Zbigniew Mazurak's Blog

A blog dedicated to defense issues

Rebuttal of Joe Cirincione’s pro-unilateral-disarmament lies

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on July 31, 2014


The Obama administration has recently – and very belatedly – announced it has found Russia in violation of the INF treaty, which prohibits Moscow and Washington from developing, testing, deploying, or otherwise possessing ground-launched missiles with a range between 500 and 5,500 kilometers.

Russia has been flagrantly violating the treaty since at least 2010, and we conservatives have been warning about this since 2012, when credible reports of such violations first emerged. However, until now, the Obama administration and the pro-arms-control crowd have been denying this fact – until it became too obvious and too easily provable to deny it.

So now that Russia has effectively made the INF treaty a dead letter, the administration and its sycophants in the treasonous pro-unilateral-disarmament community are calling on the US to continue to unilaterally adhere to the treaty and to cut its own arsenal even further, while Russia is building up its own and deploying missiles banned by the INF treaty.

This pro-unilateral-disarmament opinion was recently expressed by Joe Cirincione, president of the treasonous Ploughshares Fund, and his “research assistant” on the extremely leftist “DefenseOne” website.

Cirincione falsely claims that

“Some arms control critics want to use the issue as an excuse to jettison a system of arms restraints carefully constructed over the decades.”

Completely false. We, critics of “arms control” (which in fact means America’s unilateral disarmament), simply want the US to stop unilaterally adhering to treaties that no one else complies with. The INF treaty is an excellent example.

It makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER for the US to continue to slavishly and unilaterally adhere to a treaty that Russia has been flagrantly violating for years, and continues to violate (and will certainly continue to).

Cirincione writes that

“Concerns are raised privately in hope of resolving them. When that fails, they are made public. When that fails tougher diplomacy is tried.”

But all of that has utterly failed – and was doomed to fail. Why? Because continuing to comply with the INF Treaty is decidedly NOT in Russia’s national interest, plain and simple. Russia faces a huge missile and nuclear threat right on its doorstep – China. China possesses over 1,200 short-range, and over 120 medium-range ballistic missiles (DF-4, DF-21, DF-25, DF-26), as well as hundreds of DH-10 and CJ-10 ground-launched cruise missiles. These missiles allow China to target virtually any spot within Russia without involving its strategic (intercontinental) missile force, leaving it free to focus on the US. See the map below (DOD, Annual Report to Congress on the Military Power of the PRC, 2008).

PLA_ballistic_missiles_range-590x362

And “hope of resolving concerns” NEVER works. Hope is the mother of fools.

Cirincione also falsely claims that:

“Pulling out of a treaty that blocks the Russians from deploying weapons that we don’t have and don’t need would be foolish. “Releasing Russia from existing limits on strategic nuclear forces makes no sense, especially at this time of severe tensions between the West and the Kremlin,” says Tom Collina of the Arms Control Association.”

Utterly false. What is foolish and makes no sense is to continue to adhere to arms reduction treaties that NO ONE ELSE adheres to. Russia has already “released itself” from its arms control obligations – by simply violating them. There is no mortal force, no earthly force, that can bring them into compliance. There is no treaty that can “block” them from deploying weapons they want to possess. Treaties are just pieces of paper. If a rogue power like Russia decides not to comply with them – as Russia has decided – it will simply violate them.

And Russia has, for several years, been violating the INF treaty with impunity.

If the US doesn’t withdraw from these useless, suicidal arms reduction treaties, it will leave itself at a severe disadvantage. US withdrawal would be a mere formality. Russia itself has been grousing about formally withdrawing from INF for years, claiming (rightly) that the treaty is obsolete, unjust, and doesn’t serve its national interest, because it bars only Russia and the US – and no one else – from having intermediate-range missiles.

The question, therefore, is quite simple: Should the US continue to UNILATERALLY adhere to treaties Russia is not abiding by and has no intention of abiding by? Unsurprisingly, the pro-unilateral disarmament traitors at Ploughshares and the ACA say “yes, America should continue to unilaterally disarm itself.”

ACA’s Tom Collina further blatantly lies that:

“If the United States were to stop reducing its nuclear forces under the 2010 New START treaty, Russia would likely do the same, and could even build up its forces. (…) Rubio and his colleagues* go too far with a March 25 resolution that would hold Russia accountable for “being in material breach of its obligations” under the treaty by calling for a halt to U.S. implementation of further strategic nuclear reductions, a move that would likely trigger a similar Russian response.”

Those are also blatant lies – just like everything else ACA and Ploughshares claim. Russia is NOT reducing ANYTHING – except reducing arms control treaties to dead letters. Russia is ALREADY building up its nuclear arsenal, and has been for several years – with the Russian nuclear buildup ACCELERATING after New START was ratified. That’s because New START obligates only the US – but not Russia – to cut its strategic nuclear arsenal, and doesn’t even limit Russia’s tactical nuclear arsenal at all.

It is RUSSIA that is building up its nuclear arsenal, while the US is disarming itself unilaterally.

Cirincione then arrogantly and wrongly invokes Ronald Reagan in defense of the INF treaty, and of utterly failed arms control policies in general:

“Before letting loose the wrecking ball, they should check in with one of the principle architects of the regime and one of the toughest and most pro-arms control presidents inU.S. history: Ronald Reagan.”

Some REAL advice from the REAL Ronald Reagan is instructive here. When his administration found the Soviet Union in violation of the (signed but never-ratified by the US) SALT II treaty, it withdrew the US from it.

Reagan also wanted to withdraw the US from the ABM treaty to free the US to develop missile defenses as it wished, but liberal bureaucrats in the State Department (who hated him since he took office and hoped he would be gone by 1985) resisted the idea so fiercely that it took another 13 years and two Republican presidents to finally kill that useless treaty.

As Reagan himself has stated: “We adhere to our treaty obligations. Those who wish us harm don’t.”

Cirincione also falsely claims that:

“This violation is more than a technical violation, but since it is not an immediate threat to the U.S. or our allies, there is time to use the established arms control mechanism to pressure Russia to halt the cruise missile program, verifiably dismantle any missiles tested in violation of the limits and agree to abide by the treaty’s terms.”

Dead wrong again. This violation IS an immediate threat to the US AND its allies. These intermediate range missiles allow Russia to target its allies in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia (and all US bases there) with very accurate missiles carrying very deadly payloads. This is a very urgent threat. And the idea that “there is time to pressure Russia” to comply with the treaty is also utterly false. The US has known of Russia’s violation for at least 4 years, if not more, and has been trying to pressure Russia to comply for years – since at least 2012. Yet, it has failed.

Why? Because Russia, as it has already stated on so many occassions, will NOT abide by the INF treaty – which is disadvantageous to both Russia and the US.

Cirincione further lies that:

“We have nothing to gain from pulling out of the INF treaty. We already have long-range nuclear weapons trained on hundreds of targets in Russia. We don’t need a few dozen more.”

Also utterly false. Actually, Russia now has more ICBMs, strategic bombers, and nuclear warheads than the US, and plans on adding still more, so the US DOES need to build up its nuclear arsenal – and fast. Moreover, deploying IRBMs (nuclear- or conventional-armed ones) in Europe and Asia would enable the US to hold at least some Russian and Chinese targets at risk without involving America’s strategic missile force. It would also allow the US to expand its conventional precision strike options against any targets.

Contrary to Cirincione’s lies, America has nothing to gain by remaining a party to the INF treaty, to which only America adheres, thus essentially disarming itself. But disarming the US unilaterally, so that it will be vulnerable to Russia, is precisely Ploughshares’ and ACA’s goal.

Cirincione then claims further:

“If we built new intermediate-range missiles, where would we deploy them? Europe? The last time we tried that, millions of citizens took to the streets of Europe in protest of U.S. and Russian weapons. There is no reason to revisit the failed policies of the past.”

Actually, the REALLY failed policies of the past (and the present) are the arms control policies Ploughshares, the ACA, and the Obama administration advocate: disarming the US unilaterally, and unilaterally adhering to arms control treaties. This is supposed to encourage others to be nice and disarm themselves. In practice, it has never worked. It has always failed spectacularly.

Russia has NEVER complied with ANY arms control treaties it has signed. It has flagrantly violated every one of them. That previous US presidents have allowed Moscow to get away with that is NO justification for letting Russia off the hook today. THAT is one of the failed policies of the past.

By contrast, Reagan’s deployment of US intermediate-range missiles in 1983 – which Cirincione falsely claims was a “failed policy” – actually reestablished nuclear balance between the US and the USSR in Europe, countered Russia’s 1,200 intermediate-range missiles there, and forced Gorbachev, in 1987, to agree to dismantle all of these missiles. Gorbachev wanted to stop the arms race and reduce Soviet military spending to try save the stagnant Soviet economy. But he couldn’t do so unilaterally, so he had to agree to a treaty.

Because you can bring Russians into agreement ONLY when negotiating and acting from a position of STRENGTH, not weakness and appeasement. Unilaterally adhering to arms control treaties nobody else complies with leads to America’s weakness and dramatically REDUCES America’s security.

Cirincione also approvingly quotes two Russian propagandists saying that:

““In the history of U.S.-Soviet and U.S.-Russian arms control there have been dozens of similar cases—both parties have raised concern about the actions of the other,” note treaty experts Nikolai Sokov and Miles Pomper. “The majority of these concerns remained unresolved for years until they lost relevance. As a rule, these are technical issues that are discussed by technical experts outside public eye.””

Blatant lies. And Russia’s current violation of the INF treaty is not a mere “technical issue” – it’s a major violation and an immediate threat to US and allied security. It stems, in turn, from Russia’s desire to have an arsenal of weapons to counter China’s huge missile buildup in Asia, right on Russia’s doorstep, and Moscow’s intention to eventually kill the INF treaty.

The notion that the current Russian violation will somehow be “solved” is utterly ridiculous. Russia has already reduced the INF treaty to a dead letter and a worthless piece of paper. Its formal withdrawal – or America’s – from the treaty is now a mere question of time.

No less ridiculous is Cirincione’s utterly false claim that Russia can somehow be brought into compliance if the Senate simply confirms Frank Rose as the DOS’s verification and compliance supremo. This is utterly false; no earthly force is going to bring the Russians into compliance with an INF treaty they’ve already decided they’re going to scuttle because it doesn’t serve their interests and leaves them exposed to China.

And as for Reagan’s words that:

“No violations of a treaty can be considered to be a minor matter, nor can there be confidence in agreements if a country can pick and choose which provisions of an agreement it will comply with… correcting their violations will be a true test of Soviet willingness to enter a more constructive relationship and broaden the basis for cooperation between our two countries on security matters.”

The first part is absolutely true – but the problem is, Russia is doing PRECISELY what Reagan decried. As for the second part, Russia has no willingness to enter into a constructive relationship with the US, which it views as its adversary.

In closing his garbage screed, Cirincione falsely claims that:

“We have cajoled the Russians back into compliance before and – with the right staff in place and a united approach – we can do it again. In the process, we can prevent the Russians from rebuilding the weapons that Ronald Reagan so painstakingly destroyed.”

No, we can’t – and it’s too late for preventing them from building such weapons – because they’ve ALREADY built and deployed them. The R-500 ground-launched cruise missile, the Iskander-M and Iskander-K short-range ballistic missiles with a range exceeding 500 kms, and the Yars-M missile have already entered service.

So, to close, the question before US policymakers is quite simple:

Should the US continue to UNILATERALLY adhere to treaties Russia is not abiding by and has no intention of abiding by? Unsurprisingly, the pro-unilateral disarmament traitors at Ploughshares and the ACA say “yes, America should continue to unilaterally disarm itself.”

The US government should ignore these traitors and withdraw the US from both the INF and the New START treaty.

http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2014/07/when-russia-violates-nuclear-treaties-lets-act-reagan/90029/?oref=d-skybox

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Rebuttal of Robert Farley’s ignorant garbage about American weapons

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on July 26, 2014


The Leftist “National Interest” magazine has just published an utterly ridiculous garbage screed by an extremely leftist anti-defense hack, Robert Farley, known for his hatred of America, US military power, and American nuclear weapons in particular.

In his screed, “The Five Most Overrated Weapons of War”, Farley lists nuclear weapons, National Missile Defense, the spectacularly successful A-10 Warthog, the Tomahawk missile, and Predator drones as the 5 most overrated weapons in US history. Needless to say, all of his claims, except those about Predator drones, are blatant lies.

Take his idiotic rant against US nuclear weapons, for example:

“Nuclear weapons have, in an important sense, dominated international diplomacy for the last six decades. What they haven’t dominated is warfare, where they appear to be nearly useless in all configurations. (…) But since World War II, the United States has eschewed the use of nuclear weapons, even against capable non-nuclear opponents.  Because of the deep political complexity associated with their employment, the weapons simply have too little battlefield and strategic impact for the US to seriously entertain their use.”

Utter garbage, written of course by the completely ignorant, yet very opinionated, Robert Farley.

Nuclear weapons are the most useful, most powerful, most needed, and most UNDERrated and UNDERappreciated weapons out there. They have successfully defended the US and all its treaty allies from nuclear, chemical, biological, and large-scale conventional attack for over 68 years now. It is ONLY because of these “nearly useless in all configurations” weapons that Farley is alive today to write ignorant garbage about the weapons to which he owes his useless life.

The reason why nuclear weapons haven’t been used in actual wars is because they PREVENT wars between the powers that have them and thus force them to deal with each other either diplomatically – where, by Farley’s admission, they serve as important bargaining chips – or by proxies.

Nuclear weapons thus allow the US to subdue the enemy without fighting, which, according to Sun Tzu, is the acme of generalship.

A weapon that allows the US to win and to keep peace without fighting is worth a million times more than a weapon actually used in war.

Farley’s lunatic rambling against US missile defense systems is equally idiotic:

“The United States has wasted extraordinary resources over the past three decades on the phantom of national missile defense.  The current system of systems involves Aegis sea-based interceptors, Ground-Based Midcourse Defense, and Terminal High Altitude Air Defense. Anticipated systems include both airborne and laser components.”

No, the US has not “wasted” money on missile defense, and it is not a fantom, it’s a fact. Nor were the resources invested in it “extraordinary”; in fact, the US has spent only 164 bn since 1983 on missile defense. That works out to roughly 6 billion per year – barely 1% of the DOD’s base budget.

As for National Missile Defense, the system has passed most of its tests; even the failed tests have produced much useful data utilized to improve the system; it works; and further improvements, including redesigned kill vehicles, better sensors, newer radars, and better discrimination systems, are on the way.

And as Farley himself admits:

“Theater missile defense has made enormous strides, as has sea-based missile defense built around the Aegis SAM system. Theater systems, focused on conventional ballistic missile attack, can substantially reduce damage to civilian areas and to military installations.  Where conventional munitions are concerned, hitting 75% of the incoming warheads is very helpful.”

I will not even bother to respond to Farley’s ignorant, garbage attacks on the A-10 and the Tomahawk missile. These weapons have proven themselves – time and again – in actual wars so many times that I’ll let their record speak for itself. They don’t need me to defend themselves. Their record speaks for itself. No wonder why the Congress has barred the USAF from retiring the A-10 and appropriated money to keep producing Tomahawks. These weapons’ actual performance speaks for itself.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Hillary Caught Lying About Her Totally Failed “Reset” Policy

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on July 25, 2014


Vladimir Putin,Hillary Rodham Clinton

In a recent interview with the CNN (Clinton News Network), former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton once again lied to defend her totally failed, treasonous, immoral policy of “reset” with Russia that she implemented during her tenure from 2009 to 2013.

That policy of appeasement towards Moscow was a one-way street of unilateral American concessions for which the US got absolutely nothing in return. Moscow simply pocketed those concessions and gave nothing in return. This idiotic policy only emboldened Russia and led it (quite rightly) to believe that it could do anything it wanted to and not suffer any meaningful consequences.

This is what led to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, its illegal annexation of the Crimea, its creation of a fictional “separatist” movement in eastern Ukraine, and its spetsnaz troops’ shootdown of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17.

 

So let us recount how the Obama-Clinton “reset” policy has always been an utter failure and a disaster for US national interest:

1) The New START treaty: Celebrated by the Obama administration and the entire Left as the crowning achievement of the “reset”, it is actually its most disastrous and shameful failure. This treasonous treaty requires ONLY the US to cut its deployed nuclear arsenal by an entire third, from the 2,200 warheads allowed by the 2002 Moscow Treaty to just 1,550 warheads, while Russia is allowed to (and has taken many steps to) increase its own arsenal. Today, Russia has 2,800 strategic nuclear warheads, of which 1,500 are deployed and another 50 will be deployed. Russia also wields a huge arsenal of delivery systems: 434 ICBMs, 13 ballistic missile submarines, and 251 strategic bombers (171 of which are not even counted under New START treaty rules). As Russia adds more missiles able to carry more warheads (e.g. RS-24 Yars missiles to replace single-warhead Topol missiles), its deliverable nuclear arsenal will only increase significantly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hillary falsely claims that the reset “worked” when Dmitry Medvedev was president, thus implying that during those 4 years (2008-2012), Vladimir Putin was somehow out of power.

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

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

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

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

On the opposite side of the political spectrum, we have the Republican Party, which has been critical of the “reset”, and of Russia, for some time (though not strongly enough, with the noble exception of Mitt Romney).

If that party wants to defeat Hillary Clinton, it will have to dispel the myth that the “reset” and the New START treaty were a “success”, and attack Clinton at her weakest point: her foreign policy, especially towards Russia. The “reset” has been exposed for what it is – a total, abysmal failure – and that failure should be mercilessly exploited by the GOP if it wants to have any chance of winning the White House.

The political environment for doing so is more favorable than ever; a vast majority of Americans hold a negative view of Russia and hold it responsible for the shootdown of Flight 17. 55% of Americans view Vladimir Putin very unfavorably. They demand tougher action, including stronger sanctions, against Moscow. They also demand that defense cuts be stopped – 62% of Americans believe that US defense spending is either “too low” or “sufficient”, as opposed to only 35% who believe it is “too high.”

The political environment for taking tough action against Russia is now more favorable than ever. And the “reset” has been such an abysmal failure that it’s a huge liability for Hillary. Therefore, Republicans need to exploit it mercilessly if they want to beat Hillary in 2016.

As Sun Tzu and other ancient Chinese strategists, including the author of the Thirty Six Stratagems, advised, one should always attack an opponent’s weaknesses – especially those that the opponent doesn’t think will be attacked – and not his strengths.

If Republicans want to defeat Hillary Clinton, they’ll have to publicly debunk her fiction of “the reset worked well”, name her as one of those responsible for the shootdown of the Malaysian airliner, and in general, attack her biggest weakness: foreign policy.

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

UPDATE: John McCormack weighs in.

Posted in Obama administration follies, Politicians, World affairs | Leave a Comment »

Refuting the myth of Reagan the Peacenik

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on July 16, 2014


ReaganPeaceQuote

Nota bene: This is the 1000th post on my blog, a remarkable milestone!

Ronald Reagan was such a successful President that, unsurprisingly, many people want to claim his legacy as their own. Many people, usually falsely, claim he would’ve supported their policy and ideology if he were alive today. Many falsely claim he implemented this or that policy instead of that one.

The Gipper was, depending on whom you ask, a neocon, a paleocon, an isolationist, an interventionist, a conservative, a liberal, a free-marketer, a welfare stater, a free trader, a protectionist, a warmonger, a peacenik, etc. The list goes on.

But if you read and listen to Reagan’s own words – rather than anyone else’s claims – and analyze’s Reagan’s real actions, a clear and correct image of Reagan prints itself.

Despite the Left’s, and a certain isolationist Senator’s, pathetic attempts to depict Reagan as a nuke-hating, pro-disarmament, war-weary pacifist, Ronald Reagan was very much a hawk, even though he was careful about when and where to intervene militarily in the first place.

But intervention was so rarely necessary BECAUSE Ronald Reagan had built up America’s military strength so much that America’s adversaries usually retreated in the face of that military might.

Rebutting Rand Paul’s Lies…

Writing recently in the leftist Politico magazine, Sen. Rand Paul claims that:

“This [foreign policy - ZM] is where many in my own party, similar to Perry, get it so wrong regarding Ronald Reagan’s doctrine of “peace through strength.” Strength does not always mean war. Reagan ended the Cold War without going to war with Russia. He achieved a relative peace with the Soviet Union—the greatest existential threat to the United States in our history—through strong diplomacy and moral leadership.

Reagan had no easy options either. But he did the best he could with the hand he was dealt. Some of Reagan’s Republican champions today praise his rhetoric but forget his actions. Reagan was stern, but he wasn’t stupid. Reagan hated war, particularly the specter of nuclear war. Unlike his more hawkish critics—and there were many—Reagan was always thoughtful and cautious.”

Paul is attacking a straw man here, as well as conveniently omitting an important fact. The straw man attack is “Strength does not always mean war.” Nobody in the Republican Party wants war, Senator, or thinks that “strength” means war. In fact, it is the Democrats, not Republicans, who are most likely to involve America in wars and interventions around the world, usually for reasons unrelated to US national interests.

Need I remind you, Senators, that it was the Democrats who involved the US in two huge wars in Korea in Vietnam which they were not willing to win nor to end? Wars which Republican Presidents extricated the US out of?

Or that, more recently, Presidents Clinton and Obama involved the US in pointless humanitarian crusades in Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Libya, and Obama wanted to do that in Syria as well?

Yes, Ronald Reagan was much more cautious than Democratic Presidents about intervening militarily abroad. But when such invasions WERE necessary, he did not shy away from them. He intervened to stop Communism’s spread in the Carribean. He sent US troops to Lebanon. (He made a huge error by withdrawing from there after the Beirut bombing of 1983; America’s retreat from there emboldened Islamic terrorists in the region.) And most importantly, he conducted powerful strikes against Qaddafi’s regime in Libya in 1986, despite the Left all around the world (including your own father) condemning him for it, and despite no US ally, excluding the UK, supporting him.

No, Ronald Reagan did not hate (nor love) war. When intervention was required, he did not shy away from it.

But most of the time, he didn’t need to launch military interventions, because despite the resistance from the Democrats and from your own father, Senator, he build the strongest military in world history (of which today’s US military is just a shadow). By the late 1980s, America’s military might was such that no adversary dared to challenge the US head-first.

In parallel, Reagan supported anti-Communist movements and insurgencies (“proxies”) all around the world, including Latin America and Afghanistan.

You, Senator, are conveniently ignoring the “strength” component of peace through strength. Peace was possible ONLY because of US strength. Without that strength, there would’ve been no peace. There would’ve been war.

Weakness invites war. Strength guarantees peace.

But that lesson is totally lost on you, Senator. You have advocated, and continue to advocate, deep, crippling cuts in America’s defenses – including and beyond sequestration (a monstrous mechanism which, if not repealed, will cut $550 bn from the defense budget over the next decade).

Yet, you advocate even deeper cuts – and the withdrawal of US troops from abroad. This in spite of the fact that foreign bases – of which the US has far fewer than your kooky father claims – are necessary for power projection over long distances and help deter adversaries and reassure allies.

You are a faux-Reaganite, Senator, despite your desperate and pathetic attempts to cast yourself as Gipper’s acolyte. Your policy is not Peace Through Strength. Your policy is Hoping For Peace by Unilateral Disarmament and Withdrawal From The World.

It is no coincidence you are completely isolated in the GOP on foreign policy. That’s what advocating isolationism leads to.

If you’re advocating such foolish policies in the vain hope that doing so will win you votes and perhaps the White House, stop dreaming. Despite what the leftist media and pseudo-pollsters tell you, there is no popular demand for isolationist and anti-defense policies today, in stark contrast to the 1930s and the 1970s, and nobody in the GOP except Congressmen Amash, Duncan (TN), Massie, and Labrador shares your views.

You should run for the Democratic nomination instead. In that party, a man with your views would be warmly welcomed.

… And Peter Beinart’s

Your Politico piece contains a link to an utterly ridiculous garbage screed from 4 years ago by Peter Beinart, wherein the author falsely claims that Ronald Reagan abandoned his hawkish policies in late 1983 and thereafter pursued a conciliatory, dovish policy towards the Soviet Union until the end of his administration. Beinart explicitly calls Reagan’s post-1984 policies “dovish.”

But this is completely false – like the rest of Beinart’s claims. As Professor Robert G. Kaufman nicely sums up:

When circumstances changed during Reagan’s second term, he adjusted his policies—but not the premises underlying them. He responded positively to the changes in the Soviet regime during Gorbachev’s tenure. Ultimately, Gorbachev and the Soviet Union agreed to end the Cold War not on their terms, but on Ronald Reagan’s.

American pressure on the Soviet Union did not abate at any point during the Reagan presidency, despite his view that engaging Gorbachev could facilitate the implosion of the regime. Reagan refused to abandon SDI or the Zero Option calling for the elimination of all intermediate-range nuclear weapons in Europe; Gorbachev capitulated. American defense spending continued to rise, peaking at $302 billion in 1988 (6.6 percent of GDP). The Reagan Administration continued to aid freedom fighters, draining Soviet resources in Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America.

Nor did Reagan relent in his assault on the moral legitimacy of the Soviet Regime. In June 1987, over the objection of his so-called more realistic advisers, he called on Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, excoriating it as the symbol of Soviet totalitarianism

Reagan’s understanding of himself also demolishes the revisionist interpretation of his motives and policies. Summing up his foreign policy legacy to students at the University of Virginia on December 16, 1988, he welcomed the improvement in Soviet–American relations but urged Americans to “keep our heads down” and “keep our skepticism” because “fundamental differences remain.” He attributed that improvement to his policy of firmness, not conciliation:

Plain talk, strong defenses, vibrant allies, and readiness to use American power when American power was needed helped prompt the reappraisal that the Soviet leaders have taken in their previous policies. Even more, Western resolve demonstrated that the hard line advocated by some within the Soviet Union would be fruitless, just as our economic success has set a shining example.

Reagan contrasted his policies with the more conciliatory policies of his predecessors during the 1970s:

We need to recall that in the years of détente we tended to forget the greatest weapon that democracies have in their struggle is public candor: the truth. We must never do this again. It is not an act of belligerence to speak of the fundamental differences between totalitarianism and democracy; it is a moral imperative…. Throughout history, we see evidence that adversaries negotiate seriously with democratic nations when they know democracies harbor no illusions about their adversaries.

Those are Reagan’s own words – not mine, and not Professor Kaufman’s.

It was in 1987, not 1981, that Ronald Reagan stood at the Brandenburg Gate and loudly challenged Gorbachev to “open this gate” and “tear down this wall.” And at the very end of his Presidency, in December 1988, he STILL urged Americans “keep our heads down” and “keep our skepticism” because “fundamental differences remain.”

Nor did Ronald Reagan abate in his defense buildup and pursuit of military pressure on the Soviet Union. In his 1986 speech on defense issues, he warned that:

tonight the security program that you and I launched to restore America’s strength is in jeopardy, threatened by those who would quit before the job is done. Any slackening now would invite the very dangers America must avoid and could fatally compromise our negotiating position. Our adversaries, the Soviets — we know from painful experience — respect only nations that negotiate from a position of strength. American power is the indispensable element of a peaceful world; it is America’s last, best hope of negotiating real reductions in nuclear arms. Just as we are sitting down at the bargaining table with the Soviet Union, let’s not throw America’s trump card away.

 

Our Armed Forces may be smaller in size than in the 1950’s, but they’re some of the finest young people this country has ever produced. And as long as I’m President, they’ll get the quality equipment they need to carry out their mission.

 

We set out to narrow the growing gaps in our strategic deterrent, and we’re beginning to do that. Our modernization program — the MX, the Trident submarine, the B-1 and stealth bombers — represents the first significant improvement in America’s strategic deterrent in 20 years. Those who speak so often about the so-called arms race ignore a central fact: In the decade before 1981, the Soviets were the only ones racing.”

Beinart also falsely claims that in 1983, Reagan suddenly had a change of heart about defense issues, military might, and nuclear weapons in particular, and began pursuing dovish defense policies and overruling the supposed “hawks” in his administration.

These are also blatant lies – just like everything else Beinart (a far-left propagandist) writes.

Reagan’s defense buildup NEVER abated at ANY point during Reagan’s presidency.

Throughout his presidency, the American defense buildup continued, peaking, as Professor Kaufman, noted, at $302 bn and 6.6% of GDP in 1988. In the late 1980s, at Reagan’s insistence, dozens of new weapon types (including new strategic delivery systems) joined the US military’s inventory: MX Peacekeeper ICBMs, the B-1 bomber, the F-15E strike jet, W84, W87 and W88 nuclear warheads, and the AH-64 Apache helicopter to name just a few.

Not to mention the many weapon systems the Reagan Administration (or its predecessors) developed and began deploying earlier: the Ohio class of ballistic missile submarines, Los Angeles class attack submarines, PATRIOT missile defense systems, F-15 and F-16 fighters, Black Hawk helicopters, Ticonderoga class cruisers, Nimitz class carriers (two were ordered in June 1988, in the last year of the Reagan Admin), Trident ballistic missiles, Tomahawk cruise missiles (nuclear- and conventionally-armed variants alike) M1 Abrams tanks, M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicles, F-117 Nighthawk stealth attack jets, and so forth. These weapon systems, unlike those in the paragraph above, had already begun entering service in the late 1970s and early 1980s, but it was only in the late 1980s when they joined the military’s inventory in really large numbers… thanks to the investment of the Reagan Admin and at the insistence of President Reagan.

Moreover, Reagan also developed other cutting-edge weapon systems that entered service in the 1990s: the B-2 stealth bomber, the F/A-18 Super Hornet naval jet, the Arleigh Burke class of destroyers, the Trident-II ballistic missile, and so on.

Image the US military today without these cutting edge weapon systems.

Imagine the US Air Force without B-1 and B-2 bombers, F-117 Nighthawk stealth attack jets, and F-15E Strike Eagles, and without significant numbers of F-16 fighters.

Imagine the US Navy without Ohio class ballistic missile subs and Trident missiles – which the Left wanted to cancel – and the two carriers the Reagan Admin ordered in 1988 – the USS John C. Stennis and the USS Harry S. Truman.

Imagine the US Army and Marine Corps with just a puny number of M1 Abrams tanks, still stuck with obsolete M60 Patton tanks as the Left wished.

And of course, the Reagan Admin never cancelled or even curtailed the Strategic Defense Initiative. Nor did the Bush Administration. It was the Clinton administration that killed it.

Reagan Did Not Join the Nuclear Freeze Movement – He Defeated It

Nor did Reagan had a change of heart about defense spending and nuclear weapons, as Beinart falsely claims. Nor did he cave in to supposed public pressure to cut defense spending and implement a nuclear freeze, contrary to Beinart’s blatant lies. On the contrary, Reagan resisted these stupid, suicidal policies with every fiber of his body for the entirety of his presidency – and America is safer now because of that.

In 1983, when the nuclear freeze movement, led by Congressman (now Senator) Ed Markey, was at its peak, and when the House passed a resolution demanding the freeze, Reagan completely rejected it and went to his Evangelical Friends in Texas to ask them to support his continued hawkish policies towards the Kremlin… and called the Soviet Union “the Evil Empire.”

In his 1984 reelection campaign, Reagan unequivocally rejected all “nuclear freeze” proposals and was rewarded with a 49-state landslide reelection victory, one of the greatest in US history, over Democratic candidate Walter Mondale, who advocated a nuclear freeze.

Throughout the 1980s, the Reagan Administration continued to develop, test, and produce more and more nuclear weapons and delivery systems of increasing sophistication. In 1986, it deployed the MX Peacekeeper missile and the B-1 strategic bomber.

As for defense spending, in 1985, Ronald Reagan relunctantly agreed to slow down its growth – but in real terms it continued to grow, peaking in 1988 (not 1985, as many falsely claim) at $302 bn in then-year dollars and 6.6% of the economy – levels not seen since then, and not seen at any point during the 1970s or early 1980s.

That’s because Reagan was very cautious about and weary of the Soviet Union – even Gorbachev’s Soviet Union. He wanted the US to maintain a strong, ever-modernizing military at all times.

In 1993, after the Cold War was over, when the Clinton administration cancelled the SDI, Reagan condemned that, exhorting the administration to “open its eyes” if it thought there were no more threats to America’s security.

All in all, all of the Left’s claims about Reagan are blatant lies.

No, Ronald Reagan was never a peacenik, nor did he ever relent in his enormous military, economic, and diplomatic pressure on the Soviet Union at any point during his presidency. THAT is what ended the Cold War. On Reagan’s terms, not Gorbachev’s.

Posted in Defense spending, Ideologies, Media lies, Nuclear deterrence, World affairs | Leave a Comment »

Le defile militaire du 14 juillet aujourd’hui et les coupes de l’armee francaise

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on July 14, 2014


Aujourd’hui etait une journee triste.

Pourquoi? C’est la Fete Nationale, n’est-ce pas?

Oui. Mais quand je regardais le defile militaire sur les Champs-Elysees, j’etais triste et j’avais mal au coeur.

C’etait un defile triste. Cette armee qui a defile aujourd’hui etait une armee de loin plus petite, plus faible, et plus endommage par des coupes successifs, que l’armee francaise il y a 7 ou encore 20 ans.

C’etait une armee tres affabliee et tres profondement coupee par des gouvernements successifs qui se fichent de la securite de la France, et pour lequels le budget de l’armee francaise n’est qu’une ressource d’argent a exploiter pour payer pour le maintien du modele insupportable d’un Etat socialiste.

Or, des gouvernements successifs ont menti que ces coupes (“reductions” et “reforms” en doublespeak politique) ne menacent pas l’armee francaise, ne l’affabliront pas, et ne menaceront pas la securite de la France.

Ce sont des mensonges. En fait, TOUTES ces coupes ont tres affabli l’armee francaise – et c’est intolerable. C’est, en fait, un trahison, et devrait etre puni.

Meme pire, le gouvernement, et notamment le ministere des finances (Bercy), prepare toujours des NOUVEAUX attaques contre l’armee francaise et son budget – ce qui montre que le pire ennemi de la France et de son armee n’est pas externel, c’est le ministere des finances.

Il faut arreter toutes les coupes du budget de l’armee francaise, proteger la contre toutes nouvelles reductions, et l’agrandir et renforter.

D’abord, pour degager plus de l’argent, il faut:

  1. Reduire fortement le nombre des fonctionnaires civils du ministere de la defense, de 66,000 a 22,000, ce qui devrait permettre le ministere d’economiser au moins 1 Md d’Euros par an.
  2. Vendre tous les A319 et la moitie des Falcon de l’Armee de l’Air (AdlA).
  3. Fermer soit la base aerienne de Creil (Oise), soit la base aerienne de Villecoublay (preferablement celle a Villecoublay), et faire demenager tous ses unites a l’autre de ces bases.
  4. Fermer la base aerienne de Cazaux, qui est situee pres de Bordeaux, et faire demenager tous ses unites a Mont de Marsan, Pau, Perpignan, Nimes, Avignon, ou Rodez. Ouvrir un centre internationale d’entrainement des pilotes a Rodez ou dans la Cote Mediterrainee.
  5. Reduire le budget de la Gendarmerie Nationale par au moins 700 millions d’Euros par an (en commencant par cesser de proteger l’appartement de Julie Gayet et en reduisant la Garde Republicaine par 75%; il faut supprimer la cavalerie de la Garde Republicaine et le 2eme Regiment de la Garde) afin de permettre l’AdlA d’acheter 10 Rafale supplementaires par an.
  6. Reduire le nombre des generaux et admiraux dans l’armee et les grades des commandants differents. Par exemple, les chefs des quatres services militaires devraient avoir seulement 4 etoiles, pas 5. Le rang du general d’armee, general d’armee aerienne, ou amiral devrait etre reserve seulement au CEMA.
  7. Supprimer la DAS, les bureaux des officiers generaux, le CFSM, le CAJ, etc.
  8. Demenager les priorites et les moyens de la GN de la lutte contre les automobilistes a la defense nationale. Aussi cesser de proteger les batiments gouvernementaux – c’est le devoir de la police nationale et de la GSHP.
  9. Utiliser les soldats de l’armee francaise seulement pour combat et pour la protection du territoire francais, et non pour les patrouilles des gares ferrovraires ou les stations metro et RER – ce qui est le devoir et la competence des services de securite de celles-la et de la police nationale.
  10. Immediatement terminer toutes les Operations Externelles, sauf l’Operation Serval (la guerre au Mali).
  11. Vendre tous les 254 chevaux de l’armee francaise, chacun pour 1 million d’euros.

Afin de renforter l’armee francaise, il faut:

  1. Commander au moins 10 Rafale supplementaires, finances par une coupe du budget de la Gendarmerie Nationale.
  2. Augmenter le nombre des avions de l’AdlA dedies a la dissuasion nucleaire de 40 a 70.
  3. Augmenter le nombre des missiles ASMP-A.
  4. Augmenter la portee des missiles M51 et MBDA Meteor.
  5. Augmenter le nombre des chars Leclerc de 200 a 400.
  6. Augmenter le commande pour les systemes de defense anti-aerienne Aster 30 de 8 a au moins 12.
  7. Installer de nouveaux radars a Strasbourg et Metz.
  8. Faire ouvrir, a Rodez, Clermont-Ferrand, Perpignan, Chateauroux, ou Vatry un centre europeen et NATO d’entrainement des pilotes de l’UE et de l’OTAN, bien que l’Italie soit en concurrence pour en etre le pays-hote.
  9. Faire demenager les centres d’entrainement des pilotes de l’AdlA de la Rochelle a Rodez, Perpignan, et Clermont-Ferrand.
  10. Convertir l’A330 presidentiel, les 3 A310 de l’escadron de Villecoublay, l’A330 presidentiel, et l’A330 originel de la compagnie Airbus, en avions de ravitaillement (A330 MRTT et A310 MRTT). Cela augmenterait le nombre des avions de ravitaillement projetes par l’AdlA de 12 a 17 et en consequence permettrait la France d’etre totalement independante, dans la matiere de ravitaillement de ses avions, des Etats-Unis.
  11. Acheter des avions C-17 ou A400M afin de ne pas etre dependent sur aucune armee aerienne etrangere pour la logistique.

 

Posted in Defense spending, World affairs | Leave a Comment »

Comment reformer et renforter l’armee francaise

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on July 4, 2014


142074.439nuclear_explosion

L’armee francaise subit beaucoup de coupes budgetaires injustes et destructives en ce moment. Il faut les arreter, degager des moyens dans les depenses courantes (de fonctionnement de l’armee), et renforter les armees de la Republique Francaise.

D’abord, pour degager plus de l’argent, il faut:

  1. Reduire fortement le nombre des fonctionnaires civils du ministere de la defense, de 66,000 a 22,000, ce qui devrait permettre le ministere d’economiser au moins 1 Md d’Euros par an.
  2. Vendre tous les A319 et la moitie des Falcon de l’Armee de l’Air (AdlA).
  3. Fermer soit la base aerienne de Creil (Oise), soit la base aerienne de Villecoublay (preferablement celle a Villecoublay), et faire demenager tous ses unites a l’autre de ces bases.
  4. Fermer la base aerienne de Cazaux, qui est situee pres de Bordeaux, et faire demenager tous ses unites a Mont de Marsan, Pau, Perpignan, Nimes, Avignon, ou Rodez. Ouvrir un centre internationale d’entrainement des pilotes a Rodez ou dans la Cote Mediterrainee.
  5. Reduire le budget de la Gendarmerie Nationale par au moins 700 millions d’Euros par an (en commencant par cesser de proteger l’appartement de Julie Gayet et en reduisant la Garde Republicaine par 75%; il faut supprimer la cavalerie de la Garde Republicaine et le 2eme Regiment de la Garde) afin de permettre l’AdlA d’acheter 10 Rafale supplementaires par an.
  6. Reduire le nombre des generaux et admiraux dans l’armee et les grades des commandants differents. Par exemple, les chefs des quatres services militaires devraient avoir seulement 4 etoiles, pas 5. Le rang du general d’armee, general d’armee aerienne, ou amiral devrait etre reserve seulement au CEMA.
  7. Supprimer la DAS, les bureaux des officiers generaux, le CFSM, le CAJ, etc.
  8. Demenager les priorites et les moyens de la GN de la lutte contre les automobilistes a la defense nationale. Aussi cesser de proteger les batiments gouvernementaux – c’est le devoir de la police nationale et de la GSHP.
  9. Utiliser les soldats de l’armee francaise seulement pour combat et pour la protection du territoire francais, et non pour les patrouilles des gares ferrovraires ou les stations metro et RER – ce qui est le devoir et la competence des services de securite de celles-la et de la police nationale.
  10. Immediatement terminer toutes les Operations Externelles, sauf l’Operation Serval (la guerre au Mali).
  11. Vendre tous les 254 chevaux de l’armee francaise, chacun pour 1 million d’euros.

Afin de renforter l’armee francaise, il faut:

  1. Commander au moins 10 Rafale supplementaires, finances par une coupe du budget de la Gendarmerie Nationale.
  2. Augmenter le nombre des avions de l’AdlA dedies a la dissuasion nucleaire de 40 a 70.
  3. Augmenter le nombre des missiles ASMP-A.
  4. Augmenter la portee des missiles M51 et MBDA Meteor.
  5. Augmenter le nombre des chars Leclerc de 200 a 400.
  6. Augmenter le commande pour les systemes de defense anti-aerienne Aster 30 de 8 a au moins 12.
  7. Installer de nouveaux radars a Strasbourg et Metz.
  8. Faire ouvrir, a Rodez, Clermont-Ferrand, Perpignan, Chateauroux, ou Vatry un centre europeen et NATO d’entrainement des pilotes de l’UE et de l’OTAN, bien que l’Italie soit en concurrence pour en etre le pays-hote.
  9. Faire demenager les centres d’entrainement des pilotes de l’AdlA de la Rochelle a Rodez, Perpignan, et Clermont-Ferrand.
  10. Convertir l’A330 presidentiel, les 3 A310 de l’escadron de Villecoublay, l’A330 presidentiel, et l’A330 originel de la compagnie Airbus, en avions de ravitaillement (A330 MRTT et A310 MRTT). Cela augmenterait le nombre des avions de ravitaillement projetes par l’AdlA de 12 a 17 et en consequence permettrait la France d’etre totalement independante, dans la matiere de ravitaillement de ses avions, des Etats-Unis.
  11. Acheter des avions C-17 ou A400M afin de ne pas etre dependent sur aucune armee aerienne etrangere pour la logistique.

dassaultrafale

Posted in Air combat, Defense spending, Ground combat, Nuclear deterrence | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Denying the China threat is becoming more and more difficult

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on July 3, 2014


As the Chinese military threat grows, it is becoming more and more difficult for the enemies of a strong American defense to deny that threat – not that they’ll stop trying.

But now the evidence of the gravity of the Chinese military threat is so overwhelming that it’s impossible to deny that threat and retain any shred of capability any longer.

From the Inside the Ring Column by renowned journalist Bill Gertz, we find out that:

China’s military is investing heavily in advanced submarines, including both ballistic and cruise missile firing vessels and attack subs. Recently, Beijing showed off what appears to be a mock-up of its next-generation nuclear-powered attack submarine, according to veteran military analyst Rick Fisher.

“A large outdoor model of a next generation nuclear attack submarine [SSN] has appeared at the People’s Liberation Army Navy [PLAN] submarine academy in Qingdao, China,” Mr. Fisher stated in a report published by the International Assessment and Strategy Center, a think tank.

“The role of this model may simply be to inspire the academy’s students, but it may signify a larger personnel investment by the PLAN to prepare for its next generation submarines, as it may also offer some indications about a new class of SSN,” he said, referring to the military acronym for attack submarines

Photos of the model were first published in April during a Chinese naval conference, and Mr. Fisher said the Chinese have long used such photos of mock-up weapons as political messages for both domestic and foreign audiences.

The mock-up could be the first peek at China’s Type-095 attack submarine — the second nuclear-powered attack submarine being built by the Chinese after its current Type-093.

In addition to the attack subs, the Chinese also are building two new ballistic missile submarines, the Type-094 and Type-096.

The Pentagon in its latest annual report on China’s military said currently two Type-093s are deployed and four improved Type-093s will be fielded in the next five years.

However, Mr. Fisher said Asia military sources have indicated that in addition to the six Type-093s, two new Type-095s could be deployed by 2020.”

In March this year, the commander of all US troops in the Pacific, Admiral Samuel Locklear, underlined the growing threat posed by China’s submarine fleet:

“The head of U.S. Pacific CommandAdmiral Samuel Locklear III, told Congress on Tuesday that the ballistic missiles on China’s newest submarines would have an estimated range of 4,000 nautical miles.

This will give China its first credible sea-based nuclear deterrent, probably before the end of 2014,” Adm. Locklear told the Senate Armed Services Committee, Agence France Presse reported.

China’s advance in submarine capabilities is significant. They possess a large and increasingly capable submarine force,” Adm. Locklear continued.

The head of the U.S. Pacific fleet said that within the next decade China would possess 60 to 70 submarines, with its JIN-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines armed with new JL-2 missiles.

The testimony came the same day that the head of the U.S. Pacific Command said that the U.S. Navy does not possess the capacity to conduct amphibious assaults in the wake of a crisis, as it did during World War II.”

And from WantChinaTimes, quoting Jane’s, we find out that China already has over 900 modern, 4th generation fighter jets, and will possess 1,500 such fighters by 2020 – more than the USAF does or will at that time have. In fact, the USAF is significantly cutting its fighter fleet. China has also decided to procure the Russian Su-35 Generation 4++ fighter jet that is as good as any 5th generation fighter as well as powerful supercruising AL-41 engines – both of which China will copy.

Posted in Air combat, Naval affairs, Threat environment | 2 Comments »

Rebuttal of leftists’ attacks on AirSea Battle

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on June 25, 2014


The AirSea Battle (ASB) concept – designed to allow the US military to defeat the anti-access/area-denial threats posed by the advanced weapons of China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and other countries – has been under a vicious attack by the anti-defense Left ever since its inception – as has been every crucial and successful battle concept, strategy, and defense program in modern US history. As usual, anti-defense Leftists claim that ASB is too provocative, will trigger a nuclear war, will be “ineffective”, etc. In short, the standard claims of the anti-defense Left about every crucial defense program in modern history.

So it is also with AirSea Battle.

In a recent article in the so-called “National Interest” magazine, two anti-defense leftists, Thomas X. Hammes and Richard Hooker (sic!), have attacked ASB on totally spurious grounds. This article will refute their lies.

1. Firstly, Hammes and Hooker falsely claim that ASB is both “provocative” and “ineffective” and “could escalate the conflict uncontrollably.”

That is completely false. We’ll deal with the question of ASB’s effectiveness in a few minutes. As for ASB supposedly being “provocative” and a potential escalator of the conflict, let’s not forget that ASB would be activated against China ONLY if Beijing were to commit aggression against the US or its treaty allies – or against US troops in Asia (and one is essentially homonymous with the other, because thousands of US troops are stationed in Japan and South Korea, with others rotating through the Philippines and USN warships destined for Singapore).

If China does attack the US, or its troops deployed in Asia and its treaty allies, it is hard to claim that the conflict could be significantly escalated any further – for China would’ve already have killed thousands of US troops – deaths the US public would demand be quickly avenged, just like it demanded a speedy payback for Pearl Harbor.

And honestly, from a purely moral standpoint, if China does attack the US, its troops serving abroad, or America’s treaty allies – none of whom pose a threat to Beijing – it deserves whatever it gets.

I’ll repeat: China has nothing to fear from AirSea Battle (or from the US or its allies at all) if it does not start shooting wars in Asia. If, however, it does commit aggression against anyone, it SHOULD fear strikes on its soil – and a credible threat of such strikes is the ONLY thing that can deter Asia, as I’ll explain later.

 

2. Secondly, Hammes and Hooker falsely claim that:

“When you bomb China it becomes a passion over politics issue, making it harder to get China to negotiate a peaceful settlement. Bombing makes it so much harder to return to the status quo before the conflict. You are not going to have a decisive win with China without going nuclear, so you need to engage them and walk them back from the edge.”

All of that is balderdash, too. Firstly, the US CAN defeat China decisively without going nuclear if it applies AirSea Battle (as I’ll explain below). Secondly, it would be utterly unacceptable, and very dangerous, to try to restore the “status quo.”

By the way, what exactly is the current status quo? Unclear and unresolved sovereignty over numerous islands in the Pacific, large chunks of that ocean, and large deposits of natural resources therein; East Asian countries squabbling amongst each other; and China arming itself to the teeth and fielding a military rivaling the US in conventional (if not nuclear) weapons – as well as fielding some weapon types the US doesn’t even have.

That is ABSOLUTELY not the status quo the US should seek to restore. Restoring it would only lead to more wars, death, and destruction.

What the US needs is to defeat China so thoroughly that the Chinese will have no doubts that they will have been defeated, just like the Germans and the Japanese had no such doubts in 1945. When Allied troops entered their capitals in 1945, they had no doubt whatsoever they had been thoroughly trounced. It is time the Chinese learned what does that feel like. Only then will a durable peace be built.

For a durable peace is impossible without a complete victory. If you achieve it, you will usher in a Pax Britannica/Americana. If you fight only half-heartedly and achieve mixed results – if you don’t fight for a complete victory – you will eventually invite more war.

 

3. As for “negotiating a peaceful settlement with China” and “walking them back from the edge” – don’t make me laugh. The Chinese are not interested in any negotiated, peaceful settlement over the territorial disputes in Asia nor over America’s role in that region. They seek nothing short of total control of the Western Pacific (with its rich natural resources) and America’s total expulsion from Asia – exactly as the Japanese did in the 1930s and 1940s. It’s absolutely crucial to understand the potential America is dealing with here.[1] China isn’t interested in limited gains; like Japan in WW2, it seeks total control of the Western Pacific (and payback to Japan for WW2) and America’s total expulsion from the region (just like Japan did). China is not interested in dividing the Western Pacific nor in compromises.

So China is seeking total, imperialistic objectives, and is prepared to use any means to achieve them. By Hammes’ and Hooker’s admission, China is even likely to attack US satellites and cybernetworks (not just US bases and troops in Asia) with space and cyber weapons.

When one side seeks total objectives and uses total war means to achieve them, while the other side seeks only limited objectives and utilizes only limited means to accomplish them, the latter side will inevitably lose. For nothing can stop a nation (or another entity) which is totally determined (and prepared to do anything) to get what its wants. It’s that simple.

To defeat a China that seeks imperialistic hegemony and control over all of the Western Pacific and is prepared to do anything to achieve it, the US must likewise be prepared to do anything to deny China those aims – or be prepared to lose.

 

4. Hammes and Hooker also falsely claim that

“Air-Sea Battle is ineffective against China’s dense and capable air defense network” and “also cast doubts on whether the US military could locate and destroy China’s mobile missile-launch systems. China has an abundance of man-made caves and hidden facilities.”

Those are such blatant lies that it’s mindboggling anyone has even attempted them. Have they even READ the AirSea Battle concept? Obviously not. Had they read it, they wouldn’t have written such garbage.

One of the key tenets – if not THE central tenet – of AirSea Battle is developing very stealthy, very capable, long-ranged strike weapons (most notably, a new very stealthy long-range bomber) that will allow the US Air Force to evade even the most advanced air and missile defense systems in the world – including those fielded or planned for purchase by China.

What’s more, both the Pentagon and the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, where the ASB concept was born, have long advocated the development of such systems – especially that all-important stealthy bomber. The Air Force’s nuclear deterrence guru, Maj. Gen. Garrett Harencak, has just spoken yet again on the need for that stealthy bomber.

As for dealing with its man-made caves, hidden facilities, and tunnels – they can easily be destroyed by USAF bombs such as the Daisy Cutter (now retired, but it could be produced again), the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, and the new, smaller, lighter bomb with the same effect, but less size and cost, of the MOP. All of these can be carried by the B-52, the B-2, and the next generation bomber.

Those bombs easily destroyed Taleban caves in Afghanistan; in fact, Daisy Cutter bombs cause small earthquakes when detonated. They’d destroy Chinese caves, bunkers, and tunnels just as easily.

 

5. Hammes and Hooker also falsely claim that ASB

“is provocative in that China’s Second Artillery Corps controls its land-based ballistic missiles and nuclear arsenal. Attacking these facilities, while China has not or cannot attack comparable US facilities, could escalate the conflict uncontrollably.”

Like their other claims, these are blatant lies – and they’re illogical. If the US can bomb Chinese missile fields and nuclear weapon storages, but China cannot attack comparable US facilities, there is no risk of “escalating the conflict uncontrollably”, because the US would then be able to deal China a blow that Beijing couldn’t respond to in kind.

 

6. All of which brings us to the central reason why ASB is NOT provocative, does NOT invite the risk of nuclear war, and is the ONLY battle concept whose implementation can deter China from wrongdoing – and defeat it should it commit aggression anyway.

China has nothing to fear from the US, its allies, or the ASB concept if it behaves peacefully. If, however, it commits aggression against anyone, it has every reason to fear ASB. Chinese leaders probably understand that – and if they don’t, it’s high time they did.

The ONLY way the US can deter China – or any other potential aggressor, for that matter – from attacking others is to promise (and have the means) to unleash lethal, massive strikes against that potential aggressor’s territory and his military and economic assets in case of aggression on his part. Nothing else will deter those who prey upon their neighbors.

This is, indeed, the promise and the principle on which ALL deterrence strategies are based: that the aggressor will pay a huge price for his actions, disproportionate to the gains he might achieve by perpetrating aggression. Only that can deter China.

 

7. The so-called “Offshore Control” strategy, which Hammes and Hooker promote as their “alternative” strategy to ASB, is a recipe for America’s total defeat in a future war with China. Under their “strategy”, the US would have to completely swear off any strikes on China and only fight a purely defensive war in the Western Pacific’s islands.

US troops would thus be fighting with both of their hands tied behind their backs. It would be both practically suicidal and morally repugnant to ask them to fight that way – yet it is PRECISELY what Hammes and Hooker advocate.

Contrary to their blatant lies, the US stands no chance whatsoever of “denying China access to the seas inside the First Island Chain[2]“, let alone “dominating the Second Island Chain”, if Chinese mainland – and all the military bases and weapons plants on it – are left untouched. China will, in such a scenario, be able to continually launch hails of ballistic and cruise missiles at US bases and warships within the First and Second Island Chain – and China can produce literally hundreds of such missiles every year. China can also affordably build large numbers of ultra-quiet submarines, naval mines, and fighters to control the sea and the airspace inside the First and Second Island Chain – and the US would have to expend a large amount of its own fighters and ASW and demining assets to counter these.

A defensive war against China would be an exhausting, bloody, uber-costly war of attrition for the US, whereby dwindling numbers of US and allied defensive systems would have to counter an ever-growing Chinese arsenal of cheaper, offensive weapons. This is what Hammes’ and Hooker’s pseudo-strategy would lead to. It is both militarily suicidal and morally repugnant.

By contrast, AirSea Battle aims to destroy China’s military bases and weapon plants – and thus its offensive war-waging capability – ASAP, so that China cannot exhaust US defenses with too many missiles and aircraft.

8. Moreover, it is Hammes’ and Hooker’s pseudo-strategy, not ASB, that has zero deterrence value. Does anyone really think Beijing will be deterred by a US promise of leaving the Chinese mainland alone and telling China, “we’ll only be on defense against you in the Pacific islands; don’t worry, your mainland is safe” ?

Of course not. Such a statement would only embolden Beijing.

Meanwhile, a firm promise of devastating strikes on the Chinese mainland is the ONLY way Beijing can be deterred from committing aggression in the first place – thus defeating China without a fight, which, according to ancient Chinese strategist Sun Tzu, is “the acme of generalship.”

Historical Experience

Last, but not least, history teaches that those who wage war with total means win, while those who try to play solely on defense lose.

Virtually no war in history (except the 480 BC Greek war against the Persians) has been war by playing solely on defense. Victory has almost always required going on offense.

This is not surprising: when you play solely on defense: you cede the initiative and the control of the war’s tempo to the enemy. While not 100% impossible, victory is EXTREMELY hard to achieve when the enemy has the initiative and controls the war’s tempo. What’s more, when you play on defense, the enemy chooses where and when he’ll fight you (because he’ll decide where and when to attack you).

The only chance you have of winning purely defensive wars is if 1) your military is MUCH stronger than the enemy’s, and 2) your positions are fortified from all sides. Even then, victory is not guaranteed.

And that won’t work in the Pacific, anyway, because 1) China’s military is already almost as strong as the US military, and 2) there is zero chance of turning the Pacific Islands into impregnable fortresses – China will always have more than enough offensive weapons to overwhelm their defenses. Especially given that defensive systems cost several times more than offensive ones.

Confederate_Rebel_Flag_svg

As stated, the Civil War and WW2 were won by carrying out massive, successful offenses against the enemy. As retired Army officer and historian Bevin Alexander observes, the key reason why the Confederacy lost the Civil War was its failure to successfully attack the North.

President Jefferson Davis wanted to play solely on defense. He believed that if the South won a series of battles on its home front, European powers would recognize the Confederacy and intervene against the Union. That never happened, despite King Cotton’s power; and after President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, it was out of question.

General Robert Lee attempted two offensives against the Union, in 1862 and 1863, but they both failed, because Lee sought a decisive battle against the much stronger Union Army, a battle the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia didn’t have the strength for.

By contrast, General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson sought to destroy the Union’s industrial centers, railroad hubs, farmlands, and population centers, so that the Union would learn – to borrow words from Jackson – “what it would cost them to keep the South in the Union at a bayonet’s point.”

While the US should not attack Chinese population centers, it must destroy China’s warfighting capability and industrial centers, so that China learns what it will cost them to grab the Western Pacific, and subjugate its nations, at a bayonet’s point.

Hammes and Hooker still object, however, on the grounds that no president has ever authorized the bombing of China, not even during the Korean Wars, so obtaining such authorization is unlikely, they say. But that is pure speculation – and a truly commonsense President knowledgeable about military affairs WOULD authorize the bombing of China IF that country perpetrates aggression against the US or its allies. Not to do so would mean accepting such Chinese aggression.

By the way, the US lost the Korean and Vietnam wars PRECISELY because it sought to play solely on defense and renounced any strikes on the enemy’s warfighting capability and base of operations. That is why the US lost – despite American troops’ unrivalled heroism and skill and despite the able leadership of Generals MacArthur and Ridgway.

In Vietnam, President Johnson completely prohibited the US military from destroying any strategically important targets, relegating it to bombing only secondary ones – thus wasting a lot of American aviators’ lives, aircraft, and munitions. He personally selected the targets to be bombed at White House luncheons – and these were the ONLY targets allowed to be attacked.

Johnson and the Left falsely claimed – like Hammes and Hooker do now – that striking important targets (like airfields and munition storage facilities) would provoke the USSR and China to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This blatant lie was exposed as such in 1972, when President Nixon bombed every important target in North Vietnam except the Red River dykes.

In Korea, General MacArthur wanted to strike Chinese industry to strip China of its ability to wage offensive war, and to ferry Chinese Nationalists from Taiwan to recapture the mainland, but President Truman rejected that. Consequently, China was lost to the Communists permanently and the Korean War became a bloody stalemate. By 1952, the American people were so sick and tired of it, they elected a President who pledged to end it.

And he did – by threatening to escalate against China and the rest of the Communist bloc with nuclear weapons if the Communists persisted in fighting. This, coupled with Stalin’s death, allowed an armistice to be signed.

But it was only an armistice. It restored the dangerous status quo – of the kind Hammes and Hooker want to keep – which, in time, allowed China and North Korea to become grave threats to US national security. Such are the results that purely defensive strategies produce.

As retired Air Force Colonel Thomas Snodgrass writes, purely defensive “limited war” strategies, such as the one proposed by Hammes and Hooker, have three fatal flaws that guarantee a US defeat:

“First, this kabuki dance of attacking non-vital targets conveys a message of indecision and weakness, and most certainly neither a message of strength nor that the situation will get worse for the enemy if the war continues. There is simply no incentive for the enemy to forego his efforts to obtain his strategic objective.

Second, and related to this first fallacy, is the fact that “kabuki bombing” does nothing to diminish the enemy’s capability to carry on the war, so there is no material progress toward ending the conflict. In other words, the enemy grows suspicious that the implied threat of a ratcheting up of the destructive force of the war will never occur in fact.

Third, indefinite escalation implies open-ended war and an ability to sustain casualties over a long period of time, presumably on the side utilizing this doctrine. This third fallacy is transparent in its failure when viewed from the underlying assumptions of the doctrine itself.

Thus, the ‘limited war’ doctrine is based upon three fundamental assumptions.

Assumption one is that there is some limit to the casualties and destruction the enemy is prepared to suffer. Assumption two is that the enemy has an implicit understanding that the adversary utilizing the ‘limited war’ doctrine is fully prepared to continue ratcheting up the war while sustaining casualties until the enemy has had enough. And assumption three is that the side pursuing the doctrine does in fact have the stomach (i.e., motivation) for an indefinitely prolonged war with mounting casualties.

Consequently, when any of these three assumptions is wrong, the ‘limited war’ doctrine will actually become a doctrine the enemy uses to defeat the advocate of the doctrine. Specifically, we understand this quite intuitively: when the U.S. engages in limited war against an enemy that does not value its soldiers’ lives with the same high regard as does the U.S., the outcome of the war suddenly becomes dependent on the American public’s will to sustain seemingly unending casualties. With this change in warfare focus, the decisive battlefield shifts from enemy targets to the U.S. homefront where the enemy’s principal weapon is the American news media.”

Thus, if Hammes’ “Offshore Control” strategy is ever adopted (God forbid), the US will inevitably lose the war, because mainland China will be completely off limits to American strikes. Thus, China will be left free to wage wars of aggression and attrite American and allied defenses – and to shift the key battlefield to the US itself, where its principal weapon will be the leftist US news media.

Hammes’ “Offshore Control” strategy is, in sum, a recipe for a total US defeat.

He and Hooker are showing that not only do they know nothing about China, they also don’t understand US politics and the American society (with its ever-smaller, and already very limited, tolerance for war casualties).

Any “strategies” offered by such people should be rejected completely. For, as Sun Tzu, who will have the last word here, said:

“If you know the enemy and you know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.

If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will suffer a defeat.

If you know neither yourself nor the enemy, you will succumb in every battle.”

Posted in Air combat, Media lies, Military issues, Naval affairs, World affairs | Leave a Comment »

The 10 Cardinal Rules of a Successful Man

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on June 23, 2014


This blog is primarily dedicated to defense issues, and has been since its creation in 2008. But ever since its founding, I have, from time to time, published postings about other topics, so I’ll do so today as well :

This one is very important: my observations on how to become a successful man, based on my experiences, and thus, what distinguishes a successful man from a failed guy.

The 10 Cardinal Rules of a Successful Man, according to Zbigniew Mazurak, are (in no particular order of importance):

1. You have to be able to make decisions fast – and oftentimes, without anyone’s advice. You must decide what is most important for you, and then stick to that priority unless and until it disappears. No one else can do the deciding for you. You must not be indecisive; a decision (even if it later turns out to be wrong) is still better in 99% of cases than no decision at all. Can you imagine Napoleon, Ronald Reagan, Sun Tzu, or whoever was your favorite leader, quibbling for hours on what decision to make, especially in simple cases?

2. To become successful with women, as almost all guys want to, you will first have to become successful in life in general (which is what all these rules, and especially the next one, are about). About 90% of women (and girls) will prefer a very successful (wealthy, influential, handsome, strong) man who is not good at seduction and courtship over a failed nobody who can’t get a decent job (or any job at all). Yes, women really prefer wealthy, powerful, influential, handsome, physically (and emotionally) strong men over those who aren’t; those traits are really important to them, no matter how many people tell you that “women don’t care about money, influence, looks, and physical strength.” It’s fashionable these days to say that, but it’s wrong. If you don’t believe me, just ask yourself this question:

How many women would love to date famous, wealthy guys like Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Cruise, or Daniel Craig? Answer: quite a lot.

How many women would want to date an average Joe, especially if they can date someone wealthier, more handsome, and more powerful? Answer: not many.

Just as men want to date the most beautiful women available, women want to date, sleep, and eventually marry (for those who carry about marriage) the wealthiest, most handsome, most powerful, and strongest men they can get. And who can blame them? They want comfort, affluence, and fun! Moreover, those who envisage having children at some point want their children to grow up in the most affluent, most secure household possible. Dating a failed man would condemn them to a future of misery, poverty, and lack of security.

3. To become successful in life, you must, first and foremost, work hard for many years. Becoming successful won’t come easy (if it did, almost everyone would’ve been successful right now), nor will you achieve life success fast. Whatever other people tell you, there are NO shortcuts to becoming a successful man.

Now, all of that may very well sound obvious. But working hard is only part of the story. To be successful, you must be working hard on those things that will objectively give you tangible benefits in life – preferrably the biggest benefit you can get. You should not expend ANY effort whatsoever on endeavors that do not benefit you in a tangible way. If you do, you will only waste a lot of time and money for no benefit whatsoever. A good case in point is: what major should you study? Forget about studying majors such as History, Political Science, Philosophy, Social Science, English, etc. – degrees in these majors are worthless pieces of paper that will only land you a place on welfare rolls or a job at McDonald’s – not a position with Google or HP. Study the “hard sciences” hard, obtain degrees in fields that are in high-demand, and obtain a good job. Which brings me to my next point.

4. Always do what is profitable for you. Forget about doing things that bring you no benefit. Also, always do what is best for YOU, not others. No one will take care of you; you must do that. Always do what is best, and most profitable, for YOU. Do not sacrifice yourself for others’ sake.

5. Do what is best for you regardless of what others (except your spouse, if you have one, and those who have power over you) think. Seek their opinion and advice, but at the end of the day, do what is best for YOU, regardless of what others (except those listed above) think.

6. Don’t assume you know everything. You don’t. People who claim to be experts, or who gladly accept being called “experts” by others, are usually people of little knowledge on that subject. The truth is, you learn throughout your entire life.

7. Also, in order to be attractive to people, you must have an interesting hobby/pastime; one that is interesting to many people, that is. It can be a sport, but doesn’t have to be. Being an interesting man who does interesting things, has visited fascinating countries, has many interesting stories to tell, and lives an interesting live opens a lot of doors and increases your chances of success with everyone – not just women. It can also increase (somewhat) your chances of getting that job you dream of. If you can engage the interviewer in an interesting conversation on the subject, he/she will think more of you.

8. Learn widely-spoken foreign languages like French, Spanish, Russian, and Portuguese. This will quite literally open the door to the cultures and the hearts of the people where these languages are spoken. Also learn German, in case you need to immigrate to Germany or Switzerland (19 Swiss cantons have German as their sole official language and it is the only language really spoken by the locals in these cantons).

9. Never, ever, reveal any of your weaknesses or failures before anyone, unless you absolutely must because you are being interrogated and must say the whole truth and nothing but the truth. You never gain anything from such a disclosure. Also, never show weakness or fear in front of anyone. Again, you never gain anything from showing it.

10. Don’t shower anyone – not just women – with too much attention. People don’t like that. At best, you will become a bothersome nuisance for them; at worst, they may come to think you need them and want their attention at all cost – and will demand ever-increasing ransom from you for their attention.

There are, of course, other principles a man must abide by to be successful, but these are the 10 most important ones. Failing to abide by any one of them will lead to failure in life. Men who abide by all ten are successful in life – and with women.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

80,000 viewers!

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on June 19, 2014


Yesterday, this blog hit a milestone: it welcomed its 80,000th visitor!

Traffic on this website has been huge recently, mostly due to people reading my rebuttals of Pierre Sprey, Winslow Wheeler, and their garbage rants about fighter aircraft – and I’ll post a similar rebuttal of their lies soon.

Thanks for your continued interest in this website, folks!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 419 other followers