Category Archives: Support Israel

Israel – Past, Present, Future

ST. CLAIR SHORES, Mich., Jan. 15, 2014 /Christian Newswire/ — EWTN Catholic television host, Fr. Mitch Pacwa, S.J. recently returned from leading pilgrims on his fifty-ninth trip to the Holy Land, home for Christians, Muslims, and Jews. He explained that Pope Francis’ plans to visit the Holy Land in May will be about ecumenism not tourism. “He’s very conscious of celebrating the 50th anniversary of Pope Paul VI’s historic visit there.” During that visit, Pope Paul met with the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras to end the 900-year-long Great Schism between the East and West churches.

“The Pope is interested in finding greater rapport between our religious communities,” Pacwa said. “I would not be surprised if there are real steps forward at that time.”

After so many trips to the area, Pacwa said he has gained an increased sense of the area including the geography, history, and the present. He speaks Hebrew and Arabic and fits in easily. His perspective is that the Palestinians and Israelis both contribute to the conflict, but points to Israel’s high percent of atheism and low birth rate as what will ultimately be their undoing. “Children are for people who believe in the future and they are not having children,” he said. Pacwa attributed the drop in the Christian population from around 20% to 1% because they often were caught in the middle of fighting between the two adversaries.

He said he is often asked: “Is it safe to travel there?” According to him, the Israelis have a high level of security and the violence from the Israeli/Palestine conflict usually takes place far from areas people visit. “I don’t see any of the difficulties that people worry about,” Pacwa said. “I am more nervous in the U.S. because there is a higher rate of murder in our big cities.”

Pacwa said he does not go as a tour guide, but to bring people closer to Christ through prayer. He organized prayers and Scripture passages to link to the sites into a book for pilgrims which he has used for years. They are included in his new book, The Holy Land: An Armchair Pilgrimage. It was created as a virtual tour for people who would love to go but cannot. The biggest effect of visiting the Holy Land, according to him, occurs back home. “People tell me that the Mass comes alive for them when they listen to the Gospels and think, ‘I’ve been there!'”

Rebuttal of leftist lies about US tactical nukes in Europe


This week, a leftist group called the “Peterson Defense Advisory Committee”, an organization that advocates deep unilateral cuts in America’s nuclear deterrent, will hold a meeting on Capitol Hill intended to propagandize members of Congress, their staffers, and the public into believing that US tactical nuclear weapons are no longer needed in Europe. By their own admission, they also advocate cutting the US nuclear arsenal, and particularly its tactical part, unilaterally.

This will be a treasonous act, as would be the cuts themselves. Cutting the US nuclear arsenal any further – let alone unilaterally – would be utterly suicidal. And cutting the tactical part would be especially idiotic. Here’s why.

US tactical nuclear weapons are the most visible part of America’s extended nuclear deterrent – the nuclear umbrella the US provides to itself and to over 30 allies around the world, from Britain to Poland, to Israel, to the Gulf States, to South Korea and Japan.

The majority of America’s small arsenal of 400 tactical nukes is deployed in Europe as a visible and tangible nuclear umbrella. These weapons could, of course, be redeployed to other allied countries to reassure them (e.g South Korea and Japan) as well – and indeed, over 70% of South Koreans want US tactical nukes to be deployed on the Peninsula. Nothing reassures US allies more than the physical presence of US nuclear weapons on their soil.

Hardly surprising, then, that NATO UNANIMOUSLY reaffirmed the need for US tactical nukes’ presence in Europe in 2010 and 2012, that the Joint Chiefs unanimously support maintaining them there, and that President Obama does as well – his most recent nuclear weapons guidance strongly underlines the need for keeping US tactical nukes in Europe.

Why do America’s allies – European and non-European alike – want to be protected by these weapons, and indeed by the US military in general, so much?

Because they, like America, are facing very real military threats.

Europe is still living under the shadow of Russia’s nuclear threat, magnified in the last 14 by proud KGB thug and Russia’s dictator for life Vladimir Putin. In the last 7 years alone, Russia has threatened to aim or even use its nuclear weapons against Europe and the US on 16 different occassions. Moreover, in its current military doctrine, Russia claims the right to use nuclear weapons first, even against countries that do not have such weapons!

And furthermore, Russia has repeatedly flown its nuclear-armed bombers close to, and sometimes into, the airspace of the US, allied countries, and even neutral countries like Sweden (twice!). In May 2012, when flying nuclear-armed bombers close to Alaska, the Russians declared they were “practicing strikes on the enemy” – their enemy being the US.

Russia has 4,000 nuclear weapons and the means to deliver all of them with a wide variety of systems, from strike aircraft like the Su-24, Su-27/30/35 Flanker and Su-34, to attack and cruise missile submarines armed with nuclear-tipped missiles, to surface ships, to artillery pieces, to IRBMs and SRBMs like the Iskander (SS-26 Stone), the latter recently deployed in the Kaliningrad District on Poland’s border. These missiles enable Russia to target all but the very southernmost part of Poland, one of America’s staunchest and most helpful allies.

America’s Middle Eastern and East Asian allies face very serious nuclear threats as well. Japan and South Korea live in the shadow of the Chinese and North Korean nuclear threats.

China has at least 1,600, and up to 3,000, nuclear weapons, and the means to deliver at least 1,300 of them. Besides its strategic triad of ICBMs, ballistic missile subs, and long-range bombers, China also has 280 tactical nuclear strike aircraft, over 1,200 short-range ballistic missiles, over 120 MRBMs, and hundreds of nuclear-capable cruise missiles such as the DH-10, CJ-10, and HN-3. These missiles and aircraft can strike anywhere in Japan, South Korea, and as far as Singapore, Indonesia, and Guam if need be.

North Korea has a much smaller nuclear arsenal, of a dozen or so warheads, and only a handful of ICBMs capable of reaching the US. But it has over 1,000 SRBMs and hundreds of MRBMs capable of reaching all of South Korea and Japan, and some of its MRBMs can even reach Guam! North Korea, moreover, is run by an extremely aggressive and warlike dictatorship led by a young man held hostage by a clique of warmongering generals.

Little wonder, then, that over 70% of South Koreans want US tactical nukes back on the Peninsula, and 66.5% of them want South Korea to have its own nuclear deterrent as well. Or that Japan has a facility capable of producing enough plutonium for 3,600 nuclear weapons in a year if need be.

America’s Middle Eastern allies, meanwhile, are increasingly worried by the progress of Iran’s nuclear weapons programme, which the recent Munich-style deal will not even slow down, let alone stop. It codifies Iran’s purported “right” to enrich uranium and contains NO restrictions on its ballistic missiles!  Again, unless the US is prepared and willing to carry out massive, crippling bombings of Iran, it has no choice but to provide a credible nuclear umbrella to its Middle Eastern allies – and for that, tactical as well as strategic nuclear weapons are needed.

And the cost, which the PDAC and other leftist groups complain about? The cost of stationing the weapons abroad – the aircraft, bases, and maintenance – are covered by NATO allies. As for the cost of the warheads themselves, modernizing and prolonging the service life of the B61 tactical nuclear bomb will cost only 10 billion over the next decade – i.e. 1 billion per year, out of an annual military budget of 607 bn.

It is utterly false and ridiculous to claim the US cannot afford to invest just one billion dollars a year to maintain and modernize the most crucial part of its nuclear deterrent – that which constitutes its extended nuclear umbrella for its allies, reassures those allies, and is also the main armament of America’s own strategic bombers.

Shame on the PDAC and other leftist groups, as well as the Democrats, for lying so blatantly about US nuclear weapons and advocating unilateral cuts in these. They are traitors.

Israel’s Deputy Speaker of Knesset: ‘I Don’t Trust Obama’

MANASSAS, Va., Dec. 9, 2013 /Christian Newswire/ — Following is the statement of conservative author and direct mail pioneer, Richard A. Viguerie:

      “Barack Obama has squandered the trust that American Presidents built-up over the past 224 years, and the world is a much more dangerous place for his cowardly and feckless behavior.
      “During a recent trip to Israel with two of my grandchildren I had the opportunity to meet with a number of Israeli political leaders.
      “It was an eye opening experience.
      “One of the leaders with whom I met was Gila Gamliel, Deputy Speaker of Israel’s Parliament, the Knesset.
      “Gila Gamliel is one of the real stars of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud Party. In 2009 when she was first elected to the Knesset, Gamliel became the youngest member of the government of Israel when, at age 30, Netanyahu appointed her to be his Deputy Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development.
      “As might be expected from a member of the strongly nationalist Likud Party, Gila Gamliel is an Israeli patriot and had strong views on the political situation in the Middle East.
      “But here’s what she said that was the real eye opener.
      “Our conversation was supposed to be ‘off the record,’ meaning it couldn’t be reported publicly, but what she said was so important that I asked her to clarify the ground rules and she said ‘I feel strongly about this and I want it out.’
      “‘I don’t trust Obama.’
      “Deputy Speaker Gamliel went on to say, ‘We may need to look around to find another friend,’ because ‘It looks like America does not want to be the dominant leader of the free world.’
      “Think of it friends, the President of the United States is not trusted by the Deputy Speaker in the parliament of the only democratic nation in the Middle East and arguably our most reliable ally in that troubled region.
      “Whether you agree with my old friend Dr. James Dobson ‘that Israel is covenant land,’ and that Christians should support Israel in a battle between good and evil, or you agree with another old friend, Pat Buchanan, that Israel has too much influence in American domestic politics and that ‘Capitol Hill is Israeli-occupied territory,’ I’m sure you will agree that the American President must be trusted by our allies — and especially by our foes.
      “Think of what Deputy Speaker Gamliel’s assessment means for our foreign policy and America’s ability to lead in an increasingly dangerous Middle East.
        “Even the failed Jimmy Carter was trusted by Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin (founder of Gamliel’s Likud Party) to broker the Camp David accords that ended the state of war between Israel and Egypt and established a workable peace between the two countries.
      “Trust is the foundation of all human interaction. To be successful both your friends, and your opponents, must trust that you will do what you say you will do. Barack Obama has squandered the trust that American Presidents built-up over the past 224 years, and the world is a much more dangerous place for his cowardly and feckless behavior.”

New enemy air defense systems mean ONLY stealthy aircraft are viable


Russia has recently decided to sell the state-of-the-art S-300PMU2 air defense systems (commonly known as SAMs, though the term SAM applies only to the missiles themselves) to the Syrian government to prevent any foreign intervention against the Assad regime, and to sell the equally capable S-300VM system to Iran. Earlier, it agreed to sell even more advanced and more capable S-400 (SA-21) air defense systems to China, which already has numerous S-300 and HQ-9 brigades. What does this mean for the US military and allied militaries (such as the IDF)?

It means that all nonstealthy Western aircraft (including the F-15, F-16, F/A-18, EA-18, EA-6, the Typhoon, the Rafale, the Gripen, the B-52 and the B-1) are by now completely and utterly obsolete, useless, impotent, and irrelevant. The US military might as well scrap all of its nonstealthy aircraft and save itself the expense of operating them. And this vulnerability cannot be overcome, or even ameliorated, with upgrades. The same applies to all nonstealthy cruise missiles.

This is because, quite simply, all of these aircraft and cruise missiles would be detected and shot down quite easily from a very large distance by the forementioned Russian and Chinese air defense systems, were they to ever venture into airspace protected by such systems (or by fighters like the PAKFA, the J-20, and the J-31).

Here’s how it works.

Like all other weapons, air defense systems need just two things to shoot aircraft down: the ability to detect and track their targets and the ability to shoot them down from a sufficient distance, before the enemy aircraft makes it to a point from which it could release its weapons (bombs or missiles) or jam the system.

These Russian and Chinese air defense systems – the S-300, S-400, and HQ-9, plus the HHQ-9 and HQ-16 onboard Chinese ships – meet both requirements. They can detect nonstealthy aircraft, even those flying at low altitudes, and shoot them down from a very long distance. That distance, in the S-300’s and HQ-9’s case, is 200 kilometers. The S-400’s maximum range is double that, at 400 kms.

This means that, once S-300 systems are delivered to Syria, Damascus will be able to declare and enforce a no-fly zone over almost all of Israel and shoot down IAF aircraft while they take off from their bases.

This also means that China can, even today, declare and enforce (if it wants to) a no-fly zone over half of Taiwan – the western and northern half, to be precise. Once S-400 systems are delivered to China (which is on track to happen in 2017 or sometime thereafter), Beijing can enforce a no-fly-zone over ALL of Taiwan (shooting down ROCAF aircraft when they try to take off), as well as ALL of Okinawa (where the USAF’s 18th Wing and USMC aviation units are based) and the disputed Senkaku Islands – because they are so close to China.

The F-15, F-16, F/A-18, EA-18, EA-6, B-52, B-1, and the Eurocanards have such large radar signatures (i.e. are so easibly visible on radar screens from such a long distance) that they would be detected and shot down at a large distance from their planned weapon release point – to which they would never make it – or to the point where jammer aircraft like the EA-18 and EA-6 could effectively jam enemy radars. This renders the EA-18 and the EA-6 completely useless for jamming, as they would never be allowed to get close enough to jam enemy radars.

This is because none of these aircraft were ever designed to be stealthy, and no serious attempt was made with any of them to reduce their radar signatures. All of them except the EA-18 were designed during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, before there was any stealth technology. Today, they are hopelessly obsolete, and thus utterly useless, impotent, and irrelevant.

For jammer aircraft such as the EA-18 and EA-6, the situation is doubly worse, because modern SAM system are much more jam resistant due to their high-power aperture. They also use ploys such as ‘frequency hopping’ from pulse to pulse.  The jammer may respond to the last pulse, but does not know the frequency of the next one, so misses.  This is built into all modern air-to-air radars as well.  And don’t forget that all modern SAM missiles have ‘home-on-jam’.  It works like this: “Light up that jammer and come in, sucker!”

Thus, all nonstealthy aircraft, including the EA-18 and the EA-6, have ZERO chance of surviving in airspace protected by the forementioned advanced Russian and Chinese air defense systems. This means that developing the Next Generation Bomber and resuming F-22 production is a NECESSITY, not a luxury, let alone “waste”, contrary to the utterly false claims of leftist, anti-defense groups such as TCS, POGO, CATO, the ACA, and others.

The ONLY Western (not just American, but WESTERN) aircraft capable of surviving in such airspace are the B-2 bomber, the F-22 fighter, and the F-35 strike jet. The Next Generation Bomber and the UCLASS carrier-capable drone are at the beginning stages of their development.

And the F-35 actually has slim chances of survival, because unlike the B-2 and the F-22, it is not very stealthy, and not from all aspects, and not in all radar bands. It is stealthy mainly from the front and up, and primarily in the X and S bands – much less so in lower radar bands or at lower frequencies.

This is not surprising, given that the F-35 was designed to be a battlefield interdictor, i.e. a tank hunter operating in airspace already sanitized by the B-2 and the F-22 – not as a Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses aircraft. It was (and is being) designed for a world in which the S-300, S-400, PAKFA, J-20, J-31, HQ-9, and HQ-16 did not exist.

Now that these systems all exist – and that the S-500 and HQ-12 air defense systems, even more advanced than those described above – are in development, the F-35 is obsolete before it has even entered service, although it is still much more modern and more capable than all of the legacy aircraft listed above.

The only solution for the US is to cancel the F-35 program, resume F-22 production, develop Marine and Naval versions of it, make the F-22 available to select allies, and speed up the development of the Next Gen Bomber and the UCLASS. Only these aircraft can survive and prevail in airspace defended by modern air defense systems such as the S-300, S-400, HQ-9, or HQ-16 – and looking to the future, only these systems will be able to survive in airspace defended by the S-500, HQ-12, PAKFA, J-20, or J-31.

We Need to Be Honest; Dispensing With the Spin

As we consider the anniversary of September 11th – now, both 2001 and 2012, it is important to consider some simple truths. These truths eluded our government and the nation in the early days after September 11th, 2001, because partisan politicians in Washington, DC, erected walls that kept our law enforcement and intelligence communities from honestly informing each other about the threats to our nation and her citizens. Even more disturbingly, today, little has changed. Twelve years after the initial attacks by al Qaeda on our country, most of the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations are left unaddressed and an administration has been elected to office that refuses to identify the enemy for their common bond.

Sun Tzu wrote, in The Art of War, “If you know the enemy and know yourself, your victory will not stand in doubt.”

Before September 11th, 2001, we, as a nation, were unfamiliar with not only Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, but also the whole of the Islamist dogma. Now, after the slaughter of four brave Americans in Benghazi on September 11th, 2012, our nation’s leadership, hobbled by the Progressive tenet of political correctness, refuses to accurately identify the enemy; to identify the root cause for the overwhelming number of terrorist acts around the world.

Before September 11th, 2001, we were ignorant of the lesson found in Sun Tzu’s quote. After September 11th, 2012, our leadership simply ignores Sun Tzu’s wisdom.

It is indisputable that with precious few exceptions, the perpetrators of almost every terrorist act in the world today have a direct connection to Islamist jihadis; who, in turn, exist solely under the ideological umbrella of the religion of Islam. Those who argue to the contrary are either uninformed, deniers, fools or intellectually stunted. Yet our current leadership exists so crippled by their ideological dogma that they, purposefully, refuse to identify the obvious enemy; the enemy who has declared, in no uncertain terms, that Islam will reign supreme; that they intend to conquer the world in the name of their religion.

A perfect example of this pig-ignorance comes in the issue of Syria.

Whether you believe President Obama and his team are inept in their foreign policy, unconcerned about anything but the “fundamental transformation” of the United States domestically, or sympathetic to the Islamist cause – or perhaps all three, the notion that there is a side to champion in the Syrian conflict is ignorant folly. Yes, Bashar al Assad is a tyrant, brutal to his own people in his quest to retain power in that country. And it is a distinct possibility that he or his field commanders may have used chemical weapons against civilians as well as rebel forces. But intervening in an effort to champion al Assad’s opposition literally places the United States in an alliance with those who support and fight in the name of al Qaeda, the very people who both slaughtered 2,996 people and injured over 6,000 more on September 11th, 2001, and viciously murdered four Americans, including a US ambassador on September 11th, 2012.

Additionally, each action and non-action taken by this administration has not only decreased the standing of the United States in the Middle East, but has facilitated the rise of Islamists to positions of influence throughout the region. Even the Obama Administration’s objection to the Egyptian military’s deposing of the illegitimately elected Muslim Brotherhood to government, in the aftermath of Mubarak’s fall from power, favored Islamists; those who would establish Sharia law and band together to form a regional caliphate.

So, the base question that each and every American should be asking him or herself is this. What the hell are we doing? Why are we aligning or aiding any faction, movement or government that exists sympathetic or in allegiance to anything Islamist?

Further, why haven’t we had the courage – as a free people – to ask the questions that politically correct Progressives and the intellectually squeamish run from, like:

▪ Why isn’t the Islamist ideology held accountable for the violent actions of those who commit atrocities in the name of Islam?

▪ Why hasn’t Saudi Arabia – the protectors of the most holy locations in the Islamic religion, been held to account for not only the actions of their charge, but for literally exporting the most virulent strain of Islam (Wahhabism) to foreign shores?

▪ Why are our elected officials so adverse to recognizing – and then stating as their positions – that the tenets of Sharia law are not compatible with the freedoms and liberties enshrined in our Charters of Freedom and in Western ideology?

▪ Why – why – are our leaders so frightened of identifying an enemy who has declared war on the West – and the United States and Israel, specifically, for years and years and years…?

▪ Why – why – is the West so terrified of confronting the evil that exists in the Islamist ideology; the evil that cuts the heads of innocents, eats the organs of its foes, burns Christian churches to the ground as they execute priests and nuns; the evil that wants to finish what Adolf Hitler started with regard to the world’s Jewish population?

▪ And why, why, why, do we elect idiot politicians who make excuses for bloodthirsty jihadis, even to the points of denying that “Allahu Akbar!” is an Islamist battle cry and lobbying for weaponry and alliance?

The issue of whether the United States should act because chemical weapons were used in Syria is a serious matter. The use of WMD is something that the entire world community should take very seriously. But when both sides of the conflict despise you; when both combatants in the fight hold you, your nation, your nation’s citizens and the whole of the Western world in contempt, perhaps that fight; perhaps the action needed in the aftermath of the use of those WMD, must come from within that faction’s own world. If the use of WMD is so outrageous to the whole of humanity, perhaps Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait and Bahrain should take action against Syria, the rebels or whoever else is eventually found to be guilty of this atrocity.

To wit, the fact is undeniable: Whoever wins in Syria will not be a friend to the United States and the West, so aiding one side over another is a pretty stupid investment of blood and/or treasure.

And while the debate on the use of WMD in Syria is one that should be undertaken, it should be undertaken with the pre-condition that we in the West – and especially we here in the United States – realize that Islamists are not our friends, evidenced not only by their actions, but by their words; their threats, their promises and their declarations.

The battle – both ideologically and physically – between the West and Islamism is a fundamental battle between good and evil; between the cultures of personal liberty and oppression. Islamism, Sharia and all of the Islamist tenets that entangle that dogma in conquest, oppression, violence and the worship of death, exist as nemesis to the free world; the enemy of freedom itself.

That limp-wristed politicians, Progressives and sympathetic apologists from the West refuse to admit the obvious doesn’t make the fact any less real. It just makes the West – and the people of the West – subject to the dangers, subject to the murderous violence, that Islamism projects onto the world.

On this observance of September 11th, 2001 – and now September 11th, 2012, I, again, offer my condolences to all those directly affected by the loss of life, and offer my appreciation to all those who have answered the call to defend liberty and freedom around the world.

On this observance of the “September 11ths,” I stand unashamed to say, I know who the enemy is…both inside and outside the gates.

A brief analysis of Syria’s air defense systems


As the Obama administration and the Congress consider whether to use force against the Syrian regime Bashar al-Assad for allegedly using chemical weapons, CDN Defense Correspondent Zbigniew Mazurak briefly analyzes Syria’s air defense systems exclusively for CDN readers.


Syria’s weapons arsenal is predominantly of Soviet and Russian origin, and the same is true of its air defense systems. Although the currently does deploy three types of modern Chinese air defense radars – including one VHF radar type – these radars are not compatible with, and not linked to, Syria’s ADS fire control systems or the launchers themselves. Accordingly, they can only warn about danger, but Syria’s Russian-supplied air defense systems won”t be able to use it.

Accordingly, until the promised delivery of S-300 air defense systems by Russia, which would be a game changer, Syria is left with upgraded legacy Soviet and Russian equipment, namely the obsolete Vietnam War era SA-2 and SA-3, the SA-6, the late 1970s vintage SA-5, and the more modern (and repeatedly upgraded) SA-11/17, Tor-M1, and Pantsir-S1.

The first weakness of the SA-2 and SA-5 is that they are static, deployed on fixed pads. Moving them would be very difficult and just “packing” them for transport would take several hours. However, Syria’s other systems – the SA-3, SA-6, SA-11/17, Tor-M1, and Pantsir-S1, are highly mobile and can relocate in minutes rather than hours or days.

Air defense systems are in a dangerous position if they don’t relocate frequently, as the Syrians themselves discovered first-hand in 1982 and 2007 when the Israelis conducted airstrikes against them, and as the Iraqis discovered in 1991 and 2003 and the Libyans in 2011.

The second weakness of all of Syria’s ADS, other than the SA-5 Gammon, is their short range: all but the SA-5 have a range of less than 50 kms. The SA-2 missile’s range is just 45 kms, the SA-11/17 can muster only 30 kms, the SA-6’s range is a pitiful 24 kms, the SA-3 Goa’s is slightly better at 34 kms. The very short-range Tor-M1’s range is but 12 kms, and the Pantsir-S1’s is 20 kms.

This means that, again excluding the SA-5 Gammon, all of Syria’s air defense systems can be simply evaded by staying out of their range. Moreover, their engagement envelope is so pitiful that US aircraft could jam them while still being outside their range.

Nonetheless, even such short-range systems can be deadly: for example, the Pantsir-S1 shot a Turkish RF-4 reconnaissance jet just 2 years ago, scoring its first kill. Moreover, these same SA-2, SA-3, and SA-6 systems, together with anti-aircraft artillery (AAA), imposed heavy casualties on Israeli aircraft in the late 1960s War of Attrition between Egypt and Israel and in the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Also, SA-2 batteries inflicted even heavier casualties on US military aviation in the Vietnam War. And in 1999, a single Serbian SA-3 battery shot down an F-16 and an F-117 while damaging another F-117, and 19 out of 22 Serbian SA-6 batteries survived the 1999 Operation Allied Force. So these systems’ short range, on second inspection, does not have to be a weakness if those systems are properly employed.

The effectiveness of Syria’s air defense systems will thus depend not on the equipment – for the equipment is mostly fine – but on training and tactics. Which raises three questions:

1) Will the Syrians use “hide, shoot, and scoot” tactics so successfully employed by the North Vietnamese, the Egyptians, and the Serbians? Or will they use their equipment in a static, sitting duck manner like they did in 1982 and 2007, like the Iraqis did in 1991 and 2003, and like the Libyans did in 2011? History has shown that doing the latter can cost a nation a war and that nation’s dictator his life – Saddam Hussein and Moammar Qaddafi did not employ “hide, shoot, and scoot” tactics, and both are dead now, executed by their own people. Does Assad want to share their fate?

2) Will the Syrians use the brutally effective Soviet doctrine of using complementary and overlapping air defense systems (SAMs at high altitudes, AAA at lower ones)? This was also part of the reason why the US lost so many aircraft in Vietnam and the Israelis over Egypt: US and Israeli pilots were driven into a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” choice: either fly at high altitudes and be shot down by SAMs, or fly at low altitudes and be shot down by AAA. Most US and Israeli pilots chose the latter and were shot down by AAA.

3) How well trained and educated are Syrian air defense system crews? All of the Soviet/Russian air defense systems which Syria operates use analog technology and require very intelligent, very well trained, educated, and disciplined (not to mention ADS-proficient) crews. The North Vietnamese, Serbian, and Egyptian crews of their respective air defense systems were exactly that, and they (except the Serbs) were aided by well educated and trained, highly proficient Warsaw Pact instructors; in Egypt, the Soviets even deployed an entire division of their own Air Defense Troops! Syrian ADS crews have performed miserably in past campaigns, raising serious questions about their training, education, and equipment usage proficiency.

In sum, the air defense systems the Syrians currently have are short-ranged (except the SA-5) and mostly old, dating back to the Soviet (pre-1992) era. Nonetheless, even these old Soviet-era systems have, in the past, imposed high casualties on the USAF and the IAF when used competently. In the Vietnam War, the North Vietnamese were able to do so with nothing but SA-2s and AAA, and Serbia’s most modern system in 1999 was the SA-6. So some humility is in order; the US and its allies may suffer higher casualties than they expect to.

Still, to inflict any significant casualties on Coalition aircraft, the Syrians, equipped with only these systems, would have to display tactics, skill, and proficiency matching that of the North Vietnamese, the Egyptians, and the Serbs – which they have historically failed to do. Moreover, there is a limit to what one can do with these mostly Soviet-era systems, many of which are static and most of which have a very short range.

If the US and its allies decide to bomb Syria, casualties will probably be light – but that will be due exclusively to the obsolescence of Syrian air defense systems and the poor training and skills of its crews. It will be yet another instance of clubbing baby seals at sea – a global military power beating a weak nation. Its result, whatever it turns out to be, will be of zero relevance as to the military capabilities of China, Russia, or even North Korea and Iran.

More Questions About Syria

I have a feeling Syria is going to dominate our discussions for the next several weeks, perhaps even months, as the government tries to decide what to do. Personally, I think Congress will vote to allow missile strikes. What that will lead to is anybody’s guess, either an escalation that will involve ground troops, or, hopefully, nothing at all. But as we approach another 9/11 anniversary, I am concerned with what I read about who is funding and/or supporting the rebels.

When conservative pundits started throwing around statements that al-Qeada was behind the rebel groups, I, at first, shook it off as more right-wing paranoia. When they kept saying it, I decided it was time for a little research, because it is a troubling thought to think that we may be supporting the enemy.

Here is a Business Week article which mentions the terrorist connection in the first couple of paragraphs.

Here is a report from Breitbart.Com that mentions the same thing.

The proof is out there. We indeed may be assisting al-Qeada by bombing Syria. Why is this not being talked about more? Am I not watching the right news outlets, or is the media, in its unwavering support for Obama, ignoring these apparent facts?

We won’t get any help from elected Republicans, apparently.

That blithering, good-for-nothing, geriatric gasbag John McCain, who served in Vietnam, is too busy playing video poker during the Syria hearings to bother mentioning the connection, yet he says we need to support military action. John Boner–I mean, Boehner–is for a bombing. Surprisingly, he didn’t burst into tears while saying so.

So we can’t count on Republicans to ask the questions; we can’t count on the media, either; what are we to do?

Proponents say we need to smack down Assad because he’s done something terrible; personally, I think we need to assist him in this fight. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, right? If al-Qeada is trying to establish a home base in Syria, with its own government, we need to stop that. They failed to establish a base in Egypt, from all accounts; we kicked them out of Iraq and Afghanistan (though Iraq is still to-be-decided), why not do whatever we can to keep them on the run? We’re blowing up their leaders every chance we get; why change the strategy now?

Proponents add that if Assad uses chemical weapons in his own country, he may fire them at Israel. True enough, but, at this moment, that is mere supposition. Iran may fire nukes into Israel, too, but nobody seems upset about that idea.

Assisting Middle East leaders against a common enemy is nothing new. We helped Saddam Hussein fight Iran when it was in our interest, and later used the intelligence gained in that assistance to wipe him off the face of the earth when the time came. We aided the Afghans against the Soviets, and later bombed the daylights out of them when they let bin Laden and his gang stay rent-free.

Assad is no hero. He certainly deserves a smack, but it has to be done right. If this situation weren’t so cloudy, I’d probably be writing a different column and supporting John Boner–I mean, Boehner, darn it–and John McCain in their support of Obama, God help me.

Whatever happens, it won’t be pretty. If Congress blocks the play, Obama will shoot off some missiles, anyway. Because he has to. He’s already gone struttin’, drawing his red line, even though he claims there isn’t a red line. We can’t win here.


BRIAN DRAKE is a broadcaster in California and the author of The Rogue Gentleman, a thriller in the tradition of Vince Flynn and Brad Thor. Follow him on Twitter.

The Coming Blood Moons

Bible Prophecy is something that intrigues me more than anything in this world!

There was a time when I did not want to hear anything about Bible Prophecy because I was fearful of what has been foretold of what is coming on the horizon.

However, September 11, 2001 was a wake up call for me! Laugh if you will, but for me, that date changed everything for me! I see it as “the beginning of the end!”

In 2003 I decided to do an in-depth study of Revelation. It was not until I did that study that I realized that there is actually a special blessing to anyone who studies Revelation!

“Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near.” Revelation 1:3

So now, with all that is going on in the world- wars on the horizon– and now, seeing the signs and wonders that are coming in the sky- I am watching with wonder!

In 2014 and 2015, there is a tetrad of blood moons coming. Watch, and be amazed!

If this scares you, you can have peace! The LORD God would love to call you His own!

“The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.”  2 Peter 3:9


Here is an in-depth, 2 hour long sermon series on the coming Blood Moons. While I do not agree with everything that Pastor John Hagee preaches, one this is for certain: he is a STRONG advocate for Israel, and I believe his Prophecy teachings and insight is spot on! A VERY LONG video, but VERY INTERESTING!

Wars On The Horizon

If you are Christ follower, you will want to watch this video. If you are not a Christ follower, you NEED to watch this video!

I am currently reading, PSALM 83, The Missing Prophecy Revealed – How Israel Becomes the Next Mideast Superpower, by Bill Salus. This is an interview with Mr. Salus.

To paraphrase Mr. Salus from this video, it is a very exciting time to be alive if you are a Christian, but it is a very fearful time to be alive if you are not a Christian!

If you are not a Christ follower, He would love to call you His own!

“The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.”  2 Peter 3:9



A New Defense Strategy for America


The American people have been treated to many “new” defense strategies, military force postures, nuclear strategies, and other policy proposals – mostly from the anti-military Left – over the last few decades. Most of these “new” policy proposals were aimed at cutting and gutting the US military while lulling the American people into a false sense of security by claiming that the policy proposals were “new” and thus somehow better, while the previous (and contemporary) policies, strategies, and force structure are supposedly bad per se and obsolete. This is, of course, utter nonsense.

By contrast, what my new defense strategy aims to do is to provide a framework for preserving US military strength to the greatest extent possible, protect crucial US national interests and key allies, and keep the peace while steering America out of unwise military adventures and reshaping the US military for the threats and wars of the future.

My strategy is based on the following simple principles:

  • The US must have the strongest military, including the largest and most survivable arsenal, in the world, and invest whatever amount of money is necessary to accomplish that. No ifs, buts, or ands.
  • The US must completely reject the ridiculous notion that the world would be more peaceful and more secure if the US just disarmed itself, or scrapped its nuclear arsenal. It wouldn’t. Accordingly, NO further cuts in America’s nuclear deterrent should EVER be made. EVER.
  • The US must also completely reject the equally ridiculous notion that there will ever be a world without nuclear weapons, short of even more powerful weapons being invented. Nuclear weapons’ importance, and therefore the need for a large American nuclear deterrent, is growing, not shrinking. As CSBA’s Barry Watts and Jim Thomas, and other scholars, have pointed out, the world is now in a Second Nuclear Age.
  • The US should protect its national interests at home and around the world, and protect key allies, but not useless allies or freeriders. A bad alliance is worse than no alliance at all. At the same time, Washington needs to remember that executing any strategy or military campaign successfully in any region of the world requires strong, secure allies.
  • The US should intervene militarily only where and when necessary – not everywhere. Humanitarian crisis are deplorable, but they are not a threat to America’s interests. If, repeat if, the US does intervene militarily somewhere, it needs to observe the principles set out by Reagan Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger in 1984. It needs to apply overwhelming force to defeat the enemy decisively and then bring the troops home. No nationbuilding and no prolonged wars with no end in sight. As Sun Tzu taught, “There is no instance of any country having benefitted from prolonged warfare.”
  • Foreign aid, except to Israel, should be ended.
  • The DOD should not be in the “soft power”/”development assistance” business. Its sole role is protection and warfighting. It’s supposed to be the coercive stick accompanying US diplomacy.

Based on those principles, I propose the following strategy.

The world’s center of gravity is in the Asia-Pacific region, and that’s where the US should concentrate its military and nonmilitary assets. The largest threat to America’s (and other countries’) security is an increasingly aggressive, militaristic, hegemony-minded China, which has a dangerous combination of the historical grudges of a Weimar Republic, the militant nationalism of an Arab state, and an expansionist binge like the Soviet Union. It promises a “hand-to-hand” fight with the US, claims the entire South China Sea as its internal lake, and has supplied ICBM launcher vehicles to North Korea.

The US must therefore counter China militarily, economically, and diplomatically, in the ways advised below.

In the Persian Gulf, the US should continue to keep its option to bomb Iran to stop its military program open, as it is highly unlikely that diplomacy and sanctions will stop that program – Iran is already the world’s pariah (along with North Korea) and one of the most isolated countries in the world, but its leaders don’t care about that one iota, and its nuclear program continues unabated. As in the Asia-Pacific, the US should provide a large, modern nuclear umbrella to its allies in the Gulf to discourage them from going nuclear.

In Europe, the US should close the vast majority of its bases and withdraw all 4 Army BCTs, along with the tanker wing, the 4 USN missile defense capable ships, and one of the fighter wings, currently based there. Those assets should all be dedicated to the Asia-Pacific region. The US should retain only one fighter wing, tactical nuclear weapons, and the most important (strategically important) bases there, such as Ramstein and Lakenheath.

The Europeans should be told, in no uncertain terms, that they’re essentially on their own now and must start providing for their own defense; that the US will continue to provide a nuclear and missile defense umbrella for them, but they must provide for their own conventional defense and pay part of the cost of deploying US BMD systems in Europe.

In Cuba, the US should resume working towards the overthrow of the regime of the Castro brothers, and also aim to overthrow Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela and Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua.

The US also needs to revitalize its alliance with the United Kingdom, which could be repaired e.g. by recognizing Britain’s claim to the Falklands if the UK allows the US to use the Diego Garcia base in the Indian Ocean in any contingency with China or Iran. Ties with France should also be improved.

As for reshaping the US military itself, the US should move the military away from weapons and capabilities design for counterinsurgency wars and theaters, and for other theaters where the only opponents are insurgents or primitive states unable to contest control of the air. The military should instead shift quickly towards weapons and capabilities useful in highly-contested environments – where the opponents are nation states equipped with e.g. advanced fighters and air defense systems and thus able to contest control of the air.

This means setting priorities within the defense budget. Any real strategy is about setting these, and not everything can be a priority – because when everything is a priority, nothing is. A failure to set priorities would essentially be the same thing as sequestration.

This means the military should divest itself of Predator and Reaper drones, other nonstealthy drones, Littoral Combat Ships, aircraft carriers, nonstealthy fighters and bombers, nonstealthy or short-range missiles, and other unsurvivable weapons as soon as possible.

Instead, it should quickly field, in large numbers, weapons such as stealthy bombers and carrier-capable drones, stealthy long-range cruise missiles, submarines (including guided missile submarines), conventional prompt global strike weapons (such as FALCON aircraft), missile defense equipment, anti-submarine weapons (aircraft, sonar, torpedoes, ships), demining ships and equipment (including demining drones), ASAT weapons, hardened satellites, base dispersal and hardening, and cyberweapons – both defensive and offensive. That is where the vast majority of defense R&D and procurement spending should be focused.

Of course, none of those investments, and indeed, maintaining US military power in general, won’t be possible unless Congress drops its knee-jerk opposition to authorizing long overdue reforms of the military’s pay, healthcare, retirement, and other personnel programs, as well as base closure and the retirement of excess Global Hawk and C-27J aircraft. That must include increasing, at least somewhat, TRICARE program premiums for military retirees (these premius are already almost 10 times less what the average American pays in premiums) and increasing the number of years required for a military pension from 20 to 25, so that people have an incentive to stay in the military for longer, when they’re still in their prime, in their 40s or early 50s, and still able to give the nation at least 5 years of service.

The DOD has repeatedly asked Congress, year after year, for authorization of such reforms, yet Congress has repeatedly refused to do so, or to acknowledge that these costs are unsustainable. The defense authorization bill recently produced by the House Armed Services Committee continues that dishonorable trend.

This must change. Without these crucial reforms – which virtually all think-tanks across the political spectrum, from the right to the left, support – the DOD will become, within a few decades, nothing more but a benefit-administering agency. To prevent that from happening, these and other, sometimes painful, personnel program reforms and base closures, must be enacted.

Annex: How US foreign policy and defense posture should be reshaped

In the diplomatic arena, the US should:

  • Seek cordial relations with all of China’s neighbors and try to form an “Asian NATO” with them. It should include Japan, Vietnam, Indonesia, Singapore, Australia, India, Thailand, and any other willing country – as long as these countries maintain sufficient military capabilities to back the US up. South Korea should also be invited, but Seoul is currently unwilling to challenge Chinese hegemonic aspirations.
  • Reaffirm its commitment to Taiwan’s defense and sell any weapons Taiwan may need or want – including submarines, missile defense systems, and F-35 jets. Taiwan should be used as a form of pressure on China to rein in North Korea. (Likewise, the US should sell all of its other allies any weapons they may need or want.)
  • Inform South Korea that the US will, from now on, provide only a nuclear umbrella to South Korea, but not conventional defense. South Korea has twice the population and 40 times the GDP of North Korea. It is time for Seoul to take exclusive responsibility for its conventional defense.
  • Endorse India’s territorial claim to Kashmir.
  • Cancel the European Phased Adaptive Approach and recognize Kosovo as a part of Serbia if Russia, in turn, redeploys its tactical nuclear weapons to Asia, agrees to limit their number, stops violating the INF treaty, allows the US military to use Russian airspace and bases in case of America finding itself in conflict with China, and signs a firm, verifiable commitment not to sell any military equipment of any kind, nor any energy resources, to China, Iran, or Venezuela.

In terms of military deployments and America’s overseas military posture:

  • All US troops except nuclear-capable aircraft squadrons and the Ramstein wing should be withdrawn from Europe.
  • Cancel the plan to deploy 2,500 Marines in Australia. There, they will be too far from any potential hotspot. The plan to move some Marines out of Okinawa should be cancelled.
  • Disperse its units, ships, and aircraft across a larger number of bases and harden at least the most important ones. Also, the runways at Andersen AFB on Guam should be repaired.
  • Cancel the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) to missile defense, which is essentially a gift from American taxpayers to Europe. It won’t protect the US, only Europe. The Europeans should provide for their own missile defense.
  • Deploy more ships, aircraft, and military units to allied countries in the Asia-Pacific, but not deploy them within 1000 kms of China to avoid putting them in the range of China’s short-range ballistic missiles. Okinawa should be the only exception to this rule. (One ship forward-deployed abroad, e.g. in Japan, is worth four warships based in the US.)
  • Deploy missile defense systems at Guam, in the Philippines, and in Texas.
  • The SBX radar should be permanently present in the Asia-Pacific to monitor China and North Korea.
  • The US should permanently base 1-2 frigates or other surface combatants (not LCSes) in Singapore to close the Malacca Strait (and thus deny China its oil supply) in case of war with China.
  • No bombers should be permanently based at Guam, as that island is already a target for both China’s and North Korea’s ballistic missiles.
  • All US troops based within 1,800 kms of Iran should be withdrawn from such bases.

In terms of weapon inventories and programs, the US should:

  • Maintain a large nuclear deterrent (no fewer than 5,000 warheads in total, including no fewer than 1,700 operationally deployed) to discourage Japan, South Korea, and other allies from going nuclear. The US also needs to publicly acknowledge the fact that China has at least 1,600-1,800, and quite possibly up to 3,000, nuclear warheads and 3,000 miles of tunnels in which to hide them and their delivery systems.
  • Speed up the development of the Next Gen Bomber, of a stealthy UCLASS carrier-capable drone, of the F/A-XX 6th generation fighter, and of the next-gen cruise missile (which should have a range of at least 2,000 kms). Also develop an electronic warfare/jamming variant of the UCLASS drone. Build at least 200 Next Gen Bombers. Retire the B-1 bomber as soon as possible.
  • Cut the carrier fleet to 9 while significantly increasing the submarine fleet and its missile launch capacity, and increasing its cruise missile inventory. All future Virginia class subs should be fitted with the Virginia Payload Module. USN subs and surface ships should also become able of rearming at sea.
  • Zero-time and structurally strengthen all P-3 Orion ASW aircraft, procure more P-8 Poseidon ASW planes if budgets allow, and equip all surface combatants with towed array sonar. Practice ASW hunting, including against advanced subs such as those of the Gotland, Scorpene, and Type 212 classes, frequently.
  • Field laser missile defense systems and EM railguns on surface combatants ASAP.
  • Stop procuring JASSM-ER missiles.
  • Develop a next-gen long-range air to air missile and equip it with active radar, IR-guided, and passive anti-radar homing seekers.
  • Retire all nonstealthy drones, as well as Global Hawk drones and C-27J cargo aircraft.
  • Make China the highest priority for the US intel community, collect whatever information can be gathered on it by any means, and routinely conduct cyberattacks against Chinese government networks, including and especially those of the PLA.

Engaging Young Voters on Defense Issues












A study released recently by the national leaders of Young Republicans (YRNC) polled young voters on numerous issues, including defense and foreign policy. The study reports that only 17% of youngsters believe that protecting the country should be the government’s top priority; that defense is “the place to start” budget cuts; that 35% of young voters, including 45% of young independents, believe defense spending should be cut [further]; and that in general, many if not most young voters want to reduce the size and budget of the military, withdraw it from foreign countries, and entrench America behind the oceans.

Why do so many youngsters hold such mistaken views? I believe this is due to confusion, as well as Republicans’ failure to clear up that confusion and explain why America needs to stop cutting its defense budget, retain the military at no less than its current size, and generally remain involved in the world.

This article aims to explain these issues and clear up the confusion. If you are a young voter, please give me 10 minutes of your time to explain.

Firstly, why shouldn’t the US cut its defense budget further?

Because, quite simply, significant cuts would seriously weaken the US military. There are many building bricks of military strength: brave troops, good training, competent leaders, world-class equipment, force size, a steady supply of ammunition and other provisions – but other than bravery, none of this is possible to have without sufficient funding. Without an adequate budget, the military will be very weak.

An army marches on its stomach, as Napoleon said – or more precisely, on its budget. To have an adequately-sized military, quality training and care for the troops, decent base and housing infrastructure, a sufficient supply of goods, and world-class weapons in sufficient quantities, you need adequate funding.

The military is not too big; if anything, it’s too small. The Navy, with the smallest ship fleet since 1915, is able to meet only 59% of Combatant Commanders’ needs for ships; the Air Force is strained beyond hope, flying its smallest and oldest aircraft fleet (average age: over 24 years, meaning the USAF’s aircraft, on average, were produced before you were born; they’re older than the pilots flying them). The Marines are on track to shrink to 182,100 men – but if sequestration sticks, they’ll have only 145,000 – not enough for even one major operation per the USMC’s Commandnant. The military is a shadow of its former self; in the Reagan years, it ahd over 2.6 million personnel and the Navy had 600 ships.

Some question why the US spends as much as it does compared to other countries.

But in all non-Western countries, one dollar can buy several times as much as it can in the US. And in countries like China, central governments pay only for capital military expenditures like weapons development and acquisition, while basing and personnel costs are borne mostly by regional governments. Thus, China’s military budget (up to $215 bn according to the DOD) is actually worth several times that amount. In Russia, the Defense Ministry gets much of its property as “free goods” from other ministries.

Moreover, total US military spending, including Afghan war costs, are only 4.1% of America’s GDP, the lowest share of GDP going to defense since 1948 (excluding the late Clinton years). That was a time of total military demobilization. Speaking of which, history shows that everytime the US has deeply cut its military’s size and budget, it later had to rebuild the military at a high cost when a new adversary perpetrated, or threatened, aggression – after both World Wars, Korea, Vietnam, and the Cold War.










Moreover, the US has a much larger economy (the world’s largest) and the 3rd largest population, so its natural that its military budget, in raw dollars, would be larger than those of other countries. Proportionally to its economy and population ($1,990 per capita, compared to almost $2,500 per capita during the Reagan years), the defense spending burden is quite low – especially by historical standards.

Many young voters are certainly frustrated with the waste in defense (and nondefense) spending. Believe me, so am I. That is why I’ve written, over the years, the largest DOD reform proposals package ever devised by anyone. But there isn’t enough waste in the DOD budget to pay for the budget cuts being contemplated by many young citizens – or those scheduled under current law. Because, you see, under the Budget Control Act of 2011, defense spending is on course to be cut by $1 trillion over the next decade (through FY2022, $550 bn of that under a mechanism called sequestration – which, making matters worse, doesn’t distinguish between legitimate defense priorities and waste, and instead requires cuts across the entire defense budget by 10%, in missile defense as much as in DOD bureaucrats. The DOD has zero legal flexibility to distribute those cuts.


Before the sequester, the BCA had already mandated $487 bn in defense budget cuts; before that, Secretary Gates cut $178 bn in “efficiencies”; and before that, he had already killed over 50 weapon programs, including the F-22 fighter, the CG-X cruiser, and the Airborne Laser. Defense spending, in short, has already been subjected to deep, excessive cuts during President Obama’s tenure – while nondefense spending had not, prior to sequestration, faced any cuts (and even under sequestration, nondefense spending cuts will be shallow). And a full 60% of sequestration’s cuts are from defense.

Moreover, you could eliminate military spending entirely, and there still would be huge budget deficits for perpetuity. So defense spending is the wrong place to look for further cuts. It’s time for entitlements – which are exempt from sequestration – to face reductions now.


Furthermore – and most importantly – defense is the most important function of the federal government, indeed its highest Constitutional duty, as made clear by the Constitution’s Preamble and Sec. 4 of Art. IV, and by the fact that half of all enumerated powers of Congress listed in Sec. 8 of Art. I of the Constitution pertain to military matters. Defense is therefore far more important than, say, farm aid or mass transit. And that is what the Founding Fathers believed.

George Washington told Congress in 1790 that “Among the many interesting objects which will engage your attention, that of providing for the common defense will merit particular regard. (…) To be prepared for war is one of the effective means of preserving the peace.” John Adams said wisely that “National defense is one of the cardinal duties of a statesman.” James Madison asked in one of the Federalist Papers: “How could readiness for war in times of peace be safely prohibited, unless we could prohibit, in like manner, the preparations and establishments of every hostile nation?”

Some will say, “But the US should do less around the world. It should be less interventionist.”

But less is not better. More is not better, either. Only better is better.

The US, of course, shouldn’t make every conflict around the world, and every nation’s governance or security problems, its own. But in crucial parts of the world, the US needs to intervene when (and only when) its interests or its key allies are threatened. Who rules in Bosnia, Zambia, or Lesotho is irrelevant to US interests.

But when North Korea tests nuclear weapons and missiles and threatens US allies and Guam; when China bullies and threatens countries across East Asia; when Russia flies bombers close to US airspace practicing attacks on the US; when Israel’s security is threatened, the US cannot stand by; it must do something. The key is to determine what constitutes an American national interest and thus when and where to intervene, if at all; I’ve attempted to do so here. Also, if and when the US intervenes, it needs to achieve victory quickly and then go home. Prolonged wars don’t serve the national interest.

You may ask, “What about Iraq and Afghanistan, then?” I believe the invasion of Iraq and the nationbuilding campaign in Afghanistan were big mistakes. The US, like other countries, sometimes makes them. But it’s crucial not to shift to the other extreme of the position spectrum and oppose any overseas interventions completely. The right path lies in the middle; the US should sometimes intervene, but only in defense of its vital interests and allies. Historically, that has been the policy of Republican Presidents such as… Ronald Reagan and his Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger. The latter officially enshrined this policy as the Weinberger Doctrine.

Dear Young Reader, if you’ve read all of this to the end, I want to thank you – even if you don’t agree with me completely, or even in 50%. The US military needs the engagement and support of every US citizen – especially young citizens, who are the future and the hope of any nation and its armed forces.

SIPRI report (inadvertently) proves that nuclear weapons are needed


A recent Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) report, prepared by a number of strident pro-disarmament leftists led by Danish pacifist Hans M. Kristensen, complains that no nuclear power is willing to give up its nuclear arsenal and thus lead by example, but at the same time, it openly admits and even underlines the fact that no nuclear weapon state is willing to scrap its arsenal and most of them are growing and modernizing their nuclear deterrents.

The report, in fact, claims that all nuclear powers, including the US, are either deploying or planning to deploy new warheads or new delivery systems within the next decade.[1]

But it is precisely for that reason why the US, Israel, Britain, and France must NOT disarm themselves and must NOT give up or cut their nuclear arsenals.

It would be utterly foolish and suicidal for these decent representative government countries – these pillars of Western civilization – to give up their nuclear weapons, or even to cut their nuclear arsenals further, while everyone else – Russia, China, Pakistan, India, North Korea – is growing and modernizing their nuclear arsenals and their delivery systems.

It would practically mean inviting a nuclear attack on the US, Britain, France, and Israel.

Don’t even think for a moment that Vladimir Putin, North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, and China’s hawkish, anti-American generals wouldn’t do that if they could do so without facing retaliation.

Russia is building up its nuclear arsenal – and the arsenal of delivery system – and has been doing so since New START’s ratification in early 2011. Before that treaty was ratified, Russia was below its ceilings of 1,550 deployed strategic warheads and 800 delivery systems per side.

But since then, Russia has built up to New START levels, as State Department data exchanges show – and as was precisely Russia’s goal and was promised by Russian leaders, including then-Defense Minister Anatoliy Syerdyukov, who correctly told Russia’s parliament that Moscow wouldn’t have to decommission a single warhead or delivery system.

Russia, as veteran journalist Bill Gertz writes in more detail, is in the midst of a massive nuclear (and conventional) military buildup. It is currently growing its arsenal of both warheads and delivery systems. It’s currently developing several different ICBM types: a road-mobile “Yars-M” ICBM, a rail-mobile one, a heavy liquid-fueled ICBM called “the Son of Satan” (slated to replace the famous SS-18 Satan), the “Avangard”, a “pseudo-ICBM” with a 6,000 km range, and another ICBM mentioned recently by Deputy Premier Dmitry Rogozin (it might be one of those previously mentioned ICBMs).

Concurrently, Russia is developing a next-generation strategic bomber, a next-gen cruise missile for its bombers (the Kh-102) and for its submarines (the Koliber), and deploying a new class of ballistic missile subs (the Borei class) with a new type of sub-launched ballistic missiles (the Bulava, or SS-NX-30 in NATO nomenclature, with 10 warheads). It is also modernizing its already large arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons and their delivery systems (artillery pieces, Su-34 tactical strike jets, SS-26 Stone SRBMs, etc.).

Moscow is not only growing its arsenal but also becoming more aggressive as well. In the last 12 months, Russia has practiced simulated nuclear bomber strikes on US missile defense facilities five times, each time flying dangerously close to US or allied airspace, and three times flying into Air Defense Identification Zones – forcing US or allied fighters to scramble. For more, see here and here.

“Who told you that the Cold War was ever over? It transforms; it is like a virus,” said Russian KGB/FSB defector Sergei Tretyakov in an interview with FOX News in 2009.

And yet, the Left, including the SIPRI, wants America to disarm unilaterally in the face of such an aggressive Russia wielding thousands of nuclear weapons!

China has a far larger nuclear arsenal than SIPRI admits – at least 1,600, and possibly up to 3,000, nuclear warheads, not the mere 250 SIPRI claims, and enough delivery systems to deliver at least 1,274… without even counting its SRBMs or ground-lauched cruise missiles, that is. With these systems, China could deliver thousands of warheads.

China has at least 86 ICBMs (36 DF-5s, at least 30 DF-31/31As, 20 DF-4s, and an unknown number of DF-41s); 6 ballistic missile submarines with at least 12 missiles each; 440 nuclear-capable strike aircraft (H-6[2], Q-5, JH-7); and at least 100 DF-21 and DF-3 MRBMs.

So it’s utterly ridiculous for SIPRI to complain that Western nuclear powers (the US, Britain, France, Israel) are not willing to disarm themselves when Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan, and India are also not willing to disarm themselves and are GROWING, not cutting, their nuclear warhead and delivery system arsenals – and steadily modernizing them.

What is the West supposed to do? Disarm itself (or cut its arsenal) unilaterally?

Those who disarm themselves unilaterally to “lead by example”, as Obama says (and plans to do with America), will not set any example for anyone and will not be followed by anyone on the ficticious road to “Global Zero.” They will instead be attacked with nuclear weapons by a hostile power.

It’s also utterly ridiculous for SIPRI to wail that prospects for “nuclear disarmament” are bleak and that this goal is remote. Global “nuclear disarmament” is utterly unrealistic and will NEVER happen. N-E-V-E-R. The current nuclear buildups and modernization programs of Russia, China, North Korea, India, and Pakistan prove this abundantly.

It will never happen unless weapons even more powerful than nuclear arms are invented – which is unlikely and, in the best case, might only happen several decades from now.

The fact that all nuclear powers around the world, other than the US, are modernizing their arsenals or growing them – which SIPRI has openly admitted, and which SIPRI’s Hans M. Kristensen has also admitted on his blog, thus utterly disproves the Left’s claim that nuclear weapons are relics of the Cold War, that America doesn’t need them, and that it can afford to dramatically cut or even completely scrap its nuclear arsenal.

All of these Leftist blatant lies – repeated in a Goebbels-like manner by the Left for over two decades – have once again been proven to be blatant lies.

If nuclear weapons are “relics of the Cold War” and unneeded, why is everyone else around the world – Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan, India, Israel, France, Britain – growing and/or modernizing their nuclear arsenals?

Because they all know the high military and geopolitical value of nuclear weapons – and their unmatched deterrent, but also coercive, power. They know it all too well.

How can America afford to continue to cut, let alone scrap, its nuclear arsenal while Russia, China, North Korea, and Pakistan are growing theirs, and when Russia and China already have large nuclear arsenals?

It can’t.

What’s more, Russia, China, and North Korea have, since the 1990s, significantly INCREASED the role nuclear weapons play in their militaries and in their national security and defense strategies. In Russia’s and North Korea’s, nuclear weapons play the CENTRAL role, and both countries, as well as China, have reserved for themselves the “right” to attack the US with nuclear weapons preemptively. (China’s  famous “no-first-use” pledge applies only to non-nuclear states, not to the US.)

It would be utterly foolish and suicidal to disarm oneself in the face of such potential adversaries who are not only growing and modernizing their nuclear arsenals but also prioritizing their nuclear arms above all other weapons and willing to use them against America first, if they think they can get away with it without facing retaliation.

No, the US should not cut its nuclear arsenal at all, let alone scrap it. The US should NEVER disarm itself. If anything, the US ought to INCREASE its nuclear arsenal. Only that can ensure continued deterrence of Russia, China, North Korea, and Pakistan – today and well into the future. The US nuclear deterrent needs to be large enough, modern enough, survivable enough, and capable enough to provide deterrence – i.e. to be a highly credible retaliatory threat – against adversaries for decades to come. For that, stockpile expansion and a comprehensive modernization program are absolutely needed.



[1] While the US is in the early development stages of its next-gen ballistic missile submarine and bomber, these systems won’t enter service until the 2020s, a decade from now, and the development of a replacement cruise missile has been delayed by years. Also, there is no program whatsoever to develop a replacement ICBM for the obsolete, 1970s’ vintage Minuteman-III, the cheapest, most reliable, most responsive retaliatory weapon the US has. What’s more, the Obama administration is now studying plans to decommission 150 ICBMs – i.e. an entire Air Force missile wing – unilaterally!

[2] I conservatively count each of China’s 160 H-6 bombers as being capable of delivering only one warhead, even though some of these bombers – namely, those of the H-6K variant – can deliver at least 6 nuclear-tipped ICBMs over a distance of 4,400 kms. The bomber’s own combat radius is 2,200 kms, and the missile has its own additional range of another 2,200 kms.

Partners in Peace?

Whack, whack, bam, you’re in a fight for your life. You’re tired, you’ve done this before. You just want to be left alone in peace and quiet – you drop your hands, you’re done. But the other guy isn’t. He was just waiting you out.

This is Israel. Israel is tired of fighting a war in every generation. She’s done – but the Arabs are not.

Whack – “Palestinian” Prime Minister, Mahmoud Abbas, is a Holocaust denier – he even wrote his PhD dissertation about the subject. Yes, that’s our partner in peace.

Whack – Dr. Mohammad Shtayyeh, one of the “Palestinian” negotiators’ Facebook page labels the entire State of Israel as “Palestine” – not just the Gaza Strip or Judea/Samaria (the West Bank). Not so subtle messaging here.

Bam – Palestinian Minister Mahmoud al-Habbash compares any peace treaty signed with Israel to one signed by Muhammad with the Quraish tribe which he promptly broke after he was strong enough to massacre them. What’s the message here? Treaties are meant to be broken.

Whack – PM Abbas has announced that there will be no Jews allowed in any future Palestinian state. Why should there be any difference between this Arab state and any other Arab state already in existence?

Whack – Even during peace talks “Palestinian” television broadcasts hate programming against Jews and Israel.

Bam – PM Abbas regularly praises and glorifies murderers/terrorists publicly. Even as recently as July 17th he eulogized a terrorist who murdered 15 and wounded 60. Doesn’t that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?

The Israeli government is releasing 104 murderers, some serving multiple life sentences, to bribe the “Palestinians” to come back to the peace table. Doesn’t that sound counter-intuitive? These do not sound like people who want peace. Next, releasing known murderers destroys the morale of Israeli society. Why bother tracking down these terrorists if they are just going to be released in the future? And on top of that – what kind of people are “Palestinians”if they are demanding the release of murderers who have the blood of children on them?

Israel is paying a large price to show “good will” toward the “Palestinians”. What are the “Palestinians” doing in kind?

This is a drag-down, no-holds barred fight to the death. Israel cannot afford to drop her hands at any moment. We see what the “Palestinians” are about – we see their attitude toward murderers, we see their true intentions toward peace talks – clear for all to see, and we see their understanding that treaties are meant to be broken. It’s anyone’s guess why Israel is willing to try peace talks again – being tired isn’t good enough.

To see a list of the terrorists to be released and their crimes – click here.

What Would Muhammad Do?

cliff1066™ (CC)

cliff1066™ (CC)

It looks like John Kerry, our esteemed Secretary of State, is working hard to earn his money – shuttling back and forth trying to return the Israelis and “Palestinians” to peace negotiations. It would be impressive if this meant something, but I guess he needs something relatively useful to do with his time.

For negotiations to be successful, one must assume that the partner with which they are negotiating with is actually trustworthy – otherwise, the whole thing is an exercise in futility and a farce. Of course, that is what these negotiations are.

Just this week we’ve seen Israeli Arab Knesset minister Ahmed Tibi threaten another intifada (I assume with requisite bus, pizza and cafe bombings) if talks didn’t produce results – even before negotiations have resumed. How’s that for blackmail? Treason?

What is even better is what was reported yesterday. A Palestinian Authority minister compared the upcoming negotiations with Israel and assumed subsequent treaty to the peace treaty Muhammad made with the Quraish tribe – one that was disregarded by Muhammad after he became strong enough to defeat them.

[Religious Endowments Minister Mahmoud] Habbash then compared the decision of the PA leadership to negotiate with Israel to the agreement of the Prophet Muhammad on a 10-year truce with his rivals in the Quraish tribe of Mecca, known as the Treaty of Hudaibiya, reached in the year 628 CE.

“The hearts of the Prophet’s companions burnt with anger and fury … this is not disobedience [of God’s command], it is politics. It is crisis management, conflict management … in less than two years, based on this treaty, the Prophet returned and conquered Mecca. This is the example. It is the model.”

Really?! This is the model? Is this an example of negotiating in “good faith” – that treaties are meant to be broken?

There is absolutely no reason for Israel to negotiate with these “people” – especially after this revelation, it would be stupid of them to do so.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »