FUNDING DEFENSE: MEETING THE CHALLENGE. Part 2

The New York Analysis continues its review of whether the 2018 defense budget is sufficient to meet threats facing the United States.

One enduring myth that is consistently cited as a counter to arguments to adequately fund U.S. defenses is that the U.S. has a considerable lead in military technology. That is no longer accurate. In both conventional and nuclear-related areas, China and Russia have equaled and in some cases exceeded America’s lead.

The Threat From Russia

Russia’s new Armata tank has three times the range of America’s Abrams. Task & Purpose reports that “Russia’s next-generation battle tank can reportedly out-stick the American armor in a heartbeat — and it’s coming to battlefields sooner than expected.”

Moscow has accelerated its development of other advanced nuclear weaponry. The Independent reports that Russia has developed a missile with unprecedented power The weapon, named the Satan-2, “ is said to be capable of carrying 12 nuclear warheads and could wipe out a whole country with a single strike.” Nuclear capable bombers are also enjoying a renaissance. The Russian news source RT reports that “A newly built Tupolev Tu-160 long-range heavy strategic bomber [NATO designation Blackjack]…was rolled out of the hangar as Russia resumes production of the world’s largest operational bomber …Russia’s military announced the decision to resume production of the Tu-160s in modernized Tu-160M2 variation back in 2015. Blackjack is largest combat aircraft in the world, with maximum takeoff weight of about 275 tons. It can cover a distance of more than 12,000 kilometers without refueling…The Tu-160 and other long-range aircraft resumed patrol flights over the Pacific and Atlantic in 2007…” The publication also reported on Moscow’s ambitious submarine program. The Sun described the latest Russian “super-sub:” “RUSSIAN President Vladimir Putin has unveiled his Navy’s most powerful nuclear submarine – which can easily outgun its American rival. The Knyaz Vladimir is capable of launching 16 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), which can lay waste to cities up to 5,778 miles away. Russia’s nuclear-powered Borei-A-class sub has the ability to dive to about 400 metres, making it hard to detect by sonar. Russia now plans to build a total of eight of the super subs by 2025.”

In 2015, Deputy Secretary of Defense Bob Work stated: “Russia [is] modernizing … Its naval and air units are operating at a pace and an extent that hasn’t been seen in quite some time, to include a large increase in trans-oceanic and global military operations. And as General Dempsey has said, Russia’s activities in the Ukraine are, quote, “giving the world a disturbing image of the hybrid nature of military aggression in the 21st century.”

Various viagra 50mg price websites have been organized to provide the affected males with proper medications. The historical correlation of the slope of the yield difference between 10-year and two-year U.S. treasuries viagra no prescription demonstrates the above historical correlation. One shouldn’t rush to do sex cialis free consultation when under the influence of the anti-impotency drug as visiting a psychologist can help. Any form of http://downtownsault.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Paint-Party-on-Portage_UP4Health-Challenge.pdf viagra 100 mg physical dysfunction can really be disruptive and may drastically alter our lives. General Joseph Dunford (USMC), quoted in the National Interest, noted that “Russia has made a significant investment in military capabilities. Putin has recently fielded a wide range of systems to include new intercontinental ballistic missiles, aircraft, nuclear-powered submarines, tanks, and air defense systems. We’ve seen some of Russia’s more modern conventional capabilities on display in Syria, and we’re closely tracking Russian developments and actions in space and in cyberspace.”

In 2016, the commander of U.S. forces in Europe General Philip Breedlove warned: “we cannot ignore Russia’s increase in military activity which concerns all nations…Russia’s coercive use of energy has grown with threats and outright use of force. Eastern and Central European states, to include the Baltics, are concerned about Russia’s intentions in Europe and consider Russia’s aggression in Ukraine validation of their concerns.”

Moscow Times reports that “Russia’s military spending is set to increase despite the welfare budget decreasing…”

NATO describes Moscow’s drive to establish a dominant military: “Russia is roughly half-way through a major ten-year State Armaments Program, which foresees the procurement of large amounts of new or upgraded weapons systems and other military hardware, across all services of its armed forces, over the period 2011-2020…Overall, a large part of the program is likely to be fulfilled by 2020…”

The Report Continues Tomorrow.

Quick Analysis

Why the Electoral College is Vital

Proposals for radical alterations in the way Americans vote are dangerous concepts that would have dramatic consequences for the nation and its Constitution. Some, such as ranked choice voting, are an unblushing bid to prop up fringe, leftist candidates. Others. if adopted, would essentially disunite the nation and overturn its Constitution. As they consistently have after each election loss, Democrat spokespeople have flooded the airwaves with complaints about the Electoral College. Why, they ask, can’t we have a “popular vote,” and let it be done with. Since the Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution, it would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system. The National Archives notes that over the past 200 years more than 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. The answer is as simple as the name of the country: The United States of America. The incredibly successful nation created almost two and a half centuries ago was a union of separate states. Fresh off of dealing with a monarch, it was intentionally set up that way to both prevent the possibility of having an all-powerful dictator, and to prevent larger states from bullying smaller ones. Abolishing the electoral college would essentially disenfranchise smaller states from having any say in the presidency. Indeed, even less populated areas of large states would lose influence. A collection of large cities, (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, Austin, Jacksonville, etc.) would decide the outcome in who gets the White House. Considering how badly many of those urban centers are run, that would not bode well for the future of the country! Beyond the practical policy implications, it would alienate the populations of those not living in California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, who would, for the most part, be reduced to bystanders in the race for the only nationally-elected position. A Heritage study analyzed the concept of a “National Popular Vote” (NPV) this way: “The National Popular Vote (NPV) plan is the latest in a long line of schemes designed to replace the Electoral College. Imbued with the ideals of this nation’s Founders, the Electoral College has proved itself to be both effective in providing orderly elections for President and resilient in allowing a stable transfer of power of the leadership of the world’s greatest democracy. Therefore, while it would be a mistake to replace the Electoral College, replacing this system with the NPV would be a disaster. The NPV would devalue the minority interests that the Founders sought to protect, create electoral administrative problems, encourage voter fraud, and radicalize the U.S. political system. It also would likely violate the U.S. Constitution’s Compact Clause while directly contravening the Founders’ view of federalism and a representative republic. In an age of perceived political dysfunction, effective policies already in place—especially successful policies established by this nation’s Founders, such as the Electoral College—should be preserved.” Trent England, writing for the National Conference of State Legislatures outlined key reasons for the institution: “At the Constitutional Convention, the primary concern of delegates opposed to direct election was that big states would dominate presidential politics. By using a two-step election process, the Electoral College prevents one region, or a handful of major metropolitan areas, from controlling the White House. Support must be geographically distributed around the country in order to win enough states to capture an electoral vote majority. This was particularly important after the Civil War. The nation remained divided, and Democrats became dominant in the south. A combination of intense popularity with some voters and violent suppression of others allowed Democrats to receive the most popular votes in 1876 and 1888 even though they lost the Electoral College and thus those elections.” Eliminating the Electoral College would be a disaster for the United States/