Zbigniew Mazurak's Blog

A blog dedicated to defense issues

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 »

Un agenda franco-chinois

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on August 9, 2014


L’économie francaise reste stagnante, il y a plus de 3 millions de chomeurs en France, et dans la conqueté des marchés émergents du monde – la Chine, la Russie, l’Iran, le Bresil, le Vietnam, l’Inde – la France reste derrière l’Allemagne et souvent aussi le Royaume-Uni.

Comment redresser cela?

Il faut commencer avec le plus grand marché émergent au monde: celui de Chine, avec 1,3 milliard de consommateurs.

Selon fr.news.yahoo.com:

“Les exportations françaises en Chine se sont élevées à 14,7 milliards d’euros l’an dernier et les importations depuis la Chine à 40,5 milliards, soit un déficit commercial de 25,8 milliards, après 26,1 milliards en 2012 et 27 milliards en 2011.”

En mars dernier, le président de la République François Hollande a signé des contrats avec le président chinois Xi Jinping qui valent 18 Mds d’Euros, mais c’est toujours trop peu. Ce n’est pas assez. Il y a toujours un deficit commercial de 25,8 milliards par an (2013). Il faut faire beaucoup plus afin que la France puisse conquêter le vaste marché chinois. En le faisant, la France peut construire plus qu’une forte position dans ce marché – elle peut construire un fort partenariat geopolitique avec la Chine. Specifiquement:

  • La France devrait reconnaitre publiquement les Iles Diaoyu/Senkaku, Spratly, et Paracelsus comme territoire chinois et partie integrale de la Chine, soutenir diplomatiquement (notamment en Conseil de Sécurité de l’ONU) les efforts de la Chine de s’en emparer, interdir le Dalai Lama d’venir en France, et soutenir la Chine contre les manifestants hongkongais, si la Chine ouvre son marche, sans limitations et sans aucun tarif, à tous les produits francais, si les compagnies aériennes chinoises achètent plus d’avions d’Airbus, et si les elites chinoises achetent des voitures francaises et pas d’autres. Il faut que la Chine ouvre son marche a TOUS les produits francais, pas seulement le porc et le vin.
  • La France devrait vendre a la Chine la mine d’uran à Fanay pour exploitation, et de la terre cultivable actuellement non utilisée pour la cultivation du vin aux vignards et milliardaires chinois.
  • La France devrait commencer l’exploitation de ses reserves de manganium sous-maritimes (sous la mer) autour de Tahiti et de la Reunion et exporter le manganium à la Chine (mais aussi aux autres marchés émergents, comme l’Inde et la Corée du Sud).
  • L’Etat français devrait negocier la vente de ses actifs en PSA Peugeot Citroen et Renault au constructeur chinois Dongfeng, et la vente de ses nombreux châteaux et hôteaux particuliers aux millionnaires chinois.
  • La Chine devrait créer beaucoup plus des Zones Economiques Franco-Chinoises partout en France, surtout en regions les plus touchées par le chômage (la Languedoc-Roussillon, la region PACA, le Nord-Pas-de-Calais, la Picardie, etc.).
  • La France devrait augmenter, de manière significative, sa production agroalimentaire, afin d’exporter plus de nourriture au marché chinois.
  • La France devrait faire signer un accord de voyage sans visa à l’Union Europeenne et la Chine.
  • La France devrait augmenter le tempo de l’exploitation des ressources de nickel à la Nouvelle Caledonie si les marchés émergents en ont besoin.
  • Quand le budget francais est met en equilibre, la France devrait vendre toutes ses ressources minérales sous-maritimes à la Chine afin de se désendetter.
  • Il faut creer un agence qui fera une promotion constante des produits francais dans le monde, particulierement en Chine. Il faut notamment promouvoir les voitures, boissons alcooliques, et les autres produits de luxe francais.

Il faut aussi cooperer avec la Chine dans le domaine militaire. Notamment, il faut:

  • Signer avec la Chine un accord de non-espionage (no spy agreement) et de defense mutuelle en cyberspace.
  • Garantir mutuellement l’utilisation des constellations de satellites de navigation Galileo et Beidou par les forces de missiles des deux nations.
  • Signer avec la Chine un accord qui permettrait au CEA des achats d’uran de haut et de bas enrichement, et de pluton, a la Chine, si besoin.
  • Mettre en ouvre des exercises annuelles jointes des armées aériennes française et chinoise, notamment dans le domaine du combat aérien, afin que l’AdlA puisse pratiquer des maneuvres du combat aérien avec des pilotes chinois de J-7, J-10, J-11/15/16, Su-27/30, et J-31.
  • Signer un accord qui permettra à l’AdlA française d’utiliser le vaste espace aérien chinois pour l’entrainement de ses pilotes et pour des exercises.
  • Acheter des avions discrets J-20 ou J-31 à la Chine dans l’avenir.

Posted in Economic affairs, World affairs | Leave a Comment »

Political Parties: The Greatest Danger to Individual Liberty

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on August 3, 2014


What is the greatest danger to your and my individual liberty? To your and my personal and economic freedom?

You may answer, “Barack Obama”, “the IRS”, “gun-grabbers”, “political correctness”, “the Leftist media”, etc. But you would be wrong.

Political correctness is just one of the many symptoms of the loss of freedom. The IRS, the Leftist media, and the gun-grabbing BATF are just some of the federal government’s tools of oppressing you and taking away your liberty.

Barack Obama is just one among many millions of power-hungry Democratic Party politicians, the current de facto leader of that Party, and a faithful implementer of that Party’s policies.

Because Barack Obama is just a part of the problem.

The biggest problem, and the source of all others, the greatest danger to your individual liberty and mine, is political parties.

It is no accident that in his Farewell Address, the biggest danger George Washington warned against were political parties.

Many people, especially on the political Right, are annoyed by tax and spending hikes, the ballooning national debt, the repression of right-wing groups by the IRS, the pro-Democratic-Party bias of the “mainstream media”, Hollywood, schools, and universities, the importation of millions of Third World socialist-minded illegals into the country, gun and fracking bans, Obamacare, and continued other bans on various kinds of activities the federal and state governments don’t approve of.

But these are mere symptoms of the disease. Its root cause is simple: political parties.

All of that evil repression and ever-growing limitation of your personal and economic freedom is occurring for a practical reason. None of it is happening by accident. Nor is it happening for purely ideological reasons, i.e. it isn’t happening because the Democrats believe this will make the country and its citizens better off.

While some Democrats, especially on the far Left, believe that with ideological zeal, the truth is, most Democrats, including Obama, don’t care one iota whether this will make the country and its people better off or not. They couldn’t care less whether it will help the country or drive it off the cliff. They don’t care if it will make the American people wealthier or poorer.

The Democratic Party doesn’t mean well. (I’ll get to the Republican Party in a minute.) It means ill.

It doesn’t care whether its policies will make the country and its people better off or not. All it cares about is whether its policies will allow it to REMAIN IN POWER – e.g. by maintaining and expanding the permanent dependency class which lives off federal handouts paid for by taxpayers. (This includes the couch potatoes who spend their entire day watching TV on their plasma screens while eating junk food.)

For the same reason – to REMAIN IN POWER INDEFINITELY – the Democratic Party has, since the 1960s, facilitated the importation of tens of millions of legal and illegal immigrants from the Third World – people with socialist, collectivist mindsets. People who, instead of changing themselves to adapt America, demand that America change to adapt to them.

Republicans, for their part, are afraid of dismantling, or even seriously cutting, the welfare state, because they know most Americans want to KEEP their federal handouts. If they proposed scrapping them, most Americans would rise in protest and shout: “Don’t you even THINK about taking away MY Social Security, MY Medicare/Medicaid, MY foodstamps, MY free cell phone, MY farm subsidies, MY unemployment insurance, MY welfare, and MY XXXX!”

As Mitt Romney has said, the dependency class is a permanent voter bloc of the Democratic Party.

Likewise, Republicans are deadly afraid to vote against amnesty for illegal aliens, because they fear (and are being told from all sides) that if they oppose amnesty, Hispanics will forever oppose them, which would mean their PARTY would never again REGAIN POWER. And they do not want to become a permanent MINORITY PARTY. They want to once again be THE PARTY IN POWER.

Note that I’ve repeatedly capitalized phrases like “REMAIN IN POWER”, “REGAIN POWER”, and “THE PARTY IN POWER.” I’ve done this deliberately, because ultimately, the only thing the Democratic AND the Republican Party want is to BE IN POWER. POWER OVER YOU, to be exact.

And they already exercise a good measure of POWER OVER YOU, regardless of which PARTY IS IN POWER.

How did this all come about? Because a long time ago, long before you were born, power-hungry politicians in both parties – and the parties themselves, as organizations – became so obsessed with power for its own sake that they implemented a long-term plan that allowed them to seize real, huge power over the American people – and the people unwittingly accepted the plan.

Political parties have always been a danger, and George Washington warned against them in his Farewell Address. He knew that the greatest danger to individual liberty was posed by political parties. During his presidency, two parties – the Federalist and the Democratic-Republican Party – were formed.

Both parties represented only specific special interest groups and some regions of the country instead of representing all Americans. The Federalists represented the North, the finance world, merchants, and the nascent American industry. The Democratic-Republicans (Jeffersonians) represented the South and agriculture. Both were beholden to their regions’ special interests and thus acted solely for their benefit.

But at least until the Civil War, the Constitution was strictly obeyed in America, so it wasn’t possible for any governing party to have any significant power over the nation at large. The Constitution’s limits on the Feds’ powers and the American system of federalism (states’ rights) meant that the federal government had very little power, just like the Swiss government today.

So what happened?

By the late 19th century, that darn Constitution became so inconvenient and so onerous an obstacle to political parties’ and politicians’ hunger for power that it was simply completely trashed and cast aside. And the American people accepted this.

It Began In the 19th Century

Here’s what happened: in the late 19th century, there were powerful special interest groups in the US which wanted to use the fed. govt. as a vehicle for their private benefit. So did many politicians, both Dems and Progressive Repubs, who were also hungry for power for its own sake.

But they couldn’t really have much power over the American people, let alone make any real profit from the fed. govt., as long as the Constitution’s limits were in place and a majority of Americans insisted on obeying them.

So they did three things. Firstly, where and when possible, they amended the Constitution by getting the 16th and 17th Amendment ratified.

The former gave the federal government an UNLIMITED source of income to become bloated. The latter dismantled what was arguably the GREATEST limit on the federal government power: a Senate appointed by, and answerable to, state governments.

But there were still some other limits on federal power, like the nondelegation doctrine (making the Fed Reserve unconstitutional) and the Enumerated Powers Clause – oh, and that darned 10th Amendment. So what did those power-hungry party politicians (mostly liberal Democrats, but also Progressive Repubs) do?

Collectivist Brainwashers Seized the Education System

They seized control of the education system, thus brainwashing students from the 1st grade to graduate school into believing that:

a) the Constitution really doesn’t limit the federal government’s power – that it actually allows its power to expand over time;

b) that the fed. govt. has very broad powers under the Constitution; and

c) that the Constitution doesn’t matter, what matters is what people want (and say through opinion polls).

And so, politicians promised the people they’d give them “free” handout sof all kinds, as long as they’d vote for them. Thus, they effectively began buying votes. For themselves and their parties.

Of course the Democrats knew that they couldn’t institute socialism in the US immediately like it was done in Bolshevik Russia. So they began instituting it step-by-step, in small steps, in an imperceptible, gradual fashion. Later, the leader of the CPUSA said that the American people would eventually accept socialism – not outright, but in small, imperceptible steps. And so it continues to happen.
 
But the Democrats didn’t implement statism, and aren’t implementing socialism, because they think it is the right way to revive the economy and help suffering Americans.
 
They’re doing so because that has created a huge, permanent dependency class which owes their PARTY and which will continue to reelect their PARTY NOMINEES into office.

The huge federal bureaucracy that employs millions of people also owes its existence to the Democratic Party. So all those people – federal employees and the dependency class (including most blacks and Hispanics) – always vote Democratic, no matter whom the Democrats nominate – even if they nominate the worst possible scoundrel, like Obama.

Giving all these people handouts, and making all of them dependent on the federal government and on the Democratic Party, serves only one purpose: to KEEP THE PARTY IN POWER.

Republicans don’t advocate cutting those welfare programs and the federal bureaucracy too much, because they fear alienating the dependency class and thus being prevented from RETURNING TO POWER.

Elsewhere around the world, in the West, parties have used them same method to seize and retain POWER, while outside the West, parties have often used the force of arms to seize and keep POWER. Vide China, North Korea, Vietnam, and Cuba.

But wherever they operate, and whoever they are, their goal is always the same: to SEIZE AND KEEP POWER OVER PEOPLE.

Because that is the ultimate goal of ALL POLITICAL PARTIES: to SEIZE, KEEP, AND EXPAND POWER OVER PEOPLE.

For that reason, they are the greatest danger to your individual liberty and mine. For, as Ronald Reagan said, “Man is not free unless government is limited.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

National Defense Panel Confirms What I’ve Been Saying For a Long Time

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on August 2, 2014


The bipartisan National Defense Panel – a group of former high-ranking defense officials and analysts appointed by the Defense Secretary and by the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the Congressional defense committees – has recently released its report on the state of America’s military.

This report is a clear-eyed, unbiased analysis of America’s defense needs and was commissioned by Congress as a credible alternative to the DOD’s “Quadrennial Defense Review”, which basically no one outside the Federal Government considers credible.

That’s because successive QDRs have been irredeemably biased, rigged, and not credible, because they were written AFTER defense budgets were proposed, and served ONLY to justify budgetary decisions (read: crippling defense cuts) already decided by the administration in office.

The latest (2014) QDR exemplifies this trend well. It greatly downplays the threats to America’s national security, and consequently, the military resources needed to counter them. In effect, it only serves to justify the Obama administration’s unjustifiable, dramatic defense cuts.

The 2014 QDR, like the previous ones, was driven by the budget – not the other way around, as it should be.

Under the Obama administration, defense policy is driven by how much the President and the Congress willl decide to spend on defense.

The National Defense Panel, by contrast, has conducted a holistic, comprehensive, unbiased review of America’s defense needs and has concluded that the threats to America’s security, and consequently, the amount of resources needed to counter them (money, ships, aircraft, etc.), far exceed what the White House and the Congress are prepared to admit or invest.

The National Defense Panel’s report clearly says the same things I’ve been saying for years, namely, that:

  • America’s defense spending in the coming decade will be woefully inadequate if sequestration persists.
  • The US Navy is too small and needs to have between 320 and 346 ships.
  • The US Air Force is also too small.
  • The vast majority of the US military’s equipment needs to be recapitalized and replaced.
  • America’s aging nuclear arsenal is in urgent need of replacement.
  • America’s monopoly on advanced military technology is a thing of the past.
  • America’s technological edge over its potential foes is eroding very fast, and faster than Washington officials are prepared to admit.
  • The panoply of anti-access/area-denial weapons fielded by various foreign nations, especially China and Russia, is turning entire regions into no-go zones for the US military except the handful of American platforms (such as B-2 bombers) that are stealthy, survivable, and lethal enough to pounce on the enemy.

The Panel does not pull any punches when it comes to condemning sequestration, and warns that the US military will be gutted if this diabolical mechanism persists.

Folks, this is exactly what I’ve been saying for a long, long time.

I’ve been warning since 2011 that sequestration is going to completely GUT the US military, making it unable to properly defend US national interests.

I’ve also been warning about the other forementioned issues for years.

Once again, I’ve been proven ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, and those who denied the above facts have been proven completely wrong. They include POGO, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Pat Buchanan, Dan Mitchell, Larry Kudlow, and Veronique de Rugy.

http://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/Ensuring-a-Strong-U.S.-Defense-for-the-Future-NDP-Review-of-the-QDR_0.pdf

Posted in Defense spending, Obama administration follies, Threat environment | Leave a Comment »

Rebuttal of Joe Cirincione’s pro-unilateral-disarmament lies

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on July 31, 2014


The Obama administration has recently – and very belatedly – announced it has found Russia in violation of the INF treaty, which prohibits Moscow and Washington from developing, testing, deploying, or otherwise possessing ground-launched missiles with a range between 500 and 5,500 kilometers.

Russia has been flagrantly violating the treaty since at least 2010, and we conservatives have been warning about this since 2012, when credible reports of such violations first emerged. However, until now, the Obama administration and the pro-arms-control crowd have been denying this fact – until it became too obvious and too easily provable to deny it.

So now that Russia has effectively made the INF treaty a dead letter, the administration and its sycophants in the treasonous pro-unilateral-disarmament community are calling on the US to continue to unilaterally adhere to the treaty and to cut its own arsenal even further, while Russia is building up its own and deploying missiles banned by the INF treaty.

This pro-unilateral-disarmament opinion was recently expressed by Joe Cirincione, president of the treasonous Ploughshares Fund, and his “research assistant” on the extremely leftist “DefenseOne” website.

Cirincione falsely claims that

“Some arms control critics want to use the issue as an excuse to jettison a system of arms restraints carefully constructed over the decades.”

Completely false. We, critics of “arms control” (which in fact means America’s unilateral disarmament), simply want the US to stop unilaterally adhering to treaties that no one else complies with. The INF treaty is an excellent example.

It makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER for the US to continue to slavishly and unilaterally adhere to a treaty that Russia has been flagrantly violating for years, and continues to violate (and will certainly continue to).

Cirincione writes that

“Concerns are raised privately in hope of resolving them. When that fails, they are made public. When that fails tougher diplomacy is tried.”

But all of that has utterly failed – and was doomed to fail. Why? Because continuing to comply with the INF Treaty is decidedly NOT in Russia’s national interest, plain and simple. Russia faces a huge missile and nuclear threat right on its doorstep – China. China possesses over 1,200 short-range, and over 120 medium-range ballistic missiles (DF-4, DF-21, DF-25, DF-26), as well as hundreds of DH-10 and CJ-10 ground-launched cruise missiles. These missiles allow China to target virtually any spot within Russia without involving its strategic (intercontinental) missile force, leaving it free to focus on the US. See the map below (DOD, Annual Report to Congress on the Military Power of the PRC, 2008).

PLA_ballistic_missiles_range-590x362

And “hope of resolving concerns” NEVER works. Hope is the mother of fools.

Cirincione also falsely claims that:

“Pulling out of a treaty that blocks the Russians from deploying weapons that we don’t have and don’t need would be foolish. “Releasing Russia from existing limits on strategic nuclear forces makes no sense, especially at this time of severe tensions between the West and the Kremlin,” says Tom Collina of the Arms Control Association.”

Utterly false. What is foolish and makes no sense is to continue to adhere to arms reduction treaties that NO ONE ELSE adheres to. Russia has already “released itself” from its arms control obligations – by simply violating them. There is no mortal force, no earthly force, that can bring them into compliance. There is no treaty that can “block” them from deploying weapons they want to possess. Treaties are just pieces of paper. If a rogue power like Russia decides not to comply with them – as Russia has decided – it will simply violate them.

And Russia has, for several years, been violating the INF treaty with impunity.

If the US doesn’t withdraw from these useless, suicidal arms reduction treaties, it will leave itself at a severe disadvantage. US withdrawal would be a mere formality. Russia itself has been grousing about formally withdrawing from INF for years, claiming (rightly) that the treaty is obsolete, unjust, and doesn’t serve its national interest, because it bars only Russia and the US – and no one else – from having intermediate-range missiles.

The question, therefore, is quite simple: Should the US continue to UNILATERALLY adhere to treaties Russia is not abiding by and has no intention of abiding by? Unsurprisingly, the pro-unilateral disarmament traitors at Ploughshares and the ACA say “yes, America should continue to unilaterally disarm itself.”

ACA’s Tom Collina further blatantly lies that:

“If the United States were to stop reducing its nuclear forces under the 2010 New START treaty, Russia would likely do the same, and could even build up its forces. (…) Rubio and his colleagues* go too far with a March 25 resolution that would hold Russia accountable for “being in material breach of its obligations” under the treaty by calling for a halt to U.S. implementation of further strategic nuclear reductions, a move that would likely trigger a similar Russian response.”

Those are also blatant lies – just like everything else ACA and Ploughshares claim. Russia is NOT reducing ANYTHING – except reducing arms control treaties to dead letters. Russia is ALREADY building up its nuclear arsenal, and has been for several years – with the Russian nuclear buildup ACCELERATING after New START was ratified. That’s because New START obligates only the US – but not Russia – to cut its strategic nuclear arsenal, and doesn’t even limit Russia’s tactical nuclear arsenal at all.

It is RUSSIA that is building up its nuclear arsenal, while the US is disarming itself unilaterally.

Cirincione then arrogantly and wrongly invokes Ronald Reagan in defense of the INF treaty, and of utterly failed arms control policies in general:

“Before letting loose the wrecking ball, they should check in with one of the principle architects of the regime and one of the toughest and most pro-arms control presidents inU.S. history: Ronald Reagan.”

Some REAL advice from the REAL Ronald Reagan is instructive here. When his administration found the Soviet Union in violation of the (signed but never-ratified by the US) SALT II treaty, it withdrew the US from it.

Reagan also wanted to withdraw the US from the ABM treaty to free the US to develop missile defenses as it wished, but liberal bureaucrats in the State Department (who hated him since he took office and hoped he would be gone by 1985) resisted the idea so fiercely that it took another 13 years and two Republican presidents to finally kill that useless treaty.

As Reagan himself has stated: “We adhere to our treaty obligations. Those who wish us harm don’t.”

Cirincione also falsely claims that:

“This violation is more than a technical violation, but since it is not an immediate threat to the U.S. or our allies, there is time to use the established arms control mechanism to pressure Russia to halt the cruise missile program, verifiably dismantle any missiles tested in violation of the limits and agree to abide by the treaty’s terms.”

Dead wrong again. This violation IS an immediate threat to the US AND its allies. These intermediate range missiles allow Russia to target its allies in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia (and all US bases there) with very accurate missiles carrying very deadly payloads. This is a very urgent threat. And the idea that “there is time to pressure Russia” to comply with the treaty is also utterly false. The US has known of Russia’s violation for at least 4 years, if not more, and has been trying to pressure Russia to comply for years – since at least 2012. Yet, it has failed.

Why? Because Russia, as it has already stated on so many occassions, will NOT abide by the INF treaty – which is disadvantageous to both Russia and the US.

Cirincione further lies that:

“We have nothing to gain from pulling out of the INF treaty. We already have long-range nuclear weapons trained on hundreds of targets in Russia. We don’t need a few dozen more.”

Also utterly false. Actually, Russia now has more ICBMs, strategic bombers, and nuclear warheads than the US, and plans on adding still more, so the US DOES need to build up its nuclear arsenal – and fast. Moreover, deploying IRBMs (nuclear- or conventional-armed ones) in Europe and Asia would enable the US to hold at least some Russian and Chinese targets at risk without involving America’s strategic missile force. It would also allow the US to expand its conventional precision strike options against any targets.

Contrary to Cirincione’s lies, America has nothing to gain by remaining a party to the INF treaty, to which only America adheres, thus essentially disarming itself. But disarming the US unilaterally, so that it will be vulnerable to Russia, is precisely Ploughshares’ and ACA’s goal.

Cirincione then claims further:

“If we built new intermediate-range missiles, where would we deploy them? Europe? The last time we tried that, millions of citizens took to the streets of Europe in protest of U.S. and Russian weapons. There is no reason to revisit the failed policies of the past.”

Actually, the REALLY failed policies of the past (and the present) are the arms control policies Ploughshares, the ACA, and the Obama administration advocate: disarming the US unilaterally, and unilaterally adhering to arms control treaties. This is supposed to encourage others to be nice and disarm themselves. In practice, it has never worked. It has always failed spectacularly.

Russia has NEVER complied with ANY arms control treaties it has signed. It has flagrantly violated every one of them. That previous US presidents have allowed Moscow to get away with that is NO justification for letting Russia off the hook today. THAT is one of the failed policies of the past.

By contrast, Reagan’s deployment of US intermediate-range missiles in 1983 – which Cirincione falsely claims was a “failed policy” – actually reestablished nuclear balance between the US and the USSR in Europe, countered Russia’s 1,200 intermediate-range missiles there, and forced Gorbachev, in 1987, to agree to dismantle all of these missiles. Gorbachev wanted to stop the arms race and reduce Soviet military spending to try save the stagnant Soviet economy. But he couldn’t do so unilaterally, so he had to agree to a treaty.

Because you can bring Russians into agreement ONLY when negotiating and acting from a position of STRENGTH, not weakness and appeasement. Unilaterally adhering to arms control treaties nobody else complies with leads to America’s weakness and dramatically REDUCES America’s security.

Cirincione also approvingly quotes two Russian propagandists saying that:

““In the history of U.S.-Soviet and U.S.-Russian arms control there have been dozens of similar cases—both parties have raised concern about the actions of the other,” note treaty experts Nikolai Sokov and Miles Pomper. “The majority of these concerns remained unresolved for years until they lost relevance. As a rule, these are technical issues that are discussed by technical experts outside public eye.””

Blatant lies. And Russia’s current violation of the INF treaty is not a mere “technical issue” – it’s a major violation and an immediate threat to US and allied security. It stems, in turn, from Russia’s desire to have an arsenal of weapons to counter China’s huge missile buildup in Asia, right on Russia’s doorstep, and Moscow’s intention to eventually kill the INF treaty.

The notion that the current Russian violation will somehow be “solved” is utterly ridiculous. Russia has already reduced the INF treaty to a dead letter and a worthless piece of paper. Its formal withdrawal – or America’s – from the treaty is now a mere question of time.

No less ridiculous is Cirincione’s utterly false claim that Russia can somehow be brought into compliance if the Senate simply confirms Frank Rose as the DOS’s verification and compliance supremo. This is utterly false; no earthly force is going to bring the Russians into compliance with an INF treaty they’ve already decided they’re going to scuttle because it doesn’t serve their interests and leaves them exposed to China.

And as for Reagan’s words that:

“No violations of a treaty can be considered to be a minor matter, nor can there be confidence in agreements if a country can pick and choose which provisions of an agreement it will comply with… correcting their violations will be a true test of Soviet willingness to enter a more constructive relationship and broaden the basis for cooperation between our two countries on security matters.”

The first part is absolutely true – but the problem is, Russia is doing PRECISELY what Reagan decried. As for the second part, Russia has no willingness to enter into a constructive relationship with the US, which it views as its adversary.

In closing his garbage screed, Cirincione falsely claims that:

“We have cajoled the Russians back into compliance before and – with the right staff in place and a united approach – we can do it again. In the process, we can prevent the Russians from rebuilding the weapons that Ronald Reagan so painstakingly destroyed.”

No, we can’t – and it’s too late for preventing them from building such weapons – because they’ve ALREADY built and deployed them. The R-500 ground-launched cruise missile, the Iskander-M and Iskander-K short-range ballistic missiles with a range exceeding 500 kms, and the Yars-M missile have already entered service.

So, to close, the question before US policymakers is quite simple:

Should the US continue to UNILATERALLY adhere to treaties Russia is not abiding by and has no intention of abiding by? Unsurprisingly, the pro-unilateral disarmament traitors at Ploughshares and the ACA say “yes, America should continue to unilaterally disarm itself.”

The US government should ignore these traitors and withdraw the US from both the INF and the New START treaty.

http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2014/07/when-russia-violates-nuclear-treaties-lets-act-reagan/90029/?oref=d-skybox

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Rebuttal of Robert Farley’s ignorant garbage about American weapons

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on July 26, 2014


The Leftist “National Interest” magazine has just published an utterly ridiculous garbage screed by an extremely leftist anti-defense hack, Robert Farley, known for his hatred of America, US military power, and American nuclear weapons in particular.

In his screed, “The Five Most Overrated Weapons of War”, Farley lists nuclear weapons, National Missile Defense, the spectacularly successful A-10 Warthog, the Tomahawk missile, and Predator drones as the 5 most overrated weapons in US history. Needless to say, all of his claims, except those about Predator drones, are blatant lies.

Take his idiotic rant against US nuclear weapons, for example:

“Nuclear weapons have, in an important sense, dominated international diplomacy for the last six decades. What they haven’t dominated is warfare, where they appear to be nearly useless in all configurations. (…) But since World War II, the United States has eschewed the use of nuclear weapons, even against capable non-nuclear opponents.  Because of the deep political complexity associated with their employment, the weapons simply have too little battlefield and strategic impact for the US to seriously entertain their use.”

Utter garbage, written of course by the completely ignorant, yet very opinionated, Robert Farley.

Nuclear weapons are the most useful, most powerful, most needed, and most UNDERrated and UNDERappreciated weapons out there. They have successfully defended the US and all its treaty allies from nuclear, chemical, biological, and large-scale conventional attack for over 68 years now. It is ONLY because of these “nearly useless in all configurations” weapons that Farley is alive today to write ignorant garbage about the weapons to which he owes his useless life.

The reason why nuclear weapons haven’t been used in actual wars is because they PREVENT wars between the powers that have them and thus force them to deal with each other either diplomatically – where, by Farley’s admission, they serve as important bargaining chips – or by proxies.

Nuclear weapons thus allow the US to subdue the enemy without fighting, which, according to Sun Tzu, is the acme of generalship.

A weapon that allows the US to win and to keep peace without fighting is worth a million times more than a weapon actually used in war.

Farley’s lunatic rambling against US missile defense systems is equally idiotic:

“The United States has wasted extraordinary resources over the past three decades on the phantom of national missile defense.  The current system of systems involves Aegis sea-based interceptors, Ground-Based Midcourse Defense, and Terminal High Altitude Air Defense. Anticipated systems include both airborne and laser components.”

No, the US has not “wasted” money on missile defense, and it is not a fantom, it’s a fact. Nor were the resources invested in it “extraordinary”; in fact, the US has spent only 164 bn since 1983 on missile defense. That works out to roughly 6 billion per year – barely 1% of the DOD’s base budget.

As for National Missile Defense, the system has passed most of its tests; even the failed tests have produced much useful data utilized to improve the system; it works; and further improvements, including redesigned kill vehicles, better sensors, newer radars, and better discrimination systems, are on the way.

And as Farley himself admits:

“Theater missile defense has made enormous strides, as has sea-based missile defense built around the Aegis SAM system. Theater systems, focused on conventional ballistic missile attack, can substantially reduce damage to civilian areas and to military installations.  Where conventional munitions are concerned, hitting 75% of the incoming warheads is very helpful.”

I will not even bother to respond to Farley’s ignorant, garbage attacks on the A-10 and the Tomahawk missile. These weapons have proven themselves – time and again – in actual wars so many times that I’ll let their record speak for itself. They don’t need me to defend themselves. Their record speaks for itself. No wonder why the Congress has barred the USAF from retiring the A-10 and appropriated money to keep producing Tomahawks. These weapons’ actual performance speaks for itself.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Hillary Caught Lying About Her Totally Failed “Reset” Policy

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on July 25, 2014


Vladimir Putin,Hillary Rodham Clinton

In a recent interview with the CNN (Clinton News Network), former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton once again lied to defend her totally failed, treasonous, immoral policy of “reset” with Russia that she implemented during her tenure from 2009 to 2013.

That policy of appeasement towards Moscow was a one-way street of unilateral American concessions for which the US got absolutely nothing in return. Moscow simply pocketed those concessions and gave nothing in return. This idiotic policy only emboldened Russia and led it (quite rightly) to believe that it could do anything it wanted to and not suffer any meaningful consequences.

This is what led to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, its illegal annexation of the Crimea, its creation of a fictional “separatist” movement in eastern Ukraine, and its spetsnaz troops’ shootdown of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17.

 

So let us recount how the Obama-Clinton “reset” policy has always been an utter failure and a disaster for US national interest:

1) The New START treaty: Celebrated by the Obama administration and the entire Left as the crowning achievement of the “reset”, it is actually its most disastrous and shameful failure. This treasonous treaty requires ONLY the US to cut its deployed nuclear arsenal by an entire third, from the 2,200 warheads allowed by the 2002 Moscow Treaty to just 1,550 warheads, while Russia is allowed to (and has taken many steps to) increase its own arsenal. Today, Russia has 2,800 strategic nuclear warheads, of which 1,500 are deployed and another 50 will be deployed. Russia also wields a huge arsenal of delivery systems: 434 ICBMs, 13 ballistic missile submarines, and 251 strategic bombers (171 of which are not even counted under New START treaty rules). As Russia adds more missiles able to carry more warheads (e.g. RS-24 Yars missiles to replace single-warhead Topol missiles), its deliverable nuclear arsenal will only increase significantly.

2) Iran: Russia has agreed only to minimal, symbolic sanctions against Tehran, and has fiercely opposed, and repeatedly vetoed, anything more than the weakest sanctions against Iran. It has also completed the construction of Iran’s first nuclear reactor, is now building the second, and has continued supplying tons of nuclear fuel to Iran. It has also pledged to deliver state-of-the-art S-300 air defense systems to Iran (and Syria). Contrary to the popular myth, Russia has NOT cancelled the delivery of those systems.

3) Syria: When a popular uprising broke out against Syrian dictator (and Hezbollah supporter) Bashar al-Assad, an ally of Iran, he immediately began to attempt to quell this uprising by brute force. And Russia has continually supported him with weapons and diplomatic protection from the start. Even during the supposedly halcyon Medvedev years, it vetoed draft UNSC resolutions aimed at punishing Assad.

4) America’s European allies: Throughout the entire Medvedev years, Russia continued to threaten America’s European allies with nuclear weapons and missiles, especially those who have agreed to host elements of America’s missile defense system – in response to which Russia continued, and continues, to threaten nuclear mayhem and withdrawal from the (useless) New START treaty.

5) The INF Treaty: It was during the supposedly halcyon Medvedev years that Russia began developing and fielding intermediate range missiles (such as the R-500, the Iskander-M, and intermediate range “air defense” missiles) that violate the INF treaty. The Clinton State Department did NOTHING to counter this obvious violation. To this day, the Obama Administration is doing nothing.

6) Missile Defense: Despite cancelling President Bush’s plan to build missile defense installations (intended to protect the US, not Europe) in Poland and the Czech Republic, Obama and Hillary got NOTHING in return from the Kremlin. NOTHING. No concession whatsoever.

7) Bombers Flying Into US Airspace: As early as April and May 2012, when Medvedev was still in office, the Russians began flying nuclear-armed bombers close to and sometimes into US airspace – and said they were “practicing attacking the enemy.” They have also repeatedly flown nuclear-armed bombers into Japanese and even into Swedish (neutral) airspace.

So for the entire Clinton period, and beyond, the Obama-Clinton “reset” (read: appeasement) policy has been an utter, disastrous failure. America has not benefitted AT ALL from this idiotic policy. It has not produced ANY benefits to the US whatsoever.

Hillary falsely claims that the reset “worked” when Dmitry Medvedev was president, thus implying that during those 4 years (2008-2012), Vladimir Putin was somehow out of power.

But they are dead wrong. The Obama-Clinton “reset” policy NEVER worked, even when Dmitry Medvedev (who was just a puppet of Vladimir Putin’s) was President.

That’s because Putin, throughout the whole time, was the man really in power, while Medvedev was never anything more than a figurehead. In that respect, Russia was, in those years, similar to the China of the 1980s: Deng Xiaoping was really in power, content with “only” the post of Chairman of the CMC, while other politicians held the posts of President, Premier, and CPC General Secretary. But – as with Putin – Deng was really “the power behind the throne.”

Only a fool could have ever thought that Putin had relinquished power for four entire years to Medvedev, and that Medvedev was ever anything more than a figurehead.

Therefore, the reset’s defenders are dead wrong: the reset was ALWAYS a failure, even during the Medvedev years. Which is not surprising given that, as stated earlier, Vladimir Putin was always in power before, during, and after the Medvedev years, and still is.

On the opposite side of the political spectrum, we have the Republican Party, which has been critical of the “reset”, and of Russia, for some time (though not strongly enough, with the noble exception of Mitt Romney).

If that party wants to defeat Hillary Clinton, it will have to dispel the myth that the “reset” and the New START treaty were a “success”, and attack Clinton at her weakest point: her foreign policy, especially towards Russia. The “reset” has been exposed for what it is – a total, abysmal failure – and that failure should be mercilessly exploited by the GOP if it wants to have any chance of winning the White House.

The political environment for doing so is more favorable than ever; a vast majority of Americans hold a negative view of Russia and hold it responsible for the shootdown of Flight 17. 55% of Americans view Vladimir Putin very unfavorably. They demand tougher action, including stronger sanctions, against Moscow. They also demand that defense cuts be stopped – 62% of Americans believe that US defense spending is either “too low” or “sufficient”, as opposed to only 35% who believe it is “too high.”

The political environment for taking tough action against Russia is now more favorable than ever. And the “reset” has been such an abysmal failure that it’s a huge liability for Hillary. Therefore, Republicans need to exploit it mercilessly if they want to beat Hillary in 2016.

As Sun Tzu and other ancient Chinese strategists, including the author of the Thirty Six Stratagems, advised, one should always attack an opponent’s weaknesses – especially those that the opponent doesn’t think will be attacked – and not his strengths.

If Republicans want to defeat Hillary Clinton, they’ll have to publicly debunk her fiction of “the reset worked well”, name her as one of those responsible for the shootdown of the Malaysian airliner, and in general, attack her biggest weakness: foreign policy.

For another superb article on the utter failure of the Obama-Clinton reset policy, see Charles Krauthammer’s excellent column.

UPDATE: John McCormack weighs in.

Posted in Obama administration follies, Politicians, World affairs | Leave a Comment »

Refuting the myth of Reagan the Peacenik

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on July 16, 2014


ReaganPeaceQuote

Nota bene: This is the 1000th post on my blog, a remarkable milestone!

Ronald Reagan was such a successful President that, unsurprisingly, many people want to claim his legacy as their own. Many people, usually falsely, claim he would’ve supported their policy and ideology if he were alive today. Many falsely claim he implemented this or that policy instead of that one.

The Gipper was, depending on whom you ask, a neocon, a paleocon, an isolationist, an interventionist, a conservative, a liberal, a free-marketer, a welfare stater, a free trader, a protectionist, a warmonger, a peacenik, etc. The list goes on.

But if you read and listen to Reagan’s own words – rather than anyone else’s claims – and analyze’s Reagan’s real actions, a clear and correct image of Reagan prints itself.

Despite the Left’s, and a certain isolationist Senator’s, pathetic attempts to depict Reagan as a nuke-hating, pro-disarmament, war-weary pacifist, Ronald Reagan was very much a hawk, even though he was careful about when and where to intervene militarily in the first place.

But intervention was so rarely necessary BECAUSE Ronald Reagan had built up America’s military strength so much that America’s adversaries usually retreated in the face of that military might.

Rebutting Rand Paul’s Lies…

Writing recently in the leftist Politico magazine, Sen. Rand Paul claims that:

“This [foreign policy - ZM] is where many in my own party, similar to Perry, get it so wrong regarding Ronald Reagan’s doctrine of “peace through strength.” Strength does not always mean war. Reagan ended the Cold War without going to war with Russia. He achieved a relative peace with the Soviet Union—the greatest existential threat to the United States in our history—through strong diplomacy and moral leadership.

Reagan had no easy options either. But he did the best he could with the hand he was dealt. Some of Reagan’s Republican champions today praise his rhetoric but forget his actions. Reagan was stern, but he wasn’t stupid. Reagan hated war, particularly the specter of nuclear war. Unlike his more hawkish critics—and there were many—Reagan was always thoughtful and cautious.”

Paul is attacking a straw man here, as well as conveniently omitting an important fact. The straw man attack is “Strength does not always mean war.” Nobody in the Republican Party wants war, Senator, or thinks that “strength” means war. In fact, it is the Democrats, not Republicans, who are most likely to involve America in wars and interventions around the world, usually for reasons unrelated to US national interests.

Need I remind you, Senators, that it was the Democrats who involved the US in two huge wars in Korea in Vietnam which they were not willing to win nor to end? Wars which Republican Presidents extricated the US out of?

Or that, more recently, Presidents Clinton and Obama involved the US in pointless humanitarian crusades in Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Libya, and Obama wanted to do that in Syria as well?

Yes, Ronald Reagan was much more cautious than Democratic Presidents about intervening militarily abroad. But when such invasions WERE necessary, he did not shy away from them. He intervened to stop Communism’s spread in the Carribean. He sent US troops to Lebanon. (He made a huge error by withdrawing from there after the Beirut bombing of 1983; America’s retreat from there emboldened Islamic terrorists in the region.) And most importantly, he conducted powerful strikes against Qaddafi’s regime in Libya in 1986, despite the Left all around the world (including your own father) condemning him for it, and despite no US ally, excluding the UK, supporting him.

No, Ronald Reagan did not hate (nor love) war. When intervention was required, he did not shy away from it.

But most of the time, he didn’t need to launch military interventions, because despite the resistance from the Democrats and from your own father, Senator, he build the strongest military in world history (of which today’s US military is just a shadow). By the late 1980s, America’s military might was such that no adversary dared to challenge the US head-first.

In parallel, Reagan supported anti-Communist movements and insurgencies (“proxies”) all around the world, including Latin America and Afghanistan.

You, Senator, are conveniently ignoring the “strength” component of peace through strength. Peace was possible ONLY because of US strength. Without that strength, there would’ve been no peace. There would’ve been war.

Weakness invites war. Strength guarantees peace.

But that lesson is totally lost on you, Senator. You have advocated, and continue to advocate, deep, crippling cuts in America’s defenses – including and beyond sequestration (a monstrous mechanism which, if not repealed, will cut $550 bn from the defense budget over the next decade).

Yet, you advocate even deeper cuts – and the withdrawal of US troops from abroad. This in spite of the fact that foreign bases – of which the US has far fewer than your kooky father claims – are necessary for power projection over long distances and help deter adversaries and reassure allies.

You are a faux-Reaganite, Senator, despite your desperate and pathetic attempts to cast yourself as Gipper’s acolyte. Your policy is not Peace Through Strength. Your policy is Hoping For Peace by Unilateral Disarmament and Withdrawal From The World.

It is no coincidence you are completely isolated in the GOP on foreign policy. That’s what advocating isolationism leads to.

If you’re advocating such foolish policies in the vain hope that doing so will win you votes and perhaps the White House, stop dreaming. Despite what the leftist media and pseudo-pollsters tell you, there is no popular demand for isolationist and anti-defense policies today, in stark contrast to the 1930s and the 1970s, and nobody in the GOP except Congressmen Amash, Duncan (TN), Massie, and Labrador shares your views.

You should run for the Democratic nomination instead. In that party, a man with your views would be warmly welcomed.

… And Peter Beinart’s

Your Politico piece contains a link to an utterly ridiculous garbage screed from 4 years ago by Peter Beinart, wherein the author falsely claims that Ronald Reagan abandoned his hawkish policies in late 1983 and thereafter pursued a conciliatory, dovish policy towards the Soviet Union until the end of his administration. Beinart explicitly calls Reagan’s post-1984 policies “dovish.”

But this is completely false – like the rest of Beinart’s claims. As Professor Robert G. Kaufman nicely sums up:

When circumstances changed during Reagan’s second term, he adjusted his policies—but not the premises underlying them. He responded positively to the changes in the Soviet regime during Gorbachev’s tenure. Ultimately, Gorbachev and the Soviet Union agreed to end the Cold War not on their terms, but on Ronald Reagan’s.

American pressure on the Soviet Union did not abate at any point during the Reagan presidency, despite his view that engaging Gorbachev could facilitate the implosion of the regime. Reagan refused to abandon SDI or the Zero Option calling for the elimination of all intermediate-range nuclear weapons in Europe; Gorbachev capitulated. American defense spending continued to rise, peaking at $302 billion in 1988 (6.6 percent of GDP). The Reagan Administration continued to aid freedom fighters, draining Soviet resources in Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America.

Nor did Reagan relent in his assault on the moral legitimacy of the Soviet Regime. In June 1987, over the objection of his so-called more realistic advisers, he called on Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, excoriating it as the symbol of Soviet totalitarianism

Reagan’s understanding of himself also demolishes the revisionist interpretation of his motives and policies. Summing up his foreign policy legacy to students at the University of Virginia on December 16, 1988, he welcomed the improvement in Soviet–American relations but urged Americans to “keep our heads down” and “keep our skepticism” because “fundamental differences remain.” He attributed that improvement to his policy of firmness, not conciliation:

Plain talk, strong defenses, vibrant allies, and readiness to use American power when American power was needed helped prompt the reappraisal that the Soviet leaders have taken in their previous policies. Even more, Western resolve demonstrated that the hard line advocated by some within the Soviet Union would be fruitless, just as our economic success has set a shining example.

Reagan contrasted his policies with the more conciliatory policies of his predecessors during the 1970s:

We need to recall that in the years of détente we tended to forget the greatest weapon that democracies have in their struggle is public candor: the truth. We must never do this again. It is not an act of belligerence to speak of the fundamental differences between totalitarianism and democracy; it is a moral imperative…. Throughout history, we see evidence that adversaries negotiate seriously with democratic nations when they know democracies harbor no illusions about their adversaries.

Those are Reagan’s own words – not mine, and not Professor Kaufman’s.

It was in 1987, not 1981, that Ronald Reagan stood at the Brandenburg Gate and loudly challenged Gorbachev to “open this gate” and “tear down this wall.” And at the very end of his Presidency, in December 1988, he STILL urged Americans “keep our heads down” and “keep our skepticism” because “fundamental differences remain.”

Nor did Ronald Reagan abate in his defense buildup and pursuit of military pressure on the Soviet Union. In his 1986 speech on defense issues, he warned that:

tonight the security program that you and I launched to restore America’s strength is in jeopardy, threatened by those who would quit before the job is done. Any slackening now would invite the very dangers America must avoid and could fatally compromise our negotiating position. Our adversaries, the Soviets — we know from painful experience — respect only nations that negotiate from a position of strength. American power is the indispensable element of a peaceful world; it is America’s last, best hope of negotiating real reductions in nuclear arms. Just as we are sitting down at the bargaining table with the Soviet Union, let’s not throw America’s trump card away.

 

Our Armed Forces may be smaller in size than in the 1950’s, but they’re some of the finest young people this country has ever produced. And as long as I’m President, they’ll get the quality equipment they need to carry out their mission.

 

We set out to narrow the growing gaps in our strategic deterrent, and we’re beginning to do that. Our modernization program — the MX, the Trident submarine, the B-1 and stealth bombers — represents the first significant improvement in America’s strategic deterrent in 20 years. Those who speak so often about the so-called arms race ignore a central fact: In the decade before 1981, the Soviets were the only ones racing.”

Beinart also falsely claims that in 1983, Reagan suddenly had a change of heart about defense issues, military might, and nuclear weapons in particular, and began pursuing dovish defense policies and overruling the supposed “hawks” in his administration.

These are also blatant lies – just like everything else Beinart (a far-left propagandist) writes.

Reagan’s defense buildup NEVER abated at ANY point during Reagan’s presidency.

Throughout his presidency, the American defense buildup continued, peaking, as Professor Kaufman, noted, at $302 bn and 6.6% of GDP in 1988. In the late 1980s, at Reagan’s insistence, dozens of new weapon types (including new strategic delivery systems) joined the US military’s inventory: MX Peacekeeper ICBMs, the B-1 bomber, the F-15E strike jet, W84, W87 and W88 nuclear warheads, and the AH-64 Apache helicopter to name just a few.

Not to mention the many weapon systems the Reagan Administration (or its predecessors) developed and began deploying earlier: the Ohio class of ballistic missile submarines, Los Angeles class attack submarines, PATRIOT missile defense systems, F-15 and F-16 fighters, Black Hawk helicopters, Ticonderoga class cruisers, Nimitz class carriers (two were ordered in June 1988, in the last year of the Reagan Admin), Trident ballistic missiles, Tomahawk cruise missiles (nuclear- and conventionally-armed variants alike) M1 Abrams tanks, M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicles, F-117 Nighthawk stealth attack jets, and so forth. These weapon systems, unlike those in the paragraph above, had already begun entering service in the late 1970s and early 1980s, but it was only in the late 1980s when they joined the military’s inventory in really large numbers… thanks to the investment of the Reagan Admin and at the insistence of President Reagan.

Moreover, Reagan also developed other cutting-edge weapon systems that entered service in the 1990s: the B-2 stealth bomber, the F/A-18 Super Hornet naval jet, the Arleigh Burke class of destroyers, the Trident-II ballistic missile, and so on.

Image the US military today without these cutting edge weapon systems.

Imagine the US Air Force without B-1 and B-2 bombers, F-117 Nighthawk stealth attack jets, and F-15E Strike Eagles, and without significant numbers of F-16 fighters.

Imagine the US Navy without Ohio class ballistic missile subs and Trident missiles – which the Left wanted to cancel – and the two carriers the Reagan Admin ordered in 1988 – the USS John C. Stennis and the USS Harry S. Truman.

Imagine the US Army and Marine Corps with just a puny number of M1 Abrams tanks, still stuck with obsolete M60 Patton tanks as the Left wished.

And of course, the Reagan Admin never cancelled or even curtailed the Strategic Defense Initiative. Nor did the Bush Administration. It was the Clinton administration that killed it.

Reagan Did Not Join the Nuclear Freeze Movement – He Defeated It

Nor did Reagan had a change of heart about defense spending and nuclear weapons, as Beinart falsely claims. Nor did he cave in to supposed public pressure to cut defense spending and implement a nuclear freeze, contrary to Beinart’s blatant lies. On the contrary, Reagan resisted these stupid, suicidal policies with every fiber of his body for the entirety of his presidency – and America is safer now because of that.

In 1983, when the nuclear freeze movement, led by Congressman (now Senator) Ed Markey, was at its peak, and when the House passed a resolution demanding the freeze, Reagan completely rejected it and went to his Evangelical Friends in Texas to ask them to support his continued hawkish policies towards the Kremlin… and called the Soviet Union “the Evil Empire.”

In his 1984 reelection campaign, Reagan unequivocally rejected all “nuclear freeze” proposals and was rewarded with a 49-state landslide reelection victory, one of the greatest in US history, over Democratic candidate Walter Mondale, who advocated a nuclear freeze.

Throughout the 1980s, the Reagan Administration continued to develop, test, and produce more and more nuclear weapons and delivery systems of increasing sophistication. In 1986, it deployed the MX Peacekeeper missile and the B-1 strategic bomber.

As for defense spending, in 1985, Ronald Reagan relunctantly agreed to slow down its growth – but in real terms it continued to grow, peaking in 1988 (not 1985, as many falsely claim) at $302 bn in then-year dollars and 6.6% of the economy – levels not seen since then, and not seen at any point during the 1970s or early 1980s.

That’s because Reagan was very cautious about and weary of the Soviet Union – even Gorbachev’s Soviet Union. He wanted the US to maintain a strong, ever-modernizing military at all times.

In 1993, after the Cold War was over, when the Clinton administration cancelled the SDI, Reagan condemned that, exhorting the administration to “open its eyes” if it thought there were no more threats to America’s security.

All in all, all of the Left’s claims about Reagan are blatant lies.

No, Ronald Reagan was never a peacenik, nor did he ever relent in his enormous military, economic, and diplomatic pressure on the Soviet Union at any point during his presidency. THAT is what ended the Cold War. On Reagan’s terms, not Gorbachev’s.

Posted in Defense spending, Ideologies, Media lies, Nuclear deterrence, World affairs | Leave a Comment »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 436 other followers