NATO - Discussione ufficiale

[Andrea75]

Lo scorso 13 Novembre si è tenuta una conferenza dal titolo “Nuclear modernization”: What does it mean and what is required for U.S. security?, organizzata dal British American Security Information Council (BASIC).

 

Nel corso della riunione è stato presentato questo discorso Remarks of Nuclear Modernization da parte di Hans M. Kristensen

 

Putting an end to Cold War thinking will require a great deal more. We’re now at a crossroad where decisions will have to be made about the next generation of key components of the nuclear posture. Decisions we make now will cost enormous sums, lock us into a force structure for half a century, and influence how adversaries and allies adjust their postures and attitudes for the next decades. The basis for these force structure decisions tie in with the White House nuclear targeting review that is nearing completion.

The decisions and scope are not known but the review is intended to identify new reductions that can be pursued with Russia and possibly others. This includes adjustments in targeting requirements and alert levels, including whether it is still necessary for the military to plan against a Russian surprise nuclear attack – a scenario the Intelligence Community has already concluded will most likely not occur.

 

Force Structure

The force structure analysis conducted in preparation for the New START treaty and the Nuclear Posture Review protected the existing force structure and was based on presidential guidance that had been in place for some time. This force structure is bloated and will increasingly be out of sync with Russia’s nuclear forces structure, which is already declining below the New START Treaty limit. The U.S. must adjust its force structure to demonstrate that it intends to follow Russia and avoid that the large U.S. force structure and warhead upload capability deepen mistrust and drive Russian worst-­‐case planning.

...

Nuclear Warheads

...

Nuclear Infrastructure

 

 

A seguire le indicazioni del Preseidente Obama a riguardo (del 2011) Reviewing Nuclear Guidance: Putting Obama's Words Into Action

 

The current U.S. nuclear arsenal and the force structure planned under New START are far larger than required to deter a nuclear attack from Russia or any other nuclear-armed adversary on the United States and its allies. The oversized arsenal reflects the fact that U.S. military planners base targeting calculations on Cold War assumptions, including that U.S. forces must be able to destroy enemy nuclear forces and a wide range of other "strategic" assets in order to be credible. Consequently, previous nuclear policy reviews have only trimmed U.S. nuclear forces.

The guidance review should result in a smaller set of new strike options based on what is sufficient to deter the United States' potential nuclear-armed adversaries from initiating a nuclear attack on the United States, its allies, or its partners. The strike options should be based on a new approach to nuclear planning that significantly scales back the number and types of targets, the damage expectancy, the counterforce focus and force-on-force planning, and the operational readiness of the forces. This approach would significantly reduce the number of targets and missions and facilitate further reductions in the number of nuclear warheads and delivery platforms, while maintaining a secure and sufficiently credible nuclear deterrent.

Such steps would make the U.S. nuclear posture more consistent with the Obama administration's policy of significantly reducing the number and role of nuclear weapons and strengthening nonproliferation. An added benefit would be to facilitate significant budgetary savings in the years ahead by reducing the costs associated with current, multibillion-dollar plans to modernize not only each leg of the U.S. nuclear triad, but also nonstrategic nuclear capabilities, nuclear warheads, and the nuclear production complex. Such reductions will, in turn, also help convince Russia that it is in its security and financial interests to pursue further, parallel reductions in its equally bloated nuclear forces.

 

... ed i relativi pianni di guerra Obama and the Nuclear War Plan Obama and the Nuclear War Plan

 

The current U.S. strategic war plan is directed against six adversaries. Guess who.

[Simone]

Sei Paesi? Come eredità dalla Guerra fredda sono Federazione Russa e Cina le potenze nucleari che, sia pure in un contesto tutto particolare, sono anche-talvolta- in contrasto con Washington, quali sono, dunque, gli altri quattro Paesi potenzialmente pericolosi? Posso immaginare l'India- che potrebbe non rimanere sempre democratica- ed il Pakistan, Paese musulmano in cui molti vorrebbero un cattivo rapporto con gli USA, la Corea del Nord con la sua povertà incredibile, ma il esto?

L'Iran che-però- non ha (ancora) alcuna bomba? La Francia che ha una cultura troppo laica?

Sono, nella mia ignoranza, sorpreso

[Andrea75]

La minaccia considerata non è solo quella nucleare, ma anche quella chimica e batteriologica; uno dei paper che ho segnalato nel mio precedente post riporta un'opinione:

 

OPLAN 8010 is neither a single strike plan nor focused on two nuclear adversaries (Russia and China) as during the Cold War. Instead it contains a “family of plans” directed against six potential adversaries (see Figure 2). The names of the adversaries are secret, but they include potentially hostile countries with nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons (WMD). My understanding [dell'autore] is that the list includes China, North Korea, Iran, Russia, and Syria. The sixth adversary has been a mystery, but a STRATCOM official told me: “Think 9/11.” If so, it appears that the sixth adversary might refer to a catastrophic WMD attack by a terrorist organization in collaboration with a regional state.

 

provo a stilare un elenco:

 

- Yemen? (non possiede l'atomica, nè altre armi di distruzione di massa, ma è un santuario per Al Quaeda)

- Pakistan? (paese con l'atomica, che contempla come dottrina nucleare il primo uso, e sebbene "alleato" degli USA ha un certo feeling con gruppi di terroristi)

- qualche stato africano fallito? (che sia territorio franco per i terroristi)

- Venezuela? (che ha petrolio e forti legami con l'Iran)

[Andrea75]

B61-12: Contract Signed for Improving Precision of Nuclear Bomb

 

 

E' stato frimato il contratto con la Boeing

 

The Boeing Co.,St. Louis, Mo., (FA2103-13-C-0006) is being awarded a $178,575,114 cost-plus-incentive fee contract for Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) Phase 1 of the B61-12 Tailkit Assembly. This contract also includes a priced option for (EMD) Phase 2 and price goals for the production phase. The location of the performance is St. Louis, Mo. Work is expected to be completed by October 2015. The contracting activity is AFLCMC/EBBC, Eglin Air Force Base, Fla.

 

la dichiarazione dell ditta

 

Boeing [NYSE: BA] will help to modernize the B61 free-fall ballistic munition by designing a new tail kit under a $178 million contract from the U.S. Air Force.

The design, development and qualification phase of the B61 (Mod 12) Life Extension Program is expected to run for three years. The program further expands Boeing's Direct Attack weapons portfolio.

The B61 is a U.S. nuclear weapon that was designed in the early 1960s and went into full production in 1968. B61 (Mod 12) will replace obsolete parts and improve its reliability. Per the contract, Boeing will work with the departments of Defense and Energy on this program.

"Boeing has provided a wide range of reliable and affordable direct attack weapon solutions to the warfighter for more than a decade," said Debbie Rub, Boeing vice president and general manager for Missiles and Unmanned Airborne Systems. "We will apply our proven experience in tail kit production to this platform to effectively upgrade a vital deterrent capability."

 

La previsione è quella di consegnare le B-61 12 in un decennio ai paesi europei che le hanno in dotazione

 

per l'Italia la disolcazione è la seguente

 

Italy hosts an estimated 60-70 B61 bombs at two locations. Approximately 50 of the weapons are thought to be stored at Aviano AB, for delivery by F-16C/Ds of the US Air Force 31st Fighter Wing.The base has 18 underground vaults for nuclear weapons storage (for a maximum capacity of 72 bombs).

Another 10-20 B61s are believed to be stored at Ghedi Torre AB, for delivery by Italian PA-200 Tornado aircraft of the 6th Fighter Wing; the weapons at Ghedi Torre AB are under custody of the US Air Force 704th MUNSS.

A decade ago, the base stored 40 bombs, but it is likely that the inventory has been reduced to match the deployment at other national bases. The Italian Tornado is expected to

begin retiring sometime after 2015, to be replaced by the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), a US aircraft intended to provide an affordable option to the US and allied armed forces. Italy is tentatively scheduled to receive its first four JSFs in 2014, with additional deliveries slated through 2025, for a total of 131 aircraft (Defense Department, 2010b); approximately 109 aircraft will go to the Italian Air Force. Severe budget constraints may delay or curtail Italy's participation in the program.

[madmike]

direi che coi numeri sono rimasti indietro un bel po-

[Simone]

Mi sembra strano che non si ia mai pensato di adattare i sistemi di guida già esistenti Laser o GPS alle testate b61,che già sono stati applicati con risultati importanti alle Mk 80 ss. Certo, mi si può obiettare che la designazione laser sarebbe problematica per chi la deve eseguire, sapendo che l'ordigno emette radiazioni letali per chi non è schermato anche a distanze di molte migliaia di metri,però la guida-GPS resta ,concettualmente, utile

[Scagnetti]

direi che coi numeri sono rimasti indietro un bel po-

 

Il Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists è del Dicembre 2010 e mi sembra affidabile, tra l'altro ne abbiamo parlato anche nella pagina prececente. Hai altre fonti che parlano di altri numeri?

[madmike]

Parlavo dei numeri degli F35.

[Andrea75]

Report: U.S. To Lose Superpower Status By 2030

 

A report by the National Intelligence Council predicts that the United States will lose its superpower status by 2030, but that no country — including China — will be a hegemonic power.

Instead, the report says, power will shift to “networks and coalitions in a multipolar world.”

The council, which wrote Global Trends 2030, was established in 1979. It supports the U.S. director of National Intelligence and is the intelligence community’s center for long-term strategic analysis.

The council’s intelligence officers are drawn from government, academia and the private sector.

“The world of 2030 will be radically transformed from our world today,” the report concludes. “By 2030, no country — whether the U.S., China, or any other large country — will be a hegemonic power.”

The report also finds that the empowerment of individuals and a diffusion of power among states — and from states — to informal networks will have a “dramatic impact.”

This development, the report finds, will largely reverse the historic rise of the West since 1750, “restoring Asia’s weight in the global economy and ushering in a new era of ‘democratization’ at the international and domestic level.”

The report further expects the rapid aging of the world population to continue as well as a growing demand on resources, which might lead to scarcities of food and water.

Among its assessment, the report looks at plausible worst-case and best-case scenarios over the next two decades.

In the former category, it sees the risk of interstate conflict increasing and the U.S. “draws inward and globalization stalls.”

In the best-case scenario, China and the U.S. collaborate on a range of issues, leading to a broader global cooperation.

 

US seen as ‘first among equals’ in 2030: intel report

 

The United States will likely be the “first among equals” in 2030 in an increasingly chaotic world where China is the top economy and demand soars for resources, a US intelligence report said Monday.

The National Intelligence Council, in its first assessment in four years aimed at shaping US strategic thinking, said that China will surpass the United States as the largest economy in the 2020s, in line with independent forecasts.

But the study said that the United States, while weaker, will probably remain the top player in two decades thanks to its role in resolving global crises, its technological prowess and its “soft power” that attracts outsiders.

“The US most likely will remain ‘first among equals’ among the other great powers in 2030 because of its preeminence across a range of power dimensions and legacies of its leadership role,” the 137-page report said.

“Nevertheless, with the rapid rise of other countries, the ‘unipolar moment’ is over and Pax Americana — the era of American ascendancy in international politics that began in 1945 — is fast winding down,” it said.

The study predicted that Asia’s economy, military spending and technological investment would surpass those of North America and Europe combined by 2030, but warned of major uncertainty over an emerging China.

“If Beijing fails to transition to a more sustainable, innovation-based economic model, it will remain a top-tier player in Asia, but the influence surrounding what has been a remarkable ascendance will dissipate,” it said.

China’s global power is likely to keep rising but at a slower rate — a phenomenon of easing growth that, according to historical precedent, makes countries “likely to become fearful and more assertive,” the study said.

If tensions keep rising in Asia, more nations will embrace US leadership and China “can be its own worst enemy,” the report’s lead author Mathew Burrows told reporters.

Europe, Japan and Russia are expected to maintain slow economic declines through 2030, while a number of middle-tier countries could rise, such as Colombia, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Mexico, South Africa and Turkey, it said.

The study expected major benefits from technology by 2030, but warned that climate change threatened to pose serious challenges.

With a growing population and rising incomes, the planet’s demand for water, food and energy will grow by 35, 40 and 50 percent respectively by 2030, it said.

A wealthier China and India would likely need to rely more on food imports, driving up international prices. Families in low-income nations would feel the pinch hardest on food, likely fueling social discontent.

The National Intelligence Council estimated that the world will have nearly 8.3 billion people in 2030, up from 7.1 billion now, but that the average age will be older — with potentially giant consequences.

The study said that 80 percent of armed and ethnic conflicts occurred in nations with youthful populations. The number of youthful states will fall significantly by 2030, with the bulk of the remaining ones in Africa.

Other areas that will still have youthful populations — and the fuel for potential conflict — include Afghanistan, western and tribal areas of Pakistan and India’s poorer northern states of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, it said.

By contrast, the study found that the Middle East “will be a very different place” in 2030 with the gradual aging of the youth bulge that took to the streets in the Arab Spring protests that brought down autocratic leaders.

But the report predicted instability in nations with rooted sectarian or other tensions such as Bahrain, Iraq, Libya and Syria along with Yemen, which the study predicted could break up for the second time.

The study doubted that Al-Qaeda would pose a threat in 2030, saying that terrorism by its nature alienates initial supporters.

“By 2030, we believe that the Islamic terrorism cycle may have exhausted itself,” Burrows said.

Iran was a question mark. The study expected “far-reaching instability” if Iran developed a nuclear weapon, but also said that a more pro-Western Iran could emerge due to public pressure and infighting within the clerical regime.

The study said a potential resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would have “dramatic consequences,” but suggested that a more likely scenario consisted of unofficial actions that lead toward a Palestinian state with key issues such as the status of Jerusalem remaining unresolved in 2030.

Modificato 11 Dicembre 2012 da Andrea75

[Andrea75]

ecco il link al (lungo) paper GLOBAL TRENDS 2030: ALTERNATIVE WORLDS - a publication of the National Intelligence Council

 

alcuni estratti

MEGATRENDS AND RELATED TECTONIC SHIFTS

MEGATREND 1: INDIVIDUAL EMPOWERMENT

MEGATREND 2: DIFFUSION OF POWER

MEGATREND 3: DEMOGRAPHIC PATTERNS

MEGATREND 4: GROWING FOOD, WATER, AND ENERGY NEXUS

 

Growth of the Global Middle Class

Middle classes most everywhere in the developing world are poised to expand substantially in terms of both absolute numbers and the percentage of the population that can claim middleclass status during the next 15-20 years.

 

Wider Access to Lethal and DisruptiveTechnologies

A wider spectrum of instruments of war—especially precision-strike capabilities, cyber instruments, and bioterror weapony—will become accessible. Individuals and small groups will

have the capability to perpetrate large-scale violence and disruption—a capability formerly the monopoly of states.

 

Definitive Shift of Economic Power to the East and South

The US, European, and Japanese share of global income is projected to fall from 56 percent today to well under half by 2030. In 2008, China overtook the US as the world’s largest saver; by 2020, emerging markets’ share of financial assets is projected to almost double.

 

Unprecedented and Widespread Aging

Whereas in 2012 only Japan and Germany have matured beyond a median age of 45 years, most European countries, South Korea, and Taiwan will have entered the post-mature age category by 2030. Migration will become more globalized as both rich and developing countries suffer from workforce shortages.

 

Urbanization

Today’s roughly 50-percent urban population will climb to nearly 60 percent, or 4.9 billion people, in 2030. Africa will gradually replace Asia as the region with the highest urbanization growth rate. Urban centers are estimated to generate 80 percent of economic growth; the potential exists to apply modern technologies and infrastructure, promoting better use of scarce resources.

 

Food and Water Pressures

Demand for food is expected to rise at least 35 percent by 2030 while demand for water is expected to rise by 40 percent. Nearly half of the world’s population will live in areas

experiencing severe water stress. Fragile states in Africa and the Middle East are most at risk of experiencing food and water shortages, but China and India are also vulnerable.

 

US Energy Independence

With shale gas, the US will have sufficient natural gas to meet domestic needs and generate potential global exports for decades to come. Increased oil production from difficult-to-access oil deposits would result in a substantial reduction in the US net trade balance and faster economic expansion. Global spare capacity may exceed over 8 million barrels, at which point OPEC would lose price control and crude oil prices would collapse, causing a major negative impact on oil-export economies.

 

GAME-CHANGERS

GAME-CHANGER 1: THE CRISIS-PRONE GLOBAL ECONOMY

GAME-CHANGER 2: THE GOVERNANCE GAP

GAME-CHANGER 3: POTENTIAL FOR INCREASED CONFLICT

GAME-CHANGER 4: WIDER SCOPE OF REGIONAL INSTABILITY

GAME-CHANGER 5: THE IMPACT OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES

GAME-CHANGER 6: THE ROLE OF THE UNITED STATES

 

POTENTIAL BLACK SWANS THAT WOULD CAUSE THE GREATEST DISRUPTIVE IMPACT

 

Severe Pandemic

No one can predict which pathogen will be the next to start spreading to humans, or when or where such a development will occur. An easily transmissible novel respiratory pathogen that kills or incapacitates more than one percent of its victims is among the most disruptive events possible. Such an outbreak could result in millions of people suffering and dying in every corner of the world in less than six months.

 

Much More Rapid Climate Change

Dramatic and unforeseen changes already are occurring at a faster rate than expected. Most scientists are not confident of being able to predict such events. Rapid changes in precipitation patterns—such as monsoons in India and the rest of Asia—could sharply disrupt that region’s ability to feed its population.

 

Euro/EU Collapse

An unruly Greek exit from the euro zone could cause eight times the collateral damage as the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy, provoking a broader crisis regarding the EU’s future.

 

A Democratic or Collapsed China

China is slated to pass the threshold of US$15,000 per capita purchasing power parity (PPP) in the next five years or so—a level that is often a trigger for democratization. Chinese “soft” power could be dramatically boosted, setting off a wave of democratic movements. Alternatively, many experts believe a democratic China could also become more nationalistic. An economically collapsed China would trigger political unrest and shock the global economy.

 

A Reformed Iran

A more liberal regime could come under growing public pressure to end the international sanctions and negotiate an end to Iran’s isolation. An Iran that dropped its nuclear weapons

aspirations and became focused on economic modernization would bolster the chances for a more stable Middle East.

 

Nuclear War or WMD/Cyber Attack

Nuclear powers such as Russia and Pakistan and potential aspirants such as Iran and North Korea see nuclear weapons as compensation for other political and security weaknesses, heightening the risk of their use. The chance of nonstate actors conducting a cyber attack—or using WMD— also is increasing.

 

Solar Geomagnetic Storms

Solar geomagnetic storms could knock out satellites, the electric grid, and many sensitive electronic devices. The recurrence intervals of crippling solar geomagnetic storms, which are less

than a century, now pose a substantial threat because of the world’s dependence on electricity.

 

US Disengagement

A collapse or sudden retreat of US power probably would result in an extended period of global anarchy; no leading power would be likely to replace the United States as guarantor of the international order.

 

ALTERNATIVE WORLDS

Stalled Engines — a scenario in which the risk of interstate conflict rise owing to a new “great game” in Asia—was chosen as one of the book-ends, illustrating the most plausible “worst case.”

 

Fusion is the other book end, describing what we see as the most plausible “best case.” This is a world in which the specter of a spreading conflict in South Asia triggers efforts by the US, Europe, and China to intervene and impose a ceasefire. China, the US, and Europe find other issues to collaborate on, leading to a major positive change in their bilateral relations,

and more broadly leading to worldwide cooperation to deal with global challenges.

 

GINI OUT-OF-THE-BOTTLE

This is a world of extremes. Within many countries, inequalities dominate—leading to increasing political and social tensions. Between countries, there are clear-cut winners and losers.

 

NONSTATE WORLD

In this world, nonstate actors—nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), multinational businesses, academic institutions, and wealthy individuals—as well as subnational units (megacities, for example), flourish and take the lead in confronting global challenges. An increasing global public opinion consensus among elites and many of the growing middle classes on major global challenges—poverty, the environment, anti-corruption, rule-of-law, and peace—form the base of their support. The nation-state does not disappear, but countries increasingly organize and orchestrate “hybrid” coalitions of state and nonstate actors which shift depending on the issue.

[Andrea75]

Basi NATO in Italia: inaugurata la nuova sede di Napoli. Ecco il link ad sito web della base Allied Joint Force Command (JFC) Naples

 

 

 

Inaugurata la nuova sede del Joint Force Command di Napoli

 

Il Ministro della Difesa, Giampaolo Di Paola, ha preso parte questa mattina alla Cerimonia di inaugurazione del Comando del Joint Force Command Naples (JFCNP) di Lago Patria.

A simboleggiare l’apertura della nuova Base, il taglio del nastro da parte del Comandante Supremo delle Forze Alleate in Europa, Ammiraglio James Stavridis.

Nel corso della Cerimonia - alla quale hanno preso parte, tra gli altri, il Comandante del Comando Interforze Alleato di Napoli, Ammiraglio Bruce W. Clingan - il Ministro Di Paola ha evidenziato l’importanza della struttura e si è soffermato sull’inscindibile rapporto tra Italia e NATO.

In particolare, nel suo intervento il Ministro ha affermato che la struttura di Lago Patria consentirà di incrementare le capacità di supporto alle operazioni dei Paesi Alleati, soprattutto quale punto di riferimento per le attività svolte nel Mediterraneo.

”Questo evento rappresenta per me il punto di arrivo di una storia lunga di anni - ha aggiunto Di Paola – e oggi sono qui quale testimone orgoglioso di questa storia”.

La struttura di Lago Patria - completata nello scorso mese di maggio e situata appena fuori dal centro abitato - è la nuova casa del NATO Allied Joint Force Command Naples, precedentemente collocato a Bagnoli (Base ufficialmente chiusa lo scorso 3 dicembre).

Il trasferimento del personale nei nuovi impianti è iniziato alcuni mesi fa ed ora è stata raggiunta l’Initial Operating Capability, mentre la Full Operating Capability è prevista per la fine del 2015.

Il nuovo Comando si presenta come un Centro Operativo di ultima generazione, utile strumento per far fronte efficacemente alle sfide alla sicurezza e per sviluppare l’interoperabilità e la cooperazione tra i Paesi membri e con i partner.

La sede di Lago Patria – che ospita più di 2000 membri dello staff NATO e tre Comandi separati - sarà un Comando operativo particolarmente attivo, che in futuro potrà essere ulteriormente ampliato.

[Andrea75]

Smart Defense Team Helps Nato Face Lean Times l'americana Smart Defence viene declinata in 'europeo' come Pooling & Sharing

 

As the cost of militaries increase, NATO allies can benefit from an efficiencies-driven Smart Defense program, Allied Command Transformation officials said here yesterday.

Army Lt. Col. William Brown III, ACT Core Team member, and Richard Perks, ACT Capability Development Strategist spoke with reporters during the 2012 Chiefs of Transformation Conference. The event brings together NATO, partner, industry and government agency professionals to share best practices and expand collaboration.

“What Smart Defense really tries to do is help allies work together,” said Perks, adding that even a small uptick in multinational group projects could significantly reduce the burden on individual allies.

“It’s about facilitating allies’ efficiency in their own defense programs … and by doing so it’s better for NATO,” he said.

Brown agreed, noting that NATO aims to build and maintain capabilities that increase its effectiveness and relevance.

“Smart Defense is one of the ways that we are helping the nations to meet the demands of capability requirements as we go forward,” Brown said. “We try to align the capabilities, achieve economies of scale and reduce duplication.”

To do that, Brown explained, Smart Defense first examines the capabilities under a conceptual lens in helping to produce policy through NATO-level discussion. Next, he said, the core team takes a pragmatic approach to execute the ideas.

“We have 148 Smart Defense projects and proposals that cover a wide range of areas from procurement to training … a lot of them in the logistical realm,” he said.

Brown cited a recent helicopter maintenance success story in which allies merged powers and unearthed major savings.

“Instead of nations having to send their experts and their maintenance people to Afghanistan to do scheduled maintenance on the aircraft, they are able to work together through the NATO logistics committee [in which the U.S.] had the lead and several nations participated,” Brown said.

Ultimately, Brown explained, the Smart Defense project saved a nation 1.2 million Euros by enabling it to leave the aircraft in place for repairs instead of sending it back to its home station.

Equally important is operational readiness, Perks said.

“The helicopter stayed there, and whereas it would’ve been three or four months before it was available again, it was available in three or four weeks,” he added.

Perks also emphasized that NATO’s capabilities are largely rooted in what the allies bring to the alliance. Because some NATO members have experienced difficult financial times, Brown said, Smart Defense is not a new concept, rather one brought to the foreground based on necessity.

Brown also noted the value of smaller countries that have positively impacted the alliance.

“It’s great to see a country like Slovakia or the Czech [Republic], who both have robust programs in the chemical and biological area [and] are providing some of the expertise on the projects related to that,” Brown said.

The Czech Republic’s flight training program has been a feather in the nation’s cap, Brown added.

“Instead of every nation having to train five to 10 pilots per year, let’s work together on that. You can just imagine fixed costs when you run a flight school,” Brown said.

“Smart Defense will continue if we’re able to get the mindset included in everybody’s beam,” he said. “It’s not always going to be about pushing projects or proposals under the Smart Defense banner, but we need to make it so that it is included as part of the [NATO Defense Planning Process].”

NATO’s defense planning process, according to Brown, is a top-down approach where the requirements for member nations are being provided by NATO, while Smart Defense helps provide a bottom-up feed with the projects and proposals the nations use.

“The nations have come up with these ideas,” Brown said. “If they believe that a project is important for them to pursue, the fact that they’re working in a multinational effort instead of trying to do it themselves … you see the efficiencies of these projects as they go forward.”

Perks shared Brown’s sentiment.

“Smart Defense addresses the fiscal reality head on,” Perks said. “Capabilities are big, they’re expensive, they’re complex and it’s increasingly difficult to build them, so we have to come together -- it’s the way ahead.”

[Simone]

Se la nATO si occupasse di trovare qualche misura per opporsi alla sovrappopolazione globale, che è un problema capito, a quanto pare, solo da chi ha confidenza con il ragionamento logico e non dagli umanisti puri,sarebbe un bene, più gente c'è al Mondo, più aumentano le difficoltà, bisogna che gli strateghi applichino misure per diminuire la natalità nei Paesi dove la gente che non ragiona continua a fare figli

[madmike]

Siamo OT ma fatti una semplice domanda, Simone: perchè in Italia fino a 60\70 anni fa c'erano famiglie di 7\8 figli, e ora di 1 se va bene?

 

Solo un problema di cultura o......

[Andrea75]

NATO Alliance Ground Surveillance Program http://www.generaldynamics.com/news/press-releases/detail.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1811=18235

 

 

 

General Dynamics Canada Awarded Contract on NATO Alliance Ground Surveillance Program
Canadian technology to enable communications with unmanned systems and at operating centersOTTAWA, Ontario – General Dynamics Canada has been awarded a CA$32 million contract by Northrop Grumman Corporation for key communications network technology for the NATO Alliance Ground Surveillance (AGS) program.

Under this contract, General Dynamics Canada will provide the software that will control the AGS Communications Ground Control System (CGCS). The CGCS will manage radio and satellite communications between Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and the main operating base in Sigonella, Italy. General Dynamics Canada will also deliver ruggedized computer workstations and the Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) intercom systems that will enable communications between operators at the operating base and with mobile command centers. In addition, the company will provide engineering support for the integration of its software and systems at Northrop Grumman’s facilities in the United States, and at the main operating base in Italy.

“This contract highlights the capabilities of the world-leading communication solutions we have developed through many years of innovation in airborne ISR systems,” said David Ibbetson, general manager for General Dynamics Canada. “It showcases Canadian technology that we have successfully deployed on the CP-140 Aurora as part of the Aurora Incremental Modernization Project, and on the CH148 Cyclone as part of the Maritime Helicopter Program. At the same time, it provides us with the opportunity to leverage the experience and expertise of the highly skilled employees at our facilities across Canada. As important, the key technologies being provided by General Dynamics Canada will be available for future UAV-based programs in Canada, such as the Joint Unmanned Surveillance Target Acquisition System and the Mercury Global Wideband Global Satellite communications system.”

“This is another example of how Northrop Grumman is leveraging national investments already made in the NATO AGS program to benefit the entire alliance,” said Dan Chang, Northrop Grumman vice president and program manager of the NATO AGS program. “We look forward to working with General Dynamics Canada on this program to deliver this critical capability to NATO.”

The NATO AGS program, led by Northrop Grumman, is a major international procurement initiative to establish an airborne ground surveillance system, which can provide NATO commanders with a comprehensive picture of activity on the ground. It includes five Northrop Grumman high-altitude, long endurance Global Hawk UAVs, missionized to NATO requirements; Mobile Ground Command and Control Vehicles; as well as associated command and control base stations. Once deployed, the AGS system will enable NATO and its coalition partners to gather intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance information to support military and humanitarian operations.

With its main operating base at Sigonella, NATO AGS will be co-located with the U.S. Air Force Global Hawks and the U.S. Navy MQ-4C Triton (BAMS) Broad Area Maritime Surveillance unmanned aircraft systems, further advancing synergies across the three programs in operational capability, lifecycle logistics and sustainment.

Development and production of the AGS program is expected to take place over the next three years, with initial operation scheduled for November 2016. General Dynamics Canada will continue to provide in-service support for the system beyond 2016.

 

[-{-Legolas-}-]

Durante l'esercitazione Able Archer 83, il livello d'allarme nella NATO fu alzato a DEFCON1.

 

La cosa non è passata inosservata ai sovietici, e per poco non ci scappava la terza guerra mondiale.

 

Non vi dico altro...Buona lettura!

[TT-1 Pinto]

E, come se non bastasse, in quel periodo la tensione fra i due blocchi era già alta .... in quanto, soltanto un paio di mesi prima, si era verificato il tragico caso "KAL 007"....

 

....

 

 

Modificato 17 Maggio 2013 da TT-1 Pinto

[-{-Legolas-}-]

Tra l'altro, la NATO pare mandare segnali d'espansione in Svezia-Finlandia da quando la Flotta Russa ha dichiarato di volersi stabilire nel Mediterraneo. Uno si giustificherebbe col lacunoso dispositivo d'intercettazione Finlandese, l'altro con la guerra civile in Siria.

 

Si redistribuiscono i bilanci di potere.

[-{-Legolas-}-]

Nei prossimi cinque anni, riduzione dei 21 F-15 basati in Europa, nell'ottica della riduzione costi ormai in atto in tutto il settore militare USA.

 

http://www.stripes.com/news/europe/expect-cuts-to-f-15-fleet-in-europe-breedlove-says-1.291346

[fabio-22raptor]

Strano.. eppure io credevo che con le crescenti tensioni USA-RUSSIA la presenza militare fosse incrementata.. avevo letto su A&D di un rischieramento "importante" sui cieli baltici.. 6 F-15 con tutto il pacchetto, altri 12 (se non di piu') F-16 in Romania. Nei cieli baltici fra poco tocchera' a noi gestire gli scramble (saranno rischierati gli EF-2000).

[-{-Legolas-}-]

Nei prossimi cinque anni, riduzione dei 21 F-15 basati in Europa, nell'ottica della riduzione costi ormai in atto in tutto il settore militare USA.

 

http://www.stripes.com/news/europe/expect-cuts-to-f-15-fleet-in-europe-breedlove-says-1.291346

 

Dietro front del Pentagono, che vuole mantenere una quota a rotazione, di F-15 in Europa.

 

http://www.stripes.com/news/pentagon-f-15-pullout-from-europe-may-be-on-hold-1.293924

[David79]

Cosa dovrebbe fare secondo te la nato per andare fino in fondo in questa vicenda?

 

 

Il problema più grosso della nato negli utlimi 20 anni (e che diventa sempre più visibile man mano che passa il tempo) è che è stata creata per affrontarte i problemi di un mondo che non esiste più e, anche se l'hanno rettificata nel tempo, sembra come quelle macchine degli anni 70 in cui il proprietario continua a farci la manutenzione ma alla fine esce sempre con un catorcio.

 

Prima il mondo era bipolare: nato da un lato e patto di varsavia dall'altro. I terzi attori, detti terzo mondo (non perchè poveri ma perchè non facenti parte di nessuno dei due scheramenti) contavano quanto il 2 di coppe con la briscola a bastoni. Oggi il mondo e multipolare con diversi attori molto influenti, ognuno dei quali si muove nello scacchere per ottimizzare il proprio interesse.

 

La nato continua a trattare i problemi come se fosse noi contro qualcuno, mentre gli altri scheramenti si muovano in modo molto articolato effettuando contiunui accerchiamenti contro i paesi nato. Basta vedere cosa è accaduto di recente:

 

1) Mettiamo le sanzioni alla russia.

2) La decisione è presa in maggioranza ma nella nato gli americani hanno un peso maggiore di tutti gli altri; ergo se gli americani dicono qualcosa, gli altri eseguono.

3) eseguiamo la sanzione ma, gli effetti della sanzione producono effetti diversi in america rispetto che in europa (l'europa dipende molto da agenti esterni per le materie prime mentre l'america no).

4) la russia, che dopo il crollo del patto di varsavia hanno ricreato una federazione su articolazioni più recenti ed efficenti, rapidamente trova soluzioni nel resto del mondo e quindi si muove per fare contro sanzioni.

5) in europa comincia il piagnisteo perchè le merci sono state bloccate alla frontiera, la russia ha sopperito con il resto del mondo (annullando l'effetto sanzione), il resto del mondo ha ricavato una zona di export a scapito dei paesi nato.

 

Alttra sanzione, qualunque sarà, avrà gli stessi effetti!

 

IN pratica la nato non è organizzata per trattare in un mondo multipolare dove ad ogni azione non corrisponde una reazione, ma una serie di effetti dominio che tendono a stabilizzarsi e a neutralizzare gli effetti dell'azione (creando come sotto-fenomeno lo spostamento di un asse del potere, oppure id un asse commerciale eccetera).

 

Cosa dovrebbe fare la nato?

Dovrebbe essere sciolta e ricreata con attori diverse e dinamiche diverse. Gli usa, canada, australia e giappone hanno una serie di problemi, dipendenze economiche eccetera, diverse dalle nazioni europee. A noi in europa serve una federazione militare europea che coinvolga i paesi UE più altri paesi legati strategicamente alla UE che fa una propia politica di difesa ed influenza totalmente scollegata dal blocco americano (ed affini). Poi ognuno dei due blocchi agirà nel contesto internazionale nei modi e nei termini che meglio gli interessano per ottenere un vantaggio.

 

Ad esempio, nel caso ucraino l'europa avrebbe anche potuto agire al contrario di come hanno fatto gli americani per dire (se ciò da calcoli sembrava più conveniente). Tra l'altro, la federazione europea, se pur meno militarizzata degli americani, comportandosi in modo opportuno potrebbe ottenere anche più influenza rispetto agli americani (ad esempio comportandosi come la svizzera del mondo, super-partes in qualunque discussione e al più comportandosi come da pacere in cambio di assi commerciali favorevoli).

 

Il mondo ormai è cambiato, la nato è stata fondamentale quando il mondo era orientato in un certo modo, ormai sta diventando una palla al piede e fa apparire i suoi membri come gente totalmente isterica agli occhi del resto del mondo. CI comportiamo ormai come i bulli di scuola che pensano di essere importanti solo perchè menano più forti (ergo abbiamo eserciti più forti) ma, quando la scuola finisce il bullo è destinato a diventare un escluso della società...

[vorthex]

 

IN pratica la nato non è organizzata per trattare in un mondo multipolare dove ad ogni azione non corrisponde una reazione, ma una serie di effetti dominio che tendono a stabilizzarsi e a neutralizzare gli effetti dell'azione (creando come sotto-fenomeno lo spostamento di un asse del potere, oppure id un asse commerciale eccetera).

ma la NATO è un organizzazione militare, non è stata pensata e strutturata per fare altre cose. il problema, semmai, è che l'azione politica europea, per mancanza di essere della stessa, non ha una "continuazione d'azione" che non sia la NATO. il problema va visto nel senso opposto: non è la NATO ad impediere la libertà d'azione europea, è l'Europa che non ha i mezzi e si nasconde dietro la sottana della NATO.

 

 

A noi in europa serve una federazione militare europea che coinvolga i paesi UE più altri paesi legati strategicamente alla UE che fa una propia politica di difesa ed influenza totalmente scollegata dal blocco americano (ed affini).

ecco... ma davvero qualcuno crede che gli Stati Uniti non siano strategicamente importanti per noi e noi per loro? perchè, alla fine, il problema si riduce a questo.

il mondo occidentale, il "noi colletivo", è inutile negarlo, esiste... quindi, va benissimo pensare ad una ristrutturazione delle alleanze e degli equilibri interni, ma pensare di negare questa realtà non so quanto possa essere utile. d'altronde, l'alternativa quale è? quella cosa buffa che chiamano UE? su...

[PJ83]

 

 

il mondo occidentale, il "noi colletivo", è inutile negarlo, esiste... quindi, va benissimo pensare ad una ristrutturazione delle alleanze e degli equilibri interni, ma pensare di negare questa realtà non so quanto possa essere utile. d'altronde, l'alternativa quale è? quella cosa buffa che chiamano UE? su...

 

Mi sa che l'idea di quel noi collettivo è legata alla solidità dell'integrazione europea e all'accordo commerciale che dovremmo firmare con gli usa e che purtroppo incontra non poche resistenze da parte delle forze oscurantiste europee. Sarò pessimista, ma senza una vera integrazione economica l'occidente rimane un concetto del 20° secolo, e con esso la NATO.

[David79]

 

Mi sa che l'idea di quel noi collettivo è legata alla solidità dell'integrazione europea e all'accordo commerciale che dovremmo firmare con gli usa e che purtroppo incontra non poche resistenze da parte delle forze oscurantiste europee. Sarò pessimista, ma senza una vera integrazione economica l'occidente rimane un concetto del 20° secolo, e con esso la NATO.

 

Se ti riferisci aTtip fanno bene a fare resistenza.