DTN News - CHINA HIKES DEFENCE BUDGET: China Engaging In Military Buildup While US Cuts Forces

DTN News - CHINA HIKES DEFENCE BUDGET: China Engaging In Military Buildup While US Cuts Forces
Source: DTN News - - This article compiled by Roger Smith from reliable sources by Matt Lacy - Greeley Gazette
(NSI News Source Info) TORONTO, Canada - March 18, 2012: An expert on Communist China says the United States could be making a grave mistake by cutting back on defense spending while China is doing just the opposite.

Beijing recently announced a new defense budget of approximately $106 billion, which equates to an 11.2-percent increase. Cheng says this increase coupled with last years 12.7 percent increase means that China is now spending more on its military than all other Asian nations combined. The new budget comes at a time when the Obama administration, despite calling for a higher priority in Asia, is busily reducing the U.S. defense outlay.

While many critics of defense spending in the United States say that it is larger than the majority of the world, Dean Cheng, a research fellow at the Asian studies Center with The Heritage Foundation  says there are key differences between the two militaries.

“the U.S. is a key enforcer of international norms and safety. It is the American Navy, more than any other, that keeps the world’s sea lanes safe. It is the U.S. Air Force that provides space situational awareness, including conjunction warnings, to all other space-faring nations (including China) and manages the GPS constellation to global benefit—both without charge.”

He goes on to note that by contrast China's military budget is spent almost entirely on Chinese interests. While he acknowledges that with China having the second largest economy in the world it is expected that have a substantial military, and that while the Chinese defense spending increases by themselves should not draw alarm, there are other reasons for concern.

Cheng says there are two aspects of Chinese defense priorities that could spell problems for the United States.

The first thing he says is that the Chinese are focused on countering the US military. "So they buy things like anti-ship ballistic missiles -- which really are of use only against things like American aircraft carriers, but not against, say, Somali pirates," he offers.

Cheng says another advantage the Chinese military has is that it is still more of a local military operating near China rather than maintaining a global presence like the US. This means China can put all of its resources up against only a portion of the US military.

He goes on to note the Chinese Communist Party appears to be taking a more aggressive stance not only against US interests but against its neighbors Japan, Taiwan and South Korea. The government has been making claims of sovereignty over the South and East China seas and expanding its forces opposite Taiwan.

China is not the only military United States should be concerned about. While our military is facing the possibility of close to $1 trillion in cuts over the next 10 years and a reduction of up to one third of our military force, Russia is also engaging on a military buildup.

A 10 year, $640 billion military modernization underway in Russia will include 600 new aircraft, 1000 new choppers and an additional hundred ships added to the Russian Navy including 20 submarines.

By contrast, the Pentagon has said it may be forced to engage in involuntary separations to meet troop reduction goals of 67,100 soldiers form active and reserve Army units, 15,20 from the Marine Corps, 8,600 from the Navy and 1,700 from the Air Force as part of $487 in budget cuts. If Congress is unable to reach targeted spending cuts that were a part of the congressional deal reached during last years debt ceiling debate another $500 billion could be cut from the military budget.

*Link for This article compiled by Roger Smith from reliable sources by Matt Lacy - Greeley Gazette
*Speaking Image - Creation of DTN News ~ Defense Technology News 
*This article is being posted from Toronto, Canada By DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News Contact:dtnnews@ymail.com 
©COPYRIGHT (C) DTN NEWS DEFENSE-TECHNOLOGY NEWS 

DTN News: Russia's Economic Crisis And U.S.-Russia Relations ~ Troubled Times Ahead

DTN News: Russia's Economic Crisis And U.S.-Russia Relations ~ Troubled Times Ahead *Source: The Heritage Foundation by Ariel Cohen, Ph.D. and Richard E. Ericson, Ph. D. Backgrounder #2333 *Abstract: Russia's revenues from oil and natural gas are enabling its aggressive and often anti-Western foreign policy. Russia's falling economic performance has toned down Russia's rhetoric, but has not drastically changed Russia's foreign policy narrative, which remains decidedly anti- status quo and implicitly anti-American. The U.S. needs to devise incentives for steps that facilitate Russia's integration into global markets, but deny benefits if Russia continues to pursue anti-American policies or refuses to enact the needed changes. (NSI News Source Info) KOTTAKKAL, Kerala, India - November 4, 2009: As the Obama Administration embarks on a major readjustment of U.S. policy toward Russia,[1] U.S. policymakers need to understand how the economic crisis is influencing Russia's foreign and domestic policies, and thereby affects U.S. interests. Much of Russia's assertiveness and adventurism in recent years floated on a bubble of expensive oil and natural gas exports. Today, however, the Russian elite appears to be divided between those who hope that natural resources will continue to finance Russia's assertive foreign policy, and those, like President Dmitry Medvedev, who are calling for a major reform to clean up corruption, strengthen the court system, and move away from the current resource-export model toward a knowledge-based economy that is integrated into the global economy.Russia's President Dmitry Medvedev attends a session of the presidential commission for modernisation and technological advancement of the Russian economy in the town of Fryazino outside Moscow, October 28, 2009. The Obama Administration's strategy of unilateral U.S. concessions may fail. Instead, the U.S. should pursue a strategy based on a realistic assessment of Russian economic power. The White House should deny Russia economic benefits if it pursues anti-American policies. Meanwhile, the U.S. should work with its European allies to diversify their natural gas supplies, to defeat Russian hopes of blackmailing Europe into further strategic concessions, to block Russian weapons and sales to Iran and Venezuela, and to oppose Russia's attempt to reestablish its hegemony in the "near abroad." Finally, the Administration should focus U.S.-Russian strategic and economic cooperation on matters in which pursuit of mutual interests is possible. The Russian Economic Crisis and Its Aftermath Since the summer of 2008, the Russian economy has undergone a major economic meltdown, largely due to the global financial crisis. The crisis caused a significant decline in oil and gas revenues, the principal source of income for the Russian economy and the government. Beginning in the fall of 2008, the financial resources for Russia's assertive foreign and defense policy dwindled, with Russia's massive hard currency reserves declining from about $600 billion to about $400 billion. However, economic growth resumed in the second quarter of 2009 before the reserves were exhausted. Russia has been an important U.S. foreign policy priority since World War II. For decades, the U.S. has strived to bring Russia into the international system as a predictable and constructive partner. While progress in international security has been slow and difficult, as shown by the August 2008 war in Georgia and Russian intransigence on Iran, the prospects of progress in business and economics appears more promising. Despite the downturn, Russia has pocketed the Obama Administration's concessions on missile defense deployment in Poland and the Czech Republic, ignored the White House pleas for cooperation on Iran sanctions, and continued to pressure Georgia and Ukraine. Russia is also continuing its military modernization and establishing military bases from the Fergana Valley in Central Asia to the Black Sea. At the same time, Moscow is a U.S. partner in arms control and resupplying U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan. A senior Obama Administration official has characterized Russia as "neither friend nor foe" of the West,[3]while the United States and NATO are defined as principal adversaries in the Kremlin's national security documents. Clearly, the type of economy and form of government that Russia assumes are strategic issues for the U.S. The Russian leadership is divided on these issues. The foreign and security policies arising from the current commodity-dependent export model, which is promulgated by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and First Deputy Premier Igor Sechin drastically differ from policies based on a knowledge-based, high-technology economy supported by President Dmitry Medvedev and economic reformers. An economic model based on natural resources would tend to perpetuate authoritarianism, nationalism, and corruption, and it would require Russia to follow a neo-imperial policy throughout the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) to support Russian domination of the pipeline system. In a way, the petrostate model and the associated militarized foreign policy require Russia to label the U.S. as an enemy. A more open and diversified economy would be more compatible with democratization and the rule of law. Russia's falling economic performance has dampened some aspects of the revisionist rhetoric, but has not drastically changed Russia's foreign policy narrative, which remains decidedly anti-status quo and implicitly anti-American. Recent increases in oil prices ensure the continuation of this policy. Even during the current crisis, Russia has continued to voice strong grievances against the West and made revisionist demands to change key international economic and European security institutions for its benefit. Unless the Kremlin significantly reorients its foreign and security policy priorities, the Obama Administration's attempt to "reset" U.S.-Russian relations may fail. Only a coherent policy by the Obama Administration and Congress can force the Russian leadership to realize that they would be better served by cooperating with the U.S. and the West than by subverting it. The Russian Petrostate Rollercoaster In the 1990s, the Russian economy struggled with a difficult transition from central planning to a market economy under Boris Yeltsin. In the current decade, wealth from raw materials has fueled an increasingly revisionist foreign policy. Yet while the Russian elite views Russia as a great energy and military power, its economic productivity is only one-third of U.S. productivity,[4] and its gross domestic product (GDP) is between $1.1 trillion and $1.8 trillion, depending on oil prices, and is smaller than the GDPs of France, Italy, and the U.K. From 2000 to 2008, the Kremlin benefited from rising oil prices. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's popularity soared as Russia entered a period of intense economic growth. By 2008, Russia had become one of the 10 largest economies in the world. In only 10 years, its GDP had increased by more than eightfold (measured in U.S. dollars), having grown at an average annual rate of around 7 percent in constant rubles.[5] Real wages increased significantly, from $62 in 1999 to $529 in 2007.[6] Russia had the best stock market performance of any emerging markets during this time.[7] This economic growth occurred despite the Kremlin's efforts, beginning in 2003, to renationalize much of Russia's natural resources and other strategic sectors of the economy. In 2003, the Kremlin took control of YUKOS, the largest publicly traded Russian oil company, and jailed its owner Mikhail Khodorkovsky. During Putin's second presidential term, the Kremlin's international rhetoric and actions became increasingly assertive, even aggressive. TO READ COMPLETE STORY....Click this link Disclaimer statement Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information supplied herein, DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Unless otherwise indicated, opinions expressed herein are those of the author of the page and do not necessarily represent the corporate views of DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News.

DTN News: President Obama Retreats On Third-Site Missile Defenses

DTN News: President Obama Retreats On Third-Site Missile Defenses *Source: DTN News / The Heritage Foundation by Sally McNamara WebMemo #2529 (click for link)

(NSI News Source Info) TORONTO, Canada - July 9, 2009: On his first presidential visit to Moscow this week, Barack Obama continued to cast doubt on U.S. plans to deploy elements of its missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. Since taking office, President Obama has conditioned his support for the "third site" deployment of 10 missile interceptors in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic on a number of factors--its workability, its cost-effectiveness, and the provability of an Iranian nuclear threat. On a visit to Prague in April, President Obama gave a keynote speech focusing on total nuclear disarmament whereby missile defenses would be completely unnecessary. Following revelations in April that President Obama "secretly" offered Moscow a grand bargain whereby it would sacrifice the third site in exchange for Moscow's help discouraging Iran's nuclear program, President Obama has seemingly gone out of his way to back away from the missile defense deal, which was concluded with Prague and Warsaw in the final months of the Bush Administration. This week's Obama-Medvedev summit has reinforced the message that the third site remains a bargaining chip that can be played at the President's will in exchange for achieving his higher profile political agenda items such as strategic arms reductions. Constitutionally mandated to ratify or reject treaties, the U.S. Senate should make clear to President Obama that it will not sacrifice missile defense in exchange for a new treaty with Russia reducing strategic nuclear weapons. Will He or Won't He? President Obama's commitment to negotiating a new strategic arms treaty with Russia before the expiration of the current START treaty this December has topped his political agenda. Although missile defense has not yet been officially incorporated into the negotiations for the new treaty, Russia has made it quite clear that the issues are interlinked and that it will not separate these agenda items. President Medvedev stated that the new treaty must be linked specifically with Moscow's objections to the third-site deployments. President Obama has offered to "discuss" both offensive and defensive weapons systems in the context of the new treaty. By investing so much political capital in a new treaty and fudging uncomfortable issues such as missile defense, President Obama risks having to sacrifice this vital aspect of U.S. national security in order to advance the negotiations. Further, he has repeatedly sent the message that the third-site deployment is not important to him. At best, President Obama has been deliberately vague with regard to the third site; at worst, he is simply looking for a way out, while keen to avoid the accusation that he has caved in to Russian pressure. However, it has become increasingly obvious that the third-site deployment is a red-line issue for Moscow and that President Obama will have to choose between abandoning its Central and Eastern European allies and U.S. national security interests and appeasing Russian aggression on this issue. The Third Site Is Workable and Cost-Effective President Obama and his Administration, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Vice President Joe Biden, have repeatedly hinged the Administration's support for deployment of U.S. missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic on the proven workability of the ground-based system. This caveat, however, has already been satisfied--missile defense technology already works. In a December 2008 test, the Missile Defense Agency performed a successful interception and destruction of an incoming ballistic missile. In September 2007, the U.S. missile defense system destroyed the mock warhead of a long-range missile. Since 2001, 37 of 46 "hit-to-kill" missile defense tests have been successful. As General Trey Obering, former director of the Missile Defense Agency, states in The Heritage Foundation's 33 Minutes documentary, "Our testing has shown not only can we hit a bullet with a bullet; we can hit a spot on a bullet with a bullet." Alternatives to the third site include the deployment of sea-based or mobile theater-based missile defense systems. However, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has stated that these alternatives do not provide a level of defense comparable to that of the third site. The CBO states: "None of the alternatives considered by CBO provide as much additional defense of the United States." The report also found that the estimated $9-14 billion 20-year cost of the third site was half of the estimated costs of a ship-based alternative. The Third Site Is Urgently Needed The negative implications for the security of the United States, its forward-deployed troops, and its allies in Europe should not be underestimated in the event that the third site is abandoned. The violence meted out to its own people in the wake of rigged elections illustrates the repressive and belligerent nature of the Iranian regime, which has continued developing its nuclear and missile programs regardless of international pressure. On May 20, Iran successfully test-fired the Sajjil 2 solid-fuel missile, which has a 1,200-1,500 mile range, putting Israel within Tehran's reach. Israel's Space Research Center also reports that Iran intends to accelerate its production of even longer-range ballistic missiles and their delivery systems in the near future. And in April, the National Air and Space Intelligence Center stated that Iran could develop a missile capable of reaching the United States as early as 2015. President Obama is determined to negotiate with Iran--a strategy that is so far failing--and work closely with Moscow in seeking to persuade Tehran away from its nuclear and missile proliferation programs. However, it would be dangerous not to employ other strategies simultaneously, including missile defenses, stronger sanctions, and preparations for the potential use of force against Iran's nuclear facilities. Ultimately, Moscow may not work with Washington to disarm Iran and may even work against American interests. It is important, therefore, that President Obama has alternate options. Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen has described Iran's pursuit of a nuclear bomb as a ticking clock--and time is not on President Obama's side. The CBO report states that alternate options to the third site may not be available as early as its estimated 2013 timeframe. Considering the time necessary to complete ratification of the treaties in Poland and the Czech Republic, appropriate the funds necessary for its construction from Congress, and physically construct the installations, the Obama Administration must press forward with the deployment of the third site sooner rather than later. The Third Site: Critical to U.S. National Security Departing Moscow with a tentative agreement on strategic arms control that will severely limit America's delivery systems as well as its strategic stockpiles, Obama has given away far more than he gained. He cannot afford to give away missile defense too. The deployment of U.S. missile defenses in Europe has become a critical matter for Moscow, which is determined to have a sphere of privileged interest in its near-abroad. Since Russia's invasion of Georgia in August 2008 and its subsequent annexation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Moscow has yet to face any serious consequences for its actions. For the sake of U.S. national security and to prevent another dangerous geopolitical setback in Russia's neighborhood, President Obama must make it clear that he supports the deployment of missile defenses to Poland and the Czech Republic and seek full funding of these sites from Congress. Sally McNamara is a Senior Policy Analyst in European Affairs at The Heritage Foundation's Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom. She would like to thank Nicholas Connor, intern at the Thatcher Center, for his assistance in preparing this paper.