Author Archives: Zbigniew Mazurak

On Foreign and Defense Policy, Rand Paul Is On The Far Left

ReaganPeaceQuote

Last month, ConservativeDailyNews published an article debunking Senator Paul’s lies and attacks on his fellow Republicans and proving that Paul is no Reaganite on foreign policy, despite his desperate attempts to claim that mantle. After that, CDN debunked Sen. Paul’s false claims and policy prescriptions regarding Russia, the aggressor who illegally invaded and annexed part of Ukraine last month. Since then, we have uncovered additional facts about Sen. Paul’s foreign policy views which we believe the American people should know.

Rand Paul Supports America’s Unilateral Disarmament

Virtually all Americans, except strident liberals, know how foolish it is to disarm oneself, especially on a unilateral basis. Disarming one’s country, especially unilaterally, only invites aggression, death, and destruction, while a strong deterrent preserves those calamities.

Nonetheless, some extremely leftist groups, such as Global Zero, seek to disarm the US unilaterally by advocating deep, unilateral cuts in the US nuclear arsenal, down to the low hundreds,  and foregoing any modernization of the few weapons the US would have left, while falsely claiming that Russia, China, and other nuclear powers will then be nice enough to follow suit.

This is of course utterly false: Russia, China, and North Korea are building UP and modernizing their nuclear arsenals, as countless reports from the Washington Free Beacon, the Washington Times, Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy, the State Department, the US Strategic Command, and this writer have demonstrated. As even Jimmy Carter’s own defense secretary, Harold Brown, has said, “When we build, they build. When we cut, they build.”

Not only that, but Russia has violated EVERY arms limitation treaty it has ever signed, including the INF Treaty banning intermediate-range missiles.

But don’t waste your breath telling that to Sen. Rand Paul. He thinks Obama’s “reset” (read: appeasement) policy towards Russia has been a success, does not oppose cutting the US nuclear arsenal, has no objection to Russia’s rapid nuclear buildup or arms limitation treaty violations, and his foreign policy advisor is… the chairman of US Global Zero, Richard Burt, a former New York Slimes journalist.

Yes, you’ve read that correctly. The man who advises Sen. Paul on foreign policy is the chairman of the leading group advocating America’s unilateral disarmament.

Indeed, Sen. Paul has no objection to Global Zero’s treasonous unilateral disarmament proposals and has not criticized Chuck Hagel for supporting them in the past or for being a member of Global Zero.

By contrast, during Hagel’s very contentious Senate confirmation hearing, many other GOP Senators, including Jeff Sessions, Jim Inhofe, Kelly Ayotte, and Ted Cruz, staunchly criticized Hagel for these and other extremely leftist views. Paul voted to confirm Hagel, while Cruz, Ayotte, Sessions, and Inhofe all voted no.

In fact, Paul was one of only four Republicans (alongside RINOs Thad Cochran, Richard Shelby, and Nebraska’s Mike Johanns) to vote to confirm Hagel. All other Republicans, including even Maine’s Susan Collins, voted no.

But again, Paul hasn’t merely voted to confirm a card-carrying member of Global Zero as Secretary of Defense; he has hired that group’s chairman as his foreign policy advisor. If Rand Paul were elected President (God forbid), that man (Richard Burt) would become a key foreign policy figure in his administration – perhaps even Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense. And then, you can be sure as hell he and Paul would disarm America unilaterally. Jen Rubin has elaborated on that here.

Which brings us to the second fact uncovered last week: that Rand Paul doesn’t believe in “peace through strength” at all.

Rand Paul Rejects Peace Through Strength

Peace Through Strength is not a mere bumper sticker; it’s a policy proven right time and again. And it is right because it’s based on the fact that military (and economic) strength guarantees peace and security, while it is weakness that provokes aggression.

But Rand Paul adamantly disagrees (though these days he doesn’t often say that, now that he has the White House in his crosshairs). Rand Paul believes strength – specifically, American strength and firmness – is provocative and that appeasement of aggressors and bullies like Russia is the right approach.

In the following 2009 video, then-Dr. Paul slammed the notion of deploying missile defense systems in Poland and of expanding NATO eastward to bring Ukraine and Georgia under NATO’s protection. He claimed this would be provocative and invite war with Russia.

This is, of course, utter nonsense; Russia has to fear something from such moves only if it plans to make war on Poland and to further attack Ukraine and Georgia. If Russia plans to continue its policy of aggression towards Ukraine, Georgia, and Poland, and attack the latter, then yes, Russia does have to fear something from the US.

But if Russia were to coexist peacefully with those countries, it would have nothing to fear.

In fact, Russia would have nothing to fear from US missile defense systems in any case. These systems are unable to intercept Russian missiles (mainly due to their inadequate speed), ESPECIALLY if deployed in Central Europe, because then, these missiles would be easily outflown by Russian ICBMs. If Russia fired an ICBM towards the US, it would be over Western Europe by the time a missile defense battery in Poland would launch its interceptor(s).

But Sen. Paul believes that American strength, not weakness, is provocative and would invite war with Russia.

Which also explains his choice of Global Zero chairman Richard Burt to be his foreign policy advisor: if one believes that American strength is provocative and America’s weakness is a good thing, it makes sense to disarm America unilaterally and to surround yourself with people who advocate doing exactly that.

But in the real world, American weakness is provocative and dangerous, disarming America is utterly suicidal, and all arms control treaties in history have done nothing but to constrain the defenses of Western countries while doing absolutely nothing to limit the armaments of rogue nations and aggressors like Iran, North Korea, Russia, and China – who spit on such treaties and on the very notion of a  “world without nuclear weapons” (a fantasy which will never exist).

Senator Paul also opposes US sanctions against Iran and Russia (he voted against a Russia sanctions bill even AFTER substitute language, not authorizing any funding for the IMF or aid to Ukraine, was offered), and has claimed that pre-WW2 sanctions against Japan provoked that country to attack the US; he has also claimed that after WW1 the US imposed some sort of a “blockade” of Germany that “provoked some of their anger” (in reality, the US imposed no such blockade on Germany after WW1, ratified a separate treaty of peace with Berlin, invested heavily in Germany, and tried to ease the reparations burden on Germany throughout the interwar period). For more on Sen. Paul’s odious views, see here and here.

In other words, Rand Paul Blames America First.

Which Is the Better Electoral Choice?

Finally, when all else fails, defense weaklings and isolationists like Rand Paul and his ilk claim the GOP must adopt their policies because “Americans are war-weary” and a neo-isolationist (“noninterventionist”), “restrained” foreign policy and deep defense cuts.

This is utter nonsense. Although a slim majority of Americans did tell Pew several months ago (before the Russian invasion of Ukraine) that the US should, internationally, “mind its own business”, over 60% of Americans told Gallup that the US spends either “too little” or “the right amount” of money on defense, meaning that over 60% of Americans oppose any further defense cuts (Pew has found similarly strong opposition to defense cuts).

This is in stark contrast to the 1970s (when Americans were really war-weary, after Vietnam, and supported deep defense cuts) and the 1990s (when the public wanted a “peace dividend”).

Also, President Obama’s approval ratings on foreign policy (like on other issues) are at an all-time low, Republicans are now considered the more competent party on foreign policy, and a solid majority of Americans considers Russia a threat to US national security and backs strong sanctions against that country.

Last, but not least, when Gallup asked Americans last year to list their disagreements with the GOP and reasons for voting against it, only 1% named “war issues” as their objection to the GOP. The rest of that list was related to domestic issues and the GOP’s methods of handling them and advancing its goals.

There is nobody in the US who currently doesn’t vote Republican who would somehow start doing so if the GOP agreed to deep defense cuts. Agreeing to such suicidal cuts would not win the GOP a single new voter, but it would alienate tens of millions of national-security-oriented GOP voters who have been with the party for decades.

The reality is simple. Everytime the GOP nominates candidates who strongly believe in Peace Through Strength, are knowledgeable about foreign policy, and are confident discussing it, it is consistently rewarded at the polls. Conversely, when the Republican Party nominates candidates who don’t believe in Peace Through Strength, or don’t know much about foreign affairs and are uncomfortable discussing them, these candidates lose.

One of the biggest reasons why Ronald Reagan was overwhelmingly elected and reelected was because tens of millions of pro-defense voters left the Democratic Party and voted for Reagan after that party abandoned and betrayed them.

Why did the Dem party do that to them? Because during the 1970s, it was taken over by the McGovern-Carter crowd – which has never relinquished control of that party since. Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Barack Obama, Rose Goettemoeller, Carl Levin, John Garamendi, Jim Cooper, and Ed Markey all come from that McGovern-Carter tribe.

In the 1970s, the Democratic Party abandoned and betrayed tens of millions of pro-defense voters – who then migrated to the GOP and dealt the Democrats a series of nasty defeats (1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, 2004).

If the GOP, however, nominates an isolationist, pro-appeasement, anti-defense candidate like Sen. Paul for the Presidency (or the Vice Presidency), it will also abandon and betray those national-security oriented voters – as well as tens of millions of longtime Republicans who also care about defense issues. In essence, tens of millions of pro-defense voters will be disenfranchised.

The American people deserve at least one party which supports a strong national defense and a muscular foreign policy – in deed, not just in word.

The next 2.5 years will show whether the GOP has learned from this history and will nominate a competent candidate for the Presidency or not.

Strategic Command and State Dept. confirm: Russia is building UP its nuke arsenal

nukeexplosion

For many years, this writer has been warning against any reductions in the US nuclear arsenal, based on the fact that Russia was building up its own, China’s nuclear arsenal’s size was unknown and likely to be in the thousands of warheads, and North Korea’s nuclear capabilities were steadily increasing.

Accordingly, this writer has always consistently opposed any cuts in the US nuclear arsenal, including those mandated by the New START treaty, and has argued vocally against proposals by Obama admin officials and non-governmental arms control advocates like the “Arms Control Association” to cut the nuclear deterrent even further.

As time passed, more and more evidence emerged proving this writer’s claims – and proving nuclear disarmament advocates wrong.

But last Wednesday, the most powerful piece of evidence arrived: State Department cables from Moscow and Congressional testimony by Adm. Cecil Haney, commander of the Strategic Command, in charge of America’s entire nuclear commander.

According to US State Department diplomats in Moscow, who monitor Russia daily, Moscow is “vastly increasing” its nuclear arsenal and aims to reach “nuclear superiority over, not nuclear parity with, the US”, as Bill Gertz reports in his newest column in the Washington Free Beacon.

This is consistent with previous media and think-tank reports that Russia was building up its nuclear arsenal, was building additional strategic Tu-160 bombers, and had ordered 400 new ICBMs. The State Department and Bill Gertz have now simply confirmed this.

Thus, we have irrefutable evidence that a) Russia is dramatically increasing its nuclear arsenal, and b) its buildup is aimed at achieving nuclear superiority over, not parity with, the US. Which also proves that  New START is a treasonous treaty highly dangerous to US and allied security, because it requires nuclear arsenal cuts only of the US, while allowing Russia to dramatically increase its own arsenal.

Russia currently has:

  • About 414-434 ICBMs capable of delivering at least 1,684 (and probably more) nuclear warheads to the CONUS, with its fleet of 68-75 SS-18 Satan ICBMs alone being able to deliver 10 warheads each (750 in total);
  • 13 ballistic missile submarines, each armed with 16 ballistic missiles (20 in the case of the sole Typhoon class boat), each missile being itself capable of delivering 4-8 warheads (12 in the future, when Bulava and Liner missiles replace the currently-used Skiff) to the CONUS even if launched from Russian ports (Moscow has had such long-ranged missiles since the late 1980s), meaning over 1,400 warheads in total deliverable by Russia’s strategic submarine fleet;
  • 251 strategic bombers (Tu-95, Tu-160, Tu-22M), each capable of delivering between 7 (Tu-95) and 12 (Tu-22M) nuclear warheads to the CONUS. Russian bombers have, in recent years, repeatedly flown close to, and sometimes into, US airspace.
  • 2,800 strategic nuclear warheads in total, of which 1,500 are now deployed – and more will be deployed in the future – on the forementioned ICBMs, submarines, and bombers.
  • Over 20 attack and cruise missile submarines, each carrying nuclear-armed cruise missiles (one such submarine of the Akula class popped up last year near the US submarine base at King’s Bay, GA).
  • The world’s largest tactical nuclear arsenal, with around 4,000 warheads deliverable by a very wide range of systems, from short-range ballistic missiles to artillery pieces to tactical aircraft (Su-24, Su-25, the Flanker family, Su-34), to surface ships using nuclear depth charges.
  • Illegal (banned by the INF Treaty) intermediate-range nuclear-armed missiles (Yars-M, R-500, Iskander-M) that can target any place in Europe and China. (Nonetheless, despite these facts, the Obama administration and NATO are too afraid to recognize and name Russia as an INF Treaty violator.)

Russia is now dramatically increasing that arsenal, as the State Department and the Strategic Command’s leader have now confirmed. In addition to deploying more warheads and building more bombers from stockpiled components, it is:

  • Deploying new submarine-launched ballistic missiles (the Bulava and the Liner) that can carry 10-12 warheads each. Russia plans to procure around 140-150 missiles of each type; when these are fully deployed on Russia’s 13 ballistic missile subs, that fleet will be able to carry 2,000-2,200 nuclear warheads all by itself.
  • Deploying additional Yars-M, R-500, and Iskander-M IRBMs – in violation of the INF Treaty.

Russia is also steadily modernizing its existing nuclear arsenal and fleet of delivery systems. It is:

  • Developing and deploying a new class of ballistic missile submarines capable of carrying missiles such as the Bulava and the Liner. Two of them have already been commissioned and at least eight in total will be built.
  • Developing a next-generation intercontinental bomber, slated to first fly in 2020 – before the USAF’s planned Long Range Strike Bomber will.
  • Developing a new submarine-launched cruise missile, the Kaliber;
  • Procuring and deploying a new air-launched cruise missile, the Kh-101/102;
  • Developing and deploying three new ICBM types – the light Yars (RS-24, SS-29) to replace the single-warhead Topol and Topol-M missiles, the midweight Avangard/Rubezh (slated to replace SS-19 Stiletto missiles), and the Sarmat (AKA Son of Satan), intended to replace the SS-18 Satan heavy ICBMs.
  • Developing a rail-based ICBM type on top of the forementioned ICBM classes.
  • Developing a hypersonic missile that could carry nuclear warheads to any point on Earth in an hour and easily penetrate US missile defenses.

Note that the RS-24 (SS-29) Yars ICBMs will be able to carry 10 warheads each, whereas the missiles they’re replacing – the Topol (SS-25 Sickle) and Topol-M (SS-27 Sickle-B) – can carry only one warhead. Therefore, as these missiles enter service, the warhead carriage capacity of the Russian ICBM fleet will greatly increase beyond the (already huge) number of 1,684 warheads immediately deliverable to the CONUS.

By 2018, 80%, and by 2021, 100% of Russia’s ICBMs will be missiles of the new generation – the he Avangard/Rubezh, and the Sarmat heavy ICBM, as well as the forementioned rail-based ICBM.

By contrast, the US, under the Obama administration, has unilaterally retired and scrapped its nuclear-armed Tomahawk submarine-launched cruise missiles and their warheads, plans to kill the procurement of conventional Tomahawks, has no program to replace its ICBMs or air-launched cruise missiles, has delayed the induction of its next-generation bomber until the mid-2020s (and plans to procure only 80-100 of these crucial aircraft), has no plans to develop or deploy mobile ICBMs or medium- or short-range ballistic missiles, and has delayed its ballistic missile submarine replacement program. And even when these boats enter service, there will be only 12 of them, each carrying 16 missiles as opposed to the current Ohio class carrying 24 missiles each.

This is as simple as “Russia and China have nuclear-armed submarine- and ground-launched cruise missiles and IRBMs, the US does not.”

Which means that, even without further cuts, the US will be at a nuclear disadvantage vis-a-vis Russia (and China).

Russia would’ve been a huge nuclear threat necessitating the maintenance of the US nuclear arsenal at no less than its current size even WITHOUT this nuclear buildup. With it, it is becoming an even greater nuclear threat, thus necessitating that the US nuclear arsenal be increased, too.

This isn’t just Zbigniew Mazurak speaking; this is the State Department (through its diplomats in Moscow) and the Strategic Command’s leader, Adm. Haney (who is in charge of all US nuclear weapons), speaking. As Bill Gertz of the Washington Free Beacon reports:

“The blunt comments [by Adm. Haney – ZM] came in response to reports that Russian strategic nuclear forces recently held a large-scale nuclear exercise coinciding with saber-rattling conventional military deployments close to Russia’s eastern border with Ukraine.

Haney said the Russians conduct periodic nuclear war games and in 2013 produced a YouTube video that highlighted “every aspect of their capability.” (…)

State Department cables sent to Washington earlier this year included dire warnings that Russia is vastly increasing its nuclear arsenal under policies similar to those Moscow followed during the Soviet era. The cables, according to officials familiar with them, also stated that the Russian strategic nuclear forces buildup appears aimed at achieving nuclear superiority over the United States and not nuclear parity.

The nuclear modernization has been “continuous” and includes adding fixed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and mobile ICBMs, along with a new class of strategic missile submarines, Haney said in testimony.

“Russia has articulated their value in having strategic capability, and as such, each area they have invested in both in terms of nuclear strategic capability as well as space capability and cyberspace capability in terms of things,” Haney said.

“And as a result, we have seen them demonstrate their capability through a variety of exercises and operations. They maintain their readiness of that capability on a continuous fashion. And it’s a capability I don’t see them backing away from.”

By contrast, Haney testified to the committee that U.S. nuclear forces are in urgent need of modernization to update aging nuclear weapons, delivery systems, and support and production infrastructure, most of which were made decades ago. Under budget sequestration, which could be re-imposed in 2016, U.S. nuclear force modernization will be undermined.”

These facts utterly refute any claims – including those of Barack Obama, Congressional Democrats, and other nuclear disarmament advocates like the Arms Control Association and the Ploughshares Fund – that the US has too many warheads and can afford to cut its nuclear arsenal safely, or that this arsenal is a “Cold War relic” cutting which is “overdue and in the national interest.”

These despicable traitors wanted – and still want – America to cut its nuclear arsenal further and unilaterally, without Russian reciprocation. And for that, they should be severely punished with the maximum penalty foreseen by law for treason.

They have been blatantly lying. All of their claims, without any exception, are blatant lies. No, the US nuclear is not “too large”, “ripe for cuts”, nor a “Cold War relic.” No, its mission is not obsolete by any means – on the contrary, its mission (nuclear deterrence) is more important now than ever. No, cutting the US nuclear arsenal is not “overdue” nor “in the national interest” – it would be completely AGAINST the US national interest and utterly suicidal. It would invoke a Russian nuclear first strike on the US.

No, America cannot afford to cut its nuclear arsenal ANY FURTHER. It should increase, not cut, her nuclear arsenal.

Specifically, the US must:

  • Not enter into any more arms reduction agreements ever again, especially not with countries which routinely violate such treaties, like Russia.
  • Not reduce its nuclear arsenal by even one warhead and not retire any warheads except those whose service lives cannot be extended.
  • Begin quickly increasing its arsenal and the production of cheap, simple plutonium-based warheads. Ample plutonium for their production can be easily obtained from spent fuel from American nuclear reactors.
  • Resume nuclear testing.
  • Accelerate the development of the Long-Range Strike Bomber and procure 200, not 80-100, of these aircraft; and require that they be certified as nuclear-capable from the moment they enter service.
  • Quickly begin developing and procuring new, longer-ranged, stealthy replacements for the USAF’s cruise missiles as well as the Navy’s Tomahawk. The new cruise missiles should be of the same type, launchable from a wide range of platforms, and capable of delivering nuclear and conventional warheads. Their range should be at least 2,000 kms.
  • Accelerate the development of hypersonic weapons. The B-52, the B-1, and the B-2 should all be made capable of launching hypersonic missiles. The HTV and Blackswift programs should also be resumed.
  • Accelerate the Ohio class replacement program.
  • Develop and deploy a new ICBM for the USAF, which should come in rail- and silo-based variants.
  • Build more tactical nuclear warheads to reassure US allies around the world.

Once again, it must be repeated: THE US MUST NOT CUT ITS NUCLEAR ARSENAL ANY FURTHER, WHETHER UNI-, BI-, OR MULTILATERALLY. PERIOD.

Rebuttal of Guy Taylor’s garbage screed on missile defense

nukeexplosion

This morning, the Washington Times published a ridiculous  article. Therein in reports that three GOP Senators want to revive the Bush administration’s plans (cancelled by Obama) to deploy missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic… then attempts to paint those Senators and their proposal in the worst possible light by relying on the opinions of Obama administration officials and Kingston Reif, an ardent anti-military, anti-missile defense hack whose lies have already been refuted here on a few occassions. Reif claims that a) trying to punish Putin by deploying those missile defense systems in Central Europe would be “irresponsible” and pointless; and b) the Obama administration did not left Poland and the Czech Republic hanging out to dry when it cancelled President Bush’s plans (when it really did).

Obama admin officials, for their part, claim they didn’t leave Warsaw and Prague empty-handed and that their decisions were made based on supposed intelligence showing an evolving Iranian and North Korean threat. They also boast of their 2013 decision to deploy 14 additional interceptors in Alaska.

This is an utterly ridiculous screed whose purpose appears to be to tar GOP Senators while covering up for the Obama administration’s foreign policy failures. Shame on TWT for publishing it.

 

Here are THE FACTS:

 

1) The Obama admin cancelled the Bush administration’s plan to deploy missile defense systems in Europe SOLELY out of a foolish desire to appease Russia (which was adamantly opposed to those systems, and indeed to any US missile defense systems). As we know, and as I’ve been warning for over 4 years now, the Obama administration’s attempt to appease Russia has UTTERLY FAILED, as the Kremlin has given the US NO quid pro quo whatsoever.

 

2) Had the Bush administration’s plan been upheld and enacted, those missile defense installations would’ve been completed by 2012.

 

3) Both the Polish and the Czech governments of the time firmly supported the deal the Bush admin had struck with them, fearful of their countries’ security as the deal was signed literally days after Russia invaded Georgia. Milos Zeman has been President of the Czech Republic for only a few months. The Czech President of 2009 was the STAUNCHLY pro-American Vaclav Klaus.

 

4) When cancelling the Bush administration’s plans, the Obama administration left Warsaw and Prague with nothing but paper promises of an Aegis Ashore system that doesn’t exist and might never exist, and of deployment of such system that might or might nor occur many years from now (if ever)… unless, of course, Obama obtains even more “flexibility” to capitulate to Russia on missile defense issues.

 

So essentially, while cancelling Bush’s plans, Obama gave Warsaw and Prague nothing but paper promises. And as Obama has demonstrated recently to the Ukraine, America’s security promises are not even worth the paper it is printed on. America is now a country whose word counts for nothing, as it has utterly failed to protect Ukraine’s territorial integrity, in violation of its international obligations.

 

5) The Obama admin’s claims, made in 2009 and now, that in 2009 the threat was “evolving” is utterly false. At the time, they falsely claimed that the North Korean and ICBM threat was emerging less slowly than anticipated, which was (and is) not true; additionally, they falsely claimed there was a dichotomy and a zero-sum choice between defending against short-range and long-range missiles. Iranian short- and medium-range BMs, in any case, lack the range to reach Europe (let alone the US). The ONLY threat Iran could ever pose to Europe or the US is with long-range missiles. The DIA and the STRATCOM project Iran will test an ICBM next year.

 

6) Obama has promised Poland he will deploy SM-3 missiles in that country in 2018 – 4 years from now. That might (and likely will) never be honored, and in any case Obama cannot ensure that it will be, as he will no longer be in office by 2018. There will be a new President who will likely pursue a new policy.

 

7) As for the Obama admin’s decision to deploy 14 extra anti-ICBM interceptors in Alaska… this was originally planned by the BUSH Administration and cancelled by the Obama admin in its very first year in office, 2009. Their foolish cancellation was not reversed until last year, when the North Korean ICBM threat became so clear it could no longer be ignored. Had they gone forward with Bush’s plans in 2009, those 14 extra interceptors would’ve been deployed long ago.

 

8) Kingston Reif is not a missile defense analyst, he’s a longtime ANTI-missile-defense activist and an anti-nuclear-deterrence and anti-defense hack. Not one word he says is correct or credible. Quoting him as an authority is like quoting Cindy Sheehan.

 

9) Guy Taylor falsely claims that “most missile defense analysts agree with the Obama administration”… based on the opinion of just ONE person (Kingston Reif). Just ONE (leaving aside the fact he’s an anti-missile defense activist and not an analyst). ONE person is supposed to represent “most missile defense analysts”? Are you on drugs, Mr Taylor?

 

10) Deploying additional missile defense systems to Poland would be a GOOD policy. The purpose would be not just to poke Putin (not that it’s a bad thing, contrary to what Reif falsely claims), but above all to bolster Poland’s defenses against Russian ballistic missiles – and Poland is particularly exposed to that threat – and to punish Putin for his blatant aggression by striking where it would hurt him badly. Russia has done virtually everything it could’ve done to stop the deployment of these systems. Failing to prevent their eventual deployment would be a huge loss for Russia – and not just in the sense of prestige.

Tribute to Former SECDEF James Schlesinger

nukeexplosion

It is with great sadness that ConservativeDailyNews must today report the death of former Secretary of Defense and Energy, Dr James R. Schlesinger, who passed away last night.

We conservatives have been losing prominent national security figures for a few years now, but we can especially ill-afford the loss of Dr Schlesinger, who had an especially great knowledge and memory of nuclear weapons, defense budgets, and other key defense issues.

Dr Schlesinger was appointed Director of Central Intelligence in early 1973 by President Nixon, but just a few months later he was appointed to an even more important position – Secretary of Defense, replacing caretaker Elliot Richardson, who moved on to become Attorney General. This was at the beginning of President Nixon’s second (and uncompleted) term.

At that time, the US military was in deep trouble. Having just withdrawn its last combat troops from Vietnam, where it lost 58,000 men, its budgets were steadily declining, Congress was eager to cut even more out of the defense budget, the prestige of military service was low, drug and alcohol problems in the military were rampant, and aging and worn out equipment needed to be replaced (sound familiar?).

Most worringly, though, the Soviet Union was in the midst of a huge military buildup, as a result of which it gained parity with and later military advantage over the US and NATO. It was fielding weapons of ever-greater quality in large quantities, and its nuclear arsenal was beginning to exceed that of the US in size and sophistication.

Meanwhile, the US was unilaterally cutting the size of its military, weapon procurement programs, and its defense budget while the Kremlin was arming to the teeth. Making matters worse, Washington was signing up to “arms control” agreements whose only practical effect (and real objective) was to limit and cut AMERICAN armaments while leaving Soviet arms programs and deployments largely unconstrained. And even then, the USSR violated these accords.

In these circumstances, Dr. Schlesinger, a man of encyclopaedic knowledge of defense issues, tried to rescue the situation. He opposed ludicrous arms control agreements such as the SALT treaties, knowing they would leave the US in an inferior position vis-a-vis the USSR. He sought to reverse the defense spending cuts implemented before he took office, pointing out that the FY1973 defense budget was already the smallest in a decade and way below the then-peak of FY1968. He sought funding for many crucial weapons programs, and some of them – like the Lightweight Fighter (AKA the F-16) and the A-10 Thunderbolt/Warthog, survived only because of his personal protection for them. He ensured that they were successfully continued to completion.

Yet, Dr. Schlesinger’s efforts were staunchly opposed, and undermined at every turn, not just by the Soviets and their Democratic sycophants who then controlled the Congress, but by his own President (Gerald Ford) and administration colleagues such as the chief architect of detente, Henry Kissinger. These men sought to disarm the US unilaterally and to appease the Kremlin at all costs. Dr. Schlesinger was a huge obstacle in this quest – so President Ford fired him. Thus, the McGovern wing of the Democratic Party took control not only of the Dem party, but also of the GOP and the US government.

In recent years, Dr. Schlesinger has, time and again, proven his expertise on defense issues. When, in 2008, Secretary Gates found the US nuclear deterrent had atrophied and was not being taken care of properly by the Air Force, it was Dr. Schlesinger to whom Gates turned to investigate the matter and provide expert advice on solving the problem.

Most importantly, Dr. Schlesinger has, for the last several years, been warning about the continued atrophy of the US nuclear arsenal through its careless neglect and the unilateral disarmament policies of the “We’re Not Modernizing” Obama administration.

Concurrently, Dr. Schlesinger was constantly warning against the Obama administration’s utterly ridiculous fantasy of “a world without nuclear weapons”, which the administration, with the aid of its Democrat allies and isolationist “tea party” Republicans in Congress, is attempting to enact by disarming America unilaterally. The Obama administration claims that if the US disarms itself unilaterally, others will follow “America’s moral example.”

Dr. Schlesinger was warning policymakers and the public that such an objective was neither realistic nor even desirable, because scrapping the US nuclear arsenal would deprive the US of the one advantage it has over adversaries who have huge, well-armed conventional forces (Russia, China).

Dr. Schlesinger, of course, knew – as others, including this writers, did – from the start that a world without nuclear weapons was utterly impossible in any event, because no one except the US (and perhaps Britain, if the Labour party returns to power) is willing to forego their nuclear weapons.

Not Russia, which considers them “sacred.” Not China, which has conducted a huge nuclear buildup up to a level of perhaps up to 3,000 warheads. Not North Korea, which just this week tested dozens of ballistic missiles. Not France, whose latest Defense White Paper prioritizes its force de frappe and ensures its service life is prolonged until kingdom come. Not India and Pakistan, which are at each other’s throats. Not Israel, which is surrounded by enemies who seek its destruction. Not Saudi Arabia, which, according to the BBC, has recently “ordered” nuclear weapons in Pakistan and DF-21C ballistic missiles in Pakistan’s ally, China.

The fact that there will NEVER be a world without nuclear weapons is becoming even more evident in the face of Russia’s invasion and annexation of the Crimea in Ukraine. By doing so, Russia has blatantly violated the 1994 Budapest Agreement, in which it swore to respect Ukraine’s independence and territorial integrity in return for Ukraine handing over its nuclear weapons to Moscow. And Crimea was, at the time (and still is), recognized by the entire world (minus today’s Russia, of course), as part of Ukraine.

In 1994, by signing the Budapest Agreement, Ukraine essentially surrendered its nuclear arsenal (the third largest in the world at the time) in exchange for nothing but paper promises to respect its territorial integrity. Promises which, like all arms control treaties in world history, were not even worth the paper they were printed on.

As a result, NOBODY ELSE in the world, except Democrat-run America and a Labour-run Britain, will ever again be foolish enough to give up their nuclear weapons. On the contrary, we will see more and more nuclear weapon states – and more nuclear weapons overall around the world, just not in the US.

Already 66% of South Koreans want their country to be a nuclear power. Japan, even after this week’s summit, still has enough fissile material for over 6,000 warheads, and a newly-opened facility for processing fissile material that could produce a further 3,600 warheads per year if necessary.

Look for South Korea and perhaps even Japan to acquire their own nuclear deterrent. Look for Saudi Arabia and Iran to strike each other preemptively.

(We may even see Southeast Asian countries threaten each other with nukes over uninhabited islets in the South China sea, and Morocco threaten to unleash VX gas onto Mauritania to resolve a dispute over when the Ramadan should start! :) )

As Dr. Schlesinger wisely recognized and warned us numerous times, the Obama administration’s “world without nuclear weapons” policy of unilateral disarmament will only result in an AMERICA without nuclear weapons and a world with far more nukes, and far more nuclear-armed states, in it than when he took office.

The US should heed Dr. Schlesinger’s wise advice and:

  1. Stop any further reductions – whether uni-, bi-, or multilateral – in its nuclear arsenal and start GROWING that arsenal.
  2. Fully modernize the entire nuclear arsenal, including the warheads, the delivery systems, and their support facilities and laboratories.
  3. Recruit more nuclear scientists.
  4. Withdraw from all “arms control” agreements, which  serve no purpose but to disarm the US unilaterally. This should include (and begin with) the New START and the CFE Treaty.
  5. Cut Russia off the Western economic system, and replace Moscow as Europe’s chief energy supplier, to punish Russia for its arms reduction agreement violations in the way that would hurt Moscow the most.
  6. Resume SM-3 Block 2B anti-ballistic missile development and deploy it ASAP.
  7. Build an East Coast missile defense site.
  8. Hasten the development and deployment of laser-based missile defense systems that can intercept any type of ballistic and cruise missiles.
  9. Change the goal, policy, and substance of the US missile defense program of record from one aimed only at defending from rogue states to one aimed at intercepting all Russian and Chinese ballistic and cruise missiles if necessary.
  10. Resume the Airborne Laser, Kinetic Energy Interceptor, and Multiple Kill Vehicle programs.
  11. Station nuclear weapons in the Korean Peninsula to reassure Seoul and deter Pyongyang.
  12. Publicly warn Iran that any attack by Tehran on Israel will result in a nuclear retaliation not just from Israel itself, but also from the US.

Rebuttal of Jack Matlock’s Blame America First lies

ReaganPeaceQuote

The Washington Compost (not exactly a bastion of conservatism) has just published an utterly ridiculous screed by former State Dept. official and historical revisionist Jack Matlock Jr. Therein, Matlock blames the current crisis in the Crimea, and Russia’s entire hostility towards the United States, solely on America, falsely claiming that Moscow is hostile solely because “the United States has insisted  on treating Russia as the loser” since the Cold War’s end. Matlock falsely claims that since 1991, Russia has time and again tried to be a cooperative partner, only to receive “swift kicks to the groin” from the US.

(Only a congenital liar would make such claims.)

And like other liberals, Matlock also claims the US did not really win the Cold War or cause the USSR’s collapse. Furthermore, he claims in his book that Ronald Reagan’s sole (and secondary) contribution to ending the Cold War was supposedly abandoning the hawkish policies of his first term.

I will refute these other lies later. But first, I will utterly refute Matlock’s lies about the source of Russian hostility and about Moscow supposedly trying to be a cooperative partner.

Matlock: Blame America First

Matlock blames Moscow’s hostility solely on the US, claiming that the US invited it by bombing Serbia without UN Security Council Approval in 1999, invading Iraq without UNSC approval in 2003, withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2001, expanding NATO to include Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, the Baltic Republics, Romania, and Bulgaria; with supposed “plans” for US bases in the Baltics and the Balkans; by somehow “supporting” the democratic revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia; and by passing the Magnitsky Act, designed to punish Russian officials who violate human rights.

Matlock is essentially saying, “Russia under Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin tried to be a good partner and to follow a pro-Western orientation, but we alienated it with our aggressive actions.”

That is absolutely false, just like the rest of Matlock’s anti-American screed, and it comes straight from Moscow’s and its liberal American sycophants’ propaganda playbook. Matlock is merely repeating the same old anti-American lies for the umpteenth time.

Russia Has No Legitimate Grievances Towards The West

So let’s look at the issues he claims invited Russian hostility:

  • Serbia: in 1999, that country’s then-dictator, Slobodan Milosevic, was murdering thousands and thousands of innocent, defenseless civilians in Kosovo (where over 80% of the population is Kosovan, not Serbian) for nothing but the fact that they were Kosovan – just like the Germans murdered 6 million Jews for the mere fact they were Jews. We were witnessing a repeat of the Holocaust in Europe (albeit on a much smaller scale). The US was ABSOLUTELY RIGHT to act to stop this, and it was supported in this by ALL of NATO and the entire civilized world (to which Russia does not belong). Milosevic was a war criminal wanted by a UN tribunal in the Hague, was eventually handed over to it after losing power, and was tried for war crimes. The fact that Russia supported such a bloody war criminal only shows what an immoral country it is. As for “UN Security Council approval”, apparently Mr Matlock believes that the US should not act anywhere in the world unless it receives permission from that august council… where his beloved Russia, of course, is a veto-wielding member.
  • Iraq: say what you want about the wisdom of invading Iraq, but any claim that that invasion somehow threatened Russia’s interests in the Middle East is utterly preposterous. What Russian interests did it threaten? None. It actually undermined US interests as it replaced a Sunni dictator with a Shia, pro-Iranian government.
  • The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty: I guess Mr Matlock would’ve preferred for the US to forever remain vulnerable to even the smallest ballistic missile attack and for the US never to develop adequate defenses against such an attack… because that’s exactly what the ABM treaty prohibited. A treaty, by the way, signed with the USSR – a country that no longer existed by 2001. Considering how fast (despite all arms reduction treaties signed to date) ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons are proliferating (thus making a total mockery and failure of those treaties), the decision to withdraw from the ABM treaty was absolutely right. And it had no real impact on Washington-Moscow relations. Might I add that Russia – while strongly opposing America’s efforts to build ballistic missile defense systems – is quietly building such systems of its own?
  • NATO expansion: to say that this threatened Russia’s security is also a blatant lie. None of NATO’s new members (except Poland and the Baltics) even have a border with Russia; and all of them had and still have very good reasons to fear Russian subjugation and aggression. They spent half a century under the Soviet yoke; in the 1990s, Russia still tried to meddle in their affairs; and now Moscow is threatening them again. It was morally and strategically right to bring them under NATO’s defense umbrella. Moscow has something to fear from their accession to NATO ONLY if it intends to attack them. Moreover, the post-1991 NATO entrants (especially Poland and the Czech Republic) have proven to be among the staunchest allies America has anywhere in the world, participating heavily in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan (Poland sent thousands of troops to both countries). What’s more, Poland is one of the few NATO countries that spend the agreed benchmark of at least 2% of GDP on defense and has more mechanized Army brigades than the UK, France, and Germany combined. Romania and Bulgaria have access to the Black Sea and have recently held exercises with the USN. Such allies are worth having.
  • The early 2000s’ revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia saw utterly corrupt and criminal pro-Russian dictators (and in Ukraine, President Kuchma’s hand-picked successor Viktor Yanukovych) ousted by their people. Contrary to Matlock’s lies, the US did not extend anything but rhetorical support for those revolutions.
  • The Magnitsky Act: contrary to Matlock’s lies, the US did not single out Russia with this Act as the worst human rights abuser in the world. But Moscow is one of the world’s most egregious human rights violators, and this act, named by a whistleblower murdered in prison by Putin’s prison guards, instituted targeted sanctions against Russian officials who violate human rights.

So all of Matlock’s excuses for Russia’s hostility have been utterly refuted, one by one. They’ve collapsed like a deck of cards.

And so will, in a minute, Matlock’s myth that Russia has tried to be a cooperative partner whom the US has needlessly antagonized. In fact, since Vladimir Putin’s ascension to power, Russia has been increasingly arrogant and hostile towards the US and the West as its power has grown since the nadir of the 1990s. It has started a new Cold War against the West and is the biggest threat to US, European, and world security.

Russia Is Behaving Aggressively In Cold-War Style

In recent years, Russia has:

  1. Repeatedly flown nuclear-armed strategic borders into US, allied (Japanese), and even neutral (Swedish) airspace and said the Russian Air Force was “practicing attacking the enemy.” What on Earth have SWEDEN and JAPAN done to Russia? For that matter, what has America done to Russia? Nothing.
  2. Repeatedly (on 15 separate occassions) threatened to aim or even use its nuclear weapons against the US and its allies.
  3. Invaded two sovereign countries that dared to try to break out of Moscow’s sphere of influence and align themselves with the West (Georgia and Ukraine) and continues to occupy both countries.
  4. Repeatedly violated several arms reduction treaties, including the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty and the INF Treaty, the latter being violated by Russia by repeatedly testing and deploying nuclear-armed missiles banned by that treaty.
  5. Deployed nuclear-armed ballistic missiles in the Kaliningrad District, next to Poland, threatening that loyal ally of the US, while the US has no nuclear weapons anywhere in Eastern Europe.
  6. Backed America’s enemies around the world – North Korea, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba – to the hilt, with diplomatic protection at the UN Security Council, weapons (including the advanced S-300VM air defense system), nuclear fuel (Iran), and nuclear reactors (Iran), thus also threatening the existence of Israel.
  7. Stationed a spy ship, the Viktor Leonov, in Cuba (it’s still there).
  8. Conducted, and continues to conduct, a wave of hateful anti-American propaganda in domestic and foreign (e.g. RussiaToday) media.
  9. Sent an Akula-class nuclear-armed submarine close to the US submarine base in King’s Bay, GA.
  10. Domestically, assassinated high-profile dissidents (Anna Politkovskaya, Alexander Litvinenko) and jailed hundreds of others.
  11. Just recently, began negotiations with Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela on opening bases for Russian ships and nuclear-armed bombers there.

Yet the US is somehow to blame for Russia’s actions? For Moscow’s hostility? Who is threatening whom with nuclear weapons, Mr Matlock? Who is flying nuclear-armed bombers close and sometimes into US, Japanese, and Swedish airspace? Who is stationing spy ships close to the other party’s shores? Who is now reopening naval and bomber bases on the other party’s doorstep?

Are you a paid pro-Kremlin propagandist, Mr Matlock? Or are you just on drugs?

Matlock also falsely claims that the current West-Russia spat we’re witnessing now is not a new Cold War but the result of “misunderstandings, misinterpretations, and posturing to domestic political audiences” – as if Russia’s ultra-aggressive behavior against the US, its allies, and even neutral countries like Sweden was the product of mere “misunderstading.”

He’s completely wrong. Russia’s behavior is the result of resurgent, renewed Russian imperialism, of the Kremlin’s imperial ambitions, and of the hatred of the West which Vladimir Putin and his fellow KGB thugs imbued when trained by the KGB.

We didn’t see that behavior in Putin’s first years because at that time Russia was still too weak to try such actions. But as Russia began to rebound militarily and economically under Putin, it also began to be increasingly aggressive towards the West and towards Moscow’s former Warsaw Pact vassals.

Matlock also falsely claims that Russia has cooperated with the US on Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, and North Korea.

This is also false. Moscow has backed, and continues to back, Syria, Iran, and North Korea to the hilt, affording them diplomatic protection at the UNSC, weapons (except North Korea, at least so far), and, in Iran’s case, nuclear reactors and nuclear fuel – which Iran will use to produce nuclear weapons.

Moscow has absolutely opposed any but the weakest sanctions against Iran, and continues to back the genocidal, anti-American dictator Bashar al-Assad.

Matlock also falsely claims the New START treaty was a significant achievement, but the converse is true: New START was an utter failure and a treasonous treaty. It requires unilateral disarmament on America’s part: only the US required by the treaty to cut its nuclear arsenal, while Russia is allowed to increase its own. Even worse, the treaty doesn’t count Russia’s 171 Tu-22M strategic bombers as such, contains a pathetically weak Potemkin-like verification regime, and imposes restrictions on US missile defenses.

As Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ) has rightly said, the US should immediately withdraw from that treaty.

Finally, I will refute Matlock’s also utterly false claim that the US didn’t win the Cold War or cause the collapse of the USSR.

The fact is the US did both, no matter how hard Matlock and other revisionists try to deny it.

The Soviet Union lost the Cold War, and collapsed in 1991, because of the fatal blows Ronald Reagan dealt to it. In his eight years, President Reagan:

  • Dramatically increased US defense spending, to levels not seen in real terms before or since, and US defense programs to a pace the Soviet Union could not keep up with.
  • Began the development of a missile defense system the USSR could never match.
  • Convinced Saudi Arabia to increase oil output dramatically, thus cutting oil prices from $30/bbl to $12/bbl in 5 months, and thus dealing a fatal blow to Moscow’s oil-revenue -dependent economy.
  • Instituted a bevy of sanctions on the USSR, including an embargo on drilling, pumping, and construction equipment, and successfully pressured West Germany to reduce the planned Yamal Pipeline from 2 lines to one, and to delay that project by many years (as a result, it wasn’t completed until 1999).
  • Supported anti-Soviet proxies around the world, most notably in Afghanistan, where they defeated the Soviet Army in a war that cost Moscow hundreds of billions of dollars (if only the US had learned from Moscow’s mistakes and had not gotten mired in that country!).
  • Deployed Pershing and GLCM missiles in Europe to counter the USSR’s deployment of SS-20s.
  • Successfully used the tons of secret Warsaw Pact documents stolen by Col. Ryszard Kuklinski as leverage in negotiations with the Soviets.

These are the fatal blows that brought the Soviets back to the bargaining table, forced them to make major concessions, and eventually caused the Soviet Union’s collapse, as the USSR was unable to continue the Afghan War, the arms race, or counter US missile defense development with its sclerotic, stagnant economy, especially not after the Reagan-induced late 1980s oil glut. And not with the Yamal Pipeline delayed.

As Professor Robert G. Kaufman has rightly written, “the Cold War ended on Reagan’s terms, not Gorbachev’s.”

Matlock is wrong on all counts. All of his claims are utterly false. Not one of them is correct – not even one. Russia has NO legitimate grievances towards the West, it has never been a truly cooperative partner in the last 25 years, and its hostility is due to the revival of imperialist ideology and ambitions in Russian political circles (greatly enabled by KGB thug Vladimir Putin’s ascent to power). Russia is now waging a new Cold War on the West. How the West, led by the US, will respond to this challenge, remains to be seen.

G. Murphy Donovan and the American Thinker Badmouth America, Glorify Russia, And Thus Commit Treason

zxs4kg

Russian President Vladimir Putin and the (now-deceased) North Korean dictator Kim Jong-il. Photo by the Kremlin Press Service.

The pseudoconservative “American Thinker” e-zin has recently (on March 18th) published an utterly ridiculous anti-American, pro-Russian propaganda screed by well-known Russophile G. Murphy Donovan.

In his screed, Donovan falsely claims that Russia is not an enemy but an ally against Islamism (with which, in fact, Moscow is allied against the US); that American and European politicians are trying to resuscitate the Cold War to poke Russia; that the crisis in the Crimea is “manufactured”; and that the West, led by the US, bears sole responsibility for the breakdown in Western-Russian relations. In passing, Donovan makes a number of other utterly false claims about Russia designed to paint that country as a cultural brother and a friend of the US.

Below are Donovan’s nine most ridiculous lies and my rebuttals of them:

1)

“Harder still to believe that American politicians, Right and Left, are trying to resuscitate the Cold War — or something hotter.”

No, the West is not trying to resuscitate the Cold War; Russia has revived it, and it did so long before it illegally invaded the Crimea.

Already as of 2007, it was threatening to aim its nuclear-armed ballistic missiles at all of Europe. In 2008, it deployed Iskander ballistic missiles to the Kaliningradskaya Oblast. It has launched a series of cyber attacks and an arms race against the US, flush with oil and gas revenues sufficient for this. It has developed and deployed SEVERAL types of intermediate range ballistic missiles in flagrant violation of the INF treaty. It has repeatedly flown nuclear-armed bombers into US, Japanese, and even Swedish airspace. (By God, what has Sweden done to Russia?)

When asked what their bombers were doing flying so close to Alaska, the Russian Air Force said, “We were practicing attacking the enemy” – and that “enemy”, in their perception, is the US.

Russia is the one who has revived the Cold War, and it bears SOLE responsibility for that fact.

2)

“Russia, the EU, and America also share a common enemy, that insidious fifth column: domestic and global Islamism.”

No, the West and Russia do not share a common enemy in Islam; Russia is an ALLY of that enemy and thus an enemy of the US. It remains the chief weapons supplier, financial sponsor, diplomatic protector, and nuclear fuel and technology provider for Iran and (minus the nuclear parts) Syria. It has withheld from the US information that could’ve been used to prevent the Boston Bombings. It continues to arm and aid anti-American regimes (Islamic and non-Islamic alike) all around the world, from Syria, to Iran, to North Korea, to Venezuela, to Cuba. It also continues to demand that Israel give up its nuclear deterrent and withdraw to indefensible pre-1967 armistice lines.

If you are a friend of Russia, you are an enemy of Israel. You cannot support the appeasement of Russia and still claim to be a friend of Israel.

Had it not been for Russia, global Islamism would lose its only major sponsor, protector, and ally against the US. Syria and Iran would thus lose their only major patron besides China and would be forced to stop threatening Israel, stop building WMDs and stop sponsoring terrorist organizations.

3)

“And the American Right is not blameless; excusing terror, regime change folly, the recent litany of imperial failures. In the 2012 US election campaign, there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference between candidates, Right and Left, on US foreign or military policy.”

Utter garbage! In the 2012 election, there was a WORLD of a difference between GOP and Democrat candidates, ESPECIALLY on foreign and defense policy. In a nutshell, Obama and the Democrats continued to advocate America’s unilateral disarmament and the appeasement of Russia, China, and Iran, with Obama famously mocking Romney that “the 1980s are asking to have their foreign policy back” (to which I’d reply, “the 1930s and Neville Chamberlain are asking for their foreign policy back”).

OTOH, Mitt Romney advocated rebuilding the US military, reviewing the New START unilateral disarmament treaty, and a tough approach to Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, as well as Islamic terrorist organizations around the world. Also, Romney would NOT have tried to impose dangerous “peace accors” on Israel.

4)

“Yes, Russophobia! The pragmatic gains of the Reagan era have been set aside for an irrational fear of all things Russian.”

Utter garbage as well. The American people and the GOP are not plagued by Russophobia or any other irrational fear of Russia; they are merely critical of Russia’s BEHAVIOR – which is highly detrimental to AMERICA’S own national security interests, as well as the security of key US allies (incl. Israel) and the whole world. OTOH, Putin still lives in the Cold War era and he, like his KGB cronies, is still mired in his irrational hatred of the United States, which drives all his FP actions.

5)

“When demagogues like Hillary Clinton compare Russian behavior to Nazi Germany, she mocks Allied history and the sacrifice of 5 million Russians in WWII.”

Utter rubbish yet again! (And it proves that Donovan is well to the left of Hillary Clinton on foreign and defense policy.)

The Soviet Union STARTED World War II together with Nazi Germany in 1939 by signing the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, invading Poland and conquering half of that country. Not only that, but it deported thousands and thousands of Poles in the conquered lands to Siberia and Kazakhstan (where most of them died in the gulag) and executed, for no reason whatsoever, FORTY THOUSAND Polish officers in Katyn – and then LIED about it for the next HALF-CENTURY. The Soviet Union then continued its imperialist binge by invading Finland and taking away one tenth of that country’s territory.

And you know, folks, why the USSR was so surprised by the German invasion of June 1941?

Because the Soviet Army was, at that time, in OFFENSIVE positions, awaiting Stalin’s order to invade Germany and German-occupied Poland. Hitler simply preempted Stalin by a few weeks. Had he not done so, Stalin would’ve invaded first.

6)

“Russian blood chits, we might add, that made the Allied victory over Nazis possible in 1945.”

No, they did not. It was US involvement, war production, and financing of the war (the US alone bore 50% of its cost on the Allied side) that made the Allied victory over Germany (and Japan) possible. And in retrospect, it was a foolish mistake to aid the USSR in defeating Nazi Germany; the US should’ve let Berlin and Moscow duke it out among themselves, just like it’s allowing Assad and Al-Qaeda to duke it out among themselves in Syria today. It’s too bad that someone had to win. It’s a pity the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany could not BOTH lose.

It was more foolish still for FDR and Churchill to insist that the Wehrmacht surrender unconditionally on all fronts. This left the Germans with no choice but to fight bitterly to the very end. Had the Germans been given honorable surrender terms on the West front, they would’ve turned all their resources against the Soviets – and the Soviet occupation and subjugation of half of Europe might’ve been avoided.

7)

“Never mind that the difference between Putin’s Russia and Gorbachev’s Soviet Union is like the difference between caviar and carp.”

Again, a blatant lie. If anything, Gorbachev’s Soviet Union, at least in its latter years, was actually better than Putin’s Russia today. Gorbachev significantly loosened repression in the USSR; Putin has reinstated it. Gorbachev closed the gulag camps; Putin has reopened them. Gorbachev agreed to Germany’s unification, the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, and to allowing Eastern European countries to choose their own paths of development. Putin has, for the last several years, been constantly meddling in European affairs and threatening European countries – esp. those that broke off the Russian yoke in 1991 – with nuclear weapons and warning them not to ally themselves with the EU or the US and has deployed nuclear-armed ballistic missiles on Poland’s doorstep.

Gorbachev signed the INF treaty banning intermediate range missiles and dutifully dismantled them before the USSR collapsed; Putin has resumed their development, production, and deployment, in flagrant violation of the INF treaty.

8)

“Yet, Americans have much in common with Russia: history, religion, art, literature, sports, dance, dogs, music, science, space travel, adult beverages, recreational sex, and almost all things cultural”

Again a blatant lie. The US and Russia could not be any more different. For starters, the US is based on a culture of the rule of law (hence the huge backlash against Obama’s refusal to enforce federal law); Russia, on the rule of men. The US is based on individual and economic liberty; Russia, on a culture of utter and unlimited submission of all to the current ruler (Tsar/General Secretary/”President”). In the US, church attendance is disproportionately high among Western nations (and conservative churches’ membership has SURGED in recent years); in Russia, it hovers around 10%.

The HUGE cultural differences between the US and Russia are best illustrated by this fact: had Donovan been a Russian, writing in Russia, and criticizing RUSSIA’S foreign policy, he would’ve been either assassinated by Putin’s KGB thugs or, at best, imprisoned in a gulag camp.

9) The reason why Ukrainian ex-President (and Putin puppet) Viktor Yanukovych has been ousted from office is because he was an utterly corrupt kleptocrat who was preparing to slaughter en masse his own citizens protesting his policies, as documents found in his former residence have revealed. He was preparing to quell the protests by force, just like Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro is doing today. The US and the EU did not, in fact, lift a finger to support the Ukrainian resistance at that time, and are barely doing anything to help Ukraine today. So for Donovan to claim that the US and the EU orchestrated that coup is a blatant lie – just like everything else he writes.

Shame on you, Mr Donovan, for lying so blatantly, for badmouthing your own country, and for being an apologist for the most dangerous dictator in world history since Stalin.

Rebuttal of Ben Freeman’s lies about the defense budget

 

ReaganPeaceQuote

The crappy, leftist DefenseOne website has recently (on March 14th) published a ridiculous article by anti-defense hack and former George Soros paid anti-defense propagandist Ben Freeman, now a “Policy Analyst on National Security Issues” at the “Third Way” think tank.

In his ridiculous screed, Freeman attacks what he claims are “Three Myths About the Defense Budget”, but in fact, it is his attacks on these supposed “myths” that are lies.

Firstly, Freeman denies that the defense budget proposed by Obama is small. Obama’s requested base defense budget is $495.6 bn, less than the amount enacted last year, and he’s also requesting $79.4 bn for the war in Afghanistan, a total of $570 bn.

This, alleges Freeman, is more than the military ever received under Ronald Reagan, so, Freeman quips, Obama cannot be accused of being weak on defense unless Reagan can also be.

But Freeman is lying. His claim is utterly false for two reasons. Firstly, the military actually received much more under Ronald Reagan, and secondly, yes, Obama IS very weak on defense, as evidenced by his structural and programmatic disarmament of the US military ever since taking office in 2009 (see below).

The biggest defense budget under Ronald Reagan, the one for FY1988, was $292.9 bn in FY1987 dollars (i.e. the dollars of the year in which it was enacted). Adjusted for inflation (using the DOL’s Inflation Calculator), that amounts to $605.30 bn – over $30 bn more than what Obama has requested.

And the cuts won’t stop there; in successive years, the defense budget will be cut further. OCO supplementals will eventually end after the Afghan war ends, and base defense spending will be cut significantly further due to the sequester – which, may I remind you, Obama first proposed and insisted on (and threatened to veto any attempts to undo it).

Of course, the gap between Reagan’s and Obama’s financial commitment to the military is even greater when you consider metrics far more accurate than raw dollar numbers.

During the Reagan years, the US spent 6% of its economy, and roughly 25-27% of the entire federal budget, on the military. Today, with war and DOE spending included, that is down to less than 4% of GDP – the LOWEST level since FY1948 – and less than 18% of the entire federal budget.

Freeman is also lying blatantly when he claims that the US spends 3 times more on the military than China and 5 times as much as Russia. His claim is based on OFFICIAL Chinese and Russian military spending figures. But, as anyone with even the smallest knowledge of these countries knows, Beijing and Moscow routinely and vastly understate their military budgets.

Independent analysts estimate China’s actual annual military budget to be $240 bn, double the $119 bn figure Beijing admits to and just two times less than the US defense budget. Russia’s military budget is also far larger than the official $90 bn figure; for example, many Russian ministries buy military-destined goods out of their own budgets and then give them as “free goods” to the Defense Ministry.

Just like the Soviet Union routinely understated its military spending, so do China and Russia today. Which isn’t surprising, given that China is communist, Russia is governed by an unreconstructed KGB thug, and both are on expansionist, imperialist binges.

But it gets even worse: in China and Russia, one dollar can buy several times more than the US. Which means that even if one determines Russia’s or China’s actual military budgets, that would then have to be multiplied by at least 3 to arrive at the real extent of their military buildups.

Which brings me to another lie by Freeman – that the US military is vastly superior to any competitor.

I wish it were true, but it isn’t. And Freeman, by propagating that comfortable lie, is trying to lull the American people into a false sense of security.

In fact, as I have recently demonstrated in an in-depth study of the Chinese military, the PLA, it is vastly superior to the US military by almost all metrics – and so is the Russian military.

Man for man, ship for ship, plane for plane, the Chinese and Russian militaries are far better than the US military – which will learn that rude lesson sooner rather than later.

Chinese troops are better trained, fed, quartered, and led – by true warrior leaders, not by politically correct careerists eager to please their civilian masters in Washington. They, and their Russian counterparts, are also far better equipped – with superior air defense systems (which render their airspace closed to all but the most stealthy aircraft), nuclear missile delivery systems, ultra-quiet, submarines, surface warships, fighters, cruise missiles, anti-ship weapons, and so on.

A few examples will illustrate the point.

The premier air superiority fighter of China and Russia, the Flanker, is newer, better armed, more maneuverable, better equipped with sensors and missiles, and much cheaper than the old, outdated F-15 Eagle (to say nothing of the small, uncompetitive F-16 Crappy Falcon, inferior even to its Chinese clone, the J-10). Their missiles are longer-ranged than any air-to-air missile in US inventory and have diverse seekers, unlike the AIM-120 AMRAAM.

Russia’s and China’s fifth generation fighters, scheduled to enter service later this decade, are all-aspect-stealthy, can carry large weapon loads over long ranges, are highly maneuverable and capable of sustained supersonic speeds, have excellent sensor aperture, and can evolve into other roles than air superiority and theater strike.

None of this can be said of the sole fifth-generation “fighter” the US is developing for its Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps: the grossly overweight, sluggish, unmaneuverable, underpowered, underranged, underarmed, non-stealthy (contrary to what Lockheed Martin claims), and hacked (by Chinese hackers) F-35 Junk Strike Fighter, AKA the Jet That Ate The Pentagon Budget. It can’t turn, climb, nor run away from a fight. In any combat situation, US and allied F-35s would be massacred like pigeons in a pest eradication program. Indeed, Freeman’s former employer, POGO, and Freeman himself have sharply criticized the F-35.

China has modern frigates, designed primarily for anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare, and Russia has the Admiral Gorshkov class. What does the USN has? A dwindling fleet of aging, obsolete Perry-class frigates and the Little Crappy Ship (LCS) that is easy to sink and has meagre weaponry.

The USN does have a good class of air defense destroyers – the Arleigh Burke class – but even here China outperforms the US with its Type 052C and D destroyers, AKA Chinese “Aegis class” DDGs.

Russia has 6,800 nuclear warheads, including 4,000 tactical ones. The US has 5,113 warheads, of which only about 400 are tactical. Nothing has been done to address Russia’s huge advantage in that area.

China and Russia have far better combat rifles – various variants of the famous AK-47 Kalashnikov (you can bury it in sand or mud and it will still fire). The standard rifles of the US military are the M16 and its shorter M4 variant – both of which are famous for their propensity to jam. These rifles have literally gotten thousands of US troops killed.

China alone has 100,000 naval mines, and Russia has further thousands. The USN is completely unprepared for this, with only 13 minesweepers, all operated by the Naval Reserve because the USN is completely uninterested in counter-mine warfare. The UK Royal Navy alone has more minesweepers than that (15) – all operated by the REGULAR Royal Navy.

China and Russia also have many kinds of weapons the US military simply doesn’t have at all: anti-satellite weapons, supersonic anti-ship missiles, and short- and medium range ballistic missiles.

China has a wide range of supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles: the Russian-imported SS-N-22 Sunburn and SS-NX-30 Sizzler (3M54 Klub) and the indigenous Yingji family of missiles. A single Sunburn would suffice to sink an American aircraft carrier. It also has DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missiles, each of which, again, is enough to sink a USN carrier. The US has no weapons of this kind.

As for short- and medium range ballistic missiles, Russia has the Iskander-M and K, the R-500 GLCM, and the Yars-M IRBM, all fielded in flagrant violation of the INF Treaty. These missiles can reach any point on th Eurasian continent. China has DF-11, DF-15, and DF-16 short-range ballistic missiles, and the DF-21, DF-25, and DF-26 medium-range ballistic missiles, along with the CJ-10 and DH-10 cruise missiles, which can strike any target in the Western Pacific, with nuclear and conventional warheads alike – out to Guam and well beyond.

The US military USED to be the strongest martial force in the world. But alas, it no longer is. It is now DECISIVELY inferior to the Chinese and Russian militaries – by a large margin.

Shame on DefenseOne for publishing Freeman’s screed, and on Freeman for lying to the American people so blatantly.

 

The J-20 Gets More Stealthy And Lethal; The F-35 Is Already Obsolete

Chengdu-J-XX-VLO-Prototype-35S

The Chinese J-20 stealth fighter during one of its first flights in 2011. Photo credit: Dr Carlo Kopp, AirPowerAustralia.

When the Chinese J-20 (J-XX, XX-J) fighter first flew in January 2011 – during then Defense Secretary Robert Gates’s visit in China – Western “analysts” and defense bureaucrats, including Gates himself, dismissed that aircraft as a non-threat. They claimed it would not be a threat, was not a surprise to the US, and would not enter service until the late 2010s or even the early 2020s.

But they were wrong then, and they are wrong now. Back then, credible analysts such as IASC’s Richard Fisher and AirPowerAustralia’s Dr Carlo Kopp and Chris Mills warned that the J-20 was a very low observable (i.e. extremely hard to detect) plane, owing to its designers’ strict adherence to the rules of designing stealth aircraft; and that further, the aircraft, owing to its large size, would be able to carry a very large fuel and weapon load and thus carry out air superiority and theater strike missions throughout the First and Second Island Chain in Asia – that is, as far as Guam and the Marianas (with aerial refueling).

It is this second camp, of those who were very concerned about the J-20 threat, who have been proven right.

By now, three years after it first flew, the J-20 has been developed into an even deadlier, more survivable fighting machine.

Newer radar-absorbing coating has been applied, and engine exhaust nozzles have been hidden, to reduce the J-20’s already small radar signature even further, thus making it virtually undetectable by radar. New, more powerful and more reliable engines, have been added. And most worrisome, an electro-optical targeting system – stolen from the F-35 program, whose computers were hacked and designs stolen in 2007 by Chinese military hackers – has been added, giving the J-20 a new, powerful sensor.

This was made possible by a theft of F-35 technology from Lockheed Martin and DOD networks by Chinese hackers. The most serious attacks of this type, compromising the F-35 along with dozens of other top-drawer US weapon systems, occurred in 2007 and 2013. Crucial missile defense systems, such as the THAAD and the PATRIOT, have also been compromised, which will enable the Chinese to defeat these systems. The Washington Free Beacon‘s Bill Gertz has documented this theft meticoulously here.

As a result, not only does the J-20 possess an Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS) of the same kind as the F-35, it physically resembles that aircraft (and the F-22) in appearance.

However, the J-20 will be far, far more capable than the F-35, and a serious rival for the F-22. It will have a max speed well in excess of Mach 2, have a ceiling of up to 65,000 feet, have a low wing loading ratio, a high thrust/weight ratio, and will be able to carry large weapon and fuel loads. Thus, it will be something the DOD has long dreamed about – a high-speed, high-altitude, maneuverable fighter which will also serve quite ably as a theater strike jet (a la the F-111 Aardvrark) at thousand-mile ranges.

The J-20 will be capable of carrying out the following missions:

  • National Air Defense: In this role, the J-20, having access to dozens of semi- or fully hardened, and a number of super-hardened, airbases throughout China would defend the country’s airspace, intercepting nonstealthy US aircraft and cruise missiles like the JASSM and the Tomahawk.
  • Expeditionary Air Superiority: In this role, the J-20 would gain air superiority over foreign air forces in the skies above foreign countries (e.g. Japan, the Philippines, Taiwan) and contested territories (e.g. the Senkaku and Spratly Islands) in the early hours and days of a conflict, allowing the PLA to operate in the warzone freely.
  • Expeditionary Theater Strike: In such a role, the J-20 would serve as a one-for-one equivalent of the proposed FB-22 stealthy theater attack jet, i.e. as a stealthy regional striker designed to surpress enemy air defenses and destroy an opponent’s vital assets. US and allied airbases, naval stations, supply depots, command centers, and ground bases would all be targets for the J-20.
  • Electronic Warfare Aircraft: In this role, the J-20 would jam and defeat the radars of an opponent’s aircraft, ships, and ground air defense systems in a manner similar to that of the EF-111 Raven, the EA-6B Prowler, and the EA-18G Growler, but with a huge range and endurance the latter two aircraft lack, and with stealthiness that all three of those aircraft lack.
  • Long Range Reconnaissance/Intelligence Aircraft: In this role, the J-20 would be used to collect radar, imagery and electronic intelligence, emulating aircraft such as the RF-111C/D, the RF-4, the RA-5C, and F-14 TARPS but with the advantages of a) range and endurance (lacked by the latter three aircraft types) and b) stealthiness (lacked by all of these legacy aircraft types).
  • Anti-Satellite Weapon Launcher: The J-20 could also be used to launch anti-satellite missiles to loft them into the Low-Earth Orbit and kill US satellites there. Aircraft can be used for this purpose – the USAF experimented with such missiles in the 1980s under the Reagan administration; however, since then, the USAF’s ASAT weapon program has been killed.

A “standard” multirole variant of the J-20 could execute the first three missions easily. The latter three could be easily performed by specialized variants. Such variants could be developed on the J-20’s basis easily, with only slight modifications to the aircraft’s design, as was done with the F-111 and the F-4, both of which have spawned several different designs.

So the J-20 will be capable of executing all the above missions, although some of these will be performed by specialized variants into which the J-20 will certainly evolve.

But its primary mission will likely be that of delivering air superiority – in Chinese as well as foreign airspace. That being said, what aircraft does the US have at its disposal to stop this highly capable Chinese fifth generation fighter (and its smaller 5th generation cousin, the J-31)?

The only Western (not just American – WESTERN) aircraft capable of competing with and defeating the J-20 is the F-22 Raptor, or to be more precise, evolved and enhanced variants of the existing model of this aircraft.

The F/A-18E/F Super Bug is not, has never been, and will never be even close to competitive with the J-20. Designed and built as a naval strike jet, it is too heavy and sluggish, too slow, too low flying, and armed with too weak a radar to compete with the Chengdu stealth fighter.

The F-16 and the Eurocanards (the Typhoon, the Rafale, the Gripen) will be totally outclassed by the Chengdu aircraft, being too slow, too low-flying, and in the F-16’s and the Gripen’s case, equipped with pathetically weak radars.

The F-35 will be similarly so outclassed… assuming, of course, that this failed project even progresses to any kind of large-scale production and operational status.

Which is a big if. For the F-35 program has seen such dramatic cost overruns, delays, and design flaws being uncovered, that this utterly failed, budget-busting aircraft will not enter service for many years, if ever.

But even if it suffered no cost overrun or delay, even if it entered service tomorrow, it would STILL be decisively inferior to the J-20, the J-31, the Flanker family, the J-10, and even obsolete, third-generation Chinese fighters like the J-7 and the J-8.

The F-35 Junk Strike Fighter is a heavy, sluggish, unmaneuverable, underpowered, and underarmed flying pig which is decisively inferior to virtually all other fighters in the world – those in service and those in development – contrary to the gloating Lockheed Martin paid propaganda being spewed by 60 Minutes.

That ridiculous programme – which routinely spews garbage nonsense on military (and nonmilitary) affairs – recently hailed the F-35 as exactly the right aircraft for the military, which, we are told, will utterly defeat the Chinese and the Russians in any air war with them.

But 60 Minutes is dead wrong. It will be the F-35 that will be utterly defeated in a future air war with the Chinese or the Russian air force.

Why?

Because the F-35 is decisively inferior to all fighters operated or being developed by Beijing and Moscow (as well as the Typhoon, the Rafale, the Gripen, and legacy US fighters such as the F-15 and the F-16).

And how is it inferior?

In the Beyond Visual Range (BVR), i.e. long-range, combat regime the F-35 cannot fly fast enough or high enough to propel its missiles beyond their nominal range. It can eke out only Mach 1.61 and climb to no more than 43,000 feet. (Lockheed Martin claims its ceiling is actually 60,000 feet, but the F-35 has never been tested at that altitude; and even if it were, that is still a lot less than what Russian and Chinese fighters, as well as the F-15 and the F-22, can perform.)

By contrast, the F-15, F-22, and the PAK FA can fly as high as 65,000 feet; the J-11 Sinoflanker and the Su-27 at up to 62,523 feet; the carrier-capable J-15 Flying Shark, at up to 65,700 feet; the MiG-31 high-altitude fast interceptor can climb even higher, to 67,700 ft!

As for speed, the MiG-31 again beats all other contestants, as it can fly at up to Mach 2.83 (nearly three times the speed of sound) at high altitudes; the F-15 at Mach 2.5; the carrier-capable J-15 at Mach 2.4; the Su-27, MiG-35 and J-11 at Mach 2.35; the Su-35 and the MiG-29 at Mach 2.25; the J-7 and the Su-30MKK at Mach 2.0.

In addition, the F-35 is stealthy only from the front and only in the S, X, and Ku radar bands. In any other radar band, such as the L-band or Very High Frequencies (at which most Chinese AWACS aircraft operate), the F-35 can be detected just as easily as legacy aircraft.

To make matters worse, the F-35 can carry only four air-to-air missiles in its stealthy mode. That’s the maximum it can carry in its internal weapon bays (thus enabling it to be somewhat stealthy). Add any external stores to it – missiles, bombs, or fuel tanks – and it becomes even more radar-transparent than it already is.

This will force F-35 operators into a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” choice:

a) Use the limited space in the internal weapon bay of the F-35 solely for long-range AMRAAM missiles, thus not taking any short-range, infrared-guided Sidewinder missiles and forcing the F-35’s pilot to rely solely on his 20 mm gun in close-range combat (in which F-35 is also decisively inferior – see below); or

b) Take a combination of AMRAAMs and Sidewinders into the bay (say, two of each), bearing in mind the fact that the AMRAAM has a less than 25% effectiveness rate (Probability of Kill), so you need four AMRAAMs just to shoot down one hostile aircraft.

In short, the F-35 is a non-player in the BVR combat regime.

In short-range (Within Visual Range) combat, the F-35 will be similarly so outclassed by foreign fighters. In this type of combat, the most important factor is an aircraft’s agility and maneuverability – how easily and how quickly can the aircraft turn and evade enemy fire. That determines whether the aircraft will be a constantly ducking, turning, running-away player or a straight, level-flying target.

And the F-35 will certainly be the latter.

For it is so heavy and sluggish that even without weapons, it cannot turn smoothly.

Its wing loading ratio (the burden that the aircraft’s wings must carry) is a horribly high 529 kgs/sq m. That is, every square meter of its wings has to carry a burden of more than half a ton!

All of its competitors have a much lower wing loading ratio. For example, the lightweight J-10B has a wing loading ratio of just 381 kg/sq m, while the J-11 and the Su-27 have an even lower one at 371 kg/sq m. Similarly, typical USAF air superiority fighters also have low wing loading ratios: the F-22’s is just 375 kg/sq m, while the F-15’s is even less at ust 358 kg/sq m!

Thus, in any close-range air combat, which is by far the most frequent type of air warfare, the F-35 would be easily out-turned, out-maneuvered, out-flown, and shot down by Russian and Chinese aircraft, be they J-10s, J-11s, Su-27s, Su-30s, or J-7s.

As Dr John Stillion and Scott Perdue – both veteran USAF pilots – rightly wrote in 2008, the F-35 is “double inferior. (…) Can’t climb, can’t turn, can’t run.”

Or, as Dr Carlo Kopp rightly wrote in 2011, shortly after the J-20’s emergence:

The only US design with the kinematic performance, stealth performance and sensor capability to be able to confront the J-20 [J-XX] with viable combat lethality and survivability is the F-22A Raptor, or rather, evolved and enhanced variants of the existing configuration of this aircraft.

The US Navy F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is outclassed in every respect, and would be as ineffective against a mature J-XX [J-20] as it is against the F-22A Raptor.

All variants of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter would be equally so outclassed, assuming this failed project even progresses to any kind of actual production.

All US Air Force, US Navy and allied legacy fighters are outclassed in much the same manner, and are ineffective kinematically and in sensor capability against this class of threat system.

The extant IADS technology base of the US Army and Navy and their sister services in Pacific Rim allied nations will be largely ineffective, requiring the replacement of most if not all acquisition radars with VHF-band AESA technology replacements designed to defeat S/X/Ku-band stealth capabilities.

From the perspectives of both technological strategy and military grand strategy, the J-XX [J-20] is the final nail in the coffin of the utterly failed “Gates recapitalisation plan” for United States and allied tactical fighter fleets. Apologists for the “Gates fighter recapitalisation plan” will no doubt concoct a plethora of reasons as to why the J-XX [J-20] should be ignored, as they did exactly one year ago when the Russians unveiled the T-50 PAK-FA stealth fighter.

The material reality is simple. If the United States does not reverse course in its tactical air fleet and air defence recapitalisation planning, the United States will lose the Pacific Rim to China, with all of the practical and grand strategic consequences which follow from that.”

As WGCDR Mills rightly wrote, Defense Secretary Robert Gates’s decision to kill the F-22 Raptor’s production at just 183 aircraft in 2009 was an utterly foolish and suicidal mistake.

That mistake MUST be reversed IMMEDIATELY.

Why the Nuclear Triad MUST be maintained permanently and the New START scrapped

106753

The US nuclear deterrent, and in particular, the nuclear triad, are under constant attack from the pro-unilateral-disarmament Left, whose goal, of course, is to unilaterally disarm the US and expose it to attack.

The latest round of this attack was conducted recently in the Diplomat e-zin by James R. Holmes, the Diplomat‘s resident wannabe defense expert, calling himself “the Naval Diplomat” (in reality, a defense issues ignoramus). Mr Holmes questions the nuclear triad’s rationale for being because, he says, the US nuclear arsenal will continue to shrink under treaties such as New START. He also falsely claims that China’s nuclear arsenal is small and so there is no need for a US nuclear triad.

Meanwhile, Obama’s top arms control negotiator, Rose Goettemoeller, a longtime advocate of disarming America unilaterally and completely (“We are not modernizing. That is one of the key principles of our policy.”) and Vice President Joe Biden are lobbying for a unilateral cut of the US nuclear deterrent to just 300 warheads – far less than even what China has. Obama is sympathetic to those views.

But they – and others who seek to dismantle the nuclear triad – are dead wrong. Here’s why.

Firstly, Russia still has a huge nuclear arsenal, and contrary to Holmes’ lies, that arsenal is GROWING, not shrinking, even under New START, signed in Prague in 2010 by Barack Obama. That treasonous treaty allows Russia to GROW its deployed strategic nuclear arsenal – and Moscow has done so and continues to do so.

Moscow has 2,800 strategic nuclear warheads (according to the Federation of American Scientists), of which 1,500 are deployed and 50 further will be soon, and around 4,000 tactical nuclear warheads (many of which can be delivered against the US).

To deliver them, Russia has over 410 ICBMs, 13 ballistic missile submarines, 251 strategic bombers (Tu-95, Tu-22M, Tu-160), and around 20 attack submarines capable of carrying nuclear cruise missiles anywhere in the world. To deliver its tactical warheads, Russia has those attack submarines plus short-range ballistic missiles, attack aircraft, surface warships, artillery pieces, and IRBMs such as the Yars-M, the Iskander-M, and the R-500.

Russia’s ICBM fleet alone can deliver at least 1,684 warheads to the Continental US; Russia’s ballistic missile submarine fleet, at least 1,400 (which will grow to 2,000 when new Russian missiles enter service); Russia’s bomber fleet, over 1,700. Russia’s tactical delivery systems can deliver additional thousands of nuclear weapons.

Moscow is rapidly modernizing its nuclear arsenal, introducing at least three new classes of ICBMs (the Yars, the Rubezh, and the Sarmat), a pseudo-ICBM with a 6,000 km range, a new class of ballistic missile subs (the Borei class), new short- and intermediate-range missiles (Yars-M, Iskander-M, R-500), a new submarine- and air-launched cruise missile (the Kh-101/102 Koliber) a new theater nuclear strike jet (Su-34), and is developing a next-generation intercontinental bomber (PAK DA, i.e. the Prospective Aircraft Complex of Long Range Aviation).

On top of that, Russia has up to 4,000 “tactical” nuclear warheads, many of which can be delivered to the US by cruise missiles carried by the 20 submarines of the Akula and Oscar-II classes (12 Akulas, 8 Oscars). In fact, a few years ago, one Akula class submarine, probably armed with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, sneaked close to the US East Coast!

To scrap the nuclear triad in the face of this huge, and growing, nuclear thread would be worse than foolish; it would be utterly suicidal.

As for China, it has at least 1,600, and up to 3,000, nuclear warheads, according to former Russian missile force chief Gen. Viktor Yesin and Georgetown Professor Philip Karber (who was the DOD’s chief nuclear strategist under President Reagan).

To deliver them, Beijing wields 75-87 ICBMs (and is adding more every year), 120-160 strategic bombers, 6 ballistic missile subs, over 120 MRBMs, over 1,200 SRBMs, and 280 tactical strike aircraft. On top of that, it has hundreds, if not thousands, of nuclear-capable cruise missiles (ground-, air-, and sea-launched), such as the CJ-10, the CJ-20, and the DH-10. Note that China, like Russia, is adding more nuclear weapons and delivery systems (and more modern ones) every year.

Moscow and Beijing not only have large nuclear arsenals, they’re quite willing to use them. In fact, in the last 7 years, Russia has threatened to aim or use nuclear weapons against the US or its allies on 15 separate occassions, and in the last 2 years has flown nuclear-armed bombers into or close to US and allied airspace. In May 2012, when its bombers overtly practiced a nuclear strike on Alaska, the Russian Air Force said to the press it was “practicing attacking the enemy.”

Not only that, but in its military doctrine Russia openly claims a right to use nuclear weapons first – even if the opponent does not have any nuclear weapons! And it says it will never give up its nuclear arsenal because it considers it “sacred.”

Moreover, the US now has to deter not only Russia and China, but North Korea and Iran as well. North Korea already has ICBMs capable of reaching the US and miniaturized warheads fittable onto such missiles, and Iran is projected by the US intelligence community to have such missiles by 2015.

On top of that, the US has to provide a credible nuclear deterrent not only to itself, but to over 30 allies around the world: all NATO members, Israel, Gulf countries, and Pacific allies such as the Philippines, Japan, and South Korea. These allies are watching the state of the US nuclear arsenal closely and will develop their own if the US cuts its umbrella further. Thus making the problem of proliferation – which the CNS and Ploughshares falsely pretend to be concerned about – that much worse.

Already, 66% of South Koreans want their country to obtain its own nuclear arsenal, and Saudi Arabia, fearing Iran, has ordered nuclear weapons in Pakistan and DF-21 ballistic missiles in China – both of which are quite happy to oblige, because Saudi Arabia pays in hard cash.

The truth is that the need for a large nuclear deterrent, and the nuclear triad, has never been greater. America needs them now more than ever. In this 21st century threat environment marked by three (soon to be four) hostile nuclear powers, two of them with large nuclear arsenals, it would be utterly suicidal and foolish to cut the US nuclear arsenal further, let alone deeply so.

And it is absolutely NOT true that the US nuclear arsenal will inevitably continue to shrink. It will be cut further only if Congress allows Obama and his successor (who will likely be Hillary Clinton) to continue disarming the US unilaterally. Congress has many means at its disposal to stop the White House from disarming the US and thus stop any further cuts in America’s nuclear deterrent, as it should.

Disarmament is a choice (and a foolish and suicidal one at that). There is nothing inevitable about it. Republicans can stop it – and House Republicans work every day of every year on Capitol Hill to indeed stop it.

Last but not least, if a nuclear triad is such a redundant and obsolete arrangement, why do the Russians, the Chinese, and the Israelis continue to maintain, modernize, and even expand their nuclear triads, with new aircraft, missiles, and submarines?

Quick! Someone better tell the Russians, the Chinese, and the Israelis that they’re wasting their money on an obsolete arrangement!

The truth is that a nuclear triad is BY FAR the most survivable, most effective, most powerful, most deterring, and most cost-effective arrangement in nuclear deterrence. Nothing else will ever provide the same degree of security at the same or lower cost. Nothing else will ever suffice to replace it – not a dyad, not a monad, not missile defense, not conventional weapons.

James R. Holmes is dead wrong, as usual. The nuclear triad and a large nuclear arsenal are STILL needed, and will be needed for many, many decades to come.

And as for the New START treaty – in light of the fact that it requires nuclear arsenal cuts only of the US, its onerous restrictions on US missile defense development, its pathetically weak verification regime, the fact that Russia is an aggressor who has illegally invaded and occupies two sovereign countries, and the fact that Russia has violated EVERY arms reduction treaty it has ever signed – the US should IMMEDIATELY withdraw from that pathetic treaty, as well as all other arms reduction treaties. IMMEDIATELY. Not tomorrow, but today.

Additionally, the US should:

  1. Impose harsh sanctions on Russia if it continues to violate the INF treaty (as it likely will);
  2. Withdraw from the CFE Treaty and encourage US allies to do the same;
  3. Refuse to ever ratify the CTBT;
  4. Assist Ukraine in developing its own nuclear weapons, or at least take Ukraine under the protection of the US nuclear umbrella.

Rand Paul Blames America First, Advocates Appeasement

If you needed any more evidence that Rand Paul is totally indistinguishable from his father on foreign and defense policy and is a member of the Blame America First crowd, here’s that evidence.

On February 25th, when interviewed by the Washington Post’s Robert Costa, Sen. Paul falsely accused “some Republicans” of harboring a Cold War mindset and exhorted the US to maintain a “respectful” relationship with Russia even in the face of Russia’s invasion and occupation of the Crimea.

Speaking to the liberal WaPo, Rand said:

“Some on our side are so stuck in the Cold War era that they want to tweak Russia all the time and I don’t think that’s a good idea.”

Excuse me? REPUBLICANS are stuck in the Cold War era?

On the contrary, it is Russia’s government, especially its President Vladimir Putin (an unreconstructed KGB thug) and his inner circle (composed mostly of his fellow KGB thugs and other members of the Saint Petersburg clique) who harbor a Cold War mindset – and deep-seated hatred of America and the Western civilization.

(Which is not surprising, because just like a wolf will always remain a wolf preying on sheep, KGB thugs will always remain KGB thugs and will always prey on weak victims.)

It is Vladimir Putin’s Russia which has, in recent years:

  1. Repeatedly flown nuclear-armed strategic borders into US, allied (Japanese), and even neutral (Swedish) airspace and said the Russian AF was “practicing attacking the enemy.” What on Earth have SWEDEN and JAPAN done to Russia? For that matter, what has America done to Russia? Nothing.
  2. Repeatedly (on at least 15 separate occassions) threatened to aim or even use its nuclear weapons against the US and its allies.
  3. Invaded two sovereign countries that dared to try to break out of Moscow’s sphere of influence and align themselves with the West (Georgia and UKraine) and continues to occupy both countries.
  4. Repeatedly violated several arms reduction treaties, including the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty and the INF Treaty, the latter being violated by Russia by repeatedly testing and deploying nuclear-armed missiles banned by that treaty.
  5. Deployed nuclear-armed ballistic missiles in the Kaliningrad District, next to Poland, threatening that loyal ally of the US.
  6. Backed America’s enemies around the world – North Korea, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba – to the hilt, with diplomatic protection at the UN Security Council, weapons (including the advanced S-300VM air defense system), nuclear fuel (Iran), and nuclear reactors (Iran).
  7. Stationed a spy ship, the Viktor Leonov, in Cuba (it’s still there).
  8. Conducted, and continues to conduct, a wave of hateful anti-American propaganda in domestic and foreign (e.g. RussiaToday) media.
  9. Sent an Akula-class nuclear-armed submarine close to the US submarine base in King’s Bay, GA.
  10. Domestically, assassinated high-profile dissidents (Anna Politkovskaya, Alexander Litvinenko) and jailed hundreds of others.

Yet, Rand Paul claims that REPUBLICANS are the ones “stuck in the Cold War era”?!

How dare you even make such a false and outrageous claim, Senator?!

America is supposed to have a cordial, “respectful” relationship with such a hostile country, led by a KGB thug, and appease it (“avoid antagonizing it” in Randspeak) ?

No, Senator. You are dead wrong. Most Republicans are very critical of Russia (and of President Obama’s soft policy towards it), but NOT because of Cold War past.

Republicans are critical of Putinist Russia and Obama’s reset – and demand a tougher policy – because of Russia’s CURRENT and RECENT behavior, which has been very aggressive, anti-American, and dangerous to America’s own national security.

It is because of Russia’s CURRENT and RECENT behavior that Republicans demand that tough steps be taken towards Russia.

But Rand says no. He claims the US should “avoid antagonizing Russia” and have “a respectful relationship” with Moscow even despite Russia’s recent aggression, because Russia is still a geopolitical and military power which wields hundreds of ICBMs.

You are dead wrong again, Senator.

The only right response to intimidation and aggression, especially from dictatorships like Putin’s Russia, is strength and toughness, not “respect” and appeasement as you advocate.

ReaganPeaceQuote

In fact, the ONLY thing dictators and bullies like Putin, China’s Xi Jinping, and North Korea’s Kim Jong-un respect and fear is STRENGTH combined with TOUGHNESS – a bold moral stand against them combined with a demonstrated willingness to use that STRENGTH if need be.

Dictators and aggressors like Putin understand only the language of force. The only thing that can deter them is superior military and economic force, combined with a proven willingness to use it to stop these dictators and aggressors. All human history, from the ancient times to the 21st century, demonstrates this.

Potential aggressors prey on weak victims, not strong ones. Weakness is provocative; it entices aggressors to commit actions they would otherwise refrain from.

And it is ESPECIALLY important to build up and show strength in the face of POWERFUL aggressors like Russia and China. They, having dramatically built up their economic and military strength, are so self-confident, so sure of their power, so emboldened and arrogant, that ONLY superior military and economic power, combined with a proven willingness to use both, can deter them from making more mischief.

Rand’s argument is essentially: “Russia is a geopolitical and military superpower, so let’s be weak in the face of such power and play nice with it.” That is a recipe for aggression, death, and destruction.

But Rand Paul, despite his pious assurances that he supports a Reaganite “Peace Through Strength” foreign policy, clearly doesn’t understand that, and never will. He claims Obama’s “reset” (read: appeasement) policy has been good for America – even though it is that failed “reset” policy that got us into this mess in the first place!

“We ought to be, I think, proud of where we’ve gotten with that relationship, and even when we have problems with Russia, realize that we’re in a much better place than wer were once upon a time.”

At a time when most Americans have realized that Obama’s “reset” policy has been an utter and disastrous failure, Paul thinks it has worked great and thinks the US should be “proud” of it!

Dictators and aggressors like Putin will not cease attacking weaker victims, and threatening the United States, if the US continues its utterly failed “reset” (read: appeasement) policy towards Russia, China, and Iran. This is the very policy that got us into the current mess in the first place. Yet, Rand wants to double down on it.

Rand also says the US should “avoid antagonizing Russia over Ukraine” because Ukraine has, for a long time, been in Russia’s sphere of influence. “The Ukraine has a long history of either being a part of the Soviet Union or within that sphere.”

It’s true that Ukraine has long been in Russia’s orbit – but NOT by its own free will! NO country on Earth has ever freewillingly been in Russia’s sphere of influence! All countries which have ever been in Moscow’s orbit fell into it as a result of Russian aggression, whether an overt invasion and occupation (as in Ukraine’s case) or through Russian-sponsored coups (e.g. Cuba and Nicaragua) and guerilla wars (e.g. Vietnam).

The only reason why Ukraine has been under Moscow’s yoke for a long time is because of Russian occupation – that is, Russian domination imposed by force.

Now Ukraine is trying to break free of Moscow’s yoke – and THAT is why Russia has invaded it.

But Rand doesn’t stop there. Not only does he advocate more appeasement of Russia, he falsely accuses America of telling Ukraine what to do. He told the WaPo on Feb. 25th:

“I don’t think it behooves us to tell the Ukraine what to do.”

You are lying yet again, Senator. No American politician is telling Ukraine what to do. The US, along with the European Union, is simply supporting (although inadequately and half-heartedly) Ukraine in its desire to free itself from the Russian yoke and integrate with the West – a choice the Ukrainian people have freewillingly made (and stood for even when their former dictator sent snipers and riot police against them).

The US has never dictated to the Ukraine what to do. OTOH, Russia has, and continues to. Russia has always adamantly opposed Ukraine’s possible integration with the West and last December even bribed the oligarchs in the Ukrainian parliament to steer Kiev away from the West. Now that the Ukranian people have ousted their former dictator Viktor Yanukovych and his oligarch chums, Putin has invaded the Ukraine – to ensure, by brute force if necessary, that Ukraine does not join the EU and does not integrate with the West.

Rand Paul is lying once again, in the “best” traditions of the RussiaToday/Alex Jones/Blame America First/Ron Paul crowd: he accuses AMERICA of telling another country what to do, when it is actually America’s adversary who is dictating to that country its future path.

Shame on you, Senator Paul, for lying so blatantly to the American people, for badmouthing America and your fellow Republicans while speaking to a liberal media outlet, for whitewashing and appeasing Russia, and for advocating treasonous policies!

Shame on you, Washington Post, for giving this traitor another venue to vent his anti-American garbage!

Shame on you, 31% of CPAC attendees, for voting for this traitor!

Rand Paul is the one distorting Reagan’s foreign policy

ReaganPeaceQuote

 

Ronald Reagan was such a successful President – especially in the foreign policy realm – that virtually all Republicans today want to project themselves as the next Reagan and claim that their foreign policy is the same as Reagan’s in order to woo national security oriented voters.

One such politician is Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY). Because his principal rival for the 2016 Republican nomination, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), has distinguished himself from Paul by adopting Reagan’s foreign policy principles while exposing Paul as the neo-isolationist that he is, the Kentucky Senator is desperate to defend himself.

Therefore, he has recently launched an attack on unnamed “Republicans” (presumably Cruz) on the Breitbart website, falsely accusing them of “warping” Reagan’s foreign policy.

But in fact, it is Rand Paul, NOT Ted Cruz or other Republicans, who is warping and distorting the Gipper’s foreign policy. Let me demonstrate how.

Rand Advocates Deep Defense Cuts

Rand advocates deep, crippling cuts in America’s defenses, including and beyond sequestration; withdrawing US troops from strategically important bases around the world which are needed for power projection; isolationism masquerading as noninterventionism; and opposes even the most modest sanctions on Iran, claiming they would lead to war (a false claim that the anti-defense Left, including the Ploughshares Fund, also makes). Indeed, Rand has said that “not only should the sequester be maintained”, but that government spending, including defense spending, should be cut even further – as if the sequester’s and pre-sequester Obama defense cuts were not deep enough.

As a reminder, in his first two years, Obama killed over 50 crucial weapon programs, including the F-22 Raptor fighter (the only aircraft capable of defeating the newest Russian and Chinese fighters), the Zumwalt class destroyer, the Kinetic Energy Interceptor, the Multiple Kill Vehicle for kinetic missile defense interceptors, and much more. In 2011, Obama cut another $178 bn from the defense budget under the guise of efficiencies. And in August 2011, Obama demanded and obtained another $1 trillion in defense cuts over the FY2012-FY2012 decade, including a $550 bn sequester that will take defense spending to $493 bn (less than 3% of America’s GDP) next year and keep in there until the mid-2020s!

Yet, Rand Paul thinks these defense cuts are not sufficient and demands even deeper, more crippling, defense cuts. This completely belies his claim that

“I believe, as he did, that our National Defense should be second to none, that defense of the country is the primary Constitutional role of the Federal Government.”

If the cuts required by the sequester (let alone the deeper cuts Rand demands) are implemented, the US military will be gutted. It will be a paper tiger, not a military force “second to none.”

Reagan would NEVER advocate such idiotic policies, and indeed throughout his entire presidency implemented the very OPPOSITE of the policies Rand advocates. OTOH, Ted Cruz – unlike Rand Paul – does support a Reaganite foreign policy: rebuilding America’s defenses, standing up to dictators like Putin where it matters, but avoiding being drawn into irrelevant or murky jihadist viper pits like Syria.

But it gets even worse. In the Breitbart article cited above, Rand not only distorts the Gipper’s foreign policy, he shows he completely doesn’t understand what that policy was and how it worked, and demonstrates – there, as well as in his recent (Feb. 25th) Washington Post op-ed – that he does NOT support a Reaganite “Peace Through Strength” foreign policy.

He claims that:

“Reagan also believed in diplomacy and demonstrated a reasoned approach to our nuclear negotiations with the Soviets. Reagan’s shrewd diplomacy would eventually lessen the nuclear arsenals of both countries.”

Leaving aside the undisputable fact that cutting America’s nuclear deterrent has proven to be a foolish mistake, it was Reagan’s toughness, not diplomacy, that won the Cold War. In fact, it was his toughness that brought the Soviet Union back to the arms reduction barganining table in the first place.

The Soviets returned to the negotiating table because they knew the US could keep up the arms race for long, while their own economy was flagging (and in 1991, it collapsed, as did the USSR itself) and couldn’t really sustain the arms race any longer, especially with the costs of the Afghan war, the Chernobyl disaster, and the late 1980s’ oil glut added. (Reagan convinced Saudi Arabia to dramatically increase its oil output to cut global oil prices and thus undermine Moscow’s oil-dependent economy).

I’ll repeat it again: it was Reagan’s TOUGHNESS, his harsh policies towards the USSR, that brought the Soviets back to the bargaining table and eventually won the Cold War. Not diplomacy, not detente, not nice words, not his friendship with Gorbachev.

Reagan never sheathed the sword – the sword was always hanging over the Soviets’ heads. And that’s PRECISELY why Gorbachev agreed to make concessions.

Rand further claims that:

“Many forget today that Reagan’s decision to meet with Mikhail Gorbachev was harshly criticized by the Republican hawks of his time, some of whom would even call Reagan an appeaser.”

But, as demonstrated above, it was Reagan’s TOUGH POLICIES, not diplomacy or nicety, that brought the Soviets back to the bargaining table. And Gorbachev initially wasn’t in a mood to make concessions. It was not until he understood the US was in a far stronger negotiating position, and when Reagan revealed the documents Col. Ryszard Kuklinski (a Warsaw Pact defector) handed over to the CIA, that Gorbachev began to make concessions.

(At the first Reagan-Gorbachev meeting, in 1985, the Soviet leader was initially as stubborn as his predecessors, not willing to make policy concessions. Then, Reagan’s Defense Secretary, Cap Weinberger, took his ace out of his sleeve: he gave the maps [stolen by Colonel Kuklinski] of secret Soviet bunkers, built for nuclear war, to Reagan, who gave them to Gorbachev, who in turn gave them to Marshal Sergei Akhromeyev, the Soviet Chief of the General Staff, who accompanied Gorby. Akhromeyev was very scared upon seeing the documents, and explained their importance to the civilian Gorbachev. From then on, the Soviets were more willing to make concessions.)

Rand also believes firmly in a soft, appeasement-like policy towards Russia – ignoring the fact that it was such policy that led to the current  Crimean crisis in the first place. He falsely claims in his WaPo op-ed that America’s relationship with Russia should be “respectful” and that:

“There is a time for diplomacy and the strategic use of soft power, such as now with Russia. Diplomacy requires resolve but also thoughtfulness and intelligence.”

No. Diplomacy has had its time – and has dismally failed, as usual. Now is the time for FIRMNESS and MANLINESS. Now is the time to impose the harshest sanctions on Russia that are possible and to dramatically increase oil and gas production in the US (ANWR, NPRA, OCS, shale formations, authorizing the Keystone Pipeline) and to export these fuels to Europe to dramatically reduce its dependence on Russia for hydrocarbons. This would strike Russia where it would really hurt Moscow – and accomplish America’s goals without a single soldier and without firing a shot.

As for a “respectful” relationship with Russia – tell that to Vladimir Putin. Lecture him about “respectful” relationships, Mr Paul, not your fellow Republicans. Putin’s Russia has, in recent years:

  1. Invaded two sovereign countries on false pretexts, and in reality because they started aligning themselves with the West.
  2. Threatened a nuclear attack on the US or its allies at least 15 times.
  3. Repeatedly flown nuclear-armed bombers into US and allied airspace (and even into the airspace of neutral Sweden) on many occassions, even once on July 4th,
  4. Provided diplomatic protection to Iran, North Korea, and Syria, nuclear fuel and reactors to Iran, weapons to Iran and Syria, and sold tons of advanced weapons to China – weapons which will be used to kill American troops.
  5. Murdered journalists and other dissidents (e.g. Anna Politkovskaya, Alexander Litvinenko), and jailed many others, opposing the Putin regime.
  6. Conducted a huge military buildup that continues to this day and is slated to continue for long but which long ago has exceeded Russia’s legitimate defense needs.
  7. Repeatedly violated the INF treaty by testing and deploying missiles banned by the treaty.

And the US is supposed to have a “respectful” relationship with such a hostile regime, Senator Paul? Are you on drugs? Who is your foreign policy advisor, Pat Buchanan?

In short, Rand has shown, once again, that he is NO Reaganite, that he is virtually indistinguishable from his father on policy matters, and that he clearly does not believe in a “peace through strength” policy. Furthermore, he’s distorting the Gipper’s foreign policy record. Conservatives must not allow him to fool them; he would continue and even double on Obama’s failed twin policies of unilateral disarmament and appeasement of America’s adversaries. Just like Obama, Paul advocates appeasement towards the world’s most dangerous regimes, from Russia, to Iran, to Syria. No real conservative would ever vote for him.

Rebutting John Mearsheimer: China’s Military Is NOT Inferior To That Of The US

Hainan-cave_tn

Satellite photos of the entrances to China’s secret, underground submarine bases in Sanya (Hainan Island) and Jianggezhuang (near Qingdao). Photo credit: Federation of American Scientists and Google Earth.

In a recent article for the “National Interest” magazine, UChicago professor John Mearsheimer, who is best known for advocating that the US dump Israel as an ally, falsely claims that “China’s military is inferior to that of the US, and not by a small margin.”

Mearsheimer gives no reason whatsoever for why he makes such an outlandish claim; he does so probably because of longstanding (and badly outdated) assumptions about China’s military still prevailing in Washington. Be that as it may, Mearsheimer is dead wrong. Period.

For the PLA (the Chinese military) is not inferior to the US military in ANYTHING.

Not in training – Chinese troops train as hard as their American counterparts, and women in the PLA get no special treatment or lower standards – UNLIKE the US military, where women have to complete tasks that even the weakest man could accomplish. And unlike the US military, the PLA is not plagued by LGBT celebration, feminism, political correctness, or a plague of pregnancies, sexual assaults, alcoholism, and drugs.

What’s more, PLA officers do not have a standard of life significantly better than that of enlisted PLA troops, and in messes, officers and enlisted personnel eat together. Not separately. Nor is China and its PLA plagued by an obesity epidemic – again, unlike the US, where First Lady Michelle Obama’s modest efforts to combat obesity are regularly dismissed as Nanny Statism.

China’s military is also better trained – and funding for its training has never been interrupted by a stupid budgetary mechanism like sequestration. The PLA has never had to ground its aircraft for a lack of funding to fly them. PLA pilots fly and train regularly, honing their skills in their versions of Red Flag/Blue Flag exercises.

In budgetary terms, those who downplay China’s military power often claim that China has a much smaller military budget than the US.

At the first glance, this seems true: Beijing’s official military budget, unveiled a few days ago, is $132 bn, and even though China hides a lot of its military spending off the books, outside its official budget, China’s military budget is estimated to be, at most, $240 bn per annum – less than half of the $580 bn requested by the DOD for the next fiscal year.

But in China, one dollar can buy much more than in the US. China’s military budget should be multiplied by a factor of at least three to account for these differences. Multiply $240 bn by 3, and you get $720 bn. Heck, multiply $240 bn by just 2, and you get $480 bn – just slightly less than the DOD’s requested base budget  for the next fiscal year ($495 bn).

Moreover, China’s military budgets are devoted mostly to equipment, training, and military operations, whereas personnel and base costs are borne largely by provincial governments, not by the central government.

China’s military is also better led than the US military, which is run by careerists eager to please their political masters, such as General Martin Dempsey and Admiral Cecil Haney. By contrast, the PLA, while nominally subordinate to the Communist Party of China, is actually THE most powerful and most cohesive faction within the Party, and is led by professional, experienced officers such as Gen. Fang Fenghui (Chief of the General Staff Department), Adm. Wu Shengli (Commander of the PLA Navy), and Gen. Ma Xiaotian (a veteran fighter pilot and Commander of the PLA Air Force).

The CPC is split into several factions that constantly battle each other for influence, and no civilian faction has a decisive edge over the others, so CPC civilians routinely ask PLA generals and admirals to support them. The generals are happy to oblige – but at a price in terms of giving them greater budgets and policymaking influence.

Hence we have seen hawkish PLA generals and senior colonels gain more influence and make increasingly inflammatory statements, and PLA budgets increase by double digits every year of the last 25 years – even now as China’s economy slows down.

Which brings me to military equipment.

chinese-j-11-su-27sk

 

China has, for the last decade and a half, been rapidly shedding obsolete Soviet-licensed and domestic equipment and rapidly acquiring domestic, Russian, and reverse-engineered weapons in large quantities – so much so that now most of its naval and air equipment is very much modern and capable, and even more modern and lethal weapons are on the way. Let’s look at some of the categories of military equipment and compare what the US and Chinese militaries have:

Fighters: The first and absolute condition of victory in any war is attaining air superiority; as Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, the famous Desert Fox, said, fighting on the ground while your enemy controls the air is pointless. The entire US military depends on air superiority, and without it, will collapse like a deck of cards.

And collapse it will, for it has inexplicably neglected its fighter fleet for the last 25 years, while China has steadily modernized its own. It now has over 200 modern, highly capable J-11 Sinoflanker fighters (pictured above) and over 200 F-16-clone J-10 fighters. In addition, it has 76 modern Su-27 and 76 also modern (and quite lethal) Su-30MKK aircraft. On top of that, it has almost 400 old, but very agile and lethal J-7 MiG fighters (which can win dogfights easily by simply refusing to be level-flying targets) and 200 J-8 high-speed, high-altitude interceptors. The PLAAF is now also beginning to receive the new J-16, another modern, high performance Chinese Flanker variant.

On the other hand, the US has fewer than 400, mostly obsolete and aging, F-15 fighters, around 1,200 non-competitive short-ranged F-16s (also largely obsolete), and around 180 modern and highly stealthy F-22 Raptors. I’m omitting the Hornets and Super Hornets of the Navy, for they aren’t even fighters but ground attack jets and wouldn’t stand a chance against PLAAF aircraft.

How exactly are PLAAF fighters superior? Owing to their combination of high speed, a high ceiling, superb radar aperture, and a large load of long-range missiles with diverse seekers, as well as high maneuverability, ease of turning and climbing, and powerful guns (30mm caliber on all Flankers).

In the future, the PLAAF will be decisively superior to the USAF. Later this decade, it will receive two very stealthy fifth-generation fighters, the J-20 and the J-31. These aircraft will render every other fighter on the planet, except the Raptor and the Russian PAK-FA, totally obsolete when they enter service.

The US, by contrast, is developing the hyper-expensive, and already obsolete, F-35 “Joint Strike Fighter”, which is not stealthy (except in the nose and only in some radar bands), poorly armed, very slow and low-flying, and too heavy and sluggish to prevail in air combat. (Nor was it ever designed, or even intended, to attain air superiority; the F-22 Raptor, of which the USAF wanted to procure 650, is supposed to accomplish that.) The defective F-35s that the DOD has ordered would, in case of any encounter with Chinese fighters, be gunned down like pigeons in a pest eradication programme.

Bases: In any war with the US in the Asia-Pacific, China would be playing on its home court; the US would be fighting a long way from the homeland. Utilizing its geographic advantage to the max, China has literally hundreds of airbases and airfields available in the mainland and in Burma. Many of these are semi-hardened, fully-hardened, or super-hardened. Many of them are located underground or built into the sides of mountains or hills. This renders these bases (i.e. the aircraft, hangars, fuel and ammunition depots, and command centers) completely immune to any US attack except with a deep earth penetrator like the GBU-57 MOP or the B83 nuclear bomb (which the Obama admin wants to retire).

All of these underground bases have entrances wide enough for J-7, J-8, J-10, Su-27, Su-30, and J-15 fighters to enter. Some of them can also accomodate the J-11, J-16, and the future J-20 and J-31. And some underground Chinese airbases can even shelter H-6 strategic bombers!

OTOH, the US has no hardened or even semi-hardened bases in the entire Pacific region. All US runways, hangars, depots, and command centers in the regions could easily be destroyed by even the weakest Chinese bombs or missiles. What’s more, the  majority of US bases there are within the reach of China’s short-range ballistic missiles, and the rest can be easily reached by its medium-range ballistic and cruise missiles such as the DF-21, DF-25, DF-26, CJ/DH-10, and the Hongniao family. The newest Chinese missile, the DF-26C, has a range of at least 2200 miles (3520 kms).

Which brings me to the next category of weapons.

Land attack missiles: China, has noted above, has a huge, diverse, and highly accurate arsenal of missiles of all classes, which can be launched from ground launchers, siloes, aircraft, or ships. The longest-ranged of these, the ground-launched DH-10, has a range of 4,000 kms, the DF-26C a range of 3,520 kms, and the air-launched HN-3 a range of 3,000 kms while the air-launched CJ-10A can eke out 2,000 kms. The exact range of the DF-25 is unknown. China has huge inventories of these missiles.

By contrast, the US has no short-, medium-, or intermediate range ballistic missiles and no ground-launched cruise missiles whatsoever. The US is, in fact, prohibited from developing (let alone fielding) any ground-launched missiles of any range between 550 and 5,500 km by the INF Treaty with Russia. As one Russian official has said, it is unjust that only the US and Russia are banned from fielding such weapons, while everyone else is allowed to have them.

America’s air- and submarine-launched cruise missiles are unimpressive, to say the least. The much-touted JASSM-ER can eke out only 1,000 kms, and the sub-launched Tomahawk boasts a range of just 1,700 kms. Both of them are subsonic and thus easy for enemy air defenses to intercept.

Below you’ll find a map of the range of China’s air-launched cruise missiles. You can see it extends well beyond Guam and the Second Island Chain.

h6k-zhan-shen-cruise-missle-bomber-range

Air Defense Systems: China has a very dense network of highly-capable, long-ranged S-300 and HQ-9 air defense systems, and has even more capable S-400 systems on order. These can easily detect and shoot down any nonstealthy aircraft, including the EA-6B and the EA-18G, which, in order to attempt to jam these systems, would have to be close enough for their jammers to work – and that means TOO CLOSE to these systems, and well within their engagement envelope.

By contrast, US and allied air defense systems in the WestPac are scant and consist solely of obsolete, 1980s-vintage Patriot systems (whose range is only 28 kms) and their Japanese clones. These could be easily penetrated by any PLA aircraft or missiles.

Submarines: In addition to its growing, and increasingly quiet, fleet of nuclear-powered submarines, in which Type 093 and Type 095 class SSNs are replacing the old Type 091 Han class, the PLA Navy operates a large fleet of ultra-quiet Kilo-, Song, Yuan-, and Qin-class conventional submarines with air-independent propulsion (as in German, Swedish, and Australian submarines), making them almost undetectable.

OTOH, the US Navy has no conventional submarines and relies entirely on its noisy and obsolete Ohio class SSBNs for nuclear deterrence and also on its noisy and obsolete Los Angeles class attack submarines for sea control. The USN has only a handful of Seawolf and Virginia class submarines – and these are still noisier than conventional subs.

Mines: China has at least 100,000 naval mines – cheap, simple weapons which can cripple and sink even large warships. Yet, the US Navy is utterly unprepared for these weapons. It has only 13 minesweepers, all of which are operated by the US Naval Reserve because mine warfare is not considered a “sexy” mission by the USN, which prefers to obsess with hyper-expensive and highly vulnerable aircraft carriers – which, in today’s threat environment, are huge liabilities rather than assets.

By contrast, the much smaller UK Royal Navy has 15 minesweepers, all of which are operated by the regular RN.

Anti-ship missiles: China operates a wide range of (mostly supersonic, sea-skimming) anti-ship cruise missiles, most notably the SS-N-22 Sunburn, the SS-NX-30 Sizzler, and the Yingji family. One Sunburn missile would suffice to sink an aircraft carrier.

Also, China has fielded DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missiles with a range between 2,000 and 3,000 kms, and again, a single one would suffice to sink a flattop.

By contrast, the only anti-ship missile operated by the US military today is the under-ranged, slow, subsonic Harpoon. The USN is currently developing a replacement.

Nuclear weapons: The US currently has an edge over China in this area, with more total nuclear warheads (5,113) and deployed warheads (1,950) than China (which has up to 3,000 nuclear weapons, of which at least around 1,000 are deployed). However, China’s nuclear arsenal is rapidly growing, while the US is cutting its nuclear arsenal unilaterally. Also, China is rapidly modernizing its arsenal and making it survivable, while the US is not.

Anti-satellite weapons: This is as simple as “China has them, the US does not.” China has anti-satellite lasers as well as dozens of anti-satellite ballistic missiles, and also weapons that can jam US satellites without destroying them. China has repeatedly tested such weapons.

Small combat vessels: Chinese corvettes and missile boats, some of which are based on Australian catamarans, are better armed and better defended than the LCS, which, according to DOD weapon testers, are “not expected to survive in a combat environment.” Enough said.

Combat rifles: The US military’s standard assault rifles are the M16 and its shorter, lighter variant, the M4. Both of them are famous for their propensity to jam and malfunction. Their legendary malfunctions have cost many soldiers and Marines their lives. By contrast, China’s standard assault rifle is the simple, cheap, rugged, and supremely reliable AK-47, which will fire even if it gets dirty or even if you bury it in sand or mud. Moreover, it’s so much easier to operate that even children can use it. Furthermore, the AK-47’s 7.62 mm round can penetrate cinderblocks, bricks, and wood, while the M16’s and the M4’s smaller, weaker 5.56 mm round cannot. The Washington Times newspaper has even recently run a lengthy article detailing these rifles’ serious flaws.

I could go on and on, but the above comparisons already illustrate the point sufficiently. It is, in fact, the US military that is decisively inferior to that of China by the vast majority of criteria – from training, esprit de corps, good order, and discipline, to leadership, to the vast majority of weapon categories.

In a confrontation with the PLA, the US military would be like a virgin during her first night. Easy.

The American people need to stop listening to those who want to lull them into a false sense of security and start demanding that Congress a) fund the US military sufficiently, and b) spend the money in the most efficient way possible, with the least amount possible going to bloated personnel benefits programs and unneeded bases, and the maximum amount going to new weaponry and to training the troops.

The Good and Bad News About The FY2015 Defense Budget

ReaganPeaceQuote

This week, the DOD formally submitted to Congress its proposal of the FY2015 defense budget. The base defense budget would amount to $496 bn, and there would be a roughly $80 bn war supplemental for the final year of the Afghan war, thus bringing the total to around $580 bn, i.e. less than 4% of America’s GDP. In a few years, the war supplementals will be gone, and the base defense budget will shrink further to $493 bn, i.e. below 3% of GDP – the lowest level since before Pearl Harbor.

Already the US spends the smallest amount of money (as a share of its economy) on defense since FY1948, excluding the Clinton years when defense spending plummeted to 3.0% of GDP. Barack Obama’s budget plans would take defense spending even lower, to below 3% of GDP.

But Obama isn’t just content with cutting America’s defense spending; he’s cutting the military’s muscle as well:

  • The Navy will have to mothball half of its entire cruiser fleet – 11 vessels, several of them capable of ballistic missile defense. That’s even more than the Navy proposed to lay up previously (7). These vessels will not return to service until there is money to modernize them. The construction of new ships will also see significant cuts.
  • The Navy must also significantly cut the procurement of its crucial P-8 Poseidon and E-2D Hawkeye aircraft, the former needed to protect the US Navy against hostile submarines (esp. those of China and Iran), and the latter to provide airborne early warning, especially to the Navy’s Carrier Air Wings.
  • The Air Force will have to shed its entire fleet of over 300 A-10 Warthog aircraft. With decent armor, air-to-ground missiles, and a hefty 30mm gun spitting thousands of rounds per minute, that aircraft is ideal for close air support, which troops on the ground have always needed and appreciated. No other aircraft can provide that capability. B-52s, B-1s, F-15Es, F-16s, and F-35s are too vulnerable to damage – even to small arms fire – and too fast to ever be effective in that role. Don’t take my word for it. The father of the A-10, Pierre Sprey, who also contributed to designing the F-16, has openly said that, as much as he’s proud of the work he did on the F-16, he would NEVER claim it is useful for close air support.
  • The Air Force will also have to retire its entire fleet of U-2 spy planes, which, despite being older, can fly higher, have far more powerful aperture and more diverse sensors, and thus much better intel gathering capability, than the drones supposed to replace them (Global Hawks). It will also lose more F-15 air superiority fighters.
  • The Army will have to cancel its Ground Combat Vehicle program (intended to replace the seriously-deficient Bradley infantry fighting vehicle), and the Marines will lose the badly-needed Amphibious Combat Vehicle program, needed to replace the USMC’s Vietnam-War-era amphibious tractors.

The proposed FY2015 isn’t all bad, however:

  • It protects investment in the badly needed Long Range Strike Bomber and KC-46 Pegasus tanker, both of which are crucial to preserving the military’s ability to operate and fight globally.
  • It provides funding to buy more JASSM-ER standoff cruise missiles, which have a range of around 1,000 kilometers and can be launched by any US combat aircraft.
  • It calls for major reforms to the military’s personnel’s pay, pensions, healthcare, and benefits programs, whose costs have gone out of control, and for closure of unneeded bases.
  • It provides funding to harden some of the military’s Pacific bases; to buy more missile interceptors; and to develop a new missile defense kill vehicle and better target discrimination capabilities.

This still does not, however, outweigh the fact that the budget will, overall, weaken America’s defense, which is precisely what Barack Obama wants.

And let’s also recount what isn’t in the budget, but should be:

  • No restart of F-22 Raptor fighter production (killed by Obama in 2009), even though Russia and China have flight-tested, and are developing, a combined of THREE fifth-generation stealthy fighters that will be superior to EVERY fighter on the planet, except the F-22, when deployed later this decade.
  • No major upgrades to the F-15 fleet. Indeed, that fleet, already cut significantly by Obama, will be cut even further!
  • No major upgrades to the F-16 fleet, nor any sale of any F-16s to Taiwan.
  • No restart of the cancelled long-range air to air missile, which will leave US fighters outgunned vis-a-vis aircraft armed with the K-172 Novator.
  • No new AWACS program to replace the USAF’s old E-3 Sentry AWACS aircraft.
  • No funding for any new nuclear weapons – because it doesn’t fit Obama’s fantasy of disarming the US unilaterally.
  • No significant cuts to the DOD’s bloated bureaucracy and army of contractors.
  • No funding for an East Coast missile defense site.
  • No significant funding for alternative airbases in the Pacific or for hardening America’s existing bases in the Western Pacific.
  • No funding for a new ICBM, badly needed to replace the old Minuteman III, first deployed in 1976.

In short, as many conservatives have already stated, Obama’s proposed FY2015 budget would, if enacted, be another step on the way to disarming the US unilaterally, a policy I have warned against my entire life.

The “Reset” Has ALWAYS Been A Total Failure

Vladimir Putin,Hillary Rodham Clinton

As CDN reported earlier, the Democrats are already rushing to defend Hillary Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s utterly failed foreign policy record, including the shameful, disastrous “reset” (read: appeasement) policy towards Russia. Some former Clinton State Department officials, such as P. J. Crowley, defend it on the spurious grounds that “the reset worked when Dmitry Medvedev was President” (i.e. from 2008 to 2012).

But they are dead wrong. The Obama-Clinton “reset” policy NEVER worked, even when Dmitry Medvedev (who was just a puppet of Vladimir Putin’s) was President.

That’s because Putin, throughout the whole time, was the man really in power, while Medvedev was never anything more than a figurehead. In that respect, Russia was, in those years, similar to the China of the 1980s: Deng Xiaoping was really in power, content with “only” the post of Chairman of the CMC, while other politicians held the posts of President, Premier, and CPC General Secretary. But – as with Putin – Deng was really “the power behind the throne.”

Only a fool could have ever thought that Putin had relinquished power for four entire years to Medvedev, and that Medvedev was ever anything more than a figurehead.

So let us recount how the Obama-Clinton “reset” policy has always been an utter failure THROUGHOUT the entire Medvedev years:

1) The New START treaty: Celebrated by the Obama administration and the entire Left as the crowning achievement of the “reset”, it is actually its most disastrous and shameful failure. This treasonous treaty requires the US to cut its deployed nuclear arsenal by an entire third, from the 2,200 warheads allowed by the 2002 Moscow Treaty to just 1,550 warheads, while Russia is allowed to (and has taken many steps to) increase its own arsenal. Today, Russia has 2,800 strategic nuclear warheads, of which 1,500 are deployed and another 50 will be deployed. Russia also wields a huge arsenal of delivery systems: 434 ICBMs, 13 ballistic missile submarines, and 251 strategic bombers (171 of which are not even counted under New START treaty rules).

2) Iran: Russia has agreed only to minimal, symbolic sanctions against Tehran, and has fiercely opposed, and repeatedly vetoed, anything more than the weakest sanctions against Iran. It has also completed the construction of Iran’s first nuclear reactor, is now building the second, and has continued supplying tons of nuclear fuel to Iran. It has also pledged to deliver state-of-the-art S-300 air defense systems to Iran (and Syria). Contrary to the popular myth, Russia has NOT cancelled the delivery of those systems.

3) Syria: When a popular uprising broke out against Syrian dictator (and Hezbollah supporter) Bashar al-Assad, an ally of Iran, he immediately began to attempt to quell this uprising by brute force. And Russia has continually supported him with weapons and diplomatic protection from the start. Even during the supposedly halcyon Medvedev years, it vetoed draft UNSC resolutions aimed at punishing Assad.

4) America’s European allies: Throughout the entire Medvedev years, Russia continued to threaten America’s European allies with nuclear weapons and missiles, especially those who have agreed to host elements of America’s missile defense system – in response to which Russia continued, and continues, to threaten nuclear mayhem and withdrawal from the (useless) New START treaty.

5) The INF Treaty: It was during the supposedly halcyon Medvedev years that Russia began developing and fielding intermediate range missiles (such as the R-500, the Iskander-M, and intermediate range “air defense” missiles) that violate the INF treaty. The Clinton State Department did NOTHING to counter this obvious violation.

6) Missile Defense: Despite cancelling President Bush’s plan to build missile defense installations (intended to protect the US, not Europe) in Poland and the Czech Republic, Obama and Hillary got NOTHING in return from the Kremlin. NOTHING. No concession whatsoever.

7) Bombers Flying Into US Airspace: As early as April and May 2012, when Medvedev was still in office, the Russians began flying nuclear-armed bombers close to and sometimes into US airspace – and said they were “practicing attacking the enemy.” They have also repeatedly flown nuclear-armed bombers into Japanese and Swedish airspace.

So for the entire Medvedev period, and beyond, the Obama-Clinton “reset” (read: appeasement) policy has been an utter, disastrous failure. America has not benefitted AT ALL from this idiotic policy. It has not produced ANY benefits to the US whatsoever.

Therefore, the reset’s defenders are dead wrong: the reset was ALWAYS a failure, even during the Medvedev years. Which is not surprising given that, as stated earlier, Vladimir Putin was always in power before, during, and after the Medvedev years, and still is.

For another superb article on the utter failure of the Obama-Clinton reset policy, see Charles Krauthammer’s excellent column.

Democrats Already Rush To Defend Hillary’s Disastrous Russia Record

Vladimir Putin,Hillary Rodham Clinton

Nobody except Barack Obama himself has been as responsible for the utterly failed “reset” (read: appeasement) policy towards Russia, the disastrous results of which are now available for the entire world to see.

From Ukraine to Iran, to Syria, to Cuba, to the Snowden affair, Vladimir Putin’s Russia has successfully defeated the US and undermined US national interests at every turn while arming and emboldening America’s enemies everywhere. The Russian military now occupies all of the Crimea, a Russian spy ship has docked in Cuba, the Iranian nuclear program is proceeding apace, North Korea is testing ballistic missiles, Bashar al-Assad continues to murder his own people while refusing to turn over his chemical weapons.

These are the disastrous results of the “reset” (read: appeasement) policy towards Russia which Obama and Hillary Clinton, then Obama’s Secretary of State, inaugurated in 2009.

Hardly surprising, then, that Hillary’s supporters are now desperately rushing to defeat Hillary’s utterly failed and disastrous foreign policy record, while simoultaneously denying that there was any serious trouble in the years 2008-2012, when Dmitry Medvedev (Putin’s puppet) was President of Russia.

Just recently, the ridiculously-named “Correct the Record” group (which should be called “Falsify the Record”, because that’s what it actually does), through its communications director Adienne Elrod, falsely claimed that:

“Secretary Clinton worked to successfully secure Russia’s cooperation toward anti-terrorism efforts in Afghanistan, and worked with Russia to secure critical, crippling sanctions against Iran. Not to mention, Secretary Clinton oversaw passage and enactment of the New START Treaty reducing nuclear weapons and making us all safer. This is another case of selective memory lapses by Republican opportunists.”

These are all blatant lies. Here’s an ACTUAL correction of the record – which is badly needed, so that Hillary Clinton does not get away with her treason against the US and her disastrous foreign policy record:

  • The New START  is a disastrous and treasonous treaty which is making America dramatically LESS secure, not more, by requiring dramatic cuts in America’s deployed nuclear arsenal while also constraining America’s missile defense programs (and Hillary has lied to the Congress by claiming the contrary). The only country required to cut its nuclear arsenal under New START is the US – not Russia. Moscow is allowed to GROW its strategic nuclear arsenal under the treaty, and its tactical nuclear arsenal – estimated at up to 4,000 warheads and their various delivery systems – is not covered by the treaty at all.
  • Therefore, Hillary Clinton and her supporters should be deeply ASHAMED of Clinton’s support for New START. Negotiating it and ramming it through the Senate was an act of treason. Lying to the Congress in support of New START was a criminal act.
  • Moreover, the New START is, in any case, utterly useless because Russia has NEVER complied with ANY arms control treaty it has signed. Since 2009, it has tested and/or deployed several types of land-based intermediate range missiles banned by the INF Treaty.
  • As for Iran, Russia never supported (and still opposes) any serious sanctions against that country. No “crippling” sanctions have ever been imposed on the Islamic Republic – whether before, during, or after Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State. Hardly surprising, then, that under Clinton’s tenure, the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program proceeded apace, without interruption – the mullahs’ will was never broken by the pathetically weak sanctions Russia did agree to. This was BEFORE Obama, with a new Secretary of State (John Kerry), lifted the sanctions this year.
  • On Afghanistan, Russia’s cooperation has been very meagre – allowing NATO to use Russian transit lines to that country – and it had been going on long before Clinton arrived at the State Department. It had been going on ever since 2002. Clinton had nothing with this. Russia has cooperated with the US (in a limited way) on Afghanistan because it is in Russia’s own interest to prevent the Taleban’s return – even more so than in America’s interest.

But Hillary’s foreign policy record as SecState is even much worse than that:

  • Under the “reset”, Clinton and Obama made an entire slew of unilateral concessions to Russia, from cancelling plans to deploy missile defense systems in the Czech Republic and Poland (promised to those countries), to ignoring Vladimir Putin’s outrageous human rights abuses, to ignoring repeated simulated Russian nuclear strikes on the US and its allies, to ignoring Russia’s repeated violations of arms control treaties.
  • Hillary has also turned a blind eye to human rights violations everywhere else, not raising a peep in public about this and publicly subordinating human rights to “climate change” in talks with China, one of the worst human rights offenders in the world.
  • Hillary appeased China, not raising a peep about its massive military buildup and increasingly aggressive behavior, either, thus emboldening China to continue this course while worrying America’s allies. Now China claims the entire South China Sea as its internal lake, has declared an ADIZ there, and overtly threatens US allies and partners, including Japan and the Philippines.
  • Hillary has also allowed China to join (as an observer) the Arctic Council, a council of countries having access to the Arctic Ocean, where China does not belong (but wants to be, in order to access the Arctic Ocean’s vast natural resources).
  • Under Hillary, the State Department has resumed funding for the UN Family Planning Fund, which pays for coercive abortions in countries like China. Indeed, as Secretary of State, Hillary campaigned vigorously for “abortion rights” around the world.
  • Under Hillary, the US also loosened sanctions on the criminal regime of Raul Castro, and President Obama personally met with that thug.
  • Under Hillary, the US turned a blind eye to the bloodshed committed by Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad against his own people, starting in 2011 – two years before Clinton left the State Department.
  • Under Hillary, the US did, however, support populist, Islamic fundamentalist revolutions against other Arab dictators, most of whom were America’s friends, including those in Tunisia and Egypt, paving the way for the Muslim Brotherhood to seize the latter country. Egypt has been saved only thanks to its military – which now sees Moscow, not Washington, as its ally. You can thank Hillary and Obama for that.
  • And of course, under Hillary, the US Consulate in Benghazi was attacked, and four Americans, including the US Ambassador to Libya, were murdered with impunity. Clinton never provided any security to that consulate. Then, when testifying to the Congress about the attack, Clinton asked, “What difference does it make?”

In short, during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as SecState, appeasement of America’s enemies, especially Russia and China, combined with America’s unilateral disarmament through treasonous treaties and budgetary defense cuts, became America’s official foreign policy.

This is the policy Hillary advocated before and during her tenure as Secretary of State.

The current Russian aggression against Ukraine is nothing but an inevitable and direct consequence of that disastrous policy. No amount of wishful thinking, liberal lies, or fairytale stories will change that fact.

By advocating and implementing that disastrous, utterly failed policy, deceptively called “the reset”, Hillary and Obama brought about the current crisis and are completely responsible for it. And decent Americans MUST NOT allow Hillary to avoid responsibility for that disaster.

The basic principle on which world politics operates on is quite simple: weakness and appeasement only invite aggression, while building up strength and showing willingness to use it prevent war and guarantee peace. Sadly, the Left will never learn that lesson.

ReaganPeaceQuote