Further defense cuts would gut the military

As the deadline to deal with defense spending sequestration nears, the opponents of a strong defense  are trying to lull the American people into a false sense of security by downplaying and vastly understating the threats posed to America’s security by Russia, China, and others, and such lowballing of these threats is supposed to justify cuts to America’s defense.

But they are lying, and in this article, I’ll show you why.

The fact is that over the last 12 years (and in China’s case, over the last 22 years), America’s potential adversaries, including Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran, have been conducting military buildups that far exceed their legitimate self-defense requirements. I will demonstrate their military capabilities country by country and explain why they threaten the US.

Russia

Russia’s biggest military asset is its vast nuclear arsenal. Although reduced since the Soviet times, it’s still huge. Russia currently has 1,492 deployed and hundreds of additional nondeployed strategic nuclear warheads, all of which can be delivered to the US. Since the ratification of New START, which obligates only the US (not Russia) to reduce its nuclear arsenal, Russia has been building up its strategic arsenal up to New START limits, exactly as it said it intended to when New START was ratified in early 2011.

Russia currently has up to 472 intercontinental ballistic missiles: 58 SS-18, 132 SS-19, 144 SS-25, 74 SS-27, and 18 RS-24 ICBMs. The US has 450. Thus, Russia already has somewhat more ICBMs than the US is allowed to have under New START (434 vs 420). Russia plans to procure 400 new ICBMs by 2020 and to develop two new ICBM types – including a new heavy ICBM, the “Son of Satan”, i.e. a replacement for the SS-18 Satan. More on Russia’s nuclear modernization programs here.

The Russian Navy has 13 operational SSBNs (4 Delta III class, 7 Delta IV class, 1 Borei class, and 1 Typhoon class) ballistic missile submarines, with 16 missile tubes each. Their SLBMs have a range of over 10,000 kilometers, meaning they can reach any target in the CONUS while being in their home waters or even in homeport, and have had that capability since the late 1980s.

Russia’s Dalnaya Aviatsya (Long Range Aviation) has 63 Tu-95 and at least 16 Tu-160 intercontinental nuclear-capable bombers, each of which is capable of delivering multiple nuclear-tipped missiles and nuclear freefall bombs. Russia resumed their strategic flights in 2007 and since then, American, Canadian, and European fighters have often had to scramble and intercept them near American, Canadian, and European airspace. Russian bombers and their support aircraft have also held multiple exercises since 2007, most recently in June and July 2012 near Alaska and California, when the Russians said they were “practicing attacking the enemy”.

Russia’s Dalnaya Aviatsya also has 151 (171 according to Sean O’Connor) Tu-22M strategic bombers (plus another 93 in reserve) which, with aerial refueling, have intercontinental range, and yet, they are not counted as intercontinental bombers under New START (nor were they under SALT-II). The Russians made the Tu-22M air-refuelable despite Brezhnev’s promises (which Jimmy Carter bought) that they wouldn’t. To refuel them, Russia has Il-78 tankers.

Moscow has now begun producing additional Tu-160s from stockpiled components and is developing a next-generation strategic bomber, the PAK DA (Prospektivnoi Aviatsonnyi Kompleks Dalnoy Aviatsii).

Russia is now procuring Su-34 bombers to partially replace the Tu-22M fleet, with 16 in service and 200 planned in total, which will free the Russians to sell some Tu-22Ms to China (which has already tried to buy them once).

Russia also has a tremendous lead over the US in tactical nuclear weapons: it has untold thousands of them, while the US has only ca. 400, all of them old nuclear bombs in urgent need of modernization. Russia’s tactical nukes can be delivered by a wide range of systems: short-range BMs, torpedoes, artillery, and a wide range of Tupolev and Sukhoi aircraft.

Russia’s huge tactical nuclear arsenal (estimated by the Obama Administration to be 10 times larger than America’s) can be delivered by a very wide range of delivery systems, including short-ranged ballistic missiles, ship- and air-launched cruise missiles, surface warships (nuclear depth charges), artillery pieces, tactical strike aircraft (e.g. Su-24s, Su-25s, Su-27s/30s/33s/35s, and Su-34s). Russia has at least 1,040-2,000 deployed tactical nuclear warheads (according to various estimates listed here on p. 6), and 2,000-4,000 tactical nuclear warheads in total according to ASDEF for Global Strategic Affairs Madelyn Creedon (p. 6).

Russia currently plans to significantly grow its arsenal of ICBMs and bombers. This year, the Russian Government tripled ICBM production, and by 2020, it will procure 400 new ICBMs – partly to grow the fleet and partly to replace older ICBMs. It is also developing a new heavy ICBM (to replace the SS-18 Satan), a new 100-ton missile with a “global range” and a conventional warhead, a new middle weight ICBM called the Avangard, and a new rail-based ICBM (which will likely be an RS-24 Yars derivative). None of these ICBMs will be limited by New START. Russia is also building additional Tu-160 bombers from stockpiled components. Because Russia was below New START ceilings, and because that pathetic treaty has many loopholes large enough to drive a truck through them, Russia is allowed to significantly build up its strategic arsenal. The US is not.

Overall, Russia plans to spend 21 trillion roubles (i.e. $770 bn) on new equipment during the next decade.

In tactical fighter aviation, Russia has several hundred modern, capable fighters: 293 Su-27, 15 Su-30, and 9 Su-35S Flankers, with a total of 30 Su-30s and 48 Su-35s on order. These enjoy parity with the F-15 and are decisively superior to the F-16 and the F/A-18, which have decisively inferior thrust/weight and wingloading ratios, radar, turning capability, and combat radius. The F/A-18 is inferior, and the F-16 barely equal, to the MiG-29, a Russian fighter first flown in the late 1970s, widely exported, and still in use (226 in Russian inventory) and being upgraded. The Russians are now developing (together with India) the Sukhoi PAKFA, a stealthy 5th generation fighter almost equal to the F-22 Raptor and decisively superior to all other Western fighters, current and planned, including the F-35. It is intended for high number production, with several hundred to be ordered by Moscow and Delhi, and sure to be exported around the world just like previous Russian fighters, including Flankers, were.

Russia’s SAM system network is even more deadly. In addition to very capable Soviet SAM systems such as the mobile Kub (SA-6 Gainful) and Buk (SA-11/SA-17 Grizzly), Russia also has deployed a large number of modern (1990s and 2000s’ era) S-300 systems which can easily detect and shoot down all nonstealthy aircraft, and a growing number of S-400 systems, which were first deployed in 2004. Their radars and missiles have ranges measured in hundreds of kilometers, and are cued by a very extensive network of radars.

Russia has also deployed huge numbers of modern point-defense systems such as the Tunguska, the Tor-M1, and the Pantsir-S1, which defend the forementioned SAM systems and other assets from precision guided munitions such as cruise and anti-air-defense missiles. This means that the default tactic of attacking enemy targets with cruise missiles like the Tomahawk and the ALCM or SAM systems with the AGM-88 HARM is no longer feasible. AirPowerAustralia rightly says it is “bankrupt.”

Russia is now developing an even more lethal, long-ranged SAM system, the S-500, which will also be a BMD system.

Russia’s Navy has 67 submarines of all kinds, including 24 nuclear-powered attack subs, 9 nuclear-powered cruise missile submarines, 14 ballistic missile subs (with a collective capacity to launch 224 SLBMs with 2240 warheads), and 31 conventional attack subs, mostly a growing fleet of Kilo- and Lada-class subs with air-independent propulsion which makes them quieter than most nuclear submarines. Russian nuclear and conventional submarines are quieter than any in the world except those of the Virginia and Seawolf classes. Yet, many American defense cutters want to cut or even stop Virginia class submarine production.

Graph source: Office of Naval Intelligence.

Russia’s destroyers and cruisers, including 4 nuclear-propelled ones, can launch many anti-ship cruise missiles to sink American warships. Arleigh Burke and Ticonderoga class combatants can protect against this threat, yet, under the Obama Administration’s plans, 7 of the youngest Ticonderogas are to be decommissioned prematurely with 20 years of service life remaining.

Russia’s hackers, meanwhile, pose a significant threat to US computer networks, although their attacks have not been as prominent as Chinese hackers’ attacks.

China

China, a nascent superpower, poses a military threat no smaller than Russia.

While pro-disarmament organizations (which have an incentive to lowball China’s nuclear arsenal and thus lie) and US intelligence agencies lead by pro-China bureaucrats have been vastly understating the size of Beijing’s arsenal, it’s real size is at least 1,800 warheads (as estimated by retired Russian general Viktor Yesin, who maintains close ties to the Kremlin), and up to 3,000 warheads, as estimated by Professor Philip Karber of Georgetown University.

China has:

1) 36 MIRVable DF-5, 30-40 MIRVable DF-31/31A, and an unknown number of MIRVable DF-41 ICBMs. The DF-41 can carry 10 warheads; the DF-31, up to 4; the DF-5 can carry an unknown number, but certainly at least two, since it can also carry a single 5 megaton warhead. Thus, China has at least 67 (and probably many more) ICBMs capable of reaching the US. The figure of 30 DF-31/31A ICBMs comes from 2009; since then, the DF-31 fleet has certainly grown significantly.

2) 72-144 SLBMs deployed on 6 ballistic missile submarines, 5 Jin class boats and one Xia class sub. The old Xia class sub will soon be replaced by a 6th Jin. Each of them can carry 12, and up to 24 (on Jin class boats), SLBMs. The Jins’ missiles can carry 4 warheads each. Since all of them are nuclear-powered, they can sail anywhere. The Jins’ missiles, MIRVable JL-2s, have an 8000 km range, allowing them to target anything on America’s West Coast when positioned just slightly east of 150E longitude. They can target Seattle and NB Kitsap while still being west of Hokkaido.

3) 440 nuclear-capable H-6K, JH-7, and Q-5 bombers, with 1 warhead each. The turbofan-powered H-6K and JH-7 can also carry nuclear- and conventional-armed cruise missiles with multiple-thousand-kilometer range.

4) 20-40 MIRVable DF-3 and 80 DF-21 MRBMs, as well as 20 MIRVable DF-4 IRBMs with a 7,000 km range. This allows them to target Hawaii and all targets throughout Asia, but (excepting the DF-4) not Guam or Australia.

5) A large number of DF-11, DF-15, and DF-16 SRBMs (with 1,600 stationed opposite Taiwan) and DH-10 cruise missiles. whose range is 4000 kms. Some of them may be nuclear-armed.

In total, China has 1,800 nuclear warheads according to former Russian strategic missile force chief of staff Gen. Viktor Yesin. China, of course, has the means to deliver far more than 1,800 warheads.

The Chinese Air Force has the following modern fighters: 200 J-10s, 76 Su-27s, 76 Su-30MKKs, 140 J-11s, and 360 modernized J-8II interceptors produced in the 1980s. Yet, GlobalSecurity.org says China plans to order hundreds more Flankers, and AirPowerAustralia projects that by 2015 China will have 550 Flankers. Beijing is also in talks to buy Su-35 and Su-33 fighters from Russia. Flankers are, of course, nuclear-capable.

China is now developing three new fighters. The first, the J-15, will be a modern Flanker variant intended to operate from China’s aircraft carrier Liaoning (on which it has already performed takeoffs and landings). The second, J-20, first flown in January 2011, will be a stealthy 5th generation air superiority fighter, long range interceptor, and theater strike jet which can also serve as a reconnaissance and ASAT weapon launching plane. The third, J-31, will be a smaller, more agile stealthy air superiority fighter capable of operating from land bases and aircraft carriers alike. The J-20 is to enter service in 2017-2019, and the J-31 in 2020 or later.

The J-20 and J-31 are also sure to be exported; China’s J-10, J-11, and JF-17 are also on offer for export.

The venerable F-15 can barely hold parity against China’s Flankers and J-10,, as it flies much faster and much higher but is outclassed in terms of radar and airframe age, and barely holds parity in agility, with similar T/W and wing loading ratios as these Chinese fighters. Even the F-15, however, will be outclassed against the J-20 and J-31.

The J-20, analyzed here, here, and here by APA, will be the best air superiority fighter in the world, ex aequo with the F-22, when it enters service. Its T/W and wing loading ratios are better than anyone else’s except the F-22s and the PAKFAs (as well as the Typhoon’s and the Rafale’s in terms of wing loading); its stealth shaping is far better than the F-35′s or the PAKFA’s, emulating F-22 design closely; and with lots of internal space, it can carry much fuel and ammo. Its size and design allow it to be both a fighter and a medium range strike jet, holding all American bases in East Asia (but not Guam) vulnerable. It could also be developed into an electronic warfare, anti-satellite warfare, and reconnaissance plane (if specialized variants are built), just like the F-111 was. (The J-20′s size is similar to that of the F-111.) Being very stealthy, the J-20 will be very difficult for S/X/K/Ku-band, and even for L-band and UHF/VHF, radars to detect.

The J-31 is an upgraded replica of the F-35, and can take off from land bases and carriers alike (it has a double wheel in the frontal section, like all other carrier-based planes). As China’s AVIC company has declared, it will be exported to anyone capable of paying for it.

China’s air force is also likely to acquire new long-range bombers in the mold of Russia’s Dalnaya Aviatsiya, and with former PLAAF commander Gen. Xu Qiliang (an outspoken advocate of airpower) now serving as Central Military Commission Vice Chairman, i.e. the highest-ranking PLA officer, the PLAAF will have significant leverage to advocate for a more modern bomber fleet, and a spokesman (Gen. Xu) lobbying for it at the top of the CMC. In 2001, China almost acquired a fleet of used Russian Tu-95 and Tu-22M bombers, and the proposal was cancelled only because China’s influential domestic aerospace industry lobbied for modernizations to the Xian H-6 bomber instead and the PLA Navy lobbied for funds for aircraft carriers. Now, with its defense budget several times larger than it was in 2001, China will have more than enough money to acquire intercontinental bombers, especially since Tu-95s and Tu-22Ms will soon become surplus as Russia acquires Su-34 medium-range and PAK DA intercontinental bombers.

China’s navy has 68 submarines, including 6 SSBNs (1 Xia class and 5 Jin class boats). Most of China’s conventional subs are ultra-quiet, AIP-equipped diesel-powered attack submarines which can easily avoid detection. One of them, a Song class sub, stalked the USS Kitty Hawk in 2006 and surfaced just 5 miles away from the carrier, ready to launch torpedoes, while previously completely avoiding detection. Had it not surfaced, the USN would’ve never even known it was there, or that it was so close to the carrier. China’s nuclear submarines are far quieter than their noisy Han- and Xia-class predecessors were, and could circumnavigate the world without having to resurface.

China’s surface fleet is no less powerful. It consists of 14 modern destroyers (plus 5 additional ones under construction, including 2 Type 052C and 3 Type 052D vessels) and 19 modern frigates (with another 7 under construction). Their destroyers include the newest Type 052D Luyang III class of destroyers, the newest Chinese class, equipped with the Zhonghuashendun (AKA Chinese Aegis) combat system. It has 64 Vertical Launch System cells capable of launching SAMs, anti-ship, and anti-submarine missiles, and has a 130mm main gun, as well as smaller guns and CIWS. The armament of other Chinese destroyers is no less formidable. Building so many modern ships so fast has made China a world class shipbuilder, the Diplomat website warns. Chinese destroyers have modern air defense systems: some have navalized versions of the HQ-16/SA-17 Grizzly (Russian Buk) system, others a naval variant of the modern HQ-9 air defense system, and others a naval variant of the S-300, the SA-N-20. Thus, Chinese destroyers can easily shoot down nonstealthy aircraft and missiles. More on China’s newest destroyers here.

On top of that, China has a very large fleet of missile/attack boats and an arsenal of at least 100,000 naval mines. This will pose a serious threat to America’s already-overworked surface combatant and mine countermeasure ship fleets, most of which is deployed in the Persian Gulf.

Which brings me to China’s air defense systems.

Just 12 years ago, China’s air defense network was mostly obsolete, consisting mostly of SA-2 and HQ-2 short-range air defense systems. This has changed. China now has a huge, impressive arsenal of S-300 series (both S-300P and S-300V series) and HQ-9 highly mobile long-range air defense systems whose radars are highly resistant (nearly immune) to jamming and which can detect and shoot down aircraft and missiles (including cruise missiles) from a long range. (Russia, of course, has an even more impressive and more extensive arsenal of S-300 series, S-400 (deployed in 2007), and heavily upgraded legacy Soviet air defense systems like the Buk (SA-11/17 Grizzly)). On ships, China has deployed, as stated above, modern HQ-9 and HQ-16 air defense systems. With SAM systems like these, China can declare and enforce  no-fly zone over all of Taiwan anytime it wants to. These air defense systems also make China’s (and Russia’s) airspace firmly closed to all nonstealthy aircraft, leaving only the B-2, the F-22, the F-35, and the planned Next Generation Bomber as the only aircraft which can enter that airspace safely and survive in it. Their long range air defense systems can defend themselves against anti-SAM missiles like the AGM-88 HARM and against cruise missiles, and to aid in such defense, they’re protected by short-range air defense systems such as the KS-1. These systems’ radar is also highly resistant to jamming.

China’s anti-ship and anti-land conventional missiles are no less deadly. The deadliest are arguably the ChangJian-10 (CJ-10) and the DongHai-10 (DH-1o) land attack cruise missiles, which have a range of 4,000 kms, i.e. enough to reach Guam. An aircraft-carried variant has a range of 2,000 kms. The HongNiao-3 has a range of 2,000 kms. Their anti-ship missiles have ranges varying up to 550 kms, but they can be launched from various platforms, including ships and aircraft. China also has the DF-21D ASBM with a range of 2,700 kms.

While the Danger Room’s claim that China’s plan to beat the US is “missiles, missiles, and missiles” is a huge exaggeration, missiles comprise a large, deadly, and cheap part of China’s arsenal, and if used against anyone, would devastate the victim due to payload, range, accuracy (low CEPs for modern missiles), and speed. If scheduled defense cuts, including sequestration and Obama’s planned nuclear arsenal cuts, continue, China and Russia will both individually overtake the US militarily in all capabilities and in total military power by no later than the early 2020s, and probably earlier.

North Korea

North Korea is not a global peer competitor to the US. However, on a regional scale, it is a huge military threat.

It maintains a large, though mostly outdated, conventional force. But its real strength is its ballistic missile force. North Korea has hundreds of SRBMs capable of reaching all targets in South Korea and Western Japan, and further hundreds of MRBMs with enough range to reach all of Japan (including Okinawa). It also has an unknown number (probably dozens) of Musudan (BM25, AKA Taepodong-X) and Taepodong-1 IRBMs with a range of 4,000 kms (enough to reach targets as far as Singapore) and has now demonstrated an ICBM capability with its Unha-3 missile that successfully delivered a satellite to the Earth’s orbit. This demonstrates that North Korea has overcome the tech hurdles that contributed to the failures of its previous ICBM tests. North Korea now has a capability to deliver nuclear warheads to the US if it has managed to miniaturize them, and there’s no reason to believe it hasn’t. William C. Triplett warns that it’s a matter of one year before it happens.

Besides its small nuclear arsenal (13 warheads), Pyongyang also has 2,000-2,500 metric tons of chemical weapons and quite possibly biological weapons as well. To deliver chemical munitions, it has ballistic missiles as well as a large artillery fleet aimed at South Korea.

Meanwhile, North Korea’s suicide midget submarines pose a threat to ships, while its air defense systems – not as modern as Russia’s or China’s, but nonetheless long-ranged and jamming-resistant – can shoot down any nonstealthy aircraft. Thus, its airspace, like that of Russia  and China, is firmly closed to any nonstealthy aircraft. Only B-2s and F-22s can safely operate in it.

Iran

Iran’s most powerful weapons are its ballistic missiles. The most numerous in its inventory are Fateh-110, Zelzal, Scud, Hwasong, and Shahab-1 and -2 SRBMs, with a range not exceeding 1,000 kms. Because Middle Eastern states are so close to each other, ballistic missile flight times in that region are measured in single minutes. Iran’s SRBMs could thus be used as first strike weapons.

Iran also has a number of MRBMs of various types (Sejjil, Ashoura, Shahab-3) with ranges between 2,000 and 2,500 kms, i.e. enough to reach all of Eastern and Southern Europe.

According to one leaked US State Department cable published by Wikileaks, Iran also has bought 19 Taepodong-X (BM25 Musudan) IRBMs (which have a range of 4,000 kms) from North Korea. If that is true – and it likely is – Iran already has the means to target all of Europe, including Dublin, Lisbon, and Madrid.

Iran’s nuclear weapons programme is accelerating. It is now installing additional centrifuges which will allow it to 1) produce more enriched uranium faster; and 2) enrich enough uranium to weapons-grade (i.e. to 90%) by next summer. This would mean Iran would, by next summer, have enough highly-enriched uranium for a single nuclear warhead (although it would then still have to build a miniaturized warhead to be able to mate it with a ballistic missile).

The most hotly disputed issue is that of an Iranian ICBM program. Disarmament advocates and missile defense opponents falsely claim that Iran will not have an ICBM capable of reaching the US for many years to come and that an East Coast missile defense site is unneeded. They’re wrong, however. The US intelligence community has consistently projected that Iran will attain such capability by 2015 (although that does not mean testing such a missile). While the CRS says Iran is “unlikely” to reach such capability by 2015 without significant foreign assistance, such assistance is likely to be provided by China and/or North Korea, both of whom are notorious proliferators of ballistic missile technology. Furthermore, the year 2015 is just 2 years and 15 days away. The year 2017 is just 4 years and 15 days away. Even if Iran’s ICBM development slips by a year or two, this still leaves the US little time to build an EC missile defense site – which means the decision to build it must be made now.

Also, according to experts such as Gordon Chang and lawmakers such as Sen. Schumer, Iran IS actually being heavily aided in its long range missile development effort by China. Chang says that China has even sold Iran a DF-31 ICBM.

What about America’s defense capabilities? Can’t we protect America with what we already have?

The answer is no, we can’t. Here’s why.

The only aircraft in the US military’s entire fleet capable of surviving in contested airspace are 180 F-22 fighters and 20 B-2 bombers. Because in-theater bases would likely be attacked with missiles by China, North Korea, or Iran, that leaves the US with only 20 aircraft (B-2s) that can strike from over the horizon AND survive in enemy airspace. B-52 and B-1 bombers and F-15, F-16, and F/A-18 aircraft have huge radar signatures and would be extremely easy for enemy air defense systems to shoot down.

The USN has shrunk dramatically over the last 20 years, from almost 600 ships in 1989 and over 300 in the 1990s to just 287 today. The Navy has only 10 carriers, 33% fewer than at the Cold War’s end (15). With so few ships and so many missions and commitments, the Navy can meet only 59% of Combatant Commanders’ requests for ships and only 61% of their requests for submarines. The DOD now wants to scrap 7 among the Navy’s youngest Ticonderoga class cruisers, which means giving up more firepower than that provided by the UK’s entire surface combatant fleet. The world hasn’t shrunk at all since 1991, and neither have America’s commitments and missions – in fact, the world has become more dangerous and more missions have arisen – yet, the Navy’s ship fleet has shrunk by more than half.

The USN has only 29 amphibious ships, meaning it cannot transport more than one Marine Brigade into a theater with its supplies.

As a result of underfunding the Navy, even without sequestration or any other further defense cuts, the USN’s surface combatant and submarine fleets will decline precipitously over the next 2 decades.

America’s ASW capability has declined dramatically over the last 2 decades, primarily because the GWOT misled politicians and bureaucrats into thinking that capabilities not needed to fight terrorists were not needed at all. Consequently, ASW capabilities were underfunded, and now, the USN can’t detect Chinese Song class submarines.

America’s entire nuclear deterrent is overdue for a wholesale modernization, yet disarmament advocates, now falsely posing as fiscal conservatives, are clamoring for that effort to be dramatically reduced or even cancelled. This would cause the nuclear deterrent to wear out completely through atrophy even without any new cuts. The fact is that America needs to replace all three legs of its nuclear triad – ICBMs, bombers, and submarines – and doing so would cost very little. A single ICBM costs only $70 mn; a single Next Gen Bomber will cost only $440-$550 mn; and a single new SSBN would cost only $2.4 bn if derived from the Virginia class of attack submarines. The US also needs to modernize its warheads (starting with the B61 tactical warhead providing a nuclear umbrella to America’s allies, such as Poland and the Czech Republic, threatened by Russia’s huge tactical nuclear arsenal and its repeated, frequent threats to use nuclear weapons preemptively against them). The facilities which design, produce, and maintain America’s nuclear warheads also need to be modernized or replaced. The current facilities date back to the Manhattan Project’s days.  Yet, disarmament activists want America to forego any such modernization.

Therefore, any further deep defense cuts – whether by sequestration” or in a “targeted”/”strategic” manner, will gut the US military and pave the way for both China and Russia to become militarily superior to the US, in all aspects, by no later than the early 2020s, and probably earlier than that. And this is not an exaggeration.

If further deep defense cuts are made, 10 years from now, I will be proven right.

The coming decline and fall of America

In 1897, as the United Kingdom celebrated the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Victoria’s reign, it stood at the peak of its military, economic, and diplomatic power, as it spanned one quarter of the world and was being patrolled by the Royal Navy, stronger than the next two navies combined. Even then, however, a young American boy predicted that the US would eventually replace the UK as the world’s top dog. And it eventually did, in 1945, as Britain, bankrupt and weakened, had to dismantle its empire.

In 2007, Fareed Zakaria predicted that “history will happen to us after all.” By that, he meant that the US would eventually be replaced as the world’s top dog by someone else, as all previous leading superpowers once were.

And that is about to happen sooner than almost any American realizes.

Sooner than you probably think.

This year, despite reports of economic growth cooling down, China will likey post, again, a 9% economic growth rate, just like last year. It has recently announced tax cuts to stimulate further economic growth. Its Communist Party has recently chosen two reformers, Xi Jinping and Li Keqiang, to be the number one and number two on the party’s Politburo Standing Committee (its top power organ). It has convinced countries of the Pacific Rim to join a trade bloc that excludes the US, rather than joining a proposed American-led trading block – the Trans-Pacific Partnership – that would exclude China. Its currency, the Renminbi, is increasingly replacing the dollar as the reserve currency of East Asia. China is also becoming an increasingly important export market for Asian countries, while the importance of the US market is decreasing.

China is also building new and new advanced branches of industry that it once didn’t have – like the airliner industry – which will compete with Boeing and Airbus.

China’s economic policy of mercantilism – minimizing imports and maximizing exports – has proven itself to be remarkably successful. China has managed to protect its economy. Its industries, industrial production, and exports are growing. America’s industrial base is disappearing.

Militarily, China has been even more successful. It now has at least 1,800, and up to 3,000, nuclear warheads and the means to deliver over 1,200 of them immediately without involving its SRBMs or GLCMs. It has a growing, and increasingly modern, Navy which now includes an aircraft carrier, 68 submarines (ballistic and attack submarines alike, nuclear and conventional), very modern destroyers with highly capable air defense systems, very modern frigates, and hundreds of attack boats. It has an increasingly modern Air Force with a growing fleet (over 400) of Su-27, Su-30MKK, J-11, and J-10 fighters, soon to be joined by 48 Su-35s and, starting in 2017-2019, by J-20 and J-31 stealthy fighters, as well as AWACS and tankers. When its J-20 fighter enters service in 2017-2019, it will render every Western fighter except the F-22 obsolete, impotent, irrelevant, and useless. Already the Flanker family has rendered every fighter on the planet except the F-22, the F-15C/D, and the Typhoon obsolete.

Most worrisomely, China has built up such a huge and diverse arsenal of anti-access/area-denial weapons which can deny the US military access to a combat theater and, should the US military attempt access, inflict high casualties on it. These weapons range from land attack and anti-ship ballistic and cruise missiles to submarines to naval mines to cyberweapons to anti-satellite weapons.

The US, for decades the world’s top military and economic dog, is now being increasingly outmatched by China. And, as America’s military and economic power declines precipitously, and that of China grows exponentially, Beijing looks like a far more attractive partner than Washington, thus affecting the two countries’ diplomatic attractiveness and capabilities.

What are the causes that are leading to America’s decline and eventual downfall and to China’s rise to top dog status?

Firstly, the US is indulging in statist, almost socialist, eocnomic policies – nationalizations, bailouts, high taxes, high government spending, massive overregulation and overlitigation, and a hugely complex, 66,000-page tax code.

Secondly, massive defense cuts which – with or without sequestration – will dramatically weaken the US military and render it decisively inferior to the Chinese and Russian militaries by no later than the 2020s.

Thirdly, a political system and a culture which allow subversive, anti-American views and policies to be tolerated, openly proclaimed, and even implemented as a national policy.

Fourthly, a political system and a weak legal system which allows foreign lobbyists to hugely influence US foreign policy.

Fifth, weak, timid pro-appeasement politicians in both parties who prefer a foreign policy of appeasement to Ronald Reagan’s firm policy.

Sixth, a complete ignorance on the part of both the populace and the political class.

And seventh, a complete breakdown of the American work ethic. Until the 1960s, the vast majority of Americans believed and knew that they had to earn everything they had. “Welfare” as we think of it was a tiny program operated by your city or county government and reserved only for the truly needy. Welfare was not the American way of life. Today, a majority of Americans are dependent on the federal government, one way or another, for their livelihoods, and believe that they are owed a living by someone else. Most of them believe they are entitled to a living at someone else’s expense. The “takers” have already outnumbered the “takers”, as evidenced by Obama’s reelection. The federal government provides a huge cornucopia of benefits – from Head Start and free K-12 education to Medicaid and foodstamps – to over 40%, and perhaps over 50%, of Americans. Meanwhile, 47% of Americans pay no taxes to pay for the cornucopia of benefits they enjoy.

As a wise man once warned, the Republic will collapse when citizens start believing they can vote themselves money.

Meanwhile, China has none of those weaknesses. Its free market economy encourages entrepreneurs to build and expand businesses. Its corporate income tax rate is 25%, it has no capital gains or dividends tax, labor costs are low, and regulations are less restrictive than in the US. Environmental and labor laws are among the most lax in the world.

The Chinese military, as noted above and as documented extensively on this website, is becoming stronger every year, with new, more deadly weapons entering service with the PLA in ever greater numbers.

China’s diplomatic influence around the world, as a result, is growing.

Chinese kids are the best students in the world, as proven time after time by PISA tests, which rank Shanghai students first in the world in reading, maths, and science. Chinese elementary school students have more homework to do every week than American students have ever had. China has high educational standards and strictly enforces them.

China’s political system, while cruel and unjust, ensures that seven men on the Politburo Standing Committee can make decisions easily and, once these decisions are made, they are strictly enforced. There is no political gridlock or logjam in China, and the country doesn’t have a dysfunctional political system like the US has, whereby the Congress can’t even pass any budget for over 3 years and cannot reduce annual federal spending by more than a smidgen by means other than automatic across-the-board sequestration.

And in China, anti-Chinese views and policies, such as those blaming China for the world’s problems or calls for deep cuts in China’s military, are not tolerated. And the people who propagate such beliefs are rightly treated as traitors and scum, not tolerated or celebrated like POGO, TCS, ACA, the “Council for a Livable World”, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and Barack Obama are in the US.

For these and other reasons, China’s military and economic power is growing, while America’s is shrinking precipitously. And absent reforms that are highly unlikely to be implemented in the US, China will overtake the US as the world’s top dog – economically and militarily – by no later than the 2020s.

And no one will be sadder to see that happen than me.

„“In terms of the indices of overall power – GDP, population size, military spending and technological investment – Asia will surpass North America and Europe combined,” the report concludes.

“Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds” — prepared by the office of the National Intelligence Council of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence — projects that the “unipolar” world that emerged after the fall of the Soviet Union will not continue.

“With the rapid rise of other countries, the ‘unipolar moment’ is over and no country – whether the U.S., China, or any other country – will be a hegemonic power,” the report argues.

“The United States’ relative economic decline vis-a-vis the rising states is inevitable and already occurring,but its future role in the international system is much harder to assess,” it argues.

“Global Trends” projects that the United States will retain a unique role in the international system — in part because of its history and past leadership.

“The U.S. most likely will remain ‘first among equals’ among the other great powers, due to the legacy of its leadership role in the world and the dominant role it has played in international politics across the board in both hard and soft power,” it argues.

And the intelligence community does believe the United States will be supplanted as the world’s only superpower by another country.

“The replacement of the United States by another global power and erection of a new international order seems the least likely outcome in this time period,” the report projects.

The report argues that rising powers like China, India and Brazil are not unified by any common ideology and are more focused on their regional role. And the report warns against the consequences of a U.S. withdrawal from the world’s stage.

“A collapse or sudden retreat of US power would most likely result in an extended period of global anarchy,” it argues.” – http://michellefields.com/2012/12/10/intelligence-community-u-s-will-no-longer-be-sole-superpower-by-2030/; http://pl.scribd.com/doc/115962650/GlobalTrends-2030

Republicans must block Kerry and Hagel

All media outlets are reporting that, because Susan Rice has withdrawn her name from consideration, John Kerry is virtually certain to be nominated Secretary of State and RINO ex-Senator Chuck Hagel is likely to be nominated Secretary of Defense; and that Republicans will not oppose either nomination.

This would be a huge mistake and a heinous betrayal of conservative principles and grassroots conservatives. Here’s why.

Both of them are extreme, strident liberals. Both of them are on the extreme left of America’s political spectrum. John Kerry has, throughout his entire Senate career, supported deep defense cuts (including the cancellation of all crucial weapon programs from the F-15 Eagle to the B-2 bomber to the AH-64 attack helicopter) and the appeasement of America’s enemies. Listen to what his fellow Democrat Zell Miller has said about him. Hagel has supported the same policies, and to this day, he supports deep defense cuts; in fact, experts are worried that if nominated and confirmed, Hagel will propose and implement deep cuts that will make America unable to defend itself and its allies. More here.

Hagel and Kerry also support deep, unilateral cuts in America’s nuclear arsenal and its eventual elimination; Hagel even sits on the board of a pacifist organization called Global Zero which supports such disastrous policies.

Hagel also supports unconditional talks with all of America’s enemies, including Iran; has opposed sanctions against Tehran, including listing the Islamic Revolution Guards’ Corps as a terrorist organization; endorsed Obama enthusiastically for President in 2008 and 2012; and opposes any vigorous action against America’s enemies, including Iran, including a bombing of Iran to stop its nuclear weapons programme. The only policies he supports are appeasement of America’s enemies.

He also has a huge conflict of interest – he serves on the board of Deutsche Bank, which cooperates closely with Iran’s government and does a lot of business in that country.

Last but not least, Hagel is a strident, dangerous enemy of Israel. He has repeatedly voted against resolutions condemning Israel’s enemies, has repeatedly refused to sign letters urging the executive branch to stand with Israel, has overtly made insulting comments about a “Jewish lobby” having a stranglehold on the Congress; has opposed sanctions against Israel’s enemies (such as Iran); and is supported by notorious Israel critics such as Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer.

So he holds  extremely leftist, unacceptable views on the whole range of defense and foreign policy issues; he has a massive conflict of interest with Iran; and he’s been an enthusiastic Obama supporter since 2008.

And yet, Republicans plan to vote to confirm him?

If Republicans do so, it will be a huge betrayal of conservatives and conservative principles, and will pave the way for much deeper, disastrous defense cuts. This will be disastrous for America, the GOP, and conservatives.

Moreover, as the FPI points out, if Republicans, after forcing Susan Rice to withdraw her name from consideration, swoon over Kerry and Hagel and vote to confirm them, it will only lead ordinary Americans to think that Republicans are an anti-woman, anti-black party which opposed a black woman only to vote for two stridently liberal white men.

And Rice’s mistaken comments were a tiny infraction compared to the mistakes and extremely liberal views of Chuck Hagel and John Kerry.

Shame on Republicans if they don’t block the confirmation of Hagel and Kerry.

Dear Readers, please call your Congressman and both of your Senators and tell them that you will never vote for them again if they vote to confirm Hagel or Kerry.

Evaluating the PAKFA

AirPowerAustralia, the most authoritative source of information on military aircraft and air defense systems, has recently released an excellent analysis of the Russian 5th generation stealth fighter PAKFA (Prospektivnoi Aviatsonnyi Kompleks Frontovoi Aviatsii), also known as the T-50, by two respected scientists, Dr Carlo Kopp and Dr Michael Pelosi. Their analysis, while omitting a few key weaknesses of the PAKFA, nonetheless demonstrates that this Russian fighter, scheduled to enter service in 2016, is superior to every Western fighter but the F-22 Raptor.

APA’s analysis focused on the T-50′s airframe design and specifically, its stealthiness (i.e. Very Low Observability). In other words, APA analysts wanted to determine how stealthy the PAKFA is/will be. To do that, they first looked carefully at the PAKFA’s shape, looking at each section of the fuselage and assessing whether it would render a strong or a weak radar return. They then used photos and publicly-known dimensions of the PAKFA and used it in a model whereby the PAKFA was tested against radars of various bands.

The result? The PAKFA will be very stealthy in most radar bands, from the S down to the L band, although not stealthy against UHF radars such as the E-2 Hawkeye’s APS-145 and the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye’s APY-9 or the UHF-ground based radars used by some Chinese air defense systems. Thus, penetrating Chinese airspace will be problematic if UHF radars are encountered: they will send 1-2 meter radar waves which will easily detect the PAKFA. Such radar waves would be way too small to detect a large stealthy aircraft such as the B-2 bomber or the USAF’s planned Next Generation Bomber, but sufficient to detect much smaller aircraft such as fighters. That includes the PAKFA.[1]

Similarly, E-2 aircraft of all variants will have no problem detecting the PAKFA. The problem is that the PAKFA (or other Russian fighters) will likely use Novator “AWACS-killer” A2A missiles to kill the Hawkeye and thus strip the opponent of the ability to detect the PAKFA.

In all  higher radar bands, however, from the S to the L-band, the PAKFA will be highly stealthy, thanks to its shaping, but with the following two exceptions:

1) The PAKFA’s conventional engine nozzles are not stealthy and would thus produce a large radar wave return. This is a problem the PAKFA shares with the F-35, but it can be solved by producing slit engine nozzles, as Lockheed Martin did for the F-22.

2) The PAKFA’s beam fuselage component is deeply sculpted and therefore not stealthy. To quote APA:

“8. Where the PAK-FA falls well short of the F-22A and YF-23 is the shaping design of the lower fuselage and side fuselage, where the general configuration, wing/fuselage join angles, and inlet/engine nacelle join angles introduce similar intractable specular return problems as observed with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter design. These are inherent in the current shaping design and cannot be significantly improved by materials application. …. the PAK-FA prototype design will produce a large specular return in any manoeuvre where the lower fuselage is exposed to a threat emitter, and this problem will be prominent from the Ku-band down to the L-band.

9. This problem is exacerbated by the inboard ventral wing root fairings, claimed by some Russian sources to be pods for the concealed carriage of folding fin close combat AAMs, such as the RVV-MD/R-74 series. While these fairings do not introduce large RCS contributions from fore or aft aspects, they will adversely contribute to beam aspect RCS, especially for threats well below the plane of flight of the aircraft.

10. The tailboom shaping is reminiscent of the F-22 and F-35 designs, and will not yield significant RCS contributions from the front or aft aspects.

11. In the lower hemisphere, it will suffer penalties due to the insufficiently obtuse join angles between the wings and stabilators, and outer engine nacelles.“

The PAKFA also has a few other weaknesses which APA has not mentioned in any of its analyses of this fighter to this day.

Firstly, despite APA’s claims to the contrary, the PAKFA, like the F-35, can carry only 4 A2A missiles internally, while the F-22 can carry eight (i.e. twice as much). Thus, in any A2A combat, the F-22 gets four freebie shots at the PAKFA, and given that the Pk of any missile will never be 100%, this can be compensated only with a large missile load. By virtue of carrying twice as many missiles as the PAKFA, the F-22  stands a twice higher chance of killing the Russian fighter than of being shot down by it.

Secondly, the Irbis-E radar with which the PAKFA will likely be equipped is inferior to the F-22′s APG-77 radar.

Thirdly, despite APA’s claims to the contrary, the PAKFA has a WORSE thrust/weight ratio and a WORSE wing loading ratio than the F-22. At 50% fuel plus a full internal missile load, the PAKFA has a T/W ratio of 1.19:1 and a wing loading ratio of between 330-470 kg/sq m, more likely closer to the higher than to the lower figure, while the F-22 has a T/W ratio of 1.26:1 and a wing loading ratio of 375 kg/sq m.

So, by 2016, the Russians will be flying an aircraft that will still be inferior in terms of aerodynamic and kinematic performance, radar, and especially missile load, to the F-22, and which, absent significant redesign, will not be stealthy at all if viewed from below or from the rear.

It will be produced in much greater numbers than the F-22, however. The RuAF alone plans to procure at least 200 of these fighters and may buy more than that. Exports outside India will likely also go into the hundreds, as was the case with previous commercially successful fighters such as the Flanker family and the MiG-29 Fulcrum.

The premature closure of the F-22 production line this year, and political opposition to its reopening, mean that the only fighters capable of defeating the PAKFA that the US will have at its disposal will be its 180 or so F-22 Raptors.

That portends trouble for the US and indeed the entire West, because, as analysis by APA and by myself has concluded, the ONLY Western (not just American – Western) fighter capable of defeating the PAKFA is the F-22 Raptor.

No other Western fighter stands even a ghost’s chance of defeating this Russian fighter. Not the F-35, not the Super Bug, not other legacy aircraft, and not the Eurocanards.

The F-35′s radar signature will be, at best, the same as the PAKFA’s, its internal weapons load (4 A2A missiles) is the same as the PAKFA’s, while its combat radius, persistence, aerodynamic, and kinematic performance are all decisively inferior to that of the PAKFA, not to mention the fact that a single round from the PAKFA’s GSh-301 gun to the F-35′s single engine would bring it down.

So, while the F-35 might be a good competitor for the PAKFA in BVR combat (although even that is doubtful given its inferior speed and combat ceiling), it stands no chance of competing in WVR combat.

The Super Bug and the F-16 are decisively inferior in both combat regimes, and owing to their huge radar signatures, would be shot down by the PAKFA (or other Russian fighters) long before they could begin the WVR game.

The Eurocanards could, in theory, compete with the PAKFA in WVR combat, thanks to their very low wingloading ratios, good T/W ratios, and low weight, but even with jammers, they would be easily detected and shot down long before they could begin the WVR game with the Russian fighter, as their radar signatures are huge even in a “clean” configuration, and even more so with external stores. Jamming can only reduce the distance from which they can be detected, not prevent detection entirely. Once they’re detected, they’re toast.

Finally, an advantage the PAKFA will have over everyone except the F-15, and perhaps the Typhoon and the Rafale, will be to run the opponent out of gas.

In sum, the PAKFA renders every Western fighter other than the F-22 Raptor impotent, irrelevant, obsolete, and useless, in a fashion no different than the one in which the HMS Dreadnought rendered all previous battleships obsolete when she was commissioned in 1906.  When it enters service, it will irrevocably and mercilessly enforce the end of their service lives. Despite the false claims of Robert Gates, Harry Reid, John McCain, POGO, and the CATO Institute, the F-22 was needed in 2009 and is even moreso needed now, as it is the only Western fighter capable of defeating the PAKFA.

The material reality is simple. The US will either resume F-22 production or it will lose air superiority sooner rather than later, with all the military, diplomatic, and economic consequences following from that. And then, America will get a rude awakening, just like it did 71 years ago.

[1] Even the most advanced counter-stealth radar in the world, the Nebo SVU, can send radar waves no longer than 2 meters, which is not even close to being enough to detect large stealthy aircraft like bombers. To detect them, the radar waves would have to be at least 5-6 times longer, but radars emitting such huge waves would be extremely and prohibitively costly.

A very sad Christmas for us defense conservatives

This year, while we defense conservatives, like most people, will be celebrating Christmas and will try to find joy in it, we will nonetheless be sad, because America’s defense is now in the process of being gutted quite literally through massive cuts in budgets, nuclear and conventional weapon inventories, modernization programs, and the force structure.

It will be the fourth sad Christmas in a row for us in the last four years.

In 2009, the Congress, after initial resistance displayed by the HASC, the SASC, the SAC, and the full House, capitulated to the White House (including its veto threats) and agreed to implement the disastrous modernization program killings demanded by Defense Secretary Robert Gates (one of the worst SECDEFs in American history). The consequence was the killing of many crucial modernization programs, such as the F-22 fighter (the best fighter in the world and the only one capable of defeating the latest Chinese and Russian designs), the Multiple Kill Vehicle for missile interceptors (which would’ve enabled them to intercept multiple missiles and multiple warheads, or warheads and decoys, simoultaneously), the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (a ground-based boost-phase interceptor), the DDG-1000 Zumwalt class, the CSAR-X rescue helicopter, the AC-X gunship, and many others.

Yet, those programmatic closures, as dumb as they were (individually and collectively) were just a sign of the wholesale gutting of America’s defense that was to come.

In 2010, it was followed by more programmatic closures as well as the ratification of the New START treaty, which obliges only the US (not Russia) to cut its nuclear arsenal by 1/3. This treaty is undermining nuclear deterrence while containing multiple loopholes which Russia is mercilessly exploiting, not counting Tu-22M bombers as strategic bombers subject to its ceilings, and having a pathetically weak verification regime. In 2010, many conservatives, including myself, and many nuclear weapons and arms control experts, including former Assistant State Secretary for AC John R. Bolton, urged the Senate not to ratify this treaty. Sadly, in the 2010 lame duck session, just 2 days before Christmas, the Senate, including 13 liberal Republicans, voted to ratify this destructive, treasonous treaty.

While the negotiations on ratification conditions were ongoing between GOP Senators and the White House, Obama dishonestly promised to invest seriously in the modernization of the arsenal that would be left. At the time, I urged Senators not to believe Obama’s false promises, which, as I warned, were not worth a rat’s rear end. Sadly, 13 Republican Senators were duped by Obama’s useless promises – which he broke no sooner than the ink had dried in the ratification documents. (However, Republicans at least ensured that the New START ratification resolution passed by the Senate contains a firm legal obligation to modernize all three legs of the triad as well as the warheads and the related facilities, including construction of the CMRR and the UPF.)

So, after this betrayal by 13 Republican Senators, the Christmas of 2010 was a very sad one for us defense conservatives.

In 2011, Republicans, after agreeing to Sec. Gates’ $178 efficiencies initiative, foolishly agreed to $487 bn in further, immediate cuts to defense spending (which are real term cuts, not mere growth rate reductions as is often claimed) and to sequestration – a $600 bn per decade gun put at the head of the Defense Secretary – whose intent was to force the Super Committee (formed per the provisions of the Budget Control Act with the aim to find an additional $1.2 trillion in savings) to do its job of finding the required savings. Predictably, the deadlocked Super Committee, composed in equal number of partisan Democrats and Republicans, failed to do its job. So, on November 23rd, they announced their failure to come up with any deficit reduction plan, thus triggering the sequester. From then on, it was clear that sequestration would kick in, unless Congress could agree on a replacement.

2011 was a very sad Christmas for us defense conservatives.

When the year 2012 began, we hoped that things would get better: that sequestration would be resolved, that a pro-defense Republican President (Mitt Romney) and a Republican Senate would get elected, and that further damage to America’s defense would be stopped. These hopes were quickly dashed, however. The Congress has proved itself to be completely unable to resolve this (or any other important) issue before or after the November elections, and in those elections, thanks partially to Republicans’ issues with Romney and to third party candidates Gary Johnson and Virgil Goode, Republicans got trounced across the board, losing the presidential and Senate elections (Republicans actually lost two seats on net) and losing a number of seats in the House.

The results produced the same kind of a deadlocked government that has existed since 2009. The same kind of deadlocked government that nearly shut down in April 2011 and nearly caused America to default on its obligations for the first time ever in August 2011.

At the same time, Republicans have tolerated, and continue to tolerate, in their ranks pseudoconservative Congressmen and Senators who support deep defense cuts (indeed, lead campaigns for such cuts), oppose solutions to sequestration, oppose giving American troops what they need, and collaborate with the House’s most strident liberals for that purpose. And yet, Republicans and so-called “conservative” media and groups – such as ConservativeHQ and the American Spectator – hail these Republican traitors as “conservatives”, “conservative heroes”, and “Reagan heroes”.

And now, thanks to these indecisive elections and the deadlocked federal government, and the two parties’ failure to agree on any replacement for sequestration whatsoever, the sequester will kick in on January 2nd and slash defense spending across the board by 10%. Only personnel spending will be exempted. Ironically, that is the largest and fastest growing part of the defense budget, which is eating the rest of the budget alive and crowding out all other parts of it. Without reforms and significant cuts to personnel spending, the US military will, as CSBA’s Todd Harrison warns, some day become unable to carry out even the simplest tasks. Yet, it is the sole part of the budget exempt from sequestration – and the FY2013 NDAA just passed by Congress also prohibits any meaningful reforms to that part.

So this is a very sad Christmas for us defense conservatives – indeed, for all genuine conservatives. Four years of reckless defense cuts are culminating in what will be the deepest cuts to defense spending, inventories, and modernization programs since the 1950s – even deeper than the cuts that followed the end of the Vietnam and Cold Wars. The US military will be completely gutted as a result, with all the military, diplomatic, and economic consequences stemming from that.

A very sad Christmas, indeed.

Rebuttal of POLITICO and liberal Republicans’ blatant lies

On December 12th, the leftist POLITICO magazine published a litany of blatant lies about defense spending and conservatism, a screed that gushed over pro-defense cuts Republicans such as Mick Mulvaney (RINO-SC). The author was Kate Nocera.

The article opens with the false claim that:

“It’s been an article of faith for the GOP: Thou shalt not cut defense spending.

But with the sequester threatening to slash hundreds of billions from the Pentagon budget, a surprising number of Republicans are ready to violate that commandment.”

The first part of this is patently false. Republicans have never had such an article of faith or commandment – it has never been an official party policy or the official policy of a majority of Congressional Republicans or a GOP Administration. In fact, Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford all cut defense spending deeply, and during the 1980s and the 1990s, Congressional Republicans joined the Democrats in cutting defense spending, with cuts continuing until FY1999.

The GOP has never had such an “article of faith” or “commandment”.

Nocera further writes that:

“This new generation of conservatives in Congress, freed from the ideologies of the Cold War and Reagan-era defense buildups, is pushing Republicans to buck their tradition and put defense on the chopping block in pursuit of a truly smaller federal government.”

Ah, the dastardly “ideologies of the Cold War and Reagan-era defense buildups”… which won the Cold War without firing a shot! Nocera thinks it’s so good that these RINOs are “freed” from these “ideologies” and from the GOP’s former strong-defense policies.

I said RINOs, because that’s whom they really are. If you support deep cuts in America’s defense, you are NOT a conservative regardless of what your opinions on other issues are. You can be the staunchest pro-lifer and the most ardent fiscal hawk and it doesn’t matter if you support massive defense cuts, as these RINO do.

Furthermore, deep defense cuts would do NOTHING to advance the cause of “a truly smaller federal government”. All they would do would be gutting America’s defense. Defense spending is not a threat to small government; entitlement spending and other unconstitutional federal programs, including domestic discretionary programs, are. The vast majority of them are unconstitutional, and entitlements alone account for 62% of all federal spending.

Nocera says that “Mulvaney has been outspoken about the need to find savings in the defense budget” and then uncritically quotes RINO Congressman Mick Mulvaney (whom she falsely calls “one of the most conservative members of the House) as saying:

“If we don’t take defense spending seriously, it undermines our credibility on other spending issues. When we speak candidly about a spending problem and we then seek to puff up the defense budget and it leads people to believe that we aren’t taking the problem seriously.”

But that is utter garbage. Firstly, the Defense Department has already contributed $900 bn to deficit reduction (through the massive program killings of 2009 and 2010, the Gates Efficiencies Initiative, and the $487 bn first tranche of BCA-mandated defense cuts, announced in January 2012 by Sec. Panetta), while no other federal agency or program has contributed ANYTHING meaningful to that goal. Secondly, Republicans do NOT have to agree to significant defense cuts to have credibility on “other spending issues”, because  government programs and agencies are NOT equally important and equally lawful. Defense is the #1 Constitutional DUTY of the federal government, while the vast majority of federal agencies and programs are unconstitutional.

Thirdly, a prudent budgeter does not cut spending across the board without looking at what he’s cutting. A prudent budgeter sets priorities, funds them fully, and cuts back on all nonpriorities.

Fourthly, it is ridiculous, unconservative, and dangerous for national security to deeply cut defense spending just to “prove” to the public that you’re serious about cutting government spending.

Nocera further writes that:

“In an op-ed in the Arizona Republic, Gosar argued that Congress needs to let the sequester cuts go through.

“We either have a spending problem or we don’t,” Gosar said in an interview. “Going back to the military budget of 2009 — we’re still going to have the biggest military in the world. If we can’t go over this bump, we’ll never be able to get anything big done.”

“A little pain allows the medicine to go down,” the former dentist added. “We’ll at least be treating the problem in order for us to get well again.””

Again, those are blatant lies. Firstly, as already proven on this website months ago, sequestration would actually take defense spending back to its FY2003 level, not the level of FY2009. In FY2003, China’s and Russia’s military buildups were only in their early stages, and the world was not nearly as dangerous as it is today. Secondly, the US does not have the largest military in the world (China does) or the largest nuclear arsenal in the world (Russia does), and if sequestration kicks in, the size of the military will be significantly cut. Thirdly, while America does have a spending problem, it is NOT because of defense spending. Fourthly, sequestration would not be a mere “bump” or “a litle pain” – it would be a 31% cut in defense spending, almost as deep as the cuts that followed the end of the Vietnam and Cold Wars. It would cut defense spending down to $469 bn in January and keep it below $500 bn (and well below today’s level) for the remainder of the sequestration decade. Fifth, the idea that if we don’t cut defense spending, we’ll never be able to get anything big done is ridiculous and false. Defense spending is NOT the cause of America’s fiscal woes. Congress needs to cut the REAL source of these fiscal woes – entitlements – not defense spending (which has already been cut).

Georgia Congressman Austin Scott, for his part, falsely claims that:

“The problem with the sequester is not the cuts, but how the cuts are made. It cuts things that are not necessary at the same level it cuts things that quite honestly are necessary.”No, Congressman. The problem with sequestration is BOTH the depth of the cuts AND the way these cuts would be made. This is because the cuts would be so deep that there wouldn’t be nearly enough money for training, operations, the maintenance of existing equipment and bases, and the development and acquisition of new equipment. See here.

Kate Nocera further falsely claims that:

“Amash, whose outlook on foreign policy is decidedly more libertarian, called his party’s unwillingness to even look at cutting defense spending “frightening.”

“I think they are willing to raise taxes to avoid defense cuts. I think they are willing to take really bad deals to avoid defense cuts,” he said at a Heritage Foundation event last week. “I’m not calling for some massive reduction in defense spending … but they aren’t even willing to look at reducing it to George W. Bush levels.”

“A party that’s not even willing to look at that, that’s a frightening scenario,” he added.”

But those are blatant lies. Firstly, the GOP is, and has been, more than willing to look at defense spending: it has already agreed to massive defense cuts. It agreed to the killing of over 50 crucial weapon programs (including the F-22, the MKV, the KEI, the Airborne Laser, the Zumwalt class, the C-17, the CGX cruiser class, etc.) in 2009 and 2010, to ratify the New START unilateral nuclear cuts treaty, to Sec. Gates’ Efficiencies Initiative (worth $178 bn), and to the first tranche of defense cuts mandated by the Budget Control Act ($487 bn).

Furthermore, during the current negotiations with President Obama and Congressional Democrats, GOP leaders, including Speaker Boehner, have refused to rule out further defense cuts, as reported by DefenseNews. Sens. Lindsey Graham and John McCain are also okay with further defense cuts as long as the Iranian threat is eliminated.

Any claim that the GOP is unwilling to even look at cutting defense spending is a blatant lie, and those who are spreading it are children of the Father of Lies himself.

And Amash, despite his pious denials, IS calling for a massive reduction in defense spending. As Nocera’s own article admits, he supports sequestration (which would be a massive, 31% cut) and the massive defense cuts proposed by leftist think-tanks such as the PDA, the Soros-funded CATO Institute, and the Soros-funded POGO. Cuts which would be targeted at the muscle and bone of the US military, not at waste (e.g. deep unilateral cuts in America’s nuclear deterrent and in the US Navy’s ship fleet).

Furthermore, sequestration WOULD set defense spending back to “George W. Bush levels” – specifically, to the EARLY Bush levels of FY2003. If the FY2009 level ($512 bn in CY2009 dollars, i.e. $552.05 bn in CY2012 dollars) is what Congressman Amash meant, here’s some newsflash: the first tranche of BCA-mandated defense cuts will bring defense spending down to $521 bn, well BELOW its FY2009 level.

“Amash was one of a quartet of House Republican lawmakers removed from committees for going against their leadership. He remarked at the Heritage event that he thinks a key similarity he shares with the other booted members is their “positions on military spending that are a little more open to compromise.””

“A little more open to compromise” is a huge understatement. Amash, as stated above, supports deep, reckless defense cuts: sequestration (as documented by Nocera’s own article) and the deep cuts proposed by leftist think-tanks such as the Soros-funded CATO Institute and POGO and the Massachusetts-based, Barney-Frank-supported PDA. Amash simply spits on the Constitution and on America’s defense, and he supports deep, reckless defense cuts. If that is why he was booted from the Budget Committee, Boehner was right to boot him.

“Rep. James Lankford (R-Okla.), who voted for the debt deal that eventually led to the sequester, said cuts must be made to the mandatory side of the ledger as well as to the Pentagon “to make a long-term impact” on the debt.”

Actually, defense cuts DON’T have to be made to “make a long-term impact on the debt”. The budget can be balanced without defense cuts, as proven by the budget proposals of Chairman Ryan, the Republican Study Committee, Sen. Toomey, and Sen. Lee. Furthermore, even deep defense cuts would make no short- or long-term impact on the debt, because defense spending is just a small part of the federal budget. To make any impact on the debt, one has to cut ENTITLEMENTS.

Nocera’s article is a litany of blatant lies – some of which are hers, some of which were made by the RINOs she uncritically quotes. Shame on her and them for lying so blatantly.

One piece of good news is that at least Congressman Paul Broun (R-GA), a staunch conservative who, like me, supports abolishing the Education Department and the EPA, opposes any further defense cuts:

“Defense cuts are going to be tragic for our national security. … We’re cutting our defense into muscle and bone. We need to be building up our military and not cutting it.”

Finally, a voice of reason.

http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/some-republicans-ok-with-defense-cuts-84942.html?ml=po_r

Rebuttal of Ed Markey’s and other Dems’ blatant lies

On December 12th, extremely leftist Congressman Ed Markey and 44 other stridently leftist Democrats sent a letter to the Republican and Democrat leaders of both houses of Congress again calling for spending on America’s nuclear deterrent to be cut by over $100 bn over the next decade… ignoring the fact that this would save only $10 bn per year, and thus do NOTHING to reduce the budget deficit or the debt, while gravely harming US national security and inviting a Russian nuclear first strike.

Their entire letter is a litany of blatant lies. They falsely claim, in the opening paragraph of the letter, that

“Our oversized nuclear weapons arsenal fails to reflect historical reality.  Our spending on radioactive relics of the past requires a reality check.  We won the Cold War.  The Berlin Wall fell.  The threats we face today have dramatically changed in the past two decades.”

But those are blatant lies. The mere fact that the Cold War is over and the Berlin Wall is gone (and BTW, during the Cold War these strident liberals were undermining Ronald Reagan at every turn; had they had their way, the Soviet Union would’ve won the Cold War) does NOT mean that America can deeply cut its nuclear deterrent further or that nuclear weapons are relics of a bygone era. Quite the contrary. America needs its nuclear deterrent now more than ever. It needs that arsenal to deter Russia, China, North Korea, and in the future, Iran, and to provide a nuclear umbrella to over 30 allies who rely on it, thus showing them that they don’t need to develop nuclear arsenals of their own. The threats America faces today have mostly changed in origin, but not in nature. The need for a large nuclear deterrent is more pronounced than ever.

America’s nuclear arsenal is not oversized at all. It is already far smaller than it was at the end of the Cold War (and at any point in that period except the 1940s and the early 1950s). It numbers ca. 5,000 warheads today, whereas at the end of the Cold War, it numbered 20,000. The current arsenal is – as two successive STRATCOM commanders, Gen. Kevin Chilton and Gen. Bob Kehler and former SECDEF James Schlesinger have stated – the bare minimum to deter potential adversaries and protect America and its friends. Russia has 2,800 strategic warheads (1,492 of them deployed), untold thousands of tactical nukes, and a huge fleet of delivery systems: 434 ICBMs, 14 ballistic missile subs, over 200 strategic bombers with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, and thousands of tactical nuclear delivery systems. Its ICBM fleet alone can deliver 1,684 warheads to the US. China has at least 1,800, and up to 3,000, nuclear warheads, and possesses at least 36 DF-5, 30 DF-31/31A, and a number of DF-41 MIRVable ICBMs, plus 6 ballistic missile subs.

Any claim that the US nuclear arsenal is “oversized” is a blatant lie. This also utterly belies their false claim that “We can save hundreds of billions of dollars by restructuring the U.S. nuclear program for the 21st century.” The US nuclear program/arsenal is already in line with the 21st century, as demonstrated above.

They also falsely claim that “Unchecked spending on nuclear weapons threatens to push us over the fiscal cliff.” But US nuclear weapons spending is anything but “unchecked”, and it does not threaten to push America over the fiscal cliff. According to the Stimson Center, America’s total annual nuclear arsenal spending is $32 bn per year, and the US is expected to spend $352 bn – $392 bn over the next decade (i.e. just $39.2 bn per year) to maintain and modernize its nuclear arsenal. $32 bn is just 4.8% of the FY2012 military budget. $39.2 bn per year would amount to just 6%. As a share of the total federal budget, nuclear weapon spending is even lower: just 1% of the federal budget. It’s peanuts. And it is reviewed, authorized, and appropriated every year by Congress. Thus, it is not “unchecked”; it is under strict Congressional control. And cutting it deeply would not save more than a pittance. Moreover, due to its small size, it’s no threat to any other government programs.

Thus, due to its small size, the nuclear weapons budget belies these strident liberals’ false claim that “Our bloated nuclear weapons budget defies fiscal reality” and their equally false claims that:

“It imperils both our national and economic security.   It makes us less safe by preventing investment in the systems that our soldiers need most.  It jeopardizes our future by forcing cuts to programs that fund life-saving medical research, train teachers, and ensure seniors and the most vulnerable receive essential healthcare.”

No, it is the reckless, deep, unilateral cuts to America’s nuclear deterrent and its budget which these strident liberals advocate that threatens national security. Furthermore, what our soldiers (and US citizens) need most is an umbrella protecting them against the most catastrophic threats: nuclear, chemical, biological, or massive conventional attack. Only the US nuclear deterrent can do this. Strategic bombers also provide strategic bombing of targets deep inside enemy territory and close air support to ground troops, and have done so in every war the US has partaken in since WW2. Long range strike – the other mission of strategic bombers – will be one of the most crucial ones in the future, as documented by the CSBA’s Mark Gunzinger.

No, nuclear weapons spending is not preventing investment in anything else nor siphoning money away from anything. It’s too small to do that.

And no, the small nuclear weapons budget is not forcing cuts to any medical research, teacher training, or Medicare and Medicaid. In fact, Medicare and Medicaid have been growing on autopilot ever since these programs’ creation. Moreover, constitutionally, all of these issues and programs are none of the federal government’s business – they are the purview of state and local governments, families, and the private sector.

In terms of research, including “life-saving medical research”, the US is the world’s undisputed leader, accounting for over 33% of world research spending, and by far the most of that money goes to medical, pharmaceutical, and biotech research: $40.6 bn per year by the top 10 American companies alone. (Not counting spending by smaller companies and by government agencies.)

No, nuclear weapons spending does not imperil US national or economic security. Quite the contrary, it safeguards both. It protects America and its allies against the most catastrophic threats at a cost of just 5% of the total military budget and 1% of the total federal budget.

They also falsely claim that “We know there is plenty of waste in the nuclear weapons budget.” But that’s also a blatant lie.

There isn’t any significant “waste” there. What Markey and his fellow leftist Democrats call “waste” are actually crucial nuclear weapon and system/facility modernization programs, including B61 nuclear bomb modernization (needed to provide a nuclear umbrella to Europe, threatened by Russia’s strategic and tactical nuclear weapons; the US has only 400 tactical nuclear warheads while Russia has 10 times that many); the planned Uranium Production Facility in Tennessee, necessary to produce highly-enriched uranium to keep American nuclear warheads available; the CMRR facility planned for Los Alamos, New Mexico, necessary to replace obsolete, decrepit Manhattan Project era facilities; the current ICBMs and B-2 stealth bombers providing two legs of the nuclear triad and thus keeping the peace; and the Next Generation Bomber, needed to replace America’s obsolete B-52 and B-1 bombers (which cannot survive in any defended airspace) in both the nuclear and the conventional long range strike roles.

Citing what they claim to be “waste”, they falsely claim that:

“We are refurbishing a nuclear bomb that no one wants.  We are building a Uranium processing facility we do not need. We are planning for a new nuclear bomber when the ones we have will last for decades.  In fact, just one nuclear bomb life extension program will cost $10 billion for an estimated 400 weapons.”

But the Uranium Processing Facility is needed, and the B61 bomb, which they falsely claim is a bomb “that no one wants”, is actually very much needed to protect America’s European allies from Russia; in the last 2years, at least several European countries, including France and Turkey, have urged America to keep its tactical B61 nuclear warheads in Europe, thus belying the claim that it’s “a bomb that no one wants” – it’s a bomb which only pacifists don’t want America to have. Several NATO countries have warned America against cutting its nuclear arsenal further, saying it threatens NATO’s integrity. And the B61′s modernization cost ($10 bn) will be spread over many years, not one year. If spread over 5 years, it amounts to only $2 bn per annum.

As for the next generation bomber, which will be nuclear- AND conventional-strike-capable, it is likewise very much needed RIGHT NOW. B-52 and B-1 bombers have huge radar signatures and are extremely easy for even legacy Soviet air defense systems (not to mention the newest Russian and Chinese systems like the S-300, S-400, and HQ-9) to detect and shoot down and are therefore useless in anything but the most benign environment where the only opponents are insurgents unable to contest control of the air. Sending American pilots in these bombers into enemy airspace would be a death sentence on them. It would consign them to a certain death or capture (and probably torture). Shame on these House liberals for advocating this fate for brave American pilots. For more on the need for a Next Generation Bomber, see here, here, here, and here.

Air Force Secretary Michael Donley (appointed by Gates) has recently reaffirmed the need for the NGB, while also demonstrating how little this program, and bomber programs in general, cost compared to the USAF’s total modernization budget:

“The new Long-Range Strike bomber is one of our top priorities and encompasses approximately two percent of Air Force investment. An additional three percent over the next five years goes to sustain and modernize the B-52, B-1, and B-2 bombers to ensure these aging aircraft remain viable.”

Among the most lethal and most pervasive threats today is that of anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) weapons, such as short/medium-range ballistic missiles (which threaten in-theater American bases, forcing the USAF to fly bombers from distant bases) and air defense systems (which can shoot down any nonstealthy aircraft). B-52s and B-1s don’t stand a chance of surviving in such environment. The Next Generation Bomber is absolutely necessary to counter these threats and strike targets deep within enemy territory. It is an integral, sine qua non part of the DOD’s new AirSea Battle strategy of countering A2/AD threats. Without it, the US military won’t be able to hit the enemy or operate inside enemy airspace.

These strident liberals claim that ”Cuts to nuclear weapons programs upwards of $100 billion over the next 10 years are possible.”

While they are technically “possible”, they would be foolish and disastrous for national security. Deeply cutting the already meagre investments in America’s nuclear deterrent, deeply cutting it in size, and foregoing its modernization – as these strident liberals advocate – would greatly jeopardize America’s national security and invite a Russian or Chinese nuclear first strike on the US for the reasons stated above.

They also cite the Ploughshares Fund’s completely false, vastly exaggerated “estimate” of what the US nuclear arsenal costs and what its maintenance and modernization will cost in the next decade:

“The Ploughshares Fund estimates that the U.S. is projected to spend over $640 billion on nuclear weapons and related programs over the next ten years.”

But Ploughshares’ figure is completely false. The correct figure, as stated above, is the Stimson Center’s: 352 bn to 392 bn over the next decade, i.e. no more than 39.2 bn per year (i.e. just 6% of the total military budget and a fraction of one percent of total federal spending). That’s a drop in the bucket.

Ploughshares released its utterly false, vastly exaggerated numbers earlier this year, and was rebuked by the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler, who gave Ploughshares two Pinnochios for that claim. Ploughshares is an utterly biased organization which seeks deep, unilateral cuts in America’s nuclear deterrent and its eventual elimination. Thus, it has an incentive to lie and to exaggerate nuclear weapon costs. It’s not a credible source at all. It’s a group of shameless liars.

The strident liberals’ letter closes as follows:

“Cut Minuteman missiles.  Do not cut Medicare and Medicaid.  Cut nuclear-armed B-52 and B-2 bombers.  Do not cut Social Security.  Invest in the research and education that will drive our future prosperity, not in weapons for a war we already won.”

But, as demonstrated above, nuclear weapons are needed now even more than during the Cold War. They’re not relics of a bygone era; they’re needed to deter Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran. And eliminating all American ICBMs would “save” only $1.1 bn per year, while eliminating all USAF nuclear bombers would “save” only $2.5 bn per year. Furthermore, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and federal research and education programs are utterly unconstitutional (as they are outside the Constitutional powers of the federal government), while providing for America’s defense is the #1 Constitutional DUTY of the federal government.

Furthermore, not cutting Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security means that the budget deficit (not to mention the public debt) will never be erased, because these three entitlement programs alone amount to 62% of the ENTIRE federal budget. THEY are crowding out defense spending (including nuclear weapons spending), not vice versa. Even eliminating all military spending would fail to even halve the budget deficit, let alone erase it.

Even eliminating all USAF ICBMs and bombers would not pay for even a fraction of the coming tsunami of entitlement spending, or even the incoming continued growth of SS spending.

These strident liberal Democrats’ claims are all blatant lies, and their demands must be completely rejected.

The letter was signed by Ed Markey, John Conyers, Jr., Rush D. Holt, Barbara Lee, Raul M. Grijalva, Charles B. Rangel, Lynn Woolsey, Donna M.C. Christensen, Peter A. DeFazio, Jared Polis, Sam Farr, Jerrold Nadler, Michael M. Honda, Barney Frank, James P. McGovern, Hansen Clarke, Earl Blumenauer, Alcee L. Hastings, Maxine Waters, Jan Schakowsky, Keith Ellison, William Lacy Clay, Lois Capps, Bruce Braley, John Yarmuth, James P. Moran, Peter Welch, Timothy H. Bishop, John W. Olver, John F. Tierney, Marcy Kaptur, Laura Richardson, Richard E. Neal, John Lewis, Janice Hahn, Donna Edwards, Maurice D. Hinchey, Betty McCollum, William Keating, Jim McDermott, David E. Price, Yvette D. Clarke, Carolyn B. Maloney, Doris Matsui, and Hank Johnson. In other words, the most strident liberals in the House.

http://markey.house.gov/press-release/markey-house-dems-leadership-unneeded-nuclear-weapons-spending-should-be-cut-help; http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/fiscal-cliff-talks-prompt-new-call-curb-us-nuke-spending/; http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/legislation-seeks-100b-nuke-spending-cuts/

Russia’s huge nuclear arsenal: the single biggest threat to the US

Today we will analyze Russia’s huge nuclear arsenal, to the extent that information on it is available. Russia is the largest nuclear power in the world, with 2,800 strategic nuclear warheads (1,492 of them deployed) and untold thousands of tactical nuclear warheads, deployed and nondeployed. We will look at both the strategic and the tactical arsenal, assesing their size, diversity, survivability, and mobility, and I will show you that it is the single biggest security threat to the US and that it, by itself, justifies maintaining a large nuclear triad of ICBMs, SSBNs, and strategic bombers.

Russia’s strategic arsenal

Russia’s strategic nuclear arsenal consists of 2,800 warheads (1,492 of them deployed, as of the latest New START data exchange) and their delivery systems: ICBMs, submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) deployed on ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), and strategic bombers.

Russia currently possesses several types of ICBMs. It has 58 R-36M Voyevoda (SS-18 Satan) heavy ICBMs (each of which can carry 10 warheads and up to 30 countermeasures to evade missile defense systems), 136 UR-100N (SS-19 Stilletto) ICBMs (each of which can carry 6 warheads), 144 single-warhead RT-2PM  Topol (SS-25 Sickle) ICBMs, 72 single-warhead RT-2UTTH (SS-27 Sickle-B) ICBMs, and 18 RS-24 Yars (SS-29) missiles (with 4 warheads each).

Collectively, these ICBMs combined could carry 1,684 warheads (plus countermeasures), although they are not currently loaded with that many due to the New START treaty (which sets a ceiling of 1,550 deployed strategic warheads per side). But this is still far more than the meager 1,350 warheads that America’s 450 Minuteman-III ICBMs could carry (each of them can carry only 3 warheads).

Russia is now developing a new multiple-warhead ICBM, to be introduced in 2015, and a new heavy ICBM (“the son of Satan”), to be deployed in 2018. By 2020, 80% of Russia’s ICBM fleet is to be new, i.e. consisting of missiles other than the Soviet-era SS-18, SS-19, and SS-25.

More on that here in this must-read article.

Russia’s Navy has 14 SSBNs: 12 of the Delta III and Delta IV classes, one Borei class sub, and one Typhoon class sub (which is currently used as a test platform but can be armed with active duty SLBMs anytime).

The 12 Delta class SSBNs can carry 16 SLBMs each, as can the sole Borei class sub. The sole Typhoon class sub, the Dmitri Donskoy, can carry 20 missiles.

What missiles do Russian submarines currently carry? New, improved variants of the R-29 SLBM such as the R-29RMU Sinyeva, with a range of over 11,000 kms, which enables Russian SSBNs to hit any targets in the US while being in port or in home waters. Russian SSBNs have had that capability since the early 1990s, although the Sinyeva missile itself was introduced in 2007. The RSM-56 Bulava (SS-NX-30) SLBM has a range of up to 16,000 kms.

Russian SLBMs have various warhead carriage capacities. The R-29RM Shtil, introduced in 1986, can carry four warheads over a distance of 8,300 kms. The R-29RMU Sinyeva (SS-N-23 skiff) can carry 4 warheads over 11,547 kms. The R-29RMU2.1 Liner has the same range and can carry 12 warheads. The Bulava will have a range of 16,000 kilometers and be able to carry 10 warheads.

The 13 SSBNs other than the Typhoon class boat can collectively carry 204 SLBMs (13*16); the Typhoon clas can carry another 20. That is a collective carriage capacity of 2040-2240 warheads.

The USN’s current SSBN fleet, consisting of 14 Ohio class boats, can carry 24 missiles per boat, with 8 warheads per missile. 14*24=336 missiles. 336*2688 warheads, far more than what Russia’s submarine fleet can carry.

But the USN plans to replace its aging fleet of Ohio class SSBNs with only 12 boats, each of which will be able to carry only 16 SLBMs. That will reduce their missile launch capacity to only 192 (12*16) SLBMs and only 1536 (192*8) warheads, compared to 2240 for Russia.

If proposals by pacifist groups that the future SSBN fleet be cut to just 8 boats are implemented, this will cut the Navy’s SLBM launch capacity to only 128 (8*16) SLBMs and only 1024 (128*8) warheads, compared to 2240 for Russia.

In the future, Russia plans to replace 7 of its Delta class SSBNs with Borei class boats. 5 of these new Borei class boats (from Knyaz Vladimir onwards) will be able to carry 20 SLBMs each. Thus, the future Russian SSBN fleet will consist of 8 Borei class boats (Yuri Dolgoruki and the other seven), 4-5 Delta class SSBNs, and the sole Typhoon class boat. The four Deltas and the first three Boreis will be able to carry  16 SLBMs each, i.e. a total of 7*16=112 SLBMs, while the other five Boreis will carry 20 SLBMs each, a total of 100 missiles, for a total fleet missile carriage capacity of 212 SLBMs (R-29M/RM or SS-NX-30 Bulava missiles).

Each of them can carry 10 warheads, so that will give them the capability to deliver 2120 warheads.

Throw in another 20 SLBMs and 200 warheads, and you get a delivery capacity of 2320 warheads. In either case, that is far more than what the USN will have, under any scenario, with the new SSBN fleet. Even if all 12 boats are built.

The Russian Air Force, for its part, has 64 Tu-95, at least 16 (and probably more) Tu-160, and over 183 Tu-22M supersonic[1] strategic bombers; the Russian Naval Aviation has another 58 Tu-22Ms. (The first two have an unrefuelled intercontinental combat radius; the Tu-22M is also intercontinental if refueled mid-air.) Another 3 are waiting for completion at their Kazan plant, another 6 are owned by the Zhukovsky experimental facility (but could be used for bomber duty), and another 7 are in Ukraine and could be transferred to Russia in exchange for cheaper Russian natural gas.[2] Each of these bombers can carry at least several nuclear-tipped cruise missiles; the Tu-95 and the Tu-22M can also carry nuclear freefall bombs, and the Tu-160 could be modified to do so. At least 20 Russian strategic bombers are on patrol anytime.

The standard cruise missile of the Russian bomber fleet is the Raduga Kh-55 (AS-15 Kent) nuclear-tipped cruise missile whose standard variant has a range of 2,500 kms and its Kh-55SM variant has a range of 3,000 kms. Every Kh-55 missile can carry a 200 kT warhead. (China and India also possess these missiles.) Each Tu-95 and Tu-22M can carry six AS-15 missiles and one nuclear bomb. A Tu-160 bomber can carry twice as many AS-15 cruise missiles: 12.

As with the other two legs of its nuclear triad, Russia is now modernizing its bomber fleet by producing new Tu-160 bombers from stockpiled components and developing a new strategic bomber, the PAK DA (Prospective Aviation System of Long-Range Aviation).

Russia’s huge tactical nuclear arsenal (estimated by the Obama Administration to be 10 times larger than America’s) can be delivered by a very wide range of delivery systems, including short-ranged ballistic missiles, ship- and air-launched cruise missiles, surface warships (nuclear depth charges), artillery pieces, tactical strike aircraft (e.g. Su-24s, Su-25s, Su-27s/30s/33s/35s, and Su-34s). Russia has at least 1,040-2,000 deployed tactical nuclear warheads (according to various estimates listed here on p. 6), and 2,000-4,000 tactical nuclear warheads in total according to ASDEF for Global Strategic Affairs Madelyn Creedon (p. 6).

Russia currently plans to significantly grow its arsenal of ICBMs and bombers. This year, the Russian Government tripled ICBM production, and by 2020, it will procure 400 new ICBMs – partly to grow the fleet and partly to replace older ICBMs. It is also developing a new heavy ICBM (to replace the SS-18 Satan), a new 100-ton missile with a “global range” and a conventional warhead, a new middle weight ICBM called the Avangard, and a new rail-based ICBM (which will likely be an RS-24 Yars derivative). None of these ICBMs will be limited by New START. Russia is also building additional Tu-160 bombers from stockpiled components. Because Russia was below New START ceilings, and because that pathetic treaty has many loopholes large enough to drive a truck through them, Russia is allowed to significantly build up its strategic arsenal. The US is not.

Overall, Russia plans to spend 21 trillion roubles (i.e. $770 bn) on new equipment during the next decade.

In total, Russia has an arsenal of 2,800 strategic nuclear warheads, all of which are deliverable, but only 1,492 of which are deployed due to New START limits (with 58 additional ones to be deployed soon to max out the New START limit) while the other 1,250 are in reserve. Russia will thus soon be at 1,550 strategic nuclear warheads and enjoy strategic nuclear parity with the US (pre-New-START, the US had a significant advantage in the number of deployed strategic warheads).

Moreover, New START stipulates only a limit on the total number of deployed warheads and their delivery systems (with bombers, not cruise missiles, counted as delivery systems) and does not limit how many warheads or cruise missiles a bomber can carry or how many warheads an ICBM can carry. New START counts each Russian bomber as carrying one warhead, even if it carries 6 or more.[3]

All three legs of the Russian nuclear triad are now undergoing a significant modernization, and all of them will see their delivery capacity increased in the years ahead.

Delivery system name	Quantity	Warhead carriage capacity per system	Total warhead carriage capacity
SS-18 ICBM	58	10	580
SS-19 ICBM	136	6	816
SS-25 ICBM	144	1	144
SS-27 ICBM	74	1	72
SS-29/RS-24 ICBM	18	4	72
Tu-95 bomber/w Kh-55 ALCMs*	63[4]	6	378[4]
Tu-160 bomber/w Kh-55 ALCMs*	At least 16	12	192
Tu-22M bomber w/Kh-55 ALCMs*		6
Delta/Borei class SSBN w/R-29RMU SLBMs	13	16*x	16*x*13
Typhoon class SSBN	1	200	200
Su-34 strike jet	24	1	24
Su-24/25 strike jet	Over 415	1	Over 415
Iskander SRBM
SSN/SSGN w/SLCMs	21	?	?

*Strategic bombers, not their cruise missiles, are counted by the New START as delivery systems, even though all bombers can deliver more than one CM. For purposes of this table, bombers are counted as delivery systems, but the warhead carriage capacity given is the one for all CMs combined carried by all bombers of a given type in the fleet combined. The Tu-22M is not even counted by New START as a delivery system at all, despite being a strategic bomber.

Tactical nuclear arsenal

If the US enjoys a strategic nuclear parity with Russia, it is wholly and hugely outclassed by Moscow in terms of tactical nuclear warheads of these. Russia has untold thousands of them, with estimates ranging from 4,000 to 14,000. The Obama Administration itself admits Russia has 10 times more of these than the US. Yet, no treaty limits these warheads or even obligates Russia to say how many of them it has.

Russia’s arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons is not only very large, but also very diverse, and includes the following: ballistic missile and cruise missile warheads, torpedo warheads, depth charges, and artillery shells. They can be delivered by a very wide range of delivery systems, including:

• Su-27, Su-30, Su-35, Su-24, and Su-25 aircraft;
• Su-34 medium range strike aircraft;
• short-range ballistic missiles such as the Iskander (SS-26 Stone);
• ship-, submarine-, and aircraft-launched cruise missiles such as the BrahMos;
• torpedoes;
• destroyers and frigates;
• artillery shells.

Again, it is not known how many tactical nuclear warheads or their delivery systems Russia has, but the warheads are estimated to number in the high thousands. A Russian general has stated that by the end of this decade there will be an Iskander SRBM brigade in every district of Russia except the Kaliningrad district. The Russians have also threatened to deploy Iskander SRBMs in Kaliningrad, too.

It is not known if the PAKFA stealth fighter is or will be capable of carrying nuclear bombs.

Conclusions

At present, Russia has the largest nuclear arsenal on Earth, although its deployed strategic nuclear arsenal is somewhat smaller than America’s – 1,492 warheads versus America’s over 1,700. This will cease to be true by 2018, however, as the US is obligated to cut its deployed arsenal to 1,550 warheads while Russia is allowed to grow its deployed strategic arsenal to that level, up 58 from today’s level of 1,492.

Russia’s total strategic nuclear arsenal consists of 2,800 warheads.

Meanwhile, Russia’s tactical nuclear arsenal is vastly bigger than America’s (10 times bigger according to the Obama Administration) and deliverable by a much wider range of missiles than America’s (which is deliverable only by aircraft).

Any notion that the US could unilaterally reduce its nuclear arsenal any further below New START limits and still be able to deter Russia (let alone Russia, China, and North Korea combined), let alone make deep unilateral cuts to the mere hundreds of warheads and still be able to deter Russia, is ridiculous, nonsensical, childish, and patently false. In other words, it’s a blatant lie. America’s present nuclear arsenal is the bare minimum required to deter Russia.

Footnotes:

[1] The maximum speed of Tu-22M bombers is Mach 1.88.

[2] In 1992, Russia obtained 9 Tu-160 bombers from Ukraine this way.

[3] Mark Schneider, Russian Nuclear Modernization, National Institute for Public Policy, June 2012.

[4] Wikipedia says Russia has 72 Tu-95 bombers with a total load of 704 cruise missiles, one warhead per missile.

The demographic changes ongoing in East Asia

East Asia is undergoing significant demographic changes right now. Reputed China hand Gordon G. Chang has even exaggerated the changes by claiming that East Asia, including China, is dying. He cites the low total fertility rates of Japan, China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau, and Singapore.

It is true that these countries will face a demographic crisis in the near future. The latter three countries have the lowest total fertility rates in the world: Singapore the lowest at 0.78 child per woman, Macau at 0.92, Hong Kong at 1.09, Taiwan at 1.10. South Korea is barely slightly better at 1.23 child per woman, Japan at 1.39, China at 1.55, Thailand at 1.66. Australia does slightly better at 1.77, but it’s still somewhat below the generation replacement rate (2.1 CPW).

But China’s total fertility rate, at 1.55 child per woman, is far better than the rate Chang claims (1.20 CPW), and impressive for a country where – as Chang admits – the one-child policy is strictly enforced.

Furthermore, many other countries of East and Southeast Asia have higher fertility rates – ones that are just slightly below, at, or above the population replacement rate.

For example, Vietnam has a rate of 1.89 child per woman; North Korea, 2.01; Sri Lanka, 2.17; Mongolia, 2.19; Chinese ally Burma, 2.23; Indonesia, also 2.23; Bangladesh, 2.55; India, 2.58; Cambodia, 2.78; Laos, 3.06; the Philippines, 3.15;  Papua New Guinea, 3.39.

So not all East and Southeast Asian countries are undergoing a demographic crisis; only some of them. North Korea is on track to retain its population, while South Korea’s population is projected to dwindle significantly; Burma’s and Laos’s population will grow, as well that of potential American allies like India, Vietnam, and the Philippines. Indeed, Filipino, Papuan, Laotian, Cambodian, and Indian women are very fertile and are giving birth to a lot of children these days.

This is not surprising. None of these countries has a foolish “one child policy” or a high abortion rate, and none of them has the culture that China has.

Most Chinese women are shallow, materialist princesses who want the richest guy they can get. And, given that they are vastly outnumbered by men in marriageable age, they can choose from among many men. Furthermore, the significant shortage of women in the age in which marriages are usually contracted means that China will suffer a significant demographic decline in the next 2o-30 years. To avoid it, it would need to abolish its one-child policy.

But the US is not doing any better. In the US, over one million unborn children are aborted every year. America’s population will hold roughly steady solely because of immigration. But most immigrants coming to the US these days are from the Third World, mostly from Hispanic countries like Mexico, and they don’t feel any allegiance to or affinity for the US. They consider themselves Mexican/Argentine/Brazilian/Venezuelan, not American. America is only their residence. They will not fight for America.

Meanwhile, the Philippines are poised for a demographic boom. This is not surprising; the vast majority of Filipino women just want a good, loving, caring husband and a family with many children. They don’t need a rich, handsome, or smoothly-talking guy. Indeed, they know that the best seducer is not the best husband.

The bottom line is that not all East Asian countries are poised to see a demographic crisis. Quite the contrary. Many will see their societes rejuvenate and grow. Only the countries listed by Chang will see their populations decline. Moreover, it is still not too late for China to reverse its demographic decline.

Free trade is for dupes and idiots

For decades, globalists and libertarian free trade ideologues have been telling us that free trade has been “good” for America, that it’s a traditional conservative/Republican policy, and that any suggestion that America should protect its industry – i.e. protectionism – is a Big Government policy and a betray of “free market principles”. Free trade is the religion of the CATO Institute, the Mercatus Center, the Heritage Foundation, and the so-called Club for (Corporate Profits) Growth, which should call itself the Club for Corporate CEOs’ Greed).

But they are wrong. Protectionism, not free trade, has traditionally been the policy of conservatives and Republicans, and it is the policy on which nations ascend economically; they descend on free trade.

Every nation which ever became a great power – from England under the Acts of Navigation, to Colbert’s France, to the US from 1861 to 1945, to postwar Japan, to China today – became such because it protected its economy (especially its industry).

Unlike Hamilton, Clay, and Lincoln, the free trade ideologues at the forementioned organizations never built a great nation.

Republicans won their first presidential election in 1860 (while also capturing the Senate) running on a pledge to institute tariffs to protect the industry. And they did. This nearly insulated America’s (or rather, the North’s) growing industry, allowing it to become the envy of the world. Successive Republican Presidents and Congresses continued these policies, shielding American industries with protective tariffs, thus allowing these industries to grow and leading America to overtake Britain (and the rest of the world) by all measures of industrial production (including coal mining and steel production) by the 1890s.

Protectionist tariffs on foreign products also allowed Congress to keep the books balanced and pay Civil War debts quickly while keeping taxes on Americans and American companies low. Before 1913, there wasn’t even any federal income tax.

America thus became the greatest industrial power on Earth, the envy of the world.

I said “successive Republican Presidents and Congresses”, because a protectionist economic policy proved itself to be not only economically successful, but also politically popular. From 1860 to 1924, the GOP – then known as the Party of Protection – put 12 presidents in the White House, versus only 2 Democrats.

By 1945, America, partially thanks to its protectionist policies and partially due to the destruction that WW2 inflicted on Europe and Asia, accounted for 42% of the world’s industrial production.

But then, something happened.

American political elites (including, increasingly, Republicans) caught the free trade virus and indulged in suicidal “free trade” economic policies.

The US joined the WTO organization, where it doesn’t have a vote, signed the GATT, and signed free trade agreements with many countries, opening its markets to their products while they kept their markets firmly closed to American goods and services.

Thus, the US stopped posting trade surpluses and, starting in 1971, began to run trade deficits which, since 1971, have been growing almost nonstop.

Big corporations, always greedily lusting for more profits and bigger salaries for their CEOs, began shipping jobs overseas.

By the 1980s, the situation was so dire that Ronald Reagan recognized the problem and asked the Congress to institute protective tariffs.

Yet, America’s slide towards the abyss on the skis greased by free traders was only slowed down, not stopped. In 1992, the US, at President Bush’s behest, suicidally signed NAFTA, opening its market to cheap Mexican products. In 1993, Republicans saved NAFTA from defeat by voting for it together with the pro-free-trade wing of the Democratic Party. Republicans literally rescued NAFTA from the dustbin of history (where it belongs) by voting for it – and thus own it.

The result? Millions of good-paying industrial jobs were lost, as factories were shipped to Mexico. Before 1993, the US had a trade surplus with Mexico. Since 1993, it has had a trade deficit with that country every single year.

In 1994, China began, on a large scale, its campaign to maximize its exports while closing its market to imports, and thus to steal Western industries, by devaluing its currency by 45%. Simoultaneously, tariffs on foreign products were hiked, and export rebates to Chinese exporters began to be provided, similarly to how they are provided in Japan.

(Japan has a 15% VAT rate on products sold on its soil, but it provides a rebate to its exporters for every product they sell abroad. So cars exported to the US face no American tariffs and are even rebated by the Japanese government, while American cars exported to Japan are taxed 15% as soon as they arrive at the Yokohama docks).

Yet, despite Chinese cheating on trade, the Congress – dominated by Republicans – gave China Most Favored Nation trade status, thus absolving Chinese products of most tariffs (while China did not reciprocate). In 2001, the Congress gave China that status permanently. In 2002, a Republican President allowed China to join the WTO. Thus, Chinese products enter America almost free of any tariffs or duties, but American products shipped to China are subject to steep tariffs.

Yet, Republicans, instead of learning from their mistakes, doubled down on their “free trade” policies. They gave Vietnam Most Favored Nation status in 2007. They gave President Bush an unconstitutional unilateral “expedited” negotiation authority to negotiate even more one-sided, unfair free trade agreements for dupes. They supported the FTAs Bush signed with Panama, Colombia, and South Korea late in his term.

In the 2008 election, all leading Republican candidates – McCain, Romney, and Giuliani – ran on free trade platforms.

The eventual Republican nominee, John McCain, even scaremongered people about “the siren song of protectionism” and went to a closed Ohio factory (which was closed because its owner shifted production overseas).

It didn’t endear him any voters, however. In the 2008 election, proud free trader John McCain was crushed 373-165, by the biggest margin of any Republican candidate since Barry Goldwater, losing even longtime Republican states like North Carolina, Indiana, and Virginia.

The election of Barack Obama probably gave some Americans hope that he would uphold his campaign promise to withdraw the US from NAFTA and to protect the US industry. He didn’t. He has barely been willing to impose tariffs on imported tires to save the tire industry.

With their own free trade mistakes costing them politically and the country economically, Republicans should have had, by 2012, learned that they were wrong and should have proposed a better policy, right? Wrong. Most Republicans continued to cling to their free trade ideology, as did the 2012 Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, who lambasted Obama for not signing any new FTAs for dupes (as if that were a bad thing), pledged to negotiate new FTAs, and firmly embraced free trade ideology. And although he pledged to designate China a currency manipulator if elected, and to enforce intellectual property laws, he wasn’t willing to do anything more than that, and even these half-measures earned him the ire of free trade ideologues such as the think-tanks and organizations listed above.

So, as the year 2012 begins to draw to an end, let us take inventory of 67 years of “free trade policies”.

They have destroyed the greatest industrial base the world has ever seen.

They have caused 55,000 factories to be closed and production to be shifted to countries where people work for slave wages and where there are no real environmental protection laws.

They have caused tens of millions of Americans to lose their well-paying manufacturing jobs and middle class worker wages to stagnate, in real terms, for over 2 decades.

They have brought about disastrous consequences for national security, as America is now dependent on foreign countries for essential things, even things essential for defense, such as Rare Earth Elements and the products made from them.

They have cost the Republican Party successive Congressional and Presidential elections, as former industrial powerhouses such as Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina, and Virginia – formerly red states – have turned against the GOP and become blue or purple states. Republicans have not win Michigan since 1984 and have lost both Ohio and Virginia in both of the last 2 presidential elections.

The GOP’s reputation as the Party of Protection has been tarnished and replaced by the reputation of a party that kowtows to big businesses and outsources jobs overseas.

America, formerly self-sufficient and producing everything in the world, now imports virtually everything it needs, from textiles and simple products to cars and Advanced Technology Products like computers and cell phones.

America lost her crown as the biggest exporter in the world to Germany in 2003, which itself was overtaken by China around 2010.

America’s trade deficits with Mexico, Japan, the EU, and the world at large are the highest they have ever been.

America’s trade deficit with China is the highest ever between any two countries.

And what were these trade deficits paid for with? Borrowed money. America is now the largest debtor in world history.

And to pay for lost revenue from abolished tariffs on foreign products, taxes are being hiked on Americans and American companies.

Can America be rescued? Yes, it still can, but there isn’t much time, and it will require a complete break with the free trade ideology and policies of the free trade ideologues running the CATO Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Mercatus Center, and the Club for Corporate CEOs’ Greed. The US should:

• Immediately implement the Export-Import Certificates proposed by Raymond, Howard, and Jesse Richman. This means that no country would be allowed to export more to the US than it imports from America.
• Immediately impose a 25% tariff on all Chinese products imported into the US. China will then have a choice between letting American products into its market or financing the US Pacific Fleet.
• Strictly enforce intellectual property laws.
• Write, and strictly enforce, product quality standards on all imported products.
• Terminate the useless Export-Import Bank.
• Withdraw from NAFTA, the WTO, and the GATT.
• Abolish all loopholes in the taxcode and use the resulting revenue (as well as the revenue coming from tariffs on Chinese products) to cut taxes across the board for all Americans and all American companies. The corporate income tax rate should be no higher than 12.5% (it’s 35% today).
• Designate China as a currency manipulator.

Tens of millions of jobs will then be created and production will be shipped back to the US – because then, in order to sell products in the huge American market, you will have to produce things in the US. And foreign countries wishing to export to the US will have to open their own markets to American products on the basis of reciprocity.