Zbigniew Mazurak's Blog

A blog dedicated to defense issues

Miss USA Nia Sanchez is absolutely right about self-defense

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on June 16, 2014


I usually don’t comment on beauty pageants and their winners, but today I’ll make an exception.

The new Miss USA, Nia Sanchez, has been asked what should be done about the (overstated, BTW) plague of college campus rapes and sexual assaults. One of the remedies she has proposed is teaching girls how to defend themselves using martial arts (Sanchez herself has a 4th degree belt in taekwondo).

Predictably, the entire feminist/leftist crowd has exploded in fury, saying that:

“Women shouldn’t need to learn to protect themselves against rape educate and respect yourself as a woman

http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/matt-vespa/miss-usa-vs-feminists?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Marketing&utm_term=Facebook&utm_content=Facebook&utm_campaign=B-Miss-America

The feminist/leftist crowd is obviously angry that someone – and a beautiful woman, no less! – has suggested that women should be taught, and be able to, protect themselves against rape/sexual assault. They go as far to say that using martial arts to defend yourself “is not a solution” and that “women shouldn’t need to learn to protect themselves” !

Why?

For two reasons. Firstly, feminists hate men. For them, the only solution to the (grossly overstated) college campus rape problem is to send all men to concentration camps (something many feminists have long advocates) and to continually demonize them, for if the college and military sexual assault problem were to disappear, so would the feminist movement’s raison d’etre.

But secondly, and more importantly, feminists are an integral part of the overall Left – and the Left has ALWAYS advocated unilateral disarmament of good people: individuals as well as nations.

Just as the Left has long advocated, and still advocates, America’s total and unilateral disarmament in the military and economic arenas (see e.g. New START and the Global Zero group) and disarming all law-abiding American citizens, so has it advocated that women forever remain completely unarmed, defenseless victims who cannot defend themselves against sexual (or non-sexual) predators – rapists, robbers, thieves, tresspassers, stalkers, etc.

I repeat: feminists, and the entire Left, are doing ALL women HUGE harm. They advocate that women forever remain DEFENSELESS VICTIMS PRONE TO ATTACK BY ANY EVIL PERSON.

Teaching women martial arts, and allowing them to own guns, by contrast, would enable them to defend themselves successfully against criminals. It would prevent criminal attacks, including sexual assaults.

For those women who read my blog, I’ll ask you directly: do you want to be potential victims, or do you want to have the tools to defend yourselves? Do you want to be at someone else’s mercy – the criminal’s and the justice system’s – or to take matters into YOUR OWN HANDS and protect yourself? Do you want yourself or someone else to be the master of your fate?

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

How Britain Achieved – And Lost – Economic Preeminence – And the Lessons For the US

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on May 2, 2014


In the mid-19th century, and in the first few decades afterwards, Britain was an unmatched military, economic, colonial, and thus geopolitical colossus, by far the most powerful country in the world. There was no country that was even close to matching the military or economic power of Britain, which had the largest empire in the world, spanning all continents.

So vast was the empire that it was one on which the sun never set – because no matter where the sun was shining at that moment, it was shining on British colonies, dominions, and possessions. So powerful was Britain that she was able to exert influence all around the world and act as the arbiter of world affairs. Thus, the world experienced an era of Pax Britannica.

Why? Because Britain was by far the world’s most powerful country, both economically and militarily.

In the middle of the 19th century, around 1850, Britain was by far the world’s largest producer of coal, pig iron, steel, and warships, consumed the most cotton and coal, and her industrial machines were the most modern and most powerful in the world. This enabled Britain to have a Navy that was far larger than the combined navies of the US, France, Japan, and Russia. Whether the measure was total fleet tonnage or the number of any class of warships, the UK Royal Navy had far more of them than any other Navy in the world.

Britain Loses Her Economic, Military, and Geopolitical Preeminence

Fast forward half a century to 1900, and then to 1913, the eve of World War I, and we see a completely different picture. Britain had, by then, lost its first place in the world, both economically and militarily. The US, Japan, and Germany began building navies rivalling the Royal Navy. The US and Germany also overtook Britain economically by all key metrics. As a result, Britain had to assemble a coalition of countries, the Entente, and enlist the US as an Associated Power to win World War 1 – and contracted a huge debt to win that war, because Germany proved to be a very tough enemy to beat.

Even before then, before WW1, Britain had lost its economic preeminence. Consider:

  • In terms of coal production, Britain dominated the pack in 1870, producing 125 mn tons of coal vs 41 for the US and 42 for the German states (mostly Prussia). By 1900, it was producing 185 mn tons, but the US wasn’t far behind at 143 tons and Germany was at 89 tons. By 1913, the UK was producing only 292 tons, while America’s annual coal output was 517 tons and Germany’s was 277.
  • The UK producted 6.7 mn tons of pig iron in 1870, while the US produced only 1.9 mn tons. But in 1900, the US produced 9.4 tons vs 8.0 mn for Britain. In 1913, the US produced 31.5 mn tons, and Germany 19.3 mn tons, versus only 10.4 mn tons for Britain.
  • The US overtook Britain in terms of steel production even earlier, in 1886, and Germany did so in 1893.
  • In 1871, the efficiency and output of British steel mills was two times that of US steel mills, but by 1891 it was only 50% of America’s steel output.
  • In 1890, the power of steam machines in the US industry was 45% higher than those in the British industry.
  • In 1870, Britain’s share of the global industrial production was 32%; by 1913, it was only 14%. America’s share during the same timeframe rose from 23% to 35.8%, and Germany also overtook Britain, from 13.2% in 1870 to 15.7% in 1913. The US and Germany were simply producing – and earning – more. Period.

Thus, the country that was essentially the world’s biggest coal mine, steel mill, and factory in 1850 was, by 1913, only in third place – not even in the second place – by the key economic metrics of the time! In terms of industrial production, it was lagging behind Germany and far behind the US.

The military consequences of Britain’s economic decline followed, though not immediately or quickly. But inevitably, eventually, they did follow – and they weren’t pretty.

In 1883, Britain had 38 pre-dreadnought battleships, while the US and Japan had zero, Russia had but three, Italy had only 7, Germany 11, and France 19. This means Britain had more battleships – the key weapons of the day – than the next three countries combined!

In 1897, the gap was narrower, though Britain still led the pack: it had 62 battleships in service or construction, but France had 36, Russia had 18, Germany had 12, Italy also 12, the US had 11, and Japan had seven. The next three countries (France, Russia, and Germany or Italy) had more of these warships than the UK.

Matters grew even worse for Britain when she launched HMS Dreadnought, the most powerful battleship in the world at the time, in 1905. The British thought these warships would guarantee them naval supremacy. But they were wrong. Just three years later, the Germans had only three dreadnoughts fewer (9) than the British (12). And other nations were building such warships as well.

Moreover, at Tsushima in 1905, the Japanese Navy showed that a heavily outnumbered fleet can still trash a larger one. Despite being outnumbered two-to-one and not having any significant mineral resources, the Japanese still trounced the Russians in what was one of the biggest military victories in human history, a naval version of the Battle of the Cannae. The Japanese barely lost 3 torpedo boats and 117 men, while the Russians lost their ENTIRE fleet in the Far East – 21 warships – and over 5,100 KIA.

This showed that a smaller, heavily outnumbered fleet, could, in an individual battle, beat a twice larger navy if better led, manned, and equipped.

So Britain’s unquestionable naval supremacy was a thing of the past – ESPECIALLY since the Germans had only slightly fewer dreadnoughts than the British.

As a result, Britain needed to appease the US in the Western Hemisphere, court Japan to make it Britain’s ally in the Far East, and enlist former rivals France and Russia – with whom the UK nearly went to war just years before – as allies to counter growing German power.

By 1914, one hundred years ago, the three countries went to war together – and still couldn’t beat Germany, by now Europe’s preeminent economic and military power. Russia was driven out of the war, and the US had to be enlisted to help win the war. Britain itself was too weak to defeat Germany, even in an alliance with France and (until 1917) Russia.

In the course of World War I, Britain contracted such a huge war debt that it had difficulties paying it down later, and from the world’s banker became America’s debtor.

How Did It Come To Pass?

How did it happen? How did Britain lose its economic and military preeminence?

To some degree, this was because of the obsolete structure, growing technological obsolence, and the conservative mindsets of the leaders of, British industry. And partly it was due to the reunification of Germany, which produced a formidable rival for Britain.

But these obstacles could have easily been overcome. None of these were fatal illnesses.

The REAL cause of Britain’s economic and military decline was its embrace of the poisonous, suicidal, pernicious ideology of “free trade” and the consequent policies.

Until the mid-19th century, Britain – like every country that ever rose to economic preeminence – protected and nurtured its industry with protectionist laws and customs duties.

But beginning in the 1840s, the Parliament began repealing them. In 1846, it repealed tariffs on imported grain (the Corn Laws); in 1850, it got rid of the Navigation Act; and in 1860, it scrapped protective tariffs completely. That’s it – there were no more customs or tariffs on imports to Britain. Anyone was free to export to Britain free of any tariffs.

British industry was thus left without ANY protection against foreign competitors – because no other country had done such a thing. All other countries continued, to various degrees, to protect and nurture their own industry with tariffs as well as non-tariff barriers.

This was especially true of… the US and Germany, the two countries that overtook Britain and took away her crown. The US had high protective tariffs since the 1860s, and Germany since the times of the Customs Union, established in 1834.

Thus, Britain effectively committed unilateral disarmament in the trade arena, which is just as suicidal as disarmament in the military arena.

The problem was simple: US and German companies were protected by these countries’ tariffs and non-tariff barriers to imports, while British companies were left without ANY protection against foreign competitors.

Thus, the US and Germany began flooding the world – including Britain herself – with their products – and achieved greater shares of the world’s industrial production and trade than Britain.

This is not surprising to anyone knowledgeable about economics. For protectionism is the policy of RISING economic powers, while free trade is the policy of DECLINING ones.

Protectionism is the road to wealth, prosperity, and national power, while free trade is the road to deindustrialization, unemployment, and economic stagnation.

Contrary to what free trade ideologues may tell you, NO nation in history has ever risen to economic preeminence by indulging in free trade.

EVERY country that ever became an economic powerhouse did so by protecting, nurturing, and supporting its industry against foreign competition – England under the Acts of Navigation, Britain until 1860, France under Colbert and Napoleon, Germany under the Customs Union and Bismarck, the US from the 1860s to 1960s, postwar Japan, China today .

America Is Losing Her Preeminence – And Fast

In today’s world, America is losing her economic and military preeminence even faster than Britain did in the late 19th century – and America’s edge over the world was never as great as Britain, except the late 1940s and early 1950s.

Just recently, the World Bank predicted that China would overtake the US in GDP by the end of this year. In 2012, the IMF predicted China would leapfrog the US by 2016. The Economist predicts it will happen by 2019.

China is already the world’s top exporter, having surpassed Germany a few years ago, which itself surpassed the US in the early 2000s. China is also the world’s top maker of many goods of all sorts, and also has trade surpluses with many other countries in the world. For example, its trade surplus with France runs at over 30 bn euros per year!

In 2013, the US trade deficit with China – thanks to free traders’ suicidal policies – was the largest annual trade deficit EVER recorded between any two nations, at $315 bn.

The US is also running trade deficits with almost every other country in the world: with crisis-stricken Italy, at $20 bn per year; with Ireland, at $25 bn per year; with Germany, $60 bn per year; with Canada, $32 bn per annum; with Mexico, $61 bn; with Japan, $88 bn per year; with South Korea, $16.6 bn per year.

This is because the US has almost completely disarmed itself unilaterally in terms of trade. Foreign countries exporting goods to the US pay little in the way of tariffs, while US companies trying to export to foreign countries face steep tariffs – and heavily-subsidized competitors – abroad.

Also, many foreign countries, including China and Japan, manipulate their currencies by devaluing them, thus making their exports cheaper abroad (e.g. in the US). Yet, Japan plans to devalue its currency still further, making its exports still cheaper.

Yet, American free trade ideologues oppose taking ANY action against such blatant cheating and such uneven playing field, and demand that the last vestiges of protection for the US industry be scrapped: Buy American Laws, the Export-Import Bank, and the few tariffs that remain.

When, in 2012, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney pledged to designate China as a currency manipulator, free trade ideologues from the left and the right accused him of wanting to start a trade war… not realizing China has ALREADY been waging a trade war on the US for decades.

The Military Consequences

And just like Britain’s loss of economic preeminence was followed by her loss of military superiority, so is the US losing its last vestiges of military superiority over China (and Russia) as a consequence of committing economic suicide.

The US no longer has a monopoly on any military technology. Its military has always been smaller than China’s – the latter is the world’s most populous country after all – but China’s military is now also much more modern than a decade or two ago.

The PLAN, the Chinese Navy, is already larger than the USN and has more submarines. Their surface combatants are as good as American ones, and their diesel-electric submarines are far quieter than anything the USN has. Their anti-ship missiles are much faster and longer-ranged than America’s sole anti-ship missile, the Harpoon. China also has 100,000 naval mines, against which the USN is nearly helpless as it has only 13 minesweepers – none of them in the regular Navy.

The PLA Air Force has hundreds of modern Generation 4+ fighters, including Flankers and J-10s, plus 389 old but highly agile and fast J-7 fighters. And what does the USAF have? 180 top-notch Raptors and around 300 F-15C/Ds, I’ll give you that much; but its F-16s would not stand a chance against Chinese fighters other than the old J-7. And the F-35, the most expensive, heaviest, and most sluggish “fighter” in the world, will be such a heavy pig it will be inferior to EVERY fighter on the planet.

The PLAAF is now developing TWO stealthy fighters – the J-20 and the J-31 – which, when inducted into service, will make every other fighter in the world, except the F-22 and the Russian PAKFA, obsolete, useless, impotent, and irrelevant.

The PLA’s Second Artillery Corps now has 66-75 ICBMs capable of reaching the US, plus 140 medium- and over 1,600 short-range ballistic missiles and hundreds of ground-launched cruise missiles – weapons which the US does not have and is prohibited from developing.

PLA_ballistic_missiles_range-590x362

The PLA also has a lopsided edge over the US in cyber and space warfare. Its hackers routinely penetrate US government networks with impunity, and it has an arsenal of anti-satellite weapons capable of shooting down all US satellites anytime.

Similarly, China’s anti-ship missiles are so fast, so long-ranged, so numerous, and so cheap that China could easily saturate USN warships with them – and USN defenses are incapable of intercepting supersonic, sea-skimming cruise missiles.

China also has many, many more nuclear weapons than the US DOD and American arms control afficionados are prepared to acknowledge: at least 1,600 (according to Russian General Viktor Yesin), and up to 3,000 (according to Dr Philip Karber, the top nuclear strategist in the Reagan Administration).

And, of course, China’s military has not been infected with political correctness and the open celebration of homosexuality and feminism – unlike the US military.

Let’s face the facts: America’s economic and military dominance is already largely a thing of the past. The US retains an advantage only in a few categories and on a few metrics – and China is now working hard on closing those few gaps as well.

China is now doing to the US what the US itself and Germany did to Britain in the late 19th and early 20th century: overtaking it economically and militarily.

The difference is that, unlike Britain, the US has no friendly power to whom hand over the torch.

So either the US will break free of its “free trade”, “noninterventionism”, “let’s mind our own business”, and “let’s cut the military” fantasies, or it will completely lose its preeminent status to China, with all the consequences stemming from that.

Posted in Economic affairs, Ideologies, Politicians, Threat environment, World affairs | 1 Comment »

Guessing game: Whose party platform is it?

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on May 1, 2014


Today is May 1st, also called the “International Workers’ Day”, a communist feast par excellence, celebrated by communists and socialists, indeed by Leftists of all stripes, around the world. So I would like to ask you, Dear Readers, if you can recognize which socialist party had the following platform? Whose party platform is it? (No looking it up in Google!)

We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. (…)

All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.

The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all.

In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries.

We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on landand prevention of all speculation in land.

We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. (…)

The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program (…)The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.”

Don’t recognize whose platform is it?

The Communist Party of the Soviet Union? Of China? Of Italy? Of the USA? The French Communist Party? The French Socialist Party? The UK Labour Party? The Argentine Justicialist Party?

Nope, nope, and nope. This is the platform of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP), AKA the German Nazi Party, planks no. 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, and 21.

You see, despite all the attempts by the global Left to tar the Right with responsibility for and ideological kinship with the Nazis, for all their attempts to stick the Nazi tag to the Right, for all their false claims that the Nazis were “far-right”, the Nazi Party was thoroughly LEFTIST through and through.

Nazism is a mere shorthand for “national socialism”, and that brand of socialism, while being nationalistic, was still SOCIALIST and thoroughly leftist. The Nazis advocated, and implemented, nationalisation, land reform, outlawing child labor, and the division of corporate profits.

Not only that, but their leader, Adolf Hitler, publicly said that he and other Nazis were SOCIALISTS:

“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions”

- Adolf Hitler, Hitler’s speech on May 1, 1927. Cited in: Toland, John (1992). Adolf Hitler. Anchor Books. pp. 224–225. ISBN 0385037244.

No matter how hard leftists around the world deny it, national socialism was a thoroughly LEFTIST ideology, and the Nazis were their ideological, national socialist cousins. The only difference between them and communists is that communists are “international socialists.”

Posted in Ideologies, Media lies | 1 Comment »

Mes propositions d’economies

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on April 29, 2014


Le Premier ministre, Manuel Valls, vient de presenter son plan d’economies. Malheureusement, il est insuffissant: il ne propose que 50 Mds d’Euros d’economies d’ici 2017, et beaucoup des deputes socialistes pensent que c’est trop. Mais en realite, ce plan est insuffissant: le deficit budgetaire annuel de la France est presque 100 Mds d’Euros par an, et la dette publique de la France est presque 88% de son PIB. Donc il faut mettre en oeuvre un plan plus ambitieux. L’UDI et l’UMP ont presente de bons plans qui devraient etre mises en oeuvre. Le plan de l’UMP economiserait 130 Mds d’Euros d’ici 2023, la plupart d’ici 2017. Mais en plus de ces plans, il faut aussi:

  • Supprimer les ministeres de l’Ecologie, des Droits des Femmes, et du Redressement Productif.
  • Supprimer la Fete du Travail afin que les Francais travaillent plus et gagnent plus (et donc, que les revenus de l’Etat s’elevent).
  • Supprimer les cantons et les arrondissements municipaux.
  • Supprimer les subventions de l’Etat a la Prefecture de la Police a Paris et au STIF (1 Md d’Euros par an).
  • Fermer tous les grandes lignes non profitables de la SNCF et reduire le nombre des cheminots.
  • Privatiser la SNCF.
  • Supprimer les regimes speciaux de retraite des fonctionnaires publiques (dont les cheminots).
  • Annuler les plans de construction des nouvelles Lignes a Grande Vitesse.
  • Supprimer le Conseil Superieur de l’Audiovisuel.
  • Reduire le nombre des deputes et des senateurs.
  • Reduire de moitie le budget et la masse salariale de la Presidence de la Republique.
  • Interdire des prestations pour les chomageurs qui refusent deux fois un offre d’un emploi et aux citoyens etrangers.

Posted in Economic affairs | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Rebutal of Senator Paul’s straw man claims

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on April 28, 2014


ReaganPeaceQuote

The National Review has recently published an article by Sen. Rand Paul wherein the junior Kentucky Senator falsely claims that there is no room allowed for disagreement on foreign policy in the GOP; that we defense conservatives have a “either you’re with us or against us” mentality; that he’s displaying some foreign policy nuance and strategic ambiguity that we fail to appreciate; and then spends the rest of his op-ed railing against the Iraq war, quoting William Buckley’s opposition to it, as if it were the only thing he disagrees with defense conservatives on.

Needless to say, he’s dead wrong on all counts.

As I refute his claims, I shall speak directly to him in this article.

Senator, you claim that:

“You are either for us or against us. No middle ground is acceptable. The Wilsonian ideologues must have democracy worldwide now and damn all obstacles to that utopia.”

That is completely false. No conservative that I know of is saying that, or advocating that the US try to democratize the world (and BTW, THIS hawkish conservative is a sworn opponent of democracy.) Stop making straw man claims, Senator.

Perhaps you are confusing conservatives with the liberals in the Obama admin who, everyday, sip coffee in the WH, point their fingers at a world map, and say which country should be invaded next :)

As for the Iraq war, it was indeed an error, and I opposed it from the start. But your foreign policy differences with us conservatives hardly end with the Iraq war – they barely begin with it, contrary to your false claim that:

“Foreign policy, the interventionist critics claim, has no place for nuance or realism.”

No, Senator. What you are displaying is neither nuance nor realism. What you are displaying is a LIBERAL policy of appeasement of America’s enemies and support for unilaterally disarming the US, and when you are justly criticized for those policies, you backtrack somewhat, thus making yourself sound totally incoherent.

There is a BIG difference between nuance and incoherence.

You are displaying neither nuance or realism. You are displaying a staunch disagreement and break with the entire GOP and the entire conservative movement on the whole gamut of foreign and defense policy issues.

You support deep, crippling defense cuts, up to and even beyond sequestration. You claim defense spending hasn’t been cut nearly enough. You have railed on liberal TV networks against Republicans who disagree. You support closing virtually all US bases abroad (which are crucial for power projection and for reassuring America’s allies) and dramatically cutting equipment spending. You advocate containment of Iran.

You accuse Dick Cheney, most people on the Congressional defense committees, and anyone who advocates striking Iran, of being war-profiteering warmongers. You have claimed that sanctions provoked Japan to attack Pearl Harbor. You were one of the very few Senators to vote AGAINST sanctions on Russia after its invasion of Ukraine, and one of only four GOP Senators (along RINO Dick Shelby, RINO Thad Cochran, and Nebraska’s Mike Johanns) to vote to confirm Chuck Hagel.

You have even claimed that a nuclear-armed Iran would not be a threat to the US or even to Israel. You also consistently oppose all of the Bush admin’s war on terrorism policies that have proven very successful in eliminating terrorists: drones, effective interrogation techniques, GITMO, and so forth.

In one of your recent op-eds for WaPo, just as Russia was beginning to invade Ukraine, you claimed Obama’s appeasement (reset) policy towards Moscow was working very well and “we ought to be proud of that”, and you blamed any troubles in the relationship solely on your fellow Republicans, whom you falsely accused of being “so stuck in the Cold War that they want to tweak Russia.” You whitewashed Russia and absolved it of any blame and urged Americans to be “respectful” towards Moscow.

No, Senator, you are not displaying any “nuance” or “strategic ambiguity” on foreign policy, you are displaying utter ignorance, recklessness, and incoherence at best, and your father’s repugnant Blame America First, Second, and Third beliefs at worst.

You have falsely claimed that your refusal to say clearly whether you would or would not rule out the containment of Iran amounts to “strategic ambiguity” and have wrongly invoked Ronald Reagan as someone who would’ve endorsed such lack of clarity.

Strategic ambiguity means being ambigous about the strategy you’ll employ to achieve your goals – but not about what the goals themselves are. Ronald Reagan was never unclear about those and articulated them clearly, in public and in private. His goal was nothing short of sending Communism and the Soviet Union “to the ash heap of history.”

Your lack of clarity on one of the most important foreign policy issues of our time – whether or not to try to contain Iran – has nothing to do with “nuance” or strategic ambiguity” and would send absolutely the wrong signal to friend and foe alike. America’s allies in the Persian Gulf would be in the dark on whether or not the US, under your leadership (should you be elected President), would stop Iran’s nuclear program. America’s foes would be emboldened by such lack of clarity and would continually test your – and America’s – patience with ever-graver provocations.

Fortunately, as AmSpec’s Jed Babbin says, you stand NO chance of ever getting elected President. A man of your extremely-leftist views stands zero chance of ever being elected President. No matter when you run, you will be justly clobbered, if not in the primaries then in the general election. Because even if you do somehow win the Republican nomination, you will definitely lose in the general election, as nominating you will disenfranchise tens of millions of pro-defense voters.

You might want to take that into account when you decide whether to run for President in 2015-2016 – which will be the biggest decision of your life.

Posted in Ideologies, Politicians, World affairs | Leave a Comment »

Danish pacifist Hans Kristensen lies about China’s submarines again

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on April 27, 2014


Hans M. Kristensen, a lifelong Danish pacifist and advocate of the West’s unilateral disarmament since his earliest youth days, now an anti-nuclear hack at the FAS, seems to be bored these days. He has just penned another blogpost where he stubbornly denies and understates the Chinese nuclear threat, despite all the evidence that the threat is very grave and much more serious than he admits.

He says he has just spotted another Jin class ballistic missile submarine at the Huludao shipyard in commercial satellite imagery, and then repeats his old lies (popular among the advocates of America’s unilateral disarmament) that:

  • China has only 3-4 Jin class ballistic missile subs;
  • that they’re so noisy they’d be easy for the US Navy to detect; and
  • that their JL-2 missiles only have a 7,400 km range and cannot target the US West Coast (let alone the rest of the CONUS) unless they sail “deep into the Pacific Ocean.

All of his claims are utterly false, and have already been disproven two times here at CDN. For those who were not following CDN at the time, though, I’ll show the evidence disproving those claims once again.

Firstly, the number. According to the DOD and private websites, China already has five Jin class submarines, with a sixth one under construction. Also, despite Kristensen’s claim, the next generation of Chinese ballistic missile subs (SSBNs), the Type 096, is not merely in development, it’s already undergoing sea trials and could begin sea patrols as early as this year, according to DOD officials.

Secondly, regarding the JL-2 missile’s range, it is at least 8,000 kilometers, NOT the mere 7,400 kms that Kristensen falsely claims. The 8,000 km figure is confirmed by a wide range of sources, from GlobalSecurity to SinoDefence. As late as 2008, the DOD itself was saying the JL-2’s range was 8,000 kms, and giving maps showing it could reach half of the Continental US. See this map from the DOD’s 2008 report on the Chinese military:

PLA_ballistic_missiles_range-590x362

GlobalSecurity, in fact, says the JL-2’s range may be as much as 9,000 kms or more. Specifically, it says (emphasis mine):

“The missile is apparently roughly comparable in size and performance to the American TRIDENT C-4 long-range multiple-warhead three-stage solid fuel missile missile that is launched from submerged submarines.

The missile will reportedly carry either 3 or 4 MIRV (90kT each) or a single warhead with a yield of 250-1000 kT. Other reports suggest that each missile might be loaded with as many as six warheads.

Most reports agree that the JL-2 will have a range of about 8,000 km, while some reports suggest that the missile will have an estimated range at least 9,000 kilometers.

But even assuming it’s a mere 7,800 kms, it could still hit Seattle and San Francisco if launched from inside the Sea of Japan or the Tsugaru Strait (between the Japanese islands of Hokkaido and Honshu), or from a position just east of Honshu Island, west of the 150E meridian.

There go two major US urban areas.

Los Angeles could be hit from launch positions just slightly east of the 150E meridian.

There goes America’s second-largest urban area.

easia_oceania_92_2

Note that 8,000 kms is just the range of the BASIC JL-2 variant. China is now developing, and has repeatedly tested, two newer JL-2 variants: the Jia and the Yi. The former has a range of 12,000, and the latter a range of 14,000, kilometers. This will allow Chinese submarines to strike targets anywhere in the Continental US while being in their homeports.

Thirdly, Kristensen falsely claims that the Jin class is so noisy it would easily be sunk in any war.

This is also patently false. While the Jin class is not nearly as quiet as China’s diesel-electric attack submarines, it is still quiet enough to evade detection by the USN. Why?

Because the USN sucks – especially at anti-submarine warfare, which was always been its Achilles Heel.

During WW2, the waters off the East Coast were safe hunting grounds for the German Navy’s U-boats, so much so that American leaders complained that “the Battle of the Atlantic is being lost” and had to ask the UK and Canada to provide escorts for US ships. During WW2, the USN sunk fewer than 200 German U-boats, while the British and Canadian navies sunk a total of 491.

During the Cold War, the US Navy again showed its utter incompetence and inability to seriously perform ASW missions, with American and allied submarines – even old ones, such as HMCS Okanagan – repeatedly “sinking” US surface warships in exercises, and with Soviet submarines also routinely pinging USN warships.

Matters have only gotten worse since the end of the Cold War. The SOSUS detection system is gone, the S-3 Viking carrier-based ASW aircraft has been retired without replacement, and the fleet of P-3 Orion ASW aircraft has been cut by more than half. Deliveries of the P-8 Poseidon aircraft are very slow, and very few of them are on order. Nor has the USN practiced ASW seriously since the Cold War’s end.

In fact, in the last 3 decades, everyone and their dog has been able to avoid detection by the USN. That includes the Chinese, whose Song-class diesel-electric sub secretly stalked the USS Kitty Hawk in 2006 before suddenly surfacing just 5 miles away from that carrier, in a perfect position to sink it.

For more on the USN’s total incompetence at ASW (and at naval warfare in general), see Roger Thompson, Lessons Not Learned: The Status Quo Culture of the US Navy, Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, MD, 2007, pp. 15-62.

And as the ancient Chinese general Sun Tzu wrote in his Art of War treatise:

“To secure ourselves against defeat lies within our ability, but the opportunity for victory is always provided by the enemy himself.”

Now, the Jin class is nuclear-powered, and somewhat noisier than the Song class, but the waters around Japan –  especially in the Sea of Japan – are quite congested and noisy and are a perfect environment in which Jin class SSBNs could hide.

Hiding in the open ocean – in the vast swathes of the Pacific – would, if anything, be even easier, since the area in which to look for a Jin class sub would be even larger.

And in any case, the Chinese – as stated above – are already testing their new SSBN class, the Type 096, which is much quieter than the Jin class and can carry twice as many ballistic missiles (24 vs the Jin’s 12). It is due to begin sea patrols this year, as DOD officials have stated.

On top of that, China has a new, diesel-electric ballistic missile submarine (the Type 041), which is even quieter than the Song class. It’s virtually undetectable – especially to such a second-rate navy as the USN.

Kristensen also claims – with no evidence to base his claims on – that the DOD’s assessment that the Jin class and the JL-2 will give China “its first credible and survivable at=-sea nuclear deterrent” is overoptimistic from the Chinese perspective. But it’s not, and the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission reached a similar conclusion last year:

“China’s Julang-2 (JL–2) submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) is expected to reach initial operational capability by late 2013. The JL–2, when mated with the PLA Navy’s JIN-class nuclear ballistic missile submarine (SSBN), will give China its first credible sea-based nuclear deterrent. The JIN SSBN/JL–2 weapon system will have a range of approximately 4,000 nautical miles (nm), allowing the PLA Navy to target the continental United States from China’s littoral waters. China has deployed three JIN SSBNs and probably will field two additional units by 2020. China also is developing its next generation SSBN, the Type 096, which likely will improve the range, mobility, stealth, and lethality of the PLA Navy’s nuclear deterrent.”

Now, why does Kristensen and other anti-nuclear hacks dramatically understate the Chinese nuclear threat, you may ask?

The reason is simple: to mislead the public and policymakers into accepting deep unilateral defense cuts, so that America becomes militarily inferior to and defenseless against China and Russia. This has always been Western pacifists’ goal, and many of them, including Kristensen, have been paid by the Kremlin to advocate the West’s unilateral disarmament.

Lulling the opponent into a false sense of security, and thus causing him to lower his guard, is an old military concept well understood by Sun Tzu, who taught his acolytes (in the Art of War, Chapter I, verses 18-19 and 22):

 “All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near. (…) If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant.”

America’s top military brass and political class have indeed grown arrogant, so cocksure of their imaginary superiority, not realizing China and Russia have already caught up with the US military in most respects and are now working hard on closing the few remaining gaps.

So all of Kristensen’s claims are utterly false. Jin class submarines can easily avoid detection by the USN; there are currently five of them, with a sixth under construction; they will soon be joined by newer, and much quieter, subs; and their JL-2 missiles, even in their basic variant, have more than enough range to strike the Continental US from the Sea of Japan.

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

Rebuttal of Tom Collina’s blatant lies about US nukes

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on April 20, 2014


nukeexplosion

Last week,the leftist Breaking Defense website published an utterly ridiculous screed by one of the most strident advocates of America’s unilateral nuclear disarmament, Tom Collina, the “research director” of the Arms Control Association, which advocates disarming the US unilaterally and foregoing the deployment of any missile defense systems. (The ACA is funded by several grant-awarding organizations which also advocate America’s unilateral disarmament.

In his screed, Collina makes a lot of lies, all of which, of course, are designed to smear nuclear weapons and mislead the public into supporting that treasonous goal.

Here’s his biggest lie:

“However, at a time of increasingly tight budgets, the more we spend on excess nuclear weapons the less will be available for what Ukraine and NATO need most: economic aid and conventional military assistance.”

Total garbage. Firstly, America does NOT have “excess nuclear weapons” – if anything, it has too few. Russia has a (slightly) BIGGER nuclear arsenal than the US, totalling 2,800 strategic and up to 5,700 tactical nuclear weapons. In fact, Russia has more nuclear weapons (8,500) than the US, Britain, and France combined (8,200). Sources: the Federation of American Scientists and SIPRI’s 2013 Military Balance.

Russia’s strategic nuclear arsenal alone rivals America’s in size, and is complemented by “tactical” nuclear weapons, many of which (the warheads of Russian cruise missiles) can be delivered to the US (because the aircraft and nuclear-powered submarines carrying them can travel intercontinental distances). And these warheads are NOT subject to any arms limitation treaty.

Russia’s ICBM fleet alone can deliver at least 1,684 warheads to the US; Russia’s submarine fleet, another 1,400; and Moscow’s bomber fleet (Tu-95s, Tu-22Ms, Tu-160s), another 2,000 if need be.

On top of that, the US has to deter China, North Korea, and Iran. China alone has at least 1,600 nuclear weapons and continues to build that arsenal up.

Not to mention the fact that Russia, China, NK, and Iran are threats to many but protectors to nobody, while the US has to provide a nuclear umbrella to itself and to over 30 allies around the world, many of whom will go nuclear if the US fails to provide an adequate umbrella. (Already 66% of South Koreans want to do that; meanwhile, Saudi Arabia has ordered nuclear weapons in Pakistan and DF-21 ballistic missiles in China.)

No, Mr Collina, the US nuclear arsenal is not excessive at all – if anything, it is too small.

As for economic aid, that is an obsolete, socialist idea. Ukraine needs to revive its economy by implementing free market policies, NOT begging for handouts.

“Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel warned recently that “tough, tough choices are coming” if the Pentagon is forced to make deep spending cuts, as required by law. He may slash about 30,000 soldiers and retire an aircraft carrier.”

Excuse me? Those are supposed to be “tough choices”? Are you kidding me? Reducing the active duty Army to levels roughly equal to those of 9/11 and retiring a single carrier is not tough – it’s a no-brainer. It’s like picking the low-hanging fruit. (After Hagel’s cuts, the Army will be just slightly smaller than on 9/11, and the American people will have NO appetite or stomach for any more ground wars for a long time to come.)

Aircraft carriers are hugely expensive and extremely vulnerable, and their a/c have very little range. Flattops essentially provide NO return for the huge taxpayer investment they cost. I have already submitted an article dealing with this issue to Proceedings; it awaits the Editorial Board’s review.

It would be far better for the DOD to invest seriously in the single most reliable deterrent against aggression – the US nuclear umbrella – instead of blowing money on oversized land armies and very vulnerable flattops.

“As Crimea shows, these priorities are backwards. We must not allow our increasingly important conventional military forces to be undercut by excessive investments in nuclear weapons.”

Utter garbage as well. America’s conventional forces are not being undercut by the nuclear arsenal, whose total cost (ca. $32 bn per annum) is only 6% of the total military budget (roughly $600 bn in FY2014). Even eliminating it altogether would NOT save America’s conventional forces from sequestration. Sec. Hagel is absolutely right to make the nuclear deterrent a priority for the above reasons. As for conventional forces – don’t make me laugh. The unilateral disarmament movement, of which Collina is an active member, opposes BOTH America’s conventional and nuclear forces. The US nuclear deterrent is merely their first target on their way to disarming America unilaterally.

“And we don’t have to. The United States can stay at nuclear warhead levels set by the 2010 New START treaty and still save billions over the next decade by scaling back and delaying new delivery systems.”

Utter nonsense again. Firstly, New START levels are inadequate to deter Russia and China; second, New START is a worthless and treasonous treaty obligating only the US (not Russia) to cut its arsenal while Moscow is allowed to increase its own; and thirdly, Russia has cheated on EVERY arms control treaty it has signed, INCLUDING New START, as Bill Gertz has recently revealed in the WFB.

And “scaling back and delaying new delivery systems” would be utterly suicidal and a recipe for a Russian nuclear first strike. It would mean having far fewer systems (and thus a much less survivable arsenal), and NO new systems coming online for decades – at a time when existing delivery systems are already reaching the end of their service lives! This means, in practice, complete unilateral disarmament!

The Minuteman ICBM and air-launched cruise missiles will go out of service in the 2020s. The B-52 cannot operate in anything but friendly-controlled airspace. The Ohio class will start leaving service later this decade, and even under CURRENT funding projections, there will be a big gap in the SSBN fleet, with a low of just 10 boats in the early 2020s – unless the SSBN replacement program is hastened.

The cost of replacing them is not huge and will likely be far less than the $355 bn Collina falsely claims – but delaying it any further will significantly increase the price tag.

If a superior U.S. nuclear force did not restrain Moscow from annexing Crimea, how would an even larger force stop further Russian adventurism? It would not. The paradox of nuclear weapons is that they are too destructive to be used, so both sides are “deterred” from doing so.”

These are also blatant lies. The US nuclear arsenal, as proven above, is SMALLER and OLDER than Russia’s, and it was never intended or built to deter Russia from annexing… the Crimea, where it already had almost 30,000 troops and dozens of ships anyway. It was never intended to deter Russia from invading the Ukraine, which neither the US nor the EU had any intention of defending or supporting (and Putin knew it), a country the West has kept out of NATO and the EU and has essentially left to fend for itself.

Putin knew that the West would never offer more than verbal protests and tepid sanctions if he went into Ukraine. Which is why he did that. He knew that Ukraine was outside America’s security perimeter.

The US nuclear deterrent is intended to provide security for the US itself and for its NATO and non-NATO allies (e.g. SK, Japan) – and it has been doing that successfully, without any failure, ever since its inception in 1945.

And if nuclear weapons cannot deter Putin in the Crimea or elsewhere, conventional weapons – which have far less striking and thus deterring power – cannot do that, either. Is Collina suggesting the US deploy its soldiers in the Ukraine and used in a shooting war with Russia? Does he envisage US Army BCTs taking on Russian brigades? Because if he’s not, conventional forces are utterly useless in Ukraine.

As former US Strategic Command leader Gen. Kevin Chilton has stated, conventional weapons cannot replace nuclear arms as deterrents, because the former lack the overwhelming striking (and thus deterring) power of nuclear arms.

Collina also approvingly quotes former Australian foreign minister Gareth Evans, who has falsely claimed that:

“Nuclear-weapons enthusiasts seem to have an inexhaustible appetite for bad arguments.”

In fact, Western anti-nuke activists, the advocates of the West’s unilateral disarmament, seem to have an inexhaustible appetite for bad arguments, lying, and disarming their own countries unilaterally.

And while nuclear weapons might not be useful in Ukraine, there is little the US can do there anyway (who’s suggesting putting US conventional troops there?). But building up the US nuclear arsenal and accelerating missile defense deployment in Europe would do three good things:

1) Increase US and allied security by finally providing a bigger, more adequate, and modernized deterrent;

2) Finally showing strength to Russia after many years of appeasement and unilateral disarmament – which is what emboldened Russia to take one aggressive action after another, culminating in the invasion of Ukraine; and

3) Be a huge geopolitical, diplomatic, and prestige defeat for Russia, which strongly opposes both. It’s time to stop giving Russia what it wants. It would mean Russia has finally lost the veto on US and NATO security matters that Obama gave Moscow in 2009 by cancelling GBI missile defense deployment in Europe. Russia (and other aggressors and bullies) only understand the language of force, and they respect only those who are stronger than them. To deter Russia and have a better negotiating position vis-a-vis Moscow, the US needs to have stronger nuclear AND conventional forces.

BreakingDefense itself approvingly published Collina’s screed and falsely called him:

“Tom Collina, a respected expert in nuclear weapons and arms control…”

Balderdash. Collina is not a “respected expert” on anything, ESPECIALLY not nuclear weapons and arms control. He’s an ignoramus and an ideological advocate of America’s unilateral disarmament. Calling him an expert is an insult to every real expert out there. Being a longtime anti-nuclear activist does not make one an expert. And while I would not call myself one, I know far more about nuclear weapons than he ever will.

Shame on him for lying so blatantly and advocating America’s unilateral disarmament, and shame on BD for publishing his utterly ridiculous screed.

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

On Foreign and Defense Policy, Rand Paul Is On The Far Left

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on April 7, 2014


peacethroughstrength

Last month, ConservativeDailyNews published an article debunking Senator Paul’s lies and attacks on his fellow Republicans and proving that Paul is no Reaganite on foreign policy, despite his desperate attempts to claim that mantle. After that, CDN debunked Sen. Paul’s false claims and policy prescriptions regarding Russia, the aggressor who illegally invaded and annexed part of Ukraine last month. Since then, we have uncovered additional facts about Sen. Paul’s foreign policy views which we believe the American people should know.

Rand Paul Supports America’s Unilateral Disarmament

Virtually all Americans, except strident liberals, know how foolish it is to disarm oneself, especially on a unilateral basis. Disarming one’s country, especially unilaterally, only invites aggression, death, and destruction, while a strong deterrent preserves those calamities.

Nonetheless, some extremely leftist groups, such as Global Zero, seek to disarm the US unilaterally by advocating deep, unilateral cuts in the US nuclear arsenal, down to the low hundreds,  and foregoing any modernization of the few weapons the US would have left, while falsely claiming that Russia, China, and other nuclear powers will then be nice enough to follow suit.

This is of course utterly false: Russia, China, and North Korea are building UP and modernizing their nuclear arsenals, as countless reports from the Washington Free Beacon, the Washington Times, Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy, the State Department, the US Strategic Command, and this writer have demonstrated. As even Jimmy Carter’s own defense secretary, Harold Brown, has said, “When we build, they build. When we cut, they build.”

Not only that, but Russia has violated EVERY arms limitation treaty it has ever signed, including the INF Treaty banning intermediate-range missiles.

But don’t waste your breath telling that to Sen. Rand Paul. He thinks Obama’s “reset” (read: appeasement) policy towards Russia has been a success, does not oppose cutting the US nuclear arsenal, has no objection to Russia’s rapid nuclear buildup or arms limitation treaty violations, and his foreign policy advisor is… the chairman of US Global Zero, Richard Burt, a former New York Slimes journalist.

Yes, you’ve read that correctly. The man who advises Sen. Paul on foreign policy is the chairman of the leading group advocating America’s unilateral disarmament.

Indeed, Sen. Paul has no objection to Global Zero’s treasonous unilateral disarmament proposals and has not criticized Chuck Hagel for supporting them in the past or for being a member of Global Zero.

By contrast, during Hagel’s very contentious Senate confirmation hearing, many other GOP Senators, including Jeff Sessions, Jim Inhofe, Kelly Ayotte, and Ted Cruz, staunchly criticized Hagel for these and other extremely leftist views. Paul voted to confirm Hagel, while Cruz, Ayotte, Sessions, and Inhofe all voted no.

In fact, Paul was one of only four Republicans (alongside RINOs Thad Cochran, Richard Shelby, and Nebraska’s Mike Johanns) to vote to confirm Hagel. All other Republicans, including even Maine’s Susan Collins, voted no.

But again, Paul hasn’t merely voted to confirm a card-carrying member of Global Zero as Secretary of Defense; he has hired that group’s chairman as his foreign policy advisor. If Rand Paul were elected President (God forbid), that man (Richard Burt) would become a key foreign policy figure in his administration – perhaps even Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense. And then, you can be sure as hell he and Paul would disarm America unilaterally. Jen Rubin has elaborated on that here.

Which brings us to the second fact uncovered last week: that Rand Paul doesn’t believe in “peace through strength” at all.

Rand Paul Rejects Peace Through Strength

Peace Through Strength is not a mere bumper sticker; it’s a policy proven right time and again. And it is right because it’s based on the fact that military (and economic) strength guarantees peace and security, while it is weakness that provokes aggression.

But Rand Paul adamantly disagrees (though these days he doesn’t often say that, now that he has the White House in his crosshairs). Rand Paul believes strength – specifically, American strength and firmness – is provocative and that appeasement of aggressors and bullies like Russia is the right approach.

In the following 2009 video, then-Dr. Paul slammed the notion of deploying missile defense systems in Poland and of expanding NATO eastward to bring Ukraine and Georgia under NATO’s protection. He claimed this would be provocative and invite war with Russia.

This is, of course, utter nonsense; Russia has to fear something from such moves only if it plans to make war on Poland and to further attack Ukraine and Georgia. If Russia plans to continue its policy of aggression towards Ukraine, Georgia, and Poland, and attack the latter, then yes, Russia does have to fear something from the US.

But if Russia were to coexist peacefully with those countries, it would have nothing to fear.

In fact, Russia would have nothing to fear from US missile defense systems in any case. These systems are unable to intercept Russian missiles (mainly due to their inadequate speed), ESPECIALLY if deployed in Central Europe, because then, these missiles would be easily outflown by Russian ICBMs. If Russia fired an ICBM towards the US, it would be over Western Europe by the time a missile defense battery in Poland would launch its interceptor(s).

But Sen. Paul believes that American strength, not weakness, is provocative and would invite war with Russia.

Which also explains his choice of Global Zero chairman Richard Burt to be his foreign policy advisor: if one believes that American strength is provocative and America’s weakness is a good thing, it makes sense to disarm America unilaterally and to surround yourself with people who advocate doing exactly that.

But in the real world, American weakness are provocative and dangerous, disarming America is utterly suicidal, and all arms control treaties in history have done nothing but to constrain the defenses of Western countries while doing absolutely nothing to limit the armaments of rogue nations and aggressors like Iran, North Korea, Russia, and China – who spit on such treaties and on the very notion of a  “world without nuclear weapons” (a fantasy which will never exist).

Senator Paul also opposes US sanctions against Iran and Russia (he voted against a Russia sanctions bill even AFTER substitute language, not authorizing any funding for the IMF or aid to Ukraine, was offered), and has claimed that pre-WW2 sanctions against Japan provoked that country to attack the US; he has also claimed that after WW1 the US imposed some sort of a “blockade” of Germany that “provoked some of their anger” (in reality, the US imposed no such blockade on Germany after WW1, ratified a separate treaty of peace with Berlin, invested heavily in Germany, and tried to ease the reparations burden on Germany throughout the interwar period). For more on Sen. Paul’s odious views, see here and here.

In other words, Rand Paul Blames America First.

Which Is the Better Electoral Choice?

Finally, when all else fails, defense weaklings and isolationists like Rand Paul and his ilk claim the GOP must adopt their policies because “Americans are war-weary” and a neo-isolationist (“noninterventionist”), “restrained” foreign policy and deep defense cuts.

This is utter nonsense. Although a slim majority of Americans did tell Pew several months ago (before the Russian invasion of Ukraine) that the US should, internationally, “mind its own business”, over 60% of Americans told Gallup that the US spends either “too little” or “the right amount” of money on defense, meaning that over 60% of Americans oppose any further defense cuts (Pew has found similarly strong opposition to defense cuts).

This is in stark contrast to the 1970s (when Americans were really war-weary, after Vietnam, and supported deep defense cuts) and the 1990s (when the public wanted a “peace dividend”).

Also, President Obama’s approval ratings on foreign policy (like on other issues) are at an all-time low, Republicans are now considered the more competent party on foreign policy, and a solid majority of Americans considers Russia a threat to US national security and backs strong sanctions against that country.

Last, but not least, when Gallup asked Americans last year to list their disagreements with the GOP and reasons for voting against it, only 1% named “war issues” as their objection to the GOP. The rest of that list was related to domestic issues and the GOP’s methods of handling them and advancing its goals.

There is nobody in the US who currently doesn’t vote Republican who would somehow start doing so if the GOP agreed to deep defense cuts. Agreeing to such suicidal cuts would not win the GOP a single new voter, but it would alienate tens of millions of national-security-oriented GOP voters who have been with the party for decades.

The reality is simple. Everytime the GOP nominates candidates who strongly believe in Peace Through Strength, are knowledgeable about foreign policy, and are confident discussing it, it is consistently rewarded at the polls. Conversely, when the Republican Party nominates candidates who don’t believe in Peace Through Strength, or don’t know much about foreign affairs and are uncomfortable discussing them, these candidates lose.

The next 2.5 years will show whether the GOP has learned from this history and will nominate a competent candidate for the Presidency or not.

Posted in Ideologies, Nuclear deterrence, Politicians | Leave a Comment »

Strategic Command and State Department confirm: Russia is building UP its nuclear arsenal

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on April 4, 2014


nukeexplosion

For many years, this writer has been warning against any reductions in the US nuclear arsenal, based on the fact that Russia was building up its own, China’s nuclear arsenal’s size was unknown and likely to be in the thousands of warheads, and North Korea’s nuclear capabilities were steadily increasing.

Accordingly, this writer has always consistently opposed any cuts in the US nuclear arsenal, including those mandated by the New START treaty, and has argued vocally against proposals by Obama admin officials and non-governmental arms control advocates like the “Arms Control Association” to cut the nuclear deterrent even further.

As time passed, more and more evidence emerged proving this writer’s claims – and proving nuclear disarmament advocates wrong.

But last Wednesday, the most powerful piece of evidence arrived: State Department cables from Moscow and Congressional testimony by Adm. Cecil Haney, commander of the Strategic Command, in charge of America’s entire nuclear commander.

According to US State Department diplomats in Moscow, who monitor Russia daily, Moscow is “vastly increasing” its nuclear arsenal and aims to reach “nuclear superiority over, not nuclear parity with, the US”, as Bill Gertz reports in his newest column in the Washington Free Beacon.

This is consistent with previous media and think-tank reports that Russia was building up its nuclear arsenal, was building additional strategic Tu-160 bombers, and had ordered 400 new ICBMs. The State Department and Bill Gertz have now simply confirmed this.

Thus, we have irrefutable evidence that a) Russia is dramatically increasing its nuclear arsenal, and b) its buildup is aimed at achieving nuclear superiority over, not parity with, the US. Which also proves that  New START is a treasonous treaty highly dangerous to US and allied security, because it requires nuclear arsenal cuts only of the US, while allowing Russia to dramatically increase its own arsenal.

Russia currently has:

  • About 414-434 ICBMs capable of delivering at least 1,684 (and probably more) nuclear warheads to the CONUS, with its fleet of 68-75 SS-18 Satan ICBMs alone being able to deliver 10 warheads each (750 in total);
  • 13 ballistic missile submarines, each armed with 16 ballistic missiles (20 in the case of the sole Typhoon class boat), each missile being itself capable of delivering 4-8 warheads (12 in the future, when Bulava and Liner missiles replace the currently-used Skiff) to the CONUS even if launched from Russian ports (Moscow has had such long-ranged missiles since the late 1980s), meaning over 1,400 warheads in total deliverable by Russia’s strategic submarine fleet;
  • 251 strategic bombers (Tu-95, Tu-160, Tu-22M), each capable of delivering between 7 (Tu-95) and 12 (Tu-22M) nuclear warheads to the CONUS. Russian bombers have, in recent years, repeatedly flown close to, and sometimes into, US airspace.
  • 2,800 strategic nuclear warheads in total, of which 1,500 are now deployed – and more will be deployed in the future – on the forementioned ICBMs, submarines, and bombers.
  • Over 20 attack and cruise missile submarines, each carrying nuclear-armed cruise missiles (one such submarine of the Akula class popped up last year near the US submarine base at King’s Bay, GA).
  • The world’s largest tactical nuclear arsenal, with around 4,000 warheads deliverable by a very wide range of systems, from short-range ballistic missiles to artillery pieces to tactical aircraft (Su-24, Su-25, the Flanker family, Su-34), to surface ships using nuclear depth charges.
  • Illegal (banned by the INF Treaty) intermediate-range nuclear-armed missiles (Yars-M, R-500, Iskander-M) that can target any place in Europe and China. (Nonetheless, despite these facts, the Obama administration and NATO are too afraid to recognize and name Russia as an INF Treaty violator.)

Russia is now dramatically increasing that arsenal, as the State Department and the Strategic Command’s leader have now confirmed. In addition to deploying more warheads and building more bombers from stockpiled components, it is:

  • Deploying new submarine-launched ballistic missiles (the Bulava and the Liner) that can carry 10-12 warheads each. Russia plans to procure around 140-150 missiles of each type; when these are fully deployed on Russia’s 13 ballistic missile subs, that fleet will be able to carry 2,000-2,200 nuclear warheads all by itself.
  • Deploying additional Yars-M, R-500, and Iskander-M IRBMs – in violation of the INF Treaty.

Russia is also steadily modernizing its existing nuclear arsenal and fleet of delivery systems. It is:

  • Developing and deploying a new class of ballistic missile submarines capable of carrying missiles such as the Bulava and the Liner. Two of them have already been commissioned and at least eight in total will be built.
  • Developing a next-generation intercontinental bomber, slated to first fly in 2020 – before the USAF’s planned Long Range Strike Bomber will.
  • Developing a new submarine-launched cruise missile, the Kaliber;
  • Procuring and deploying a new air-launched cruise missile, the Kh-101/102;
  • Developing and deploying three new ICBM types – the light Yars (RS-24, SS-29) to replace the single-warhead Topol and Topol-M missiles, the midweight Avangard/Rubezh (slated to replace SS-19 Stiletto missiles), and the Sarmat (AKA Son of Satan), intended to replace the SS-18 Satan heavy ICBMs.
  • Developing a rail-based ICBM type on top of the forementioned ICBM classes.
  • Developing a hypersonic missile that could carry nuclear warheads to any point on Earth in an hour and easily penetrate US missile defenses.

Note that the RS-24 (SS-29) Yars ICBMs will be able to carry 10 warheads each, whereas the missiles they’re replacing – the Topol (SS-25 Sickle) and Topol-M (SS-27 Sickle-B) – can carry only one warhead. Therefore, as these missiles enter service, the warhead carriage capacity of the Russian ICBM fleet will greatly increase beyond the (already huge) number of 1,684 warheads immediately deliverable to the CONUS.

By 2018, 80%, and by 2021, 100% of Russia’s ICBMs will be missiles of the new generation – the he Avangard/Rubezh, and the Sarmat heavy ICBM, as well as the forementioned rail-based ICBM.

By contrast, the US, under the Obama administration, has unilaterally retired and scrapped its nuclear-armed Tomahawk submarine-launched cruise missiles and their warheads, plans to kill the procurement of conventional Tomahawks, has no program to replace its ICBMs or air-launched cruise missiles, has delayed the induction of its next-generation bomber until the mid-2020s (and plans to procure only 80-100 of these crucial aircraft), has no plans to develop or deploy mobile ICBMs or medium- or short-range ballistic missiles, and has delayed its ballistic missile submarine replacement program. And even when these boats enter service, there will be only 12 of them, each carrying 16 missiles as opposed to the current Ohio class carrying 24 missiles each.

This is as simple as “Russia and China have nuclear-armed submarine- and ground-launched cruise missiles and IRBMs, the US does not.”

Which means that, even without further cuts, the US will be at a nuclear disadvantage vis-a-vis Russia (and China).

Russia would’ve been a huge nuclear threat necessitating the maintenance of the US nuclear arsenal at no less than its current size even WITHOUT this nuclear buildup. With it, it is becoming an even greater nuclear threat, thus necessitating that the US nuclear arsenal be increased, too.

This isn’t just Zbigniew Mazurak speaking; this is the State Department (through its diplomats in Moscow) and the Strategic Command’s leader, Adm. Haney (who is in charge of all US nuclear weapons), speaking. As Bill Gertz of the Washington Free Beacon reports:

“The blunt comments [by Adm. Haney - ZM] came in response to reports that Russian strategic nuclear forces recently held a large-scale nuclear exercise coinciding with saber-rattling conventional military deployments close to Russia’s eastern border with Ukraine.

Haney said the Russians conduct periodic nuclear war games and in 2013 produced a YouTube video that highlighted “every aspect of their capability.” (…)

State Department cables sent to Washington earlier this year included dire warnings that Russia is vastly increasing its nuclear arsenal under policies similar to those Moscow followed during the Soviet era. The cables, according to officials familiar with them, also stated that the Russian strategic nuclear forces buildup appears aimed at achieving nuclear superiority over the United States and not nuclear parity.

The nuclear modernization has been “continuous” and includes adding fixed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and mobile ICBMs, along with a new class of strategic missile submarines, Haney said in testimony.

“Russia has articulated their value in having strategic capability, and as such, each area they have invested in both in terms of nuclear strategic capability as well as space capability and cyberspace capability in terms of things,” Haney said.

“And as a result, we have seen them demonstrate their capability through a variety of exercises and operations. They maintain their readiness of that capability on a continuous fashion. And it’s a capability I don’t see them backing away from.”

By contrast, Haney testified to the committee that U.S. nuclear forces are in urgent need of modernization to update aging nuclear weapons, delivery systems, and support and production infrastructure, most of which were made decades ago. Under budget sequestration, which could be re-imposed in 2016, U.S. nuclear force modernization will be undermined.”

These facts utterly refute any claims – including those of Barack Obama, Congressional Democrats, and other nuclear disarmament advocates like the Arms Control Association and the Ploughshares Fund – that the US has too many warheads and can afford to cut its nuclear arsenal safely, or that this arsenal is a “Cold War relic” cutting which is “overdue and in the national interest.”

These despicable traitors wanted – and still want – America to cut its nuclear arsenal further and unilaterally, without Russian reciprocation. And for that, they should be severely punished with the maximum penalty foreseen by law for treason.

They have been blatantly lying. All of their claims, without any exception, are blatant lies. No, the US nuclear is not “too large”, “ripe for cuts”, nor a “Cold War relic.” No, its mission is not obsolete by any means – on the contrary, its mission (nuclear deterrence) is more important now than ever. No, cutting the US nuclear arsenal is not “overdue” nor “in the national interest” – it would be completely AGAINST the US national interest and utterly suicidal. It would invoke a Russian nuclear first strike on the US.

No, America cannot afford to cut its nuclear arsenal ANY FURTHER. It should increase, not cut, her nuclear arsenal.

Specifically, the US must:

  • Not enter into any more arms reduction agreements ever again, especially not with countries which routinely violate such treaties, like Russia.
  • Not reduce its nuclear arsenal by even one warhead and not retire any warheads except those whose service lives cannot be extended.
  • Begin quickly increasing its arsenal and the production of cheap, simple plutonium-based warheads. Ample plutonium for their production can be easily obtained from spent fuel from American nuclear reactors.
  • Resume nuclear testing.
  • Accelerate the development of the Long-Range Strike Bomber and procure 200, not 80-100, of these aircraft; and require that they be certified as nuclear-capable from the moment they enter service.
  • Quickly begin developing and procuring new, longer-ranged, stealthy replacements for the USAF’s cruise missiles as well as the Navy’s Tomahawk. The new cruise missiles should be of the same type, launchable from a wide range of platforms, and capable of delivering nuclear and conventional warheads. Their range should be at least 2,000 kms.
  • Accelerate the development of hypersonic weapons. The B-52, the B-1, and the B-2 should all be made capable of launching hypersonic missiles. The HTV and Blackswift programs should also be resumed.
  • Accelerate the Ohio class replacement program.
  • Develop and deploy a new ICBM for the USAF, which should come in rail- and silo-based variants.
  • Build more tactical nuclear warheads to reassure US allies around the world.

Once again, it must be repeated: THE US MUST NOT CUT ITS NUCLEAR ARSENAL ANY FURTHER, WHETHER UNI-, BI-, OR MULTILATERALLY. PERIOD.

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

Rebuttal of Jack Matlock’s Blame America First lies and those about Reagan

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on March 25, 2014


ReaganPeaceQuote

The Washington Compost (not exactly a bastion of conservatism) has just published an utterly ridiculous screed by former State Dept. official and historical revisionist Jack Matlock Jr. Therein, Matlock blames the current crisis in the Crimea, and Russia’s entire hostility towards the United States, solely on America, falsely claiming that Moscow is hostile solely because “the United States has insisted  on treating Russia as the loser” since the Cold War’s end. Matlock falsely claims that since 1991, Russia has time and again tried to be a cooperative partner, only to receive “swift kicks to the groin” from the US.

(Only a congenital liar would make such claims.)

And like other liberals, Matlock also claims the US did not really win the Cold War or cause the USSR’s collapse. Furthermore, he claims in his book that Ronald Reagan’s sole (and secondary) contribution to ending the Cold War was supposedly abandoning the hawkish policies of his first term.

I will refute these other lies later. But first, I will utterly refute Matlock’s lies about the source of Russian hostility and about Moscow supposedly trying to be a cooperative partner.

Matlock: Blame America First

Matlock blames Moscow’s hostility solely on the US, claiming that the US invited it by bombing Serbia without UN Security Council Approval in 1999, invading Iraq without UNSC approval in 2003, withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2001, expanding NATO to include Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, the Baltic Republics, Romania, and Bulgaria; with supposed “plans” for US bases in the Baltics and the Balkans; by somehow “supporting” the democratic revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia; and by passing the Magnitsky Act, designed to punish Russian officials who violate human rights.

Matlock is essentially saying, “Russia under Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin tried to be a good partner and to follow a pro-Western orientation, but we alienated it with our aggressive actions.”

That is absolutely false, just like the rest of Matlock’s anti-American screed, and it comes straight from Moscow’s and its liberal American sycophants’ propaganda playbook. Matlock is merely repeating the same old anti-American lies for the umpteenth time.

Russia Has No Legitimate Grievances Towards The West

So let’s look at the issues he claims invited Russian hostility:

  • Serbia: in 1999, that country’s then-dictator, Slobodan Milosevic, was murdering thousands and thousands of innocent, defenseless civilians in Kosovo (where over 80% of the population is Kosovan, not Serbian) for nothing but the fact that they were Kosovan – just like the Germans murdered 6 million Jews for the mere fact they were Jews. We were witnessing a repeat of the Holocaust in Europe (albeit on a much smaller scale). The US was ABSOLUTELY RIGHT to act to stop this, and it was supported in this by ALL of NATO and the entire civilized world (to which Russia does not belong). Milosevic was a war criminal wanted by a UN tribunal in the Hague, was eventually handed over to it after losing power, and was tried for war crimes. The fact that Russia supported such a bloody war criminal only shows what an immoral country it is. As for “UN Security Council approval”, apparently Mr Matlock believes that the US should not act anywhere in the world unless it receives permission from that august council… where his beloved Russia, of course, is a veto-wielding member.
  • Iraq: say what you want about the wisdom of invading Iraq, but any claim that that invasion somehow threatened Russia’s interests in the Middle East is utterly preposterous. What Russian interests did it threaten? None. It actually undermined US interests as it replaced a Sunni dictator with a Shia, pro-Iranian government.
  • The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty: I guess Mr Matlock would’ve preferred for the US to forever remain vulnerable to even the smallest ballistic missile attack and for the US never to develop adequate defenses against such an attack… because that’s exactly what the ABM treaty prohibited. A treaty, by the way, signed with the USSR – a country that no longer existed by 2001. Considering how fast (despite all arms reduction treaties signed to date) ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons are proliferating (thus making a total mockery and failure of those treaties), the decision to withdraw from the ABM treaty was absolutely right. And it had no real impact on Washington-Moscow relations, as confirmed by then-Under Secretary of State for Arms Control Robert G. Joseph. Might I add that Russia – while strongly opposing America’s efforts to build ballistic missile defense systems – is quietly building such systems of its own?
  • NATO expansion: to say that this threatened Russia’s security is also a blatant lie. None of NATO’s new members (except Poland and the Baltics) even have a border with Russia; and all of them had and still have very good reasons to fear Russian subjugation and aggression. They spent half a century under the Soviet yoke; in the 1990s, Russia still tried to meddle in their affairs; and now Moscow is threatening them again. It was morally and strategically right to bring them under NATO’s defense umbrella. Moscow has something to fear from their accession to NATO ONLY if it intends to attack them. Moreover, the post-1991 NATO entrants (especially Poland and the Czech Republic) have proven to be among the staunchest allies America has anywhere in the world, participating heavily in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan (Poland sent thousands of troops to both countries). What’s more, Poland is one of the few NATO countries that spend the agreed benchmark of at least 2% of GDP on defense and has more mechanized Army brigades than the UK, France, and Germany combined. Romania and Bulgaria have access to the Black Sea and have recently held exercises with the USN. Such allies are worth having.
  • The early 2000s’ revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia saw utterly corrupt and criminal pro-Russian dictators (and in Ukraine, President Kuchma’s hand-picked successor Viktor Yanukovych) ousted by their people. Contrary to Matlock’s lies, the US did not extend anything but rhetorical support for those revolutions.
  • The Magnitsky Act: contrary to Matlock’s lies, the US did not single out Russia with this Act as the worst human rights abuser in the world. But Moscow is one of the world’s most egregious human rights violators, and this act, named by a whistleblower murdered in prison by Putin’s prison guards, instituted targeted sanctions against Russian officials who violate human rights.

So all of Matlock’s excuses for Russia’s hostility have been utterly refuted, one by one. They’ve collapsed like a deck of cards.

And so will, in a minute, Matlock’s myth that Russia has tried to be a cooperative partner whom the US has needlessly antagonized. In fact, since Vladimir Putin’s ascension to power, Russia has been increasingly arrogant and hostile towards the US and the West as its power has grown since the nadir of the 1990s. It has started a new Cold War against the West and is the biggest threat to US, European, and world security.

Russia Is Behaving Aggressively In Cold-War Style

In recent years, Russia has:

  1. Repeatedly flown nuclear-armed strategic borders into US, allied (Japanese), and even neutral (Swedish) airspace and said the Russian Air Force was “practicing attacking the enemy.” What on Earth have SWEDEN and JAPAN done to Russia? For that matter, what has America done to Russia? Nothing.
  2. Repeatedly (on 15 separate occassions) threatened to aim or even use its nuclear weapons against the US and its allies.
  3. Invaded two sovereign countries that dared to try to break out of Moscow’s sphere of influence and align themselves with the West (Georgia and Ukraine) and continues to occupy both countries.
  4. Repeatedly violated several arms reduction treaties, including the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty and the INF Treaty, the latter being violated by Russia by repeatedly testing and deploying nuclear-armed missiles banned by that treaty.
  5. Deployed nuclear-armed ballistic missiles in the Kaliningrad District, next to Poland, threatening that loyal ally of the US, while the US has no nuclear weapons anywhere in Eastern Europe.
  6. Backed America’s enemies around the world – North Korea, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba – to the hilt, with diplomatic protection at the UN Security Council, weapons (including the advanced S-300VM air defense system), nuclear fuel (Iran), and nuclear reactors (Iran), thus also threatening the existence of Israel.
  7. Stationed a spy ship, the Viktor Leonov, in Cuba (it’s still there).
  8. Conducted, and continues to conduct, a wave of hateful anti-American propaganda in domestic and foreign (e.g. RussiaToday) media.
  9. Sent an Akula-class nuclear-armed submarine close to the US submarine base in King’s Bay, GA.
  10. Domestically, assassinated high-profile dissidents (Anna Politkovskaya, Alexander Litvinenko) and jailed hundreds of others.
  11. Just recently, began negotiations with Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela on opening bases for Russian ships and nuclear-armed bombers there.

Yet the US is somehow to blame for Russia’s actions? For Moscow’s hostility? Who is threatening whom with nuclear weapons, Mr Matlock? Who is flying nuclear-armed bombers close and sometimes into US, Japanese, and Swedish airspace? Who is stationing spy ships close to the other party’s shores? Who is now reopening naval and bomber bases on the other party’s doorstep?

Are you a paid pro-Kremlin propagandist, Mr Matlock? Or are you just on drugs?

Matlock also falsely claims that the current West-Russia spat we’re witnessing now is not a new Cold War but the result of “misunderstandings, misinterpretations, and posturing to domestic political audiences” – as if Russia’s ultra-aggressive behavior against the US, its allies, and even neutral countries like Sweden was the product of mere “misunderstading.”

He’s completely wrong. Russia’s behavior is the result of resurgent, renewed Russian imperialism, of the Kremlin’s imperial ambitions, and of the hatred of the West which Vladimir Putin and his fellow KGB thugs imbued when trained by the KGB.

We didn’t see that behavior in Putin’s first years because at that time Russia was still too weak to try such actions. But as Russia began to rebound militarily and economically under Putin, it also began to be increasingly aggressive towards the West and towards Moscow’s former Warsaw Pact vassals.

Matlock also falsely claims that Russia has cooperated with the US on Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, and North Korea.

This is also false. Moscow has backed, and continues to back, Syria, Iran, and North Korea to the hilt, affording them diplomatic protection at the UNSC, weapons (except North Korea, at least so far), and, in Iran’s case, nuclear reactors and nuclear fuel – which Iran will use to produce nuclear weapons.

Moscow has absolutely opposed any but the weakest sanctions against Iran, and continues to back the genocidal, anti-American dictator Bashar al-Assad.

Matlock also falsely claims the New START treaty was a significant achievement, but the converse is true: New START was an utter failure and a treasonous treaty. It requires unilateral disarmament on America’s part: only the US required by the treaty to cut its nuclear arsenal, while Russia is allowed to increase its own. Even worse, the treaty doesn’t count Russia’s 171 Tu-22M strategic bombers as such, contains a pathetically weak Potemkin-like verification regime, and imposes restrictions on US missile defenses.

As Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ) has rightly said, the US should immediately withdraw from that treaty.

Yes, Virginia, Reagan Really Did Win The Cold War

Finally, I will refute Matlock’s also utterly false claim that the US didn’t win the Cold War or cause the collapse of the USSR.

The fact is the US did both, no matter how hard Matlock and other revisionists try to deny it.

The Soviet Union lost the Cold War, and collapsed in 1991, because of the fatal blows Ronald Reagan dealt to it. In his eight years, President Reagan:

  • Dramatically increased US defense spending, to levels not seen in real terms before or since, and US defense programs to a pace the Soviet Union could not keep up with.
  • Began the development of a missile defense system the USSR could never match.
  • Convinced Saudi Arabia to increase oil output dramatically, thus cutting oil prices from $30/bbl to $12/bbl in 5 months, and thus dealing a fatal blow to Moscow’s oil-revenue -dependent economy.
  • Instituted a bevy of sanctions on the USSR, including an embargo on drilling, pumping, and construction equipment, and successfully pressured West Germany to reduce the planned Yamal Pipeline from 2 lines to one, and to delay that project by many years (as a result, it wasn’t completed until 1999).
  • Supported anti-Soviet proxies around the world, most notably in Afghanistan, where they defeated the Soviet Army in a war that cost Moscow hundreds of billions of dollars (if only the US had learned from Moscow’s mistakes and had not gotten mired in that country!).
  • Deployed Pershing and GLCM missiles in Europe to counter the USSR’s deployment of SS-20s.
  • Successfully used the tons of secret Warsaw Pact documents stolen by Col. Ryszard Kuklinski as leverage in negotiations with the Soviets.

These are the fatal blows that brought the Soviets back to the bargaining table, forced them to make major concessions, and eventually caused the Soviet Union’s collapse, as the USSR was unable to continue the Afghan War, the arms race, or counter US missile defense development with its sclerotic, stagnant economy, especially not after the Reagan-induced late 1980s oil glut. And not with the Yamal Pipeline delayed.

As Professor Robert G. Kaufman has rightly written, “the Cold War ended on Reagan’s terms, not Gorbachev’s.”

Matlock is wrong on all counts. All of his claims are utterly false. Not one of them is correct – not even one. Russia has NO legitimate grievances towards the West, it has never been a truly cooperative partner in the last 25 years, and its hostility is due to the revival of imperialist ideology and ambitions in Russian political circles (greatly enabled by KGB thug Vladimir Putin’s ascent to power). Russia is now waging a new Cold War on the West. How the West, led by the US, will respond to this challenge, remains to be seen.

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

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 431 other followers