What does this mean?  Can they now reach most of Europe, and maybe even the Eastern portions of the United States?  While I don't know the specifications on this equipment, and we only know this what the Iranians have claimed.

What does this mean for Israel, as they already have the Shahab III missile, that is capable of reaching Israel.  Will this technological step, increase the chances Israel will strike Iran as well?

Let us hope, that Iran won't do anything rash, actually, I hope, they don't have EMP capability on that satellite they have launched, as it could seriously harm American interests, if all of a sudden, we no longer have international satellite communications.

Here is the news article from the Fars News Agency that shows their recent technological advancement.  Lastly, I will say again.  To Iran, congrats; but most of all, God Bless Israel, and may He keep her safe!

read more | digg story

Russia successfully launched sea-based intercontinental ballistic missile on August 1, 2008. The launch was performed from nuclear submarine Ryazan in the Barents Sea, Interfax reports with reference to senior official of the Russian Naval Command, Igor Dygalo.

"The launch was performed from the underwater position in the Barents Sea . The warhead of the missile successfully hit the target on Kura test ground in Kamchatka, the official said. “The regular check-up of the nation’s naval strategic nuclear forces has been conducted successfully, the official added.

Nuclear-powered submarine Ryazan was built in Russia’s Severodvinsk in 1982. This is a Kalmar class, 667 BDR project (NATO - Delta-3) nuclear cruiser. The length of the submarine is 155 meters; it is equipped with 16 intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Above: Russian "Delta" type submarine

Once, famously, a technical glitch thwarted the launch of Russian ballistic missiles in the Barents Sea during naval maneuvers overseen by President Vladimir Putin, who watched the massive exercise while decked out in naval officer's garb aboard a nuclear submarine.

Itar-Tass / AP

Admiral Vyacheslav Popov, the former commander of Russia’s Northern Fleet said Monday that the Northern and Pacific Fleets would soon have maritime carrier systems which will include nuclear aircraft carriers.

The new systems will act in close contact with air force and missile defense for the interest of state security.

“Depending on goals set, aircraft carriers can closely cooperate with submarines providing combat stability to each other,” Popov said.

The official recalled the war in Iraq when US carriers afforded protection of nuclear submarines from which cruise missile were launched.

Admiral Vladimir Vysotsky, the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy, said that Russia would create five or six aircraft carrier groups in its Northern and Pacific Fleets. The naval command decided to build not only aircraft carriers, but maritime carrier systems.

“The construction of such systems will start after 2012. They will be closely linked with space groups,” the official said.

Russia is also going to launch Project 955 Borei nuclear cruiser equipped with new ballistic missiles. “The new Boreis will become the center of sea-based strategic nuclear forces of Russia before 2040,” Vysotsky added.
 
China is also boosting nuclear at sea forces.  Here a new Chinese navy ICBM launching submarine.....
Top:

The failed launch — part of an exercise described as the largest show of Russian military might in more than 20 years — marred an event apparently aimed at playing up Putin's image as a leader attempting to restore the country's military power and global clout.

Putin, now the prime minister, undoubtedly took great pride in today's launch.

Well, what would you say if they are fake? Indeed, they are! There are at least two missiles which haven't even taken off, cleary visible on the original image where they are still attached to their launchpads!

According to expert, these Irani missiles demonized as nuclear carriers able to drop the cloud on Israel are not much better than the ol' Iraqui Scud missiles, which haven been proven inaccurate and poorly assembled. These Irani rockets can not carry a payload of more than a few pounds down to Israel - they do not have the capacity to transport heavy warheads over some distance.

We have been lied to - once again.

... Forty years on, the UN Security Council and international institutions must unite to keep the nuclear nonproliferation treaty alive

Writing in response:

Whilst an NPT treaty might well exist, this doesn't guarantee that the spirit of the treaty will ever be followed. Whilst the writer of this article states that Britain intends downsizing its nuclear capability, which is only partly correct, the proposed Trident upgrade on Scottish soil continues to come under vociferous public and parliamentary attack in Scotland. Scotland opposes Trident, not only because its US led but, more specifically, because such an upgrade and deployment in itself contravenes the non-proliferation treaty. ICBM are heavy and cumbersome, pose huge difficulties in areas of public safety and, when wars in the current era are being fought more on the principle of surgical strike capability, the usefulness of purpose for such missiles has been greatly reduced. This has been particularly true since the end of the Cold War.

Russia's frustration and annoyance over the alleged ‘European Defence Shield has been the primary reason as to why both the US and UK decided in withdrawing its extensive deployment of nuclear weapons across the European frontier. With such missile heads that would have pointed directly towards Russia, its no wonder that Putin, and his successor, were alarmed in feeling threatened against a US that was attempting to do all in its power in staving-off the threat from new and emerging nations. A retraction of that proposed nuclear deployment wasn't done because it contravened the NPT, it was done because the west largely expected ignorance. Russia that is rebuilding from an almost collapsed economy that experienced periods of hyper-inflation, in recent years, from its tumultuous state of government, has been sharp-eyed in monitoring the plans of the west. Much of its reticence should be applauded.

What does the NPT mean when countries such as Iran are not bound one-iota from its protocol? Iran, probably the most dangerous regime on earth, is expected to have full capability in the building of a nuclear-bomb in the next few years, despite these arguments being rejected by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Iran insists that its centrifuges and acquisition of weapons graded fissile material is merely for the generation of energy, hardly convincing when Iran has an abundant and cornucopia supply of oil at its disposal.

The threat against other nuclear states - Egypt, Pakistan, India, Iran, Israel and Saudi Arabia - is not met by entering a game of ‘cat and mouse by building yet more powerful nuclear warheads because the ‘deterrent effect is soon lost as the spiral of gaining supremacy becomes insatiably intertwined. Powerful nations require different approaches in how deterrence might otherwise be achieved. Part of the solution lies within surgical strike capability such as the sophistication of technology associated with laser-guided missiles from fighter aircraft. Another contingency theme emerging is the ability to deliver missile weaponry as and when they are required under the Just-In-Time (J-I-T) philosophy, a technique that clearly skirts around the issue of the non-proliferation treaty because at any one moment in time such missiles might not exist, although the building materials for them clearly would. The logistics behind such a philosophy is extensive, networked and fully integrated.

© Mark Dowe 2008: all rights protected

Reference:

• Bennett Ramberg, "A unified front against nuclear weapons"

Supplementary:

• Dan Plesch, "Defending our dependency"

Mr. Plesch writes:

... There is a hidden bonus of over £2bn to US corporations if the government goes ahead with building new nuclear warheads.

American firm Lockheed Martin has a large share in the management and ownership of the UK's nuclear weapons factories at Aldermaston. It is also owns a company called Insys, whose purpose is to tell you and me through the government whether Aldermaston is doing a good job.

Documents obtained from the libraries of successive US presidents show that the US has not only supplied Britain with nuclear weapons designs but also with some of the nuclear explosive materials at the heart of the warheads.

• Ian Williams, "Letting nuclear powers get their way"

... "It's nonsensical for the US to sell arms to both India and Pakistan - two nuclear foes - while cancelling a deal with Taiwan"

I did see a very brief story in the New York Times about Hugo Chavez's willingness to have Venezuela play host to Russian military bases. Chavez cited as a motive the kindred spirits between Venezuela and Russia (It's interesting that he would claim to be birds-of-a-feather considering that Russia is not socialist state but rather a kind of corrupt authoritarian pseudo-democracy, hmmm?) At any rate, the Venezuela story may be Chavez's attempt to ramp up the story. Perhaps he reads the US papers and realizes that no one was paying much attention to this.

Russia cannot seem to get the respect it expects. This is all, of course, a response to the basing of radar systems and missile interceptors in the Czech Republic and Poland, as well as the continuing expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) eastward. It follows on the heels of threats to abrogatethe Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) treaty, the Moscow Treaty (a.k.a. the Strategic Offensive weapon Reduction Treaty [SORT]), and to do other things that I probably missed myself.

The question is: Should we be concerned? My view is that Russia still holds enormous potential to create global havoc (as likely accidentally as on purpose, granted.) However, it seems that the US public, and political leaders for that matter, only have the energy for one nemesis at a time, and that archenemy is now the global Islamic Extremist Movement. It took quite a number of years past the end of the Cold War for America to adjust away from a Cold War paradigm (some would argue it is alive and well in our military force structure and hardware acquisition, our intelligence community's mode of operations, and much of the US Federal bureaucracy involved in foreign affairs in general). However, having mostly made a change in mind-set, we cannot make ourselves contemplate the threats posed by Russia on top of everything else that confronts us. I suggest we learn to keep an eye on Russia, and to be actively engaged. It is still has a massive nuclear arsenal, huge energy resources, and, furthermore, a gigantic inferiority complex.

Giuliani is also naive about China; he said that China is a great opportunity for America and that Americans should welcome China as a global player.

Among the weapons that the Chinese are procuring are:
1) Aircraft carriers. They've already bought 2 ex-Russian carriers (incl. the "Varyag" ("Viking") ship) and are now building an indigeneous carrier.
2) SSNs.
3) Conventional SSNs (e.g. Kilo-class subs). One such vessel was stalking CV-63 in 2006 and then emerged close enough to that carrier to sink it. Until it resurfaced, neither the CAW nor the escort ships nor their helicopters could detect that submarine.
4) Dong Feng ICBMs.
5) Su jets, including Su-27s, J-11s and Su-30s. (Su-27s are equally as good as F-15C/Ds but superior to F-16s).
6) Ju Lang SLBMs, which are arming China's growing fleet of SSBNs.
7) Other types of missiles (including air-to-air missiles ranged far longer than American rockets, even AIM-120s).
8) SSBNs.

The Chinese ballistic submarine fleet will numerically match the British and French ballistic sub fleets - although the Chinese one includes one diesel-powered vessel and one Xia-class vessel (both prone to ASW equipment, but Globalsecurity.org wrote about the Xia-class sub that "Although the range of the JL-l limits the XIA's utility as a deterrent platfonn, targets throughout the region, including US military facilities, could be targeted with the J-l from launch points inside traditional Chinese Navy operating areas."). The latter will be retired in 2015, when the Chinese ballistic missile submarine fleet will numerically exceed the British and French fleets because it will have one diesel-powered sub and 4 Jin-class SSBNs (so its SSBN fleet will numerically match the British and French fleets).
By 2020, the combined submarine fleet of the Chinese Navy, numbering 78 subs (71 subs in 2015), will outnumber the combined submarine fleet of the USN, which currently consists of 18 Ohio-class, 48 LA-class, 3 Seawolf-class and 4 Virginia-class vessels, for a total of 73 vessels.

Globalsecurity.org wrote that "A ballistic missile submarine fleet would enhance Beijing's assurance of an effective retaliatory capability, as well as strengthening her deterrent posture." http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/china/type_92.htm

The Chinese military also has 1524 fighterplanes (the PLAAF and the PLAN combined), which fleet will grow to 2025 fighterplanes in 2015 (the PLAAF and the PLAN combined). Together with the Russian military, it already outnumbers the combined fighterplane fleet of the American military. Currently the PLAAF has 1250 such planes while the PLAN has 274. By 2015 the total will include 1800 jets of the PLAAF and 225 jets of the PLAN. Then there are 25 JH-7 fighterplanes of the PLAAF, which will be joined by 175 JH-7 jets of the PLAAF by 2015, 24 J-11 jets of the PLAN, and 20 JH-7 jets of the PLAN, which will be joined by 30 JH-7 jets of this branch of the PLA by 2015. So by 2015, the PLA will have 2299 fighterplanes - more than the USAF has. Their JF-17 jets are inferior to F-16s and F-15C/Ds alike, let alone 5th generation American jets, but they account for only a tiny fraction of the plane fleet of the PLA. F-10s and Su-30MKK (K=China) are as good as F-16s and F-15C/Ds; F-11Bs are superior to them all (as are Indian Su-30MKIs).

MiG-29SMTs, JF-17s and F-10s are superior to American jets by electronic attack equipment. Su-30MKKs and F-11Bs are superior to American planes on that count as well as weapon loads and unrefueled operational radiuses. Su-30MKIs can boast all that and are more maneuvrable than American jets. All of these planes can track as many as 10 targets simoultaneously and engage them with their decent missiles.

Chinese unmodified PL-12 missiles can be launched slightly farther than American AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles; Chinese modified PL-12 missiles and Russian KS-172 rockets are much longer ranged than AIM-120s. As are Russian R-77 (AA-12) missiles, which, with a range of 108.7 miles, are superior to American AMRAAMs (whose range is only 60 miles). (Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AA-12_Adder; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMRAAM).

The Chinese military also has 188 strategic bombers (the PLAAF and the PLAN combined) - the PLAAF has 120, the PLAN has 68. Together with the Russian military, it already outnumbers the strategic bomber fleet of the USAF (the USN has no strategic bombers).

The Chinese are also building a secret underground naval base in Sanya, Hainan Province, where they will house 20 submarines and "a host of carriers", according to the Daily Telegraph. The base will host 20 subs indeed. It's being built at the southern tip of the Hainan Province. There is also a Naval Air Station in Sanya.

The Chinese also have a network of SAMs and decoy silos. And they're buying and building more of them.

The land branch of the PLA is also strong - its arsenal includes 7010 tanks, 1200 self-propelled cannons and 6000 antitank missiles. China is now developing a new tank type, Type 99.

China's annual military budget is $125 bn, according to the Pentagon, i.e. twice more than Britain's annual defence spending ($60 bn and shrinking). However, China is militarily stronger than these aggregate stats would suggest. Firstly, in China, one dollar can buy much more than in Britain or America. Secondly, China spends its monies wiser than the British MOD and the Pentagon. The British MOD spends large sums on expensive, inferior European military equipment (produced in Europe), rather than on cheap, decent, British-produced British and American weapons. For example, rather than buy 232 stealthy F-35B fighterplanes, which can take off from land bases and carriers alike, the MOD has bought 232 EF-2000 (Typhoon) jets that are not stealthy nor flexible, and are twice as expensive as F-35Bs. As for the Pentagon, the Congress has forced it to waste huge sums on maintaining old planes (for parochial reasons) rather than buy new ones.

Some American pacifists have alleged that China's military spending is "proportional" to its "legitimate defence needs", but they're liars. Firstly, China's military investment is nominally excessive; secondly, it's disproportional also, because China is not threatened by any state that would justify such a huge military investment ($125 bn). China is a belligerent actor that plans to fight the Tibetans, nuke America, conquer Taiwan and aid the DPRK if a second Korean War starts.

China will start rivalling the US by winning more gold medals than America during the 2008 Olympics (which Dubya refused to boycott).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/2308979/Beijing-Olympics-Battle-for-gold-offers-China-first-chance-to-defeat-America.html

Also, check out a nice picture of Titan 1 gimbals (you can click for a big picture but it's quite a slow site). I'm pretty sure this is the first stage so there is actually another engine behind the one in the picture. The thrust mount and the gimbal link arms show quite nicely anyway. It's remarkable how complex stuff turns anyway despite the simple principles and best intentions of the designers.

[For a photo of this submarine with
her "silos" open see:
http://www.softwar.net/jl2.html ]

The test launch took place May 29 from a submarine in Bohai Bay, off northern China, and landed in the Yellow Sea.

The missile has an estimated range of about 5,000 miles and represents a new generation of strategic nuclear-capable weapons being outfitted on the Type 094 submarine, dubbed the Jin-class by the Pentagon.

One defense official said the new JL-2 "shares features with the land-based Dong Feng-31 missile," another new Chinese nuclear missile system.

Officials confirmed the JL-2 after it was first reported last week in two Japanese newspapers that quoted Japanese military sources.

"While the U.S. government provides insufficient informational warning about the JL-2's capabilities, Asian sources have long commented it may eventually carry three to four warheads or a number of decoys," said Richard Fisher, a military affairs specialist with the International Assessment and Strategy Center.

"This means that five Type 094 missile submarines could account for over 180 warheads," he said.

Hans Kristensen, a specialist on the Chinese nuclear forces with the Federation of American Scientists, stated that China is expected to deploy its new missile submarines in Bohai because it is easier to protect them in the bay. "From the shallow bay, the Julang-2 missiles could be used to target Guam and Alaska, India, Russia and - at the limit of its range - Hawaii," he stated.

The Pentagon's latest annual report on China's military confirmed for the first time in March that Beijing is building up to five Jin-class submarines, each of which will be armed with 10 to 12 JL-2s, a sharp increase in China's strategic nuclear-warhead arsenal.

While the NATO countries are broadly supportive of the system, it, along with the inexorable expansion of NATO from the east, serves as yet another thorn in the side of Russia. Russia has increasingly been eager to rebel against events that challenge its national status or that are perceived to denigrate its security. Furthermore, Russia is in a better position to do so than it has been for a number of  years because of its enhanced financial position.

The Bush Administration has repeatedly attempted to point out that the system is not directed at Russia, but rather at Iran. And, in fact, the US has gone to the extent of offering to tie the activation of the system to the development of a credible missile threat from Iran. That is, as long as there is no reason to believe that Iran has missiles with the effective range to attack Europe, the system would not become operational.

It seems that there is both a security concern and a face-saving concern on the part of the Russians. Just as the US has hinted at compromise, Russia has made its own statements intended to increase cooperation, and to avoid leaving itself in the position of an impotent observer of the construction of the missile defense system. Russia offered to help create a system that would use the Qabala (Gabala), Azerbaijan radar site instead of the proposed Czech site. The Bush Administration retorted that it would consider the use of the Azerbaijan site in addition to, but not instead of, the Czech site. Russia has also intimated that it would not be averse to the interceptors being located in Iraq, Turkey, or at sea.

What is behind the Bush Administration's unwillingness to change plans, but merely to augment their existing plans? There is an explanation based in the physical realities. It has been argued that the boost-phase is the ideal period to intercept a missile because of the relatively slow movement of the accelerating projectile and the relatively large size (i.e. the rocket is still attached) of the target.  The Azerbaijan site would be valuable because it is much closer and would give earlier warning. However, it would also not give much time to get interceptors up and on target.  The decision about whether the radar indication was true or false would have to be much faster, because Iranian missiles would be out of range quickly otherwise. I don't know what the difference in probability is of actually intercepting a missile whether using the closer versus farther installation, but I know the idea of having to respond more rapidly might not be preferable. Shooting off interceptors without time to notify others of what one is doing might cause alarm, and radar systems are not absolutely accurate. I can also imagine that there are advantages to being able to track the projectile for some time after it separates from the rocket and its trajectory is already been determined.

Of course, a number of questions that have been brought up in previous entries of this blog remain. a.) By the time missile defense technology is mastered, will ballistic missiles be an obsolete delivery system? b.) Is the threat posed by Iran - which may someday have both nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles - greater than that posed by a scorned Russia who mastered those technologies decades ago? c.) Are defensive and deterrent strategies completely irreconcilable?

A communique that Nato leaders are
to adopt during their summit in
Bucharest will recognise "the substantial
contribution to the protection of allies...
to be provided by the US-led system".

The summit also vowed to "support each other in sharing the burden" of fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan.

However, Bush's hopes of extending immediate Nato membership to Ukraine and Georgia, were denied by the military alliance's leaders.

Full story:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B85640AB-363F-4F0B-94DA-32E5FCF222FF.htm

North Korea has threatened to turn its southern neighbour to "ashes"
after South Korea's military chief said he would conduct a pre-emptive
strike if the North tried to carry out a nuclear attack.

The warning is the latest outburst in an escalating war of words since
South Korea's new president took office last month pledging a tougher
line on relations with the North.

An unidentified military commentator was quoted as saying in the North's official Korean Central News Agency: "Our military will not sit idle until warmongers launch a pre-emptive strike.

Full story:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/37EB13C6-7197-4DBC-AAB4-7D9DC238BF09.htm

Six years ago, President Bush announced the U.S. withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and our intention to deploy defenses against emerging threats from countries such as North Korea and Iran. Contrary to prevailing expectations, the sky did not fall. Moscow's response, delivered in a statement by President Vladimir Putin, expressed disagreement with the U.S. decision but emphasized that U.S. defenses were not a threat to Russia and that Russia would make major reductions in its strategic offensive forces -- a striking rebuke to the myth that ending the ABM Treaty would lead to an arms race.
.
Today, the United States and Russia find themselves in opposition on the issue of deploying 10 missile interceptors and supporting radar to Europe -- an act of much less strategic consequence than abandonment of the ABM Treaty. Bush and his national security team have explained the concept, in considerable detail, to Russia's national security elite. Moscow objects by citing a threat to its own deterrent (an argument it knows has no merit) and the stationing of American forces near its borders (which reminds it of the painful loss of empire) and denies the existence of an Iranian missile threat.
.
Russia's stance reflects its increasing assertiveness as a major player on the international scene, helped by the price of its energy exports. Moscow is eager to regain its great-power status and thinks the path to success requires painting the United States as the threat. The United States, as a prominent former Russian official once told us, is the threat Russians love to hate.
.
With equal determination, the Bush administration has sought to change Russian perspectives. Over five years, the United States has made proposal after proposal to work with Russia's military and industry on missile defense. We have both been involved in these initiatives, offering modest cooperative activities, such as activation of a joint early-warning center, and projects that would be more technically, and politically, challenging. Each time cooperation has been deflected or rejected. Russia's offer of the use of its radar in Azerbaijan, for example, came with a string attached -- that the United States forgo building an interceptor site in Europe.

Read the rest:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/12/AR2008031203394.html

WASHINGTON - Borrowing a theme from the presidential contest, Vice President Dick Cheney said Tuesday that the possibility of a 3 a.m. emergency call to the White House is all the more reason for the next commander in chief to follow through on President Bush's plans for a national missile defense.

"It's plain to see that the world around us gives ample reason to continue working on missile defense," Cheney told the conservative Heritage Foundation at a dinner recognizing the 25th anniversary of President Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative, a proposed network of rockets capable of shooting down incoming intercontinental ballistic missiles.Bush has set in motion a more modest version of Reagan's original plan.

Read the rest:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080312/ap_on_go_
pr_wh/cheney;_ylt=AglCCh7o4m
CMMlNL_Cstelms0NUE

http://www.geo-tag.de/generator/en.html

It has a form that you simply fill in with your data and out pops the <meta> tags. For example, I filled in the data for Boston and here are the <meta> tags that were automatically generated:

<meta name="DC.title" content="Boston" />
<meta name="geo.region" content="US-MA" />
<meta name="geo.placename" content="Boston" />
<meta name="geo.position" content="37.09024;-95.712891" />
<meta name="ICBM" content="37.09024, -95.712891" />

Here's a section of the web page which describes the value of embedding geo metadata into your web pages:

What are Geo-Tags for?

According to a survey of The Kelsey Group (Princeton, NJ, USA) from the year 2004, 25% of all commercial online searches are local searches. It understandably makes little sense to look for a baker and find one who has his shop in a completely different town. Today search engines are already able to handle regional search requests, gathering city and street names from the text content of the explored web pages. Geo tags will simplify this task since they provide machine-readable information about country, region and exact latitude/longitude coordinates.

I am taking back all of the times I said he was an intelligent man. This is a person has let his celebrity go to his head.

There is a video on YouTube that shows Obama telling an audience about how he is going to change the military of our country.

He thinks he is some sort of emperor and can do anything he wants. He thinks that because he is the ruler, he is invincible.

What he is proposing in the video about reducing or nuclear power, “talking” with Russia about removal of ICBM’s, cutting BILLIONS of dollars from the defense budget etc is going to cause the annihilation of the United States.

The video I am talking about can be found at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs 

Believe you me it is shocking at the least.

We must work in every way possible to switch the votes and the allegiance he has, away from this lunatic liberal who seems to think he is running for King.. Grass roots did it in 2004 and we can do it again.

RWD

 The Bush Administration claims that this was to destroy potentially harmful chemicals in the fuel tank of the satallite, which may be true.  But I believe there are alterior motives to this action.  I think it is a warning to any potentially hostile nation who may be thinking of sending ICBMs to the U.S., a warning that states we have what the world has been looking for the last 30 years.  That is to say, a viable defense against ICBMs.

 Some may argue 'But Storm, that wasn't an ICBM, it was a satellite!'  Whats your point?  It was of similar size, perhaps alittle bigger, perhaps alittle smaller, and it was travelling in the neighborhood that a ballistic missile would travel at, speed wise.  This was an unspoken message to North Korea and all the others:

 "Your threats of Nuculear Weapons are hollow, you don't scare us anymore."

 Of course, whether or not it will work is a different matter.

The ministry said there was insufficient proof
that Washington's decision to fire a missile at
the disabled satellite was to prevent a potentially
deadly leak of toxic gas as it re-entered
Earth's atmosphere.

"In our opinion, the decision to destroy the U.S. satellite is not as harmless as it is being presented. Especially as the United States has been avoiding talks on restricting a space arms race for quite a long time," the ministry's information department said in a statement.

"Under cover of discussions about the danger posed by the satellite, preparation is going ahead for tests of an anti-satellite weapon. Such tests mean in essence the creation of a new strategic weapon."

Full story:
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL1645129720080216?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true

This new section, here to replace the Writers Guild Strike as the ongoing and never really completed story, is about the heightened tensions between Russia and the US and most of Europe.  While the Russian leader, Vladimir Putin, has always been a crazy nutjob, and his paranoia of the rest of the world (now that we're not actively trying to eradicate him, his people, and their beliefs (we'll be keeping the Vodka, thank you very much) has only grown at a faster pace each year.

I would like to point out that this new section should not be confused with Ancient Fashioned, a similar line leading to inevitable immature jokes and the bashing of one's sanity.

So where are we going to start now? I think we need some backstory. The threat of nuclear war and biological warfare seems to become a bigger scare everyday. With old countries become literal warehouses for nuclear warheads, with budding countries starting their own programs or obtaining them through other means, it appears to be only a matter of time before someone hits the wrong button, pushes another country's wrong button, or just something gets lost or stolen and the world becomes alight.

So the United States has set up a missile defense plan. To every Yin, there is a Yang, and this comes in the form of missile defense shields. For the uninformed, a Missile Defense Shield is a collective method of protection against the threat of incoming ICBM (nukes). By placing a proverbial shield around the country, using silos that are designed to launch counter-rockets, or destroy the ICBM with a laser, the country can be effectively saved in the case of a nuclear strike.

So now comes the plan. Why not turn Europe into a big missile defense shield? The US' plan is to put these defense shields in a large number of countries to offset a certain "threat" country which may be developing its own nuclear system. While it has not been specifically addressed (as I know of), it's pretty obvious that our government was referring to Iran as the threat when designing this plan.

Well, as it turns out, Vladimir Putin is not a big fan of this operation. In his infinite paranoia, Putin has decided that this program is not, as originally claimed, a defense shield, but a threat to Russia. As a result, the country is now throwing threats at neighboring countries, such as Poland and the Czech Republic. Putin threatened that Russia may be "forced" to target the countries as threats if they allow the missile defense system to be implemented in their country.

This comes two days after similar threats were made to the Ukraine.

The weapon of the future?  Nuclear-powered ballistic catapults.  The Catapults would be nailed to the decks of ships, powered by nuclear reactors and capable of launching ICBRs anywhere in the world.  That is to say, Intercontinental Ballistic Rocks.  They will rain boulders upon enemies with laser precision.  The MIRV Trebuchet is still under wraps, but promises to be even more amazing.

You're welcome.

Some of these steps are more easily achieved than others. A few rely heavily upon reasserting good relations between the US and Russia, which have been strained as of late. One of the objectives is to extend elements of the START I treaty. This treaty is often considered a paragon of verification. Along with the Chemical Weapons Convention, it is one of the few agreements with the verification requirements necessary to build confidence between the parties that all are in compliance. However, the Russians have been more in the mode of abrogating treaties or letting them die than extending them as of late. Just as the US abrogated the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty when the Bush Administration felt it was no longer in America's interest, Russia has been talking of ending its participation in the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) agreement and the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty. The interest in abrogating the INF arises from US pursuit of a missile defense system to protect Europe as well as the US that involves stations in Poland and the Czech Republic, and the decision to suspend the CFE is probably attributable to a more general opposition to the perception that Russia is a red-headed step-child among global powers. Among the recommendations in the WSJ piece is pursuit of joint missile defense with Russia as a means to reassure Russia and build relations.

One of the more difficult challenges is to increase decision times for the launch of nuclear weapons. This is a critically important issue to making disarmament viable, but it will no doubt take considerable efforts to develop a system in which all sides will be confident. One cannot uninvent solid fuel, which is one of the key technologies in allowing for missiles to be at the ready almost constantly. (Liquid fuels are not suitable for long-term storage, and since fueling a liquid rocket takes a long time, the decision time and options available are increased.) With today's level of technology, some sort of verification system would seem necessary to ensure that there was confidence in whatever means was used to increase decision times. At any rate, considerable thought needs to be given to the technical and strategic aspects of how this will be accomplished.

Another difficult task will be bringing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) on-line. This treaty would prohibit any testing of nuclear weapons or devices. The difficulty is that there are 10 "Annex II" countries that have not ratified the CTBT, but must if it is to become law. These ten consist of the US, China, North Korea, India, Israel, Iran, Indonesia, Pakistan, Egypt, and Columbia. Countries like North Korea and Iran will not be able to produce a rocket or aircraft delivered nuclear arsenal without testing, and nations like Egypt and Indonesia may want to leave the doors open. The states with nuclear weapons (i.e. the US, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel) are reluctant to give up the opportunity to develop  new classes of nuclear weapons - a feat which would prove difficult without the ability to test. Besides the environmental benefits of a testing prohibition, it remains a means to avoid development of new varieties of nuclear weapons (at least until computational or virtual testing will give the level of confidence required.)  

The op-ed also talks of the need to manage the nuclear fuel cycle in such a way as to prevent proliferation of uranium enrichment and plutonium separation facilities throughout the world. These technologies can be used to make bomb-grade fissile material as well as nuclear reactor fuel. Currently there are only six exporters of enriched uranium (the US, Russia, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom) and a few other states that enrich for their own use (Japan, China, and Pakistan), and so there is no means for countries to diversify supply sources to mitigate risks. Though there is talk of building multinational fuel production facilities that would allow for greater diversification of sourcing. Currently there is also no means of assurance against supply disruption, but efforts to are being taken to rectify this condition. The last means by which states could reduce the risks they face is by building their own facilities ("vertical integration" in the parlance of economics), and this is what the nonproliferation community would like to prevent.

The Op-ed can be viewed at:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120036422673589947.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries