Zbigniew Mazurak's Blog

A blog dedicated to defense issues

2014 in review

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on December 31, 2014

The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2014 annual report for this blog.

Here’s an excerpt:

The concert hall at the Sydney Opera House holds 2,700 people. This blog was viewed about 34,000 times in 2014. If it were a concert at Sydney Opera House, it would take about 13 sold-out performances for that many people to see it.

Click here to see the complete report.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

US Intel confirms: the DF-41 HAS been MIRVed

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on December 29, 2014

As the Washington Free Beacon has just duly reported, China’s defense ministry has confirmed Beijing’s latest test of the DF-41 heavy ICBM – meanwhile, US intelligence says the missile was tested with simulated multiple warheads, and can deliver multiple warheads to the Continental US:

“China’s People’s Liberation Army on Thursday confirmed that its military conducted a flight test of a new long-range missile that U.S. intelligence agencies say involved the use of simulated multiple warheads. (…)

Military analysts said the test of China’s long-range nuclear missile that can carry up to 10 nuclear warheads increases the strategic threat to the United States. The Pentagon has said the DF-41 will be able to target all of the United States.”

This completely debunks yet another lie of the pro-unilateral-disarmament movement and one of its principal spokesmen, Hans M. Kristensen, who has falsely claimed – and insisted – that it was far from certain China would deploy multiple warheads (in a MIRV bus) on the missile.

He was making such ludicrous claims even though China had a) spent a good part of its national treasure developing the MIRVable DF-31 and DF-41 ICBMs; and b) deliberately obtained MIRVing (multiple warhead delivery) technology from American companies in 1996:

“China’s MIRV technology is based on illegally exported U.S. satellite technology transferred during the administration of President Bill Clinton.

Lockheed Martin was fined $13 million in 2000 as part of the illicit exports that China diverted to its MIRV warhead program.”

Yet, even though these facts have been known for years, Kristensen and the rest of the unilateral disarmament movement were still denying that China intended to deploy multiple warheads on its missiles.

Those anti-nuclear hacks are also still denying – to this day – that China has more than a few hundred warheads, even in face of clear evidence to the contrary. But truly credible analysts warn that China’s nuclear arsenal must not be underestimated. As reported by the WFB:

“Phillip Karber, a Georgetown University professor who is associated with the Asian Arms Control project, said the DF-41 test with multiple warheads is an indication that China’s strategic nuclear arsenal could increase “quite rapidly.””

Let’s not forget that the DF-41 is likely to be deployed as early as next year – which is only 5 days away:

“The congressional U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission stated in its annual report made public earlier this month that the DF-41 will carry up to 10 warheads and initial deployment of the mobile missile is expected next year.”

A single Chinese Second Artillery Corps regiment has 6-12 missile launchers and 6-12 reload missiles, so when the DF-41 achieves initial operating capability – which could happen next year – China will instantly be able to aim at least an additional 12 missiles and 120 warheads at the Continental US.

Also, DOD officials have confirmed to the Washington Free Beacon that – as the Navy and the Pentagon’s 2014 report on China’s military correctly predicted – China’s ballistic missile submarines began strategic deterrence patrols this year, thus debunking two other Kristensen lies – that Chinese boomers have never gone on patrol, and that Chinese nuclear warheads are stockpiled in a central storage and never loaded on Chinese submarines:

“China’s new Jin-class ballistic missile submarines began the first sea patrols this year as predicted by senior Navy officials and the Pentagon’s annual report on the Chinese military, according to defense officials familiar with intelligence reports of the sea patrols.

The nuclear missile submarine patrols also mark a major step forward in China’s large-scale nuclear forces build up that has been carried out largely in secret.”

Finally, the WFB and the Georgetown AAC Project reveal some interesting info that indicates China’s nuclear arsenal buildup will continue further:

“The report also reveals that China’s military is developing new tunneling technology that will permit widening construction of some of the 3,000 miles of underground strategic nuclear facilities. The new tunnels size of 17 meters wide by 10 meters wide will permit adjacent passage of road-mobile DF-31As and DF-41s as well as a possible rail-mobile ICBM variant in a single tunnel, the report said.”

Wider tunnels mean more missiles being transported through and hidden in them, which means China can increase its missile and nuclear warhead arsenal STILL FURTHER. And you can bet all the gold at Fort Knox that it WILL.

Thus, all of the unilateral disarmament movement’s lies about China’s nuclear arsenal have been utterly refuted once again. Contrary to their claims, China HAS deployed multiple warheads on its missiles and WILL deploy them on the new DF-41 missile; its nuclear arsenal is FAR LARGER than the mere 250 warheas the movement claims; China’s navy DOES have access to and operational control over nuclear warheads attributed to JL-2 missiles; it HAS loaded its boomers’ missiles with nuclear warheads; and its boomers HAVE already conducted their first strategic deterrence patrols.

Not a single claim of the unilateral disarmament movement is correct. Not a single one.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Another Kristensen/Lewis lie bites the dust

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on December 28, 2014

Thanks to maps and distance-measuring websites, another lie of Hans Kristensen’s and Jeffrey Lewis’s bites the dust: that China’s Jin class boomers would have to sail well east of Japan, through straits patrolled by the Japanese navy, to hit the Continental US.


You see, the unilateral disarmament movement, most notoriously, FAS blogger Hans M. Kristensen and Monterey Institute propagandist Jeffrey Lewis, insist that the Jin class’s JL-2 ballistic missile has a very short range (7,200 kms) and therefore cannot reach the Continental US unless launched from waters well east of Japan, which, they claim, the Jin class would not be able to reach unless it were to sail through straits patrolled by the USN or the Japanese MSDF.

This is dead wrong. Firstly, the JL-2’s real range is 8,000 kms (9,000 kms according to some sources). Secondly, that range is more than sufficient to hit the West Coast from waters adjacent to China or just east of Japan. For example:

  • The distance from Akita (a town on Japan’s west coast, on the Honshu island) to San Francisco is 7,992 kms; to Naval Base Kitsap, 7,346 to Seattle, just 7,368 kms; to Portland, just 7,475 kms. So a Jin-class submarine armed with JL-2 missiles could hit San Francisco from waters just east of Akita; and could hit NB Kitsap, Seattle, and Portland while positioned hundreds of kilometers west of Akita, in international waters, in the Sea of Japan.
  • From Los Angeles, the distance to Akita is over 8,500 kms, but the distance to Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk is 7,937 kms, so a Jin-class sub could be positioned in the Sea of Japan, west of Sakhalin, or in the open Pacific just east of Sakhalin, and still hit Los Angeles. It could also hit Las Vegas, which is just 7,970 kms away from Y-S.
  • The distance from Sapporo, a city on the western coast of Hokkaido Island, to NAS Fallon (home to the TOPGUN school), is 7,832 kms, so a Jin-class sub could blow Tom Cruise’s TOPGUN school to smithereens with a missile launched well west of Sapporo, from international waters in the Sea of Japan.
  • The distance from Qingdao, China’s northernmost submarine base, to Seattle, is 8,832 kms, and to NB Kitsap is 8,812 kms. So if the JL-2’s range is 9,000 kms, a Jin-class submarine could hit them with nuclear warheads while sitting in dock at Qingdao!

Yet another Kristensen/Lewis lie bites the dust.

Posted in Nuclear deterrence | Leave a Comment »

Dissecting Kristensen’s and Norris’s China nuke report, one lie at a time

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on December 26, 2014


With funding from the anti-nuclear Ploughshares Fund and the New Land Foundation – whose goal is to disarm the US unilaterally – Hans M. Kristensen and Robert Norris of the FAS periodically publish a report claiming that China has only a few hundred nuclear warheads. In fact, even though they are rank amateurs who know absolutely nothing about nuclear weapons and have no access to any classified information, they claim to know almost exactly how many nuclear warheads China has: “approximately 250.”

Such a claim – without basis on any reliable source, including any reliable intelligence data – is downright laughable, of course. It is ridiculous to claim to know China’s nuclear arsenal with such precision when a) China hasn’t released any information on that, and b) one does not have access to any classified intelligence data.

That alone should completely disqualify Kristensen’s and Norris’s “report.” But I’ll nonetheless dissect and debunk it, one lie at a time, to prove that it’s complete garbage – not just because of the brazenness of the author’s claims and their lack of access to any classified data, but also because of the falsiness of the specific claims they make in their report.

Specifically, Kristensen and Norris, who claim China has only 250 nuclear warheads, break it down as follows:

  • 8 DF-3 MRBMs deployed in 1971 and nearing retirement and replacement by DF-21s. This is true – there are very few such missiles left in service, and they’re about to be phased out.
  • 12 DF-4 IRBMs with single warheads. This is incorrect; there are actually 20 DF-4s in service, and they can carry up to 3 warheads each – and most likely do, given that China acquired multiple-warhead-vehicle technology for its missiles in 1996 under the guise of “multiple satellite carrying technology.” Be that as it may, the DF-4 is also nearing retirement, and is poised to be replaced by the DF-31 ICBM… which can also carry 3 warheads.
  • Around 28 DF-31/31A ICBMs, which Kristensen and Norris also claim have only one warhead each. Again, this is dead wrong; the DF-31 can carry 3 warheads, and China has almost certainly deployed multiple warheads on its missiles, given that it acquired the technology to do so 18 years ago. (UPDATE: The WFB confirms that China HAS MIRVed its missiles.) Moreover, while the Kristensen-Norris report was last published in 2013, China already has 40 DF-31/31A/31B missiles as of 2014.
  • Only around 20 DF-5/5A heavy ICBMs, which Kristensen and Norris also claim have only one warhead each. Again, this is completely false; the DF-5 heavy can carry at least 6 warheads, and and China has almost certainly deployed multiple warheads on its missiles, given that it acquired the technology to do so 18 years ago.
  • Only 80 DF-21 MRBMs, a woefully obsolete estimate that dates back to 2009. Already as of 2010, China had 90 such missiles, and since then has certainly increased its DF-21 inventory even further (as well as deploying the DF-26C IRBM this year). The idea that China’s DF-21 MRBM inventory has remained static since 2009 is laughable on its face.
  • Only 100 DF-15 SRBMs, which they don’t count as nuclear-armed (in fact, China has over 1,200 DF-15, DF-11, and DF-16 SRBMs, and some of them may very well be armed with nuclear warheads). Yet, Kristensen and Norris do not count a single one of these missiles as nuclear-armed.
  • Ground-launched cruise missiles: Kristensen and Norris estimate there are only 250 DH-10 GLCMs and an unknown number of DH-20s. They give no estimates for these missiles’ stockpile or the number of nuclear warheads attributed to them (no one outside China’s top leadership can)… and therefore don’t count a single one of these missiles as nuclear-armed. They discount them completely. In addition, they confuse them with the CJ-10 and CJ-20 cruise missile, which is a different thing (the DH-10 and DH-20 were developed from this missile; the DH-10 has twice the CJ-10’s 2,000 km range).
  • Aircraft: Kristensen and Norris attribute only 20 nuclear warheads to China’s 120 H-6 bombers and only another 20 to China’s 300 tactical strike aircraft (Q-5 and JH-7), with absolutely no sources to base this claim on. Kristensen and Norris falsely assert that “Given its history of nuclear tests using weapons dropped by short- and medium-range aircraft, China is likely to have a small quantity of nuclear bombs that would be delivered by H-6 bombers. China’s nuclear bomber capability is minor and involves secondary missions for only a small number of aircraft.” This is again completely false, as revealed in General Yesin’s report on China’s nuclear arsenal as well as in other sources. China has 120 H-6 bombers and 300 tactical strike aircraft (Q-5 and JH-7); that is no “minor” nuclear bomber capability. Especially considering that China has modernized its H-6 bombers to be able to carry nuclear- and conventionally-armed CJ-10 and CJ-20 missiles, and considering that these can reach as far as Guam and well beyond, as seen in this RAND Corporation map:


The CSBA confirms that the CJ-10 can reach well beyond Guam, as displayed in a graph in CSBA’s AirSea Battle study, wherein CSBA states the CJ-10 has a 2,000 nm range.[1]

  • Kristensen and Norris claim that China is only “developing” CJ-10 and CJ-20 air-launched cruise missiles for delivery by H-6K bombers: “China is also developing an airlaunched land-attack cruise missile known as the CJ-20 for delivery by modified H-6 bombers. An Air Force Global Strike Command briefing in 2013 asserted that the CJ-20 is nuclear capable (Kristensen, 2013). The Air Force “Ballistic and Cruise Missile Threat” document does not list the CJ-20 at all (US Air Force, 2013: 29), but the annual Pentagon report includes a map showing the combined range of the “B-6 [H-6] and LACM” (Defense Department, 2013: 81).” Actually, according to the Global Strike Command’s 2013 briefing, the CJ-10 is already operational; it’s the CJ-20 that was in development back then and is poised to enter service by 2018. Also, GlobalSecurity.org says that China HAS developed, not is still developing, the CJ-10: “The air-launched CJ-10 variant has been developed for deployment on the H-6M [four missiles] and H-6K [six missiles] bombers, which were entering service in small numbers in the 2010 timeframe.” Of course, Kristensen and Norris do not count a single CJ-10 or Hongniao ALCM as operational – which is another grave factual error.
  • SLBMs: Kristensen and Norris falsely claim that a) China only has three Jin class SSBNs; b) they are very noisy; c) their JL-2 missiles only have a range of 7,000-7,200 kms and cannot reach the CONUS; and d) can only carry a single warhead. All of these are lies.
  • Firstly, according to satellite images available on Google Earth, there are four submarines pierside at the Yulin submarine base (in Sanya, Hainan Island) alone, not counting any submarines the Chinese may have hidden inside the huge bunker they’ve built there (it reportedly has enough space to hide 20 submarines). There may be additional Jins at the Qingdao base in northeastern China, on the Shandong peninsula. Moreover, Kristensen himself has admitted China may have built a fourth Jin class sub.
  • Secondly, the subject of how noisy the Jins are has already been dealt with here. Suffice to say, this myth comes from the ONI, which is not a credible source.
  • Thirdly, regarding the JL-2’s range, this subject has also been dealt with – here and here. I shall repeat nonetheless that according to truly credible sources, such as GlobalSecurity.org, the JL-2 has a range of at least 8,000, and potentially 9,000, kilometers. According to Encyclopaedia Astronautica, it’s 7,900 kms. With a 7,800-8,000 km range, a JL-2-armed Jin class submarine could strike Seattle and the Pacific Northwest (including America’s own Pacific submarine base in Kitsap, WA) from inside the Sea of Japan (west of Japan), from international waters; it could strike San Francisco from a position just east of the main Japanese island of Honshu, just east of the 140E meridian; and strike Los Angeles from a position just east of the 150E meridian.
  • Nor would the Jin class have to sail through tightly-patrolled straits; on the contrary, it could sneak through any of the weakly protected or unprotected straits in the WestPac, such as the several-hundred-kilometer-long Luzon Strait, between Taiwan and the Philippines – two military weaklings who completely lack any meaningful anti-submarine-warfare capability.
  • Kristensen and Norris also falsely claim – contrary to what the DOD says – that the DF-31A cannot strike the Continental US at all. This is completely false. They claim the DF-31A has a range of 11,200 kms. That is sufficient to reach half of the CONUS if the missile were launched from eastern China. This begs the question, “where are the DF-31As deployed?” According to Sean O’Connor of AirPowerAustralia, the DF-31 was, as of 2009, deployed with two operational brigades: the 813th Brigade, near Nanyang (between Zhengzhou and Wuhan, in eastern China), and the 812th Brigade, near Beidao/Tawanli, near Delingha, in northern China. If deployed at those locations, the DF-31A can target at least the western half of the CONUS – and it’s a road-mobile missile, so it could actually be deployed anywhere in China, even in its northeasternmost portions.
  • The DOD estimates the DF-31A’s capability to be even greater. In 2007, it illustrated Chinese ballistic missiles’ range thus[2]:


As this map shows, the DF-31A – the longer-ranged variant of the DF-31 – can reach all of the CONUS as well as almost all of Mexico.

All in all, Kristensen and Norris claim China only has 250 warheads. They arrive at this result by deliberately, falsely, and dramatically understating China’s nuclear warhead and delivery system arsenal, namely:

  • Not counting any of China’s missiles as carrying multiple warheads, even though China acquired that capability 18 years ago and wouldn’t have do so if it didn’t intend to deploy multiple warheads on its missiles.
  • Acknowledging only 12 DF-4s, 20 DF-5s, and 28 DF-31s, instead of the truly correct numbers (20 DF-4s, 24 DF-5s, and 40 DF-31s).
  • Counting only 40 out of China’s bomber/strike aircraft as attributed with nuclear bombs.
  • Not counting any of China’s SRBMs, GLCMs, or ALCMs as nuclear-capable.
  • Acknowledging only 3 of China’s Jin class submarines and wrongly counting their missiles as capable of carrying 1 warhead each.
  • And many other factual errors listed above.

In short, Kristensen’s and Norris’s “report” is a litany of blatant lies designed to downplay the Chinese nuclear threat and thus to lull the public and policymakers into a false sense of security. It never cites any sources other than Kristensen and Norris themselves, except once when discussing DF-21 MRBMs. Not only that, but the authors can’t even get spelling right: for example, they write “missles” instead of “missiles.”

As such, their report completely lacks any academic or analytical rigor or any value whatsoever and does not deserve to be treated seriously.

[1] Jan van Tol et al., AirSea Battle: An Operational Concept Point of Departure, CSBA, Washington, DC, 2010, p. 18.

[2] Military Power of the People’s Republic of China, United States Department of Defense, Arlington, VA, 2007.

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

How many nukes does China have? Who’s telling the truth?

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on December 25, 2014

How many nuclear weapons China possesses has been the subject of a fierce dispute since Professor Philip A. Karber and his students published a report in 2011 which concluded – based on China’s 3,000 mile long network of tunnels and bunkers – that China probably has thousands of warheads, possible up to 3,000.

Analysts such as Professor Karber (the DOD’s former chief nuclear strategist) and General Viktor Yesin (former Chief of Staff of Russia’s Strategic Missile Forces) don’t claim to have an exact number. Professor Karber and his students estimate it’s likely in the thousands, but don’t claim to be able to give an exact number, only a range. Professor Karber says it’s “up to 3,000 warheads”, while General Yesin says it’s between approximately 1,600 and 1,800 warheads, based on China’s fissile material stocks.

In addition, they have no agenda, other than to disseminate their findings. Contrary to the accusations lobbed at them, they do not oppose arms control or accords of such kind between the US and Russia – they merely want China to be a party to such accords, so that China’s nuclear arsenal will not be unlimited and will be subject to American and Russian inspections (which, of course, Communist China will never agree to).

OTOH, those who deny that China has a larger nuclear arsenal or poses a significant nuclear threat to the US – those who claim China still has a paltry few hundred warheads –claim to know with exact precision how many nuclear warheads China possesses: 250. Even though they are mere amateur civilians who have not served a day in the US (let alone Chinese) military and have never had access to any classified information (like Professor Karber did when he was the Pentagon’s chief nuke strategist), these people claim they know for sure that China has only a few hundred warheads, and accuse anyone who says otherwise of grossly “exaggerating” and “overhyping” the Chinese nuclear threat (which they don’t even call or consider a threat at all).

Those amateurs, with no access whatsoever to classified information and no military experience in the US or Chinese armed forces, claim that what they say are “facts”, accurate calculations, and quality research papers, even though they have no credible sources to back their claims. Virtually all the “sources” and references they point to as the basis for their claims are… their other claims, written elsewhere (mostly on Hans Kristensen’s “Strategic Security” blog).

Yes, you read that correctly: according to China threat deniers, the sources for their claims are… their other claims!

And unlike Professor Karber and others who warn of a large Chinese nuclear threat arsenal, the denier camp does have an agenda and an incentive to lie: its desire to unilaterally strip the US of its nuclear weapons. Members of this camp, including Hans M. Kristensen, Robert Norris, Joseph Cirincione, and others have openly stated that they want the US to UNILATERALLY cut its nuclear arsenal down to the low hundreds… as a transitional step towards unilaterally scrapping its nuclear arsenal COMPLETELY. That is their openly-avowed agenda.

Thus, they have a vast incentive to lie, and specifically, to downplay both the Russian and the Chinese nuclear threat – in order to lull the public and policymakers into a false sense of security.

And when Professor Karber and General Yesin released their reports, they reacted with angry vitriol, showing their true colors, launching direct, personal attacks against Professor Karber.

Moreover, Kristensen and Norris have shown that not only can’t they get the size of China’s missile and nuclear warhead right, they can’t even get spelling right!

So, whom do you believe, folks? Those who don’t have an agenda or an incentive to lie, or those who do?

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


Posted by zbigniewmazurak on December 23, 2014

Yesterday, this blog recorded its 100,000th view! Thank you to all visitors, please continue regularly reading my blog

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

China’s multi-warhead DF-41 ICBM likely to enter service next year

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on December 20, 2014


China has recently (on Dec. 13th) tested its newest ICBM, the DF-41, a missile capable of carrying up to 10 independently-targetable warheads. This was, of course, hardly the first test of this missile type. Deploying even small numbers of it will greatly increase the nuclear striking power of China’s Second Artillery Corps (SAC), the PRC’s strategic missile force.

According to the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission’s report, released just a few weeks ago, the DF-41 may enter service next year:

“The DF-41, which could be deployed as early as 2015, may carry up to 10 MIRVs, and have a maximum range as far as 7,456 miles, allowing it to target the entire continental United States.”

When the DF-41 enters service – whatever time that may be – it won’t be a single missile launcher entering service, but rather, at least half a dozen – enough for a full missile regiment, which in the PLA’s SAC is usually equipped with 6 operationally deployed missile launchers.

Which means that, when the DF-41 is declared operational, at least 6 missile launchers will have been deployed. A missile is not considered “operationally deployed” unless at least one fully equipped unit has been deployed.

Therefore, if the DF-41 ICBM does enter service next year, it means Beijing will deploy at least 6 DF-41s – each armed with up to 10 warheads. This means that next year China will deploy at least an additional 60 warheads deliverable to the Continental US – not counting the warheads on any new DF-31 and JL-2 missiles it may deploy next year.

In effect, this means a total, embarrassing failure of the unilateral disarmament policy being implemented by the Obama Administration and advocated by American far-left, pro-unilateral-disarmament organizations such as the Arms Control Association and the Council for a Livable World.

As the IASC’s China expert Richard Fisher rightly says:

“The Chinese have not and likely will not disclose their nuclear warhead buildup plans, Russia is modernizing its nuclear forces across the board and violating the INF treaty with new classes of missiles, so it would be suicidal for the Washington to pursue a new round of nuclear reductions as is this administration’s preference. China may deploy a combination of single-warhead and multiple warhead DF-41s, with the single warhead version carrying a huge “city buster” multi-megaton bombs.

The beginning of China’s move toward multiple warhead-armed nuclear missiles is proof that today, arms control is failing to increase the security of Americans. Instead, it is time to be rebuilding U.S. nuclear warfighting capabilities, to include new mobile ICBMs, new medium range missiles and new tactical nuclear missile systems.”

And as the Washington Free Beacon reports:

Larry Wortzel, a former military intelligence official who specialized on China, said the Chinese military has been working on a MIRV-modified DF-41 for a number of years.

Wortzel said Chinese military research literature has documented work on the DF-41 but the Pentagon “has been reluctant to discuss or confirm these developments.”

“The United States is now threatened with a more deadly and survivable nuclear force that makes our weak ballistic missile defenses less effective,” Wortzel said. “We need to improve our own defenses and modernize our own deterrent force as the Chinese are doing.” (…)

Georgetown University Professor Phillip Karber has studied China’s nuclear forces and believes its arsenal is far larger than the U.S. intelligence estimate of 240.

“The Chinese development of the DF-41 has been a long term, methodical process,” Karber said. “However, if as we suspect they are going to put a MIRVed version of the missile on both rail and road-mobile launchers, the number of reentry vehicles could grow quite rapidly depending on the number of warheads they end up putting on the missiles.”

Earlier this year, I estimated that there was only a handful of DF-41 ICBMs deployed – perhaps just one. But because the Review Commission has reported that the DF-41 may be operationally deployed as early as next year – which is only 12 days away – I will update that estimate.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

What languages should you learn?

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on December 16, 2014

I hardly need to explain how important it is to learn foreign languages. It’s necessary if you want to have a decent, well-paying job of the non-cookie-cutter variety, to travel, and to discover and understand foreign countries, cultures, and individuals.

However, there are about 3,000 languages spoken in the world today, and obviously, you’ll never have enough time to learn them all. Which begs the question: What languages should you study? Doing so is a commitment requiring an enormous amount of time and at least some money (if not lots of it), so you should consider carefully where to invest your time and money for the maximum possible return.

The answer is that, unless you live and will continue living, for the foreseeable future, in an area where speaking the neighboring are’s/country’s language is a must (e.g. to get a decent job), you should only study languages that are spoken by hundreds of millions of people around the world. You should NOT waste your time on languages that are spoken in only one country with a mid-szed or small population (e.g. Italy, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Lithuania, Finland). Those countries, to put it bluntly, don’t matter except as holiday destinations – and most people in those countries already speak English better than you do (unless you’r a native English speaker).

I’ve been learning French for a few years now and I’m improving everyday. I’m already wondering what language to study after I learn French to a highly-advanced, nearly-fluent level. I’ve considered two: Spanish and German.

Germany is Europe’s largest economy and the most important member of the European Union. But it has no influence beyond the EU. Germany is of little importance on a global scale. It has only 90 million native speakers, all of whom reside in one of the five contigous Western European countries where it’s the official language: Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, and Luxembourg. (It’s also official in South Tirol, a part of Italy bordering Austria.)

That’s it. German is sparsely spoken anywhere else.

By contrast, Spanish has 470 million native speakers who live on four different continents: Europe, North America, South America, and Africa (a few African nations have Spanish as their official language). In fact, Mexico alone has more native Hispanohablantes (Spanish speakers) than there are German native speakers in total around the world! Espanol is also more popular as a second language than German. It’s the official language of every South American country except Brazil and French Guiana (an overseas territory of France), most of Central America, and increasingly widespread as the first language in the US, especially in the border states, because of uncontrolled immigration into the US from Latin America. It’s also one of the five official languages of the UN, whereas German is not.

In the future, the importance of Spanish will only grow, while that of German will only shrink. Latin American countries are now experiencing a demographic boom. Here are the total fertility rates of some of the world’s largest Hispanohablante nations and of Germany (child per woman):

Germany, 1.43; Colombia, 2.07; Argentina, 2.25; Ecuador, 2.29; Mexico, 2.29; Venezuela, 2.35.

The German people are simply dying out; the Colombians, the Argentines, the Ecuadorians, the Mexicans, the Venezuelans, and Hispanic Americans are multiplying.

A few graphs will illustrate the point. Here is Germany’s population structure graph (credit: CIA World Factbook):

GM_popgraph 2014


As you can see, the largest demographic groups in Germany are people aged between 45 and 49, 50-54, 60-64, and 65-69. Within the next 20 years, those people will be dead or retired and living in assisted living homes because there aren’t enough children in Germany to take care of them. Does it really make sense to learn their language? Or would it be wiser to learn the language of growing Hispanic populations in the New World?

Below is Argentina’s demographic pyramid (credit: CIA World Factbook):

AR_popgraph 2014

This is a true pyramid. In Argentina, children vastly outnumber the elderly. The three largest groups in Argentina’s population are little children aged 0-4, 5-9, and 10-14. They comprise a full 24.9% of the populace. Youngsters aged 15-24 comprise another 15.7%. So over 40% of Argentina’s population is under 25 years of age!

But Argentina is not the most populous Hispanohablante country. Mexico is – and its population is booming, as the below graph, again courtesy of the CIA WF, shows:

MX_popgraph 2014

Like Argentina, Mexico has a true demographic pyramid. The biggest demographic groups in Mexico by age are thopse aged 0-4, 5-9, 10-14, and 15-19 in that order. In Mexico, the younger the demographic group, the larger it is.

27.9% of Mexicans are under 15; another 18.1% are aged between 15 and 24. Which means that a full 46% of the entire population of Mexico is under 25 years of age!

The Germans are dying out (and being replaced by Turks). Latin Americans, especially Mexicans, are multiplying.

German is a language of the past. Spanish is one of the languages of the future.

Not only that, but Latin America is also home to thousands if not millions of amazingly beautiful, sexy, feminine women who would make for a great marriage material. By contrast, Germany has only a handful of beautiful women and is one of the most leftist, political-correctness-infested, and feminism-infested countries in the world. (Which helps explain why Latin America is experiencing a demographic boom, while Germany is dying out.)

No wonder why Latin American women routinely win global beauty pageants (that includes the reigning Miss Universe). How many beauty crowns has Germany won?

So if you were wondering what language to study, there’s the answer.

Every man, in addition to learning English, needs to master the other Big Three European languages: French, Spanish, and Russian. Being able to speak all three will immediately give you access to over 1.06 billion native speakers and every multinational organization around the world. And if that ain’t enough, it will also make it easier to learn other languages from the same families: Romance and Slavic.

Forget about German. It’s a dying language – just like Germany is a dying country.


Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Newest Defense and Geopolitical News

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on December 15, 2014

When it comes to defense and geopolitical issues, the last two months of this year have been very interesting! For example:

  • China has tested, for the third time this year, a hypersonic gliding vehicle that will be able to carry both conventional and nuclear warheads.
  • The Middle Kingdom also became the world’s largest economy by Purchasing Power Parity (PPP), overtaking the US and thus ending America’s reign ushered in in 1872, when the US overtook Britain. The decline of the US as the world’s leading power is an undisputable fact.
  • Russia announced it would build its first hypersonic missile, and field a new rail-mobile ICBM, before 2020.
  • The US-China Economic and Security Review Commission released a report on China’s nuclear arsenal which, although understating its size, takes into account the likelihood that it is far larger than what the DOD and arms control advocates claim and acknowledges independent studies done on the subject. The Commission also warns that Beijing’s atomic arsenal is being quickly modernized and expanded.
  • Chuck Hagel, a man who was never qualified to be Defense Secretary, resigned because he could no longer stand the White House’s micromanagement of the Pentagon. Dr. Ashton Carter, the man whom Barack Obama should’ve nominated in the first place in 2013, has been nominated to succeed him.
  • The House and the Senate have already passed the FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act – by huge, bipartisan margins – and have done so by mid-December. The two Houses of Congress have also agreed on a CR/CRomnibus that will keep the Federal Government open for at least the next 3 months.
  • The French Defense Ministry and Air Force have announced they’re studying what to replace the current airborne component of the French nuclear deterrent with when the current airborne force, composed of Mirage 2000N and Rafale aircraft armed with ASMP-A missiles, retires in the 2030s-2040s. Two options are being studied: a stealthy or a hypersonic missile. If the latter is chosen, it might be a large aircraft, and not a fighter like the Rafale, that will carry it.
  • France has also announced a comprehensive modernization of its Army, including the replacement of its APCs, IFVs, and recon vehicles, which are nearing the end of their service lives.
  • France is also developing a naval version of the SCALP NG/Storm Shadow land attack cruise missile, intended for surface ships and submarines (i.e. a Tomahawk equivalent).
  • Highly-ranked fficials from Qatar and Egypt are in serious talks with France’s Dassault Aviation to buy the Rafale fighter, and India has pledged to finalize its negotiations with France over the Rafale by March 31st. However, as Richard Aboulafia of the Teal Group notes, while Dassault is very good at STARTING talks, it has a poor record of finalizing them and sealing the deal when it comes to the Rafale. Yet, the entire multi-year French defense budget for 2014-2019 is based on the completely hypothetical and speculative notion that India and Qatar will buy the Rafale in quantities sufficient to keep the Rafale production line open at the (very meagre) rate of 11 aircraft per year. The French Government has essentially bet that the Rafale will win lots of foreign orders, enough to keep the production line open, even though it has not won a SINGLE export order so far!
  • France indefinitely delayed the delivery of Mistral class LPDs to Russia, throwing its credibility as an arms vendor in doubt.
  • OTOH, France did promise a full transfer of technology, and a production license, to Canada if Ottawa picks the Rafale in lieu of the F-35 – a realistic possibility given that the issue won’t be resolved until after the next general election… which will likely be won by the anti-F-35 Liberal Party, led by Justin Trudeau (the son of Pierre Trudeau).
  • BAE announced that the Eurofighter Typhoon would finally get an AESA radar… many years after its competitors did. Bravo!
  • It has been revealed that the French National Front party has received a loan from a Russian bank. No wonder why they’re so fanatically pro-Russian. They’re simply saying what their paymaster, Vladimir Putin, tells them to. And by accepting funding from a foreign principal, that party has committed treason against France.
  • The anti-defense crowd’s calls for a “minimal deterrence” arsenal have recently grown more vocal, now that even the Obama administration has rejected them – and have been utterly refuted by experts such as Dr. Keith Payne and by yours truly.

Posted in Air combat, Nuclear deterrence | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Rebuttal of James Caroll’s Blatant Lies About Nukes

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on December 12, 2014

If you ever needed proof that the leftist, anti-nuclear, pro-unilateral disarmament movement is still at work and still hasn’t learned anything, look no further than this new screed published in the TomDispatch.

In his ridiculous screed recently published by the TomDispatch, the extremely-leftist columnist James Carroll makes a lengthy but idiotic tirade against nuclear weapons.

I won’t even bother to respond to all of his blatant lies, just to the ones made about today’s situation.

Lie #1:

“In order to get the votes of Senate Republicans to ratify the START treaty, Obama made what turned out to be a devil’s bargain.  He agreed to lay the groundwork for a vast “modernization” of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, which, in the name of updating an aged system, is already morphing into a full-blown reinvention of the arms cache at an estimated future cost of more than a trillion dollars.”

That is a blatant lie being spread by the Monterey Institute, a far-left organization advocating America’s nuclear disarmament (like Carroll himself), and by the NY Slimes, which advocates the same.

Lie #2:

“In fact, in response to budget constraints, legal obligations under a jeopardized non-proliferation treaty, and the most urgent moral mandate facing the country, America’s nuclear strategy could shift without wrenching difficulty, at the very least, to one of “minimal deterrence.” Hardcore national security mavens tell us this. Such a shift would involve a reduction in both the deployed and stored nuclear arsenal to something like 500 warheads. Even if that goal were pursued unilaterally, it would leave more than enough weaponry to deter any conceivable state-based nuclear threat, including Russia’s, no matter what Putin may do.”

FALSE. There is no serious national security analyst who advocates cutting down the nuke deterrent to the low hundreds and a shift to “minimal deterrence” – because all the serious national security analysts out there know it would be national suicide.

And the “hardcore security mavens” whom Carroll claims advocate minimal deterrence? They’re actually strident anti-nuclear, pro-disarmament activists: Robert Gard and Greg Tarryn of the “Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation”, a far-left group in DC advocating America’s unilateral nuclear disarmament and deep cuts in the US defense budget in general. Hardly “hardcore national security mavens.”

A small nuclear arsenal, composed of only a few hundred (e.g. 500) warheads, would be woefully insignificant to deter Russia or even China, as it would be completely unable to survive a Russian or Chinese nuclear first strike on the US. Why? Because of its small size: it would be far, far easier for Russia or China to destroy a few dozen ICBMs and a handful of USN submarines and USAF bombers, carrying just a few hundred warheads, than to destroy the current US arsenal of 400 ICBMs, 76 bombers, and 14 ballistic missile submarines.

Destroying a few dozen (or even 100) ICBMs, plus shooting down a few dozen bombers and sinking a handful of submarines, is a much easier task.

Russia is more than sufficiently capable of destroying such a small nuclear arsenal. It currently has almost 400 ICBMs capable of collectively delivering well over 1,200 warheads to the Continental US; a submarine force capable of delivering even more warheads; and a bomber fleet capable of delivering over 700.

All these figures are now increasing, and will continue to increase, because Russia is now building up all three legs of its nuclear triad.

The US and its allies have enjoyed almost 70 years of peace and security from nuclear and conventional attack – but it is only because, throughout that whole time, the US has maintained a large nuclear arsenal able to withstand even a massive Russian first strike. THAT is what has deterred the Russians from conducting it in the first place.

With a small arsenal, however, this will be impossible – it will be an easy target for the Russians and even the Chinese.

Furthermore, a “minimal deterrence” arsenal consisting of just a few hundred warheads would be utterly unable to execute an effective, painful retaliation against the aggressor, even if it could survive an enemy first strike (which it could never do). That’s because Russia has so many missile siloes and nuclear force bases and facilities (plus other targets of strategic importance) that a few hundred warheads would be woefully insufficient to take them out. In fact, 500 warheads wouldn’t even be enough to take out Russia’s hardened missile siloes, let alone other targets.

Pentagon planners know, and have known for decades, that executing an effective retaliation against Russia – even the Russia of today – requires thousands, not a mere few hundred, of nuclear warheads.

And let’s not ignore the fact that all those who advocate “minimum deterrence” – including Carroll, Gard, and Tarryn – stridently oppose nuclear deterrence completely and do not believe in it at all. They believe in peace through weakness and unilateral disarmament. For them, cutting down the US nuclear arsenal to the mere hundreds – to a “minimum deterrence” level – is a mere step towards their ultimate goal: disarming the US unilaterally and completely while leaving America’s enemies free to grow their nuclear arsenals. This is treason.

Lie #3:

“There is, of course, no sign that the president intends to do such a thing any longer, but if a commander-in-chief were to order nuclear reductions into the hundreds, the result might actually be a transformation of the American political conscience. In the process, the global dream of a nuclear-free world could be resuscitated and the commitment of non-nuclear states (including Iran) to refrain from nuclear-weapons development could be rescued. Most crucially, there would no longer be any rationale for the large-scale reinvention of the American nuclear arsenal, a deadly project this nation is even now preparing to launch.”

That is also a blatant lie. The pipedream of a world without nuclear weapons was NEVER realistic in the first instance; it was always a pie-in-the-sky fantasy with zero chance of being accomplished. And the claim that drastic cuts in the US nuclear deterrent would somehow encourage Iran to refrain from developing nukes is downright laughable. It’s one of the classic lies of the unilateral disarmament movement: “If we disarm, others will be nice and disarm, too – or refrain from obtaining nuclear weapons if they don’t have them yet.”

In reality, drastic cuts in the US arsenal would only ENCOURAGE rogue states all around the world to develop nuclear weapons, because only a few hundred of them would now be needed to match the US.

In sum, Carroll’s anti-nuclear diatribe is a litany of blatant lies – just like everything else disarmament advocates write. For an excellent rebuttal of minimum deterrence advocates’ claims, please read this and this.


Posted in Nuclear deterrence | Leave a Comment »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 510 other followers