Chinese missile test
U.S. defense and intelligence officials privately confirmed to us
yesterday that China is preparing for a second flight test of its newest
missile, the truck-mounted DF-31 intercontinental ballistic missile.
“They’re making preparations for a future test,” one official told
us. However, the timing of any flight test is uncertain and will be
based — as always in the communist dictatorship — on a “political
decision” by top leaders, the official said.
A test is expected in the not-too-distant future based on satellite
photographs showing preparations under way at the Wuzhai missile and
space test facility in central China.
The Chinese last test-fired a DF-31 on Aug. 2, 1999. The road-mobile
ICBM is believed by the CIA to incorporate stolen U.S. nuclear warhead
design technology obtained by Beijing’s spies.
N. Korean barrage
Lt. Gen. Charles R. Heflebower, the top air commander in South
Korea, was in Washington this week and took time out to talk to us about
defending against a North Korean invasion.
The Air Force three-star general said the North’s air force and air
defense system is already adapting based on lessons learned from NATO’s
78-day air war over Serbia.
“North Korea adapts to change,” said the F-16 fighter pilot. “They
looked at the air
campaign in Kosovo and Bosnia and we can only assume they learned
lessons.” He said virtually all North Korean army and air force assets
are now underground.
If the North does invade again (its army streamed over the 38th
parallel 50 years ago, igniting the Korea War) it has the capacity to
unleash 300,000 to 500,000 rounds of artillery per hour. The rain of
shelling would reach the capital of Seoul as well as U.S. Army positions
nearby.
But Gen. Heflebower is confident the invasion could be turned back
before the enemy reached Seoul.
His four fighter squadrons are a high readiness priority, yet his
10,000 airmen, just like the rest of the Air Force, are feeling the
spare parts pinch.
“Our readiness rate is pretty good. It’s not as high as I like to see
it,” he said.
Gen. Heflebower was guardedly optimistic about North Korean
intentions, noting a recent hiatus in provocative behavior.
Still, he cautions, “Clearly the strategic objective of the North
Korean regime is to continue the North Korean regime … The North
Koreans are postured … offensively.”
The general told an Air Force symposium on the Korean War that one
way to judge the differences in a vibrant, capitalistic South and a
hard-line communist North is to take a plane ride near the
demilitarized zone.
He recently scanned the horizon from the cockpit of an F-16 Falcon.
He saw bright lights, and a sky lodge, below. “Up north,” he said,
“there was not one light. It
was all dark.”
Nuclear threats
The Defense Intelligence Agency has for the first time disclosed its
estimate of who could be the next nuclear-armed rogue state: Iran and
Iraq. In written answers to questions posed by the Senate Armed Services
Committee early last year but released to us this week, the DIA was
asked to specify the rogue states likely to get the bomb.
“The Middle East will become the region of greatest concern in terms
of nuclear weapons over the next 10 to 20 years,” the DIA said. “If
international non-proliferation efforts are not successful, we judge
Tehran and Baghdad will be able to begin stockpiling nuclear weapons in
the next two decades; much sooner if either are successful in purchasing
fissile material, or even complete weapons.”
Reserve stigma
The Defense Science Board has rallied around a drive by retired
officers to change a law that requires all incoming officers to be
classified as reserve officers instead of getting a “regular”
commission.
The former military men argue the 1991 law is a factor in poor
retention rates for first-term officers who, at the five-year mark,
decide whether to give the military the benefit of their experiences and
skills — or get out.
Retired Army Gen. Edward L. Rowny, an arms control adviser to
Presidents Reagan and Bush, is one of those who says the “reserve”
classification alienates young officers.
Now, a task force of the Pentagon’s Defense Science Board, an
influential group of retired senior officers and former policy makers,
agrees.
“The commissioning system itself is another factor that may affect
retention. This system should be modified as quickly as possible,” a
recent task force’s
recommendation states. “This provision may be adding to the pressure to
leave active service immediately on completion of obligated tours.
Different commissions work against the sense or commitment and devotion
to a calling that are central to commissioned officer service and have
characterized America’s career officer corps throughout its history. All
active duty officers should be commissioned as regular officers
regardless of the source of their commission.”
Gen. Rowny is also aided by some high-powered colleagues In 1997, he
co-authored a letter to Congress advocating change from retired Gens. H.
Norman Schwarzkopf, Andrew J. Goodpaster and Gordon R. Sullivan, the
former Army chief of staff.
“The new system resulting from this legislation destroys what has
been a dynamic incentive — a badge of honor — an appointment as a
regular officer for the graduates of service academies and for
distinguished military graduates of ROTC units,” the four wrote. “This
powerful incentive, at the time of initial commissioning, has been a
great influence toward a lifetime dedicated to the military service of
our country.”
The House eventually voted to repeal the law, but to date the Senate
Armed Services Committee, which created it, won’t budge.
Pushed by former Sen. Sam Nunn, Congress in 1991 changed the law that
had restricted regular commissions to academy grads and the cream of the
ROTC crop. The new law, effective in 1996, gave all new officers the
reserve classification.
Advocates say the new system helps ensure that all officers are
treated fairly in promotions and assignments. It also provides an
incentive to excel to gain a regular commission in the 9th to 13th year
of service.
Gen. Rowny says the law is a disaster, but says the current Joint
Chiefs of Staff won’t back changing it.
“We have a great deal of anecdotal information of people saying they did
not want to go on under these terms,” he says.
Is America prepared and willing to fight and win a war?
Ron Boat