Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn military. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng
Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn military. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng

Thứ Tư, 15 tháng 5, 2013

Military spending is not right way to boost America's economic security

  • Pentagon Aerial View, 640x360

That Washington is holding defense cuts responsible for slow economic growth is a specious argument at best. War spending is unproductive and inflationary. Modern defense costs are capital intensive, not labor intensive, making the industry inefficient as a job creator.  

The defense industry has a presence in congressional districts across this country, so cuts affect every member. But every district in the U.S. has pressing infrastructure, education, health and environmental needs, and the return on the taxpayer’s dollar is much higher when invested on these areas.

Instead of concentrating money on capital intensive, military hardware purposed for destruction, and causing long term economic drain, our very limited and valuable economic resources should be invested in building the true strength and capacity of our economy, our nation, and her people.

In prioritizing military spending, Congress is cutting the very programs that can actually strengthen our economy.

During the heightened banking crisis in 2009, Rep. James Oberstar, then Chair of House Transportation Committee, called for a massive Eisenhower-level of investment in transportation infrastructure. He was right.

The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that the U.S. requires $3.6 trillion in infrastructure investment by 2020 to bring our grade D+ standards to safe standards.  

This is exactly what we need: to put bridge-builders to work rather than funding technology and personnel to destroy bridges, and to take tank-making factories and repurpose them to build high-speed trains.

In prioritizing military spending, Congress is cutting the very programs that can actually strengthen our economy: Cutting federal assistance to the states, forcing them to lay off teachers, firefighters, and social workers; cutting opportunities for job creation, training, and placement programs; and eviscerating funding for children’s programs and assistance for seniors.

These actions make no economic sense. 

Military spending generates fewer jobs per billion dollars spent than many other kinds of investments:  For every 100 jobs created by Pentagon spending, the same investment would create 251 jobs in education, 169 jobs in health care, or 147 jobs in clean energy.  

Conversely, every $1 billion cut in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program means 13,718 jobs lost. Many teachers, social workers, first responders, and other government workers have already lost their jobs from the $1.5 trillion in spending cuts since 2010.  

Even if $1 trillion were to be cut from the military budget over the next 10 years, America would still be spending at the peak levels of the Vietnam War and the Cold War. It is time to gather our senses.

In order to facilitate economic growth and development in America, defense spending is the wrong bellwether.  America's increasing number of military expeditions abroad, in the Middle East, Asia and Africa, has undermined the long-term stability of our economy at home. It has neither resulted in an economically vibrant, healthy, and well-educated nation, nor has it made us safer.

Both our progressive and conservative representatives should be joining forces, restraining waste and investing wisely. The key is to conserve, as a good housekeeper would, and invest in that which supports the family and home -- our nation and people.

It is time for our representatives and the Obama administration to seriously address the nature of the structural reforms that need to take place in order for our economy to get back on track.

We understand that the nation cannot spend its way out of this current economic crisis, in the same way that it cannot save or tax its way out. 

Congress needs to address the cyclical nature of our debt-based monetary system, which perpetuates inflation and crashes, and reform it meaningfully while massively cutting wasteful spending and, instead, investing in necessary infrastructure improvements that will create millions of productive jobs – all of which will help improve America’s health, education and prosperity.

Michael Shank is director of foreign policy at the Friends Committee on National Legislation.

Elizabeth Kucinich was a framer of 112th congress' HR 2990, the National Emergency Employment Defense (NEED) Act.


View the original article here

Thứ Tư, 8 tháng 5, 2013

The sequester is here to stay -- now the military needs to get to work

The sequester has been law for almost two years. But the Pentagon’s delayed planning for implementing it has now made it easier for Congress to keep massive defense cuts on the books.

The military wasn’t given their marching orders from the White House to begin formal planning for sequestration until the end of December 2012, just days before it was set to become law.

This political calculation – wait, wait, wait, never mind -- on the part of the administration is now hurting our troops and setting back efforts to undo sequestration for the remainder of the decade.

Military leaders are at the beck and call of a capricious White House which knows the sequester is bad policy, but occasionally views it as good politics.

Think about it this way: The White House first loved sequestration (remember the president threatening to veto any efforts to undo it?), and then decided it was a bad idea.  

As a result, planning for the on-again/off-again cuts that have never really been off has been an exercise in political contortionism.  

Military leaders are at the beck and call of a capricious White House which knows the sequester is bad policy, but occasionally views it as good politics.  

Congress hasn’t been much better.  

Some members have bemoaned the profligacy of the Pentagon, while others have talked up the machete like approach to trimming defense.  

But while Congress as a whole has been incapable of agreeing about how to roll back epic cuts in defense spending, they’ve been quick to act to protect other federal priorities feeling immediate pain as a result of sequestration. 

From long lines at the airport to meat inspector furloughs threatening food safety and supply, Washington has shown it can mobilize in short order when prompted.

But collectively these carve-outs have softened the implementation of the sequester and made it more palatable. That makes it easier to lock it in permanently because it is simply no longer a forcing function requiring an immediate compromise solution.

Nor have military and civilian defense officials done themselves any favors. By failing to detail earlier the deleterious impact of the sequester on the military, defense leaders themselves made it easier for Congress to stand firm on the spending cuts and move on to other higher-profile problems.

The Chiefs were complicit in abiding by and defending the political decision not to properly and thoroughly plan for sequestration. 

Just last week, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs went so far as to say it would have been “literally impossible” to build an alternate budget that acknowledged the law.

But just over a year ago, Pentagon officials crafted two budgets for fiscal year 2013 after the Budget Control Act set newly reduced spending caps for the Defense Department. As a result, officials began revising defense strategy downward to meet the new fiscal realities. The Pentagon’s draft alternate budget eventually replaced the original one and a variant later was submitted to Congress.

By claiming that this act of planning and due diligence could not have been repeated, the Chairman further hurt the credibility of Department of Defense leaders with Capitol Hill. While it is true that officials did not have time between March 1 and the submission of the president’s budget to Congress on April 10 to come up with a new budget, they should have anticipated the possibility of the law staying in effect.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and other defense officials would be wise to stop looking back and defending past decisions. 

It’s time for them to get busy working on an honest and public accounting of the effects of continued sequestration on the US military over the next fiscal year. 

The sooner, the better.

Congress must insist Pentagon officials take into account sequestration and resubmit the president’s 2014 budget request. In fact, Senators Levin and Inhofe, leaders of the Senate Armed Services Committee, sent a letter to this effect to Secretary Hagel on Friday. 

The House and Senate Armed Services Committees should now include this directive in their versions of the defense authorization bill later this summer.

Sequestration has already lowered the federal government’s spending baselines. Sequestration or similar spending levels are the new reality in the draft House and Senate budgets for 2014 written by Rep. Paul Ryan and Senator Patty Murray. 

Now, any dollar above these amounts will now be considered "growth" in the defense budget. That means that any attempts to restore funding will start to look like additional spending, rather than a sober restoration of much-needed security.  

In other words, the sequester is here to stay.  

Had Pentagon officials provided detail about how and where they would implement these painful spending reductions in April, politicians could clearly have understood the consequences of their choices. Not providing them publicly has only made it easier for Washington to absorb the sequester.

No pain means no change for the defense budget and the U.S. military. This time, Pentagon leaders had better get it right.

Mackenzie Eaglen is a resident fellow in the Marilyn Ware Center for Security Studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). She has worked on defense issues in the U.S. Congress and at the Pentagon.


View the original article here

Thứ Hai, 6 tháng 5, 2013

Benghazi witness: US military response could have 'scared' off attackers, prevented mortar strike

The U.S. military could have prevented one wave of the deadly attack on American personnel in Benghazi if fighter jets had been promptly deployed, a top diplomatic official who was in Benghazi during the Sept. 11 assault told congressional investigators. 

The account, contained in a transcript obtained by Fox News, was given by Gregory Hicks during an interview last month with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Hicks, a whistle-blower who is preparing to testify Wednesday before that committee, was deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya -- after Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed that night, he became the highest-ranking diplomat on the ground. 

Hicks, in his interview, argued that after the first wave of attacks on the U.S. consulate, the U.S. military could have prevented additional violence with a quickly scrambled flight -- after the first wave, terrorists would go on to launch a pre-dawn mortar assault on the CIA annex. 

"And so, in my personal opinion, a fast-mover flying over Benghazi at some point, you know, as soon as possible might very well have prevented some of the bad things that happened that night," Hicks said, according to the transcript. 

He acknowledged that this would have required clearance from the Libyan government, since it is their airspace, but claimed the government would have approved such a flight. 

This, he said, could have stopped that mortar assault. 

"I believe if we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced, I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split," he said. "They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them." 

Hicks suggested the Libyan government expected a request to use their airspace, and claimed the Libyans "were as surprised as we were" that U.S. military personnel did not arrive until later on. 

Pentagon officials have said military assets were not in position to respond fast enough that night, and also have cautioned about the potential risks of sending additional military into the area. 

"There was not enough time given the speed of the attack for armed military assets to respond," former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in February. "We were not dealing with a prolonged or continuous assault which could have been brought to an end by a U.S. military response. ... Time, distance, the lack of an adequate warning, events that moved very quickly on the ground prevented a more immediate response." 

Panetta, during an Oct. 25 briefing with reporters, also said that while the military was prepared to respond, the "basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on." He said the attack was over before "we had the opportunity to really know what was happening." 

Hicks acknowledged there were concerns that the nearest fighter jets did not have the requisite tankers in the area to support a flight. 

However, he said a second rescue team that was supposed to go from Tripoli to Benghazi early that morning was told not to go. 

He said Special Forces personnel were planning to board a C-130 flight at around 6 a.m. local time on Sept. 12. 

"We fully intended for those guys to go, because we had already essentially stripped ourselves of our security presence, or our security capability to the bare minimum," he said. 

But he said the military team on the ground in Tripoli got a phone call when they were on their way to the flight telling them "you can't go now, you don't have authority to go now. And so they missed the flight." 

He added: "They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it," apparently because they did not have the "right authority." 

The account is one of a series of new details and claims that are emerging about the night of the Benghazi attack in advance of congressional testimony. 

Mark I. Thompson, a former Marine and now the deputy coordinator for operations in the agency's counterterrorism bureau, has also claimed that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a key aide effectively tried to cut the department's own counterterrorism bureau out of the chain of reporting and decision-making that night. He, too, is set to testify Wednesday. 

Sources close to the congressional investigation who have been briefed on what Thompson will say tell Fox News the veteran counterterrorism official concluded on Sept. 11 that Clinton and Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy tried to cut the counterterrorism bureau out of the loop as they and other Obama administration officials weighed how to respond to -- and characterize -- the Benghazi attacks. 

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney denied the claim on Monday. 

Daniel Benjamin, who ran the department's Counterterrorism Bureau at the time, also put out a statement Monday morning strongly denying the charges. 

"I ran the bureau then, and I can say now with certainty, as the former Coordinator for Counterterrorism, that this charge is simply untrue," he said. "Though I was out of the country on official travel at the time of the attack, I was in frequent contact with the Department. At no time did I feel that the Bureau was in any way being left out of deliberations that it should have been part of." 

He went on to call his bureau a "central participant in the interagency discussion about the longer-term response to Benghazi." He said "at no time was the Bureau sidelined or otherwise kept from carrying out its tasks." 

State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell also said Monday that the new hearings appear to be political in nature. 

Separately, a senior State Department official told Fox News that Hicks and Thompson both have "axes to grind." 


View the original article here

Thứ Tư, 10 tháng 4, 2013

Budgetary cost-cutting realigns military for cyberwar

  • US Budget 2014.jpg

President Barack Obama has released a $3.77 trillion, 2,000-page spending plan that cuts some cutting edge military technology projects in favor of a fifth domain for battle: cyber.

The White House on Wednesday proposed shrinking the portion of the budget spent on the Department of Defense to $526.6 billion in discretionary funding -- a decrease of $3.9 billion, or 0.7 percent, below the 2012 level.

To enact those decreases, the Pentagon wants to cancel the Missile Defense Agency's Precision Tracking Space System, which is intended to intercept ballistic missiles, "due to high technical risk and greater than anticipated cost." It would also cancel the Air Force's Expeditionary Combat Support System, for similar reasons, according to a report on Military.com.

The budget also cuts into the popular and controversial drone program, according to Wired magazine.

“The workhorse Global Hawk unarmed spy drone? The Air Force isn’t buying any more and it’s cutting research cash for the Global Hawk by $101.9 million,” wrote Spencer Ackerman.

'There’s a significant pull to increase the number of forces trained to work in the cyber domain.'

- Michael A. Brown, former director of cybersecurity coordination for the DHS

Michael A. Brown, the former director of cybersecurity coordination for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), told FoxNews.com that budgetary issues are a serious concern for today’s military. The armed forces are making strides to emphasize cyber operations on the defense side, he said, but the U.S. military needs to do more to operate in the 21st century field of battle.

In a nutshell, the armed services are shedding plans for some physical weapons to more actively plan for cyberwar.

“There’s a significant focus on the Defense Department to have the right levels to respond to whatever happens out there,” he told FoxNews.com.

“Look at today’s new environment … that comes with a cost. And you’ve got to have the infrastructure to test and determine how the cybersystems work. In the military, there’s a significant pull to increase the number of forces trained to work in the cyber domain.”

The budget seeks to address that, increasing funding for the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative Five (CNCI-5), which “seeks to connect cybersecurity centers and other cybersecurity analytics electronically and in real time.” It also “includes increases and improvements to a full range of cyberspace activities.”

The cyberthreat from foreign countries is a real one, said Anup Ghosh, founder and CEO of security firm Invincea.

“Foreign countries are actively compromising machines on US Government networks and major US companies in the technology, manufacturing, healthcare, energy, financial services, and defense sectors. They are seeking proprietary information, designs, plans, code and other intellectual property, mergers and acquisition documents, foreign policy plans for competitive edge,” he told FoxNews.com.

The military budget does include a substantial chunk for military technology, of course. The current budget provides $67.5 billion for DOD research, development, test and evaluation activities. It cites a new ballistic missile submarine replacement, research into hypersonic vehicles, and an increase of 1.8 percent to the budget of DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which is essentially the military’s skunkworks.

It also shaves $2 billion off the Army’s Ground Combat Vehicle Program by delaying it, not by canceling it. It would also delay the Standard Missile-3 Block IIB program.

Many high-tech weapons are likely to continue uninterrupted. On Monday, the Navy announced the recent successful test of a high-tech laser gun -- a disruptive, cutting-edge weapon capable of obliterating small boats and unmanned aerial vehicles with a blast of infrared energy.

Navy officials said that in early 2014, a prototype of the gun will be mounted to the fantail of the USS Ponce and sent to the Middle East for real-world experience.

One of its major advantages, the Navy said, is its relatively low cost to operate.

"Its weapon round costs about $1 to shoot," said Rear Admiral Matthew Klunder, chief of Naval Research.


View the original article here

Thứ Tư, 3 tháng 4, 2013

North Korea warns military cleared to wage nuclear attack against US

  • NorthKoreanukeattack.jpg

    April 3, 2013: South Korean Marines pass by K-55 self-propelled howitzers during an exercise against possible attacks by North Korea near the border village of Panmunjom in Paju, South Korea.AP

An unnamed spokesman for the North Korean army is warning the U.S. that its military has been cleared to wage an attack using "smaller, lighter and diversified nuclear" weapons in the latest of the country's escalating warnings. 

North Korea has railed for weeks against joint U.S. and South Korean military exercises taking place in South Korea and has expressed anger over tightened sanctions for a February nuclear test.

The spokesman said in a statement carried by the Korean Central News Agency that troops have been authorized to counter U.S. aggression with "powerful practical military counteractions."

National Security Council spokesperson Caitlin Hayden called the threats "unhelpful and unconstructive."

"It is yet another offering in a long line of provocative statements that only serve to further isolate North Korea from the rest of the international community and undermine its goal of economic development," she said. "North Korea should stop its provocative threats and instead concentrate on abiding by its international obligations."

The Pentagon said Wednesday it was deploying a missile defense shield to Guam to protect the U.S. and its allies in the region in response to the increasingly hostile rhetoric. 

The land-based missile defense system includes a truck-mounted launcher, tracking radar, interceptor missiles, and an integrated fire control system. The Pentagon said the system will boost defenses for American citizens in Guam, a U.S. territory, and U.S. forces stationed there.

On Wednesday, North Korea barred South Korean workers from entering a jointly run factory park just over the heavily armed border in the North.

The Kaesong industrial park started producing goods in 2004 and has been an unusual point of cooperation in an otherwise hostile relationship between the Koreas, whose three-year war ended in 1953 with an armistice. Its continued operation even through past episodes of high tension has reassured foreign multinationals that another Korean War is unlikely and their investments in prosperous dynamic South Korea are safe.

It is unclear how long North Korea will prevent South Koreans from entering the industrial park, which is located in the North Korean border city of Kaesong and provides jobs for more than 50,000 North Koreans. The last major disruption at the park amid tensions over U.S.-South Korean military drills in 2009 lasted just three days.

North Korea has already begun construction at a shuttered plutonium reactor that it is vowing to restart and it could be back in operation sooner than expected, a U.S. research institute said Wednesday.

The U.S.-Korea Institute at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies has analyzed recent commercial satellite imagery of the Nyongbyon nuclear facility, where the reactor was shut down in 2007 under the terms of a disarmament agreement. A cooling tower for the reactor was destroyed in 2008.

The analysis published on the institute's website "38 North" says that rebuilding the tower would take six months, but a March 27 photo shows building work may have started for an alternative cooling system that could take just weeks.

"Pyongyang may be poised to prove wrong conventional wisdom that it will take months to restart its reactor, and in the bargain it is also showing us that they mean business by accelerating the process of producing more material for nuclear weapons," said Joel Wit, 38 North editor and a former U.S. State Department official.

North Korea also said it would restart a uranium enrichment plant. Both facilities could produce fuel for nuclear weapons.

The new construction at the reactor began in the six weeks between February 7 and March 27, when another aerial image showed no building going on, 38 North says.

The analysis says the construction could be aimed at connecting the reactor to a pumping station that serves an adjacent light-water reactor that is still under construction. The light-water reactor still appears more than a year away from becoming operational but its pumping station appears from aerial imagery to be complete, it says.

But restarting the plutonium reactor would also depend on the availability of fresh fuel rods. According to 38 North, North Korea is believed to have a supply of rods, but many of them may need adapting for use in the reactor.

The North's plutonium reactor began operations in 1986 but was shut down as part of international nuclear disarmament talks in 2007 that have since stalled. Once it is up and running, the reactor is capable of producing six kilograms of plutonium a year -- enough for one or two bombs, the analysis says.

The North has already conducted three underground nuclear tests. Plans to restart the reactor and ramp up production of atomic material underscore worries about its progress in developing a nuclear-tipped missile that could target the United States. It is still believed to be years away from achieving that.

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 


View the original article here

Could a military radar prevent further Newtown-style tragedies?

  • new-use-for-a-weapons-detecting-radar.jpg

    Professor Kamal Sarabandi approaches a mannequin he uses to test the radar in the anechoic chamber.In the aftermath of the Newtown school shooting, a University of Michigan, College of Engineering professor Kamal Sarabandienvisions a new use for a weapons-detecting radar system heâs been developing for thepast few years. The technology could potentially identify a hidden gun or bomb on anapproaching person from the distance of a football field away in less than a second.Marcin Szczepanski / University of Michigan

One professor believes radar could be used in the U.S. as it is abroad to protect students from Newtown-style attacks.

University of Michigan professor Kamal Sarabandi has adapted a radar similar to the type police deploy to identify speeders -- it can now reveal weapons and bombs concealed on a person's body.

In the aftermath of the Newtown tragedy, Sarabandi began investigating how his millimeter-wave radar system for defense could be used to identify weapons on people approaching crowded places like schools.

In a press release put out by the university, the professor said he believes his system could be quicker -- at less than one second per person -- and more practical than a metal detector. It could scan for threats from as far away as the length of a football field.

Radar sends out radio waves and listens for the signals that bounce back sort of like how a bat senses its environment. The millimeter wavelength Sarabandi uses is like that found in ordinary car collision avoidance systems.

Sarabandi takes this radar and links it with Doppler radar signal processing. The Doppler is used to identify the signature of an individual person – rather than an incoming rain front.

Polarimetric radar is used to search for weapons. A metal object can change the radar beam polarization and his system interprets this change to flag weapons.

A signal is sent at a specific polarization and analyzes the polarization of the signal that bounces back.

Radar polarimetry is then used to evaluate the signal bouncing back off the person for a “glare” that would reveal a metal object has been hidden.  If the signal returns with a different polarization then it suggests a person is possibly carrying a weapon.

Sarabandi envisages the tech scanning crowds at a distance, flagging suspect individuals and referring them for further scrutiny by security.

"Schools, airports, stadiums or shopping malls—wherever there is a large number of people that you want to protect," Sarabandi said.

The Army is funding the University of Michigan team and work is underway to miniaturize the system to deploy on a robot.

Research has been conducted with computer simulations and an echo-reducing chamber with a mannequin wearing a leather jacket hiding a “weapon” of a block of was studded with nails.

The technology has yet to be tested on real guns or people.

Ballet dancer turned defense specialist Allison Barrie has traveled around the world covering the military, terrorism, weapons advancements and life on the front line. You can reach her at wargames@foxnews.com or follow her on Twitter @Allison_Barrie.


View the original article here

Thứ Sáu, 15 tháng 3, 2013

Audit to probe reports of leaked military secrets from NASA facilities

  • ames.jpg

    Shown here is an aerial shot of the Ames Research Center.NASA.gov

  • The cover page of a report, obtained by FoxNews.com and purportedly presented to the FBI, alleging that confidential Defense Department missile secrets were leaked to foreign countries.FoxNews.com

The NASA office of the inspector general will audit NASA’s Ames research facility in the wake of a FoxNews.com report on violations of International Trade in Arms Regulations (ITAR) laws at a storied California space-research facility.

Documents obtained by FoxNews.com last month detail a four-year FBI investigation into the transfer of classified weapons technology -- including rocket engine tech for missile defense systems -- to China and other countries from NASA’s Ames Research Center. The documents also purport that an investigation into the security lapses that led to the event are being stonewalled.

'The OIG is opening a new audit that will more broadly examine NASA’s controls over access by foreign nationals to its facilities.'

- NASA inspector general Paul Martin

On March 14, NASA Inspector General Paul Martin wrote to Reps. Frank Wolf, R-Va., and Chaka Fattah, D-Pa, to announce that he planned to open a broad investigation into these and other allegations, which Wolf has been urging NASA and the FBI to do.

“I wanted to inform you that the OIG is opening a new audit that will more broadly examine NASA’s controls over access by foreign nationals to its facilities,” he wrote.

Last week, Wolf described a similar incident at Kennedy Space Center in Florida involving visits by Chinese officials, a charge NASA denied.

The news of the Inspector General's probe came a day after Martin testified before a congressional panel on the fiscal challenges NASA is facing, in part due to the sequester.

“Because NASA received less than half its requested budget for commercial crew development last year, the Agency extended to 2017 the earliest it expects to obtain commercial crew transportation services to the [International Space Station] – a date uncomfortably close to the Station’s currently scheduled 2020 retirement,” Martin wrote on the OIG site.

“Against this bleak budgetary backdrop, Agency managers continue to face significant challenges managing NASA’s diverse portfolio of science, exploration, and aeronautics projects.”

Located in the heart of Silicon Valley, the Ames Research Center has been a center of high tech innovation for more than 60 years. As the space agency’s mission has changed over the years since it was built, NASA has turned it into a commercial research facility, leasing out space to a number of companies including rocket firm SpaceX and tech giant Google, which leases 42 acres there through a holding company called Planetary Ventures.

The accusations a Ames stem from a reported ITAR violation, a ruling that governs the export of defense weaponry. In 2006, Ames adapted specialized rocket engines -- originally developed for the Pentagon missile defense “Kinetic Kill Vehicle” program -- for a moon lander prototype that ultimately became NASA’s Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE). The robotic moon orbiter is set to launch on Aug. 12, 2013.

Information on guidance and terrain-mapping systems from the Tomahawk cruise missile and a radar from the F-35 were also shared, according to one report in Aviation Week.

"When I mentioned the tech that was compromised to the Armed Services Committee, their jaws just dropped," a congressional source told FoxNews.com.


View the original article here

Audit to probe reports of leaked military secrets from NASA facilities

  • ames.jpg

    Shown here is an aerial shot of the Ames Research Center.NASA.gov

  • The cover page of a report, obtained by FoxNews.com and purportedly presented to the FBI, alleging that confidential Defense Department missile secrets were leaked to foreign countries.FoxNews.com

The NASA office of the inspector general will audit NASA’s Ames research facility in the wake of a FoxNews.com report on violations of International Trade in Arms Regulations (ITAR) laws at a storied California space-research facility.

Documents obtained by FoxNews.com last month detail a four-year FBI investigation into the transfer of classified weapons technology -- including rocket engine tech for missile defense systems -- to China and other countries from NASA’s Ames Research Center. The documents also purport that an investigation into the security lapses that led to the event are being stonewalled.

'The OIG is opening a new audit that will more broadly examine NASA’s controls over access by foreign nationals to its facilities.'

- NASA inspector general Paul Martin

On March 14, NASA Inspector General Paul Martin wrote to Reps. Frank Wolf, R-Va., and Chaka Fattah, D-Pa, to announce that he planned to open a broad investigation into these and other allegations, which Wolf has been urging NASA and the FBI to do.

“I wanted to inform you that the OIG is opening a new audit that will more broadly examine NASA’s controls over access by foreign nationals to its facilities,” he wrote.

Last week, Wolf described a similar incident at Kennedy Space Center in Florida involving visits by Chinese officials, a charge NASA denied.

The news of the Inspector General's probe came a day after Martin testified before a congressional panel on the fiscal challenges NASA is facing, in part due to the sequester.

“Because NASA received less than half its requested budget for commercial crew development last year, the Agency extended to 2017 the earliest it expects to obtain commercial crew transportation services to the [International Space Station] – a date uncomfortably close to the Station’s currently scheduled 2020 retirement,” Martin wrote on the OIG site.

“Against this bleak budgetary backdrop, Agency managers continue to face significant challenges managing NASA’s diverse portfolio of science, exploration, and aeronautics projects.”

Located in the heart of Silicon Valley, the Ames Research Center has been a center of high tech innovation for more than 60 years. As the space agency’s mission has changed over the years since it was built, NASA has turned it into a commercial research facility, leasing out space to a number of companies including rocket firm SpaceX and tech giant Google, which leases 42 acres there through a holding company called Planetary Ventures.

The accusations a Ames stem from a reported ITAR violation, a ruling that governs the export of defense weaponry. In 2006, Ames adapted specialized rocket engines -- originally developed for the Pentagon missile defense “Kinetic Kill Vehicle” program -- for a moon lander prototype that ultimately became NASA’s Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE). The robotic moon orbiter is set to launch on Aug. 12, 2013.

Information on guidance and terrain-mapping systems from the Tomahawk cruise missile and a radar from the F-35 were also shared, according to one report in Aviation Week.

"When I mentioned the tech that was compromised to the Armed Services Committee, their jaws just dropped," a congressional source told FoxNews.com.


View the original article here