Category Archives: World News

Danish pacifist Hans Kristensen understates the Chinese threat again

Hans M. Kristensen, a lifelong Danish pacifist and advocate of the West’s unilateral disarmament since his earliest youth days, now an anti-nuclear hack at the FAS, seems to be bored these days. He has just penned another blogpost where he stubbornly denies and understates the Chinese nuclear threat, despite all the evidence that the threat is very grave and much more serious than he admits.

He says he has just spotted another Jin class ballistic missile submarine at the Huludao shipyard in commercial satellite imagery, and then repeats his old lies (popular among the advocates of America’s unilateral disarmament) that:

  • China has only 3-4 Jin class ballistic missile subs;
  • that they’re so noisy they’d be easy for the US Navy to detect; and
  • that their JL-2 missiles only have a 7,400 km range and cannot target the US West Coast (let alone the rest of the CONUS) unless they sail “deep into the Pacific Ocean.

All of his claims are utterly false, and have already been disproven two times here at CDN. For those who were not following CDN at the time, though, I’ll show the evidence disproving those claims once again.

Firstly, the number. According to the DOD and private websites, China already has five Jin class submarines, with a sixth one under construction. Also, despite Kristensen’s claim, the next generation of Chinese ballistic missile subs (SSBNs), the Type 096, is not merely in development, it’s already undergoing sea trials and could begin sea patrols as early as this year, according to DOD officials.

Secondly, regarding the JL-2 missile’s range, it is at least 8,000 kilometers, NOT the mere 7,400 kms that Kristensen falsely claims. The 8,000 km figure is confirmed by a wide range of sources, from GlobalSecurity to SinoDefence. As late as 2008, the DOD itself was saying the JL-2’s range was 8,000 kms, and giving maps showing it could reach half of the Continental US. See this map from the DOD’s 2008 report on the Chinese military:

PLA_ballistic_missiles_range-590x362

GlobalSecurity, in fact, says the JL-2’s range may be as much as 9,000 kms or more. Specifically, it says (emphasis mine):

“The missile is apparently roughly comparable in size and performance to the American TRIDENT C-4 long-range multiple-warhead three-stage solid fuel missile missile that is launched from submerged submarines.

The missile will reportedly carry either 3 or 4 MIRV (90kT each) or a single warhead with a yield of 250-1000 kT. Other reports suggest that each missile might be loaded with as many as six warheads.

 Most reports agree that the JL-2 will have a range of about 8,000 km, while some reports suggest that the missile will have an estimated range at least 9,000 kilometers.

But even assuming it’s a mere 7,800 kms, it could still hit Seattle and San Francisco if launched from the Sea of Japan or the Tsugaru Strait (between the Japanese islands of Hokkaido and Honshu), or from a position just east of Honshu Island, west of the 150E meridian.

There go two major US urban areas.

Los Angeles could be hit from launch positions just slightly east of the 150E meridian.

There goes America’s second-largest urban area.

easia_oceania_92_2

Note that 8,000 kms is just the range of the BASIC JL-2 variant. China is now developing, and has repeatedly tested, two newer JL-2 variants: the Jia and the Yi. The former has a range of 12,000, and the latter a range of 14,000, kilometers. This will allow Chinese submarines to strike targets anywhere in the Continental US while being in their homeports.

Thirdly, Kristensen falsely claims that the Jin class is so noisy it would easily be sunk in any war.

This is also patently false. While the Jin class is not nearly as quiet as China’s diesel-electric attack submarines, it is still quiet enough to evade detection by the USN. Why?

Because the USN sucks – especially at anti-submarine warfare, which was always been its Achilles Heel.

During WW2, the waters off the East Coast were safe hunting grounds for the German Navy’s U-boats, so much so that American leaders complained that “the Battle of the Atlantic is being lost” and had to ask the UK and Canada to provide escorts for US ships. During WW2, the USN sunk fewer than 200 German U-boats, while the British and Canadian navies sunk a total of 491.

During the Cold War, the US Navy again showed its utter incompetence and inability to seriously perform ASW missions, with American and allied submarines – even old ones, such as HMCS Okanagan – repeatedly “sinking” US surface warships in exercises, and with Soviet submarines also routinely pinging USN warships.

Matters have only gotten worse since the end of the Cold War. The SOSUS detection system is gone, the S-3 Viking carrier-based ASW aircraft has been retired without replacement, and the fleet of P-3 Orion ASW aircraft has been cut by more than half. Deliveries of the P-8 Poseidon aircraft are very slow, and very few of them are on order. Nor has the USN practiced ASW seriously since the Cold War’s end.

In fact, in the last 3 decades, everyone and their dog has been able to avoid detection by the USN. That includes the Chinese, whose Song-class diesel-electric sub secretly stalked the USS Kitty Hawk in 2006 before suddenly surfacing just 5 miles away from that carrier, in a perfect position to sink it.

For more on the USN’s total incompetence at ASW (and at naval warfare in general), see Roger Thompson, Lessons Not Learned: The Status Quo Culture of the US Navy, Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, MD, 2007, pp. 15-62.

And as the ancient Chinese general Sun Tzu wrote in his Art of War treatise:

“To secure ourselves against defeat lies within our ability, but the opportunity for victory is always provided by the enemy himself.”

Now, the Jin class is nuclear-powered, and somewhat noisier than the Song class, but the waters around Japan –  especially in the Sea of Japan – are quite congested and noisy and are a perfect environment in which Jin class SSBNs could hide.

Hiding in the open ocean – in the vast swathes of the Pacific – would, if anything, be even easier, since the area in which to look for a Jin class sub would be even larger.

And in any case, the Chinese – as stated above – are already testing their new SSBN class, the Type 096, which is much quieter than the Jin class and can carry twice as many ballistic missiles (24 vs the Jin’s 12). It is due to begin sea patrols this year, as DOD officials have stated.

On top of that, China has a new, diesel-electric ballistic missile submarine (the Type 041), which is even quieter than the Song class. It’s virtually undetectable – especially to such a second-rate navy as the USN.

Kristensen also claims – with no evidence to base his claims on – that the DOD’s assessment that the Jin class and the JL-2 will give China “its first credible and survivable at=-sea nuclear deterrent” is overoptimistic from the Chinese perspective. But it’s not, and the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission reached a similar conclusion last year:

“China’s Julang-2 (JL–2) submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) is expected to reach initial operational capability by late 2013. The JL–2, when mated with the PLA Navy’s JIN-class nuclear ballistic missile submarine (SSBN), will give China its first credible sea-based nuclear deterrent. The JIN SSBN/JL–2 weapon system will have a range of approximately 4,000 nautical miles (nm), allowing the PLA Navy to target the continental United States from China’s littoral waters. China has deployed three JIN SSBNs and probably will field two additional units by 2020. China also is developing its next generation SSBN, the Type 096, which likely will improve the range, mobility, stealth, and lethality of the PLA Navy’s nuclear deterrent.”

Now, why does Kristensen and other anti-nuclear hacks dramatically understate the Chinese nuclear threat, you may ask?

The reason is simple: to mislead the public and policymakers into accepting deep unilateral defense cuts, so that America becomes militarily inferior to and defenseless against China and Russia. This has always been Western pacifists’ goal, and many of them, including Kristensen, have been paid by the Kremlin to advocate the West’s unilateral disarmament.

Lulling the opponent into a false sense of security, and thus causing him to lower his guard, is an old military concept well understood by Sun Tzu, who taught his acolytes (in the Art of War, Chapter I, verses 18-19 and 22):

 “All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near. (…) If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant.”

America’s top military brass and political class have indeed grown arrogant, so cocksure of their imaginary superiority, not realizing China and Russia have already caught up with the US military in most respects and are now working hard on closing the few remaining gaps.

So all of Kristensen’s claims are utterly false. Jin class submarines can easily avoid detection by the USN; there are currently five of them, with a sixth under construction; they will soon be joined by newer, and much quieter, subs; and their JL-2 missiles, even in their basic variant, have more than enough range to strike the Continental US from the Sea of Japan.

Rebuttal of Tom Collina’s blatant lies about US nukes

nukeexplosion

Last week,the leftist Breaking Defense website published an utterly ridiculous screed by one of the most strident advocates of America’s unilateral nuclear disarmament, Tom Collina, the “research director” of the Arms Control Association, which advocates disarming the US unilaterally and foregoing the deployment of any missile defense systems. (The ACA is funded by several grant-awarding organizations which also advocate America’s unilateral disarmament.

In his screed, Collina makes a lot of lies, all of which, of course, are designed to smear nuclear weapons and mislead the public into supporting that treasonous goal.

Here’s his biggest lie:

“However, at a time of increasingly tight budgets, the more we spend on excess nuclear weapons the less will be available for what Ukraine and NATO need most: economic aid and conventional military assistance.”

Total garbage. Firstly, America does NOT have “excess nuclear weapons” – if anything, it has too few. Russia has a (slightly) BIGGER nuclear arsenal than the US, totalling 2,800 strategic and up to 5,700 tactical nuclear weapons. In fact, Russia has more nuclear weapons (8,500) than the US, Britain, and France combined (8,200). Sources: the Federation of American Scientists and SIPRI’s 2013 Military Balance.

Russia’s strategic nuclear arsenal alone rivals America’s in size, and is complemented by “tactical” nuclear weapons, many of which (the warheads of Russian cruise missiles) can be delivered to the US (because the aircraft and nuclear-powered submarines carrying them can travel intercontinental distances). And these warheads are NOT subject to any arms limitation treaty.

Russia’s ICBM fleet alone can deliver at least 1,684 warheads to the US; Russia’s submarine fleet, another 1,400; and Moscow’s bomber fleet (Tu-95s, Tu-22Ms, Tu-160s), another 2,000 if need be.

On top of that, the US has to deter China, North Korea, and Iran. China alone has at least 1,600 nuclear weapons and continues to build that arsenal up.

Not to mention the fact that Russia, China, NK, and Iran are threats to many but protectors to nobody, while the US has to provide a nuclear umbrella to itself and to over 30 allies around the world, many of whom will go nuclear if the US fails to provide an adequate umbrella. (Already 66% of South Koreans want to do that; meanwhile, Saudi Arabia has ordered nuclear weapons in Pakistan and DF-21 ballistic missiles in China.)

No, Mr Collina, the US nuclear arsenal is not excessive at all – if anything, it is too small.

As for economic aid, that is an obsolete, socialist idea. Ukraine needs to revive its economy by implementing free market policies, NOT begging for handouts.

“Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel warned recently that “tough, tough choices are coming” if the Pentagon is forced to make deep spending cuts, as required by law. He may slash about 30,000 soldiers and retire an aircraft carrier.”

Excuse me? Those are supposed to be “tough choices”? Are you kidding me? Reducing the active duty Army to levels roughly equal to those of 9/11 and retiring a single carrier is not tough – it’s a no-brainer. It’s like picking the low-hanging fruit. (After Hagel’s cuts, the Army will be just slightly smaller than on 9/11, and the American people will have NO appetite or stomach for any more ground wars for a long time to come.)

Aircraft carriers are hugely expensive and extremely vulnerable, and their a/c have very little range. Flattops essentially provide NO return for the huge taxpayer investment they cost. I have already submitted an article dealing with this issue to Proceedings; it awaits the Editorial Board’s review.

It would be far better for the DOD to invest seriously in the single most reliable deterrent against aggression – the US nuclear umbrella – instead of blowing money on oversized land armies and very vulnerable flattops.

“As Crimea shows, these priorities are backwards. We must not allow our increasingly important conventional military forces to be undercut by excessive investments in nuclear weapons.”

Utter garbage as well. America’s conventional forces are not being undercut by the nuclear arsenal, whose total cost (ca. $32 bn per annum) is only 6% of the total military budget (roughly $600 bn in FY2014). Even eliminating it altogether would NOT save America’s conventional forces from sequestration. Sec. Hagel is absolutely right to make the nuclear deterrent a priority for the above reasons. As for conventional forces – don’t make me laugh. The unilateral disarmament movement, of which Collina is an active member, opposes BOTH America’s conventional and nuclear forces. The US nuclear deterrent is merely their first target on their way to disarming America unilaterally.

“And we don’t have to. The United States can stay at nuclear warhead levels set by the 2010 New START treaty and still save billions over the next decade by scaling back and delaying new delivery systems.”

Utter nonsense again. Firstly, New START levels are inadequate to deter Russia and China; second, New START is a worthless and treasonous treaty obligating only the US (not Russia) to cut its arsenal while Moscow is allowed to increase its own; and thirdly, Russia has cheated on EVERY arms control treaty it has signed, INCLUDING New START, as Bill Gertz has recently revealed in the WFB.

And “scaling back and delaying new delivery systems” would be utterly suicidal and a recipe for a Russian nuclear first strike. It would mean having far fewer systems (and thus a much less survivable arsenal), and NO new systems coming online for decades – at a time when existing delivery systems are already reaching the end of their service lives! This means, in practice, complete unilateral disarmament!

The Minuteman ICBM and air-launched cruise missiles will go out of service in the 2020s. The B-52 cannot operate in anything but friendly-controlled airspace. The Ohio class will start leaving service later this decade, and even under CURRENT funding projections, there will be a big gap in the SSBN fleet, with a low of just 10 boats in the early 2020s – unless the SSBN replacement program is hastened.

The cost of replacing them is not huge and will likely be far less than the $355 bn Collina falsely claims – but delaying it any further will significantly increase the price tag.

If a superior U.S. nuclear force did not restrain Moscow from annexing Crimea, how would an even larger force stop further Russian adventurism? It would not. The paradox of nuclear weapons is that they are too destructive to be used, so both sides are “deterred” from doing so.”

These are also blatant lies. The US nuclear arsenal, as proven above, is SMALLER and OLDER than Russia’s, and it was never intended or built to deter Russia from annexing… the Crimea, where it already had almost 30,000 troops and dozens of ships anyway. It was never intended to deter Russia from invading the Ukraine, which neither the US nor the EU had any intention of defending or supporting (and Putin knew it), a country the West has kept out of NATO and the EU and has essentially left to fend for itself.

Putin knew that the West would never offer more than verbal protests and tepid sanctions if he went into Ukraine. Which is why he did that. He knew that Ukraine was outside America’s security perimeter.

The US nuclear deterrent is intended to provide security for the US itself and for its NATO and non-NATO allies (e.g. SK, Japan) – and it has been doing that successfully, without any failure, ever since its inception in 1945.

And if nuclear weapons cannot deter Putin in the Crimea or elsewhere, conventional weapons – which have far less striking and thus deterring power – cannot do that, either. Is Collina suggesting the US deploy its soldiers in the Ukraine and used in a shooting war with Russia? Does he envisage US Army BCTs taking on Russian brigades? Because if he’s not, conventional forces are utterly useless in Ukraine.

As former US Strategic Command leader Gen. Kevin Chilton has stated, conventional weapons cannot replace nuclear arms as deterrents, because the former lack the overwhelming striking (and thus deterring) power of nuclear arms.

Collina also approvingly quotes former Australian foreign minister Gareth Evans, who has falsely claimed that:

“Nuclear-weapons enthusiasts seem to have an inexhaustible appetite for bad arguments.”

In fact, Western anti-nuke activists, the advocates of the West’s unilateral disarmament, seem to have an inexhaustible appetite for bad arguments, lying, and disarming their own countries unilaterally.

And while nuclear weapons might not be useful in Ukraine, there is little the US can do there anyway (who’s suggesting putting US conventional troops there?). But building up the US nuclear arsenal and accelerating missile defense deployment in Europe would do three good things:

1) Increase US and allied security by finally providing a bigger, more adequate, and modernized deterrent;

2) Finally showing strength to Russia after many years of appeasement and unilateral disarmament – which is what emboldened Russia to take one aggressive action after another, culminating in the invasion of Ukraine; and

3) Be a huge geopolitical, diplomatic, and prestige defeat for Russia, which strongly opposes both. It’s time to stop giving Russia what it wants. It would mean Russia has finally lost the veto on US and NATO security matters that Obama gave Moscow in 2009 by cancelling GBI missile defense deployment in Europe. Russia (and other aggressors and bullies) only understand the language of force, and they respect only those who are stronger than them. To deter Russia and have a better negotiating position vis-a-vis Moscow, the US needs to have stronger nuclear AND conventional forces.

BreakingDefense itself approvingly published Collina’s screed and falsely called him:

“Tom Collina, a respected expert in nuclear weapons and arms control…”

Balderdash. Collina is not a “respected expert” on anything, ESPECIALLY not nuclear weapons and arms control. He’s an ignoramus and an ideological advocate of America’s unilateral disarmament. Calling him an expert is an insult to every real expert out there. Being a longtime anti-nuclear activist does not make one an expert. And while I would not call myself one, I know far more about nuclear weapons than he ever will.

Shame on him for lying so blatantly and advocating America’s unilateral disarmament, and shame on BD for publishing his utterly ridiculous screed.

Stop Maligning the Export-Import Bank. America Needs It.

Recently, pseudoconservative Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) and a few of his Congressional chums, along with the neoconservative Heritage Foundation, have resumed their utterly misguided and dishonest propaganda campaign against the Export-Import Bank, maligning it with a litany of lies. Furthermore, because the Bank’s 2-year operating authorization is set to expire soon, Lee and his fellow pseudoconservative Congressional pals seek to kill the Bank, as does the Heritage Foundation and its lobbying outfit, Heritage Action.

They falsely claim that the Bank hands money out to “politically connected” businesses, skews free markets, and exposes taxpayers to unnecessary loan risk. They falsely claim that over 80% of its loans go to huge corporations like Boeing and General Electric. They malign the Bank as a “crony capitalist” agency.

All of their claims are utterly false, however. In this article, I will correct the record.

The Facts About The Export-Import Bank

Here are THE FACTS about the Export-Import Bank:

  • It does NOT receive any funding from the taxpayers and does not cost them a single cent. In fact, thanks to its interest rates, it returns a profit to taxpayers every year – to the tune of $1 bn last year.
  • It does NOT provide any subsidies to anyone. It only provides LOANS to businesses – which have to be (and are always) fully paid back with interest.
  • Over 90% of its loans are provided to SMALL BUSINESSES, NOT big companies like Boeing and GE.
  • It is NOT a crony capitalist agency, because crony capitalism is the act of providing handouts to those individuals or businesses who are politically connected or sympathetic to a sitting government. The Ex-Im bank provides loans without regard to businesses’ and their owners’ political sympathies or contributions.
  • It is absolutely necessary to help American companies level the playing field on the global market, which is heavily skewed towards foreign competitors who are lavishly subsidized (not merely provided with loans, but outright subsidized) by their national governments. Foreign countries always have (and will, for the foreseeable future) lavishly support their manufacturers, especially in key industry sectors. The only choice for the US is to either do the same or stop aiding its exporters and thus lose its industry entirely over time.
  • Big companies, such as Boeing and General Electric, receive only a small portion of the Export-Import Bank’s loans.
  • Ex-Im has NEVER loaned any money to Solyndra, despite Heritage Action’s utterly false claims.

Ignoring these facts, Sen. Mike Lee nonetheless presses for the Export-Import Bank’s deauthorization and has recently declared in the National Review that “whether the Export-Import Bank provides loans to respected, successful companies like Boeing or failed companies like Solyndra is irrelevant.”

Excuse me? Whom it provides loans to is irrelevant?

Are you on drugs, Sen. Lee?

It matters a lot!

Whom the Bank loans money to matters, because it determines whether the loan is likely to be paid back with interest or not. In the last 27 years, it has always been in all cases.

Sen. Lee protests that it’s irrelevant because loaning money to private companies – even to American exporters – supposedly skews the free market and violates conservative principles.

But as I will demonstrate, this is utter gibberish.

Economic Nationalism Leads To Prosperity, Free Trade To Economic Decline

Supporting American exporters – especially with loans rather than subsidies – does NOT skew free markets and is NOT a violation of conservative principles.

Globally, there are NO free markets – the global marketplace is already heavily skewed… in favor of America’s and American companies’ competitors, that is.

Virtually all major traders around the world, except the US, protect their industry with subsidies, loans, protective tariffs, and in many cases (e.g. China), currency manipulation.

China, India, Japan, Russia, Germany, France, Mexico, Canada – all of them, and many other countries around the world, protect, nurture, and generously aid their industries, especially exporting companies.

The US and the UK are the only major traders in the world who don’t do so and instead indulge in “free trade” fantasies.

It is therefore no surprise that the US has huge trade deficits with almost every other country around the world: with Italy and Ireland, $20 bn annually each; with Germany, over $30 bn annually; with Mexico, over $60 bn per year; with South Korea, $25 bn per year (it has tripled since the ratification of the KORUS free trade agreement).

America’s trade deficit with Japan is the largest America has ever had with Nippon.

America’s trade deficit with China last year was the largest ever recorded in human history between any two countries, at over $300 bn! Not just the largest between the US and China, but the largest trade deficit ever recorded between any two countries!

Such are the disastrous results of suicidal “free trade” policies that the GOP and the Heritage Foundation have promoted for decades.

These folks, including Sen. Mike Lee, are obviously ignorant of the fact that EVERY country which ever became an economic power did so by protecting and supporting its industrial base, especially exporters: England under the Acts of Navigation, Britain until the mid-19th century, France under Jean-Baptiste Colbert and Napoleon, Prussia under the Customs Union, Germany since the 19th century, Japan since the Meiji era, America from the 1790s to the 1960s, China today.

NO country has ever become an economic power, or generated prosperity, by indulging in free trade fantasies. Free trade is only for dupes and idiots.

America’s own history is instructive here. The US used to be, economically, a totally independent country and THE world’s factory of all sorts of goods. Today, it has been largely deindustrialized and is dependent on China for the necessities of life – thanks to suicidal “free trade” policies.

From the Founding Fathers’ era until the 1960s, the US followed the Founding Fathers’ economic preceipts: Manufacturing, not finance or services, is the nation’s economic muscle. Trade surpluses are preferrable to trade deficits. Exports are preferrable to imports. To protect the economy and Americans’ jobs, the US industrial base must be protected by any means necessary. “Made in the USA” should always be preferred.

It is no coincidence that all four Presidents who made it to Mount Rushmore were protectionists.

“Thank God I’m not a free trader”, President Teddy Roosevelt remarked once.

But starting in the 1960s, America began to unilaterally open up its huge market to foreign companies without obtaining reciprocation from foreign countries.

Thus became the deindustrialization, and the unilateral economic disarmament, of America.

And even though it was a Democratic-controlled Congress who passed, and a Democrat President (JFK) who signed, the Trade Promotion Act, it is Republicans who have led the way in this unilateral economic disarmament.

And, predictably, it has proved just as disastrous for America’s well-being as the Democrats’ campaign to unilaterally disarm America militarily.

Indeed, America now has two pro-unilateral-disarmament parties: the Democratic and Republican Parties.

The Democrats, led by Harry Reid and Edward Markey, want to unilaterally disarm America militarily. Republicans, led by Sen. Mike Lee, want to unilaterally disarm America economically.

America has now fewer than 25% of the nuclear arsenal she had in 1991, at the Cold War’s end, and one of its last protections for the US industry is the Export-Import Bank. If that is terminated, the US industrial base is likely to go the way American civilian shipbuilders went after the Reagan Administration cut off aid to them: out of business.

 

Rebuttal of arms control advocates’ lies about New START implementation

nukeexplosion

Yesterday, the DOD announced it would continue to slavishly adhere to the treasonous New START unilateral disarmament treaty signed by Barack Obama four years ago, even despite Russia’s ongoing, rapid nuclear buildup and its illegal invasion and occupation of the Crimea.

In order to implement the treaty – which requires only the US, not Russia, to cut its nuclear arsenal – the DOD will eliminate 50 ICBMs, disable four launch tubes on each ballistic missile submarine and disable the nuclear weapon carrying ability on 30 of the USAF’s 66 B-52 bombers, rendering them only nuclear-capable. Thus, the USAF will have only 56 nuclear-capable bombers: the remaining 35 B-52s plus 20 B-2s, while Russia has 251 nuclear-capable Tu-95, Tu-160, and Tu-22M strategic bombers.

Yet, non-governmental disarmament advocates are not satisfied with these unilateral cuts and have called on the Obama administration to cut the US nuclear arsenal much deeper – and unilaterally – even as Russia, China, and North Korea are all rapidly building up and modernizing their nuclear arsenals, and as Iran is racing to reach nuclear weapon capability.

To justify such dramatic unilateral cuts, they falsely claim that a) the US has more nuclear weapons than it needs, and b) disarming oneself makes one safer – both lies that have already been refuted here on CDN many times.

The Arms Control Association’s executive director, Daryl G. Kimball, falsely claims that the Obama administration’s implementation of New START “is modest in the extreme and still leaves the US with far more nuclear weapons than the President and the Pentagon say they need for nuclear deterrence.”

FAS blogger and Danish pro-unilateral-disarmament activist Hans M. Kristensen, who has campaigned for the West’s unilateral disarmament, falsely claims that the Obama administration, in deciding to keep 450 ICBM siloes and not making deeper cuts, “was not driven by national security concerns” – as if disarming oneself unilaterally could make one more secure!

All of their claims are utterly false. Disarmament only makes a country LESS secure, and America does NOT have more nuclear weapons than she needs for deterrence; in fact, the US barely has enough of them. This is because Russia and China wield large nuclear arsenals, while North Korea is growing its and Iran is racing to build one.

Putin’s Huge Nuclear Buildup

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.

The Dragon’s Huge Nuclear Teeth

China also has a large nuclear arsenal. How large, exactly? Retired Chief of Staff of Russia’s Strategic Missile Troops, General Viktor Yesin, based on Russian intel data, estimates it at 1,600-1,800 nuclear warheads and enough fissile material for another 1,800 warheads.

China’s delivery systems arsenal currently consists of:

  •  24-36 DF-5 ICBMs and an unknown number of DF-41 ICBMs capable of carrying 10 warheads each;
  • over 30 DF-31/31A ICBMs capable of carrying 4 warheads per missile;
  • 20 DF-4 ICBMs;
  • 120 DF-3 and DF-21 medium-range ballistic missiles, now being joined by the DF-25 and the DF-26;
  • over 1,600 DF-11, DF-15, and DF-16 short-range ballistic missiles, the vast majority of them stationed opposite Taiwan;
  • 440 nuclear-capable bombers and strike aircraft (H-6, Q-5, JH-7), each armed with a nuclear freefall bomb and many H-6K bombers being armed with air-launched CJ-10 and CJ-20 cruise missiles; and
  • 6 ballistic missile submarines (1 Xia class, 5 Jin class), capable of carrying 12-16 missiles each (JL-2 missiles in the Jin class’s case, each carrying 4 warheads); a new class of ballistic subs, however, the Type 096 Tang class, is due to begin strategic patrols this year, armed with 24 JL-2 missiles.

Of course, like Russia, China is now rapidly expanding and modernizing its nuclear arsenal. It is building additional ICBMs, shorter-ranged missiles, ballistic missile submarines, and strike aircraft. It is also:

  • Developing nuclear-capable hypersonic missiles;
  • Modifying more H-6 bombers to carry nuclear-armed cruise missiles;
  • Developing new, longer-ranged variants of the JL-2 submarine-launched missile that will be able to carry 12 warheads over a distance of 14,000 kms; and
  • Developing a nuclear-capable stealthy intercontinental bomber.

Yet, in the face of this huge nuclear buildup by both Russia and China, arms control advocates like Kimball and Kristensen continue to falsely claim America has more nuclear weapons than needed for nuclear deterrence – and leftist press agencies like Reuters and AP uncritically print their blatant lies!

The American people, and members of Congress, must not buy their blatant lies. No, America does not have more nuclear weapons than necessary for nuclear deterrence; it barely has enough. As Russia and China increase their nuclear arsenals, America will have to do the same if it wishes to be secure.

For it is military strength, not weakness, that guarantees peace and security, contrary to Kristensen’s and the ACA’s blatant lies.

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.

Ukraine Sanctions With Teeth Instead of Gums Are Still Possible

Putin-laughing-at-serious-steps-memeFor a very brief moment it looked like the White House and I were finally going to be in agreement on the topic of misrule in the United States. Obama’s White House Press Office released a statement with harsh criticism of government actions that threaten “peace, security, stability, sovereignty, and territorial integrity; and contribute to the misappropriation of its assets.”

It appeared the president had seen the light and was finally going to stop his abuse of office and his promiscuous use of executive orders. But then I read further and saw he was talking about Vladimir Putin and his beachfront trespassing in the Crimea. I thought Obama likes trespassers. Could it be that Putin rejected his offer of in–state tuition?

Of course there are differences between the strongman’s approach and that of the girlyman. Putin’s misrule is designed to advance the interests of Russian nationalism, while Obama appears content to undermine US standing and interests in the world.

With the result that Russian oligarchs will soon have prime sites for expansive vacation homes within the border of a newly expanded Russia. While our leaders launch deadly cutting remarks that include “wrong side of history” and “19th century thinking” mimicking Harvard faculty lounge habitués criticizing the NFL 1st round draft choice that gets the millions and the girl.

I know this criticism is not entirely fair. The Obama administration has decided to impose sanctions on Russia. Out of a current population of 141,924,000, the Obama administration has singled out seven (that’s right, seven) for punishment. The original intent of White House strategists was to just single out a certain percentage of cells in each of the seven individual’s body for pinpoint sanctions — gas pains, lumbago, toenail fungus, impotence — but the surgeon general informed the White House that either those maladies took to long to manifest or present technology didn’t support the goal.

Instead the administration opted for financial sanctions that make it harder for the Moscow 7 to gain access to any funds they have deposited in Western banks. The Washington Post described the strategy as an attempt “to see whether a symbolic first gesture would be sufficient to give Putin pause….” sorta like the famous “red line” in Syria.

Like much of Obama’s strategy, whether in health care or the economy, this gambit backfired. The Russian stock market went up after the announcement, instead of going down.

But that doesn’t mean the great minds in this administration are going to give up. Much like Robert McNamara carefully calibrating just the right amount of ordinance necessary to bring North Vietnam to its knees, Obama’s financial calibrations have room for expansion.

An administration insider has leaked a plan that will escalate the impact of the next round of sanctions to an almost superhuman level of intensity, while expanding the reach of inconvenience for the Russian Revanchists beyond just the financial realm.

None of the Seven are now allowed to make wire transfers withdrawing their funds from Western banks, but after the sanctions are escalated, they will be limited to a maximum ATM withdrawal of $40 per day AND the Coinstar machine will be completely off limits.

If any of the sanctioned try to travel to the US it’s also No More Mr. Nice Guy. The TSA’s expedited ‘Pre’ lane will be off limits. The Crimean Criminals will be assigned to the rubber gloves and high–school–field trips line for the foreseeable future and they will always be relegated to the last boarding group regardless of their frequent flyer status.

Assuming the Seven can’t take a hint and come to DC in spite of Obama’s disdain, anytime they attempt to use the Uber app to arrange transportation it will result in a fast busy signal, forcing them to use DC taxis. Even worse their lodgings will be in hotels built by Sochi Olympics construction firms.

Since unrepentant aggressors like these will no doubt try to bypass this sanction, even if they rent a car both the GPS device and their E–ZPass transponder will be jammed by NSA, meaning that even if they can find a toll road, they will be forced to use the exact change booth.

And finally, to show Obama really means business, if any of these Russian Reprobates have more than 15 items in their cart when shopping, they will be ejected from the express lane.

There’s also a role in this for Vice President ‘Uncle Joe’ Biden — a nickname freighted with meaning for Russians. Proving irony isn’t dead in this administration, Biden will be visiting many of the Western nations were Obama earlier canceled plans to install anti–missile batteries after Putin objected.

While looking due East, Uncle Joe will advise these buffer states to buy shotguns and if they see any Russian troops playing footsie with their borders, go out on the balcony, point the muzzle skyward and fire a couple of rounds to scare the bear away.

Shame On You! What’s Your Consumption Factor?

It is interesting how wealthy liberals are continually blaming the American middle class for global warming, terrorism, and pretty much all of the world’s problems.

Simply put, it is all your fault.

Our Consumption Factor Imperils Us All

“People in the third world are aware of this difference in per capita consumption, although most of them couldn’t specify that it’s by a factor of 32. When they believe their chances of catching up to be hopeless, they sometimes get frustrated and angry, and some become terrorists, or tolerate or support terrorists…The only way out is to make consumption rates and living standards more equal around the world. We could have a stable outcome in which all countries converge on consumption rates considerably below the current highest levels.”

 

And if the guilt and emotional blackmail over the melting glaciers and shrinking polar bear genitalia wasn’t enough, now the fact that not all of the world shares our lifestyle (or conversely, we are not as poverty stricken as they are) is cause for serious self-examination and self-blame.  I don’t think I can bear it. After staggering under the “white man’s burden” for 2,000 years of colonization and exploitation of those of a darker hue, now I must shoulder the burden for causing Islamic terrorism and the devastating changes to our planet that will quickly lead to the extinction of the human race.

All because my children have clean water to drink and live in a heated home while their father drives a vehicle to work and buys his socks, toothpaste and corn flakes at a big box store. Even worse is the fact that their mother washes their clothes in a machine instead of scrubbing them clean on the rocks in the river and has the audacity to make them pop tarts once in awhile.

For that, we are to blame for the impoverishment of Kenyans, the envy of those less fortunate, the actions of fanatical suicide bombers, and the waste and consumption of the world’s resources by those seeking to attain the lifestyle of the average American.

Yet such hand wringing and finger pointing essays never mention the percentage of the world’s wealth, innovation, food, and scientific and medical advances that should be rightly credited to those greedy consumers of natural resources and unfair users of electricity and air conditioning. If it wasn’t for the technological and medical breakthroughs originating in the West, there would be far fewer than 30 million Kenyans. Consumption is directly related to productivity. Those who don’t produce, don’t consume.

The “solutions” offered to solve this grave problem of Western over-consumption is always little more than authoritarian socialism and forced reallocation of wealth. It may be disguised as higher fuel taxes, carbon taxes, and luxury or consumption taxes or be little more than manipulation of regulations to control or inhibit industry, refineries, manufacturing and drilling under the guise of environmentalism. But the overall goal to sharply reduce the lifestyle of the average American (and Westerner) has been laid out in clear and unapologetic terms by globalists and the liberal elite. It used to be that the goal was to raise the lifestyle and condition of the impoverished and disadvantaged. That seems to be no longer the case.

The wealthy West as spent countless billions in an attempt to improve the condition of other peoples, with very little gratitude to show for it. And now the focus has shifted away from helping those unfortunates have access to clean water, rudimentary medical care, or not be butchered or starved for political purposes, but towards attacking those in the West for daring to have a computer to blog with while corrupt governments continue to allow their citizens to dwell in dirty, crime ridden shantytowns.

So, with my eyes newly opened to the plight of those other dwellers of planet earth, I decided to take stock of what I now feel guilty for having or providing for myself, my spouse, and my three daughters. This is by no means an exhaustive list.

  • Electricity for lighting my home and powering appliances (my Christmas lights were definitely unnecessary).
  • Running water
  • Refrigerator and deep freeze for preserving food for later use.
  • Washer and dryer
  • DVD players
  • Stereo.
  • A couple of computers.
  • Multiple TV’s
  • Toaster
  • Dishwasher
  • Stove
  • Microwave
  • Hot water heater
  • Two cars. (My wife and I both have to get to work)
  • Store bought clothes made from synthetic fibers, undoubtedly manufactured by oppressed peoples in Sri Lanka, Mexico, or China.
  • And I won’t even begin to detail the unnecessary trips for a big gulp, a burger and fries, or those wasteful stops at the dollar store.

My wife and I have worked very hard to achieve a semblance of a middle class lifestyle and to provide a decent and comfortable standard of living, education, and medical attention for ourselves and our children. I refuse to feel guilty for managing to own a toaster or for watching a football game once in awhile. Yet that is what we are, in effect, told to feel.

There are far greater solutions for helping to alleviate the all too true sufferings of far too great a number of the world’s population. For starters, the formation of governments that are not unbelievably corrupt, inefficient, brutal, exploitative, and backwards would be a start. The reevaluation of foreign aid (by the evil West) including who it is distributed to and what it is used to purchase, should be completely overhauled. Innovation will go a long ways in bringing in everything from tourist dollars to foreign investment.

Responsible stewardship of funds, natural resources, and the elimination of corruption would do far more to improve the lot of the third world than any policies fueled by guilt or jealousy of the lifestyle and modern technological advances we have managed to achieve in the First World.

Only the village idiots truly believe that if an American didn’t buy a television it would help a Kenyan, or that by not purchasing some DVDs he would help ease the driving envy of the Chinese or defuse the potential jihadist. The agenda is now far less about helping the rest than just about tearing down the West.

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!

« Older Entries Recent Entries »