Zbigniew Mazurak's Blog

A blog dedicated to defense issues

Archive for the ‘Nuclear deterrence’ Category

Newest Defense and Geopolitical News

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on December 15, 2014

When it comes to defense and geopolitical issues, the last two months of this year have been very interesting! For example:

  • China has tested, for the third time this year, a hypersonic gliding vehicle that will be able to carry both conventional and nuclear warheads.
  • The Middle Kingdom also became the world’s largest economy by Purchasing Power Parity (PPP), overtaking the US and thus ending America’s reign ushered in in 1872, when the US overtook Britain. The decline of the US as the world’s leading power is an undisputable fact.
  • Russia announced it would build its first hypersonic missile, and field a new rail-mobile ICBM, before 2020.
  • The US-China Economic and Security Review Commission released a report on China’s nuclear arsenal which, although understating its size, takes into account the likelihood that it is far larger than what the DOD and arms control advocates claim and acknowledges independent studies done on the subject. The Commission also warns that Beijing’s atomic arsenal is being quickly modernized and expanded.
  • Chuck Hagel, a man who was never qualified to be Defense Secretary, resigned because he could no longer stand the White House’s micromanagement of the Pentagon. Dr. Ashton Carter, the man whom Barack Obama should’ve nominated in the first place in 2013, has been nominated to succeed him.
  • The House and the Senate have already passed the FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act – by huge, bipartisan margins – and have done so by mid-December. The two Houses of Congress have also agreed on a CR/CRomnibus that will keep the Federal Government open for at least the next 3 months.
  • The French Defense Ministry and Air Force have announced they’re studying what to replace the current airborne component of the French nuclear deterrent with when the current airborne force, composed of Mirage 2000N and Rafale aircraft armed with ASMP-A missiles, retires in the 2030s-2040s. Two options are being studied: a stealthy or a hypersonic missile. If the latter is chosen, it might be a large aircraft, and not a fighter like the Rafale, that will carry it.
  • France has also announced a comprehensive modernization of its Army, including the replacement of its APCs, IFVs, and recon vehicles, which are nearing the end of their service lives.
  • France is also developing a naval version of the SCALP NG/Storm Shadow land attack cruise missile, intended for surface ships and submarines (i.e. a Tomahawk equivalent).
  • Highly-ranked fficials from Qatar and Egypt are in serious talks with France’s Dassault Aviation to buy the Rafale fighter, and India has pledged to finalize its negotiations with France over the Rafale by March 31st. However, as Richard Aboulafia of the Teal Group notes, while Dassault is very good at STARTING talks, it has a poor record of finalizing them and sealing the deal when it comes to the Rafale. Yet, the entire multi-year French defense budget for 2014-2019 is based on the completely hypothetical and speculative notion that India and Qatar will buy the Rafale in quantities sufficient to keep the Rafale production line open at the (very meagre) rate of 11 aircraft per year. The French Government has essentially bet that the Rafale will win lots of foreign orders, enough to keep the production line open, even though it has not won a SINGLE export order so far!
  • France indefinitely delayed the delivery of Mistral class LPDs to Russia, throwing its credibility as an arms vendor in doubt.
  • OTOH, France did promise a full transfer of technology, and a production license, to Canada if Ottawa picks the Rafale in lieu of the F-35 – a realistic possibility given that the issue won’t be resolved until after the next general election… which will likely be won by the anti-F-35 Liberal Party, led by Justin Trudeau (the son of Pierre Trudeau).
  • BAE announced that the Eurofighter Typhoon would finally get an AESA radar… many years after its competitors did. Bravo!
  • It has been revealed that the French National Front party has received a loan from a Russian bank. No wonder why they’re so fanatically pro-Russian. They’re simply saying what their paymaster, Vladimir Putin, tells them to. And by accepting funding from a foreign principal, that party has committed treason against France.
  • The anti-defense crowd’s calls for a “minimal deterrence” arsenal have recently grown more vocal, now that even the Obama administration has rejected them – and have been utterly refuted by experts such as Dr. Keith Payne and by yours truly.

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

Rebuttal of James Caroll’s Blatant Lies About Nukes

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on December 12, 2014

If you ever needed proof that the leftist, anti-nuclear, pro-unilateral disarmament movement is still at work and still hasn’t learned anything, look no further than this new screed published in the TomDispatch.

In his ridiculous screed recently published by the TomDispatch, the extremely-leftist columnist James Carroll makes a lengthy but idiotic tirade against nuclear weapons.

I won’t even bother to respond to all of his blatant lies, just to the ones made about today’s situation.

Lie #1:

“In order to get the votes of Senate Republicans to ratify the START treaty, Obama made what turned out to be a devil’s bargain.  He agreed to lay the groundwork for a vast “modernization” of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, which, in the name of updating an aged system, is already morphing into a full-blown reinvention of the arms cache at an estimated future cost of more than a trillion dollars.”

That is a blatant lie being spread by the Monterey Institute, a far-left organization advocating America’s nuclear disarmament (like Carroll himself), and by the NY Slimes, which advocates the same.

Lie #2:

“In fact, in response to budget constraints, legal obligations under a jeopardized non-proliferation treaty, and the most urgent moral mandate facing the country, America’s nuclear strategy could shift without wrenching difficulty, at the very least, to one of “minimal deterrence.” Hardcore national security mavens tell us this. Such a shift would involve a reduction in both the deployed and stored nuclear arsenal to something like 500 warheads. Even if that goal were pursued unilaterally, it would leave more than enough weaponry to deter any conceivable state-based nuclear threat, including Russia’s, no matter what Putin may do.”

FALSE. There is no serious national security analyst who advocates cutting down the nuke deterrent to the low hundreds and a shift to “minimal deterrence” – because all the serious national security analysts out there know it would be national suicide.

And the “hardcore security mavens” whom Carroll claims advocate minimal deterrence? They’re actually strident anti-nuclear, pro-disarmament activists: Robert Gard and Greg Tarryn of the “Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation”, a far-left group in DC advocating America’s unilateral nuclear disarmament and deep cuts in the US defense budget in general. Hardly “hardcore national security mavens.”

A small nuclear arsenal, composed of only a few hundred (e.g. 500) warheads, would be woefully insignificant to deter Russia or even China, as it would be completely unable to survive a Russian or Chinese nuclear first strike on the US. Why? Because of its small size: it would be far, far easier for Russia or China to destroy a few dozen ICBMs and a handful of USN submarines and USAF bombers, carrying just a few hundred warheads, than to destroy the current US arsenal of 400 ICBMs, 76 bombers, and 14 ballistic missile submarines.

Destroying a few dozen (or even 100) ICBMs, plus shooting down a few dozen bombers and sinking a handful of submarines, is a much easier task.

Russia is more than sufficiently capable of destroying such a small nuclear arsenal. It currently has almost 400 ICBMs capable of collectively delivering well over 1,200 warheads to the Continental US; a submarine force capable of delivering even more warheads; and a bomber fleet capable of delivering over 700.

All these figures are now increasing, and will continue to increase, because Russia is now building up all three legs of its nuclear triad.

The US and its allies have enjoyed almost 70 years of peace and security from nuclear and conventional attack – but it is only because, throughout that whole time, the US has maintained a large nuclear arsenal able to withstand even a massive Russian first strike. THAT is what has deterred the Russians from conducting it in the first place.

With a small arsenal, however, this will be impossible – it will be an easy target for the Russians and even the Chinese.

Furthermore, a “minimal deterrence” arsenal consisting of just a few hundred warheads would be utterly unable to execute an effective, painful retaliation against the aggressor, even if it could survive an enemy first strike (which it could never do). That’s because Russia has so many missile siloes and nuclear force bases and facilities (plus other targets of strategic importance) that a few hundred warheads would be woefully insufficient to take them out. In fact, 500 warheads wouldn’t even be enough to take out Russia’s hardened missile siloes, let alone other targets.

Pentagon planners know, and have known for decades, that executing an effective retaliation against Russia – even the Russia of today – requires thousands, not a mere few hundred, of nuclear warheads.

And let’s not ignore the fact that all those who advocate “minimum deterrence” – including Carroll, Gard, and Tarryn – stridently oppose nuclear deterrence completely and do not believe in it at all. They believe in peace through weakness and unilateral disarmament. For them, cutting down the US nuclear arsenal to the mere hundreds – to a “minimum deterrence” level – is a mere step towards their ultimate goal: disarming the US unilaterally and completely while leaving America’s enemies free to grow their nuclear arsenals. This is treason.

Lie #3:

“There is, of course, no sign that the president intends to do such a thing any longer, but if a commander-in-chief were to order nuclear reductions into the hundreds, the result might actually be a transformation of the American political conscience. In the process, the global dream of a nuclear-free world could be resuscitated and the commitment of non-nuclear states (including Iran) to refrain from nuclear-weapons development could be rescued. Most crucially, there would no longer be any rationale for the large-scale reinvention of the American nuclear arsenal, a deadly project this nation is even now preparing to launch.”

That is also a blatant lie. The pipedream of a world without nuclear weapons was NEVER realistic in the first instance; it was always a pie-in-the-sky fantasy with zero chance of being accomplished. And the claim that drastic cuts in the US nuclear deterrent would somehow encourage Iran to refrain from developing nukes is downright laughable. It’s one of the classic lies of the unilateral disarmament movement: “If we disarm, others will be nice and disarm, too – or refrain from obtaining nuclear weapons if they don’t have them yet.”

In reality, drastic cuts in the US arsenal would only ENCOURAGE rogue states all around the world to develop nuclear weapons, because only a few hundred of them would now be needed to match the US.

In sum, Carroll’s anti-nuclear diatribe is a litany of blatant lies – just like everything else disarmament advocates write. For an excellent rebuttal of minimum deterrence advocates’ claims, please read this and this.


Posted in Nuclear deterrence | Leave a Comment »

Russian, Chinese, North Korean nuclear threats growing rapidly

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on November 26, 2014

The developments of the past few weeks prove unequivocally that the nuclear threat posed by Russia, China, and North Korea – and thus the need for a large, multi-legged US nuclear deterrent – is growing.

The year 2014 hasn’t ended, but NATO fighters have already been scrambled 400 times this year alone to intercept Russian nuclear-armed Tu-95, Tu-160, and Tu-22M bombers flying close to NATO members’ airspace and probing NATO fighters’ response times. Russia is also quickly developing hypersonic strike weapons – which will be able to carry nuclear warheads – and will deploy them in 2020.

Russia is also militarizing the illegally-conquered-and-annexed Crimean Peninsula fast, at a rate alarming to NATO’s top commander in Europe. Among other things, Russia has now stationed nuclear-armed Iskander SRBMs/GCLMs and Tu-22M strategic bombers there.

The Chinese nuclear threat is also growing fast. Last week, the congressionally-sponsored US-China Economic and Security Review Commission released a report which warns that the size of China’s arsenal, and the scope of its modernization and expansion, is greater than the DOD recognizes.  Among other things, it warns of China’s ICBMs and SLBMs’ capability to strike the Continental US and recognizes the likelihood that China may very well have far more than just a few hundred warheads – which is what it had in the early 1980s. Yet, the DOD STILL refuses to recognize the real size of China’s arsenal and still clings to its three-decades-old, utterly obsolete estimate.

Meanwhile, North Korea conducted the first ejection test of a ballistic missile out of a missile tube, the first serious step towards developing and building a ballistic missile submarine – a program the Washington Free Beacon was the first to write about in August. Which means that, in several years, North Korea will have a ballistic missile submarine – like the US, Russia, China, France, the UK, and Israel do.

On October 26th, Gen. Curtis Scaparotti, the top US commander in South Korea, confirmed that North Korea – contrary to the denials of American arms control afficionados – has mastered the art of miniaturizing nuclear warheads for them to fit atop ballistic missiles.

All of which proves that the Russian, Chinese, and North Korean nuclear threat to US, allied, and global security is growing, not shrinking as the advocates of Western unilateral disarmament would have us believe.

Accordingly, this proves that the need for a large, modern, and multi-legged US nuclear arsenal is growing, not vanishing as Western unilateral disarmament advocates falsely claim.

Thus, WaPo’s Walter Pincus’ claims that relying on nuclear weapons for national security is “old thinking”; that 500 nuclear warheads would suffice to protect the US; and that the fear of a preemptive nuclear first strike by Russia is “insane” are blatant lies.

These are the gravest threats to US, allied, and global security which will have to be addressed by whoever succeeds Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense. More broadly, the nation-state threat posed by Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran will have to be countered. Fortunately, if Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work is to be believed, the Pentagon is working right now to do just that.


Posted in Media lies, Nuclear deterrence, Threat environment | 1 Comment »

What the LA Times got right – and wrong – about nuclear modernization

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on November 11, 2014

The Los Angeles Times has recently published an article on the upcoming modernization of the US nuclear arsenal, which is long overdue since the US hasn’t fielded any nuclear-capable delivery systems or warheads since the early 1990s, and the arsenal the US currently has is aging and nearing the end of its service life. Therefore, nuclear modernization is of utmost priority.

The LA Times – despite being a leftist newspaper – invokes many arguments for nuclear modernization. But it also gets four things badly wrong:

  1. It repeats the utterly false claim of the far-left nuclear disarmament advocate Jeffrey Lewis that nuclear modernization will cost $1 trillion over the next 30 years. His figure is a gross exaggeration designed to scare the public and policymakers into thinking that it’s unaffordable.
  2. It falsely claims that next year China will deploy missiles capable of hitting the Continental US for the first time. This is clearly false; China deployed the first such missiles, the multi-warhead DF-5 ICBMs, in 1981, over three decades ago! Not only that, but since then, China has also deployed the DF-31A and DF-31B, which can also hit all of the CONUS, and has already deployed JL-2 SLBMs (capable of hitting at least a part of the CONUS if launched just east of Japan) on its Jin-class ballistic missile submarines. (See the map below.)
  3. It falsely claims that the most common security threats are insurgencies in distant lands and domestic terrorist attacks. This is completely false. BY FAR the biggest threats to America’s and its allies’ security are the nuclear and ballistic/cruise missile arsenals of Russia, China, and North Korea. Nothing, ESPECIALLY not insurgents in faraway lands or even domestic terrorist attacks, comes even CLOSE to being as grave a threat as Moscow’s, Beijing’s, and Pyongyang’s nuclear and missile arsenals. North Korea, with its small arsenal, could still kill millions of Americans and devastate part of US soil. Russia and China could both nuke all of the US and kill everyone in the US with their large nuclear arsenals.
  4. Finally, it wrongly claims that Russia’s newest submarine-launched ballistic missile, the RSM-56 Bulava, can deliver an “unprecedented” 10 warheads. It can deliver 10 warheads to the CONUS alright, but it’s hardly unprecendented: since the 1960s, Russia deploys land-based ICBMs that can deliver that many warheads (plus penetration aids) to the CONUS; and since 2012, it also deploys Liner SLBMs that can deliver even more (12) warheads to the Continental US. It’s hardly “unprecedented.” The simple fact is that Russia can deliver many thousands of warheads to the Continental US, and is expanding that capability still further.


All in all, by LA Times standards, this is a good article, as it nicely underlines the nuclear threats the US is facing, and thus the need for modernization of the US nuclear arsenal.

Posted in Media lies, Nuclear deterrence, Threat environment | Leave a Comment »

Comment réformer et renforter l’armée française – 2ème edition

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on October 31, 2014


N.b.: Ci-dessous est la 2ème edition de ma liste des reformes proposées, Comment réformer et renforter l’armée française , publiée pour la première fois en juillet.

L’armée française subit beaucoup de coupes budgetaires injustes et déstructives en ce moment. Il faut les arrêter, dégager des moyens dans les dépenses courantes (de fonctionnement de l’armée), et renforter les armées de la République Française.

Les économies

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

  1. Réduire fortement le nombre des fonctionnaires civils du ministère de la défense, de 66 000 à 22 000, ce qui devrait permettre au ministère d’économiser au moins 1 Md d’Euros par an.
  2. Vendre tous les A319 et la moitie des Falcon de l’Armée de l’Air (AdlA).
  3. Fermer la base aérienne de Villacoublay, reouvrir la base aérienne de Taverny (95), et y faire démenager tous les unités des bases de Villacoublay et de Creil. La base aérienne de Taverny devrait aussi devenir à nouveau une base des Forces Aériennes Strategiques.
  4. Fermer la base aérienne de Cazaux, qui est située trop près de Bordeaux, et faire démenager tous ses unites au Mont de Marsan, Pau, Perpignan, Bergerac, Nîmes, Avignon, ou Rodez. Ouvrir un centre international d’entrainement des pilotes à Rodez, à Clermont-Ferrand, ou dans la Côte Mediterrainée (par exemple, à Nimes).
  5. Réduire le budget de la Gendarmerie Nationale par au moins 700 millions d’Euros par an (en commencant par cesser de protéger l’appartement de Julie Gayet et en reduisant la Garde Républicaine par 75%; il faut supprimer complètement la cavalerie de la Garde et le 2ème Regiment de la Garde) afin de permettre à l’AdlA d’acheter 10 Rafale supplementaires par an (pour un coût de 680 millions d’Euros par an).
  6. Réduire le nombre des généraux et admiraux dans l’armée et les grades associées avec des différentes postes dans l’armée. Par exemple, les chefs des quatres services militaires devraient avoir seulement 4 étoiles, pas 5. Le rang du général d’armée, général d’armée aérienne, ou amiral devrait être reservé seulement au CEMA. Les rangs de 4 étoiles devraient être reservés seulement aux chefs des quatre services militaires, l’Amiral Commandant de la Force Océanique Strategique (ALFOST), et le commandant des Forces Aériennes Strategiques.
  7. Supprimer la DAS, les bureaux des officiers généraux, le CSFM, le CAJ, etc.
  8. Réorienter les priorites et les moyens de la Gendarmerie de la lutte contre les automobilistes à la défense nationale. Aussi cesser de protéger les bâtiments gouvernementaux – c’est le devoir de la police nationale et de la GSHP.
  9. Utiliser les soldats de l’armée française seulement pour combat et pour la protection du territoire français, et non pour les patrouilles des gares ferroviaires ou les stations du métro et du RER – ce qui est le devoir et la competence des services de securité de celles-là et de la police nationale.
  10. Immediatement terminer toutes les Opérations Externelles, sauf celle en Irak/Syrie, pour économiser 1 Md d’Euros par an. Le surcoût des OPEX pèse très lourd sur le budget du ministère.
  11. Vendre tous les 254 chevaux de l’armée française, chacun pour au moins 500 000 euros, ainsi que les costumes/uniformes de la cavalerie de la Garde Républicaine.
  12. Joindre tous les programmes des helicoptères des armées et faire de sorte qu’elles soient toutes sous le contrôle de l’AdlA.
  13. Supprimer le service de patrimoine des armées et céder ses fonctions, biens, et personnel au Ministère de la Culture.
  14. Mettre en oeuvre toutes les propositions de l’IFRAP devoilées ici et ici. L’IFRAP propose (sauf certaines sur l’europeisation de la défense), inter alia, une réduction des effectifs de soutien et administratifs, une externalisation des fonctions de soutien, la vente de l’immobilier de la défense, la fermeture des bases peu utilisées, et une réduction du nombre d’officiers.
  15. Vendre l’Hôtel de Brienne et le Château de Vincennes.
  16. Réduire fortement (d’au moins 66%) le nombre et les salaires des conseillers au Ministère.
  17. Vendre tous les avions CASA de l’AdlA.
  18. Utiliser les avions Atlantique 2 SEULEMENT pour la lutte contre les sous-marins.

Le renfortement

Afin de renforter l’armée française, il faut – et avec les économies ci-dessus, il sera possible – de renforter l’armée de la manière suivante. Pour l’AdlA:

  1. Commander au moins 10 Rafale supplementaires, financés par une réduction du budget de la Gendarmerie Nationale. Cela renfortera l’armée aérienne et à la fois réduira le coût unitaire de chaque Rafale, le faisant plus attractif sur le marché mondial.
  2. Augmenter le nombre des avions de l’AdlA dediés à la dissuasion nucleaire de 40 à 60, en récréant le troisième escadron des avions dediés à la dissuasion nucleaire (l’escadron de chasse 1/4 Dauphiné, dissout par Nicolas Sarkozy pour plaire le mouvement anti-nucleaire). Cet escadron serait équipé de 20 parmi les 50-60 Rafale supplementaires prévus ci-dessus.
  3. Augmenter le nombre des Têtes Nucleaires Aériennes de 47 à 70 et le nombre des missiles ASMP-A de 79 à 80, financé par la vente de tous les chevaux et costumes de la cavalerie de la Garde Républicaine. Le coût à l’unité d’un missile ASMP-A égale 15M d’Euros.
  4. Disperser les escadrons des Forces Aériennes Strategiques entre les bases d’Istres, de Saint-Dizier, de Luxeil, et de Taverny, et renforter les hangars et les magasins d’ammunition de tous les avions basés là-bas.
  5. Developper, avec tous les autres pays européens, un nouvel avion d’entrainement comme l’Alphajet.
  6. Convertir les 3 A310 de l’escadron de Villacoublay, les 2 A340 de l’escadron de Velizy-Villacoublay, et l’A330 originel de la compagnie Airbus, en avions de ravitaillement (A330 MRTT et A310 MRTT). Cela augmenterait le nombre des avions de ravitaillement projetés par l’AdlA de 12 à 18 et en consequence permettrait a la France d’être totalement independante, dans la matière de ravitaillement de ses avions, des Etats-Unis et de tout autre pays.
  7. Acheter des avions C-17 afin de ne pas être dependent sur aucune armée aérienne étrangere pour la logistique.
  8. Acheter une licence pour la production des missiles israeliens air-air Python-5.
  9. Faire démenager les centres d’entrainement des pilotes de l’AdlA de La Rochelle à Rodez, Perpignan, Pau, et/ou Clermont-Ferrand.
  10. Faire ouvrir, à Rodez, Clermont-Ferrand, Castres, Perpignan, Bastia, Ajaccio, Bergerac, Nîmes, Pau, Tarbes, ou Vatry (préferablement à Pau ou Clermont-Ferrand), un centre européen et OTAN d’entrainement des pilotes de l’UE et de l’OTAN, bien que l’Italie soit en concurrence pour en être le pays-hôte.
  11. Faire les aéroports sous-utilisés du sud de la France toujours disponibles pour les armées.
  12. Augmenter la portée des missiles M51 (à 12 000 km), SCALP EG, MBDA MICA IR, et MBDA Meteor (à 180 km). Cela renforterait aussi l’industrie spatiale et missilière française et ferait ces produits plus attractifs aux acheteurs étrangers. Ces travaux seraient financés par la réduction du nombre et des rangs des généraux et admiraux et des officiers non-généraux.
  13. Faire en sorte que les pilotes de l’AdlA et du Groupe Aéronaval volent au moins 180 heures par an afin qu’ils soient suffisament entrainés.
  14. Installer de nouveaux radars anti-aériens (dont des radars Over The Horizon) dans l’est et le nord-est de la France.

Pour renforter l’armée de terre:

  1. Augmenter le nombre des chars Leclerc de 200 à 400, c’est-à-dire, reprendre en service les chars Leclerc retirés, et les moderniser pour prolonger leur vie operationelle jusqu’au moins 2040 (financés par la supprimation des bureaucraties inutiles et la fermeture des bases peu utilisées).
  2. Augmenter la commande pour les systèmes de défense anti-aérienne Aster 30 de 8 à 12 au moins, financés par une reduction de 50% du nombre et des salaires des conseilleurs du ministère. Recréer tous les regiments de défense aérienne équipés du système Aster qui ont été dissouts.
  3. Faire en sorte que 90% du parc des vehicules et des avions, et 80% des navires, soient utilisables immediatement si besoin; il faut les maintenir dans la meilleure condition possible.

Pour renforter la Marine Nationale et la force de dissuasion nucleaire:

  1. Commencer la construction du premier et deuxième SNLE de 3ème generation en 2020, financé par la vente des immobiliers du ministère (dont l’Hotel de Brienne et le Chateau de Vincennes) et la réduction du nombre de fonctionnaires du ministère par 66%.
  2. Reprendre la production du plutonium de grade militaire.
  3. Developper des lasers et des rail guns pour les navires de surface de la MN et les installer à bord de ces navires.
  4. Faire en sorte qu’il y ait toujours deux SNLE en patrol, pas seulement un, et les armer avec un nombre maximum possible de têtes nucleaires.


  1. Investir 600M d’Euros en plus afin que tout l’équipement de l’armée soit maintenu dans un bon état et pret à utilisation. (http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/20140930trib176ebda11/defense-la-facture-de-la-maintenance-des-materiels-va-t-elle-tuer-la-loi-de-programmation-militaire.html)
  2. Investir assez de moyens afin que le CEA et la DGA disposent d’assez de personnel et d’argent. (http://www.rbmfrance.com/la-dissuasion-fait-partie-de-lavenir-de-la-france-par-aymeric-chauprade/)
  3. Renouveler la base de l’Ile Longue.
  4. Conduire un nouvel essai du missile M51 afin de faire certain que le missile fonctionne bien.
  5. Recouvrir tous les debris/decombrés des missiles ballistiques mer-sol essayés par la France, la Russie, la Chine, et les Etats-Unis, et les missiles essayés par la Corée du Nord, comme les USA le faisaient pendant la Guerre Froide.
  6. Draguer le chemin de sortie de la base navale d’Ile Longue (la région de Bretagne devrait payer cela).

Les priorites absolues sont l’achat des 10 Rafale supplementaires par an, des deux premiers SNLE de nouvelle generation, et l’augmentation de la portée des missiles francais, surtout le missile M51.


La justification

Certains poseront certainement la question, “Mais pourquoi ces commandes supplementaires sont-elles necessaires? Pourquoi est-ce que l’armée a besoin de tous ces appareils et outils?”

La réponse: parce que toutes les interventions militaires de la France – d’intensite majeure, moyenne, ou basse – ont montré que c’est les vehicules blindés terrestres et les avions de combat (principalement les Rafale et Mirage 2000), de ravitaillement, et de transports qui jouent le role decisif dans chaque intervention et chaque guerre a laquelle la France participé.

Il serait donc fou de réduire les flottes de ces vehicules et avions. Au contraire, il faut les augmenter pour que l’armée française puisse gagner ses guerres.

C’est-à-dire, ces vehicules et avions sont les outils-clès pour la victoire de la France dans toute intervention/guerre.

Dans toute operation exterieure menée recemment par la France – en Libye, au Mali, et en Irak – l’outil-clé, l’outil primordial qui a joué un role decisif, etait le Rafale.

Pour faire certain que les soldats français puissent vaincre, il faut les transporter à la zone de combat, leur donner des vehicules blindés qui offrent une protection et une puissance de feu suffissante, et les soutenir de l’air avec des avions de combat – ravitailles, bien sûr.

En plus, la France est un grand pays, et pour le protéger (dont son espace aérien), il faut beaucoup plus que les 185 avions que l’Armée de l’Air possédera sous les plans du gouvernement socialiste en fonction. Comme l’a révélé Le Monde, l’AdlA est epuissée et au bout de souffle – tous ses moyens sont deja utilisés.

Il faut aussi garantir la credibilité de la dissuasion nucleaire française, affabliée par Nicolas Sarkozy en 2008 avec sa decision injustifiable de réduire la composante aérienne de la force de dissuasion nucleaire d’un tiers – ce qui n’a pas du tout encouragé les autres puissances nucleaires à réduire ses propres arsenaux nucleaires. Au contraire, la Russie, la Chine, le Pakistan, l’Inde, l’Israel, et la Corée du Nord ont augmenté ses arsenaux nucleaires.

Quand au premier SNLE de la 3ème generation, pour garantir la permanence de la composante maritime et donc une flotte des 4 SNLE, il faudra le commander en 2020. Ce que la termination de toutes les guerres inutiles et la vente de l’Hotel de Brienne et du Château de Vincennes permettrait.

Les exports

Enfin, dans la matière d’exports d’armes, il faut les vendre à chacun qui peut payer. Il faut donc livrer les 2 navires de la classe Mistral commandés par la Russie. Il faut aussi seduire l’Egypte, le Canada, la Pologne, et l’Indonesie à acheter des armes françaises et encourager l’Inde à acheter 4 navires Mistral. Il faut aussi vendre au Qatar et aux EAU les participations de l’Etat francais dans les aeroports francais s’ils achetent le Rafale et s’engagent à acheter SEULEMENT des armes francaises et des avions civils Airbus.

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

Analysis: How many nuclear weapons does Russia have?

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on October 28, 2014


Although China has a much larger nuclear arsenal than the DOD and arms control advocates are prepared to admit, Russia remains the principal nuclear and geopolitical adversary of the US. It is therefore necessary to examine the size and composition of Moscow’s atomic arsenal and the Russian government’s plans for its future.

Like the US, Russia possesses a strategic triad of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), bombers, and ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) armed with submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs).

1) ICBMs: Russia currently possesses ICBMs: 58 SS-18 Satan (10 warheads per missile), 35 SS-19 Stilletto (6 warheads per missile), 171 SS-25 Sickle (single-warhead), 78 SS-27 Stalin (single-warhead), and 42 RS-24 Yars (4 warheads per missile) ICBMs, for a total of 384 ICBMs.

This works out to:






This enables Russia’s ICBMs to deliver a total of 1,207 warheads to the Continental US. Note that over time, as Russia continues to replace older, single-warhead SS-25 and SS-27 missiles with Yars and RS-26 Rubezh multiple-warhead missiles, the number of warheads it can deliver to, and will aim at, the US will only continue to grow.

2) Ballistic Missile Submarines (SSBNs) and their associated Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBMs): Russia currently possesses fourteen such submarines: 4 of the Delta III (Kalmar) class, 7 of the Delta IV (Delfin) class, 1 of the Project 941 Akula (Typhoon) class, and 2 of the newest Borei class.

Each of these submarines carries 16 SLBMs, except the Typhoon-class boat, which can carry 20 SLBMs but is usually used as a test platform (though it could be armed with SLBMs like a normal submarine if need be).

The fourteen SSBNs of the Russian Navy are:

Name……………………………………Class…………….Fleet…………Year of commissioning

K-129 Orenburg……………………..Delta III………..Northern……1981

K-433 St George the Victorious…Delta III………..Pacific………..1980

K-233 Podolsk………………………..Delta III……….Pacific…………1980

K-44 Ryazan…………………………..Delta III……….Pacific…………1982

K-51 Vyerkhoturye………………….Delta IV……….Northern……..1984

K-84 Yekaterinburg…………………Delta IV……….Northern……..1985

K-64 ……………………………………..Delta IV……….Northern……..1986

K-114 Tula………………………………Delta IV……….Northern……..1987

K-117 Bryansk…………………………Delta IV……….Northern……..1988

K-18 Kareliya………………………….Delta IV……….Northern………1989

K-407 Novomoskovsk……………..Delta IV……….Northern………1990

TK-208 Dmitriy Donskoi…………..Typhoon……..Northern……….1981

K-535 Yuriy Dolgorukiy……………Borei………….Northern………..2013

K-550 Alexander Nevskiy…………Borei…………..Pacific……………2013

K-551 Vladimir Monomakh……….Borei…………..Pacific…………..2014 (expected)


Included in the list is a fifteenth SSBN, the Vladimir Monomakh, which will be commissioned on December 10th, 2014.

The Delta IV class submarine K-64 is the only one in the Russian ballistic submarine fleet which doesn’t have a name. All other boats in the fleet are named after Russian cities, the Kareliya Peninsula, a saint (Saint George), or medieval Ruthenian/Russian princes.

Of the submarines listed, Orenburg, Ryazan, Yekaterinburg, and K-64 are currently in overhaul and (in the case of Yekaterinburg, which suffered a fire in 2013) repairs, which means they are not currently available for operational service.

Nonetheless, ten SSBNs are still available for duty at any given time – and Russian SSBNs can launch their missiles even when moored dockside.

Collectively, the thirteen SSBNs in service, other than the Dmitry Donskoi, can launch 16 SLBMs each; the Dmitry Donskoi can launch 20 such missiles. A single Russian Bulava SLBM can carry 10 warheads; the R-29RMU2 Liner missile can carry 12 warheads.

Assuming that all Russian SSBNs carry the Bulava, and not the Liner, the 13 non-Typhoon-class submarines could collectively launch 208 missiles, and with ten warheads per each missile, deliver 2,080 warheads to the CONUS. The Typhoon class boat, for its part, capable of launching 20 missiles, can deliver 200 additional warheads to the US.

Thus, assuming that all Russian SSBNs are armed with Bulava missiles, they can collectively deliver 2,280 warheads to the CONUS.

Even excluding those submarines that currently aren’t in operational service doesn’t reduce the Russian nuclear threat significantly. The 9 remaining Delta class submarines can collectively launch 144 missiles, and with 10 warheads sitting atop each missile, deliver 1,440 warheads to the CONUS – with the Typhoon-class boat delivering another 200.

So even with four submarines currently dockside in overhaul or repairs, the remaining submarines can still deliver 1,640 warheads to the Continental US if each submarine is armed with Bulava missiles – and even more if each submarine is armed with Liner missiles.

It is not clear how many warheads are actually currently deployed on Russian ballistic missile submarines – the New START “data” Russia gives the US State Department contains woefully understated figures and therefore is not credible. Russia undoubtely deploys many, many more warheads on its submarines than it acknowledges in New START “data exchanges.” Given that Russia has a long, proven history of violating arms limitation treaties, including most recently the INF treaty, no one should be surprised. In fact, had Russia’s most recent violations been disclosed before New START was ratified in December 2010, in the lame-duck session of the 111th Congress (the most liberal Congress in US history), the treaty would’ve never been passed.

Note that the Russian Navy has ordered over 100 Bulava and over 100 Liner SLBMs. This will be enough to fully equip each ballistic missile submarine of the Russian Navy and thus to replace the Sinyeva.

Finally, one must note that while the Russian Navy’s SSBNs conducted almost no patrols in the late 1990s and few in the 2000s, the situation is now different; these submarines go on patrol often, flush with funding from the government, primarily from oil and gas revenue.

3) Strategic Bomber Fleet (Dalnaya Aviatsiya – Long-Range Aviation)

This fleet consists of three aircraft types. The oldest is the Tu-95 Bear turboprop. While the oldest models were commissioned in 1956, the ones serving today were built later. Each can carry 6 nuclear-tipped cruise missiles and a freefall nuclear bomb. It was a Tu-95 bomb which, in 1961, detonated the Tsar Bomb – the most powerful nuclear warhead in history, with the explosive power of 50 megatons. Currently, the Russian Air Force operates 64 such aircraft which collectively can deliver 702 nuclear warheads right to the Continental US.

They are supplemented by 171 Tu-22M Backfire-C and 16 Tu-160 bomber. While the Tu-22M is often called a theater or continental bomber and was not included in START treaties as a strategic delivery system, it should have been, because its combat radius of 2,400 kms can be dramatically increased with in-flight refueling. That gives it capability to reach the CONUS from Russian bases in the Far East (such as Ukrainka AFB) if refueled in the air (which Russian Air Force does for its aircraft anyway when practicing nuclear strikes on the US, as Russia has repeatedly done in the last few years).

A single Tu-22M can carry 10 nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, including 4 on its wings and 6 in its internal weapons bay on a rotary launcher.

The Tu-160 bomber was commissioned in 1987 and can carry the most cruise missiles of any Russian bomber: 12. Thus, a fleet of just 16 Tu-160s can carry 184 nuclear-armed cruise missiles – and deliver them right to the CONUS. Russia is now building up its Tu-160 fleet with stockpiled components.

As for the Tu-95 fleet, it is estimated to be able to deliver between 384 and 702 nuclear weapons to the CONUS.

702 + 184 + 1710 = 2596. This is the number of nuclear warheads that the Russian bomber fleet could potentially deliver to the CONUS (with air refueling for the Tu-22Ms; however, the Russian Air Force does not have nearly enough tankers to provide aerial refueling for 171 Tu-22Ms; barely a few dozen could actually receive air refueling on their way to the US, relegating the Tu-22M to the role of a continental/theater bomber).

Even excluding the Tu-22M fleet, however, the Russian long-range bomber fleet can still deliver 886 nuclear warheads to the CONUS.

Russia’s next-generation bomber, the PAK DA (Prospektivnoy Aviatsionnyi Kompleks Dalnoy Aviatsii – Prospective Aircraft Complex of Long-range Aviation), is under development.

4) Tactical nuclear weapons and their carriers

Russia possesses thousands of tactical nuclear weapons. Just how many exactly it has is unclear. What is known is that they number in the thousands. A very conservative estimate by Hans Kristensen and Robert Norris puts the number at 2,000 tactical warheads deployed. Even the anti-nuclear, anti-American Ploughshares Fund estimates Russia’s total nuclear arsenal (strategic and tactical) at 8,000 warheads, the largest in the world (slightly larger than America’s, which consists of 7,300 warheads).

However, the exact number of tactical nuclear weapons Russia has remains unknown, due to the fact that Russia refuses to disclose this number, and the Obama administration is assisting in Russia’s nuclear opacity.

Russian tactical nuclear weapons can be carried by a wide range of delivery systems, including:

  • Artillery pieces;
  • Su-24, Su-25, Su-27/30/33/35 Flanker, and Su-34 Fullback tactical strike aircraft;
  • Tu-22M continental bombers;
  • Surface ships (in the form of nuclear depth charges and nuclear torpedoes);
  • Submarines (in the form of nuclear depth charges, torpedoes, and cruise missiles, including the recently-deployed Kalibr missile – Russia’s 12 nuclear-powered attack submarines carry such weapons today, as do Russia’s 8 cruise missile submarines);
  • Short-range missiles such as earlier Iskander (SS-26 Stone) variants; and
  • Russia’s new, illegal, intermediate-range cruise and ballistic missiles such as the Iskander-M, Iskander-K, and R-500. Some of Russia’s Iskander missiles are reportedly deployed in the Kaliningradskaya Oblast north of Poland, from which they can threaten any target within a 500 km radius.

Russia has developed, tested, and deployed these missiles in blatant violation of the INF Treaty, which prohibits Moscow and Washington from even testing, let alone deploying, any ground-launched ballistic or cruise missiles with a range between 500 and 5500 kilometers, or even testing any ground-launched missiles inside that range. Therefore, the 2013 test of the Rubezh ICBM at a range of 2,000 km – i.e. within INF Treaty range – was also a clear violation of the treaty.

Although Russia’s blatant violations of the treaty have been known to the Obama administration since at least 2010, the administration nonetheless withheld that information from the Senate so as to win ratification of the one-sided New START treaty, which obligated only the US (not Russia) to cut its nuclear arsenal, while allowing Russia to build up its arsenal – which it has been doing ever since New START’s ratification.

While the US held a significant nuclear arsenal advantage over Russia at the time the treaty was signed, this is no longer true. The US now barely enjoys parity with Russia in strategic nuclear weapons.

Returning to the subject of tactical nuclear arms, these – except those carried by submarines, surface ships, and Tu-22M bombers – cannot be delivered to the US, but can be used against America’s allies in Europe and Asia. Russia has threatened to do so on numerous occassions, which is why US allies in Europe, particularly Poland and the Baltic states, have repeatedly stressed the need for the US nuclear umbrella and for the continued deployment of American tactical nuclear weapons in Europe.

Russia has always steadfastly refused to discuss any limits on its tactical nuclear weapons, knowing that it is absolutely not in its interest to throw away the significant advantage it has over the West in this field. Russia’s leaders, unlike those of the West, are not foolish enough to do so, and will not disarm Russia unilaterally – unlike the West’s leaders.

Finally, it should be noted that the Su-34 Fullback strike aircraft, like Tu-95 and Tu-160 intercontinental bombers, can launch the Kh-55 and Kh-102 nuclear-armed cruise missiles, which have a range between 2,500 and 3,000 kms.


Russia has regained nuclear parity with the US in all categories of strategic nuclear weapons, and holds a huge lead over the US and its allies in tactical nuclear weapons and their delivery systems.

Not only is this a huge threat in and of itself, but Russia has proven itself to be quite aggressive – and quite willing to use its nuclear weapons if it senses weakness on the West’s part. It reserves the right, in its nuclear doctrine, to use atomic weapons first even if the enemy doesn’t have nuclear weapons; it has threatened to use them against the US and its allies on at least 15 separate occassions since 2007; and its bombers have repeatedly practices nuclear strikes on the US and European nations (including neutral ones such as Sweden and Finland) since 2012.

Russia has made it clear it considers the US and NATO as enemies against whom its nuclear weapons are intended. In June 2012, after conducting simulated nuclear strikes on the US, the Russian Air Force was asked what it was doing in the Northwest, and replied it was “practicing attacking the enemy.” This September, while NATO leaders were gathered in Wales, Russian nuclear-armed bombers were again simulating strikes against the US – then practiced similar attacks against Britain.

Thus, Russia constitutes by far the gravest threat to US, allied, and world security, by virtue of its nuclear arsenal alone. Countering that threat should be, and appears to be emerging as, the DOD’s #1 priority. Comprehensive modernization of the US nuclear arsenal is the only way the Russian nuclear threat can be staved off and for decades to come.


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

Yet MORE bad news for threat deniers: North Korea CAN miniaturize nuke warheads

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on October 27, 2014


Nuclear warheads have to be miniaturized before they can be placed on top of a ballistic or cruise missile. Those who seek the unilateral disarmament of the US have long claimed North Korea has not mastered that and lacks the technology to do so.

But they’re dead wrong. North Korea mastered that process and the requisite technology years ago. And now, the commander of all US troops on the Korean Peninsula (i.e. the man responsible for holding North Korea at bay), has acknowledged that it’s likely the North Koreans have that technology:

“Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, commander of U.S. forces on the Korean peninsula, said North Korea now is capable of building a miniaturized nuclear warhead, a step needed to complete development of a nuclear-tipped missile.

Such nuclear warheads would be small enough to fit on a ballistic missile and would be a major improvement to Pyongyang’s weapons technology. Gen. Scaparrotti said he believes North Korea also has developed a launcher that could carry an intercontinental ballistic missile with a miniaturized warhead.

He also said dictator Kim Jong Un “is clearly in control of the country,” despite recent rumors that his grip on the nation has slipped. (…)

If North Korea has a launcher as well as a functioning, long-range missile and a miniaturized nuclear warhead, the combined components would significantly increase its capabilities.

Intelligence assessments of North Korea’s capabilities have fluctuated recently, but Gen. Scaparrotti is seen as a voice of authority when it comes to matters involving security in the Asian region.

North Korea has struggled for years in its attempts to develop nuclear warheads and long-range missiles, as well as with the steep technical challenges of combining warhead and missile technology. But Gen. Scaparrotti said it is likely that Pyongyang now has the capability.

“I believe they have the capability to have miniaturized the device at this point, and they have the technology to potentially actually deliver what they say they have,” he said.

Gen. Scaparrotti said North Korea may have gained know-how on warhead-miniaturization technology through its relationships with Iran and Pakistan.

The mention of Iran and Pakistan is significant. Pakistan has already demonstrated the technology and the know-how to miniaturize a warhead and put it atop of a missile, and Iran is now working to master both. This means North Korea will likely transfer the miniaturization technology and know-how to Iran – which will only increase the Iranian nuclear threat.

Ladies and gentlemen, the time for denying and downplaying the North Korean (and Iranian) threat has passed. It’s now time to COUNTER these threats – BEFORE it’s too late. Starting with the wholesale modernization of the entire US nuclear arsenal, cessation of any cuts to it, and the reaffirmation of the guarantee to use it in defense of any treaty ally of the US – including South Korea.

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

What does it matter if Russia has more warheads?

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on October 23, 2014


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted in Ideologies, Nuclear deterrence | Leave a Comment »

Even MORE bad and embarrassing news for anti-nuclear activists

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on October 14, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing else will suffice.

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


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

Under SECDEF Frank Kendall confirms I was right

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on October 13, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Posted in Nuclear deterrence | Leave a Comment »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 440 other followers