Zbigniew Mazurak's Blog

A blog dedicated to defense issues

Rebuttal of NYT’s and arms control advocates’ lies

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on September 26, 2014


142074.439nuclear_explosion

The advocates of America’s unilateral nuclear disarmament are at it again. They’ve launched yet another attack on the US nuclear arsenal – the only thing that is deterring Russia, China, and North Korea from attacking the US with nuclear weapons.

But fear not, Dear Reader. The pro-disarmament-crowd’s latest media attack on the US nuke deterrent is yet another litany of blatant lies that don’t even pass the laugh test. They are the same old tired lies that the treasonous pro-disarmament crowd has been peddling for many years. Evidently, like their intellectual godfather, Joseph Goebbels, they believe that repeating a lie a hundred times makes it true.

But it doesn’t.

The New York Times ran a story this week about the Defense Department’s nuclear arsenal modernization plan. America’s current ballistic missile submarines, nuclear-capable bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and associated nuclear warheads – built during the 1970s and 1980s – are aging out and will need to be replaced soon.

Not wanting to miss an opportunity to disarm America unilaterally, the anti-nuclear Left – led by the NYT and pro-unilateral-disarmament groups – is conducting a propaganda campaign falsely claiming that the modernization/replacement effort will cost $1 trillion, that nuclear weapons are supposedly useless, that this conflicts with Barack Obama’s pledge to seek a “world without nuclear weapons”, etc.

Needless to say, all of their claims are blatant lies.

The Cost Of Nuclear Modernization

Firstly, the $1 trillion figure comes from an anti-nuclear propaganda pamphlet cooked up at the extremely-leftist, anti-nuclear Monterrey Institute for International Studies and was personally rigged by well-known anti-nuclear hacks such as Jeffrey Lewis (who has been proven wrong on many issues, including the range of China’s ballistic missiles and the size of China’s nuclear arsenal).

To say it very politely, Lewis is not an authority on nuclear weapons or defense spending.

Wildly exaggerating the costs of nuclear modernization is an old tactic of unilateral disarmament advocates, dating back decades. It’s nothing new. The anti-nuclear Ploughshares Fund has been caught doing so. It’s no surprise the liberal MIIS is now lying so blatantly as well.

And even if the $1 trillion figure were correct – which it isn’t – it refers to planned spending on nuclear modernization over the span of THREE DECADES. That is, MIIS claims the US will spend $1 trillion over a span of 30 years on nuclear modernization.

Simple math tells us that $1 trillion divided by thirty is around $33 bn per year. That works out to around 5-6% of the DOD’s annual budget (around $600 bn per year).

It is ridiculous to claim that a Department that has an annual budget of around $600 bn – larger than the GDP of most countries in the world – can’t afford to spend a meagre 5-6% of its budget on modernizing and preserving America’s nuclear deterrent.

Therefore, the claims of dinosaur politicians like former Clinton Defense Sec. William Perry and anti-nuclear hacks such as ex-Gen. James Cartwright (Obama’s “favorite general”) that the Obama administration’s modernization plans are “unaffordable” are completely false prima facie.

In fact, over the next 30 years, the DOD is poised to spend $20 trillion on all sorts of military things. $1 trillion is a tiny fraction (5%) out of that figure.

Moreover, if the DOD’s nuclear modernization plans are “unaffordable” (which they are not), the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program to develop and procure 2,443 short range fighters is even more so unaffordable, with a price tag of $400 bn to develop and procure and an additional $1 trillion to operate over 50 years! $1.4 trillion for a fleet of far less capable systems!

Compared to this, nuclear weapons are cheap.

Anti-nuclear hacks such as those on the “National Defense Panel” also falsely claim that also falsely claim that nuclear modernization spending will siphon lots of money from America’s conventional forces.

But that is also a blatant lie. As stated above, nuclear modernization will cost only 5% of the DOD budget over the next 30 years.

Moreover, nuclear modernization programs aren’t the costliest ones in the DOD’s budget plans. Not even close. A recently released “Weapon Systems Factbook” by the CSBA documents this.

CSBA’s “Factbook” says the DOD will need to invest $73 bn to develop and build 100 stealthy bombers and $90 bn to build replacements for America’s current, obsolete, noisy, and ageing ballistic missile subs (SSBNs). (The bomber program will, in fact, cost only $55 bn, not the $73 bn that the CSBA claims.)

That’s $163 bn in total, per the CSBA “Factbook.”

By far the most expensive weapon program in the DOD’s current plans, and indeed in US history, is the conventional F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, aiming to develop an aircraft that can do everything from air superiority to close air support, but which in reality will produce an aircraft mediocre at every task.

This program will in fact develop and procure a fleet of partially stealthy, short-ranged, slow, sluggish, unmaneuverable, underpowered, poorly armed, useless “strike fighters” designed for strikes against massive Soviet tank armies in Germany – a threat that no longer exists. It is now intended by the USAF to fight enemy aircraft and go into airspace protected by modern SAM systems – missions it is utterly incapable of performing.

The F-35 is also short-ranged, with a combat radius of about 1,800-1,900 kms at most, meaning that, like other US fighters, it would need to use bases close to potential adversary countries – bases that are well within the range of enemy medium range ballistic and cruise missiles. As Congressmen Randy Forbes and Chris Stewart explain here, cutting spending on bombers to protect short-range fighters would be a grave mistake.

Per CSBA’s Factbook, the F-35 has already cost taxpayers $100 bn and will cost another $251.3 bn in the coming years to complete the program.

That is $88.3 bn more than the cost of the long-range strike bomber and new ballistic missile submarine programs COMBINED! And that is using the CSBA’s grossly exaggerated estimate of the bomber program’s cost!

In other words, if the DOD cancelled the useless F-35 Junk Strike Fighter, it could pay the entire cost of both the new bomber and the new ballistic missile sub programs COMBINED and still make a saving of $88.3 bn!

“Oh, but other dastardly nuclear weapon programs will siphon more money”, anti-nuclear propagandists will claim.

No, they won’t. The other nuclear weapon programs the DOD has in store, the Trident II missile and the B61 nuclear bomb toolkit, will cost $5.6 bn and $1.2 bn, respectively, a total of $6.8 bn. Paying for them from savings generated by F-35 cancellation would still leave the DOD with a saving of $81.7 bn!

In fact, if the DOD simply cancelled the F-35 program, it could pay for upgrading F-15s and F-16s, prolonging their service lives by decades, building all the planned 100 stealthy long range bombers and 12 replacements for Ohio class submarines, for the Trident missile, for B61 modernization, for the KC-46 tanker, the V-22 Osprey, the Virginia class of attack submarines, and dozens of other weapon programs – and still have healthy savings left.

(Speaking of the V-22 Osprey, can’t the CH-46 do the job? Some naval aviators, such as Jack McCain, believe it can.)

So contrary to anti-nuke propagandists’ claims, no, the Long Range Strike Bomber and the Ohio class replacement will NOT crush conventional weapon programs. The F-35 Junk Strike Fighter will.

The proverbial elephant in the room is the F-35.

Furthermore, the DOD owns real estate collectively worth $800 billion, but doesn’t really need a good part of it and doesn’t even know what to do with a large chuck of that real estate. Selling only a quarter of it would raise $200 bn – more than enough to pay for the bomber, ballistic missile submarine, and warhead programs combined. Selling half of DOD’s real estate would raise $400 bn – the equivalent of the F-35 program’s cost. (Source: http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2014/09/14/the_pentagons_800_billion_real_estate_problem_107438.html)

Moreover, the Long Range Strike Bomber will be as much a conventional weapon platform as a nuclear one. It is needed for both conventional and (if need be) nuclear strike. It is needed because America’s potential foes (Russia, China, Syria, Venezuela, and even Iran and North Korea) possess such sophisticated air defense systems (especially the first three countries) that America’s nonstealthy bombers (B-52s and B-1s) can’t go into their airspace, and B-2’s stealth technology is 1980s vintage. Moreover, the USAF has only 20 B-2s – way too little for any effective campaign against even a mid-sized adversary.

Unsurprisingly, the National Defense Panel, which the NY Slimes quotes so approvingly, strongly supports the Long Range Strike Bomber (p. 45):

“Whether the aircraft is designed to be manned, unmanned, or “optionally manned,” the need to bring such an aircraft into service by the mid-2020s, when modern air defenses will put the B-2 bomber increasingly at risk, is compelling. We are concerned that continued budget cuts and the resulting programmatic instability would jeopardize this critical investment.”

The need for the LRSB has been irrefutably proven time and again.

The Need For Nuclear Modernization

Anti-nuclear hacks such as the CLW’s Kingston Reif – who has been proven wrong on every issue he’s written about – protest, however, that nuclear weapons are “useless” for countering any threats to US national security, so it doesn’t matter if they cost little. In a recent screed published by DefenseOne, Reif and his fellow CLW hack Angela Canterbury falsely claim:

“But the most explosive (literally) power tool has neither prevented nor will be useful in addressing any of today’s international security issues: nuclear weapons. The current U.S. arsenal of approximately 4,800 nuclear warheads is a Cold War anachronism. (…) The current modernization plan is geared towards building nuclear weapons that we don’t need and can’t afford. It’s time for Congress to insist on a new approach.”

(http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2014/09/its-time-rein-nuclear-spending/95174/?oref=d-skybox)

They also falsely call the new National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund “a nuclear submarine slush fund”.

In another screed for DefenseOne, Rep. Mike Quigley, a liberal Democrat from Illinois, falsely claimed that:

“not every element of NATO’s power is useful in combating the Russian threat to European security. NATO’s nuclear weapons strategy in Europe is no longer relevant… (…) The nuclear weapons we deployed for the Cold War, which ended two decades ago, are simply not the same weapons we need for the “hot” war threat that our eastern NATO allies, and Ukraine, face today.”

But they are dead wrong, because nuclear weapons are of paramount importance to countering threats to America’s security. The gravest of these threats are the nuclear arsenals of Russia, China, and North Korea and Iran’s ambition to develop its own atomic weapons.

ONLY nuclear weapons can protect the US and its allies from these grave threats.

The nation’s second most senior military officer, Adm. James Winnefeld, understands this, which is why he said earlier this year at the Atlantic Council:

“If we consider that at the top of our list of national security interests is probably the survival of our nation, then at the top of the list of threats to that interest is a massive nuclear attack from Russia.”

Indeed, the Russian nuclear threat is the gravest of all. Russia’s nuclear arsenal is huge, numbering anywhere between 6,800 (per the FAS) and 8,000 (per the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists) nuclear weapons, deployed and nondeployed.

In early September, while NATO leaders were gathered in Wales for a NATO summit, Russian nuclear-armed bombers simulated (for the upteenth time since 2012) a nuclear strike on the US! Shortly thereafter, they tested the air defenses of northern European countries, again carrying deadly nuclear payloadsthen practiced a strike on the US again, but the much-maligned F-22 Raptors intercepted them.

Since 2007, Russia has threatened to aim or use nuclear weapons against the US and its allies at least 15 times, including in recent months!

Russia’s nuclear triad numbers over 400 ICBMs (capable of delivering over 1,600 nukes to the continental US), 13 ballistic missile subs (boomers) capable of delivering over 2,000 warheads to America’s shores, and 251 strategic bombers capable of delivering another 1,400 nuclear warheads to the US. The Tu-95 bomber fleet alone can deliver over 700 warheads.

On top of that, Russia’s attack and cruise missile submarines can deliver further over 1,000 atomic warheads to the US on their cruise missiles.

And as Russia replaces older, single- or low-number-warhead missiles (like the Topol) with newer ones (e.g. Yars, Bulava, and Liner), capable of carrying more warheads, Russia’s nuclear arsenal will only grow.

Moscow has just announced that three more missile regiments will, by this year’s end, swap their single-warhead Topol missiles for 4-warhead Yars ICBMs.

Putin has also stated Russia will grow its atomic arsenal and develop new, “offensive” nuclear weapons.

So Russia’s nuclear arsenal will grow STILL FURTHER, with new, “offensive” nukes aimed against the US and NATO.

Even larger is Russia’s tactical nuclear arsenal, estimated at 4,000 warheads and deliverable by a wide range of short- and medium-range ballistic and cruise missiles, surface ships, tactical aircraft, artillery pieces, and other systems.

China also has a large nuclear arsenal, estimated at between 1,600 (per General Viktor Yesin) and 3,000 (per Dr Philip Karber, the DOD’s chief nuclear strategist under President Reagan) warheads and the means to deliver many of them. It currently has at least 75 (and likely many more) ICBMs capable of reaching the US, including at least 55 multiple-warhead ICBMs (DF-5s, DF-31s, DF-41s) capable of striking the Continental US.

Moscow and Beijing are also both developing next-generation bombers.

Both Russia and China are rapidly growing, not cutting, their atomic arsenal. In these circumstances, it would be utterly suicidal for the US to cut – or neglect to modernize – its own nuclear deterrent. It would be an invitation of a nuclear first strike by Russia or China.

And that’s before mentioning North Korea, which already has miniaturized nuclear warheads it can mate to missiles, and ICBMs capable of delivering them to the US.

America’s Allies Get It; American Anti-Nuke Activists Don’t

Hardly surprising, then, that America’s European allies – especially those most threatened by Russia – have also once again underlined the importance of NATO’s nuclear deterrent. The Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs has stated: “The current situation reaffirms the importance of NATO’s nuclear deterrence policy.”

Because America’s nuclear weapons also serve another vitally important function: reassuring them that they are protected by the US, safe from potential aggressors like Russia and China, and therefore don’t need to develop their own nukes.

But they will if the US continues to cut its arsenal. Already 66% of South Koreans want their country to “go nuclear”; Poland’s former President Lech Walesa has said his country should do the same; Saudi Arabia has already ordered nuclear warheads in Pakistan and DF-21 ballistic missiles  in China; and Japan has opened a facility that can produce 3,600 nuclear warheads in a year if Tokyo ever decides to “go nuclear.”

And if America continues to cut its own arsenal, they won’t have any alternative. They cannot afford to bet their security and their very survival on American liberals’ fantasies of “a world without nuclear weapons”. They know that Reif’s and another anti-nuclear hacks’ claims that “nuclear weapons are useless” are patently false.

So if America continues to cut its nuclear arsenal, we will see MORE nuclear arms and MORE nuclear-weapon-wielding states in the world, not fewer. Potential enemies, emboldened by America’s disarmament, will arm themselves. Nervous allies, worried about their security, will also obtain nuclear weapons. 66% of South Koreans also want their country to do so. Japan is ready to do likewise the moment its Prime Minister decides to do so.

Therefore, no matter how much nuclear modernization will cost, it is a national security imperative – and even the anti-nuclear President Obama has realized it.

Forget About The “Nuke-Free World” Fantasy

Critics claim that by pursuing it, he’s violating his pledge to seek “a world without nuclear weapons.”

But he isn’t. There is nothing inconsistent with seeking a long-term goal of such a fantasy world (which will never exist) while modernizing the US nuclear arsenal to maintain it for the foreseeable future.

From the beginning of his first presidential campaign, Obama was saying explicitly that as long as nuclear weapons exist, the US will have to maintain a safe, secure, and reliable nuclear arsenal.

And let’s be honest: there will never be a world without nuclear weapons. There is zero chance of such a world existing. More and more countries are developing nuclear weapons or at least considering it and talking openly about it. The world is heading towards MORE nuclear arms and more nuclear weapon possessing states.

Obama’s “nuclear-free world” was always a totally unrealistic, childish fantasy. It should’ve never been pursued.

But when the NYT and anti-nuclear groups like the “Council for a Livable World” and the “Arms Control Association” complain that nuclear modernization plans impede the goal of “nuclear disarmament”, they are not talking about GLOBAL nuclear disarmament.

No, they are talking about their long-held goal of the nuclear disarmament of the United States. That is what they seek and have always sought.

Their goal is not to free the world from nuclear weapons. Their goal is to disarm the US unilaterally and to expose it to Russian and Chinese nuclear attack.

They must be stopped at all costs.

UPDATE: Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics (i.e. the Pentagon’s weapons buyer), Frank Kendall, has underlined the primordial importance of the US nuclear deterrent in the strongest words possible:

“[The nuclear mission] is our most important mission, period, simply because of the sheer destructive power that’s involved and because of the criticality of it to our national security. This is the very foundation of U.S. national security,” Kendall said. “No capability we maintain is more important than our nuclear deterrent.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/22/us/us-ramping-up-major-renewal-in-nuclear-arms.html

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

Rebuttal of Obama arms control chief’s blatant lies in support of the CTBT

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on September 24, 2014


On September 15th, the Obama administration’s arms control chief, Rose Goettemoeller, delivered a speech in Washington DC arguing for America’s ratification of the CTBT. That speech was essentially a litany of blatant lies. Here are just a few, with my rebuttals:

Lie #1: Ratifying the CTBT will make it hard for rogue states, and for any nuclear-weapon-wielding or developing states, to test nuclear weapons because they would then expose themselves to “international condemnation and reprisals.”

Rebuttal: No, it wouldn’t make it any harder for America’s potential foes to test nuclear weapons. Why? Because they (and other rogue states) don’t care one iota about what the rest of the world thinks. They don’t give a damn about international condemnation or “reprisals.” North Korea, Iran, and Russia clearly don’t. North Korea is subject to the most stringent sanctions regime in world history – and yet it continues to test nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles of growing power, undaunted and undeterred by any sanctions and its international isolation. Russia’s economy has been hit hard with multiple rounds of sanctions imposed by the US and the EU – and yet it continues its aggression against Ukraine, its threats to use nuclear weapons against the US and its allies, and is planning new attacks on other neighbors.

And the Obama administration’s cowardly watering down, and now, repeal of sanctions against Iran is proving to all rogue states with nuclear ambitions that you can develop nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles and the US won’t do anything meaningful to stop you.

Lie #2: Ratifying the CTBT will strengthen America’s “moral legitimacy” in dealing with nuclear-weapon-developing rogue states.

Rebuttal: No, it will not. Neither rogue states aiming to acquire nuclear weapons nor the rest of the world care about America’s “moral legitimacy.” Each foreign country in the world pursues what it believes to be in its national interest. Rogue states believe pursuing nuclear weapons is.

Lie #3: Ratifying the CTBT will put the world on a path towards smaller reliance on nuclear weapons, smaller nuclear weapon inventories, and eventual nuclear disarmament.

Rebuttal: “The world” does not rely on nuclear weapons. Individual nuclear weapon states do, to varying degrees. And the idea that America’s ratification of the CTBT will somehow encourage America’s potential foes – Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan, and the upcominng nuclear Iran – to rely less on nuclear weapons is a fantasy. On the contrary, America’s self-imposition of a ban on testing American nuclear weapons’ reliability will only encourage these foes to develop more (and more powerful) nuclear weapons, as there will be more benefit from doing so (doing more harm to the US).

And the idea that CTBT ratification, and other disarmament measures, on the West’s part can somehow encourage Russia, China, North Korea, and other rogue states to cut and eventually scrap their nuclear arsenals is ludicrous. The West has already cut its nuclear arsenals dramatically (the US by 75% since 1991); Britain and France have already cut down to a monad and a dyad, respectively, and have both ratified the CTBT; and yet, Russia, China, North Korea, and Pakistan have all GROWN their nuclear arsenals – sharply so in China’s case – and more countries are developing nuclear weapons. Iran and Saudi Arabia are now racing to do so.

No, the planet is not going in the direction of “a world without nuclear weapons.” The world is going in the direction of MORE nuclear weapons and MORE countries wielding them.

Just recently, it’s been announced that Pakistan will develop short-range sea-based nuclear weapons for the first time, while Russia will completely replace all of its Soviet-era nuclear weapons and delivery systems with new ones by 2020.

Goettemoeller’s claims are all blatant lies. Not a single one of them is correct.

But it shouldn’t surprise anyone. Goettemoeller’s goal – and that of all other pro-arms-control liberals – is not to make America safer, but to make it LESS SAFE and expose it to enemy attacks by disarming it unilaterally. THAT is arms controllers’ real goal. Making America ratify the CTBT is a key part of that goal.

They must be stopped at all costs.

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

On the current operation against ISIL in Iraq and Syria

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on September 23, 2014


In recent days, US and allied aircraft, including Dassault Rafale fighters, have struck numerous targets in Iraq and Syria as part of the bombing campaign against the Islamic State. This campaign, just recently begun, has already revealed several facts:

1) The F-22 has seen actual combat (not merely interceptions of enemy aircraft) for the first time, thus belying forever the false claims that it’s a hangar queen. And it has performed magnificently, delivering significant payloads against enemy targets, hitting them with pinpoint precision, and not causing any civilian casualties. For my rebuttals of the smears against the F-22 Raptor, see here and here.

2) Even a bombing campaign against a mid-sized stateless enemy such as the self-proclaimed “Islamic State” (in reality, a jihadist movement) in a mid-sized country like Iraq (and parts of Syria) requires a huge amount of aircraft, ordnance (payloads), and fuel and the involvement of many foreign allies – both those providing combat aircraft and those providing bases. Think how huge the scale of any bombing campaign against Iran and North Korea, let alone Russia, would have to be!

3) For this campaign, the USAF and friendly AFs have bases available throughout the region for their aircraft to take off… at least for now. But if US allies in the region were to deny those bases to the US for any reason (be it fear from reprisals from jihadists, domestic political opposition, or any other reason whatsoever), ALL American and allied tactical aircraft (fighters, strike aircraft, drones, etc.) would be completely and immediately eliminated from the equation. This cannot be ruled out – US allies in the region (other than Israel) could very well bend before terrorist blackmail one day, and even if they don’t, the local peoples hate the US and the West and will eventually demand that the US be barred from using their bases. It is therefore all the more imperative that the US quickly develop and field, in large quantities, the planned family of long-range strike weapons, including a new bomber, a new cruise missile, the Virginia Payload Module, and Prompt Global Strike weapons.

4) This is probably one of the last campaigns ever that the US will conduct against a primitive adversary like a terrorist organization (such as ISIL) – a campaign in which the opponent will not contest America’s control of the air and the sea. In future wars, however, you can be sure as hell that the enemy WILL contest control of the air, whether that enemy will be Iran, North Korea, China, or Russia.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Yet MORE of Ploughshares’ blatant lies about nukes debunked

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on September 8, 2014


The Ploughshares Fund, a treasonous organization seeking America’s unilateral nuclear disarmament, lies everyday about America’s nuclear weapons to mislead the public and policymakers and thus achieve its treasonous goal.

Its latest lie is the utterly false claim that:

“Platforms for could crush conventional programs under the weight of bloated budgets.  “

The only problem is that it’s a complete falsehood, just like everything else Ploughshares says.

Ploughshares bases its false claim on a paper recently released by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA), wrongly titled the “FY2015 Weapons Systems Factbook.”

Unfortunately for Ploughshares and other leftist groups seeking America’s unilateral disarmament, the data in the so-called “Factbook” do not support their contention at all. The data contained therein UTTERLY DISPROVE Ploughshares’ claim.

US nuclear weapons and the platforms (delivery systems) being designed for them are NOT crushing or siphoning money away from ANYTHING, and their budgets are far from being bloated.

Specifically, the CSBA’s “Factbook” goes through every major DOD weapons program, from the F-35, to the Long Range Strike Bomber, to the planned replacement of America’s aging ballistic missile subs, to space launch vehicles, to the V-22 Osprey. The “Factbook” says how much the DOD has already invested in each of these programs and how much more will it need to spend on each to bring them to completion (i.e. to procure the weapon quantities currently envisaged).

In simple words, how much will it cost to build the weapons the DOD plans to build?

The CSBA’s “Factbook” isn’t really a factbook, because it significantly OVERSTATES the projected cost of the Long Range Strike Bomber and Ohio class replacement programs while significantly low-balling the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter’s cost. (This comes as no surprise, given that the Factbook’s main author is Todd Harrison, who has been proven wrong on budgetary issues time after time.)

But for simplicity’s sake, let’s use the Factbook’s numbers. Do they support Ploughshares’ claim that nuclear weapon delivery platforms are “crushing” or squeezing conventional weapon programs?

No, they don’t. In fact, the Factbook’s numbers completely REFUTE Ploughshares’ utterly false claims.

The CSBA’s “Factbook” says the DOD will need to invest $73 bn to develop and build 100 stealthy bombers and $90 bn to build replacements for America’s current, obsolete, noisy, and ageing ballistic missile subs (SSBNs).

That’s $163 bn in total, per the CSBA “Factbook.”

But by far the costliest DOD weapons program right now (and ever) is the utterly failed F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a program aiming to develop and procure a fleet of partially stealthy, short-ranged, slow, sluggish, unmaneuverable, underpowered, poorly armed, useless “strike fighters” designed for strikes against massive Soviet tank armies in Germany – a threat that no longer exists. It is now intended by the USAF to fight enemy aircraft and go into airspace protected by modern SAM systems – missions it is utterly incapable of performing.

The F-35 is also short-ranged, with a combat radius of about 1,800-1,900 kms at most, meaning that, like other US fighters, it would need to use bases close to potential adversary countries – bases that are well within the range of enemy medium range ballistic and cruise missiles.

Per CSBA’s Factbook, the F-35 has already cost taxpayers $100 bn and will cost another $251.3 bn in the coming years to complete the program.

That is $88.3 bn more than the cost of the long-range strike bomber and new ballistic missile submarine programs COMBINED!

In other words, if the DOD cancelled the useless F-35 Junk Strike Fighter, it could pay the entire cost of both the new bomber and the new ballistic missile sub programs COMBINED and still make a saving of $88.3 bn!

“Oh, but other dastardly nuclear weapon programs will siphon more money”, Ploughshares will claim.

No, they won’t. The other nuclear weapon programs the DOD has in store, the Trident II missile and the B61 nuclear bomb toolkit, will cost $5.6 bn and $1.2 bn, respectively, a total of $6.8 bn. Paying for them from savings generated by F-35 cancellation would still leave the DOD with a saving of $81.7 bn!

In fact, if the DOD simply cancelled the F-35 program, it could pay for upgrading F-15s and F-16s, prolonging their service lives by decades, building all the planned 100 stealthy long range bombers and 12 replacements for Ohio class submarines, for the Trident missile, for B61 modernization, for the KC-46 tanker, the V-22 Osprey, the Virginia class of attack submarines, and dozens of other weapon programs – and still have healthy savings left.

(Speaking of the V-22 Osprey, can’t the CH-46 do the job?)

So contrary to Ploughshares’ and other anti-nuke hacks claims, no, the Long Range Strike Bomber and the Ohio class replacement will NOT crush conventional weapon programs. The F-35 Junk Strike Fighter will.

The proverbial elephant in the room is the F-35.

Moreover, the Long Range Strike Bomber will be as much a conventional weapon platform as a nuclear one. It is needed for both conventional and (if need be) nuclear strike. It is needed because America’s potential foes (Russia, China, Syria, Venezuela, and even Iran and North Korea) possess such sophisticated air defense systems (especially the first three countries) that America’s nonstealthy bombers (B-52s and B-1s) can’t go into their airspace, and B-2′s stealth technology is 1980s vintage. Moreover, the USAF has only 20 B-2s – way too little for any effective campaign against even a mid-sized adversary.

The need for the LRSB has been irrefutably proven time and again – first by none other than the CSBA.

So Ploughshares, once again, has been completely refuted. ALL of their claims have been disproven once again. All of their claims are blatant lies, pure and simple.

 

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

NATO, the Russian threat, and Nuclear Deterrence

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on September 4, 2014


Joseph Cirincione, the president of the treasonous “Ploughshares Fund”, a group campaigning for America’s unilateral disarmament, has once again made an ass of himself.

In his latest anti-nuclear diatribe published on the leftist DefenseOne website, Cirincione falsely claims that missile defense and nuclear weapons are “irrelevant” to the security challenges NATO faces, and that US tactical nukes in Europe have slided into “irrelevancy”. “They don’t matter”, falsely claims Cirincione about missile defense and nuclear weapons:

“They don’t matter. Neither provides protection against the threats concerning NATO.”

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Nuclear weapons (including US tactical nukes stationed in Europe) are of PARAMOUNT importance to countering the threats NATO faces.

Moreover, ONLY nuclear weapons can protect the US and its NATO allies against the gravest threats they face. NOTHING can substitute for these weapons in NATO’s defense.

The biggest foe NATO is facing right now is Russia. And the ONLY way Russia can threaten Europe, the US, and Canada (or anyone else for that matter) is with nuclear weapons – or by threatening to cut off oil and gas supplies to Europe.

Let me repeat that: other than oil and gas cutoffs, nuclear weapons are the ONLY things Russia can threaten anyone with. Its conventional force is a joke, relying mostly on obsolete Soviet-era tanks, APCs, and fighters.

Without its nuclear arsenal, Russia wouldn’t have been able to threaten anyone except, at worst, its most immediate neighbors like Ukraine and Georgia.

Yet this one threat is huge. Russia’s nuclear arsenal is huge, numbering anywhere between 6,800 (per the FAS) and 8,500 (per the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists) nuclear weapons, deployed and nondeployed.

Russia’s nuclear triad numbers over 400 ICBMs (capable of delivering over 1,600 nukes to the continental US), 13 ballistic missile subs (boomers) capable of delivering over 2,000 warheads to America’s shores, and 251 strategic bombers capable of delivering another 1,400 nuclear warheads to the US.

On top of that, Russia’s attack and cruise missile submarines can deliver further over 1,000 atomic warheads to the US on their cruise missiles. The Tu-95 fleet alone can deliver over 700 such missiles.

And as Russia replaces older, single- or low-number-warhead missiles with newer ones (e.g. Yars, Bulava, and Liner), capable of carrying more warheads, Russia’s nuclear arsenal will only grow.

Moscow has just announced that three more missile regiments will, by this year’s end, swap their single-warhead Topol missiles for 4-warhead Yars ICBMs.

Putin has also stated Russia will develop new, “offensive” nuclear weapons.

So Russia’s nuclear arsenal will grow STILL FURTHER, with new, “offensive” nukes aimed against the US and NATO.

Even larger is Russia’s tactical nuclear arsenal, estimated at 4,000 warheads and deliverable by a wide range of short- and medium-range ballistic and cruise missiles, surface ships, tactical aircraft, artillery pieces, and other systems.

Hardly surprising, then, that recently, three national security veterans – including two former presidential National Security Advisors – have spoken out strongly in favor of nuclear deterrence and especially US tactical nukes in Europe (emphasis mine):

Brent Scowcroft was national security advisor to Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush. Stephen J. Hadley was national security adviser to President George W. Bush. Franklin Miller was responsible for U.S. nuclear policy in the Defense Department for Presidents George H.W. Bush and President Bill Clinton and on the National Security Council staff for President George W. Bush.

 

When NATO’s leaders gather in Wales in early September, they will address several issues critical to the alliance, including Russian adventurism in Ukraine and elsewhere in Eastern Europe, members’ contribution to collective defense, the adequacy of individual national defense budgets and plans for supporting the people of Afghanistan. In the course of their deliberations on these issues, however, they also should reaffirm the value to the alliance of the continued presence of the modest number of U.S. nuclear bombs in Europe. We believe this is necessary because we are again hearing calls for the United States to unilaterally withdraw its small arsenal of forward- deployed nuclear bombs. Those arguments are shopworn, familiar — and wrong.

The most common argument is that because the United States’ strategic forces have global capabilities, the NATO-based weapons “have no military value.” While that claim is false (NATO’s supreme allied commander recently attested to the weapons’ military utility), it also ignores the most central feature of nuclear weapons: They are, fundamentally, political weapons. A principal function of forward deployment has been, and remains, to be a visible symbol to friend and potential foe of the U.S. commitment to defend NATO with all of the military power it possesses. (…)

 

 Of particular concern to NATO, Russia has embarked on an across-the-board modernization of its nuclear forces, a modernization judged so important by Moscow that it has violated the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in the process. As our NATO allies point out, nuclear weapons clearly matter to Russian leadership, and, as a result, our allies insist that the U.S. nuclear commitment to NATO cannot be called into question.”

(Source: http://missilethreat.com/nato-based-nuclear-weapons-advantage-dangerous-world/)

Hardly surprising, either, that America’s European allies – especially those most threatened by Russia – have also once again underlined the importance of NATO’s nuclear deterrent. The Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs has stated: “The current situation reaffirms the importance of NATO’s nuclear deterrence policy.”

Nuclear weapons are also necessary to deter other potential opponents of the US, notably China and North Korea, but these are not threats to NATO.

America’s second most senior military officer, Adm. James Winnefeld, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, agrees wholeheartedly, saying:

“If we consider that at the top of our list of national security interests is probably the survival of our nation, then at the top of the list of threats to that interest is a massive nuclear attack from Russia.”

This is from Winnefeld’s May 28th speech at the Atlantic Council. Cirincione took a very short passage out of that speech, out of context to buttress his false claim that missile defense is supposedly useless and irrelevant to US security:

“we’ve told Russia and the world that we will not rely on missile defense for strategic deterrence, because it would simply be too hard and too expensive and too strategically destabilizing to even try.”

But that short passage tells us nothing, because it has been taken out of the rest of the speech and out of context – for the purpose of misleading the public. Immediately after those words, Adm. Winnefeld said:

“Rather, we rely for deterrence of Russia on our ability to respond massively to an attack, and that has worked for a very long time. But we do have other interests, where what we call “limited missile defense” quickly comes sharply into focus as being very relevant, beginning with our determination to prevent catastrophic attacks on our nation.

This is about ensuring we can deny the objectives of any insecure authoritarian state that believes acquisition of deliverable weapons of mass destruction is key to the preservation of its regime.

The number of states trying to achieve that capability is growing, not shrinking . . . with our principal current concern being North Korea, because they are closest in terms of capability, followed by Iran.

Because we’re not betting on Dennis Rodman as our deterrent against a future North Korean ICBM threat . . .

 

. . . a robust and capable missile defense is our best bet to defend the United States from such an attack; and is, in my view, our number one missile defense priority.

 

Which is why the systems that provide this defense, such as our Ground Based Interceptor program, or GBI, are accorded much higher priority than other items in our shrinking missile defense budget.”

As one can see, Adm. Winnefeld has recently reaffirmed that a) nuclear deterrence is of paramount importance to US and allied security to protect against Russia; and b) missile defense is highly relevant to protecting America against other threats – specifically, rogue states such as North Korea and Iran.

Cirincione also falsely claims that America’s missile defense systems don’t work and can’t even intercept North Korean or Iranian missiles. He further falsely claims they have only a 50% success rate in “carefully controlled” tests and can be easily defeated by a wide range of countermeasures. These claims are also patently false. Again, Admiral Winnefeld himself (the same admiral whom Cirincione quoted out of context) has refuted them:

“Finally, I’d like to address several other misconceptions that are out there regarding ballistic missile defense.

 

First, and most obvious, is the claim that our missile defense systems don’t work, that we can’t “hit-to-kill.” Well, we have an excellent track record with regional systems comprised of operationally configured Terminal High Altitude Area Defense interceptors and SM-3s.

 

As I mentioned, we’re working through the GBI issues and expect to raise the probability of intercept. But basically our test record using hit-to-kill has put this misconception to bed.

 

To date, for our operationally configured interceptors, not development prototypes mind you . . . THAAD is 11 for 11; Aegis BMD is 18 for 21; GMD is 3 for 6; and the Patriot PAC-3 is 21 for 25.

 

That’s not bad, but we’re determined to make it even better.

The second misconception is that it’s easy for an adversary to employ ballistic missile defense countermeasures.

 

To be sure, we will continue to do everything we can in order to improve our discrimination capability, but as hard as that job is, so is the challenge of deploying and employing countermeasures. If the enemy is confronting a layered defense system, whatever countermeasures work in midcourse might not work in terminal, or their terminal countermeasures may be destroyed in midcourse.

 

Test is critical to the success of any complex weapons system, and when it comes to missile defense countermeasures, our adversaries don’t do much of it, which means they can’t know how they perform. We’ve had our own extensive countermeasures program, and we learned just how difficult it is to get that right.

 

Countermeasures take up payload space and have weight considerations, so there’s also a tradeoff. Bottom line . . . it’s not as easy as it might look on paper.”

Adm. Winnefeld’s speech can be read in its entirety here. This website is linking to it so that Readers can read the ENTIRE speech, and not just a very short passage taken out of context.

Cirincione should be deeply ashamed of himself for taking such a short snipped completely out of context and out of the rest of the speech and using it to back his totally false claims. It only proves what a repugnant liar he is, and shows he will go to any lengths to spread blatant lies and mislead the public to advance his unilateral disarmament agenda.

Fortunately, he won’t have much success. Even before Russia’s attack on Ukraine, most Americans supported a robust national defense (including missile defense and nuclear deterrence), opposed defense cuts, and were highly skeptical of Russia. Today, the American people demand far tougher action against Russia than what Democrats or even some Republicans support.

Once again, Cirincione and other advocates of America’s unilateral disarmament have been proven dead wrong. Nuclear weapons – especially American tactical nukes in Europe – are needed now more than ever. They are of paramount importance. They are the ONLY thing that can protect NATO members from the biggest threat they face by far: Russian nuclear intimidation.

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

Rebuttal of the SNP traitors’ lies about Trident and nukes

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on August 26, 2014


On 18 September, Scotland is set to vote on whether or not to become an independent country. The extremely-leftist, socialist SNP government of Scotland promises that if the result is “yes”, it will force the UK government to remove the UK Royal Navy’s four Vanguard class submarines – and the Trident missiles and nuclear warheads onboard – out of the UK. This, the SNP government hopes, will mean the end of the UK’s own national nuclear deterrent.

To justify its treasonous policy, the Scottish National Party and its fellow pro-unilateral-disarmament activists elsewhere in the UK, make the following, utterly false claims:

1) “Nuclear weapons are immoral and reprehensible; it is immoral and repugnant for the UK to own weapons of such indiscriminate and inhumane destructive power.”

2) “Nuclear weapons are too expensive; renewing the UK’s nuclear deterrent will cost 100 bn pounds.”

3) “Nuclear weapons siphon money away from conventional capabilities and are designed against Cold War era, not 21st century, threats.”

All of these claims are blatant lies, plain and simple. I will now refute them one by one.

 

1) No, it is NOT immoral, reprehensible, nor repugnant in any way for the UK to possess a nuclear deterrent against the deadliest threats that exist in the world – the threat of nuclear blackmail or even a nuclear, chemical, or biological attack by a hostile state (be it Russia, North Korea, or Iran) against the UK or its allies.

As a sovereign state AND a force for good in this world, as a country which has bestowed countless good things and blessings of modernity in this world, and as a responsible stakeholder in the international system and a positive contributor to world security, the UK has every moral and legal right to have a nuclear deterrent.

Possessing a highly powerful deterrent – such as nuclear weapons – is the natural, moral, and legal right of a country that wishes to protect its own citizens and its territory. There is nothing immoral about that.

What IS immoral is to demand that the UK surrender such a deterrent – of the ONLY kind of weapons that can protect Britain against the deadliest security threats in the world.

It is immoral and repugnant to demand that the UK give up its mightiest defence against foreign aggression, including nuclear blackmail and potentially nuclear attacks by Russia, North Korea, and potentially Iran.

It is immoral and repugnant to demand that the UK disarm itself while nobody else outside Barack Obama’s America is doing so – not France, not Russia, not China, not Pakistan and India, not Israel, not North Korea. (North Korea is now developing ballistic missile submarines of its own.)

It is therefore the advocates of the UK’s nuclear disarmament who are morally repugnant. They are traitors to the United Kingdom, and they deserve to be executed for their treason. (And if they are convicted of it, I will volunteer to be the executioner.)

Russia has the world’s largest nuclear arsenal by far, at over 8,000 nuclear warheads, and is building it up. It, along with every other nuclear power in the world excluding the UK and the US, is rapidly modernizing its nuclear arsenal.

As for nuclear weapons’ “inhumane and indiscriminate destructive power” – it is not “inhumane.” EVERY weapon ever developed by man was invented for one purpose only: to kill other people and destroy things. Nuclear weapons are not any more “immoral” than other types of weapons.

And weapons (including nuclear ones) are not, in and of themselves, evil or good, moral or immoral. It all depends on who owns them and what are they intended for.

It is perfectly moral for a decent country like the UK, the US, or France to possess nuclear weapons. It is quite another for a murderous jihadist dictatorship like Iran, which has repeatedly threatened to destroy Israel, or for a murderous and aggressive regime like Putinist Russia, to possess such weapons – or any weapons, for that matter.

 

2) Leftist, pro-unilateral disarmament groups in the UK and the US routinely and grossly overstate the cost of nuclear deterrent modernization in order to mislead the public. Their lies need to be exposed for what they are: blatant lies.

In fact, replacing Trident with a flotilla of four new ballistic missile submarines will cost only about 20+25 bn pounds, i.e 75-80% less than the 100 bn quid the SNP falsely claims. Here’s the detailed data:

“A December 2006 Ministry of Defence white paper recommended that the nuclear weapons should be maintained and outlined measures that would do so until the 2040s. It advocated the currently preferred submarine-based system, as it remained the cheapest and most secure deterrence option available.

Costs for this option are estimated at £15–20 billion based on:

  • £0.25 billion to participate in U.S. Trident D5 missile life extension programme.
  • £11–14 billion for a class of four new SSBNs.
  • £2–3 billion for refurbishing warheads.
  • £2–3 billion for infrastructure.[10]

These 2006/7 prices would equate to about £25bn in out-turn price for the successor submarines; the 2011 Initial Gate report confirmed estimates of £2-3bn each for the warheads and infrastructure.[11] These cost estimates exclude theVanguard 5 year life extension and decommissioning, and it is unclear if new Trident missiles will need to be purchased for the life extension programme.”

Here’s the source.

 

3) As for military utility, that of nuclear weapons is much greater than that of any conventional weapons, no contest.

When it comes to deterring attacks on the UK and its citizens, especially against catastrophic threats such as a nuclear, chemical, biological, ballistic missile, or large-scale conventional attack, the ONLY thing that can prevent such attacks in the first place is a British nuclear deterrent. Nothing else will suffice. No other weapons on the planet have the destructive – and thus deterring – power that nuclear weapons do.

By the SNP’s, and other anti-nuke activists’, own admission, no other weapons have the “indiscriminate and inhumane” destructive power that nuclear weapons possess. Thus, no other weapons can deter potential aggressors from attacking Britain and its citizens with nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons or a large amount of conventional weapons or ballistic missiles.

There is NO alternative to nuclear weapons. NONE.

Why? Because, as even the SNP admits, nuclear weapons have unmatched destructive power – and it is precisely the destructive power of weapons that deters potential aggressors from attacking.

Wannabe aggressors will be deterred from attacking the UK ONLY if they are threatened with an overwhelming, devastating retaliation that would bring about their own end if they attack the UK.

Conventional weapons are way too weak to constitute an effective deterrent against potential aggressors. They completely lack the huge destructive (and thus deterring) power of nuclear weapons.

And protecting the UK and its citizens against large-scale aggression and intimidation should be (and is) the UK Government’s top priority.

The SNP and other anti-nuclear hacks falsely claim that “nuclear weapons will never be used.” We should hope they won’t be – and as long as the UK maintains its own national nuclear deterrent, they will never be.

That’s because nuclear weapons, thanks to their sheer power, DETER potential aggressors from attacking Britain or her allies WITHOUT being used, thus avoiding their actual use. Without firing a single shot or a single missile, Britain thus deters wannabe aggressors from attacking.

And a weapon that PREVENTS war from occuring in the first place – and thus deters aggressors without actually being used – is worth a million times more than a weapon actually used in combat.

It is much better to PREVENT war than to actually fight it.

That is not to say conventional weapons are useless. They are useful and needed for a range of roles and operations, ranging from wars against other states to combat against terrorists. But they cannot ever protect Britain from a large-scale nuclear, chemical, ballistic, or even conventional attack.

Conventional weapons simply lack the sheer destructive power of nuclear weapons to be able to do that.

And the threats I’ve mentioned are far from theoretical. Russia alone possesses over 8,000 nuclear warheads – and the means to deliver them all to the UK, all of Europe, and anywhere in the world. It is still growing its nuclear arsenal and rapidly modernizing it, with scores of new ICBMs and short-range ballistic missiles, a planned fleet of new Borei-class ballistic missile submarines, additional Tu-160 bombers being manufactured, and new bombers and ICBMs under development.

Russia has also developed and tested intermediate-range nuclear-capable missiles in violation of the INF Treaty.

Contrary to widespread belief, Russia is growing, not cutting, its nuclear arsenal. The New START treaty, signed by the US and Russia in 2010, obligates only the US, not Russia, to cut its arsenal. Russia is free to grow its own – and is doing so.

Russia is also quite willing to use these weapons against the UK and its allies. It has threatened to use them against European countries (including the UK) and the US on 15 separate occassions since 2007.

It has repeatedly (including recently) flown nuclear-armed bombers within miles of Britain’s shores, forcing RAF fighters to scramble to intercept them.

It has repeatedly threatened to use nuclear weapons first, even against states that don’t have such weapons, and its official military doctrine openly reserves for Russia the right to do so.

North Korea also possesses nuclear weapons, as well as ICBMs capable of delivering them as far as Europe and the Continental US, and is now developing ballistic missile submarines (of the kind that the SNP would deny the UK).

Iran is now also developing nuclear weapons, despite its false claims to the contrary, and so far, the world’s major powers have failed to convince Iran to forego that development. Saudi Arabia, a Sunni kingdom and Iran’s biggest rival in the Islamic world, doesn’t want to be behind Tehran, and so has ordered nuclear weapons in Pakistan and ballistic missiles in China. Nobody else besides Britain is considering disarming themselves. On the contrary, more and more countries are considering ACQUIRING nuclear weapons, because they are the ONLY guarantee of national survival and security.

Contrary to the false claims of the SNP and the rest of the lunatic pro-disarmament crowd, a nuclear attack is not a purely theoretical threat of bygone Cold War days. It is more real and more deadlier a threat than ever. Consequently, the UK’s nuclear deterrent is needed now more than ever.

And the claim that nuclear weapons siphon money away from conventional capabilities is also patently false, given that maintaining the new nuclear deterrent would cost only 1.5 bn GBP per year out of an annual defence budget of almost 40 bn GBP – i.e. less than one tenth (1/10).

As you can see, all claims of the SNP and the rest of the pro-nuclear-disarmament are utterly false. Not a single of them is true. This should pour cold water on the heads of all those who seek to disarm the UK – especially the SNP lunatics who seek to break the United Kingdom apart and thus force the Royal Navy to abandon the nuclear deterrent or move it out of Scotland.

Postscript: Some leftist Scots have recently responded to this article by protesting that whatever the Scottish people decide – whether or not to leave the UK, whether or not to remove Trident from Scotland – it’s their democratic choice and should be respected. I strongly disagree, for two reasons.

Firstly, a majority vote can never make a bad, evil policy wrong. And disarming the UK unilaterally, or helping bring that about, IS evil.

Secondly, this entire “Scottish independence referendum” is the biggest scam perpetrated against the people of Scotland (and people of the entire UK) in recent decades. It has nothing to do with Scotland’s independence, building a better future for Scotland, democracy, or self-determination. All this referendum exercise is REALLY designed to do is to extract more and more concessions for the UK government and to win the SNP more votes, free publicity, and attention. In other words, it will serve no purpose other than the SNP’s and its leader’s self-aggrandizement. In still other words, the most despicable of purposes.

Posted in Ideologies, Nuclear deterrence, Threat environment, Uncategorized, World affairs | Leave a Comment »

An uncomfortable truth about most people – and about how the world really works

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on August 21, 2014


Have you ever wondered, Dear Reader, why it’s difficult to obtain something (sometimes even simple things) from other people? And to land a date with a quality woman? And a well-paying job at a good company?

Today, I’ll explain to you why. In so doing, I will reveal an uncomfortable secret about most people on this planet – and about how the world works.

And I’ll do it for free.

After you read what it is, you’ll understand why people often demand enormous effort of you, and enormous rewards from you, to obtain something from them – sometimes the most banal things. Why people won’t help you out even when you need them. Why decent, well-paying jobs are hard to obtain. Why landing a date with quality women is also hard. And thus, how to obtain all of these and thus become successful.

So what is the reason? What is the secret?

Here it is:

The vast majority (around 90-95%) of people on this planet are egoists. They’re selfish. They don’t care about anyone except themselves and their families. The only thing they care about is their self-interest (or at least what they believe is in their interest). They don’t give a damn about anything except what they want. They don’t care about anything except their own feelings, emotions, desires, and plans.

Therefore, these people don’t give a damn about you… unless they need you.

They will interact with you, and give you something, only if they need you or if you can give them something they value.

This is not right or wrong, merely natural. This is the way the world works.

Now, as I said, other people aren’t even willing to interact with you, let alone give you something, unless YOU can offer them something they truly value.

A company won’t hire you for a position unless you have all the skills, qualifications, and experience needed to perform that job well. A beautiful, intelligent woman won’t date you unless you are interesting and attractive to her (i.e. unless you are good-looking, healthy, physically fit, have a good sense of humor, and share at least some of her interest).

And even ordinary people – all of them except your closest friends and family members – won’t give you something you need, and won’t help you out in need, unless YOU give them something they want in return.

Remember, at least 90% of all people on this planet are egoists. Selfish people. They care only about getting what they want. They don’t give a damn about what you want. In fact, the vast majority of them couldn’t care less about your existence unless you have something they need.

So how to succeed with such people? How to succeed in this world full of selfish people who care only about themselves?

Here’s how:

  • Firstly, you must have something that would be of value to many people – especially the people whom you know you will need something from. (Obviously, that means figuring out early on WHO you’ll need smth from.)
  • Secondly, you must figure out how to “barter” with people – how to exchange what you have for what you want from other people.

As to the first point: you’ll need to become attractive to people. Especially to potential employers and to women. You’ll need to acquire specific skills, qualifications, and experience necessary to obtain employment at companies that pay well, and you’ll need to work very hard, to the best of your ability and the maximum of your stamina, to earn a lot. To attract women, you need to be physically fit, healthy, clean (those are the absolute prerequisites), funny, and interesting (do interesting things in your life). Other kinds of people will often demand physical things, or some quid pro quo, from you.

And as regards the second point, you must know how to use your skills, experience, and positive traits and characteristics to other people’s benefit – to give them what they want – so that they give you want you want in return (assuming you’re dealing with honest people).

In other words, what exactly do you have to offer to other people, and how exactly can you put it to use so that other people will see a benefit in using your services?

What do you have to offer, and how will others benefit if they “buy” what you have to offer?

Think of yourself as a salesman in everything you do.

Also, think of yourself everyday as a country which has resources it can sell others, as well as needs for commodities it needs but doesn’t have and must import them from others.

Think of yourself as a country which must find a profitable market for what it has to offer, and develop a way to sell it, so that it can import what it needs.

If you intend to apply for a job, read the posting carefully and think: do you meet all the requirements? How will hiring you benefit the company? How will it profit if it hires you instead of the dozens of other candidates who have applied for this job?

But, of course, you can succeed with other people only if you already have something to offer that they value.

Companies value experience, skills, and formal qualifications (such as a driver’s and a forklift operator’s license).

Quality women value physically fit, funny, interesting guys.

If you don’t have something that these, or other, people value, you will never succeed in this world.

So, whether your goal is to land a well-paying job or win the heart of a quality woman, you need to have something they highly value. Without it, you’ll be an irrelevant nobody to them. To 90% of the people around you.

You need to be desirable from the start.

If you are not, you will never be successful in life.

A guy who applies for a job for which he lacks the requisite experience or formal qualifications will not obtain that job – unless and until he gets qualified for that job.

A guy who is a dirty slob, a boring or deadly serious guy, or who doesn’t lead an interesting life, will never get to date quality women – unless he seriously changes his life.

A guy who wants A from someone who needs B, but doesn’t have B to offer, will never obtain A.

So take inventory: What qualifications, skills, and experience do you have? What are your personal traits and physical characteristics? What do you do in your spare time?

Then ask yourself: what do other people (those that you want something from) need, and what do they want from you?

Then: How to exchange something you have to offer for something they have?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Hans Kristensen, Jeffrey Lewis, and others proven dead wrong yet again

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on August 21, 2014


Once again, liberal pro-unilateral-disarmament bloggers such as Hans M. Kristensen at FAS and Jeffrey Lewis of “ArmsControlWonk.com” have been proven dead wrong, as usual.

For years, these liberal pro-unilateral-disarmament activists have been falsely claiming that China’s nuclear arsenal is tiny at just 240-250 warheads; that China is not conducting any large-scale nuclear buildup; that Beijing has not equipped its missiles with multiple nuclear warheads; that the JL-2 missile cannot reach the CONUS unless the submarines carrying it are positioned in the Western Hemisphere, etc.

For over 2 years, this writer and others have been debunking the lies of these liberal anti-nuclear activists, but they nonetheless kept peddling their lies even though they probably know that they’re lying.

But now even more solid evidence has arrived: an admission from the Chinese that they’re greatly building up their nuclear arsenal. A leaked internal document of the Chinese Second Artillery Corps (China’s ground-based missile force) reveals Beijing’s plan (which is already in execution) to conduct a huge buildup of its nuclear arsenal beyond the existing force levels, including deploying multiple warheads on ballistic missiles.

The Washington Times’ Bill Gertz reports in the latest Inside the Ring column (emphasis mine):

“An internal People’s Liberation Army document has revealed plans to greatly expand the PLA’s nuclear arsenal.

“We must accelerate the process of upgrading our nuclear ICBMs, continuously perfecting our nuclear armaments structure; strengthening strategic early warning mechanisms against enemy ballistic missiles; step up the production of new generation nuclear missiles to appropriately increase the number of our nuclear warheads so that the combat effectiveness of our nuclear missile arsenal will have a qualitative leap forward,” according to a translated portion of the document obtained by Inside the Ring.

The document was produced within the past year as part of a strategy lecture for the Second Artillery Corps, the PLA’s nuclear and conventional missile forces. It provides further evidence that China is building up its nuclear forces in secret, raising new concerns about its nuclear intentions.

“Only when we solidify and enhance our trustworthy and reliable nuclear deterrence and nuclear counter-strike capabilities can we effectively contain strategic threats, buttress our status as a big power, make contribution to stopping hegemonism, safeguarding world peace,” states the document, as first reported by Kyodo News on Aug. 4.”

But it isn’t just this leaked internal document or credible studies by analysts such as General Viktor Yesin who have documented China’s MIRVing of its ICBMs (i.e. deploying multiple warheads on them); it’s also simple logic.

China has been developing MIRV (multiple independently-targetable reentry vehicle) “buses” for warheads since at least the 1980s, and has already deployed three ICBM types (DF-5, DF-31/31A, DF-41) that can carry multiple warheads. In fact, the DF-41 can carry ten warheads, and so can, in all likelihood, the DF-5 heavy ICBM, while the DF-31 can carry three.

The Chinese navy’s JL-2 submarine-launched ballistic missile can carry at least 4 warheads; newer variants can carry up to 12.

Why on Earth would China spend a lot of treasure developing, testing, and procuring multiple-warhead-capable missiles if it didn’t intend to deploy multiple warheads on them? That would make no sense. You do so only if you do intend to deploy multiple warheads on your ICBMs and SLBMs – and that’s what China has done.

Two other myths long peddled by Kristensen and Lewis now also bite the dust: that Chinese ballistic missile submarines have never went on patrol, and that their JL-2 missiles have a range of only 7,200-7,400 kms.

These myths now also bite the dust. As the WantChinaTimes newspaper reports:

“The PLA Navy’s nuclear-powered Type 094 submarine was spotted patrolling with the missile, which has a range of around 8,000 km and can carry multiple warheads, at the beginning of this year.”

WantChinaTimes has included this caveat in its article:

“The missile’s range still falls short of China’s ideal target range however since the Type 094 submarines need a missile with a range over 12,000 km to strike North America from South China Sea.”

However, the JL-2′s newer variants, the Jia and the Yi, have a range of 12,000 to 14,000 kms and are thus capable of what WCT speaks of.

Even the basic JL-2 variant, with a range of just 8,000 kms, is capable of destroying San Francisco if the submarine carrying it is positioned just slightly east of the 140E meridian, just slightly east of Japan; and it can destroy Seattle if the launcher is positioned in Japanese territorial waters or the Tsugaru Strait.

Besides, when operating a ballistic missile submarine, it wouldn’t be advantageous to position it too far away from the target. On the contrary, the most clever way to operate it would be to position it close to enemy shores. That way, any missiles fired by the submarine would reach their targets within minutes, leaving the opponent with little or no time to respond.

If a Chinese (or Russian) ballistic missile sub were positioned near the US West Coast, its missiles could reach any target within the Continental US within 15 minutes or less, giving the US no time to respond.

Thus, Kristensen’s and Lewis’s lies have once again been debunked.

Posted in Nuclear deterrence, Threat environment, World affairs | Leave a Comment »

Les mensonges de Regis Chomel de Jarnieu

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on August 14, 2014


Dans le nouveau Figaro du 14 aout 2014, il y a un interview avec un militant anti-automobiliste (nominalement “pour la securite routiere”), Regis Chomel de Jarnieu, president de “l’Association française de prévention des comportements sur la route”. M. Chomel de Jarnieu y a dit plusieurs mensonges. Sa mensonge la plus debile est:

“Les radars automatiques sont, pour une bonne part, à l’origine de la diminution de la mortalité au volant. Cela donne tort, encore une fois, à tous ceux qui dénoncent une politique de répression dans ce qui est, en réalité, une politique de juste sanction à l’égard d’automobilistes qui sont en rupture du contrat social.”

Mais en fait, la securite sur les routes francaises a deteriore, en lieu de s’ameliorer, a comparaison avec les premiers 7 mois (janvier-juillet) de l’an 2013. Comme Le Figaro nous informe dans un autre article:

“Malgré ces bons résultats en juillet, la Sécurité routière appelle à la vigilance, rappelant la hausse continue au cours des six premiers mois de l’année 2014 du nombre de tués sur les routes.  Ainsi à la fin du mois de juillet, la mortalité s’établit à 1.833 morts à la fin juillet contre 1.761 sur la même période en 2013, soit une hausse de 4,1%.”

Donc toute cette politique de repression extreme contre les automobiliste n’a fait RIEN, totallement RIEN, a ameliorer la securite sur les routes francaises. Tous les radars et controles de vitesse, toutes les peines, tous les retraits des points n’ont fait RIEN a ameliorer la securite routiere en France. Il y a avait PLUS des morts sur les routes francaises cette annee, jusqu’a la fin du juillet, que pendant les premiers 7 mois de 2013!

Il n’y a donc AUCUNE raison pour se feliciter. Au lieu de se feliciter et de se disputer qu’est ce qui a fait baisser la mortalite routiere, il faudrait achever une baisse reelle.

Au niveau qu’une baisse de mortalite a ete achevee (par rapport mensuel, juillet 2014 vs juillet 2013), ce n’est pas du a la repression debile de l’Etat francais, mais a l’amelioration continue des voitures sur les routes francaises, ainsi que l’education des conducteurs francais.

Mais, comme j’ai ecrit ci-dessus, il n’y avait une vrai baisse de la mortalite routiere cette annee. Donc il n’y a pas de raison pour se feliciter.

En plus, Le Figaro revele que beaucoup de Francais se fichent des limitations de vitesse, donc les automobilistes n’ont vraiment leve la pied.

Toute la repression policiere contre les automobilistes a totallement echouee, et ce n’est pas surprenant pourquoi. La vitesse n’est pas la premiere ou meme la deuxieme plus importante cause des accidents routiers en France. La premiere, c’est l’alcool (responsable pour un tiers de tous les morts sur les routes); la deuxieme, c’est la somnolence (responsable aussi pour un tiers); et la troisieme, c’est les exces de vitesse (25%), suivi par le non-respect des distances de securite et le refus de passage.

En plus, Le Figaro a recettement revele des comportements tres mauvais de la part des automobilistes: un usage frequent des telephones portables au volant et le fait que 10% de tous les personnes tues sur les routes francaises en 2013 ne portaient pas sa ceinture de securite.

J’ai deja ecrit que faut-il faire pour ameliorer la securite routiere en France. Il faut tacler les VRAIES causes de la mortalite routiere: l’alcool, les drogues, et les portables au volant; la somnolence; le non-respect des distances de securite; et le refus de passage et de porter la ceinture de securite. Des peines joueront certainement un role, mais l’education, la construction des points de repos, et des autres mesures auront aussi un role a jouer. La penalisation du mauvais comportement, ce n’est pas assez.

http://www.lefigaro.fr/automobile/2014/08/14/30002-20140814ARTFIG00210-baisse-de-la-mortalite-routiere-les-sanctions-et-la-formation-y-sont-pour-beaucoup.php

http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2014/08/14/97001-20140814FILWWW00143-baisse-de-la-mortalite-routiere-de-116.php

Posted in Road safety | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Good metrics to measure fighters with

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on August 12, 2014


In 1982, weapon systems analyst Pierre Sprey published a study briefly narrating air-to-air combat from World War 1 to the 1970s and outlining on that basis what he believes are the characteristics and capabilities a fighter must have to prevail in air combat. By that yardstick, he then measured a number of fighters that were then in service, in development, or had been retired from service some years earlier. I’ve read the study and I must say that, except his requirement that one must outnumber the enemy, his criteria are valid and constitute a very good – perhaps even the best – yardstick to measure fighters with. Specifically, Sprey wrote that to prevail in combat against other fighters, the aircraft a nation decides to procure must be able to (in that order of importance):

  • Surprise the enemy by detecting him before he detects that aircraft, positiong itself behind the enemy’s rear (his weakest point, usually a blind spot), and shooting him down by surprise (80% of all fighters shot down in wars from WW1 to the 1970s went down without their crews knowing what hit them);
  • Outnumber the enemy;
  • Outmaneuver (outaccelerate, outdecelerate, outclimb, and outturn) the enemy and transition from one maneuver to another more seamlessly than he can; and
  • Outlast the enemy and run him out of fuel if the fight is prolonged.

The requirement that one must outnumber the enemy is not valid. If numbers were the key to victory, let alone the second most important characteristic of fighters as Sprey claims, then virtually every war in history should’ve been won through sheer numbers. If that were the case, the RAF would’ve never been able to defeat the much larger German fighter fleet in the Battle of Britain, the Israeli AF would’ve been utterly trounced by its Arab counterparts in the Six Day and Yom Kippur Wars (and Israel would’ve probably ceased to exist, as its Arab neighbors wish), and the small global fleet of F-15s would’ve been utterly trounced by its foreign opponents. This is not to say that a small fleet of “silver bullet” aircraft will suffice to defeat the enemy. Eventually, he’ll be able to overwhelm the “silver bullet” fleet with sheer numbers. But numbers are not the decisive factor in air to air warfare, let alone the 2nd most important factor. But Sprey’s other three requirements are absolutely correct. Common sense alone validates most of them. So does Sun Tzu, the greatest military mind in history, who believed you should always try to take the enemy by surprise, and when you can’t, you should outmaneuver him. (He did not believe, however, that having greater numbers gives one any advantage, and he was opposed to prolong fights. History proved him right and Sprey wrong.) So, modern fighters compare to each other by Sprey’s yardstick like this:

  • The best fighters, by his criteria, are the Dassault Rafale and the Typhoon. They’re small and thus difficult to see visually. They don’t emit much heat, so they’re hard to detect with IR sensors. Smoke is not an issue with them. Very maneuverable, they have a good rate of climb (60,000 ft per minute in the Rafale’s case, 62,000 ft/min for the Typhoon), very low wing loading, high thrust/weight ratios, and can thus outturn the enemy; and being light, they can transition from one maneuver to another seemlessly. They also have IRSTs  - and lots of fuel to burn, and can thus outlast the enemy.
  • Their only weakness, such as it is, is they can fly no faster than Mach 2. However, that’s a speed most fighters never fly at, except for a few seconds perhaps. Both the Rafale and the Typhoon have supercruise capability, meaning they can cruise efficiently at supersonic speeds without using fuel-gulping, superhot afterburners.
  • The Gripen is even smaller, lighter, and more maneuverable, but its very low ceiling and top speed, and short combat radius, let it down significantly. An enemy could run a Gripen out of fuel, or outrun it, easily. It also carries a puny weapons load (8 missiles).
  • The F-16 is better than the Gripen. Its only weaknesses are: a very short combat radius (550 kms), the risk of being run out of fuel, and the fact it doesn’t have supercruise capab. and can’t fly faster than Mach 2. It also lacks an IRST. But the F-16 should, in most cases, be able to defeat the enemy without prolonged fighting. The same applies to the even lighter, more maneuverable F-5, which has repeatedly ran F-15s out of fuel.
  • The J-35 Draken, the Mirage III and 5, and the F-86 are too old to take into account. However, they were highly maneuverable, nimble, simple, and cheap aircraft. Older pilots of Israeli Air Force have said of all fighters they’ve ever flown, the best was the Mirage III – which the IAF liked so much, it developed its own variants of it.
  • The MiG-29 is as good as, if not better than, the F-16. It flies and climbs faster, is almost as good at turning, has a better combat radius, and is of roughly the same size. It is a far, far better fighterplane than it gets credit for being.
  • The Flankers are (excepting the Su-33) very maneuverable, have good rates of climb, lots of weapons, lots of fuel to burn, long combat radii, and lots of diverse countermeasures. However, they are big and hot, and thus easy to see visually and with IRSTs, esp. if they light up their radar (which will also give their position away thanks to RWRs).
  • Also, their climb rates and wing loading (again, excepting the Su-33, which is downright pathetic) are still inferior to those of the Rafale and the Typhoon, as well as the MiG-29). By the latter measure, they’re also inferior to the F-15, F-22, and F-16. The J-11 and J-16 gain on the Rafale/Typhoon duo with a climb rate of 300-305 metres/second, and the J-15 naval fighter overtakes them at 325 m/s. It is currently the best naval fighter in the world and will easily trounce the F/A-18 A thru F.
  • So how does the “Super Hornet” compare to its Chinese counterpart (or to the Rafale and the Typhoon)? Pathetically.
  • It has a climb rate of just 228 m/s; a wing loading of 459 kg/sq m; a T/W ratio of just 0.93; an inability to sustain more than 7.6Gs; and a top speed of just Mach 1.8 compared to Mach 2.35 for the J-15. Also, its engines smoke as badly as those of the F-15 and the now-retired F-14 “Tom Turkey”, to which it is also decisively inferior.
  • The F-15 and the F-22 are very fast, fly very high, and carry lots of missiles. The F-22, in addition, is stealthy and supercruising. But they are big and thus easy to see visually from at least 5 miles; very hot (though there are IR sig reduction measures on the F-22); and the F-15′s engines emit a lot of smoke, making it even easier to see, while the F-22 lacks an IRST and relies on its radar as its sole sensor. This is a huge mistake; the moment you light your radar up, you’re a dead duck because the enemy, thanks to his RWR, will know where you are and who you are (US radar operates at completely different frequencies and wavelengths than Russian radar). If you lock on a radar-guided missile on the enemy, he’ll know a launch is imminent and will duck it.
  • The MiG-21 is very light, maneuverable, and as fast as an F-16, but it can’t carry much ordnance, has little fuel to burn, and its pilot lack rearward visibility, bc the MiG-21 was designed as an interceptor in the belief that dogfighting was obsolete. The Indian AF’s MiG-21 fleet was completely trounced by the Pakistanis, flying the Mark VI Sabre, in 1971… 21 years after the Sabre first saw combat over Korea.
Bottom line: smaller, lighter, more maneuverable, well-armed fighters, if they have enough fuel to outlast the enemy, can trounce bigger, more complex, more expensive fighters. The key to prevailing in air combat is not stealthiness or who has the biggest, most capable radar, or who flies the fastest and the highest. The key is surprise, maneuverability, and outlasting the enemy. And by that yardstick, the Rafale and the Typhoon have only two peers: the MiG-29 and the J-15 Flying Shark.

Posted in Air combat | Tagged: , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 440 other followers