Return-Path: <sentto-279987-1663-999135623-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com> Delivered-To: fc@all.net Received: from 204.181.12.215 by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Wed, 29 Aug 2001 18:41:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 4363 invoked by uid 510); 30 Aug 2001 01:40:47 -0000 Received: from n5.groups.yahoo.com (216.115.96.55) by 204.181.12.215 with SMTP; 30 Aug 2001 01:40:47 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-1663-999135623-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.4.55] by hl.egroups.com with NNFMP; 30 Aug 2001 01:40:23 -0000 X-Sender: azb@llnl.gov X-Apparently-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 30 Aug 2001 01:40:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 82160 invoked from network); 30 Aug 2001 01:39:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 30 Aug 2001 01:39:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp-1.llnl.gov) (128.115.250.81) by mta3 with SMTP; 30 Aug 2001 01:39:33 -0000 Received: from poptop.llnl.gov (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-1.llnl.gov (8.9.3/8.9.3/LLNL-gateway-1.0) with ESMTP id SAA28257 for <iwar@yahoogroups.com>; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 18:39:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from catalyst.llnl.gov (catalyst.llnl.gov [128.115.222.68]) by poptop.llnl.gov (8.8.8/LLNL-3.0.2/pop.llnl.gov-5.1) with ESMTP id SAA27232 for <iwar@yahoogroups.com>; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 18:39:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010829183830.00b49ec0@poptop.llnl.gov> X-Sender: e048786@poptop.llnl.gov X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 To: iwar@yahoogroups.com In-Reply-To: <200108281438.HAA16207@big.all.net> From: Tony Bartoletti <azb@llnl.gov> Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 18:51:36 -0700 Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [iwar] Preparing for 'Network-Centric' Warfare Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit At 07:38 AM 8/28/01 -0700, you wrote: >Preparing for 'Network-Centric' Warfare > >By Vernon Loeb >Washington Post Staff Writer >Monday, August 27, 2001; Page A13 > [snip] >ROGUE MISSILE THREATS: Addressing a missile defense conference last week in >Huntsville, Ala., CIA Deputy Director John E. McLaughlin focused on three >rogue state missile threats -- Iran, Iraq and North Korea -- and a "cross >fertilization" among these and other nations that makes missile threats >possible. > >Iran, he said, will soon field a Shahab-3 medium-range ballistic missile >(range 1,300 kilometers) capable of hitting Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey -- >and U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf. > >Iraq has rebuilt "several critical missile production sites," McLaughlin >said, and is hiding a small number of Al Hussein short-range ballistic >missiles (range 650 kilometers) that can strike Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia >and Turkey. > >North Korea, the biggest threat of all, he said, could test a long-range >Taepo Dong 2 capable of hitting parts of the United States with a >"nuclear-sized payload" sometime in 2003. > >How do such nations develop sophisticated ballistic missile technology? > >The North Korean No Dong, developed initially from Russian Scud technology, >forms the basis of the Iranian Shahab-3 as well as Pakistan's medium-range >missile, McLaughlin said. > >Iran and Pakistan, meanwhile, are viewed by CIA analysts as potential >"secondary" proliferators, eager to turn their technology imports into >exports for hard cash they can turn around and use to import still more >technology. > >Russia and China further complicate the picture, McLaughlin said, peddling >technological know-how and missile components to the rogue nations of the >world. No doubt, all of this is true to some extent, however... I wonder how the good scientists and engineers from North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan must feel when the world's major superpower (US) promulgates the notion that without the technological gifts from "parent nations", these professionals would be unable to rub two sticks together. A question: If it were possible for these "rogue nations" to fully develop major offensive capability without the help of other nations, would we (the US) still hold to the line that they got the capability from (Russia, China, etc) in order to pressure those parent nations into policing "their children"? That is, to let it be known that should any overt act on the part of "the child" occur, we would hold "the parent" responsible? Just a thought. ___tony___ Tony Bartoletti 925-422-3881 <azb@llnl.gov> Information Operations, Warfare and Assurance Center Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Livermore, CA 94551-9900 ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Secure your servers with 128-bit SSL encryption! Grab your copy of VeriSign's FREE Guide: "Securing Your Web Site for Business." Get it Now! http://us.click.yahoo.com/n7RbFC/zhwCAA/yigFAA/kgFolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> ------------------ http://all.net/ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-09-29 21:08:40 PDT