“Taxpayers for Common Sense” and CAGW caught lying to the Congress

Two pseudo-conservative groups’ presidents, Ryan Alexander of “Taxpayers for Common Sense” and Thomas Schatz of Citizens Against Government Waste, lied to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on February 5th.

In an attempt to fool the Congress into agreeing to deep, harmful defense cuts – whacking at the military’s muscle, not fat – they lied to the Congress by calling a host of crucial, desperately needed defense programs “waste.” This has recently become the Left’s favorite tactic in its campaign to gut America’s defense.

Instead of overtly saying “let’s disarm ourselves unilaterally and then everyone else will be nice enough to do so” or “let’s disarm ourselves; we don’t need a strong military”, most leftists – other than the most strident liberals in Congress – have shifted to labelling every defense program they oppose (i.e. the vast majority of defense programs) as “waste.”

This is supposed to justify deep, crippling defense cuts and to fool fiscal conservatives into agreeing to such disastrous cuts.

We conservatives must not be fooled by this. The vast majority of what the Left, including TCS, calls “waste”, are actually needed, well-justified defense programs – not just weapons, but also the facilities that support them and the troops.

Specifically, TCS lied to the Congress that the planned CMRR (chemical metallurgy research) facility (intended to produce plutonium pits, crucial components of nuclear warheads) and other planned nuclear facilities are “wasteful”, and that the programs targeted by TCS and POGO (which is funded by George Soros) are also “wasteful” and deserving termination (these proposals included the cancellation of the badly-needed nuclear facilities listed above). They furthermore lied that their proposals would save $800 bn (which they would not).

The reason why their claims are blatant lies is simple – because the vast majority of the defense programs they’ve targeted are not “waste”, but crucial, NEEDED, and well-justified programs. Specifically:

1) The CMRR facility is absolutely necessary to produce plutonium pits – crucial components of nuclear warheads – in sufficient quantities for America’s geriatric nuclear stockpile, which is long overdue for such modernization. The facility currently responsible for the production – the Los Alamos National Laboratory – is dilapidated beyond economic repair and in dire need of replacement, and its plutonium pit production capacity is woefully inadequate to sustain even a reduced nuclear arsenal of 1,000-1,550 warheads, let alone anything larger.

Likewise, the Uranium Production Facility is needed to produce highly-enriched uranium for America’s uranium-based nuclear warheads, at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. These two facilities are NOT anyone’s pork projects – they are urgently needed national security priorities. They were both promised by President Obama during the Senate debate on New START ratification, and the requirement that these facilities be built was included in the Senate Resolution of Ratification of New START (and is thus the law of the land). The requirement for the CMRR facility was recently reaffirmed by the entire Congress in the FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act, which passed both houses of Congress by overwhelming margins. Thus, the requirement for these facilities is the law of the land.

2) The Next Generation Bomber/Long Range Strike Bomber is an urgently needed replacement for the USAF’s B-1 and B-52 bombers, both of which have huge radar signatures and, as a result, cannot survive in anything other than benign combat environments where the only opponents are insurgents or primitive countries unable to contest airspace control. They cannot survive in any situation where the enemy has advanced (or even upgraded Soviet) air defense systems, such as the S-300, S-400, S-500, or even the SA-5 and SA-6. Any airspace defended by such systems, including that of Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela, is firmly closed to them.

Yet, the USAF has to be able to strike deeply into these countries, from over the horizon to be credible in any contingency involving them, or in nuclear deterrence scenarios. Today, its only bombers capable of that are its 20 B-2s. Such a number is woefully insufficient, due to the sheer number of targets among other things.

The requirement for an NGB has been validated by two successive Quadrennial Defense Reviews, successive Defense and Air Force Secretaries, Chiefs of Staff, other USAF generals (e.g. David Deptula and former CSAF Gen. John M. Loh), and numerous think-tanks and analysts, including the CSBA, the Heritage Foundation, and Dr Rebecca Grant. The USAF says the new bomber is an absolute requirement, that deferring or cancelling it would be “very high-risk”, and that it’s a crucial part of their mission (CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh). Indeed, the bomber is the central part of the AirSea Battle plan to defeat anti-access/area denial threats. Without the bomber, the whole plan collapses and the US won’t be able to counter such threats.

3) Kill the V-22 Osprey, which has proven itself in THREE different war theaters (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya), saving countless lives, delivering troops and supplies into and out of combat zones and accumulating over 150,000 flight hours. Marine pilots love it; the USMC Commandant praises and supports it; and it is twice cheaper to buy and operate than its proposed replacement, the CH-53. It can fly twice farther and twice faster than any helicopter. It’s needed to replace the C-2 COD aircraft, the USAF’s CSAR helos, and the presidential helo. Yet, TCS and POGO anti-defense hacks want to kill it.

4) Permanently cut the Navy’s carrier fleet to 10 vessels (by retiring the USS George Washington in 2016 26 years early) and eliminate an entire carrier group – not just the flattop itself. This would significantly weaken the Navy and undermine its power projection capability by reducing the number of platforms serving this purpose. Only a carrier or a long-range bomber can deliver strikes against enemy targets wherever and whenever needed without host country basing. With just 10 flattops, the Navy would have no more than 5-6 available for duty globally; this means either 2 for the Persian Gulf and only 3-4 or the Pacific, or just one in the Gulf and 4-5 in the Pacific.

5) Cut the Navy’s current and planned SSBN fleet to just 8 boats, which means only 4-5 would be at sea at any given time, i.e. America’s enemies would have to sink only 4-5 of them, while the rest would be in port, being easy targets. This would gut the naval leg of the nuclear triad.

6) Eliminate the DOE’s reserve stock of highly-enriched uranium for nuclear warheads. (See above.)

7) Cancel the F-35B Marine Corps variant (along with the Navy’s C variant), leaving the Marine Corps with no attack jets to fly from the Navy’s small carriers (amphibious assault ships) when its Harriers retire. As USMC Commandant Gen. Amos has said, this would cut the Marine’s combat aviation power by 50%!

8) Closing the Army’s tank production line in Lima, OH… when the Army’s Abrams tanks need refurbishment and upgrade, and when the Army plans to reopen the line in 2017 to produce Ground Combat Vehicles.

9) Withdrawing the remainder of US troops from Europe and laying them off (i.e. more jobless, homeless veterans), thus cutting the force structure further and significantly undercutting the military’s power projection capability, because units based in-theater, closed to the combat zone or area of action, are much CHEAPER to deploy and operate, and can react much faster and more effectively, than units based in the CONUS. (Similarly, one warship based in-theater, e.g. in Europe or Japan, is worth four warships based in the CONUS.) The principal reason why is precisely because they’re based in-theater – they don’t have to waste money and time flying in from the CONUS and then returning to the CONUS.

10) “Freeze” funding for the Ground-Based Midcourse Missile Defense system protecting the US from ballistic missile attack and not build any more such interceptors or siloes for them – whether in the US or anywhere else. This would leave the US totally unprotected from any ICBMs Iran fields in the future (it is projected to field them by 2015-2016).

These are just the most damaging, most crippling of the defense cuts that POGO and TCS have proposed. Implementing them would gut the military and make it unable to counter anti-access/area-denial threats – the most pervasive and ubiquitous threats the US faces today – because TCS and POGO have targeted the very weapons and capabilities needed to counter these threats.

Meanwhile, CAGW’s Thomas Schatz, while also lying that “the Pentagon is rife with waste, fraud, and abuse”, specifically targeted the Medium Extended Area Defense System (MEADS) for killing (the DOD has agreed but wants to complete the R&D phase so as not to leave taxpayers with no return on their investment).

While MEADS’s opponents falsely claim that MEADS would be ineffective and unneeded, it IS very much needed and has passed its tests. It is needed to replace the woefully obsolete PATRIOT system, whose radar can look only at 90 degrees, not all around itself (360 degrees) and has been less than spectacularly effective. Moreover, despite Schatz’s lies that MEADS program partners Italy and Germany wouldn’t mind if the US quit the program, the truth is exactly the opposite: their governments just recently sent the US government a letter warning the US not to withdraw from the MEADS program.

In other words, the claims of TCS and CAGW and their presidents about defense spending are blatant lies. By lying to the Congress, they have committed a serious offense, and they should be prosecuted and severely punished for it.

The RINOs who voted for cloture on Hagel must be primaried

By the time of this writing (Feb. 22nd), several RINO Senators – Mike Johanns and Deb Fischer of Nebraska, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, John McCain-Feingold of Arizona, Lindsey Gramnesty of South Carolina, Richard Shelby of Alabama, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Susan Collins of Maine, intend to vote for cloture (i.e. breaking the filibuster) on Chuck Hagel’s nomination for SECDEF, thus allowing it to proceed to the floor, where it is sure to pass as the Democrats have 55 votes.

If these RINO traitors vote for cloture and thus vote to allow the Democrats to confirm Hagel along party lines (which, BTW, would be a first for a SECDEF nominee), we must vote them out of office. All of them. No ifs, no buts.

We must primary all of them (including the pseudo-conservative Deb Fischer) and, if they somehow survive the primary, support their general election opponents.

No forgiveness, no ifs or buts, and no get-outta-jail-free-cards for McCain.

But first: why should Hagel’s nomination be filibustered?

As myself and many other conservative writers have chronicled in great detail over the past several weeks, Chuck Hagel is a strident leftist (despite being a nominal Republican) who is implacably hostile to Israel (and to Jews in general), friendly to Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran (which has endorsed him), supports the gutting of America’s defense and deep unilateral cuts in America’s nuclear deterrent, and is totally unqualified to be SECDEF due to his lack of high-level executive experience, ignorance of defense issues, and inability to perform well even before the Senate (as his confirmation hearing proved).

And yet, despite all of these facts, and despite more Americans opposing than supporting Hagel, Senate Democrats, pressured by the Obama Administration, are marching in partisan lockstep with each other and with the White House and all intend to vote to confirm Hagel.

And they have 55 seats in the Senate – enough to confirm Hagel.

Make no mistake: if the filibuster is ended (i.e. if cloture is invoked) on Hagel’s nomination, the Dems will be able to confirm him along party lines with their 55 votes.

A vote to end the filibuster (i.e. invote cloture) on Hagel’s nomination is therefore a vote to confirm Hagel as SECDEF. There is no material difference between the two.

Those Republicans who intend to vote to end the filibuster thus essentially plan to vote to allow the Democrats to confirm Hagel.

These Republican traitors must NOT be allowed to hide behind a meaningless final, nominal vote against Hagel’s confirmation, when it will be too late to stop his nomination as the Democrats have the votes to confirm him.

Make no mistake: a vote to invoke cloture on Hagel is a vote to confirm Hagel.

So what can we do?

Niceties won’t work with these worthless RINOs. Nor will reason and facts. They are immune to reason and facts.

The only thing they understand and fear is a credible threat of losing their seats – because the only thing Washington politicians – including newcomers – care about is getting reelected. And if a credible threat to vote them out of office is made, they usually DO really start voting against Democratic proposals.

So you MUST call or write to both of your Senators (especially if one of your Senators is one of the worthless RINOs listed above, i.e. if you live in Arizona, SC, Nebraska, Alabama, Alaska, Maine, or Mississippi) and tell them that you will NEVER vote for them again if they vote to invoke cloture on Hagel’s nomination, and that you will not be fooled by a meaningless final vote against Hagel’s confirmation when it will already be a done deal.

Tell them that if they vote to invoke cloture on Hagel, you will wholeheartedly support primary challengers against them and if they somehow survive their primaries you will support their general election opponents.

And if these worthless RINOs nonetheless ignore this warning, we must follow it through and throw each one of them out of the Senate. No ifs, no buts.

Johanns is retiring in 2014, so we can’t hold him accountable, but we can hold the rest of these RINOs accountable.

Worthless RINO Waterboarding-Is-Torture-Bush-Tax-Cuts-For-The-Rich-Cap-And-Trade-My-Good-Friend-Ted-Kennedy’s-Amnesty-John-McCain-Feingold must be voted out of office, no matter what the National Establishment Review says. We must support whoever his primary challenger will be, and if he somehow survives the primary, we must support his general election opponent. By 2016, Republicans should have a secure Senate majority, so if need be, we can afford to sacrifice this one seat.

The same must also apply to all other RINOs listed above. McCain and Murkowski are up for reelection in 2016. But Lindsey Gramnasty and Susan Collins are up for reelection next year. Not in 2016, not in 2018, but next year – in 2014!

We must make it unmistakably clear to them that BOTH of them (and the other RINOs listed above) will be voted out of office if they vote to invoke cloture on Hagel.

Already, there is talk about primarying Gramnasty, and his endorsement of the McCain-Schumer amnesty proposal will certainly not endear him anyone. We must join hands with those who oppose amnesty for illegal aliens (among whom I count myself) to oust Gramnasty and McCain out of office.

And remember: with the sole exception of Maine, all of the states which these RINOs represent are solidly-red, Republican states. It is totally unacceptable that these states are represented by RINOs. Whoever wins the Republican nomination there – unless it’s a Todd Akin clone – should be able to easily win the general election there as well. This is not Maine, Wisconsin, Illinois, or Delaware that we’re talking about, this is the red-hot states of Arizona, South Carolina, Mississippi, Nebraska, Alaska, and Alabama.

Politicians must be held accountable for EVERY vote they cast. And the only way to hold them accountable is to vote them out of office. Which is what must happen to the worthless RINOs listed above.

Rebuttal of Des Browne’s and Ian Kearns’ blatant lies

On February 5th, the Daily Telegraph – normally considered a conservative newspaper – published a litany of blatant lies written by two former Labour (read: socialist) government officials, Des Browne, Britain’s former Defence Secretary under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, and Ian Kearns, a former Chief Permanent Secretary of the Treasury. Their screed rails against the UK’s nuclear deterrent and the Coalition Government’s plan to replace it with a like-for-like system: 4 ballistic missile submarines with 64 SLBMs and fewer than 200 warheads.

Their screed begins with the Left’s familiar false claims about nuclear weapons (and weapons in general): the lie that there are many “long-term threats (…) to whch deterrence, nuclear or otherwise, is not applicable”. They list man-made “climate change” (which is a myth), cyber-attacks, and nuclear terrorism.

But while cyber-attacks and nuclear terrorism are threats indeed, they do not come anywhere close to the gravity of the threat of a massive, deliberate nuclear attack by a hostile power (e.g. Russia) on Britain, or a major war – nuclear or conventional – between the world powers. And against these, much graver, threats nuclear deterrence is the ONLY protection.

Thus, Browne’s and Kearns’ claim that “nuclear deterrence is decreasingly effective” and that ist “provides less and less insurance against a narrowing range of threats” is blatant lie. Nuclear weapons are actually the ONLY kind of weapons which have a record of never failing to deter. Since 1945, there has been NO conflict between nuclear powers – precisely BECAUSE there are nuclear weapons and BECAUSE they restrain people who might’ve otherwise been too hasty in starting war.

In other words, nuclear weapons are the best friends that peace and Britain’s security have.

Browne and Kearns scaremonger people with nuclear winter following a nuclear exchange between the US and Russia or India and Pakistan. But both pairs of countries have roughly comparable nuclear arsenals (the US and Russia have nuclear parity between each other guaranteed by treaty), and as long as that remains the case, there is no risk of a nuclear exchange between them.

Their claim that “deterrence is also increasingly risky” is also a lie. While it’s true that the number of nuclear powers has increased since the Cold War, and that unstable countries like North Korea and Pakistan now have nuclear arms, that is actually an argument FOR maintaining the UK’s nuclear deterrent in its present form, because under such circumstances, it is Britain’s ONLY security guarantee, it’s ONLY insurance policy against nuclear attacks by unstable or aggressive rogue states such as Pyongyang and Islamabad (not to mention Vladimir Putin’s Russia, the 800 pound gorilla in the room).

The idea that unstable or rogue states’ nuclear arsenals will somehow be easier to control, or be eliminated, if the UK is nice enough to give up its own nuclear deterrent, is a blatant lie and a classical leftist fantasy.

Browne and Kearns then invoke the dismal fiscal and security environment in which we live:

• Defence spending cuts have happened and are continuing even as health and education spending is ring-fenced (i.e. immune from cuts) and as each new generation of equipment beinbg more sophisticated and more expensive than the previous one;
• Defence cuts are underway in allied countries, including and especially the US;
• The military research budgets of non-Western powers are increasing;
• America’s pivot to Asia “signals its reduced willingness to provide for the security of Europe”, so European countries will have to bear more of the defense burden.

While this is true, this is actually yet another justification FOR a like-for-like Trident replacement, not against it, because it means that the UK will have to have, for the foreseeable future, an independent nuclear deterrent. It will also have to increase its defence spending, as the US continues to cut its own.

Browne and Kearns falsely claim that:

“But in the circumstances outlined, Trident’s advocates also have serious questions to answer. They want to pour limited national resources into an increasingly ineffective nuclear system while being unwilling either to call for higher defence spending to meet conventional shortfalls or to scale back the UK’s level of international ambition. They want a gold-standard nuclear deterrent while under-investing in everything else.”

But those are blatant lies and false accusations. I don’t know of a single proponent of Trident replacement who does not support higher defence spending to “meet conventional shortfalls.” While I can’t speak for others, I have ALWAYS opposed ANY cuts in Britain’s defence budget or military capabilities – conventional or nuclear. I advocate overturning ALL of the defence cuts made as a result of the budget-driven “Strategic Defence and Security Review” of 2010 and significantly building up the Royal Navy, the RAF, and the British Army. And I advocate deep cuts in health, education, and social spending, each of which is several times larger than the UK’s entire defence budget. They, not defence spending, are the drivers of Britain’s debt.

I also advocate scaling back Britain’s international ambitions, at least for now, when fiscal conditions are so difficult. Britain cannot afford to be the world’s policeman, or even deputy policeman. Britain needs to look after its own interests. Chief of these interests is the security of the UK itself, its citizens, and its overseas territories (including the Falklands, which are and will always remain British).

In my opinion, the UK’s military posture should be structured and budgeted accordingly – which means that replacing Trident should be the highest priority, because it protects Britain against the gravest threat: that of a deliberate nuclear attack by a hostile country.

Browne and Kearns falsely claim that replacing Trident “will destory any chance of building the broad-based international support required for a stronger non-proliferation and security regime.” That is a blatant lie, and a regurgitation of the decades-old, stridently leftist Labour-CND fantasy that if Britain disarms herself unilaterally, other nuclear power will be nice enough to do the same, or at least, the international community will put pressure on them to do so.

But that’s a dangerous leftist fantasy. In fact, failing to replace Trident would only invite aggression against the UK, possibly even a nuclear attack. And it would only embolden rogue states to seek nuclear weapons (and those which already have them to increase their stockpiles) because there would be one fewer Western nuclear power to fear. Weakness ALWAYS invites aggression.

Browne and Kearns also falsely claim that replacing Trident “potntially sets the country up for a future Suez moment when, in the context of a crisis thought to threaten our vital interests, we will either try to intervene somewhere and fail or won’t try at all because we don’t have the capability. Either way, as a country committed to internationalism and to the defence of our interests, we will be diminished.”

But that’s another blatant lie. If the UK’s defence is adequately provided for – i.e. fully funded – the UK will be able to intervene wherever its interests may be threatened. However, unlike the US, which is a global power with global interests and responsibilities, the UK is a regional player with very few overseas interests and territories. The UK does not have global responsibilities, has few overseas territories left, and it’s hard to fathom what crisis could erupt and where that would require a UK military intervention but not be grave enough to require US participation.

The UK simply does not have the national resources – human, fiscal, or material to fill America’s global role even if it wanted to. If a grave crisis involving, say, Iran or North Korea erupts, US intervention will be necessary anyway. And if the US intervenes, Britain’s active participation will become close to irrelevant.

Moreover, the UK does not have interests all around the world. Which faction rules in Afghanistan, Somalia, Bosnia, or Colombia is of no concern to Britain. Britain’s chief interests are the security of the UK itself and security and peace in Europe. That is where Britain’s attention needs to be focused.

Last but not least, if the UK maintains an adequate nuclear deterrent for itself and its allies, Britain’s every other defence need will, sooner or later, also be addressed. Conversely, no conventional power will substitute if the UK won’t have an adequate nuclear deterrent.

NoKO nuclear test: an utter failure of arms control

Yesterday’s North Korean nuclear test – the third in just 7 years – which North Korea threatens to follow up with a test of its new road-mobile KN-08 ICBM – is yet more proof of the discreditation and utter failure ofarms control, including but not exclusively the arms control policies which the Obama Administration and leftist pro-arms-control, pro-disarmament groups (such as the Arms Control Association, the Council for a Livable World, the Ploughshares Fund and Chuck Hagel’s Global Zero) have been advocating for many years.

It’s not a mere “failure”; it’s a total, abject, abysmal failure and discreditation of these leftist groups and this leftist administration and the policies and ideology they’ve advocated.

For many years, we’ve been told that America’s nuclear weapons pose a huge danger to America itself and the world; that getting rid of them (and cutting their inventory as a first step) will make America and the world safer; that if the US cuts and eventually eliminates its nuclear arsenal – even unilaterally – other nuclear powers will follow, while the “international community” will put sufficient pressure on rogue states who don’t yet have nuclear arms to forego them; that eliminating America’s nuclear arsenal will stop nuclear proliferation; that American nuclear weapons are liabilities these days, not assets; and that they’re relics of the Cold Warno longer needed or relevant in the 21st century environment.

All of these claims – repeated incessantly by pro-arms-control groups and by leftist politicians like Barack Obama over the last several decades – are blatant lies, and will remain such no matter how many times they’re repeated. Even if Barack Obama makes such false claims during his SOTU speech tonight, they will remain blatant lies.

As real-world events, including yesterday’s nuclear test by North Korea, have proven beyond any doubt.

America’s nuclear weapons do not pose any danger to anyone, except those who’d like to make war on the US or its allies. (But if you DO plan to make war on the US or its allies, then yes, America’s nuclear arsenal is a huge threat to you.) In fact, it is this arsenal that has kept America and its allies safe for the last 67 years (and counting), and which continues to keep all of us safe to this day. It is America’s and her allies’ life insurance – and the best one you could ever get.

Getting rid of America’s arsenal will not the make the world any safer; in fact, the contrary will happen. It will only deprive the US and its allies of their most powerful deterrence instrument, and the only one which can protect them against the most lethal threats – that of a massive nuclear or conventional attack by a hostile power, and that of a limited nuclear attack by a rogue state. It – like all other forms of arms reduction and disarmament will only weaken the West’s and America’s defenses (and severely so), thus only encouraging potential aggressors (such as Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran) to attack the US and/or its allies. Don’t delude yourself for a moment that they wouldn’t do that if they could.

If the US cuts its nuclear arsenal – unilaterally or bilaterally with Russia – other nuclear powers will not reciprocate and will not be impressed by America’s meaningless gestures and “moral leadership” or “leadership by example”. They don’t give a damn about that; they only care about THEIR military power and what it will take to outmatch the US militarily or otherwise harm the US. China, North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan are all hostile to the US and will not follow America’s “leadership by example”; they will only capitalize on America’s nuclear disarmament by flexing their own nuclear muscles further.

Nor will the “international community” put any meaningful pressure on rogue states like North Korea and Iran or care about America’s “credibility” on nuclear disarmament. The international community has utterly failed in the last 20+ years to put any meaningful pressure on Pyongyang and Tehran, and both of these regimes continue to be protected by Russia and China, both of whom are also unrelentingly hostile to the US.

This is and has been true despite the fact that over the last 21 years, the US has dramatically cut its nuclear arsenal – by over 75%, from over 20,000 warheads in 1991 to just 5,000 today, and despite the US signing, ratifying, and complying with numerous arms control treaties since then: START-1, START-2, SORT, and New START – none of which Russia ever complied with, by the way.

In 1992, as a part of the “Agreed Framework”, President George H. W. Bush agreed to withdraw tactical US nuclear weapons from South Korea in exchange for the North’s worthless promise of not pursuing nuclear weapons. The US did its end of the bargain, North Korea has not. Yet, the US has, since then, continued its unilateral disarmament.

Over 21 years of cutting the US nuclear arsenal have utterly failed to even slow down nuclear proliferation or otherwise make the world and America safer. In fact, the exact opposite has happened: nuclear proliferation has accelerated (two new countries, Pakistan and North Korea, have joined the nuclear club in the last 15 years alone), America’s deterrent has been dramatically weakened, and the US (as well as the world at large) is much less secure than it was when it had a larger arsenal.

Meanwhile, China and India have significantly increased their nuclear arsenals (especially China, which now has up to 3,000 nuclear warheads and the means to deliver at least half of them, as well as a vast, 3,000-mile long network of tunnels and bunkers designed to hide its nuclear-armed missiles). Meanwhile, under Vladimir Putin, Russia has been busy steadily rebuilding and modernizing its nuclear arsenal, strategic and tactical. It now has 434 ICBMs (capable of delivering 1,684 warheads to the CONUS), over 250 strategic bombers (Tu-95, Tu-160, Tu-22M) capable of carrying 7 warheads each, and 12-13 SSBNs with 16-20 SLBMs each – and each of their SLBMs, in turn, can carry 10-12 warheads.

This utterly refutes the lie (propagated by groups such as ACA) that “the world is safer for it”, it being the dramatic cut of the US nuclear arsenal over the last 21 years.

This also utterly refutes the Left’s lies that American nuclear weapons are liabilities these days, not assets; and that they’re relics of the Cold War no longer needed or relevant in the 21st century environment. No, they’re not.

As Russia’s, China’s, and North Korea’s nuclear buildup prove, nuclear weapons are actually more needed now than during the Cold War, because the US now has to deter THREE (soon to be four) nuclear-armed adversaries, two of whom (Russia and China) have large, dispersed, and very survivable nuclear arsenals. The US also has to provide a nuclear umbrella not only to itself, but also to over 30 allies who depend on it for their security and indeed, their survival.

Without an adequate American nuclear umbrella – a small one will not suffice – they will have no choice but to develop their own nuclear arms, as they will no longer be able to count on the US nuclear umbrella. This will make the proliferation problem much worse.

Indeed, America’s nuclear deterrent has done more to prevent or at least slow down nuclear proliferation than any arms control agreement in history.

Also, as America’s conventional military power atrophies steadily due to numerous, deep budgetary and programmatic cuts (including sequestration), the nuclear deterrent becomes even more important as a deterrent against a large-scale conventional aggression by China, North Korea, and Russia – against the US or any of its allies.

Thus, contrary to Obama’s and arms controllers’ lies, nuclear weapons are highly relevant in today’ security environment, and will be for the foreseeable future.

In these circumstances, as Russia and China retain large, survivable nuclear arsenals (and continue to grow and modernize them), and as North Korea and Pakistan grow theirs and Iran races towards nuclear arms, it would be utterly suicidal to cut, let alone scrap, America’s nuclear deterrent – whether uni- or bilaterally.

We must not allow that to happen under any circumstances.

Folks, please call your Congressman and both of your Senators and tell them that you will never vote for them again if they don’t effectively stop Obama’s unilateral disarmament of America by passing adequate funding for the nuclear deterrent and a firm legal prohibition on any further cuts in the deterrent.

Pacifist Obama decides on deeper nuclear deterrent cuts

On the ForeignPolicy.com website, R. Jeffrey Smith of the extremely leftist “Center for Public Integrity” saysthat Barack Obama and his administration’s officials have settled on the number to which they will cut America’s nuclear deterrent beyond the cuts already imposed, and to try to justify these cuts, which he enthusiastically supports, he makes a litany of false claims.

In other words, his screed is a litany of blatant lies.

The deployed US nuclear arsenal is to be cut, under Obama’s plans, from 1,550 to just 1,000-1,100 warheads – i.e. by a third. Obama also wants to reduce America’s total nuclear stockpile – including reserve warheads and tactical nuclear weapons – to just 2,500, i.e. by 50%, from about 5,000 today.

Smith tacitly admits that these cuts – and their announcement – were cowardly delayed until Obama was safely reelected so that Obama would not lose the election:

“Several said the results were not disclosed at the time partly because of political concerns that any resulting controversy might rob Obama of votes in the November election. Some Republican lawmakers have said they oppose cutting the U.S. arsenal out of concern that it could diminish America’s standing in the world.”

This is a tacit recognition that American voters would likely NOT approve of his planned gutting of America’s nuclear deterrent, and would’ve likely voted him out of office, had the cuts been announced prior to the election

It is only now that Obama will announce these cuts, now that he’s safely reelected and that he doesn’t have to face voters again.

Smith says that “Senior Obama administration officials have agreed that the number of nuclear warheads the U.S. military deploys could be cut by at least a third without harming national security, according to sources involved in the deliberations”, and falsely claims of the draft nuclear arsenal cut decision and targeting strategy that “It makes clear that an even smaller nuclear force can still meet all defense requirements.”

But that is completely false. A significantly smaller nuclear arsenal will not be able to meet most, let alone all, of America’s defense requirements and those of its allies. It will not be able to effectively deter America’s enemies for the simple reason that it will be too small. Being significantly smaller, it will not be survivable enough and will thus be much easier for both Russia and China to destroy in a nuclear first strike on the US. Even if they refrain from such a drastic action, they will certainly use America’s weakness to intimidateWashington and its allies and to attack American allies and interests around the world. Don’t delude yourself that Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran would refrain from doing that if they had the opportunity to do so.

The fact is that a nuclear arsenal, in order to be survivable, MUST be large – there’s no way around that fact. In order to be an effective deterrent, it also must be able to hold the vast majority of enemy military and economic assets at risk. A smaller arsenal and the new nuclear strategy prepared for Obama’s signature will be utterly unable to do so.

This is because there are simply so many strategic and nonstrategic weapon sites and other important military (and economic) targets in Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran that being able to target a majority of them will require far more warheads than Obama would allow – not a mere 1000-1100, but at least 1,550, if not more. The Heritage Foundation’s nuclear weapons experts have estimated that about 2,700-3,000 nuclear warheads are required for that.

And why is it important to target at least a majority, if not the vast majority, of an enemy’s assets? Because only then will he suffer a truly devastating and prohibitively costly retaliation if he commits aggressions. If he loses only a minority of his assets – even if they’re the most important ones – he will not be deterred from attacking. Only if the vast majority of his assets are held at risk will he refrain from aggression.

Yet, Obama and his bureaucrats and apparatchiks don’t care about that. All they care about is disarming the US and creating their pipedream “world without nuclear weapons”, a fiction that will never exist.

So instead of reviewing possible targets and then deciding on how many warheads the US needs, they’ll instead impose an ideological, arbitrary warhead cut on the military: no more than 1000-1100 warheads, and the military will have to adapt its targeting strategy to that.

They’ve got it exactly backwards. They’re imposing an arbitrary warhead limit on the military and forcing it to THEN come up with a targeting strategy to fit that limit.

Smith also uncritically repeats the 2010 NPR’s false claim that nuclear weapons are

“poorly suited to address the challenges posed by suicidal terrorists and unfriendly regimes seeking nuclear weapons.”

This is a blatant lie. Nuclear weapons are very well suited to defend America and its allies against rogue regimes seeking or already possessing nuclear weapons. When your enemy is seeking – or already has – such weapons, a large and survivable nuclear deterrent is your ONLY chance of survival.

Indeed, America’s nuclear deterrent is its – and its allies’ – only real insurance policy against the large nuclear arsenals of Russia and China, the small but growing arsenal of North Korea (which Pyongyang plans to test again later this month), and Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Conventional weapons cannot substitute; only nuclear weapons have the striking power capable of imposing a sufficient retaliation and thus of deterring these enemies.

As I have documented and proven numerous times, most recently last week on CDN, nuclear weapons are not relics of a bygone era; they are vital assets which are very much needed today to deter Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran.

Smith also falsely claims that:

“The financial savings from even the modest reduction now being contemplated could be substantial, according to officials and independent experts. Already, to comply with New Start, the Pentagon has been pulling warheads from land-based missiles and making plans to decommission some of the missiles themselves; it is also planning to reduce the number of missile tubes aboard its Trident submarines.

By pushing the arsenal size even lower, it could close perhaps two of its three land-based missile wings and cut at least two of the 12 new strategic submarines it now plans to build — saving $6 billion to $8 billion for each one. Eliminating a single wing of 150 missiles would save roughly $360 million a year, or more than $3 billion over a decade, according to Tom Collina, research director at the Arms Control Association, a non-profit research group inWashington. Modernization of the remaining land-based missiles might also be deferred, bringing additional savings.”

Firstly, Collina is not an expert, he’s an extremely leftist pro-unilateral-disarmament propagandist. He has zero expertise in the field of national security. Indeed, no real expert worth his salt would make claims as ridiculous as those quoted above.

Secondly, compliance with New START treaty produces only tiny “savings” but high compliance costs (of dismantling the missiles and warheads and disabling submarine missile tubes) and, on balance, costs far more money than it saves.

Thirdly, the claim that eliminating a single wing of ICBM would save “roughly $360 million a year” is false. Even eliminating the ENTIRE ICBM leg of the nuclear triad would save only 1 bn USD per year; cutting one of the current 3 ICBM wings would save even less. Furthermore, given that the ICBM leg of the triad is the cheapest and most reliable of the three legs of the triad, the damage thus done to national security would far outweight the meagre monetary savings this would produce.

Fourthly, eliminating one SSBN of the planned new ballistic missile submarine class would save, at most, only $4.9 bn per year (which is their real cost), not $6-8 bn as the author falsely claims. Furthermore, fewer submarines in total means fewer submarines at sea, which means fewer targets for Russian or Chinese attack submarines to sink.

Fifth, the claim – which the author repeates throughout the entire article – that the deep cuts Obama has ordered will save lots of money is also completely false. All of the cuts that Obama has now decided on will not make ANY impact – even the most meager one – on the budget deficit, which is $1 trillion per year. Even saving, say, $10 bn per year on nuclear weapons would not make even the most trivial impact on the federal budget deficit. What’s more, even eliminating the entire US nuclear arsenal altogether would not make any meaningful impact on the deficit, because the US nuclear arsenal costs only $35.2 bn per year to maintain.

Remember: the entire federal budget deficit is 1 trillion per year. Even eliminating the nuclear arsenal entirely would not even make a dent in the deficit.

Moreover, Jeffrey Smith’s claim that China has a “deterrence-only policy” is also a blatant lie. China actually has a far larger arsenal than the author and other disarmament proponents claim. It has at least 1,800, and up to 3,000, nuclear warheads, and the means to deliver at least 1,274 of them immediately, including about 200 of them to the US.

Smith also falsely claims that other nuclear weapon states are also reconsidering their nuclear arsenals, but the only country doing so – and the only example he gives – is cash-strapped Britain where, as in the US, even supposedly “conservative” politicians prefer to cut defense rather than social spending (which, in the British government budget, is 7 times higher than defense spending). An unnamed British official claims that Britain needs a “debate” on nuclear deterrence and might scale back or cancel its procurement or deployment of new SSBNs and their warheads.

But Britain is the ONLY nuclear weapon state other than the US cutting its nuclear arsenal. No other country is doing so. Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan, India, and Israel are all GROWING and MODERNIZING, not shrinking, their nuclear arsenals. They have no intention of cutting, let alone giving up, their nuclear arsenals.

So we’re seeing the most dangerous phenomenon and most dangerous world possible: the West is unilaterally disarming itself while Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan, and others are growing their nuclear arsenals!

This is a recipe for suicide, aggression, death, and destruction.

Finally, the claim – which the author and Obama administration officials continue to repeat throughout the article – that the US will still be secure even with such a significantly reduced arsenal is also a blatant lie. The US will not be secure. The US will be threatened and frequently blackmailed by both Russia and China. Moreover, even if the cuts are done through a treaty with Russia, it’s very likely that Russia will not comply with it, just like it hasn’t complied with any previous treaty it has signed.

Furthermore, we must not forget that while Russia and China are threats to many and protectors to nobody, the US is responsible for providing a nuclear deterrrent not just for itself, but also for 30 allies. If the US makes the cuts that Obama calls for, many of America’s allies will have no choice but to develop their own nuclear weapons. And you can bet that they will.

Shame on Jeffrey Smith for writing this litany of blatant leftist lies, and shame on Foreign Policy for publishing it.

Folks, please call your Congressman and both of your Senators and tell them they MUST stop this treasonous act of disarming America.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/02/08/obama_embraces_big_nuke_cuts

Rebuttal of the DOD’s lies in defense of Chuck Hagel

Proving that the once-conservative DOD is now firmly controlled and run by pacifists wishing to disarm the US in concert with their fellow pacifists at the State Department, the Obama DOD has released a pamphlet of blatant lies intended to make Obama SECDEF nominee Chuck Hagel look good. The pamphlet attacks what it calls 7 “myths” about Chuck Hagel and invokes what it falsely claims are “facts”, but which are actually blatant lies.

On America’s nuclear deterrent – which Hagel would like to do away with (and could, if confirmed as Secretary of Defense), the DOD falsely claims that Hagel is committed to retaining a nuclear deterrent “as long as nuclear weapons exist”, but at the same time shares Barack Obama’s “goal of a world without nuclear weapons”.

Leaving aside the fact that such a world will never exist, that the world is currently going in the exactly opposite direction (with more countries joining the nuclear club), and that nuclear disarmament is undesirable (the risk of war between great powers will be much higher without nuclear weapons being there to restrain them), the fact is that Hagel is NOT committed to maintaining a nuclear deterrent: He’s virulently opposed to it.

Chuck Hagel is a board member of two extremely leftist, pacifist organizations seeking deep unilateral cuts in America’s nuclear arsenal: Global Zero and the Ploughshares Fund. Both seek to disarm the US unilaterally while claiming to seek universal nuclear disarmament. Both also grossly overstate the cost of America’s nuclear deterrent. Ploughshares also pays millions to media outlets each year to slant their stories in favor of unilateral arms cuts and against America’s nuclear deterrent (the NPR has been particularly biased in that, and receives $5 mn per year from Ploughshares) and virulently opposes any military action against Iran.

Global Zero has, for its part, released a “report” co-authored by Hagel which calls for deep UNILATERAL cuts in America’s nuclear deterrent, including the elimination of all US ICBMs, deep cuts in the bomber and ballistic missile submarine fleets, scrapping all US cruise missiles, and scrapping America’s tactical nuclear weapons.

This would be the deepest cut ever in America’s deterrent, bringing it down to only 450 “active” and 450 inactive warheads, and Global Zero wants the US to be unable to use even the “active” warheads until 72 hours after an enemy strike on the US.

This – as experts such as Dr Keith Payne and Rebeccah Heinrichs have pointed out – would dramatically reduce the number of targets America’s enemies would need to destroy in a first strike, from 455 to just 5: 3 above-ground bomber and 2 submarine bases, plus the few SSBNs that Global Zero’s plan would allow America to retain.

This would be a recipe for and a guarantee of a Russian or even Chinese nuclear first strike, as they’d have only 5 targets to retain. Moreover, an arsenal of only 450 warheads would be woefully insufficient to hold the majority, or even any significant share, of Russian or Chinese military assets at risk, meaning such a tiny “deterrent” would be ineffective and wouldn’t be a deterrent at all.

And Hagel signed the plan calling for such an ineffective pseudo-deterrent. (It was sensibly and promptly rejected by USAF and Strategic Command leaders.)

To be effective, a nuclear deterrent must be large – to be survivable as well as to hold the vast majority of enemy assets at risk, thus guaranteeing that he’d pay an unacceptably high price for any aggression. But Hagel doesn’t understand that.

So contrary to the DOD’s lies, Hagel does NOT support the nuclear deterrent – he supports gutting it. (Of course, the DOD is silent on Hagel’s support for that plan.)

On the defense budget, the DOD again tries to have it both ways: claiming that Hagel doesn’t want to cut the defense budget too deeply but also that the DOD „must do its part” in cutting the budget deficit.

But the DOD has already done more than its part in addressing that problem: it has already contributed over 900 bn to deficit reduction, while no other federal agency has contributed ANYTHING towards that goal. And that’s without counting sequestration.

Besides, Hagel doesn’t just want the DOD to „do its part”: he wants to deeply cut its budget for ideological reasons. He has also falsely claimed that it’s „bloated”, when it’s not: it amounts to only 4.2% of America’s GDP, less than 18% of the total federal budget, and is quite modest considering the gravity and wide array of military threats America is confronting: from a rapidly building-up and modernizing China whose military already has a lot of modern, lethal weapons, to a Russia that retains a huge nuclear and conventional arsenal and is run by an anti-American KGB thug, to a nuclear- and ICBM-armed North Korea, to an Iran racing towards nuclear weapons, to various terrorist organizations.

To cut the defense budget under such circumstances would be pure folly.

On Israel, the DOD conveniently cherry-picked the facts, while completely omitting Hagel’s virulently anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic statements, such as „the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here”, „let the Jews pay for it” (the USO facility in Haifa), etc., as well as his calls for US to directly negotiate with Hamas and Hezbollah, thus belying the DOD’s claim that Hagel has been tough on these terrorist organizations.

In fact, Hagel was one of only 12 US Senators to refuse signing a letter calling on the EU to designate Hezbollah as a terrorist group.

On Iran, the DOD conveniently omitted Hagel’s vote AGAINST designating the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist group while calling for direct talks with Iran and ardently opposing any military option WRT Tehran, claiming that it’s „not a viable or responsible option.”

Last but not least, Hagel completely lacks the experience and qualifications necessary to be SECDEF. Again, the DOD has lied to make him look good. Hagel has never run any large business, university, government agency (being deputy administrator of VA doesn’t cut it),  or any military unit. His ability to act as the DOD’s CEO is completely untested.

So the DOD’s „facts” in defense of Chuck Hagel are all blatant lies. Contrary to Hagel’s defenders’ claims, no one is „smearing” Hagel – we, his critics, are merely using his own words and actions to show people who he really is. Hagel is his own worst enemy. He has no one but himself to blame for the criticism he’s receiving. No one ordered him to support a treasonous unilateral disarmament plan, call for appeasing terrorist groups and regimes, insult Israel and the Jews, or call for deep defense budget cuts at the most dangerous time since WW2. It’s all his fault.

It is the moral and Constitutional duty of the Senate to reject Hagel. Any Senator who fails to carry out that duty must be voted out of office. No exceptions.

Folks, please call both of your Senators and tell them that you will never vote for them again if they vote to confirm Chuck Hagel. Also, please call Republican Senators and tell them to filibuster Hagel’s nomination.

Rebuttal of Robert Burns’ and other leftists’ anti-nuclear lies

On January 30th, the leftist Associated Press published yet another irredeemably biased, utterly ridiculous litany of blatant lies by its “National Security Writer” Robert Burns, a strident leftist biased against the military and against nuclear weapons in particular. As is typical of a leftist media “journalist”, Burns has written yet another garbage screed which is so biased and filled with so many lies as to brainwash the public into supporting leftist policies and presenting Republicans in a negative light.

In this case, Burns wants to mislead the public into supporting deep unilateral cuts to America’s nuclear deterrent (and its eventual elimination) and portray nuclear weapons as dangerous relics of the past and Republicans as dinosaurs supporting an orthodox and outdated policy.

To that end, he makes a litany of false claims and quotes three leftist “national security thinkers” while not quoting a single dissenting (i.e. conservative) expert.

But his claims, and those of the stridently leftist “thinkers” he quotes, are all blatant lies. Here’s why.

Burns starts by gleeing over the fact that Chuck Hagel, Obama’s nominee for SECDEF, backs deep, unilateral cuts to America’s nuclear arsenal and:

“That puts him outside the orthodoxy embraced by many of his fellow Republicans but inside a widening circle of national security thinkers — including President Barack Obama — who believe nuclear weapons are becoming more a liability than an asset, less relevant to 21st century security threats like terrorism. (…)

The customary stance of defense secretaries in the nuclear age has been that the weapons are a necessary evil, a required ingredient in American defense strategy that can be discarded only at the nation’s peril.

Hagel, 66, takes a subtly different view — one shared by Obama but opposed by those in Congress who believe disarmament is weakness and that an outsized American nuclear arsenal must be maintained indefinitely as a counterweight to the nuclear ambitions of anti-Western countries like North Korea and Iran.

In a letter to Obama two months after his former Senate colleague entered the White House in 2009, Hagel wrote that Global Zero was developing a step-by-step plan for achieving “the total elimination of all nuclear weapons,” but with a “clear, realistic and pragmatic appreciation” for the difficulty of realizing that goal. (…)

“Getting to global zero will take years,” Hagel wrote in the March 2009 letter to Obama on behalf of Global Zero. “So it is important that we set our course toward a world withoutnuclear weapons now to ensure that our children do not live under the nuclear shadow of the last century.”

Hagel stands out in this regard in part because history — first the demise of the Soviet Union, then the rise of terrorism as a global threat — has changed how many people think about the deterrent value of nuclear weapons. For decades after the birth of the atomic age in the 1940s the chief concern was controlling the growth, and later managing the shrinkage, of nuclear arsenals without upsetting the balance of power.

Today the thinking by many national security experts has shifted as the threat of all-out nuclear war has faded and terrorist organizations with potentially global reach, like al-Qaida, are trying to get their hands on a nuclear device.

“Hagel’s views reflect the growing bipartisan consensus in the U.S. security establishment that whatever benefits nuclear weapons may have had during the Cold War are now outweighed by the threat they present,” said Joe Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund, which supports efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons.

Hagel was co-author of a Global Zero report last May that proposed, as an interim step, reducing the U.S. arsenal to 900 weapons within a decade, with half deployed and the other half in reserve. That compares with a current U.S. stockpile of 5,000, of which 1,700 are deployed and capable of striking targets around the globe.

The report said these cuts could be taken unilaterally if not negotiated with the Russians or carried out through reciprocal U.S. and Russian presidential directives.”

What’s wrong with Burns’ claims?

To start with, EVERYTHING.

Firstly, contrary to the image that Burns and the three leftists (Steven Pifer of Brookings, Joseph Cirincione of Ploughshares, and Bruce Blair of Global Zero) attempt to project, nuclear weapons are anything but relics of a bygone era, and the need for nuclear weapons today is as greater as, if not greater than, during the Cold War.

Russia currently has 1,500 deployed and 1,300 nondeployed strategic nuclear warheads (a total of 2,800) and untold thousands (probably around 4,000) deployed and nondeployed tactical nuclear warheads – all of which are deliverable anytime.

To deliver the strategic ones, Russia has 434 ICBMs (mostly multi-warhead missiles) which can collectively deliver 1,684 warheads, 13-14 ballistic missile subs which can deliver over 2,000 warheads on their 220 SLBMs; and over 250 strategic Tu-95, Tu-160, and Tu-22M bombers.

To deliver its tactical nukes, Russia has a very wide range of systems including aircraft (e.g. the Su-25, Su-25, the Su-27/30/33/34/35 Flanker family), artillery pieces, surface warships, submarines  armed with nuclear-tipped torpedoes, and short-range ballistic missiles.

It is now working on modernizing all three legs of its nuclear triad, including two new ICBMs, a new long-range bomber, and a new SSBN class.

China has at least 1,800 and up to 3,000 nuclear weapons (not the mere 240-400 often claimed by US disarmament supporters) and many systems with which to deliver them: over 60 DF-5, DF-31, and DF-41 ICBMs; six ballistic missile subs; over 120 DF-3, DF-4, and DF-21 MRBMs; 440 bombers and strike aircraft; and around 2,000 SRBMs and Land Attack Cruise Missiles.

(In another sign of Burns’ bias, his screed does not mention Russia’s and China’s large nuclear arsenals, and barely mentions in passing that Russia and China have nukes in general. This is a deliberate tactic by Burns to mislead people into thinking that the US doesn’t need to deter Russia nor China.)

On top of that, the US has to deter North Korea (which has ca. 12 nuclear warheads and intends to test one soon) and Iran, which is racing towards nuclear weapons. Moreover, while Russia and China are threats to many and protectors to nobody, the US has to provide an effective nuclear umbrella not just for itself, but also to over 30 allies.

If the US makes further cuts in its arsenal, it will become too small to deter enemies and reassure friends, and consequently, these allies will have no choice but to develop their own nuclear weapons, thus making the proliferation problem much worse. But these allies cannot bet their security, and indeed, their very existence on ridiculous “nuclear weapons are relics of a bygone era” and “nuclear disarmament will make us safer” kumbayah beliefs – or on America breaking free of such ridiculous notions and of Democrat-led government by 2017.

The fact is that nuclear weapons are not relics of a bygone era, nor are they “liabilities”. They are indispensable assets in protecting America against the gravest security threats it is facing: Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran. Terrorism is a threat, but not even close to being as severe as that of Russia’s and China’s large nuclear arsenals and military buildups, North Korea’s smaller but deadly one, and Iran’s nuclear ambitions and quest for regional hegemony.

No amount of shouting the tired “we’re in the 21st century!” and “they’re liabilities and relics of the Cold War!” slogan will change these facts.

Moreover, if nuclear weapons are “liabilities”, a huge threat to those who hold them, and relics of yesteryear, why are more and more countries interested in acquiring them, and why are Russia, China, North Korea, India, Pakistan, and Israel all growing their nuclear arsenals?

Answer: because they recognize the inherent value of nuclear weapons, which are NOT relics of the Cold War nor “liabilities”.

The cost of maintaining the entire US nuclear arsenal and its related infrastructure is estimated by the Stimson Center to be about $35.2 bn per year – just 6% of the entire military budget, and a bargain price to keep America safe.

And contrary to what Burns and Cirincione claim, there is zero risk of American nuclear weapons (let alone their delivery systems) being stolen by terrorists. These weapons are well-guarded and secure, and Al Qaeda is not even trying to steal them. So doing away with America’s nuclear weapons will do NOTHING to stop Al-Qaeda from obtaining nuclear weapons elsewhere.

The real risk is that AQ may steal Pakistani nuclear warheads – but scrapping America’s own arsenal will do nothing to prevent that. It will not cause Pakistan’s arsenal to magically go away or encourage Pakistan to dismantle its weapons.

America’s nuclear weapons pose no threat to anyone – except, of course, those who wish to attack the US or its allies.

So the benefits of America’s nuclear arsenal greatly outweigh the costs – not the other way around.

So, by pushing for America’s nuclear disarmament, Burns, Obama, Hagel, Cirincione, and Blair are advocating a ridiculous policy which will gravely weaken the US and its military, jeopardize US national security, invite a nuclear first strike by Russia or even China, leave America’s allies fending for themselves (and thus encourage further nuclear proliferation), and embolden America’s enemies around the world, while completely failing to prevent (or even slow down) nuclear proliferation or nuclear weapons falling into terrorists’ hands.

In other words, nuclear disarmament would make America (and the whole world) dramatically less secure and less peaceful.

And yes, disarmament IS weakness – by its definition, it means laying down all arms, i.e. the state of being disarmed (unarmed). Yet, without weapons (including nuclear ones), the US will have nothing to defend itself with. That would be a state of terrible weakness – and weakness ALWAYS invites aggression.

“But Hagel wants to eliminate all nuclear weapons globally, not just in the US”, you might say. But there will never again be a “world without nuclear weapons” – not even in the next 100 years – Obama’s, Hagel’s, and others leftist’ fantasies notwithstanding. China, North Korea, Pakistan, and India will never give up their nuclear weapons (China refuses to even talk to the US about them). This genie cannot be put back into the bottle.

A world without nuclear weapons is not only utterly unrealistic, it’s also undesirable. For all human history prior to 1945, we did actually have such a world. The result? There was nothing to restrain the world’s great powers – so all human history before 1945 is one of huge, bloody wars between the great powers of the time, including the two bloodiest, most barbaric wars the world has ever seen: the two World Wars, with a combined body count of 100 million people – mostly innocent civilians.

Since 1945, we have not had another world war or any conflict between the world’s great powers – and that is at least in large part, if not wholly, due to nuclear deterrence.

Burns claims that there is “a widening circle of national security thinkers”, whom he also wrongly calls “experts”, who believe that “who believe nuclear weapons are becoming more a liability than an asset”. Yet, he cites no serious “national security thinkers” or “experts” sharing that view – only three stridently liberal anti-nuclear hacks: Joseph Cirincione, Steven Pifer, and Bruce Blair, plus America’s most leftist president ever, Barack Obama.

But they’re strident liberal ideologues, not “thinkers” or “experts”. Cirincione is the president of the Ploughshares Fund, which supports deep unilateral cuts to America’s nuclear deterrent and routinely lies about the subject while staunchly opposing any military action against Iran. Blair is Hagel’s fellow Global Zero member. Pifer is with the George-Soros-funded Brookings Institution, a liberal think-tank.

Meanwhile, I can cite many genuine nuclear deterrence experts who believe further cuts to America’s arsenal, especially unilateral or deep ones, are wrong and foolish: e.g. Heritage Foundation experts Rebeccah Heinrichs, Baker Spring, and Michaela Bendikova; USAF nuclear deterrence affairs chief MGEN William Chambers; former SECDEFs Harold Brown and James Schlesinger; and the nation’s foremost nuclear deterrence expert, Dr. Keith B. Payne.

Indeed, when Global Zero issued its “report” calling for deep, unilateral cuts to America’s nuclear deterrent, STRATCOM commander Gen. Bob Kehler and then USAF Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz rejected it and Dr. Payne testified before the Senate against that report’s proposals, showing how dangerous and suicidal they are.

Moreover, consensus does not determine the truth. Discovering facts does. And the FACTS are that the need for American nuclear weapons today is as great as (if not greater than) it was during the Cold War.

For that reason alone, Hagel’s and Global Zero’s proposals of deep unilateral cuts are absolutely unacceptable and disqualifying.

Please call both of yours Senators, Dear Readers, and please tell them you will never vote for them again if they vote to confirm Chuck Hagel.

There is a group called Americans for a Strong Defense which, as the name suggests, advocates a strong national defense, opposes Hagel’s nomination, and is working to warn Senators to vote against Hagel – or to unseat them if they disregard that warning. Another group opposing Hagel is the American Future Fund.

“Minimum deterrence” is no deterrence at all

Leftist pacifists are waging a purely ideological, bordering on religious, crusade against America’s own nuclear deterrent, claiming that it is somehow a threat to the US and to world stability and a “liability”. They want to do away with it entirely and unilaterally if Russia doesn’t agree to a bilateral treaty.

But an outright, immediate, unilateral nuclear disarmament would not pass, as the Congress and the public would never allow such course of action.

So, like Fabian socialists (and most pacifists, including Barack Obama and many House Democrats, also happen to be socialists), they deceptively advocate a transitional policy called “minimum deterrence” to lull the Congress and the public into a false sense of security by claiming they support providing for nuclear deterrence – just at much lower force levels – while they actually treat such policy as a mere temporary, transitional step on the road to zero nuclear weapons.

So, while they pretend to support nuclear deterrence, they really don’t – and for them, the deep further cuts in the nuclear deterrent they advocate would be just a temporary step towards a disarmed America.

What is wrong with that?

To start with, EVERYTHING.

Let’s pretend for a moment that cuts in the nuclear arsenal would stop at the levels which pacifist organizations like the Arms Control Association, the CATO Institute, the PDA, and Global Zero advocate. The ACA wants to see the total US arsenal down to 1,000 or fewer warheads based on no more than 300 ICBMs, 8 ballistic missile subs, and the current fleet of B-52s and B-2s. CATO and PDA want to see similar cuts. Global Zero wants to see even deeper ones: to just 450 active and 450 inactive warheads, based on just 10 submarines, while all ICBMs, bombers, nuclear-capable cruise missiles, and tactical nuclear weapons would be scrapped or (in the bombers’ case) relegated solely to conventional missions.

Let’s pretend for a moment that cuts would permanently stop at that, ignoring the fact that these pacifist, leftist organizations treat them as a mere step on the road to nuclear zero.

The fact is that such a tiny arsenal would be woefully inadequate. In other words, what they call “Minimum deterrence” is no deterrence at all. It is weakness and an invitation to aggression – even to a first strike by Russia or China.

The US needs a large nuclear arsenal, not a small one. This need is driven by America’s potential adversaries – primarily Russia (6,800 warheads) and China (up to 3,000 warheads). The US nuclear arsenal has to be large in the face of such large enemy arsenals for two reasons:

1)      SURVIVABILITY: A small nuclear arsenal – such as that proposed by the above-mentioned organizations – would be easy for Russia to destroy in a first strike. Fewer warheads, missiles, submarines, and bombers located on fewer bases would be far easier to destroy in a first strike than a large number. 300 ICBMs, a handful of bombers at 3-5 bases, and just 8 SSBNs (only 4 of which would be at sea at any given time) would be far easier to destroy in a surprise disarming first strike than 450 ICBMs, 14 SSBNs, and more bombers at more bases. Global Zero’s cuts would be even more disastrous – cutting the entire arsenal to just 900 warheads (including 450 active ones), zero ICBMs, zero nuclear-capable bombers, and just 10 SSBNs stationed at two bases (Kitsap and Kings’ Bay). This would dramatically reduce the number of targets an enemy would need to strike – from 455 to 2 (or 5, if nuclear bombers were retained) – something that even China could do quite easily, given that it has over 60 ICBMs and at least 72 SLBMs.

2)      CREDIBILITY. In order to deter, a nuclear arsenal must not only be able to survive, it must also be able to hold the vast majority (if not all) of enemy military and strategic assets at risk. Given how large the Russian and Chinese militaries (including their nuclear arsenals and China’s 3,000-mile-long network of tunnels for nuclear-armed missiles) are, this clearly requires a very large nuclear arsenal; a small arsenal would not even be close to sufficient, as there would be way too few warheads to hold enemy targets at risk. The Heritage Foundation has estimated in an impartial, exhaustive study that between 2,700 and 3,000 warheads are needed for that purpose.

A small nuclear arsenal could only target Russian, Chinese, North Korean, and Iranian population centers, as it would be woefully insufficient to hold the majority of enemy military assets at risk. This would mean a shift from counterforce to countervalue targeting – i.e. targeting innocent civilian populations instead of enemy warmaking capability. Is this the policy we want? The proponents of arms reduction do.

But such a policy would arguably be immoral, and would not be accepted by most Americans. So the only credible and acceptable policy is counterforce – which requires a large number of warheads.

Another fact that should warn against further cuts to America’s nuclear deterrent – and which utterly disproves claims that it’s “oversized” or “excessive” – is that while Russia and China are threats to many, they are protectors to nobody, while the US has to provide a nuclear deterrent not only for itself, but also for 30 allies.

And before you shout “They should defend themselves! We should not defend them!”, please think calmly and remember that dumping those allies and failing to provide a credible nuclear umbrella for them will force them to develop their own nuclear warheads – which several of them, including at least 6 Pacific Rim allies, could do in mere months if need be.

This would lead to more proliferation, not less. In fact, as Heritage Foundation nuclear experts Baker Spring and Michaela Bendikova point out, the US nuclear deterrent has done more to prevent nuclear proliferation than any arms control treaty ever signed. In testimony before Congress, analysts such as Stephen Rademaker and Kori Schake have also pointed out the nonproliferation value and contributions of America’s atomic umbrella.

Cutting the US nuclear deterrent will lead to more proliferation, not less.

The nuclear capabilities of America’s adversaries

Russia has a very large strategic nuclear arsenal (2,800 warheads, 1,500 of them deployed and 1,300 in reserve) and the means to deliver it:

• Over 250 strategic bombers (64 Tu-95s, 16 Tu-160s, and 151-171[1] Tu-22Ms), each capable of carrying six nuclear-tipped cruise missiles and a nuclear freefall bomb;
• 14 ballistic missile submarines (5 Delta III class, 7 Delta IV class, 1 Typhoon class[2], and 1 Borei class submarine[3]), which can carry 16 ballistic missiles each (the Typhoon class boat can carry 20); these missiles include the 12-warhead Liner SLBM and the 10-warhead Bulava SLBM;
• 434 ICBMs, including (numbers in parentheses refer to the maximum warhead carriage capacity):

1. 58 SS-18 Satan missiles (10 warheads and 30 penetration aids each);
2. 136 SS-19 Stiletto missiles (6 warheads/missile);
3. 171 SS-25 Sickle (RT-2PM Topol) missiles (single-warhead);
4. 74 SS-27 Sickle B (RT-2UTTH) missiles (single-warhead);
5. at least 18 SS-29 (RS-24) missiles (4 warheads/missile).

The Satan fleet alone can carry 580 warheads to the CONUS. Russia’s ICBMs are not currently loaded with the maximum possible number of warheads, but can be thus loaded at any time, if the Kremlin so orders.

Russia also has a huge tactical nuclear arsenal – far larger than that of the US. It is estimated to have at least 1,000-4,000 tactical nuclear warheads – by any measure, far more than the US has (about 500). These are warheads of various types: missile warheads, aircraft bombs, nuclear depth charges, nuclear torpedo warheads, nuclear artillery shells, etc. They are deliverable by a wide range of systems, including aircraft (e.g. the Su-24, Su-25, Tupolev bombers, and the Su-27/30/33/34/35 Flanker family; Russia plans to procure 200 Su-34s), short-range ballistic missiles (e.g. the SS-26 Stone), surface warships, submarines, and artillery pieces.

So Russia alone has a huge nuclear arsenal which America must defend itself and its allies against. It has, in recent years, made repeated threats (over a dozen in the last 4 years alone) to use these weapons against the US or its allies if they don’t succumb to Russia’s demands on various issues.

Thus, the Russian threat, by itself, is huge and justifies the retention of a large US nuclear arsenal.

China has 1,800, and potentially up to 3,000, nuclear warheads, as determined in objective, impartial studies independently by Professor Philip Karber (Georgetown) and Col. Gen. Viktor Yesin, a former Russian missile force chief of staff. Their estimates are based on Chinese fissile material stockpiles, delivery system inventories, potential targets for China, and itsst, 3,000-mile-long network of tunnels for nuclear missiles.

North Korea has about 12 nuclear warheads and the capability to deliver them to the US, as demonstrated by its successful December 2012 test of a genuine ICBM and the fact that it can mate nuclear warheads to ballistic missiles. North Korea, of course, also has large arsenals of SRBMs and MRBMs.

Iran is currently developing nuclear weapons and may have them by next year. It is also developing an ICBM capable of hitting the US, which US intel estimates it may have by 2015, and already possesses ballistic missiles which can hit targets as far away as Warsaw (e.g. the Sejjil missile).

To disarm in the face of these multiple nuclear threats, including Russia’s and China’s large arsenals, would be worse than a folly: it would be utterly suicidal.

Yet that is what pacifist, pro-disarmament groups such as the ACA, the PDA, Cato, and Global Zero advocate. They want to deeply cut the US nuclear arsenal, down to what they deceptively call a “minimum deterrence” posture, in a few years, and they view such cuts as a mere transitional step on the road to a completely disarmed America.

Contrary to their claims – made in order to mislead those Americans worried about the debt – even very deep cuts to the nuclear deterrent would only bring about puny, phantom “savings” which would be more than outweighed by the tragic consequences of the Russian nuclear first strike such cuts would invite, and the consequences of further nuclear proliferation around the world, as ally after ally would have to “go nuclear” to provide a nuclear deterrent for himself in the absence of a nuclear umbrella.

The costs of maintaining the US nuclear deterrent are small. Its ICBM leg costs only $1.1 bn to maintain; the bomber leg, only $2.5 bn per year. The entire nuclear arsenal plus its supporting infrastructure costs only $35.2 bn per year ($352 bn per decade) to maintain, according to the StimsonCenter (the Obama Administration, despite supporting nuclear disarmament, estimates the arsenal to cost even less). Only biased, anti-nuclear pacifist organizations like Ploughshares falsely estimate the nuclear arsenal to cost over $660 bn per decade – a totally fake number which was rightly rebuked by, of all people, WaPo “fact-checker” Glenn Kessler.

So the policy which pacifist, pro-disarmament organizations advocate would be utterly disastrous. It would invite (if not outright guarantee) a Russian first strike on a small, unsurvivable nuclear arsenal; force allies around the world to “go nuclear” and thus dramatically worsen nuclear proliferation; embolden America’s enemies everywhere around the world;  undermine America’s and allies’ security, freedom, and independence; and allow any idiot to build a few hundred warheads to match the US in nuclear weapons. All while utterly failing to save taxpayers more than a pittance and contributing virtually nothing to deficit reduction.

For all of these reasons, the cretinous, suicidal “minimum deterrence” policy must be completely and permanently rejected. “Minimum deterrence” is no deterrence at all.

 

[1] Reputed analyst Sean O’Connor estimates Russia to have 171 Tu-22Ms; Wikipedia says Russia has 151 (93+58).

[2] Russia also has 2 additional Typhoons in reserve. It is not clear what it intends do to with these boats: scrap or recommission them.

[3] The first four boats of the Borei class will have 16 missile tubes each. All successive boats of this class, however, starting with the fifth, will have 20 missile tubes each, meaning that the Russian submarine fleet’s SLBM carriage capacity will increase as the 5th and every consecutive Borei class boat enters service.

Rebuttal of Mick Mulvaney’s and Keith Ellison’s lies

In an op-ed published on January 3rd in the extremely liberal Huffington Post, RINO Congressman Mick Mulvaney (RINO-SC) and extremely liberal Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN) made a number of false claims and a few straw man arguments while promoting their campaign to gut America’s defense together with leftist think-tanks. (Their false claims, previously made in a letter to Congressional leadership, have been refuted here.)

They begin their op-ed by claiming that defense spending must contribute to deficit reduction because it has grown by 1/3 since FY2001. But that’s a straw man argument. Defense spending, in case they haven’t noticed, has already contributed mightily to deficit reduction: to the tune of over $900 bn since FY2010 alone. This included over 50 weapon program terminations in FY2010 and FY2011 (saving $330 bn), cutting the US nuclear arsenal unilaterally under New START (which allows Russia to grow its arsenal), the $178 bn Gates Efficiencies Initiative (upheld by Leon Panetta) and the $487 bn in savings required by the first tier of the Budget Control Act – savings which Sec. Panetta has found and programmed.

By the way, successive SECDEFs and other DOD leaders have repeatedly asked, indeed begged, Congress for authorization to address the REAL cost drivers in the defense budget – military healthcare and retirement programs – and to retire obsolete/niche aircraft (e.g. C-23s, C-27s, and the oldest F-16s, A-10s, and C-130s) and close unneeded bases (Leon Panetta has requested authorization for TWO base closure rounds). Congressional consent is needed for all of these reforms (and for virtually everything else).

Yet, the Congress has repeatedly and consistently refused to authorize ANY of these reforms for purely parochial reasons.

Thus, members of Congress, including Reps. Mulvaney and Ellison, should stop blaming the DOD and look at themselves. THEY are to blame – not the DOD.

But even if such reforms were authorized, the savings would not be nearly big enough to justify deep defense budget cuts. Yet, Mulvaney and Ellison falsely claim that such savage, deep defense spending cuts are possible without harming the US military, even though that is a blatant lie. There is some waste in the defense budget, but not enough of it to make deep defense budget cuts, contrary to what the supporters of such cuts (all of whom are strident liberals) falsely claim. Any deep cuts would have to come from the force structure (which has already been cut excessively), training, maintenance, and modernization (i.e. the development and procurement of new, badly needed equipment, as well as the modernization of existing gear).

Mulvaney and Ellison blatantly lie in their op-ed that “respected policy organizations from across the political spectrum, such as the CATO Institute, the Project on Government Oversight, Taxpayers for Common Sense, the National Taxpayers Union, and the Project on Defense Alternatives” have come up with ways to “responsibly” achieve “$550 bn in defense savings over a decade”, and that the cuts proposed by these organizations would not weaken the US military at all.

But the fact is that the cuts proposed by these leftist organizations would gravely weaken the US military. That is not an opinion. That is a FACT.

Moreover, the cuts proposed by these leftist organizations seem to be deliberately designed to cripple America’s armed forces.

I have already refuted the proposals of all of these organizations here, here, here, here, here, and here. A very detailed analysis of Russia’s and China’s military capabilities is available here. In this article, I’ll refute a few of their destructive proposals to illustrate how badly their treasonous defense cuts proposals would cripple the US military.

All of these leftist organizations propose to dramatically cut America’s nuclear deterrent, even though it has already been dramatically reduced since the end of the Cold War (from over 20,000 to just 5,000 warheads) and is in urgent need of modernization, and even though Russia, China, and North Korea are rapidly GROWING their nuclear arsenals. Russia alone has 2,800 strategic and untold thousands (up to 4,000) of tactical nuclear warheads, all of which are deliverable: Russia has 434 ICBMs (most of them being multiple-warhead missiles), over 250 strategic bombers (Tu-95s, Tu-160s, Tu-22Ms), and 13 ballistic missile subs (with 200-220 missiles, each capable of carrying varying numbers of warheads) to deliver its strategic nukes, and untold thousands of tactical delivery systems (such as warships, aircraft, and artillery pieces) to deliver its tactical warheads (which range from bombs to nuclear depth charges to nuclear artillery shells).

Dramatically cutting the US nuclear arsenal or failing to modernize it – as CATO, the PDA, the NTU, POGO, and TCS all propose to do – would be worse than an utter folly. It would be suicidal, inviting a Russian or possibly even Chinese nuclear first strike on the US. This is for two reasons. Firstly, to be survivable, a nuclear arsenal has to be large, especially if the enemy’s arsenal is also large. A few hundred ICBMs, a few SSBNs, and a few bomber bases would be quite easy for the enemy to take out. Secondly, only a large arsenal can threaten the majority of Russia’s and China’s military assets (the things they really care about) and thus threaten CREDIBLE retaliation upon Russia or China in case of aggression. A small arsenal could only threaten population centers – which Russian and Chinese leaders don’t care about – and would thus not be credible at all. “Minimum deterrence” is no deterrence at all. Contrary to CATO’s and PDA’s false claims, the US nuclear arsenal is not oversized at all, and the US does not have any “overkill” in that regard.

All of these leftist organizations also propose to cut the SSBN fleet down to just 7-8 boats, meaning that only 3-4 at most would be at sea at any time; to cancel the overdue construction of new nuclear facilities to replace old, dilapidated ones; and to cancel the Next Generation Bomber.

The Next Generation Bomber is absolutely and urgently needed, and the need for it has been proven many times already (vide e.g. here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here), and reaffirmed numerous times by successive Defense Secretaries (Rumsfeld, Gates, Panetta), USAF Chiefs of Staff (Moseley, Schwartz, Welsh), other USAF leaders, and by Air Force Secretary Michael Donley.

Why is it needed, when B-1s and B-52s have decades of service life left? These legacy bombers have huge radar signatures, meaning they are extremely easy even for legacy Soviet radars (let alone modern Russian and Chinese air defense systems such as the S-300, S-400, S-500, and HQ-9) to detect and for enemy SAMs to shoot down from a long range. Any airspace defended by even primitive 1960s Soviet systems, such as the SA-2/3/4/5/6, let alone the newest Russian and Chinese air defense systems, is thus firmly closed to the B-1 and the B-52.

And that makes these legacy bombers completely useless, because a bomber’s sole purpose is to penetrate enemy airspace and deliver bombs to its targets. If it cannot do so for any reason whatsoever – e.g. being unable to penetrate enemy airspace due to a large radar sig and thus high risk of getting shot down – such aircraft is useless. Launching cruise missiles is no solution: cruise missiles have small bodies and small warheads and thus can strike only small, soft, unhardened, static targets. And due to their cost, they are useful only for short, scope-limited campaigns.

Today, the USAF’s only bombers capable of surviving in enemy airspace are its 20 B-2s (which POGO opposed, BTW) – and 20 bombers are nowhere near enough to defeat anyone but the most trivial adversary.

Thus, the NGB is urgently needed – NOW.

PDA and CATO also propose to dramatically cut the Navy’s size, to just 230 ships and 8-9 carrier groups. Similarly deep cuts would fall on submarine, surface combatant, amphibious assault, and landing dock ships. PDA and CATO would also dramatically cut the procurement of Virginia class submarines (which are needed to replace noisy LA class subs) and P-8 Poseidon aircraft. This would make the Navy unable to meet many of the missions it currently has to meet. The Navy is already able to supply only 59% of Combatant Commanders’ requests for ships and only 61% of their needs for submarines. With the cuts that PDA and CATO propose, the Navy would be able to meet even fewer of COCOMs’ needs – probably less than half. In other words, the majority of Combatant Commanders’ needs would go unmet. National security would suffer as a result – because the missions required to keep America safe would not be executed.

A ship, no matter how advanced technologically, can be in only one place at any given time. Yet, the world hasn’t shrunk since the 1980s, the world’s sealanes – which must be safeguarded – are long, the Persian Gulf remains volative, China cannot be allowed to turn the WESTPAC into an internal Chinese lake, and thus, the Navy has many commitments around the world which it must meet.

I could go on and on like this all day. PDA, CATO, POGO, TCS, and the NTU demand deep, crippling defense cuts across the board: in the ground force, in the fighter fleet, in support aircraft (such as the wrongly-maligned V-22) in crucial weapon programs across the board, in missile defense, etc. 

The fact is that, contrary to the pious denials of those RINO and Democrat Congressmen, the massive defense cuts proposals of these think-tanks would severely weaken the US military and imperil national security for the reasons stated above. So despite their pious denials, national security would be severely compromised and harmed.

In short, for all of the reasons listed here and the linked articles, their defense cuts proposals would gravely weaken the US military and put US national security at risk – despite their, Mulvaney’s, and Ellison’s pious denials. Mulvaney and Ellison falsely claim that they wouldn’t embark on this cause if it would lead to weakening America’s defense – but this is precisely what their campaign and those leftist organizations’ deep defense cuts would lead to. If they don’t know it, they should stop pontificating about issues they know nothing about.

(And does anyone really believe that strident liberals like Keith Ellison give two hoots about America’s defense?)

By the way, those “policy organizations” are not “from across the political spectrum”. Only the NTU could be said to be on the political right. CATO, the Massachusetts-based (and Barney-Frank-supported) PDA, POGO, and TCS are from the far left.

CATO was founded by anarcho-libertarian Murray Rothbard, who opposed any form of government whatsoever (i.e. favored anarchy), opposed having any military whatsoever, considered the US military to be a tool of internal oppression, blamed the Cold War solely on the US (while claiming Moscow was merely the aggrieved side), supported Islamofascists over Israel, and hailed Nikita Khrushchev during his visit to the US.

Today, CATO’s VP for “foreign and defense studies” is Chris Preble, a guy who thinks America’s military power is a problem to be eliminated and a thing that makes America less safe – i.e. he accepts the discredited liberal thesis that military strength is dangerous and provocative. (He has written a book titled The Power Problem: How America’s Military Power Makes Us Less Safe, Less Prosperous, and Less Free).

CATO and POGO are co-funded by George Soros and his Open Society Institute.

POGO was founded in 1981 to oppose and to stop Ronald Reagan’s attempt to rebuild the US military after 12 years of massive, disastrous defense cuts. They have opposed every crucial weapon system the US has developed or fielded since 1981, most of which have performed brilliantly – such as the M1 Abrams tank, the M2 Bradley IFV, Ground-Launched Cruise Missiles (put in Europe in 1983 to deter the USSR), the F-15, the B-2 bomber, the V-22, the F-22, and so forth.

The Massachusetts-based “Project on Defense Alternatives” is supported by the House’s most strident liberals, such as Barney Frank, and like POGO, TCS, and CATO, sits on the far left fringe of the US political spectrum.

Mulvaney and Ellison falsely claim that in the past, lower defense spending levels have provided “more than adequately” for national defense. This is false and, in any case, irrelevant. False, because deep defense cuts have, in the past, always led to severe weakening of the military. This is what happened after the Civil, World, Korean, Vietnam, and Cold Wars: the US proceeded to reap a “peace dividend” which turned out to be illusory, short-lived, economically useless, and deeply damaging to the military, whose force structure, training hours, maintenance funding, and equipment orders were dramatically cut, and as a result, the US military was significantly weakened each time.  And after each of these drawdowns, the US military had to be rebuilt later – at a much greater fiscal cost. So in the long term, these drawdowns and “peace dividends” saved nothing.

The only periods of the Cold War when defense was adequately provided for were the Korean and Vietnam Wars and the Reagan years. During the Reagan years, the base defense budget was significantly LARGER in inflation-adjusted dollars than that of today: $590 bn in FY1987 compared to $525 bn this year.

Yet, in the next breath, Mulvaney and Ellison admonish their readers that past military spending levels are irrelevant to today and that defense spending levels should be determined by military needs and threat assessment, not by past spending levels or percentage of GDP. Thus, they’re contradicting themselves. So which is it, Congressmen? If past defense spending levels are irrelevant, why did you bring them up? By your own admission, they’re irrelevant.

You can’t have it both ways.

Also, what Mulvaney and Ellison fail (or refuse) to acknowledge is that America’s current defense needs are large and require large and sustained investment in the military. They cannot be met on the cheap.

Defense on the cheap is not possible.

Here is an objective, impartial assessment of Russia’s and China’s military capabilities, as well as a short assessment of the North Korean and Iranian threats. To deeply cut America’s defense budget – and to eliminate the platforms, people, weapon programs, and units targeted by CATO, PDA et al., would be worse than pure folly: it would be downright suicidal. Any notion that the US can afford such cuts in the muscle of its military or that potential enemies are many years behind the US is false: Russia and China have already closed most of the gaps with the US military (while creating their own, nontraditional advantages), and are working hard on closing the remaining few gaps.

Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey has testified that the current threat environment is the most dangerous he has seen in his entire military career spanning over 38 years.

In short, Mulvaney’s and Ellison’s claims are all blatant lies or, in a few cases, straw man arguments. Their advocacy of the disastrous defense cuts proposals made by leftist “think tanks” like CATO, PDA, POGO, and TCS is an absolute disqualifier. Not one of their claims are true, and if they don’t know that, they’re mentally deficient.

Shame on them for supporting the defense gutting proposals made by these leftist organizations.

Rebuttal of pacifists’ blatant lies and scaremongering

The USAF is (rightly) considering whether to develop rail- or road-mobile launchers for its future ICBMs (which will have to replace old, 1970s’ vintage Minuteman-III missiles by no later than the 2020s). MissileThreat.com reports:

“The Air Force has dusted off plans more than two decades old to place fixed nuclear missiles on rail cars or massive road vehicles to protect them from a surprise attack.

The service also wants to explore alternatives to traditional missiles to carry nuclear warheads, which could include hypersonic aircraft capable of crossing the Atlantic Ocean in an hour…”

Pacifists, including those at the so-called “Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation”, a part of the pacifist and extremely leftist “Council for a Livable World” (which advocates America’s unilateral nuclear disarmament), are predictably opposed to any improvement of the survivability of America’s nuclear deterrent while not opposing such improvements to Russia’s or China’s arsenals. The Center’s Philip Coyle, a former Obama Administration official, claims that:

“The Air Force will need to be careful that they don’t stir up a hornets nest with proposals for mobile basing or advanced concepts other than the traditional booster and reentry vehicle. The former could cause Russia or China to redouble their efforts on mobile basing of ICBMs, set off a new kind of arms race, and weaken U.S. defenses.”

It’s been quite some time since I last heard that kind of nonsense. No, improving the survivability of America’s ICBMs would not weaken US defenses – FAILURE to improve it would weaken them. (And let’s be honest: since when is the pacifist CLW concerned about weakening America’s defenses? It’s precisely what it advocates!)

The USAF will not “stir up a hornets’ nest”, nor will it cause Russia or China to “redouble their efforts on mobile basing of ICBMs. Russia and China redoubled their efforts in that regard quite some time ago. For decades, Russia has been building road- and rail-mobile ICBMs (first the RT-20/SS-15 Scrooge, then the SS-16 Sinner, then the RT-23/SS-24, then the SS-25 (RT-2PM Topol), then the SS-27 Stalin (RT-2UTTKh), and now the RS-24 Yars, as well as planning to develop a new rail-mobile missile). China has fielded over 30 road-mobile and silo-based DF-31/31A ICBMs and is now beginning to field the road-mobile DF-41; it may also be developing a rail-mobile variant of one of these ICBMs.

Both Russia and China have also developed and fielded a wide range of road-mobile SRBMs (SS-26 Stone, DF-11, DF-15, B-611, DF-16) and, in China’s case, road-mobile MRBMs (DF-21).

The fact of the matter is that either the US will develop and field its own mobile ICBMs, or Russia and China will have a duopoly in that regard, a weapon system the US currently does not have.

Coyle’s false claim is pacifists’ standard lie: that military strength is dangerous and provocative and if the US develops a powerful weapon, Russia and China will be compelled to do so as well, while if the US foregoes the development of that weapon, Moscow and Beijing will be nice enough to reciprocate. This blatant lie has been debunked countless times, including by Ronald Reagan with his defense buildup and his development of tunnel-mobile (and potentially rail-mobile – his second SECDEF, Frank Carlucci, wanted to put them on trains) Peacekeeper ICBMs.

MissileThreat.com further reports that:

“Coyle said he was concerned that proliferation of mobile missile systems could lead to another arms race.(…) He added that if the Air Force decides to pursue hypersonic aircraft to deliver nuclear warheads, this could confuse nuclear armed countries such as Russia, which would not be able to determine if supersonic aircraft traveling at 4,000 miles per hour were carrying conventional or nuclear warheads, and potentially react with a nuclear strike.”

The claim that American development of mobile missile systems would lead to another arms race or cause Russia and China to up the ante has been debunked above.

As for the concern that developing hypersonic aircraft to deliver nuclear warheads could confuse Russia or China and cause either of them to launch a mistaken nuclear strike, this can be easily prevented by one of the following solutions:

1) Counting such hypersonic delivery aircraft towards START limits;

2) Making a hypersonic global strike aircraft only conventional-weapon-capable; or

3) Pledging to Russia that such hypersonic aircraft would never be used against her and flying such aircraft in a manner that would not look like an attack on Russia on Russian radars. The hotline between the White House and the Kremlin could also be used to prevent any confusion.

http://missilethreat.com/air-force-eyes-return-of-mobile-nuclear-missiles/

It is absolutely necessary to improve the survivability of America’s ICBMs by making them road- or rail-mobile. The next generation of USAF ICBMs should be rail-mobile.