Any questions?

You can ask me any questions on this page. Don’t be afraid to ask!


34 thoughts on “Any questions?”

  1. Hi, I would like to state how I enjoy reading your blog and the major problems America faces if these defence cuts were to proceed. Something as a Canadian finding most discomforting especially since the Canadian public is still unaware of the dangers.

    What I was wondering is if its possible to outline what Canada has to do to make up the ‘defence gap’ for both Continental Defence; NATO, Persian Gulf (Eastern Canada is still dependent on import for gasoline.) Pacific; and if necessary what weapons systems needed.

    1. Hi Sasha,

      I’ll try to answer your question briefly here and pen a more detailed analysis of Canada’s defense needs when time allows.

      Firstly, Canada needs to define its national interests, because that will impact everything else. Is it just physically defending Canada itself and its prosperity, or something else as well? And what factors impact Canada’s prosperity?

      Then, threats to Canada’s national interests must be identified. These threats emanate from some enemies, so their capabilities and possible intentions must be thoroughly studied. Then, the DND must determine what capabilities the Canadian military needs, and what missions will it need to execute, to counter these threats.

      That will enable the next steps – identifying what capabilities the Canadian military’s weapons must have, in what quantities are they needed, and thus, what exact kinds of weapons (and other platforms), as well as types of units and kinds of training for the troops, are needed. If that is done properly, the final step – procuring the needed weapons, creating the right force mix, giving the troops the needed training, and standing up entire units of the right kind – will follow naturally. But it will require the DND to accept that its wishes may be different from the Canadian military’s needs.

      Your military’s first and foremost mission is, of course, to protect Canada itself. The primary threat to Canadian soil is that of Russian (and possibly in the future, Chinese) bombers (escorted by fighters like the Su-35 and the PAKFA and aided by tankers). A secondary mission for the RCAF will be to support allied militaries in expenditionary wars. This requires a very agile, fast, well-armed, survivable, twin-engined fighter with a good radar and a good IRST system. The best candidate for this role will be the Dassault Rafale. (I’ll publish a more detailed analysis of the RCAF’s fighter needs later.) Neither the F-35 nor the F/A-18E/F Super Bug (touted by some as an alternative to the F-35) come even close to fitting the role.

      You’ve mentioned the need to keep the Persian Gulf secure and Canada’s NATO commitment. The only plausible threat to Europe is that of a newly-aggressive, coercive, Putin-governed Russia, but lacking nuclear weapons or a large conventional military, there’s not much Canada can do about this. But if Canada does field a sizeable and credible fighter fleet (see above), it can make a credible commitment to its NATO allies at no additional cost, since Ottawa will have to field such a fleet anyway.

      As for the Persian Gulf, especially the Straits of Hormuz, if Canada wishes to keep it secure, or at least make a significant commitment to such effort together w/allies, it will need to build the right ships in quantity:
      1) Minesweepers (these can be built and operated quite cheaply);
      2) Anti-submarine frigates (these can also be built and operated cheaply – vide e.g. the Fridtjof Nansen class or the Formidable class); and
      3) A few DDGs for air and missile defense (although such ships are more expensive than frigates; Canada might be able to buy only a few of them, or might want to contract that responsibility out to the US, the UK, or France).

      Canada might be able to avoid a few of these ship purchases by pooling and coordinating resources with these and other allies, but because the US and Britain have or are dramatically slashing their defense budgets, and because France may follow suit (although let’s hope she doesn’t), Canada will, more often than not, have to have its own weapons of the above classes.

      Best regards,

  2. How would you solve the issues with the m4 carbine? , it seems the american generals are digging in their heels for a replacement and the government won’t just spend money in solving it rather then cancelling and restarting research or replacement programmes.

    1. Thanks for the question, Matthew!

      I would simply commence a program to find a replacement rifle, as the US is doing now for the M16. The M4 carbine is a shorter, lighter derivative of the M16 which, like the original “em-sixteen”, frequently jams in sandy or dirty environments. For the time being, the US military could use M14 rifles, which don’t jam even if you bury them in mud or sand.

      1. That is true but you have the problem of increased combat load , I personally think a balanced gas piston is the solution to the jamming problem , also if you replace the 5.56×45mm NATO round with the 6.5mm grendel round you increase stopping power at the loss of only 4 rounds in a magazine. Also the army could replace its 7.62×51mm NATO rounds used in the m110 or its successor the CSASS with up powdered 6.5 grendel rounds and see similar performance with an easier logistical train.

  3. Would you like to the ex-wife of a senior executive officer and Russian analyst at the NSA? Would you like to hear what I know about the NSA? By the way, I live in Rand Paul’s district. You’re right. I’ve had a little first hand contact with his office. You’re right. He’s a RINO. All that NSA talk is about getting donations. He sends me donation requests all day long. He will pick up a sensational issue, and then reiterate it in an email, and ask me to “chip in”. I’m not from Kentucky. I’m from California. I also have homes in Arizona and Nevada. My brother is retired CIA. I worked for criminal investigators on white collar crime cases. Our nation is entirely rotten to the core. Even for me, its a little hard to believe, and I think I’ve seen it all.

    1. Exactly, Shari! All that talk about the NSA and Snowden is designed to get Rand Paul donations and votes in the 2016 GOP primary, in which he’ll likely be a top tier candidate.

      1. I went to Federal Court last year accusing the NSA of all sorts of spying on me and my family. Not a single word from Rand Paul. I told him – not a single word. We found a wiretap on my mother’s phone. I hired a private detective who told me all my public records were missing, somebody tampered with them to disconnect me with my ex husband – so investigators couldn’t find me or talk to me. Even got a visit from the FBI telling me to shut up and stop talking. Rand Paul is full of *****. You know what I’m talking about. You know this game.

      2. Yes, I do. Thanks a lot for your comments, they’re interesting! If you have anything else to say, stop by this site anytime 🙂

  4. You would run out of blog space. I had my own blog but nobody read it. I posted on all the news blogs, nobody reads. I wrote for Western Center on Journalism, no news here. I don’t know who they are anyway, you tell them something and they blow you off. the only people who really take an interest are either former Soviet or KGB, or Russian refugee. I met a man who survived Hitler’s Germany – he was packing to go back to Germany. he said he came here to get away from it. He didn’t trust anyone, and now neither do I. I can’t believe how many secret communists there are suddenly coming out. My ex was involved with the KGB when we were married. He was in the navy security agency – they were all involved with some dirty business. Lots of his friends got jobs with TSA and NSA, CIA – they don’t do clearance checks, you know that. It’s all talk. It’s bad enough that Obama does what he does – but the Congress stands around and lets him do it. They don’t do anything. This is the same old set-up from WWII. German Parliament stood around letting it happen. We’re in real trouble –

  5. I want to tell you who else is full of it. Larry Klayman. This guy is what we call a “control man”. I worked for criminal attorneys and corporate attorneys for 20 years. There are lawyers who bring lawsuits just to quiet cases and silence witnesses. Klayman is an inside man for the NSA. He brings lawsuits that “control” the outbreak of bigger lawsuits. You’re allowed the sue the NSA and the Federal government up to a point. I contacted Larry Klayman so many times I lost count. Not a single reply.

    dropped a Federal Tort Claim on the NSA in 2012. They have 6 months to come up with a reason for letting my ex husband use the NSA to harrass me and my family. Threats, harrassment, wiretapping, tampering with public records, and I have everything in writing. I even have a private detective who could be subpoened. I could sue the NSA today, but I need a really good attorney. Larry Klayman never responded to any of my calls.

    If Klayman were to represent me, it would open up a whole can of worms that the NSA employees just do whatever they want. When Obama said “I can do whatever I want” – that is exactly what my ex husband said to me 40 years ago. He said “I can do whatever I want and nobody can touch me.” I even found another witness who was willing to testify that he threatened her.

    How much information do you really know about Klayman’s clients and that NSA lawsuit? Klayman lead a rally at the Capitol, and brought a lawsuit – but how much is he really willing to tell you? When a lawyer closes a case without making a full public disclosure, he silenced the witnesses. Klayman doesn’t want the public to know what really went on. That’s why the father of one of the Seal Team 6 is out there doing his own talking. Klayman isn’t talking. Klayman tried to silence his clients by closing the case and cutting a deal with the NSA. If I hadn’t worked for Harvard attorneys for 20 years, I wouldn’t know this stuff.

    Klayman founded Judicial Watch – but if you report a Judge to Judicial Watch – they silence you. This gives the public the idea that they really have a voice – but if you go around reporting anybody, you end up being the target. They did the same thing in Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union. The very last thing you ever do is report an officer of the police state to the government. Klayman is part of the internal mechanism that keeps corruption alive in the courts.

    1. Thank you, Shari. I do have a question, though: why are you telling all this to me? I’m not a person who could do something effective about the cases you’ve mentioned 🙂

  6. Because . . . you run a blog about NSA. I leave tracks all over the Internet. Let me ask you a question? Why do you run a blog about the NSA is you already know you’re powerless to do anything? Why waste your time? Rino Hunter posted a U-Tube of Larry Klayman’s press conference with the father of Seal Team 6 – it only got 117 views. One of the comments was “this should have a lot of more views”. Americans are complacent about their freedom. I guess just kick back and relax and watch the fun. Right? Everytime you post anything on the Internet, the NSA knows about it. Trust me, they read your blog. Why do you think I posted?

    1. Only in case of a WMD, ballistic missile, or massive conventional attack on the US or its key allies, or if the enemy hid something deep underground in bunkers that only US nuclear weapons such as the B83 bomb could penetrate.

  7. interesting site. i am curious about a couple of things, would there be any signs that a nuclear war would be about to start? looking as to how Russia and China are dealing with Iran now, could their threats of launching such a war over Iran be serious or are they bluffing? i do not think the israelis are bluffing and i think if push comes to shove then the IDF will have no choice but to launch a strike on the iranian nuclear facilities. after all, as small as Israel is, it would take only one warhead to destroy her. if the iranians do get the bomb, i’ve heard rumors they are already a nuclear power, i don’t think they would launch a missile attack on the jewish state. most likely they would sneak it over thwe border or in thru a seaport on a commercial vessel. this way, they can escape the blame for the attack. like your article about the Russian and Chinese submarines. funny, i thought the Russian sub fleet was much larger than that. did they downsize after the cold war?

    1. Wow, so many questions. I’ll try answering all of them, one at a time:

      1) Fortunately, nuclear weapons are in the hands of sane, deterrable politicians. A nuclear war would be preceded by an enormous buildup in tens and perhaps even by conventional warfare, and would almost certainly involve a vital national interest for the party launching its nuclear weapons at someelse. That being the case, it’s extremely unlikely.

      2) I don’t believe Russia or China would go to war – let alone nuclear war – with the US over what is, at best, a marginal interest for them (Iran). And they have plenty of other means to retaliate (economically and technologically) against the US for actions they don’t approve of.

      3) I believe it is very unlikely – despite what you wrote above – that the Israelis will launch a preemptive strike on Iran. If they really intended to, they would’ve done so long ago. By now, Iran’s nuclear program is too well-protected, with most of its facilities buried deeply underneath mountains, for Israelis to attack. Moreover, an Israeli PM cannot launch attacks on other countries at whim. Such actions require the approve of a majority of the Security Cabinet and a majority of the entire government.

      4) Yes, the Russian military – including the submarine fleet – downsized greatly after the Cold War. Putin is now busy rebuilding the military, including the Navy, but i won’t be as big as its Soviet predecessor ever again. OTOH, its capabilities – incl. those of the Russian sub fleet – are far greater than those of its Soviet predecessor.

  8. Hi,

    I enjoy your blog, but this morning everything is in French. Is it available in English? Or is this some silliness with my browser (Explorer)?

    1. Hello Michael,

      A while ago I began serving mostly the French-speaking audience. I will translate the texts into English when time allows.

  9. Zbigniew, we’ve discussed (argued) quite a bit in the past about the virtues of light fighters versus heavier and more expensive ones. In particular we disagree about the virtues of the F-16. Back in July I left you a pointer on your Pierre Sprey thread to an article about an interview with a retired U.S. Air Force Fighter Weapons School instructor and adversary pilot. He has thousands of hours in the F-16 and F-15, and nobody is in a better position to discuss their relative virtues. He gives the edge to the F-16 in effectiveness. I’m waiting to hear what you think of the article.

    1. I will try to read it and reply to it when time allows. I’m sorry, Fallon, but due to my workload (I currently work at IBM) and other preoccupations (among other things, studying 2 foreign languages), I’m extremely busy these days. I will give you a response as soon as I can. In the meantime, Merry Christmas !

  10. Zbigniew,

    I’m addressing a fact check issue regarding Republican candidate Marco Rubio’s statement that the U.S. is not building the aircraft, long-range bombers, aircraft carriers and submarines required for U.S. security. I’m hoping you’ll find time to offer comment via email (or here on your blog).

    Thanks & cheers.

    1. Did Marco Rubio really say that?

      The USAF has recently awarded to Northrop Grumman (and its partners) a contract to design and build 80-100 new, stealthy long-range bombers which will be nuclear- and conventional-capable. Some people, such as Congressman Randy Forbes, say that more than 80-100 bombers should be built, but at least this number will be procured (assuming the Air Force can keep the aircraft’s cost in check.

      The US Navy is building Ford-class aircraft carriers (and will probably partner with the Indian Navy to help it build catapult carriers of its own). The problem is the enormous cost of these vessels: $12 bn apiece. But they are being built – and will be commissioned at a pace of roughly one every 7 years.

      As for submarines, the USN is building modern, very quiet Virginia class submarines. It aims to procure them at a pace of 2 per fiscal year, but sequestration of the defense budget leaves that in doubt.

      The US Navy is also developing, and seeks to build 12, ballistic missile submarines to maintain the sea leg of the nuclear triad. Once again, the problem will be the cost of that program: some $100 bn in total to design, develop, test, and build the 12 submarines.

      If you have any more questions, please let me know. And Merry Christmas 🙂

      1. Merry Christmas!

        Rubio said what I wrote he said, which is a little ambiguous (I try to avoid asking leading questions). Another fact checker judged Rubio was saying the U.S. isn’t doing any building of those defense items. Your answer suggests you took it in that or a similar way. But I think it’s likely Rubio was saying procurement isn’t nearly as aggressive as it ought to be. Your opening question (“Did Marco Rubio really say that?”) hints that you’d be surprised if Rubio said/suggested the U.S. isn’t building those things.

        Do you have a view on whether the current projected rate of procurement sustains security near a desirable level?

      2. I believe the rate of 2 Virginia class attack submarines per year and the plan to build 100 bombers and 12 ballistic missile submarines is the minimum, esp. with regard to the bombers. Each USAF bomber squadron has 12 aircraft, so a fleet of 100 bombers would constitute only 8 squadrons plus 4 spare aircraft (e.g. for attrition). This is the bare minimum. There are experts such as ret. LTGEN David Deptula (USAF, ret.) who believe the USAF needs to procure many more than that – incl. 120 front-line bombers to fully equip 10 combat-coded squadrons, plus training aircraft and reserve planes for attrition.

  11. We have weapons only few know that will destroy the Chinese navy in short order! And it’s part of solar wardon, this is a one time kind of event once it’s used (like the first stealth bomber the cat is out of the bag). An event will trigger a conflict with in a year and its purpose is to set China back so far that it’s demographics and week political system causes it to cease from being a real concern!

  12. With regard to your “Des réformes pour la France”, having read the complete article I am left with one big question. What has an American to do with the French Military, and Economics and Foreign Relations? Buying British sniper rifles? Why? The French have good ones already. Scrap the Republican Guard Cavalry? That has been put forward way before your article, and has been turned down by the French people and the French politicians. Amalgamating the rail transport police forces, issuing body armour and military weapons? Why is it important to make France a mirror of the US? Only good things, scrapping Yenghi C130s and C295s to be replaced by European A400Ms, increasing the numbers of the best tank in the world, the LeClerc. And spreading the sales of the Rafale, the fighter that leaves all US, and most Russian, fighters makes good sense.

    1. Hi David,

      Firstly, I apologize for the late reply. The reason why I advocate buying British sniper rifles is, simply, because they’re the best in the world – the longest-ranged, the most accurate, and they have fantastic optical equipment. WRT to the Rep. Guard Cavalry, it serves no purpose whatsoever except parading once a year and making the Champs-Elysees dirty in the process with horse manure.

      I am the last person on Earth who wants to make France a mirror of the US. I’m just saying certain efficiences are necessary to make possible the new equipment purchases that the French military desperately needs.

      Best regards,

  13. Sir, can you give me a link to the article where you showed one particular fighter jet — I think it was the Dassault Rafael — to be clearly superior to all other 4th generations fighters? I’d like to show that article to others as it was an eye opener.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: