Inter Press Service: Iranian Spy-guy Says No Nukes In Iran

Has the Iranian disinformation campaign kicked-off?

So the Iranian spy-guy and former $5 million man turns out to be a radiation safety specialist who asserts there is no Iranian nuclear weapons program. Little ventured, little lost.

If he says Iran has no nuclear weapons program, we’d have to know how he knows. Conversely, if he said there is a nuclear weapons program, the guy’s informational bona fides would have to be vetted.  Chances are excellent he couldn’t do either one and was let go.

It seems clear that the people of Iran would benefit greatly if their leaders allowed for intrusive nuclear inspections, provided no clandestine nuclear programs exits.

Still, as David Kay points out, even intrusive inspections and verification efforts are incapable of keeping a determined (and already nearly nuclear) nation like Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Attack of the Zeros

Foreign Policy has an interesting article that spans much of the spectrum regarding the current nuclear state-of-play.  New START, Nuclear Policy Review, and Proliferation?  Check, check, and check.

The article kicks things off with a short critique of the flick Nuclear Tipping Point which James Traub describes as “an old-fashioned eye-glazer” and features the fab four of arms control (Sam Nunn, William Perry, George Shultz, and Henry Kissinger) “speaking against a black background while portentous kettledrums thump offstage.”

These four are the face of the Nuclear Security Project, “an effort to galvanize global action to reduce urgent nuclear dangers and build support for reducing reliance on nuclear weapons, ultimately ending them as a threat to the world.”

Their web pages asks ‘what if Al Qaeda gets a nuclear weapon?’

The answer: all of our time and efforts on new START have been grossly and pathetically misplaced.

Ah but back to the article.  In time, the issue of bilateral nuclear disarmament as a precondition to the endstate of achieving a world without nuclear weapons is addressed.  The answer, coming from an administration arms-controller: These (that is, unilateral or bilateral disarmament) are propositions that have to be demonstrated.”

Well said.

Non-kudos for the implication that the U.S. has nuclear bombers still on alert. We haven’t had that condition for almost 20 years.

New START: a Bi-lateral “Solution” In a Multi-lateral World?

Why do we have treaties?  There are a number of possible answers.  They could be used to codify things we were going to do anyway.  They could be used to build relationships with other nations.  They could be used to improve security or trade, or as a symbol of shared values.

Does the new START do any of these?  Yes.  Should it be ratified accordingly? According to Senator Richard Lugar, yes.

The new START is addressed in an interview with National Journal (posted by the Global Security Newswire) with Senator Lugar.

The interview is Lugar’s endorsement for new START, which he describes as modest.  For those who have been exposed to the Senator on arms control issues, he answers the questions true to form.  One question, “Do you support the so-called race to zero nuclear weapons?” gets a lengthy response, but the “up or down” intent of the question is ignored.

Late in the interview, Senator Lugar tells us that “Russia’s tactical (nuclear) weapons are not a direct threat to the United States or our NATO allies.”  Who are they a direct threat to?  Lugar says a “large percentage” of the Russian tactical nuclear weapons are deployed along its border with China.  While this may be true, these weapons can of course be moved around.  Like to NATO borders.

In fact, tactical nuclear weapons should be of a much larger concern than START itself as just these sorts of weapons are most easily stolen, moved, and transferred.  Why weren’t tactical nuclear weapons addressed?  Because the Russians don’t want to address the issue.

The Official NSSC Webpage



The official National Space Studies Center webpage now has a link which has copies of all the longer articles which have run in Air University’s The Wright Stuff.

Thanks to Mike McKim, director of all things web-based, for getting this working!

Wheel In The Sky? No, Laser From The Sea

A sea-based laser might make for a bad day for an unsuspecting UAV.

However, you’d think such a laser it would be even more desirable for missile defense. Especially in a place like the Middle East where a laser’s effect is not so diffused by water vapor.  I suppose there’s some sort of algorithm to constantly reform the beam in an effort to keep its effect in place.

Still, the big deal to me–as a non-laser guy–is the fact this is a solid state laser of significantly lower power (5.5kw) than the 15kw Firestrike.  On the other hand, the naval UAV event used six of 5.5kw lasers.

Is the non-space based Holy Grail of missile defense at hand?

Whose Your Senior Mentor?

In November 2009, USA Today took up the banner of shining some light into the whole ‘senior mentor’ thing.  You know, senior mentors: the retired flag and general officers who support (in a big-fee-for-service sort of way) the services and unified commands, often in wargaming.

After that kerfuffle, the Pentagon has now actually weakened the reporting requirements for senior mentors.

BTW, it’s likely there are plenty of former DoD officials who senior mentor as well.

While USA Today approached the issue from a conflict-of-interest point of view (80% of the senior mentors have connections to industry), the idea of senior mentors always tortured me in a different way.  Some senior mentors are actually advising on issues they themselves didn’t effectively work/couldn’t fix when they were on active duty.

Pose As A War Hero? Go Ahead, Judge Rules

The intended impact of the Stolen Valor Act was…stolen by Denver U.S. District Judge Robert Blackburn who dismissed the case of a man impersonating as an ex-Marine who claimed the Purple Heart and Silver Star.

What’s next to be guaranteed as free speech: posing as a cop?  Nurse?  Doctor?  Judge?

Colorado is no doubt weary of this, having already had its case with a man who posed as a scholar.