerable position.* * * **

The German government has argued that if it were to spend 2% of its GDP on defense, it would outspend the entire Russian military. Historically, Germany has seen itself as a bridge between the East and the West; indeed, during the Cold War, this manifested itself under the German policy of Ostpolitik. If Germany were to double its defense spending so quickly, they argue, it would cause another arms race on the European continent. On the other hand, if the German government continues to spend so little, the Americans may decide to alter its defensive strategy in Europe as Secretary of Defense Mattis stated to NATO back in February.
* **
Indeed, if Germany, Spain, Italy, France and others do not believe that their way of life is worth the cost of protecting it, then they ought not to complain if the Americans or British are unwilling to sacrifice their own citizens and treasure for them. However, before anyone advocates such a draconian position, it would be useful for the Americans to step back and instead consider simply removing its tactical nuclear weapons from Europe. Most Central and Western European capitals have signaled that they would rather not have the weapons there claiming they are relics of the Cold War. This would be an opportunity to give the Europeans exactly what they want. The tradeoff, as they would soon come to realize, is that the Americans would now only offer a strategic nuclear defense—that is, the Americans would only offer nuclear protection in the event of large-scale nuclear threats instead of smaller, tactical scale nuclear threats, the kind in which Russia has recently signaled it is willing to engage.

Removing American tactical nuclear weapons from Europe would simply be reverting to policies from the Eisenhower administration. Namely, Europeans would be responsible for their immediate security backed by the ultimate shield of American strategic power. Without American tactical power, German, Italian, and other politicians could not avoid the gaping hole and the tactical deficiencies in their defenses. In other words, removing American weapons might cause the cultural change necessary for the people in Europe to demand that their politicians finally protect them instead of freeloading off of American generosity.

It would require bold leadership from President Trump. NATO members would cry and claim that the alliance was ending. A deluge of ink would be spilt for all the reasons why they cannot afford their security. The reality is they would rather not have their wallets get lighter when they can get someone else to do it.
*
Matthew J.A. Shoemaker is an analyst for BAE Systems at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Matthew specializes in nuclear war strategy as well as American, British, and NATO security issues. He holds a BA in Political Science and International Affairs from George Washington University, an MA in Philosophy from Mount St. Mary’s University, and is completing his Ph.D. in War Studies from King’s College London.

Comments 8

Lilbitsnana · Jun 9, 2017

NATOSource‏ @NATOSource 9h9 hours ago

#Putin on #Sweden joining #NATO: "we will be obliged to undertake something because we see this as an additional threat to #Russia”

Lilbitsnana · Jun 9, 2017

Conflict News‏ @Conflicts 11m11 minutes ago

BREAKING: Leader of Spain's Catalonia announces independence referendum for October 1 - @AFP

Lilbitsnana · Jun 9, 2017

Replying to @AFP

#UPDATE Leader of Spain's Catalonia region announces October 1 independence vote http://u.afp.com/4eKe #Catalonia

posted for fair use and discussion
https://www.yahoo.com/news/spains-catalonia-announces-october-independence-vote-090136198.html

Spain's Catalonia announces October independence vote
[AFP]
AFP•June 9, 2017

Catalonia, a wealthy, 7.5-million-strong region of Spain with its own language and customs, has long demanded greater autonomy (AFP Photo/LLUIS GENE)

Barcelona (AFP) - The leader of Spain's Catalonia region, where a separatist movement is in full swing, on Friday announced an independence referendum for October 1 in defiance of Madrid which is firmly against such a vote.

Speaking in Barcelona, Carles Puigdemont said the question would be: "Do you want Catalonia to be an independent state in the form of a republic."

Catalonia, a wealthy, 7.5-million-strong region with its own language and customs, has long demanded greater autonomy.

Separatist politicians in the northeastern region have tried for years to win approval from Spain's central government for a vote like Scotland's 2014 referendum on independence from Britain, which resulted in a "no" vote.

And while Catalans are divided on the issue, with 48.5 percent against independence and 44.3 percent in favour according to the latest poll by the regional government, close to three-quarters support holding a referendum.

But Catalan authorities have repeatedly been thwarted in their attempts to hold such a vote, arguing it goes against the constitution and would threaten the unity of Spain.

In 2014, Catalonia held a non-binding vote under then president Artur Mas, in which more than 80 percent of those who cast a ballot chose independence, although just 2.3 million out of 6.3 million eligible voters took part.

But in holding the symbolic referendum, Mas went against Spain's Constitutional Court, which had outlawed the vote -- even if it was non-binding.

He was later put on trial and banned from holding office for two years.

Puigdemont, though, still wants to go ahead, and he wants his referendum to be binding this time -- even though Madrid has pledged to be just as tough this time round.

Lilbitsnana · Jun 9, 2017

Lilbitsnana said:
Well, that should make things a bit more interesting.

I'm also not surprised and have been expecting it for a few years now.

Conflict News‏ @Conflicts 28m28 minutes ago

IRAQ: Iraqi Kurds to hold independence referendum on September 25: statement - AFP

DAILY SABAH‏Verified account @DailySabah 14m14 minutes ago

KRG decision to hold independence vote is “a grave mistake,” will have "negative outcomes:" Turkish Foreign Ministry

Shacknasty Shagrat · Jun 10, 2017

The top dogs are telling each other to back off.
SS

' Aldin Abazović &#55356;&#56807;&#55356;&#56806;‏ @CT_operative 14m14 minutes ago

Russia Lavrov in a phone conversation with #US Tillerson warned him not to strike #Syria pro-government forces again.
5 replies 26 retweets 18 likes
https://twitter.com/CT_operative

WAR 06-03-2017-to-06-09-2017_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

TB Fanatic

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

Has No Life - Lives on TB

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

TB Fanatic

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

TB Fanatic

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

Has No Life - Lives on TB

WAR 06-03-2017-to-06-09-2017_____THEWINDSofWAR