WIESBADEN, Germany (Reuters) - Germany stepped up calls on Friday for NATO talks on creating a missile defense shield for Europe, a day after the United States vowed to press ahead with its system without alliance approval.

The head of the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency said on Thursday Washington wanted to secure the understanding of its 25 NATO members for its plans to build a missile shield in eastern Europe, but was not seeking their green light.

The United States' European allies are concerned the plan will damage their ties with Moscow, and Germany has led calls for wider consultations on the project. Ukraine has also complained Washington had not consulted with it.

"We should discuss developing such a measure within a NATO framework," German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung told reporters on the margins of a meeting of EU defense chiefs in the German city of Wiesbaden.

Jung said Russian concerns over the shield could be allayed by talks within NATO's existing NATO-Russia Council, a forum for discussing defense issues between the former Cold War foes.

"I think that is the right way forward," he said.

The United States wants to set up a radar system in the Czech Republic and a missile battery in Poland as part of a shield that would counter missiles fired by what Washington calls "rogue states" such as Iran and North Korea .
Jung did not say whether Germany was for or against such a shield but his spokesman said Berlin acknowledged that some form of action was needed to address the threat of attack.

"The question of a threat from long-range missiles exists and this threat must be addressed by concrete measures," defense ministry spokesman Thomas Raabe said.

Moscow sees the system as an encroachment on its former sphere of influence and an attempt to shift the post-Cold War balance of power, but a top Russian general was quoted as saying on Friday Russia had its own missile shield and need not worry.

"We have everything needed to adequately respond to all these deployments," Russian news agencies quoted Russia's Air Force commander General Vladimir Mikhailov as saying.

"They have lots of cash, let them spend it," he added.

NATO UNDECIDED

Most European states have been reluctant so far to pronounce on whether they think Europe needs such a missile shield. EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said on Thursday the level of threat to European territory was "questionable" and it was up to individual countries to decide what they wanted to do.

NATO announced last year an internal study which concluded that a missile defense system for Europe was technically and financially feasible, but has yet to decide how to proceed.

Pentagon Missile Defense Agency chief Lt. General Henry Obering presented U.S. plans to NATO allies in Brussels on Thursday, who then discussed them with Russian officials.

One senior alliance diplomat said allies were united in rejecting Russian criticism of the project.

"This was not the forum to express any nuances of difference we may have among ourselves. It conveyed the message that if put under pressure (by Russia) we might have more unity than we had previously on this issue," the diplomat said.

An opinion poll published on Friday showed nearly two-thirds of Czechs opposed hosting the radar system. The Czech government is due to respond by the end of the month to a U.S. request to open talks on the system. It has spoken in favor, but may face problems getting any proposal through parliament.

(additional reporting by Sabine Siebold in Wiesbaden, Paul Taylor in Brussels, Oleg Shchedrov in Moscow and Alan Crosby in Prague)

NATO reacted cautiously on Friday to a Russian offer for the United States to use a Russian-controlled radar in Azerbaijan for a missile defense shield, questioning whether its location was ideal.

Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed to President George W. Bush at a Group of Eight summit on Thursday that Washington use the Azeri radar instead of planned missile interceptors in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic.

Moscow suspects the shield is aimed at Russia. Washington says it is to stop missiles from "rogue" states.

"I think it is a bit close to the rogue states we are discussing," NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer told a conference about the proposed Russian alternative.

"But it's a bit too early in the day for my final judgment. It is always useful when two presidents are constructively talking to each other on this," said de Hoop Scheffer, who has promoted NATO as a forum for talks over the shield plan.

In Baku, Azeri Foreign Minister Elmar Mamedyarov told reporters Russia had approached his government with a proposal to use the Qabala radar jointly with the United States, for example in sharing information obtained by it.

"Azerbaijan is ready for such consultations," he said. Azerbaijan had held what he called "rudimentary consultations" with the United States about the radar.

The Qabala radar has operated in the north of Azerbaijan since 1985 and is manned by Russian military who lease it from the Azeris. One of the biggest radars in the world, it scans the Indian Ocean, the Middle East and most of North Africa -- and can detect missiles launched in those areas.

Bush did not directly mention Putin's offer in comments to reporters on Thursday. U.S. officials have in the past stressed they regarded the proposed central European sites as ideally placed to intercept missiles coming from the Middle East.

White House national security adviser Stephen Hadley said Putin's idea was "a bold proposal." U.S. officials would study the offer and discuss it with the Russians.

Putin said that if Washington took up the offer he would not follow through with a threat to re-direct Russian missiles to targets in Europe. The Kremlin said Putin's idea would remove any need for a U.S. radar anywhere in eastern Europe.

(Additional reporting by Lada Yevgrashina in Baku)

---

JUNE 15th 2007     

Gates says Azerbaijuan is no substitute. My view:  use both. It will take some time to get them set up. This sort of ABM deployment has not the slightest effect on the basic Nuclear Deterrence strategy which has prevented the 'rational' use of nuclear IBMs or tactical nukes by any state whose leaders not bent on national matyrdom. Since I am of the opinion that the leaders of even those states who profess to theocracy are simply using theocracy as it is their current modus operandi to run the show, deterrence is also effective in their case too. However, there will be cases where deterrence fails, we know this. There are suicide bombers and there will be suicide nuclear bombers - and accidents - and always Murphy's Law. So we need to build and master sensible international detection and protection against these rogue events.

Gates: U.S. missile plan in Europe a go

OCTOBER 23rd 2007

President Putin, on announcing that Russia would be testing a new generation of nuclear missiles, made a remark that is uncharacteristically unintelligent.  He cited Iraq as an example of what can happen to a nation that does not have the means to defend itself in the nuclear age. If that had any logic it would mean every nation that was capable of it should have an intercontinental nuclear weapons delivery system.

Iraq's fatal flaw was two fold: first it was rules by an illegitimate regime based on terror; second it had no allies. It was not part of an alliance that had a nuclear umbrella. The logic of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is that global security can only be maintained by having a system of alliances with a few major nuclear powers to guarantee that no state would dare break the nuclear stand-off by using a nuclear strike on a neighbour. The final flaw in Iraq's defence was to spread false intelligence for local consumption that it had WMD.

So Putin's remark is really uncharacteristically STUPID.

It also seems to be linked with his idea that it is sensible for Iran to have its own nukes, though he can't seriously believe that. However, for us to be afraid of Iran actually using a nuclear weapon we would have to have a theoretical target. That is supposed to be Israel. But the possibility of Iran launching a strike on Israel is nil as it would be immediately flattened by the US with either conventional or nuclear weapons. So the only reason to stop Iran developing a fission device is that it might get into the hands of terrorists who might smuggle it overland so that its use could not be attributed to any state.

---

MARCH 2nd 2008
Kissinger, Shultz, and Nunn call for serious nuclear decommissioning. This is being decribed by some, and even by them on occasions (?), as a world free of nuclear weapons. The latter is not reasonable. The former, and all the stages they suggest, including serious cooperation on all missile defence projects between Russia and China and the US is not only reasonable but essential. These men are serious players. Shultz and Nunn have a record of making sense that is unrivalled.

http://www.2020visioncampaign.org/pages/113/Kissinger_Shultz_Perry__Nunn_call_for_A_World_Free_of_Nuclear_Weapons

---

MARCH 10th 2008

WASHINGTON - Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk is hoping talks Monday with President Bush will help break an impasse on allowing U.S. missile defense interceptors to be based on Polish soil.  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080310/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_poland

See the entry above for MARCH 2nd

---

AUGUST 16th 2008
2 days ago Poland and the US signed further documents approving the building of a missile defence system on Polish soil. As previously explained here the system will nor launch warheads but non-explosive missiles to impact a limited missile strike from a small, rogue state or terrorist operation. However, the Russians seem to be convinced that this system is really aimed at Russia. The logic here is difficult to follow, as it would be quite useless against a Russian attack. Even more difficult to fathom is the statement by a Russian General that the deployment of such a system lays Poland open to a pre-emptive attack by Russia. It does not lay it any more open that we all are at any time to anyone crazy enough to launch a nuclear attack. That is the principle of nuclear deterrence. It works amongst sane people with large nuclear arsenals or in an alliance with a nuclear umbrella. For such people, a pre-emptive strike is unnecessary. But there is no defence against fanatics or unstable, rogue states in the hands of extremists. That is why there is a case for limited, purely defensive systems, strategically placed. Russia should have one or join with the EU and NATO in its system. The statement reported below that "Russian military doctrine would allow for a possible nuclear strike" means, quite simply, that Russian nuclear doctrine needs examining. That is as polite as I am able to be.

Russia could strike Poland over U.S. shield: report

AUGUST 20th 2008
The only conclusion to come to is that the US diplomats and NATO representatives are spectacularly unable to express themselves clearly or understand the concerns of their Russian counterparts, or have any sensible dialogue. That is not surprising, given that George Bush is so incoherent that most UK citizens think he is just a bumbling idiot. How must he and the increasingly school-ma'mish Rice sound when translated into Russia. Communication using words and sentences that convey little meaning beyond the formulaic (and these in American procedural vernacular which must sound as ridiculous when translated into Russian as some formulaic Chinese sounds when translated into English), must make it unlikely that any meeting of minds is on the cards. It is necessary to understand Russian history and realities. Bush and his team do not even understand the realities of North America. Regime change please, as soon as possible.

It is beyond argument that moving steadily towards missile defense against certain risks, with the aim of having something in place in 10 years time, is good planning. What Russia objects to is the incessant march of American, not just NATO, military personnel and arms, to the very borders of Russia. They see this as economically and socially destabilising, particularly when the US is run by people such as Bush and his team who have little idea of the realities of politics outside the US and, as is becoming more and more obvious, little idea of reality inside their own country. Polish security is best secured with the help of Russia, not by a relationship that is based on disregard or enmity. Stability in the region should be based on Russian and US support, not one playing games against the other.  The only way to classify the current US administration, a spokeman for which has just made a fool of himself on BBC 2 Newsnight, is juvenile and senile at the same time, lacking only maturity. "America is the first country to have gone from barbarism to decadence without the usual intervening period of civilization" said Oscar Wilde. To add "From juvenility to senility without a period of maturity" would be a little unfair given the amazing performance and sacrifice in WW II [once we had tricked them into action by giving the Pearl Harbour advance intelligence to Hoover instead of US Naval Intelligence], though the sacrifice was not made by their politicians but by the men and women they sent to do the job.

SEE SEPTEMBER 16th 2009 below!

---

OCTOBER 26th 2008
The US Nuclear deterrent is getting attention now and none too soon. It needs slimming down, maintaining, and a modern team who understand the entire philosophy of deterrence as well as the limitations, the dangers and the proper handling of policies and military moves in the nuclear 21st century. I hope this is what the stirrings hinted at below presage.

WASHINGTON – The mighty U.S. arsenal of nuclear weapons, midwived by World War II and nurtured by the Cold War, is declining in power and purpose while the military's competence in handling the world's most dangerous arms has eroded. At the same time, international efforts to contain the spread of such weapons look ineffective.   More at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081026/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/nuclear_decline

---

DECEMBER 21st 2008

Concerning:

I do not think this was a well judged item to discuss in such a way on broadcast radio.

The principle of deterrence resides in a very simple concept - that the person being deterred should believe that the consequences of certain actions on their part will lead, with absolute certainty, to their own downfall at the hands of those wielding the deterrent power and the imbued with responsibility to apply it.

For those responsible for preventing an incoming nuclear strike (either pre-emptive or by a nation facing defeat in non-nuclear conflict) to discuss in public their disinclination to use nuclear retaliation, is utterly absurd.

To wheel out retired senior statesmen who may well have never understood the philosophy of deterrence in the first place (and few politicians do), and ask them if they would have pushed the button, playing to their vanity and maudling thoughts in old age, was irresponsible and playing to the gallery.

It may very well be that if this country received a nuclear strike there could be circumstances in which the Prime Minister would NOT retaliate, even possibly for some of the reasons stated in your programme. It could be that deterrence in that case had failed. It could be that the strike had been launched by fanatics temporarily in control of the nuclear arsenal who had been or were about to be removed. It is indeed possible that retaliation would simply kill millions of civilians and NOT be in the best interests of survivors in the UK.

All of that is possible. But the PM must be certain that he is are personally capable of ordering a nuclear counterstrike, that right down the chain of command every link is capable, and we must be certain that any nuclear armed enemy believes that beyond any doubt whatsoever that this is the case.

To event hint for a moment that 'humanitarian concerns' would render the deterrent unusable against a nuclear aggressor would signal the end of deterrence of any sort. To discuss this in public would be sensible if we were dealing with a global audience of mature and informed individuals, and that only such people could ever get near the levers of nuclear arsenals.

Surely by now even the most callow BBC producer is aware that the security that is necessary even in the UK demands extremely well trained and mature individuals and a system of checks and balances embedded in a society that has taken years to build up the surrounding systems, and that such structures do not exist in all other countries developing nuclear capabilities.

It would be very wise and sensible now for the major powers to reduce their nuclear arsenals, for a number of reasons. As this is done, progressively, it is absolutely vital that the principle of deterrence is maintained, and in so remaining deters any country from allowing even the perception to grow that it has a nuclear arsenal that is not under the secure control of a rational government, regardless of its political ideology which may range from the far left to the far right, though the latter does present the greater risk.

That is an important part of keeping those individuals not subject to rational deterrence away from the nuclear buttons. In the case of the exceptions which may arise in extremis, an internationally developed and staffed anti-missile system will indeed have to be developed, with UN oversight, and their is no reason at all why this work cannot be started once there is a new government in the US. It will be a long, slow process, but also an inevitable one. Regardless of limited antimissile systems, however, the principle of nuclear deterrence will, however, always remain.

---

JANUARY 29th 2009
Some retired generals and diplomats have spoken out to the effect that it coud be time for Britain to abandon its nuclear deterrent to save money and aid the move to mulltilateral disarmament. They are extremely wrong on all counts, financial and political. Militarily it has always been a disastrous option so bringing that up is an absurd argument in the first place. The CND people never understood how much time the wasted and how they prolonged the cold war for no reason. The argument today is the same.

---

JULY 06 2009
Some progress at last. If they can manage to sit down and TALK about this business the could get a lot further, but it can't be rushed.

Obama, Medvedev agree to deal to cut nuke weapons

MOSCOW – Presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev confidently committed to a year-end deal to slash nuclear stockpiles by about a third on Monday, but the U.S. leader failed to crack stubborn Kremlin objections to America's missile defense plans — a major stumbling block to such an agreement.

Both men renewed pledges to pull U.S.-Russian relations out of the dismal state into which they had descended during the eight years of the Bush administration. And to that end, they signed a series of agreements and joint statements designed to enliven and quicken contacts on a broad range of issues — including cooperation on Afghanistan, a key Obama foreign policy objective.

Obama said the leaders both felt relations had "suffered from a sense of drift. President Medvedev and I are committed to leaving behind the suspicion and rivalry of the past."

His host expressed similar good will.

"This is the first but very important step in improving full-scale cooperation between our two countries, which would go to the benefit of both states," the Russian leader said. But he injected a note of caution, saying discussions so far "cannot remove the burden of all the problems."

There was no statement of Russian readiness to help the United States persuade Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions, even though Obama's top Russia adviser, Michael McFaul, told reporters in a post-meeting briefing that Iran dominated the two leaders' private meeting that opened the summit. Talks continued in an expanded session that included 12 advisers for each president.

For all the upbeat public statements, a pall of disagreement on missile defense and NATO expansion lingered over the glittering Kremlin hall where Obama and Medvedev answered reporters' questions. Obama said the meetings had been "frank," diplomatic speak for difficult.

Obama sits down on Tuesday with Medvedev's patron and predecessor as president, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, the target of a verbal poke from the U.S. president last Friday. In a pre-summit interview with The Associated Press, Obama said Putin still had one foot in the old, Cold War way of doing things.

While Medvedev insisted on Monday that a replacement to the keystone START I nuclear arms reduction treaty, which expires Dec. 5, must be linked to Russian concerns about the U.S. missile defense program in Eastern Europe, it remained unclear if the Kremlin was prepared to scuttle the negotiations over that issue.

Gary Samore, Obama's chief adviser on weapons of mass destruction and arms control, told reporters he did not believe the Russians were prepared to walk away.

"I think at the end of the day — because our missile defense does not actually pose a threat to Russia's strategic forces — I think they'll be prepared to go ahead without trying to extract a price on missile defense."

And McFaul said it had been made "crystal clear" from the beginning that negotiations about a START replacement would not include any missile defense issues.

Washington insists the defense program is designed only to protect European allies from missile attack by Iran.

Hoping to ease Kremlin concerns, Obama promised that an assessment of whether the missile defense would actually work would be finished by late summer, earlier than expected, and that he would share initial U.S. thoughts with Medvedev.

Obama also said he understood in principle that arms control must take into account both offensive and defensive weapons. But he insisted the missile defense installations planned for Poland and the Czech Republic would pose no threat to Russia. He said they were not being built to intercept missiles from "a mighty Russian arsenal."

Obama does not approach the missile defense issue with the same fervor as former President George W. Bush, whose administration was responsible for reaching agreement with the two former Soviet satellites to serve as sites for the system.

The planned START replacement pact — the centerpiece summit agreement — calls for each side to reduce strategic warheads to a range of 1,500 to 1,675, and strategic delivery vehicles to a range of 500 to 1,100. Current limits allow a maximum of 2,200 warheads and 1,600 launch vehicles. The new treaty, as conceived, would run for 10 years. Each side would have seven years to reach reduction goals with the final three years used for verification.

Medvedev called the plan a "reasonable compromise."

Among the deals meant to sweeten Obama's two days of talks here and show progress toward resetting U.S.-Russian ties was a joint statement on Afghanistan. It included a deal to allow the United States to transport arms and military personnel across Russian land and airspace into Afghanistan.

The White House said that would save $133 million a year, through a transit fee waiver, shorter flying times and fuel savings.

The presidents outlined other areas in which they said their countries would work together to help stabilize Afghanistan, including increasing assistance to the Afghan army and police, and training counternarcotics personnel. A joint statement said they welcomed increased international support for upcoming Afghan elections and were prepared to help Afghanistan and Pakistan work together against the "common threats of terrorism, extremism and drug trafficking."

Among other side agreements was the resumption of military cooperation, suspended after Russia invaded neighboring Georgia last August and sent relations into a nosedive. Last August, after the Georgian president ordered his military to try to retake the breakaway region of South Ossetia, Russia invaded and crushed the tiny nation's military.

McFaul said Obama would never accept Russia's contention that South Ossetia and Abkhazia, another breakaway Georgia region, are no longer part of Georgia.

Putin has voiced deep anger with Georgia's coziness with the United States as it lobbies to join NATO, and the standoff about Georgia is likely to be a central issue when Putin meets with Obama on Tuesday.

Obama also will deliver a speech Tuesday to graduates of Moscow's New Economic School in a bid to reach out to the Russian people. In addition, he plans to meet with opposition leaders who are continually under government pressure for their complaints about retreating democracy and freedom under Putin.

___

Associated Press Writer Ben Feller contributed to this report.

---

SEPTEMBER 16th 2009

In the present circumstances, the suspension of current plans for the missile defense system using Polish and Czech territory seems reasonable. Long term, as pointed out previously a system or systems based somewhere practical will still be essential. There is no doubt Iran can build a bomb right now, and will have some delivery capability soon, but they are not suicidal nor are these weapons in the hands of Iranians who are completely lunatic. These matters can be handled, and without George Bush and the Neocons it is a whole lot easier.

Obama junks Bush's European missile defense plan

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama abruptly canceled a long-planned missile shield for Eastern Europe on Thursday, replacing a Bush-era project that was bitterly opposed by Russia with a plan he contended would better defend against a growing threat of Iranian missiles.

The United States will no longer seek to erect a missile base and radar site in Poland and the Czech Republic, poised at Russia's hemline. That change is bound to please the Russians, who had never accepted U.S. arguments, made by both the Bush and Obama administrations, that the shield was intended strictly as a defense against Iran and other "rogue states."

Scrapping the planned shield, however, means upending agreements with the host countries that had cost those allies political support among their own people. Obama called Polish and Czech leaders ahead of his announcement, and a team of senior diplomats and others flew to Europe to lay out the new plan.

"Our new missile defense architecture in Europe will provide stronger, smarter, and swifter defenses of American forces and America's allies," Obama said in announcing the shift.

The replacement system would link smaller radar systems with a network of sensors and missiles that could be deployed at sea or on land. Some of the weaponry and sensors are ready now, and the rest would be developed over the next 10 years.

The Pentagon contemplates a system of perhaps 40 missiles by 2015, at two or three sites across Europe. That would augment a larger stockpile aboard ships. The replacement system would cost an estimated $2.5 billion, compared with $5 billion over the same timeframe under the old plan. The cost savings would be less, however, because the Pentagon is locked into work on some elements of the old system.

The change comes days before Obama is to meet with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev at the United Nations and the Group of 20 economic summit. Medvedev reacted positively, calling it a "responsible move."

"The U.S. president's decision is a well-thought-out and systematic one," said Konstantin Kosachev, head of the foreign affairs committee in the State Duma, the lower house of the Russian Parliament. "Now we can talk about restoration of the strategic partnership between Russia and the United States."

At the same time, Russia's top diplomat warned that Moscow remains opposed to new punitive sanctions on Iran to stop what the West contends is a drive toward nuclear weapons.

The spokesman of Iran's parliamentary committee on national security and foreign policy, Kazem Jalali, called the decision positive, though in a backhanded way.

"It would be more positive if President Obama entirely give up such plans, which were based on the Bush administration's Iran-phobic policies," Jalali told The Associated Press.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Iran's changing capabilities drove the decision, not any concern about the Russians, but he acknowledged that the replacement system was likely to allay some of Russia's concerns.

American reaction quickly split along partisan lines. Longtime Republican supporters of the missile defense idea called the switch naive and a sop to Russia. Democrats welcomed the move, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calling it "brilliant."

"The administration apparently has decided to empower Russia and Iran at the expense of the national security interests of the United States and our allies in Europe," said Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon of California, the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee.

The Democratic chairman of that committee, Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, told the AP the shift reflected a proper understanding of the current threat from Iran.

"It's about short- and medium-range missiles," Skelton said.

The Obama administration said the shift is a common sense answer to the evolution of both the threat and the U.S. understanding of it. Iran has not shown that it is close to being able to lob a long-range missile, perhaps with a nuclear warhead, at U.S. allies in Europe. The Bush administration had calculated that Iran might be able to do that as soon as 2012, but the new assessment pushes the date back to 2018 or later.

Iran has improved its ability to launch shorter-range missiles, however, and despite the crude nature of some of those weapons the Pentagon now considers them a greater short-term threat.

The United States will join international talks with Iran next month, a major shift that makes good on Obama's campaign pledge to engage the main U.S. adversary in the Middle East.

The new government in Washington had never sounded enthusiastic about the Bush administration's European missile defense arrangement, in part because Russia's adamant opposition was getting in the way of repairing damaged ties with Moscow and partly because some in the new administration felt Russia had a point. Moscow said the system could undermine its own deterrent capability.

Almost as Obama spoke at the White House, the Russian ambassador was summoned there to get the news from national security adviser James Jones.

It is unclear whether any part of the future system would be in Poland or the Czech Republic. Gates said it might, and he also said he hopes Poland will still approve a broad military cooperation agreement with the United States.

In an interview, the Pentagon's point-man on missile defense, Marine Gen. James Cartwright, stressed that development of the old ground-based interceptor system would not stop.

The United States still assumes Iran is driving toward a long-range, intercontinental ballistic missile, and the system once planned for Poland would provide additional defense against that eventual threat, Cartwright said.

___

Associated Press writers Jennifer Loven, Pauline Jelinek and Desmond Butler in Washington and Nasser Karimi in Tehran contributed to this report.

---

AP NewsBreak: Nuke agency says Iran can make bomb

VIENNA – Iran experts at the U.N nuclear monitoring agency believe Tehran has the ability to make a nuclear bomb and worked on developing a missile system that can carry an atomic warhead, according to a confidential report seen by The Associated Press.

The document drafted by senior officials at the International Atomic Energy Agency is the clearest indication yet that those officials share Washington's views on Iran's weapon-making capabilities and missile technology — even if they have not made those views public.

The document, titled "Possible Military Dimension of Iran's Nuclear Program," appeared to be the so-called IAEA "secret annex" on Iran's alleged nuclear arms program that the U.S., France, Israel and other IAEA members say is being withheld by agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei — claims the nuclear watchdog denies.

It is a record of IAEA findings since the agency began probing Iran's nuclear program in 2007 and has been continuously updated.

The information in the document that is either new, more detailed or represents a more forthright conclusion than found in published IAEA reports includes:

• The IAEA's assessment that Iran worked on developing a chamber inside a ballistic missile capable of housing a warhead payload "that is quite likely to be nuclear."

• That Iran engaged in "probable testing" of explosives commonly used to detonate a nuclear warhead — a method known as a "full-scale hemispherical explosively driven shock system."

• An assessment that Iran worked on developing a system "for initiating a hemispherical high explosive charge" of the kind used to help spark a nuclear blast.

In another key finding, an excerpt notes: "The agency ... assesses that Iran has sufficient information to be able to design and produce a workable implosion nuclear device (an atomic bomb) based on HEU (highly enriched uranium) as the fission fuel."

ElBaradei said in 2007 there was no "concrete evidence" that Iran was engaged in atomic weapons work — a source of friction with the United States, which has sought a hard-line stance on Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

Responding to the AP report, the agency did not deny the existence of a confidential record of its knowledge and assessment of Iran's alleged attempts to make nuclear weapons. But an agency statement said the IAEA "has no concrete proof that there is or has been a nuclear weapon program in Iran."

It cited ElBaradei as telling the agency's 35-nation governing board last week that "continuing allegations that the IAEA was withholding information on Iran are politically motivated and totally baseless."

"Information from a variety of sources ... is critically assessed by a team of experts working collectively in accordance with the agency's practices," it said.

"The IAEA reiterates that all relevant information and assessments that have gone through the above process have already been provided to the IAEA Board of Governors in reports of the director general."

The document traces Iran's nuclear arms ambitions as far back as 1984, when current supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was president and Iran was at war with Iraq.

At a top-level meeting at that time, according to the document, Khamenei endorsed a nuclear weapons program, saying "a nuclear arsenal would serve Iran as a deterrent in the hands of God's soldiers."

He and other top Iranian leaders insist their country is opposed to nuclear weapons, describing them as contrary to Islam. They argue that Iran's uranium enrichment program and other activities are strictly for civilian purposes.

Senior U.S. government officials have for years held the view that Iran has the expertise to make a bomb.

The Obama administration said Thursday it was scrapping a Bush-era plan for a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the decision came after U.S. intelligence concluded that Iran's short- and medium-range missiles were developing more rapidly than previously projected and now pose a greater near-term threat than the intercontinental ballistic missiles addressed by the plan under former President George W. Bush.

The AP saw two versions of the U.N. document — one running 67 pages that was described as being between six months and a year old, and the most recent one with more than 80 pages and growing because of constant updates. Both were tagged "confidential."

A senior international official identified the document as one described by the U.S. and other IAEA member nations as a "secret annex" on Iran's nuclear program. The IAEA has called reports of a "secret annex" misinformation.

The document is based on intelligence provided by member states, the agency's own investigations and input from outside nuclear arms experts under contract with the IAEA.

Iran is under three sets of U.N. Security Council sanctions for refusing to freeze enrichment, the key to making both nuclear fuel and weapons-grade uranium. It is blocking IAEA attempts to probe allegations based on U.S., Israeli and other intelligence that it worked on a nuclear weapons program.

Iran recently agreed to meet Oct. 1 with the U.S. and five other world powers seeking curbs on its atomic activities for the first time in more than a year. But Tehran says it is not prepared to discuss its nuclear activities.

Presented with excerpts from the earlier paper, the senior international official said some of the wording and conclusions were outdated because they had been updated as recently as several weeks ago by IAEA experts probing Iran for signs it was — or is — hiding work on developing nuclear arms.

At the same time, he confirmed the accuracy of the excerpts, including Khamenei's comments, as well as the IAEA assessment that Iran already had the expertise to make a nuclear bomb and was well-positioned to develop ways of equipping missiles with atomic warheads.

An official from one of the 150 IAEA member nations who showed the AP the older version of the document said much of the information in it has either never been published or, if so, in less direct language within ElBaradei's periodic Iran reports first circulated to the agency's board and released to the public. That was confirmed by the senior international official.

The officials providing the information both insisted on anonymity because of the confidentiality of the document, which they said was meant to be seen only by ElBaradei and his top lieutenants.

In the case of Khamenei, there is only an oblique reference in the annex to ElBaradei's Iran report of May 26, 2008, saying the agency had asked Tehran for "information about a high level meeting in 1984 on reviving Iran's pre-revolution nuclear program."

The international official said the Iranians denied that Khamenei backed the concept of nuclear weapons for his country.

The agency said earlier this year that Iran had produced more than 1,000 kilograms — 2,200 pounds — of low-enriched, or fuel-grade, uranium. That is more than enough to produce sufficient highly enriched uranium for one weapon, should Iran choose to do so, and its enrichment capacities have expanded since then.

The document concludes that while Iran is not yet able to equip its Shahab-3 medium-range missile with nuclear warheads, "it is likely that Iran will overcome problems," noting that "from the evidence presented to the agency, it is possible to suggest that ... Iran has conducted R&D (research and development) into producing a prototype system."

The Shahab-3 missile has a range of up to 1,250 miles (2,000 kilometers), putting Israel within striking distance, and is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.

The document also says Iran already could trigger a nuclear blast through "methods of unconventional delivery" such as in a container on a cargo ship or carried on the trailer of a truck.

ElBaradei last month urged Iran to cooperate with IAEA efforts to probe allegations of a weapons program.

That Aug. 28 report noted that the information on Tehran's alleged weapons program shared by board members "need to be addressed by Iran with a view to removing the doubts ... about the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program."

But in an indication that ElBaradei also is concerned, he departed from the cautious language characterizing his Iran reports last week.

He told a closed meeting of the IAEA board that if the intelligence on Iran's alleged weapons program experiments is genuine, "there is a high probability that nuclear weaponization activities have taken place — but I should underline 'if' three times."

The U.S., Israel, France and other nations critical of Iran's nuclear activities have for months said that ElBaradei was withholding a "secret annex" on Iran in the IAEA's electronic archives that they say goes far beyond the information and conclusions published by ElBaradei in his regular reports on Iran.

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner urged ElBaradei earlier this month to publish his confidential information, saying it contained "elements which enable us to ask about the reality of an atomic bomb." Israel's Haaretz daily cited unidentified government officials as demanding the same.

Asked about the discrepancy between the agency denial that it was withholding information and the existence of the document, the senior international official said the report was at this point an "internal and constantly changing" record of what the IAEA knows and concludes about Iran. As such, he said, circulating it, even only to IAEA board members, would be counterproductive.

Only after the agency has concluded its investigation and drawn final conclusions would it share the information with the board, he said, adding that he could not say when that would be.

---

SEPTEMBER 24th 2009

The UN Security Council has unanimously adopted a resolution calling for nuclear disarmament, in a session chaired by US President Barack Obama.

The resolution calls for further efforts to stop the spread of nuclear arms, to boost disarmament and to lower the risk of "nuclear terrorism".

It was the first time a US president had chaired a Security Council summit.

The resolution comes amid growing concerns among Western powers over Iran's nuclear ambitions.

---

SEPTEMBER 25th 2009
Iran's persistent lying is the problem, not that it poses a real risk at this time. It's behaviour undermines the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, a treaty which is vital to prove solid so that the established nuclear powers can agree to reduce their arsenals to a minimum and eventually put them under international control, to be used only in an emergency against a rogue movement or an asteroid collision risk.

Iran concealed a partially-built second uranium enrichment plant in defiance of calls for transparency over its nuclear plans, US President Barack Obama says.

The US, UK and France said the UN had to be given immediate access and urged tough new sanctions, while Russia also said it was "seriously concerned".

But Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denied that the facility was in breach of IAEA rules.

The Western leaders would regret their statements, he added.

---

MARCH 26th 2010
WASHINGTON – The U.S. and Russia sealed the first major nuclear weapons treaty in nearly two decades Friday, agreeing to slash the former Cold War rivals' warhead arsenals by nearly one-third and talking hopefully of eventually ridding a fearful world of nuclear arms altogether.

This necessary step should be the start of a process to reduce the nuclear weapons of the major powers to a bare minimum, prior to their transfer to an international organisation staffed by those powers.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100326/ap_on_go_pr_wh/russia_us_nuclear

---

MARCH 28th 2010
The following report did not appear on the BBC \web site or on many of the web pages from the usual press agencies and news services.
Why? Is their some minor political news censorship going on? I find this statement by the NATO Secretary General worth publicising. Any such system must be located in a country where it is accepted by the majority of the people, and by NATO and Russia. It will be, as I have made clear over the years, necessary.

Anti-missile defence needed to handle future threats, NATO chief says

Source URL: http://www.france24.com/en/20110313-nato-rasmussen-anti-missile-defence-system-nuclear-threats-nato

MAY 28th 2010
The UN has made very important progress, signed up to today by the signatories of the non-proliferation treaty, on the control of Nuclear Weapons. It includes the agreement, acknowledeged by Israel and Iran and the US, to work for a nuclear free MIddle East, with talks to move forward on that to start in 2012.

I invite any reader to imagine how even this stage could have been reached without the prior removal of Saddam Hussein as dictator of Iraq. OK, time is up, just admit his removal was an essential stage in this process, as have been many other stages in recent international political operations.

On a second reading of the news I see that Israel has noted the resolution but finds it hypocritical. Er, yes. Hypocrisy is the usual language of pots and kettles but in this case a nuclear free Middle East would certainly be safer for Israel and everyone else. But as we know, they will never learn - that would be a betrayal of their....well what exactly it would be a betrayal of I forget, I suppose their reason for living.

---

SEPTEMBER 16th 2010
Row over possible Trident nuclear decision delay
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11326297
It is true that part of the agreement that made the current Tory-Liberal coalition possible was acceptance of the current policy to upgrade Trident. Bernard Jenkin's reservations on any delay are to be taken seriously. However, a case can be made on the grounds of cash-flow providing the delay does not seriously increase the overall cost or bring about the loss of trained human resources required in the future. It can release funds for where they are needed now in other parts of the defence budget.

I do not think a well judged delay would be prejudicial to the Trident programme itself. No other system can provide the credibility of a self contained submarine launched ballistic or cruise deterrent. Any surface seaborne delivery system could only be economically competitive if it was part of a surface capability that was multi-tasking and subject to tracking and diversion tactics and therefore useless as well as expensive. The arguments for an air-launched deterrent have long since been exhausted. It is extremely unlikely that any submarise alternative would be less costly by the time it was established and Trident decommissioned. The case for Trident or nothing is overwhelming. The case for nothing has been dealt with already in this file.

---

NOVEMBER 19th 2010
Make up your minds for goodness sake. The civilized world needs to develop an anti-ballistic missile system. It must be built by agreement. Russia included.

Obama: Missile defence shield for all Nato members

President Obama said the missile shield would respond to "the threats of our times"

A missile defence system covering all Nato countries has been agreed at the alliance's summit in Lisbon, US President Barack Obama has said.

The shield would cover all Nato members in Europe and North America.

Nato is also backing the swift ratification of the Start treaty between the US and Russia, cutting nuclear weapon stockpiles.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11711042

---

DECEMBER 21st 2010

US-Russia arms pact 'set to pass'

The US Senate votes to end debate on the New Start nuclear treaty between the US and Russia, and appears set to ratify the pact on Wednesday.

It is a good thing the childish behaviour of the US Republicans has encouraged enough of their number to help Obama get this treaty signed.

---

DECEMBER 23rd 2010
But it seems there is a long ways to go and it is going to get harder.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/20/us/politics/20start.html?scp=4&sq=strategic%20arms&st=cse
Tactical nukes are going to be harder still to reach agreement on. The strategic overkill at the moment is so absurd the US and Russia could get by with a 10th of what they have and still make deterrence real. The 10% left would in fact be far more of a deterrent given that it could be properly managed, secure and ready.

---

DECEMBER 24th 2010
I just hope these letters to the New York Times are representative of mainstream American public opinion:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/24/opinion/l24obama.html
good reporting here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/25/world/europe/25russia.html

---

JANUARY 1st 2011
More from tjhe NY Times on 'The Next Treaties'
. . . .
One of their most urgent tasks is slashing — or better, doing away with — their tactical nuclear weapons. These smaller arms, with a 300- to 400-mile range, have no military utility or deterrent value. They also have never been the subject of a treaty, or of any verification. That is what makes them so particularly frightening.

The United States has about 500 tactical nukes, including 180 in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey. These weapons are considered secure. But Russia’s arsenal is much larger — between 3,000 and 5,000 — and, likely, vulnerable to covert sale or theft.....

Quite so, and note the word 'considered'. While we should not negotiate out of fear, we can all benefit from increased, not diminished security by getting on right away with a steady reduction. It is inconceivable that party politics will not be abandoned on this matter as there is nothing to be gained there.  After all, even  these voters don't seem too exercised over the likelihood of a Russian invasion of either Europe or elsewhere.

Full article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/01/opinion/01sat1.html

---

MAY 5th 2010

U.S. and Romania Move on Missile Plan

By THOM SHANKER and ELLEN BARRY

Published: May 3, 2011

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/04/world/europe/04missile.html

Still can't seem to get it together with Moscow.

---

OCTOBER 20th 2011
I suppose the employment that results down the line is what makes Obama hesitate. If only these human resources could be redeployed to strategic defense against the real enemies: pollution, waste and depletion of finite resources, land and water....

Editorial from the Ny Times

The Bloated Nuclear Weapons Budget

Published: October 29, 2011

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/opinion/sunday/the-bloated-nuclear-weapons-budget.html

---

NOVEMBER 7th 2011
But James Baker, who served the world so well when in office, has other reservations
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/opinion/james-a-baker-on-reducing-nuclear-arms.html

---

nnnn