Zbigniew Mazurak's Blog

A blog dedicated to defense issues

What does it matter if Russia has more warheads?

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on October 23, 2014


There is a widespread belief among many people – fostered by leftist organizations seeking America’s unilateral disarmament – that even a small number of nuclear warheads is sufficient for nuclear deterrence, so it doesn’t matter – according to that theory – if Russia will have more nuclear weapons than the US does. According to that view, America can therefore – allegedly – afford to cut its nuclear arsenal unilaterally and deeply and still be secure.

Nothing could be further from the truth. That belief is utterly wrong.

It matters a huge deal how many nuclear weapons the US has vis-a-vis potential adversaries.

For effective deterrence, it isn’t enough to have some nuclear weapons; you must have more than any potential adversary. Deterrence works only if the adversary knows that in response to his attacks you would be willing and able to launch a devastating retaliation that would destroy him.

For that to be possible, you must have at least – repeat, AT LEAST – enough nuclear warheads and delivery systems to survive an enemy first strike and then deliver a devastating retaliation whose consequences for the enemy would be too frightening to even contemplate.

In other words, you must have enough nuclear warheads – and enough delivery systems – to ensure that a large number of them will survive the enemy’s devastating first strike (a preemptive one) and be available to retaliate against the enemy.

For that to be possible, you must have a VERY LARGE nuclear arsenal. A small one will be woefully inadequate – it would be easily destroyed in a first strike by the enemy.

Russia currently possesses 8,000 nuclear warheads, including around 4,500 of them deployed. Of these deployed warheads, 1,643 are strategic. But that isn’t all: Russia’s triad of intercontinental ballistic missiles, ballistic missile submarines, and intercontinental bombers could deliver two times that amount of warheads. The Russian ICBM fleet alone could deliver over 1,200 warheads to the CONUS; the bomber fleet, 700 warheads; the ballistic missile submarine fleet, at least 1,400.

And as Russia replaces its 4-warhead R-29RMU Sinyeva submarine-launched missiles with newer, 10-warhead Bulava and 12-warhead Liner missiles, the number of warheads carried by its submarine fleet will increase even further.

Russia currently has 12 ballistic missile submarines that can carry 16 missiles each, and one submarine capable of carrying 20 missiles. 10 of those submarines are in service at any given time. That equals 164 submarine-launched ballistic missiles.

Assuming every one of these 164 missiles were a Bulava (RSM-56/SS-NX-30) armed with 10 warheads, that would enable the Russian Navy’s ballistic missile submarines to deliver 1,640 warheads.

Asssuming every one of those 164 missiles were a Liner, however, the Russian Navy’s ballistic missile submarine fleet could deliver 1,968 warheads to the CONUS. Almost 2,000 warheads – delivered by Russia’s submarine-launched ballistic missiles alone.

Remember: in order to effectively deter Russia from perpetrating aggression, the US nuclear arsenal has to be LARGE ENOUGH to withstand any Russian (or Chinese) first strike and then still have enough nuclear warheads, deployed on a sufficiently large number of delivery vehicles, to unleash a devastating retaliation on Russia – meaning, striking ALL of Russia’s thousands of military and economic assets.

That cannot be done with a small arsenal of just a few hundred warheads – they would be easily destroyed by Russian nuclear warheads attacking the US, and America’s noisy ballistic missile submarines would be easily found by the Russian Navy. Moreover, a few hundred warheads – even if they survived at all, which they wouldn’t – would be woefully inadequate to destroy Russia’s thousands of military, economic, and geostrategic assets.

A small number of warheads and delivery systems could – due to its small size – be easily destroyed by any aggressor, thus enabling a state like Russia or China to nuke each target several times to make sure it’s been destroyed.

Thus, a small nuclear arsenal would be utterly inadequate for America’s deterrence needs – let alone the need to protect all allies of the US who rely on the US nuclear umbrella for their national security and their very survival.

Hence, the US must NOT reduce its nuclear arsenal any further.

Posted in Ideologies, Nuclear deterrence | Leave a Comment »

73% of Americans Oppose Defense Spending Cuts

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on October 19, 2014

While browsing the RasmussenReports website, I have discovered this August 19th poll on the subject of US military spending. The results are illuminating.

43% of all Americans believe the US does not spend enough on defense, and another 30% believe the US spends the right amount. Only 23% say the US spends too much and should cut its military expenditures.

This means 73% of Americans believe the US either spends the right amount or too little on defense.

In other words, 73% of Americans – nearly three fourths of the electorate – OPPOSE defense spending cuts.

Once again, the blatant lies of the advocates of defense cuts have been disproven.

Link to the poll.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

How missile defense opponents contradict – and thus utterly discredit – themselves

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on October 18, 2014

Pro-Russian, anti-American, anti-military advocacy groups such as the Arms Control Association and the Center for a Livable World have opposed America’s development and deployment of missile defenses for a long time. To justify their opposition, they have made up a number of blatant – and contradictory – lies. Following their claims to their logical conclusion reveals these claims to be completely contradictory and thus false.

Specifically, missile defense opponents:

1) Claim that North Korea and Iran are so primitive that they cannot miniaturize a nuclear warhead, let alone mate it with a ballistic or cruise missile. But in the next breath, they claim North Korea and Iran can develop decoys that can fool US missile defense systems.

Such decoys would have to be 100% identical to real warheads in terms of size, shape, flight profile, and other characteristics. In order to be a credible fake that could credibly pretend to be the real thing, a decoy would have to look and fly EXACTLY like the real thing. Primitive decoys such as chaff and balloons would not fool anyone or anything – they would easily be seen on radar screens as fakes.

2) Claim that all US missile defense tests are rigged (without presenting any evidence whatsoever to support that claim). But if they are rigged, why have some of them (including almost half of all Ground-Based Missile Defense System tests) failed? DOD personnel are not stupid – and certainly not so stupid as to fail 50% of tests they have supposedly “rigged.” If the DOD were to rig all of its missile defense tests, all of them would’ve succeeded – and the Pentagon would’ve then claimed “Look, all of our tests have succeeded, so that proves our BMD systems work!”

Some missile defense opponents have therefore changed their tactic by adopting a lie that is no less contradictory: that missile defense tests that succeed are “rigged”, while unsuccessful tests are “proof” that missile defense doesn’t work.

So, in the warped world of missile defense opponents, whenever a missile defense test succeeds, it’s surely been rigged, but if it fails, it wasn’t rigged and “proves” that “missile defense doesn’t work.”

3) Claim that America’s further development and deployment of missile defense systems will force Russia and China to build up their nuclear and ballistic missile arsenals.

But in the next breath, they claim US missile defense systems don’t work, can never work, are unproven (see claim #2), and can be easily fooled by primitive decoys (see claim #1).

That essentially amounts to claiming that Russia and China are so stupid they’ll build up their nuclear arsenals over a fictitious threat posed by missile defense systems that supposedly don’t work.

Some missile defense opponents claim explicitly that the mere prospect of any US missile defenses – even ones that don’t work – will drive Russia and China to build up their arsenals.

In essence, they’re claiming the Russians and the Chinese are so stupid they will expend their national resources to counter a nonexistent threat.

Such are the illogical, nonsensical, ridiculous, and plainly false claims of missile defense opponents. In their drive to disarm the US unilaterally – while not opposing Moscow’s and Beijing’s development of missile defenses – they are willing to make up any lies – even the most illogical and self-contradictory ones.

Posted in Missile Defense | Leave a Comment »

Even MORE bad and embarrassing news for anti-nuclear activists

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on October 14, 2014

The advocates of America’s unilateral nuclear disarmament never cease to trot out the blatant lie that the US nuclear arsenal, and in particular, American tactical nuclear weapons deployed in Europe to deter Russia, are an unneeded “anachronism.” They make up all sorts of lies to mislead the public into accepting their scrapping.

The Obama administration – infested with advocates of America’s unilateral disarmament – apparently agrees. It has authorized anti-nuclear hacks at CSIS (Center for Strategic and International Studies) to conduct “unofficial” talks with the Russians on possible cuts in, or even the possible withdrawal of, US tactical nuclear weapons from Europe – a long-held goal of American anti-nuclear activists and their Kremlin puppet masters.

The talks are being led for the CSIS by Sharon Squassoni, a longtime anti-nuclear activist and advocate of America’s unilateral nuclear disarmament. A few years ago, Squassoni participated in a Ploughshares propaganda “study” that called for the removal of all US tactical nuclear weapons from Europe.

Squassoni is the ignorant, anti-American-nuclear-weapons hack who, in June 2008, wrote this:

“North Korea’s commitment to dismantle its nuclear programme proves that George Bush’s hardline approach was a failure

When the Yongbyon cooling tower collapses on Friday in a cloud of dust, it will signal a level of commitment by the North Koreans to dismantling their nuclear weapons programme not previously seen.”

Just several months later, in April 2009, the North Koreans detonated a nuclear weapon, thus proving that their “commitment” to dismantling their nuclear weapons programme was a total farce – and that Squassoni is an utterly ignorant hack who doesn’t have a clue what she’s talking about.

But just a few days ago, the Russians again did something that completely disproves the myths being trotted out by Western anti-nuclear activists, thus embarrassing them: Moscow has begun deploying nuclear-armed ballistic missiles and supersonic Tu-22M bombers in the Crimea, a part of Ukrainian territory invaded and annexed by Russia earlier this year. This will bring Russian nuclear weapons closer to Western Europe than at any point since the end of the first Cold War (excluding the Kaliningradskaya Oblast).

That’s right: having illegally invaded, occupied, and annexed the Crimea in blatant violation of international law and the Budapest Memorandum, the Russians will now greatly profit from their aggression against Ukraine by deploying nuclear weapons capable of reaching all of Europe on that peninsula.

This means the nuclear threat to Europe and the US will only grow significantly.

This proves that the need for a large US nuclear deterrent – and for American tactical nuclear weapons in Europe – far from being gone, is actually greater than ever.

Nothing else will suffice.

And it’s not just me who underlines the primordial importance of nuclear weapons for America’s national security and survival: it’s the commander of the US Strategic Command, the US Air Force, and the Pentagon’s top weapons buyer who have recently stressed that importance. That, once again, utterly disproves anti-American-nuclear-weapons activists’ claims that America’s nuclear weapons is “a Cold War anachronism.”


Posted in Ideologies, Nuclear deterrence, Obama administration follies | Leave a Comment »

Under SECDEF Frank Kendall confirms I was right

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on October 13, 2014

The US Air Force, the Commander of the US Strategic Command, and the Pentagon’s top weapons buyer have recently confirmed what I’ve been saying for a long time: that nuclear deterrence is of primordial, supreme importance to America’s security in today’s world. Here’s the story from the Air Force’s official website:

Nuclear deterrence operations and long-range strike capabilities continue to be essential to the United States’ national defense strategy in the 21st century by providing security and stability for the U.S. and its allies in a highly complex and fluid global environment.

“The United States’ ability to maintain a strong, credible nuclear deterrent is foundational to U.S. national security and the security of our allies and partners,” said Adm. Cecil D. Haney, U.S. Strategic Command commander. “These test launches, and the valuable lessons we learn from each, ensure USSTRATCOM’s strategic forces remain relevant and ready, 24/7, providing flexible and credible options for the President and the Department of Defense.”

With multiple nations either currently in possession of nuclear weapons or believed to be attempting to develop them, maintaining a safe, secure and effective deterrent capability is crucial.

“[The nuclear mission] is our most important mission, period, simply because of the sheer destructive power that’s involved and because of the criticality of it to our national security,” said Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Frank Kendall, speaking on behalf of Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel during the 2014 Air Force Association’s Air and Space Conference, Sept. 17.

“This is the very foundation of U.S. national security,” Kendall said. “No capability we maintain is more important than our nuclear deterrent.”

There you have it, folks. It isn’t just me who underlines the primordial importance of nuclear weapons to America’s security: it’s also the Pentagon’s highest leaders.


Posted in Nuclear deterrence | Leave a Comment »

Comment reduire fortement le deficit budgetaire francais

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on October 6, 2014

Le deficit budgetaire de l’Etat francais a atteint 4,4% du PIB cette année et restera au-dela de 4% du PIB (a 4,3%, exactement) en 2014. Le gouvernement en titre est completement incapable de réduire ce deficit; ses projections de réduction sous le seuil de 3% du PIB restent sur des paries d’une croissance economique forte.

C’est pas credible. Il faut agir plus vite, il faut faire plus, pour réduire le déficit budgetaire français. Specifiquement, il faut:

  • Mettre en oeuvre toutes les propositions de François Fillon dans cette matière (un allongement des cotisations et du temps de travail, une hausse de l’âge legal de retrait, etc.). (110 Mds d’Euros d’économies sur 5 ans, soit 22 Mds d’Euros par an) Il faut aller même plus loin et allonger le temps de travail des fonctionnaires a 45 heures.
  • Réduire par 50% le nombre des fonctionnaires d’ici 2020. (François Fillon propose de réduire le nombre des fonctionnaires par 600 000 en cinq ans.)
  • Réduire fortement le nombre des deputes et des sénateurs.
  • Supprimer les subventions de l’Etat au STIF et a la Prefecture de Police de Paris (1 Md d’Euros d’économies par an).
  • Réduire progressivement les versements de l’Etat aux collectivites territoriales (qui seront a 53,2 Mds d’Euros en 2015 et 45,9 Mds d’Euros en 2017).
  • Faire à la SNCF financer son propre système des retraites, sans aucune subvention de l’Etat (30 Mds d’Euros d’économies par an).
  • Supprimer toutes les subventions aux enterprises publiques sauf une situation desastreuse; privatiser la SNCF, le RFF, France Televisions, et La Poste. Faire la SNCF et Air France s’appreter pour la concurrence contre les compagnies aériennes low-cost.
  • Supprimer le ministère de Ville, le ministère des Femmes, le ministère de l’ecologie (6,7 Mds d’Euros d’économies par an), et le ministère du Travail et de l’Emploi (11,1 Mds d’Euros par an).
  • Supprimer l’aide publique de la France aux pays pauvres (2,8 Mds d’Euros d’économies par an).
  • Supprimer toutes les subventions a l’audiovisuel (3,7 Mds d’Euros d’économies par an).
  • Supprimer toutes les paiements de la Securité Sociale pour les IVG (abortions).
  • Lutter sans pardon contre l’assistanat et la fraude dans la securite sociale et l’aide aux individus pauvres, ce qui coute l’Etat 25 Mds d’Euros par an.
  • Fermer les ambassades et consulats français dans les pays peu importants.

Economies totales (identifiees par François Fillon et par moi-même): au moins 77,3 Mds d’Euros par an, soit assez pour eliminer le deficit budgetaire completement, sans compter les économies resultantes de la réduction proposée du nombre des parlementaires, de l’elimination des subventions pour entreprises publiques, de la supprimation du ministère de Ville et celui des Femmes, la rationalisation du reseau diplomatique français, ou encore la supprimation des subventions pour avortements.

Source: http://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/visuel/2014/10/01/les-gagnants-et-les-perdants-du-budget-2014_4498480_4355770.html; http://www.lefigaro.fr/conjoncture/2014/10/01/20002-20141001ARTFIG00062-les-propositions-chocs-de-fillon-pour-reduire-la-dette.php

Posted in Economic affairs | Leave a Comment »

Bad News for Arms Control Advocates and Russian Threat Deniers

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on October 2, 2014

The last few weeks have been bad for advocates of arms control and other deniers of the Russian and Chinese military threat. While these people continue to stubbornly claim that nuclear weapons are “useless” against the security threats the US faces, the opposite is true, and more facts that refute their blatant lies are coming to light every week.

The latest New START “compliance” report was released last month. It shows Russia has increased its deployed strategic nuclear arsenal dramatically since March 1st (the date of the previous report), building up from 1,512 to 1,643 deployed strategic warheads – an increase of 131 deployed warheads in just 6 months!

Russia’s declared fleet of deployed strategic delivery systems (intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, bombers) also increased, from 498 to 528 – and even that is a vast understatement that excludes the vast majority of Russia’s SLBMs and bombers. (In the coming weeks, this website will publish a credible report on Russia’s real arsenal of warheads and delivery systems).

Thus, under New START, Russia’s nuclear arsenal has grown significantly rather than shrink – exactly as we, New START opponents, predicted, and exactly as Russian officials promised. Under New START, Russia is permitted to, and is, BUILDING UP rather than cutting its nuclear arsenal.

This means that those of us who opposed New START and other cuts in America’s nuclear deterrent were right ALL ALONG, and those who supported it, including arms controllers and then-Sec. of State Hillary Clinton – were WRONG ALL ALONG.

The increase in warheads is probably attributable to the deployment and arming of Russia’s two newest ballistic missile submarines, the Yuri Dolgoruki and Alexander Nevsky, both capable of launching 20 ballistic missiles. And since each Bulava or Liner missile can deliver 10-12 warheads, that means a single Russian submarine can deliver 240 nuclear warheads to the Continental US.

Now why does this matter (other than proving the growing need for a large US nuclear arsenal)?

Because arms control advocates have, for years, been falsely claiming that the US must not withdraw from, or even suspend its participation in, the New START and INF treaties because doing so would allegedly  “free” Russia from constraints on its nuclear arsenal, prod it to stop supposed reductions in its nuclear arsenal, and allow it to grow that arsenal. In other words, arms controllers are blatantly lying that Russia is now reducing its arsenal and that New START withdrawal would allow it to grow that stockpile.

This is completely false. Russia is not cutting ANYTHING. Russia has not reduced its nuclear arsenal by a single warhead, missile, or bomber. Under New START, it is BUILDING UP its arsenal of nuclear warheads and their associated delivery systems.

In addition, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced last week that Russia will develop new, “offensive” nuclear and nonnuclear weapons aimed at the US and its NATO allies. (So much for the US nuclear arsenal being supposedly “useless” and an “anachronism.”)

In other news, the Washington Free Beacon’s Bill Gertz has just reported that the Chinese military has recently tested a new ICBM – the DF-31B – and increased the number of the DF-31/31A ICBMs it deploys to 40 (which may be even higher). Each DF-31 can carry 3-4 warheads, so this works out to 120 DF-31 missile warheads being aimed at the US (with more to be added soon). Every day, the PLA adds more missiles and warheads to its arsenal.

Also, the Heritage Foundation reported recently that the Israeli Iron Dome system has intercepted 90% of the missiles it has attempted to shoot down, contrary to missile defense critic Ted Postol’s ridiculous claims of a 95% failure rate. Postol makes that ridiculous claim on the grounds that Iron Dome interceptors have not been hitting offensive missiles from Gaza head-on, but rather from the sides or from the rear; that counts as a “failure to intercept” in his fantasyland. In reality, the only thing that counts is intercepting the enemy’s missiles, and it doesn’t matter from what aspect it’s done. In fact, in real warfare, it is PREFERRABLE to strike the enemy from the sides or the rear; head-on attacks usually fail.

The proof of Iron’s Dome success is not just its 90% interception rate, but also the fact that NO Israeli has died in areas protected by this system in 2014 or even 2012. This cannot be attributed just to shelters as Postol as tried to do.

Another piece of bad news for arms controllers seeking to disarm the US is, of course, the fact that the Republican Party is fully on course to win the upcoming House and Senate elections – and it will likely win big. It is poised to gain its largest majority in the House since 1946 and projected by RealClearPolitics to win, on net, 7 Senate seats, giving it a 52-47 majority (with 1 Republican-leaning independent). This will result in Republicans completely stopping the Left’s unilateral disarmament agenda dead in its tracks.

The very first thing the next Congress should do – after publicly reading the Constitution – is to immediately pass the bills proposed by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL) and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) to suspend US participation in the New START and INF treaties.



Posted in Ideologies, Nuclear deterrence, Threat environment | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Les faits contre les mensonges de S. Royal et les socialistes sur la “transition energetique”

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on October 1, 2014

Aujourd’hui, l’Assemblee Nationale commence le debat sur la soi-disante loi de transition energetique propose par la ministre de l’ecologie, Segolene Royale, une socialiste incorrigible et ideologique qui represente l’extreme gauche de la politique francaise.

Celle loi, ecrite seulement sur une base ideologique et dessinee a plaire a l’extreme gauche de la majorite au pouvoir (les Verts et l’extreme gauche du PS), est un texte dangereux et totallement inacceptable.

L’intention proclamee de la ministre de l’ecologie est de reduire la facture que les Francais paient pour l’energie, creer des milliers des “emplois verts”, et reduire les emissions du CO2 (un gaz a l’effet de serre) et des gaz polluants. Pour parvenir a ces buts, la loi vise de:

  • Introduire des subventions et des credits d’impots pour l’isolation thermique des immeubles et l’achat des voitures electriques;
  • Installer 7 millions de points de rechargement des voitures electriques sur l’ensemble du territoire francais;
  • Introduire une cible legale de reduction des emissions du CO2 en France de 75% par rapport a 2012;
  • Produire 30% de l’electricite aux soi-disants “sources renouvelables” (vent, soleil, biomasse, dechets, etc.) a l’horizon 2030;
  • Reduire par moitie la consomption de l’energie en France;
  • Maintenir l’interdiction sur l’investigation et l’exploitation du gaz de schiste;
  • Reduire de 75% a 50% la part du nucleaire dans le mix energetique francais d’ici 2025 (ce qui fera necessaire la fermeture des dizaines de reacteurs d’ici 2025).

C’est une loi tres dangereux qui devrait etre bloquee a l’Assemblee Nationale.

L’aspect le plus dangereux de ce projet de loi est l’obligation de reduire la part du nucleaire de 75% a 50%, ce qui n’a aucun sens economique, energetique, environmental ou geopolitique.

Cette proposition – inscrite dans le projet de la loi – n’est motivee que par l’obsession ideologique de la gauche, dont Mme Royal et ses allies les Verts, avec la lutte contre le nucleaire. Les Verts ont deja demande aujourd’hui la fermeture de toutes les centrales nucleaires en France, et le quart de celles ci a l’horizon 2025!

Cette lutte contre le nucleaire – mene par Mme Royal et ses allies a l’extreme gauche et promise par Francois Hollande lors de sa campagne presidentielle de 2012 – est totallement irrationale et suicidale. Voici pourquoi:

  • Grace au nucleaire, la France est independante pour les sources de l’electricite et a une industrie tres competitive.
  • Grace au nucleaire, le prix de l’electricite en France est parmi les plus bas en Europe – c’est l’un des dernieres fillieres de la competitivite economique de la France.
  • Grace au nucleaire, 400 000 emplois bien payes existent en France.
  • Grace au nucleaire, la France est un exporteur de l’electricite important en Europe: parmi les 59 reacteurs nucleaires francais, 10 produisent de l’electricite pour export, notamment a l’Allemagne.
  • Les soi-disants “sources renouvelables de l’energie” (le vent, le soleil, la biomasse, etc.) sont totallement nonfiables, interminnentes, non-economiques, et ne peuvent JAMAIS remplacer le nucleaire ou les sources fossiles. Les centrales eoliennes ne marchent pas du tout pendant 70% d’une journee (pour une manque du vent), et les centrales solaires ne marchent pas du tout pendant la nuit (ce qui est evident a chacun sauf la gauche). En plus, meme qu’elles marchent, elles ne peuvent pas produire qu’une tres faible portion de l’electricitre fournise par une centrale nucleaire, et meme cela ne peut pas etre fait sans des subventions massives de l’Etat.
  • L’Allemagne a deja fait sa transition energetique – et voila les resultats: un cout qui s’est eleve a 500 Mds d’Euros et un prix de l’electricite deux fois plus haut qu’en France!
  • Le vice chancelier et ministre de l’economie allemand, Sigmar Gabriel, a recettement admis que « La vérité est que la transition énergétique est sur le point d’échouer, la vérité est que sous tous les aspects, nous avons sous-estimé la complexité de cette transition énergétique. La noble aspiration d’un approvisionnement énergétique décentralisé et autonome est bien sûr une pure folie. Quoi qu’il en soit, la plupart des autres pays d’Europe pensent que nous sommes fous ! » C’est-a-dire, le vice-chancelier allemand a admis que la “transition energetique” de son pays “est sur le point d’echouer” et que les Allemands ont sous-estime cout et la complexite de cette “transition”! Or, Mme Royal et ses collegues socialistes et ecologistes vont repeter les erreurs graves de l’Allemagne!
  • En plus, la basse de la part du nucleaire a entraîné une hausse des émissions de CO2 en Allemagne – parce que les soi-disants “sources renouvelables de l’electricite” ont totallement echoue a fournir l’electricite, et donc les Allemands ont du revenir au gaz naturel, le petrole, et le charbon – notamment le gaz naturel importe de la Russie, ce qui a fait l’Allemagne meme PLUS dependante de la Russie pour le gaz.
  • L’hiver dernier, 300 000 foyers allemands ont ete prives de l’electricite, parce que toutes les centrales eoliennes et solaires du pays, meme avec l’aide des centrales a gaz, a petrole, et a charbon, n’avaient pu fournir assez d’electricite – du a la fermeture des centrales nucleaires en Allemagne.

Il faut dire la brutale verite: Le vrai but de ce projet de loi n’est pas du tout la lutte contre le “rechauffment climatique” (ce qui est une autre mensonge), reduire la facture energetique de la France, faire la France plus independante des pays etrangers, ou creer des emplois.

Le seul vrai but de ce projet de loi est une lutte ideologique et debile contre le nucleaire (un but officiel des Verts), contre les sources fossiles fiables, et contre les automobilistes. Le nucleaire est la cible preferee des Verts et du PS – comme les verts et les socialistes dans les autres pays europeens, ils sont IDEOLOGIQUEMENT opposes au nucleaire.

Les effets de ce projet de loi et cette lutte ideologique contre nucleaire seront les suivants:

  • Les foyers francais vont payer BEAUCOUP plus pour l’electricite qu’aujourd’hui, et doublement plus: en impots (pour financer les subventions massives pour les “sources renouvelables”), et en factures pour l’electricite produite de ces sources non-economiques.
  • Des centaines de milliers de foyers francais seront prives d’electricite chaque hiver en raison d’une demande trop haute pour les “sources renouvelables” qui ne marchent pas – comme est deja le cas chaque hiver en Allemagne.
  • Les emissions de CO2 en France s’augmenteront – comme ca a ete deja le cas en Allemagne.
  • Le deficit budgetaire et la dette publique de la France (qui est deja parvenue au seuil de 2 000 Mds d’Euros) va s’aggrandir pour payer des dizaines de milliards d’Euros du cout de la fermeture des centrales nucleaires et des subventions massives dont auront besoin les soi-disantes “sources renouvelables”.

Quand au gaz de schiste, il faut se rappeler que les Etats-Unis utilisent deja cette source fiable du gaz responsablement, avec peu d’accidents, et ont donc cree beaucoup d’emplois et beaucoup de revenus nouveaux aux caisses des Etats ou cette source est exploitee, notamment au Dakota du Nord. Il est debile de priver la France d’une source fiable du gaz lorsqu’elle importe la quasi-totalite du gaz qu’elle utilise.

Je repete: le projet de la loi sur la “transition energetique” est un projet de destruction de l’economie francaise. Il menera a la perte totale de competivite economique par la France par une forte hausse du prix de l’electricite, il fera l’economie francaise dependre sur les sources non-fiables, interminnentes, et non-economiques, et il produire une forte hausse des factures d’electricite pour tous les foyers francaise.

Il faut rejeter completement ce projet de loi.

Posted in Politicians, Economic affairs, Ideologies | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

How many nuclear weapons does China have? I’m quoted in Proceedings

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on September 30, 2014


How many nuclear weapons does China have?

This is currently a subject of dispute between those who attempt to assess the Chinese arsenal’s size soberly and objectively, and those who wish to downplay and deny the Chinese military threat.

Captain David A. Adams, USN, Director of Initiatives at the US Seventh Fleet command, falls into the first camp. Proceedings, the flagship publication of the US Naval Institute and a very respective monthly magazine, has just published an article of his where he cites my estimate of the size of China’s nuclear arsenal, based on the estimates by General Viktor Yesin (Russian Strategic Missile Troops, ret.) [1] and Professor Philip A. Karber, the DOD’s chief nuclear strategist in the Reagan Administration [2].

In November 2012, you might recall, I estimated that:

China has at least 1,129 intercontinental and medium range nuclear delivery systems capable of delivering, collectively, 1,274 warheads. And that’s without counting any of its SRBMs or GLCMs, and optimistically assuming that DF-5 ICBMs can carry only two warheads.

Based on these conservative estimates, Captain Adams castigates AirSea Battle proponents, and others who plan for war with China, for assuming that China would refrain from using nuclear weapons if its mainland were bombed by the US. Based on my estimates, he says China could very well retaliate with nuclear weapons and has the capability to do that on a huge scale:

“That is why it is so important for U.S. nuclear strategy to draw the clearest possible line between any level of aggression and the invocation of nuclear defense of the United States and our allies. Delegitimizing U.S. nuclear deterrence plays right into China’s hands. Allies who lack confidence in U.S. extended deterrence will have no choice but to either bow to Chinese coercive influence or develop their own strategic arsenals. An unintended consequence of Air-Sea Battle is that it actually raises the nuclear threshold by demonstrating our intent to fight a full-scale conventional war with China. This fuels China’s incentive to prepare to win a hybrid war with conventional aspects that remain just below that threshold. It also risks severe miscalculation by undermining the certainty that conventional attacks might escalate into a calamitous nuclear exchange.

Just as the Chinese cannot be sure of our nuclear thresholds, we cannot be sure of theirs. Some analysts are convinced that China will not choose nuclear escalation even in the face of strikes on their homeland, citing the PRC’s long-standing restrained attitude toward the use of nuclear weapons. It would be a mistake, though, to assess China’s policy of restraint in light of anything other than its massive nuclear disadvantage. A closer examination suggests that Beijing’s nuclear policy “resembles mutually assured destruction in every way but name.” 8 Some analysts suggest that the United States is seriously underestimating China’s nuclear capacity. General Viktor Esin, a former commander of Russia’s Strategic Rocket Forces, and Georgetown University’s Dr. Philip A. Karber estimate that China has more than 1,500 nuclear warheads hidden in a vast network of tunnels. What is certain is that the PRC has fielded “at least 1,129 intercontinental and medium-range nuclear delivery systems capable of delivering, collectively, 1,274 warheads.” 9

To understand the PRC commitment to a second-strike capability one need look no further than the country’s press for a sea-based strategic deterrent in the form of the Jin-class ballistic-missile submarine armed with the JL-2 missile. Deterring the United States is the only plausible explanation for this buildup. General Zhu Chunghu, now dean of the Chinese National Defense University, once admitted, “if the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China’s territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons.” 10 “

Captain Adams does have a point here. Given how large China’s nuclear arsenal is and how fast it is being grown and modernized by the PLA, any direct war between the US and China would be an absolute suicide for both countries and indeed the world.

And that is precisely why nuclear deterrence is needed to deter China and thus to keep the peace in the Pacific – as Captain Adams himself stresses.

But that is also why the US needs to implement the AirSea Battle concept Captain Adams criticizes. The only way to prevent China from attacking the US or its allies is to threaten, and be capable of credibly threatening, a deadly, painful retaliation against the Chinese mainland and to threaten the very existence of the Chinese regime.

Only thus can China be discouraged from attacking any of America’s allies in the Pacific.

Last, but certainly not least, it should be noted that China has added a lot of missiles since my November 2012 estimate:

  • It has deployed a new IRBM, the DF-26C, with a range of over 3,500 kms and thus the capability to reach Guam and beyond.
  • It has begun deploying, and publicly confirmed the existence of, the DF-41 mobile heavy ICBM, which is capable of delivering 10 warheads per missile. StrategyPage estimates that China has deployed “fewer than a dozen” DF-41s so far. That means anywhere from 1 to 11 DF-41s – and since each DF-41 missile can deliver 10 warheads, that means up to 110 additional warheads being targeted against the US.
  • It has replaced its last DF-3 MRBMs with mobile DF-21s.
  • It has increased the number of SRBMs deployed opposite Taiwan.
  • It has certainly increased the number of the DF-31s it deploys, from the 30 then estimated to be in service.

So the number of intercontinental and medium range missiles it deploys, and the number of warheads it can deliver, has increased.

My new estimate is as follows:

Warhead delivery system Inventory Maximum warheads deliverable per system Maximum warhead delivery capacity
DF-5 ICBM 24 At least 6 144
H-6, Q-5, and JH-7 aircraft 440 1 440
DF-31 40 3-4 120
DF-41 11? 10 110?
DF-3* 0-17* 1 0-17*
DF-4 20 3 60
DF-21 100 1 100
JL-1 12 1 12
JL-2 48 4 192
DH-10 nuclear armed LACM ? ? ?
DF-11/15 nuclear armed SRBM 1,600 ? ?
DF-26C 1?  ? 1?
Total 696 Various 1,159

In total, I estimate China to possess at least 696 intercontinental- and intermediate-range delivery systems (missiles and aircraft) capable of delivering at least 1,159 nuclear warheads.

Note, however, that this is a very conservative estimate, one that likely dramatically underestimates the size of China’s missile and nuclear arsenals, for the following reasons:

  • Due to a lack of newer data, it accepts the 2009 DOD estimate of China having 30 DF-31 ICBMs, even though China has, since then, deployed many more of these missiles.
  • It does not take into account any of China’s intermediate-range DH-10 and CJ-10 ground-launched cruise missiles and its 1,600 short-range ballistic missiles, again for a lack of reliable data to base an estimate on.
  • It assumes, very conservatively, that only one DF-26C has been deployed and can carry only one warhead, even though more of these missiles have probably been deployed and may be capable of carrying multiple warheads.
  • Due to a lack of data, it does not take into account any of the air-launched CJ-10 cruise missiles carried by China’s H-6K bombers, assuming that these bombers still only carry a single nuclear warhead.

So as you look at my estimate, bear in mind, Dear Reader, that it is a very conservative estimate, and that China’s deployed and nondeployed nuclear and ballistic missile arsenal is likely to be far larger. Putting together such an estimate is not easy due to China’s absolute nuclear opacity and the scarcity of data in open sources.

Still, the estimate provided herein, based on reliable sources, is still far more credible than those put forward by pro-unilateral-US-disarmament groups such as the Arms Control Association, the FAS, the NRDC, Ploughshares, or the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

In the near future, if and when more data becomes available, this estimate will be updated, and an estimate of the nuclear size of Russia.

UPDATE ON OCT. 2ND, 2014: Estimate updated to include new data on the DF-31 inventory size. Also note that, according to the WFB’s Bill Gertz, China has tested and will soon deploy a new variant of the DF-31 ICBM – the DF-31B. More here.


*The DF-3 is nearing retirement, and may have already been retired, from Chinese inventory.


[1] http://www.scribd.com/doc/98667133/YESIN-China-s-Nuclear-Potential

[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_ByWFC7loM

[3] http://freebeacon.com/national-security/china-conducts-flight-test-of-new-mobile-icbm/

Posted in Nuclear deterrence, Threat environment | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Why the EU market is of PARAMOUNT importance to Britain

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on September 29, 2014

This month, two Eurosceptic Little Englander MPs, Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless (he’s reckless all right), defected to the UK Independence Party, which campaigns for British withdrawal from the EU.

Pro-withdrawal sentiment is indeed growing among the British people. And even those who don’t advocate Britain’s outright withdrawal have, in recent months, made foolish comments – up to and including the Prime Minister.

When he last visited China, David Cameron called on British schools to drop their old emphasis on teaching French and German and start emphasising Mandarin instead. British newspapers even misquoted him as saying “Ditch French and German!”

In any case, deemphasising French and German and withdrawing from the EU would be suicidal mistake, as the following three graphs show.

The first illustrates where UK exports go, country by country, using FY2009/2010 (i.e. a little aged) data. It comes from this Guardian article on global trade.


As can be seen from this Guardian graph, the UK exports almost FIVE times as much to Germany as it does to China, and over three times more to France than it does to China. Ditto the Netherlands. The UK even exports more to stagnant Spain and Italy than it does to China!

But most remarkably, the UK exports TWICE MORE to Belgium than it does to all of China!

Which means that despite the fantasies of Eurosceptics and even non-Eurosceptic ignoramuses who dismiss Europe’s importance as an export market and exaggerate that of developing countries, the EU remains, far and away, the UK’s most important export market and will remain so for many decades to come.

But the graph shows exports to EU countries declining and those to China increasing, doesn’t it?

Yes – but for the UK’s exports to China to match those to Europe, the former would have to grow at absurdly high, unsustainable rates for many decades.

For UK exports to China to match the importance of UK exports to…

  • France or Netherlands, they’d have to more than triple (i.e. grow by over 200%).
  • Belgium, they’d have to more than double (i.e. register growth of over 100%).
  • Germany, they’d have to quintuple (i.e. growth by an astouding 400%).

This will not happen for decades, if ever.

China’s economy is now showing signs of slowing down and cooling. It cannot maintain a growth rate of almost 10% forever, and it won’t grow faster in future years unless economic reform is accompanied by political reform – which the CPC is unwilling to carry out.

The second graph comes from EconomyWatch and illustrates Britain’s exports to her seven biggest trade partners (in the graph, England is wrongly equated with Britain). Again, European countries dominate the pack, with the US as the only non-European country among Britain’s top export partners and being closely followed by Germany despite occupying the top spot.


Again, the data is telling. China, India, Russia, Brazil, and other developing countries are nowhere in the graph. Not only aren’t they among the UK’s top five export partners, they aren’t even among the top seven! And while the US still occupies the top spot, which it traditionally has held since 1776, Germany is just slightly behind, followed by the Netherlands, France, Ireland, Belgium, and Spain. (Again, as we see, the UK exports more to the tiny country of Belgium than it does to China.)

Think about it: the UK not only exports far more to Germany than it does to China, it exports almost as much there as it does to the US, despite the latter having an economy and a population several times larger! That is to say, the average German buys several times more worth of British goods and services than does the average American!

Again, to let it sink it: Germany is not only far bigger an export market for the UK than China is, it is almost as much important as the US juggernaut.

Not only that, but France and the Netherlands – with a combined population equal to Germany’s and a combined GDP smaller than that of their eastern neighbor, buy even more of British goods and services than the US does – and, of course, far more than China does.

And now, finally, the third and most recent graph, using 2012 data on UK exports and imports, from the BBC using HM Revenue&Customs data.


As the graph demonstrates, the UK exports more to the rest of the EU than it does to the rest of the world COMBINED, and the EU, as an export market, dwarfs all others in terms of importance. North America and Asia & Oceania, tied for second in terms of importance to UK exports, still pale into insignificance compared to the EU. This is even more so of “non-EU Europe”, “Middle East & North Africa”, Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and “other.”

Let me repeat that: the UK exports more to the rest of the EU than it does to all other regions of the world COMBINED, and as the destination of 51% of ALL UK exports, the EU dwarfs all other UK export partners in terms of importance. No other region of the world comes even close to being as important to British exporters as does the EU.

North America – i.e. the US and Canada (a former British colony) combined – buy only 15% of what the UK exports. Ditto Asia & Oceania (a vast region that includes China, India, and Australia), for all the talk about its importance as an export market.

Non-EU Europe – mostly Russia – accounts for only 8%.

That should put to rest any fantasies of Britain’s withdrawal from the EU and of China, India, and other countries replacing the EU as Britain’s top export partners. It won’t happen. Not within my lifetime, and probably not within the lifetime of children born today.

Also, it is worth adding that the EU, as a juggernaut with 500 million people and the world’s largest GDP, is the world’s largest trading powerhouse, and thus, having a trade agreement with the EU is a top priority for everyone, from huge countries like the US to small ones like South Korea. By contrast, if Britain were to leave the EU, signing a trade agreement with her would be a priority for few countries.

I repeat: Britain stands ZERO chance of surviving economically outside the EU.

Posted in Economic affairs | Leave a Comment »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 439 other followers