In laymen’s terms, “kill boxes” sound like torture devices. In military jargon, they are almost incomprehensible; as defined in the Department of Defense Dictionary, they are “a three-dimensional area reference that enables timely, effective coordination and control and facilitates rapid attacks.”

kill boxes are actually relatively simple in concept: They are three-dimensional cubes of space on a battlefield in which members and allies of the United States military are completely free to open fire.

Like most military tactics, kill boxes aren’t new—they’ve been around for nearly 30 years now

They are now used in conflicts that are not between two states, but rather within states against terrorists and fighters who aren’t members of any particular country’s military

First, kill boxes have materialized in places the local population might not expect. And second, kill boxes have been used in conjunction with disposition matrices, or “kill lists.” The DoD uses these to target people whose “pattern of life” fit the parameters of an algorithm, rather than specific individuals.

For example: Say someone who owns a cellphone has been calling numbers that trigger a response from a computer at the Pentagon. Analysts will triangulate the cellphone’s whereabouts, and military leaders might initiate a “kill box” at that location, authorizing soldiers to kill everyone within the “box.” Mission accomplished

Since the end of the Cold War, the use of kill boxes has mutated into something almost unrecognizable

During the Gulf War, “A single quadrant comprised an area almost equaling the size of New York City,” writes Richard Davis in Decisive Force: Strategic Bombing in the Gulf War. “These devastating and ubiquitous operations accomplished both the aerial interdiction of Iraqi supply and the destruction of Iraqi military equipment and personnel.”

The Iraqi First and Third Mechanized Divisions were decimated before they even had the chance to put together a defense. Kill boxes might have been one strategic reason why the Gulf War only lasted 100 hours

This strategy worked well during the initial invasion of Iraq, but only because the opposing team was wearing a jersey, so to speak. It was possible to look at a truck and know whether or not it was hostile. But as a conventional war degenerated into a complex quagmire of militants engaged in guerilla warfare, that sort of certainty wasn’t possible any longer

The military began using kill boxes in the so-called war on terror as a technique to exert force in “ungoverned spaces,” territories that are not controlled by a state and are populated by people who might not share American cultural values.

The innocent people living in Afghanistan or Yemen, however, are apparently judged by a different standard. And this is the moral cost of the kill box: When used widely and indiscriminately, the tactic devalues human life

Sometimes, simply finding yourself inside of an American kill box is enough to be retroactively defined as guilty.

If a DoD algorithm identifies a person as a combatant, the military assumes he’s a combatant; the abstract proof is considered sufficient. It’s the very definition of confusing the map for the territory it represents

Vladimir Putin loves to check out and even ride in the different vehicles that make up Russia’s national security arsenal. Yet we have never seen him alongside one of Russia’s most garish vehicles, the Federal Security Services “Punisher” or “Chastiser” armored car, until now.

RI pushes back deadlines after delay on submarine infrastructure

Nany Afrida and Wahyoe Boediwardhana
The Jakarta Post, Jakarta/Surabaya | February 29 2016 | 9:02 AM
   
The government is still working on the infrastructure needed to accommodate three new submarines from South Korea, with the project scheduled to be completed in December.

Based on the procurement contract between the government and Daewoo Shipbuilding Marine Engineering (DSME), the submarines were scheduled to be delivered last year and this year.

Now, the Defense Ministry has revealed that South Korea will be ready to deliver the three submarines by September, however, as Indonesia has yet to complete the necessary infrastructure, the delivery has been postponed until December.

“The government has disbursed Rp 1.5 trillion [US$112.1 million] to PT PAL for building the submarine infrastructure, including hangars and floating equipment,” Rear Admiral Leonardi, chief of the Defense Ministry’s procurement center told The Jakarta Post in Jakarta recently.

It was reported that the Defense Ministry and DSME signed the contract for the three Chang Bogo-class submarines in 2011. The contract was worth $1.07 billion.

Under the contract, two submarines would be built in South Korea in cooperation with state-owned shipbuilder PT PAL, while the third submarine would be built at PT PAL’s facilities in Surabaya.

Leonardi said that besides infrastructure preparation, Indonesia also needed to train the crew members and operators who would be building the submarine in Surabaya, East Java.

“We’re confident all plans are on track, because we have already pushed back the deadline,” Leonardi said.

That optimism is also shared by PT PAL production director Edy Widarto, who said that the development was still on track and would be accomplished in December.

According to Edy, PT PAL’s new submarine infrastructure will have the capacity to build or restore two submarines at once.

“We can even use the same infrastructure to build a surface warship, such as missile destroyer warship [PKR], which we will build with Dutch shipbuilder Damen Schelde Naval Shipbuilding [DSNS],“ Edy told the Post in Surabaya on Wednesday.

Edy acknowledged that there was a delay in the plan due to budget disbursement issues. However, he asserted that submarine modules would be delivered from South Korea in December, and that PAL would start to assemble them in January 2017.

Edy said PT PAL would assemble the modules under the supervision of DSME’s experts.

“Our technicians are ready. We have good quality people. We have the necessary experience to assemble warship modules quickly and accurately,” Edy said.

PT PAL is an experienced ship builder, the company having built several warships for the Indonesian armed forces (TNI) and also products for sale overseas.

In addition to Chang Bogo-class submarines, the Indonesian Navy has revealed its plans to purchase another two new Kilo-class submarines from Russia to expand its fleet. The procurement is part of a strategic plan for 2015 to 2019.

However, the Navy has yet to decide on which type of Kilo-class submarines to order.

Submarines, with their stealth capacity, are regarded as effective deterrents and Indonesian needs at least 12 such vessels to protect its territory.

The Navy currently operates two German-made submarines, the KRI Cakra (401) and KRI Nenggala (402), which were built in the 1980s. The vessels are due to be decommissioned in 2020.

For 10,000 Chinese troops to move in to East Africa, Beijing promised the completion of a $3 billion railroad to connect Djibouti with the Ethiopian capital, Addis Ababa, and a $400 million investment to expand and modernize the East African nation’s port.

“The goal of the base is to fight against pirates, and most of all, to secure the Chinese ships using this very important strait that is important to all the countries in the world.”

Bloomberg reported that China purchased half a million barrels of crude in excess of its daily needs in the first seven months of 2015. In the current economic downturn that is rocking markets across the world, China is saving $460 billion per year in its purchase of commodities, about $320 billion of which is from cheap oil

Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir says Syrian troops are violating the cease-fire brokered by Russia and the U.S.

TARBELA: A military helicopter crashed near Tarbela, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, killing at least one, a military source confirmed Monday evening.

The helicopter was on a routine night training flight when it crashed at Tarbela. An army officer has been killed in the incident.

The Pakistan Army officer has been identified as Lt Col Tauqeer.

Lt Col Tauqeer is survived by his widow, son and daughter. The family belongs from village Bhatti Gujar in Chakwal district.

First, some basics: Woody Island , unlike recently expanded features like Fiery Cross Reef in the Spratlys, is a naturally-occurring feature — over 2 square kilometers in area, it’s the largest of the Paracels. Woody, known as Yongxing in Chinese, has been occupied by Chinese troops since 1956 – more than 30 years before Beijing belatedly sent troops to occupy any of the Spratlys. Currently, Woody Island is the seat of government for Sansha, a prefecture-level city established by China in 2012. According to China, Sansha technically administers both the Paracels and the Spratlys, as well as Macclesfield Bank and the Scarborough Shoal (“Sansha” means “three islands” in Chinese, referring to the Xisha/Paracels, Nansha/Spratlys, and Zhongsha groups).

Unlike most of the features in the South China Sea, Woody Island also touts a sizeable civilian population — “613 local residents,” mostly fishermen, when Sansha City was established in 2012, according to Xinhua. All told, including soldiers, Woody is believed to have over 1,000 residents. To accommodate that population – both military and civilian – the island is home to a government administration building, hospital, school, museums, bank, supermarket. Meanwhile, the island’s existing airport, in addition to its military role, hosts civilian flights to and from Hainan’s Meilan Airport. It can now accommodate Boeing 737s, thanks to the recent expansion of the airport.

Woody Island is also home to military facilities, and has been for decades. Even the two recent deployments – of HQ-9 missile batteries and J-11 fighter jets – aren’t unprecedented. As Admiral Scott Swift, commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, told reporters, China has deployed HQ-9 batteries on Woody at least twice before (although both times were for military drills, which does not appear to be the case this time). Likewise, J-11s have been deployed on Woody Island before – including only a few months ago, in November 2015.

The differences between militarization of the Paracels and the Spratlys should not be overlooked. As Bonnie Glaser, a senior adviser for Asia and the director of the China Power Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told The Diplomat, China militarized many of the Paracels “long ago. They are now deploying more advanced military equipment.”

It’s the Spratlys where China is currently “building lots of dual use capabilities, and trying convince others they will provide public goods and just defend their positions,” Glaser said.

Chinese President Xi Jinping’s famous statement that “China does not intend to pursue militarization” was also specifically made in reference to the Spratly Island. It’s the Spratlys, then, that will pose the real test of China’s intentions for the South China Sea.

There’s another key distinction between the Spratlys and Paracels: China doesn’t recognize any dispute to its claims in the Paracel group. Unlike the Spratlys, all of the Paracel Islands are both claimed by and occupied by China (thanks to China’s victory over the Republic of Vietnam in a brief battle for control of the features in 1974). Though Vietnam still claims the Paracels, China does not recognize that claim – and thus does not recognize the existence of a dispute (similar to Japan’s refusal to officially recognize a dispute over the Senkaku Islands).  China argues that Vietnam renounced its claim in a communique from the North Vietnamese government in the 1950s.

Thus, when asked about China’s military deployments on Woody Island, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying told reporters, “The Xisha Islands are part of China’s inherent territory with no dispute at all.” She added that, because there is no dispute, the 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, signed by China and ASEAN, “has nothing to do with” the Paracels.  The DoC saw China and ASEAN agree, among other points, “to exercise self-restraint in the conduct of activities that would complicate or escalate disputes and affect peace and stability.”

AMTI instead has emphasized the deployment of radar facilities to artificial islands in the Spratlys as a more concerning move in the long term. “This month’s deployment of HQ-9 surface-to-air missiles on Woody Island in the Paracels, while notable, does not alter the military balance in the South China Sea,” the report notes. “New radar facilities being developed in the Spratlys, on the other hand, could significantly change the operational landscape in the South China Sea.”

Lasers could change the economics of shooting down missiles. While laser systems are expensive to develop, the cost of an individual laser blast is very low, potentially just $1 a shot, which makes lasers the great hope for all technologically advanced militaries looking to protect expensive vehicles and weapons from cheap attacks.

Israel is investing in a laser component to supplement Iron Dome. This fiscal year, the U.S. Marine Corps wants to test an anti-drone laser on a truck. The U.S. Navy already tested a laser weapon on a ship deployed to the Persian Gulf, and wants more lasers by 2020.

The U.S. Air Force wants to try lasers on planes by 2022. The Army demonstrated weak lasers on a truck in 2013, and now, they want a program of record on the books by 2023 to make a working laser weapon.

By land, sea, or air, laser weapons are coming, and they’re aiming right for the 2020s.

The unnamed missile is apparently the "Bulsae-2", or Phoenix-2. Bulsae-2 appears to be a copy of the Soviet 9K111 Fagot (Russian for "Bassoon") anti-tank guided missile. First designed in the early 1960s, the 9K111 was meant to be a portable system to destroy NATO tanks on the battlefield. The missile has a range of 1.2 miles and can penetrate 19 to 23 inches of steel armor.

North Korea claims its missile is laser-guided, an upgrade from the 9K111's command guidance system. Laser-guided anti-tank missiles have an advantage in that the launcher and the laser designator can be in two different places

Although little is known about the missile, it already has been exported. The military wing of Hamas has the Bulsae-2 in its arsenal, as do Hamas splinter groups. A Turkish Islamist web site made an unverified claim that Hamas' Qassam Brigades used a Bulsae-2 to destroy a Merkava tank on the Gaza Strip

noticed a very disturbing trend...

When it comes to accelerating the fight against ISIS and using cyber weaponry as one avenue to do so, Carter said:

“With respect to cyber, I think you’re referring to our use of cyber which we have talked about generally. In the counter-ISIL campaign in — particularly in Syria to interrupt, disrupt ISIL’s command and control, to cause them to lose confidence in their networks, to overload their network so that they can’t function, and do all of these things that will interrupt their ability to command and control forces there, control the population and the

“The secretary has talked a lot about physically isolating ISIL. In other words, isolating Raqqa, isolating Mosul, keeping the lines of communications between the two being separate, dividing Iraq and Syria up, making life difficult for the — for the — for ISIL. I think conceptually, that’s exactly the same thing we’re trying to do in the cyber world. In other words, we’re trying to both physically and virtually isolate ISIL, limit their ability to conduct command and control, limit their ability to communicate with each other, limit their ability to conduct operations locally and tactically.

But I’ll be one of the first ones arguing that that’s about all we should talk about. Most importantly, we don’t want the enemy to know when, where and how we’re conducting cyber operations. We don’t want them to have information that will allow them to adapt over time. We want them to be surprised when we conduct cyber operations. And frankly, they’re going to experience some friction that’s associated with us and some friction that’s just associated with the normal course of events in dealing in the information age. And frankly, we don’t want them to know the difference. So they — it’s to our advantage to maintain the element of surprise with regard to conducting cyber operations.”