Trackers of Orbiting Junk Sound Warning

There are 19,000 pieces of debris larger than a softball orbiting the Earth. They travel at about 17,000 miles per hour, fast enough for a relatively small piece of junk to destroy a satellite or even the space shuttle.
There are 300,000 pieces of debris the size of a marble or larger, according to Paul Graziani, chief executive of Analytical Graphics, Exton, Pa., a maker of software for the space and defense industries.
There are 3,000 "payloads" in space - sensors, transponders and other equipment used by the communications industry, the military, scientists and others, Graziani said. And 1,400 times each week, a payload comes within three miles of a piece of debris that could damage or kill it.
Graziani knows. His company produces the software that the U.S. government uses to track space debris.
With so much junk and so many near misses, there have been surprisingly few disastrous collisions - about eight, according to Andrew Palowitch, director of the U.S. Air Force and National Reconnaissance Office Space Protection Program.
In 1996, a French satellite was hit and damaged by debris from a French rocket that had exploded a decade earlier.
In 2007, a spacecraft built by China and Brazil suddenly broke apart, likely the result of a collision with space junk.
The most spectacular space crash occurred Feb. 10, when a defunct Russian satellite collided with and destroyed a functioning U.S. Iridium commercial satellite. The collision added 1,131 pieces of trackable debris to the inventory of space junk.
China's 2007 anti-satellite test, which used a missile to destroy an old weather satellite, added 2,500 pieces to the debris problem.
A similar demonstration by the United States in 2008 was conducted at a much lower altitude - about 180 miles compared with China's 500 miles - so the debris re-entered Earth's atmosphere and burned up within about two weeks, Graziani said.
The increase in space debris has greatly increased danger to the space shuttle and astronauts at certain altitudes, Palowitch said.
During the recent mission to repair the Hubble Space Telescope, the U.S. space shuttle Atlantis faced a 1-in-229 chance of suffering a disastrous collision with space junk. The risk was high enough to prompt NASA to prepare a backup shuttle for a rescue mission.
Astronauts working in space on the Hubble faced a 1-in-89 chance of being killed by space debris, Palowitch said.
Over the next five years, 2,200 additional satellites are scheduled to be launched, and there are likely to be at least 10 more major collisions in space, he said.
Palowitch and Graziani explained the problem of space debris to a gathering of congressional staffers and news reporters June 10.
Palowitch's Space Protection Program was created last year to search for solutions to the problem of space debris.
The first step is to prevent it, Palowitch said. Spacefaring nations must agree to limit the number of rocket parts that they leave in space, he said.
Second, there is a need for better tracking and identification of debris and for calculating the likelihood of collisions. The United States has no debris-tracking capabilities in the southern hemisphere.
Third, there is a possibility that some space debris could be cleaned up, Palowitch said.
U.S. government research laboratories are experimenting with the possibility of using ground-based lasers to burn the surfaces of space debris to create more drag as the pieces fly through space, causing them to re-enter the atmosphere sooner and burn up.
"But lasers and space are very touchy," Palowitch said. U.S. adversaries - and some allies - are likely to take a dim view of the United States firing lasers into space. Lasers might also be used as anti-satellite weapons.
Space could be partially cleared if dead satellites could be repositioned, either to re-enter the atmosphere or to be placed in "garbage orbits," where they are out of the way of working spacecraft, Palowitch said.
The United States is spending $3.2 billion this year and $7 billion over the next five years on "space situational awareness" programs to improve the ability to track debris.
"It's a good start," he said, but in the long run, it might not be enough.

Commission Finds U.S. Paid For Shoddy Work in Iraq, Afghanistan

The Commission on Wartime Contracting released its interim report June 10, telling U.S. lawmakers of cases of shoddy construction, redundant work and a general lack of oversight of construction and support contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Examples included substandard work on the future headquarters for U.S. forces in Afghanistan, the New Kabul Compound. Members of the commission toured the facility in April and found unusable bathrooms, cracks in the structure, sinking sidewalks and broken pipes. In another example, the Army awarded a $30 million contract for the construction of a dining facility at Camp Delta, Iraq. The request for that contract was based on outdated paperwork that didn't take into account that an existing dining facility at the camp was being remodeled and expanded. Though the final report is to outline recommendations for fixing contracting problems, the issues are so pressing that the commission urged corrective action well ahead of its final report, which is due next year, Michael Thibault, co-chairman of the commission and a former deputy director of the Defense Contract Audit Agency, told congressmen on Capitol Hill. Members of the commission described their findings at a hearing of the House Oversight Committee's national security panel in conjunction with the report's release.
There are more than 240,000 contractors supporting U.S. activities in Iraq and Afghanistan - more than the number of U.S. military personnel in those areas, Thibault said. About 80 percent of those contractors are foreign nationals, according to the report.
Congress has appropriated about $830 billion to fund U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001. As of May 27, 1,360 contractor employees have died in Iraq and Afghanistan; 4,973 military personnel have died in the two war zones.
The bipartisan, congressionally mandated committee was created last year and has gathered information from visits to bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, and dozens of meetings with military, contractors and employees from the State Department and United States Agency for International Development (USAID).
One worry voiced repeatedly during the hearing was that the military will have to depend on contractors even more, and with even less oversight, with a drawdown of troops from Iraq.
As troops are withdrawn, "we're probably going to have to rely on contractors who remain there to close down those bases" and transfer appropriate equipment to Iraqis, said Grant Green, a member of the commission and a former undersecretary of state for management and assistant secretary of defense.
One contract that got a lot of attention at the hearing is the massive Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP), which covers a wide range of logistics and support activities. The current iteration of the program, LOGCAP III, is a 10-year, multibillion-dollar sole-source contract held by KBR. The Army is in the midst of transitioning to the next iteration, LOGCAP IV, under which KBR, DynCorp International and Fluor International compete for task orders, but commissioners told the congressmen that the transition isn't happening quickly enough. Moreover, the addition of two contractors to the program will exacerbate the shortage of military personnel picked to oversee contracts in addition to their regular duties.
The military's LOGCAP management office is handling the transition to the next LOGCAP program with not more than 13 personnel on its staff at a time and has augmented its staff with personnel from another contractor, Serco, according to the report.

Top U.K. Defense Associations Set To Merge

LONDON - Britain's top aerospace and defense trade associations are to merge following final approvals from the members of both organizations in the last few days.
The Society of British Aerospace Companies (SBAC) and the Defence Manufacturers Association (DMA) announced June 10 they are set to form an as-yet-unnamed trade organization in October.
The new association will represent around 800 companies in the defense, civil aviation, space and homeland security industries. Rees Ward, director general of the DMA, is set to become chief executive of the merged organization; Ian Godden, the SBAC chief executive, is chairman-designate.
News of the merger came the same day as the SBAC released performance figures for the British aerospace industry for 2008, showing overall sales were flat at 20.57 billion pounds ($33.7 billion).
The SBAC survey said, however, that with the pound down substantially against the U.S. dollar and the euro, they would have expected "a more substantial gain in turnover."
There was further bad news on orders and employment for the aerospace sector.
The SBAC reported a 23 percent slump in orders to 35 billion pounds last year and an 11 percent drop in employment numbers across the defense and civil aerospace sectors.
In the defense sector three performance figures stood out.
Domestic sales in defense fell 13.2 percent while exports headed in the opposite direction with a 21 percent rise during the year.
On June 9, the United Kingdom Trade & Investment's Defence and Security Organisation, Britain's government-run export sales operation, issued figures for 2008 showing that the air sector accounted for about three quarters of the 4.2 billion pounds overseas sales total last year.
Potentially the most worrying figure from the SBAC survey was that research and development spending by defense companies in the U.K. plummeted by 30 percent.
The SBAC cautioned that a good chunk of the fall was represented by a number of large defense programs moving out of their research and development phase.
A spokesman for the trade body said figures in research and development were volatile and officials would have to see whether the downturn was replicated in future years before drawing any conclusions. Godden said the figures on aerospace performance would come as no surprise in the current economic climate: "There has been a slowdown in the sector but compared to the rest of the economy, aerospace has held up well thus far. Our industry is in for a difficult period in the immediate future, but the degree of that difficulty is yet to become clear.
"Of particular concern is the decline in the domestic market for civil and defense products as well as the large fall in R&D spending and employment," Godden said. "One year's results do not make a trend, but the danger to the future of what is a successful manufacturing and engineering industry for the U.K. from this fall in investment is all too obvious. In partnership with the government, we will have to address this urgently, despite the current pressure on budgets, to maintain our position as the second-largest nation in the global aerospace industry behind the USA."

Russia Will Protect Interests in Arctic: Official

MOSCOW - Russia will defend its interests in the Arctic amid the race for the region's energy riches, a Russian official said June 10, while dismissing the possibility of open conflict over the far north.
"We will protect our interests in the future, but I don't see that it will lead to a conflict in the near future," said Artur Chilingarov, the Kremlin's representative for international cooperation in the Arctic and Antarctic.
"We will build up our scientific, economic and research interest in the Arctic, but not our military," he told reporters in Moscow.
Moscow raised the stakes this year in the diplomatic tug-of-war with the four other Arctic states - Canada, Denmark, Norway and the United States - by declaring plans to station more troops in Russia's northern regions by 2020.
Chilingarov, a celebrated polar explorer and lawmaker, himself spearheaded a highly-publicized expedition in 2007 to plant the Russian flag on the Arctic seabed in a not-too-subtle demonstration of Russia's territorial ambitions.
Interest in the economic exploitation of the Arctic has snowballed in recent years as the melting of the polar icecap has increased access to oil reserves and energy firms have sought to diversify away from older, depleted fields.
The Arctic likely holds 30 percent of the world's untapped gas and about 13 percent of its oil, a U.S. geological survey published last month in Science magazine said.
"Everyone has their own national interests. I'll say again that Russia's interests in the far north, in the Arctic Ocean, are tied to the region's economic potential for Russia: gas, oil, gold, diamonds," Chilingarov said.
"These are all in Russia's economic interests and we will protect them."
Moscow has lodged a claim with a United Nations commission on a huge swath of Arctic seabed, arguing that the underwater Lomonosov Ridge, a geological structure which stretches across much of the pole, is a continuation of its continental shelf.

S. Korea Completes Space Center For Rocket Launch

SEOUL - South Korea has completed a space center which will be used to send a satellite into orbit from its own territory for the first time, officials said June 10.
Education, Science and Technology Minister Ahn Byong-Man said the government would hold a ceremony on June 11 to celebrate the opening of the Naro Space Center in Goheung, 475 kilometers (300 miles) south of Seoul.
The center, which cost 312 billion won ($250 million), will on July 30 launch the KSLV-1 rocket, which will put a satellite into orbit.
South Korea has already launched 10 satellites using overseas launch sites.
The rocket, which cost 502.5 billion won, will be the first space vehicle launched from South Korean soil.
Its Russian-built first-stage thruster will arrive next week, Ahn said.
Russia also helped design the launch pad. South Korean engineers built the rocket's second stage and the satellite.
"The Naro center will be the hub for our space development," Ahn told reporters.
Seoul's rival North Korea in April fired a long-range rocket for what it called a peaceful satellite launch.
Other nations said no satellite was detected and the exercise was a disguised test of a long-range missile.
The United Nations Security Council condemned the launch and tightened sanctions, prompting Pyongyang to quit a nuclear disarmament deal and to stage its second atomic test.

Malaysia calls for calm over border dispute with Indonesia

Malaysia's deputy prime minister Muhyiddin Yassin called for calm Thursday amid reports that Malaysian warships had entered oil-rich waters off northeastern Borneo also claimed by Indonesia.
Indonesia says Malaysian warships entered the disputed Ambalat area in the Sulawesi sea last week and that an Indonesian navy ship came within moments of firing at a Malaysian vessel.
"We want to avoid any form of provocation that can cause unpleasantness. We must handle the matter with caution," Muhyiddin was quoted as saying by Bernama, the Malaysian news agency.
Muhyiddin was also quoted as saying that Malaysia had good relations with Indonesia and that it did not want to cause any problem that could hurt ties.
In Jakarta, Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono said Indonesia would never back down from a fight but that dialogue was the best way to resolve the dispute.
"The government has never been lenient on the border violations committed by Malaysian warships in Ambalat waters," Yudhoyono said during a talk show on Anteve TV station.
"Although we have to drive intruders away, we don't need to open fire on them unless absolutely necessary," he added.
International borders in the area off Borneo island have yet to be determined, with each country claiming the area as its own.
Malaysia claims the area based on a 1979 maritime chart, while Indonesia bases its claims on the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which states the area belongs to Indonesia.
Muhyiddin said the Malaysian security forces patrolling the Ambalat waters had performed their duties responsibly and in accordance with regulations.
"Both parties must avoid any action that can raise controversy," he said.
Meanwhile, Malaysia's military chief Abdul Aziz Zainal denied that Malaysian warships had entered the waters around Ambalat, adding that he would visit Jakarta Tuesday to discuss the issue.

Outrage over Russian claim that Poland started war

Poland and Russia headed Thursday toward a new row over history following an article on the Russian defence ministry website claiming Poland was responsible for starting World War II.
The extraordinary piece -- which flies in the face of conventional wisdom that the expansionist ambitions of Nazi Germany caused the war -- was published in a historical section of the official ministry website.
"Any person who studies the history of World War II in an impartial manner knows that it started because of Poland's refusal to give into German demands," wrote Sergei Kovalyev, head of historical research for the defence ministry's northwestern branch.
"The German demands were quite moderate," he added, saying the Third Reich in 1939 was merely seeking to annex the Baltic city of Gdansk and construct roads and railways on Polish territory towards East Prussia.
"It is difficult to say that these demands were without foundation," he said.
The Russian daily Vremya Novostei said that the article -- published in a section titled "History: against lies and falsifications" -- was "harmful" for Russia.
Arseny Roginsky, a historian who heads the Memorial rights group said: "This vision of events profoundly disgusts me. The author is simplifying the facts, is deforming them in order to arrive at the desired conclusion."
"The danger is that this was published on the ministry defence website. If people believe that this is the opinion of the ministry, then this is a step towards a dangerous aggravation in international relations" he told AFP.
The Polish foreign ministry said it had demanded an explanation from the Russian ambassador in Warsaw.
Polish foreign ministry spokesman Piotr Paszkowski said that after the request, a Russian official told Warsaw that the piece "does not reflect the Russian federation's position in any way."
The article was no longer seen on the defence ministry's website late Thursday.
The controversy came after Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's order to form a commission to defend Russia from historical "falsifications" sparked warnings from historians of a return to Soviet-style propaganda.
Russian defence ministry spokesman Alexander Drobyshevsky said the articles did not necessarily reflect the ministry's official position, Interfax reported.
"This section publishes various, including controversial, articles on military history and military science. These articles should not be viewed as the defence ministry's official viewpoint," he said.
Russia has had an edgy relationship with Poland in recent years, especially since Poland, a close US ally, joined NATO and agreed to host controversial US missile defence facilities inside the country.
Historical issues also continue to shadow relations between the two countries, often relating to the Soviet Union's initial wartime cooperation with Nazi Germany through the Nazi-Soviet pact.
Russia's high court in January threw out a bid by campaigners to reopen an enquiry into a 1940 massacre of Polish officers by Soviet secret police at Katyn.
In 2004, Russia's military prosecutor shut down an enquiry into the massacre of some 22,000 Polish officers that for decades was blamed by Soviet authorities on Nazi troops but was carried out by Stalin's secret police.

NATO endorses drawdown of Kosovo force

NATO defence ministers on Thursday endorsed a plan for thousands of peacekeepers to leave Kosovo if security conditions can be assured, a decade after the air war against Serbia.
The plan, NATO diplomats say, would see the KFOR mission cut to 10,000 troops from the current 13,800 by January, and fall to some 2,500 personnel over two years if a series of benchmarks are met.
"Ministers decided today that the political and security conditions are right for a move towards a gradual adjustment of KFOR's force posture," NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer told reporters.
He said the contingent would move to a "deterrence presence", stepping back from the front-line security role it has held in Kosovo since 1999 to allow local forces to take the lead, backed by a European Union mission.
Scheffer said the reduction, for which he declined to set any timeframe, will happen "in a gradual and phased manner, and each step will be decided by the North Atlantic Council (of NATO nations) based on military advice."
The first cut "will be to around 10,000" troops, he said, and KFOR would in future be "a smaller force, relying more on flexibility and intelligence."
As security concerns in Kosovo ease, and pressure mounts on the 28-member alliance to deploy to places like Afghanistan while faced with an economic crisis biting into budgets, nations have called for KFOR to be scaled back.
But members remain deeply concerned about a possible rise in tensions in Kosovo, which broke away from Serbia in February last year, and NATO officials insist that they are not going to abandon it.
"We will have at all times the manoeuvre forces and reserves at all times when we need them," Scheffer told reporters after chairing a working-lunch with the defence ministers.
Danish Defence Minister Soren Gade also underlined that "there will still be a NATO presence and that's very important."
NATO has been tasked by UN Security Council resolution 1244 to provide security since it launched a 78-day air war in 1999 -- a decade ago as of Wednesday -- to stop a Serbian crackdown on separatist ethnic Albanians.
Albanian-majority Kosovo's independence is recognised by some 60 countries including the United States and 22 of the 27 EU nations. Serbia, backed by Russia, opposes the move, which they consider a breach of international law.
One hurdle NATO faces is the fact that Belgrade and ethnic Serbs in Kosovo do not appreciate the 2,000-strong EU law-enforcement presence there: EULEX.
The EULEX contingent is made up of more than 2,000 personnel, with legal, police and customs expertise.
Spain, Britain and Lithuania have recently announced troop cuts in Kosovo.
Denmark followed suit Thursday, announcing it would cut its presence from 354 soldiers to between 150 and 200 soldiers after February 2010.
Madrid has not recognised Pristina's independence concerned that the precedent might encourage some of Spain's separatist-minded regions.
NATO and particularly the United States continue to hold strong symbolic significance for the ethnic Albanians.
"We owe gratitude to the officers and soldiers of the biggest military alliance, NATO, who by entering villages and towns of Kosovo 10 years ago, saved people's lives," Kosovo president Fatmir Sejdiu said in Pristina.
"Therefore, the uniform of KFOR's soldiers is loved and respected by all citizens of the Republic of Kosovo regardless of ethnicity," he said, in an address marking NATO's deployment a decade ago.
The NATO ministers, meeting over two days, will focus Friday on the alliance's troubled mission in Afghanistan, where troops from more than 40 nations are battling a tenacious Taliban-led insurgency.

Analysis: U.S. pulls back troops in Iraq

U.S. forces are steadily closing or transitioning bases around the country and repositioning manpower to meet a pullback deadline set by the new Strategic Framework Agreement governing continued American presence in the country.
In mainly rural Diyala province, north of Baghdad, only about five of 14 facilities in use at the beginning of the year will remain under U.S. authority come July 1. Gone are bases and outposts such as Hatoon and Tahrir in Baquba, the provincial capital. Remaining are Forward Operating Base War Horse outside Baquba; FOB Normandy, near the major market town of Muqdadiyah; Caldwell, in the eastern portion of the province towards the Iranian border; and Cobra, which is located in an area rife with Arab-Kurd ethnic tension.
In the City of Baghdad about 33 FOBS, COPS (combat operating posts) and Joint Security Stations have been formally handed over to Iraqi Security Forces in recent months, according to the 1st Cavalry Division, the main U.S. force in the Baghdad qada (super country).
Among them: Ford, Shaab and Callahan, which played key roles in last year's battles in and around Sadr City against anti-American Shiite militias and Iranian-backed Special Groups.
Seven more facilities will be handed over to Iraqis by the June 30 deadline.
The exact number of U.S. facilities in Iraq is not immediately available, but there were far more than 200 bases early last year, including Camp Liberty by Baghdad's international airport, which is not being closed or transferred to Iraqi authority.
"It's all part of the security agreement," said Sameer Alhaddad, an official in the Receivership Secretariat in the office of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. "It means Iraqi Security Forces are capable of taking responsibility for the (security of) the whole country."
Under the Strategic Framework hammered out last year in tough negotiations between Washington and Baghdad, U.S. combat forces must pull back from cities, towns and villages in the country by midnight June 30.
U.S. troops will continue to conduct routine operations, but with few exceptions they will be mounted from facilities outside the populated areas and with the advance approval of Iraqi authorities. Those operations must also be conducted in concert with Iraqi Security Forces, which will play the lead role in them.
In the Baghdad qada, the switch out of about 24,000 American troops to bases in what could be called outer suburbs and communities means security in the city itself will be the primary responsibility of 100,000 Iraqi Security Force personnel, which includes paramilitary police, while U.S. troops will guard and control approaches to the city of 6 million.
"Think of it (greater Baghdad) as a doughnut," said 1st Cavalry Division Public Affairs officer Maj. Davic Shoupe. "They will be responsible for the doughnut hole and we'll be responsible for the rest."
The transfer process is far from simple, U.S. officers said. After deciding in consultation with Iraqi authorities on which facilities should be closed or transferred, site inspections take place and inventories are made of equipment and site fixtures to take or leave for the new Iraqi owners. Environmental studies are then conducted and problems encountered -- from oil and chemical spills to sanitation concerns -- are corrected.
"We give it back to them in the condition we'd like to receive it," said Maj. Kevin Wallace, executive officer of the 1st Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment.
Wallace's battalion is in charge of the greater Adhamiyah District of Northeast Baghdad, which features both Sunni and Shiite communities. Within its map markings are sectors that featured prominently during the 2007-2008 U.S. surge of forces. Bases such as Ford and Callahan were the "hold" portion of the "clear-hold-rebuild" counterinsurgency strategy. By establishing a permanent presence in communities, terrorists driven out would find it difficult to return and residents would gain a sense of increasing security and stability.
The strategy has apparently worked.
According to U.S. figures, significant acts of violence in greater Baghdad now number about five or six a day. Exact figures for a comparable timeframe last year were not immediately available, but U.S. authorities say the new figures represent a major drop.
In the Adhamiyah District the number of significant acts is one every other day on average, said 1-5's commander, Lt. Col. Scott Jackson.
In Iraq as a whole, significant acts of violence last year totaled 3,258 compared with more than 6,000 the year before.
Jackson said terror and insurgent group cells -- al-Qaida, 1920s Revolutionary Brigade, Jaish al-Mehdi and Special Groups -- remain in his sector but have been severely degraded as the current sigact tally indicates.
He and other American officers, however, believe there may be an uptick -- at least temporarily -- in attacks immediately following the June 30 pullback date as the cells try to challenge government forces, embarrass the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and shake public confidence.
"On the Iraq side of the house (the challenge is) the transition -- the perception of security. Â… If there is an increase (in attacks) people are going to blame it on the transition, and we have to assume there will be some kind of increase," Jackson said.
U.S. and Iraqi military commanders express confidence that any challenges from gunmen can and will be dealt with. Iraqis on the street spoken to by this reporter expressed confidence in the new abilities of their U.S.-mentored security forces, but they are also anxious of Baghdad without a highly visible U.S. footprint.
"I tell them (Iraqis) that the bottom line is that our desire is that you still have Americans on the street," said Jackson. "The changes of 30 June are that the frequency (of U.S. forces on the streets) would decrease and the size of our patrols would decrease.
"Instead of an entire patrol of Americans, now you will see a patrol of Iraqis with some of our soldiers. Our desire is not to abandon our partnership with the government, not to abandon our partnership with the Iraqi forces, not to abandon our partnership with the people."
Under terms of the security agreement, which governs continued U.S. presence in the country and the transition of security responsibilities, all U.S. troops must leave Iraq by Dec. 31, 2011. President Barack Obama, in a separate decision, says all combat troops will be out of Iraq by the end of next August, leaving only advisers and other key support personnel in the country until the date certain specified in the bilateral pact.

US envoy hopeful for diplomacy with NKorea

The US envoy on North Korea voiced hope Thursday for a diplomatic solution with the communist state and predicted it would eventually return to the table despite an escalating nuclear showdown.
Special envoy Stephen Bosworth said the United States was committed to diplomacy even as the UN Security Council moved to expand sanctions on impoverished North Korea over its nuclear test last month.
Bosworth told a Senate hearing that the United States was using a variety of tools with North Korea, ranging from sanctions to diplomatic engagement -- "if North Korea shows seriousness of purpose."
"The United States and our allies and partners in the region will need to take the necessary steps to assure our security in the face of this growing threat," Bosworth told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
But he added: "In the interest of all concerned, we very much hope that North Korea will choose the path of diplomacy rather than confrontation," he said.
He said the United States had no hostility toward North Korea -- as is frequently charged by Pyongyang to justify building its "nuclear deterrent."
"As we have stated repeatedly, the United States has no hostile intent toward the people of North Korea nor are we threatening to change the North Korean regime through force," he said.
Bosworth said the ultimate goal of President Barack Obama's administration was the "verifiable denuclearization" of North Korea. He renewed US insistence not to recognize Pyongyang as a nuclear weapons state.
North Korea last month tested a nuclear bomb, heightening a showdown after in April testing a long-range missile and withdrawing from a US-backed six-nation denuclearization deal.
But Bosworth said he was hopeful for a resumption of the six-party talks, which involved China, Japan, the two Koreas, Russia and the United States.
"There is no evidence they are prepared to do that now but I believe they will eventually come back to the table," Bosworth said.
Bosworth said the United States eventually hoped to negotiate denuclearization measures with North Korea that are "more irreversible," saying that previous agreements were too easy to undo.
Former president George W. Bush had held out hope into his last days of office for a breakthrough with Pyongyang.
Despite criticism from Japan some conservatives in his Republican Party, Bush removed North Korea from a list of state sponsors of terrorism, a longtime demand of Pyongyang because it paves the way for US aid and loans from multilateral lenders.
Bosworth hinted that the Obama administration was not looking to put North Korea back on the list.
"The secretary of state is only authorized to make a designation based on a determination that the government of a given country has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism," Bosworth said.
"Now, I can say, unequivocally, we will follow the provisions of that law completely," he said.
He was facing questions from Republican Senator Jim DeMint, who said that putting North Korea back on the list was one of the few ways to pressure it.
"It makes absolutely no sense to continue with this, and I think it basically amplifies a growing sense that Americans are a paper tiger, full of talk and no action," DeMint said.

Russia warns of obstacles to missile shield agreement with US

Russia said on Thursday that the United States must halt its plans to deploy a missile shield in eastern Europe before the two countries can start a full-fledged dialogue on missile defence.
A Russian foreign ministry spokesman, Andrei Nesterenko, also insisted that Moscow would not cooperate in the Pentagon's plans to site an anti-missile radar in the Czech Republic and interceptor missiles in Poland.
"We cannot agree to cooperate on the creation of sites which in their essence are designed to oppose Russia's strategic deterrent forces. No one will do something that harms himself," Nesterenko said.
"Only a US withdrawal from plans to place the so-called third position area of strategic missile defence in Europe can allow full-fledged dialogue to start on issues of cooperation in the reaction to probable missile threats."
The term "third position area" refers to the US plans in eastern Europe. The previous two areas of the planned multibillion-dollar missile shield are in the US states of Alaska and California.
However Nesterenko also voiced hope that a deal could eventually be reached: "We expect that on matters of missile defence, in the end it will be possible to find a common denominator and reach a mutually agreeable decision."
Nesterenko's comments on Thursday were in response to Russian media reports that the two countries had made progress on the issue and that the United States might even situate elements of its missile shield in Russia.
The reports, which appeared in multiple Russian newspapers, were based on testimony by US Defence Secretary Robert Gates this week before US senators.
But a spokesperson for Gates told AFP that the Pentagon chief's comments had been misconstrued and that the reported plans to put US missile-shield facilities in Russia were a misinterpretation.
Moscow has reacted angrily to the US missile defence plans, saying they are a threat to Russian security, although Washington says they are not directed against Russia and are meant to protect against "rogue states" like Iran.
Former US president George W. Bush strongly backed the missile shield, but the new administration of President Barack Obama has slowed down implementation of the project.

Oil on the agenda as Chavez visits China

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was set to arrive in China Tuesday on a visit likely to deepen already strong ties that focus on oil but branch into areas stretching from the military to the media.
China buys 300,000 barrels of Venezuelan crude every day, and is eager for more from the Latin American country as part of its global quest for as diverse a range of energy supplies as possible.
"The recent economic slowdown has eased the short-term supply constraint in the world oil market," said Kevin Tu of Vancouver-based energy research firm MK Jaccard and Associates.
"However, if we look at a longer time span, oil will continuously be a scarce commodity, especially when the world economy starts to recover from the current financial turmoil."
The bilateral relationship is driven by one basic fact: Venezuela hopes to shift its oil exports away from over-reliance on US demand, and China wants to diversify its imports to avoid over-dependence on Middle Eastern supply.
So while a drop in global oil prices amid the economic crisis puts Venezuela at a disadvantage, it may boost bilateral trade as China is keen to supply strategic oil reserves to keep it secure during future energy bottlenecks.
"The leaders in Beijing see the low oil prices right now as an opportune time for China to fill its nascent strategic petroleum reserves," said Russell Hsiao, an analyst at the Jamestown Foundation, a Washington-based think tank.
Chavez, who has called for eventually boostingoil exports to China to one million barrels a day, will visit for three days, and is scheduled to meet President Hu Jintao Wednesday and Vice-President Xi Jinping Thursday.
He was due to arrive late Tuesday from Japan for what will be his sixth visit to China since he came to power a decade ago, a record for a Latin American leader.
Xi visited Venezuela in February, when the two nations signed 12 agreements and doubled an investment fund to 12 billion dollars.
"The fund is part of the strategic alliance that bolsters our common interests and confirms Venezuela's standing as an oil-providing partner (to China) for the next 500 years," Chavez said then.
Other agreements signed in February involved building in Venezuela a factory producing mobile phones and an assembly plant for household appliances, as well as farming ventures and a deal between state-run Venezuelan and Chinese television networks Telesur and CCTV.
Historically cordial, China-Venezuelan relations have strengthened under Chavez's leftist administration, with bilateral trade peaking at more than 10 billion dollars last year, according to Venezuelan figures.
Last year, Venezuela launched its first geostationary satellite thanks to cooperation with China.
In another manifestation of the evolving relationship, Chavez last month inaugurated the Llanos railway construction project budgeted at 800 million dollars that will be built with Chinese technology, media here said earlier.
Military ties have also expanded. Venezuela recently purchased a fleet of 18 K-8 reconnaissance and training aircraft from China with delivery expected in January 2010.
Chavez said during Xi's visit that similar deals would likely be struck in the future.
"Venezuela will buy Chinese radar and airplanes specially designed for training," he said.
More broadly, and despite the oil-heavy agenda between the two nations, China views the relationship with Venezuela through a strategic prism of empowering developing countries and the alliances between them.
"China-Venezuela relations should be seen within the broader framework of Beijing's 'south-south' strategy to strengthen the clout of developing countries within international institutions," said Hsiao.

Gates urges 'reform,' cuts in US weapons programs

Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Monday outlined plans to "profoundly reform" US military spending, urging a scaling back of major weapons programs while boosting funds for counter-insurgency warfare.
Gates said he was proposing halting production of F-22 fighter jets, canceling a new presidential helicopter and delaying ship building plans, while bolstering funding for surveillance drones and other resources for campaigns against insurgents like the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"If approved, these recommendations will profoundly reform how this department does business," Gates told a news conference.
The defense secretary said he had tried to balance the need to combat immediate threats posed by insurgents linked to terror networks, with more traditional threats associated with conventional warfare.
"Collectively, they (the recommendations) represent a budget crafted to reshape the priorities of America's defense establishment," he said.
The budget was designed to help "fight the wars we are in today and the scenarios we are most likely to face in the years to come," said Gates, whose proposals will likely face stiff opposition from some members of Congress.
In an unusual step, Gates said he briefed lawmakers about his recommendations before making his proposals public.
"The president agreed to this unorthodox approach ... because of the scope and significance of the changes," he said.
The move suggested Gates and President Barack Obama were bracing for a political battle with lawmakers and influential defense industry contractors, who have often rebuffed past attempts to slash mammoth weapons projects.
The Pentagon chief said he recommended ending production for the F-22 Raptors, saying there was no need to greatly expand the aircraft fleet beyond the already approved production of 187.
The Raptors, equipped with radar-evading technology and built by Lockheed Martin and Boeing, cost about 350 million dollars each and have been in development since the Cold War.
The Air Force had proposed building nearly 400 of the aircraft but critics said such an expansion was excessive at a time when US troops in the deserts of Iraq or the mountains of Afghanistan are asking for unmanned drones to help them combat Islamist militants.
Gates called for cutting 1.4 billion dollars from missile defense weaponry in the 2010 budget, canceling plans for more C-17 transport aircraft and scrapping a US Army vehicle that forms part of a hi-tech network known as Future Combat Systems.
He said he recommended delays in ship building that would mean the US fleet of aircraft carriers would drop to 10 ships instead of the usual 11 ships after 2040.
An Air Force search-and-rescue helicopter would also be cut under Gates' advice but funds would be set aside to build more F-35 aircraft and to support the military's special forces -- a vital part of the US missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Gates said his proposals sought to change the way the Pentagon manages defense contracts, which have been plagued by cost overruns and incessant delays.
The recommendations still need to be formally endorsed by the White House and then approved by Congress.
The country's top US military officer, Admiral Mike Mullen, praised the secretary's recommendations, saying it was time the budget reflected the needs of counter-insurgency campaigns now underway.
"Some will argue he is tilting dangerously away from conventional capabilities. He is not," Mullen said in a statement.
"In truth, he is evening out what has been in this time of war a fairly lop-sided approach to defense acquisition," said the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Gates said he was not seeking to ignore conventional threats.
"What people have lost sight of is that I am not trying to have irregular capability take the place of conventional" weapons, he said.
"I am trying to get the irregular guys to have a seat at the table."
Despite recommended cuts in many programs, the Pentagon planned to go ahead with bidding this summer for a multi-billion contract to replace the Air Force's aging fleet of aerial refueling tankers, Gates said.
The contract has pitted aerospace rivals Boeing against Northrup Grumman and the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS). A previous contract was awarded to Northrup and EADS but was cancelled after an appeal from Boeing.

China wary of 'G2' with US: analysts

A week after some saw the advent of a new world order at the G20 in London, the idea of a "G2" that would put the United States and China at the head of international affairs is gathering momentum.
But analysts say the concept of "Chimerica," meant to reflect a new geostrategic situation created by China's unprecedented rise in power, is neither realistic nor likely to appeal to Beijing.
First raised in US academic circles in 2006, the idea was floated again by former US national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski in Beijing in January as the two nations celebrated 30 years of diplomatic ties.
The concept has attracted a lot of interest from Chinese researchers and columnists, particularly since the G20 meeting last week.
Brzezinski, who was also an adviser to Barack Obama during his electoral campaign, suggested an "informal G2" for discussions "not just about bilateral relationships, but about the world in general."
In his meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao in London, Obama took a step in that direction, agreeing to "strengthen ties at all levels" with Beijing.
The two also launched a fresh strategic dialogue to be held each year that would cover issues as varied as the economy, the environment, and relations with Iran, Sudan and Zimbabwe.
The concept of the G2 "is supported by those in the United States who are favourable to a strategy of cooperation with Beijing, in contrast to the neoconservatives' view of the 'Chinese threat,'" said Valerie Niquet, director of Paris-based research organisation Centre Asie Ifri.
This strategy is tempting at a time when the G8 is regarded by some as obsolete and the G20 is seen as too diluted to be able to respond to global challenges.
Meanwhile the financial crisis has highlighted the interdependence of the world's number one and three economies, while the battle against climate change has shown that the two biggest emitters of greenhouse gases must work together.
"On a lot of issues the only two real partners are China and the United States," said Jean-Francois Di Meglio, vice president of the Paris-based research group Asia Centre.
What would hold back the partnership, he said, is the Chinese yuan.
"There is the big world creditor (China) and the big world debtor (the United States). But the big creditor has a currency that is not convertible. That's the argument that kills the G2," Di Meglio said.
Moreover, the Chinese might be "in a process that is moving them closer to the concept of a G2, (but) they definitely do not want that to show that as it would give them lots of responsibilities," he said.
Although China desires recognition, a G2 would go against its long-standing preference for multilateralism that allows it to form partnerships and solid relations around the globe.
"China has never looked to lead the world, it only follows a trend of development," said Liu Yuhui, a researcher at China's Academy of Social Sciences.
Some of the Chinese elite, however, fascinated by the American model, are favourable to "Chimerica."
The concept "has the huge merit... of proving China's global power, which cannot be ignored," said Niquet.
Nevertheless, she also pointed that other world powers would be unhappy with the concept.
"(G2) would obviously go against Russia's diplomatic game that aims to convey the image of a multilateral front to Washington," she said.
It would also be unacceptable for Japan "for reasons of security and leadership," Niquet said.

Obama tells Maliki US will pull out troops on time

US President Barack Obama told Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki on Tuesday that he would pull American troops out of the country as planned, the premier's office said.
"Obama renewed the American commitment to Iraq and to withdraw troops as previously planned," Maliki's spokesman Yasin Majid said, decribing the meeting in which the two leaders also discussed security as "positive."
The US president has ordered an end to US combat operations in Iraq by August 31 2010, but says 50,000 troops will remain under a new mission until the end of 2011.
Hefty support for Obama's Iraq withdrawal: pollMore than two-thirds of Americans support President Barack Obama's plans to withdraw most US troops from Iraq, a new poll said Tuesday as Obama paid a surprise visit to Baghdad.
A total of 69 percent backed the withdrawal plan while 30 percent were opposed, the poll by CNN and Opinion Research Corp. said.
In February Obama announced he was pulling most combat troops out of Iraq by August 2010, although a force of up to 50,000 will remain until the end of the following year. The current deployment is more than 140,000.
A military accord signed last November between Baghdad and Washington requires all US forces to leave the country by the end of 2011.
The poll was released as Obama arrived for his first visit to Iraq since taking office in January, amid a new upturn in deadly attacks blamed by the Iraqi government and US military on the Al-Qaeda terror network.
The president told CBS television late last month that he would not speed up troop withdrawals from Iraq, arguing the war-torn country was "moving in the right direction" but still needed US help.
The CNN poll of 1,023 respondents was conducted by telephone from Friday to Sunday, and has an error margin of three percentage points.

Obama's crisis diplomacy hits North Korea hiccup

President Barack Obama's vaulting rhetoric over North Korea's missile launch ran into familiar resistance at the UN, exposing the cold reality confronting his vows of a new diplomatic dawn.
The Stalinist state's weekend launch of a long-range missile came just days after Obama's first talks with the Chinese and Russian presidents in London, posing an early test of the leaders' declared aim for a geopolitical reboot.
But while the US administration faced embarrassment over China's go-slow approach at the UN Security Council, analysts said Obama may be playing a long game with his North Korea policy still a work in progress.
"The (UN) session ended but the process didn't," said Richard Bush, head of Northeast Asian studies at Washington's Brookings Institution, after an emergency Security Council session Sunday.
"This is going to be a negotiation. Countries don't necessarily reveal their bottom line at the beginning of a negotiation," he said.
Bush added: "There is a value in their approach of maintaining the confidence of Japan and South Korea. And you do have to show a certain amount of firmness towards North Korea."
North Korea's launch of what experts say was an intercontinental ballistic missile gate-crashed a landmark speech by Obama in the Czech capital Prague where he called for a nuclear-free world.
"Rules must be binding," the president said, hours after the North Korean launch, which he said breached UN resolutions. "Violations must be punished. Words must mean something."
Backing the demands of its rattled Japanese and South Korean allies, the United States pushed for the Security Council session. But no meaningful UN action came Sunday after China, supported by Russia, called for "restraint."
The Security Council debate revealed the diplomatic limitations of Obama's rhetoric, but it also served as a chance for Washington to "close ranks" with the Asian allies, said John Park of the United States Institute of Peace.
"These are very difficult discussions that the US will conduct at the UN," the Korean-American analyst observed.
"But the direction is clear from the White House press statement issued after the launch: they want to get past this missile issue and get back to the six-party talks."
Those talks, aimed at dismantling North Korea's nuclear program, have stalled. Pyongyang's real motivation behind the missile launch may in fact have been to grab the attention of the new Obama administration.
"They ratchet up international tensions and the US comes to the negotiating table. It's worked in the past with the US," said James Person of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
According to Person, North Korea has always wanted to torpedo the six-party process, ditch Japan and South Korea from the talks, and deal with the United States bilaterally.
"This missile launch had been long in the planning. So I think there should have been a more calculated approach from the US," he said, questioning the wisdom of going the UN route despite the guaranteed objections of China.
The US State Department said Monday it wanted a strong response from the United Nations condemning North Korea's rocket test, but hinted it need not come through a Security Council resolution.
Such resolutions are generally legally binding, but the 15-nation UN body can also issue non-binding "presidential statements."
"We have to see what kind of unity the United States can forge with China. We're still in the middle of the game," Bush at Brookings argued.
"The goal is walking a fine line to get the Chinese on board to the extent that North Korea understands that it has miscalculated and can't get its way by provocation."

Thompson Files: Air-tanker logjam

Ever since Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, threw a monkey wrench into efforts to lease new aerial refueling tankers five years ago, the U.S. Air Force has been struggling to implement an alternate strategy.
The Air Force has spent a lot of time and money on the process but still hasn't managed to buy a single new tanker. Now the 453 Eisenhower-era Boeing KC-135 tankers that make up most of the aerial refueling fleet are approaching 50 years of age. Since nobody has ever operated jets for this long, there's no way of knowing for sure when they will start falling out of the sky because of metal fatigue or corrosion. But with the replacement process likely to take decades, it's a safe bet that will eventually happen.
The U.S. Air Force provides aerial refueling to all of the military services of the United States and to the nation's allies too, so if its tanker fleet is grounded by age-related problems, the nation's entire military posture could be crippled.
Flying to places like Afghanistan and Guam in the central Pacific Ocean often requires multiple refuelings, and right now the U.S. Air Force is accomplishing that mission with the kind of planes that airlines retired a generation ago. So you would think there would be some sense of urgency about finally getting the acquisition process right and moving out on buying new tankers.
Well, no such luck. Despite Obama administration rhetoric about openness in U.S. federal contracting, the Pentagon's new and improved tanker-selection process has all the transparency of the FBI's witness protection program.
The performance requirements for the future tankers were blessed by the U.S. Department of Defense's Joint Requirements Oversight Council with almost no input from industry, and now the acquisition strategy is being crafted in much the same way. If you were planning to spend $100 billion over the next 30 years on a new aircraft fleet, wouldn't you want to check with the only two qualified suppliers to determine whether your terms and specifications were reasonable?
We have been here before. Last year the U.S. Air Force kept contractors in the dark for several months before releasing the findings of its initial tanker competition, which proved to be so poorly executed that the whole process was overturned by the Government Accountability Office.
That doesn't necessarily mean the wrong tanker was selected, but there were so many problems with the way the process was carried out that the service had to start over. Many of those problems could have been avoided if the industry teams had been kept informed on how the selection process was unfolding. Instead, the U.S. Air Force couldn't explain its approach convincingly even after the winner was announced.
The current buildup to a re-competition is being carried out with even greater secrecy. This time around, the U.S. Air Force doesn't bear all the blame because U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has reserved final oversight of key tanker decisions for his office. That means it will be his fault if the process unravels a second time, especially given the administration's righteous indignation about past acquisition errors.
What is missing from the Obama administration's high-minded rhetoric is any acknowledgment of the role that government incompetence played in bringing about those errors. When it comes to buying weapons, this really is the worst form of government except for all the others, to paraphrase Winston Churchill.
But perhaps a more fitting quote for the present tanker process would be George Santayana's observation about how people who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

Israel tests Arrow interceptor missile

Israel on Tuesday tested its Arrow ballistic missile interception system, a costly project launched two decades ago aimed at countering strikes mainly from archfoe Iran.
The Arrow (Hetz in Hebrew) intercepted and destroyed a ballistic missile similar to Iran's Shahab-3 which can reach Israel. The missile was fired by an Israeli fighter plane over the Mediterranean, a defence official said.
"This morning, the Arrow system performed a successful test," the defence ministry said in a statement.
"The success of the project marks a key step in its development plan and the improvement of the operational systems to offer a response to the growing threat of ballistic missiles in the region."
Defence Minister Ehud Barak, who watched the test from a helicopter, said that combined with other rocket and missile interception systems under development, the Arrow project "will offer optimal protection from near and immediate strategic threats," in the ministry statement.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hailed the test launch, saying: "We seek peace but we will know how to protect ourselves."
It was the latest successful test of the Arrow, a project launched in 1988 during the now-defunct Star Wars programme under late US president Ronald Reagan.
The Arrow programme was stepped up after Israel was hit by 39 Iraqi Scud missiles during the 1991 Gulf War.
Development of the Arrow is now half-funded by Israel's main ally, the United States. Israel says it has carried out more than a dozen successful tests of the Arrow under various conditions.
Israel considers Iran to be its arch-foe following repeated calls by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for the Jewish state to be wiped off the map.
Widely considered to be the Middle East's sole nuclear armed state, Israel and Washington suspect Iran of trying to develop atomic weapons under the guise of its civilian nuclear programme, a charge Tehran has repeatedly denied.
In March, Iran said it had successfully tested an air-to-sea missile with a 110-kilometre (70-mile) range. The announcement came days after a top military commander said Tehran has missiles that can reach nuclear facilities in Israel.
Mohammed Ali Jafari, the head of Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps, said Tehran has missiles with a range of more than 2,000 kilometres, bringing all of Israel within range.
But defence analysts question the accuracy of Iran's longer-range missiles.
Jafari's comment came amid sustained speculation that Israel, which has a nuclear facility at Dimona in the Negev desert at which it is widely believed to have developed a nuclear arsenal, could target Iranian nuclear plants.

Czechs don't expect US to scrap missile shield plans

Czech Deputy Premier Alexandr Vondra said Thursday he is not expecting the US to scrap its missile shield plans in Europe, despite President Barack Obama's decision to review the scheme which Moscow opposes.
"I don't expect it will be scrapped," Vondra said in an interview with AFP, adding that "It's up to the Americans to say what their ideas are."
Prague and Washington last year signed two deals for the installment of a missile radar southwest of Prague as part of the controversial US missile shield scheme.
Former president George W. Bush launched the plans to extend the US missile shield into Europe, basing 10 interceptors in Poland linked to a radar in the Czech Republic to counter any threat from "rogue states," primarily Iran.
But Obama's administration has begun a review of the project's costs and technical feasibility, a move which has eased fears in Russia that the shield was aimed at it.
"It's logical that a new administration coming to power wants to make a review of all important things and that's an important thing. I expect the first results of this review to be presented some time later this year," said Vondra.
However while not expecting the project to be scrapped, the Czech deputy prime minister did admit there could be delays and modifications.
"There is the question about the speed, there is the question about some adjustments," he said.
One reason not to rush could be "the question of the maturity of the threats" from Iran, but it does not mean that we're going to scrap."
Officially, Russian diplomats have downplayed US and Israeli fears that Iran is on the verge of building an atomic weapon, while Moscow has resisted calls for tougher sanctions on Tehran for its disputed nuclear programme.
However a Russian strategic arms expert said earlier this month that Iran could produce an atomic weapon in "one or two years".
Obama's administration has already made some rapprochement towards Tehran.
The US held its first direct contact with Iran Tuesday at a conference on Afghanistan where America and its old foe found common cause on rebuilding the war-torn state.
The Czech government, which holds the rotating EU presidency, will host Obama at an EU-US summit in Prague on Sunday.
There it will hope to persuade him of the shield's usefulness despite public opposition to the project.
"There are some threats, so we should work together to see how to guarantee the protection of all allies if the threats persist," Vondra said.
"Iran certainly, if you measure this by its nuclear programme as well as the ballistic missile programme, belongs to the most serious threats."

Israeli Very-Short-Range Anti-Ballistic Missile Interceptor System Fails Part Four

Why has Israel's very-short-range Iron Dome anti-ballistic missile interceptor system failed so badly? And why didn't the Israelis simply buy the already combat-approved, highly reliable U.S.-built Raytheon Vulcan Phalanx machine gun instead?
First, it should be noted that the huge cost overruns and delays on Iron Dome are hardly unique. This kind of thing happens to far larger and more expensive U.S. and Russian programs all the time. The Russians are still struggling to salvage their costly but dangerously unreliable Bulava submarine-launched ballistic missile, and their aircraft carrier programs have been an exercise in failure and futility for nearly 40 years.
The U.S. armed forces sank hundreds of billions of dollars into the fairy-tale appeal of the Future Combat Systems under Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. While some individual parts of the FCS have been made to work effectively, the overall vision of a super-integrated command and control communications system integrating everything in real time looks like an impossible dream that would require infinite resources that simply aren't available.
The cost overruns on the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co.'s A400M heavy military air transport will certainly run into the tens of billions of dollars and could go even higher.
So Iron Dome's problems do not reflect some unique ineptitude of the Israeli military's aerospace and high-tech sectors. Such programs are always high-stakes gambles, however rosy the initial projections are.
But Iron Dome's unique problems do shed a revealing light on the nature of the Israeli aerospace industry and its strengths and weaknesses.
The most important point about Israel's very advanced and remarkably successful military aerospace corporations is that the country and its defense industrial sector are both small.
Israel's scientists, engineers and technicians deservedly acquired their world-class reputation not by building massive projects on the scale of the United States, Russia and the EU nations but by working with the major aircraft and defense companies of other nations.
They did so with France for the first 20 years of the Jewish state's existence. And for the past 40 years, they have done so with the United States. Utilizing this cooperation, Israeli companies have dramatically upgraded, and they have advanced the capabilities of the aircraft and combat systems they had acquired.
This cooperation has proven immensely fruitful for the United States as well as for Israel over the past four decades. But it often has caused the Israelis and their supporters to forget that Israel shines when it works fruitfully with its vastly larger ally.
In contrast, the Israelis have a very poor record of producing entirely homemade major combat systems themselves. Their outstanding success in this regard is usually cited as the Merkava -- Hebrew for "chariot" -- Main Battle Tank. But the Merkava has now been in use for more than a quarter of a century.
The Israelis had to give up their ambitious plan to produce their own air superiority fighter jet, the Lavi, more than 20 years ago. This was in large part because of intense opposition from the major U.S. aerospace companies and their allies in the Pentagon. But Israeli Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin and top Israel Defense Forces generals fiercely opposed the project too because it would have cost so much money that the ammunition, spare-parts and maintenance budgets of the regular Israeli army would have been stripped to the bone to pay for it.
Iron Dome suffered from this problem too. It was quite simply far too ambitious and revolutionary a military technology for a tiny country like Israel with major defense burdens already in place to pay for and develop. The Israelis therefore would have done far better to buy off the shelf the existing weapons systems that could have defended their northern and southern settlements from low-tech, short-range rocket bombardment, and of these, the Raytheon Phalanx was by far the best and most obvious choice.