Truer words have never been spoken!
If we were to ask fellow American citizens, “do you believe that wages, in our country, essentially, have been stagnate, for many years”? I am pretty confident that most Americans would say, “yes,” and agree that wages, today, do not rise at the same percentage that they once did. I would, also, agree with that sentiment, and would add that, once upon a time, companies, perhaps, were much more generous with things such as Christmas bonuses, profit-sharing etc. Unfortunately, however, the commonly accepted belief tends to be that companies, CEOs etc., today, are just plain greedy, and that the average worker is, simply, being screwed. While, there may be some truth to these sentiments, I believe, it completely misses the point, and fails to pinpoint the root cause.
Allow me to quote from this previous post, in which I was attempting to make the case as to why raising the minimum wage is a bad idea, and to point out the unintended consequences that come along with doing so:
It’s hard not to chuckle when Greg Gutfeld and his Fox News Red Eye team flash “Obama-geddon-care-o-gate” on the TV when the president’s health law comes up for discussion. I’m frankly surprised that the right wing hasn’t officially added the suffix “Gate” to Obamacare by now, considering the lies upon lies, the incompetence, and the overall disaster of the ACA.
I’ve been a student of the original “gate” scandal, Water, for some time. The reveal of Deep Throat was a Watergate fan’s Superbowl–finally, we knew the whole story. I’m also a collector of old time radio shows from the Golden Age of broadcasting, and many of my recordings were taken from broadcast replays in the 1970s. So what does Obamacare, Richard Nixon, and old time radio have in common?
I was listening to an episode of the Jack Benny show the other night, and often with those ’70s replays, whoever recorded the show let the tape run longer than the actual problem, and the station went into a top-of-the-hour news update after the show ended. The reporter read a set of headlines, mostly concerning Watergate, which was exploding. Among the breaking news, the reporter quoted experts who said the fate of the country hinged on the outcome of the scandal. We had never faced anything like it. Did the Constitution properly detail how such a situation should be handled, or would we have to create new rules to deal with the aftermath? Would Nixon resign or be impeached? You could cut the uncertainty and fear with a knife. Thirty years later, listening to this in my bedroom, it added a dimension to the Nixon scandal that shouldn’t have surprised me, but it did. I can tell you the facts of the Watergate scandal and how it ended, but I could never fill the in-between real-time gaps where the country, at the height of the scandal, had no idea what would happen, or how we would carry on.
As I watch the continuing developments of Obamacare and the seemingly dismantling of the U.S.A.; listen to the nail-chewing worry of the right wing; the pessimism of my friends; my own thoughts about how we’re finished; I find myself listening again and again to that news broadcast. The fear is the same.
I can’t see thirty years in the future, but I know one thing: we’ve survived The Worst before. Like Gerald Ford said, the system works. There are other non-political elements that suggest, to me, it’s a harder battle this time (that’s another column) but the system indeed worked, and, in an ironic twist, Nixon lived long enough to become a respected elder statesman, and the nation mourned his passing as if Watergate had never happened (which shocked liberals from one end of the country to another). Back in 1992 my high school Republican buddies and I had a joke: “He’s tanned, rested, and ready–Nixon in ’92!” We were criticized by one of our older teachers of making light of a horrible period in this nation’s history, and I can only imagine that thirty years from now I might say the same thing to a kid who makes an Obama joke, and he’s going to wonder why I’m making such a fuss.
Some of you are going to say that I don’t get it. This is the Last Stand. If we fail here, we’re history. I’m not saying you’re wrong, and I don’t mean we should stop fighting because “it’s all going to work out” or some “hopeful” garbage like that. What I mean is we need to consider history in how we approach the battle, and we need the confidence of history as we press our counterattack. Chicken Little need not be a part of the team. We have enough trouble with John Boner (ooops, I mean Boehner), John McCain, Karl Rove, and the rest of the GOP Establishment who have no interest in fighting, and are actually working against us. We may be surrounded, but at least we know where the enemy is. That narrows things down a bit.
What: Dustin Hoyt takes on the biggest issues of the day, advocating for smaller government, liberty, common sense, and honest politicians. His insight and witty commentary provide entertaining and provoking angles on everything from fiscal policy to the most sensational statements. With a twist of Libertarianism and Conservativism that blends well to all who support the tea party and true American values. This show taps into all the things patriotic Americans love and need to hear in the battle against the left and the expansive government we fight against.
Tonight: Tonight Dustin Hoyt will be discussing whether or not we’re heading into a debt crisis with author, Murray Holland. Conservatives are constantly saying that we can’t continue to spend like we have been, but there aren’t very many experts on the economy going around and explaining why in plain and simple terms. Holland does that in his book A Nation in the Red: The Government Debt Crisis and What We Can Do About It. So, you really do want to be listening in tonight!
2009 – We have a lot more work to do. 2010 – We have a lot more work to do. 2011 – We have a lot more work to do. 2012 – We have a lot more work to do. President Obama gave a speech last Friday in New Orleans about the economy, what did he say? You guessed it; we have a lot more work to do.
I don’t know about you, but I am getting pretty sick and tired of hearing the same speech year after year. How long is it going to take this President to get our economy off the floor and back to where the American people can enjoy life again? What disturbs me the most is the fact that there are people out there that still believe this President actually knows what he is doing. History is now claiming that it was Franklin Roosevelt who prolonged the great depression by instituting big Government policies, instead of letting the private sector do more. Obama is no different, his big Government policies have just slowed down our recovery and prevented job growth.
During his speech, he reverted back to his old stand-by, blaming Republicans;
THE PRESIDENT: Now, our businesses are resilient. We’ve got great workers. And so, as a consequence, we added about 200,000 new jobs last month. But there’s no question that the shutdown harmed our jobs market. The unemployment rate still ticked up. And we don’t yet know all the data for this final quarter of the year, but it could be down because of what happened in Washington. Now, that makes no sense. These self-inflicted wounds don’t have to happen. They should not happen again.
He also took a jab at Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, Louisiana is one of 24 states that has refused federal funds to expand Medicaid to more low-income people, money that Obama said would help 265,000 people in the state gain access to health insurance. “We will not allow President Obama to bully Louisiana into accepting an expansion of Obama-Care,” Jindal said in a statement, saying the expansion would cost the state too much. Good for him.
There is something about Obama and his speeches, they all say the same thing, the words are different at every event, but the message is always the same. When he appeared in New Orleans he again went through the same old line about investing in our infrastructure, which we all know is code for more Government spending and raising taxes. It is amazing what short memories people have, one of the big selling points about Obama’s Stimulus Package was that it was going to provide jobs to help build our infrastructure. How can we forget all those shovel ready jobs that were not as shovel ready as he thought.
A day after apologizing to the nation for mounting technical and policy glitches from his Obama-care health law, the president tried to turn the focus to multiple other issues. He did address health care briefly, but spent much of his time pushing Congress to pass a farm bill; approve immigration reform; invest in roads, bridges and other infrastructure; make investments in K-12 education; fund important scientific and medical research; level the economic playing field; and pass more free trade agreements.
It was a lie that made Richard Nixon resign from office, it was a lie that got Bill Clinton impeached, will it be the lie that we can keep our health-care plan and our doctor, period bring down Obama? As more and more people lose their health-care plans and find that the new Obama insurance is more expensive with higher premiums and much higher deductibles, I think that it will be a likely reality.
“What Kind Of Society Are We Leaving Our Kids” Available Here.
P.S. For all you Baby Boomers my new book “Are The Golden Years Really Golden” Available Here
This is one man’s opinion.
Three years after the president promised Americans they could keep their healthcare plans, millions of plans (and counting) have been cancelled. Will he follow through on his promise and fix this wrong?
Virginia voters decided after much deliberation that they would rather be ruled by a sleazebag than a puritan. And if Ken Cuccinelli needed any more proof that he should have run for re–election as attorney general — something he promised initially — Tuesday’s election results should have provided it.
Cuccinelli had a number of problems that hampered his campaign (outlined here). But the biggest problems he had were caused by Ken Cuccinelli. First he fell into the “new best friend” trap and took gifts from Star Scientific’s Jonnie Williams, a man whose ethical profile is much like that of our new governor, Terry McAuliffe.
Second, Cuccinelli used the “duck and cover” method of responding to McAuliffe’s obsession with abortion and activities involving female private parts.
Marjorie Dannenfelser — President of the Susan B. Anthony Lists — calculates that McAuliffe blasted Cuccinelli with 5,600 negative commercials on abortion and contraception. Talk about a campaign obsessed with social issues!
The attacks ranged from “Cuccinelli will force you to have the baby after a crazed member of the TEA party rapes you” to “Crazy Ken wants to melt all your rubbers.”
Cuccinelli’s response was much like that of the Obama Administration last year on 9/11 in Libya: He pretended nothing was happening while the campaign burned down around him.
I’ve got news for Republicans. This ‘War on Women’ attack is going to be a staple of Democrat campaigns as long as Amnesty; Abortion & Alternate Lifestyles are the three main planks of the party platform. Duck and cover would not have worked during nuclear attack in the 60’s and it won’t work under pubic attack now.
GOP candidates must either meet and defeat this tactic or at the very least blunt its impact.
I’m a media consultant and I hate to write commercials for free — somehow it feels like I’m betraying capitalism — but this is a script Cuccinelli could have used to counter McAuliffe’s negative ads.
The production would be simple and straightforward, as befits a serious topic. Cuccinelli should deliver the message himself looking straight to camera (this time memorizing his lines, which he evidently didn’t do for most of his commercials). The set should not be distracting, but he needs a light package that doesn’t make him look like he needs a transfusion. His tone begins by dismissing one of the McAuliffe attacks and then concludes with a serious defense of life.
(KEN CUCCINELLI) HI, I’M KEN CUCCINELLI AND I’D LIKE TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT.
TERRY MCAULIFFE AND HIS SUPPORTERS ARE NOT TELLING THE TRUTH WHEN THEY SAY I WANT TO BAN CONTRACEPTION. MY WIFE, TEIRO AND I HAVE SEVEN CHILDREN. I’VE HEARD THERE ARE OTHER FAMILIES IN VIRGINIA WITH FEWER AND EVEN SOME WITH NO CHILDREN. AND THAT’S FINE WITH ME.
WHEN A COUPLE USES CONTRACEPTION IT’S THEIR CHOICE AND NONE OF GOVERNMENT’S BUSINESS.
BUT ABORTING A PREGNANCY IS ANOTHER MATTER. I BELIEVE THAT LIFE IS PRECIOUS AND JUST AS GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT INTERFERE WITH CONTRACEPTION, IT ALSO SHOULD NOT ENCOURAGE ABORTION.
BECAUSE NO MATTER HOW OFTEN MY OPPONENT TALKs ABOUT HEALTH AND DOCTORS AND ‘CHOICE,’ THE FACT IS ABORTION IS NOT ABOUT REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH; IT’S ABOUT ENDING A LIFE BEFORE IT HAS A CHANCE TO BEGIN.
I THINK THAT’S A TRAGEDY FOR BOTH THE MOTHER AND THE UNBORN CHILD. YOU MAY NOT AGREE AND YOU ARE CERTAINLY FREE TO VOTE FOR MY OPPONENT. BUT PLEASE, DON’T DO IT BASED ON HIS DISTORTIONS AND EXAGGERATIONS.
It may not be the perfect :60 script, but I would nominate it for the perfect free script. After the shooting is done the campaign puts the commercial on cable TV, where the rates are lower and you can afford to run :60s. Then the spot runs until the campaign is over. It answers the McAuliffe mudslinging without being hysterical.
Responding in this manner does bring up a topic that a large portion of the electorate opposes. And some consultants are simply uncomfortable with the subject.
But the abortion–obsessed aren’t going to vote for Cuccinelli anyway, and answering the topic beats hoping it will go away. The commercial is designed to persuade the “moderates” and independents that Ken isn’t Cotton Mather in a poplin suit. Moving the opposition from “OMG he wants to take us back to colonial times!” to simply disagreeing with Cuccinelli is a giant step that was not taken this campaign.
And it certainly beats the Cuccinelli strategy of not answering the attack at all or using women in tangential ads to prove Republicans are as good at showcasing tokens as the Democrats.
If Christian conservatives are interested in winning they are going to have to address these attacks forcefully and change the debate. As Robert Knight wrote this week, “Ever since the GOP-controlled Virginia legislature in 2012 passed a law requiring abortionists to give women ultrasound imaging before an abortion, Democrats have had a field day accusing Republicans of being “extremists” who want to force women to have “transvaginal ultrasounds.” The Democrats are fine, of course, with “transvaginal abortions.”
If we don’t change the context we can’t hope to change the culture.
On this Veterans Day I find myself on the couch after a three-week work marathon catching my breath, and all over the news, Facebook, even next door, there are signs of thanks and appreciation for our fighting forces. Check that. People are just plain gushing over soldiers, to the point where one fellow I know once said, “Dammit, I wasn’t a hero, I pushed paper and screwed around a lot, stop thanking me.”
It’s hard for me to join in on the celebration. It’s not that I don’t appreciate veterans. A lot of the men I grew up with, including my father, served somewhere in Vietnam, and they weren’t average grunts. My father was a Ranger; my ROTC drill sergeant, for another example, was First Air Cav. My father doesn’t talk much about the war but Sergeant Gomez would never shut up about it. He always had a story to tell about that place, either when shooting the bull or including the anecdote in a lesson. I actually think he enjoyed being there.
But as I sit here watching a television program called Vietnam in HD, thinking of my father and Sergeant Gomez, the contrast between now and then is more clear than ever.
What makes it hard for me to join in on the verbal masturbation over today’s fighting forces and, allegedly, those of the past, is that I believe we are seeing the left and anti-war forces trying to correct their atrocities of the past. The way Vietnam vets were treated upon their return is one of the biggest black eyes in this nation’s history, and, oddly, something they took in relative silence. The Vietnam vet never needed a Jesse Jackson to tell people they should be treated better, but, somehow, over the years, regret for that treatment has boiled to the surface. Who knows where or when it began, but you can probably say that as soon as some dumb hippie’s son went into the army, the hippie thought, “I hope nobody spits on him when he comes back.” And then, “Uh-oh, isn’t that what I did?”
When the first Iraq War ended, we saw the first of the Appreciation Thing begin to take place, and it has grown since. Yeah, it’s a Thing. It’s Cool to Like Soldiers, stinky. Problem is, the wrong people think it’s cool, and they think it’s cool for the wrong reason. (They also think it’s cool to say they support the soldiers but not the policy, which you can’t do, but that’s also another column.) I don’t think, deep down, these people really appreciate anything, they just don’t want to feel bad like their parents. This Thing is all about not feeling bad.
The Right Wing isn’t any better, as they try to distinguish themselves from the left by being Uber Patriotic ‘Muricans. And their efforts to overcompensate for the left is equally disgusting in my eyes. I’m looking at you, Sean Hannity.
But let me try and communicate some genuine appreciation today, not just because our fighting forces defend the country. They also put up with a lot of crap, from the 90 Day Wonders of West Point to the bureaucratic dip-dunk pencil-necked REMFs to the idiot Lt. who’s old man pulled strings for his cushy assignment to the overall insanity of military life that makes you want to scream because It’s Like Nothing Else and those of you who know, know exactly what I mean. I should have gone myself, but at the time I didn’t want to work for a draft dodger who would inevitably ask me to make a sacrifice he refused to make. At least I had the choice, and the Veteran gave me that choice. The Veteran gave me a lot of choices, actually, starting as far back as a cold day in April, 1775, and even if we’ve never served, our duty is to make sure those that follow have the same choices we did.
What: Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it – or to not repeat the parts that should be. We’re in a solemn hour in the cause of freedom, and yes, we’re only ever one generation away from losing it. Allan Bourdius of the Their Finest Hour blog (theirfinesthour.blogspot.com) brings his conservative/libertarian fusion (“conservatarian”) perspective to the events of the day and contextualizes them with facts and history to arm the forces of liberty to better our communities and our society, open eyes, and win converts – so that one day our children, still with freedom intact, can look back and say of us, their parents: “This was their finest hour.”
Tonight: Tonight is a special salute to veterans, with a few guests that have a clue about the issues they face today. Allan is joined by Krystle Schoonveld (@TarheelKrystle), Paul-Gregory Matuszak (@pavelgregory), and Ali (@LibertyBelle38), for what promises to be an enlightening conversation on veterans’ affairs.
Today we honor all the Veteran’s who have fought for our freedom.
This is a great message, for the young and old.
Thank you to all who have served this great nation! Your sacrifice was not in vain!
Unbelievable! Courtesy of LibertyNEWS.com, here’s an amazing video promoting what’s claimed to be the “transportation breakthrough America needs”.
Do kids know what Veterans Day is all about? They know the meaning of all the other holidays, they know what Christmas is all about, Thanksgiving they know as well. If you ask them what the 4th of July is all about, they will certainly know. But ask them about Veterans Day and all you get is blank stares. next time just show them this, I think it says it best.
God bless them.
Several weeks ago, the Roll Coll magazine published a ridiculous commentary by an anti-nuclear activist who seeks America’s unilateral disarmament and has launched yet another attack on the US nuclear deterrent – and more specifically, on the Navy’s ballistic missile submarine replacement program. He wants the Navy to cut the planned order from 12 to just 8 subs.
That commentary is a litany of blatant lies. There isn’t enough space here to refute all of these, but I will refute the most outrageous lies. (Dr Loren Thompson, who taught the subject of nuclear deterrence at Georgetown University for many years, has written his own rebuttal of the Roll Call piece.)
What’s wrong with that Roll Call piece? To start with, everything.
Because the author is an anti-nuclear activist seeking America’s nuclear disarmament, he wants to mislead the public into thinking that America’s nuclear deterrent can be safely reduced sharply and eventually scrapped. In order to mislead the public this way, he makes a number of utterly false claims.
For starters, he lies that “the Pentagon needs to resize its sub program based on the understanding that the U.S. can meet today’s security challenges with fewer nuclear weapons at less cost.” This is totally false.
In fact, the need for nuclear deterrence has not shrank at all since the end of the Cold War; if anything, that need has grown. During the Cold War, the US had to deter the Soviet Union, and on a lesser scale, China. Now it has to deter Russia and China – both of whom have large arsenals – as well as North Korea and Iran.
And while these countries are threats to many and protectors to nobody, the US has to provide a large nuclear umbrella not just for itself, but for over 30 of its allies – many of whom will “go nuclear” if the US continues to cut its own arsenal. 66% of South Koreans already want their country to do so.
Deterring Russia and China will require a nuclear arsenal of a size no smaller than the current one, and probably larger. Russia’s strategic nuclear triad consists of:
- 251 intercontinental bombers (64 Tu-95s, 16 Tu-160s, 171 Tu-22Ms), each capable of carrying 6 nuclear-tipped cruise missiles and one free-fall nuclear bomb;
- 75 SS-18 Satan heavy ICBMs (up to 10 warheads and 38 penetration aids each);
- 136 SS-19 Stilletto ICBMs (up to 6 warheads each);
- 171 SS-25 Sickle single-warhead ICBMs (though recent reports claim they can carry multiple warheads);
- 78 SS-27 Stalin single-warhead ICBMs;
- 18 RS-24 Yars ICBMs (4 warheads each);
- 13 ballistic missile subs capable of carrying 16 SLBMs and one (the Dmitry Donskoi) capable of carrying 20 SLBMs; each sub-launched ballistic missile, in turn, can carry 4, 10, or 12 warheads depending on the type (R-29RMU Sinyeva, RSM-56 Bulava, or R-29RMU2 Liner, respectively). Russia has ordered hundreds of these SLBMs.
In total, Russia’s ICBM fleet alone – to say nothing of its submarine or bomber fleet – can deliver 1,684 warheads to the CONUS. Russia’s bomber fleet could deliver over 1,700. Russia’s ballistic missile submarines could deliver between 1,500 and 2,000, depending on the types of missiles used.
A large, diverse nuclear arsenal – such as the one America has today – would be hard even for these thousands of warheads to destroy in a first strike. But a smaller one, such as a fleet of only eight SSBNs, only 4 of which would be at sea at any given moment, would be much easier to decapitate.
In recent years, while the US has been steadily cutting its arsenal unilaterally under New START, Russia has been growing its own, as it is allowed to do under the treaty. Also, the document contains no restrictions whatsoever on road- and rail-mobile ICBMs, treats every bomber as if it were carrying a single nuclear warhead, and doesn’t limit Russian ICBMs’ carriage capacity or throw-weight – which are huge loopholes that Russia is only too eager to exploit.
Russia is now developing a rail-mobile ICBM as well as replacements for Russia’s older ICBMs: a heavy ICBM called “Son of Satan” (designed to replace the SS-18 Satan) and a mid-weight ICBM called the Rubezh to replace the SS-19 and SS-25, while continuing RS-24 Yars production. Vladimir Putin announced last year that Moscow would order 400 new ICBMs for its strategic missile force. Meanwhile, the US has no plans to develop a road- or rail-mobile ICBM (although the USAF is considering the rail-mobile version), and development of the next-generation ICBM – the replacement for America’s aging Minuteman ICBMs – has been delayed by many years for political reasons.
Moscow is also developing and testing an IRBM, the Yars-M, in violation of the INF treaty – showing that arms control treaties signed with Russia are worthless pieces of paper.
On top of that, Russia has a huge tactical nuclear arsenal – much larger than America’s. Estimates of its size vary, but various sources say it numbers up to 4,000 warheads (all deliverable) – much more than America’s ca. 500. These 4,000 warheads can be delivered by a wide range of systems, from short-range ballistic missiles, to theater strike aircraft, to bombers, to torpedoes and surface ships, to cruise missiles, to artillery pieces, because they come in various forms: nuclear bombs, torpedo warheads, depth charges, artillery shells, cruise missile warheads, etc.
China, like Russia, has a large nuclear arsenal – far larger than the 240 warheads American arms control advocates claim. In fact, China has at least 1,600, and up to 3,000, nuclear warheads, most of them hidden in the 3,000 miles of tunnels it has built for its arsenal. The two estimates come from Gen. Viktor Yesin (Russian ICBM force CoS, ret.), and Professor Philip Karber, the DOD’s chief nuclear strategist during the Cold War. The existence and length of these tunnels is a confirmed fact.
To deliver its warheads, China has:
- 36 DF-5 heavy ICBMs (up to 10 warheads each);
- at least 30, and likely far more, DF-31 ICBMs (3-4 warheads each);
- at least one DF-41 heavy ICBM (10 warheads);
- 20 DF-4 IRBMs (3 warheads each);
- 20 DF-3 single-warhead MRBMs;
- 100 DF-21 MRBMs;
- 500 DH-10, CJ-10, and Hongniao cruise missiles;
- 440 nuclear-capable aircraft (Q-5, JH-7, H-6) each with at least one warhead attributed to them (the H-6K bomber variant can carry several nuclear- or conventional-tipped cruise missiles as well);
- 1 Xia class SSBN with 12 single-warhead JL-1 missiles; and
- 5 Jin class SSBNs with 12-24 four-warhead JL-2 missiles, with a sixth under construction to replace the Xia class boat.
On top of that, China has between 1,100 and 1,600, and possibly more, short-range ballistic missiles, though it isn’t known how many of these are armed with nuclear warheads.
China, of course, stubbornly refuses to reveal anything about its nuclear arsenal, while falsely claiming it pursues a “minimum nuclear deterrent” policy, even though it is evident to everyone except the willfully blind it has thousands, not mere hundreds, of warheads.
Over a year ago, this writer, based on very conservative estimates of China’s missile stocks and their warhead carriage capacity, estimated China had 1,274 nuclear warheads. This was calculated as follows:
I started with the 440 aircraft-deliverable nuclear bombs owned by the PLAAF and attributed to its H-6, Q-5, and JH-7 aircraft. Then, I added 10 warheads for each of China’s 36 DF-5 ICBMs, then, one DF-41 ICBM with 10 warheads, then, 40 DF-3 and DF-4 MRBMs, then 100 DF-21 MRBMs, then 90 warheads for China’s 30 DF-31 ICBMs, and finally, 12 warheads for China’s 12 JL-1 SLBMs and 240 warheads for its (at least) 60 JL-2 SLBMs (12 missiles per boat, 4 warheads per missile).
Keep in mind that the 4-warhead JL-2 is just the basic variant of the missile. China is already developing (if it hasn’t already deployed) two new variants of the JL-2: Jia, capable of carrying 8 warheads over 12,000 kms, and Yi, capable of carrying 12 warheads over a distance of 14,000 kilometers. China is also building a sixth Jin class submarine to replace the sole Xia class boat.
So in the future, China will have even more ballistic missile subs, more SLBMs, and more nuclear warheads than it already has – which means the number of nukes required to deter China will only grow.
I was so conservative in my estimates that I didn’t count a single Chinese SRBM or cruise missile as being nuclear-armed. If any such missile is armed – and the DOD says 500 such land-based missiles are – China’s nuclear arsenal – and the US arsenal required to deter Beijing – are even greater.
Besides Russia and China – two huge nuclear threats to US and allied security – the US also has to deter North Korea (which already has ICBMs capable of reaching the US) and Iran (which, within a month, may have enough HEU to build a nuclear warhead).
So the US currently has to deter three, soon to be four, hostile nuclear powers, two of whom have large, diverse, and very capable and survivable nuclear arsenals.
On top of that, the US has to provide a nuclear umbrella not only to itself, but also to over 30 allies, many of whom will have no choice but to develop their own nuclear weapons if the US continues to cut its umbrella. 66.5% of South Koreans already want to do this, and Japan has facilities enabling it to produce enough fissile material for 3,600 nuclear warheads if it chose to.
You see, while Russia and China are threats to many but protectors to nobody, the US is a protector of itself and 30 allies.
Moreover, as Dr Thompson rightly observes in his own case for 12 SSBNs, the future submarine fleet will have to meet the security challenges of tomorrow, not today. And in the future, we will see Russia’s, China’s, and North Korea’s nuclear arsenals only grow, not shrink. That will be the consequence of continued cuts and neglect of America’s nuclear umbrella.
And why does the size of that umbrella matter? Because a nuclear arsenal HAS to be large in order to a) survive a possible enemy first strike, and b) be able to hold enough enemy assets (military bases, submarines, ICBM siloes and trains, industrial facilities, HQs, comm centers) at risk. A small arsenal would be woefully inadequate. And 8 ballistic missile subs would be woefully insufficient, as only about half of these eight boats would be at sea on patrol at any given time, the rest being in refit. Putting one’s eggs in so few baskets – only about four – is ridiculously dangerous, especially in the nuclear deterrence business, where there is ZERO permissible margin of error. In this business, it is far better to have more weapons than you need as opposed to not enough weapons.
The Navy and the DOD have not taken the required number of 12 ballistic missile subs out of thin air. They arrived at it through a lengthy, rigorous analysis of enemy nuclear arsenals and of deterrence requirements. Anything less than 12 SSBNs will be utterly inadequate. No amount of lies by anti-nuclear activists will change these facts.
In a recent column in a non-conservative blog, the columnist suggested that parents warn their daughters about some of the things they can be expected or pressured to at college when they get there. Among them, binge drinking. Sounds ok to me. I would warn my daughter that among the many things they do at college, one of them is to encourage the incoming females to party and fit in which almost always includes binge drinking.
No matter how hard we try to raise our kids right, peer pressure is tough to push back on. Parents who care to be involved in their kids’ lives and want them to be safe in their learning environment will always reach out with encouragement and, yes, sometimes warnings.
Your kids are your responsibility. This may be your daughter’s first time away from home. Maybe she hasn’t been in the big city or doesn’t understand what a real predator is, and not the movie kind.
You would think parents that care like this, that had the guts to have these frank conversations with their kids, would be hailed as heroes. But no, not by one columnist. Emily Yoffe’s Slate article about binge drinking and sexual assault came under attack by the left-wing male hating group at feministing.com.
A writer for the blog states the piece was nothing more than “a rape denialism manifesto” full of “plain old victim-blaming,” Another writer on Jezebel.com, accused Yoffe of “admonishing women for not doing enough to stop their own rapes.”
Isn’t that just like the left to jump all the way to the negative. No one is saying that the way a woman dresses or carries herself or how drunk she gets gives others license to rape or abuse her.
Amanda Hess from feministing.com says “We can prevent the most rapes on campus by putting our efforts toward finding and punishing those perpetrators, not by warning their huge number of potential victims to skip out on parties.”
Is she serious? Hey Amanda, we put away many murderers every year, and yet we continue to have many more murders committed every year. We put away many rapists a year, and yet many rapes are still committed every year. From what LSD-based logical thinking book did you pull your reasoning?
So, what you’re saying is, if we put more rapists away we will have less rapes because new rapists will never come a long? Unfortunately can’t actually accuse and catch a rapist until after a rape occurs.
No one is suggesting that you tell your daughters to stay home with a Kevlar suit and chastity belt on. We are simply suggesting they use a little self-control and discipline.
As one writer put it, if two people walk into the lions’ den and one has a dress on and one has a meat dress on (like Lady GaGa), the one with the meat dress is probably not going to leave alive.
If a really pretty woman, wearing skimpy clothing, goes into a bar full of sailors just in from a 6 month tour and decides to get rip-roaring drunk and play strip poker with them, can she realistically expect that nothing will happen? Can you ever put yourself in a situation that will most likely end badly? Yes, you can!
I know, that example is really far-fetched. But it’s ridiculous for a reason, because I believe Ms. Hess is being ridiculous.
There are lots of sick people around the world, and their on college campuses too. If trying to protect my daughters, your daughters, and others’ daughters by asking them to drink sensibly, don’t go places where they don’t have a safe way out, and to start their college experience off cautiously makes me a parent who is trying to take away my daughters “right of passage” or “right to go out and have fun by having a few too many” then so be it.
I am more than happy to be the wet blanket on my daughter’s fun. I’d rather have her back “un-raped” as a “non-alcoholic” than a mess from her “anything goes” college experience.
A program to modernize the B61 nuclear bomb – the main nuclear munition of the bomber leg of the US nuclear triad – is underway. Predictably, the left – both Congressional Democrat and their friends in pro-unilateral-disarmament organizations (ACA, Ploughshares, the CLW, etc.) oppose this vital program (and all other US military modernization programs) and are spreading lies about it. Let me set the record straight, then.
The B61 warhead is the main nuclear weapon used both by the air leg of the US strategic triad (consisting of bombers, ICBMs, submarines) and by US and NATO theater strike aircraft. It has one, albeit very important, purpose: to provide nuclear deterrence.
The B61 does this in two ways, not just one. Half of these bombs are based in the US and attributed to B-2 and B-52 strategic bombers, thus providing a global nuclear umbrella for the US and all of its allies around the world. But the other half of the B61 bomb inventory (numbering 400 warheads in total) is deployed in Europe, providing a continous, visible tactical nuclear deterrent to America’s 29 European allies, present right there on European soil. Nothing builds American allies’ confidence in that deterrent, and in America’s credibility as its provider, better than the physical presence of US tactical weapons in Europe, the need for which was recently reaffirmed by NATO at its latest summit. NATO has also stated that nuclear deterrence is a “core competency” of the Alliance and that it will remain a nuclear-armed alliance “as long as nuclear weapons exist.”
The B61 warhead thus serves both to deter any aggressor, and reassure any ally, globally, and on a regional scale to provide a tactical nuclear deterrent in Europe against any aggressor – most likely Russia – who might attack America’s allies there. The B61 could also be deployed to the Asia-Pacific to reassure America’s allies there and to deter North Korea and China if need be. Indeed, over 70% of South Koreans WANT US tactical nuclear weapons to be brought back to the Korean Peninsula.
The B61 is therefore a weapon that the military and America’s allies want and need.
(BTW, anti-defense activists and organizations love to admonish us defense conservatives not to fund weapon programs that “the military doesn’t want” when a DOD official expresses doubts about a weapon program, but hypocritically, they NEVER listen to the military’s leaders when they express full support for a weapon – be it the B61 bomb or the Next Generation Bomber.)
At a recent hearing before the House Strategic Forces Subcomittee led by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL), four Obama administration officials (yes, Obama admin officials) very strongly underlined the importance of the B61 modernization program and the above-mentioned reasons for pursuing it. These officials were: Gen. C. Robert Kehler, the commander of the US Strategic Command; Madelyn Creedon, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategic Affairs; Donald L. Cook, Deputy Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration; and Paul J. Hommert, Director of Sandia National Laboratories.
You can read this excellent article by Bill Gertz, summarizing accurately their testimonies, here. They were all very outspoken about the need for modernizing this crucial warhead. General Kehler’s remarks deserve to be quoted in full here, however. The general said:
“Our requirement to deter nuclear attack is a military mission. This B-61 weapon arms the B-2. It will arm the future long-range strike platform. It arms the dual-capable aircraft that are forward stationed in Europe as well as those of our NATO allies.
It’s about deterring; it’s about assuring our allies of our extended deterrent commitment to them and from a military standpoint it’s about being able to offer the president a series of options that include nuclear options in extreme circumstances.
Equipping current and future nuclear bombers is a “necessary and crucial component of the triad and arming that force is a top priority.”
And the general is absolutely right. Even the best bombers, ICBMs, or SLBMs in the world won’t do you much good if you don’t have any nuclear warheads for them to deliver. The bomber (and theater strike aircraft) fleet’s principal nuclear bomb is the B61.
And the cost? The Ploughshares Fund falsely claims the B61 is a “nuclear budget buster.” That is a blatant lie. According to the Gertz article, modernizing those 400 B61 bombs will cost only $8.1 bn over 11 years. That is just $737 mn per year. Less than a billion dollars. Less than one sixth of one percent of the military budget.
Cancelling the modernization program of this bomb – or of America’s nuclear arsenal in general – would thus do absolutely nothing to help the military pay for the huge budget cuts mandated by the sequester ($55 bn per year), or America to cope with its budget woes.
Because the military is not the source of these woes. Entitlements (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) are. They account for over 60% of the entire federal budget.
THESE are the real budget busters.
The US urgently needs to modernize its B61 nuclear bombs – and, for that matter, all other warheads in its arsenal, as well as all three classes of delivery systems – ICBMs, submarines, and bombers. Failure to do so would mean de facto unilateral disarmament – and invite a nuclear first strike on the US or its allies by Russia or China.
UPDATE: Speaking recently for interviews with Agence France-Presse (who repeated their blatant lies uncritically), anti-nuclear activist Kingston Reif falsely claimed that the B61 upgrade is “unaffordable, unworkable, and unnecessary”, while ACA’s Tom Collina falsely claims that the B61 upgrade will impede arms reduction talks with Russia and cause Moscow to deploy new, more powerful, tactical nukes in Europe or elsewhere.
Their claims are blatant lies. Here’s why:
1) The truth is the exact opposite of what Kingston Reif and Tom Collina claim: the upgrade of the B61 is absolutely necessary, well affordable, and very much workable. It is affordable because even if it ultimately costs $10 bn, that’s just $732 million over the next 11 years (the duration of the works). That’s peanuts.
It is absolutely necessary, because while the US has removed thousands of tactical nukes from Europe, Russia still retains 4,000 tactical nukes (and a wide range of delivery systems for them) on the continent. Not only that, but Russia has reserved to itself the right to use nuclear weapons first, even against a non-nuclear state, and has threatened to use, or aim, its nuclear weapons against European countries at least 15 different times during the past 6 years. It is now growing and modernizing its nuclear arsenal (including the tactical portion, with new Iskander missiles and Su-34 tactical jets).
It would be utterly foolish, and indeed suicidal, to unilaterally disarm (by not modernizing the B61) in the face of such an aggressive potential adversary. In addition, the B61 is also needed to equip the bomber force for strategic deterrence and is also needed to deter China and North Korea in Asia. As General Bob Kehler, the commander of STRATCOM, has said, the B61 is the only US nuclear bomb that can serve both strategic and tactical deterrence purposes. (Nonetheless, the Obama administration is wrong to retire the B83 strategic bomb, the most powerful bomb in the US arsenal.)
2) Upgrading the B61 will NOT undermine prospects for further arms control treaties with Russia in any way, because there are already ZERO prospects for further such agreements. Immediately after Obama proposed a new round of nuclear arms cuts with Russia in June in Berlin, Moscow immediately rejected that proposal and continues to reject it (and to grow and modernize its nuclear arsenal). There is ZERO chance of any such treaty.
3) And that’s actually good, because all arms control treaties signed to date by the US have done nothing but dramatically REDUCE the security of the US and all of its allies while emboldening America’s enemies. Over twenty years of continually cutting and refusing to modernize the US nuclear arsenal have utterly failed to convince other states to give up their nukes, to stop them from modernizing their arsenals, or even to prevent the emergence of new nuclear powers. In fact, since 1991, while the US has cut its nuclear arsenal by 75%, two new states have joined the nuclear club: Pakistan in 1998 and North Korea in 2006. Two new entrants are well on their way: Iran and Saudi Arabia. Riyadh has already bought nuclear weapons in Pakistan which are ready for delivery.
Arms control treaties have resulted in ONLY the US (and for a while, Russia) significantly cutting its nuclear arsenal. They do nothing but gravely UNDERMINE US and allied security. This is especially true of the New START treaty, which obligates ONLY the US (not Russia) to cut its nuclear arsenal. God forbid that Obama have any opportunity to sign more treaties like that!
Arms control treaties serve NO purpose but to hog-tie and disarm the West unilaterally. As Ronald Reagan rightly said, “We honor our arms control treaty obligations. Those who wish to do us harm don’t.”
In addition, Russia is blatantly violating the INF Treaty by testing intermediate-range ballistic missiles, which is prohibited by the treaty. Why rush to sign another pact with a country that flagrantly violates every arms reduction treaty it signs?
4) It is absolutely necessary to fully modernize the entire US nuclear arsenal in the face of the nuclear threats from Russia, but also China, North Korea, and Iran. This might prove expensive – but nowhere near as costly as allowing a nuclear attack on the US to be conducted successfully. Since 1945, US nuclear weapons have completely prevented any nuclear attack on the US or any of its allies – without any failure. No other weapon type has a record that even comes close. That alone makes investing in nuclear weapons and their modernization worthwhile.
The ancient military strategist Sun Tzu said that “To win 100 battles is not the acme of skill; to subdue the enemy without fighting is.” The corrollary to Sun Tzu’s saying is that weapons which prevent wars are worth a million times more than weapons which are actually used in wars.