Text Fw: U.S. looks to nonnuclear weapons to use as deterrent

* Text informed by Bruce Gagnon on April 8, 2010

Wahingtonpost
U.S. looks to nonnuclear weapons to use as deterrent
By Craig Whitlock
Washington Post staff writer
Thursday, April 8, 2010

As the White House pushes for cuts in the U.S. nuclear arsenal, the Pentagon is developing a weapon to help fill the gap: missiles armed with conventional warheads that could strike anywhere in the world in less than an hour.

U.S. military officials say the intercontinental ballistic missiles, known as Prompt Global Strike weapons, are a necessary new form of deterrence against terrorist networks and other adversaries. As envisioned, the conventional missiles would give the White House a fresh military option to consider in a crisis that would not result in a radioactive mushroom cloud.

The Prompt Global Strike program, which the Pentagon has been developing for several years, is already raising hackles in Moscow, where Russian officials predict it could trigger a nonnuclear arms race and complicate President Obama's long-term vision of ridding the world of nuclear weapons. U.S. military officials are also struggling to solve a separate major obstacle: the risk that Russia or China could mistake the launch of a conventional Prompt Global Strike missile for a nuclear one.

"World states will hardly accept a situation in which nuclear weapons disappear, but weapons that are no less destabilizing emerge in the hands of certain members of the international community," Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told reporters Tuesday in Moscow.

The White House says that development of Prompt Global Strike is not affected by the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev are scheduled to sign Thursday in Prague. Analysts say, however, that any conventional ballistic missiles would count the same as nuclear ones under the treaty, which places new limits on each country's stockpile.

Deployment of a conventional ballistic missile is not expected until 2015 at the earliest. But the program has received a recent boost from the Obama administration, which sees the missiles as one cog in an array of defensive and offensive weapons that could ultimately replace nuclear arms.

The administration has asked Congress for $240 million for next year's Prompt Global Strike development programs, a 45 percent increase from the current budget. The military forecasts a total of $2 billion in development costs through 2015 -- a relative bargain by Pentagon standards.

After years of preparation, the Air Force is scheduled to perform an initial flight test of a prototype next month.

"Capabilities like an adaptive missile defense shield, conventional warheads with worldwide reach and others that we are developing enable us to reduce the role of nuclear weapons," Vice President Biden said in a February speech at the National Defense University. "With these modern capabilities, even with deep nuclear reductions, we will remain undeniably strong."

Nuclear arms have formed the backbone of U.S. deterrence strategy for six decades. Although the strategy worked during the Cold War, military leaders say they need other powerful weapons in their arsenal to deter adversaries who assume that the United States would refrain from taking the extreme step of ordering a nuclear strike.

"Deterrence can no longer just be nuclear weapons. It has to be broader," Marine Gen. James E. Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and a leading proponent of Prompt Global Strike, told a conference last month.

Some U.S. military officials say their current nonnuclear options are too limited or too slow. Unlike intercontinental ballistic missiles, which travel at several times the speed of sound, it can take up to 12 hours for cruise missiles to hit faraway targets. Long-range bombers likewise can take many hours to fly into position for a strike.

"Today, unless you want to go nuclear, it's measured in days, maybe weeks" until the military can launch an attack with regular forces, Cartwright said. "That's just too long in the world that we live in." Other military officials said potential scenarios might include the discovery of an imminent plot by terrorists to use a weapon of mass destruction, or indications that an enemy state was preparing to launch a missile attack on a U.S. ally.

The Air Force prototype Prompt Global Strike design is a modified Peacekeeper III intercontinental ballistic missile. If it is successful, the plan is to deploy a handful of the missiles at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.

The weapons would be overseen by the U.S. Strategic Command, which is responsible for the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Air Force Gen. Kevin P. Chilton, who leads the command, based near Omaha, has said he sees Prompt Global Strike as a niche weapon, not one that could substitute for nuclear arms.

"I look at that as an additional weapon in the quiver of the president to give him options in time of crisis today, in which he maybe only has a nuclear option for a timely response," Chilton told a House committee last month.

Although it is technically simple to replace nuclear warheads on a missile with conventional ones, Prompt Global Strike has been dogged by a significant problem: how to ensure that Russia could tell the difference if a launch occurred.

To alleviate the risk of an accidental Russian nuclear retaliation, the Air Force is developing a conventional, land-based ballistic missile that would fire into space at a much lower altitude than nuclear warheads, something that could be detected by Russian early-warning radar systems. U.S. military officials have also said they might be willing to grant access to Russian inspectors, or warn Moscow about a conventional strike on a third-party target.

The Army is working on a separate design that is not as far along in its development. The Navy had been preparing yet another design -- a conventional version of its submarine-based Trident missile -- but Congress curtailed that program two years ago because of concerns that it was too difficult to distinguish from a nuclear-armed Trident.

Critics acknowledge that the technological hurdles are surmountable. But they say a more basic problem is that taking the nuclear part out of the equation could make it too easy for the White House to order a Prompt Global Strike attack. Intelligence in fast-breaking crises is rarely rock-solid, they note, and could result in a rushed strike on the wrong target.

"People watch '24' and think that's how intelligence comes in," said Jeffrey G. Lewis, director of the Nuclear Strategy and Nonproliferation Initiative at the New America Foundation. "It's not like the president has his brain cybernetically linked to satellite images."

But proponents of Prompt Global Strike said its primary value would be in adding a level of deterrence to the U.S. nuclear arsenal. "At the end of the day, anybody who would be your adversary walks away thinking, 'If I'm going to do this, I'm going to pay dearly,' " Cartwright said last month. "There just can't be any doubt in their mind."


Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
PO Box 652
Brunswick, ME 04011
(207) 443-9502
globalnet@mindspring.com
www.space4peace.org
http://space4peace.blogspot.com/ (blog)

Text Fwd: United States, Stop the Enforcement [of South Korea] to Join the MD System!

* * Makiko Sato thankfully translated this site in Japanese. See HERE.

* Image source: Tongil News (photo by Koh Sung-Jin)
The Korean letters in the top right say, 'We desperately oppose the participation in the BMD
that runs counter to the NK-US, NK-SK summit meetings.'
The big letters in the banner say, "We denounce the United States who attempts
to draw the South Korea into missile defense system."

* Image source: Missile Threat.com

* Below is the arbitrary translation of the Tongil News article on Feb. 5, 2010

* Blue letters are the fixed


“United States, Stop the Enforcement [of South Korea] to Join the MD System”:
Civil Social Organizations Repel the United States Report Which Specifies ‘the South Korea as An Important MD Partner’
Feb. 5 (Friday), 2010
Koh Sung-Jin (kolong81 (at) tongilnews.com)

The civil society organizations are repelling in voice against the official ‘[Ballistic Missile Defense Review] Report,’ published by the U.S. Defense Department that stipulated the South Korea as the partnership country of the BMD system, saying “ it is the intention to draw the South Korea into the U.S. missile defense system.”

The three organizations of the Solidarity for Peace and Reunification of Korea (SPARK), Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU), and Korea Alliance of Progressive Movements (KAPM), having the press interview in front of the gate NO. 5, Yongsan USFK base (Headquarter of the United States Forces of Korea), Seoul at 11am, Feb. 5, and saying that “The United States, in her Review Report last Feb. 1, is calling the South Korea that has not made official to join the Missile Defense system, as the important partner of the U. S. MD system along with Japan," criticized that, “It came out from her intention to manufacture the matter of the South Korea’s joining of the U. S. MD system as an established fact.”

The organizations further viewed it, as “the hidden intention to clearly integrate the South Korean MD into the United States centered North East Asia Theater Missile Defense.”

The organizations saying in the press release that “It is the openly known fact acknowledged by the former & current U. S. officials, that the reason that the North Korea entered the development of the nuclear and ICBM is because of the United States’ military threat against the North Korea”, pointed out the danger of the establishment of the BMD system, saying, “The United States plan of MD establishment would provoke the repulsion and response not only from the North Korea but also from China and Russia and would make the routine of the unlimited arms competition and chronic war crisis.”

Following it, the organizations pointed out that, “The MD establishment cost that would take 7~8trillion won [* about $6~7billion] would not only put the burden that cannot be bearable to South & North Korea” but it is obvious that ‘It would be a big obstacle to the non-nuclearization of the Korean peninsula and to the conclusion of the peace agreement.”

These organizations saying, “In the US review report, “operational coordination” between the South Korea and United States is, by establishing the MD operation system attacking against the North Korea, centered around the USFK MD system which is overwhelmingly far superior, and by subjugating the ‘Korean style MD’ as the below system supporting it, having the high possibility to submit the ‘Korean style MD’ into the part of global US missile defense system.”

They, saying that in the report, “[the phrase of] “in negotiation about the need of the missile defense in South Korea” is, by taking the form of setting the SK-US joint operational requirement condition to make a trickery as if the South Korea is volunteering to join into the United States MD system, from the South Korean’s own need,” demanded the United States to immediately stop the enforcement of the South Korea to join the MD system.”

Oh Hye-Ran, the chief of the Peace Disarmament team of the Solidarity for Peace And Reunification of Korea saying that “The position of the Ministry of National Defense, ROK, regarding joining into the United States ballistic missile defense system is not different from that of the past. Despite that, relating to that matter, the person in charge of the United States said that the both countries of the South Korea & the United States were processing the negotiation on the proper role of the South Korea.” pointed out that “It is because the United States is enforcing the participation of the South Korean government, by making pressure on it with whatever means.”


* Related blog

http://nobasestorieskorea.blogspot.com/2010/02/text-fwd-us-and-skorea-diverge-on-us.html
Hankyoreh
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Text Fwd: U.S. and S.Korea diverge on U.S.-led missile defense system

Text Fwd: Ready To Strike: U.S. Unified Nuclear Global Strike Command

* Image source/ caption: Eloise Ogden/Minot Daily News
Members of the 91st Security Forces with the 91st Missile Wing at Minot Air Force Base train
for close quarters combat Nov. 5. The wing will be under a new command, Air Force Global Strike Command,
as of Dec. 1 but the jobs of wing personnel will not change.
The 5th Bomb Wing becomes part of the new command Feb. 1.

* Image source/ caption: Eloise Ogden/Minot Daily News
A crew with the 54th Helicopter Squadron at Minot Air Force Base gets ready to leave the base Nov. 5
to support the mission of the 91st Missile Wing in the Minot missile field.
When the helicopter squadron members and others in the missile wing become part of Air Force Global Strike Command on Dec. 1, their jobs remain the same. The 5th Bomb Wing will join the new command Feb. 1.

* Image source: Global Security
'Barksdale AFB', Louisiana

* Text informed by Rick Rozoff (rwrozoff@yahoo.com)

'It is the only base in the Air Force with dual nuclear-capable wings the 5th Bomb Wing and its B-52 bombers and the 91st Missile Wing and its 150 intercontinental ballistic missiles in underground facilities in northwest and north-central North Dakota.
When the new command is fully operational, it will have more than 23,000 people....Air Force Global Strike Command, which will bring together all strategic nuclear forces under one commander, was activated Aug. 7 at Barksdale AFB, the base selected for its headquarters.'


Minot Daily News
November 15, 2009
Ready to strike
Missile, bomb wings to become part of Global Strike Command
By ELOISE OGDEN, Regional Editor (eogden@minotdailynews.com)

MINOT AIR FORCE BASE Members of the 91st Missile Wing at Minot Air Force Base will make history Dec. 1 when they become part of a new command Air Force Global Strike Command. The new command will oversee all of the Air Force's nuclear forces intercontinental ballistic missiles and bombers.

They'll be under a new command but the men and women who serve in the Minot missile wing won't notice much change in their jobs, except they'll be wearing the new Global Strike Command patch on their uniform, say new command officials.

Neither will airmen with the 5th Bomb Wing at the Minot base see a major change in their jobs when that wing becomes part of the new command on Feb. 1.

However, Minot AFB will be the most unique Air Force base in the new command, as it is now.

It is the only base in the Air Force with dual nuclear-capable wings the 5th Bomb Wing and its B-52 bombers and the 91st Missile Wing and its 150 intercontinental ballistic missiles in underground facilities in northwest and north-central North Dakota.

When the new command is fully operational, it will have more than 23,000 people, said Lt. Gen. Frank G. Klotz, commander of Global Strike Command, who visited the base and Minot community last month.

Klotz, who has a nuclear background, is a former commander of the 91st Missile Wing at Minot AFB.

The new command was established as part of a roadmap developed by the Secretary of the Air Force and Chief of Staff of the Air Force to refocus energy on the Air Force's nuclear enterprise, Klotz said.

Lt. Col. John Thomas, director of Public Affairs for Global Strike Command, said what is less visible in this reinvigoration of the nuclear enterprise is an organization which has been created in the Air Staff at the Pentagon, which is just about nuclear issues.

Thomas accompanied Klotz to the Minot base and Minot community last month.

Air Force Global Strike Command, which will bring together all strategic nuclear forces under one commander, was activated Aug. 7 at Barksdale AFB, the base selected for its headquarters.

Currently, there are about 250 people at the headquarters. More people come in the door every day," Thomas said. "By the end of summer 2010, there will be 900 or so people who are just dedicated to the reinvigoration of the nuclear enterprise," he said.

The new command will be taking on the nuclear-capable missiles ICBMs and bombers B-52s and B-2s. The B-1 bombers will not become part of the new command because that bomber does not have a nuclear role, Thomas said.

A second squadron of B-52s, the 69th Bomb Squadron at Minot AFB, was reactivated in September and joins the 23rd Bomb Squadron at the Minot base.

Laurie Arellano, chief of Public Affairs at the Minot base, said about 200 military members have arrived at the base out of the 700 or so military members plus their families projected for the new B-52 squadron.

The new squadron should be fully operational by October 2010, she said. "We will be operational with all planes by that time," she said. The base will be getting more planes from Barksdale AFB to add to its existing fleet.

When the ICBM units come under the new command on Dec. 1 and the bomber units on Feb. 1, the command will be fully operational.

But Thomas said they won't be fully operational and capable until the end of the summer. "It will take a while to build out that whole structure. In the meantime, Air Combat Command and Air Force Space Command are there to make sure nothing is dropped," he said.

-
Host wing, installation commander

Under the new command, the 5th Bomb Wing will remain as it is now as the host wing at the Minot base and its commander will remain in his capacity as bomb wing commander and installation commander, Klotz said.

Col. Douglas Cox became commander of the bomb wing replacing Col. Joel Westa Oct. 30. Earlier in October, Col. Fred Stoss III replaced Col. Chris Ayres as missile wing commander.

Even for the short time that the missile wing is under the new command and the bomb wing still is under Air Combat Command, the relationship of the bomb wing being the host wing will be unchanged, Thomas said. He said the Public Affairs Office at the Minot base also will remain under the bomb wing and support both wings as it does now.

Although there aren't major changes planned for Minot AFB, Klotz is looking to replace the helicopters for larger, speedier ones to support the post 9-11 mission. The 54th Helicopter Squadron, which is a unit of the 91st Missile Wing, flies UH-1N helicopters.

By being unified under a single major command, Thomas said perhaps it will make it easier for resourcing the base.

Global Strike Command officials will be keeping a close watch on two important reviews being done by the Department of Defense.

Those reviews the Nuclear Posture Review and the Quadrennial Defense Review are under way now, Klotz told members of the Minot Area Chamber of Commerce when he spoke to them last month.

The reviews determine force structure requirements and final reports for both reviews will be provided to Congress in early 2010.

Whatever the outcome is of the reviews, Klotz said the role of the airmen at the Minot base will be the same.


__________________________________________________________________
Fact Box

Air Force Global Strike Command units

As of Dec. 1, 20th Air Force, with its headquarters at F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyo., will come under Air Force Global Strike Command, along with its units:

- 91st Missile Wing at Minot AFB

- 90th Missile Wing at F.E. Warren AFB

- 341st Missile Wing at Malmstrom AFB, Mont.

All three missile wings are intercontinental ballistic missile wings.

As of Feb. 1, 8th Air Force, with its headquarters at Barksdale AFB, will come under the new command, along with its units:

- 5th Bomb Wing at Minot AFB

- 2nd Bomb Wing at Barksdale AFB

- 509th Bomb Wing at Whiteman AFB, Mo.

The Minot and Barksdale wings have B-52s and the Missouri wing has the B-2.

Two direct reporting units also will be part of the new command:

- 576th Flight Test Squadron (ICBM test) at Vandenberg AFB, Calif.

- 625th Strategic Operations Squadron at Offutt AFB, Neb.
____________________________________________________________________

===========================
Stop NATO