United States missile interceptor test ends in failure

Though the United States and Russia are showing interests in reducing the stock of destructive nuclear batteries, the decisions are not effective. The tones are still more like that of the predecessors; SALT1 and SALT2 as well as the STARTs.

The two 'pledges' but the consequent actions are always anti-pledges. Russia recently successfully tested a prototype ICBM with mammoth destructive capabilities which was antithetical to its reduction facade.

United States of course did not go to bed despite Obama's interest in engaging Russia. It is also advancing to prove that arms race has no end in sight. The latest test of a US missile interceptor system from a Southern California coastal base failed to destroy its target, the third such consecutive result for Boeing Co., according to the Defence Department.

In the test, target designed to emulate an incoming long-range ballistic missile was launched from the US Army's Reagan Test Site on Kwajalein Atoll, in the Republic of the Marshall Islands.

The interceptor missile was launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base, though it failed to intercept its target. The US military has tested the ground-based defence system a total of 16 times, with eight confirmed instances of a successful interception, the last of which was reported in December of 2008.

The Pentagon has said that the latest test will not affect a decision to expand the missile defence system, which is in part aimed at North Korea’s nuclear weapons programme. Defence secretary Chuck Hagel announced in March an additional 14 new anti-missile interceptor batteries at a cost of nearly $1 billion.

The North Korea and Iran debacle have been Washington's excuses to bolster its arsenal while Russia usually cites US expansion into its 'sphere of influence'; Georgia, Poland and Ukraine as reason to be security-conscious and not go to bed too on missiles' build-up.

The New Global War: Obama orders compilation of Global Cyber Targets

A top secret document has revealed President Barack Obama ordered national security leaders to compile a list of potential overseas “adversaries” for US cyber-attacks which could be targeted with “little or no warning”.

The 18-page, classified document, entitled Presidential Policy Directive 20, outlines plans for Offensive Cyber Effects Operations (OCEO), cyber-attacks which would target US adversaries around the world.

“OCEO can offer unique and unconventional capabilities to advance US national objectives around the world with little or no warning to the adversary or target and with potential effects ranging from subtle to severely damaging,” the Washington Post cites the document as saying.

“The United States government shall identify potential targets of national importance where OCEO can offer favourable balance of effectiveness and risk as compared with other instruments of national power,” it continues.

The directive also mulls the potential use of cyber actions within the US, though any such operations must be conducted with prior authorisation of the White House, unless “it qualifies as an Emergency Cyber Action.”

Under the heading "Policy Reviews and Preparation", a section marked "TS/NF" - top secret/no foreign - states: "The secretary of defence, the DNI [Director of National Intelligence], and the director of the CIA … shall prepare for approval by the president through the National Security Adviser a plan that identifies potential systems, processes and infrastructure against which the United States should establish and maintain OCEO capabilities…," the Guardian reports. The deadline for the plan is six months after the approval of the directive.

It further recognises the potential for collateral damage in the wake of cyber operations, noting: “even subtle and clandestine operations, may generate cyber effects in locations other than the intended target, with potential unintended or collateral consequences that may effect [sic] US national interests in many locations.”

The document states that all cyber operations should conform with US and international law, noting that any operations which are "reasonably likely to result in significant consequences require specific presidential approval." The directive, which was distributed to virtually every high-ranking member of the US Executive, was first signed by President Obama in mid-October though it was never published.

In November, a senior administration official told the Post how the directive was part and parcel of the White House effort to delineate between what constitutes an “offensive” or “defensive” action in the mercurial world of cyber-war and cyber-terrorism. “What it does, really for the first time, is it explicitly talks about how we will use cyber-operations,” the official said. “Network defence is what you’re doing inside your own networks. . . . Cyber-operations is stuff outside that space, and recognising that you could be doing that for what might be called defensive purposes.”

Select statements from the memo were declassified in January, though no mention was made of US efforts to draw up a target list or bolster its offensive capability. When asked about efforts to ratchet up US offensive capabilities as outlined in the directive, a senior administration official told the Guardian: "Once humans develop the capacity to build boats, we build navies. Once you build airplanes, we build air forces."

The official added: "As a citizen, you expect your government to plan for scenarios. We're very interested in having a discussion with our international partners about what the appropriate boundaries are." Reports of the directive came as Chinese President Xi Jinping met with President Obama for an informal two-day summit in the resort city of Rancho Mirage, California on Friday.

In a bid to rebuff media reports that China regularly targeted the US military and corporations with cyber-attacks, President Xi told reporters with Obama at his side: “China is a victim of cyber-attacks and we hope that earnest measures can be taken to resolve this matter.”

Obama opted not to publicly accuse China of being behind a raft of cyber-attacks targeting US facilities and institutions. Rather, he called for “common rules of the road,” adding that China and the US should work together for a mutually beneficial cyber-security regime.

“As China continues in its development process and more of its economy is based on research and innovation and entrepreneurship, they’re going to have similar concerns, which is why I believe we can work together on this rather than at cross-purposes,” Obama said.

 Despite Obama’s reticence to challenge China, Secretary of Defence Chuck Hagel recently issued a stern warning to China over its alleged cyber-attacks against the US: “We are also clear-eyed about the challenges in cyber. The United States has expressed our concerns about the growing threat of cyber intrusions, some of which appear to be tied to the Chinese government and military.”

Hagel’s comments came in the wake of a US Defence Science Board report which claimed around 40 Pentagon weapons programmes and almost 30 other defence technologies had been compromised by Chinese hackers, some purportedly tied to the military or government.

In April, Gen. Keith Alexander, who heads both the National Security Agency and the new Cyber Command, signaled that the United States would more aggressively counter cyber-attacks from abroad with offensive operations. Alexander told Congress that of 40 new CYBERCOM teams currently being assembled, 13 were being established to counter foreign cyber-attacks. Regarding the 13 teams of programmers and computer experts, the NSA chief stressed: “this defend-the-nation team, is not a defensive team.”

‘Missile defence killer’: Russia finalises testing on prototype ICBM

Russia’s Strategic Missile Forces have reported a successful launch of a next-generation ICBM that can supposedly pierce any anti-ballistic missile (ABM) system. The test came after the US announced it would resume its ABM programme in Europe.

The test missile launched from a mobile pad at 9:45pm (17:45 GMT) on Thursday, the Defense Ministry said Friday. The test was carried out in the Astrakhan region, deep inside Russian territory, and the prototype’s payload successfully hit the Balkhash range in Kazakhstan.

“The test launch was a success as the [simulated] warhead hit a designated target within the set time frame,” the Russian Defence Ministry statement said. “This test launch was intended to confirm technical characteristics of the missile, as well as to check the safety of the launch procedures and equipment.”

The launch was the third successful test of the prototype ICBM. The development of a new solid-fuel ICBM was officially announced in 2012, and is set to gradually replace the existing Topol-M and later the recently developed Yars missile complex. Strategic Missile Forces expect to finalize testing by the end of 2013 and put the new missile into production in 2014.

Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin welcomed the test, calling the new ICBM a “missile defence killer... Neither current nor future American missile defense systems will be able to prevent that missile from hitting a target dead on.”

Russia maintains at least 58 silo-based Soviet-made P36M ('SS-18 Satan' NATO classification) ballistic missiles, believed to be the most powerful in the world with up to 10 megaton-class warheads. The Strategic Missile Forces have 160 mobile Topol-M ('SS-25 Sickle') missile systems, 50 silo-based and 18 road-mobile Topol-M ('SS-27 Sickle B') systems, and 18 RS-24 Yars systems.

In recent years, two missile divisions were re-armed with the newest Topol-M and Yars systems, and more will follow in 2013. The Defense Ministry is also preparing to introduce the latest automated battle management system (ASBU), enabling rapid retargeting of ICBMs.

Russia sped up development of new intercontinental ballistic missile systems after the US announced plans to continue deploying its missile defence system in Eastern Europe, near Russian borders.

The issue of the US missile shield in Europe has become a major stumbling block in Russia-US relations. Moscow has demanded legal guarantees from Washington that missile defence systems deployed in Europe would not target Russia's strategic nuclear deterrence capabilities. But Washington refused, citing a need to protect Europe from ‘rogue states' like Iran and North Korea.

In mid-March of 2013, Washington attempted to engage Moscow in new talks about further nuclear arms reduction, after presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev agreed to reduce their nuclear stocks with the New START arms reduction treaty. The US said it would no longer deploy SM-3 IIB ballistic missile interceptors in Poland until 2022.

Nevertheless, Moscow still demands legally binding guarantees from Washington that the system's intentions are peaceful.

On Monday, US Secretary of State John Kerry met with the Polish Foreign Minister, and committed to deploy missile defences in Poland by 2018 as planned. “We are on track to deploy a missile defence site in Poland by 2018 as part of NATO’s modernized approach to our security,” Kerry said.

Russia under Vladimir Putin is not likely to take any US missile defence shield deployment lightly. Putin  maintains Russia's stand as a real 'checker' to US activities.

The Syrian debacle perfectly illustrates Putin's stand viz a viz the US and NATO; he maintains that Libya will never repeat itself just as when he took over from Boris Yeltsin who was pro-US in a way and changed the course of Russia's foreign policy, becoming a facsimile of Soviet days.

'America is our worst enemy': Pakistani victim of US Drone strikes speaks out

Drone strikes in Pakistan have killed 1,000 civilians, activists say, while the US maintains they only target terrorists. Victims of drone warfare and their families live in constant fear of another strike, and say they are “angry and want revenge.”

A review of classified US intelligence records has revealed that the CIA could not confirm the identity of about one-quarter of those killed by drone strikes in Pakistan during a period spanning 2010 and 2011. In a review of 14 months of classified records, 26 out of 114 attacks designate fatalities as “other militants,” and in four other attacks those killed are described as “foreign fighters.”

The CIA is reluctant to reveal information on its drone programme, Chris Woods of the Bureau of Investigative Journalism told RT.

“With so many civilians reported killed, and yet the CIA reporting that it’s killed no more than 50 or 60 civilians, I think there is need for an open, not only an open inquiry, but also for the CIA to share the information it has on who it believes it’s killed in places like Pakistan. President Obama’s speech the other week did seem to promise more openness but unfortunately we’re not seeing signs of that just yet,” Woods said.

In his post-election address to parliament, Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif called for an end to US drone attacks in the country’s northern tribal areas bordering Afghanistan.

"This daily routine of drone attacks, this chapter shall now be closed," Sharif said to enthusiastic applause. "We do respect others' sovereignty. It is mandatory on others that they respect our sovereignty."

“Most of the strikes in Pakistan these days are really not related to Al-Qaeda or those terrorist activities but really to the war across the border in Afghanistan. The drone war has changed quite significantly over the ten years or so it’s been running. We see the US talking about using drones in Syria for example; we have had calls from Iraq and Rwanda recently for the US to use drones there. So there’s a concern among some that the US wants now to use these drones as an easy plank in their view of foreign policy,” Woods explained.

Residents of Pakistan say they are living “in constant fear of another strike.” Amin Ullah was on his way to work at a mine near his village when a drone struck the area. He lost his leg in the attack, and three other miners were killed. "The Americans should be able to tell an ordinary person from a Taliban leader. They should know who they're killing. What did we do to deserve this?" Ullah told RT.

“We are simple villagers who are stuck in a war that we didn’t ask for. It’s a hopeless feeling. Death is above our heads all the time,” he added.

Another victim of the drone attack, Nek Bahadar, lost part of his hearing and nearly his foot: “The drone’s shockwave was so intense that it threw us outside far from the place where we were sleeping. After several minutes there was another strike and it killed many more people.”

“Of course this has made me hate the Americans. We are angry and want revenge. They’ve destroyed our lives. My parents, my wife my children – we all see America our worst enemy now,” Bahadar said.

Pakistani human rights lawyer Shahzad Mirza Akbar has sued both the US and Pakistan on behalf of civilian victims in Waziristan, a mountainous region in northwestern Pakistan bordering Afghanistan.

“I simply call it a concentration camp, that you've built a wall of military and militants, and behind this wall you are keeping more than 800,000 people who are not allowed to come out and no one from the rest of the country is allowed to go in. And that is kind of laboratory that US is using to use test its drone program,” Akbar told RT’s Lucy Kafanov.

Evidence of drone strikes is difficult to gather; fragments of the attacks were collected by a local journalist Noor Behram, who spent years documenting the civilian toll of drones, especially on children.

“Whenever my 3-year-old daughter hears the plane she runs inside and won’t sleep that night. The children here have been traumatized by the drones. The sound of a door banging shut is enough to terrify them,” Behram said.

There are fears that the US campaign to eliminate terrorists could end up creating more. “By carrying out drone strikes, killing innocent people who are not part of the conflict, you are just widening the conflict. You are giving the reason to people who were not part of the conflict here to become part of the conflict,” Akbar explained.
 
Breakthrough advances in unmanned aircraft technology have also sparked concerns at the UN. The UN’s rapporteur for extrajudicial killings, Christof Heyns, is calling for a worldwide ban on "killer robots" that could attack targets autonomously, without a human having to pull the trigger.

According to the report, the US, Japan, South Korea and Israel have developed various types of fully- or semi-autonomous weapons.

“It’s important to say there’s no particular day we’ll be able to say, now we have fully autonomous robots. But there are already very high levels of autonomy available, and full autonomy may be available within a few years. It’s important to emphasize the distinction between drones and lethal autonomous robots (LARs). With drones you have a human in the loop with somebody sitting behind the computer and taking the decision to pull the trigger. With robots there’s no human being in the loop, it’s a computer that takes a decision,” Heyns explained.

Courtesy: Russia Today

Classified documents reveal CIA drone strikes often killed unknown people

A review of classified US intelligence records has revealed that the CIA could not confirm the identity of about a quarter of the people killed by drone strikes in Pakistan during a period spanning from 2010 to 2011.

According to a purportedly exclusive report by NBC News that mirrors findings of an April analysis by McClatchy, between September 3, 2010 and October 30, 2011 the agency’s drone programme over Pakistan routinely designated those killed as “other militants,” a label used when the CIA could not determine affiliation, if any.

The review by NBC News paints both a confusing and troubling picture of the CIA’s reported drone strike success, which three former Obama administration officials feared could have missed or simply ignored mistakes.

Of the 14 months worth of classified documents reviewed, 26 out of 114 attacks designate fatalities as “other militants,” while in four other attacks those killed are only described as “foreign fighters.”

Even more irregular are the cases when entry records conflict on the number of those killed, with one such example indicating a drone attack had killed seven to 10 combatants, and another estimating 20 to 22 fatalities.

By comparison, McClatchy’s April review of drone strikes revealed that at least 265 of up to 482 people that the CIA killed during a 12-month period ending in September 2011 were not senior al-Qaeda leaders, but were instead “assessed” as Afghan, Pakistani and “unknown extremists.” Corroborating media accounts show that US drones killed only six top al-Qaeda leaders during the same period.

One key term in analyzing drone strike records are what are known as “signature” strikes, when drones kill suspects based on behaviour patterns but without positive identification, versus “personality” strike, which is when drone targets are known terrorist affiliates whose identities are verified.

According to an anonymous senior intelligence official who spoke to NBC, at the peak of drone operations in Pakistan in 2009 and 2010 as many as half of all kills were classified as “signature” strikes.

One former senior intelligence official said that at the height of the drone programme in Pakistan in 2009 and 2010, as many as half of the strikes were classified as signature strikes.

Retired Admiral Dennis Blair, the former Director of National Intelligence from 2009 to 2010, addressed NBC’s report with the claim that the precision of drone strikes was superior to those of traditional battlefield weapons.

“In Afghanistan and Iraq and places where you have troops in combat ... you know better with drones who you’re killing than you do when you’re calling in artillery fire from a spotter [or] calling in an airplane strike,” he said.

“This is no different from decisions that are made on the battlefield all the time by soldiers and Marines who are being shot at, not knowing who fired the shot, having to make judgements on shooting back or not. This is the nature of warfare,” added Blair.

As to just how analysts arrive at determining unverified, “signature” drone targets, that system relies on data which draws connections between the unidentified individuals and known militants. That might entail monitoring everything from the frequency that a suspect visits a particular location, meets certain individuals, or makes phone calls and sends emails.  

During a key speech defending his administration’s use of targeted drone killings in May, President Obama defended the CIA’s drone programme as a “legal,” “lethal” and “effective” counterterrorism tool, while at the same time acknowledging some civilian casualties.

A report entitled “Living Under Drones,” jointly released by Stanford University and New York University in 2012, is far less muted on civilian casualties, and argues that the civilian death toll in drone strikes over Pakistan is far higher than is reported.

In the classified reports reviewed by NBC News, for example, of the 600 some killed only one is listed as a civilian, a statistic which Micah Zenko, a drone expert at the Council on Foreign Relations described as “incredible.”

The Stanford-NYU report, for its part, bases its conclusions on 130 interviews, as well as a review of media reports, though the methodology employed can itself be a subject of debate.

Separately, an Associated Press investigation in 2012 reported that out of 10 drone strikes over a period of 18 months, Pakistani villagers claimed that only 70 per cent of those killed by US strikes were militants, with the rest either civilians or tribal police.

The new Pakistani Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif has called for an end to drone strikes in Pakistan.

Courtesy: Russian Times

The US and NATO in Mali?

The stage could be set for the coming of the United States and NATO into Mali. NATO and the United Kingdom has reiterated that they will not intervene militarily in Mali with boots on the ground. UK has sponsored France with aircraft and ready to provide more logistics. The call within the Republican circle that Obama should respond to France is reminiscent of Libya.

France has called on the Security Council of the United Nations to discuss and this might shore of international support for the mission. The Islamists on their part have promised France a long war. The have being launching a counter-offensive to drive home the point that the war is continuous and could get to mainland France.

The Obama administration should give France whatever aid it needs to combat Islamist militants in Mali, the top Republican on foreign affairs issues said Tuesday. 

“I expect the Obama administration to honour appropriate requests for intelligence and logistics support from France,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce (R-Calif.) said in a statement. “When confronting a shared threat, we should have our ally’s back.”

Royce's comments come amid reports that France is beefing up its intervention to roll back Islamists who have taken over the northern part of the desert country and are threatening the rest of the country. The French intervention was requested by the country's president, who took over following a military coup last year that has been denounced by the Obama administration.

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said Monday the United States has a “responsibility” to help roll back the al Qaeda-linked militants in Mali.

“I welcome France taking the initiative to combat this serious security threat in West Africa,” Royce said. “The vast area of Northern Mali gives these al Qaeda-linked militants space to operate, and the weapons flowing out of Libya makes them deadly. This cancer could not go unaddressed.

“This isn’t avant garde for the French. They have shown leadership in working with Ivory Coast and other African governments to improve security. Paris understands the high stakes.”

If the United States is involved, then NATO cannot be extricated from Mali too. The fear is that another Libya might be brewing in West Africa and more weapons will be in circulation; hence, another vicious circle of violence and instability if they leave.