How the US military is beating hackers at their own game

PAUL SZOLDRA

MAY 25, 2016

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/us-military-cyberwar-2016-5

There’s an unseen world war that has been fought for years with no clear battle lines, few rules of engagement, and no end in sight.

But it’s not a shooting war; not a war where combatants have been killed or wounded — at least not yet.

It’s a war that pits nations against each other for dominance in cyberspace, and the United States, like other nations employing professional hackers as “cyber soldiers,” sees it as a battlefield just like any other.

“It’s like an operational domain: Sea, land, air, space, and cyber,” Charlie Stadtlander, chief spokesperson for US Army Cyber Command, told Tech Insider. “It’s a place where our presence exists. Cyber is a normal part of military operations and needs to be considered as such.”

As US military leaders warn of the growing progress of Russia, China, and North Korea in cyberspace, the Pentagon has ramped up its own efforts in what it calls the “cyber domain” after the release of a new cyber strategy in April 2015.

Malware goes to war: Potential tools, uses, and targets of cyberweapons

By Michael Kassner

May 25, 2016,

"We are dropping cyber bombs. We have never done that before."

During a February 28, 2016 interview with NPR, Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter confirms this statement by Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert O. Work, and states the US is using cyberweapons in the battle against ISIS. The rules by which the Department of Defense (DoD) can operate in cyberspace, create cyberweapons, and use the weapons are outlined in the DoD Law of War Manual (PDF, June 2015 revision).

There is currently precious little known (for obvious reasons) about state-sponsored cyberweapons and their deployment. Two researchers at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County — Richard Forno, cybersecurity lecturer and internet researcher, and Anupam Joshi, professor, Department of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering — dug up what was available, and presented it in The Conversation article America is 'dropping cyberbombs' — but how do they work?

"The country's actual cyber capabilities are classified; we, as researchers, are limited by what has been made public," write Forno and Joshi. "However, we can analyze the underlying technologies and look at the global strategic considerations of those seeking to wage cyber warfare. That work allows us to offer ideas about cyberweapons and how they might be used."

What might be considered a cyberweapon?

Rather Than Fearing 'Cyber 9/11,' Prepare for 'Cyber Katrina'

by Andrew Lauland

Source Link

While the nation's attention is rightly focused on the threat of international terrorism and the horror that can be unleashed with conventional weapons, other less conventional but potentially devastating threats still loom.

One such threat is the risk of a cyber-based attack. There is almost universal agreement on the growing risk of a large-scale cyber attack on entities within the continental United States — including critical infrastructure operators, financial institutions and government itself — which could lead to significant economic and social disruption, including the loss of life.

However, rather than fearing a still-undefined “cyber 9/11,” the response to another tragic event in America's history may hold equally important lessons — and solutions — for confronting the cyber threat.

In 2005, Hurricane Katrina struck the city of New Orleans and the greater Gulf Coast with devastating effect. However, neither the threat of a storm of Katrina's magnitude nor the systems and processes for responding to it were new. Katrina represented a major test of the nation's post-9/11 systems for a synchronized, effective, whole-of-nation response to a large-scale emergency, which rapidly overcame the ability of the impacted state and local governments to respond to it.

The Online Fight Against ISIS

APR 1, 2016 

Source Link

WASHINGTON, DC – Even as the United States and its allies carry out aerial bombardments in Iraq and Syria, their target, the Islamic State (ISIS), may be preparing to retaliate on another front. By taking the battle into cyberspace, ISIS would gain many of the advantages of asymmetric warfare – unless the US organizes itself to counter the group’s efforts.

The entry barriers to cyber warfare are remarkably low, even for non-state actors. Even if ISIS does not currently have the capability to carry out cyber-attacks, it is unlikely to find it difficult to recruit followers with the requisite expertise; in the past, other terrorist and insurgent organizations, including Al Qaeda, have done just that. There are bound to be 

Experts have cautioned that ISIS could strike unprotected infrastructure or private residences. Hundreds of thousands of industrial and commercial control systems, including the rapidly growing Internet of Things, are leaving ever-wider swaths of everyday life vulnerable to disruption. And far more troubling is the warning by the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a nonprofit devoted to strengthening global security, that many civilian and military nuclear facilities are inadequately protected against cyber-attacks.

Late last year, computer and network security researchers revealed, to little surprise or fanfare, that ISIS was active on the so-called dark web. These websites, which are invisible to search engines and accessible only through specialized software, are often havens for purveyors of child pornography, drugs, or other illicit products, including hacking services and malicious software. This development was the first sign that ISIS was actively seeking to develop a cyber capability that it could deploy even if it loses its footing on the ground.

Inside the secret digital arms race: Facing the threat of a global cyberwar

By Steve Ranger

http://www.techrepublic.com/article/inside-the-secret-digital-arms-race/

As nations spend billions of dollars stockpiling digital weapons and tension grows between them, the risk of world cyber warfare has suddenly turned offensive.

The team was badly spooked, that much was clear. The bank was already reeling from two attacks on its systems, strikes that had brought it to a standstill and forced the cancellation of a high profile IPO.

The board had called in the team of security experts to brief them on the developing crisis. After listening to some of the mass of technical detail, the bank's CEO cut to the chase.

"What should I tell the Prime Minister when I get to Cobra?" he demanded, a reference to the emergency committee the government had set up as it scrambled to respond to what was looking increasingly like a coordinated cyberattack.

The security analysts hesitated, shifting in their seats, fearing this was the beginning, not the end, of the offensive.

"We think this could just be a smokescreen," one said, finally. And it was. Before the end of next day, the attack had spread from banks to transport and utilities, culminating in an attack on a nuclear power station.

The mounting horror of the analysts, the outrage and lack of understanding from the execs was all disturbingly authentic, but fortunately, none of it was real. The scene formed part of a wargame, albeit one designed by the UK's GCHQ surveillance agency among others to attract new recruits into the field of cybersecurity.

Army tests tactical network for advanced adversaries

Jen Judson

May 26, 2016 

Source Link

Doug Wiltsie, assistant secretary of the Army and director for System of Systems Engineering and Integration, says you have to look at all the disparate networks as one system. Staff 

FORT BLISS, Texas and WASHINGTON — The Army was preparing to ship out after helping Gorgas defend itself from the belligerent state of Donovia. Gorgas and Donovia are in peace talks — or so the Army thought.

Donovia is again up to no good along the border. Gorgas fears it is using separatist regions, which claim Donovian descent and wish to align with the country, to try to seize terrain and resources in Gorgas.

Sound familiar? That’s because the scenario mimics the ongoing Ukrainian-Russian conflict. But the Army isn’t in Russia, it’s in the expansive, desolate desert of Texas along the US-Mexico border for Network Integration Evaluation 16.2.

The Army is using a scenario similar to what it might encounter in a conflict with Russia, which involves full-spectrum operations to prove out and refine emerging aspects of its tactical network.

“It stresses the network differently than it would if, say, we were just doing counterinsurgency or just doing offensive operations,” Doug Wiltsie, executive director of the Systems of Systems Engineering and Integration Directorate with the Army’s Acquisition, Logistics and Technology branch, told Defense News in an interview May 26 at the C4ISR & Networks conference in Arlington, Virginia. “It really stresses the network in how we are moving, so nodes are moving, and then how much information is being passed.”

Moving On In Vietnam, But Remembering Its Lessons

by The New York Times

May 25, 2016

Moving On In Vietnam, But Remembering Its Lessons by John Kerry, John McCain and Bob Kerry

As President Obama visits Vietnam, we are struck by the fact that most citizens of both countries have no living memory of a conflict that claimed the lives of more than 58,000 Americans and upward of a million Vietnamese.

As Americans who fought in that war, we are frequently asked about its lessons. There are few easy answers, in part because every conflict is unique and because we have learned that attempts to apply past lessons to new crises sometimes do more harm than good. But a few things are clear.

The first is not personal to us, but a principle that applies to all who wear the uniform: We must never again confuse a war with the warriors. American veterans deserve our deepest respect, gratitude and support whenever and wherever they serve.

The second lesson is that our leaders need to be honest with Congress and the American people about our plans, goals and strategy when the lives of our fighting men and women are put at risk. (The mission of the first American combat troops deployed to Vietnam was described as “flood relief.”)

Fundamental Changes in Warfare

by Dylan Farley

May 26, 2016 

Fundamental Changes in Warfare

This paper was developed through the TRADOC G-2 Mad Scientist E-Intern Pilot in 2016. The objective is to educate the students on emerging concepts that will impact the future of the Army, as well as to leverage the E Intern thoughts and approaches to addressing these challenges. As a part of the program, students were given monthly assignments where they were encouraged to apply their specific interests and talents toward a Mad Scientist focus area, in this instance, Dense Urban Areas and Megacities of the Future. TRADOC G-2 Mad Scientist team is exploring the possibility of expanding the E-Intern effort in order to develop a global cultural knowledge network of cross-disciplinary scientists for the future force and employ the E-Interns to refine our approach to providing socio-cultural intelligence products.

Fundamental changes in the character of war and warfighting technologies necessitate that the United States Army focus on developing its personnel and continuing to advance technology innovations. As we move into an increasing complex world and unprecedentedly intertwined international system, our adversaries can acquire new technologies much quicker than ever before. In addition, our enemies are improving themselves in a diverse array of capabilities, including some large overarching structural changes. These adaptations are being made with the express purpose of challenging American military preeminence in the international system. The strategic environment will be engaged at a variety of angles as we see an increase in hybrid warriors as well as highly skilled cyber forces in even middle-tier states. If the United States wants to be prepared to engage each threat, whether individually or simultaneously, it must make significant training and strategic changes in order to effectively address each threat.

Enemy Adaptations

Modi’s Iran Visit: Chabahar To Provide Strategic Edge To India – Analysis

By Brig Anil Gupta (Retd.)* 

MAY 25, 2016

Source Link

Chabahar is a deep-sea port located in Sistan-Baluchistan area of Iran at the mouth of Gulf of Oman. It is a strategically located port because it provides direct access to the Indian Ocean, enabling bypassing of Strait of Hormuz, a traditional choke point that separates Persian Gulf from the Gulf of Oman and the Indian Ocean. Incidentally, 1/5th of oil consumed worldwide currently passes through the Strait of Hormuz.

Chabahar lies outside the Persian Gulf and can be easily accessed from India’s western coast. In fact, the distance from New Delhi to Mumbai is more than the distance from India’s Kandla port on western coast to Chabahar. It is located 45 nautical miles away from the port of Gwadar which is being built by China in Pakistan’s Balochistan. Gwadar is the outlet to Indian Ocean from the proposed China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) termed as a “game changer” in the region by both the Chinese and the Pakistanis. Gwadar provides tremendous strategic advantage to China, not only in its pursuit of encircling India, but also in the domination of Indian Ocean an unchallenged domain of India so far.

How to Create a United Southern Asia

By Pritam Banerjee

May 25, 2016

http://thediplomat.com/2016/05/how-to-create-a-united-southern-asia/

The 12th ASEAN-India Summit during the 25th ASEAN Summit at the Myanmar International Convention Centre in Naypyitaw November 12, 2014. 

A blueprint for integrating BIMSTEC and ASEAN through a Southern Asian Multi-Sectoral Regional Agreement.

In August 2014 Prime Minister Narendra Modi made “Act East” a cornerstone of his government’s foreign policy. Since then, India has had a more focused engagement with the region, with several high profile bilateral visits and a particular focus on completing infrastructure projects. But the “Act East” Policy sorely lacks a strategic fulcrum and an end result to work towards. It is such clarity of strategic intents and end goals that makes the U.S. “pivot to Asia” and China’s “One Belt One Road (OBOR)” such powerful foreign policy tools, while India’s “Act East” suffers from suspicions of being the old “Look East” wine put in a new bottle. In other words, regional actors continue to see India as a relatively peripheral player in the region compared to the United States, China, and even Japan. India is seen as a reactive agenda taker and not a proactive agenda setter with a firm political and economic commitment

Did India Hide a Failed Supersonic Missile Test?

By Franz-Stefan Gady

May 26, 2016

http://thediplomat.com/2016/05/did-india-hide-a-failed-supersonic-missile-test/

Despite reports to the contrary, the test of an Indian ballistic missile defense system apparently was a failure.

A May 15 test of India’s indigenously designed ballistic missile defense (BMD) system was a failure, despite claims to contrary by Defense Research Development Organization (DRDO) scientists, The Hindu reports.

According to unnamed sources, the interceptor missile was never launched from the Integrated Test Range–the Indian military’s primary missile test facility–on Abdul Kalam Island, off the coast of Odisha, on May 15; the incoming nuclear-capable Dhanush ballistic missile merely fell into the Bay of Bengal, with no interception taking place.

“Post-flight analysis is going on. We do not know whether there was problem in detecting the missile, whether radars tracked it and communicated it to the interceptor,” one source told The Hindu. A similar test failed in April 2015 with the interceptor missile plunging into the Bay of Bengal a few seconds after take-off. India has been testing its BMD system repeatedly since 2007.

DRDO initially claimed that a single-stage Ashvin Advanced Defense interceptor missile took off from a mobile launcher at 11:15 a.m. local time on May 15 and successfully destroyed an Dhanush ballistic missile at endo-atmospheric altitudes of 20-40 kilometers 

Despite Setback, Taliban Will Force Greater Violence On Afghanistan

By Chayanika Saxena*

MAY 26, 2016

Source Link

Taken down in a drone attack, the rehbar (leader) of Afghan Taliban, Mullah Akhtar Mansour is reported to have been eliminated on the evening of May 21, 2016. Confirming his death, official sources placed in both the US Oval office and the National Directorate of Security of Afghanistan are maintaining that Mansour was killed in the Pakistani town of Dalbandin while he was journeying back to Pakistan from Iran, ostensibly on a Pakistani passport in which he was recognized as Muhammad Wali.

It is believed that the Amir of the Afghan Taliban was in talks with Iran; having been there for close to two months, purportedly with the intention of cooperating with the authorities in Tehran in what appears to be their common fight against the ISIS. As is evidentially known, the gruesomely militant outfit- Islamic State- has managed to make inroads into the eastern provinces of Afghanistan, especially in Nangarhar, challenging not only the authority of the Afghan government, but also that of the Afghan Taliban by claiming to be the ‘true’ representative of the ‘most fidel reflection of Islamic law and governance’ . In fact, if the establishment of the vilayet (district) Khorasan of the Islamic State is anything to go by, the Afghan Taliban, which has already been under stress owing to succession wars and a tightening Pakistani noose, has been staring at its potential displacement and a probable replacement on Afghanistan’s political scene.

Mullah Akhtar Mansoor’s Death: Implications Of Taliban Chief’s Killing – Analysis

By Abdul Basit*

MAY 26, 2016

Source Link

The elimination of Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Mansoor in a US drone attack is a major setback for the insurgent movement but is unlikely to change the overall nature of the conflict in Afghanistan. Mansoor’s killing will trigger a new power struggle within the Taliban but whether prospects for peace will now improve remains an open question.

The killing of the Afghan Taliban chief Mullah Akhtar Mansoor in a US drone strike is a major setback for the insurgent movement. His death comes barely a year after the disclosure of the Taliban’s founding leader Mullah Umar’s death. Mansoor has been targeted by multiple US drones in Pakistan’s Balochistan province. The US considered him a major hurdle to peace and reconciliation in Afghanistan. However, it is yet to be seen if his killing will have a significant impact on the Taliban’s ongoing spring offensive in Afghanistan, and whether it will improve the prospects of peace talks or undermine them further.

In July 2015 when Mansoor assumed the leadership of the Afghan Taliban, finding a political solution to the Afghan conflict looked achievable. Given his politically accommodative nature and closeness with Pakistani military establishment, the stakeholders of the Afghan conflict looked towards his appointment favourably, in hopes of reaching a political compromise. However, the developments that transpired following his appointment were concerning.

New Phase of US Drone Campaign

KILLING THE EMIR: WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THE STRIKE THAT KILLED MANSOUR AND WHAT IT SAYS ABOUT PAKISTAN AND THE TALIBAN

SAMEER LALWANI

MAY 25, 2016

Source Link

Last Friday, following another uninspiring meeting of the Quadrilateral Coordination Group, Pakistan issued a statement that more needed to be done militarily to deny Taliban military gains and bring the group back to the negotiating table. The next day, the United States announced that it had conducted a drone strike against Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Mansour, and President Obama later confirmed his death. A number of analysts and former U.S. government officials noted that the first drone strike ever in Pakistan’s Balochistan province had crossed a key threshold both in terms of location as well as the target

Soon after the strike, former U.S. Special Envoy to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad raised two important questions: Will Pakistan start to cooperate with the United States on Afghanistan? Will this strike fragment and degrade the Taliban?

The answer to the first question of future Pakistani behavior rests in part on another that some have raised: What role — if any — did Pakistan play in the latest strike? Recent accounts remain ambiguous. If Washington managed to elicit some cooperation from Islamabad to pressure the Taliban, it could reveal some potential overlap of U.S. and Pakistani interests. If the attack was conducted without Pakistani involvement, then it suggests that despite a reduced footprint, the United States still possesses capabilities to independently disrupt organizations, coerce adversaries, and deny objectives of actors in the region. Either way, the strike against Mansour suggests a tactical achievement for the United States in Afghanistan.

Taliban Name New Leader

Mujib Mashal

May 25, 2016

Taliban Name New Leader After Confirming Predecessor Died in U.S. Strike

KABUL, Afghanistn — The Taliban broke their silence early Wednesday over the death of their leader, Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour, confirming in a statement that he had been killed in an American drone strike.

Mawlawi Haibatullah Akhundzada, a deputy to Mullah Mansour, was selected as the new leader of the Taliban, and Sarajuddin Haqqani and Mullah Muhammad Yaqoub were chosen as his deputies, the movement’s leadership council said in the statement. Mullah Yaqoub is the son of the previous Taliban chief, Mullah Muhammad Omar, whose death was acknowledged in July 2015.

President Obama said Monday that Mullah Mansour had been killed in a drone strike Saturday in a restive province of Pakistan.

The Taliban’s spokesmen, who publish regular updates from battlefields across Afghanistan, had remained silent since Mullah Mansour’s killing, as the movement’s leaders convened in the Pakistani city of Quetta to discuss his burial, as well as his successor.

One of their first meetings was at the home of Mawlawi Haibatullah, a figure with deep religious credentials who had been a lesser-known deputy to Mullah Mansour. Over the past year, more attention had focused on another deputy, Mr. Haqqani, who increasingly had been running the day-to-day war for the Taliban as Mullah Mansour was occupied with a campaign of quashing internal dissent and with travel abroad.

Taliban Leadership Has Gathered in Pakistani City of Quetta to Pick a New Leader

MUJIB MASHAL and TAIMOOR SHAH

May 25, 2016

Shaken, Taliban Begin Effort to Replace Dead Leader, Mullah Mansour

KABUL, Afghanistan — For the second time in less than a year, senior Taliban leaders have convened in the Pakistani city of Quetta to deliberate how to replace a dead supreme leader.

Unlike last summer’s gatherings, where some leaders arrived in convoys of hundreds of vehicles to choose Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour as the successor to their founding leader, Mullah Muhammad Omar, Taliban figures described the tone of the meetings over the past three days as decidedly low-key, and even shocked.

They described how the American drone strike that was said to have killed Mullah Mansour in Pakistan’s Baluchistan Province on Saturday also destroyed the perception that the protection they had received for years in their Pakistani havens could be permanent. Some angrily accused Pakistani intelligence agents of selling out Mullah Mansour’s location to the Americans.

Taliban spokesmen and commanders were happy to jump on the phone last summer, first to reject news of Mullah Omar’s death and then to project an image of unity behind Mullah Mansour. This time, there has been mostly silence. Several commanders and participants who could still be reached said the days of heedless cellphone communication in Baluchistan were gone — another casualty of the American drone strike that some officials said was aided by Mullah Mansour’s repeated use of a small collection of phones.

Key Reasons For Spread Of Extremism In Middle East – Interview

BY KOUROSH ZIABARI AND IRAN REVIEW 

MAY 25, 2016

Source Link

It’s said that ISIS has recently conceded significant parts of the territories it used to dominate since 2014.

Rebels and Daesh militants have been driven out of the northern parts of Syria through the combined effect of separate operations by pro-government forces and the U.S. and Russian airstrikes. Foreign Policy reportsthat at the end of 2014, ISIS ruled over around one-third of Iraq and one-third of Syria, but now, according to IHS Jane’s 360, they’ve lost 22% of that territory.

With the major losses in territory it has suffered and the diminution of its fighters, ISIS still poses a valid threat to peace and security not only in the Middle East but across the world, and it’s imperative to investigate their origins, their goals and identify the best conduits to eradicate them.

On the sidelines of the workshop “D-Goals of Preventing Violent Extremism through Education: Educating for Development, Diversity and Dialogue” on the final day of the 7th United Nations Alliance of Civilizations Global Forum and Youth Forum in Baku held from April 25-27, I had the chance to talk to a noted British political scientist who is the author and co-author of more than 40 books on international relations and religion. Jeffrey Haynes is a Professor of Politics and the Director of theCentre for the Study of Religion, Conflict and Cooperation at the London Metropolitan University. Prof. Haynes is the Chair of the International Political Science Association’s Research Committee, “Religion and Politics.” His most recent book is “Faith-based Organizations at the United Nations” published in 2014 by Palgrave Macmillan.

Chinese Maritime Expansion Poses Challenge For Region – Analysis

By Divya Kumar Soti* 

MAY 25, 2016

Source Link

Last few months have witnessed heightened activity in the Asia-Pacific as maritime geopolitics as well as occurrence of certain incidents which have further heated up the strategic environment from Indian Ocean Region (IOR) to South China Sea.

But before we proceed to examine all this, it will be beneficial to look back at the attempts made by various countries at strategic alliances over the last decade or so, to restore the balance of power and update the geopolitical equations in view of China’s rise and its attempt to break out of the maritime dilemma with a revivalist as well as a revisionist mindset.

In 2007; India, US, Japan and Australia had opened the quadrilateral security dialogue which was supposed to pave way for joint exercises, maritime patrolling and strategic cooperation. Though not much was said to keep the idea low profile and also probably because the architects were themselves not sure whether such clear cut tilts were actually sustainable in view of economic leverages China commanded at that time. Those apprehensions proved to be true when Canberra pulled out of the Quad giving more importance to Beijing’s sensitivities and its economic relations with China and all the while New Delhi remained perplexed as to the level of the engagement with such a strategic formation.

China Launches Private Investment Probe – Analysis

By Michael Lelyveld

MAY 26, 2016

http://www.eurasiareview.com/26052016-china-launches-private-investment-probe-analysis/

China’s government is now trying to reverse a slowdown in private investment as concerns rise over weakening support for economic growth.

On May 4, the cabinet-level State Council ordered a month-long investigation to see how local authorities are implementing government policies on private investment, official media said.

The inspection followed disappointing numbers on first-quarter investment and falling growth from the private sector, which provides over 60 percent of China’s gross domestic product and 80 percent of its jobs, the official Xinhua news agency reported.

Total fixed-asset investment (FAI) of 8.5 trillion yuan (U.S. $1.3 trillion) rose 10.7 percent in the first quarter from a year earlier, according to the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS).

But growth, other than rural household investment, was heavily skewed toward the state-controlled sector, which increased investment by 23.3 percent. Private investment in fixed assets like buildings and machinery rose only 5.7 percent, down sharply from a 10.1-percent growth rate in 2015.

Is China Really That Dangerous?

Doug Bandow

May 25, 2016 

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/china-really-dangerous-16347?page=show

The United States dominates the globe militarily. Washington possesses the most powerful armed forces, accounts for roughly 40 percent of the globe’s military outlays, and is allied with every major industrialized state save China and Russia.

Yet the bipartisan hawks who dominate U.S. foreign policy see threats at every turn. For some, the People’s Republic of China is replacing the Soviet Union as America’s chief adversary. They view another military buildup as the only answer.

The PRC’s rise is reshaping the globe. Today, the PRC ranks second only to the United States economically. Increased financial resources have enabled Beijing to take on a much greater international role.

Of greatest concern in Washington is China’s military buildup. Indeed, a novel reportedly making the rounds at the Pentagon is Ghost Fleet, which posits a Chinese attack on Hawaii.

The Department of Defense publishes an annual review of China’s military. The latest report warns that the PRC “continued to improve key capabilities,” including ballistic and cruise missiles, aircraft and air defense, information capabilities, submarines, and amphibious and airborne assault units. The Chinese military “is also focusing on counterspace, offensive cyber operations, and electronic warfare.” Further, Beijing “continued to modernize and to restructure its ground forces to create a fully modern army.”

China, US Butt Heads Over Nuclear Talks

By Ben Lowsen

May 24, 2016

http://thediplomat.com/2016/05/china-us-butt-heads-over-nuclear-talks/

Despite U.S. pressure, China appears unwilling to expand dialogue with the United States on nuclear weapons. At a discussion at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace on May 5, U.S. under secretary of state for arms control and international security, Rose Gottemoeller, pushed for more robust bilateral dialogue with China on nuclear weapons. Gottemoeller explained that China’s comprehensive program of military modernization – including nuclear modernization – necessitates deeper discussions.

Gottemoeller explained that during the Cold War, mutually assured destruction (MAD) provided strategic stability (a state of equilibrium widely viewed as the least dangerous possible among nuclear powers). In the age of potential cyber warfare, prompt global strike, and missile defense, however, MAD is inadequate. The multiplication of potentially destabilizing technologies calls for more dialogue.

The U.S. Defense Department 2010 Nuclear Posture Review tasked the U.S. government with pursuing high-level nuclear discussions with both China and Russia. Despite a number of forums for discussing such issues (e.g. the Security and Economic Dialogue and various unofficial “track 2” events), it would seem there is no dedicated, official policy forum to discuss this important topic. During his visit to China in 2011, then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ suggestion of a dedicated strategic nuclear dialogue met with congenial aloofness. Gottemoeller’s words suggest that the United States is seeking such a forum, but China is resisting it.

Why Does China Want to Control the South China Sea?

By Donald K. Emmerson

May 24, 2016

http://thediplomat.com/2016/05/why-does-china-want-to-control-the-south-china-sea/

The disputes over the South China Sea are complex, and they overlap and collide in complex ways. At stake are questions of ownership, demarcation, rights of passage, and access to resources—fish, oil, and gas. The resulting imbroglio implicates all six claimants, not only China but Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Vietnam as well. It is wrong to blame China alone for all that has happened in the South China Sea—nationalist moves, stalemated diplomacy, and the potential for escalation.

That said, no other claimant has come even close to matching the speed and scale of China’s efforts. In just two years, unannounced and unilateral acts of dredging and reclamation have created more than 3,200 acres of usable hard surface on the seven features that China occupies in the Spratlys. Ports, runways, buildings, and barracks have been built to accommodate military or civilian ships, planes, and personnel. Radar systems have been installed. Floating nuclear-energy platforms are envisioned.

Seen from Beijing, these are not matters of Chinese foreign policy. Under Chinese law, most of the South China Sea is part of Hainan province—in effect, a Chinese lake. In Beijing’s eyes, these vast waters and their bits of natural and artificial land are already in China’s possession and under its administration—a conviction embodied in the ban on foreigners who fish in them without China’s prior permission.

China’s Worst Disaster

By Mei Fong

May 27, 2016

http://thediplomat.com/2016/05/chinas-worst-disaster/

“It’s hard to reverse 30-plus years of ceaseless propaganda promoting the one-child family as the ideal.”

In 2008, a massive earthquake tore through central China’s Sichuan province. Over 70,000 people were killed in the quake. It was China’s worst disaster in over thirty years.

In an attempt to portray the human cost of this tragedy, I accompanied a group of poor migrant workers from Beijing to their distant Sichuan home town, an arduous journey over a distance akin to that between New York and Chicago that took three days and involved trains, boats, and motorcycles. The majority of workers returned to find death. Most heart-rending of all were the deaths of children, many of whom had been killed by the collapse of poorly built schools. Accentuating the tragedy: many children killed were only children, for the area near the earthquake’s epicenter had been a test-area for the one-child policy before Beijing had taken the experiment nationwide in 1980.

As a result of this, many bereaved parents were rushing to hospitals mere weeks after the tragedy, desperate to reverse sterilizations they’d been forced to have under the one-child policy. They were desperate to have a replacement child before it was too late.

For some, it already was. Laborer Zhu Jianming and his wife were 50 and 45, respectively, when he had a reverse vasectomy three weeks after the death of their teenage daughter. There was no place in their village for a childless couple, they said, and they had become social pariahs.

China’s Growing Space Program

May 25, 2016

China And The Long March Into Orbit

On May 14th China carried out the 227th successful launch of a Long March rocket. This one put a Chinese remote sensing satellite into orbit. China described this as a scientific and humanitarian satellite, as it can be used to monitor crops and do land surveys. These satellites can also be used to track ships at sea. For example China is known to have three other “remote sensing” satellites in orbit, moving in formation at an altitude of 600 kilometers across the Pacific. Equipped with either radar (SAR or synthetic aperture radar) or digital cameras, these three birds can scan the ocean for ships, even though the Chinese say their purpose is purely scientific. A typical SAR can produce photo quality images at different resolutions. At medium resolution (3 meters) the radar covers an area 40x40 kilometers. Low resolution (20 meters) covers 100x100 kilometers. This three satellite Chinese posse looks suspiciously like a military ocean surveillance system. Meanwhile the Long March rocket does put a lot of commercial and non-Chinese satellites into orbit and that makes Long March a profitable operation. 

One reason for the success of the Long March is because there are many different models, some of them specialized for military use. For example in late 2015 China successfully tested the latest version of its Long March satellite launcher; Long March 6 (LM 6). This version is optimized for putting multiple small satellites in orbit on the same mission and on short notice. The test launch put twenty small scientific satellites into orbit. LM 6 is a 103 ton liquid fueled rocket that can put a ton of payload into a 700 kilometers high orbit. LM 6 can operate from a standard satellite launch facility or from a TEL (transporter erector launcher) vehicle (which is basically a slightly larger trailer similar to those used for hauling tanks). LM 6 was also designed to be made ready for launch quickly (six days or so) giving it a military capability. That means if China has to get a surveillance or communications satellite in orbit quickly, LM 6 is the solution. China is also developing small surveillance and communications satellites for such emergencies. 

China’s Growing Space Program

May 25, 2016

China And The Long March Into Orbit

On May 14th China carried out the 227th successful launch of a Long March rocket. This one put a Chinese remote sensing satellite into orbit. China described this as a scientific and humanitarian satellite, as it can be used to monitor crops and do land surveys. These satellites can also be used to track ships at sea. For example China is known to have three other “remote sensing” satellites in orbit, moving in formation at an altitude of 600 kilometers across the Pacific. Equipped with either radar (SAR or synthetic aperture radar) or digital cameras, these three birds can scan the ocean for ships, even though the Chinese say their purpose is purely scientific. A typical SAR can produce photo quality images at different resolutions. At medium resolution (3 meters) the radar covers an area 40x40 kilometers. Low resolution (20 meters) covers 100x100 kilometers. This three satellite Chinese posse looks suspiciously like a military ocean surveillance system. Meanwhile the Long March rocket does put a lot of commercial and non-Chinese satellites into orbit and that makes Long March a profitable operation.

One reason for the success of the Long March is because there are many different models, some of them specialized for military use. For example in late 2015 China successfully tested the latest version of its Long March satellite launcher; Long March 6 (LM 6). This version is optimized for putting multiple small satellites in orbit on the same mission and on short notice. The test launch put twenty small scientific satellites into orbit. LM 6 is a 103 ton liquid fueled rocket that can put a ton of payload into a 700 kilometers high orbit. LM 6 can operate from a standard satellite launch facility or from a TEL (transporter erector launcher) vehicle (which is basically a slightly larger trailer similar to those used for hauling tanks). LM 6 was also designed to be made ready for launch quickly (six days or so) giving it a military capability. That means if China has to get a surveillance or communications satellite in orbit quickly, LM 6 is the solution. China is also developing small surveillance and communications satellites for such emergencies.

Iran and Hezbollah Avoid Blaming Israel for Terrorist Commander’s Death

David DaoudAmir Toumaj

May 25, 2016

Sourc eLink

Mustafa Badreddine, the head of Hezbollah’s military operations in Syria, was recently killed in an explosion near Damascus International Airport. Although the assassination bears some signatures of an Israeli operation, the Shiite militia has blamed Sunni jihadists. Bogged down in Syria, Hezbollah and its Iranian patron have every reason to downplay Israeli responsibility, thereby lifting pressure to retaliate in kind and risk a war with the Jewish state.

Announcing Badreddine’s assassination on Thursday, Hezbollah media outletsinitially blamed Israel. And in Tehran, Brig. Gen. Ahmad Vahidi, former commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Quds Force and minister of defense who now heads the armed forces’ think tank, the Center for Strategic Defense Research, said Friday, “The Zionists will receive the necessary answer at the right time.” When Hezbollah issued the results of its investigation into Badreddine’s assassination on Saturday, however, it claimed he was killed by artillery fire from unnamed Sunni jihadists. But attributing blame to the “takfiris” rather than the Israelis should be taken with a grain of salt.

Profiling Muslims Is Bad. So Is Ignoring Radical Islam.

The West and its allies aren't paying enough attention to Salafi jihadism.

Robert G. Rabil

May 25, 2016

Source Link

In a thought-provoking article penned in concerned words, one of the finest retired generals in the U.S. Army, Gen. David Petraeus, underscored his anxiety about “inflammatory political discourse that has become far too common both at home and abroad against Muslims and Islam.” He believes that, given the great danger of Islamist extremism, politicians “who toy with anti-Muslim bigotry must consider the effects of their rhetoric.” He asserts that demonizing a religious faith and its adherents is both contrary to fundamental American values and corrosive to U.S. national security interests. He emphasizes that statements of blanket discrimination against Islam directly undermine the United States’ ability to defeat Islamist extremists by alienating and undermining its Muslim allies. General Petraeus lays out his concern and arguments so as to inform the national debate about the stark reality of terrorism and the importance of the choice the country will make in electing the future commander-in-chief.

I fully agree with General Petraeus’s concern and broad arguments. Profiling Muslims, discriminating against Islam or lumping Muslims as radicals or terrorists is indeed abominable, contrary to American values and damaging to the war against Islamist extremism and/or terrorism. This attitude, however, should absolve neither radical Muslims who justify their violence on the basis of certain events in Islamic history or on Islam’s holy scriptures, nor Muslim regimes or rulers who encourage or promote certain variants of radical or fundamentalist Islam for domestic purposes.

U.S. Says Its Strikes Are Hitting More Significant ISIS Targets

By ERIC SCHMITT

MAY 25, 2016 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/us/politics/us-strikes-isis-targets.html?_r=0

A Navy air crew after a mission over Iraq last year. Credit Adam Ferguson for The New York Times 

WASHINGTON — Nearly two years into the American-led air war against the Islamic State, military officials say they have corrected the poor intelligence collection and clumsy process for identifying targets that initially plagued the campaign, and are now hitting targets like oil rigs and secret cash coffers that finance the terrorist group’s war machine.

The destruction in recent months of these targets, deep behind enemy lines — which commanders previously avoided for fear of causing civilian casualties — has seriously damaged the Islamic State’s ability to pay its fighters, govern and attract new recruits, military officials say.

“We’re hitting them where it hurts a lot more than we were in the past,” Lt. Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr., the air war commander, said in one of two recent telephone interviews from his headquarters in Qatar. “Every bomb now has a greater impact.”

Satellite Imagery Shows ISIS Destroyed Russian Attack Helicopters During Attack on Key Air Base in Syria

May 24, 2016

Syria conflict: IS ‘destroyed helicopters’ at T4 base

New satellite imagery appears to reveal extensive damage to a strategically significant airbase in central Syria used by Russian forces after an attack by so-called Islamic State (IS).

Four helicopters and 20 lorries were destroyed in a series of fires inside the T4 base last week, the images from intelligence company Stratfor suggest.

The cause of the fires is unconfirmed.

A pro-Kremlin website said the helicopters had been “used by both Russian and Syrian air forces”. 

Russia has not officially commented on the incident.

A Russian opposition website quoted Syrian sources as saying “a large fire in the Syrian part of the T4 airbase spread to the fleet of vehicles, and after a fuel tank exploded four Russian helicopters nearby went up in flames”.

“The cause of the fire is being established,” it added. 

A serious loss, by Frank Gardner, BBC security correspondent

Regardless of what triggered the fire that destroyed four Russian attack helicopters at their central Syrian base, this is the most serious loss for the Russians so far in their engagement against IS.