Republican Sens. Mike Lee (Utah), Ted Cruz (Texas), and Lindsey Graham (S.C.), sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel last week inquiring about the Pentagon’s potentially changing its regulations for how soldiers may discuss their faith.

The senators expressed concern over the effect that any changes would have on the military and asked the secretary if any pending changes comply with current legal protections for soldiers.

“We are very concerned that potential changes could endanger the rights of members of the armed services to practice and share their faith. Policies that prohibit discussion of religious matters by military members could create a chilling effect on members of the armed services of any faith and have an adverse effect on recruitment and retention efforts and the morale of our troops,” the senators wrote in the letter dated May 7.

Lee said he had not yet received a response from the Department of Defense. A department spokesman said he does not know what the status of the secretary’s response is because Hagel responds to inquiries personally.

“It came to my attention that Air Force officials met with the head of a group that espouses anti-religious freedom rhetoric,” Lee said when asked about the letter. “It is unclear if the meeting was an indication that the Air Force might be considering changing their policies, so we wanted to ensure the rights of members of the military would be protected.”

That April 23 meeting was between Mikey Weinstein, president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, and top Air Force leaders, including several generals, according to a Washington Post editorial. Weinstein and others expressed concerns about Christians sharing their faith in the military.

Weinstein’s meeting with top Air Force commanders came after he wrote an editorial in the Huffington Post in which he called Christians who defend religious freedom “pitiable unconstitutional carpetbaggers” and “human monsters.”

The Air Force then published a new religious policy at the urging of Weinstein, the Washington Post suggested. The policy prohibited officers from using their position “to promote their personal religious beliefs to their subordinates or to extend preferential treatment for any religion,” the Post wrote. Soldiers who violate the policy could be court-martialed.

News of the Air Force policy set off a firestorm.

Breitbart News ran an article declaring, “Pentagon Taps Anti-Christian Extremist For Religious Tolerance Policy,” as well as a follow-up piece titled, “Pentagon May Court Martial Soldiers Who Share Christian Faith.”

Fox News picked up the story, and the Family Research Council launched a petition on April 29 urging the military to protect soldiers’ religious freedom. The petition has over 166,000 signatures.

The military sent mixed messages when trying to quell the controversy. A Pentagon spokesman first told Fox News, “Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense.”

The department issued a statement a few days later on May 2 affirming its respect for the rights of all soldiers and denying Weinstein was a consultant to the military, contrary to Breitbart News’ reporting.

The Army Times also reported that the Air Force was not issuing any new regulations in response to Weinstein’s meeting with the branch’s brass. The timing of the launch of the “blue book” was purely coincidental, an Air Force spokesman told the Times.

The same day that the Pentagon released its second statement, it released a third statement distinguishing between evangelization, which is permitted, and proselytization, which is prohibited.

“Service members can share their faith (evangelize) but must not force unwanted, intrusive attempts to convert others of any faith or no faith to one’s beliefs (proselytization),” the Pentagon’s statement said.

“We would see evangelizing and proselytizing as essentially the same thing,” said former Army Lieutenant General Jerry Boykin, now executive vice president at the Family Research Council.

“The freedom of religion means you can live your faith, and for a Christian that includes sharing your faith,” Boykin said.

Boykin remains concerned.

“Their statements have been contradictory, so we don’t know which statement is the current or accurate statement,” Boykin said, calling the Pentagon’s position “nebulous.”

Boykin said he supports a prohibition on coercion, if that is what the military is after. He called for a clear, department-wide policy protecting soldiers’ right to practice their religion as they see fit.

Boykin sent a request to the Pentagon on May 3 to meet with Hagel. He has yet to receive a response.

Weinstein’s office did not return a request for comment.

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.

“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.”

Tehran also continued building ballistic missiles and appears on the way to flight testing an intercontinental ballistic missile by 2015, according to a brief summary of the annual Report on the Military Power of Iran.

However, the report to Congress for the first time states Iran’s military doctrine is “defensive,” a significant shift reflecting the more soft line policy views toward the theocratic state held by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel.

The public portion of the first report to Congress under Hagel also was sharply curtailed this year from the four-page, unclassified assessment released in April 2012, to five paragraphs for the latest unclassified executive summary of the report dated January 2013.

Pentagon spokesmen initially said the five-paragraph executive summary was classified as “for official use only” and would not be released. A spokeswoman for the office of the undersecretary of defense for intelligence later made a copy of the new assessment available to the Washington Free Beacon.

Hagel came under fire for his views on Iran during his Senate confirmation battle. It was disclosed during hearings that the former senator opposed unilateral U.S. sanctions on Iran over its illicit nuclear program. As a senator he voted against labeling Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist organization. And in 2006 he dismissed a military strike against Iran as “not a viable, feasible or responsible option.”

As defense secretary, he has adopted the Obama administration policy that all options are available for use against Iran.

On the use of surrogates, the report says Iran is expanding economic and security agreements with members of the nonaligned states in Latin America and Africa, a reference to Iran’s growing relations with oil-rich Venezuela under the regime of the late leftist leader Hugo Chavez.

“Iran plays a growing role outside of the [Persian] Gulf and Levant with a full spectrum of military capabilities that includes the use of non-state actors, such as Lebanese Hezbollah, Iraqi Shia groups and the Taliban,” the report said. “Iran’s principles of military strategy are based on deterrence, asymmetrical, and attrition warfare.”

On military doctrine, the report says Iran adheres to a “defensive” military doctrine that is designed to “slow an invasion; to asymmetrically target its adversaries’ economic, political, and military interests; and to force a diplomatic solution to hostilities while avoiding any concessions that challenge its core interests.”

The report’s release comes amid a joint U.S.-Israeli covert action program designed to disrupt and slow Iran’s nuclear program, which the International Atomic Energy Agency has said contains elements of covert weapons development.

Additionally, the report comes as Israel debates whether to conduct military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, many of which are spread around the country in hardened or underground bunkers.

The report says Iran continued to threaten to close the Strait of Hormuz, the strategic waterway between the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman that is a transit point for an estimated 20 percent of the world’s oil.

U.S. military officials have said Iran is capable of shutting down the strait but not keeping it closed to shipping traffic.

“Iran also has threatened to launch missiles and support terrorist reprisals against U.S. interests and regional allies in response to an attack,” the report said.

Iran’s main covert military forces are the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps-Qods Force, set up in 1990 to “provide arms, funding and paramilitary training to extremist groups,’ the report said.

“We assess with high confidence that during the past three decades, Iran has methodically cultivated a network of terrorist and militant groups capable of targeting regional and extra-regional targets,” the report stated. “IRGC-QF is Iran’s principal interlocutor to Hezbollah.”

Iranians supplied deadly armor-piercing bombs to insurgents in Iraq with little or no response from the U.S. or allied militaries in Iraq during the major portion of the war in the country.

The Iranians also are supplying weaponry to the Taliban in Afghanistan even though the Islamist Afghan fighters are primarily Sunni Muslims while Iran’s rulers are rival Shias.

According to defense and intelligence officials, the Qods force has been covertly supporting the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad against rebel forces seeking to oust him.

Iranian Islamist militants helped establish a pro-Assad militia called Jaysh al-Shabi, which has been described as a Syrian equivalent to Iran’s Basiji, a domestic paramilitary force. Jaysh al-Shabi also is similar to Hezbollah in terms of its relationship to Tehran.

On Iran’s nuclear program, the Defense Intelligence Agency-drafted report follows the U.S. intelligence community’s controversial 2007 position that Iran has not decided to build nuclear arms, only the technology and expertise to do so. A 2007 National Intelligence Estimate concluded Iran halted all work on nuclear arms in 2003. A recent IAEA report said the agency has evidence of continued work by Iran on nuclear weapons past 2003, including high-speed electronic detonators and high explosives used in nuclear bombs.

“Iran continues to develop technological capabilities applicable to nuclear weapons,” the report said. “It is proceeding with uranium enrichment and heavy-water nuclear reactor activities in violation of multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions and also continues to develop ballistic missiles that could deliver nuclear weapons.”

On missiles, the report said that since the 1980 to 1988 Iran-Iraq war Iran has been developing and deploying missiles “to counter perceived threats from Israel and U.S. forces in the Middle East and to project power in the region.”

“With sufficient foreign assistance, Iran may be technically capable of flight-testing an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the United States by 2015,” it states. That assessment was unchanged from the 2012 report.

Iran’s long-range missiles are the main reason the Pentagon is building a time-phased missile defense shield in Europe, along with NATO allies. The system included both sea- and ground-based missile interceptors and radar and other sensors used to track and target enemy missiles.

Hagel recently announced the Pentagon is canceling the last phase of the missile defense system that would have fielded an improved long-range interceptor capable of hitting an Iranian ICBM. The SM-3 Block IIB missile was canceled amid calls from Russia for legal restrictions on such interceptors in the European defense shield.

The 2012 report said Iran was supporting both the government of Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai and insurgent groups.

Last year’s report also said Iran was providing military and communications support to the Assad regime in Syria and probably military trainers.

The Iranian military also “trains Hezbollah and Palestinian extremist groups at camps throughout the region,” the 2012 report said. “Iran provides funding and possibly weapons to [the Palestinian terrorist groups] Hamas and other Palestinian terrorists in the Gaza Strip.”

Missile developments from last year’s report include deployment of short-range missiles with maneuvering precision-guided warheads, extended range versions of the 620-mile-range Shahab-3, and a new 1,242-mile-range missile called Ashura.

The test in 2008 of a multi-stage space launcher was described as “a test bed for developing long-range ballistic missile technologies,” the 2012 report said.

While the military has existing rules that allow it to defend the nation, the Pentagon said, analysts say these new rules make it easier for commanders to take action against cyber threats without clearing it at the presidential level:

“This is all putting the world on notice, particularly the Chinese, that we’re tired of them breaking into private companies,” said Richard Bejtlich, chief security officer at Mandiant, a computer security company.

The so-called rules of engagement will “provide a defined framework for how best to respond to the plethora of cyber-threats we face,” said Lt. Col. Damien Pickart, a Pentagon spokesman.

The rules will be kept secret and cover more conventional combat as well. The difficulty to determine the source of cyber attacks and the need to create a new set of rules signifies how opaque the cyber world is:

Even what constitutes an act of war is difficult to determine.

Gen. Keith Alexander, head of Cyber-Command, said recently the bulk of cyber-attacks are espionage and commercial theft, not an act of war. “If the intent is to disrupt or destroy our infrastructure, I think you’ve crossed a line,” he said.

The higher alert status includes moving two Aegis-equipped missile defense ships to waters near North Korea and readying long-range ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California, said officials familiar with the status.

The Pentagon also announced on Wednesday it is deploying one of its newest ground-based missile defenses to the U.S. island of Guam, a major U.S. military hub in the South Pacific.

The Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense system (THAAD) will be sent to Guam in the coming weeks “to strengthen the regional defense posture against the North Korean regional ballistic missile threat,” a Pentagon statement said.

The increased readiness of the missile shield followed harsh threats by the communist regime in North Korea to conduct nuclear missile attacks against the United States.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said following a speech yesterday that North Korea has a “nuclear capacity now,” along with missiles.

Hagel said Pyongyang recently stepped up bellicose and dangerous rhetoric “and some of the actions they’ve taken over the last few weeks present a real and clear danger and threat to the interests, certainly, of our allies, starting with South Korea and Japan, and also the threats that the North Koreans have leveled directly at the United States regarding our base in Guam, threatened Hawaii, threatened the West Coast of the United States.”

“We have to take those threats seriously,” he said. “I think we have had measured, responsible, serious responses to those threats.”

The Pentagon flew B-52 strategic bombers and then B-2 nuclear bombers near North Korea in a sign of U.S. “extended deterrence” nuclear protection during recent joint exercises with the South Korean military.

Pyongyang announced on March 30 that relations with the South had entered a “state of war.” The notice was made for the first time in an unusual “special statement” reflecting the government, ruling communist party, and other organizations.

It was the first time the regime had used the term “state of war” to describe relations with the South and highlighted the North’s nullification of the armistice agreement ending the Korean War.

A U.S. official said there have been some small-scale military maneuvers underway in North Korea.

The official said North Korea used military exercises as cover for dispatching a submarine that covertly sank the South Korean warship Cheonan in 2010, killing 46 sailors on board.

The missile shield activation also follows intelligence reports indicating the North’s military recently began moving some mobile missiles around the country, the officials said.

Specifically, officials said the North Koreans appear to be planning to conduct a test flight of a Musudan intermediate-range ballistic missile, a relatively new road-mobile system.

It is the third time since the beginning of the year that intelligence agencies reported a North Korea Musudan flight test could take place.

Officials said there were no signs the North Koreans planned to test fire their new longer-range KN-08 road-mobile intercontinental ballistic missile.

Rep. Mike Rogers (R., Ala.), chairman of the House Armed Services subcommittee on strategic forces, said the United States “must take all reasonable actions in the face of the growing nuclear and missile threats from the unstable regime in North Korea.”

“A robust missile defense system is a key element to our overall national security, and I stand ready to work with the administration to ensure we have all of the tools we need,” Rogers told the Free Beacon.

The missile defense system includes 30 long-range interceptors based in Fort Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg Air Force Base. Early warning radar used to detect launches and track enemy missiles are located at Beale Air Force Base, located north of Sacramento, California, and the remote Pacific island of Shemya at the tip of Alaska’s Aleutian Islands.

Additionally, the military operates a transportable high-powered X-band radar in northern Japan that is capable of tracking missile launches and guiding interceptors to their stages or warheads.

The huge, platform based Sea-Based X-Band Radar is now based in waters near Japan and undergoing sea trials and system checks, officials said, and could be employed as part of the missile shield.

The Pentagon announced earlier this week that it had deployed two destroyers equipped with anti-missile interceptors, the USS McCain and the USS Decatur, to waters near the Korean peninsula as part of its beefed up missile defenses against North Korean threats.

George Little, a Pentagon spokesman, declined to say on Tuesday if there were signs North Korea planned to conduct a missile flight tests, citing a policy of not discussing intelligence matters.

Little said, “We can’t rule out the possibility, obviously, that they may conduct some kind of tests or engage in some kind of provocative behavior that would cause problems,” adding the United States hopes that does not happen.

It could not be learned how many missile defense ships are now in the region. The Navy is believed to be operating at least four Aegis-equipped warships near North Korea that are equipped with SM-3 anti-missile interceptors. The SM-3 is a very capable missile that can knock down most medium-range missiles. The ships’ Aegis battle management system is built around a high-powered phased-array radar that is capable of tracking missiles hundreds of miles from the ships, as well as objects in space.

The SM-3s provide protection from missile attacks for areas in Northeast Asia, while the ground-based interceptors in California and Alaska can protect the continental United States and Hawaii from attack.

A classified 2009 State Department cable stated that the Musudan intermediate-range missile is based on Russia’s SS-N-6 submarine-launched missile that has a range of up to 2,400 miles.

The missile is fueled by an advanced liquid propellant that is easier to store in missiles than fuel used in other North Korean long-range rockets.

The fuel allows for longer-range missiles and greater warhead capacity on short-range systems.

Additionally, North Korea announced it was closing off South Korean workers from the joint North-South industrial center at Kaesong, located inside near the heavily fortified demilitarized zone separating the two countries.

Widespread cuts to the defense budget have led DoD to impose furloughs on civilian employees, defer critical maintenance projects, and consider cutting benefits to military families.

Military employees who attended Hagel’s speech at the National Defense University did not hesitate to express their fears, pressing Hagel to explain why benefits and salaries have been placed on DoD’s chopping block.

“Why are we still furloughing?” asked one anxious civilian employee during a question and answer session with Hagel. “In case your advisers haven’t told you, it is affecting morale.”

“I wish I didn’t have to answer that question,” Hagel responded, saying the department is facing a $41 billion funding shortfall. “I wish we had other options.”

“We’ve tried to be fair and analyze where we take those cuts, and we take them because we have no choice, and trying to minimize the hurt and the pain that these cuts are causing across our entire range of responsibilities,” Hagel added. “Morale will be affected but [there are] tough decisions that will have to be made.”

“Our readiness and capabilities must come first,” Hagel said, adding that this was “not a good answer.”

As DoD grapples with nearly $500 billion in defense cuts known as sequestration, it will have to put military benefits and health packages on the chopping block, Hagel said.

“We need to challenge all past assumption and put everything on the table,” Hagel said. “It is already clear to me that any serious effort to reform or reshape our defense enterprise” must take a hard look at personnel costs, overhead costs, and health costs.

Another concerned attendee asked Hagel to explain how benefits, health care, and retirement packages will be impacted in coming years.

Hagel said while no immediate changes are planned in the short term, the DoD is examining ways to reform and restructure its benefits programs.

“They are looking at our ability … to sustain the commitments we have made to the men and women who join the military, as well as our civilians,” Hagel said.

“We make promises,” Hagel said. “This country makes commitments to people. We’ll honor those. But there’s not anyone here today who is not aware of that if you play this out [over the next several years] we’re not going to be able to sustain [current programs].”

“We’ll become essentially a transfer agency” if reforms are not implemented, Hagel added. “You can’t sustain those programs, those commitments. We know that. … The longer we defer these things the worse it’s going to be for all of us.”

Hagel went on to admit that sequestration “is already having a disrupting and potentially damaging impact on the readiness of the force,” as well as on maintenance and training programs.

The immediate cuts “led to far more abrupt and deeper reductions than were planned or expected,” Hagel said, admitting that the Pentagon is still “grappling with the serious and immediate” effects of sequestration.

Hagel discussed his vision for the American military.

U.S. forces “must be used judicially with a keen appreciation of its limits,” Hagel said. Many new global threats “do not lend themselves to being resolved by conventional military strength.”

“So our military must continue to adapt,” Hagel added. “We adapt in order to remain effective and relevant in the face of threats markedly different” than those of the past.

Pentagon leaders are “not just tweaking or chipping away at existing structures and practices but we’re necessarily fashioning entirely new ones,” Hagel said.

The threat posted by North Korea’s increasingly provocative military displays also came up.

Hagel noted that he “had a long conversation” Tuesday with China’s new defense minster to discuss the tensions with North Korea.

“North Korea is very good example of a common interest” for the United States and China. “Certainly the Chinese don’t want right now a complicated combustible situation to explode,” he said.

The House on Thursday approved by a vote of 228-191 a wide-ranging budget plan authored by Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.). All but 10 Republicans voted in favor of the budget, while every Democrat voted against it.

The Ryan plan would allocate about $560.2 billion in defense spending in 2014. That appropriation would all but negate the effects of the recent sequester, which eradicated millions in defense spending and threw the Pentagon into chaos.

The allocation would prevent the Pentagon and United States military from being forced to implement a devastating series of cuts that would imperil not only troop readiness but also their benefits.

A similar budget proposal authored by the House’s deficit-conscious Republican Study Committee (RSC) also included this level of defense spending, leading Republican leaders to dismiss charges that the party is fundamentally split on such issues.

“The overwhelming conservative support for the Ryan budget and the RSC budget are the best indicators of where the Republican Party is on national security that I have seen in a while,” House Armed Services Committee chairman Howard “Buck” McKeon (R., Calif.) told the Free Beacon following the vote.

“After the saga of sequestration, we have come together as a party to declare that our military has been cut too much,” McKeon said. “By passing the House budget, we are making a restoration of vital national security resources a top policy priority, every bit as important as balancing the budget.”

House Republicans came under fire in the months before sequestration took effect for what media observers called their failure to show unity on national security.

Many newly elected Republicans who rode into Congress on the Tea Party wave have toed an anti-spending line that includes opposition to robust defense spending.

The country’s growing deficit demands a tough response, they argued.

McKeon admitted that Republicans had internal differences in February as debate over the impending sequester reached a fevered pitch.

“I know some of them are very wrong just as they know that I am very wrong,” McKeon told USA Today at the time. “It’s not all the freshman, we had other people who had been here a long time that have a feeling that the biggest problem we face is our deficit and our spending, and if we don’t get that under control, nothing else matters.”

Both Republican budget proposals have sought to maintain and bolster defense spending despite the contentious debate.

“With today’s passage of the House budget, it is clear: The House chose prosperity,” House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R., Calif.) said in a statement. “I applaud chairman Ryan and the entire House Budget Committee for putting forward a responsible budget so that we may begin the great American comeback.”

McKeon said a Democratic budget proposal that seeks to reinforce sequestration is a sign of that party’s apathy regarding defense issues.

A budget proposal offered by Senate Democrats seeks $240 billion in cuts to the Pentagon over the next 10 years, among additional cuts.

“I am disappointed that my Democratic colleagues chose to go the other way and propose still deeper cuts to defense,” McKeon said. “However you want to look at it, the contrast is clear; Republicans recognize that our troops have been cut too far and are willing to fight to get them the resources they need.”

“Democrats, who refuse to even touch broken entitlement programs or present a budget that will ever balance, continue to ask our troops to do more with less,” he said.

“From my perspective, the threats are real and growing,” said Army Gen. Keith Alexander, who heads the Cyber Command as well as the electronic intelligence-gathering National Security Agency.

“You only have to look at the distributed denial of service attacks that we’ve seen on Wall Street, the destructive attacks we’ve seen against Saudi Aramco and RasGas to see what’s coming at our nation,” he said. “We need to act, and we need to act now. That time for action is now, and this executive order takes a step in implementing that action.”

Alexander spoke with other government officials at the Commerce Department on Wednesday. He was commenting on Presidential Policy Directive-21 (PPD-21), on protecting critical U.S. infrastructure from both cyber and physical attacks.

“America must also face the rapidly growing threat from cyber attacks,” President Barack Obama said announcing the order in the State of the Union speech Tuesday night.

“Now, we know hackers steal people’s identities and infiltrate private emails,” he said. “We know foreign countries and companies swipe our corporate secrets. Now our enemies are also seeking the ability to sabotage our power grid, our financial institutions, our air traffic control systems.”

The order gives the Department of Homeland Security and its secretary, Janet Napolitano, authority to lead inter-agency efforts to identify threats to critical infrastructure, which are mostly owned by private entities.

The executive order is the latest U.S. government effort to coordinate fragmented agencies in dealing with increasingly sophisticated cyber attacks from both criminals and nation states, notably China and Russia.

Alexander said the order seeks to improve information sharing between government and industry as well as “hardening” networks against attacks.

Alexander said better information sharing would not be enough to protect the networks in electrical power, financial, transportation, and other critical infrastructure.

“Our infrastructure is fragile,” he said. “When you look at the amount of problems that we have, we also have to look at how we harden it, how do we bring together that. This executive order sets up a process for government and industry to start to address this problem.”

Alexander called the executive order “only a down payment on what we need to address the threat.”

“This executive order can only move us so far, and it’s not a substitute for legislation,” he said. “We need legislation, and we need it quickly to defend our nation.”

The Washington Free Beacon first reported last week that the Department of Energy was targeted in a sophisticated cyber attack that sought sensitive information and compromised personal data on several hundred DOE employees and contractors.

The attack followed disclosures by the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and the Washington Post that they had been hit by Chinese-origin cyber attacks.

Earlier, U.S. banks had their networks disrupted by sophisticated cyber attacks that U.S. officials say were orchestrated by Iranian government agents.

Alexander said the PPD-21 creates a voluntary process for industry and government to share information.

“In particular, where so much of the critical infrastructure owned and operated by the private sector, the government is often unaware of the malicious activity targeting our critical infrastructure,” Alexander said.

“These blind spots prevent us from being positioned to help the critical infrastructure defend itself, and it prevents us from knowing when we need to defend the nation. The government can share threat information with the private sector under this executive order and existing laws.”

The order gives the government eight months to demonstrate an infrastructure threat reporting system.

“A real-time defensive posture for our military’s critical networks will require legislation that removes barriers to public sharing of attacks and intrusions into private-sector networks,” Alexander said.

The four-star general said Cyber Command is planning an expansion and new force structure.

The command protects Pentagon networks and will support combatant commands in waging cyber warfare in future conflicts.

Cyber Command spokesman Rivers Johnson said the reorganization is based on “an increasing threat of a cyber attack that could be as destructive as the terrorist attack on 9/11—one that would virtually paralyze the nation.”

The Pentagon recognizes the danger and is urgently working on policies and structures to carry out the command’s mission.

“Accordingly, DoD is working closely with the combatant commands and U.S. Cyber Command to develop the optimum force structure for successfully operating in cyberspace within the authorities and requirements of the department,” Johnson said.

“We will continue to provide effective capabilities to meet the nation’s defense requirements in cyberspace while constantly seeking to recruit, train, and retain world class cyber personnel.”

The new force structure will include Cyber National Mission Forces, Cyber Combat Mission Forces, and Cyber Protection Forces with specific roles and responsibilities.

“While the basic cyber force structure model is clear, the implementation plan to achieve it is still being developed and is pre-decisional at this time,” Johnson said.

The new structure will include both defensive and offensive forces that can conduct cyber attacks against enemies, one of the command’s more secret roles.

The classified assessment is being done for Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on an expedited basis, said defense officials familiar with the effort.

“This is an expedited examination of the North Korean ICBM threat specifically for the chairman,” one official said.

A Joint Staff spokesman declined to comment on the North Korean ICBM assessment.

Disclosure of the urgent threat assessment from nuclear-armed North Korea comes as President Barack Obama is expected to announce Tuesday night that he plans to cut an additional one-third of the warheads from the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

The Pentagon plans to cut its nuclear warheads to 1,550 warheads under the 2010 New START arms treaty with Russia. An additional cut of a third of those warheads would bring the U.S. warhead arsenal to around 1,000.

Nuclear deterrence specialists have said cutting warheads below New START levels would undermine strategic deterrence and spur nations that rely on U.S. nuclear weapons to seek their own nuclear arms.

The Joint Staff assessment was ordered following recent intelligence reports indicating development work on the North Korean KN-08 mobile ICBM is nearing completion. Several KN-08s were spotted moving around North Korea in January.

The assessment is also expected to address whether North Korea will share the mobile ICBM technology with Iran. North Korea in the past has sold and shared its ballistic missile technology with Tehran, including the medium-range Nodong that Iran calls the Shahab-3.

The study is expected to impact the Obama administration’s plans for U.S. missile defenses.

Currently, the Pentagon operates a limited missile defense system designed to counter a small number of long-range North Korean missiles with 30 interceptors based in Alaska and California.

The Obama administration opposes expansion of long-range ground based interceptors in favor of its European-based missile defenses that call for developing an enhanced version of the Navy SM-3 interceptor that can knock out ICBMs.

A recent Government Accountability Office report on missile defense found problems with the Pentagon’s plan to deploy the SM-3 Block IIB for use against ICBMs by 2020.

Some officials said there were indications North Korea could test a KN-08 or the medium-range Musudan around the time of its nuclear test.

U.S. intelligence agencies are closely watching North Korea for signs of a missile test, officials said.

The Joint Staff study was underway prior to North Korea’s third underground nuclear test Tuesday, which Pyongyang claimed was a major step toward developing a small nuclear warhead for its missiles.

The KN-08 ICBM was first disclosed in April 2012 during a military parade.

Officials said it represents a new level of threat to the United States because although it has yet to be flight-tested, U.S. intelligence agencies believe it will be able to range Alaska, Hawaii, and the western United States.

North Korea’s other long-range missile is the static-launched Taepodong-2 ICBM. Pyongyang also has developed an intermediate-range nuclear missile called the Musudan, based on a Soviet-designed ICBM.

U.S. officials regard the Taepodong-2 as vulnerable to preemptive attack because of the relatively long times required for set up and launch.

The U.S. military regards road-mobile ICBMs like the KN-08 as a much greater threat because the missiles can be moved easily, hidden in garages, and launched with little or no warning.

A 2010 U.S. intelligence assessment of North Korea’s missile programs, disclosed in a leaked State Department cable, revealed that North Korea was developing ICBMs in three paths, including using the Taeopodong-2; further developing its intermediate-range missile; and “use the very large launch facility that is being constructed on the west coast of North Korea to launch a very large missile.”

U.S. officials said the new launch site is believed to be where the new KN-08 is being developed.

According to the 2010 cable, the United States said the new North Korean missile facility is “of concern.”

“It does not simply replicate other sites,” the cable said. “This facility is much larger than the Taepodong launch facility. This is not to say there is evidence of a new missile system larger than the Taepodong-2 being developed, but it suggests the possibility.”

A second cable from 2009 said North Korea’s new Musudan medium-range missile is a solid-fueled, road mobile system. The cable said “the pursuit of longer-range systems remains a DRPK priority.” DPRK is short for Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, North Korea’s formal name.

“North Korea’s next goal may be to develop a mobile ICBM that would be capable of threatening targets around the world, without requiring the lengthy—and potentially vulnerable—launch preparation time required by the TD-2,” the cable said.

Missile and nuclear specialists outside the government on Tuesday debated whether North Korea’s boast about having a miniaturized nuclear weapon that could fit on a missile is accurate.

David Albright, a nuclear specialist with the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), said if the miniaturized nuclear device is confirmed, “it should not be a surprise.”

“It should not come as a surprise to the international community that North Korea may now have the capability to explode a miniaturized nuclear device,” Albright said in an analysis coauthored with Andrea Stricker. “ISIS and key members of the U.S. intelligence community have assessed for some time that North Korea likely has the capability to miniaturize a nuclear weapon for its 800 mile range Nodong missile.”

Albright and Stricker said more information is needed to make a better assessment, but the organization believes North Korea lacks the ability to deploy a nuclear warhead on an ICBM.

Former CIA officer Fred Fleitz, who once worked for the agency’s Weapons Intelligence Non-Proliferation and Arms Control Center, said he is skeptical of North Korea’s claim to have miniaturized a warhead.

“The test may have been a step toward miniturization and may have been slightly smaller than past devices,” said Fleitz, now with the private Langley Intelligence Group Network (LIGNET). “But the North Koreans are a long way from building a small warhead that could fit on an ICBM capable of hitting the United States.”

“North Korea’s third nuclear test, particularly if it was successful in testing a ‘miniaturized’ device, may represent a significant upgrade in its nuclear weapons program,” a LIGNET assessment stated. “Miniaturization is critical to mate a nuclear warhead to a delivery system such as a ballistic missile.”

“However, confirming whether North Korea actually tested a miniaturized nuclear device is impossible unless it allows outside experts to examine one of these devices or their nuclear plans,” the assessment said. “Going from a crude nuclear device, which would be large and heavy, to a miniaturized one is a huge technical leap, requiring major advances in nuclear science and metallurgy.”