North Korean and Chinese missile forces cast a long shadow over U.S. allies in Northeast Asia. The United States has sought to develop common missile defense policies among its allies-Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan-to defend the region against missile attacks from North Korean and Chinese launch sites. Yet the varied responses of its allies have led to a record of mixed success in dealing comprehensively with this ominous threat.
North Korea's launching of a No Dong missile over the Japanese archipelago in 1998 generated a strong sense of national vulnerability and public support in Japan for intensifying construction of a missile defense system. South Korea's tepid response to North Korean military provocations was the result of Seoul's fear of undermining its diplomatic and economic outreach to Pyongyang. In Taiwan, the government finally managed to pass a budget to augment its missile defense system only to face a U.S. roadblock.
North Korea has deployed approximately 600 short-range Scud tactical ballistic missiles and 200 medium-range No Dong missiles. The Scud missiles have an estimated range of 320 km-500 km, which limits them to South Korean targets. The No Dong has a range of 1,300 km, allowing it to target most of Japan. Pyongyang is also developing two longer-range variants, the Taepo Dong 1 (TD-1) and Taepo Dong 2 (TD-2), but they have not yet been deployed because of failed test launches. The ranges of the TD-1 and TD-2 are uncertain but are estimated at 2,220 km and 6,000 km, respectively.
On August 31, 1998, North Korea launched a TD-1 missile that flew over Japan. Although its third stage failed, it demonstrated a long-range capability that could put Alaska, Hawaii, and the western United States at risk. On July 4, 2006, Pyongyang successfully launched six Scud and No Dong missiles, but a TD-2 missile failed after 42 seconds of flight and crashed into the Sea of Japan. If the launch had been successful, the TD-2 would have flown over Japan.
The most visible aspect of the Chinese missile threat is shortrange ballistic and cruise missiles. By late 2007, China had deployed 990-1,070 conventionally armed (but nuclear capable) Dongfeng-11 and Dongfeng-15 short-range missiles opposite Taiwan. It is augmenting this force with approximately 100 new missiles per year, including variants with improved ranges, accuracies, and payloads. China also has 300-400 operational long-range missiles that could reach U.S. and Japanese forces on Okinawa and the other Ryukyu Islands.
In July 1995 and again in March 1996, China launched a series of missiles to intimidate Taiwanese voters into electing a pro-China candidate in Taiwan's first popular presidential elections. Its intervention closed the Taiwan Strait to merchant shipping for several days and forced thousands of ships to reroute around Taiwan's east coast. The missile tests underscored China's willingness to use short-range ballistic missiles as instruments of coercion.
Driven by concerns over North Korea's highly visible and growing missile and nuclear capabilities, as well as the quiet but inexorable expansion of China's ballistic missile forces on the Taiwan Strait, Japan is pursuing Aegis sea-based missile defense systems and Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) systems around Okinawa and Tokyo. Despite repeated U.S. urging, however, it is reluctant to adopt a broader regional security role.
Japan's postwar pacifist constitution precludes engagement in "collective self-defense," or defending another country against attack. Under the current interpretation, it is uncertain whether Japanese missile defense systems would be allowed to intercept missiles attacking the United States or to protect a U.S. naval vessel that was next to a Japanese Aegis destroyer. On June 24, 2008, Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda rejected the recommendations of a panel convened by his predecessor that would have allowed a more expansive interpretation of Japanese defense roles, including defending the United States.
Progressive South Korean Presidents Kim Dae Jung and Roh Moo-hyun downplayed the extent of the North Korean threat to garner domestic support for their attempts to foster reconciliation with Pyongyang. Seoul was fearful that deploying a missile defense system or even criticizing North Korea over its military provocations and human rights abuses would anger Pyongyang and lead to a collapse of the inter-Korean engagement policy.
President Roh resisted joining an integrated missile defense system with the U.S. and limited the South Korean response to building a lowtier missile shield. General Burwell Baxter Bell, then commander of U.S. Forces Korea, underscored that South Korea does not currently have a missile defense system that complements deployed U.S. capabilities. He recommended that Seoul "look more directly at the anti-theater ballistic missile capacity, partner better with us and fully integrate with our capacity, so that they can provide a more protective envelope for their nation."
To do so, South Korea must deploy a more sophisticated missile defense system, including PAC-3 and SM-3 missiles. Seoul is currently building a low-tier missile shield by purchasing eight batteries of older German Patriot-2 missiles and fielding Aegis destroyers without theater ballistic missile capability.
Since Lee Myung-bak was elected president, South Korean defense officials have been more receptive to joining the U.S. global ballistic missile defense (BMD) initiative. However, General Lee Sung-chool, deputy commander of Combined Forces Command, stated that before joining a U.S. BMD system, Seoul would have to "conduct a comprehensive review of lots of factors first, such as a security environment around the peninsula, conditions of combat areas, North Korea's military threat, budgetary issues, and public sentiment."
In December 2007, Taiwan's legislature announced a long-delayed decision to increase defense spending, including funding for upgrading PAC-2 systems and purchasing three PAC-3 missile defense batteries. The PAC-2 upgrades would enhance ground support equipment for three existing fire units to enable them to fire either Patriot Guidance Enhanced Missiles (GEM) or PAC-3 missiles. The PAC-3 would be the more likely option because the PAC-2 GEM is no longer in U.S. production.
However, the Bush Administration has delayed the $11 billion arms package for Taiwan, which includes the missile defense requests. Although there has been no official change in U.S. policy, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has reportedly put a hold on the arms sale to avoid irritating China, lest it upset ongoing North Korea negotiations and the President's visit to the Beijing Olympics. Reports also suggest that the Ma administration in Taipei requested the hold as part of its push to resuscitate cross-strait negotiations.
The Heritage Foundation is releasing a new documentary film about missile defense titled, 33 Minutes. On the 33 Minutes site, the movie trailer can be viewed, along with a wealth of information and articles about missile defense in the United States and worldwide.
Monday, 2 November 2009
Missile Defense in Europe
The U.S. ballistic missile defense (BMD) system is a single, integrated system to protect the United States, its deployed forces, and U.S. allies and friends against growing threats posed by ballistic missiles from rogue states such as North Korea and Iran. It is the policy of the United States to work with its allies to deploy defenses against existing and emerging threats from missiles of all ranges.
This is important because a ballistic missile carrying just one weapon of mass destruction payload could cause catastrophic damage to a country. The missile defense system deployed over the past four years protects the United States against long-range attack. It also integrates mobile sea-based and transportable land-based capabilities to intercept shorter-range missiles. In missile defense, geography matters.
The early warning radars in Alaska, California, and the United Kingdom and the long-range missiles based at Fort Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, are not positioned properly to defend Europe against intermediate-range and long-range ballistic missile attacks from Iran. The short-range defenses (including Patriot systems) deployed by a handful of European allies and current U.S. sea-based missile defenses cannot provide adequate defensive coverage and engage with high confidence the much faster missiles coming out of the Middle East. Iran is in an aggressive race to build on its shorter-range missiles to extend its military reach. It is also acquiring missile technologies and even whole missile systems through trade with proliferators such as North Korea. Iran has publicly announced that it is developing a space launch vehicle, which means developing the technologies and knowledge (e.g., rocket staging) for longer-range ballistic missiles.
These developments, combined with the statements by Iran's leaders (e.g., Ahmadinejad's stated goal "to wipe Israel off the face of the map" and his admonition that other nations must "bow down before the greatness of the Iranian nation and surrender") are reasons for concern about Iran's military direction. One must ask why a country such as Iran is acquiring ballistic missiles that can reach more than 1,500 kilometers, a strike range that would overfly Israel and the American bases in the region.
One possible answer is that Iran sees value in having the ability to coerce and impose Iranian policy on European leaders by holding them hostage. The power to blackmail and threaten European and U.S. leaders means that Iran might not need to fire a single missile to affect the foreign and defense policies of its enemies.
An operational missile defense system that protects European nations could counter any such move by Tehran. Preparing defenses against an emerging missile threat takes many years, which is why the Bush Administration decided to proceed with deploying 10 long-range interceptors in Poland and building a midcourse discrimination radar in the Czech Republic.
The missiles and the radar would provide redundant protection of the United States and an initial defense of Central and Northern Europe from long-range ballistic missile attack. The radar in Central Europe would supplement sensor coverage from the early warning radar in the United Kingdom, which is already integrated into the U.S. system, and other radars that might be deployed in and around the region on land and at sea. These Central European sites provide geographically ideal locations for protecting both the United States and our European allies. Allies in Southern Europe are not vulnerable to long-range missile attack from Iran, but in a crisis, they would need the shorter-range defenses offered by Patriot PAC-3s, Aegis BMD ships, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) batteries, and other NATO missile defense systems. The United States has concluded negotiations with the Czech Republic and Poland. In April 2008, all 26 NATO nations formally endorsed the missile defense plan, agreeing with the United States that the threat from Iran is serious and that the Bush Administration's planned defense approach is the right one. The benefits of this deployment are clear.
Long-range defenses in Europe will increase the options available to U.S. leaders to defend against sophisticated threats by providing more decision time and engagement opportunities. This deployment would strengthen transatlantic security by reassuring and defending allies and friends, complementing emerging NATO plans to defeat short-range and medium-range threats, and preventing coercion and preserving U.S. and NATO freedom of action. An effective missile defense system could also dissuade rogue states from pursuing ballistic missiles in the first place and deter ballistic missile launches. Critics of the European deployments worry about the predictable negative reaction from Russia's leaders and the possibility of damage caused by debris. However, the 10 interceptors in Poland and the midcourse radar in the Czech Republic oriented toward the Middle East are incapable of intercepting the hundreds of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and the thousands of warheads in the Russian arsenal.
Russian concern that the United States could turn these defensive interceptors into offensive weapons is likewise groundless. Future U.S. activities at missile defense sites in Europe will be transparent to the Russians and to host nations. Perhaps more important, this concern does not make military sense from the U.S. point of view because the U.S. already has the capability to bring offensive strike submarines or bombers into a regional conflict. The United States has also assured its allies that the launched objects' momentum will cause debris resulting from intercepts in space to continue along the missiles' original trajectories and that most of this debris will burn up when it reenters the atmosphere.
Another way to view the debris question is to compare it to Europe's experiences during World War II, when leaders found that shooting down enemy aircraft, regardless of where they crashed and the level of damage caused by the crashes, made far more sense than allowing them to survive and deliver their bombs.
One fact, however, is beyond dispute: Once a missile has been launched and its payload has acquired the target, our leaders and the leaders of Europe will have only the option of missile defense to secure the safety of the citizens of their countries. Find out more about the growing nuclear proliferation threat facing the world today. Visit 33 Minutes - Missile Defense in a New Missile Age, a new documentary film about missile defense in America. The site includes video commentary, animations of missile defense strategies, and extended missile defense resources and articles.
This is important because a ballistic missile carrying just one weapon of mass destruction payload could cause catastrophic damage to a country. The missile defense system deployed over the past four years protects the United States against long-range attack. It also integrates mobile sea-based and transportable land-based capabilities to intercept shorter-range missiles. In missile defense, geography matters.
The early warning radars in Alaska, California, and the United Kingdom and the long-range missiles based at Fort Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, are not positioned properly to defend Europe against intermediate-range and long-range ballistic missile attacks from Iran. The short-range defenses (including Patriot systems) deployed by a handful of European allies and current U.S. sea-based missile defenses cannot provide adequate defensive coverage and engage with high confidence the much faster missiles coming out of the Middle East. Iran is in an aggressive race to build on its shorter-range missiles to extend its military reach. It is also acquiring missile technologies and even whole missile systems through trade with proliferators such as North Korea. Iran has publicly announced that it is developing a space launch vehicle, which means developing the technologies and knowledge (e.g., rocket staging) for longer-range ballistic missiles.
These developments, combined with the statements by Iran's leaders (e.g., Ahmadinejad's stated goal "to wipe Israel off the face of the map" and his admonition that other nations must "bow down before the greatness of the Iranian nation and surrender") are reasons for concern about Iran's military direction. One must ask why a country such as Iran is acquiring ballistic missiles that can reach more than 1,500 kilometers, a strike range that would overfly Israel and the American bases in the region.
One possible answer is that Iran sees value in having the ability to coerce and impose Iranian policy on European leaders by holding them hostage. The power to blackmail and threaten European and U.S. leaders means that Iran might not need to fire a single missile to affect the foreign and defense policies of its enemies.
An operational missile defense system that protects European nations could counter any such move by Tehran. Preparing defenses against an emerging missile threat takes many years, which is why the Bush Administration decided to proceed with deploying 10 long-range interceptors in Poland and building a midcourse discrimination radar in the Czech Republic.
The missiles and the radar would provide redundant protection of the United States and an initial defense of Central and Northern Europe from long-range ballistic missile attack. The radar in Central Europe would supplement sensor coverage from the early warning radar in the United Kingdom, which is already integrated into the U.S. system, and other radars that might be deployed in and around the region on land and at sea. These Central European sites provide geographically ideal locations for protecting both the United States and our European allies. Allies in Southern Europe are not vulnerable to long-range missile attack from Iran, but in a crisis, they would need the shorter-range defenses offered by Patriot PAC-3s, Aegis BMD ships, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) batteries, and other NATO missile defense systems. The United States has concluded negotiations with the Czech Republic and Poland. In April 2008, all 26 NATO nations formally endorsed the missile defense plan, agreeing with the United States that the threat from Iran is serious and that the Bush Administration's planned defense approach is the right one. The benefits of this deployment are clear.
Long-range defenses in Europe will increase the options available to U.S. leaders to defend against sophisticated threats by providing more decision time and engagement opportunities. This deployment would strengthen transatlantic security by reassuring and defending allies and friends, complementing emerging NATO plans to defeat short-range and medium-range threats, and preventing coercion and preserving U.S. and NATO freedom of action. An effective missile defense system could also dissuade rogue states from pursuing ballistic missiles in the first place and deter ballistic missile launches. Critics of the European deployments worry about the predictable negative reaction from Russia's leaders and the possibility of damage caused by debris. However, the 10 interceptors in Poland and the midcourse radar in the Czech Republic oriented toward the Middle East are incapable of intercepting the hundreds of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and the thousands of warheads in the Russian arsenal.
Russian concern that the United States could turn these defensive interceptors into offensive weapons is likewise groundless. Future U.S. activities at missile defense sites in Europe will be transparent to the Russians and to host nations. Perhaps more important, this concern does not make military sense from the U.S. point of view because the U.S. already has the capability to bring offensive strike submarines or bombers into a regional conflict. The United States has also assured its allies that the launched objects' momentum will cause debris resulting from intercepts in space to continue along the missiles' original trajectories and that most of this debris will burn up when it reenters the atmosphere.
Another way to view the debris question is to compare it to Europe's experiences during World War II, when leaders found that shooting down enemy aircraft, regardless of where they crashed and the level of damage caused by the crashes, made far more sense than allowing them to survive and deliver their bombs.
One fact, however, is beyond dispute: Once a missile has been launched and its payload has acquired the target, our leaders and the leaders of Europe will have only the option of missile defense to secure the safety of the citizens of their countries. Find out more about the growing nuclear proliferation threat facing the world today. Visit 33 Minutes - Missile Defense in a New Missile Age, a new documentary film about missile defense in America. The site includes video commentary, animations of missile defense strategies, and extended missile defense resources and articles.
Test-Launch Feared To Set Iran's Missile Visibility
Iran's aggressive launching of its recent research rocket is setting a negative feedback to most "superpower" countries that witnessed the inauguration of its newly built space center.
This was the first low-orbit research satellite that Tehran ever had and was shown to the global community through its Iranian-state media.
As things are heating up in Iran, the test-launch is being criticized as a threat to the Western nations. The controversial issue on Tehran's nuclear projects is on the verge of being seen and speculations are on the rise as to what Iran is trying to imply with its actions.
Washington has made a statement that this event was very unfortunate for Iranian Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. At the same time, this launching, according to political experts, will surely be another reason for Tehran's isolation to other nations around the globe.
BBC media personnel Jon Leyne said the launch was symbolic as it coincided with the 29th celebration of the Iranian revolution. The event was shown in Iranian TV with Tehran's national song of patriotism.
For Iranian President Ahmadinejad, this was indeed a great achievement for it showed Iran's growing supremacy in space. The test-launched was earlier scheduled to take off in March 2009.
Iran is planning to set more test-launches in the future as its president believes "building and launching a satellite is a very important achievement."
With these developments, superpower nations fear that Tehran is also taking drastic steps of intensifying its nuclear production.
But the isolated country denies all speculations of nuclear processing for warfare and insists all their projects are solely created to generate electricity.
Ever since Tehran started nuclear projects, there was already a growing tension that it might bomb Israel any time soon as its rocket technology came in the open.
Maynard Joseph Delfin finished AB Journalism (cum laude) at the University of Santo Tomas. He has worked as book editor, deskman, copy editor and research and publications officer in leading publishing and research companies in the Philippines. Read more of his blogs at
This was the first low-orbit research satellite that Tehran ever had and was shown to the global community through its Iranian-state media.
As things are heating up in Iran, the test-launch is being criticized as a threat to the Western nations. The controversial issue on Tehran's nuclear projects is on the verge of being seen and speculations are on the rise as to what Iran is trying to imply with its actions.
Washington has made a statement that this event was very unfortunate for Iranian Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. At the same time, this launching, according to political experts, will surely be another reason for Tehran's isolation to other nations around the globe.
BBC media personnel Jon Leyne said the launch was symbolic as it coincided with the 29th celebration of the Iranian revolution. The event was shown in Iranian TV with Tehran's national song of patriotism.
For Iranian President Ahmadinejad, this was indeed a great achievement for it showed Iran's growing supremacy in space. The test-launched was earlier scheduled to take off in March 2009.
Iran is planning to set more test-launches in the future as its president believes "building and launching a satellite is a very important achievement."
With these developments, superpower nations fear that Tehran is also taking drastic steps of intensifying its nuclear production.
But the isolated country denies all speculations of nuclear processing for warfare and insists all their projects are solely created to generate electricity.
Ever since Tehran started nuclear projects, there was already a growing tension that it might bomb Israel any time soon as its rocket technology came in the open.
Maynard Joseph Delfin finished AB Journalism (cum laude) at the University of Santo Tomas. He has worked as book editor, deskman, copy editor and research and publications officer in leading publishing and research companies in the Philippines. Read more of his blogs at
Israel, Technology Leader - Despite Defending Against Terrorist Neighbors and World Anti-Semites
Despite defending itself (diplomatically - with one-hand) against anti-Semites in the UN, Europe and the US; as well as its civilian population (physically -with its other hand) against external rocket and internal terrorist attacks - tiny Israel has somehow survived, perhaps even thrived, during the otherwise world-wide collapse of industry and technology - thanks to teen-age seriousness and a culture of entrepreneurial high-technology.
In spite of the constant drumbeat of negative press coverage by liberal extremists (Israel, their double-standard pariah state), there is one aspect of this lone democracy in the mid-East that gets scant attention - the country's technological economy. In the face of the inordinate per-capita economic and manpower drain on its limited resources which are expended in its own defense, Israel has still achieved the highest percentage concentration of innovation and entrepreneurial ism in the world. Despite railings against investment in Israel by extremist anti-Israel, pro-Arab special-interest-groups, giant multinational technology companies and global investors have been setting up research and development laboratories in Israel for decades. Even in 2008, a year of chaos for the global economy, the per-capita R and D ventures in Israel exceeded that of the US by 2.5 times, Europe by 30 times, China by 80 times, and India by 350 times. And for start-up companies, Israel still achieves the highest concentration in the world, with more Israeli companies listed on the US NASDAQ stock exchange than from Europe, China, Japan, India and Korea - combined. In the percentage of its total economy that is spent on R and D - giving the world the benefits of its innovative creativity across a wide spectrum of science and technology, notably in the pharmaceutical and medical fields - Israel is among world leaders.
Much of Israel's economic dynamism, and the way it appears to have weathered the global downturn, seems traceable to young-adult seriousness and government policies which cultivate a unique entrepreneurial spirit, including innovative immigration policies and a disproportionate investment in high technology. However, the fundamental foundation may well be its universal military training and national service program - this seems to energize an early maturation of Israeli citizenry. While teen-age students in other countries preoccupy themselves with taking a years pre-college vacation or deciding which university to attend, Israelis focus on the country's variety of military units. And while students elsewhere are thinking about where to vacation or how to get into the most desired universities, Israelis prepare themselves for recruitment into elite units of the Israel Defense Forces. For example, learning to speak Arabic is a leg up toward a desired assignment in the Intelligence branch of service.
During the year before attaining draft age at eighteen, Israeli youths, male and female, must report to IDF recruiting centers for an initial one-day screening, which includes aptitude and psychological exams, individual interviews, and a medical evaluation. At the end of the day, a health and psychometric classification is determined, with service possibilities presented to the young candidate in a personal interview.
An interesting factor in the national attitude and aptitude of Israelis, those who complete their training program together, remain as a team throughout the many years of their regular and reserve service. Thus, their unit becomes like a second family, and Israelis remain in the military reserves until their mid-forties.
While it is difficult to get into the top Israeli universities (comparable to Harvard, Princeton or Yale) the IDF's elite units are considered equivalent. The unit in which an applicant served tells prospective employers what skills and relevant experience the applicant may already possess.
At the age of 18, Israelis enter the army for a minimum of two to three years, and if they don't reenlist, they typically enroll at a university. A massive percentage of Israelis thus enter university from army service, far more than any other country. According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, almost half of Israelis are university-educated, among the highest percentages in the world. And according to a recent World Competitiveness Yearbook, Israel was ranked second among sixty developed nations on the criterion of whether "university education meets the needs of a competitive economy".
By the time students finish college, they're in their mid-twenties; some already having graduate degrees, with a large number married. "All this changes the mental ability of the individual," says Gary Shainberg, an eighteen-year veteran of the British navy, and Vice President for Technology and Innovation at British Telecom. "They're much more mature, they've got more life experience - and Innovation is all about finding ideas." He reasons.
Gil Kerbs, an Intelligence unit alumnus, who works in Israel's venture capital industry, comments,
"In Israel, one's academic past is less important than the military past - a key question in every job interview, 'Where did you serve in the army?'"
The advantage that Israel's economy and its society gains from this national service experience was driven home by Shainberg, "There is something about the DNA of Israeli innovation that is unexplainable," he says, "I think it comes down to maturity: nowhere else in the world where people work at technology innovation, do they also have to do national service."
In spite of the constant drumbeat of negative press coverage by liberal extremists (Israel, their double-standard pariah state), there is one aspect of this lone democracy in the mid-East that gets scant attention - the country's technological economy. In the face of the inordinate per-capita economic and manpower drain on its limited resources which are expended in its own defense, Israel has still achieved the highest percentage concentration of innovation and entrepreneurial ism in the world. Despite railings against investment in Israel by extremist anti-Israel, pro-Arab special-interest-groups, giant multinational technology companies and global investors have been setting up research and development laboratories in Israel for decades. Even in 2008, a year of chaos for the global economy, the per-capita R and D ventures in Israel exceeded that of the US by 2.5 times, Europe by 30 times, China by 80 times, and India by 350 times. And for start-up companies, Israel still achieves the highest concentration in the world, with more Israeli companies listed on the US NASDAQ stock exchange than from Europe, China, Japan, India and Korea - combined. In the percentage of its total economy that is spent on R and D - giving the world the benefits of its innovative creativity across a wide spectrum of science and technology, notably in the pharmaceutical and medical fields - Israel is among world leaders.
Much of Israel's economic dynamism, and the way it appears to have weathered the global downturn, seems traceable to young-adult seriousness and government policies which cultivate a unique entrepreneurial spirit, including innovative immigration policies and a disproportionate investment in high technology. However, the fundamental foundation may well be its universal military training and national service program - this seems to energize an early maturation of Israeli citizenry. While teen-age students in other countries preoccupy themselves with taking a years pre-college vacation or deciding which university to attend, Israelis focus on the country's variety of military units. And while students elsewhere are thinking about where to vacation or how to get into the most desired universities, Israelis prepare themselves for recruitment into elite units of the Israel Defense Forces. For example, learning to speak Arabic is a leg up toward a desired assignment in the Intelligence branch of service.
During the year before attaining draft age at eighteen, Israeli youths, male and female, must report to IDF recruiting centers for an initial one-day screening, which includes aptitude and psychological exams, individual interviews, and a medical evaluation. At the end of the day, a health and psychometric classification is determined, with service possibilities presented to the young candidate in a personal interview.
An interesting factor in the national attitude and aptitude of Israelis, those who complete their training program together, remain as a team throughout the many years of their regular and reserve service. Thus, their unit becomes like a second family, and Israelis remain in the military reserves until their mid-forties.
While it is difficult to get into the top Israeli universities (comparable to Harvard, Princeton or Yale) the IDF's elite units are considered equivalent. The unit in which an applicant served tells prospective employers what skills and relevant experience the applicant may already possess.
At the age of 18, Israelis enter the army for a minimum of two to three years, and if they don't reenlist, they typically enroll at a university. A massive percentage of Israelis thus enter university from army service, far more than any other country. According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, almost half of Israelis are university-educated, among the highest percentages in the world. And according to a recent World Competitiveness Yearbook, Israel was ranked second among sixty developed nations on the criterion of whether "university education meets the needs of a competitive economy".
By the time students finish college, they're in their mid-twenties; some already having graduate degrees, with a large number married. "All this changes the mental ability of the individual," says Gary Shainberg, an eighteen-year veteran of the British navy, and Vice President for Technology and Innovation at British Telecom. "They're much more mature, they've got more life experience - and Innovation is all about finding ideas." He reasons.
Gil Kerbs, an Intelligence unit alumnus, who works in Israel's venture capital industry, comments,
"In Israel, one's academic past is less important than the military past - a key question in every job interview, 'Where did you serve in the army?'"
The advantage that Israel's economy and its society gains from this national service experience was driven home by Shainberg, "There is something about the DNA of Israeli innovation that is unexplainable," he says, "I think it comes down to maturity: nowhere else in the world where people work at technology innovation, do they also have to do national service."
Should Israel Hit Iran?
Before you read this article remember it is an opinion, and we all have them, and if you are a Jew hater don't read this article at all, it will only get you more angry, because there are a lot of those folks out there:
Should Israel bomb the nuclear sites in Iran? First of all let me say, it is easy to say something on behalf of someone else, when you are safe at home. But let me change the options, and perspective, and then come back to the question in the first line of this article.
If my neighbor said, "...as soon has I can afford to buy a gun and learn how to shoot it, and have money to buy bullets to kill you and your family members with I will...," and if I believe he will do what he says he will do, I would stop him one way or another. I would try to go to the police (in this case with Israel and Iran, go to the UN), and after five years the if the polic could not do anything, or would not do anything, and the window of opportunity was closing as it is now, the window that could protect my family, I'd have to hurry up and do whatever I had to do to stop the professed murderer to be, and I would not be going back to the police that for five years could do nothing to protect me in the first place, that really only gave the enemy, the one that said, '...as soon as we have the means, we will destroy you..." I repeat, I would not go back to the place that would only consume more of my time without results, I would do my own plan.
So now we can go back to the original question. Would I hit their nuclear sites? Let me give another example first: what country would not try to protect their people from mad cow disease? Today South Korea is protesting US Meat, not protesting the North bombing them in the future, which they said they could and might, but rather meat, my point here is, they feel a threat to their society, and they are blocking the gates so the meat markets in South Korea do not take in US Meat. They have negotiated on this matter, and resolved some issues. In a like manner, the UN, and five other countries have talked with Iran, and solved nothing. It comes under the heading of being a protectionist.
Now we know Iran has oil, enough to light up all the cities in the world for ten-years, so do they need a nuclear plant? I don't think so, and they know so. Ok, now we go back to the first question again, which is perhaps a little more obvious of what my answer is going to be 'Should Israel hit Iran?."
If I was Israel, I would ask: "Do we fight a war with Iran now, or when they got the nuclear bomb," because they will fight with them sooner or later, and sooner with the bomb, once they have it.
This is what is on their minds I'm sure. The other question comes to light: will this start a worse bloodily war in the Middle East? Iran is already at war with America in Iraq, so it doesn't really matter all that much. Matter of fact, if Israel attacked now, and not wait a year from now, America may have to back up Israel even if they don't want to. Whereas, two years from now, will America be there to do it? Because once we leave Iraq, as Obama says, I doubt we are coming back to assist Israel.
Yes, so my answer is yes, if I was the Prime Minister of Israel, I'd do it mighty quick also, while the world is still tossing about the fear factor of what Iran might do, since they said they will do it once they got the means to do it. Tomorrow for me would not be quick enough.
Now for those that are saying "You must like to see people die," because war means death. I say this, tonight most likely the person reading this, thinking how negative this letter is, is going to have a good nights sleep, will Israel? It is easy to say let's talk, but Israel has been talking for five years, going in circles, and getting mixed messages, the window is almost closed. And if there is going to be a war with Iran, it's a good time to have one, while Israel and the US are all in place; Russia is coming in with some long term assistance for Iran, once they are in place, it will be most difficult to hit Iran, without provoking Russia, and then we got more than we bargained for, and Israel will have a new war to deal with, and bigger.
Should Israel bomb the nuclear sites in Iran? First of all let me say, it is easy to say something on behalf of someone else, when you are safe at home. But let me change the options, and perspective, and then come back to the question in the first line of this article.
If my neighbor said, "...as soon has I can afford to buy a gun and learn how to shoot it, and have money to buy bullets to kill you and your family members with I will...," and if I believe he will do what he says he will do, I would stop him one way or another. I would try to go to the police (in this case with Israel and Iran, go to the UN), and after five years the if the polic could not do anything, or would not do anything, and the window of opportunity was closing as it is now, the window that could protect my family, I'd have to hurry up and do whatever I had to do to stop the professed murderer to be, and I would not be going back to the police that for five years could do nothing to protect me in the first place, that really only gave the enemy, the one that said, '...as soon as we have the means, we will destroy you..." I repeat, I would not go back to the place that would only consume more of my time without results, I would do my own plan.
So now we can go back to the original question. Would I hit their nuclear sites? Let me give another example first: what country would not try to protect their people from mad cow disease? Today South Korea is protesting US Meat, not protesting the North bombing them in the future, which they said they could and might, but rather meat, my point here is, they feel a threat to their society, and they are blocking the gates so the meat markets in South Korea do not take in US Meat. They have negotiated on this matter, and resolved some issues. In a like manner, the UN, and five other countries have talked with Iran, and solved nothing. It comes under the heading of being a protectionist.
Now we know Iran has oil, enough to light up all the cities in the world for ten-years, so do they need a nuclear plant? I don't think so, and they know so. Ok, now we go back to the first question again, which is perhaps a little more obvious of what my answer is going to be 'Should Israel hit Iran?."
If I was Israel, I would ask: "Do we fight a war with Iran now, or when they got the nuclear bomb," because they will fight with them sooner or later, and sooner with the bomb, once they have it.
This is what is on their minds I'm sure. The other question comes to light: will this start a worse bloodily war in the Middle East? Iran is already at war with America in Iraq, so it doesn't really matter all that much. Matter of fact, if Israel attacked now, and not wait a year from now, America may have to back up Israel even if they don't want to. Whereas, two years from now, will America be there to do it? Because once we leave Iraq, as Obama says, I doubt we are coming back to assist Israel.
Yes, so my answer is yes, if I was the Prime Minister of Israel, I'd do it mighty quick also, while the world is still tossing about the fear factor of what Iran might do, since they said they will do it once they got the means to do it. Tomorrow for me would not be quick enough.
Now for those that are saying "You must like to see people die," because war means death. I say this, tonight most likely the person reading this, thinking how negative this letter is, is going to have a good nights sleep, will Israel? It is easy to say let's talk, but Israel has been talking for five years, going in circles, and getting mixed messages, the window is almost closed. And if there is going to be a war with Iran, it's a good time to have one, while Israel and the US are all in place; Russia is coming in with some long term assistance for Iran, once they are in place, it will be most difficult to hit Iran, without provoking Russia, and then we got more than we bargained for, and Israel will have a new war to deal with, and bigger.
Iran, $10 Gas, and World War 3
Iran is taking advantage of the Iraq situation. The U.S., the largest and most powerful nation in the world, has become bogged down in a war similar to Vietnam. High casualties and we can't stop the insurgents. As stated on CNN -"they come out of nowhere, set bombs and traps, and then disappear. It's a real mess." The situation in Iraq has U.S. ratings on everything from George Bush to the economy at an all time low. Iran is seeing this as the best opportunity to push the limits. The U.S. is already burdened by Iraq and the New Orleans and Hurricane Katrina disaster.
In tonight's speech the President stated that we cannot give up on what we have already accomplished in Iraq. He is right. But with all our CIA, NSA, and reports from credible sources that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction hidden in caves in Syria - why don't we go and see? Why did we let the U.N. investigators go on wild goose chases when the weapons were buried and hidden elsewhere? If Syria is really hiding these chemical and biological weapons are they really our friend? Iran knows where they are and has their own supply to boot. Notice how they waited until the U.S. public opinion on the war in Iraq started to dwindle before starting their uranium enrichment program.
According to the bible and the new bible code revelations this is all spelled out. The actual, tested, codes reveal a chemical supply (anthrax) in the hills of Syria, hidden in caves guarded by Saddam's terrorist buddies. The bible codes along with the bible and backed by some of the most learned and respected rabbi's in the world spell out that Iran will result in 3 words - World War 3! Yes, it will result in ever increasing gas prices, but it will also result in financial collapse. Many people are saying that, finally, after all these years the prophecies spoken about in Revelations have already begun. That's pretty scary.
Regardless, Iran is obviously up to no good and should and will be dealt with severely - unfortunately the U.N. security counsel will not do anything until March. I wonder how many nuclear weapons or even dirty nuclear and biological weapons they could create in this time. What I can't see is, regardless of religion, why can't we all just get along and stop killing each other and playing power games?
Iran is a serious threat and will result in higher gas prices and probably cause a recession, whether or not it ends in war. We need to find and fund new energy sources, hybrid technology, etc... As Jimmy Carter said back in the 70's - we need to lower our dependence on foreign oil or it will hurt us. We'll this is what has happened. We as a nation are in debt to our eyeballs, we love big vehicles, etc... We need to start preparing for leaner times. A recession would hit us hard, but war with Iran, while still occupying Iraq, and still paying for Hurricane Katrina rebuilding could actually bring upon a depression - experts are now saying it is possible. We are actually in worse shape now than we were in 1929 to face a possible depression. Iran is a serious problem. The experts are in unison on this one - start to conserve.
In tonight's speech the President stated that we cannot give up on what we have already accomplished in Iraq. He is right. But with all our CIA, NSA, and reports from credible sources that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction hidden in caves in Syria - why don't we go and see? Why did we let the U.N. investigators go on wild goose chases when the weapons were buried and hidden elsewhere? If Syria is really hiding these chemical and biological weapons are they really our friend? Iran knows where they are and has their own supply to boot. Notice how they waited until the U.S. public opinion on the war in Iraq started to dwindle before starting their uranium enrichment program.
According to the bible and the new bible code revelations this is all spelled out. The actual, tested, codes reveal a chemical supply (anthrax) in the hills of Syria, hidden in caves guarded by Saddam's terrorist buddies. The bible codes along with the bible and backed by some of the most learned and respected rabbi's in the world spell out that Iran will result in 3 words - World War 3! Yes, it will result in ever increasing gas prices, but it will also result in financial collapse. Many people are saying that, finally, after all these years the prophecies spoken about in Revelations have already begun. That's pretty scary.
Regardless, Iran is obviously up to no good and should and will be dealt with severely - unfortunately the U.N. security counsel will not do anything until March. I wonder how many nuclear weapons or even dirty nuclear and biological weapons they could create in this time. What I can't see is, regardless of religion, why can't we all just get along and stop killing each other and playing power games?
Iran is a serious threat and will result in higher gas prices and probably cause a recession, whether or not it ends in war. We need to find and fund new energy sources, hybrid technology, etc... As Jimmy Carter said back in the 70's - we need to lower our dependence on foreign oil or it will hurt us. We'll this is what has happened. We as a nation are in debt to our eyeballs, we love big vehicles, etc... We need to start preparing for leaner times. A recession would hit us hard, but war with Iran, while still occupying Iraq, and still paying for Hurricane Katrina rebuilding could actually bring upon a depression - experts are now saying it is possible. We are actually in worse shape now than we were in 1929 to face a possible depression. Iran is a serious problem. The experts are in unison on this one - start to conserve.
Iran Or North Korea - Who is the Biggest Nuclear Threat?
With the political battle going on in Iran and the national anthem named "Death to America" to the sick and twisted mind of Kim Jong-Il in North Korea using Hawaii as target practice for nuclear weapons, it is hard to determine on thing. Who is the biggest threat? There are many issues surrounding these claims that the countries would pose a threat to America and the world. The different views of the citizens of these countries view Americans and other people as loving people and don't want to bring harm to anyone. There are many who feel that there is a threat that is fueled by different rumors and assumptions. Many people feel that there is a bigger threat than both these countries. But behind the Parliament doors, it is a different story.
In Iran there is, as stated earlier, a national anthem called "Death to America". Many would view this as an empty threat and that it is just a time old tradition that the Iranian people sing to support their country. Others view this as a threat that they will attack America when they can. It is difficult to decide to what is the meaning of national anthem when parliament allowed for it to be sung time and time again.
In North Korea, there have been many threats of leader Kim Jong-Il to America and other countries saying statements like, "If any country including America interfere with the missile launch then they will pay." This automatically will give anyone the impression that this is a world threat from North Korea. Others view this as a childhood spat and ignore the threat to be all in "good fun". Sarcasm is the scapegoat that many reporters view it as.
With the many issues surrounding these two countries, time will tell who the biggest threat is. Many people in the world are preparing for anything to happen and there have been many reports to what the two countries are doing to fuel the fire of the assumptions. In the world there are many conflicts. Recognizing and acknowledging the strife will allow you to see what is coming in the future. Iran and North Korea have their moments where they show the peace loving country they have. It is hard to see in a world that views violence as a way of life. For many in Iran and North Korea, this is fact.
On the internet, you drown in information but starve for knowledge. That's why I created http://www.LesTout.com, the number #1 source of Daily Life Advice.
Hi, I'm Dr. Barry Lycka the president and founder of LesTout.com - and I encourage you to come and enjoy my site. It changes daily and is like a Disneyland for the mind, a cornucopia of marvelous things. Let us help you live your life to the fullest.
Feel free to use this article on your website, blog or newsletter (but please give us credit. It's copyright protected. And visit our News and Society Section for up to date advice
In Iran there is, as stated earlier, a national anthem called "Death to America". Many would view this as an empty threat and that it is just a time old tradition that the Iranian people sing to support their country. Others view this as a threat that they will attack America when they can. It is difficult to decide to what is the meaning of national anthem when parliament allowed for it to be sung time and time again.
In North Korea, there have been many threats of leader Kim Jong-Il to America and other countries saying statements like, "If any country including America interfere with the missile launch then they will pay." This automatically will give anyone the impression that this is a world threat from North Korea. Others view this as a childhood spat and ignore the threat to be all in "good fun". Sarcasm is the scapegoat that many reporters view it as.
With the many issues surrounding these two countries, time will tell who the biggest threat is. Many people in the world are preparing for anything to happen and there have been many reports to what the two countries are doing to fuel the fire of the assumptions. In the world there are many conflicts. Recognizing and acknowledging the strife will allow you to see what is coming in the future. Iran and North Korea have their moments where they show the peace loving country they have. It is hard to see in a world that views violence as a way of life. For many in Iran and North Korea, this is fact.
On the internet, you drown in information but starve for knowledge. That's why I created http://www.LesTout.com, the number #1 source of Daily Life Advice.
Hi, I'm Dr. Barry Lycka the president and founder of LesTout.com - and I encourage you to come and enjoy my site. It changes daily and is like a Disneyland for the mind, a cornucopia of marvelous things. Let us help you live your life to the fullest.
Feel free to use this article on your website, blog or newsletter (but please give us credit. It's copyright protected. And visit our News and Society Section for up to date advice
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
