Zbigniew Mazurak's Blog

A blog dedicated to defense issues

Archive for the ‘Military issues’ Category

The coming decline and fall of America

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on December 28, 2012

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

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

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

Sooner than you probably think.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted in Economic affairs, Ideologies, Military issues, World affairs | Leave a Comment »

Republicans must block Kerry and Hagel

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on December 27, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And yet, Republicans plan to vote to confirm him?

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

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

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

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

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

Posted in Military issues, Politicians, World affairs | Leave a Comment »

Evaluating the PAKFA

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on December 26, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted in Military issues, World affairs | Leave a Comment »

A very sad Christmas for us defense conservatives

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on December 25, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2011 was a very sad Christmas for us defense conservatives.

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

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

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

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

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

A very sad Christmas, indeed.

Posted in Military issues, World affairs | Leave a Comment »

Rebuttal of POLITICO and liberal Republicans’ blatant lies

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on December 24, 2012

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

The article opens with the false claim that:

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

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

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

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

Nocera further writes that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nocera further writes that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kate Nocera further falsely claims that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally, a voice of reason.


Posted in Ideologies, Media lies, Military issues, Politicians, World affairs | Leave a Comment »

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

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on December 23, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The strident liberals’ letter closes as follows:

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

Posted in Military issues, World affairs | Leave a Comment »

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

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on December 22, 2012

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

Russia’s strategic arsenal

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

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

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

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

More on that here in this must-read article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tactical nuclear arsenal

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Posted in Military issues, World affairs | Leave a Comment »

MissileThreat.com and Hans Kristensen are wrong to understate the Chinese nuclear threat

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on December 19, 2012

A recent MissileThreat.com article inexplicably and wrongly downplays the Chinese missile and submarine threat significantly, which is a stain on the previously almost impeccable credibility of the MissileThreat website, which has normally been a very credible information source.

The article informs the reader that the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission warns in its report that China is “on the verge” of acquiring a credible continous at-sea nuclear deterrent and that China supposedly already has 2-3 SSBNs; hence, the Commission says, the US should enter into arms limitation talks with Beijing.

But the ESR Commission and the MissileThreat website are actually understating the Chinese military threat. Anti-nuclear, pro-disarmament hack Hans Kristensen (a Danish pacifist activist working in the US) understates it even worse.

Firstly, China had 2-3 Jin class SSBNs (plus one Xia class submarine) 5 years ago, in 2007. Since then, it has grown to 5 Jins and the one Xia class boat, as documented here. A mere 2-3 Jin class boats is what China had in 2007. Common sense and logic alone should tell us that China has only increased its SSBN fleet since then, and has has had plenty of time (5 years!) to do so. And indeed, China has 5 Jin class SSBNs today, with a sixth one under construction. This is consistent with the Office of Naval Intelligence’s 2006 statement that China would need at least 5 Jins to maintain a continous at-sea nuclear deterrent.

Secondly, contrary to what the article (and the MissileThreat website, in its profile of the missile) claims, the JL-2 submarine-launched ballistic missile (the principal armament of the Jin class) has a range of 8,000 kms, not 7,200. That range makes a Jin class boat capable of targeting the entire US West Coast while being positioned just east of the 150E meridian, just east of Japan and well west of Hawaii. It does not need to sail close to, let alone east of Hawaii as the article wrongly claimed.

Even if the JL-2’s range was “only” 7,200 kilometers, that would still give a Jin enough range to target the entire US West Coast while being positioned at the 160E meridian, still well west of Hawaii. In fact, if a Jin boat were positioned just slightly east of Hawaii, its JL-2 missiles could hit any target anywhere in the US, including even Maine. (A Chinese YouTube video claims that the JL-2 has a range of 7,400 kms, and the SinoDefence website says it has a range of between 7000 and 8000 kms.)

Kristensen and MissileThreat also falsely claim that Chinese SSBNs would be vulnerable shortly after leaving their bases. This is false, at least regarding the Yulin Naval Base near Sanya (which is quoted in the article), on the South China Sea, and possibly also false with regard to the Jianggezhue Naval Base near Qingdao. The entrance to the Yulin Naval Base is partially underwater and the water in front of that entrance, and in the entrance lane itself, is so deep that a submarine entering or leaving that base can do so while being fully submerged, as reported by the Daily Telegraph here. So the ony way for the USN to know when a sub would be leaving the base would be to permanently have an American sub positioned near the entrance and monitor it as Chinese subs enter and exit the base, then track a Jin class sub leaving the base.

MissileThreat and Kristensen also mock the Jin class’s survivability, saying that it’s noisy and might not survive in the Pacific. The Jin class is noisy to be sure (as the ONI confirms), but it won’t matter in the congested waters of the East China and South China Seas or in the Sea of Japan. Nor will it matter in the vast swathes of the open Pacific, where the only way of detecting a Jin boat is to know where to look for it. But because a Jin can exit its base unseen, and because the Pacific Ocean is so vast, the USN would never know where to look for the Jin class.

Moreover, as MissileThreat itself admits, America’s ASW capabilities have dwindled dramatically since 1991. The fleet of P-3 Orion ASW aircraft is old, worn out, and dwindling, planned orders for replacement P-8 Poseidon aircraft are small, S-3 Viking carrier-borne ASW aircraft have been retired, the submarine fleet is dwindling and overcommitted, and so is the surface combatant fleet, not all of which is equipped with sonars. It would therefore be very easy for a Jin class boat to exit one of its subs unseen and then vanish in the vast swathes of the Pacific, only to threaten the US.

Kristensen, of course, desiring to mislead the public about China’s military capabilities and to lull the public into a false sense of security, falsely claims that “in a war with the United States, China would not last long”. What utter garbage.

In fact, China’s nuclear arsenal is very survivable. Its DF-5 ICBMs sit in hardened siloes, it has built many decoy siloes, while its DF-31 and DF-41 ICBMs (like their DF-21 MRBM and their SRBM and GLCM counterparts) are road-mobile (a rail-mobile version of the DF-31 is reportedly under development). Its nuclear strike aircraft are dispersed around many bases around the country, and nuclear-capable Q-5s and JH-7s are mostly based in hardened or underground and under-mountain hangars. Jin class submarines, of course, being submarines, are even more survivable, like other SSBNs.

Looking at China’s entire portfolio of military capabilities – not just the nuclear ones – it is clear that China’s military is catching up with the US military quickly and that, as things stand today, Beijing would actually win a conventional war with the US in Eastern Asia.

This is because the US military today is poorly prepared for wars in anti-access/area-denial environments. Its sole bombers capable of penetrating Chinese airspace are its 20 B-2 bombers. Its cruise missiles could be easily intercepted by Chinese air defense systems. The bases of its short- and medium-range aircraft are all within easy reach of Chinese SRBMs (DF-11, DF-15, B-611), MRBMs (DF-21, DF-3), and GLCMs (CJ-10, DH-10). Its ASW skills and assets, as stated above and admitted by MissileThreat, have dwindled disastrously since 1991. Its submarine and surface combatants are dwindling, too, and will do so even if sequestration is averted completely. It has only 14 mine countermeasure ships, most of them committed to the Persian Gulf, while China has 100,000 naval mines. Its carriers are at risk from Chinese ASCMs and ASBMs. Its carrier-borne aircraft have a short range.

Thus, in a war with the US, China would simply need to use its SRBMs, MRBMs, and cruise missiles to destroy American bases in the region (and the aircraft parked there), while Chinese DF-21D ASBMs would sink any American carrier within 2,700 kms of China’s coast.

Alas, it is the US, not China, that would not last long in a war between Washington and Beijing.

Posted in Military issues, World affairs | 2 Comments »

Americans: Cut spending, except the spending we personally live off

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on December 18, 2012

The most recent United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection poll finds that the vast majority of Americans oppose any cuts in the government programs they personally benefit from (i.e. receive money from), and support cutting spending only in what they personally don’t benefit (or at least don’t believe they benefit) from.

The latest edition of this poll has actually found that Americans are “more protective than ever” of these programs.

The poll also finds that, contrary to two widely-reported polls that purported to show a large majority of Americans supporting deep cuts in defense spending, only 15% of men and 19% of women support such a course of action.

79% of Americans oppose any cuts in Medicare. Only 17% would be okay with some cuts in it, and only 3% would like to see “lots of cuts” to it.

Opposition to any reforms or cuts to the program transcend beyond demographic divisions. 71% of men, 87% of women, 93% of non-Hispanic blacks, 78% of whites, and 68% of men over the age of 50 (although that demographic group is more open to cuts than women or younger people).

As the National Journal reports:

The figures were similar for Social Security, the other big, universal entitlement that enjoys widespread popular support.

As with many other surveys, the latest edition of the United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll found more support for cutting so-called means-tested programs that are available only to the poor or lower-middle class. Still, 45 percent of men and 52 percent of women said that the government shouldn’t make any cuts in “food stamps and housing vouchers” that go to poor families. Among white men without a college degree, a once Democratic-leaning group that has become elusive for the party, some 45 percent wanted the government to leave these programs alone.

However, it’s not as if public opinion has swung to a clear defense of expansionist government. Previous editions of the Congressional Connection Poll and other surveys have found stern opposition to the president’s health care law, and especially the mandate that Americans buy health insurance.

The poll also belies the 2 rigged polls produced earlier this year by the liberal CPI/NPR and by the University of Maryland which puported to show majorities (over 60%) of Americans support deep defense spending cuts.

In reality, as the UT/National Journal poll shows, only 19% of men and 15% of women support cutting defense spending “a lot”, while 34% of women and 32% of men say that it shouldn’t be cut at all, and a large plurality (47%) of both men and women take a centrist position, saying that defense spending has to see some cuts and thus to contribute to deficit reduction, but not be cut deeply. Thus, a plurality of Americans want defense to contribute to deficit reduction, but they’re wary of deep cuts, worried (quite rightly) that such cuts would impair the nation’s ability to defend itself (which they would).

And what’s most interesting about these results is that on defense spending, women are at least slightly more conservative than men. This is in stark contrast to the liberal views expressed by most women on other issues. It shows that providing for the common defense has an appeal that transcends gender barriers and, if anything, the necessity to provide for it resonates more strongly with the fairer sex than with men.

(Or maybe most American women simply understand that they cannot bet their children’s and their country’s security on American men breaking free of their defense cuts kool-aid?)

Finally, what this poll also shows is that the vast majority of Americans are trying to have it both ways: they want the federal budget to be balanced and spending to be cut, but at the same time, they’re warning politicians not to even think about touching entitlement programs or other popular federal giveaways, such as food stamps (although the percentage of Americans defending the latter is much lower). The problem is that the budget deficit will never be significantly reduced, let alone eliminated, if entitlement programs are left untouched, because they, by themselves, constitute 63% of all federal spending.

Thus, what the poll shows is that the vast majority of Americans don’t want limited government; they want to continue to receive their government handouts.

The poll’s full results can be found here:


The poll was conducted between Nov. 29th and Dec. 2nd on a sample of 1,003 people.

Posted in Economic affairs, Ideologies, Media lies, Military issues, World affairs | 1 Comment »

Rebuttal of RINO and Democrat congresscritters’ blatant lies

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on December 17, 2012

The DefenseNews.com website has recently published an article by John T. Bennett that extensively quotes a letter sent by 11 RINO and 11 Democrat members of Congress – including such conservative stalwarts as Barney Frank, Lynn Woolsey, Keith Ellison, Jim Moran (D-VA), and Chris Gibson (RINO-NY) – that calls for deep, $550 bn defense cuts and falsely claims that such cuts would be “harmless” because they would be “strategic”, i.e. done in a manner targeted at specific programs rather than being done across the board like sequestration. The Congressmen falsely claim that because such cuts would be done in a targeted manner, they would be harmless.

What utter garbage!

Firstly, the Republicans who joined the Dems in signing these letters are RINOs, not conservatives: RINOs such as Tom McClintock and Chris Gibson (both of whom have very liberal voting records). Jim Moran of Virginia is a Democrat, not a Republican – and a very liberal Democrat at that, representing a very liberal district where the only competition is between left and lefter.

(And BTW, Congressman McClintock’s name is Tom, short for Thomas, not Tim, and he’s from California, not North Carolina. DefenseNews can’t get even that right.)

And if you support deep, crippling cuts to America’s defense, and even worse, if you join the House’s most strident liberal Democrats to do so, you are a traitor, you are not a conservative, and you have no right to call yourself one.

Secondly, despite the Congressmen’s pious assurances that “substantial defense savings can be achieved over the long-term, without compromising national security, through strategic reductions in the Pentagon’s budget”; that “The recommendations of those studies would responsibly achieve defense savings over the next decade”, that the DOD could “save up to $550 billion without harming U.S. national security. In fact, achieving defense savings as part of the larger effort to reduce the national debt will go a long way toward bolstering U.S. national security”, these assurances are hollow. They are blatant lies. These cuts (proposed by the think-tanks cited by the Congressmen) would, in fact, gut the US military. And I don’t use that word lightly.

How do I know? Because I’ve actually read and thoroughly reviewed the defense cuts proposals of these “think-tanks” (they were: CATO, POGO, TCS, NTU-PIRG, the Stimson Center, the “Project on Defense Alternatives”, and the Soros-funded “Center for American Progress” ) and have utterly refuted all of them. Their proposals of defense cuts would entail, inter alia:

1) Deep cuts to the Navy’s ship fleet, down to just 230 or fewer ships, including deep cuts in the carrier, attack submarine, cruiser, destroyer, ballistic missile submarine, amphibious assault ship, and auxiliary ship fleets, leaving the Navy too weak and too small to handle any major adversary or to secure the world’s shipping lanes on which 95% of America’s trade depends. Deep cuts in the Navy would dramatically reduce America’s power projection capabilities; deep cuts in attack sub fleets would also gut America’s already-underinvested anti-submarine warfare, naval intelligence, and long range strike capabilities, while cuts in cruiser and destroyer fleets would leave the remaining ship fleet poorly defended against air and missile attacks and also reduce long range strike capability, as well as BMD capabilities. Thus, enemy navies would have no problem defeating the USN with submarines, aircraft, and anti-ship missiles, while the USN’s power projection capability would be cut by almost 60 ships, i.e. almost 20%.

2) Deep unilateral cuts to the nation’s nuclear deterrent, to just 900 warheads, 200 ICBMs (instead of the current 450), and no more than 8 SSBNs, with zero strategic bombers. This would open the nation to, and invite, a nuclear first strike by Russia or China. Keep in mind that Russia has 1,492 deployed and 2,800 total strategic warheads and the means to deliver all of them if need be. It has 434 (mostly multi-warhead) ICBMs, including 58 SS-18 Satan ICBMs capable of carrying 10 warheads each and 136 SS-19 Stilletto ICBMs capable of carrying 6 warheads each. It also has 14 ballistic missile submarines (capable of delivering over 2,000 warheads) and over 200 Tu-95, Tu-160, and Tu-22M nuclear strategic bombers. It is now developing new ICBMs, strategic bombers, and SSBNs. It also has a huge arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons and their delivery systems which, according to the Obama Administration, outnumbers America’s tactical nuclear arsenal 10-1. China has at least 1,800, and possibly up to 3,000, nukes, and the means to deliver over 1,100 of them immediately to various targets (including hundreds to America; China has 36 DF-5, over 30 DF-31, and a number of DF-41 MIRVable ICBMs as well as 6 SSBNs). Cuts in America’s nuclear deterrent would also force America’s allies to develop their own nuclear arsenals, thus making the nuclear proliferation problem much worse.

3) Deep cuts in missile defense programs, leaving the nation and its allies exposed to ballistic missile attacks.

4) Deep cuts in the force structure and modernization programs of the Air Force, including the F-35 stealth fighter program, and killing the USAF’s Next Generation Bomber/LRSB program, thus depriving the Air Force of a bomber capable of penetrating defended enemy airspace (B-52s and B-1s have huge RCSes and are easy for even legacy 1960s’ Soviet air defense systems to shoot down), leaving the USAF with only 20 penetration-capable B-2 bombers. This would be a death sentence on any pilot not flying an F-22, F-35, or B-2.

5) Deep cuts in all modernization and research programs across the board. The result would be a military saddled with old, obsolete, unsurvivable weapons that are increasingly expensive to maintain.
6) Deep cuts in the ground force, rendering it unable to wage even one major war.
7) Deep cuts in the troops’ numbers and healthcare, thus breaking faith with them. This would cause many troops to leave service, harming recruiting and retention.

(8) Cuts or even wholesale cancellations of crucial weapon programs (necessary in the anti-access/area-denial threat environment) such as missile defense systems, the Next Generation Bomber, the F-35, the P-8 Poseidon ASW plane, the Virginia class attack submarine, the V-22 rotorcraft, etc.

You can see the details in my rebuttals of the destructive proposals of these “think-tanks”: https://zbigniewmazurak.wordpress.com/2012/11/30/congress-must-reject-the-pdas-destructive-defense-cuts-proposals/; https://zbigniewmazurak.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/exposing-the-anti-defense-hacks-on-the-sdtf/; https://zbigniewmazurak.wordpress.com/2012/07/28/pogos-spend-less-spend-smarter-policies-would-gut-defense-and-jeopardize-nat-sec/; https://zbigniewmazurak.wordpress.com/2012/10/05/whats-wrong-with-simpson-bowles/; https://zbigniewmazurak.wordpress.com/2012/12/14/rebuttal-of-catospdas-defense-sense-defense-cuts-proposals/; https://zbigniewmazurak.wordpress.com/2012/12/08/lets-stop-pretending-that-deep-defense-cuts-can-be-done-safely/.

The fact is that, contrary to the pious denials of those RINO and Democrat Congressmen, the massive defense cuts proposals of these think-tanks would severely weaken the US military and imperil national security for the reasons stated above. So despite their pious denials, national security would be severely compromised and harmed.

The fact is that so-called “strategic defense cuts” would be just as harmful to the nation’s defense and thus to its security as the across-the-board cuts, if not more. That’s because these “strategic” defense cuts would deeply cut the meat and bone of the military – at the very capabilities, units, and weapons which are crucial for defending the country.

Cutting America’s nuclear deterrent, missile defense systems, long range strike capabilities, Navy, Air Force, Army, and Marine Corps in a “strategic” manner would be just as destructive to national security as sequestration, if not more so.

Nor should we be surprised. Gutting defense is one of the goals of the liberal think-tanks who put forward these proposals and of the Democrats who signed this letter. The public debt is merely their latest pretext.

(Does anyone really think that Ed Markey, Barney Frank, Jerrold Nadler, and Barbara Lee want the US to have the strongest military in the world? Or a strong military at all? Of course not. They want to gut the US military – and these 11 RINOs have joined hands with these liberal Democrats in this quest.)

Just because someone proposes “strategic”, “targeted” defense cuts instead of across-the-board ones doesn’t mean that these defense cuts would be harmless. In fact, the cuts proposed by these leftist think-tanks would SEVERELY harm national security for the reasons stated above.

In fact, sequestration would be better than these damaging, destructive cuts. “Targeted” defense cuts that are “targeted” at the things that are crucial for protecting the country would only harm US national security, not enhance it.

Thirdly, deeply cutting defense spending would do NOTHING to halt the growth of, let alone reduce, the debt. Those think-tanks propose defense cuts of $550 bn per decade, i.e. $55 bn per year. While this would be a big blow to the Defense Department (cutting its base budget by more than 10%), it would do very little to reduce the annual budget deficit (which is $1.3 trillion per year) and would do NOTHING to stop the growth of, let alone reduce, the national debt. In fact, even abolishing the Defense Department entirely would do nothing to stop the national debt’s growth. The country needs to start cutting ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS, which comprise a full 62% of the federal budget and which these Democrats and RINOs who signed the letter feverishly defend against any reforms.



Fourthly, contrary to these Congressmen’s claims, the think tanks which proposed these deep defense cuts are not from “across the political spectrum”. They are exclusively from the left and, in the NTU’s case, from the center. The Soros-funded POGO, TCS, PIRG, the Soros-funded Center for American Progress and Soros-funded CATO Institute, and the Massachusetts-based “Project on Defense Alternatives” are all leftist think-tanks. The NTU has to be classified on the center because it is conservative only on fiscal issues, takes no position on social issues, and is very leftist on defense issues.

I repeat, these think-tanks, with the NTU’s sole exception, hail exclusively from the hard left.

Fifth, DefenseNews’ claim that even under sequestration defense spending will reach $600 bn by the end of this decade is a blatant lie. It’s not even close to being true. In fact, as this CBO report demonstrates:

annual defense spending will be stuck at $493 bn – below $500 bn, let alone $600 bn – in FY2022. Not even close to $600 bn.

Sixth, DefenseNews’ claim that the FY2013 defense authorization bill recently passed by the Senate would authorize $650 bn in military spending is false; the total amount to be authorized would be only $631 bn, and even that ONLY if sequestration doesn’t kick in, as it is likely to be.

Seventh, Tom Coburn’s defense cuts proposals would, like the proposals of the forementioned think-tanks, gut the US military, for the reasons stated here: https://zbigniewmazurak.wordpress.com/2011/11/18/the-tea-party-debt-commission-and-sen-coburns-defense-cuts-proposals/

As with the defense cuts proposals’ of those think tanks, I’ve reviewed Coburn’s proposals, and the fact is that his proposals would be deeply destructive for the reasons stated in my rebuttal.

The Congressmen’s claim that “The Pentagon’s budget has increased dramatically over the last decade, due in large part to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq” is also a blatant lie. The DOD’s base budget increased by only 35% from FY2001 to FY2012, from $390 bn to $531 bn; the total military budget, including spending on Afghanistan and Iraq, increased somewhat more, by 65%, from FY2001 to FY2012, but that growth took place over eleven years, not one year.

Their claim that “future defense budgets should (…) acknowledge that our modern military is able to approach conflicts utilizing fewer but more advanced resources” is a blatant lie. Firstly, massive defense cuts, including the proposals of all “think-tanks” listed above, would cut or outright cancel the vast majority of the programs developing or procuring new, more modern equipment – including the crucial Next Generation Bomber. Secondly, technology is no substitute for numbers. A ship or a plane can be in only one place at any given time. It cannot be in two places simoultaneously. And a small fleet of ships or planes would be woefully inadequate to defeat even a trivial adversary, because of the sheer number of sorties that would have to be flown. The claim that the US military can win future wars with far fewer resources is a blatant lie. It’s just another convenient, but false, pretext for more, deeper defense cuts.

The letter also says “Congress must consider these changes, not past spending or percentages of GDP, and move toward defense budgeting that focuses on meeting specific military requirements.” But the defense cuts these Congressmen (and the think tanks they cite) propose would result in defense budgets that would be woefully inadequate to the military’s specific requirements – both in size and in terms of force structure and crucial equipment programs (or rather, the lack thereof). The result would be an underfunded, poorly equipped, obsolete, poorly trained, hollow military which would also be too small in size to handle any serious adversary.

Moreover, because the world hasn’t gotten and is not going to get any safer, and because the threats to America’s security (including China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran) are growing, not shrinking, the US military will need to retain its current size and will need more resources, not fewer. Fewer resources will mean “not enough resources to deal with security threats.”

In short, the Congressmen’s letter is a litany of blatant lies, and so is this DefenseNews “article”.

Shame on these Congressmen for lying so blatantly and for proposing treasonous, destructive defense cuts.

And shame on DefenseNews for uncritically repeating their blatant lies and throwing in a few lies of its own – while failing to get such basics as Congressman McClintock’s name right.

Dear Readers, please call your Congressman and your Senators and tell them that you will never vote for them again if they vote for any massive defense cuts, including those proposed by those leftist think-tanks.

Among the 11 RINO Congressmen who signed the letter were: Justin Amash, Mick Mulvaney, Reid Ribble, Raul Castro Labrador, Tim Johnson (RINO-IL), and Tom McClintock.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20121211/DEFREG02/312110003/Bipartisan-Group-U-S-Lawmakers-Put-Defense-Cuts-Table?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE; http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/budget-appropriations/272021-conservatives-liberals-in-house-join-to-call-for-more-defense-cuts

Posted in Media lies, Military issues, Politicians, World affairs | Leave a Comment »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 565 other followers