NAPSNET Weekly FLASH Update 28 August, 2000

Hello! The below report is written in English. To translate the full report, please use the translator in the top right corner of the page. Do not show me this notice in the future.

Recommended Citation

"NAPSNET Weekly FLASH Update 28 August, 2000", NAPSNet Weekly Report, August 28, 2000, https://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-weekly/napsnet-weekly-flash-update-28-august-2000/

Missile Defense


1. US NMD Program

The Defense Department has concluded that the high-profile test of the missile-interceptor system on July 7 failed because a 10-year-old circuit board on a booster did not operate properly. US Defense Department spokesman Kenneth H. Bacon said that the timetable for future tests is slipping, development of a new rocket booster for the system is badly behind schedule, and this could jeopardize the Defense Department’s goal of having the high-tech interceptors ready by 2005. US Defense Secretary William Cohen said that the US Defense Department’s assessment of how and when to move forward with a national missile defense will take several weeks longer than planned and Cohen is unlikely to recommend a course of action to President Clinton until early September. This delay reduces the time frame Clinton has to make even a limited decision in order to meet the 2005 deadline set by Congress.
“2005 Missile Defense Inception Is at Risk”
“Cohen May Back Steps On Missile Defense”
“Cohen Delays His Finding on Building Missile Radar”
“Tr anscript: Pentagon Spokesman’s Regular Tuesday Briefing”
“C ohen Says No Decision Made On National Missile Defense Program”

National security adviser Samuel R. Berger will weigh the results of a “national intelligence estimate” on national missile defense (NMD) that is still being revised. The report is divided into two parts: one assessing the current state of ballistic missile threat, the other looking at how other nations would react to a US decision to deploy the NMD system. It warns that the DPRK could threaten the US with a ballistic missile attack within a few years, but also cautions that building a missile defense system could have undesirable consequences, including a nuclear arms buildup by the PRC, Russian opposition complicating future nonproliferation and arms control efforts, and European concerns straining NATO.
“Assessment of Missile Defense Delayed”
“U.S. Missile Plan Could Reportedly Provoke China”
“Response to US Missile Defense Eyed”


2. Non-US Perspectives on US NMD Program

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the British American Security Information Council (BASIC) both published reports which summarize the findings of a new report from the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom issued August 2. The report reveals worry among parliamentarians about the feasibility of National Missile Defense (NMD), and its potential consequences for international stability. The report said that the British Government should encourage the US to seek other options to reduce perceived threats. US NMD plans would require British permission to upgrade radar facilities at Flyingdales in North Yorkshire, forcing Britain to decide between backing its closest ally and siding with the rest of Europe in opposing US plans.
“Common Wisdom on NMD”
“U.K. Committee Slams NMD”
“Caution urged on US defence plan”

“Full text of the Report by the UK Parliament”

Russian General Vladimir Yakovlev, commander of the nuclear strike force, said that the proposed US National Missile Defense would launch a new arms race. He predicted that while technology would soon make such a system feasible, developing new weapons would be cheaper for existing and aspiring regional powers. [Ed. note: This article was included in the US Department of Defense’s Early Bird news service for August 7, 2000.]
“Russia Hits At ‘Son Of Star Wars’ As ‘Weak'”

An editorial in the Pakistani newspaper The Dawn by Frederick Bonnart and Robert A. Levine argued that NMD would have several unpleasant consequences in Asia and in Europe upon US allies and for renewing arms races. Further, the DPRK, or any other terrorist state or non-state actors, will be able to deliver biological, chemical, maybe even nuclear weapons by non-missile means. All ABM development can do is to spend tens of billions of dollars to force them to develop those alternatives at costs measured in millions.
“Politics of missile defence”

Frederick Bonnart, editorial director of NATO’s Nations, an independent military journal, wrote that at a recent NATO meeting, European foreign ministers did not dispute the US right to enhance its national security, but they voiced concerns regarding the effect of a US unilateral decision to proceed with national Missile Defense (NMD) on the nuclear balance, arms control, disarmament, international stability, and a gradual decoupling of the United States from Europe. [Ed. note: This article was included in the US Department of Defense’s Early Bird news service for August 9, 2000.]
“On Balance, Negotiated Arms Control Is Preferable”


3. DPRK Missile Program

Stratford notes that DPRK leader Kim Jong-il has retreated from his offer to suspend the DPRK’s missile program in exchange for booster rockets to launch satellites. It argues that this reversal, suggesting that Putin misinterpreted an apparent joke, is especially insulting to Russia and begs explanation. The explanation could be that the PRC wants to retain its monopoly of influence over the DPRK and has tightened its grip. The other alternative is that the DPRK is purposely acting unpredictable in order to keep others off-guard. The matter is more serious for Russia than for the DPRK as it indicates that in this time of major political realignment in Northeast Asia, Russia will have a difficult time shaping the future of the Pacific Rim.
“Russia Loses Its Ticket to Asia”


4. Nautilus Launches TMD Site

The Nautilus Institute launched a new web page detailing the “East Asian Regional Security Futures: Theater Missile Defense Implications” workshop co-sponsored by the Nautilus Institute and the United Nations University and held in Tokyo, Japan, June 24-25. The meeting brought together a small group of specialists for an open exchange of views on the implications of TMD development and deployment. Topics included diplomatic, military and technical dimensions of current TMD proposals, and the relationship of TMD to U.S. national missile defense (NMD) proposals. The workshop culminates the first phase of the Missile Defense Initiative, a project examining the role of TMD in the long- term evolution of East Asian regional security. The Missile Defense Initiative is a current focus of the Nautilus Institute’s ongoing Nuclear Policy Project, and is supported by grants from the Ford Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation, the Ploughshares Fund, and the Japan-United States Friendship Commission.
“East Asian Regional Security Futures: Theater Missile Defense Implications”


Nuclear Weapons


1. IAEA

The International Atomic Energy Agency is facing a financial crisis. Many countries have complained about late US dues payments, which traditionally arrive in the fourth quarter of the year.
“U.N. Atomic Agency Is Threatened by Financial Crisis”


2. US-Russian Nonproliferation Programs

The Russian American Nuclear Security Advisory Council (RANSAC) published a report making recommendations regarding the acceleration of the US-Russian program to prevent the proliferation of Russian nuclear bomb materials. It found that while the scope of the work increased, the budget devoted to the project did not increase, there is uneven development of the core missions, and other problems. The report recommends increased financing for the purchase, transport, and safeguarding of nuclear materials, placing higher priority upon working jointly with Russian experts, helping to develop strategic plans for consolidation of materials held by others, and many other measures to strengthen and expand the Material Protection, Control, and Accounting program managed by the US Department of Energy.
“Renewing the Partnership: Recommendations for Accelerated Action to Secure Nuclear Material in the Former Soviet Union”
“More Work Needed On Russia’s Loose Nukes-US Experts”

A meeting was convened on June 22-23, 2000 in Washington, DC, by the Russian-American Nuclear Security Advisory Council (RANSAC) of a diverse group of experts to “identify substantive ideas and activities that could be conducted on a second, non-governmental track” to “redirect the Russian nuclear weapon complex and reduce the nuclear proliferation danger in Russia.” The meeting identified more than 20 activities that NGOs could develop or implement.
“Transforming the Russian Nuclear Weapons Complex: the Role of Nongovernmental Institutions – Summary of Conference Proceedings and Recommendations for Future Action. July 2000”
“U.S. Effort To Secure Nuclear Material Called Lax”

The US threatened to halt aid for nuclear disarmament in Ukraine because the government reportedly continues to ship nuclear capable bombers to Russia in exchange for debt relief while accepting US money.
“Blackjacks and Bears: Ukraine Sends Bombers to Russia”


3. START-III Talks

Russian President Vladimir Putin sent a letter to the 50th International Conference of the Pugwash Movement reaffirming his support for nuclear disarmament. Putin said that Russia “intends to sign a START-3 treaty at an early date.”
The article “Putin Praises Pugwash Movement’s Nuclear Disarmament Initiative” is available from World News Connection
“Putin Urges a Start III Arms Pact”

Russian-US consultations on the strategic arms reduction treaty (Start-3) and anti-missile defense open in Geneva on Wednesday. Russia gave the US its proposals for a START-III agreement. Strategic stability will be discussed along the lines of preparations for the future meeting of the Russian and American presidents due in New York in September. The Russian government apparently lacks the resources to build up to the ceilings imposed for some weapons in the START II treaty while dismantling the powerful missiles outlawed by the pact.
“Russia-US Consultations on Start-3 Open in Geneva”
“US, Russia To Meet on Arms Control”


4. Russian Nuclear Arsenal

Nikolai Sokov, senior research associate at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies, argued that Russian Chief of the General Staff Anatoli Kvashnin proposal to reduce land-based nuclear weapons undercut the Strategic Nuclear Forces but could also seriously hurt Russian President Vladimir Putin’s recent initiatives with Western Europe and at the G-8 meeting. For several reasons, a significant change in Russia’s nuclear posture is unlikely. As Russia’s defense policy requires adjustments, Putin might adopt some version of a more measured, cost-effective plan of reductions and link them to the prospects of a US national missile defense. [Ed. note: This article was included in the US Department of Defense’s Early Bird news service for August 10, 2000.]
“The Future Of Russia’s Nuclear Arsenal”

Strategic Nuclear Forces, published by Russian-based Arms and Technologies and written by Nikolai Spassky, reveals photographs and specifications of Russian strategic weapons. The book reveals that the US both underestimated and overestimated the performance of some systems.
“Russia Bares All in New Book about Nuclear Weapons”

Pyotr Romashkin, a retired Colonel with the Russian military, argued that the redistribution of resources among the wings of the Russian military will not give a positive influence on the conventional forces, but it will destroy the nuclear deterrence as Russia’s last pier of security, status and influence in the world.
“Does Russia Need Strategic Rocket Forces?”


5. US National Ignition Facility

The US Department of Energy told the General Accounting Office the cost of the National Ignition Facility, a laser project designed to monitor the US nuclear arsenal without testing, has soared to $2.2 billion – twice what it was predicted to be in 1995. Members of Congress are critical of the Department of Energy for hiding cost overruns and for being behind schedule.
“Feds Say Laser Project Cost Soars”


6. Nuclear Waste Management

The National Academies’ National Research Council published a report on the US government’s plan to rely on long- term stewardship to safeguard contaminated nuclear weapons sites. The report states that this plan is problematic because details have yet to be specified, adequate funding has not been assured, and there is no convincing evidence that institutional controls will not fail over time.
“Long-Term Management of DOE ‘Legacy’ Waste Sites Presents a Significant Challenge”
“Report Urges Long- Term Nuclear Site Stewardship”

The Russian Duma drew protests this week because when it reconvenes in the fall it will be discussing whether Russia should lease its own land to other countries for the storage of their nuclear waste. The proposition would mean adding the import of 20,000 tons of foreign nuclear waste between 2001 and 2030, and the construction of several new storage facilities. Existing plans and facilities for coping with nuclear waste and the decommissioning of nuclear submarines can not keep pace, putting nuclear submarines at risk for being sold or taken by terrorists.
“Duma’s Nuclear Waste Proposal Draws Protest”
“Russia: Naval Nuclear Reactors Overview”

Twenty percent of all the world’s reactors and nuclear fuel is concentrated around to Russia’s Murmansk-based Northern Fleet of submarines on the Kola Peninsula. An accident would threaten not only Russians, but also near neighbors Norway and Finland and it could affect much of Europe. Captain Alexander Nikitin, a Soviet submarine commander and a Naval specialist in nuclear safety, helped expose the nuclear threat which faces Europe and was put on trial for treason and was only cleared last December.
“Murmansk: World’s Biggest Nuclear Dustbin”


7. Israeli Nuclear Program

Israel’s state-run television on Tuesday broadcast satellite shots of Israel’s nuclear reactor near Dimona taken in 1968 and 1971. A prominent group of US scientists who made public a high-resolution satellite image of Israel’s top-secret nuclear reactor facility said that Israel may possess only half as many nuclear weapons as previously believed. Estimates of the size of Israel’s nuclear arsenal have been as high as 400 weapons.
“Israel TV Shows Nuke Reactor Photos”
“Scientists Question Size of Israeli Nuclear Cache”


8. Nuclear Deterrence

An article by David Wood in the New Orleans Times-Picayune argued that nuclear deterrence may not be effective in a less stable world where emerging nuclear powers are led by unpredictable or irrational decision-makers. Baker Spring, arms analyst at the Heritage Foundation, said the US and USSR during the Cold War were “like two scorpions in a bottle: The dynamic was clear and reliable.” But with six or eight nuclear powers, he said, “the dynamic has changed, deterrence clearly has its limitations.” [Ed. note: This article was included in the US Department of Defense’s Early Bird news service for August 9, 2000.]
“Nuclear Arms Deterrence May Be Dying Idea”


Security


1. US Security Policy

A Heritage Foundation “Backgrounder” by Larry Wortzel argued that while support for US military presence in Northeast Asia is dwindling, removing US forces from the area could result in serious consequences. The US should work closely with political leaders in both the ROK and Japan to define a public strategy that explains to the voters of these countries why a US presence is still desirable and necessary, and why it supports their own national sovereignty and independence.
“Planning for the Future: The Role of U.S. Forces in Northeast Asian Security”

William J. Perry, former secretary of defense, and John M. Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, argued that while there has been a significant reduction in US military forces, these changes were carried out effectively and were of an appropriate size. They argue that the US has the most capable conventional military force of any nation in the world, the largest, most effective strategic nuclear force in the world today, and a military force that is capable of dealing decisively with any likely regional conflict. [Ed. note: This article was included in the US Department of Defense’s Early Bird news service for August 10, 2000.]
“The U.S. Military: Still The Best By Far”

An article written by Miriam Pemberton for Foreign Policy In Focus argued that the US, alone among its major allies, is planning substantial increases in military spending, despite its overwhelming worldwide military dominance. Second, the US conception of military burden sharing is to pressure its allies, especially in NATO, to spend more. Third, the US needs to rework its notion of what military burden sharing might mean. She further argued that the US should cut its military spending by halving permanent overseas troop strength, closing unneeded military bases, canceling redundant weapons programs, and reducing the nuclear arsenal; that the US should abandon the national missile defense system; and that the US should cooperate with its allies in investing in alternative security regimes like the OSCE.
“In Focus: Sharing-and Reducing-the Military Burden”


2. Taiwan Straits

At “Project Strait Talk,” a seminar held by the Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, academic and retired military representatives from the US, PRC and Taiwan met March 12-13. They identified nine events that could trigger a cross-straits military confrontation, and noted that misperceptions were a minor factor. Without cross-strait political dialogue, though, misperceptions play a greater role. Political actions were more likely than military ones to trigger a conflict.
“Project Strait Talk: Security and Stability in the Taiwan Strait”

Michael O’Hanlon, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and adjunct professor at Columbia University, argued in an essay published in the forthcoming Fall 2000 International Security that, while US Defense Department analysts believe that the PRC would prevail in an attack, the PRC could not capture Taiwan even if US combat forces did not intervene. He further argued that the PRC will be unable to invade Taiwan for at least a decade, if not much longer. For this reason, the US does not need to abandon its policy of strategic ambiguity. The US should balance military need with broader strategic importance in its provision of arms to Taiwan.
“Can China Conquer Taiwan?”

Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defense published the 2000 National Defense Report to create transparency with the goal of building a stronger democracy and to prevent miscalculations by informing other states of its strength and strategic priorities. In the past two years, there has been no major change in the international situation, but cross-strait relations and domestic affairs experienced major ups and downs. The newest generation of weaponry equipment has been gradually entered into services for readiness. The PRC continues military expansion to pose an increasing threat to Taiwan. Technological and threat developments have led Taiwan to implement a few adjustments in its defense policy and defense affairs.
“2000 National Defense Report By Ministry of Defense, R.O.C.”

Jane’s Online’s analysis of Taiwan’s 2000 National Defense Report shows that the most serious threat to Taiwan’s security are the PRC’s Dong Feng-11 (M-11) and Dong Feng-15 (M-9) tactical missiles, because they are the weapons most likely to be used to initiate an invasion attempt. The DF-11, with about 100 currently in PLA service, has a range of 300km and can carry either a 10kT tactical nuclear warhead or a 1,000kg conventional warhead. The DF-15, with about 300 in service, has a range of 600km and can carry either a 20kT tactical nuclear warhead or a 500kg conventional warhead. Taiwan is supplementing its current capabilities with the ability to meet an amphibious assault with a “deterrent force” capable of striking targets in the PRC, including the long-range surface-to-surface missiles, and the recently announced plan to develop a “joint-strike” fighter capable of hitting targets within the PRC.
“Taiwan paints a scenario of invasion by China”


3. Southeast Asia

Chien-peng Chung, of the Pacific Forum at CSIS, argued that the states of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) have adopted a strategy of hedging. ASEAN states see the basic goal as ensuring that no one major power can, in the future, dominate the Asia-Pacific in a way that is averse to the interests of ASEAN. Citing concerns about increased piracy in the seas of Southeast Asia, Japan’s Coast Guard plans to request two long-range reconnaissance aircraft to spy along the length of the PRC and Southeast Asian coasts. The real solution for Japan would be the development of its own constellation of spy satellites, but the US has done its best to impede the process in Japan.
“Southeast Asian Perceptions of Major Power Relations in Northeast Asia”
“Japan’s New Eye in the Sky”


4. European Defense Initiative

Philip H. Gordon, Director of the Center on the United States and France and Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution, wrote an article on European Union’s internal defense initiatives which was published in the July/August Foreign Affairs. The Helsinki initiative seems serious because Britain is engaged actively for the first time in such an initiative; Kosovo highlighted how dependent Europe is upon the US military; and it is designed to put the military force under the EU, which has greater political will and momentum than other possible organizations. The EU could become a better military partner with the US but this could also exacerbate the differences, and reduce interoperability with the US and NATO’s non-EU members. The EU should not create institutions without the greater willingness to act militarily.
“Their Own Army? Making European Defense Work”


5. Balkan Conflicts

An article published by Jane’s Online suggests that although international attention is currently focused on the crisis within Federal Yugoslavia, there are signs that renewed conflict in Kosovo is all too likely in the run-up to local elections in the autumn. The roots of the likely increase in violence can be traced to fundamental philosophical differences between the Democratic League of Kosovo (LDK) and the various factions which once made up Kosovo’s guerrilla force, the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). The KLA was “demilitarized” last autumn as a condition for its leaders’ participation in the transitional authority, but there is evidence that former guerrillas are targeting the LDK as well as Kosovo’s remaining Serbs and other ethnic minorities.
“New crisis in Kosovo”


6. Revolution in Military Affairs

Center for Defense Information Senior Analyst Nicholas Berry examined the revolution in military affairs (RMA) and stated that most countries are realizing that the threat of foreign invasion has virtually vanished, which is different than the technological revolution most refer to. This is partly a result of changes in the legitimacy of invading a sovereign country and because of the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction -based deterrents. He argued that, with some exceptions, this is good news for navies, marines, and air forces because they are more adept in projecting power abroad than armies. Further, it is bad news for maintaining alliances and good news for more inclusive international organizations because alliances pre-designate friend and foe whereas international organizations can deal with any state designated as an aggressive foe.
“The Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) Is Not Only about High-Tech Weapons”


7. WMD Proliferation

The Central Intelligence Agency released its report on proliferation of weapons of mass destruction for the second half of 1999. The report concluded that Russia, the DPRK, and the PRC continue to supply the greatest amount of assistance in this area to Iran and other countries. Most countries appear to be trying to avoid interdiction and dependence on imports by developing local production capabilities.
“Unclassified Report to Congress on the Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction and Advanced Conventional Munitions, 1 July Through 31 December 1999”


Military


1. Kursk Submarine Accident

The Norwegian Bellona Foundation specialists now believe that the Russian submarine Kursk suffered an internal explosion in high-pressurized air tanks. Information about the accident was kept secret for at least two days and was made public only on August 14. Russian Navy officials confirmed that the sunken nuclear submarine Kursk is completely flooded and all 118 crew members are dead. Russian headlines are critical of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s handling of the incident. Putin accepted responsibility for the Kursk submarine accident.
“Kursk sunk by funding shortfalls”
“Sub crew all dead”
“Putin Takes Blame for Sub Deaths”

The Kursk submarine is one of 12 Oscar II-class cruise missile submarines in the Russian Navy, and would normally be armed with 24 Granit cruise missiles, which can carry a 750-kg high explosive or a 500-kT nuclear warhead to a range of 300 nautical miles. The Kursk’s forward weapon compartment was flooded, which would normally have 28 torpedoes or anti-ship missiles aboard, some of which may be nuclear-tipped, but the Russians claim that there are no nuclear warheads aboard. It is equipped with two 190 MW third generation Russian submarine reactors, the most modern operational reactors in the Russian navy, and they were reportedly shut down. The fear of contamination of the Barents Sea must therefore be attached to the problems regarding the lack of maintenance, security and technology, to prevent gradual leakage the coming years.
“Kursk’s potential environmental impact”
“Russian Submarine Emergency”


2. Russian Navy

Prior to the Kursk accident, Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy Fleet-Admiral Vladimir Kuroyedov said that Russia planned to send a naval task force to the Mediterranean Sea before the end of the year. He said that the task force “will possess a strength surpassing that of the Mediterranean Squadron of Soviet times.” Kuroydov also predicted that “the role and significance of the naval [nuclear] component will only increase” because of its advantages compared with land-based missiles and long-range bombers.
The articles “Navy Chief Promises Sorties to Mediterranean by End of Year” and an Itar-Tass report are available from World News Connection

The Russian government news agency RIA announced that a new enterprise has been set up in Fokino in the Russian Far East to dismantle decommissioned surface vessels and nuclear submarines of the Pacific Fleet.
The article “Russian Government Announces Project to Scrap Pacific Warships” is available from World News Connection

Jane’s Online published an assessment of the Russian Navy which said that while it retains a claim to be the world’s second most powerful, and is acquiring advanced new vessels and weapons and thus retains a potentially formidable technical capability, it is also contracting, experiencing similar crises of role, personnel and resources as the other arms of the Russian military service. A pattern of increased Russian naval activity has been observed, and according to senior US intelligence analysts, the Russian Navy is operating in a manner very similar to that of the Soviet fleet during the Cold War. Overall, it has had to adopt a “survival and denial” strategy, concentrating on maintaining smaller surface combatants and a powerful submarine arm both to protect Russia’s waters and deny other powers the seas it cannot itself control.
“Russian Navy: Assessment”
“Submarine Disaster Fodder For Arms Debate”

The Kursk nuclear submarine incident raises serious questions about Russia’s ability to safely operate its nuclear fleet. Russia’s handling of the matter in regards to the areas of information policy, maintenance, nuclear safety and personnel all raise serious concerns.
“A Tragic, 118-Count Indictment of the Russian Nuclear Navy”

A Russian Defense Ministry official now says that international help is needed to raise the Kursk because Russia cannot afford the cost itself. Aid should be promptly given as the Kursk’s two nuclear reactors remain an international hazard. The article concludes that unless Russia is willing to accept the risk of future Kursk-like accidents, a downsizing of the armed forces is in order.
“Russia’s Military Mess”

A report from the Monterey Institute for International Studies states that from the late 1950s through the end of 1994, the Soviet Union, and later Russia, built a total of 245 nuclear submarines and a US government estimates suggest that only about 75 submarines were actually in service in 1996. This number could drop to 50 or less by the year 2005. The nuclear navy is a significant portion of the Russian nuclear triad and anticipated cuts in nuclear weapons under START-II will mean more than half of Russian nuclear weapons will be deployed on nuclear submarines.
“Russia: Naval Nuclear Reactors Overview”


3. PRC Submarine Fleet

Military experts say almost half of the PRC’s fleet of up to 50 submarines are mothballed. The large but aging fleet of submarines, including many acquired from Russia, is plagued by maintenance problems and if a vessel ran into difficulty, the PRC would not have the know-how or equipment to launch any kind of deep sea rescue.
“China’s Aging Submarine Fleet Worse than Russia’s”


4. US Submarine Fleet

The US Defense Department is considering an increase in the submarine fleet from 56 attack subs to 68 by the year 2015 which will play a variety of roles, with special emphasis on intelligence gathering, search and rescue, reconnaissance, sabotage and diversionary attacks. The US Navy is considering converting four of eighteen Trident missile submarines to a specialized combination of missions: firing non-nuclear cruise missiles like the Tomahawks used in last year’s Kosovo air war; transporting Navy SEAL commandos, and possibly launching unmanned surveillance aircraft.
“U.S. May Increase Submarine Fleet”


5. Russian Security Council Meeting

Russian air force commander Anatoly Kornukov commented on the recent Russian Security Council meeting, saying that the space missile defense troops, currently a branch of the Strategic Rocket Forces, would be put under air force command by 2002. Russian President Vladimir Putin won backing from the Security Council for his proposal to reduce Russia’s nuclear arsenal to 1,500 warheads.
“Putin To Cut Nuclear Spending”
“Russia to Cut Its Nuclear Stockpile, Putin Decides to Shift Funds To Rebuild Conventional Forces”
“Plans to Reform Russia’s Strategic Missile Troops Outlined”


6. Russian Air Defense

Russian Air force chief commander General Anatoli Kornukov said, “For reasons of economy we are going to drop the permanent alert of our air-defense batteries.”
“Russia, Short On Cash, To Cut Back On Air Defense”

(return to top)


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.