Russia has publicly announced that it is willing to sell Iran one of the world's most advanced air defense systems after a 5-year hiatus.

Although a nuclear deal has yet to be reached with Iran and embargoes remain in place, Moscow has announced that it is ready to send the S-300 air defense system to Tehran. 

If the deal goes through, Iran would have an extremely capable air defense system that could deter the threat of force against Iranian military facilities.

The following Reuters graphic depicts how the S-300 system works. In 2013, Russia delivered the defense system to Syria, which contributed to deterring Western intervention in the country. 

The S-300 is comprised of four road-mobile vehicle classes that work in tandem to detect and destroy aircraft. The missile launcher vehicles have a range of about 93 miles, can fire at multiple targets, and can down aircraft flying as high as 90,000 feet. 

Iran's acquisition of S-300 systems would be “a complete game changer for all fourth-gen aircraft [like the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18]. That thing is a beast and you don’t want to get near it,” a senior US Marine Corps aviator told The Daily Beast. 

If delivered, the systems would render Iran's air defenses nearly impenetrable against all but the most advanced US aircraft. 

The S-300 "essentially makes Iran attack-proof by Israel and almost any country without fifth-gen [stealth fighter] capabilities. In other words, Iran, with the S-300, can continue to do what they want once those systems are in place without fear of attack from anyone save the US," a senior Air Force commander told The Daily Beast. 

Basically, the existence of the S-300s would make any military action against Iran extremely difficult and costly — even for the US Military. As the systems are mobile, the US would have difficulty targeting the systems themselves while non-stealth jets would not be able to operate safely over Iran. 

The delivery of the system would mitigate the threat of military action against Tehran in case of breaches in the nuclear agreement off the table.

Simultaneously, the weapons deal could lead to a greater axis of cooperation between Russia and Iran throughout the wider Middle East while providing Russia with some much needed money as sanctions continue to wreck the economy. 

"The Kremlin is willing to treat the nuclear agreement as a done deal, at least when it comes to unlocking an $800m arms deal at a time when the Russian economy is hurting,"Mark Galeotti, a New York University professor specializing on Russia, told Business Insider. "Besides which, it allows Moscow to prove itself a good friend."

Iran expects the missiles by the end of the year. 

SEE ALSO: Russia and Iran just showed how 'they can do whatever they like' right now

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: This 26-year-old from Baltimore took a 35,000-mile road trip and ended up fighting in the Libyan revolution

It’s been widely reported that Russian President Vladimir Putin has decided to sell the Russian-made S-300 missile system to Iran. This sale has been planned for years, but it was put on hold in 2010 when the U.N. Security Council adopted Resolution 1929.

Although this resolution did not specifically prohibit the sale of missile systems like the S-300, it did call for all states to “exercise vigilance and restraint” in supplying weapons to Iran. Since then, Russia has refrained from selling these weapons.

Now Russia has changed its mind.

The S-300 is a mobile surface-to-air missile defense system that couples powerful radars with high-speed, long-range missiles. It is capable of shooting down aircraft over a large area (depending on the variant, the lethal engagement zone could be larger than the state of New Jersey, with the detection/tracking zone much larger than that).

In NATO, we refer to this missile system as the SA-10. We have studied it and trained to counter it for years. While we are not scared of it, we respect the S-300 for what it is: a very mobile, accurate, and lethal missile system.

Russia’s decision to sell the S-300 to Iran is a big deal for three reasons:

1. It represents a fundamental shift in military power for the region.

For over a decade, the United States and its allies have been able to take freedom of action in the Middle Eastern skies for granted. Friendly forces could count on air support and freedom of maneuver. Adversaries could assume they were vulnerable to observation and attack from the air, limiting their options and convincing some of them that they could not achieve their objectives through military force (often called deterrence by denial). This was especially true of Iran, whose air defenses have suffered greatly due to sanctions. The arrival of the S-300 changes this.

The S-300 is not a wall in the sky. If we have to, we can attack and defeat it. Doing so, however, requires an effort that is much larger, much riskier, and much more costly.

Recently, we have seen a debate on the scale of a potential attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, with some arguing that it would be relatively limited and others taking an opposing view. With the S-300 in place, there is no debate.

Overcoming this type of system will require a large deployment of air, sea, and land assets, including our most capable — and expensive — airplanes and missiles. Our people and equipment will be at greater risk, and accomplishing the mission will be more difficult and time consuming.

2. It represents a major acceleration in the proliferation of A2/AD systems.

In 2003, Andrew Krepinevich, Barry Watts, and Robert Work warned against the proliferation of threats like the S-300 in a study published by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Analysis that coined the phrase “Anti-Access/Area-Denial,” or A2/AD.

They argued that states such as Iran and North Korea would acquire capable systems like the S-300, forcing the United States to alter its approach to projecting military power. That day appears to be here.

This is why many officials, including Work — who is now the Deputy Secretary of Defense — have called for the development of new technological approaches to “offset” advanced weapons systems like the S-300. Some have argued that this effort is aimed directly at China, but the proliferation of the S-300 demonstrates how A2/AD environments are spreading.

3. It represents the return to an age of geopolitical competition.

We may not want to go back to the days when every world development had to be viewed in light of a political competition with another great power. It is increasingly clear, however, that Russia sees the world through this lens.

Western sanctions — implemented in response to Russian intervention in Ukraine — have imposed significant costs on the Russian economy and ratcheted up the tension between Russia and the West. It now appears that tension has spilled over into the Iranian situation.

With the upcoming sale of the S-300 to Iran, Russia has found a way to increase our costs dramatically should we deem it necessary to intervene there.

One final observation: The training required to prepare against an S-300 threat is exactly the type that has been so damaged by the sequester cuts of 2013 and the budget caps of 2014/2015.

Recently, Secretary of the Air Force Deborah James stated that half of Air Force combat units are not trained to the level necessary for the “high-end fight.” In light of proliferation developments such as this Russian deal with Iran, that is not a reassuring statistic.

Colonel Clint Hinote, US Air Force, is a military fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. He holds a PhD in military strategy, and he recently returned from Korea, where he commanded the 8th Fighter Wing at Kunsan Air Base.  The conclusions and opinions expressed are his own and do not reflect the official position of the U.S. government.

SEE ALSO: This chart shows why China thinks it can take over the South China Sea without starting a war

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 11 Facts That Show How Different Russia Is From The Rest Of The World

Amid Vladimir Putin's controversial decision to authorize the sale of the S-300 missile system to Iran, a video has surfaced purportedly showing a failed Russian military missile launch.

While the type of missile was not immediately confirmed, a Russian military official reportedly told AFP on Wednesday that a rocket had crashed in the Arkhangelsk region in northern Russia.

In approximately eight seconds the missile shoots upward and then plummets back to the ground. Iran's acquisition of S-300 systems would be "a complete game changer for all fourth-gen aircraft [like the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18]. That thing is a beast and you don’t want to get near it," a senior US Marine Corps aviator told The Daily Beast. 

Here's video of the missile launch:

SEE ALSO: Revealed: Russia's top-secret tank

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: This 26-year-old from Baltimore took a 35,000-mile road trip and ended up fighting in the Libyan revolution

Top defense contractors are poised to compete in a major industry battle to develop autonomous missiles for the US Navy that can kill enemy ships at sea and demolish air-defense radar sites inland.

Although the Navy has so far released few details on what it plans to buy, missile manufacturers like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Boeing are keeping a close eye on a program the Navy has dubbed “next-generation strike capability.”

The Navy is seeking funds in its 2016-2020 budget to begin the development of next-generation strike weapons, with the goal to start an industry competition in fiscal year 2017. But the Navy has yet to settle on specific requirements.

In about a decade or so, the next-generation strike capability, or NGSC, would supplement or replace the current Harpoon and Tomahawk cruise missiles. What remains unknown is whether next-generation strike will be a single missile or a mix of weapons that would include ship killers and land-strike missiles that would target enemy air defenses deep inland.

The decision to move forward with next-generation strike comes after years of internal debate on how the Navy should arm itself for potential maritime wars against rising powers like China. The US Pacific Command has singled out a new anti-ship missile as an “urgent operational need.”

Of concern to PACOM and to naval advocates on Capitol Hill is the lack of anti-ship weapons aboard Navy surface combatants, and they fear that current ship-launched cruise missiles are not stealthy enough to be able to penetrate the most advanced air defenses. An extended reach of 1,000 nautical miles or more is a key priority in the next-generation strike program, so Navy ships can operate within range of Chinese surface combatants equipped with anti-ship cruise missiles.

The Navy already has tested a new anti-ship missile that can be fired from fighter jets and strategic bombers — known as the long-range anti-ship missile, or LRASM, made by Lockheed Martin. Started in 2009 under the auspices of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the LRASM is a modified version of the joint air-to-surface standoff missile-extended range that Lockheed built for the U.S Air Force. DARPA announced in February that an LRASM prototype scored three-for-three in consecutive flight tests.

“Once operational, LRASM would play a significant role in ensuring military access to operate in open ocean/blue waters and the littorals due to its enhanced ability to discriminate and conduct tactical engagements from extended ranges,” DARPA said in a news release.

A key feature of this missile is a terminal guidance system that would allow it to reach a target even if the military were denied access to GPS signals or other network links.

Lockheed officials said the company is independently developing a ship-launched variant in anticipation of a future competition. The Navy chose the air-launched LRASM over other systems offered by Raytheon and Kongsberg. Lockheed is producing 90 missiles for the Navy that will be deployed on Super Hornet fighters and Air Force B-1 bombers by 2019.

In next-generation strike, the Navy merged what used to be two separate projects: One called “offensive anti-surface weapon increment 2” and another dubbed “next-generation land attack weapon.” The new missile, or family of weapons, would have greater range, destruction power and survivability than the current Harpoon anti-ship cruise missile and the Tomahawk ship-launched land attack cruise missile.

Analysts for years have questioned the Navy’s efforts to keep up with growing technological advances by China and other nations. “China is building a modern and regionally powerful Navy with a modest but growing capability for conducting operations beyond China’s near-seas region. The question of how the United States should respond to China’s military modernization effort is a key issue in U.S. defense planning,” wrote naval analyst Ronald O'Rourke, of the Congressional Research Service.

China has acquired Russian-made anti-ship cruise missiles that are carried by Russian-made destroyers and submarines, and has developed other missiles domestically, O’Rourke said.

The implication for the US Navy is that it needs aircraft and weapons with longer ranges. The Navy is “going to have to adopt an offensive mindset,” naval strategist Bryan Clark, of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, told the House Armed Services Committee’s seapower and projection forces subcommittee.

“Today's surface fleet is more focused on defeating enemy missiles and torpedoes, than attacking the aircraft, submarines or sub-ships that have launched them,” Clark said. “Surface forces need to focus on killing the archer instead of shooting down its arrows.”

The archers in this case are aircraft, submarines, and surface ships that are able to launch anti-ship cruise missiles, Clark said. “Today, the surface ships we deploy don't have weapons that are able to reach enemy aircraft, ships or submarines until we're already well within range of their anti-ship cruise missiles.”

Missile manufacturers believe the Navy will communicate its next-generation strike wish list some time in 2016. Competitors are weighing how best to position themselves. If the Navy chooses to combine the anti-ship and land-attack mission and select only one manufacturer, the stakes would be huge. Pressure to keep costs under control could benefit companies that spend their own funds to upgrade existing missiles.

Lockheed is viewed as having the inside track because it is already producing an air-launched anti-ship cruise missile and is developing a ship-launched variant. The company is expanding its manufacturing plant in Troy, Alabama, said Hady Mourad, tactical missiles advanced program director at Lockheed Martin. He said the company spent $32 million of internal R&D funds to mature the technology.

What specifically Lockheed would propose for next-generation strike is still to be determined, said company spokeswoman Amy Cochrum. LRASM is being designed as an anti-surface maritime weapon, but with minor retrofits it could be become a dual-role missile, prosecuting both land and sea targets, she told National Defense. “Until U.S. Navy requirements are defined and communicated to industry, final configurations or variants would be speculation at best.”

The Boeing Co. recently unveiled a modernized version of the Harpoon missile but that is not likely to be a contender for next-generation strike, a company spokeswoman said.

Boeing is waiting to hear more about what the Navy wants before it decides on its offering. Designing a new missile is one possibility, but it is too soon to say, said Deborah VanNierop, spokeswoman for Boeing Phantom Works.

“Next-generation strike capability is in the very early stages and currently there are no requirements,” she noted. Boeing’s advanced weapons team has “briefed the Navy on key technologies and system options,” VanNierop told National Defense. “The team plans to continue to engage with the Navy as they formulate their requirements.”

Raytheon, meanwhile, expects to enjoy a key advantage as the manufacturer of the Tomahawk missile, as the Navy already has invested huge sums into the program. The company also makes the joint standoff weapon, an air-launched glide bomb that initially competed against LRASM. Raytheon has teamed with Norway’s Kongsberg Defense & Aerospace to develop an air-launched anti-ship missile and a ship-launched version for the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship.

Next-generation strike will likely include “improvements to current programs as well as potentially follow-on technologies,” Dave Adams, Tomahawk program director, said in a statement. “Raytheon is working with the Navy to minimize risk and costs by using the proven Tomahawk and JSOW weapon systems.”

Both Tomahawk and JSOW, Adams said, can defeat modern integrated air defenses. “And with the improvements we are developing for Tomahawk, we anticipate that this will hold any high value moving target at risk out to greater than 1,000 miles on land and at sea. And, both JSOW and Tomahawk are already fully integrated on U.S. Navy platforms, saving an enormous amount of integration costs.”

Raytheon recently announced it funded the development of a multi-mode seeker for the Tomahawk Block 4 cruise missile. “This is a critical step in enabling the missile to strike moving targets on land and at sea,” said Mike Jarrett, vice president of Raytheon Air Warfare Systems.

SEE ALSO: Here's video of the US Navy testing a 'game-changing' new missile

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's how much sex happy couples have every month

DOHA (Reuters) - French and Qatar signed on Monday a 6.3 billion euro ($7.02 billion) agreement for the sale of 24 Dassault Aviation-built Rafale fighter jets.

The contract — the third this year for Dassault after deals to sell Rafale jets to Egypt and India — also includes MBDA missiles, and the training of 36 Qatari pilots and 100 technicians by the French army, a French Defense Ministry official has said.

The agreement was signed during a visit to the Gulf Arab state by French President Francois Hollande.

(Reporting by John Irish, Editing by William Maclean)

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Watch these giant container ships collide near the Suez Canal

North Korea recently conducted a third test of a new submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) that is part of Pyongyang’s expanding nuclear arsenal, according to American defense officials.

The underwater ejection test of what the Pentagon is calling the KN-11 missile took place April 22 from an underwater test platform near the North Korean coastal city of Sinpo, located on the southeastern coast of the country about 100 miles from the Demilitarized Zone separating it from South Korea.

Doevelpment of the new missile, first disclosed by the Washington Free Beacon, is being carried out at the North’s Sinpo South Shipyard.

The ejection test, which was gauged to have been successful by U.S. intelligence agencies, is the third known test of the new submarine missile, indicating the missile program is a high-priority for the communist regime of Kim Jong Un.

Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Jeffrey Pool declined to comment, suggesting details of the test are classified.

Current and former national security officials criticized the Obama administration for not doing more to counter the North Korean nuclear threat to the United States.

“This missile, along with the KN-08, happened on Obama’s watch and nothing has been done,” said a U.S. intelligence official critical of the Obama administration.

“By utterly ignoring North Korea’s growing missile threats, Obama has allowed the threat of rogue state proliferators to fall out of the center of the national political debate,” said John Bolton, former US ambassador to the United Nations. “This is a potential tragedy for the country.”

Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney said North Korea’s development of the KN-08 and the emerging SLBM present “threats to the continental United States and have been developed under the Obama administration’s leadership.”

“Leading from behind is a failed strategy as evidenced by this very dangerous strategic threat to the continental United States of nuclear attack by a very unstable North Korean government,” he said.

Allowing Iran to become a nuclear weapons power in 15 years under the Obama’s administration’s propose Iran nuclear deal “puts the United States in the most dangerous threat of nuclear attack since the height of the Cold War but from multiple threats—North Korea, China, Russia, and Iran,” McInerney said.

Earlier tests of the KN-11 took place Jan. 23 from a sea-based platform—not a submarine—and another ejection test, in which a missile ejects from a launch system but does not go into flight, from a land-based static platform in October.

Details of the missile program remain classified. Adm. Cecil D. Haney, commander of the Strategic Command, was the first official to confirm the SLBM program in Senate testimony March 19.

The submarine that will be used for North Korea’s underwater-launch missile is not known. Analysts suspect the submarine will be a refurbished Soviet-era Golf II-class submarine that can fire three missiles from its conning tower, or an indigenous missile-firing submarine copied from Russian or Chinese designs. North Korea obtained several Golf-class submarines as scrap metal in the 1990s.

Intelligence analysts said the three tests are an indication of the high priority being placed on developing an underwater nuclear strike capability by Pyongyang.

Joseph DeTrani, former director of the National Counterproliferation Center, a US intelligence agency, said North Korea continues to upgrade its nuclear and missile capabilities in violation of numerous UN Security Council resolutions.

“Reported developments with the ICBM-road mobile KN-08 are of immediate concern, as are reports that North Korea is pursuing the development of a SLBM capability,” he said.

Former Defense Intelligence Agency official Bruce Bechtol, Jr., said North Korea is developing an SLBM as part of a plan to have missiles capable of reaching the United States and to have missiles that will be difficult to locate for US warning systems.

“With an SLBM they get both,” said Bechtol, a North Korea expert. “The submarine can get the platform to launch the missile within range of the continental United States, Alaska, or Hawaii. Thus, once operational, this immediately brings key nodes in the United States within range of what would likely be a nuclear armed missile.”

Bechtol said SLBMs provide a key alternative to North Korea’s other new strategic system, the land-based and mobile KN-08.

“This means that, once these two systems go operational, it potentially gives North Korea a dual threat for attacking the United States with nuclear or chemical weapons — a threat generated from difficult to detect mobile platforms on both land and sea,” he said.

A month after the November test, the United States, South Korea, and Japan signed a formal intelligence-sharing agreement to better inform each state about the SLBM program and other North Korean threats.

The new missile, when deployed, will join a series of strategic nuclear delivery vehicles available to the North Korean military. The Korean People’s Army currently has long-range Taepodong missiles and road-mobile KN-08 ICBMs capable of delivering nuclear bombs. North Korea has about 40 IL-28 bombers based at Uiju, near the Chinese border, and at Changjun in the central part of the country.

Disclosure of the SLBM ejection test comes as China recently disclosed that it estimates Pyongyang has an arsenal of up to 20 nuclear warheads.

Siegfried Hecker, a Stanford University professor and former director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, disclosed the 20-warhead North Korean arsenal after taking part in a meeting with Chinese nuclear specialists in February. Hecker said he is concerned by the figure since it represents a “nuclear arsenal.”

The Chinese also believe Pyongyang has the capability of producing quantities of weapons-grade uranium that would allow to double its arsenal by next year.

The North Korean nuclear warhead arsenal, when combined with its missile forces, poses a direct threat to the United States, senior US military officials said last month.

Adm. William Gortney, commander of the US Northern Command, told reporters April 7 that US intelligence agencies have formally assessed that North Korea is capable of making a nuclear warhead small enough to fit on a missile.

North Korea’s KN-08 is also a major worry because the mobile missile is difficult to track and can be fired with little warning.

“Our assessment is that they have the ability to put a nuclear weapon on a KN-08 and shoot it at the homeland,” Gortney said, adding that the missile has not been flight-tested.

Gortney, who is in charge of defending the United States from missile attacks, added that “we’re very concerned about the mobile nature of the KN-08, that we would lose our ability to get the indication that something might occur, and then, of course, the particular nature of the regime that’s there.”

Little is known about the nature of the KN-11. However, State Department documents disclosed by Wikileaks revealed that North Korea obtained a Russian SS-N-6 submarine-launched ballistic missile several years ago that became the basis for Pyongyang’s intermediate-range Musudan missile.

Missile Defense Agency Director Vice Adm. James Syring voiced alarm at the impact of North Korean missile development and sharp budget cuts for American missile defenses.

Syring told the House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee March 19 that if budget cuts continue “you’re starting to jeopardize our future capability … to defend the homeland with the development and testing that I’ve seen going on with North Korea very specifically, and the pace in the progress that they’re making.”

Unless improvements are made in missile defenses, “I’m in serious jeopardy of … going to the Northern commander and advising him the system is overmatched.”

Meanwhile, North Korea announced April 30 that it plans to enhance its nuclear power infrastructure following the announcement that the United State and South Korea had reached a nuclear energy treaty.

“This is a dangerous criminal move which will escalate tension on the Korean Peninsula and spark off nuclear proliferation and a nuclear arms race in Northeast Asia,” North Korea’s official KCNA news agency said in a statement.

As a result, Pyongyang vowed to “further bolster up its self-defensive nuclear deterrence for defending the dignity of the nation, its sovereignty, and global peace and security,” the statement said.

In a related development, a North Korea expert who studied in Pyongyang said recent reports indicate North Korea is preparing to conduct a satellite launch in the near future.

Alexandre Mansourov, visiting scholar at the John Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, said a close reading of activities by Kim Jong Un and space-related stories in state-controlled media indicate a launch could be carried out in mid-September or early October.

“The upcoming space launch, in violation of the existing UN Security Council resolutions, will demonstrate the Kim regime’s unswerving determination to pursue a robust space program despite international approbation and the missile test ban, will test the limits of Beijing’s patience and Moscow’s rapprochement with Pyongyang, and may compel Washington to expedite the deployment of missile defenses in the region, while straining U.S. relations with its allies ROK and Japan,” Mansourov said.

SEE ALSO: Bremmer: Here come the non-US drones

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's what happens when you get bitten by a black widow

SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea could build a fully operational submarine equipped with ballistic missiles within two or three years, a South Korean defense official said on Monday.

The official, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter, said photos of North Korea's test of a submarine-launched ballistic missile appeared authentic.

North Korea said on Saturday it had successfully test-fired a ballistic missile from a submarine. Such a development, if verified, would mark a significant new technological achievement for Pyongyang.

(Reporting by Ju-min Park; Editing by Paul Tait)

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's what happens when you get bitten by a black widow

In 1974, the U.S. thought that the best way to preserve its ICBMs (Inter Continental Ballistic Missiles) from Soviet nuclear strikes was to load them in C-5 Galaxy airlifters and keep them on the move.

A three-stage Minuteman, 56 feet in length and 86,000 pounds in weight, was attached to some parachutes that could drag it out of the cargo hold and then point it upward, then it was loaded into a Galaxy and air launched over the Pacific from the aircraft: a timer ignited the rocket motor and the missile flew for about 25 before it cascaded into the Pacific Ocean.

This video shows the ICBM loaded into the C-5 Galaxy and air launched during the unique test.

Here is the full video:

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's how Floyd Mayweather spends his millions

China now has dozens of nuclear-capable missiles that could target almost the entirety of the US, according to the Department of Defense's 2015 report on the Chinese military. 

The annual report to Congress focuses on China's military modernization, possible invasion plans for the self-governing and US-allied island of Taiwan, advances in space technology, and Beijing's rapidly advancing missile capabilities.

China's conventional capabilities are improving. But Beijing also now has what could be considered the ultimate military asset for a rising superpower: the ability to deliver nuclear warheads nearly anywhere on earth (outside of South America, at least).

The following map from the report highlights the maximum missile ranges of China's medium and intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). The longest-ranging of the missiles, the CSS-4, can target almost the entirety of the US (except for Florida). 

The CSS-4 has the largest range of any Chinese ICBM. The missile is nuclear-capable, according to the DoD report, and is housed in silos across the Chinese countryside. Beijing is estimated to have between 50 and 60 silo-based ICBMs. 

The DF-31A has the second-longest range of any Chinese missile. It is capable of hitting the majority of the US' Pacific coast in addition to portions of the mid-West. Unlike the CSS-4, the DF-31A is a road-mobile missile. This means Beijing can move the ICBM to various points throughout the country to better target various locations and avoid possible incoming strikes. 

The DF-31, the CSS-3, and the CSS-5 are all also road-mobile and nuclear-capable. But unlike the CSS-4 or the DF-31A, these missiles are intended for regional deterrence against neighboring powers like Russia and India. 

Unlike the other land-based missiles on the chart, the JL-2 is a sea-based nuclear-capable ballistic missile. According to the DoD, the JL-2 will be carried by China's future JIN-class ballistic missile submarine as a nuclear deterrent. So far China has commissioned four JIN-class submarines with a fifth one under construction. The Pentagon report expects the JIN to begin patrols in 2015. 

The improvement in China's nuclear deterrent has been spurred by developments in countries that China might consider to be its strategic competitors.

China modernized its missile forces because of "continued advances in the US and, to a lesser extent, Russian strategic ISR [Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance], precision strike, and missile defense capabilities," the report notes. 

Likewise, India's own nuclear force has put pressure on China to continuously update and better its own capabilities. 

SEE ALSO: China's new submarines could create problems for the US Navy

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: We went inside a secret basement under Grand Central that was one of the biggest World War II targets

On Friday, May 8, North Korea conducted an underwater test-fire of a submarine ballistic missile, displaying a new threat and growing missile capability.

The next day, North Korea fired three ship-to-ship missiles from the city of Wonsan on the east coast into the sea.

Q: What do we know?

A: According to the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), Kim Jong-un ordered and watched a successful test-fire of North Korea’s submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM), possibly from a location near Sinpo South Shipyard on the east coast on May 8, where he was also reported to have visited a fishery complex there earlier.

It appears as though North Korea has finally succeeded in installing a missile launcher of about 2,500 tons onto a submarine after a series of underwater and on-shore tests. In February, North Korea had tested a missile ejection launcher near Sinpo.

On May 9, a South Korean Ministry of National Defense official also announced that North Korea had tested three KN-01 missiles on Saturday afternoon, between 3:25 p.m. and 4:23 p.m. (KST).

Q: What does this mean for North Korea’s capability?

A: The underwater missile test on Friday shows that North Korea’s missile capabilities are advancing at a clip that is concerning, if not alarming.

This follows NORAD commander Admiral William Gortney’s disconcerting statement on April 7 acknowledging North Korea’s intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capability in the form of the untested road-mobile KN-08, which will make North Korea’s nuclear force more survivable and less deterrable (at least in their minds).

The two tests came after North Korea’s warning on May 8 that it will fire without warning at any South Korean vessels it believes are violating its territorial waters off the west coast.

In line with its Byunjin doctrine, it is clear that North Korea is not just trying to develop a crude nuclear device that it could put atop a missile for some sort of rudimentary deterrent purpose. The North is moving headlong toward the development of a modern, survivable nuclear deterrent, with the full range of capacity from battlefield nuclear forces to high-yield fission and fusion weapons.

If Chinese nuclear experts are right, according to news reports of their estimates last month, North Korea could have as many as 40 to 80 nuclear weapons by the time the Obama administration leaves office. It would be an understatement to say that this would increase the risk of nuclear proliferation among rogue states and nonstate actors significantly.

Q: What’s the road ahead?

A: The impact on diplomacy is unclear. Friday’s SLBM launch is a violation of multiple standing UN Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs 1718, 1874, 2087, and 2094), so we will see if the Security Council will meet on it.

Regarding the Six-Party Talks, the ROK negotiator, Special Representative for Korean Peninsula Peace and Security Affairs Hwang Joon-kook, was in Washington last week on May 4 to see if anything was possible in terms of talks this summer. Hwang’s itinerary included Beijing, so the timing of the SLBM launch could create an impetus for talks or could kill them.​

Victor Cha is a senior adviser and holds the Korea Chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, DC.

SEE ALSO: North Korea says it test-fired a 'world-level strategic weapon'

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: This simple exercise will work out every muscle in your body

In a break from decades of cautious nuclear policy, China has started a process of upgrading its ballistic missile capabilities into a more potentially dangerous form. 

Foregoing a longstanding policy of maintaining a small nuclear force, Beijing has begun to place multiple miniaturized nuclear warheads atop ballistic missiles, The New York Times reports citing a report from the Department of Defense. Missiles with multiple warheads are harder to intercept as each warhead could break off from its delivery system and aim for a separate target. 

China has had the capability of miniaturizing nuclear weapons since at least the 1990s, but has avoided the move so as to prevent a potential arms race. The new direction of Beijing's nuclear weapons stance comes under the direction of President Xi Jinping, who has made a series of bold moves to increase Chinese power both regionally and globally. 

According to the Pentagon's report, Beijing has re-engineered the DF-5, a variation of the CSS-4 intercontinental ballistic missile shown below, to be outfitted with multiple warheads. China has approximately 20 DF-5s currently in silos across the country, each of which could target almost the entirety of the US. 

Altogether, the modified DF-5s could launch upwards of 40 warheads at North America, according to the Times. This modification is intended to produce maximum destruction while increasing the chances that a Chinese warhead could get past US missile interceptors. 

“They’re doing it,” Hans M. Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists told the Times, “to make sure they could get through the ballistic missile defenses.”

The US has placed missile defenses in California and Alaska with the intention of defending against a possible North Korean strike. The US also operates joint Aegis and Patriot missile systems in South Korea, and is aiming at deploying the highly advanced THAAD missile interceptor to the peninsula as well.  

Although these missile shields are aimed against North Korea, they could also block a Chinese strike.

The sudden modifications come at a time of increased tension throughout Asia. Japan and the US have strengthened and reaffirmed military ties, and the US is increasingly playing a large role in the South China Sea in the support of the Philippines. Both countries are involved in disputes with China over the South China Sea.

The timing of the DF-5 upgrades is likely a signal to the US that China is a quickly rising power in the region with only a limited tolerance for meddling in its backyard. 

“This is obviously part of an effort to prepare for long-term competition with the United States,” Ashley J. Tellis, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told the Times. "The Chinese are always fearful of American nuclear advantage.”

SEE ALSO: Pentagon report: Chinese ballistic missiles can target nearly the entirety of the US

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: We went inside a secret basement under Grand Central that was one of the biggest World War II targets

Photographs showing a North Korean missile launched from a submarine were manipulated by state propagandists and the country may be years away from developing such technology, analysts and a top U.S. military official said on Tuesday.

North Korea, sanctioned by the United States and United Nations for its missile and nuclear tests, said on May 9 it had successfully conducted an underwater test-fire of a submarine-launched ballistic missile which, if true, would indicate progress in its pursuit of missile-equipped submarines.

On Wednesday, North Korea warned the United States not to challenge its sovereign right to boost military deterrence and boasted of its ability to miniaturize nuclear warheads, a claim it has made before and which has been widely questioned by experts and never verified.

But North Korea is still "many years" from developing submarine-launched ballistic missiles, U.S. Admiral James Winnefeld told an audience at the Centre for Strategic & International Studies in Washington on Tuesday.

"They have not gotten as far as their clever video editors and spinmeisters would have us believe," said Winnefeld, who is vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Analysis seen by Reuters from German aerospace engineers Markus Schiller and Robert Schmucker of Schmucker Technologie appeared to support Winnefeld's statement.

The Munich-based pair said photos of the launch were "strongly modified", including reflections of the missile exhaust flame in the water which did not line up with the missile itself.

North Korea, which regularly threatens to destroy the United States, had a record of offering faked proof to claim advances in missile technology, Schiller and Schmucker said, such as poorly built mockups of missiles on display at military parades in 2012 and 2013.

The pair agreed with analysis posted by experts on the websites 38north.org and armscontrolwonk.com that the missile was likely launched from a specially designed submerged barge, and not from a submarine

A photo on state television showed a missile high in the sky leaving a trail of white smoke, whereas other photos from state media showed no white smoke, suggesting the two photos were of different missiles with different propulsion systems, Schiller and Schmucker said.

South Korea stood by its position that the photos appeared authentic. "We haven't changed our stance that the rocket was fired from a submarine and flew about 150 meters out of the water,” a South Korean military official said.

The North's National Defence Commission, the main ruling body headed by leader Kim Jong Un, said on Wednesday the submarine-based missile launch was "yet a higher level of accomplishment in the development of strategic attack means".

(Additional reporting by Ju-min Park; Editing by Nick Macfie and Jeremy Laurence)

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: This simple exercise will work out every muscle in your body

Scientists with the Air Force Research Laboratory and the Pentagon’s research arm are working to build a new hypersonic air vehicle that can travel at speeds up to Mach 5 while carrying guidance systems and other materials.

Air Force Chief Scientist Mica Endsley said the service wants to build upon the successful hypersonic test flight of the X-51 Waverider 60,000 feet above the Pacific Ocean in May of 2013.

Endsley said the Air Force and DARPA, the Pentagon’s research entity, plan to have a new and improved hypersonic air vehicle by 2023.

“X-51 was really a proof of concept test. It showed that you could get a scram jet engine, launch it off an aircraft and it could go hypersonic. It was able to go more than Mach 5 until it ran out of fuel. It was a very successful test of an airborne hypersonic weapons system,” Endsley said.

The 2013 test flight, which wound up being the longest air-breathing hypersonic flight ever, wrapped up a $300 million technology demonstration program beginning in 2004, Air Force officials said.

A B-52H Stratofortress carried the X-51A on its wing before it was released at 50,000 feet and accelerated up to Mach 4.8 in 26 seconds. As the scramjet climbed to 60,000 feet it accelerated to Mach 5.1.

The X-51 was also able to send back data before crashing into the ocean — the kind of information now being used by scientists to engineer a more complete hypersonic vehicle.

“After exhausting its 240-second fuel supply, the vehicle continued to send back telemetry data until it splashed down into the ocean and was destroyed as designed,” according to an Air Force statement. “At impact, 370 seconds of data were collected from the experiment.”

Endsley added that the next-generation effort is not merely aimed at creating another scramjet but rather engineering a much more comprehensive hypersonic air vehicle.

“What they are trying to do now is build the whole system so that it is not just about the engine. You have to have materials that can operate at the kind of temperatures you have when you are going at hypersonic speeds. You have to have guidance systems that will function when you are going at those types of speeds. There are a bunch of technological challenges that have to be addressed to make a functioning system that will work,” she said.

The new air vehicle effort will progress alongside an Air Force hypersonic weapons program. While today’s cruise missiles travel at speeds up to 600 miles per hour, hypersonic weapons will be able to reach speeds of Mach 5 to Mach 10, Air Force officials said.

The new air vehicle could be used to transport sensors, equipment or weaponry in the future, depending upon how the technology develops.

Also, Pentagon officials have said that hypersonic aircraft are expected to be much less expensive than traditional turbine engines because they require fewer parts.

Recognizing the countries like China have been testing and developing hypersonic missiles, Pentagon and Air Force officials see hypersonic flight as integral to the future.

“Certainly, the US is not the only country involved in developing hypersonic weapons. They are showing a lot of capability in this area. The advantage of hypersonics is not just that something goes very fast — but that it can go great distances at those speeds,” Endsley added.

She explained that hypersonic flight could speed up a five hour flight from New York to Los Angeles to about 30 minutes. That being said, the speed of acceleration required for hypersonic flight precludes the scientific possibility of humans being able to travel at that speed.

SEE ALSO: The most expensive weapons system of all time is about to make its debut

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Watch This Mesmerizing Time-Lapse Of All The Flights Across The North Atlantic In 24 Hours

South Korea on Wednesday test-launched a new ballistic missile that can hit all of North Korea, the president's office said, developed under a new agreement with the United States that lets Seoul extend the weapon's range to up to 800 km (500 miles).

President Park Geun-hye made a rare visit to a missile base on the west coast to watch the launch of the guided missile, which will be a key part of the South's defense against its neighbor's nuclear and missile threat, her office said.

"The test demonstrated improved ballistic missile capability that can strike all parts of North Korea swiftly, and with precision, in the event of armed aggression or provocation," the presidential Blue House said in a statement.

The launch comes a month after the North said it test-fired a submarine-launched ballistic missile.

If true, the statement points to progress in the North's missile capabilities, although some experts and U.S. military leaders questioned the authenticity of the North's report.

South Korea's missile is the first developed under new guidelines signed with the United States in 2012 to more than double the range of the South's missiles to tackle its disadvantage with Pyongyang's missile capabilities.

The North has a deployed arsenal of missiles of various ranges and is believed to be developing an intercontinental ballistic missile aimed at delivering nuclear weapons.

In 2012, North Korea successfully launched what is generally considered a long-range rocket, putting what it said was a satellite into orbit. The North called it a space launch vehicle, but the international community said it was a missile that violated U.N. Security Council resolutions.

The North is under various sanctions for its missile and three nuclear tests.

Besides its missile pact with the United States, South Korea has an agreement limiting the range of the missiles and a pact on civil nuclear energy that bars Seoul from developing atomic weapons.

(Reporting by Jack Kim; Editing by Clarence Fernandez)

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's what 'Game of Thrones' stars look like in real life

The Russian military has successfully test-fired a short-range anti-missile system, the Russian defense ministry announced Tuesday.

The latest move comes four days after Pentagon officials said that the United States was considering deploying missiles in Europe to counter potential threats from Russia.

“The launch was aimed at confirming the performance characteristics of missile defense shield anti-missiles operational in the Aerospace Defense Forces,” the defense ministry said, according to Russia’s TASS news agency.

According to Lieutenant General Sergei Lobov, deputy commander of the Aerospace Defense Forces, “an anti-missile of the missile defense shield successfully accomplished its task and destroyed a simulated target at the designated time.”

The test's timing is crucial as the U.S. government is considering aggressive moves, including deploying land-based missiles in Europe, in response to Russia’s alleged violation of a Cold War-era nuclear arms treaty, the Associated Press (AP) reported.

Last year, Washington had reportedly accused Moscow of violating the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, by testing a banned ground-launched cruise missile.

“The administration is considering an array of potential military responses to Russia's ongoing violation of the INF Treaty,” Agence France-Presse quoted Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Joe Sowers, as saying last week. “All the options under consideration are designed to ensure that Russia gains no significant military advantage from their violation.”

In 2015, Russia is also expected to triple the production of missiles -- for use in air-defense and missile-defense complexes -- compared to last year, in a sign that the country is strengthening its missile defense shield.

“The defense-industrial complex has been ordered to step up the production of missiles manufactured for air defense and missile defense complexes by 200%, which is to considerably increase the capabilities of the newly-created arm of the Russian armed forces -- the Air and Space Force,” a source at the Russian defense ministry told TASS.

SEE ALSO: PHOTO: Fidel Castro, wearing 2 Rolexes, lighting a cigar while visiting the USSR for the first time

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 11 Facts That Show How Different Russia Is From The Rest Of The World

Iran and a US-led group of countries may be close to finalizing a deal on Tehran's nuclear program. But even after a deal is signed, Iran will still have access to potentially threatening high-end weapons in the form of its ever-developing ballistic missile arsenal.

In a statement to the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) detailed what they characterized as "Iran's enduring missile threat."

The statement reviewed Iran's current missile capabilities, as well as the challenges Tehran would have to overcome in order to produce Inter-Continental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs.

According to the report, "Iran’s shorter-range artillery rockets can deliver mass fires against nearby tactical targets, and Iran‘s longer-range artillery rockets can be used in harassment fire and as weapons of intimidation against targets across the Iranian border in Iraq and Kuwait." Iran's longest-range artillery rockets could easily hit the Arab monarchies on the other side of the Persian Gulf, among them some of Iran's chief strategic competitors in the Middle East.

The real threat, however, lies in the possible future capabilities of Iran's arsenal.

Iran's long-range missiles are currently too inaccurate and unproven to be a immediate threat. Per CSIS, "Longer missiles armed with even large conventional explosive warheads [and] anything but fully reliable precision guidance lack the accuracy and lethality to be effective weapons."

This could soon change. The report describes Iran's long range weapons as a "constantly evolving family of missiles that have the range to attack virtually any target in Israel, the Levant, the Gulf and Arabian Peninsula, Turkey, Pakistan and part of Central Asia, and targets in Southern Russia and Europe." 

The report also indicates that Iran has collaborated with North Korea, and may look to make up for their lack of accuracy with a bigger payload, specifically a nuclear bomb. At the same time, Tehran's arsenal may also get an upgrade soon: Iran is reportedly in talks with Russia to purchase an advanced S-300 missile defense system, which can strike at aerial targets from up to 150 miles away.

The maps below demonstrate the best estimates of Iran's current missile range. They give a sense of what Iran's options would be if Tehran ever found itself in direct open conflict with its regional rivals.

But one of the more troubling aspects of Iran's program is a lack of clarity as to the country's strategic posture regarding its ballistic missiles, as well as its doctrine for using the weapons. "The inability to predict how and when Iran will use [long range missiles], how quickly they will evolve into more accurate and lethal systems, and ... their operational impact ... gives them both deterrent value and makes them weapons of intimidation," the report states.

SEE ALSO: Here's why Russia selling S-300 advanced missile systems to Iran is such a big deal

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: This air base in Qatar carries out American airstrikes in Iraq and Syria

Russian President Vladimir Putin says the military will add more than 40 new intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) to its arsenal this year capable of "penetrating" any current missile defense systems.

Putin said at the opening of the Army-2015 arms show in Alabino, west of Moscow, on June 16 that the ICBMs are part of Russia's "large-scale armament- and defense-industry modernization program."

He said the military is also getting several other new weapons, including Armata tanks and new armored vehicles, several of which were on display during the military parade in Moscow's Red Square last month marking the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II.

Putin added that the military will soon test its new long-range early-warning radar intended to monitor the "western strategic zone."

He told conference participants that models of combat robots at Army-2015 would also play a key role in shaping the Russian armed forces in the future. 

SEE ALSO: The 11 most game-changing aircraft of the 21st century

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 70 people were injured while filming this movie with 100 untamed lions

Lunch consists of army rations, shopping is mainly for Vladimir Putin accessories, and instead of riding rollercoasters children can play with grenade launchers and clamber over heavy weaponry.

Welcome to Patriot Park: fun for all the family, with a militaristic twist.

This vast military theme park at Kubinka, an hour’s drive outside Moscow, was officially opened by Putin on Tuesday at a time of heightened patriotism and military rhetoric in the wake of Russia’s annexation of Crimea last year and subsequent confrontation with the west.

Putin used the event as an opportunity to announce the addition of 40 new intercontinental missiles to Russia’s nuclear arsenal this year. He said the theme park would be “an important element in our system of military-patriotic work with young people”.

As well as being a “military Disneyland”, Patriot Park is also a conference and exhibition venue, and Tuesday also marked the start of Army 2015, a Russian military exhibition showcasing the latest equipment, attended by delegations from dozens of countries.

The president arrived at Kubinka by helicopter and spoke in front of a military choir and balalaika orchestra, who belted out a patriotic number. Putin said in a short speech that the Russian military was developing several new pieces of hardware that had “no equivalents in the world”, including the next-generation Armata tank, first displayed publicly during a military parade in Moscow last month.

He said the 40 new nuclear missiles that Russia’s strategic forces would receive this year were “capable of overcoming even the most technically advanced missile defence systems”.

Russia’s deputy defence minister, Anatoly Antonov, said at the conference that the west was “provoking an arms race” with Russia.

Alexander Zaldostanov, better known as the Surgeon, leader of the pro-Putin biker group the Night Wolves, who was touring Patriot Park on its first day, said: “When I look at all this stuff it makes me feel proud of Russia and realise that we have something to answer the Americans with. They wouldn’t dare to press the button.”

A pack of a dozen Night Wolves were visiting partly for inspiration for a similar “patriotic park” they are building on the outskirts of Sevastopol, in newly annexed Crimea.

“In Soviet times the army was a distant, far-away thing, but now we all feel closer to the army. The army is being romanticised and I see that as a good thing,” Zaldostanov said. “If we don’t educate our own children then America will do it for us … like we have seen in Ukraine.”

When the Kubinka park is functioning at full capacity it will be able to host tens of thousands of visitors per day. There will be battle reconstructions of some of the most famous victories in Russian and Soviet history, and regular displays of military hardware and training opportunities.

Hotels and entertainment centres will be opened on the grounds, which should allow families to visit for several days and make a holiday of it, according to promotional literature distributed at the launch. The park is due to be fully completed in 2017, and will cost the defence ministry 20 billion roubles (£236m), according to the Kommersant newspaper. Visitors will be able to ride tanks, shoot guns and play extreme sports.

“I think this park is a gift to Russian citizens, who can now behold the full power of the Russian armed forces. Being here gives you a sense of internal self-sufficiency and makes you confident we can defend our territory,” said Sergei Privalov, a Russian Orthodox priest who attended the opening ceremony. “Children should come here, play with the weaponry and climb on the tanks and see all the most modern technology, which they would not have known about before.”

Rows of tanks, armoured personnel carriers and missile launching systems were on display in the grounds of the park, as well as period pieces.

At the Army 2015 forum inside Patriot Park, dozens of huge marquees showcased everything from secure fingerprinting equipment to armoured riot control vehicles and police watchtowers. A naval commander from Saudi Arabia was perusing firefighting equipment and said a delegation of around 20 had come from his country to “check out the latest offerings”. There were delegations from dozens of other mainly non-western countries.

A stall sold fridge magnets depicting Russian and Soviet figures including Putin, Joseph Stalin and Lavrenty Beria, one of Stalin’s most notorious henchmen. Vending machines dispensed army-branded water, and shops sold iPhone cases, T-shirts, sweatshirts and bomber jackets branded with either Putin’s face or slogans extolling victory in the second world war.

Putin has stressed that Russians should not dwell on the dark pages of the country’s history and instead focus on the military victories of both Tsarist Russia and the Soviet Union. The victory over Nazi Germany has been elevated to a national rallying idea, with huge celebrations last month to mark the 70th anniversary.

However, there was no place at the forum for any mention of the Russian military’s latest tactics of “hybrid war”, the term used to refer to Russia’s intervention in east Ukraine using a mixture of mercenaries, subterfuge and intelligence work, augmented with regular military units during key moments. Officially, Moscow has denied any military involvement and has tried to cover up the deaths of serving soldiers in the conflict zone.

The emphasis at Patriot Park is on the glory of war, and the government believes the theme park should help instil a new sense of patriotism in Russia’s youth.

At one stand, Vladimir Kryuchkov was demonstrating the computerised training system for various missile and rocket-propelled grenade launchers. The systems are used to train the Russian army as well as foreign armies who buy Russian weapons.

Kryuchkov said the training systems were on display only as part of the forum, but he hoped they would remain permanently for visitors to the park to use, and was especially keen that children receive training. “Boys are geared towards the army from birth by genetics,” he said.

While the Igla surface-to-air missile launcher was probably too heavy for very small children, smaller rocket-propelled grenade launchers were perfect for kids of all ages. Kryuchkov added: “All males of all ages are defenders of the motherland and they must be ready for war, whether war comes or not.”

SEE ALSO: Russia just threatened a massive military buildup to counter the US and NATO

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Russia reveals new high-tech weapon vehicles in a rehearsal for the country's biggest military parade

At times, there is something of the predictably petulant teenager in Russia’s strategic responses.

NATO lets it be known that it is considering pre-positioning US armor in the Baltic States (as I’ve said, this is “heavy metal diplomacy” aimed at reassuring the Balts and warning off the Russians more than because there is any serious expectation of war).

And in knee-jerk response, Putin announces that:

“More than 40 new intercontinental ballistic missiles able to overcome even the most technically advanced anti-missile defence systems will be added to the make-up of the nuclear arsenal this year.”

Perversely and paradoxically I find something faintly reassuring about this.

Bizarre? Let me explain.

First of all, Russia is updating its nuclear arsenal anyway. Putting aside whether these fabled Ballistic Missile Defense-beating missiles would work as intended — the miserable development history of the 3M30 RSM-56 Bulava (SS-NX-32) is a cautionary tale against assuming Russia can deliver world-class technologies these days — this is essentially Putin repackaging existing deployment plans as if it were some new initiative. In other words, he hasn’t anything new to offer.

Secondly, nuclear weapons are that contradiction in terms, an unbeatable weapon that cannot be used. Unless Putin seriously intends to risk global thermonuclear Armageddon (something that would have even his generals and cronies thinking twice), of which there is no credible hint, then they are essentially (a) to protect the homeland against existential threat and (b) for posturing.

Given that there is no threat of any invasion (no, InfoWars, it is not the case that “Mounting evidence suggests US-dominated NATO heading for direct confrontation with Russia”), this is rather an attempt to worry the West.

Putin knows that using the word "nuclear" gets us sitting up and paying attention.

But essentially, this is just a bit of martial PR, rattling a sabre that he cannot use and which will have no effect unless the West allows itself to be rattled.

SEE ALSO: NATO is getting its biggest defense boost since the Cold War

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why Putin is the most powerful man in the world

If Iran and the P5+1 powers reach a nuclear accord this summer, members of Congress, presidential candidates, and the public will need to assess whether the deal is acceptable.

This will require evaluating the strength or weakness of each individual provision on its own merits.

Perhaps more important, this evaluation will need to consider the big picture: What objectives do Iran and the United States accomplish via the agreement? And are the US objectives the right ones — that is, does accomplishing them sufficiently advance American national security interests, or does the agreement set those interests back?

Iran's objectives

Iran's primary objective in the nuclear talks, as inferred from its actions and negotiating positions, is twofold: to free itself from sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and military threat, while maintaining the capabilities necessary to develop a nuclear weapon in the future should it choose to do so.

These are not Iran's only objectives, to be sure. They fit within a larger strategy that aims to secure the regime, project Iranian power, and enhance Iranian prestige. Nor are Iran's views monolithic. For example, significant disagreement exists among Iranian officials regarding the extent to which the country should open its economy to foreign trade and investment. Yet relief from pressure and preservation of a nuclear weapons option appear to be guiding Iran at the negotiating table.

Complicating matters for Tehran, these two aims stand in opposition to each other — obtaining sanctions relief calls for limiting its nuclear activities, while truly arriving on the threshold of a nuclear weapon requires advancing them.

Iran's strategy has thus been to protect those elements of its nuclear program essential to any future effort to produce a weapon. Such an effort would require producing weapons-grade nuclear fuel, "weaponizing" that fuel in the form of an explosive device, and mounting that weapon on a delivery vehicle, likely a ballistic missile. These activities would most likely have to be clandestine, as producing nuclear weapons is proscribed by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and any open move to do so would likely prompt an American or Israeli military strike.

The framework agreement falls short

So far, the negotiations have not foreclosed the possibility of Iran accomplishing both of its objectives.

While the deal parameters announced in Lausanne on April 2 left important questions unresolved, they raise the prospect of significant sanctions relief without clearly denying Iran what is required to maintain a nuclear weapons capability and undertake a future clandestine effort to develop an actual weapon.

Here's a breakdown of the different aspects of nuclear weaponization and how the Lausanne Framework addresses them:

Nuclear fuel. The deal currently under negotiation may leave Iran with three elements essential to clandestinely producing the high-enriched uranium (HEU) required to fuel a nuclear weapon.

First, it leaves Iran with a large, legitimized nuclear fuel fabrication supply chain — mining, milling, converting, and enriching uranium; the manufacture of centrifuges and related technology; and the storage of fuel and centrifuges in various stages of usability — from which Tehran could seek to divert materiel, technology, personnel, and expertise for any parallel clandestine effort.

The deal's current parameters would also permit Iran to continue conducting R&D on advanced centrifuges. This work could dramatically reduce the number of centrifuges required to produce HEU, enabling Iran to do the work in a smaller and thus more easily concealed facility.

Weaponization. While the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Western intelligence agencies have already gathered a significant amount of information on Iran's past and possibly ongoing weaponization efforts (termed "possible military dimensions," or PMD), Tehran has resisted answering the IAEA's questions about these efforts or providing access to key personnel and facilities reportedly involved in them.

Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has publicly insisted that inspectors will not be permitted to speak to Iranian nuclear scientists, and Iranian officials have asserted that the IAEA's PMD inquiries lack any legitimate basis and should be discarded. For Iran, shielding weaponization efforts from the IAEA preserves its ability to use the involved personnel, facilities, and research in any future bombmaking effort out of sight from international inspectors.

Delivery vehicle. Iran already reportedly possesses the largest, most sophisticated ballistic missile arsenal of any non-nuclear weapons state, and US officials believe it is working on intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).

While this missile work has been the subject of UN Security Council and US sanctions, Khamenei has declared it off limits for the nuclear talks. The issue was referred to only obliquely in the November 2013 "Joint Plan of Action" interim accord and appears to have been dropped by P5+1 negotiators since then.

The US's negotiating objectives

If Iran is trying to preserve or even enhance its nuclear weapons option, one might expect that the objective of the United States and its partners would be to prevent it from doing so.

In fact, however, American objectives in the negotiations have shifted. At the inception of the P5+1 talks, the US goal was indeed to prevent Iran from possessing a nuclear weapons capability. Under Presidents Bush and Obama, US officials envisaged Iran suspending its uranium enrichment entirely and dismantling much of its nuclear infrastructure, as have other countries that gave up their nuclear weapons programs.

With the Joint Plan of Action, however, both the enrichment suspension requirement and the aim of dismantlement were renounced by the P5+1. Instead of denying Iran a nuclear weapons capability, the US goal now appears to be preventing Iran from building an actual weapon while implicitly ceding the capability.

Toward this end, US negotiators hope to restrict Iran to a one-year breakout timeline (i.e., the time required to produce one weapon's worth of HEU) at its declared facilities for the next decade through Tehran's voluntary acceptance of limits on its nuclear activities, while relying on stepped-up inspections to ensure that it does not pursue an undeclared parallel program aimed at producing a weapon.

Broadly speaking, US officials offer two reasons for this shift in objective.

First, they assert that the increased presence of inspectors will ensure Iran is unable to pursue a clandestine weapons effort, whereas failing to reach an agreement would mean reduced inspections. Second, they insist that Iran will not agree to more far-reaching restrictions, and that the alternatives to the deal being negotiated would be worse for US interests.

Both arguments are problematic, however.

The value of increased inspections would be mitigated by several factors, including restrictions placed on inspectors (e.g., lack of timely access to military sites and Iran's continued refusal to address PMD inquiries), limitations on the scope of inspections (e.g., the exclusion of Iran's missile program), and the expanded range of nuclear activities in which Iran is permitted to engage.

The downplaying of US alternatives underestimates the deterrent value of economic and military pressure. It also fails to take into account that however unappealing America's alternatives may be, Iran's alternatives are worse given the state of its economy and its vulnerability to military threats. This implies that the prospect of the negotiations' failure should be more alarming to Tehran than to Washington, and thus a point of leverage for, not against, the P5+1.

Getting to a good deal

The Obama administration is unlikely to return to the previous goals of requiring Iran to dismantle its nuclear infrastructure or cease, even temporarily, its uranium enrichment. Nor is it likely to insist that Tehran alter non-nuclear policies such as support for terrorism and destabilizing regional activities in connection with a nuclear accord or as a condition for sanctions relief. These facts alone ensure that any nuclear deal will fall well short of longstanding US goals and face significant opposition in Washington and among allies in the Middle East.

Yet if the Obama administration wishes to maximize support for a deal and avoid the possibility that it is rejected by Congress or — far worse — that it sets back US interests rather than advancing them, it can and should hew as closely as possible to its previous objective of denying Iran a nuclear weapons capability, rather than merely seeking to prevent Tehran from exercising that capability.

Leaving Tehran unfettered by sanctions or military threat, yet with the option to clandestinely produce a nuclear weapon — and, upon the expiration of the accord's restrictions, leaving it as a nuclear weapons threshold state — reduces the cost to Iran of trying to develop a nuclear weapon when conditions permit, while increasing the possibility that other regional states will seek nuclear weapons capabilities of their own.

Denying Iran a nuclear weapons capability, or at least severely constraining it, remains possible even at this late stage of the talks. Doing so would require defending the Lausanne framework's most useful provisions (e.g., relating to long-term inspections of Iran's nuclear supply chain) and significantly strengthening other elements.

US objectives should include:

• denying Iran license to conduct centrifuge R&D;
• insisting on the inspection of any sites deemed suspect by the IAEA, including military sites;
• insisting that Iran answer the IAEA's PMD inquiries and provide related access as a precondition for any sanctions relief; and
• placing limits on Iran's missile work, especially that which is applicable to the design and development of nuclear-capable reentry vehicles and ICBMs.

In addition, the agreement's duration should be based not solely on time, but also on the judgment of the IAEA and UN Security Council that Iran has restored international confidence in the peaceful intent of its nuclear activities.

Similarly, any sanctions or financial relief should be phased according to Iranian performance, and sanctions related to matters not addressed by the agreement (e.g., terrorism sponsorship) should remain in place altogether and be zealously enforced.

Furthermore, the deal should be buttressed by a broader allied strategy designed to enforce its provisions, deter and respond meaningfully to violations, counter other elements of malign Iranian behavior, strengthen regional alliances, and uphold global nonproliferation norms.

This is a long but not especially onerous list of requirements, which are for the most part compatible with the parameters announced in Lausanne. They would however, force Iran to choose between its twin objectives of relieving sanctions pressure and maintaining a nuclear weapons option.

Tehran can thus be expected to resist, meaning that the negotiations would require additional time or even suffer temporary breakdowns.

Yet this is an acceptable risk to achieve an accord that durably places nuclear weapons beyond Iran's reach.

SEE ALSO: John Kerry just made a puzzling, contradictory statement about what a final Iran deal will look like

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Turkey's Latest Plan To Drain $3 Million A Day From ISIS Is Working