Category Archives: North Korea

Assad has North Korean Troops in Syria

Posted on by

Primer for consideration:

North Korea’s Next Missile Test Could Kill

Chang/DailyBeast: Firing back with ‘unprecedented’ provocations against joint South Korean and American annual military exercises, Kim Jung Un could make a dangerously wrong move.

On Monday, North Korea fired five short-range missiles eastward. The projectiles fell into the Sea of Japan, what Koreans call the East Sea. The provocation followed Friday’s launch of two Nodong medium-range missiles, which can put a dent anywhere in South Korea and parts of Japan.

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has launched 15 projectiles on four separate occasions since early last month in apparent shows of anger.

Friday’s and Monday’s belligerent acts follow a series of threats to kill all the residents of Manhattan and launch “preemptive and offensive” nuclear strikes. The regime has also taken the unprecedented step of releasing photographs of leader Kim Jong Un standing next to what it implied is a thermonuclear device. Full article here.

North Korea troops fighting in Syrian civil war, delegate says
Asaad Al-Zoubi said “fatally dangerous” North Korean soldiers are fighting on behalf of President Bashar al-Assad.

GENEVA, Switzerland, March 22 (UPI) — Two North Korean military units are fighting on behalf of President Bashar al-Assad in the Syria conflict.

Asaad Al-Zoubi, the head of the Syrian opposition’s High Negotiations Committee delegation, told Russian news agency TASS that North Koreans have committed troops to the civil war.

According to Al-Zoubi, the two units are called Chalma-1 and Chalma-2.

The Syrian delegate provided the information as he attended Syria peace talks at the United Nations European headquarters in Geneva.

Al-Zoubi added there are fighters from Iran and Afghanistan fighting on behalf of Assad.

Russia’s Sputnik International also confirmed the Syrian representative’s statement on North Korean soldiers in the Middle East, and quoted Al-Zoubi as saying the “North Korean troops are fatally dangerous” during an explanation of the presence of foreign troops in the Syrian civil war.

The civil war has continued for five years, and the opposition and the Assad regime are at odds regarding the details of a peace negotiation.

But Pyongyang maintains friendly ties with the dictatorship in Damascus, and Russia has supported Assad’s rule.

North Korea’s presence in the Middle East conflict is unprecedented, but the two countries have cultivated military ties for many years.

North Korea has been a staunch ally of the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad, opposed by the Islamic State, and Pyongyang helped Syria build a nuclear facility destroyed by an Israeli air raid in 2007.

Last September Syria dedicated a park to former North Korean leader Kim Il Sung.

****** 2013:

38North: When Kim Jong Un assumed power two years ago, foreign observers predicted North Korea would cut its losses short and disengage from Syria in the wake of the overthrow of friendly regimes in Algeria, Egypt and Libya. But this proved to be wishful thinking. On the contrary, Kim Jong Un got off the fence and has joined the Assad government to actively fight against the anti-government rebels in Syria, many of whom are affiliated with Al-Qaeda. Indeed, the DPRK says it is its duty to help a legitimate sovereign government in the fight against international terrorism in Syria.

Careful reading of the DPRK Foreign Ministry’s latest tepid and contorted denial[1] of the persistent rumors that Pyongyang supplies weapons to Syria or flies pilots in anti-rebel air raids suggests that North Korean arms and military advisors may indeed be engaged on the battlefields of the Syrian civil war but not necessarily in the exact manner alleged by the rebels and Western media. Pyongyang is known for its penchant to split hairs: it knows the facts, and even if the rumors come close to the reality, but do not exactly match it, Pyongyang will hit back hard. The fact that it hasn’t suggests that indeed there is fire where there is smoke.

Why Did Kim Jong Un Come to Assad’s Rescue?

In 2013, North Korea’s young leader stepped up military support for his country’s long-time strategic partner, the Assad regime, in the nationwide civil war against the radical Sunni rebels backed by the Western liberal democracies in alliance with conservative Gulf monarchies. Why is North Korea fighting for Assad?

The well-entrenched Kim family came to the rescue of the faltering Assad family, exporting its trademark anti-American “revolutionary spirit of the offensive,” for four reasons. First, birds of a feather flock together. Both countries are former Soviet client states that lost their patron after the collapse of the USSR in the early 1990s. The collapse resulted in the loss of the strategic support that the Soviets had provided them, forcing Pyongyang and Damascus to abandon the dream of “strategic parity” with Seoul and Tel Aviv, respectively, and to adopt a new formula of “strategic deterrence,” vis-a-vis the ROK and Israel, as well as their allies and like-minded countries. In that context, both face an acute security dilemma in their respective neighborhood since they are also divided countries fighting to force out foreign troops that occupy what they believe are their homelands, namely the U.S. forces in the southern half of the Korean peninsula and Israeli troops in the Golan Heights. Finally, both have also been branded as “rogue states” and are isolated in the international community. The United States considers them as “states sponsoring international terrorism” and engaged in “nuclear proliferation” and, therefore, has imposed broad-ranging political and economic sanctions on both countries.

In that context, Pyongyang and Damascus have similar worldviews as part of the anti-US, anti-imperialist united front. Supreme People’s Assembly (SPA) Chairman Choe Tae Bok once said: “The unity of our two peoples fighting in the same trench against the common enemy is everlasting, though Syria and Korea are geographically far away from each other. Our bilateral relations of friendship and cooperation will grow stronger and stronger.”[2] When the DPRK’s nominal head of state Kim Yong Nam met with the Syrian Prime Minister Wael Nader Al Halqi in Tehran in August 2013, the latter said that “Syria regards the DPRK as a military power with tremendous military force and a country of comrades-in-arms struggling against the common enemy.”[3]

This close political relationship is reflected in a number of ways. Neither country has been willing to normalize relations with the other’s enemies. The DPRK rejected Israeli overtures in the early 1990s[4] seeking to establish diplomatic relations,[5] despite Israeli promises to pay considerable compensation (up to USD 500 million) if Pyongyang were to abandon Syria and terminate its missile sales to the Middle East.[6] Similarly, Syria rejected past ROK attempts to normalize relations, unlike the former Soviet Union and China, despite its growing trade and investment links with Seoul.[7] Pyongyang and Damascus also support each other in the United Nations and other international organizations. For example, upon cues from Damascus, Pyongyang denounces US proposals for the Middle East peace process, Lebanon situation, Palestinian problem, and Arab-Israeli settlement.[8] In turn, Syria supports the DPRK’s positions in various talks on denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and inter-Korea reconciliation.[9]

State-to-state and party-to-party ties are well developed and based on extensive institutional links and personal affinities. Since the beginning of this year alone, Kim Jong Un has exchanged personal letters with Bashar Al-Assad on ten different occasions—more than with any other foreign leader, including Chinese. Many senior DPRK leaders have either visited Syria over the past two decades or worked closely with its government.[10] For instance, Kim Yong Nam traveled to Syria as President of the SPA Presidium in July 2002 and June 2000, and as Foreign Minister in July 1992. Former KPA Chief of General Staff hardline general Kim Kyok Sik served as North Korea’s military liaison to Syria in the tumultuous 1970s, coordinating the North’s military assistance to the Assad regime during the October 1973 Arab-Israeli War and post-war rehabilitation of Syrian armed forces in the mid-1970s. He also managed North Korean military sales and military construction projects there for almost a decade. As a result, many North Korean leaders have some personal knowledge of Syria and its leaders, as well as a good understanding of Pyongyang’s stakes in its relationship with Damascus.

Second, in addition to being birds of a feather, geopolitical considerations also push Pyongyang to assist Damascus. As a strategic partner of both Syria and Iran, North Korea may have been contracted by Iran to defend their mutual ally in Damascus. It is also plausible that there may be some DPRK-Syria-Russia connections in the area of military-technical cooperation, probably, in the development of Syrian air defense capabilities. Pyongyang takes full advantage of all-out Russian and Iranian support for Damascus “to defend the frontline of the joint anti-American and anti-imperialist struggle” on the Syrian battlefield without fear of being depicted as a pariah or having to pay diplomatic or political price for its actions.

Third, North Korea’s intervention in Syria’s civil war is aimed at stopping the “hostile forces” and “colored revolutions” they export at the far-flung gates to ensure they will never reach North Korea’s shores. Kim Jong Un allegedly discussed how his government might be able to help the Assad regime fight back against the rebels with a visiting Syrian government delegation on July 24, 2013, when he was accompanied by party secretaries Kim Ki Nam (ideology) and Kim Yang Gon (South Korea), and first vice-foreign minister Kim Gye Gwan, the regime’s heavyweights known for their concern about the possible impact of the Arab Spring on the North.[11] The North’s official mouthpiece, Rodong Sinmun, often discusses “the reactionary ideology and culture of imperialists that can be as effective as military capability in realizing their hegemonic ambition,” stressing that “the youth is the main target of the imperialists’ offensive” because “young people played a large role in bringing about “Egyptian-style change,” “Libyan-style victory,” and “Syrian calamity.”

Kim Jong Un holds talks with the high-ranking visiting delegation of Syrian Arab Republic in Pyongyang, on July 24, 2013. (Photo: Rodong Sinmun, July 25, 2013)

Pyongyang may also seek to divert Washington’s attention and resources away from the Korean peninsula by waging a proxy war against the United States and its allies in Syria. The North Korean leadership is not ignorant or naive. It does understand that if the US gets sucked into another war in the Middle East during “sequestration,” not only will it undermine the short-to-mid-term credibility of its defense commitment to South Korea, but it will also buy time for Pyongyang to further build up its own nuclear arsenal and advance its war preparations against the South.

Fourth, while not a military alliance based on legally binding mutual defense obligations, North Korea and Syria have a long history of extensive bilateral military-to-military ties based on their close political relationship. These ties include:

  • Fraternal assistance in several Middle Eastern wars: Since Israel joined the UN coalition troops fighting in the Korean War, the DPRK government has never considered it inappropriate or unwise to send troops to aid the Syrian government in the Arab-Israeli wars in the Middle East. For instance, the DPRK sent 25 pilots to Syria to defend the air space over Damascus during the Arab-Israeli war of 1967.[12] In 1970, the DPRK dispatched 200 tank crewmen, 53 pilots, and 140 missile technicians to Syria. During the October 1973 Arab-Israeli War, the DPRK dispatched 30 pilots to Egypt and Syria, who provided training for Syrian pilots to fight against Israel.[13] Moreover, the North Korean Air Force pilots themselves flew the Soviet-made Egyptian and Syrian airplanes during some key air battles. In 1975 and 1976, Pyongyang sent 75 Air Force instructors and 40 MIG pilots to Damascus, respectively. In 1982, during the Lebanese civil war, the DPRK government dispatched SOF (special operations forces) servicemen to Syria to provide training for guerrilla operations, some killed by the Israeli military. In 1984-1986 and 1990, 50 and 30 North Korean military instructors were sent to Syria, respectively.
  • Military Education and Training: In the mid-1980s, Kim Jong Il approved the request of the Syrian government for its military officers’ to be educated and trained at DPRK military educational institutions at the expense of North Korea. Since then, the North Korean military has been training Syrian military officers at the Kim Il Sung Military University (an analogue of US National Defense University). Officers at the colonel rank usually participate in the one-year high-level officers’ course. Syrian officers at the captain rank are also admitted to the four-year course. They are taught military strategy, operational art, and military tactics, including guerrilla operations. Kim Jong Il is said to have followed with interest the successful careers of the Syrian general officers who graduated from the university.
  • Foreign military sales: Beginning in the late 1970s through the 1980s, the DPRK supplied Syria with various conventional weapons such as rifles, guns, mortars, ammunition, bombs, armored vehicles, anti-tank missiles, radars, and even military uniforms. In particular, in 1978, the DPRK sold 300 recoilless guns to Syria. In 1982, when the civil war broke out in Syria, the Syrian military killed 20,000 civilians by firing “BM-11, 122mm MLRS (Multiple Launch Rocket System),” the weapon system imported from the DPRK. The Israel military snatched the notorious “BM-11” from Syria during the Lebanon war in 1982, killing 25 KPA soldiers who serviced it. In 1992, Pyongyang shipped 20 tons of bombs to Damascus.
  • Weapons of Mass Destruction and Delivery Systems: There is evidence to suggest that North Korea provided technical assistance to Syria in acquiring key nuclear-related technologies in China and Europe as well as in constructing a covert nuclear reactor at Al Kibar that was bombed by the Israeli Air Force in 2007. On ballistic missiles, cooperation began in the late 1980s, with the North selling Scud-C transporter-erector-launchers (TELs) and cluster warheads to Syria, helping to construct two missile assembly plants in Hama and an electronic missile launch control facility near Aleppo and providing special training for Syrian missile technicians in North Korea. Aside from strengthening the self-defense potential of one of its anti-imperialist, anti-US allies, the North has earned good money doing it.[14] On chemical weapons, there is only limited evidence of cooperation, including the interception of DPRK ships heading for Syria carrying cargos that might be useful in defending against chemical attacks. There has also been speculation that the explosion on July 20, 2007, at a facility near the city of Halab was the result of an attempt by North Korean scientists working with Syrian officials to load a chemical warhead onto one of the North Korean missiles, likely the No-dong 1 model. On biological weapons, there is information about bilateral cooperation between the Ministries of Public Health, pharmaceutical companies, and university biotech research labs but little on weapons cooperation. Still, some observers have asserted that “Syria has a biological weapons research and development program, and it is seeking professional assistance from China and North Korea in this area.”[15]

The Syrian conflict provides the North Korean military with an opportunity to gain valuable “real world” experience. Reportedly, North Korean advisors provide technical assistance to Syria’s defense industry, especially factories southeast of Aleppo, in addition to engineering and construction assistance in repairing and rehabilitating destroyed military infrastructure. The KPA is also involved in operational planning and supervision of artillery warfare as demonstrated by the battle for Qusair.[16] The North Korean military advisors are probably involved in planning and execution of the air and air defense operations of the Syrian army as well as collecting battlefield intelligence on the combat use and performance of Western arms, especially those that can potentially be used in the Korean battlefield. Finally, the Syrian civil war offers the North Korean military planners the first-hand look at the combat tactics of anti-regime rebels trained and guided by the US and its allies. And for good measure, there is no doubt that North Korean military advisors are also tasked with erasing any traces of Pyongyang’s past assistance to Assad’s programs to build weapons of mass destruction just in case he does lose power.

The Bottom Line

Given the history of DPRK-Syrian relations, despite what the North might say in public, it would be surprising if the North had not dispatched a small contingent of military advisors and instructors to aid the brotherly Assad regime in its fight against the anti-government rebels. Although that assistance is probably limited and does not have the potential to fundamentally change the course of the civil war, North Korean military expertise can affect the outcomes of local tactical battles, adding to the winning momentum of the Assad forces. Moreover, North Korea’s involvement in Syria may be an indicator that the Kim regime discounts the likelihood of any possible breakthrough in relations with either Washington or Seoul in the near future and views the risk that its national policy goals will be adversely affected by increasing support for the Assad regime as manageable.

Pyongyang’s involvement in Syria characterizes Kim Jong Un more as a steady hand and traditional alliance manager than an erratic wanderer and opportunistic risk-taker. Although he is playing with fire in the shifting sands of far-flung lands like Syria, but he is simply staying the course set forth by his grandfather and upheld by his father, demonstrating continuity in North Korea’s foreign policy. Moreover, potential material and reputational rewards far outweigh possible security or diplomatic risks, especially if Kim’s bet on Assad’s eventual victory proves to be correct. The DPRK’s decision to cast its lot with Damascus may upset wealthy Gulf monarchies—like Kuwait and Qatar—sponsoring the anti-Assad rebel groups and cause them to rethink their employment of North Korean labor and services in construction and irrigation system development projects and their provision of low-interest funds for some of Pyongyang’s infrastructure projects.[17] On the other hand, it may help Pyongyang earn much greater financial or in-kind compensation from other states concerned, including Iran, Russia, and others, and develop new diplomatic clout in the Middle East if Assad eventually wins. Pyongyang’s support for Syria may provoke Jihadist elements to strike back, but it is more likely that the KPA will gain valuable combat experience against the new age enemy—irregular anti-government militia fighting in a suburban setting. Finally, North Korea’s support for Syria may provide new fodder for others to further demonize Pyongyang but it also offers the North a chance to stand by a long-time ally in need, to show its resolve to fight for state sovereignty and territorial integrity on the world stage, and to prove with deeds it is fighting against Al Qaeda and international terrorism, even when it might be more expedient to do otherwise.

 

 

U.S. Prepared for Future Wars?

Posted on by

Marine general to Congress: We might not be ready for another war

Stripes: WASHINGTON — If the Marines were called today to respond to an unexpected crisis, they might not be ready, a top Marine general told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday.

Gen. John Paxton, assistant commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, testified to lawmakers that the Marines could face more casualties in a war and might not be able to deter a potential enemy.

“I worry about the capability and the capacity to win in a major fight somewhere else right now,” he said, citing a lack of training and equipment.

Paxton, along with the vice chiefs of the Army, Navy and Air Force, spoke to the Senate committee on the readiness challenges facing each service after 15 years of war and recent budget cuts.

For the Marines, he said units at home face the most risk because of fewer training opportunities with the best equipment deployed with forces overseas. And it would be these undertrained home units that would be called to respond to an unexpected crisis.

“In the event of a crisis, these degraded units could either be called upon to deploy immediately at increased risk to the force and the mission, or require additional time to prepare thus incurring increased risk to mission by surrendering the initiative to our adversaries,” Paxton said. “This does not mean we will not be able to respond to the call … It does mean that executing our defense strategy or responding to an emergent crisis may require more time, more risk, and incur greater costs and casualties.”

Communication, intelligence and aviation units are the hardest hit, Paxton said. More here.

Obama’s Afghan Dilemma: To Bomb or Not to Bomb

In part FP: As Kabul’s fragile army struggles to hold the line, will Washington’s warplanes come to the rescue?

Times have changed. The United States withdrew most of its troops in 2014 and dramatically reduced the number of airstrikes against Taliban targets throughout the country. The footage from Kunduz illustrated how the Taliban has been taking advantage of their new freedom: by conquering the city. The insurgents held Kunduz for two weeks before being pushed out by Afghan and U.S. personnel in October. Still, many officials believe it’s only a matter of time before the Taliban targets the city again.

The Taliban’s growing military might is posing a thorny strategic question for President Barack Obama, who took office promising to end what is now America’s longest war. The U.S. has spent tens of billions of dollars training Afghan security personnel, who have suffered enormous casualties while trying — and failing — to repel the Taliban’s advances in the country’s south, east, and north. That leaves the White House with an unpalatable choice: Keep the stringent rules limiting the numbers of strikes in place and risk seeing the militants continue to gain ground, or allow American pilots to bomb a broader array of targets at the risk of deepening Washington’s combat role in Afghanistan. More details here.

**** Most chilling of all…..cyber and satellites

Planning Space Attacks On U.S. Satellites

FC: China and Russia are preparing to attack and disrupt critical U.S. military and intelligence satellites in a future conflict with crippling space missile, maneuvering satellite, and laser attacks, senior Pentagon and intelligence officials told Congress on Tuesday.
Air Force Gen. John Hyten, commander of the Air Force Space Command, said the threat to U.S. space systems has reached a new tipping point, and after years of post-Cold War stagnation foreign states are focused on curbing U.S. space systems.
“Adversaries are developing kinetic, directed-energy, and cyber tools to deny, degrade, and destroy our space capabilities,” Hyten said in a prepared statement for a hearing of the House Armed Service strategic forces subcommittee.
“They understand our reliance on space, and they understand the competitive advantage we derive from space. The need for vigilance has never been greater,” the four-star general said.
Hyten said U.S. Global Positioning System satellites remain vulnerable to attack or jamming. The satellites’ extremely accurate time-keeping feature is even more critical to U.S. guided weapons than their ability to provide navigation guidance, he said.
Disrupting the satellites time capabilities would degrade the military’s ability to conduct precision strike operations used in most weapons systems today.
Hyten said a new joint military-intelligence command center is helping to monitor space threats, such as anti-satellite missile launches, covert killer robot satellites, and ground-fired lasers that can blind or disrupt satellites. The unit is called the Joint Interagency Combined Space Operations Center, located at Schriever Air Force Base, Colorado.
The Space Command also is creating 39 cyber mission teams that will be used for defensive and offensive cyber operations involving space systems.
Lt. Gen. David Buck, commander of Joint Functional Component for Space, a U.S. Strategic Command unit, testified along with Hyten that China and Russia pose the most serious threats to space systems.
“Simply stated, there isn’t a single aspect of our space architecture, to include the ground architecture, that isn’t at risk,” Buck said.
“Russia views U.S. dependency on space as an exploitable vulnerability and they are taking deliberate actions to strengthen their counter-space capabilities,” he said.
China in December created its first dedicated space warfare and cyber warfare unit, called the Strategic Support Forces, for concentrating their “space, electronic, and network warfare capabilities,” Buck said.
“China is developing, and has demonstrated, a wide range of counter-space technologies to include direct-ascent, kinetic-kill vehicles, co-orbital technologies that can disable or destroy a satellite, terrestrially-based communications jammers, and lasers that can blind or disable satellites,” Buck said.
“Moreover, they continue to modernize their space programs to support near-real-time tracking of objects, command and control of deployed forces, and long-range precision strikes capabilities,” the three-star general said.
Douglas Loverro, deputy assistant defense secretary for space policy, also warned about growing threats to satellites and outlined U.S. plans to deter future attacks.
Loverro said the United States does not want a war in space. “But let me be clear about our intent—we will be ready,” he said.
None of the five Pentagon and intelligence officials who took part in the budget hearing for military space efforts mentioned any U.S. plans or programs to develop anti-satellite missiles and other space weapons for use against Chinese or Russian space systems. The subcommittee, however, held a closed-door session after the public hearing.
A modified U.S. missile defense interceptor, the SM-3, was used in 2008 to shoot down a falling U.S. satellites in a demonstration of the country’s undeclared anti-satellite warfare capability.
Loverro suggested U.S. defense and deterrence of space attacks could involve counter attacks, possibly on the ground or in cyber space. But he provided no specifics.
“Today our adversaries perceive that space is a weak-link in our deterrence calculus,” Loverro said. “Our strategy is to strengthen that link, to assure it never breaks, and to disabuse our adversaries of the idea that our space capabilities make tempting targets.”
Many of the most important navigation, communications, and intelligence satellites were designed during the Cold War for use in nuclear war and thus incorporate hardening against electronic attacks, Loverro said.
For conventional military conflict, however, adversaries today view attacks on U.S. satellites as a way to blunt a conventional military response what Loverro called the “chink in the conventional armor of the United States.”
“In this topsy-turvy state, attacks on space forces may even become the opening gambit of an anti-access/area-denial strategy in a regional conflict wherein an adversary seeks to forestall or preclude a U.S. military response,” he said. “Chinese military strategists began writing about the targeting of space assets as a ‘tempting and most irresistible choice’ in the late 1990s, and the People’s Liberation Army has been pursuing the necessary capabilities ever since,” he said.
Rather than threatening foreign states’ satellites, Loverro said deterrence against foreign nations’ space attacks is based on defending against missile strikes or other attacks and making sure satellite operations will not be disrupted in war.
That would be carried out through partnering with the growing commercial space sector that is expected to deploy hundreds of new satellites in the coming years that could be used as back up systems for the Pentagon in a conflict.
Deterrence also will be based on increasing foreign partnerships with allied nations in gathering intelligence on space threats and other cooperation.
A space defense “offset” strategy will seek to reduce the advantage of using relatively low cost of missiles, small satellites, or cyber forces to attack U.S. satellites, Loverro said.
“An advanced U.S. satellite might cost upwards of $1 billion; missiles that could destroy such a satellite cost a few percent of that sum; co-orbital microsatellites cost even less; and lasers that might blind or damage satellites have an unlimited magazine with almost zero cost per shot,” Loverro said.
Deploying large numbers of low-cost satellites will not offset those advantages, he said.
Instead, Loverro offered vague plans for countering the threat. “A space offset strategy must employ a diverse set of resilience measures that complicate the technical, political, and force structure calculus of our adversaries, by arraying a complex set of responses, with few overlapping vulnerabilities and a combination of known and ambiguous elements,” he said.
Frank Calvelli, deputy director of the National Reconnaissance Office, the spy agency that builds and operates strategic intelligence and reconnaissance satellites, said a resurgent Russia and aggressive China are among several current national security threats.
Calvelli revealed that the agency in October launched a new satellite that carried 13 smaller “CubeSats.”
“The NRO sponsored nine of the CubeSats while the National Aeronautics and Space Administration sponsored the remaining four,” Calvelli said.
Among the missions of the CubeSats are software-defined radios “to provide beyond-line-of-sight communication for disadvantaged users in remote locations, and technology pathfinders to demonstrate tracking technologies, optical communications, and laser communication,” he said.
Four advanced intelligence-gathering satellites will be launched this year to support military operations and intelligence analysis and decision-making.
Calvelli also said space threats are prompting the Reconnaissance Office to develop “better and faster” systems in space and on the ground, along with better overall “resiliency”—a term used by the military to signify an ability to operate during high-intensity warfare.
The agency is investing substantial sums in bolstering defenses for space and ground systems to make them more survivable during space war.
“We are more focused on survivability and resiliency from an enterprise perspective than we have ever been and we have made significant investments to that end,” he said.
The agency also is “improving the persistence of our space-based systems, providing greater ‘time on target’ to observe and characterize activities, and the potential relationship between activities, and to hold even small, mobile targets at risk,” Calvelli said.
It also is upgrading its ground stations, which are used to control and communicate with orbiting satellites, including an artificial intelligence system called “Sentient.”
“Sentient—a ‘thinking’ system that allows automated, multi-intelligence tipping and cueing at machine speeds—is just one of those capabilities,” Calvelli said.
New ground stations also are being deployed that will empower “users of all types with the capabilities to receive, process, and generate tailored, timely, highly-assured, and actionable intelligence,” he said.
The comments were a rare public discussion of the activities of one of the most secret U.S. intelligence agencies.
Dyke D. Weatherington, director of unmanned warfare and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance at the Pentagon, said eight national security satellites were launched in 2015, including tactical and strategic communications, and navigation, position, and timing satellites.
Weatherington said the United States maintains a strategy advantage in space system but warned that is changing. “The rapid evolution and expansion of threats to our space capabilities in every orbit regime has highlighted the converse: an asymmetric disadvantage due to the inherent susceptibilities and increasing vulnerabilities of these systems,” he said.
While space threats are increasing, “our abilities have lagged to protect our own use of space and operate through the effects of adversary threats,” Weatherington said.
The Pentagon currently has 19 military-capable GPS satellites on orbit and a new generation of GPS satellites is being developed that will be produce signals three times stronger than current system to be able to overcome electronic jamming, he said.
The officials at the hearing also discussed plans to transition from the sole reliance on the use of Russian-made RD-180 rocket engines to launch national security satellites.
A new U.S. made engine, however, will not be fully developed until 2022 or 2023.

New Dynamic with Iran and Russia

Posted on by

Iran shows underground ballistic missile launch base

IHS: Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) has provided additional insight into how its underground ballistic missile launch bases work by allowing a TV news crew to film inside one such facility.

The news crew also filmed a ballistic missile being launched from the underground facility. This footage showed terrain that IHS Jane’s has been able to match to a base just south of the city of Jam in Bushehr province.

Broadcast by Islamic Republic of Iran News Network (IRINN) on 8 March, the footage showed a Qiam ballistic missile erected inside a large launch chamber with a circular aperture at the top and a flame trench below to manage the missile’s exhaust in the confined space. The launch chamber was sealed from the rest of the underground facility by large blast doors.

The Qiam appeared to be on a version of the erector-launcher mechanism carried by Iran’s mobile ballistic missile launchers.

There was no overhead gantry for loading the missiles inside the launch chamber and the erector-launcher appeared to have small wheels and hydraulic stabilisers, suggesting it is loaded elsewhere in the facility and then wheeled into the launch chamber. The hydraulic stabilisers are presumably lowered once it is over the fire trench to fix it in position for the launch.

This would allow a higher rate of fire than if a static system was used, as missiles could be prepared on multiple erector-launchers that are wheeled in and out of the chamber for the launches.

Satellite imagery of the Jam facility suggests it has two underground launch chambers that are 190 m from each other.

If all the IRINN footage was filmed at the same location, then the Jam facility also supports mobile transporter-erector-launchers (TELs).

Dozens of missiles could be seen stored in tunnels, including longer-range Ghadr types that are too tall to erect inside the underground launch chamber.

A showdown in the future may be coming that puts the United States at odds versus Iran and Russia. Iran and Russia have a new plan for an oil and gas swap.

Iran urges progress on oil and gas swap with Russia

Zanganeh also told the ISNA that his country’s oil exports will rise to 2 million bpd in the month ending March 20, a slight increase from February’s 1.75 million bpd.

“Iran made it clear that it only intends to sign up to the oil production cap once it has reached a production level of 4 million barrels a day”, analysts at Commerzbank AG led by Eugen Weinberg said in a report.

An expected downturn in Us crude oil production through 2016 helped push crude oil prices higher last week, sending Brent above $40 per barrel for the first time this year. Not too long. It’s now ramped up production to somewhere between 2.8 million barrels per day and 3.5 million barrels per day.

Even with the proposed freeze, continuously high production means global output still exceeds demand by at least 1 million barrels per day (bpd).

Both crude and Brent oil have tumbled again after the killed all hopes in joining Saudi Arabia, Russia, Qatar, and Venezuela to freeze oil production.

CENTCOM commander warns of Russia-Iran alliance

IHS: There are signs that Iran and Russia are forging a strategic partnership that threatens to further destabilise the Middle East, according to General Lloyd Austin, the commander of US Central Command (CENTCOM).

Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) announced on 8 March that it had launched two Ghadr ballistic missiles during its ‘Eqtedar-e Velayat’ exercise. The move was the latest showing the IRGC has no intention of slowing its missile programmes after the nuclear deal was signed last year. Source: Fars News Agency

In his testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee on 8 March, Gen Austin said, “Russia’s co-operation with Iran appears to be expanding beyond near-term co-ordination for operations in Syria and is moving towards an emerging strategic partnership.” He described “a more traditional security co-operation arrangement” between Russia and Iran is “cause for significant concern”.

Gen Austin said Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad would “certainly not be in power today were it not for the robust support” provided by Russia and Iran.

While he recognised that the Russians have tipped the balance in favour of Assad, he noted that they might be failing to achieve their objectives in Syria. “My assumption is they wanted to make a substantial difference as fast as possible and transition to something else very quickly. They have not been able to do that and I think they are finding out that this could go on for some time,” he said.

He outlined the wider implications of Moscow’s support for an alliance that includes Iran, the Syrian government, and the Lebanese group Hizbullah. “Russia’s involvement in Syria exacerbates sectarian tensions as it appears they are supporting the Shiite states against the Sunnis,” he said.

He described Iran as still having “hegemonic ambitions” in the region despite the implementation of the nuclear deal agreed last year and called it a greater mid- to long-term threat than the Islamic State group.

As evidence of the emerging Iran-Russia strategic partnership, Gen Austin said there are already “indications of high-end weapon sales and economic co-operation between the two countries”.

The only defence deal that has been announced so far is Iran’s order of Russian S-300 long-range air defence systems, but Iranian officials have expressed interest in Su-30SM multirole fighters and there have been reports that Iran may also want T-90 tanks, helicopters, and the Bastion-P coastal anti-ship missile system.

Iran’s ICBM on Launch Pad

Posted on by

Iran preparing to conduct new space launch this weekend

FNC: Iran is preparing to launch a new long-range rocket into outer space as soon as this weekend, U.S. officials told Fox News.

The missile is known as a Simorgh and officials are watching the missile on the launch pad as it is being fueled at an undisclosed location inside Iran.

Officials told Fox they have not seen this specific type of rocket launched in the past.

Any test of a new ballistic missile would be an apparent violation of a UN resolution forbidding Iran from working on its rocket program.

A Simorgh rocket is designed to carry a satellite into space.  Officials are concerned that any space launch uses the same technology needed to launch a nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missile or ICBM.

This week, Iran launched multiple ballistic missiles on one day for the first time since 2012, according to defense officials.

UN Security Council Resolution 2231 says Iran is “not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology.”

Thursday, a senior Revolutionary Guard commander said that Iran’s ballistic missile program will continue to move forward, despite threats of international sanctions.

The U.S. State Department says the launches this week were not in violation of the nuclear deal, but “inconsistent” with UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which was tied to the nuclear deal when it went into effect.

Secretary of State John Kerry raised concerns about Iran’s recent missile launches in a phone call with his Iranian counterpart Thursday, including reports that Iran scribbled “Israel must be wiped off the Earth” according to State Department spokesman John Kirby.

Both short and medium-range ballistic missiles tested recently by Iran are capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

“Iran should face sanctions for these activities,” Hillary Clinton said Wednesday.

“The latest missiles launches are further evidence of Iran’s aggression and of how its leaders intend to use the money it is receiving under the Obama nuclear deal.” said House Armed Services Chairman Mac Thornberry, R-Texas.

Kirby said earlier this week that reports of Iran’s recent ballistic missile launches would be brought to the attention of the UN Security Council.

The launches would not violate the landmark nuclear deal implemented in January, according to Kirby.

Vice President Joseph Biden, while meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu Wednesday did not acknowledge the missile launch directly, but he issued a strong warning to the Iranians.

“A nuclear-armed Iran is an absolutely unacceptable threat to Israel, to the region and the United States. And I want to reiterate which I know people still doubt here: if in fact they break the deal, we will act,” he said.

Despite reports of Iran repeatedly violating the UN resolution by launching ballistic missiles, the State Department is confident additional sanctions could be called upon unilaterally if needed.

“We always have those tools available to us,” said Kirby this week.

In January, the Obama administration sanctioned nearly a dozen individuals and companies tied to Iran’s ballistic missile program.

Appearing in front of the Senate Armed Services committee in Washington, the outgoing head of U.S. Central Command, Gen. Lloyd Austin said Tuesday, “Some of the behavior we’ve seen from Iran of late is certainly not the behavior you’d expect from a nation that wants to be taken seriously.”

Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic & International Studies says the Obama administration’s policy toward Iran is muddled.

“I don’t think we’ve sent clear signals. We seem to be dealing with the nuclear agreement as if it’s some kind of legacy. It won’t be a legacy if Iran acts out in other ways,” he said.

Israel has been sounding the alarm on this since at least 2010:

Israeli Missile Experts: Simorgh Sets Iran on Path to ICBM

TEL AVIV, Israel — The recent unveiling of a large Iranian satellite launcher with the potential for doubling as an ICBM has injected additional anxiety into rapidly escalating international tension over Tehran’s nuclear weapons program. The new Simorgh is a two-stage liquid-fueled booster with an estimated takeoff weight of 87 tons, nearly four times that of the solid-fueled Sejil and double the weight of the Safir vehicle used to deliver Iran’s first satellite into space. Iran unveiled a full-scale mock-up of the system in Feb. 3 National Space Day ceremonies broadcast live on state-run television. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi presided over the event, which also featured the launch of the Kavoshgar-3 (Explorer) rocket and its live payload — a turtle, a rat and worms — into space. No first launch date was announced for the Simorgh, but U.S. and Israeli experts say that if Iranian claims are true, and the engine is already developed, it could be readied as a headline event for next February’s National Space Day. In February 2009, Iran marked the occasion with the Safir-2’s successful deployment of the Omid research satellite into low Earth orbit.  More here.

Iran and North Korea: Terror in the Same Discussion

Posted on by

DOJ expected to charge 5 Iranians in 2013 hacking of New York dam

FNC: The Department of Justice is expected to announce charges against up to five Iranians believed to be tied to the 2013 hacking of a New York dam, a law enforcement source told Fox News.

The DOJ is expected to make the announcement sometime in the coming days, according to the source. The individuals are believed to have connections within the Iranian government.

The hackers allegedly infiltrated the control system of the Bowman Ave Dam in Rye Brook, N.Y., which is about 20 miles outside New York City, The Wall Street Journal reported at the time. The breach raised fears of the vulnerabilities of the United States’ infrastructure to foreign hackers. It also came at a time that the Iranians were on the offensive in attacking U.S. banks.

It was believed at the time that the hackers never took control of the dam, but were able to probe the system, the report said.

The expected DOJ announcement was first reported by The Wall Street Journal.

In this case, the hackers were believed to have gained access to the dam through a cellular modem, the paper reported in 2015, citing an unclassified Homeland Security summary of the case that did not specifically name the dam. Two unnamed sources told the paper that the summary was referring to the relatively small, 20-foot-tall, concrete dam about 5 miles from Long Island sound. The dam is used for flood control in the area.

Initially, intelligence analysts feared the hackers were targeting another dam: The Arthur R. Bowman Dam in Oregon, a 245-foot-tall earthen structure that irrigates local agriculture and prevents flooding near the town of Prineville, approximately 150 miles southeast of Portland. That belief prompted investigators to notify the White House that Iran had escalted its cyberwar with the United States.

The source told Fox News that the upcoming charges are expected to come out of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York.

****

North Korea reportedly orders more tests to build up nuclear attack capability

FNC: North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un reportedly ordered officials Friday to improve its nuclear attack capability by conducting more weapons test.

Reuters reported, citing North Korea’s official news agency (KCNA), that Kim watched a ballistic missile test take place but was most likely referring to the country firing two rockets into the sea as a response to South Korea’s new round of sanctions.

“Dear comrade Kim Jon Un said work… must be strengthened to improve nuclear attack capability and issued combat tasks to continue nuclear explosion tests to assess the power of newly developed nuclear warheads and tests to improve nuclear attack capability,” KCNA reported.

Earlier this week, Kim was quoted by state media as saying North Korea had miniaturized nuclear warheads to mount on ballistic missiles. Photographs showed him standing around what was perceived to be a nuclear warhead.

North Korea also “liquidated” South Korean assets at the closed joint factory park in the North Korean border town of Daesong and at a scrapped tourism resort at Diamond Mountain Thursday.

In a continuation of bellicose rhetoric that has spiked in recent weeks, it said North Korea will also impose “lethal” military, political and economic blows on the South Korean government to accelerate its “pitiable demise.”

South Korea’s government called the North Korean statement a “provocative act” and warned the North not to damage any South Korean assets.

The missiles fired by North Korea on Thursday flew about 310 miles before falling into the ocean off the country’s east coast, Seoul’s Defense Ministry said. They were believed to be Scud-type missiles, ministry spokesman Moon Sang Gyun said.

Such missile firings by the North are not uncommon when animosity rises. North Korea hates the annual military drills staged by Seoul and Washington, calling them preparations for an invasion. The allies say the drills, which this year are described as the biggest ever, are defensive and routine. North Korea warned at the start of the drills Monday of pre-emptive nuclear strikes.

On Wednesday, North Korea printed photos in official media of a purported mock-up of part of a nuclear warhead, with Kim repeating a claim that his country has developed miniaturized atomic bombs that can be placed on missiles.

Information from secretive, authoritarian North Korea is often impossible to confirm, and the country’s state media have a history of photo manipulation. But it was the first time the North has publicly displayed its purported nuclear designs, though it remains unclear whether the country has functioning warheads of that size or is simply trying to develop one.

South Korea’s Defense Ministry on Wednesday disputed the North’s claim that it possesses miniaturized warheads.

The United States said Wednesday it has dispatched three B-2 stealth bombers capable of launching nuclear as well as conventional weapons to the Asia-Pacific region. The U.S. Strategic Command said the bombers will conduct training with the Australian military during their deployment, which amounts to a show of force at a time of mounting tensions with North Korea.