Tag Archives: Pakistan

Refusal to Answer

FOIA MA State Police Letter2

The official Massachusetts State Police statement on the 5 men and 2 women arrested for trespassing near the largest man-made water reservoir in the U.S. just days after the Boston Marathon bombings is “no comment,” but that’s not the end of the story.

Publicly, MSP cannot legally release the names or other information about the 7 individuals because they haven’t been officially charged with any crimes, despite the state police department’s efforts to reverse that decision by a magistrate judge from the East Hampshire District Court which serves Belchertown, MA where the reservoir is located.

Clerk Randal Smith would not release the date of the judicial review of the clerk’s decision, citing statutes that require information be withheld from the public until a complaint is filed. Radio host and blogger Michael Graham has a bit more information, as provided by MSP Spokesperson David Procopio:

“In summary, the Quabbin case has not advanced at the Belchertown District Court since the original MSP appeal in May. At that time, the Assistant Clerk Magistrate determined that there was probable cause, yet ruled that no complaint would be filed. Subsequent to that finding, because we believe the complaint should issue so that there is a record of a charge against these individuals, we requested judicial review of the clerk’s decision (basically asking that a judge at the court review the case and issue the complaints).

We think it is important to create a record within the judicial system that the individuals were observed trespassing at a critical infrastructure site at an odd hour (around midnight or so) and gave the stated reason that they had professional and academic interest in engineering and wanted to observe the water storage structure.

Since that time, we have made periodic inquires to the court to determine the status of the case. After receiving your inquiry, we made inquiry of the court again today. Today’s inquiry resulted in the court telling us that the case will be heard by the Belchertown District Court Justice on either September 25th or October 2nd. When the appeal is heard, the Justice may make a summary finding or take it under consideration for a future finding.”

Perhaps the intense confidentiality and confusion related to the MSP complaint and any information on the individuals involved can be explained by the “on-going criminal matter” as described in the Freedom of Information Act request response from the Office of Chief Legal Counsel for the Massachusetts State Police. See page 2 of the response below.
FOIA MA State Police Letter 1

Major media outlets have largely ignored any follow-up on this story, originally reported at CDN in May 2013. Shortly after the trespassing incident, padlocks were cut at an aqueduct in the area that provides drinking water for the greater Boston area.
_____________________________________________________
To see the early coverage of the trespassing incident, click here:

Questions Remain After 7 Arrested For Trespassing

Massachusetts State Police Unhappy With Clerk Decision
_____________________________________________________

Follow me on Twitter!

Nuclear deterrent cuts: wrong in the 90s, wrong today

71153.204510672745_09f77c4c23

The Left never ceases trying to make America weaker and less secure. Their biggest target right now is America’s nuclear deterrent – the country’s only defense against WMD attack, the only weapon system that has proven itself to always work, the only deterrent that has never failed and has kept America and its allies secure for 67 years (and counting), the most effective nonproliferation program ever invented, which discourages allies from developing their own nuclear weapons by reassuring them with an American nuclear umbrella.

Yet, the Left now wants to dismantle that crucial deterrent and thus disarm America unilaterally. This would be very dangerous and foolish. The deep unilateral cuts made by President Bush I between 1989 and 1993 are sometimes invoked as cuts that supposedly were “a good thing” and an example are emulate.

But the Left is wrong on that one as well. Those unilateral cuts of the Bush administration were also wrong.

The elder President Bush slashed the total nuclear stockpile by 50%, signed two START treaties (in 1991 and 1993), killed B-2 stealthy bomber production at just 21 aircraft, killed Midgetman small ICBM and air-launched cruise missile production, and completely stopped the development, production, upgrades, and testing of nuclear warheads. What were, and are, the results?

China has, since then, dramatically increased its nuclear arsenal – to between 1,600 and 3,000 nuclear warheads, according to General Viktor Yesin (a former Russian strategic missile force chief of staff) and Georgetown Professor Philip Karber, respectively. (Professor Karber was the DOD’s chief nuclear strategist under the Reagan Administration.)  It has also produced enough fissile material for 3,600 nuclear warheads (Yesin says half of it has been used so far) and built 3,000 miles of tunnels and bunkers for its nuclear warheads and their delivery missiles). It has also modernized all three legs of its nuclear triad – the submarines, ICBMs, and bombers.

Russia initially cut its nuclear arsenal within the old START treaty framework, but since President Putin came to power, it has begun rebuilding it, and the New START treaty allows it to. START data exchanges show that Russia has significantly increased its nuclear arsenal since New START’s ratification by the US – exactly as Russian leaders said they would.

And throughout the 1990s and 2000s, Russia has been steadily modernizing its nuclear arsenal, especially the ICBM leg, but also the bomber and submarine legs of its nuclear triad. A new class of SSBNs has entered service, the modern Tu-160 Blackjack bomber is in production from stockpiled parts, Moscow is now developing a new bomber, and throughout that time, new ICBM types have been introduced in large numbers – the Topol, Topol-M, Yars, and now Yars-M.

Also, since 1991, India and Israel have significantly increased their nuclear arsenals, and two new states hostile to the US have joined the nuclear club: Pakistan in 1998 and North Korea in 2006. Iran, meanwhile, has made great progress towards nuclear weapons acquisition.

If the goal of Bush’s nuclear arsenal cuts was to convince others to do the same and rogue states to stop pursuing nuclear weapons, his policy is utterly failed – as it was always doomed to, because that is what always happens when the US nuclear deterrent is cut.

Another disastrous consequence of Bush’s foolish nuclear policies was the degradation of America’s nuclear weapons complex: the facilities, dating back to the Manhattan Project days, are now utterly dilapidated and require an urgent, complete renovation. Renovation that has been constantly delayed by successive administrations, including the Obama administration.

Yet another disastrous consequence of Bush’s stupidities has been the progressing obsolence of the nuclear warheads themselves and their delivery systems. Because no new warheads have been produced or tested since 1992, we don’t know if they’re reliable, and existing warheads require service life extensions. As for delivery systems, the majority of them are obsolete and nonstealthy and overdue for replacement.

The Air Force has already foolishly dismantled all of its stealthy cruise missiles and the contract to BEGIN developing new ones won’t be awarded until FY2015. The Air Force’s newest ICBMs, Minutemen-III, were deployed in 1976. (President Reagan deployed the more powerful Peacekeeper missile in 1986, but the elder Bush killed its production and the younger Bush dismantled all of the Peacekeepers the US had already produced. Russia, of course, did not reciprocate and actually increased ICBM production. The USAF, meanwhile, won’t get any new ICBMs until 2030 – if ever.)

Bush also killed B-2 stealthy bomber production at just 21 aircraft, instead of the 132 originally planned, thus causing the unit cost to shoot up dramatically, to 2 bn dollars per copy (including development and testing costs) because economies of scale were lost. Had the 132 originally planned B-2s been built, each of them would’ve cost no more than a B747.

As a result, the USAF now has only 20 bombers capable of penetrating anything better than primitive Soviet air defense systems – only 20 capable of defeating advanced Russian and Chinese air defense systems like the S-300, S-400, HQ-9, HQ-12, and HQ-16, and upgraded Soviet systems like the SA-11/17. 20 stealthy bombers is not even close to enough. As a result, in 1996, during that year’s crisis with Iraq, US commanders in the Middle East had fewer than 20 stealthy bombers available to deal with Iraq – proving that 20 B-2s were not enough, as Gen. Chuck Horner observed.

Carrier-based aircraft were not and aren’t stealthy, and short-range stealthy strike jets couldn’t take off because US allies in the region forbade the US to use their bases and airspace in 1996.

And now, because Bush killed the B-2 at 21 aircraft, and because the next generation bomber program has been repeatedly and inexplicably delayed, the USAF will not get a new bomber until the mid-2020s – and that’s assuming that the Democrats don’t kill the next gen bomber program, as they have repeatedly tried to.

Bush’s unilateral nuclear cuts and utter neglect of the nuclear weapons complex also resulted in thousands of highly-educated, highly-skilled nuclear scientists leaving government service and joining the private sector or retiring without being replaced. The nuclear weapons complex today suffers as much from a brain drain and personnel shortage as from obsolence. And you can thank the two Bushes, as well as Clinton and Obama, for that.

Also, Bush unilaterally withdrew US tactical nukes from South Korea and from surface warships. Did anyone reciprocate? No. North Korea has, since then, developed, deployed, and tested nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles of all ranges, while Russia continues to keep numerous nuclear weapons in various forms on its surface warships and submarines.

Those are the disastrous consequnces of the elder Bush’s deep unilateral cuts in America’s nuclear deterrent. And these consequences still bedevil us today.

Yet, despite that, the Democrats and other proponents of America’s unilateral disarmament falsely claim that this “was a good thing” and that the US should continue to cut its arsenal further and unilaterally.

They want to cancel long overdue facility and warhead refurbishment programs; long overdue bomber, cruise missile, and submarine replacement programs; and cut America’s existing arsenal deeply and unilaterally, below 1,000 or even below 800 (according to Rep. Jim Cooper) warheads – at least twice less than what China has.

They want to disarm America unilaterally at a time when – as even the pacifist Stockholm Institute for Peace Research Studies (SIPRI) and Danish pacifist Hans M. Kristensen admit – everyone else is modernizing and/or growing their nuclear arsenals.

Indeed, America’s adversaries – Russia, China, and North Korea – are all growing and modernizing their arsenals.

Russia’s and China’s nuclear arsenals, militaries, and base infrastructure are so large and so reduntant and disperses that the US needs thousands, not mere hundreds, of nuclear warheads to deter them – especially to deter both of them. And both of them will have the ability to reduce the US arsenal in a preemptive first strike, if it’s cut as deeply as the Dems’ and their pacifist bankrollers like the Council for a Livable World want to.

Russia is in the midst of the largest nuclear buildup since the Soviet times. Russia has 2,800 strategic and up to 4,000 tactical nuclear warheads, deployed and nondeployed. It has 434 ICBMs *most of them multiple/warhead/armed), 251 strategic bombers (each carrying up to 6 nuclear cruise missiles and many also carrying a nuclear freefall bomb), and 14 ballistic missile subs with 16-20 missiles each, and 4-12 warheads per missile, depending on its type (Sinyeva missiles carry only 4 warheads; Liner missiles carry 12). Russian boomer subs can launch their missiles while being homeported.

Russia’s tactical nuclear arsenal is even larger. It consists of up to 4,000 warheads in various forms: nuclear depth charges, nuclear bombs, warheads for short-range missiles, nuclear artillery shells, etc. Russia can deliver them by many means: surface warships, submarines, cruise missiles, artillery pieces, SRBMs, etc.

What’s more, Russia and China are GROWING, not shrinking, their nuclear arsenals. Russia has been doing so since New START ratification – as allowed to do so by that one-sided treaty, which requires cuts only in the US arsenal. Russia is adding warheads as well as delivery systems. It has resumed Tu-160 bomber production from stockpiled parts.

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

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

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

China also has a large arsenal – contrary to the false claims of pacifist groups. It has at least 1,800, and up to 3,000, nuclear warheads according to General Viktor Yesin (former Russian missile force chief of staff) and Professor Philip Karber, respectively. It has recently built 3,000 miles of tunnels and bunkers for its nuclear missiles and warheads. You don’t build such a vast network for only a few hundred warheads.

China currently has 86ICBMs (20 DF-4s, 36 DF-5s, at least 30 DF-31/31As, and at least one DF-41), over 1,600 SRBMs, hundreds of ground-launched cruise missiles, at least 100 MRBMs (DF-21s and DF-3s), 6 ballistic missile submarines (5 Jin class, 1 Xia class, with at least 12 nuclear-armed missiles per boat), and 440 nuclear-capable aircraft (H-6, Q-5, JH-7).

Both Russia and China are also rapidly modernizing their entire arsenals of warheads and delivery systems. Russia is developing or producing several new ICBM types: the Yars silo-based and Yars-M road-mobile ICBM, a rail-mobile ICBM, the “Avangard” ICBM (little is known about it), the “Son of Satan” ICBM intended to replace the SS-18 Satan heavy ICBM, a “pseudo-ICBM” with a 6,000 km range, and another ICBM recently mentioned by Russian Deputy PM Dmitry Rogozin.

Russia is also developing a next-generation bomber and has recently fielded the Kalibr sub-launched cruise missile, the Kh-102 air-launched cruise missile, new warheads, and the Su-34 attack aircraft.

China is also modernizing by fielding new ICBMs (DF-31As, DF-41s), a new air-launched cruise missile (CJ-20), the new Jin class of SSBNs, improved variants of the JL-2 sub-launched ballistic missile with a 12,000 km range, and a sub-launched cruise missile. It’s also developing a new class of SSBNs (follow-on to the Jin class) and has ordered 36 Tu-22M bombers. Concurrently, both China and Russia are also developing missile defenses.

Moscow and Beijing aren’t the only nuclear threats to America, though. North Korea has 8-12 nuclear warheads, ICBMs capable of reaching the US, and – through its successful satellite test conducted last December – demonstrated capability to mate nuclear payloads to missiles, confirmed by the DIA and by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. North Korea has, since the last crisis, announced it will GROW, not give up, its nuclear arsenal – and has recently test-fired several SRBMs again. Meanwhile, Iran is racing towards nuclear weapons.

And yet, the Dems want America to dramatically and unilaterally cut America’s nuclear deterrent in the face of all of these nuclear threats! What’s more, they lie that cutting America’s deterrent unilaterally will make her and the world safer and more peaceful!

Do you see the absurdity of their claims, Dear Reader?

Let’s not mince words. The elder Bush, like his son, was a fool. His unilateral cuts in and neglect of America’s nuclear deterrent dramatically weakened America and put its security, and that of its allies, at unnecessary risk, while emboldening America’s adversaries and encouraging nuclear proliferation.

Cutting America’s nuclear deterrent further – especially unilaterally – would only aggravate these problems, and could possible invite a nuclear first strike on the US.

Questions Remain After 7 Arrested For Trespassing

Shortly after midnight on May 14, 2013, five men and two women, all of Middle Eastern decent, were arrested for trespassing within the boundaries of the Quabbin water reserve just outside Boston, Mass. The seven, who are from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Singapore, are recent chemical engineering grads and “cited their education and career interests” for being at the reserve, according to local news reports. The seven individuals currently live in various Massachusetts towns including Amherst, Cambridge, Sunderland, and Northampton, and one of those arrested lives in New York City.

The Quabbin reserve is in Belchertown, Massachusetts and is one of two sources of the City of Boston’s drinking water. Authorities tested the Quabbin within days of the arrests and discovered no threats to the public’s water supply.

Police have increased patrols in the area as a precaution but say they have found no connection between the seven trespassers and any terror related activity.

Requests from the East Hampshire District Court where the seven will be summonsed for trespassing violations for the names and court dates were denied. A clerk said the cases were “confidential” and deferred all questions to the Massachusetts State Police.

Chief Legal Counsel for the MSP Michael Halpin, did not return phone calls and a Freedom of Information Act request has been sent.

There have been no public statements from the group nor from authorities to explain why 7 chemical engineers from 5 different towns in the Northeast converged on the same location at 12:30 AM on a Tuesday in May to learn about the country’s largest man-made water supply facilities.Arrest

******** UPDATES NOW POSTED *************

Refusal To Answer

A Criminal Matter

Mass State Police Unhappy With Clerk Decision

More Suspicious Activity

Rebuttal of the 6 most popular myths about nuclear weapons

As it continues to campaign for deep cuts in America’s defenses, the Left has particularly aimed its arrows at the US nuclear deterrent, which protect America and over 30 of its allies against the most catastrophic threats: a nuclear, chemical, or biological attack; a large-scale conventional attack; and nuclear proliferation. It is the most effective nonproliferation program ever enacted.

It is falsely claimed that:

1)      Nuclear weapons are irrelevant in the 21st century security environment. They are relics of the Cold War.

2)      A “world without nuclear weapons” is both realistically attainable and desirable.

3)      The nuclear triad is too expensive and not worth the cost.

4)      The entire nuclear arsenal is too expensive and siphons money away from other defense programs.

5)      Conventional weapons, missile defense systems, and cyberweapons can replace nuclear weapons in a very wide range of missions and scenarios and against the vast majority of targets.

6)      The fewer nuclear weapons the US has, the better; cutting America’s nuclear deterrent makes America safer.

Let’s deal with these myths one after another.

Myth #1: Nuclear weapons are irrelevant in the 21st century security environment. They are relics of the Cold War.

The facts: Nuclear weapons are HIGHLY RELEVANT in the 21st century security environment. They protect America and all of its allies against the following three, potentially catastrophic, security threats: a nuclear/chemical/biological attack, a large-scale conventional attack, and nuclear proliferation.

megoizzy (CC)

megoizzy (CC)


The US nuclear arsenal is the most effective counter-proliferation program ever created. It has discouraged all of America’s allies except Britain and France from developing nuclear weapons, reassuring them that they don’t need to do so because the US provides a powerful nuclear umbrella to them. Such an umbrella is ESPECIALLY needed now – more than ever – given the nuclear threats posed by Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran.

Russia has 2,800 strategic nuclear warheads (including 1,550 deployed) and up to 4,000 tactical warheads – and the means to deliver all 6,800 if need be. Its 434 ICBMs can collectively deliver 1,684 warheads to the CONUS; its 14 ballistic missile submarines can deliver over 2,200 warheads to the CONUS (while sitting in their ports); and each of its 251 strategic bombers can carry up to 7 warheads (1 freefall bomb and 6 nuclear-tipped cruise missiles). Its Tu-95 bomber fleet alone can deliver over 700 warheads to the middle of America.

China has at least 1,800, and up to 3,000, nuclear warheads, and the means to deliver 1,274 of them. Among these are almost 70 ICBMs, 120-140 MRBMs, over 1,600 SRBMs, dozens of land-attack cruise missiles, six ballistic missile submarines, and 440 nuclear-capable aircraft. While the vast majority of its SRBMs and cruise missiles are reportedly conventionally-armed at present, they could be armed with nuclear weapons anytime, which is called “breakout capability.”

Then there’s North Korea with its nuclear arsenal (which it has announced it will grow) and ICBMs capable of reaching the US, and Iran, which is coming closer to achieving nuclear weapon status everyday.

Besides deterring nuclear attack, nuclear weapons also protect America’s treaty allies against a large-scale conventional attack – ensuring that it has never happened so far.

Myth #2: A “world without nuclear weapons” is both realistically attainable and desirable. 

The facts: A world without nuclear weapons (“Global Zero”) is neither achievable nor desirable. Not achievable, because no other country in the world is following America’s disarmament “example” (and foreign countries don’t care about America’s “examples”; they care only about their self-interest). No other country is following the US on the road to “Global Zero”. Accordingly, there will NEVER be a world without nuclear weapons.

Russia has recently declared it will not cut its nuclear arsenal nor enter into any negotiations to that end. It is actually building UP its arsenal (as allowed to do so by the New START) and modernizing it. China, which has up to 3,000 nuclear warheads, is also rapidly building up and modernizing its arsenal, and refusing to even disclose its size or enter into any talks – let alone formal treaty negotiations – about it. Likewise, India and Pakistan refuse to join the Nonproliferation Treaty, disclose the size of their arsenals, or enter into any talks – let alone arms control treaties – pertaining to these arsenals. Ditto North Korea, which has recently announced it will NEVER give up its nuclear arsenal and that, if anything, it will INCREASE its size and restart the Yongboyng reactor to harvest plutonium from spent fuel rods.

So NO nuclear power wants to join the West in its suicidal nuclear disarmament quest. None whatsoever. Not Russia, not China, not India and Pakistan, not North Korea. And, of course, Iran is racing towards nuclear power status.

Even Bruce Blair, a supporter of America’s nuclear disarmament, testified recently before the House Armed Services Committee on March 19th that even if America cut its nuclear arsenal deeply, e.g. along the lines of what his organization (Global Zero) proposes, NOBODY would reciprocate. (1:04:41)

Which is true – Russia, China, North Korea, India, Pakistan, etc., are all refusing to even cut, let alone eliminate, their nuclear arsenals. Obama has NO followers on the road to his totally unrealistic goal of “global zero”. There will never be a “global zero.”

Nuclear weaponry is a genie that cannot be put back into the bottle. It cannot be “un-invented” or banished from the face of the Earth, contrary to the unrealistic dreams of several US Presidents, including Ronald Reagan (this shows that, alas, Reagan wasn’t perfect and had some flaws).

Nor would a “nuclear-free world” be safer and more peaceful than it is now, contrary to Obama’s false claims that the US should “seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” On the contrary, it would be less peaceful and secure.

Humanity lived through “Global Zero” – in a world without nukes – for almost its entire history from its dawn to 1945. During that time, there were numerous and horribly destructive wars between the great powers of the time, each one leading to huge casualties among combatants and civilians and to great destruction. Examples included the Peloponesian war, Rome’s wars of conquest, the Hundred Years War, the Wars of Religion, the Thirty Years War, the Seven Years’ War, the Napoleonic Wars, and of course, the two World Wars. Not to mention the numerous bloody civil wars such as those in the US (1861-1865) and Russia (1918-1923).

5 million people, including 1 million Frenchmen, died in the Napoleonic Wars. Proportionally to the populations of today, that would be 50 million Europeans, including 10 million Frenchmen. French casualties in these wars were 14% higher than in WW1. In that war alone, about 10 million people died; in World War 2, over 60 million, and its perpetrators attempted the extermination of entire nations (peoples) and even races. The sheer barbarity and murder witnessed during that war is unmatched by any conflict before or after that war.

Since 1945, however – the advent of nuclear weapons – there has been NO war between the great powers. And it is mostly, if not entirely, because of nuclear weapons, which have moderated their behavior and forced them to accept coexistence with each other even if they have diametrically opposed ideologies. Nuclear weapons have taught them that even the most difficult compromise is better than a nuclear exchange.

Nuclear weapons have not ended war completely – no invention will ever do that – but they have eliminated great power wars. All wars since 1945 have been either between smaller, non-world-power countries (e.g. conflicts between Israel and its Arab neighbors), or between a world power and a weaker country (e.g. Iraq, Vietnam), or between a country and an insurgency (e.g. the US vs the Taleban).

Such conflicts have a much smaller scale, body count, and destructive power than great power wars. Since WW2, there hasn’t been a conflict even approaching the sheer barbarity and destruction of WW2, and it is mostly, if not entirely, due to nuclear weapons.

Instead of seeking their scrapping, we should all learn to love them.

Myth #3: The nuclear triad is too expensive and not worth the cost.

The facts: The nuclear triad is NOT too expensive and is well worth the cost. The ICBM leg of the nuclear triad – the cheapest, most ready, most responsive, and most dispersed leg – costs only $1.1 bn per year to maintain; the bomber leg, only $2.5 bn per year. The entire nuclear arsenal, including all the warheads, missiles, bombers, submarines, supporting facilities, and personnel costs only $32-38 bn per year to maintain, which is only 6.3% of the entire military budget ($611 bn in FY2013, pre-sequestration).

For that low cost, taxpayers get a large, diverse, survivable nuclear triad capable of surviving even a large-scale first strike and of striking anywhere in the world with any needed measure of power. A triad that gives the President huge flexibility in where, when, and how to strike; a triad that keeps the enemy guessing as to how the US would retaliate.

As Robert Kaplan says, “Don’t give your enemy too few problems to solve because if you do, he’ll solve them.”

Without the ICBM leg, the enemy would have to destroy only 2 submarine bases, 3 bomber bases, and any SSBNs that would be on patrol. WITH the ICBM leg still existing, the enemy would also have to make sure he destroys every single USAF ICBM silo; there are 450, and the USAF may have built decoy siloes.

Numbers don’t lie. Liberals do.

Without a triad, the nuclear deterrent would’ve been much less survivable than it is. This will be even MORE important as the arsenal is cut to even lower, post-New-START, levels.

A nuclear triad is the most survivable and most flexible nuclear arsenal arrangement ever invented, which is why the US, Russia, China, and Israel all have it, and why India is developing it. The Air Force is also considering the development of a rail-mobile ICBM, which could be hidden in innocently-looking, civilian-style railroad cars.

Myth #4: The entire nuclear arsenal is too expensive and siphons money away from other defense programs.

The facts: According to the Stimson Center, maintaining the US nuclear deterrent costs ca. $32–36 bn per year, including all the warheads, delivery systems, support facilities, personnel, and nuclear-related intelligence. This is a paltry 5.872% of the FY2013 military budget ($613 bn per the FY2013 NDAA). Modernizing the nuclear arsenal will, according to Stimson, cost up to $390 bn over the next decade, i.e. $39 bn per year on average. This is 6.4% of the FY2013 military budget. These are microscoping percentages.

So the US provides a large nuclear umbrella to itself and to over 30 allies at a cost of only 6% of its total military budget.

Furthermore, even if the ENTIRE nuclear arsenal were scrapped IMMEDIATELY and UNILATERALLY today, that would “save” a paltry $36 bn per year and thus fail to come even close to paying for sequestration, let alone balancing the federal budget.

No, the US nuclear arsenal is not siphoning money away from anything. As usual, it’s a scapegoat for liberals.

It is, in fact, other, more costly defense programs that are siphoning money away from nuclear deterrence and other defense priorities. For example, the development and acquisition of 2,400 short-range, understealthed, slow, sluggish F-35 strike jets will cost $400 bn. A single aircraft carrier costs $15 bn, yet is tragically vulnerable to ballistic and cruise missiles, submarines, and naval mines. Yet, the biggest cost drivers in the defense budget are personnel programs (pay, benefits, healthcare, retirement, etc.), which, unless seriously reformed, will consume the ENTIRE defense budget by no later than FY2039. That means no money for nuclear deterrence or for weapons of any kind.

And while F-35s and aircraft carriers are increasingly and prohibitively expensive, they’re also increasingly vulnerable and useless for the threat environments the US military will have to operate in. Meanwhile, the next generation bomber will be able to strike from well over the horizon – even the CONUS – and submarines have always been stealthy. USAF ICBMs sit in hardened siloes, can strike any place on the planet, and may be replaced by rail-mobile ones (see above).

Myth #5: Conventional weapons, missile defense systems, and cyberweapons can replace nuclear weapons in a very wide range of missions and scenarios and against the vast majority of targets.

The facts: Such claims are preposterous. None of these weapons have anything even close to the destructive, crippling power of atomic weapons.

Conventional weapons utterly lack such power. Even the most powerful conventional bombs – MOABs and the now-retired Daisy Cutters – have the explosive power approaching only that of the lowest-yield nuclear warheads, and MOAB is not even designed to penetrate anything.

Cyberweapons can shut down computer networks, but only temporarily, and can’t physically destroy anything. Buildings, vehicles, warships, aircraft, and humans will still exist. Cyberweapons can only complement other types of arms, but never replace them.

Nor can missile defense ever replace nuclear weapons. It has long been an article of faith among conservatives, including conservative think-tank analysts, that it can, but the truth is that it can’t. This truth will be uncomfortable for them, but my job as defense analysts is to tell people the truth, not what they want to hear.

Missile defense technology is still in its infancy. Moreover, one needs several interceptors to shoot down one missile. For example, to shoot down one Russian ICBM would take 7 ground-based interceptors of the type deployed in AK and CA. US missile defense systems (except the PATRIOT) have never been tested in massive missile barrages – the type of missile attacks the US will actually have to counter.

Furthermore, BMD systems’ ability to distinguish real warheads from decoys is yet unclear, and there are no systems available for boost-phase interception. But worst of all, BMD interceptors are far more expensive than the ballistic missiles they’re designed to intercept. A THAAD missile costs $9-10 mn; an SM-3, $10 mn; a ground-based interceptor, $70 mn. It is far cheaper to build and launch ballistic missiles than to intercept them. Furthermore, America’s enemies already have such huge inventories of BMs of all types – measured in thousands – that they are and will always be able to overwhelm American BMD systems through sheer numbers.

The best way to protect against missiles of any kind is to kill the archer, not the arrow. Only “offensive” systems – strike systems – can do that. This includes ICBMs, SLBMs, cruise missiles, bombers, and theater strike aircraft.

Myth #6: The fewer nuclear weapons the US has, the better; cutting America’s nuclear deterrent makes America safer.

The facts: These claims are also completely false. No nation in history has become more secure by disarming itself – whether uni-, bi-, or multilaterally. No nation in history has increased its security by indulging in arms reduction and disarmament – such policies have only weakened, and reduced the security of, the  nations practicing them.

Myth #6 is, in fact, an utter rejection of any principle or notion of deterrence or of peace through strength; it turns these principles upside down. Myth #6 is essentially a claim that weakness is good and leads to peace and security; that weakening one’s own military (and that’s what cutting its arsenals of weapons does – it weakens the military) makes one more secure and the world more peaceful.

Many variations of this myth have been uttered by the Left. For example, during the forementioned HASC Strategic Forces Subcommitteee hearing, its ranking member, Democrat Jim Cooper of Tennessee, an ardent enemy of nuclear weapons, claimed that the biggest cut in America’s nuclear deterrent – made by the elder President Bush in the early 1990s – was “a good thing”, that it made America and the world more secure and peaceful, and that this is supposedly shared by the “mainstream” of American opinion. Another strident leftist, John Garamendi (D-CA), claimed that “whatever we can do to cut nuclear arsenals – here, in North Korea, around the world”  is a good thing.

Their claims are blatant lies, of course. As I’ve already stated, no nation in history has become more secure by disarming itself, and America won’t be the first. President Bush’s deep unilateral cut in America’s deterrent is a textbook example of that. He cut the arsenal by almost half, withdrew US nuclear weapons from Korea and from surface warships unilaterally, terminated MX ICBM production and B-2 bomber production at just 21 aircraft, terminated the Midgetman SRBM, and terminated warhead production and testing.

Yet, no one else has reciprocated. Since then, China has dramatically increased its nuclear arsenal – to at least 1,800 and up to 3,000 warheads – while North Korea and Pakistan joined the nuclear club, India and these two countries have conducted nuclear tests, and Iran has made dramatic progress towards nuclear weapon capability. Russia has begun rebuilding and modernizing its arsenal.

So Bush’s deep nuclear cuts only weakened America’s deterrent (and confidence in it) while utterly failing to discourage others from developing or increasing their own arsenals. Two new states have joined the nuclear club, others have conducted tests, and Iran is well on its way there.

That’s because cutting America’s nuclear deterrent DOES NOTHING to prevent or even slow down nuclear proliferation or encourage others to disarm themselves. It is perceived (correctly) as a sign of American weakness and appeasement. It only emboldens America’s enemies while leading America’s allies to doubt the US umbrella. It does NOTHING, and will never do anything, to eliminate or even reduce the arsenals of other powers.

Other nuclear (and aspiring) powers don’t care about America’s “example” or observance of arms control treaties; they care only about their own military strength and see nuclear weapons as a key element of that. America has NO followers on the road to “Global Zero” – which other nuclear powers simply DON’T want to travel. Even Bruce Blair has admitted at 1:04:41 that even if the US totally disarmed itself, NO ONE would follow suit.

Thus, we have refuted all of the 6 most popular leftist lies about nuclear weapons. It is impossible (and not even necessary) to refute all myths that have been made about these crucial instruments of deterrence; and the vast majority of the lies about them fall under one of these 6 categories.

Nuclear weapons are NOT a threat to America’s or the world’s security; on the contrary, they are key to preserving it far into the future. They are irreplaceable instruments of peace and deterrence.

Valerie Jarrett Blocked Three Bin Laden Kill Raids

We’ve all seen the brilliance of Obama’s Senior Advisor, Valerie Jarrett, in action.  She stated that unemployment stimulates the economy and the distribution of the related checks is good for the economy.  How far gone would you have to be to believe this drivel?  However, in the realm of foreign affairs, it’s more unbelievable.   According to the Daily Caller, Jarrett put the kibosh on plans to kill Bin Laden not once, but three times!  The Executive Editor for The Daily Caller, David Martosko, wrote on July 29 that:

 In ”Leading From Behind: The Reluctant President and the Advisors Who Decide for Him,“ Richard Miniter writes that Obama canceled the “kill” mission in January 2011, again in February, and a third time in March. Obama’s close adviser Valerie Jarrett persuaded him to hold off each time, according to the book.

Miniter, a two-time New York Times best-selling author, cites an unnamed source with Joint Special Operations Command who had direct knowledge of the operation and its planning.

Obama administration officials also said after the raid that the president had delayed giving the order to kill the arch-terrorist the day before the operation was carried out, in what turned out to be his fourth moment of indecision. At the time, the White House blamed the delay on unfavorable weather conditions near bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

But when Miniter obtained that day’s weather reports from the U.S. Air Force Combat Meteorological Center, he said, they showed ideal conditions for the SEALs to carry out their orders.

What possible reason could one have for not killing Bin Laden?  Reasons that don’t include the typical characteristics of liberal academia, which usually revolve around the incessant reiteration of international law, moral authority, martyrdom dilemma, and outright weakness.  We don’t need notes from study sessions to be factored into the methodology for every executive decision. We killed bin Laden, his martyrdom hasn’t really galvanized the Arab world, and international law was kinda rejected since we did, in the end, violate the territorial integrity of Pakistan. No major backlash.  So what was the problem?  Valerie, we’re waiting on you.

The Cost of Bargaining with Al Qaeda

Imagine a street in a city in Pakistan. There is a marketplace nearby, and there are women and children going about their daily business, buying food and other goods. The only arguments are between customers and vendors, but they are not mean-spirited – just the typical bargaining on prices. Suddenly, a bomb goes off, and as the smoke clears, the marketplace is leveled. Body parts litter the ground, and screams replace the sound of the blast. The lucky ones that were only wounded slightly are seen wandering, covered in blood, looking for friends and family members in the rubble.

Unfortunately, that is part of life in Pakistan. We have seen it countless times on news clips. Sometimes one radical organization or another claims responsibility, sometimes not. On rare occasions, it is not the result of a bomb, but of an errant missile from a drone operated by the U.S. military. But that is assuming that the marketplace is truthfully only dealing in produce and household goods – it is silly to assume that weapons never make it to largely civilian marketplaces, making them a military target. Regardless, it is unlikely that the U.S. government would tell the truth anyway, because it doesn’t make the situation any better to do so. If anything, it would probably be worse if terrorists knew that the U.S. was aware of how they move weapons, so it’s better to call it a mistake, and offer a boilerplate apology.

The war on terror started in Afghanistan, and has shifted at least in part to Pakistan for obvious reasons – al-Qaeda has migrated there. It is no surprise that as the trial of five 9/11 conspirators begins at Guantanamo Bay, there is a video released of an American captive of Al Qaeda begging Obama for the release of terrorists in custody – presumably including the ones on trial.

I would like to say that I am certain that the President is preparing a letter of condolence for the wife of Warren Weinstein, instead of actually considering bargaining for his release. But given the fact that the trial of the 9/11 conspirators was literally hijacked by the defendants, turning what should have been a short arraignment hearing into a day-long affair, I’m not so sure. In the effort to be seen by the world as the better party in these proceedings, the U.S. is catering to the defendants. The unfortunate result will be depicting the U.S. yet again as the weaker party, at least to those in the Islamic world.

While it would be counterproductive to stoop to the point of engaging in intentional bombings of civilians abroad, and summarily executing 9/11 terrorists, it is equally harmful to bend over backwards to accommodate those defendants. The female defense attorney that attended the hearing wearing the hijab should be censured, and if she still insists on appeasing her client in that regard, she should be removed and replaced either with a male, or a female that will not do the same. It may seem petty, but it is important. To those defendants, her actions show that she acknowledges her “place” in their world. They are not entitled to that, by any stretch of the imagination.

Back to Weinstein, if he is still alive, it is insane to assume that he will ever be recovered alive. Given his health problems, it is quite possible that he is already dead. If he isn’t, there is no reason to think that al-Qaeda would release him regardless of what the U.S. would do. On the contrary, it is in al-Qaeda’s best interest to kill him on video, and release that footage after detainees had been released, to further prove their supremacy over the “weak” Americans. No matter how sad it may be, one American life is not worth giving in to al-Qaeda, period. Such bargaining would only serve to strengthen the resolve of terrorists, and most likely lead to more American deaths from future attacks.

Contrary to what the U.S. has hoped, killing leadership of al-Qaeda has not lessened the threat from the organization significantly enough to render it irrelevant. Pakistan is not a reliable U.S. ally in combating al-Qaeda, and it is foolish to think that it will become one. Without the aid of that nation, putting an end to the terrorist organization once and for all is virtually impossible. The mere fact that there is still a U.S. military presence in the region is fuel for Islamic terrorist organizations in general, so attempts to eradicate radicals is necessarily leading to the creation of more radicals. It has been argued ad nauseum whether or not “enhanced interrogation techniques” are torture, and more importantly whether or not that has lead to more potential members of organizations like al-Qaeda, hell bent on waging war on America.

FDNY Ground Zero

slagheap (CC)


Now, with the circus of a trial at Guantanamo Bay, it can be argued that the U.S. really has lost sight of what this is really about. Bargaining for peace with the Taliban includes releasing high level prisoners, and all the U.S. wants in return is a pledge that these detainees will not fight again. That is simply “peace at any cost”, and should be an indication that it is time for the U.S. to disentangle itself from the region. The focus should be on trying and punishing the 9/11 conspirators we have in hand. There is no real option for lasting peace in that region, especially not with any level of Western intervention. That intervention is arguably what lead to 9/11 in the first place. We cannot bargain our way to anything other than making ourselves look weak to those that have a deep-seated desire to destroy us. Catering to the enemy is a deadly game that we need to stop playing. If the next trial session at Guantanamo Bay goes as this first one, we have lost. We need to remember what this is about. Anyone that wants to sympathize with these defendants should be forced to watch the most graphic footage available of what happened on 9/11. They should be forced to watch people jumping from the towers to their deaths, over and over again. That is what these men did. That is what they must be held accountable for. We owe them nothing, but we are kind enough to give them their day in court. Get on with the trial, remove the defendants if they will not respect the court, reach a verdict, and put an end to this. Just by having a trial at all, we have taken the higher ground. That is more than enough.

Crossposted at Goldwater Gal.

U.S. and Pakistan – We Need Them, but Do They Need Us?

While everyone has been running about talking about the Trayvon Martin case, SCOTUS on Obamacare, and the various endorsements for the Romney campaign, our leaders have been trying to haggle out a deal with Pakistan. Given a few problems last year – killing Osama bin Laden on Pakistani soil, and the deaths of 24 Pakistani soldiers from a fire-fight with U.S. soldiers for two – the chances that the U.S. will get what it wants from Pakistan are not looking very good.
AFPAK
In order to understand this situation clearly, it is wise to consider the history of Pakistan. Since gaining independence in 1947, Pakistan has been tossed from quasi-democratic governments to military regimes and back again no less than seven times. In all of that time, only one leader managed to remain in power for an entire term. Stability is not in this country’s vocabulary, when it comes to leadership. While the current government has been relatively better than previous ones in some respects, it is currently coming under fire in part because of its relationship with the U.S. When the natives get restless in Pakistan, that generally leads to a regime change, so their leaders would be wise to seriously consider the ramifications of playing nice with the U.S.

Pakistan closed a needed route for supplies into Afghanistan, and is currently requesting public apologies for the deaths of the 24 Pakistani soldiers last November. The U.S. is standing by its investigation of the incident, that claims the guilt lies on both sides, so it is unlikely an apology is forthcoming. Additionally, the U.S. wants the ability to continue launching drone attacks over Pakistani soil – the Pakistanis not only want them to stop, but also contend that they are causing “mental trauma” to their civilians.

Beyond Pakistan’s problems with the U.S. lie its problems with India. While the U.S. may be the country that is most likely to be able to cause the most damage on Pakistani soil if provoked, India is the country Pakistan seems to fear more. Unlike the U.S., China is the most likely candidate on the world stage to provide Pakistan with the protection it desires from India. And even better in Pakistani eyes, is the fact that such an alliance would not have strings attached.

So what does this all mean for the Obama administration and NATO? While leaders from both the U.S. and Pakistan are publicly stating that they are working hard to mend their differences, the reality is that the U.S. needs Pakistan more than Pakistan needs the U.S. Anti-American sentiment is growing on the streets of Pakistan, and the current government is under scrutiny for corruption. There is building pressure calling for early elections, and based on the history of that nation, that is the herald of regime change. The “war on terror” is becoming increasingly unpopular, not only here, but over there as well. And the U.S. is increasingly being perceived as a destabilizing force in the region by the Pakistanis.

But don’t worry. If there was anything going really wrong in the AFPAK theatre, Obama would come out and tell us right away. He certainly wouldn’t let such news get buried under headlines about a shooting in Florida, or any other problems he might be having, with say his landmark legislation coming under scrutiny by SCOTUS, right?

Death toll from drone strikes have been inflated

The Associated Press has released a report shedding light on the actual number of deaths from U.S. drone strikes. The report says that right-wing political groups, clerics, and militants are falsely leading Pakistan citizens to believe drones are killing more civilians than is actually true. This is from an on-the-ground Associated Press investigation.

Reporters spoke to approximately 80 villiagers in an area of Pakistan, typically a hotbed sancturary for militants, that was the location of 10 recent attacks. Villagers informed the reporters that of 194 casualties, at least 138 were militants. Even though 70 percent of casualties were enemy combatants it’s still the widspread perception of mass civilian deaths fueling anti-American feelings.

That strike aside, which was the largest amount of civilian deaths in single strike since the drone program began, villagers told reporters 90 percent of deaths were militants.

 

Pakistan to Shoot Down U.S. Drones- Tensions Escalate

A crucial tool in the U.S war on terror in Afghanistan, U.S.drones provide critical intelligence and precision airstrike capabilities that have proven to be effective in searching out and killing Taliban insurgents and assorted Al- Qaeda operatives operating near the Afghan-Pakistan border region. Now the Pakistani military says it will shoot down any U.S aircraft invading their airspace, severely limiting the U.S. coalition forces efforts to control the region.

“Any object entering into our airspace, including US drones, will be treated as hostile and be shot down,” a senior Pakistani military official told NBC News. Islamabad has closed the border crossings in Pakistan that the Western military alliance uses to transfer fuel and other supplies for the US-led forces in Afghanistan. Pakistan also called on the United States to vacate the Shamsi Air Base in Balochistan province. Pakistani forces took control of the base on Saturday after most of the US military personnel left. While U.S. military commanders have downplayed the significance of these developments, even of the most casual of observers can see that Pakistan has now become increasingly hostile to the U.S. simply by taking these actions at face value. This hostility actually became evident when U.S Navy Seals killed Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan right near the Pakistani Military Intelligence headquarters, which has also been downplayed by the U.S State department. This has become a very volatile situation that has been completely mishandled by the Obama administration and the State dept. due to the lack of any rebuke when it became evident that the Pakistani government had been harboring the world’s most wanted terrorist for years. Now Pakistan has not only closed down critical supply routes on the Afghan-Pakistan border, they are refusing to allow the U.S. to use drones to enable maximum control of the area. Meanwhile our State dept. and the Obama administration continue to directly fund the very same Pakistani military that are threatening to shoot down any U.S aircraft that gets near the border region.

On Friday, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani warned the US and NATO that any future cross-border attack would be met with a “detrimental response”.

Update: Now the Taliban just announced they are in “peace talks” with the Pakastani government.

2012 just can’t get here fast enough!

Pakistani Forces May Have Been Killed After Attacking U.S. Troops

The killing of 24 Pakistani soldiers by U.S. airstrikes may have been a defensive action.

The facts have been slow to come out in the killing of 24 Pakistani soldiers on Saturday, but new reports are surfacing that detail a different course of events than has been reported over the weekend.

A senior Pakistani defense official acknowledged that Pakistani troops fired first, sending a flare, followed by mortar and machine-gun fire, toward what he said was “suspicious activity” in the brush-covered area below their high-altitude outpost barely 500 yards from the border.

According to Afghan security officials, their commandos were engaged with U.S. Special Operations troops in a nighttime raid against suspected Taliban insurgents when they came under cross-border fire and called in an airstrike.[1]

While the U.S. has not yet responded to demands for an apology, the administration has expressed condolences for the deaths of the Pakistani soldiers.

Supporting the stance that perhaps U.S. troops were attacked over the border by Pakistani forces, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the United States General Martin Dempsey refused to apologize.

Gen. Dempsey says that while they Pakistanis “have reason to be furious that they have 24 soldiers dead and that what killed them was the ordinance of a partner,” as far as the U.S. having anything to apologize for: “absolutely not”.

Pakistan has now shut it’s borders to U.S. supply traffic which could affect almost half of all supplies flowing into the Afghanistan

Rep. Ron Paul: Sanctions on Iran are "an act of war"

Rep. Ron Paul doesn’t get much time at the game show-style Republican debates to explain his policy views. Most of the questions he’s gotten center on his domestic policy which line up with a large portion of the Conservative base.

On Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace took a few minutes to have Rep. Paul tell voters how he would shape American foreign policy – specifically on Iran.

Keep listening past the Iran segment and you’ll also get to hear his thoughts on a third party candidacy.

Why, Despite Numerous Red Flags, U.S. Must Continue Relationship With Pakistan

The news out of Pakistan over the last several years has been a roller coaster of strategic victories and suspicious losses. News of high-level Al Qaeda captures are interspersed with reports of last-minute tip-offs before raids. The Pakistani government did help capture such notorious figures as Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (9/11 attacks), Khalid bin Attash (U.S.S. Cole attack), and Abu Faraj al-Libi (Al Qaeda’s #3), but sometimes its difficult to tell which side Pakistan is on.

The U.S. knows that members of the Pakistani government and military have ties to Islamic militant groups, many of which the U.S. State Department considers terrorist organizations. Some of these militant groups (created by the Pakistani government itself) are utilized in guerilla warfare along the Pakistan-India border. The Lashkar-e-Tabai (LeT), for example, claimed responsibility for the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks and is widely believed to have been supported by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).

The U.S. is also aware that the Tribal Areas of western Pakistan have been used as safe havens for fugitive Taliban fighters and as staging areas for cross-border attacks by Al Qaeda. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton even remarked during a May 2010 interview that members of the Pakistani government likely know where Osama bin Laden was hiding. Thus it was no surprise when the May 2nd kill/capture mission revealed that Osama bin Laden had been living for five years in a compound near Pakistan’s premier military academy. Underscoring the distrust of the Pakistani government were revelations that the U.S. purposefully kept Pakistani intelligence in the dark during the top-secret operation.

Referring to the successful operation as a violation of Pakistani sovereignty, Pakistan quickly condemned the mission to kill/capture the mass murderer. Echoing this sentiment are poll figures recently released by the Pew Research Center showing 63% of Pakistanis “disapprove of the operation that killed bin Laden,” while 69% of Pakistanis view the U.S. as “more of an enemy than a partner.”

As of FY 2010, the U.S. (more enemy than partner) has appropriated or reimbursed more than $18 billion to Pakistan for security operations and economic aid, with nearly $4.5 billion contributed in 2010 alone. All this begs the question: “With so many red flags, why should the U.S. continue its strategic relationship with Pakistan?”

Logistics

At least 60% of the supplies required by coalition forces in Afghanistan are currently moved through Pakistani terrain or airspace. Although the Northern Distribution Network (agreements to cross the borders of certain Asian countries) was created to handle some of the supplies, many of the agreements do not allow for the transport of troops, weapons and other sensitive items. Through various political pressures these routes are ultimately at the discretion of Russia. An agreement between President Medvedev and President Obama last summer supposedly allows for all manner of cargo to move through the region. However, Radio Free Europe reports that as of July 2, 2011, only two flights have taken place. The only other alternative is an overland route through Iran – a contigency only expected to be used when Hell reaches its freezing point.

Stabilization of Afghanistan

A stable government in Afghanistan will require the assistance and cooperation of Pakistan. In the early stages of an independent democracy in Afghanistan, the government will be especially vulnerable to coups and Taliban sympathizers eager to inflitrate the new government (not to mention chaos from narcoterrorists and cartels). Pakistan will be invaluable in providing tactical support during any sudden Afghani uprising, as we saw when Saudi Arabia sent 1000 troops to support the Kingdom of Bahrain in March of this year.

Efficacy of Counterinsurgency Operations

Without the current contributions to the Pakistani government, future counterinsurgency incursions by the U.S. military may be regarded as an act of war. The U.S. took a lot of heat for its unilateral kill/capture mission of Bin Laden. This week the Pakistani government ordered U.S. personnel out of the Shamsi Airbase. Shamsi airfield serves as a critical staging area for immediate drone strikes in the Tribal Areas. While it appears the demand was a ruse to placate the Pakistani populace, U.S. personnel must maintain its presence inside of Pakistan in order to react quickly on actionable intelligence.

Increased Chinese Influence in Pakistan

Although Pakistan regularly faces nationwide power outages and serious economic issues, its government believes that acquiring submarines and nuclear capabilities from China has been the most prudent use of its resources. Such irresponsible deals have allowed China to gain a major economic foothold in Pakistan – some sources claim $20 billion or more in investments. With increasing Chinese domination will come attitudes against free society and the American way of life.

Suppressing Future Islamic Threats

Finally, as one of the largest Muslim populations in the world, Pakistan is essential in preventing and suppressing future Islamic terrorists. A serious concern is that the domestic militancy in Pakistan will become regional insurgency, and regional insurgency will become global terrorism. In this age, the U.S. must maintain a strategic presence in South Central Asia. Maintaining a working security relationship with Pakistan will go a long way toward preventing the next Islamic attack.

Conservatives Want to Turn U.S. into Pakistan .. or something

The New York Times .. I could probably stop there, but Nicholas Kristof’s intellectually dishonest op-ed deserves rebuke.

Kristof’s post asserts that Republicans’ strategy will amount to turning the United States into a backwards, military-led, middle-eastern-like country (emphasis mine).

With Tea Party conservatives and many Republicans balking at raising the debt ceiling, let me offer them an example of a nation that lives up to their ideals.

It has among the lowest tax burdens of any major country:fewer than 2 percent of the people pay any taxes. Government is limited, so that burdensome regulations never kill jobs.

This society embraces traditional religious values and a conservative sensibility. Nobody minds school prayer, same-sex marriage isn’t imaginable, and criminals are never coddled.

The budget priority is a strong military, the nation’s most respected institution. When generals decide on a policy for, say, Afghanistan, politicians defer to them. Citizens are deeply patriotic, and nobody burns flags.

So what is this Republican Eden, this Utopia? Why, it’s Pakistan.

Now obviously Sarah Palin and John Boehner don’t intend to turn Washington into Islamabad-on-the-Potomac. And they are right that long-term budget issues do need to be addressed. But when many Republicans insist on “starving the beast” of government, cutting taxes, regulations and social services — slashing everything but the military — well, those are steps toward Pakistan.

Riiiiiight. Absolutist argumentation. If we cut government spending – at all – we will be living in squalor with a military-run government.

Federal Budget Surplus/deficitThe truth is that Conservatives do not want to remove all government spending, in direct contradiction to Nicholas’ post. But, we don’t need to spend Americans’ tax dollars on abortions, art festivals, Libya, research on shrimp on treadmills, NPR, the NLRB, over a trillion in stimulus that went to fund Unions and democratic campaigns (and brought no jobs), Obamacare, and so much more.

According to a recent Gallup poll, Americans disagree with the Times columnist. 73% believe government spends too much on programs and only 22% believe the government takes in too little in taxes.

Government has been the only answer to almost every problem since 1965 and it’s being proven wrong. The postal system is going broke and can’t fix itself, Medicare can’t handle its costs and will be bankrupt in a matter of years, Social Security has been robbed by the spend-happy liberals for decades and their answer is to keep the status quo. That’s not an answer, that’s restating the problem and pretending it is its own solution.

No one disputes the facts that Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid will go broke if they are allowed to continue as-is. There simply isn’t enough money in the economy to pay for benefits when less than half of Americans pay income taxes. Conservative Republicans have led by offering multiple solutions – all of which the Democrats have simply defeated or refused to vote on. The only plan coming from Democrats is to keep things as they are.

The liberal assertion is that we can’t reform any entitlement programs because we will be heading down a slippery slope that will end in America turning into something resembling a third-world country. The truth is that bankruptcy is upon us and if we do nothing to reform our spending to levels that our economy can support – we will be envying those third world nations.

 

 

The United States Enters 4th War? Against Pakistan?

We see some more startling news about supposedly NATO gunships now attacking a Pakistani Army post and injuring two soldiers today. From CNSNEWS.COM:

DERA ISMAIL KHAN, Pakistan (AP) — A NATO helicopter attacked a Pakistani army post near the Afghan border Tuesday, injuring two Pakistani soldiers in an incident that could further increase tension following the U.S. raid that killed Osama bin Laden, Pakistani intelligence officials said.

A Pakistani Army post on the border with Afghanistan gets attacked by a gunship chopper and a NATO puppet says that yes there has been an “incident” and we will have to access the situation. Why isn’t the U.S. Military Commander in charge there answering questions and explaining why we have now attacked Pakistan on their own soil ?  I do believe this is turning out to be just like in Libya, where a bomb strike murdered 3 innocent children and Ghaddafi’s son, and the only explanation we have to date is that it was a “NATO” plane. Why are the people not being told if it was a U.S. plane ( most likely), or a plane from another country that bombed those innocent children? Maybe if we made G.W. Bush Preisdent for one more day the supposed mainstream media would have the courage to investigate and report the facts behind the bombing? I am pretty certain that Bush would be called a murderer and war criminal if he had attacked Libya under these same conditions. Thus the media spin and lies continue today, in keeping Americans in the dark about the truth. So who attacked Pakistan today ?

There were helicopters operating in the border region, and we are aware there has been an incident, said NATO coalition spokesman Lt. Col. John Dorrian. “But we are going to have to assess the situation.”He declined to give further details or say which NATO country was involved. (emphasis mine)

Just as the U.S. is now hiding behind the NATO coalition disguise to wage an illegal war action against Libya, it now appears it is being used here to deny accountability for today’s attack on Pakistan. The fact is, that most Helicopter gunships flying in this region are in fact, AMERICAN.

Pakistani troops responded with machine gun fire and deployed two helicopter gunships over the post, but the American NATO helicopter had already left, they said. ( strikeout is mine)

Is the U.S. now at war with Pakistan, making us involved in a record four wars at one time ?  It will be interesting to see the spin and misinformation to come out of the media propagandists when the White House gives its mandated talking points in order to cover this debacle up. One thing is for sure, Obama has already played most of his “blame Bush” cards, but now he can just blame a mysterious, unidentified NATO gunship as the culprit here. People can not call anyone a war criminal for the murder of innocents in Libya, and now nobody can be held accountable for today’s attack on a Pakistani Army post. Isn’t this convenient for the previously anti-war Senator Obama? It sure is, seeing as he is in perpetual campaign mode 24/7, some year and a half before the 2012 elections.

 

 

« Older Entries