North Korea: They are who we thought they were

The numbers are in. So far, 77 percent of people said that they consider North Korea to be a A Very Serious Threat. The other 23 percent all consider North Korea to be a minor threat. None consider it not a threat. Compare that to the CNN poll in which 52 percent of people considered North Korea A Very Serious Threat. Both demonstrate that North Korea is in the forefront of peoples’ mind.

The other poll we did showed that twice as many people consider North Korea the biggest threat to the US than consider Iran to be. Only 5 percent consider another country to be the biggest threat.

I think this demonstrates that the current aggressive stances and statements coming out of North Korea have had a major influence on public perception. Even when Iran tests missiles, their rhetoric is not as belligerent. It is critical and arrogant, but North Korea is aggressive in its threats, stating not only that it will defend, but that it will preemptively attack.

You can continue to vote in the link above.

“Arms Control Amnesia”

Arms Control Amnesia

Check out this opinion piece from yesterday’s Wall Street Journal. In it, Dr. Keith Payne says that the United States is coming up on short end of the recently proposed arms-control agreement with Russia. Dr. Payne says we should not, “agree to pay Russia many times over for an essentially empty box” and argues that we are making cuts we don’t have to and that in doing so we could potentially be putting our long term security in danger.

His op-ed has five key points:

1. An arms-control agreement should come only after we have finished the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). As Dr. Payne puts it, “strategic requirements should drive force numbers; arms-control numbers should not dictate strategy.”
2. The provision to limit the number of launchers at 500 disproportionately hurts the United States because a significant number of Russian launchers are already planned on being removed from service as a result of their aging. This equates to the US making actual force cuts while Russia isn’t doing anything it wasn’t already planning on doing.
3. The agreement says nothing of tactical nuclear weapons of which Russia has nearly a 10 to 1 advantage over the US.
4. Russian President Medvedev has been quoted as saying that strategic reductions are only possible if the US addresses Russian concerns over the US plan to “create a global missile defense.” Equating strategic arms-control to a limited missile defense system that has no capabilities against Russia is wrong but it will put additional pressure on the Obama Administration to cut the Third Site in Europe. While Russia is making this link between missile defense and arms-control, Dr. Payne says it will be a, “measure of US success will be to avoid such linkages.”
5. Before any new agreement is voted on by the Senate, “Russian violations of its existing arms-control agreements must be addressed.”

Where does Obama stand on missile defense?

It’s a question on the minds of many, both supporters of missile defense and those in opposition. The question is especially relevant now and through the end of the year as President Obama establishes his relationship with Russian President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin. Those two ultimately have all of the control on this issue so how Obama chooses to interact with them and how insistent he is willing to be will tell the story on missile defense.

Part of the issue is that, despite claims that President Obama is most assuredly going to get rid of missile defense during his tenure, we really don’t know what his long-term plans for it will be. So far he has managed to increase money for theater missile defense while canceling a number of programs. But what does this mean for overall system defense?

Every negotiation with the Russians will provide more information about what to expect from him on missile defense. We can be optimistic, but that just means that we have to keep pushing. If we stop and think “well President Obama hasn’t given away missile defense yet,” we’re wasting time.

So keep an eye out for what President Obama says during and after the meetings. The wording is parsed by his team to make sure that the statements allow the right amount of room for his future plans. Right now, everything regarding missile defense appears wide open, on the table. Are times a-changing? Time will tell.

Admiral Mullen on Iran

Admiral Michael Mullen

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, the nation’s highest ranking military officer, said to an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies that time is running out in stopping Iran’s nuclear weapons program. During his speech he stressed the importance of using diplomacy and added that, “that window is a very narrow window.” He also said that, “the clock has continued to tick” and cautioned that some experts believe Iran is only one year away from having a nuclear weapon.

Admiral Mullen stressed that it is critical to find a diplomatic solution, “before Iran gets a nuclear capability, or that anyone … would take action to strike.” He said he is “hopeful” dialogue with Iran will be “productive” but that he will “worry a great deal” if it isn’t.