Tin tức quân sự thế giới - Phần 1

JERUSALEM - With the purchase of two more German-made Dolphin submarines capable of carrying nuclear warheads, military experts say Israel is sending a clear message to Iran that it can strike back if attacked by nuclear weapons.
ADVERTISEMENT




The purchases come at a time when Iran is refusing to bow to growing Western demands to halt its nuclear program, and after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map."
The new submarines, built at a cost of $1.3 billion with Germany footing one-third of the bill, have diesel-electric propulsion systems that allow them to remain submerged for longer periods of time than the three nuclear arms-capable submarines already in Israel''s fleet, the Jerusalem Post reported.
The latest submarines not only would be able to carry out a first strike should Israel choose to do so, but they also would provide Israel with crucial second-strike capabilities, said Paul Beaver, a London-based independent defense analyst.
Israel is already believed to have that ability in the form of the Jericho-1 and Jericho-2 nuclear-capable ballistic missiles, which are buried so far underground they would survive a nuclear strike, he said.
"The Iranians would be very foolish if they attacked Israel," Beaver said.
German officials have said the contract for the new submarines was signed July 6, and the Jerusalem Post reported this week the subs will be operational shortly.
Israel, operating on a policy of nuclear ambiguity, has never confirmed or denied whether it has nuclear weapons. It is believed, however, to have the world''s sixth-largest stockpile of atomic arms, including hundreds of warheads.
Iran so far has resisted calls by the U.N. Security Council to halt uranium enrichment, which can produce, among other things, the material for atomic bombs. The council set an Aug. 31 deadline that is accompanied by the threat of sanctions.
The dispute over Tehran''s nuclear program revolves around Iran''s insistence it wants to master the technology simply to generate electricity. Critics say Iran wants to make nuclear weapons.
The Dolphin submarine could be one of the best deterrents, Beaver said. The technology on the subs makes them undetectable and gives them defensive capabilities in the case of attack, he said.
"They are very well-built, very well-prepared, lots of interesting equipment, one of the best conventional submarines available," Beaver said. "We are talking about a third string of deterrence capabilities."
Michael Karpin, an expert on Israel''s atomic weapons capabilities who published a book on the issue in the United States, said nuclear-armed submarines provide better second-strike capabilities than missiles launched from airplanes.
"Planes are vulnerable, unlike nuclear (armed) submarines that can operate for an almost unlimited amount of time without being struck," Karpin said. "Second-strike capabilities are a crucial element in any nuclear conflict."
In Germany, members of two opposition parties criticized the deal. Winfried Nachtwei, national security spokesman for the Greens, said the decision was wrong because Germany had obtained no guarantee the submarines would not be used to carry nuclear weapons.
"This red line should not be crossed," Nachtwei was quoted as saying by the newspaper Taz. "Otherwise it is a complete renunciation of Germany''s policy of non-proliferation."
David Menashri, an Israeli expert on Iran, said Tehran is clearly determined to obtain nuclear weapons and "the purchase of ad***ional Dolphin submarines by Israel is a small footnote in this context."
What also makes Tehran dangerous, Beaver said, is that it may not understand the consequences of carrying out a nuclear strike.
"They (Iran) have a belligerent leadership and that''s why Israel is prudent in ensuring that it has that deterrent capability," Beaver said. "What they (the submarines) are is a very good insurance policy."

Mỹ bán 80 tên lửa Patriot cho Nhật
Washington hôm qua cho biết họ đã đề nghị bán cho Nhật Bản 80 tên lửa đánh chặn Patriot tiên tiến để tăng cường khả năng phòng thủ của Tokyo.
Theo hãng thông tấn Kyodo và kênh truyền hình NHK, những quả tên lửa Patriot PAC-3 sẽ được đưa tới một căn cứ quân sự tại Nhật Bản vào tháng 3 năm sau.
Trước đó một ngày, William Fallon, chỉ huy quân đội Mỹ tại Thái Bình Dương, tuyên bố rằng Tokyo và Washington sẽ phát triển hệ thống phòng thủ tên lửa để bảo vệ Nhật Bản trước mối đe doạ tên lửa từ Bắc Triều Tiên.
Kyodo cho hay Washington đề nghị bán tên lửa Patriot sau khi Bộ trưởng Quốc phòng Mỹ Donald Rumsfeld nhận được một lá thư từ người đứng đầu Cục Phòng vệ Nhật Bản tháng trước. Lá thư được gửi đi ngay sau khi Bình Nhưỡng bắn thử hàng loạt tên lửa.
Cục Phòng vệ Nhật Bản cho biết họ sẽ yêu cầu Quốc hội chi 100 tỷ USD trong ngân sách 2007 để mua tên lửa của Mỹ. Cơ quan này cũng tiết lộ rằng họ đã có kế hoạch tự sản xuất tên lửa để tăng cường khả năng phòng thủ.
Minh Quân (theo AP)

Úc sắp có khu trục Aegis

Quá đẹp!
NC cũng nên nghiên cứu loại này đi, bây giờ nên bắt đầu giai đoạn thiết kế.
Trước hết mua và đóng loại frigate 4000t tương tự Talwar của India, nhưng cần cải tiến để tăng tính tàng hình và SAM (nên dùng Aster 15). Sau đó thì sắm em này.

The Great Equalizer. Lessons From Iraq and Lebanon
By Gabriel Kolko
The United States had a monopoly of nuclear weaponry only a few years before other nations challenged it, but from 1949 until roughly the 1990s deterrence theory worked?"nations knew that if they used the awesome bomb they were likely to be devastated in the riposte. Despite such examples of brinkmanship as the Cuban missile crisis and numerous threats of nuclear annihilation against non-nuclear powers, by and large the few nations that possessed the bomb concluded that nuclear war was not worth its horrendous risks. Today, by contrast, weapons of mass destruction or precision and power are within the capacity of dozens of nations either to produce or purchase. With the multiplicity of weapons now available, deterrence theory is increasingly irrelevant and the equations of military power that existed in the period after World War Two no longer hold.
This process began in Korea after 1950, where the war ended in a stand off despite the nominal vast superiority of Americâ?Ts military power, and the Pentagon discovered that great space combined with guerrilla warfare was more than a match for it in Vietnam, where the U.S. was defeated. Both wars caused the American military and establishment strategists to reflect on the limits of high tech warfare, and for a time it seemed as if appropriate lessons would be learned and costly errors not repeated.
The conclusion drawn from these major wars should have been that there were decisive limits to American military and political power, and that the U. S. should drastically tailor its foreign policy and cease intervening anywhere it chose to. In short, it was necessary to accept the fact that it could not guide the world as it wished to. But such a conclusion, justified by experience, was far too radical for either party to fully embrace, and defense contractors never ceased promising the ultimate new weapon. Americâ?Ts leaders and military establishment in the wake of 9/11 argued that technology would rescue it from more political failures. But such illusions?"fed by the technological fetishism which is the hallmark of their civilization?"led to the Iraq debacle.
There has now been a qualitative leap in technology that makes all inherited conventional wisdom, and war as an instrument of political policy, utterly irrelevant, not just to the U.S. but to any other nation that embarks upon it.
Technology is now moving much faster than the diplomatic and political resources or will to control its inevitable consequences?"not to mention tra***ional strategic theories. Hezbollah has far better and more lethal rockets than it had a few years ago, and American experts believe that the Iranians compelled them to keep in reserve the far more powerful and longer range cruise missiles they already possess. Iran itself possesses large quantities of these missiles and American experts believe they may very well be capable of destroying aircraft carrier battle groups. All attempts to devise defenses against these rockets, even the most primitive, have been expensive failures, and anti-missile technology everywhere has remained, after decades of effort and billions of dollars, unreliable. [1]

Even more ominous, the U. S. Army has just released a report that light water reactors--which 25 nations, from Armenia to Slovenia as well as Spain, already have and are covered by no existing arms control treaties?"can be used to obtain near weapons-grade plutonium easily and cheaply. [2] Within a few years, many more countries than the present ten or sô?"the Army study thinks Saudi Arabia and even Egypt most likely--will have nuclear bombs and far more destructive and accurate rockets and missiles. Weapons-poor fighters will have far more sophisticated guerilla tactics as well as far more lethal equipment, which deprives the heavily equipped and armed nations of the advantages of their overwhelming firepower, as demonstrated in Afghanistan and Iraq. The battle between a few thousand Hezbullah fighters and a massive, ultra-modern Israeli army backed and financed by the U.S. proves this. Among many things, the war in Lebanon is a window of the future. The outcome suggests that either the Israelis cease their policy of destruction and intimidation, and accept the political prerequisites of peace with the Arab world, or they too will eventually be devastated by cheaper and more accurate missiles and nuclear weapons in the hands of at least two Arab nations and Iran.
What is now occurring in the Middle East reveals lessons just as relevant in the future to festering problems in East Asia, Latin America, Africa and elsewhere. Access to nuclear weapons, cheap missiles of greater portability and accuracy, and the inherent limits of all antimissile systems, will set the context for whatever crises arise in North Korea, Iran, Taiwan?or Venezuela. Trends which increase the limits of technology in warfare are not only applicable to relations between nations but also to groups within them?"ranging from small conspiratorial entities up the scale of size to large guerilla movements. The events in the Middle East have proven that warfare has changed dramatically everywhere, and American hegemony can now be successfully challenged throughout the globe.

Iranian Missile Exercise
American power has been dependent to a large extent on its highly mobile navy. But ships are increasingly vulnerable to missiles, and while they are a long way from finished they are more-and-more circumscribed tactically and, ultimately, strategically. There is a greater balance-of-power militarily, the reemergence of a kind of deterrence that means all future wars will be increasingly protracted, expensivê?"and very costly politically to politicians who blunder into wars with illusions they will be short and decisive. Olmert and Peretz are very likely to lose power in Israel, and destroying Lebanon will not save their political futures. This too is a message not likely to be lost on politicians.
To this extent, what is emerging is a new era of more equal rivals. Enforceable universal disarmament of every kind of weapon would be far preferable. But short of this presently unattainable goal, this emergence of a new equivalency is a vital factor leading less to peace in the real meaning of that term than perhaps to greater prudence. Such restraint could be an important factor leading to less war.
We live with 21st century technology and also with primitive political attitudes, nationalisms of assorted sorts, and cults of heroism and irrationality existing across the political spectrum and the power spectrum. The world will destroy itself unless it realistically confronts the new technological equations. Israel must now accept this reality, and if it does not develop the political skills required to make serious compromises, this new equation warrants that it will be liquidated even as it rains destruction on its enemies.
This is the message of the conflicts in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon?"to use only the examples in today?Ts papers. Walls are no longer protection for the Israelis?"one shoots over them. Their much-vaunted Merkava tanks have proven highly vulnerable to new weapons that are becoming more and more common and are soon likely to be in Palestinian hands as well. At least 20 of the tanks were seriously damaged or destroyed.

Israeli missiles target Beirut
The U.S. war in Iraq is a political disaster against the guerrillas?"a half trillion dollars spent there and in Afghanistan have left America on the verge of defeat in both places. The ?oshock and awê? military strategy has utterly failed save to produce contracts for weapons makers?"indeed, it has also contributed heavily to de facto U.S. economic bankruptcy.
The Bush Administration has deeply alienated more of Americâ?Ts nominal allies than any government in modern times. The Iraq war and subsequent conflict in Lebanon have left its Middle East policy in shambles and made Iranian strategic predominance even more likely, all of which was predicted before the Iraq invasion. Its coalitions, as Thomas Ricks shows in his wordy but utterly convincing and critical book, Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq, are finished. Its sublime confidence and reliance on the power of its awesome weaponry is a crucial cause of its failure, although we cannot minimize its preemptory hubris and nationalist myopia. The United States, whose costliest political and military adventures since 1950 have ended in failure, now must face the fact that the technology for confronting its power is rapidly becoming widespread and cheap. It is within the reach of not merely states but of relatively small groups of people. Destructive power is now virtually ?odemocratized.?
If the challenges of producing a realistic concept of the world that confronts the mounting dangers and limits of military technology seriously are not resolved soon, recognizing that a decisive equality of military power is today in the process of being re-imposed, there is nothing more than wars and mankind?Ts eventual destruction to look forward to.
[1] Mark Williams, ?oThe Missiles of August: The Lebanon War and the democratization of missile technology,? Technology Review {MIT}, August 16, 2006.
[2] Henry Sokolski, ed., Taming the Next Set of Strategic Weapons Threats, U.S. Army Strategic Studies Institute, June 2006, pp. 33ff., 86.
Gabriel Kolko is the leading historian of modern warfare. His latest book is The Age of War. He wrote this article for Japan Focus. Posted at Japan Focus on August 25, 2006.

Russia might tear up ISR Missile Treaty-Defense Ministry source
17:39 | 25/ 08/ 2006

Print version
MOSCOW, August 25 (RIA Novosti) - Russia could unilaterally withdraw from the Treaty on Intermediate and Shorter Range Missiles, a Defense Ministry official said Friday.
"If there is a pressing need, Russia will pull out of the ISRM Treaty unilaterally," the ministry representative said. "There have been such precedents, in particular, the U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty."
The United States announced it was pulling out of the 1972 ABM Treaty, which covered nuclear weapons for 20 years, in June 2002.
The Russian representative said that in 20 or 30 years any country could have intermediate range missiles.
"Moscow considers this treaty to be a relic of the Cold War. When this document was signed, only Russia and the U.S. had such missiles," the official said.
link: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060825/53149698.html

Không tập trung vào tầu lớn cho tranh quyền trên đại dương bao la nữa . Nga từ bỏ việc phát triển tầu khu trục , tuần dương , sân bay ...Nhưng tập trung vào phát triễn tầu tuần tra thế hệ mới . Tầu 2000 tấn thiết kế stealth đã được ra đời và sẽ có tới 20 chiếc cho tương lai . nhiệm vụ chính là bảo vệ vùng biển gần bờ và lảnh hải nước Nga . Tầu stereguschyy

Iran phóng thử nghiệm tên lửa ngầm
Tehran hôm nay vừa thử nghiệm tên lửa phóng từ dưới nước lên mặt biển tại Vịnh Ba Tư. Đây là một phần trong cuộc diễn tập quy mô lớn của nước này.
Đài truyền hình quốc gia Iran dẫn lời Tướng Sajjad Kouchaki, tư lệnh lực lượng hải quân Iran cho hay: ''''Quân đội đã phóng thành công tên lửa tầm xa ngoài Vịnh Ba tư''''.
Truyền hình Iran công chiếu một đoạn phim ngắn cho thấy, quả tên lửa được phóng từ tàu ngầm đã bắn trúng mục tiêu trên mặt nước trong vòng chưa đầy 2km.
Vụ thử nghiệm trên là một phần trong cuộc tập trận quy mô lớn đang được tiến hành ở nhiều nơi trong phạm vi Iran. Quốc gia Hồi giáo này thường xuyên tiến hành diễn tập để nâng cao khả năng ứng chiến và thử nghiệm các thiết bị như tên lửa, xe tăng, các phương tiện vận chuyển.
(vietnamnet.vn)

Cách đây 3 năm Lầu Năm Góc khởi sự khái niệm mới trong chiến tranh gọi là Network_centric Warfare nhằm tăng cao tối đa dung lượng và chất lượng thông tin trao đỗi giữa tất cả các lực lượng tham gia chiến tranh . Có thể gọi là xa lộ thông tin real time cho quân đội . Tuy nhiên sau 3 năm thực hiện đến nay chỉ mới có các phương tiện cơ giới là tham dự vào hệ thống . Các toán quân bộ binh cấp thấp nhất vẫn còn là mơ ước thôi .
Một trong những màn hình hiển thị hệ thống data links này .

Nhật Bản và Úc tăng cường hợp tác quân sự
Australia?Ts New Security Bond With Japan
By Paul Kelly
[As Japan and South Korea strengthen and expand the scope of their subordinate security relations with the United States, in China?Ts shadow other moves are afoot across the Asia Pacific. Here Paul Kelly assesses the deepening Japan-Australia security bond that grows in part from their engagement in support of US war aims in Iraq.]
John Howard has long said Japan is Australia''s most important relationship in Asia, so Alexander Downer''s initiative for an Australia-Japan security agreement possesses a political logic that seals a new history.
It is the latest twist in a century-old saga. Japan was present at the creation of Australian identity by escorting the Anzacs to Gallipoli in World War I and then when it fought the Australian troops at Kokoda in World War II.
The cycle is friend-enemy-friend.
The proposed new security agreement was floated by the Foreign Minister during his visit to Tokyo last week in talks with Japan''s Prime Minister Koizumi Junichiro and Chief Cabinet Secretary Abe Shinzo, who is expected to become the next prime minister.?T?T

Foreign Minister Alexander Downer
Abe, an assertive nationalist who has campaigned for the prime ministership by seeking a strengthening of Japan''s alliance with the US, warns against the threat from China and calls on Japan to develop closer strategic ties with Australia and India.
While Downer''s initiative is constructive, its politics are complex and far-reaching. In an interview with The Weekend Australian, Downer says Australia-Japan relations are undergoing "a complete transformation".
Cabinet''s national security committee has recently endorsed a Downer submission for a negotiating framework to advance Australia-Japan bilateral ties. This continues one of the Howard Government''s most challenging foreign policy projects, without precedent in Australia''s history, of seeking simultaneously to deepen our military and security ties with the US and Japan while deepening our economic and political ties with China.
It has been assumed the policy''s success depends on US-China ties. Yet the great uncertainty in Asia is the unpredictable and emotionally charged path of Japan-China ties, the vital nexus on which Australia''s success depends. As the power balance in East Asia changes to reflect the rise of China, strategic calculations in Tokyo are being recast.
"We talked about a security agreement during my recent visit," Downer says. "This was by far the best trip I have had to Japan as Foreign Minister. We are now seeing a complete change in Japan''s attitudes from where they were previously. We believe a security agreement is something to explore. That''s where we are now and Japanese and Australian officials will examine it. We aren''t talking about a treaty like ANZUS but a formal security relationship. It''s a little like what we are talking about with Indonesia."
The irony of Australia''s most recent Iraq commitment has been to seal a new defence link with Japan. Australian forces in al-Muthanna province worked in collaboration with Japanese engineers and other personnel. This historic Japanese deployment was a success: there were no Japanese fatalities. Each meeting Downer held in Tokyo began with expressions of Japan''s thanks for Australia''s troop support.

Australian forces protect Japanese SDF in
Operation Catalyst in Iraq, March, 2006.
"People should understand the significance of our commitment in al-Muthanna," Downer says. "We were asked to provide security for Japan''s personnel and we wouldn''t have made the commitment if not for this role with Japan." For Downer, the Iraqi commitment has had a "cathartic effect" on bilateral relations. He argues "the Japanese see Australia now as a truly valued security partner".
A deeper Australia-Japan security bond fits exactly into US strategy. In March this year in Sydney the new trilateral security dialogue involving the US, Japan and Australia held its first ministerial level meeting, attended by Condoleezza Rice, Downer and Japan''s Foreign Minister Taro Aso, amid anxious denials that it represented any containment-of-China strategy.
Downer''s initiative comes against his family background. His father, Alexander, was a prisoner of war in Changi for 3 1/2 years and as a federal MP opposed the Japanese peace treaty but supported the Menzies government''s 1957 commerce treaty with Japan, a pact that has helped to shape Howard''s Liberal Party view of the Japan relationship.
Although the World War II legacy has no ongoing currency in Australia, it remains critical in Japan and China. Abe, campaigning for the top job, argues that Japan''s post-war pacifist constitution is incompatible with its strategic challenges. "Japan has reached a point where we can no longer manage the gap between the nation''s security and the constitution''s interpretation," he said recently.
Abe has defended Koizumi''s visits to the Yasukuni shrine which honours war dead, including Japan''s war criminals. He has raised the prospect of a pre-emptive strike on North Korea and seeks to rally Japanese sentiment against what he sees as Chinese bullying over the war legacy. If elected, Abe, 51, will be representative of a younger generation. He will push the direction set by Koizumi and has warned China against trying to exploit the Yasukuni issue.
Asked during his Japan visit about the new security ties, Downer said that "it''s only natural that there should be some association between the Self Defence Force and the Australian Defence Force". Interviewed this week he said: "Both Australia and Japan have sophisticated defence forces. I think they can play an effective role in the region and co-operation might be in relief emergencies or in peacekeeping."
Downer envisages the two forces getting to know each other via joint exercises and training. This builds upon their humanitarian co-operation in Aceh and earlier peacekeeping in East Timor. He did not rule out joint exercises in Australia but drew a distinction with the "aggressive military training" the ADF undertook with the US military.
After his talks with Abe, Downer said he was "struck by how upbeat he was about the relationship with Australia" but added "that''s very much the mood of the Japanese Government as a whole".
The proposed security agreement coincides with Australia''s push for a free trade agreement between Australia and Japan, a standard part of the Howard Government''s diplomatic technique. Downer said this week the FTA was "a logical extension of our broader diplomacy, a logical extension of our security policy and a logical extension of our long-running campaign for greater trade liberalisation". He predicted that "the Japanese may very well agree next year", the 50th anniversary of the 1957 commerce treaty.
"I am pretty optimistic about that," Downer told parliament.
The Howard-Koizumi relationship has been underestimated as the bridge towards deeper bilateral links. From the moment he became PM, Howard wanted closer ties with Japan but struggled to convert his attitude into action. The critical factor is Japan''s changed outlook, driven by alarm over North Korea''s nuclear option and the need for a new Asian power balance to manage China.
Asked about China, Downer says: "We are opposed to a policy of containment of China. We believe that the best way forward is working constructively with China."
This is the Howard-Downer mantra. Of course, it is the correct policy. But the fascinating test is whether Australia has the sophistication in its foreign policy to manage the parallel deepening in ties with China as well as Japan.
Paul Kelly is E***or-at-large of The Australian.
This e***orial appeared at The Australian on August 12, 2006 and at Japan Focus on August 19, 2006.