The Threat from Iran Seen by Russia

Secretary of State Clinton has returned from her European tour and she states that Russia is very much aware of the dangers posed by Iran. However, Putin isn't about to let any political camaraderie get in the way of the money it is making off of Iran at this time. Russia needs money and Iran needs defensive and offensive materials, since Iran has been effectively quarantined because of its zeal to promote its theocratic government. That and we haven't forgiven them the 1979 assault on our embassy.

So, Putin, I mean Russia, will not go along with the U.S. demand for sanctions against Iran at this time, but it is keeping an eye on them.

Great! I wonder what the world will do once it is confirmed that Iran possesses a nuclear weapon? The president of Iran has made it known of his dislike for Israel and his wanting to destroy this Jewish state. What will Israel do? What kind of balls does the government of the U.S. of A. have to deal with a nuclear capable Iran? How far will we go to prevent the exploitation of this weapon by fundamentalist people intent on destroying anything, anyone that is not a member of Islam?

Saudi Arabia is doing its part in trying to broker a deal to buy missile systems from Russia in exchange for the ex-soviet union member not to sell any missile system package to Iran. This is to delay Israels intent on destroying the nuclear facilities in Iran before they finishing making a nuclear bomb. After all, what else can Israel do to stop the Iranians from producing and delivering a nuclear weapon first?

Countries do not want a major conflict in this region, but I fear there will be a meltdown within a couple of years when everyone has the weapons in hand to do what they have been planning for years. Maybe the year 2012 is important?
lakotahope
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BBC News

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has told the BBC that Russia now recognises the threat posed by Iran.

Wrapping up a European tour in Moscow, Mrs Clinton said Russian leaders had in private said they were ready to act if Tehran did not meet its obligations.

But Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, on a visit to China, said it was too early to talk about sanctions on Iran.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Tuesday that threats of sanctions were counter-productive.

Iran denies allegations by the US, EU and Israel that it is trying to build the bomb under cover of a civilian nuclear energy programme.

Mrs Clinton told the BBC on Wednesday that Russia in the past six months had "moved tremendously" to acknowledge the threat of Iran's programme.

There is no need to scare the Iranians - there is a need to reach agreements Vladimir Putin Russian prime minister A Russian policy shift on Iran? Iran on defensive over secret site

She said Russian officials, in private talks, had recognised the need to act if diplomacy failed.

"We are in total agreement on all of that," Mrs Clinton told the BBC.

"And we are also in agreement that if our diplomatic engagement is not successful then we have to look at other measures to take, including sanctions to try to pressure the Iranians."

As a permanent UN Security Council member, Russia would need to back any fresh sanctions against Iran.

At the start of this month, Iran agreed at a meeting in Geneva to allow UN inspectors into a previously undisclosed nuclear site near its holy city of Qom, and to send low-enriched uranium abroad for enrichment to a higher level.

'Buying time'

Mrs Clinton acknowledged to the BBC that Tehran had bought itself more time with this move.

But she said Iran had also made commitments which the Russians and the Chinese now expected them to fulfil.

However, wrapping up a visit to Beijing, Vladimir Putin said talk of sanctions was premature.

"I believe it's too early to speak of them," Russia's prime minister told media, reports AFP news agency.

"There is no need to scare the Iranians. There is a need to reach agreements."

After Moscow, Mrs Clinton headed for Kazan, capital of the religiously and ethnically diverse region of Tatarstan, east of Moscow.

The US has been trying to "reset" relations with Russia

Her five-day European trip included stops in Zurich, London and Belfast.

US President Barack Obama, who met Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in July, has pledged to reset relations with Moscow.

Mr Obama, for his part, has met a key Russian demand to scrap plans to deploy interceptor missiles in Poland and a radar station in the Czech Republic as part of a US missile defence system in Europe.

The US administration insisted it did not expect concessions in return.

But Washington has called on Moscow to support, or at least not oppose, the idea of tougher sanctions on Iran if it fails to live up to its international obligations.

The council wants Iran to end uranium enrichment and has approved three rounds of sanctions - including bans on Iran's arms exports and all trade in nuclear material.

Bunker Buster Is Being Fast Tracked Into Service

This bomb is allegedly 10 times more power than the bomb it is replacing. I reckon the replaced bomb is the Moab, but since this thing weighs considerably more than most aircraft can lift and actually drop, I wonder if the C-17 aircraft is the only one capable of dropping this weapon? I mention this because it is so far, the only aircraft tested for this Big Bomb, or "Big Bitch"--I want to be the first to give it a nickname. The C-17 isn't stealthy, it isn't even fast compared to our other aircraft. I hazard to guess how the U.S. intends to deliver such a massive conventional device through miles of hostile territory.

Dale Brown has written books using advanced aviation technology to defeat enemy assets. I've been following his books and the last one I finished details events involving Qom, Iran, and nuclear facilities. Of course, his books have super-stealthy, space capable aircraft and all sorts of STAR WARS equipment....Good reading for those who enjoy reading any thing with military/ aviation scenarios.
lakotahope
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sept. 26: A facility under construction inside a mountain about

20 miles north of Qom, Iran, is most likely the location of the newly revealed uranium enrichment plant. (AP/GeoEye)

WASHINGTON (foxnews.com) -- The Pentagon is speeding up delivery of a colossal bomb designed to destroy hidden weapons bunkers buried underground and shielded by 10,000 pounds of reinforced concrete.

Call it Plan B for dealing with Iran, which recently revealed a long-suspected nuclear site deep inside a mountain near the holy city of Qom.

The 15-ton behemoth -- called the "massive ordnance penetrator," or MOP -- will be the largest non-nuclear bomb in the U.S. arsenal and carry 5,300 pounds of explosives. The bomb is about 10 times more powerful than the weapon it is designed to replace.

The Pentagon has awarded a nearly $52 million contract to speed up placement of the bomb aboard the B-2 Stealth bomber, and officials say the bomb could be fielded as soon as next summer.

Pentagon officials acknowledge that the new bomb is intended to blow up fortified sites like those used by Iran and North Korea for their nuclear programs, but they deny there is a specific target in mind.

"I don't think anybody can divine potential targets," Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said. "This is just a capability that we think is necessary given the world we live in."

The Obama administration has struggled to counter suspicions lingering from George W. Bush's presidency that the United States is either planning to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities itself or would look the other way if Israel did the same.

The administration has been careful not to take military action off the table even as it reached out to Iran with historic talks earlier this month. Tougher sanctions are the immediate backup if diplomacy fails to stop what the West fears is a drive for a nuclear weapon.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently said a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities would probably only buy time. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen has called a strike an option he doesn't want to use.

The new U.S. bomb would be the culmination of planning begun in the Bush years. The Obama administration's plans to bring the bomb on line more quickly indicate that the weapon is still part of the long-range backup plan.

"Without going into any intelligence, there are countries that have used technology to go further underground and to take those facilities and make them hardened," Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said. "This is not a new phenomenon, but it is a growing one."

After testing began in 2007, development of the bomb was slowed by about two years because of budgetary issues, Whitman said, and the administration moved last summer to return to the previous schedule.

North Korea, led by Kim Jong Il, is a known nuclear weapons state and has exploded working devices underground. The United States and other countries have offered to buy out the country's weapons program. The Obama administration is trying to lure Pyongyang back to the bargaining table after a walkout last year.

Iran is a more complex case, for both diplomatic and technical reasons. Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, claims its nuclear program is peaceful and meant only to produce energy, but the West suspects a covert bomb program that may be only a year or so away from fruition.

Some experts say the bunker-buster bomb may serve as a deterrent to Iran's nuclear ambitions.

"I don't really see it as a near-term indication of anything being planned. I think certainly down the road it has a certain deterrent factor," said Kenneth Katzman, a specialist on Iran and the Middle East at the Congressional Research Service. "It adds to the calculus, let's say, of Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong Il."

Details about Iran's once-secret program have come out slowly and often under duress, as with last month's surprise confirmation of the hidden underground development site near Qom.

That revelation came a month after the Pentagon had asked Congress to shift money to speed up the MOP program, although U.S. and other intelligence agencies had suspected for years that Iran was still hiding at least one nuclear development site.

The MOP could, in theory, take out bunkers such as those Saddam Hussein had begun to construct for weapons programs in Iraq, or flatten the kind of cave and tunnel networks that allowed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden to escape U.S. assault in Tora Bora, Afghanistan, shortly after the U.S. invasion in 2001.

The precision-guided bomb is designed to drill through earth and almost any underground encasement to reach weapons depots, labs or hideouts.

Did Weapons Fail U.S. Troops During Afghanistan Assault?

U.S. troops had these problems when they were transitioning to the M16 from the M14 rifle. One U.S. soldier I met after Vietnam (he was paralyzed by a mortar), said he wanted to keep the M14. The M14 was good, it had a better knock down component than the lighter .222 of the M16. M16's problems were finally ironed out--mostly. Still is this our problem today? We need more troops if we are sending in minimal forces to engage the enemy. But, do we end up like the Russians? A former Russian Officer, who fought in Afghanistan stated that he hoped the U.S. administration looks carefully at how the Russians were bogged down and finally withdrew in defeat by the local militias, taliban. (Our aiding the Afghan tribesman in knocking down the helicopters changed things)

Not that I have any express knowledge that would give any one an edge in fighting these taliban/ al qaeda in the Afghanistan areas, I would hope that we don't suffer from the obvious failures of past generations, such as: less men and supplies than required, inferior weaponry for the environment, micromanagement by non military government personnel and the lack of willpower by a Congress that really can't make up its mind on what to do. Although, the President has the final word on the troop deployments, Congress has to ok the budget. Give everything to the troops fighting, worry about the costs of material some other time. Like when we give $50 billion to a company that can't stay in business. .. lakotahope
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sunday, October 11, 2009

Sept. 25: U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Gerrad Mitchell patrols in Afghanistan with comrades from 4th Battalion, 25th Field Artillery Regiment.

WASHINGTON — In the chaos of an early morning assault on a remote U.S. outpost in eastern Afghanistan, Staff Sgt. Erich Phillips' M4 carbine quit firing as militant forces surrounded the base. The machine gun he grabbed after tossing the rifle aside didn't work either.

When the battle in the small village of Wanat ended, nine U.S. soldiers lay dead and 27 more were wounded. A detailed study of the attack by a military historian found that weapons failed repeatedly at a "critical moment" during the firefight on July 13, 2008, putting the outnumbered American troops at risk of being overrun by nearly 200 insurgents.

Which raises the question: Eight years into the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, do U.S. armed forces have the best guns money can buy?

Despite the military's insistence that they do, a small but vocal number of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq has complained that the standard-issue M4 rifles need too much maintenance and jam at the worst possible times.

A week ago, eight U.S. troops were killed at a base near Kamdesh, a town near Wanat. There's no immediate evidence of weapons failures at Kamdesh, but the circumstances were eerily similar to the Wanat battle: insurgents stormed an isolated stronghold manned by American forces stretched thin by the demands of war.

Army Col. Wayne Shanks, a military spokesman in Afghanistan, said a review of the battle at Kamdesh is under way. "It is too early to make any assumptions regarding what did or didn't work correctly," he said.

Complaints about the weapons the troops carry, especially the M4, aren't new. Army officials say that when properly cleaned and maintained, the M4 is a quality weapon that can pump out more than 3,000 rounds before any failures occur.

The M4 is a shorter, lighter version of the M16, which made its debut during the Vietnam war. Roughly 500,000 M4s are in service, making it the rifle troops on the front lines trust with their lives.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., a leading critic of the M4, said Thursday the Army needs to move quickly to acquire a combat rifle suited for the extreme conditions U.S. troops are fighting in.

U.S. special operations forces, with their own acquisition budget and the latitude to buy gear the other military branches can't, already are replacing their M4s with a new rifle.

"The M4 has served us well but it's not as good as it needs to be," Coburn said.

Battlefield surveys show that nearly 90 percent of soldiers are satisfied with their M4s, according to Brig. Gen. Peter Fuller, head of the Army office that buys soldier gear. Still, the rifle is continually being improved to make it even more reliable and lethal.

Fuller said he's received no official reports of flawed weapons performance at Wanat. "Until it showed up in the news, I was surprised to hear about all this," he said.

The study by Douglas Cubbison of the Army Combat Studies Institute at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., hasn't been publicly released. Copies of the study have been leaked to news organizations and are circulating on the Internet.

Cubbison's study is based on an earlier Army investigation and interviews with soldiers who survived the attack at Wanat. He describes a well-coordinated attack by a highly skilled enemy that unleashed a withering barrage with AK-47 automatic rifles and rocket-propelled grenades.

The soldiers said their weapons were meticulously cared for and routinely inspected by commanders. But still the weapons had breakdowns, especially when the rifles were on full automatic, which allows hundreds of bullets to be fired a minute.

The platoon-sized unit of U.S. soldiers and about two dozen Afghan troops was shooting back with such intensity the barrels on their weapons turned white hot. The high rate of fire appears to have put a number of weapons out of commission, even though the guns are tested and built to operate in extreme conditions.

Cpl. Jonathan Ayers and Spc. Chris McKaig were firing their M4s from a position the soldiers called the "Crow's Nest." The pair would pop up together from cover, fire half a dozen rounds and then drop back down.

On one of these trips up, Ayers was killed instantly by an enemy round. McKaig soon had problems with his M4, which carries a 30-round magazine.

"My weapon was overheating," McKaig said, according to Cubbison's report. "I had shot about 12 magazines by this point already and it had only been about a half hour or so into the fight. I couldn't charge my weapon and put another round in because it was too hot, so I got mad and threw my weapon down."

The soldiers also had trouble with their M249 machine guns, a larger weapon than the M4 that can shoot up to 750 rounds per minute.

Cpl. Jason Bogar fired approximately 600 rounds from his M-249 before the weapon overheated and jammed the weapon.

Bogar was killed during the firefight, but no one saw how he died, according to the report.

Saudis Trying to Buy S-300 Missile Defense from Russia

One has to love the way diplomacy sometimes prevails in the Middle East. Iran has been trying to obtain the S-400 advanced missile defense system from Russia for a while. This system is as advanced as any U.S.A. system. Russia needs money and has proven more than willing to share its weapons for the right price with countries around the world. Recently, countries like India, Venezuela and India are buying nice new 'toys' from Russia.

Now we have an Arab country doing what it can to prevent a "Shiite Islamic" state from obtaining advanced weapons. Something the West couldn't accomplish all that successfully, because Israel is straining at the rope to destroy Iran's hopes of a nuclear capability. This Arab state is helping out the Jewish state in order to keep peace in the Middle East. Saudis don't trust Iran and for the most part Syria anyway.

Israel may go after Iran with or without the missile system in Iran. It still may happen, with U.S. help and/ or approval...Saudis laws are strict and treat women like garbage, but this little act will keep peace a day or two longer.... lakotahope
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
milplex
Saudis consider Russian air defense system

It is considered that the S-400 missile defense deal could be part of a much bigger arms deal with Russia. That would signal Riyadh's break from decades-old dependency on traditional arms supplying nations like Britain, France and the United States.

by Staff Writers
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (UPI) Oct 7, 2009
Saudi Arabia is considering buying Russia's most advanced air-defense system in a deal that Riyadh hopes may deter Moscow

from selling a similar defense system to potentially nuclear Iran, experts argue.

Experts cited in a string of media reports from the region said Moscow and Riyadh

were close to signing a deal on the purchase of Russia's S-400 anti-missile shield. The deal is valued between $4 billion and $7 billion.

The system is the latest version of the S-300 long-range surface-to-air missile system that Russia has been negotiating to sell to Iran.

"The Russians were selling the S-300 in large part because of the money. Now, a larger deal will be made with Saudi Arabia," said a World News report, citing an anonymous Egyptian intelligence official.

Diplomats in the Gulf, however, argue that strong Western and Israeli pressure, capped by a multibillion-dollar deal with Saudi Arabia, may sway Moscow against its initial designs to sell the surface-to-air missiles system to Iran.

Saudi Arabia, influenced by Sunni Islam, is threatened by the growing influence of Iran, dominated by Shiite Islam.

It is considered that the S-400 missile defense deal could be part of a much bigger arms deal with Russia. That would signal Riyadh's break from decades-old dependency on traditional arms supplying nations like Britain, France and the United States.

In late August, for example, Russia's Interfax news agency reported that a $2 billion weapons deal was in the making between Russia and Saudi Arabia. Under the deal, Russia would supply up to 150 combat helicopters, and equal number of T-90S tanks and infantry fighting vehicles.

This week The Financial Times reported that as part of the deal Saudi Arabia demanded guarantees that Russia would not send the S-300 system to Iran.

"The Saudis would rather this weapon system were not sold to Iran or (another possible buyer) Syria," Theodore Karasik, director of research at the Dubai-based think tank, was quoted saying by Russia Today.

It said Tehran was initially interested in the S-300 system in 2005 when a deal was signed. The equipment, however, has yet to reach Iran.

Saudi officials are increasingly worried that Western pressure has failed to sway Iran's development of nuclear know-how. It has repeatedly contested Iran's insistence that its nuclear ambitions are entirely peaceful.

"The pressure from the U.S. is a stick and the huge weapons deal prepared by the Saudis is a carrot," Director of Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies Ruslan Pukhov told Interfax news agency. "We all know Saudi Arabia buys weapons as a 'bribe' to the world's great powers in exchange for support," he added.

Nuclear Free World

Visions of a nuclear weapon free world do inspire one to seek out the logical paths that may be necessary to guarantee that all nuclear weapons are destroyed/ dismantled. As in the following article mentions of controlling the nuclear sources and maybe offering ways to recycle uranium.

Years ago, I recall the advent of so-called Fast Breeder Reactors that produced more fuel than was consumed. Economically, they appear to not be as practical to operate in this economy. Given the readily available supplies of uranium.

But, I am straying from my premise for writing this little small blog. There are many reasons in existence for having the enormous firepower of a nuclear arsenal at one country's fingertips. Surely, the possible saving one million American G.I.s , in the Japanese theater during World War II. This was the estimated cost to the U.S.A. in the upcoming invasion that would have been required to completely subdue the Japanese. The haves are not at all likely to give up an arsenal that is cheaper to keep in place than continuously employed half a million strong army.

Granted, since WWII, this world hasn't seen it in its heart of hearts to not keep fighting with conventional weapons. It seems members of the nuclear club are more than willing to fight on someone else's home turf. We take the fight to the enemy and fight them on their ground. Keeps the dirty part of war away from our shores. ... lakotahope
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Outside View: The Reagan legacy

by Harlan Ullman
Washington (UPI) Sep 30, 2009
On March 23, 1983, in a speech to the nation announcing the Strategic Defense Initiative, U.S. President Ronald Reagan pledged to make "nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete." The left immediately attacked Reagan and his initiative was ridiculed as "Star Wars." Ironically, President Barack Obama is on his way to making good on Reagan's pledge. And for that, he is being roundly criticized by the far right.

Last week Obama sensibly reset the missile defense plans to station 10 interceptors and ground based radar in Poland and the Czech Republic against the threat of Iranian intercontinental ballistic missiles that may never be built. In his U.N. General Assembly speech on Wednesday, Obama renewed his call for a nuclear weapons free world and vowed that he would pursue genuine nuclear arms reductions with Russia and finally have the Senate approve the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and other measures. These steps surely were aimed at moving nuclear weapons towards Reagan's famous promise of impotence and obsolescence. Another critical step is needed, and we will return to that shortly.

Any military commander worth his or her salt will readily agree that tactical defense against ballistic and cruise missiles is essential. Given the geography of the two states of concern -- North Korea and Iran -- tactical or regional defenses needed by militaries applies to defending against the shorter-range missiles possessed by Tehran and Pyongyang. More to the point, as the Standard Missile Block Three becomes operational in the next five or so years, it has the capacity for ascent or boost-phase intercept -- that is, knocking the missile down while it is going up and before it can deploy any defenses. And the timing conforms to estimates of when North Korea and Iran might be able to acquire longer-range missiles.

Furthermore, as ascent-phased interceptors become operational, there is no reason the technology could not be made available to neighbors of these two states of concern including China and Russia. The effect would surely be to make Iranian and North Korean missiles "impotent and obsolete." And the ability to station these SM-3s at sea eliminates any problems of shore basing and national sovereignty.

Regarding the commitment to arms control, arms reductions and preventing the proliferation of nuclear fissile material and weapons, the United States had no choice except to take the high road and finally begin complying with the 40-year-old Non-Proliferation Treaty in which the nuclear weapons states were to make a good-faith effort to reduce those arms. This may work. Rationality and strategic logic are not always sufficient to overcome politics -- particularly in the Senate. And the right wing will have field days accusing the Obama administration of appeasement and unilateral disarmament.

So far, the administration has not sketched out or issued an overarching vision or statement of its strategic intent. And the shift away from the Ground Base Interceptor system in Europe was not rolled out smoothly for reasons that are still unclear. But given the new focus of missile defense and the president's U.N. speech, it is very clear where the administration wishes to go.

The missing element relates to proliferation. For the time being, as neither sanctions nor incentives convinced North Korea to halt its nuclear weapons program and are unlikely to do the same in Iran if the mullahs are determined to build an A-bomb, only military action can offers a means -- and an extraordinarily risky one -- of prevention. Yet, there is a surer option. Control the nuclear fuel cycle!

If guaranteed permanent access to nuclear fuel, states need not enrich. Furthermore, given nearly half a million metric tons of nuclear waste that must be stored, control of the fuel cycle could solve both the problems of proliferation and storage. Interestingly, a decade ago Russia approved a law that permitted storage of nuclear waste, at a price, within its borders. That approval has not been exploited.

Whether through an international organization such as the IAEA or competitive fuel recycling combines, provided guarantees could be made and honored, this approach offers a means to combat proliferation by applying better controls to the fuel cycle. And surely other states might find the incentives of storing nuclear waste sufficient to offer sites. That will not be easy given the U.S. impasse over Yucca Mountain and the resistance of Nevadans to accept the storage site planned for their state.

The notion of a nuclear weapons free world may prove to be utopian and therefore unobtainable. However, in the process of moving in that direction, while the Obama presidency may never make nuclear weapons "impotent and obsolete," it can greatly reduce the chances of one being used in anger. Ronald Reagan will be proud and the right will fume.

(Harlan Ullman is chairman of the Killowen Group that advises leaders of government and business.)

(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)