Syria Inks deal for Russian Fighter Jets

MOSCOW — Syria has signed a $550 million (425 million-euro) contract to purchase 36 Yak-130 advanced training fighter planes from Russia, the Kommersant business daily reported Jan. 23.

The deal was signed in December with Russia's Rosoboronexport state defense corporation, Kommersant cited a source close to the agency as saying, adding that production of the jets would begin once the advance payment was made.

The two-seater entered serial production in 2009, with the defense ministry placing an order for 55 of the combat trainers from the Irkut defense corporation, according to Russian press.

The jets destined for Syria will be built separately from the ones commissioned by the Russian air force, Kommersant said.

"As soon as Syria transfers the advance to Russia, the factory will immediately assume the assembly of the second set for Syria," the unnamed source told the paper.

A Rosoboronexport spokesman declined to comment.

The U.S. has expressed repeated concerns over Russia's military trade ties with Syria, which have continued despite the violent crackdown on protests pursued by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Russia, which, along with China recently blocked U.N. Security Council action against Assad, has defended the ties as legal under international law.

"We are only trading items with Syria that are not banned by international law," Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said last week.

U.S. warns against North Korea's provocations

WASHINGTON — The United States urged China on Jan. 19 to press North Korea’s new leader to exercise restraint, saying that South Korea would face “enormous pressure” to respond to any provocations.
Kurt Campbell, the top U.S. diplomat on Asia, admitted that little was known about North Korea’s young leader Kim Jong-Un and warned that “provocative steps have the risk of triggering deeply unforeseen consequences.”
“We need to handle the situation with the greatest care and we expect China in their deliberations with North Korea to ensure that that message is deeply understood,” Campbell said at the Stimson Center think-tank, echoing remarks made on a tour of East Asia earlier this month.
North Korea in 2010 shelled an island in the South and was accused of torpedoing a warship, incidents that killed 50 people and which some analysts saw as a way for young heir Kim to prove his mettle.
Campbell, an assistant secretary of state, said that South Korean President Lee Myung-Bak, a close U.S. ally, showed “remarkable restraint” after the deaths.
“But their leaders have made clear that they’ve reached a point that if they faced further provocations, they would have enormous pressure to respond.
And we understand that,” Campbell said.
China is the closest ally of isolated North Korea, although Campbell said that even officials in Beijing were in the dark about Kim Jong-Il’s Dec. 17 death until North Korean state television announced the news two days later.
Kim’s death threw into flux U.S. plans for fresh diplomacy with North Korea, including a possible resumption of American food assistance to the impoverished state and more formal talks on ending Pyongyang’s nuclear program.
“We have made clear through both public channels and privately that we are prepared to start a new chapter to deal clearly with outstanding issues of nuclear matters and the like,” Campbell said.
Campbell met Jan. 17 with senior officials from Japan and South Korea to coordinate action. In a statement, the countries urged North Korea to recommit to past agreements to end its nuclear program.

Chinese Virus hits DoD access cards

A Chinese-based cyber attack is targeting the U.S. Defense Department’s Common Access Cards with technology that could steal information from military networks while troops and civilians work at their desks, researchers say.

The new cyber weapon apparently can get inside individual computers after users unwittingly open a standard PDF email file. Once embedded, it logs the users’ keystrokes to obtain personal identification numbers or codes associated with that card and user, according to AlienVault, a Silicon Valley-based cyber security firm.

“Basically, they are able to steal the PIN and then they can get access to whatever they want,” said Jaime Blasco, the lab manager for AlienVault who published detailed technical information about the attack.

The attacks are a variant of a virus, or malware, known as “Sykipot” and date back as far as March 2011, Blasco said.

The new Sykipot strain specifically targets the technology used to support the Pentagon’s CAC system and the emails seeking to spread it often are disguised as official military or government communications, Blasco said.

To lure defense workers to open the infected attachment, some of the emails have used information about new drone technology and pictures of unmanned aerial vehicles, he said.

The hackers behind the virus can access military systems only as long as an infected user’s card remains logged into a system.

Pentagon spokeswoman Air Force Lt. Col. April Cunningham declined to comment on the details published by AlienVault.

“We are aware of reports regarding this matter and take these type of reports seriously. However, due to operational security, we are not able to provide further details,” she told Military Times.

Blasco said the virus is linked to a “command and control server” that appears to be based in China; some flaws buried deep in the code revealed Chinese language characters, suggesting that only a Chinese speaker would be able to launch it.

Defending against attacks using this technology is extremely difficult. The best way to keep military networks secure is to train troops and civilian employees not to open any unfamiliar files or email attachments, Blasco said.

Many military officials are eager to begin widespread use of smart phones, tablets and other wireless devices, but cyber security experts caution that such technology can be more vulnerable to cyber attacks.

India and China agree to pursue border issues

NEW DELHI — Six months after resuming military exchanges, India and China have agreed on a mechanism for resolving their long-standing boundary dispute.

The two countries signed a pact to establish a “Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination on India-China Border Affairs.” The agreement, signed by India’s ambassador to China, S. Jaishankar, and Chinese Assistant Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin, was finalized here Jan. 17 at the conclusion of the 15th meeting of the Special Representatives on the boundary question between Indian National Security Adviser Shiv Shankar Menon and Chinese State Councilor Dai Bingguo.

The working mechanism will “study ways and means to conduct and strengthen exchanges and cooperation between military personnel and establishments of the two sides in the border areas,” an Indian Foreign Ministry official said.

“The Working Mechanism will address issues and situations that may arise in the border areas that affect the maintenance of peace and tranquility and will work actively toward maintaining the friendly atmosphere between the two countries,” the agreement states.

Sources in the Indian Defence Ministry said the agreement will basically devise a mechanism to establish better military-to-military contacts, which will help ease tensions at the border. There have been dozens of reported incidents of Chinese troops crossing into Indian territory. The Indian Foreign Ministry has denied most of these reports, but analysts here say New Delhi is simply trying to calm rising emotions over the incidents.

The dispute between India and China involves the longest contested boundary in the world. China claims 92,000 square kilometers of territory that is also claimed by India.

The border is currently defined by a 4,056-kilometer Line of Actual Control (LAC), which is marked neither on the ground nor on mutually accepted maps. Efforts to establish an LAC recognized by both countries have made little headway since the mid-1980s.

Both China and India, which fought a brief war over the boundary dispute in 1962, have been building up their defense forces.

U.S., Allies Plot Next Steps on Post-Kim N. Korea

WASHINGTON — Senior officials from the United States and close allies South Korea and Japan met Jan. 17 to coordinate their next steps on North Korea amid deep concern following the death of leader Kim Jong-Il.

The United States was considering a new engagement drive with North Korea when Kim suddenly died on Dec. 17, leaving control of the isolated and nuclear-armed state to his young and inexperienced son Kim Jong-Un.

Kurt Campbell, the top U.S. diplomat on Asia, went into a day of closed-door talks with his Japanese counterpart Shinsuke Sugiyama and Lim Sung-Nam, South Korea’s envoy to stalled nuclear talks on North Korea, a U.S. official said.

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said Jan. 13 that the talks “will focus on ensuring that we’re well coordinated on our policy towards North Korea” and also look at “broader regional issues writ large.”

The three countries comprise half of the six nations involved in years of diplomacy on North Korea’s denuclearization. The talks also involved China, Russia and Pyongyang itself.

North Korea stormed out of talks in April 2009 to protest what it described as U.S. hostility. It has since sought to resume dialogue, but the United States has insisted that Pyongyang clearly recommit to agreements on denuclearization.

In hopes of keeping open channels of communication, the United States held two rounds of talks with North Korea last year in New York and Geneva.

A third round was reportedly scheduled in Beijing before the announcement of Kim’s death put the process on hold. The North said last week that Washington had offered it food aid and a suspension of sanctions if it halts its uranium enrichment program.

Nuland last week denied that the United States was linking food to politics and said Washington was still considering North Korea’s longstanding requests for food assistance.

“Our decision will be based on our assessment of need and our ability to monitor what we might be able to provide,” she said.

Christian-oriented U.S. aid groups have said for months that North Korea desperately needs food assistance to save lives. But some South Korean policymakers and U.S. lawmakers accuse the North of exaggerating its needs.

Asian Navies Shift to Bigger Vessels, Downplay Littoral Ops

TAIPEI - As Western navies build fewer aircraft carriers, destroyers and submarines, Asian navies are moving in the opposite direction, ignoring the littorals with construction and procurement of larger warships and submarines.

The U.S. and Europe have stepped back from larger platforms designed for the Cold War and invested in smaller platforms such as the U.S. Navy's Freedom-class Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). But this is not the case in East Asia and the Pacific, where there have been increases in spending on destroyers and submarines in Australia, China, India, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, said Bob Nugent, vice president of naval advisory services at AMI International, based in Seattle.

One of the most notable cases involves Taiwan's procurement of four Kidd-class guided missile destroyers and plans to procure eight submarines. Japan and South Korea have also invested heavily in guided missile destroyers equipped with advanced phased array radars.

Even in budget-challenged Southeast Asian countries, the trend has been a shift from smaller to larger platforms, such as frigates and large corvettes. Examples include Singapore's Formidable-class frigates, Indonesia's SIGMA-class corvettes, Malaysia's recent decision on the SGPV/LCS frigates, and Vietnam's plan to buy SIGMAs and the pending delivery of Russian-built Kilo-class submarines.

The main reason regional navies are ignoring littoral capabilities has to do with geography. In the region, "the home team enjoys an enormous advantage of range and proximity and the attacker would have to be prepared to conduct pre-emptive strikes against the coast state's bases before conducting operations in the littoral," said Sam Bateman a regional naval specialist at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, in Singapore.

The U.S. Navy should "think twice" about deploying classic sea control/power projection capabilities, such as carrier battle groups, within range of subs and land-based strike aircraft, Bateman said. The U.S. Navy's new LCS will be "hugely vulnerable without close-air support and that cannot be guaranteed."

The U.S. and Singapore have recently agreed to allow the U.S. Navy to station the LCS in Singapore.

Air support is the "elephant in the room" with littoral warfare, Bateman said. Littoral warfare is dependent on fire support directed against targets on land, either from aircraft close-air support or naval gunfire. Despite all the advances with missiles, "the big caliber naval gun remains an attractive and effective way of putting down fire in coastal areas."

Another problem in the Asia-Pacific has been increased tension over exclusive economic zone (EEZ) claims, particularly in the South China Sea. Many countries, including China, claim restrictions over naval operations in their EEZs.

Some within the region have invested in stealthy vessels to avoid detection in the littoral environment. Singapore's Formidable-class frigates are based on the stealthy French-built La Fayette-class frigates and Singapore's ST Engineering is conducting research to develop the 27-meter Stealth Interceptor and 57-meter Stealth Patrol Vessel.

Taiwan wants to build a stealthy 900-ton catamaran corvette and is manufacturing a stealthy 180-ton fast-attack missile patrol boat, armed with Hsiung Feng-2 anti-ship missiles. The stealthy SIGMA-class corvettes procured by Indonesia and now being considered by Vietnam are other examples.

For Asian countries dealing with the littoral issue, the challenge is finding the right investment balance among intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and defensive and offensive technologies, Nugent said.

"Unmanned systems are critical to ISR and defense in the littoral now and will become more so for offensive littoral warfare as unmanned maritime systems are more widely armed for all domains in the future," he said. Investments in better sensors and C4ISR are the other areas where the "gaps that create vulnerabilities in ship's self-defense against missiles and torpedoes in the littoral are getting a lot of attention."

Another area of growing interest is the use of unmanned surface vehicles (USV) and unmanned underwater vehicles (UUV). ST Engineering is developing the 9-meter Venus USV ostensibly for harbor patrol, but the vessel has potential for littoral warfare.

USVs and UUVs will be "particularly useful for littoral warfare as they can be launched outside the EEZ or convenient surveillance range of the coastal state, which is unlikely to have the capabilities of detecting them," Bateman said. "They can be used for surveillance/intelligence collection and as an offensive weapon - to lay mines or fire torpedoes," he said.

There is also potential for anti-submarine warfare, but that capability is as yet "unrealized."

U.S. Won't Adopt E.U. Code of Conduct for Space

The United States will not adopt a European-written "code of conduct" for activities in space on the grounds that it is too restrictive, according to a senior State Department official.

"It's been clear from the very beginning that we're not going along with the code of conduct," Ellen Tauscher, undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, said during a Jan. 12 breakfast with reporters in Washington.

Asked why the U.S. government would not sign the document, Tauscher said, "It's too restrictive."

The European Union has been working the voluntary code of conduct for several years. The document lays out rules of the road for operating satellites and other space vehicles as space becomes increasingly congested, the idea being to minimize the chances of collisions or misunderstandings that could escalate.

The code also focuses on dealing with space debris, a problem that began getting greater public attention in 2007 after China destroyed one of its own orbiting satellites with a ground-launched missile.

"We made it very definitive that we were not going to go ahead with the European Code of Conduct; what we haven't announced is what we're going to do, but we will be doing that soon," Tauscher said.

Up to now, the U.S. government has been circumspect about its intentions with regard to the code. In April, for example, Ambassador Greg Schulte, U.S. deputy assistant secretary of defense for space policy, described the code as a "positive approach" but stressed that the U.S. government had not yet decided whether to sign the document.

Some U.S. lawmakers have raised concerns that the nonbinding agreement would tie the U.S. military's hands in space. "We've advanced further technologically in development and actual deployment of these systems than anyone else, and agreements [and] codes of conduct tend to … constrain our military," Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said during a hearing on the subject in May.

"We had never said we were going to do it; we just hadn't said 'no,'" Tauscher said.

Hinting at new U.S.-written rules of the road for space, Taushcer said, "You wouldn't be surprised to find out that we've found a nice sweet spot."

The Pentagon had concerns with the European strategy for space traffic management, but there are also "ways to deal with it," according to Michael Krepon, co-founder of the Stimson Center, a think tank here. The U.S. Defense Department did a lengthy assessment of the code of conduct and reviewed particular provisions that "would make sense for our national security."

"If the satellite is stealthy, or we want it to be stealthy, how does that fit into a traffic management system?" he said. "Now you argue … major space-faring nations can figure out the orbital characteristics of objects in space, but it you want to move an object in space do you provide advance notice of this or how do you handle that?"

If the Obama administration is going ahead with a new strategy, then the Pentagon's concerns have likely been addressed, Krepon said.

In 2004, the Stimson Center published a draft code of conduct for space, which is similar to the document pushed by the European Union.

"I think the problematic piece that the administration was struggling with was that it was made in Europe and that the really important space-faring nation felt no ownership of it," he said.

Russia, China, India and Brazil have all distanced themselves from the document, Krepon said. At the same time, Canada and Japan have endorsed the document.

"I think the conundrum that the administration is facing is how to bring in major space-faring nations that have kept their distance from the E.U.'s handiwork," he said.

The Pentagon supports a space international code of conduct, Lt. Col. April Cunningham, a DoD spokeswoman, said.

Pakistan Defense Secretary Fired Over Army Row

ISLAMABAD - Pakistan's army warned Jan. 11 of "grievous consequences" for the country over criticism by the prime minister that has ramped up tensions between the military and civilian leadership.

Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani immediately sacked the top bureaucrat in the defense ministry over the row, with the government saying the official had been the cause of the "misunderstanding" with the military.

The spat centers on a Supreme Court inquiry set up to investigate a controversial unsigned memo allegedly delivered to the U.S. military seeking its help in curbing Pakistan's highly powerful armed forces in May.

In an unusually bold interview with Chinese media earlier this week, Gilani accused the army and intelligence chiefs of failing to make their submissions to the commission through government channels.

The army issued a statement on Jan. 11 vociferously denying Gilani's accusation and saying it had passed its response through the defense ministry to the court in accordance with the law.

"There can be no allegation more serious than what the honorable prime minister has leveled against COAS (army chief Gen. Ashfaq Kayani) and DG ISI (spy chief Lt. Gen. Ahmad Shuja Pasha) and has unfortunately charged the officers for violation of the constitution of the country," the army's statement said. "This has very serious ramifications with potentially grievous consequences for the country."

Kayani returned on Jan. 10 from China and met on Jan. 11 with the head of Myanmar's air force in Rawalpindi.

Pakistan has seen three military coups since independence in 1947. It has spent about half of its life under military dictatorships.

The current civilian administration headed by Zardari has lurched from crisis to crisis since coming to power in 2008 following elections held a month after the assassination of his wife, former prime minister Benazir Bhutto.

Defense secretary Naeem Khalid Lodhi was fired over what the government called a "misunderstanding" between Gilani and the top brass caused by his failure to pass court submissions through the prime minister's office.

"Prime minister has terminated the contract of defense secretary Naeem Khalid Lodhi for gross misconduct," a senior government official told AFP.

The army's statement cast doubt on the government's claim and said that Gilani had issued a press release last month apparently approving the army's replies to the court as being made "through proper channel."

The statement also defended submissions made to the memo inquiry as in accordance with the military's obligation to "state the facts."

The highly controversial memo was allegedly an attempt by President Asif Ali Zardari through Husain Haqqani - a close aide and then-ambassador to the United States - to enlist help from the U.S. military to head off a feared coup in Pakistan.

American businessman Mansoor Ijaz has claimed that Zardari reportedly feared that the military might seize power in a bid to limit the hugely damaging fallout after U.S. Navy SEALs killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan in May.

Tension between the army and Zardari's weak civilian administration soared over the note, allegedly delivered to then-chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen in May and made public by Ijaz in October.

Pakistan's Supreme Court last week decided to set up a judicial commission to investigate the matter and Pasha, the head of the ISI intelligence agency, has called for a "forensic examination" of the memo.

Haqqani has already resigned over the affair and the court has stopped him from leaving Pakistan. At the second meeting of the commission held on Jan. 9, he repeated his denial of any involvement in the scandal.

The commission, being held in Islamabad, is to meet again on Jan. 16 and is expected to submit its findings within four weeks.

The probe puts fresh pressure on the president, who visited Dubai in December over health fears, with most observers expecting early elections sometime in 2012.

North Korea: U.S. Offered Food for Nuke Shutdown

SEOUL, South Korea - North Korea said Jan. 11 that the United States had offered food aid and a suspension of sanctions if it halted its uranium enrichment program.

The comments by a foreign ministry spokesman to Pyongyang's official news agency were the first by the North on the issue.

Before the sudden death of the North's leader Kim Jong-Il on Dec. 17, there were several media reports that such an agreement was imminent.

At talks in July last year, Washington "proposed to take confidence-building steps such as suspension of sanctions, as well as food aid" in return for a "temporary suspension" of uranium enrichment, the North's spokesman said.

Experts say the uranium program disclosed in November 2010 could give the communist state a second way to make nuclear weapons. The disclosure spurred efforts to revive stalled six-party nuclear disarmament negotiations.

The U.S. and North Korea last year held two rounds of bilateral talks aimed at restarting the negotiations last held in December 2008.

A third round was reportedly scheduled in Beijing before the announcement of Kim's death put the process on hold.

The spokesman's statement suggested that a deal was still on the cards if the U.S. raised the amount of food it is willing to offer. "We will watch if the U.S. truly wants to build confidence," it said.

Washington says any decision to offer humanitarian food aid would not be linked to other issues, but the spokesman accused the United States of politicizing the issue.

Robert King, U.S. special envoy for North Korean human rights, met senior North Korean foreign ministry official Ri Gun in Beijing in December to discuss a possible resumption of U.S. food aid.

South Korean media reports at the time said the North had agreed to suspend its uranium program while the U.S. would provide up to 240,000 tons of food.

The U.S. pledged 500,000 tons of rice in 2008. Shipments stopped the following year amid questions over transparency of the distribution, and Pyongyang told the Americans to leave.

The North's spokesman said Jan. 11 the U.S. had failed to provide 330,000 tons of the amount promised three years ago.

In recent talks it "has drastically changed the amount and items of provision contrary to the originally promised food aid", the spokesman said, adding this raised doubts about Washington's willingness to build confidence.

The U.S. is offering high-energy biscuits and similar nutritional supplements in its latest package, rather than rice which could be diverted to the military or the elite.

UN agencies that visited in February 2011 said six million North Koreans - a quarter of the population - need urgent aid in a nation where hundreds of thousands died in a famine in the 1990s.

An AirSea Battle on the Potomac

It is clear from last month's commemoration of the 70th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor that this disaster continues to impact the U.S. psyche and national strategy. "The next Pearl Harbor" has been a common theme in reports regarding 9/11.

One can assume the recently developed and classified AirSea Battle Concept has a similar vista. Addressing the "anti-access/area denial" environment, it purportedly discusses the growing influence of China and the importance of Asia to America's national interests. As the name states, air and sea power will be critical to the attainment of U.S. national interests.

While analogies to Pearl Harbor are understandable, they may be misleading on the challenges of tomorrow. A more appropriate lesson might be found in the Battle of Midway.

As the sun rose on June 4, 1942, the Imperial Navy of Japan was the most powerful navy ever to sail. By sunset, its eventual defeat was inevitable. Japan in 1942 possessed six world-class aircraft carriers and the finest naval aviators. Four carriers were lost on that day.

Lacking a robust industrial base, Japan would produce only seven additional fleet carriers by the end of the war (the U.S. more than 20). Rational or not, Japan started a war with a limited force structure and little ability to replenish loses.

Fast-forward to 2012. In a world of iPads, it is incredible, but the forces that will carry out the AirSea Battle construct reflect decisions made decades ago. Tomorrow's U.S. Air Force will possess a nominal force of bombers and a handful of sophisticated F-22s and F-35s. While highly capable, these fifth-generation fighters lack the range and payload necessary for conflicts in Asia. Friendly bases are few.

The airfields close enough for effective sortie generation rates with fifth-gen fighters will likewise be within range of Chinese ballistic and cruise missiles. This environment requires hardened facilities and a robust missile-defense system. The former do not exist and the latter only in limited numbers.

While U.S. naval forces will benefit from their mobility, they too will face a Chinese anti-access threat projected to acquire and target surface combatants. With a deck of F/A-18s and F-35s, our carriers will be as range-challenged as our land-based fighters. Getting the carrier to the fight will require expensive escorts to defend against missile attacks. Combat operations would quickly become problematic once the defensive armaments are depleted.

Complicating this bleak outlook is the acquisition death spiral of increased cost/reduced numbers. As weapon systems progress through the acquisition cycle, they invariably fall behind schedule from unforeseen production issues. This drives up the cost, reducing the number of systems that can be purchased. The spiral continues with the war fighter receiving fewer platforms, later than needed, and costing significantly more than planned.

These two flaws could leave the U.S. in the same position that Japan found itself in 1943, weakened and unable to reconstitute a viable force. A small fighter force will generate few effective sorties (this assumes sufficient aerial tankers. Fighters in Asia are static displays without tankers). The loss of a Nimitz-class carrier would rival Pearl Harbor in loss of life and drive our surface naval forces out of harm's way. Like Imperial Japan, a Midway debacle would cripple U.S. power projection. And like Japan of 1943, America of 2012 cannot quickly reconstitute our current weapon systems.

With senior leaders stating there are no alternatives to weapon systems currently in development, it's apparent their predecessors organized a Pickett's Charge decades ago and left the charge to them. Resolving this mismatch between force structure and strategy will require a proper focus on the challenges of combat operations in the Pacific.

Specifically, in the short term:

■ Expand procurement of standoff missiles, such as the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range.

■ Regain our superiority in electronic warfare that was lost in our infatuation with stealth.

■ Purchase low-end attack aircraft and remotely piloted vehicles for noncontested environments.

■ Limit the F-35 buy to 200 to 400 aircraft.

For the long term:

■ Develop manned/unmanned long-range penetrating precision strike platforms (both land- and carrier-based).

■ Research and develop 21st century battleships capable of firing ballistic and cruise missiles from long range.

On June 3, 1942, the Imperial Navy of Japan was the uncontested master of the Pacific. On the following day, American ingenuity, guts and a degree of luck made Japan's eventual defeat inevitable. The future naval and air forces of the U.S. could face a similar tragedy, one in which the finest air and naval forces are rendered incapable of effective combat operations due to a 20-year process where we purchased what we wanted instead of what we needed.

Perhaps the most important contribution from an honest assessment of the AirSea Battle construct will be to own up to this unfortunate fact.

Chris Choate is a retired U.S. Air Force colonel now performing operational test and evaluation work with the service as a civilian employee. These views reflect those of the author and not the Air Force, Defense Department or U.S. government.

Cold War Treaty Puts U.S. in Corner Over China

The Cold War's most successful arms control agreement is imperiling U.S. forces and increasing the probability of a conflict in Asia.

The U.S.-Soviet Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty contributed to stability in Europe during the Cold War's final years by eliminating both nuclear and conventionally armed ground-launched cruise and ballistic missiles with ranges of between 500 and 5,500 kilometers.

Now, however, the treaty is preventing the U.S. and Russia from responding to a growing threat from China, which has been expanding its missile force at an unparalleled rate. China now has at least hundreds of ground-launched intermediate-range missiles. By comparison, Russia and the U.S. have none.

The last time Americans worried about a "missile gap" - a phrase consigned to history along with the Soviet Union - Gerald Ford was U.S. president, Berlin was a divided city and Taiwan was a U.S. treaty ally. With the Cold War's end and the emergence of a unipolar era, Americans, it was supposed, no longer needed to worry about comparing numbers of tanks, bombers and missiles.

But while Washington and Moscow were busy eliminating entire classes of missiles and with good reason, on the other side of the Eurasian land mass Beijing was investing in missile technology. Today, missiles play a central role in Chinese military strategy. And so, 20 years after the Soviet Union's dissolution, the U.S. is once again facing a missile gap, and unlike the missile gaps of the Cold War, there is no question as to this one's existence.

Why does this matter? The U.S.-China missile gap (and the Sino-Russian one, as well) creates strategic instability in a way that the perceived Cold War missile gaps never did. With its ground-based missiles, China can target U.S. and allied bases in the Asia-Pacific as far away as Guam, including key U.S. facilities in South Korea and Japan.

With its new anti-ship ballistic missile, also ground-launched, the People's Liberation Army will likewise be able to attack U.S. aircraft carriers and other capital ships at sea.

Because the U.S. cannot field intermediate-range missiles, it could not respond in kind to a missile strike on regional assets. Instead, it would have two options. It could rely on tactical fighters to carry out retaliatory strikes. Or, it could rely on longer-range options such as bombers or prompt global strike munitions (basically, conventionally armed intercontinental-range missiles).

Given Russia's lack of intermediate-range missiles, it would have similar options in responding to a Chinese missile attack.

The first option is highly escalatory because it involves an infringement of Chinese territorial integrity by a presumably large fighter force. It puts a higher number of American lives at risk and would engage a wider array of Chinese forces than a simpler tit-for-tat retaliatory missile strike. And reliance on tactical aircraft to respond to Chinese missile strikes could be problematic because those strikes might well have rendered U.S. airbases and aircraft carriers unusable, or worse.

Option two is potentially even more escalatory. Bombers and long-range missiles, after all, look an awful lot like nuclear delivery vehicles. China might very well be incapable of determining with what an incoming bomber or missile was armed. It is an open question whether Beijing would wait to find out before deciding how to respond.

Fortunately, the solution to this conundrum is quite clear. First, Washington and Moscow should invite Beijing (as well as other Asian states) to accede to the INF Treaty, or some updated version of it. If the Chinese decline the invitation, Russia and the U.S. should agree to abrogate the treaty while also agreeing to keep Europe free of those weapons, where a missile buildup would needlessly destabilize a largely stable region.

The U.S. military, and the Russian military if it desires, should then begin a spirited buildup of its own ground-based intermediate-range missile force in Asia.

Although counterintuitive, this would contribute to strategic stability. By developing more options for proportional responses to a Chinese military strike, the U.S. military would make escalation management an easier task, thus making vertical escalation much less likely. Such a move would also give Beijing incentive to sign up to a new INF treaty, as the value of its own missiles would be greatly diminished by a balanced U.S. missile force.

If other Asian states begin fielding theater-range ballistic missiles in large numbers as well - a likely scenario given their affordability and obvious merits - the need for a regionwide INF treaty would become apparent even to the Chinese.

But unless and until the U.S. narrows its missile gap with China, stability in Asia will continue to erode.

Michael Mazza is senior research associate, Foreign & Defense Policy Studies, at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington.

Indian Military Delegation Begins China Visit

NEW DELHI - An Indian military delegation arrived Jan. 9 in Beijing for a four-day visit, although the group was reduced from the proposed 30 members to 15 after China refused a visa to a senior Indian Air Force official, Indian Defence Ministry sources said.

The visit is part of a defense exchange program. Military-to-military exchanges were restored between the two countries last year after a one-year suspension when Beijing refused to provide a visa to an Indian military officer.

The delegation includes officers from the three defense forces and will visit the General Staff headquarters of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) and meet the PLA's deputy chief, Gen. Ma Xiaotian, an Indian Defence Ministry official said. The Indian delegation is headed by Air Vice-Marshal P.S. Mann.

Analysts here do not read much into the exchanges because the two countries are preparing militarily against each other.

"India cannot afford to be complacent with its military preparedness vis-a-vis China as the [Chinese] threat has increased more than ever," said Mahindra Singh, retired Indian Army major general and New Delhi-based defense analyst.

The two neighbors fought a brief battle over a territorial despite in 1962, and despite dozens of rounds of negotiations, the dispute remains unresolved.

China Criticizes New U.S. Defense Policy

BEIJING - Beijing said Jan. 9 that a new U.S. defense strategy focused on countering China's rising power was based on "groundless" charges, and insisted it posed no threat to any nation.

U.S. President Barack Obama unveiled the strategy Jan. 5, calling for a leaner U.S. military focused on the Asia-Pacific region and signaling a shift away from large ground wars against insurgents.

But China, whose People's Liberation Army has benefited from a huge and expanding budget boosted by the nation's rapid economic growth, said the fears were baseless, urging the U.S. to "play a more constructive role."

"The charges against China in this document are groundless and untrustworthy," foreign ministry spokesman Liu Weimin said in response to a question from state media about whether China poses a threat to U.S. security.

Liu was referring to the strategy document released last week, which said the growth of China's military power "must be accompanied by greater clarity of its strategic intentions in order to avoid causing friction in the region."

"To maintain the peace, stability and prosperity of the Asia-Pacific region serves the common interest of all countries within the region," Liu added. "We hope the U.S. side will play a more constructive role to this end."

Washington's focus on Asia is fueled by concerns over China's growing navy and its arsenal of anti-ship missiles that could jeopardize U.S. military dominance in the Pacific. China's responses to recent U.S. moves to boost its military presence in Asia - including the deployment of up to 2,500 Marines to northern Australia - have so far been restrained.

China's official Xinhua news agency said Jan. 6 it welcomed a bigger U.S. presence in Asia as "conducive to regional stability and prosperity," while urging it against "warmongering."

China "adheres to the path of peaceful development, upholds an independent foreign policy of peace and a defense policy that is defensive in nature," Liu said. "Our national defense modernization serves the objective requirements of national security and development and also plays an active role in maintaining regional peace and security. It will not pose any threat to any country."