Missile Defense (General thread)

[American Patriot]

I think people are grasping at straws.

Honestly. If it is a crescent, INDEED we're shooting a missile into it.

The Muslims will be awful offended if they figure out it's true meaning.

[Ryan Ruck]

Review Cites Flaws in U.S. Antimissile Program

May 17, 2010

President Obama’s plans for reducing America’s nuclear arsenal and defeating Iran’s missiles rely heavily on a new generation of antimissile defenses, which last year he called “proven and effective.”

His confidence in the heart of the system, a rocket-powered interceptor known as the SM-3, was particularly notable because as a senator and presidential candidate he had previously criticized antimissile arms. But now, a new analysis being published by two antimissile critics, at M.I.T. and Cornell, casts doubt on the reliability of the new weapon.

Mr. Obama’s announcement of his new antimissile plan in September was based on the Pentagon’s assessment that the SM-3, or Standard Missile 3, had intercepted 84 percent of incoming targets in tests. But a re-examination of results from 10 of those apparently successful tests by Theodore A. Postol and George N. Lewis, being published this month, finds only one or two successful intercepts — for a success rate of 10 to 20 percent.

Most of the approaching warheads, they say, would have been knocked off course but not destroyed. While that might work against a conventionally armed missile, it suggests that a nuclear warhead might still detonate. At issue is whether the SM-3 needs to strike and destroy the warhead of a missile — as the Pentagon says on its Web site.

“The system is highly fragile and brittle and will intercept warheads only by accident, if ever,” said Dr. Postol, a former Pentagon science adviser who forcefully criticized the performance of the Patriot antimissile system in the 1991 Persian Gulf war.

In interviews and a statement, the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency strongly defended the SM-3s testing record, and said that the analysis by Dr. Postol, an M.I.T. physicist, and Dr. Lewis, a Cornell physicist, was fundamentally mistaken.

“The allegation is wrong,” Richard Lehner, an agency spokesman, said Wednesday. He said the SM-3 is “attaining test scores that many other Defense Department programs aspire to attain.”

Even so, the Pentagon later admitted that 4 of the 10 analyzed flight tests carried no mock warheads at all.

The White House declined to comment on the critique of the SM-3 and referred questions to the Pentagon.

The political implications of the critique are potentially large. Democrats, traditional critics of missile defense, have been largely silent about Mr. Obama’s enthusiasm for this new generation, which for the moment is aimed only at shorter- and mid-range missiles, rather than ones that fly between continents.

During the campaign, Mr. Obama repeatedly criticized what he called President George W. Bush’s haste to deploy unproven antimissile arms. He vowed that as president, he would assure that any defensive shield would meet rigorous standards of testing and effectiveness.

Since last fall, Mr. Obama’s antimissile goals have expanded to include not only countering Iranian missiles, but creating a rationale for deep cuts in the nation’s nuclear arsenal and ultimately for prompting foes to abandon their missile programs.

The deployment of the SM-3 is also seen as essential to convincing Israel that the United States has an effective technology to contain Iran, even if the Iranians obtain a nuclear weapon.

The dispute between the academics and the Pentagon centers on whether it is enough for a speeding interceptor to hit the body of a spent rocket moving through outer space or whether it must hit the attached warhead. Dr. Postol says the SM-3 interceptor must shatter the warhead directly, and public statements of the Pentagon agency seem to suggest that it agrees.

“The interceptors,” the agency Web site says in its basic explanation of antimissile goals, “ram the warhead at a very high closing speed, destroying the target.”

Skeptics generally hold that the antimissile job is so daunting — what the Pentagon calls hitting a bullet with a bullet — that managers and contractors easily fall prey to exaggerating test results.

But technologists call it increasingly doable. Compared with the Bush administration’s land-based system, the SM-3 is fairly small, quickly deployable on ships and has a better reputation.

The interceptor holds what the Pentagon calls an exoatmospheric kill vehicle. In space, it peers through a telescope to guide itself toward the target, sensing telltale heat emanations and using a computer brain to fire thruster jets. The kill vehicle slams into the target and destroys it by force of impact.

Dr. Postol’s critics see him as a pessimist blind to antimissile progress, and his defenders view him as a seer of technical oversight.

During the 1991 Gulf war, the Army put the success rate of the Patriot at over 80 percent in Saudi Arabia and 50 percent in Israel. But Dr. Postol found that brilliant displays of antimissile fire and thunder hid repeated failures of the interceptors to knock out speeding warheads.

The SM-3 analysis of Dr. Postol and Dr. Lewis, “A Flawed and Dangerous U.S. Missile Defense Plan,” appears in the May issue of Arms Control Today, a publication of the Arms Control Association, a private group in Washington.

The study examined video images that the SM-3 kill vehicle took a split second before striking the target and that the Missile Defense Agency subsequently made public. The analysis looked at 10 tests between 2002 and 2009 — all of which the agency hailed as successful intercepts.

But the scientists found that the kill vehicle hit the warhead only once or twice. The rest of the time, the interceptor struck the rocket body — a much larger target.

In combat, the scientists added, “the warhead would have not been destroyed, but would have continued toward the target.”

In an interview, Dr. Postol said the antimissile blow might cause a warhead to fall short or give it an added nudge, with the exact site of the weapon’s impact uncertain.

“It matters if it’s Wall Street or Brooklyn,” he said, “but we won’t know in advance.”

The Pentagon’s rebuttal included a written one vetted by Lt. Gen. Patrick J. O’Reilly, director of the Missile Defense Agency, as well the office of the secretary of defense. It called the analysis “flawed, inaccurate and misleading” and said the alleged SM-3 failures were all, in fact, successes that “did exactly what was expected” as the kill vehicles hit “within inches of the expected impact point.”

But it offered little discussion of whether striking the rocket body in flight tests was sufficient grounds to claim overall success — a seemingly important point given that much of the agency’s public testimony centers on the necessity of hitting warheads to ensure their destruction.

In a series of e-mail messages, Mr. Lehner of the Missile Defense Agency offered more information. On Wednesday, he said the rocket’s violent breakup also demolished the warhead. Asked if the agency had evidence, he replied Thursday that readings from test sensors “prove conclusively” that mock warheads “were destroyed and were no longer a threat.”

Mr. Lehner added, however, that target missiles in 4 test flights carried no mock warheads, but rather “a nosecone with a weight up front for ballast.” The 4 flights with no warheads — which Dr. Postol and Dr. Lewis included in their analysis of 10 interceptions by the SM-3 — included 3 early ones and a flight last July, the most recent in their analysis.

Informed of the Pentagon’s response, Dr. Postol said he had no idea about the lack of warheads. He also questioned whether the destroyed warheads represented military designs or frail impostors. Real nuclear warheads streaking through the void of space are extremely rugged objects, designed to withstand the fiery heat of atmospheric re-entry as well as intense buffeting and shaking.

“A mock warhead may be extremely fragile compared to a real one,” Dr. Postol said.

Mr. Lehner disagreed. On Friday he called the fragility claim “absolutely not true.”

Representative John F. Tierney, a Massachusetts Democrat who is chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform national security subcommittee, said in a statement that the SM-3 reanalysis raised serious questions.

“Congress will need to look into them further,” he said. “The American people deserve to know about the system’s actual capabilities and have a right to expect that their tax dollars are being spent effectively.”

[Ryan Ruck]

U.S. Delays Anti-Missile Laser Test For Third Time

August 18, 2010

A high-profile test of a missile-destroying laser aboard a converted Boeing Co 747 aircraft has been postponed for a third time because of a technical glitch, the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency said.

The agency cited an unspecified problem with a tracking camera's cooling system. Repairs could not be completed to fit the test window available at a range off the California coast on Tuesday night, it said.

The goal is to shoot down a mock ballistic missile more than 100 miles away, twice the range demonstrated in a maiden test on February 11, using the airborne chemical oxygen iodine laser.

Army Lieutenant General Patrick O'Reilly, the agency head, told reporters earlier on Tuesday the follow-on test was postponed over the past two weeks because of successive technical problems.

The first was with a stand that holds the target. The second was a problem on one of the tracking systems' software modules, prompting a system reboot, he said.

"We learned so much from that first test that our conclusion was we can operate at twice the range we thought ... and it may even have a greater range," he said.

O'Reilly said the delays reflected concerns with safety and a limited pool of target ballistic missiles that represent the perceived threat from countries such as Iran and North Korea.

The agency expects to be ready to run the delayed test in time for the next window of opportunity on the range, on Sunday, said Debra Christman, an agency spokeswoman.

Boeing provides the aircraft, battle management and overall systems integration. Northrop Grumman Corp supplies the megawatt-class laser and Lockheed supplies the beam control and fire control systems.

The laser's successful test in February prompted calls on the Pentagon to restore funding for further development of the system. Defense Secretary Robert Gates curtailed it to a research effort last year rather than a development program headed for possible deployment.

Boeing, the prime contractor, said in February the successful test "blazed a path for a new generation of high-energy, ultra-precision weaponry."

[American Patriot]

Really? They delayed it?

/snicker

[American Patriot]

The Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) and the United States Missile Defense Agency (MDA) announced the successful completion of an Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) intercept flight test, in cooperation with the U.S. Navy, off the coast of Kauai in Hawaii.

The event marked the fourth time that a JMSDF ship has engaged a ballistic missile target, including three successful intercepts, with the sea-based midcourse engagement capability provided by Aegis BMD.

The JFTM-4 test event verified the newest engagement capability of the Japan Aegis BMD configuration of the recently upgraded Japanese destroyer, JS KIRISHIMA. At approximately 5:06 p.m. (HST), 12:06 p.m. Tokyo time on October 29, 2010, a separating 1,000 km class ballistic missile target was launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility at Barking Sands, Kauai, Hawaii.

JS KIRISHIMA crew members detected and tracked the target. The Aegis Weapon System then developed a fire control solution and launched a Standard Missile -3 (SM-3) Block IA missile. Approximately 3 minutes later, the SM-3 successfully intercepted the target approximately 100 miles above the Pacific Ocean. JFTM-4 is a significant milestone in the growing cooperation between Japan and the U.S. in the area of missile defense.

Also participating in the test was USS LAKE ERIE and USS RUSSELL, Aegis ships which cooperated to detect, track and conduct a simulated intercept engagement against the same target.

[American Patriot]

New START and Missile Defense: We Are 33 Minutes Away…

Published on November 9, 2010 Factsheet #74

• Print PDF
• Download PDF

Weakening Our Missile Defense

• America the Vulnerable: The threat from ballistic missile attack is real. This is why Americans need to pay attention to this issue now.
• White House Already Cutting Missile Defense: President Obama scaled back the number of interceptors in the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System in Alaska and California from 44 to 30 and decided not to deploy 10 interceptors in Poland that would’ve provided protection against long-range Iranian missiles.These cuts reduce the missile interceptor force dedicated to protecting the U.S. homeland by 44%.

New START Leaves America Vulnerable

• New START Treaty Weakens America’s Defense: It is evident that Russia seeks to curtail U.S. missile defense programs. New START is one of the tools to achieve this.
• New START Restrictions: New START imposes restrictions on U.S. missile defense options through Article V of the treaty and additional provisions in the Protocol and Annexes. The Preamble also applies the logic that U.S. missile defenses must be reduced in accordance with the reduction of the strategic offensive arms of Russia because otherwise the defenses will “undermine the viability and effectiveness” of Russia’s offensive force.
• Limiting U.S. Options and Sovereignty: The treaty restricts certain types of missiles and missile launchers that are used as targets in missile defense tests. The treaty also gives the Bilateral Consultative Commission, the treaty’s implementing body, a broad mandate that could permit it to impose additional restrictions on missile defenses.
• Lame Duck Not the Time to Ratify Treaties: If the Administration and current Senate majority leadership push for a vote on New START during the “lame duck” session, the Senate will not have time to adequately evaluate it, especially newly seated Senators who need time to become educated on the treaty, exacerbating an already biased process in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
• White House Should Release Treaty Negotiating Record: The Administration has refused to give the Senate access to the record that includes all draft versions of the treaty, memoranda, notes, and communications between U.S. and Russian negotiators. The record is critical to clear up questions on key provisions in the treaty and how the Russians interpret them.
• Other Bad Deals in the Works? Recent comments by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov indicate that Russia and the U.S. are negotiating a separate side agreement that will limit U.S. missile defense and space options even further.

Growing Threat

• Iran: Iran could have a nuclear weapon in as little as one to two years and an ICBM capable of threatening the U.S. by 2015 or sooner. A nuclear-armed Iran would be a game changer. Tehran would use its newfound leverage to intimidate neighbors and step up its sponsorship of terrorism.
• North Korea: The extent of their nuclear weapons inventory is unknown, but Pyongyang has conducted two nuclear tests. North Korea has enough fissile material for eight to 12 plutonium-based nuclear weapons. North Korea is also continuing to pursue a parallel nuclear weapons program using highly enriched uranium. North Korea has 600 SCUD short-range ballistic missiles that threaten Japan and 100 No-Dong intermediate-range ballistic missiles that could hit U.S. bases in Okinawa and Guam, and Pyongyang continues to develop the Taepodong intercontinental ballistic missile that, when fully developed, could reach the U.S. with a nuclear warhead.
• 33 Minutes: As the threat of missiles launched from Iran, North Korea, or coalitions of hostile parties grows, so does the need for more robust defenses—particularly when no matter where on earth a missile is launched from, it would take 33 minutes or less to hit the U.S. target it was programmed to destroy.

For more information, please visit http://33minutes.com.


Send this report to a friend

Your Information Yes, I'd like to receive news about Heritage via email Your Friend's Information


Your Message

• Print PDF
• Download PDF

Share

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Email
• More

Send this report to a friend

Your Information Yes, I'd like to receive news about Heritage via email Your Friend's Information


Your Message



Other Experts on this Issue

• Kim R. Holmes, Ph.D.
• Baker Spring
• Jim Talent
• Ariel Cohen, Ph.D.
• Mackenzie Eaglen

[American Patriot]

Navy Sets World Record With Incredible, Sci-Fi Weapon

By John R. Quain
Published December 10, 2010
| FoxNews.com

U.S. Navy video by John Williams
U.S. Navy engineers at the Office of Naval Research prepared and test-fired a slug from their rail gun in a 2008 test firing. On Friday, December 9, the ONR will attempt to break its own record.



A theoretical dream for decades, the railgun is unlike any other weapon used in warfare. And it's quite real too, as the U.S. Navy has proven in a record-setting test today in Dahlgren, VA.


Rather than relying on a explosion to fire a projectile, the technology uses an electomagnetic current to accelerate a non-explosive bullet at several times the speed of sound. The conductive projectile zips along a set of electrically charged parallel rails and out of the barrel at speeds up to Mach 7.



The result: a weapon that can hit a target 100 miles or more away within minutes.


"It's an over-used term, but it really changes several games," Rear Admiral Nevin P. Carr, Jr., the chief of Naval Research, told FoxNews.com prior to the test.


For a generation raised on shoot-'em-up video games, the word "railgun" invokes sci-fi images of an impossibly destructive weapon annihilating monsters and aliens. But the railgun is nonetheless very real.

Related Links

U.S. Army Unveils 'Revolutionary' XM25 Rifle in Afghanistan

M4 Vs. AK-47: Is U.S. Army Outgunned in Afghanistan?

Related Video


Navy Tests Electromagnetic Railgun
Weapon shoots without explosive charge

YOU MIGHT ALSO BE INTERESTED IN

House, Senate on Collision Course After Dems Reject Tax Cut Bill

Racy Photos of Christina Aguilera 'Illegally Obtained' by Hacker, Report Says

Americans Aren't Saving Nearly Enough for Retirement

More Unions and Companies Win Health-Reform Exemptions

You Found Someone's Debit Card. Do You Pick it Up?

An electromagnetic railgun offers a velocity previously unattainable in a conventional weapon, speeds that are incredibly powerful on their own. In fact, since the projectile doesn't have any explosives itself, it relies upon that kinetic energy to do damage. And at 11 a.m. today, the Navy produced a 33-megajoule firing -- more than three times the previous record set by the Navy in 2008.
"It bursts radially, but it's hard to quantify," said Roger Ellis, electromagnetic railgun program manager with the Office of Naval Research. To convey a sense of just how much damage, Ellis told FoxNews.com that the big guns on the deck of a warship are measured by their muzzle energy in megajoules. A single megajoule is roughly equivalent to a 1-ton car traveling at 100 mph. Multiple that by 33 and you get a picture of what would happen when such a weapon hits a target.
Ellis says the Navy has invested about $211 million in the program since 2005, since the railgun provides many significant advantages over convention weapons. For one thing, a railgun offers 2 to 3 times the velocity of a conventional big gun, so that it can hit its target within 6 minutes. By contrast, a guided cruise missile travels at subsonic speeds, meaning that the intended target could be gone by the time it reaches its destination.
Furthermore, current U.S. Navy guns can only reach targets about 13 miles away. The railgun being tested today could reach an enemy 100 miles away. And with current GPS guidance systems it could do so with pinpoint accuracy. The Navy hopes to eventually extend the range beyond 200 miles.
"We're also eliminating explosives from the ship, which brings significant safety benefits and logistical benefits," Ellis said. In other words, there is less danger of an unintended explosion onboard, particularly should such a vessel come under attack.
Indeed, a railgun could be used to inflict just such harm on another vessel.
Admiral Carr, who calls the railgun a "disruptive technology," said that not only would a railgun-equipped ship have to carry few if any large explosive warheads, but it could use its enemies own warheads against them. He envisions being able to aim a railgun directly at a magazine on an enemy ship and "let his explosives be your explosives."
There's also a cost and logistical benefit associated with railguns. For example, a single Tomahawk cruise missile costs roughly $600,000. A non-explosive guided railgun projectile could cost much less. And a ship could carry many more, reducing the logistical problems of delivering more weapons to a ship in battle. For these reasons, Admiral Carr sees the railgun as even changing the strategic and tactical assumptions of warfare in the future.
The Navy still has a distance to go, however, before the railgun test becomes a working onboard weapon. Technically, Ellis says they've already overcome several hurdles. The guns themselves generate a terrific amount of heat -- enough to melt the rails inside the barrel -- and power -- enough to force the rails apart, destroying the gun and the barrel in the process.
The projectile is no cannon ball, either. At speeds well above the sound barrier, aerodynamics and special materials must be considered so that it isn't destroyed coming out of the barrel or by heat as it travels at such terrific speeds.
Then there's question of electrical requirements. Up until recently, those requirements simply weren't practical. However, the naval researchers believe they can solve that issue using newer Navy ships and capacitors to build up the charge necessary to blast a railgun projectile out at supersonic speeds. Ellis says they hope to be able to shoot 6 to 12 rounds per minute, "but we're not there yet."
So when will the railgun become a working weapon? Both Ellis and Carr expect fully functional railguns on the decks of U.S. Navy ships in the 2025 time frame.




Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...#ixzz17jjuyySG

[American Patriot]

Imagine --- setting a whole bunch of MRE doughnuts side by side and turning them all on, one at a time in sequence to suck a steel projectile through them, increasing in speed until the projectile shoots out at nearly the speed of light....

Don't laugh. That's next.

[American Patriot]

Russia warns US not to meddle with START treaty

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...RT-treaty.html

Russia said on Monday that any attempts by US Republicans to "fix" the new START treaty would spell the end of the historic nuclear disarmament pact between the two former Cold War foes.


Barack Obama has argued that the agreement also improves ties with Russia and bolsters the position of President Dmitry Medvedev Photo: AFP






4:22PM GMT 20 Dec 2010



The US Senate was expected to hold a vote on the nuclear arms control pact on Tuesday despite a last-minute bid by Republicans to change the text's wording to make sure it does not block the deployment of a missile shield in Europe.




Russia has resisted the systems as potentially harmful to its own nuclear deterrence and said on Monday that any tinkering with the wording would effectively kill the pact.

"The START agreement, which was drafted on the basis of strict parity, completely meets the national interests of both Russia and the United States," Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told the Interfax news agency.




"It cannot be reopened, becoming the subject of new negotiations."

US President Barack Obama has argued that the agreement not only makes the world safer but also improves ties with Russia and bolsters the position of President Dmitry Medvedev – seen as a modernising force in Washington.
Leading Democrats said on Sunday they believed they had enough votes to pass the treaty and slash both sides' arsenals to 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads.
Senators this weekend rejected two Republican amendments to strip out language in the preamble tying offensive nuclear weapons to defensive systems.
But Republican Minority Whip Jon Kyl said on Sunday that "this treaty needs to be fixed."
He and other Republicans suggested delaying the vote until next year – an idea rejected by the Obama administration amid fears that an even presence of Republicans in Congress next year would make passage even more difficult.
Mr Lavrov encouraged Washington to move quickly but appeared to put no time limit on a final vote.
"We would prefer not to think about the negative consequences" of this treaty not being passed," Russia's top diplomat told the agency.
"We expect the ratification process to be completed in near future."

X Share & bookmark
Delicious Facebook Google Messenger Reddit Twitter
Digg Fark LinkedIn Google Buzz StumbleUpon Y! Buzz
What are these?

• Share: Share

Tweet

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...RT-treaty.html
Telegraph

Russia

• News »
• World News »
• Europe »
• North America »
• USA »

In news


Winter swimmers





'Spy suspect showed us round Commons'




Russian spy suspects





Vladimir Putin sings and plays piano




Race riots in Moscow

[American Patriot]

US Senate debates "killer" amendments to START


Tags: Military news, START Treaty, Russia, World

Dec 17, 2010 15:18 Moscow Time

Download

Republican Senator from Arizona John McCain chats with reporters about his reservations to the new START treaty in the U.S Capitol in Washington, DC. Photo: EPA

The US Senate is debating the new START treaty with Russia. The Democrats are asking their colleagues to vote for the agreement. The Republicans are criticizing the document and suggesting either postponement of the ratification until next year or adoption of important amendments.
The Democrats told their opponents in advance that they were prepared to discuss reasonable amendments to the START resolution. They will not allow amendments to the text of the treaty itself, because the amendment offered in the preamble of the document, containing a reference to the correlation between strategic offensive and defensive weapons, can “kill” it. The text of the treaty is the result of complicated negotiations and compromises. Any alterations in the text will inevitably result in the need for a new discussion.
The wording of the preamble is rather loose, said Alexey Arbatov, the director of the International Security Centre of the Institute of World Economics and International Relations of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
“It can be understood both in the American and Russian way. The sides are left with a certain freedom of interpretation. What is the correlation of strategic offensive and defensive weapons? Russia understands it in a way that the reduction of strategic weapons entails curtailing defensive ones. We think we cannot step up strategic weapons if we cut back on defensive ones. And the Americans understand it the other way round. They say that correlation means that the more they cut back on strategic weapons the more they rely on defensive systems, not against each other, naturally, but together against third countries. The preamble allows for this double interpretation and it is clear why. Otherwise, we would never have come to an agreement. We deliberately admitted diplomatic and judicial ambiguities in order to conclude this treaty. And at the next stage, we will sort out this correlation so as to rule out two contrary interpretations and establish only one, based on a compromise.”
To all appearances, the hottest debate will be around the preamble. However, local experts believe that the chance of the approval of the “killer” amendments is practically nil. Anyway, they are not even being discussed yet.
In any case, Obama’s Administration will spare no effort to complete the ratification of the START treaty before the end of this year. If the Senate postpones the treaty debate until next year, it may raise serious problems with ratification. The new Congress gets down to work on the 3rd of January. The Republicans will have a much stronger position in the new Congress than in the current one. Even before the election, the Republicans blocked a lot of the Administration’s initiatives, and the new composition of the Senate will make Obama’s life even more difficult.

[American Patriot]

9 Reasons Why The START Treaty Must Be Stopped


As the U.S. military continues to waste an enormous amount of energy and resources patrolling the streets of Iraqi cities and digging goat herders out of the caves of Afghanistan, a very real threat to the national security of the United States is developing and very few people even seem concerned about it. It is called the START Treaty, and Barack Obama is desperately trying to ramrod it through the lame duck session of Congress. Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev agreed to the terms of the treaty back in April, and two-thirds of the U.S. Senate must vote for it in order for the treaty to become law. So what is so bad about the treaty? Well, for starters, it almost totally defangs the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal that has protected us for the past six decades, it puts serious restrictions on the ability of the United States to develop any kind of missile defense and it puts the U.S. military at a very significant strategic disadvantage.
But Barack Obama doesn't care. Barack Obama believes that "the Cold War is over" and that we live in a post-nuclear world. Obama believes that we do not need nuclear weapons and that we don't really need any kind of missile defense either.
In fact, when it comes to nuclear weapons Barack Obama's primary motivation seems to be getting rid of as many of them as possible. As noble as that may sound, the truth is that the world is becoming a much more dangerous place and the threats that the U.S. is facing are only increasing.
Unfortunately, Obama does not see things that way. Shortly after he was elected, Barack Obama delivered a major foreign policy speech in Prague during which he called for a world that was free from nuclear weapons.
Apparently he was quite serious about this, and Obama has publicly stated time after time that he is convinced that America must lead the way when it comes to nuclear disarmament.
So exactly what would this START treaty do? Well, the following are 9 reasons why the START treaty must be stopped....
#1 The treaty restricts both the United States and Russia to a maximum of 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads. For the U.S. military this would represent a decline of well over 90% from a peak of approximately 31,255 strategic nuclear warheads in 1967. The treaty would also limit the total number of deployed ballistic missiles or nuclear bombers to 700.
#2 As part of the treaty we would tell Russia exactly where our few remaining nuclear weapons are and allow the Russians to inspect those sites. So if the time ever came for the Russians to strike our emasculated nuclear arsenal, they would know exactly where to find our few remaining nuclear weapons.
#3 The treaty is so vague about some of the key issues that the two sides are already arguing about what it means. For example, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov says that the restrictions on missile defense are "clearly spelled out in the treaty" and that these restrictions are "legally binding". But in a recent letter to U.S. Senators, Barack Obama stated that the treaty "places no limitations on the development or deployment of our missile-defense programs."
#4 Nuclear weapons technology is rapidly spreading around the globe and the need for a missile defense system is greater than ever. If this treaty does restrict our ability to build a missile defense system (as the wording of the treaty clearly seems to indicate), that is a very serious threat to our national security. What is going to happen one day when a rogue nation or a rogue terror group launches a nuke at us? Excuses will not cut it at that point.
#5 The treaty completely ignores the very serious imbalance that exists between the U.S. and Russia when is comes to tactical nuclear weapons. Today it is estimated that the Russians have approximately 10,000 tactical nuclear warheads while the U.S. only has a few hundred. These tactical nuclear warheads can be delivered by cruise missiles, long-range artillery or aircraft. The treaty does nothing to change those numbers. This would put the United States at a very serious strategic disadvantage.
#6 The treaty does nothing to restrict the quality of long-range missiles. Currently, Russia is busy modernizing their strategic long-range missiles. The United States is not doing the same. Once again, this could leave the United States at a very serious strategic disadvantage.
#7 The Russian government has shown that they are not trustworthy. Of course, the same thing could be said about the Obama administration. Anyone who trusts anything that Barack Obama says at this point is an idiot.
#8 North Korea already has nukes, Iran is developing nuclear technology and a number of other important nations such as Venezuela are rumored to be interested in nukes. This is simply not a good time to be getting weaker.
#9 If World War III were to break out over the next decade, the United States would very likely find itself facing a Chinese/Russian alliance. The combined conventional military forces of China and Russia are far superior to those of the United States. The only major advantage that we had was our edge in strategic weaponry, and this treaty would greatly weaken that advantage.
Unfortunately, most of those that will read this article simply are not going to care. The vast majority of Americans believe that the Cold War is over and that war with either China or Russia is next to impossible.
But if this treaty is passed, and there is every indication that it will be, then it is going to make a nuclear first strike against the United States much, much more likely.
Previously, everyone knew that if they messed with America they could potentially face being nuked into oblivion. But if this treaty is passed, our nuclear arsenal would be slashed to the bone and our potential enemies would know precisely where to strike to take out most of our remaining nukes.
Unfortunately, most of our politicians do not even stop to think about such things. Let's hope and pray that the foolishness of our leaders does not catch up with us any time soon.

[American Patriot]

December 19, 2010

Categories:

• Diplomacy

Kyl says 'no' to START

It's official: Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl will not vote for ratification of the START treaty in its current state.


The Senate GOP point man on the nuclear arms agreement told host Chris Wallace on "Fox New Sunday" that without any amendments, he could not vote for the treaty.

“This treaty needs to be fixed. We’re not going to have time to do that,” the Senate minority whip said.

As one of the last major matters of business in this lame-duck session of Congress, Senate leaders are debating the START treaty, which would require the support of two-thirds of the Senate for ratification. The White House has made it a top priority in the final weeks of this year and on Saturday, President Barack Obama sent a message to the Senate reaffirming his plans to deploy missile defense systems as needed.

Kyl, however, said he should have been talking to the Russians instead of the Senate.

“Send a letter to the Russians,” Kyl said. “In fact, change the preamble to the treaty, which would eliminate any doubt about this issue.”
An amendment offered by Sen. John McCain(R-Ariz.) that would have changed the preamble – and caused the United States to have to renegotiate with Russia – failed Saturday in the Senate, 37-59. And regardless of whether the treaty will be approved, the long debate stretched out over several days has eaten up precious floor time in the final days of the lame-duck session.

“Sen. [John] Kerry, leading the effort on the Democratic side (said) we will not permit an amendment to the treaty...Well, what are we going to through this exercise for?” Kyl said. “We’re just a rubber stamp for the administration and the Russians. The administration for the first time, wasn’t going to stand up to the Russians and say you’re not going to implicate our missile defenses.”

Kyl’s sparring partner on the Sunday show, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), said Democrats look forward to bringing the START treaty to vote the “next several days.”

“We need to bring this to a vote,” he declared.

[American Patriot]

Home / News / Opinion / Letters to the Editor
New treaty is flawed

http://trib.com/news/opinion/mailbag...ac84e8a4f.html

• Story
• Discussion

New treaty is flawed Posted: Sunday, December 19, 2010 12:00 am | (9) Comments

Editor:
I am writing in response to your recent editorial about my position on the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty ("Barrasso should listen to Simpson on treaty," Dec. 17).


As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I have studied the new treaty throughout the past year during both public hearings and classified briefings. I disagree with President Barack Obama and former Senator Alan Simpson. I also disagree with your characterization that my opposition is based on a desire to deny the president a foreign policy victory. My position is based on policy -- not politics.



I believe the treaty contains serious flaws that will impact America’s national security. The current treaty weakens our missile defense, benefits Russia, and ignores other nuclear threats like Iran and North Korea. I also believe the administration must provide long-term commitments to modernize our nuclear delivery vehicles and infrastructure.



On Friday, Sen. John McCain and I offered the McCain-Barrasso amendment to strike language in the treaty’s preamble that places limitations on U.S. missile defense. This is only one area of concern.



Unfortunately, the full Senate has only been given a few days to address the treaty’s consequential flaws. START is too important to be rammed through in the last few days of a lame-duck Congress. We need to fix START’s flaws before it is ratified.
SEN. JOHN BARRASSO, Washington, D.C.

[American Patriot]

Fate of Arms Treaty Tied to Policy on Gays
By JENNIFER STEINHAUER
Published: December 17, 2010

o

WASHINGTON — Vexed and cornered, Republican opponents of the advancing effort to allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military pulled out a final card Friday, suggesting that the future of an arms treaty with Russia was endangered by Democratic efforts to repeal “don’t ask don’t tell” at the end of the lame-duck session.


Recent Congressional Action on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

“It poisons the well,” said Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee, on the floor of the Senate during debate on the New Start treaty. Mr. Coker said he did not think “the future of the Start treaty over the next several days is going to be successful” if Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, continued with his plans to pursue the repeal, as well as an immigration bill.

Other Republican senators echoed the view.

Mr. Reid announced Thursday that the Senate would begin voting Saturday on a measure to repeal the Clinton-era military policy that prohibits gay, lesbian and bisexual members of the military from serving openly. The Senate will also take up an immigration bill that would allow young people who were illegally brought into the country to earn legal status through education or military service. Its passage, which is considered unlikely, would fulfill a campaign promise that Mr. Reid made to Hispanic voters.

The repeal measure, once tucked into a broader military bill that failed to win approval, was returned to the Senate this week after being passed by the House, and appears to have just enough Republican votes to pass.

Four Republicans — Senators Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, Scott P. Brown of Massachusetts and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — have said they will support the measure, and other Republicans have indicated they may back it.

The bill has the support of all the Senate Democrats and independents except for Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia.

“People will look back 25 or 30 years from now and say, ‘I can’t believe that there was a time when Americans were not allowed to serve in the military because of something very private, like their sexual orientation,’ ” Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut and an original sponsor of the bill, said in an interview on CNN.

Republican opponents were enraged by Mr. Reid’s decision to schedule votes on the repeal and immigration measures.

In an interview, Mr. Corker said that while he was still inclined to vote for the arms reduction treaty, the effort to pass the other bills had undermined support for the treaty among his colleagues. “I can absolutely tell you it’s been damaged,” he said. “I’ve been in three meetings today, and people are hardening more and more on this issue.”

He declined to name those who had indicated they might not vote for the treaty.

Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, made a similar point. “My message is that the Start treaty is a heavy lift,” he said in an interview off the Senate floor. “I’ve warned people, make up your mind.”

Senator John McCain of Arizona, a leading opponent of the repeal, also criticized the Democratic efforts to bring new legislation to the floor, saying, “A lot of us on this side of the aisle are growing weary of this.” Mr. McCain also said that his vote on the treaty would not influence his vote on the repeal, and vice versa.

“There continues to swirl allegations that there is going to be a vote for or against because of another piece of legislation,” Mr. McCain said. “I reject that allegation.”

Advocates for the repeal denounced the Republicans’ new strategy.

“What some Republicans like Corker seem to be saying is, ‘We will let nuclear weapons proliferate if you let gays serve,’ “ said Fred Sainz, a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign.

As a practical matter, it is not clear how the concerns that the senators are now expressing will affect the vote on the treaty, the approval of which is a priority for President Obama.

A treaty requires a two-thirds majority for approval; Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, has said he feels confident the votes will be there.

The fate of the treaty has also been complicated by an attempt by Mr. McCain to strip out language in the preamble that recognizes a relationship between offensive and defensive weapons. Mr. McCain and other Republicans have expressed concern that the wording, while nonbinding, establishes a linkage that Russia could use to try to hinder American plans for missile defense in Europe.

Any change in the treaty itself would require the Obama administration to reopen negotiations with Russia, and the White House and Senate Democrats oppose such amendments.

Mr. McCain was careful to describe his amendment as one way to address his concern, not the only way, suggesting compromise was still possible.

Peter Baker contributed reporting.

[American Patriot]

White House gives up on getting Kyl's support for New START


Posted By Josh Rogin Thursday, December 16, 2010 - 3:16 PM Share



As senators lined up Thursday to give speeches about the New START treaty on the Senate floor and the debate kicked into high gear, the White House formally abandoned its drive to work with Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) on ratifying the treaty.
Following Kyl's press conference Wednesday afternoon, during which he and 11 other GOP senators pledged to oppose the move to finish the treaty this year, the administration decided to make good on its promise to force a vote during the lame duck session and attempt to peel off the nine GOP votes that it will need to pass the treaty.
"Senator Kyl is opposed to the treaty. He's flat out opposed to the treaty," Vice President Joseph Biden told MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell in an interview taped Wednesday evening.
Biden also criticized Kyl and Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), who said that debating the New START treaty this month was "disrespectful" and "sacrilegious" to Christians, respectively. MSNBC's Keith Olbermann called their tactic the "war against Christmas vacation."
"Don't tell me about Christmas. I understand Christmas. I was a senator for a long time and I've been there many years where we go right up to Christmas," Biden said. "There's 10 days between now and Christmas. I hope I don't get in the way of your Christmas shopping, but this is the nation's business. This is the national security at stake. Act."
And so ends what at times had been a torturous attempt by the administration to cajole, entice, and even bribe Kyl to sign off on the treaty. The process began last year, when the administration flew Kyl to Geneva to witness the negotiations surrounding the treaty, and ended with the administration flying a team of officials to Arizona last month to present details of an $84 billion package for nuclear modernization they hoped would be enough to gain Kyl's support.
Kyl, who the Senate GOP anointed as their leader on New START, has been very coy about whether he would ultimately support the pact, even until yesterday. "If I announce for or against the treaty at this point, nobody would listen to me," he said at his press conference.
Only days after the administration flew a team to his home state, he declared there was no time to complete the treaty this year. Shortly after that announcement, Biden and top White Houseofficials hosted a small roundtable with foreign affairs columnists, which included your humble Cable guy, where they promised to move forward with or without Kyl.
Looks like it's going to be without him. Biden's new boldness stems comes after a vote to move to debate on the treaty Wednesday passed 66 to 32, indicating that there is not enough Republican opposition to stop the process from moving forward. Democrat Evan Bayh (D-IN) missed the vote but is expected to support the treaty.
Nine Republicans voted to begin the debate: Sens. John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Susan Collins (R-ME), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), George Voinovich (R-OH), Richard Lugar (R-IN), Scott Brown (R-MA), and Bob Bennett (R-UT).
The vote has given treaty supporters confidence in the chances of ratification, but there will be many more twists and turns before that can happen. There are already signs that the procedural vote does not necessarily reflect how some senators will vote on the treaty. For example, Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) issued a statement that he may support the treaty even though he voted against moving to debate.
"I voted against proceeding to consideration of the New START treaty because I don't agree with the decision to debate a nuclear arms treaty at the end of a lame duck session in the midst of considering an omnibus appropriations bill," said Corker. "But now that we are on the bill... if there is a full and open debate on the treaty and if the resolution of ratification isn't weakened in the process, it is still my plan to support the treaty."
The administration is also still working to increase the number of treaty supporters. Now that they feel there's a reasonable chance of passage, they are hoping fence-sitters can be encouraged to move to the winning side. Their targets are figures like Corker and Sen. Johnny Isaakson (R-GA), who voted for the treaty in committee, and other "moderate" GOPers, like new Illinois Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL).
They seem prepared to write off GOP senators who have said they might vote for the treaty but not if it's pushed through this month.
The GOP senators complaining about the schedule Wednesday were Sens. Kyl, Kirk, Pat Roberts (R-KS), Kit Bond (R-MO), James Risch (R-ID), Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Jeff Sessions (R-GA), John Thune (R-SD), John Barrasso (R-WY), George LeMieux (R-FL), Mike Johanns (R-NE), and John Cornyn (R-TX).
Alexander, Lemieux and others have said they could perhaps support the treaty next year but will vote no during the lame duck session. Of course, that's what Kyl has said as well, and that's exactly the line that the White House is now openly rejecting.
Meanwhile, the Thursday debate focused the GOP senators's numerous concerns about the treaty, including missile defense, nuclear modernization, tactical nuclear weapons, and verification. Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman John Kerry (D-MA) spoke about the need to avoid amendments to the treaty's preamble, which were ruled in order by the Senate parliamentarian this week.
"The fact is, if you change that preamble now, you are effectively killing the treaty, because it requires the president to go back to the Russians and renegotiate the treaty," he said.
One amendment, which Kerry and supporters is calling a "treaty killer," would strip the preamble of language that acknowledges a relationship between offensive and defensive missile capabilities. Some Republicans think that may constrain U.S. missile defense plans, but the administration and Lugar disagree.
"This does not mean that Russia will not complain regarding U.S. missile defense deployment, as it has complained about U.S. missile defense plans for the past four decades," Lugar said. "But under the New START Treaty, we will continue to control our own missile defense destiny, not Russia."

[vector7]

Obama Delays Hawaii Vacation to Work Phones on START Deal

Published December 20, 2010
| FoxNews.com

• Print
• Email
• Share
• Comments (464)
• Text Size

AP
Friday: President Obama walks off stage after a ceremony in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on the White House complex.

President Obama has delayed his Christmas vacation in Hawaii while he makes calls Monday to lobby senators to back an arms treaty with Russia that several Senate Republicans say they will not support.

With a wide-open schedule -- the result of his family heading on vacation Saturday without him -- the president is working the phones to try to win support for START, a White House aide said. The aide would not disclose how many phone calls the president was making or to whom.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said later in the day that the White House "believes that before Congress leaves town the Senate will ratify START."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., took to the floor Monday to announce a schedule that included a procedural vote on the treaty to be taken up on Tuesday. In the meantime, the Senate was to go into closed session to debate the accord and could emerge to vote on a continuing resolution to fund government into March and later in the week a health care bill for Sept. 11 emergency workers.

But with Republican opposition to START delaying its ratification -- possibly into next year -- Reid warned that the clock is ticking.

YOU MIGHT ALSO BE INTERESTED IN

Congress Overturns Military Ban of Gays Serving Openly, Sends Bill to Obama's Desk

The Doctor Will See You Now, at Work

Three U.S. Bank Failures Bring Year's Total To 157

Mullen: US 'very ready' to counter Iran on nukes

2011: New Ways to Buy and Sell

"Last year we were here up until Christmas Eve, and I hope we don't do that this year for everyone," he said.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who announced over the weekend that he would not vote for the new START, and whose notice gives other Republicans cover to oppose the treaty, said Monday that lawmakers McConnell argued that the administration has a proven record of trying to rush implementation of a policy without fully reviewing the implications, and pointed to the problem with trying to shutter the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, ordering troops to withdraw from Afghanistandon't ask, don't tell won't impact combat readiness or cohesion of U.S. troops.

"The administration has taken the same cart-before-the-horse approach on the treaty before us," McConnell said. "We had to rush this treaty, according to the logic of the administration because it had become an important component in the effort to 'reset' the bilateral relationship with the Russian Federation. It was brought up for debate prematurely because it was the first step in a pre-determined arms control agenda.

The Senate's constitutional role of advice and consent became an inconvenient impediment."

Nonetheless, the White House and Senate Democratic leaders are claiming confidence they will have enough votes -- 67, or two-thirds of the Senate --.for passage of the arms treaty. New York Sen. Charles Schumer said Democrats have now picked up the support of another Republican senator and need nine or 10 Republican votes to prevail.

"It's going to be a real slog, house by house combat if you will," Schumer told ABC television's "Good Morning America" on Monday. "But I think we'll be there."

Democrats expect to get 57 votes from their caucus, with Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden absent due to cancer surgery. Four Republican senators, including the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Richard Lugar, have said they back the treaty.

The White House and Democrats are determined to win approval of the treaty before January, when Republicans increase their numbers in the Senate, dimming its outlook. During a rare Sunday session of the Senate, Democrats turned back a Republican amendment to change the treaty, which would have effectively killed it.

Obama's letter to congressional leaders Saturday vowing to move ahead on missile defense -- a key hang-up for lawmakers who say the preamble links development of it to strategic arms reduction -- carried sway, some Republicans said. But Sen. John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate in 2008, said he was still undecided.

Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed the accord in April. It would limit each country's strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550, down from the current ceiling of 2,200. It would also establish a system for monitoring and verification. U.S. weapons inspections ended a year ago with the expiration of a 1991 treaty.

Proponents of the treaty, including much of the military and foreign policy establishment, cite the renewed weapons inspections and say the pact would keep the two biggest nuclear powers on the path to reducing their arsenals.

[American Patriot]

I honestly think it would be a good idea if we "gave them the rest of the month off" from work myself.

So they can't shove anything else down our throats.

Call you congress critters, tell them NOT to vote for the START TREATY.

[American Patriot]

White House: START treaty will be ratified

The Associated Press
Monday, December 20, 2010; 1:14 PM

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama's chief spokesman says the White House believes the Senate will ratify an arms treaty with Russia before Congress adjourns this year.



Spokesman Robert Gibbs voiced optimism despite newly announced opposition to the treaty from the Senate's Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.



Gibbs said Obama and Vice President Joe Biden continued to reach out to fence-sitting senators to ensure the treaty, known as New START, can win the two-thirds majority required for ratification.






Gibbs said McConnell's opposition and that of the Senate's second ranking GOP leader, Jon Kyl of Arizona, did not alter the White House expectation the treaty would pass.



Ratification of the treaty would cap a flurry of activity following a midterm election that gave Republicans a new foothold on power.

[American Patriot]

Non-Advice from the Government in Case of a Nuclear Attack

Posted December 20th, 2010 at 12:08pm in Protect America with 0 comments Print This Post


The latest campaign of the U.S. government focuses on what to do in case of a nuclear attack. The only problem is that, like many government programs, it does not offer much useful advice. According to government officials, the best thing one can do is stay put and find shelter. Sounds like the old “duck and cover” from the Cold War, doesn’t it?


Finding shelter (e.g., in a car, basement, or hole in the ground) might spare an individual some effects from intense nuclear radiation, light, and pressure waves that are created by a precipitous rise in temperature in the blast zone, provided you have a good basement. However, this shelter will do scarce little to mitigate the massive fires that occur after a nuclear explosion.


A high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack would have an even more devastating impact. According to national security experts James Carafano and Richard Weitz, “A nuclear device detonated high in the atmosphere above the American mainland can easily disable the country’s electrical grid.” It is important to note that an EMP is produced during any nuclear weapons detonation.


Actually, the best defense against a nuclear detonation is to prevent its occurrence in the first place by building up robust missile defense capabilities. Currently, the United States does not have missile defenses that would protect it against a “scud in a bucket” scenario—a short-range missile with a nuclear warhead launched from an air or ship platform toward the U.S. coastland and detonated at a high altitude. On top of this, the Obama Administration has cut the size of missile defenses for protection of the U.S. homeland by 44 percent. Despite these shortsighted cuts, the United States has the capability to defend its homeland, institutions, and people if it decides to pursue a more robust missile defense capability.


The United States should pursue a robust ballistic missile defense capability, especially in light of the threats from rogue states that are vigorously pursuing ballistic missile and nuclear weapon capability.



Unfortunately, the Senate is now considering New START, a strategic nuclear arms reductions treaty with the Russian Federation that would limit U.S. missile defense capabilities.


This happens amidst the Obama Administration’s pressure on the Senate to pass the treaty in the “lame duck” session of Congress, which does not offer the necessary time for the Senate to adequately evaluate the treaty, especially newly seated Senators who need time to become educated on the content of the treaty. This treaty will be implemented on their watch over the next 10 years.


Within the first five of those years, Iran or North Korea could have capability to deliver a nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missile to the continental United States—not to mention a capability to conduct an EMP attack on the U.S. The U.S. government’s campaign ad should have closed with the following admonition: Now is not the time to be limiting missile defenses in the face of this nuclear threat.


Co-authored by Michaela Bendikova.

[American Patriot]

Russia adds 2 Topol-M ballistic missiles to nuclear deterrent


19:38 17/12/2010
Russia's Strategic Missile Forces (SMF) have deployed two additional Topol-M silo-based missile systems, SMF Commander Lt. Gen. Sergei Karakayev said on Friday.

"The new systems, which are part of the new sixth regiment of silo-based Topol-Ms in service with the Tatishchevo Missile Division near Saratov in southwestern Russia, were deployed on December 14," Karakayev said.

With the new addition, the SMF now have 52 silo-based and 18 mobile Topol-M missile systems.

The SMF commander said the Tatishchevo Missile Division would receive eight additional silo-based Topol-M systems in 2011-2012.

The Topol-M missile, with a range of about 7,000 miles (11,000 km), is said to be immune to any current and planned U.S. anti-ballistic missile defense. It is capable of making evasive maneuvers to avoid a kill using terminal phase interceptors, and carries targeting countermeasures and decoys.

It is also shielded against radiation, electromagnetic pulse, nuclear blasts, and is designed to survive a hit from any form of laser technology.

MOSCOW, December 17 (RIA Novosti)