The expected increase in what the Pentagon calls “insider” attacks by Taliban sympathizers or infiltrators followed an April 27 statement by the Islamist terror group.

It was the first time the Taliban identified insider attacks as a key tactic.

U.S. military officials have said the Taliban shifted to insider attacks as U.S. and allied forces became more adept at countering improvised explosive devices—deadly roadside bombs that have killed and injured hundreds during the 12-year war.

Pentagon spokesman Cmdr. Bill Speaks said the military is aware of the threat.

“As we approach the traditional fighting season, the frequency of insider attacks is likely to increase,” Speaks said. “But we will not allow this insidious tactic to erode our will to complete the mission or hinder our partnership with the [Afghan National Security Forces] in defeating those who threaten Afghanistan’s future.”

Sixty-two coalition troops were killed in 46 attacks in 2012, Speaks said, noting that from 2007 to 2011, 42 insider attacks resulted in 69 coalition deaths. A total of 34 Americans were killed by the method last year.

“So far for 2013, there have been four attacks and four coalition deaths,” he said.

The most recent incident occurred May 4 when two U.S. Marine Corps special operations group commandos were killed by an Afghan National Army soldier who fired on them.

The Taliban statement announcing the spring offensive was posted on the group’s official Voice of Jihad website under the name of the “Islamic Emirate’s Leadership Council.” The council is headed by Taliban leader Mullah Omar.

The statement signaled the beginning of the fighting season in Afghanistan. Insurgent attacks generally decline during the fall and winter months and take off in the spring and summer.

The Taliban are calling their latest offensive the “Khalid bin Walid” offensive and called planned insider attacks as a “qualitatively unique military tactic” targeting foreign “invaders.” Khalid bin Walid was a companion of Muslim founder Muhammad.

In addition to insider attacks, the Taliban also are planning “collective martyrdom attacks,” presumably a reference to car bombs and other bombing attacks. Announced targets include military bases, diplomatic centers, and air bases.

However, the reference to insider attacks has raised concerns at the Pentagon, officials said.

The Taliban statement said there would be the “systematic and coordinated” use of “infiltrating attacks.”

The infiltration operations will be targeted on gaining access “inside the enemy’s centers.”

Insider attacks are carried out by Afghan security and military personnel who are influenced by the Taliban, or who are double agents dispatched or converted while in the Afghan security forces. The terrorists pose as members of the Afghan National Security Forces or Afghan police and then carry out shootings against coalition forces or Afghans working for the central government.

The goal of the spring offensive is to gain “liberation of the remaining regions of the country” from domination by “infidels” and the establishment of a government based on Islamist Sharia law, the statement said.

Last year’s statement on the spring offensive did not mention insider attacks or collective martyrdom operations. It said the group would seek to expand Taliban influence rather than reaching a concluding victory.

“The threat of insider attacks is very real and creates deep distrust at time when training the Afghan forces is critical to the way ahead,” said Rep. Duncan Hunter (R., Calif.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee.

“These attacks add an extra dimension to the security mission that existed previously, but maintaining the right security procedures and precautions are absolutely critical,” Hunter said. “At this stage of the Afghan mission, it’s important that we stay on offense.”

Hunter stated that the growth of insider attacks is “alarming” in a letter last August to Committee Chairman Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (R., Calif.) calling for hearings on the threat.

Then-U.S. commander in Afghanistan Gen. John R. Allen said the use of the terrorist tactic had made him “mad as hell” in September.

“We’re going to get after this,” Allen told CBS “60 Minutes.” “It reverberates everywhere across the United States. We’re willing to sacrifice a lot for this campaign, but we’re not willing to be murdered for it.”

A conference was held in January on the insider threat at Grafenwoehr, Germany where the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) Insider Threat Mitigation Working Group met.

Australian Brig. Adam Findlay, chief of the Working Group, told reporters that the Taliban’s use of insider killings has two objectives: “Drive a wedge amongst the coalition countries for political pressure back home, and to try to drive a wedge between us and the Afghan forces.”

U.S. Marine Corps Col. John Walsh, deputy commander of the Insider Threat Mitigation Working Group said the insider attack “is emerging as a signature weapon of this conflict.”

According to Speaks, the Pentagon spokesman, some of the insider attacks were linked to personal grievances by Afghans or were the result of cultural “misunderstandings.”

“The insurgency, with its continuing decline and inability to dissuade the Afghan population from the course of a secure and peaceful Afghanistan, is seeking to exploit the effects of these attacks, and those contributing factors that cause others to commit these attacks, to claim success falsely,” he said.

Speaks said more Afghans were killed in insider attacks than U.S. and allied forces.

Afghanistan’s Defense Ministry issued a statement April 29 stating that its forces are prepared for the spring offensive and dismissed the Taliban threats as “propaganda.”

Michael Rubin, American Enterprise Institute expert on the Afghan conflict, said insider attacks have limited military utility but can be demoralizing.

“Afghans have never lost a war, they just defect to the winning side,” Rubin said in an email. “Momentum means everything. The insider attacks might only kill a handful of soldiers, but they demoralize on a far larger scale. And so, while the attack itself might only splinter the wood, the incumbent demoralization will throw the door wide open.”

Infiltration attacks also can upset U.S. counterinsurgency strategy.

“It’s hard to build rapport and trust with our partners if we’re looking over our shoulder every ten seconds,” Rubin said.

However, Rubin said the Taliban might hit a dead end with the strategy emphasizing insider strikes.

“It’s one thing to argue jihadists have to kill themselves to defeat the Americans, but with the Taliban spinning the transition in Afghanistan as a sign of American defeat, ultimately some Afghans will begin to ask themselves why they should be the last suicide bomber,” he said.

Lisa Curtis, senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said insider attacks declined significantly so far in 2013.

“As part of their summer offensive, the Taliban have pledged to reverse this trend by infiltrating the Afghan security forces,” she said. “The Taliban assess insider attacks are the best way to demoralize the U.S. and NATO forces and speed up the pace of their withdrawal.”

Curtis said after the U.S. military cut back joint patrols with Afghan forces last year after the increase in insider attacks, “the Taliban were elated and called the move the start of the coalition’s overall defeat in Afghanistan.”

The U.S. and Afghan militaries have taken steps to curb the attacks through more careful vetting and monitoring of recruits, she said.

“The Afghan Army leadership has taken the issue of insider attacks very seriously and it is not clear that the Taliban will be able to follow through on their pledge to step up these kinds of attacks in 2013,” Curtis said.

The Russian military is developing and deploying an array of new and modernized anti-missile interceptors that are part of a strategic doctrine that calls for defending against what Moscow believes to be an increasing threat posed by offensive ballistic missiles, said U.S. officials with access to intelligence reports.

New systems monitored by U.S. intelligence agencies under development or in the deployment phase include an advanced S-500 missile defense system currently being built in addition to the already available, and very capable, S-400 and S-300 defenses.

Additionally, the Russians are upgrading the SH-08 nuclear-tipped anti-missile interceptors that have been deployed around Moscow for more than two decades.

Other new Russian defenses with capabilities against both aircraft and missiles include SA-20 and SA-21 surface-to-air missiles, and a new advanced system called the SA-X-23, an advanced version of the S-300.

U.S. officials said the defenses are assessed as effective against cruise missiles, bombers, jet fighters, short- and intermediate-range ballistic missile, and intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Disclosure of the Russian missile defense buildup comes as the Obama administration is seeking to reach an agreement that critics say could result in legally binding restrictions on U.S. defenses. There are also fears an agreement with Russia will compromise classified technical data on missile defense that the administration is considering sharing with Russian officials.

One official said the administration is suppressing evidence of the Russian defense buildup. Instead, the White House is pressing ahead with questionable missile defense negotiations with Russia that are aimed at mollifying Moscow’s concerns that U.S. and NATO defenses are covertly aimed at countering Moscow’s strategic arsenal.

A second official said the Russians recently began announcing publicly a large-scale modernization of their missile defenses.

“What gives?” this official asked. “Why is the United States kowtowing and trying to please the Russians over their concerns about our missile defenses, and no one ever says anything about their missile defenses?”

In talks with the Russians on missile defense, Obama administration negotiators have not proposed that the Russians limit their missile defenses as part of any agreement, the officials said.

Russian President Vladimir Putin this week met with top officials, including the defense minister, chief of the military’s general staff, deputy defense minister in charge of armaments, and commanders of the military branches.

A presidential spokesman told Interfax the meeting was “dedicated to problems of the development of new missile defense systems and to issues of counteracting the existing systems.”

Arms control advocates have argued that missile defenses upset strategic stability and complicate efforts to reduce strategic offensive arms. But if that is the case, “why is Russia doing it and why are we letting them do it,” the second official asked.

If that logic is correct, “the Russians are merely getting us to disarm our defenses and disarm our offenses and shame on us,” he added.

Additionally, a Russian press report published Wednesday said President Barack Obama proposed in a recent letter to Putin that the United States and Russia conclude a legally binding agreement on exchanging information about missile defenses with the goal of “guaranteeing the absence of a mutual threat.” The report was carried in the Kommersant Daily.

White House spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden had no comment on the Russian report.

“We generally don’t comment on the content of the president’s correspondence and we won’t this time,” she told the Washington Free Beacon.

Disclosure of the letter followed Republican congressional opposition last week to revelations that the Pentagon has held internal discussions on declassifying missile defense technical data that could be shared with the Russians.

Rep. Mo Brooks (R., Ala.) and Sen. Mark Kirk (R., Ill.) said last week they opposed any sharing of missile defense data, warning such exchanges would undermine U.S. national security and compromise missile defenses developed at the cost of hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayers’ dollars.

Thomas Moore, a former strategic affairs specialist with the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, said Russia plans to create a vast air and missile defense architecture in and among states of the former Soviet Union under the Collective Security Treaty Organization.

“Its recent announcement of the S-300 [air-missile defense] deployments to Belarus are an indicator of things to come,” Moore said, noting that open source reports indicated Moscow has developed a nuclear warhead for the S-300.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov linked the Belarus deployments to what he said was a violation of an agreement limiting NATO expansion in the 1990s.

“We can wonder aloud why Russia feels the need to make these threatening gestures, but with no real NATO missile defense architecture in Europe, I think the Russians are going to continue to use NATO air and missile defense improvements, or even the hint of future improvements, as an animating factor for most of their arms sales and defense cooperation,” Moore said.

“The final phases of this cooperation will result in a new Warsaw Pact, of sorts,” he said. “It doesn’t take much imagination to see that if one phase of this is some new Warsaw Pact, the next phase will be some new ABM Treaty.”

Jack Caravelli, a former CIA analyst now with the LIGNET strategic intelligence group, said Russian interest in expanding air defense and missile defenses is part of a larger, across-the-board effort by Putin to enhance strategic military capabilities that was announced during last year’s presidential campaign.

“Russia has the technical capabilities and decades of experience to develop robust defensive capabilities at the same time the Obama administration is pondering even deeper cuts in its strategic forces, on top of the New START Treaty signed with Russia several years ago,” Caravelli said.

Russia is also developing and deploying a new generation of long-range missiles, upgrades that will result in a more modernized force than any systems the United States will be able to match for at least two decades, he said.

“Russia’s planning for enhanced defensive and offensive forces almost certainly also is a reflection of a desire to keep apace of China’s growing investments in strategic offensive capabilities,” Caravelli said.

John Bolton, former undersecretary of state for Arms Control and International Security, said reports of Russian missile defense modernization are troubling.

“If the Russians are indeed improving their existing defenses, while simultaneously leading the Obama Administration down the primrose path of negotiations, it would fittingly embody the president’s naiveté in foreign affairs,” Bolton said. “Moscow must be looking forward to even more ‘flexibility’ from Obama, as he promised Russian President Medvedev last year.”

Obama was overhead during a discussion with Medvedev in Seoul saying he would have “more flexibility” in talks on missile defenses after his presumed reelection in November.

The Russians are continuing to demand legally binding restrictions on U.S. missile defenses as the price for dropping opposition to planned deployments of SM-3 missile interceptors on land in Europe. Those defenses are being planned in phases over the next several years amid concerns that Iran is on the verge of developing long-range missiles.

Frank Gaffney, a former assistant defense secretary in the Reagan administration, also sounded the alarm about the current administration’s negotiations with the Russians.

“The Kremlin, going back to Soviet days, has always believed missile defenses were not simply legitimate but necessary for protecting at least its priority assets and populations,” Gaffney said.

The Russian military pursued the development and deployment of such weaponry without interruption “including and notwithstanding its obligations under the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty,” Gaffney said.

“The Kremlin has, however, been at least as determined to prevent us from doing the same, using negotiations, coercion, and offensive missile enhancements to keep us vulnerable to their attack,” Gaffney said. “We indulge the Russians further in this double-game at our extreme peril.”

The test was carried out early Monday from the Xichang Space Launch center and was identified by officials as the new Dong Ning-2 ASAT missile.

The ASAT test comes a week after China protested the release of the Pentagon’s annual report on the Chinese military buildup that mentioned Beijing’s development of anti-satellite weapons.

The Free Beacon first disclosed the existence of the new missile in October and a missile researcher reported in January that a new ASAT missile was being readied for its first test.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei was asked if China conducted an ASAT test during a briefing for reporters in Beijing on Tuesday. He did not deny that it was carried out.

“I am not aware of the development that you described,” he said. “China has consistently advocated the peaceful use of outer space and is opposed to militarizing and conducting an arms race in outer space.”

Pentagon spokeswoman Maj. Cathy Wilkinson said: “We don’t have a comment on it as we don’t discuss intelligence.”

A U.S. official familiar with intelligence reports said the DN-2, as a high earth-orbit attack missile, is a significant advance for China’s program of developing asymmetric warfare capabilities for use against the United States. Others include cyber-warfare capabilities and anti-ship ballistic missiles.

It could not be learned if the latest ASAT test involved an impact with a target satellite.

A second official said the Chinese apparently disguised the ASAT missile test as a space exploration experiment. The website of the National Space Science Center, part of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, reported Monday that a sounding rocket was used in a high-altitude scientific exploration test.

“This experiment used a high-altitude space-exploring rocket, Langmuir probe, high-energetic particle detectors, magnetometers and barium-powder release experimental apparatus and other payload of scientific exploration to test and measure the ionosphere, the high-energy particles and magnetic fields of the near-Earth space strength and structure,” the notice said.

China in 2007 conducted its first successful hit-to-kill ASAT test against a weather satellite in low-earth orbit. The impact left tens of thousands of pieces of debris in orbit that continue to threaten both manned and unmanned spacecraft.

Defense officials have said China’s ASAT weapons, including missile interceptors, lasers, and electronic jammers, are designed to disrupt satellite communications and navigation systems used extensively by the U.S. military in conducting joint warfare.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel stated in written answers to questions during his confirmation hearing in January that the United States would seek to avoid engaging in hostilities in space.

However, Hagel revealed that U.S. space policy calls for “the secretary of defense to develop capabilities, plans and options to deter, defend against, and, if necessary, defeat efforts to interfere with or attack U.S. or allied space systems.”

The statement was the clearest indication that the Pentagon is preparing to develop “counterspace” weapons in response to Chinese anti-satellite weapons.

“The chances are good this is indeed an ASAT test as it was launched from the Xichang Space Launch Center, the same launch site used for the January 2007 successful SC-19 ASAT interception of a Chinese weather satellite,” said Rick Fisher, a senior fellow at the International Assessment and Strategy Center. Xichang is located in southern Sichuan Province.

Fisher said Chinese Internet reports stated that the ASAT test of what U.S. official say was a DN-2 may have up to four stages and included one or two liquid-fueled upper stages to provide greater thrust as the missile closed in on a target.

“While there so far has been no report of a successful interception, even a very near miss would serve to validate this new [People’s Liberation Army] ASAT system,” Fisher said.

A validated DN-2 ASAT system would provide the Chinese military with the capability to “degrade or severely damage the U.S. Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) system,” he said.

“This is not merely a threat against some American military satellites, but a threat to a what has become a vital part of the global electronic infrastructure, affecting global commerce and financial flows, to your personal finances that contribute to personal freedom.”

Fisher said China has been “preaching” that other states should disarm while Beijing secretly builds space weaponry at the same time it has denied being engaged in the space arms buildup.

“In the face of such a threat, the United States simply has no choice but to pursue symmetric capabilities to deter Chinese attacks in space, but also to consider its own requirements for space superiority,” he said.

The major concern for Pentagon war planners is that China, with an arsenal of around two dozen anti-satellite missiles, could severely disrupt U.S. command-and-control systems, intelligence-gathering satellites, and navigation satellites used to guide precision guided missiles.

Security analyst Gregory Kulacki said in an online posting in January that the ASAT test was expected as early as that month.

“Given these high-level administration concerns and past Chinese practice, there seems to be a strong possibility China will conduct an ASAT test within the next few weeks,” Kulacki, a Chinese-language speaker with the Union of Concerned Scientists stated.

Defense officials disclosed to the Free Beacon that the DN-2 test was initially planned for last fall, but was delayed by the Chinese over concerns that the test would upset President Barack Obama’s reelection bid.

While details of the DN-2 are not known, U.S. officials said it is expected to be a high earth-orbit interceptor capable of destroying strategic navigation, communication, or intelligence satellites by ramming into them at high speeds.

The DN-2 is said to be capable of hitting targets in high-earth orbit between 12,000 and 22,236 miles above earth. Many military, intelligence, and commercial satellites orbit at that altitude.

A Pentagon-State Department report to Congress last year on export controls stated that in addition to ground-launched ASAT missiles, China is building high-technology kinetic and direct energy weapons for ASAT use.

According to U.S. officials, the Key Laboratory of Aerospace Information Security and Trusted Computing at Wuhan’s Computer Science School in central China’s Hubei Province is the latest cyber warfare research and attack center to be identified from within China’s secret cyber warfare program.

The Pentagon’s latest annual report on China’s military, made public last week, for the first time confirmed that Chinese cyber attacks on the U.S. government appeared “attributable directly to the Chinese government and military.”

A report by the private cyber security firm Mandiant in February identified China’s main military cyber espionage group near Shanghai as Unit 61398, part of the People’s Liberation Army’s 2nd Bureau of the General Staff Department’s 3rd Department, known as 3PLA.

The Project 2049 Institute, a Virginia-based think tank, revealed a separate Chinese military cyberwarfare unit called the Beijing North Computing Center, also part of the 3PLA, four months before publication of the Mandiant report.

According to U.S. officials, the Key Laboratory, located about 425 miles west of the Chinese port city of Shanghai, is one of three computer science laboratories at the university. It was set up in 2008 and is considered one of the premier information security and cyber warfare centers at the university.

Wuhan’s Computer Science School has trained more than 760 people who currently are in the Chinese military and government over the past decade.

The lab received funding from several Chinese military elements, including 3PLA.

Another Wuhan University computer science laboratory was identified by the officials as the Information Network Attack and Defense Research Center.

The Key Lab is noted for its development of unique computer warfare software platform called the SimpleISES Information Security Experiment System that is used in training and conducting cyber attacks.

The system can be used by 20 students at a time to conduct cyber attacks on networks. SimpleISES was developed by Beijing Simpleware Technology Co., Ltd. and is used at more than 30 universities throughout China.

Experts say the system is believed to be a key element in the massive Chinese-military related cyber attacks against the Pentagon and the U.S. government, as well as China cyber attacks in other nations.

Mark Stokes, a former Air Force officer and Pentagon specialist on China now with the Project 2049 Institute, said he was not familiar with the Key Lab. Stokes coauthored a 2011 report that revealed one of 12 3PLA operational bureaus is located in Wuhan.

“There are several of these kinds of state and defense labs,” Stokes said in an email.

A computer security expert who asked not to be identified by name said Simple ISES “seems to be basically a teaching system for training hackers.”

“If Wuhan is involved, then they are using the system to train next generation university students to be hackers,” the expert said. “It seems that it is a modular to assist in the development and testing of new attacks.”

The Pentagon’s annual report, which was dismissed by Chinese government spokesmen as “groundless,” stated that in 2012 “numerous computer systems around the world, including those owned by the U.S. government, continued to be targeted for intrusions, some of which appear to be attributable directly to the Chinese government and military.”

“These intrusions were focused on exfiltrating information,” the report said. “China is using its computer network exploitation (CNE) capability to support intelligence collection against the U.S. diplomatic, economic, and defense industrial base sectors that support U.S. national defense programs.”

According to the Pentagon report, cyber attacks are aimed at information that could benefit China’s defense and high-technology industry, as well as “policymaker interest in U.S. leadership thinking on key China issues, and military planners building a picture of U.S. network defense networks, logistics, and related military capabilities that could be exploited during a crisis.”

“Although this alone is a serious concern, the accesses and skills required for these intrusions are similar to those necessary to conduct computer network attacks,” the report said.

China plans to use cyber warfare capabilities in future wars by primarily gathering data for intelligence and computer network attacks.

Additionally, cyber warfare attacks will be employed to limit enemy action or slow military responses “by targeting network-based logistics, communications, and commercial activities,” the report said.

Cyber warriors also will be coupled with conventional military attacks as a “force multiplier” during war or crises, the report said.

The Pentagon report said Chinese military writings contain extensive reports on cyber warfare doctrine. Two key writings were identified as “Science of Strategy,” and “Science of Campaigns,” which outlined how to achieve “information superiority” in warfare that would allow a weaker power to defeat a stronger foe.

“China’s military continues to explore the role of military operations in cyberspace as a feature of modern warfare and continues to develop doctrine, training and exercises which emphasize information technology and operations,” David Helvey, deputy assistant defense secretary for East Asia, told reporters in releasing the report May 6.

Zhang Huanguo, an official involved in the laboratory, did not return emails seeking comment.

In addition to Zhang, other Chinese who are part of the Key Lab include Lina Wang, who heads the unit, Du Ruiying, and Fu Jianming, who is known to be involved in information attack and defense activities.

Zhang is considered the liaison with the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). The Key Lab in the past received funding from the PLA Information Engineering University, the General Staff Department Confidential Bureau, and the 3PLA.

The PLA Unit 61478, a secret cyber warfare unit, provided other funding for the lab.

Republicans in both the House and Senate plan to block any technology declassification for missile defense technology in the current defense authorization bill and other legislation. Legislative mark up on the authorization bill begins this week.

Critics say giving Russia classified data would undermine the effectiveness of missile defenses, which have cost taxpayers more than $100 billion since the 1980s.

Vice Adm. James Syring, director of the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency (MDA), disclosed during a congressional hearing Wednesday that the Obama administration has asked him about sharing sensitive missile defense data with Russia during talks over the past several years aimed at reaching a missile defense cooperation agreement.

“I have not been asked to declassify anything in terms of disclosing information to Russia,” Syring said under questioning from Rep. Mo Brooks (R., Ala.) at a House Armed Services Strategic Forces subcommittee hearing Wednesday.

However, pressed for details, Syring revealed that there were discussions among senior policy officials, including Undersecretary of Defense for Policy James Miller, about “what is classified and what is not” in the context of data sharing with the Russians.

Syring said the discussions involved sensitive data to be used in talks with Moscow, including “the capability of the current missiles we’re building and the velocity of burn out.”

The Obama administration has sought to convince Russia’s government that its phased missile defense plan for Europe will not be used against a Russian missile attack against the United States. As part of that process, Pentagon and State Department officials in the past have tried to give sensitive data to the Russians that they hope would convince them some U.S. defenses do not have the capability to shoot down long-range missiles.

Missile defense specialists have said a missile’s velocity burnout rate is a key characteristic that can be used by states with offensive missiles to defeat the defenses.

Syring told the Senate Armed Services Committee Strategic Forces subcommittee on Thursday that he would not give up valuable technology to the Russians. “I will not cede the advantage of the United States to anybody,” he said.

Syring declined to elaborate on his comments a day earlier about internal discussions on technology declassification and deferred questions to Madelyn Creedon, assistant defense secretary for Global Strategic Affairs.

Creedon said there are no plans to share classified information with the Russians. She said “multiple discussions” were held in the Pentagon regarding how to protect classified data on missile defenses during talks in Moscow.

A Pentagon spokeswoman also sidestepped questions about Syring’s reference to discussions on declassifying data for sharing with the Russians.

The MDA “has not been asked to declassify data to give to Russia, nor has MDA declassified data to give to Russia,” Lt. Col. Monica Matoush said.

She did not respond when asked about the internal discussions on declassifying interceptor burn data and other missile defense capabilities mentioned by Syring.

Brooks said in an interview that he is committed to fighting any missile defense technology sharing with the Russians.

“The more information we share about this technology with any foreign power, the greater the likelihood that our enemies will develop countermeasures, with catastrophic consequences should anyone launch a missile strike against American,” Brooks said.

Brooks has introduced legislation that would ban the sharing of sensitive missile defense technology. If free-standing legislation does not pass, Republicans plan to add language to the annual defense authorization bill prohibiting the sharing of missile defense technology as has been done in the past several years, he said.

Protecting missile defenses and the technology used in them is becoming more important as a result of growing missile threats from both North Korea and Iran, Brooks said.

North Korea last month made unprecedented threats to fire nuclear-tipped long-range missiles at U.S. cities.

Current missile defenses are located on Aegis ships based in Asia and Europe, and at bases in California and Alaska. A ground-based interceptor base is also planned for the East Coast.

The Missile Defense Information Act of 2013, introduced by Brooks earlier this year, would prohibit the Pentagon from sharing missile defense technology, including hit-to-kill know-how, with Russia.

However, if the administration declassifies the technology, it could be shared with a foreign government.

“I know the White House is brazen, but it would be quite remarkable if they would in fact declassify technology that cost American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars to develop,” Brooks said when asked about the technology declassification plans.

“And a technology that is unique in the world,” he added.

Both China and Russia are building missile defenses in response to U.S. missile defenses.

Rep. Mike Rogers (R., Ala.), chairman of the House Armed Services Strategic Forces subcommittee, criticized the administration data-sharing plan.

“It’s appalling that the administration is considering further concessions—this time, classified information about our missile defenses—just to get Russia to agree to sit down and talk about further nuclear reductions,” Rogers told the Washington Free Beacon. “The administration must stop treating our missile defenses like something it can trade away.”

“If the administration would invest half as much time and effort in countering real threats, like Iran and North Korea, the American people could be a whole lot safer,” Rogers said.

Ed Timperlake, a Pentagon technology security official in the George W. Bush administration, also criticized the technology-sharing plan.

“In a world of very bad ideas that constantly go around in Washington, like the Clinton administration’s effort to limit defenses as part of ABM treaty demarcation, this initiative is truly pointless for the United States, and a huge boon to Russia,” he said. “It makes absolutely no strategic sense for our national security.”

Arms control advocates during the Clinton administration sought to restrict U.S. missile defenses in talks with the Russians, including limits on interceptor velocity, as a way to preserve the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which banned strategic defenses against nuclear missiles.

President George W. Bush withdrew from the treaty as one of his first acts as president. The withdrawal paved the way for the deployment of U.S. missile defenses.

Sen. Mark Kirk (R., Ill.) on Thursday joined House Republicans in opposing the missile defense technology-sharing plan.

“We will not provide Russia with sensitive info about our missile defense systems,” Kirk stated on Twitter.

Kirk said he is very concerned about the disclosures made by Syring because they raise questions about whether the data being considered for declassification would violate an agreement reached between Congress and the administration in 2011 that no interceptor velocity burnout data would be declassified unless it went through a rigorous security review and if it would benefit U.S. security and U.S. missile defenses.

Syring stated that his guidance to U.S. missile defense negotiators on not disclosing classified information to the Russians in missile defense talks “has been adhered to 100 percent.”

Brooks then said: “I’m not sure that you’re answering the question or maybe I’m not phrasing the question properly. Let me give it another crack. Have you had any discussions not about what information is classified or [un]classified, but, instead have you had any discussions about whether any classified information should become declassified with respect to our missile defense technology [and] Russia?”

“Yes sir, there has been a discussion on the capability of the current missiles we’re building and the velocity of burn out,” Syring said.

Then-Under Secretary of State for Arms Control Ellen Tauscher in 2011 offered to provide Moscow with data on the burnout rate for SM-3 interceptor missiles, the mainstay of sea-based defenses.

Republicans opposed that effort as well.

Paula A. DeSutter, assistant secretary of state for Verification, Compliance, and Implementation in the George W. Bush administration, said declassifying information about current and future U.S. missile defense systems and providing it to Russia is unwise.

“First, the cost to U.S. national security is very high because, particularly in light of Russia’s military trade with other nations, including Iran, it is absurd to believe that Russia will not provide the data to current and potential foes,” DeSutter said.

Provision of sensitive U.S. missile defense data would enable Russia and other states to design offensive ballistic missiles that could defeat U.S. defenses, she said, rendering U.S. defenses less effective and thus causing further U.S. investment that would be required to offset increasing ballistic missile threats as a result.

“Second, there is no benefit to doing so since, as we saw during protracted efforts during the Bush administration, no technical data, threat rationale, or policy arguments will ever persuade Russia to agree to U.S. deployment of missile defenses,” DeSutter said.

Additionally, the United States should develop and deploy “the best possible defense of the United States, our forces, and our allies against the threat of ballistic missiles carrying nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons and stop giving Russia veto power over U.S. national security requirements,” she said.

A Pentagon spokesman had no immediate comment.

Adm. Jonathan Greenert was asked about a report Tuesday in the Washington Free Beacon about the Pentagon’s annual report on China’s military that revealed it is building two new classes of missile submarines in addition to the eight nuclear missile submarines and six attack submarines currently being deployed.

“They are absolutely capable,” Greenert said of the Chinese navy during an appearance before the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee.

On China’s unique, aircraft-carrier killing DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile, Greenert said the U.S. Navy is working on ways to counter the missile during the “kill chain” involving the missile, its maneuvering warheads, and the sensors and guidance used in targeting.

“In other words to do such a thing you have to have the sensor, you have to detect a ship, you have to recognize it is a ship, you have to then be confident that you got it well enough, then you have a tracking solution, the you’ve got to be comfortable you can launch, it launches, it goes in the right direction, then it has to adjust itself,” he said. “So at that point you can spoof it, you can jam it, you can try to shoot it down, and as it gets closer you can put a wall of lead up.”

Greenert said the entire chain of events is needed to strike a carrier at sea with the DF-21D and for defenses “you’ve got to break a couple of those chains.”

“And that’s what we look at, frankly,” Greenert said. “Many people focus on the bullet … there’s a lot of effort going on, has been, making great progress. I’m pretty comfortable where we are” in efforts to counter the missile.

On China’s submarine capabilities, Greenert said in response to questioning from Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R., N.J.): “Well, congressman, we own the undersea domain. I have a lot of empirical data that tells me exactly that. It would appear to me based on the construction program, and it kind of is logical, that China would like to modernize.”

China is replacing older submarines with newer and more modern systems but “they’re not there yet,” Greenert said. “And so our job is to remain owning the undersea domain.”

On China’s deep-water naval capabilities, the Chinese navy is “comfortable” operating within the first island chain about 100 miles from the Chinese coast.

“They have very capable individual platforms that they’re now starting to put to sea,” he said. “The ability to network, to bring them together in an effective manner is somewhat of question. But I would submit that we have an opportunity as well, to operate together and we’re working in that very direction. It doesn’t have to be adversarial.”

However, Frelinghuysen said in response: “But they are, they seem to have a pretty adversarial situation in terms of their relationships with the Philippines, with Vietnam. … Not only are we confronted, those countries are confronted as well. Now obviously the Philippines have been a strong ally of ours.”

“So, it does or doesn’t worry you about their arms buildup here?” the congressman asked.

“I would just say that I’m vigilant,” Greenert said. “I would hate to say that I’m worried, yet, because I’m not necessarily worried. Very vigilant and we need to pay attention and understand the intent. And challenge them on that intent.”

The Pentagon report made public on Monday for the first time disclosed the existence of the two new missile submarines, identified as the ballistic missile submarine dubbed the Type 096 and a new cruise-missile firing submarine called the Type 095.

Those new submarines are being developed as China is deploying new Jin-class ballistic missile submarines and Shang-class nuclear powered attack submarines.

It plans on eight Jins and six Shangs, the report said.

The group remains active in the Mediterranean port city, operating patrols and checkpoints, and earlier this year reached an agreement with other Islamist groups allowing it to operate openly, said military officials familiar with intelligence reports from North Africa.

The group “continues to spread its ideology in the Benghazi area, particularly targeting youth,” said one official, who noted that the lack of central government security was the key reason the militia has not been suppressed.

The officials disclosed details of the group’s activities on condition of anonymity.

Ansar al Sharia also is using Facebook to publicize its activities, including charitable work in poor areas, and is constructing some buildings. It also claimed to be operating a medical clinic in Benghazi. Other activities include repairing schools and holding conferences for local youth.

According to the officials, the group successfully exploited the weakness of security authorities in Benghazi and Libya in general to boost its presence. The group is attempting to reinvent itself as a humanitarian and charitable organization after the Sept. 11 attack.

A series of terrorist attacks in Benghazi on the night of Sept. 11 killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and government employees Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty. The U.S. Special Mission was destroyed and later abandoned during the attack, which featured mortars, rocket-propelled grenades, and assault rifles.

President Barack Obama said the day after the attack that the United States would pursue the attackers. “Make no mistake, justice will be done,” he said.

However, at least one of the suspects in the attack was detained in Tunisia and released before the suspect could be captured or questioned by U.S. investigators.

According to news reports from the region, Ansar al Sharia leader and former Guantanamo Bay prison detainee Sufian Ben Qumu was the target of an assassination attempt on April 14 and was wounded in the shootout with unidentified gunmen.

Days earlier, an Ansar al Sharia commander, Yahya Abdel Sayed, was reportedly killed in Sirte.

Fox News reported May 1 that the mastermind behind the attack has been identified and is free in Libya.

The FBI last week posted photos of three men wanted in connection with the attack on the diplomatic compound and asked for help in locating them.

State Department officials are scheduled to testify on the administration’s handling of the attack during a congressional hearing set for Wednesday.

According to an interim report by the House Republican Conference made public last month: “The attackers were members of extremist groups, including the Libya-based Ansar al-Sharia (AAS) and al Qaeda in the Lands of the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM).”

The House report said the State Department Operations Center issued an alert Sept. 12 that stated, “Al Qaeda linked Ansar al Sharia (AAS) claimed responsibility for the attack and had called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli.”

Additionally, the CIA had drafted talking points for members of Congress to use in discussing the attack publicly that initially mentioned the terrorists had “potential links to Ansar al Sharia,” the House report stated.

The military officials said the Ansar al Sharia Brigade was formed from Islamists who were part of the 2011 revolution to overthrow the regime of Muammar Gaddafi in early 2012 as an offshoot of the February 17 Brigade.

The goal of the organization is to create a state in Libya run by fundamentalist Sharia law. The name means Supporters of Sharia in Arabic.

Like other Islamist groups, it is committed to conducting jihad or holy war against the United States and Western interests in pursuit of its objectives.

According to a Pentagon-sponsored study of al Qaeda in Libya, the Pakistan-based central al Qaeda terrorist group does not have a formal affiliate in Libya. However, that report said Ansar al Sharia “could be the new face of al Qaeda in Libya.”

After the Sept. 11 attack, protesters drove out Ansar al Sharia from a base it operated in Benghazi and as a result the group assumed a lower public profile.

The Brigade reached an agreement with other Islamist militias in Benghazi in January 2013 to set out clearly defined areas of the city where the militias conducted patrols and operated vehicle checkpoints.

The agreement coincided with reports that Ansar al Sharia was seeking to brand itself as a humanitarian relief organization and to play an open role in Benghazi. The group has downplayed its military activities and played up its social service work.

It opened a women’s clinic in late 2012 and has reported on its Facebook page that it delivered food to needy families in regions outside the city. The group also hosted youth conferences.

An insignia used by the group and posted on Facebook states “Ansar al Sharia Patrols/Your Sons At Your Service.” Among its boasts online were claims the group has intercepted illegal immigrants and seized shipments of illicit drugs from patrols and checkpoints.

News reports from Libya stated that in February Ansar al Sharia commanders were said to be negotiating with the Libyan Interior Ministry on an agreement to hand over detainees to Tripoli government.

According to the officials, the weak central government fears Ansar al Sharia and lacked adequate security and police personnel. As a result, the group has been able to increase its access to both territory and local populations.

Ansar al Sharia militants in March raided the Benghazi European School and searched for textbooks they claimed contradicted Sharia law.

The private school is mainly for children of non-Libyans and raised concerns about the group’s Islamist agenda.

The group is also attempting to generate support for Islamists in Gaza and Syria and has conducted demonstrations demanding the release of Libyan terrorists held in foreign prisons, including Iraq, Russia, and the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay.

A second military official who specializes in the region said militias of all types are rampant in Benghazi and Libya because of the weakness of the central government.

“The first problem is capacity: They have none,” he said of the central government in Tripoli. “They can’t even control events in the capital of Tripoli.”

Recently, there was a militia standoff at the Libyan Foreign Ministry with militiamen demanding the removal of officials linked to the ousted regime of Muammar Gaddafi.

“Until the Libyan government is able to stand up a reliable and independent security force of army and police, they will not be able to control Benghazi or anywhere else,” the official said.

Another problem hampering efforts to control militias is the great reluctance of the new Libyans in power to use force against other Libyans, unlike the Gaddafi regime, which cracked down ruthlessly on opponents.

“There is an incredible reluctance on the part of the Libyan government to put themselves in the position where they might draw the blood of Libyan citizens,” the official said. “Nobody in the new government wants to be seen playing the same role as Gaddafi.”

Among the various militias currently operating are the Islamist militias, several rogue militias, and even criminal militias. Some of the militias are pro-government and working with Tripoli.

The official said the pro-government militias are weak or not strong enough or willing enough to impose stability.

The Benghazi attack continues to be the focus of attention on Capitol Hill after a State Department review panel made public in December it found “systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department.”

The Obama administration has sought to play down the deadly attack, initially identifying the attack as a spontaneous demonstration against an anti-Islam video. White House spokesman Jay Carney said May 1, “Benghazi happened a long time ago.”

“In terms of China’s submarines, they’re investing heavily in a robust program for undersea warfare, developing submarines that are both conventional, diesel-electric powered, air- independent propulsion and nuclear-powered attack submarines,” David Helvey, deputy assistant defense secretary for East Asia, told reporters at a briefing on release of the Pentagon’s annual assessment of Chinese military power.

China has yet to conduct an underwater test firing of its submarine-launched missiles but is deploying new missile submarines and planning advanced versions.

“We see China investing considerably in capabilities for operations in this area,” he said.

The Pentagon’s latest annual report to Congress also includes new details of China’s deployment of an aircraft carrier-killing ballistic missile, two new stealth jet fighters, and a new road-mobile intercontinental ballistic missile in addition to three other new ICBMs.

The Chinese military is also developing cyber warfare capabilities that can be used in preemptive attacks, the 92-page report states.

Chinese missile forces, known as the Second Artillery Corps, are “developing and testing several new classes and variants of offensive missiles, forming additional missile units, upgrading older missile systems, and developing methods to counter ballistic missile defenses,” the report said.

Of particular concern to the Pentagon is the deployment near Taiwan of a precision-guided DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile, according to the report.

“We’re concerned about the ability of China to develop missiles that can project its military power with precision at great distances from China—obviously something that can hold at risk large surface ships, including aircraft carriers, is something that we pay attention to, but we put it in the context of a number of China’s military developments, again, that we characterize as anti-access and area denial,” Helvey said.

However, Helvey noted that no single weapons system is the problem. Instead, he said, “it’s the integration and overlapping nature of these weapons system into a regime that can potentially impede or restrict free military operations in the Western Pacific.”

“So that’s something that we monitor and are concerned about.”

“The DF-21D is based on a variant of the DF-21 medium-range ballistic missile and gives the PLA the capability to attack large ships, including aircraft carriers, in the western Pacific Ocean,” the report said, noting that its range is greater than 932 miles and that it is armed with a high-technology maneuvering warhead.

Additionally, the report confirms, China is building a new road-mobile ICBM that is likely capable of being armed with a multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicle (MIRV).

The Free Beacon first reported Aug. 15 that the new missile, described by defense officials as the DF-41, was flight-tested and is expected to be equipped with MIRVs.

“The Second Artillery continues to modernize its nuclear forces by enhancing its silo-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and adding more survivable mobile delivery systems,” the report said.

New road mobile missiles deployed in recent years include DF-31 and DF-31A mobile ICBMs and the JL-2 submarine-launched ballistic missile. The DF-31A has a range of about 7,000 miles.

“This administration is reluctant to just come out and say it, but this report makes clear that China is preparing for small-scale and then large-scale wars against the United States and its friends and allies,” said Richard Fisher, a China miltiary analyst with the International Assessment and Strategy Center.

“It is time to start signalling to China’s leadership the broader economic, political, as well as military costs of its current course before it believes it can confidently embark on surprise military campaigns.”

Beijing is also rapidly building new radar-evading stealth fighter-bombers known as the J-20 and J-31.

“Within two years of the January 2011 flight test of China’s first stealth fighter, which we call the J-20, China tested a second prototype, which is referred to as the J-31,” Helvey said. “The first J-31 flight test, in October 2012, highlights China’s continued ambition to produce advanced fifth-generation fighter aircraft.”

Helvey said the Pentagon does not expect either the J-20 or the J-31 “to achieve an effective operational capability before 2018.”

U.S. intelligence assessments from five years ago said China would not field a jet comparable to the U.S. Air Force F-22 stealth fighter before 2018. As a result, the Pentagon canceled production of the F-22 at 187 jets.

The first test flight of the J-20 took place two years ago and surprised the U.S. military. It was tested during the visit of then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who was criticized for canceling F-22 production.

China’s surface naval forces are also expanding rapidly with deployment of several new types of warships, including the first aircraft carrier, the Liaoning.

Helvey said the carrier conducted its first aircraft  launch and recovery operations in November with J-15 fighters.

“We anticipate that China will spend the next three to four years on training and integration before achieving an operationally effective aircraft carrier capability,” he said. “China will likely build several indigenous aircraft carriers over the next 15 years.”

Chinese cyber and space weapons capabilities continued to be developed. Helvey said those warfare capabilities are being closely watched.

For the first time, the report linked large-scale cyber attacks and intrusions of computer networks to the Chinese government and military.

“In addition, in 2012, numerous computer systems around the world, including those owned by the United States government, continued to be targeted for intrusions, some of which appear to be attributable directly to [People’s Republic of China] government and military organizations,” Helvey said.

Asked about Chinese economic espionage, Helvey declined to provide details but said, “We’re always mindful of the potential threats to the security of our defense technology and defense systems.”

The report also discusses China’s assertions of territorial and maritime claims that are upsetting stability in the region.

“In this report, we do highlight China’s increased assertiveness with respect to its maritime territorial claim,” Helvey said.

China is claiming most of the South China Sea as its territory and is disputing Japan’s claims to the Senkaku Islands. Both areas are said to have large deposits of undersea gas and oil to which energy-hungry states in the region seek access.

China’s government routinely protests the annual report, claiming it is part of a Pentagon campaign to hype the threat from China.

Helvey said the Chinese are aware of the report and were not consulted prior to its release on Monday.

“China’s leaders continue to see the modernization of its military as a central component of their strategy to advance China’s national development goals in the first two decades of the 21st century,” he said.

Fisher, the IASC military analyst, said the latest report is far more useful than the truncated 43-page report from 2012.

“The first ever report disclosure of development of the Type 096 SSBN raises the prospect of a new submarine launched missile that also may be multiple warhead capable,” Fisher said. “As the Administration presses for additional reductions in U.S. nuclear warhead levels and shows reluctance to fund U.S. nuclear arsenal modernization, it is doubly important that Congress be informed about the size and growth of China’s nuclear forces.”

Fisher said the report failed to address China’s transfer of strategic missile technology to North Korea, specifically the transporter-erector launchers for Pyongyang’s new KN-08 road-mobile intercontinental ballistic missile disclosed for the first time during a military parade in April 2012.

“A failure to chastise and sanction China’s action will only serve to undermine confidence in American security guarantees and increase interest by our allies in their own nuclear deterrents,” he said.

Former State Department intelligence official John Tkacik said the report’s most important revelations are on the Chinese navy and especially its submarine forces.

“Last year’s report disclosed that two Jin-class ballistic missile submarines were already operational, and now the 2013 report counts three, so I take the DIA bean-counters’ word for it, China is launching one new boomer each year,” Tkacik said.

Each of the missile submarines will be equipped with 12 JL-2 missile that likely will have multiple warheads. The new submarines mean the Chinese are adding at least 180 new nuclear warheads to their arsenal, a sharp increase from the U.S. intelligence estimate of 240 warheads, Tkacik said.

In addition to the new missile submarine planned as a following on to the Jin submarines, China is planning at least one more advanced Typ 096 missile submarine a year indefiniately, Tkacik added.

“The real news is the construction of a new special-purpose class of guided-missile submarine, the Type-095 SSGN,” he said. “A Chinese SSGN [cruise missile-firing submarine] is not only a new threat for the U.S. Navy to worry about, but it will deeply unsettle China’s neighbors in East and Southeast Asia.”

Two Bear H nuclear-capable bombers were detected flying into the military’s Alaska Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) near the Aleutians, where a strategic missile defense radar is located, and Alaska’s North Slope region by the Arctic and Chukchi Seas on April 28 and 29, military officials told the Washington Free Beacon.

Lt. Cmdr. Bill Lewis, a spokesman with the U.S. Northern Command, confirmed the fighter intercept of the latest bomber incursion but declined to provide details.

“Two U.S. F-22′s from Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska, were launched and visually identified Russian aircraft on the night of April 28, as the Russian Air Force flew standard out of area flights near Alaska,” Lewis said.

The bombers did not enter U.S. airspace, he said.

However, the Alaska ADIZ is a formal national security zone used by the military to monitor both civilian and military aircraft. The dispatch of F-22s is an indication the bomber flights posed a potential threat to U.S. territory.

It was the fifth incident of Russian strategic bombers flying against the United States since June, when Bear bombers were intercepted near Alaska during a large-scale Russian strategic nuclear exercise that Russian military officials said involved practice strikes against U.S. missile defense sites in Alaska.

Less than a month later, on July 4, two more Bears flew the closest to the northern California coast that Russian aircraft have flown since the days of the Soviet Union.

Then in February two Bears circled Guam, a key U.S. military hub in the Pacific.

Additionally, Backfire strategic bombers flew simulated strikes against U.S. missile defenses and bases in Japan last month.

U.S. officials say the stepped-up Russian bomber flights are part of Moscow’s attempt to influence U.S. missile defense policies. Russia, along with China, for years opposed U.S. missile defense programs through propaganda and influence operations. Both states want the defenses curtailed to protect their strategic offensive missiles, which are currently being expanded.

The Pentagon in March announced it was adding 14 new long-range missile interceptors to the 30 ground-based interceptors based at Fort Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, in announcing the added interceptors, also said the Pentagon is canceling an advanced Navy SM-3 interceptor that was to be deployed in Europe and would be capable of shooting down long-range missiles from Iran.

The latest bomber incursion near Alaska also followed the April 14 visit to Moscow by National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon, who presented a letter from President Barack Obama to the Russians on missile defenses. Details of the letter to Russian President Vladimir Putin remain secret but Russian officials described it as containing a number of proposals “promoting dialogue and cooperations.”

Obama was overheard on an open microphone in March 2012 telling then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev that he would have “more flexibility” in dealing with Russia on missile defenses, an indication he is preparing to make further concessions limiting U.S. missile defenses in future talks.

Administration officials have said publicly there are no plans to limit U.S. missile defenses in the talks.

Moscow is demanding legally binding guarantees that U.S. missile defenses in Europe will not be used to target Russian offensive ballistic missiles.

U.S. officials said Obama appears to be preparing to make concessions to the Russians on missile defenses as a way to seek a new round of strategic arms cuts with Moscow. He is set to visit Russia in September when arms control is expected to be a major topic of discussion.

Northern Command did not announce the April 28 bomber incident and declined to release details on the latest flights as part of the Obama administration’s conciliatory policy of seeking to “reset” ties with Russia.

However, two days after the incident the command issued a press release highlighting its cooperation with the Russian military announcing plans for a joint U.S.-Russian flight exercise designed to counter hijacked aircraft.

The statement said Russian air force officials on April 27 completed talks with Northern Command officials at Peterson Air Force Base, Colo., on the next exercise dubbed Vigilant Eagle 2013.

The exercise will be held in August in Anchorage and at Anadyr, home of a major strategic bomber base in the Russian Far East where the string of bomber flights are believed by U.S. officials to have been launched.

The exercise “will focus on national procedures for monitoring the situation and the cooperative hand-off of a hijacked aircraft from one nation to the other while exchanging air tracking information.”

The exercise series is “an extraordinary and historic opportunity for NORAD and the Russian Federation to coordinate on the response to a mutually acknowledged hijacking threat,” said Joe Bonnet, director of joint training and exercises for NORAD and U.S. Northern Command. “From a participant’s perspective, it is more than a military exercise; it is creating lasting bonds and partnerships extremely valuable for the security of our nations.”

The last exercise in August 2012 was a “computer-assisted” simulation. The next exercise will involve “live-fly” of aircraft.

“This year’s exercise will continue building and strengthening the cooperation and partnership established between the two countries,” the statement said.

Some defense officials and military analysts are questioning why the command would seek to cooperate with the Russians at a time when Moscow is flying threatening bomber missions against the United States.

While the exact nature of the training mission flown by the Bear Hs during the April 28 flight is not known, one official said it was likely targeting practice against the Cobra Dane radar located on Shemya Island in the far western Aleutians. The North Slope flight was probably designed to signal that Russia is preparing to strike the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, the official said.

Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney, a former Alaska Air Command commander, said: “The Russians continue to play the administration like a fiddle, sending signals that they still have a strategic air force and can project power while the U.S. continues to ground alert squadrons and unilateral disarms.”

“Is this the administration’s idea of ‘reset relations’ with Russia?” he asked.

Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Trey Obering, a former director of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), told the Free Beacon last month after the Russian bomber practice against Asian missile defenses that the flights are a clear sign Moscow has no interest in cooperating with the United States on missile defenses.

“I engaged with the Russians regularly as MDA director to propose cooperation on missile defense,” Obering said. “After I retired, I participated in a group led by [former National Security Adviser] Steve Hadley which proposed an architecture which would allow for cooperation without impinging on each nation’s sovereignty and would prevent the disclosure of any sensitive technology or information. These efforts were met with Russian intransigence.”

The Russian opposition and bomber flights mean Moscow will not cooperate with the United States in any meaningful way, Obering said.

As a result, he said, the United States should make no concessions to the Russians and instead should pursue U.S. national security interests in defending American territory and allies.

The report said North Korea’s Taepodong-2, last used as a satellite launcher, is continuing to be developed as a long-range missile. The missile “could reach parts of the United States if configured as an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of carrying a nuclear payload,” the 26-page report says.

The reference to hitting the United States with a nuclear warhead followed the disclosure in Congress of a classified Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) study April 11 that said North Korea has mastered the technology of placing a nuclear warhead on a missile.

Administration policy and intelligence officials later sought to challenge DIA’s assessment saying the nuclear missile capability is uncertain.

The first annual report to Congress called “Military and Security Developments Involving the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea” said North Korea could conduct additional nuclear tests “at any time.” An intelligence official said recently that new activity has been detected at a nuclear test site but that it is unclear if the activity is related to a future underground blast or maintenance on the facility.

The report said North Korea’s space launch development “contributes heavily” to long-range missiles because of the shared technology in both systems.

“However, a space launch does not test a re-entry vehicle (RV), without which North Korea cannot deliver a weapon to target from an ICBM,” the report said, apparently a caveat to the classified assessment made public last month.

North Korea’s new missile systems include a short-range missile, an intermediate-range Musudan missile, and a road-mobile ICBM called the KN-08. Pyongyang’s military also has hundreds of short-range Scuds and medium-range Nodong missiles.

“These advances in ballistic missile delivery systems, coupled with developments in nuclear technology … are in line with North Korea’s stated objective of being able to strike the U.S. homeland,” the report.

Following North Korea’s third underground nuclear test on Feb. 10, the communist regime launched a “campaign” of threatening media releases and threatening statements, including an unprecedented threat to use nuclear missiles against the United States.

The objective, according to the report, is aimed at “reaffirming its need to counter perceived U.S. ‘hostility’ with nuclear-armed ICBMs.”

“North Korea will move closer to this goal, as well as increase the threat it poses to U.S. forces and allies in the region, if it continues testing and devoting scarce regime resources to these programs,” the report said. “The pace of its progress will depend, in part, on how many resources it can dedicate to these efforts and how often it conducts tests.”

The report also said North Korea “probably” has offensive computer cyber attack capabilities and has carried out several operations against banks and other networks in South Korea.

The cyber warfare capability included cyber espionage and distributed denial of serve attacks since 2009. The report said “the North Korean regime may view [computer network operations] as an appealing platform from which to collect intelligence.”

The impoverished state sees computer attack operations “as a cost-effective way to modernize some North Korean military capabilities.”

“As a result of North Korea’s historical isolation from outside communications and influence, it is likely to employ Internet infrastructure from third-party nations,” the report said.

Much of North Korea’s weaponry comes from China and Russia with Beijing having more “robust” relations with Pyongyang, the report said.

Richard Fisher, a military affairs expert with the International Assessment and Strategy Center, said the report, which cost the Pentagon $59,000 to produce, “should have been explicit about China’s direct assistance to North Korea’s ICBM program, which the world saw plain as day on April 15, 2012 when the KN-08 ICBM was paraded on top of its Chinese Sanjiang 16-wheel transporter erector launcher.”

“The Defense Department has had almost two years to figure out North Korea’s new fourth generation surface-to-air missile, which is very likely of Chinese origin,” Fisher said in an email. “China is helping North Korea to obliterate Anchorage and very likely, to shoot down our retaliating strike aircraft. This report only compounds the Obama administration’s failure to respond to China’s enabling a direct threat to Americans. Return this report to sender.”

While much of its military is outdated, North Korea has been modernizing some of its forces, including artillery, submarines, and special operations forces. The special operations commandos are a key asymmetric warfare capability and would be used in wartime to attack targets and leaders in South Korea.

North Korea’s Korean People’s Army has 4,100 tanks, 2,100 armored vehicles, 8,500 artillery pieces, and 5,100 multiple rocket launchers. (For a full size map of the Korean forces, click here.)

Its naval forces include 70 submarines, including mini submarines like the kind that was used to sink the South Korean ship Choenan in 2010, killing 46 sailors.

Missile forces include KN-2, Scud-B, Scud-C, and Scud-ER short-range missiles with around a hundred launchers each; fewer than 50 620-mile-range Nodong launchers; and fewer than 50 intermediate-range missile launchers with ranges of more than 2,500 miles.

The Taepodong-2 was reported as “not yet deployed” in the reports.

“North Korea will continue using and improving the TD-2, which could reach the United States with a nuclear payload if developed as an ICBM,” the report said. “An intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) and a new short-range, solid-propellant ballistic missile are also being developed.”

“North Korea’s continued pursuit of nuclear technology and capabilities and development of long-range ballistic missile programs, as reflected in the December 2012 Taepodong-2 missile launch and April 2012 display of a new road-mobile intercontinental ballistic missile, underscores the threat to regional stability and U.S. national security posed by North Korea,” the report states.

North Korea also poses an arms proliferation threat, sending conventional and nuclear goods to Burma, Iran, and Syria.

Despite U.N. sanctions prohibiting arms sales, North Korea “continues to proliferate weapons-related goods and technology,” the report said.

“Weapons sales are a critical source of foreign currency for North Korea and North Korea is unlikely to cease export activity in spite of UN Security Council sanctions or successful interdictions of its weapons-related exports.”