Zbigniew Mazurak's Blog

A blog dedicated to defense issues

Congress must reject the PDA’s destructive defense cuts proposals

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on November 30, 2012


In a recent articlethe Hill magazine reports that Barney Frank and other House Democrats will reject any deal to avert sequestration which does not impose “massive cuts” on the military, including its force structure, equipment and development programs, global posture, and personnel.

Barney Frank proposes that the Congress and the White House implement the destructive defense cuts proposed by the leftist, Massachusetts-based “Project on Defense Alternatives”, contained in its report released on Wednesday, November 14th.

That report is utter garbage. These cuts proposals, if implemented (God forbid), would be downright destructive, treasonous, and suicidal.

The PDA proposes to:

1) deeply and unilaterally cut America’s nuclear arsenal (down to just 900 warheads deployed on 340 missiles, specifically, 200 warheads on ICBMs and the rest on submarine-launched missiles deployed on a paltry 7 subs, 50% fewer than the USN currently has (14). Of these 7 SSBNs, only 3 would be at sea at any given time. There would be no nuclear-capable bombers; all bombers would be purely conventional and the bomber fleet would be cut.

This would guarantee a disarming Russian or Chinese nuclear first strike on the US, which would wipe out such a small arsenal in a matter of minutes. 340 missiles deployed on a paltry 3 submarines and at a few ICBM bases would be pathetically easy to destroy. Then, Russia and China could nuke the United States without any retaliation or punishment from the US. NONE! America would be at the mercy of Moscow and Beijing!

I’m not exaggerating. Don’t delude yourself that Moscow or Beijing wouldn’t dare to do this if they could. Why wouldn’t they do so if they could? They’re both hostile to the US (especially veteran KGB thug Vladimir Putin). And if the US unilaterally cut its nuclear arsenal to just 900 warheads deployed on a paltry 340 missiles and zero bombers, they would do so without hesitation. 3 submarines would be very easy to find and sink, and Russian attack subs have already been seen snooping around Kings Bay and practicing sinking American SSBNs. In fact, they’ve been practicing this since the early Cold War years. (http://freebeacon.com/russian-subs-skirt-coast/)

The PDA falsely claims that America’s nuclear arsenal is too large, but it isn’t. Its present size is barely adequate. Russia has 1,492 deployed and ca. 1400 nondeployed (2,800 in total) strategic and untold thousands of tactical nuclear warheads. China has ca. 1,800 and up to 3,000 nuclear warheads (not the mere 240 warheads that pro-American-disarmament groups claim) and enough fissile material for 3,600 warheads in total. Yet, the PDA wants America to disarm itself UNILATERALLY in the face of these huge nuclear threats. At a time when Russia, China, North Korea, and Pakistan are all growing and modernizing the US nuclear arsenal.

Were these cuts made, Russia would have 650 more deployed strategic warheads  and 234 more ICBMs than the US (434 vs America’s merely 200), 1,900 more strategic warheads in total, and several times more tactical nukes than the US. China would enjoy an edge of over 3:1 (3,000 vs 900) in total nuclear warheads under the PDA’s plan.

Moreover, Russia’s and China’s ICBMs have significantly more throw-weight and warhead carriage capacity than America’s sole ICBM type, the Minuteman-III. Russia’s 58 SS-18 heavy ICBMs can carry 10 warheads and up to 30 penetration aids; the SS-19, up to 6 warheads; the SS-29 (RS-24), up to 4; China’s DF-5 heavy ICBM can carry one 5 MT or several lighter warheads; the DF-31, up to four, and the DF-41, ten warheads.

The PDA also falsely claims that America’s nuclear arsenal contributes to nuclear proliferation, but the OPPOSITE is true: it helps COMBAT nuclear proliferation. It reassures the over 30 allies of the US who depend on it that they don’t need to develop their own nuclear weapons, discourages smaller nuclear powers like Pakistan and North Korea from racing with the US, and discourages most rogue states from developing their own nukes. If Iran obtains a nuclear bomb, America’s nuclear umbrella will be an indispensable deterrence instrument reassuring America’s ME allies that they don’t need their own nukes.

Conversely, cutting the US nuclear arsenal any further, let alone as deeply as the PDA wants to, would give America’s allies no choice but to develop their own nuclear weapons. (I am hardly alone in this conclusion – CSBA’s Andrew Krepinevich, Eric Edelman, and Evan Braden Montgomery agree.) They cannot afford to bet their national security, and indeed their national survival, on America breaking free of its Obama/Democrat fantasies of “a world without nuclear weapons” and unilateral disarmament. They don’t want to go to the bottom together with the US. America’s potential enemies who don’t yet have nuclear weapons would likewise be encouraged to develop them, because under the PDA’s plan, any idiot would need only 900 nuclear warheads and a few submarines and missiles to match the US in nuclear weapons. Proliferators like China, North Korea and Pakistan would happy to oblige.

So any further cuts in America’s arsenal – let alone the deep ones that the PDA and other pro-disarmament organizations demand – would greatly EXACERBATE the problem of nuclear proliferation instead of solving it.

The PDA treats this as only a first step towards even deeper cuts in America’s nuclear arsenal and as towards the fantasy goal of “a world without nuclear weapons”, which will never exist because China, North Korea, Pakistan, and others are NOT going to give up their nukes and are, in fact, expanding their arsenals, while Iran is racing towards nuclear capability.

2) deeply cut the Navy to just 230 ships, 57 fewer than today, a reduction of more than 21%. The Navy is ALREADY way too small to meet national security requirements (see the graph below); Frank and the PDA want it to be cut further to just 230 ships, not enough to protect even America herself, let alone its allies, even under an isolationist/noninterventionist strategy. America has 3 long coasts to protect and is totally dependent on the oceans for trade (95% of its trade, exports and imports alike, is conducted by sea), which means protecting civilian ships and their shipping lanes, but the PDA wants the Navy to be cut massively, by 21%. In fact, they propose to cut the Navy deeper than any other service.

The PDA falsely claims that the Navy can withdraw many of its ships to bases in the US and yet reduce its fleet by 21%. This is utter garbage. Ships based in-theater can respond to any crisis or conflict IMMEDIATELY without having to travel to the theater from the US and without having to them return to America. By contrast, US-based ships waste many weeks steaming to and from the theater. One ship based in-theater is worth, according to some calculations, 4 CONUS-based ships. Withdrawing the fleet to the US would mean a need for even MORE ships than the US today, not fewer. Yet, the PDA wants the Navy to give up 57 ships.

The Navy is already too small. It can meet only 59% of Combatant Commanders’ needs for ships and only 61% of their needs for subs. This year, 22% of its ships failed maintenance inspections. The Navy itself says it needs at least 300 ships, and just a year ago, before the defense budget crunch, it said it needed a minimum of 313 vessels. This is only to meet minimum national defense requirements; to meet all of Combatant Commanders’ needs, the Navy says it would need about 500 ships.

Yet, the PDA wants the Navy to go down to just 230 ships, fewer than Russia (231) and much fewer than China (279) has. The PDA would cut the attack sub fleet from 53-55 to just 42 boats, the SSBN fleet to just 7 (with only 3 deployed at any time), the large surface combatant fleet to merely 72 instead of 88, the carrier fleet from 11 to 9, and the small surface combatant fleet to just 33, and shrinking further when demining ships retire due to age.

With just 9 carriers in total, no more than 5 would be available for duty at any given time. Thus, the US would either have to devote 2-3 to the Persian Gulf and assign only 2 to the Pacific (where China has over 1,000 fighters and hundreds of bombers and strike aircraft available), or assign more to the Pacific and drastically under-resource the CENTCOM, which needs 2-3 carrier groups. Earlier this year, CENTCOM leader Gen. Mattis requested a third carrier group and was denied.

The PDA falsely claims that even after these deep cuts the US Navy would be far more powerful than any other, but that’s not true. In terms of both numbers (especially surface combatant and submarine numbers and total ship numbers) and capabilities (firepower capabilities deeply cut across the board due to ship number cuts, and continued atrophy of demining, anti-submarine, BMD, and other capabilities), it would be DECISIVELY INFERIOR to both the Chinese and the Russian navy, and wouldn’t stand a chance in a battle against either. It would also be way too small to reassure American allies, deter potential enemies, prevent crises from emerging or blooming into conflicts, and secure global shipping lanes (a goal the PDA wants the USN to discard). In other words, it would be a weak Navy. 200 years ago America had a weak, small Navy – much smaller than Britain’s – and London was able to completely blockade American ports.

Moreover, the PDA report itself (http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/121114-Reasonable-Defense.pdf) admits that it would reduce the annual shipbuilding rate to just 5-6 ships per year, including only one attack sub and one destroyer per year, compared to the already pathetic and inadequate rate of 9 ships per annum. (During the Reagan years, the USN was building 28 ships per year, and during WW2, 1000 ships per year, on average.) This would cause several American shipyards to go out of business, and once they would, they could never be restored.  A shipyard will not reopen 10 years down the road when the USN is finally ready to start building more ships. This would kill the shipping industry in the US, already totally dependent on Navy orders. So, another cherished branch of American industry would be destroyed, and its employees be laid off, becoming dependent on welfare (and thus on the federal government). Which is probably what Barney Frank wants.

3) The PDA wants missile defense programs to be dramatically cut. It wants only short-range missile defense programs to continue procurement and longer-range BMD programs to be mere R&D efforts which the PDA would allow to procede to procurement only if there is an agreement to eliminate the last nuclear weapons on Earth (i.e. never, because that will never happen). The PDA falsely claims that missile defenses have failed to offer any protection against ballistic missiles, but the fact is that the US today has a comprehensive, multilayered BMD network protecting it from North Korean Taepodong-2 ICBMs and its allies and troops abroad from short- and medium-range BMs alike (with PATRIOT, THAAD, and SM-3 interceptors). What was just a dream 15 years ago is now a reality. The PDA falsely claims that missile defense programs have retarded arms control efforts, but that is not true.

4) The PDA wants to cut ground troops excessively, from 82 to just 62 brigades and brigade equivalents.

5) The PDA wants the USAF bomber and fighter fleet to be cut by almost 400 aircraft.

6) The PDA proposes to cancel numerous crucial weapon programs which are necessary to equip the military for future wars. It recommends the program closures recommended in the reports of the George-Soros-sponsored “Sustainable Defense Task Force” (convened by Barney Frank in 2010) and by two ignorant CATO Institute hacks earlier this year (“Defense Sense”, CATO, June 2012). These cuts would include:

a) cancelling the F-35 program completely, thus depriving THREE services (USAF, USN, USMC) of this cutting-edge stealthy 5th generation fighter and forcing them to rely on obsolete F-16 and F/A-18 aircraft that are decisively inferior to it as well as to enemy aircraft and do not offer anything even remotely close to the F-35′s capabilities, whether in range, payload, sensors, countermeasures, or radar signature reduction. More on that subject here:

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2012/November%202012/1112fighter.aspx

Under the PDA’s and Barney Frank’s plan, American pilots would be forced to fly obsolete, unsurvivable, inferior aircraft into highly-defended enemy airspace until kingdom come. The result would be the same as in Vietnam: hundreds of American pilots would die, and thousands of other American airmen would, upon being shot down, be captured and tortured. Don’t think that the Chinese, the Russians, or the Iranians would not torture American POWs.

b) Delaying the next generation bomber for at least a few decades, even though B-52s and B-1s, due to their nonstealthy designs, are already unsurvivable and useless as they are easy targets for Russian, Chinese, and even legacy Soviet SAM systems, and thus severely limiting conventional strike capabilities to just 20 B-2 stealthy bombers (more on that herehere, and here);

c) Deeply cutting Virginia class submarine procurement, even though the LA class is too noisy and too obsolete and has nothing even close to the VA class’s capabilities, and even though China and Russia have huge submarine fleets (68 and 64 boats, respectively), and are quickly growing them in both size and capability (China will have 75 submarines by 2020; their Kilo-, Song-, Yuan-, Qin-, and Shang-class submarines are very quiet, as are Russian Improved Akula, Yasen, Kilo, and Lada/St Petersburg class subs);

d) Killing the combat-proven, efficient V-22 Osprey, which has proven itself in real world combat in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, is far more survivable and twice faster and longer-ranged than any helicopter, and costs TWICE LESS to buy and operate than the big, fat, easy-to-shoot-down CH-53 helos that Barney Frank and the SDTF wanted to replace it with (please watch this film about how the V-22 proved its mettle, proved itself to be far more capable and useful than any helicopter (its speed and service ceiling really matter in combat zones), and what the Marines say about it);

e) cutting the Ohio class SSBN replacement program to just 7 boats (for why this would be suicidal, see #1 at the top):

f) killing the Army’s and Marine’s Ground Combat Vehicle and JLTV programs and thus denying them next-generation, better-protected ground vehicles;

g) killing most missile defense systems;

h) denying the Marine Corps their next-generation amphibious combat vehicle;

i) cutting and delaying the procurement of the P-8 ASW/maritime patrol plane, urgently needed to hunt enemy submarines and replace the Navy’s obsolete, propeller-driven P-3 Orion planes;

j) cancelling Uranium Production Facility construction, urgently needed to replace obsolete facilities and produce uranium to sustain American nuclear warheads;

k) cut the funding for B61 tactical nuclear bomb modernization;

l) cutting other procurement programs across the board in line with their deep force structure cuts.

and many other program killings or cuts.

ALL of these weapon programs are absolutely needed, and, as enemies of the US military, Frank and his PDA pals in Massachusetts have, unsurprisingly, targeted exactly these programs.

7) In total, the PDA would cut the base defense budget to a paltry $462 bn by January (in 2012 dollars), even less than the DOD would have under sequestration ($469 bn), and far less than what President Obama’s budget would allow. Contrary to their false claim, such a defense budget would be significantly smaller than it was during Cold War peak periods (during the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and especially the Reagan years when it peaked at $580 bn). Such a small amount of money would be woefully inadequate for anything, and indeed, the military that would remain after the implementation of PDA’s cuts proposals would be way too small for anything, even for protecting America itself and its citizens (this would especially be the problem with the tiny nuclear arsenal the PDA’s cuts would leave).

For all of these reasons, the PDA’s treasonous defense cuts recommendations must be completely rejected. It’s a plan deliberately designed to completely gut the US military. If one wanted to irreparably cripple America’s armed forces, one could not have come up with a better plan to do so than the PDA’s scheme.

Sequestration is a problem not just because of its across-the-board methodology, but also because of its DEPTH. $462 bn or $469 bn is woefully inadequate to protect America, even if all waste in the defense budget were eliminated.

The Hill reports that “[Barney] Frank said the White House has been receptive to some of the ideas outlined in the report”. This is deeply troubling, because the PDA’s report is a litany of blatant lies and contains nothing but destructive proposals which would gut the US military.

The PDA’s claims that nuclear and conventional weapons are no longer needed is patently false. Both of them are needed now more than ever. Both of them are necessary to deter Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela, and defeat, if necessary, Chinese, North Korean, or Iranian aggression against the US or its allies, including Israel. Without these weapons, the US won’t be able to defend itself or its allies, including Israel.

The Cold War is over, but the demand for nuclear and conventional weapons is GREATER, not smaller, because the security environment is more dangerous and more complex, and threats are dispersed around the world. These capabilities are not outdated nor “considered outdated on the modern battlefield”. They are crucial and needed now more than ever.

Dear Readers, please call your Congressmen and Senators and tell them that you will never vote for them again if they support Barney Frank’s and the PDA’s plan for massive, crippling defense cuts.

6 Responses to “Congress must reject the PDA’s destructive defense cuts proposals”

  1. picard578 said

    There are several things you have ignored in the article, but that will have impact in any war with China:

    1) United States will have support of NATO. Attack on one member of the alliance is attack on the entire alliance.

    2) Russia is concerned about China, but was left with no other choice due to US policies. It is very unlikely that it will join any side in a war between United States and China, barring a direct provocation from a warring side.

    3) It is actually true that US nuclear arsenal helps proliferation of nuclear weapons; countries like North Korea and Iran are naturallly concerned about nuclear arsenal in hands of rather agressive superpower, and as such believe that their own nuclear weapons will make them more secure. Pakistan, Iran and North Korea don’t have to develop capability to match United States, just capability to do damage.

    4) Development and production of nuclear weapons is costly affair. China might have over 900 warheads, but it is unlikely Pakistan could produce that number quickly.

    5) Nimitz-class nuclear carrier costs 4,5 billion USD, whereas diesel-powered aircraft carrier would cost 1 billion USD. Virginia class submarine costs 2,5 billion USD (I’m unsure as for wether figure includes R&D costs) and Astute class submarine costs 1,2 billion USD. However, diesel-electric and Stirling AIP submarines, while not having as good range, are both cheaper and quieter. Such submarines can seriously threaten both carrier groups and nuclear subs. As for costs, Swedish Gotland class costs 365 million USD and Spanish S-80 class is to cost 700 million USD. Thus, United States should think about introduction of Stirling AIP subs and replacing some of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers with diesel ones – instead of 10 nuclear carriers and 71 nuclear submarines, US could have 5 nuclear and 22 diesel carriers, as well as 35 nuclear and 144 AIP subs; that is, 170% increase in carrier force, and 152% increase in submarine force. While it would mean lower per-unit power projection capability, China is basically surrounded by US allies. Aside from increasing avaliable fleet, it would also mean easier maintenance and less nuclear waste to dispose of, which would by itself mean reduction in spending. In fact, total naval spending could be reduced while having larger and more capable navy.

    6) F-35 is a sitting duck when confronted by any 4,5th generation fighter.

    I do agree, however, that United States should maintain a respectable deterrent. Take a look at World War II: chemical weapons could have caused as many casualties as nuclear war. Yet only known use was by the Japanese, against enemies that had no chemical weapons of their own. In fact, United States have transferred large amounts of chemical weapons to Great Britain, to be used in case of Germany using its own chemical weapons: neither side did use them. But notion that nuclear weapons have prevented World War III is a myth – its like someone saying in 1920s/1930s that chemical weapons will prevent another World War.

    • zbigniewmazurak said

      You’re dead wrong, Picard, for the following reasons:
      1) NATO is, these days, basically an arragement through which the US provides protection to weak European allies who cannot defend themselves. The militaries of NATO countries (with the partial exception of France and Britain) could not fight their way out of a paper bag today. Counting on them in case of war with China is pure moonshine.

      2) Russia is “concerned” about China (to put it mildly), but it still wrongly views the US as its principal adversary and continues to devote most of its resources to fighting a new Cold War with the West. It is ruled by anti-American, anti-Western imperialists led by Vladimir Putin and his fellow KGB thugs. It cannot be placated. American policies have not irked Russia; they are a CONSEQUENCE of Russia’s confrontational, aggressive foreign policy.

      3) No, America’s nuclear arsenal has not caused nuclear proliferation. When nations decide to develop their own nuclear weapons, they decide that based on their own national interests. But cuts – especially deep cuts – to America’s nuclear arsenal would leave America’s allies with no choice but to develop their own nuclear arsenals, because after further deep cuts, America’s nuclear arsenal would be completely unreliable, as it would be too small to protect even America itself, let alone its 30 allies. A smaller nuclear arsenal would not deter even China or North Korea, let alone Russia, China, the DPRK, and Iran combined, and would not reassure America’s allies, as rightly pointed out in Congressional testimony by Dr Richard Fisher of the IASC. Thus, many of America’s allies would quickly become nuclear powers, thus making the proliferation problem much worse. Many of them (e.g. Germany, Japan, South Korea) are technologically capable of going nuclear in less than one year if need be.

      America’s nuclear arsenal, due to its current large size, actually helps SLOW DOWN and CURB nuclear proliferation by protecting America’s allies and reassuring them that they don’t need to develop their own nuclear arsenals. As Dr Stephen Rademaker and Dr Kori Schake have pointed out in Congressional testimonies, the US nuclear arsenal thus makes a large, but hugely underappreciated, contribution to nonproliferation.

      4) China actually has at least 1,800 warheads, not 900. 900 is the number General Yesin believes is operationally deployed, and I think even that number is understated, because China’s nuclear arsenal is actually capable of delivering over 1,100 warheads at any time, under conservative estimates, even if no LACMs or SRBMs are involved. Besides, while other countries, including Pakistan, would not be able to build 900 or 1800 warheads quickly, any idiot could build 200 or 300 warheads in several years. And under the PDA’s and other defense cutters’ proposals, as well as under options currently being considered by Traitor Obama, that’s all they would need to reach nuclear parity with the US.

      5) Conventional carriers may be cheaper to acquire, but they are MUCH more expensive to operate because they consume HUGE amounts of fuel. Heck, the CBO has concluded that even conventional-powered amphibious assault ships (LHAs) will become more expensive to operate than nuclear-powered ones if the price of oil grows by just 1.7% over the next 30 years. Besides, all the space that the fuel for a conventional carrier takes onboard is space that cannot be used to store fuel and ammunition for the carrier’s aircraft. Moreover, the USN is a navy that operates (and needs to operate) GLOBALLY. Diesel-powered submarines are useless to the USN for operations in the WESTPAC, the Gulf, or the Med, unless they were to be based in-theater and thus at risk of attacks from Chinese SRBMs, MRBMs, and LACMs on their bases.

      Besides, you’re missing the point. The PDA did not propose to cut the number of nuclear-powered carriers and subs and replace them with diesel-powered ones. The PDA proposed to deeply cut the number of nuclear-powered carriers and subs (and all other classes of ships) and replace them with NOTHING. Their only goal is, and has always been, to GUT the US military completely.

      6) The F-35 is not a sitting duck. Its A variant can pull 9Gs while bearing a full combat load. The Typhoon, the Rafale, the F-15, the F-16, the Super Bug, and Russian and Chinese 4.5th generation aircraft can do that only without external stores. The F-35 can run circles around a Flanker, F-15, F-16, Super Bug, J-10, or JF-17 all day. It is also stealthy, while these aircraft aren’t, and has a great DAS and a far more powerful radar than any aircraft on the market except the F-15, the F-22 and the Typhoon.

      7) That nuclear weapons prevented WW3 is not a myth. It’s a fact. ONLY THEY prevented the Soviets from invading Europe during the CW, and only they have been able to prevent wars between major powers. Had it not been for NATO nuclear weapons, the Soviet Army would’ve rolled across Europe a long time ago.

    • picard578 said

      1) Inability of Europe to defend itself is US hawk’s myth to justify continuing presence of US troops in the Europe. In fact, Europe has second-highest defense spending levels in the world.

      2) Vladimir Putin, first and foremost, has Russian interests in mind. Ballistic defense system in Poland was direct provocation to Russia.

      3) You are talking about US allies, I am talking about countries concerned about US warmongering tendencies.

      4) Warheads are useless without system to deliver them. No missile in Pakistan’s arsenal can reach United States.

      5) I was not talking about PDA proposal, that proposal was my own. As for nuclear ships, you fail to consider costs of nuclear waste disposal.

      6) Typhoon can pull 9G in air-to-air configuration. It may not be able to do it with fuel tanks and AtG loadout, but it was always first and foremost an air superiority fighter. And only way F-35 can run circles around any aircraft you have mentioned (save maybe for Super Bug) is if aircraft in question is not in the air. As for DAS and radar, I have not questioned it.

      7) To elaborate, I was talking about strategic nuclear weapons.

      • zbigniewmazurak said

        1) No, the inability of Europe to defend itself is not a myth, it’s a fact. Britain has just 200 tanks, a small number of artillery pieces, just 19 frigates, a dwindling fleet (fewer than 12) attack subs, a tiny nuclear arsenal, a dwindling fighter fleet, and no aircraft carriers or carrier-capable fighters (and thus no power projection capability). Other European militaries, except that of France, are even weaker. Germany has zero aircraft carriers, zero strategic airlifters, fewer than 20 attack subs, fewer than 400 tanks and fewer than 200 fighters. Spain has one midget carrier, as does Italy, but their armies, AFs, submarine, and surface combatant fleets are small and weak. Poland has about 120,000 troops but almost all of its equipment (including its F-16s) is obsolete and unsurvivable.

        Europe does not have the “second-highest defense spending levels in the world.” Collectively, Asian countries already outspend Europe. As for individual countries, the second largest spender in the world by far is China, followed by Russia.

        Only four European countries (France, Britain, Turkey, and Greece) meet even the meager goal NATO set for its members in 2002 to spend at least 2% of GDP on defense. Germany spends only around 1% of GDP; Poland spends around 1.3% of GDP; Spain and Italy spend less than 1%. All other European countries (and Canada) likewise spend less than 2% of GDP on defense.

        Remember the 1999 Operation Allied Force? Already by then European militaries were so weak that the US had to fly the vast majority of combat, AEW, and aerial refueling missions.

        Virtually everyone in Europe and the US knows and will readily admit that Europe is almost defenseless and dependent on the US for security. If you don’t realize that or refuse to recognize that, it only shows how ignorant and/or delusional you are and how much you still have to learn.

        2) No, proposals to deploy missile defense systems were not a provocation of Russia at all. Such missile defense systems (both the GBI and the SM-3) have no capability to intercept any Russian ICBMs because they fly at speeds of less than 5 km/s, and speeds of OVER 5 km/s would be required to intercept a Russian ICBM. Proposed American missile defense systems posed no threat to Russia at all. US officials know it, Russian officials know it, everyone familiar with these systems (which you aren’t, ignorant boy) knows it. Vladimir Putin is driven first and foremost by his irrational, fanatical hatred of the United States which the KGB taught him. He’s an implacable enemy of the United States and cannot be successfully appeased. He will never join the US in an alliance against China; in fact, he’s supporting China with weapons, aircraft engines, and other stuff.

        3) The US does not have any “warmongering tendencies.” Those are lies worthy of an Iranian or North Korean propaganda machine. North Korea’s development of nuclear weapons had nothing to do with American “warmongering tendencies” and dates back well before 2003… in fact, it dates back to at least the 1980s.

        4) But Iran is projected to have an ICBM capable of reaching the US by 2015, and Pakistan may develop such a missile in this decade too. North Korea already has ICBMs capable of reaching the US, as do Russia and China. Russia has 434 ICBMs which, collectively, could deliver 1,684 warheads to the US if need be.

        5) Even when nuclear waste disposal costs are accounted for, nuclear carriers are STILL less expensive to operate over their entire service life than conventional carriers. That is, of course, to say nothing of the fact that on a nuclear carrier you don’t waste space on storing the carrier’s fuel and you can use it to store fuel and ammo for aircraft.

        6) No, Picard. The F-35 can run circles around Flankers, F-16s, J-10s, and JF-17s all day even if they are in the air.

        7) Strategic AND tactical nuclear weapons have, since 1945, prevented any war between major powers. That is why there has been no war between the US and the Soviet Union, or between the US and China, or between Britain and China.

      • picard578 said

        1) Who is going to attack Europe? Russia? European countries can easily inflict unnaceptable casualties very quickly. It isn’t Europe that is “weak”, it is United States that spend too much.

        Defense spending is not necessarily proporational to the strength of the military. Defense-rigged military is far cheaper than offense-rigged one for the same effective strength. As for Allied Force, it wasn’t that European countries were weak, but that EU countries simply couldn’t realize where their head is and act.

        2) It may not have been a danger, but it was a provocation. It is questionable wether Iran has the capability to deliver nuke in the first place.

        3) Then why United States have attacked Iraq? Why Afghanistan? Why constant >military< involvement in all possible wars? In 2003, United States did not even wait for UN to send inspectors to verify wether Iraq had WMDs (which, as it turned out, it did not) but it simply invaded. US foreign policy can be described as "Military force as solution to all problems".

        4) And US could deliver right back, so none of these countries are actually going to use WMDs. Or the opposite.

        6) Shows how little you understand. F-35 lacks thrust and lift to do any such thing.

        7) Or, maybe, globalization. US and China won't fight simply because any such war will screw their economies.

  2. zbigniewmazurak said

    1) Yes, Russia would be more than willing to attack Europe, and if it did, Europe would be easily conquered unless defended by the US. European militaries, with the partial exception of France and Britain, are so weak that the Russians would roll across Europe with impunity. Europe is completely defenseless – almost everyone in Europe and in the US knows it. Except you, which only shows how ignorant and how delusional you are.

    European militaries are incapable even of self-defense, let alone offensive military operations.

    During OAF, European militaries had NO capability to perform the numerous air superiority, strike, AEW, and refueling missions that the US military performed. THAT is why the US had to supply the vast majority of the aircraft and pilots flying these missions. Dissatisfied with this, then-SECDEF William S. Cohen lambasted his European colleagues at the next NATO defense ministerial meeting.

    The US does not spend too much. The US spends the right sum of money on its military. The entire US military budget amounts to a paltry 4.22% of America’s GDP, and the base defense budget to just 3.47% of GDP. This is certainly not “too much” given Russia’s and China’s huge military buildups which long ago exceeded any legitimate self-defense requirements.

    2) No, it was not a provocation. Unarmed, kinetic, purely defensive missile defense interceptors which can’t even intercept Russian ICBMs would pose no threat to Russia. In fact, missile defense systems of ANY kind pose no threat to anyone… except those who wish to attack others. If 10 unarmed, kinetic, purely defensive missile defense interceptors pose a threat to Russia, then RUSSIA is the problem, the aggressor, and the provocator here.

    3) Afghanistan harbored the terrorists who perpetrated 9/11, including their leader, Osama bin Laden. It operated dozens of terrorist training camps. After 9/11, it still had a chance to resolve this issue peacefully by handing over OBL and closing all terrorist camp. It refused, and thus, President Bush had only two choices: to overthrow the Taleban regime and close terrorist camps in Afghanistan or to show the world that a massive terrorist attack on the US could go unpunished.

    As for Iraq, Saddam was perpetrating genocide and developing nuclear weapons, which he would’ve probably obtained by the late 2000s if Iraq hadn’t been invaded. He also had chemical weapons, which were likely shipped to Syria, thus enlarging Bashar al-Assad’s CW arsenal, which he will now likely use against his own people, just like Saddam did.

    The world is one heck safer without Saddam Hussein.

    No, the US does not have a “military force as a solution to all problems” policy. It has not intervened in Syria, it has not intervened in Iran (nor does it need to), has withdrawn from Iraq, and is now withdrawing from Afghanistan. Your claims are blatant lies.

    6) The F-35 can easily do such thing. The JF-17 and most Flanker variants have similar or inferior T/W ratios, similar WL ratios, and engines less powerful than the F-35′s engine. The Su-27 has the same T/W ratio as the F-35 (1.07:1), while the J-11 has a WORSE one (1.04:1), as does the Su-30 (1.0:1) and the Su-33 (0.98:1). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Su-27#Specifications_.28Su-27S.29)

    7) No, it was (and still is) nuclear weapons that kept the peace. The USSR was not a significant economic partner of the US, and only 7% of American exports go to China.

    One last thing. You are no longer permitted to post your garbage on my site. You spout nothing but garbage and anti-American Russian propaganda here. That is not welcome on this website. Any new comments you post will be deleted on sight. Good riddance, Picard!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 403 other followers

%d bloggers like this: