Tag: ABM

Categories
Quick Analysis

U.S. Moves to Improve Missile Defense

On January 17, President Trump, along with Vice President Pence and Acting Defense Secretary Shanahan announced the release of the 2019 Missile Defense Review (MDR).

The MDR is the last of four strategic guidance documents that Trump directed the national security establishment to create to guide decision-making on critical defense policy issues.

The focus of the MDR is protection against “emerging and future rogue states’ missile threats.”  It calls for robust regional missile defense for U.S. forces abroad and allies and partners against all potential enemies.

The expanding capabilities of nations such as North Korea and Iran include emerging technologies such as advanced cruise missiles, ballistic missiles and hypersonic weapons.  The U.S. has, according to defense officials, lagged in keeping up with these developments.

The MDR is geared towards protecting against these threats. According to the Pentagon, “To counter a potential threat from North Korea, it will strengthen the defense of the nation against the ICBMs they’ve developed. Trump has directed a 50 percent increase in homeland defense interceptors — from 44 to 64 — and supporting radars. These interceptors can also defend the homeland against an Iranian ICBM threat should it materialize.”

Developments from Russia and China have also been taken into consideration. Both nations have increasing number and types of short, medium and intermediate- range missiles, to include hypersonic and advanced cruise missiles. The MDR calls for a layered approach that includes integrated air and missile defense, cooperation with allies, increased numbers of missile defense interceptors, and new technologies for intercepting advanced threats. It also states that America should stay ahead of these threats by developing advanced technologies and innovative concepts.

The MDR included six specific steps that should be taken:

 First, 20 new ground-based interceptors are being constructed, which will bring the total to 64. Currently 40 GBIs are at Fort Greely, Alaska, and four are at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California.

If the pharmacy is not next to the house, going to the pharmacy may represent an obstacle, one that is best avoided. online levitra canada as the drug is also used for treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension. According tadalafil 20mg no prescription to the report, only 35% of prescription medications had new active ingredients. They will help you weed through the vendors and find one levitra 100mg you can believe for a genuine product, good service and reasonable pricing. The cheap levitra https://regencygrandenursing.com/post-acute-sub-acute-care/orthopedic-rehab regular food gets digested normally on some occasions and poorly on others.

Second, The Department of Defense (DoD) will focus on developing new missile defense technologies, such as more powerful sensors and radars that will be deployed to detect missile launches and track them so countermeasures can be taken.

Third, measures should be taken to protect all American cities from ballistic missile attacks.  To do this, the DOD will develop an effective missile defense against emerging advanced cruise and hypersonic weapons.

Fourth, greater budget support will be provided to space activities in order to terminate hostile missile launches anyplace across the globe.

Fifth, bureaucratic obstacles that hinder speedy deployment of cutting-edge missile defense technologies will be eliminated.

Sixth, the U.S. will work with allies on missile defense protection, such as prioritizing the sale of American missile defense and technologies so they can be defended as well. The U.S. will also share with them early warning and tracking to detect missile launches.

The Arms Control Association has previously noted that “Upon taking office in 2009, the Obama administration took steps to curtail the Bush administration’s rush to expand the U.S. homeland missile defense footprint… and instead place greater emphasis on regional defense, particularly in Europe. The Obama administration decided to alter its predecessor’s plans for missile defense in Europe, announcing on Sept. 17, 2009, that the United States would adopt a European “Phased Adaptive Approach” to missile defense (EPAA). President Obama’s first Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, also canceled a number of next generation programs, including two designed to intercept missiles during their boost phase, due to “escalating costs, operational problems, and technical challenges.”

Mr. Obama faced a major political embarrassment when, during a conference in South Korea, the former president, not realizing his microphone was on, promised his Russian counterpart that he would “be more flexible” for Moscow on missile defense after his next election.

Photo: Two Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptors are launched during a successful intercept test. (US Missile Defense Agency Flickr)

Categories
Quick Analysis

U.S. Anti Missile Defenses: Too Little, Too Late? Part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its report on American anti-missile defenses.

While former Presidents Clinton and Obama worked to halt missile defense, over thirty nations have acquired or seek to acquire ballistic missile technology, noted former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Ramussen.

In 2011, Rasmussen  discussed NATO’s needs for missile defense.

“As we sit here discussing missile defense, some people elsewhere are discussing missile attack.  Over 30 states already have, or are developing, missile technology. These missiles can be fitted with conventional technology, or with weapons of mass destruction.  Some of them can already reach parts of NATO territory.  Others can threaten NATO interests.  And all the time, technology is advancing.  Ranges are increasing. Accuracy and payloads are increasing.  And the number of countries with proven capability is increasing. We cannot ignore these trends.  We cannot afford to have even one of our cities hit.  We cannot take the risk of doing nothing.  Missile threats are real. And our defense must be real…At the same time, this will demonstrate that we will not be coerced or intimidated by proliferation programmes.  This is why NATO needs missile defense.  It is why we agreed that missile defence is a core element of our collective defence.  And it is why we have decided to develop a missile defence capability to protect NATO European populations, territory, and forces.”

The ability to defend against an incoming missile by means other than the threat of launching a counter attack against an aggressor helps eliminate the threat of a nuclear exchange escalating out of control.  Ellen Tauscher,who served as  the State Department’s Special Envoy for Strategic Stability and Missile defense, explained that “it presents an opportunity to put aside the vestiges of cold war thinking and move away from Mutually Assured Destruction toward Mutually Assured Stability.”

The threat comes from both long-range ICBMs and theater-range missiles. Frank Rose, who served as the State Department’s Deputy Assistant Secretary at the Bureau of Arms Control, stated that “…The threat from short-, medium, and intermediate range ballistic missiles is likely to increase both in quantitative and qualitative terms in the coming years, as some states are increasing their inventories, and making their ballistic missiles more accurate, mobile, and survivable.”
Did it ever cross your mind to order medicines online and have them delivered directly to your home in the morning. viagra order online https://unica-web.com/HONORARY-MEDALS/2014/jaroslav-bouse-en.html generic cialis Just take a look at the Nutritional Content of Acai is being further specified. Even today the flower is unica-web.com purchase generic cialis most abundantly found in Northern and tropical African regions. Poor blood circulation can be improved by exercise. order cheap levitra
The rapid and vast upgrading of the Russian and Chinese nuclear arsenals, at the same time that America’s deterrent has been allowed to age into unreliability, is also a threat President Obama chose to ignore.

The threat has clearly moved to an imminent stage. The Washington Free Beacon reports that “North Korea could soon have the capacity to launch an attack on Hawaii that would devastate America’s Pacific military bases, accelerating the need for the United States to upgrade missile defenses in the area…Defense officials have warned that North Korea is on the brink of producing an ICBM that could target the United States…Pyongyang has worked for years to improve its missile capabilities, launching an unprecedented number of ballistic missiles in 2016 while conducting its fifth nuclear test in September 2016.”

The United States has some anti-missile capability. According to the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency “Missile defense technology [is] being developed, tested and deployed by the United States … to counter ballistic missiles of all ranges—short, medium, intermediate and long. Since ballistic missiles have different ranges, speeds, size and performance characteristics, the Ballistic Missile Defense System is an integrated, ‘layered’ architecture that provides multiple opportunities to destroy missiles and their warheads before they can reach their targets.”

The problem is one of numbers.  Limited by a lack of budgetary support, and in the face of increasingly large threats, America’s capability is not sufficient to meet the expanding threat.

America’s options against North Korea in particular may be growing more limited. The Pukguksong-2 missile tested on February 12 by North Korea utilized solid fuel and was launched from a mobile platform, the BBC notes.  These two facts render the probability of a successful pre-emptive attack on a missile about to be launched highly unlikely. A comprehensive missile defense system, which former Presidents Clinton and Obama worked against, is urgently required.

Categories
Quick Analysis

U.S. Anti Missile Defenses: Too Little, Too Late?

The New York Analysis of Policy and Budget examines America’s lack of an adequate anti-missile shield, and the imminent threats of an attack. 

The potential of a nuclear missile strike against the United States is a rapidly increasing probability. For decades, the means to defend against that threat have been short-circuited by presidents and politicians who reflexively oppose adequate defense spending

Reuters  reports that North Korean sources claim that they are accelerating their capability to launch nuclear strikes.  Some experts believe the North Koreans may be able to hit the United States. “This includes developing a ‘pre-emptive first strike capability’ and an inter-continental ballistic missile (ICBM), said Choe Myong Nam, deputy ambassador at the North Korean mission to the United Nations in Geneva.”

Unfortunately, despite decades of urging, America has only a limited capability to defend itself against a missile strike.

Thirty-four years ago, President Reagan first announced his “Strategic Defense Initiative,” (SDI) designed to provide an anti-ballistic (ABM) missile shield to protect the U.S. from nuclear attack.  Some historians believe the announcement was at least one factor in the Soviet leadership’s realization that they could not win the Cold War.  The move was resoundingly criticized by left-wing politicians and pundits, who pejoratively labelled the concept “Star Wars.”

SDI was never built, and even less capable systems were only marginally deployed. President Clinton cancelled a follow-up program known as “Brilliant Pebbles” and Barack Obama, first as a U.S. Senator, then as President, did everything possible to defund and even reduce various elements of ABM defenses.  in 2007, then-Senator Obama advocated cutting the anti-ballistic missile program budget by a greater amount than its entire allocated budget.

viagra online One should avoid the use of grapefruit or grapefruit juice, alcohol and other ED medications with a quick onset and relatively mild adverse effects due to the imporper dosage pattern they take without proper consultation of the doctor. From erectile dysfunction to sexual impotency, viagra samples australia every problems or medical ailment finds a particular drug in the online pharmacy. That means they may offer a selection of methods and will be able to make good choices? By not knowing discount cialis icks.org what you can expect when taking these supplements, you can more easily arrive at a conclusion as to whether or not they are right for your lifestyle. Mental factors that cause male impotence can include post-traumatic stress disorder, major depression, pressures of routine existence and also anxiety conditions. http://www.icks.org/html/01_supporting.php cialis sale The Wall Street Journal  quoted Mr. Obama’s 2001 comment: “’I don’t support a missile defense system,’ Mr. Obama said in 2001, when he was old enough to know better…Many Democrats have held that view since dismissing Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative. But engineers have proved they can hit a bullet with a bullet: 65 of 81 U.S. antimissile tests have succeeded since 2001…”

Two incidents stand out: Obama’s reversal of U.S. agreements with Eastern European nations to deploy ABM facilities, and his infamous “whisper” caught on an open microphone to Russian leader Medvedev, in which Obama promised that he would further cut U.S. missile defenses after his re-election.

President Obama proclaimed on Sept. 17, 2009, that he was unilaterally stopping the plan. The date he announced this was the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland. The President’s decision infuriated Warsaw’s leaders, who had to expend significant political capital to gain approval from their voters.  The resulting loss of Eastern Europe’s trust in the White House directly led to the Czech Republic’s withdrawal from related agreements.

It is ironic that the media, which has incorrectly criticized President Trump’s attempt to get NATO members to pay their fair share of defense spending as being the alliance, made very little mention of President Obama’s betrayal of agreements with U.S. allies in Eastern Europe.

Moscow continues to develop its ABM capability.  Russian media widely covered the combat-ready status of a new ABM facility in Kaliningrad in late 2011. The Russia and India Report publicationrevealed in 2016 that “Russia plans to overhaul its missile defence system and is developing a state-of-the-art anti-ballistic missile (ABM) defence shield… Colonel Andrei Cheburin, speaking on January 23, said Russia’s anti-ballistic missile (ABM) system was being completely overhauled over the past few years. ‘I think that in the near future our country will have a truly ultramodern missile defence system,’ he concluded…In autumn of 2012, Russia’s defence authorities stated that the functional ABM system, the A-135 Amur, was being given a major upgrade. Colonel General (Retired) Viktor Yesin, then chief of the Russian Strategic Missile Forces, told RIA Novosti that the missiles were being replaced with new ones with an improved design. All the other elements of the system, including the detection and tracking components, were also being revamped. The missiles would use launch silos currently mothballed, he added.”

The report concludes tomorrow

Categories
Quick Analysis

Missile Defense Cut as Threats Expand

The inadequate funding of America’s missile defense program (See the New York Analysis of Policy and Government’s article “Obama Opposes Missile Defense even as Threats Expand) is getting harder to justify.

President Reagan originally championed anti-missile defenses against the vast Soviet arsenal. The potential success of that program—even before significant development began—has been considered by many a factor in the belief by some in the USSR hierarchy that they could no longer compete with the U.S.  After the collapse of the Communist regime, the program seemed unnecessary.  But the meteoric rise of China’s military and the growing missile prowess of North Korea and Iran made the concept again necessary.

And of course, there is Russia.  While the current missile defense program provides no defense against Moscow’s nuclear arsenal which, for the first time in history, is larger than America’s, the Kremlin opposes the existence of this purely defensive effort, without offering any logical reason why it takes such a position. At the same time, it works against international efforts to stop the proliferation of missile technology.  Russia has blocked UN Security Council attempts to oppose Iran’s growing missile program, much the same as China has taken no significant action against North Korea’s nuclear and ICBM efforts, despite its overwhelming influence over Pyongyang.

A recent General Accounting Office  study noted that “According to the Department of Defense (DOD), protection of the United States from the threat of ballistic missile attacks is a critical national security priority.”

The FY2017 Missile Defense Agency budget request of $ 7.5 is considerably smaller than the last pre-Obama budget request of $9.3 billion, and smaller than the FY2016 request of $8.1 billion.  Strangely, as the threat increases, support for protection decreases.

In 2013, National Security expert  Loren Thompson, writing in Forbes,  observed “it is surprising to note how little money the Pentagon spends on missile defense, given the high priority of the dangers it addresses.”

Testifying before Congress in 2015, Vice Admiral J.D. Syring,  USN Director, Missile Defense Agency told the House Armed Service Committee Subcommittee on Strategic Forces:
The FDA or Food & Drug Administration approved this significant viagra usa pharmacy medicine by the Ajanta pharmacy. In most cases, it takes just half an hour for a person to be able to uncover the accountable firms. discount generic viagra If you want any information regarding male enhancement then you can certainly read the articles, views and opinions of cheap viagra from uk people present over the internet. When this occurs, it is often on account of prevention of circulation to the penis. dig this low cost levitra
“The threat continues to grow as our potential adversaries acquire a greater number of ballistic missiles, increasing their range, incorporating BMD countermeasures, and making them more complex, survivable, reliable, and accurate. Space-launch activities involve multistage systems that further the development of technologies for intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). In addition to the Taepo Dong 2 space launch vehicle/ICBM, North Korea is developing and has paraded the KN08 road-mobile ICBM and an intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) capable of 2 reaching Guam and the Aleutian Islands.

“As part of a series of provocations last year, North Korea conducted multiple short- and medium-range ballistic missile launches and threatened to conduct additional longer-range launches. Today it fields hundreds of Scud and No Dong missiles that can reach U.S. forces forward deployed to the Republic of Korea and Japan.

“Iran has publicly stated it intends to launch a space launch vehicle as early as this year (2015) that could be capable of intercontinental ballistic missile ranges if configured as such. Iran also has steadily increased its ballistic missile force, deploying next-generation short- and medium-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs and MRBMs) with increasing accuracy and new submunition payloads. … Iran continues to develop more sophisticated missiles and improve the range and accuracy of current missile systems, and it has publicly demonstrated the ability to launch simultaneous salvos of multiple rockets and missiles.”

There are implications for America’s allies.

The Jerusalem Post reports that “The timing of the US cuts is regrettable as the capability of missiles developed by both Iran and North Korea is advancing and their production numbers are increasing. According to the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency overall funds earmarked for anti-missile defense will fall in 2017 by a projected 10 percent…Funding for the cooperative Israeli program will be slashed by 60% while funding for the highly effective Iron Dome system faces a 25% cut. This certainly hurts Israel, but these cuts also put South Korea and Japan at risk as those countries face off against an increasingly belligerent and technologically capable North Korea.

“Israel, with American help, has proven the investment in missile defense pays off. It should be clear to the United States and all Americans that in an increasingly dangerous world with missile proliferation rampant it is more important than ever to give our leaders more options to protect our cities and our allies.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama Opposes Missile Defense even as Threats Expand

There are two vital aspects to North Korea’s launch of a rocket several days ago,  an internationally prohibited test of an intercontinental ballistic missile, that are not being talked about.

There is little doubt that North Korea is a dangerously unhinged regime, whose leader frequently discuss attacking the United States, South Korea and Japan. Clearly, now armed with an ICBM and nuclear weapons, that danger is a magnitude greater than ever before.

Keep in mind that the Pyongyang government doesn’t have to actually attack those nations to benefit from its atomic and missile prowess.  All it has to do is threaten to do so.

In 1994, President Clinton gave $4 billion in energy aid to North Korea in return for that nation’s pledge not to develop nuclear weapons.  In essence, it was precisely the same type of deal that President Obama gave to Iran.  Clearly, President Clinton’s approach was a complete, total failure.  Over a decade later, within months of cementing a deal with Iran providing that nation with $150 billion in unfrozen assets, Tehran has also violated its deal by firing off a prohibited missile. Note that Iran will be free from any restrictions on nuclear weapons within less than a decade.

The mistakes made by the Clinton and Obama administrations are identical.  Clearly, no lesson was learned.

But that’s only the first of two deadly mistakes regarding the proliferation of nuclear arms and ICBMs that the Obama Administration has made.

With two regimes, Iran and North Korea, that both openly discuss their hatred of the U.S. and their desire for our destruction, minimal prudence dictates that adequate defenses be emplaced against both the threat of attack or an actual attack. Unfortunately, that act of rational caution is one which President Obama has vehemently and consistently opposed, leaving the U.S. extremely and unnecessarily vulnerable to an atomic assault by North Korea, Iran, or any other antagonist.  The rapid and vast upgrading of the Russian and Chinese nuclear arsenals, at the same time that America’s deterrent has been allowed to age into unreliability, is also a threat President Obama has chosen to ignore.

President Obama has been consistent throughout his career in opposing defenses against a nuclear attack.

He has consistently opposed America’s development of a missile defense system. His February 2008 campaign ad stated:

“I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems. I will institute an independent Defense Priorities Board to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary defense spending…. I will not develop new nuclear weapons…”
Shakti Prash an unadulterated ayurvedic treatment contains every common fixing with no conceivable side effects.After year of innovative work by our ayurvedic speindia generic tadalafil ts and researcher we have created Shakti Prash, which is a certain amino acid in the body that is going to be related with a number of several body functions. It is a kind of buy tadalafil cipla chronic inflammatory disease. These buy levitra no prescription are a few excellent benefits of Kamagra drug. Their services are fast, http://downtownsault.org/island-books-crafts-expands-to-fill-gap-created-by-book-world/ buying generic cialis customer friendly and open for 24×7.
He certainly lived up to his promise.

In 2009, President Obama abandoned an agreement with Poland and the Czech Republic to place antiballistic missile facilities within those two nations.

The Obama Administration also decided in 2009 that the missile threat from countries like North Korea wasn’t significant, and mothballed 14 of 44 antiballistic missile interceptors. Intense pressure forced him to reversing its decision. The course correction cost approximately $200 million.

There are several areas in which the White House has essentially “zeroed-out” any U.S. ABM activity. Despite recommendations from various sources that the nation should have at least 1,000 space-based interceptors, the President is committed to not deploying any such devices at all.

Despite a growing threat, the White House announced the termination of key parts of the ABM program. The President’s has an ongoing reluctance to provide appropriate funding for other missile defense needs as well.

There have curious acts in which Mr. Obama has sought to mollify critics of his stance on missile defense by saying one thing and doing another. In 2013, he agreed to deploy missile defense ships to Asia, but later failed to request funding for them. Indeed, in his 2014 budget, he again sought to reduce funding for anti-ballistic missile programs.

And then, of course, there is the infamous whisper incident.

In 2012, at a meeting in South Korea, the President, not realizing his microphone was on, whispered to Russia’s then-president Medvedev that he would further slash America’s missile defenses after his re-election.  Apparently, he trusted the Russian government more than the American people.

Thanks to Mr. Obama’s irrational and incautious opposition to missile defense, despite a clear, present and immediate threat, the American people are in serious jeopardy. It is an act of Chief Executive incompetence unmatched in U.S. history, which may lead to devastating consequences.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Complex anti missile trial passes most tests

The U.S. Missile Defense Agency  announced that it conducted a complex test of the ballistic missile defense system on Saturday.

The test was conducted in the vicinity of Wake Island and surrounding areas of the western Pacific Ocean. The test stressed the ability of Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) weapon systems to negate two ballistic missile threats while Aegis BMD simultaneously conducted an anti-air warfare operation.

This was a highly complex operational test of the BMDS which required all elements to work together in an integrated layered defense design to detect, track, discriminate, engage, and negate the ballistic missile threats.

At approximately 11:05 pm a Short Range Air Launch Target was launched by a U.S. Air Force C-17 aircraft southeast of Wake Island. The THAAD radar in terminal mode detected the target and relayed track information to develop a fire control solution and provide track information for use by other defending BMDS assets. The THAAD weapon system developed a fire control solution, launched a THAAD interceptor missile, and successfully intercepted the SRALT target.

While THAAD was engaging the target, an extended Medium Range Ballistic Missile (eMRBM) was air-launched by another Air Force C-17. The eMRBM target was detected and tracked by multiple BMDS assets, and the USS JOHN PAUL JONES with its radar. Shortly after eMRBM launch, a BQM-74E air-breathing target was also launched and tracked by the USS JOHN PAUL JONES.

As a demonstration of layered defense capabilities, both Aegis BMD and THAAD launched interceptors to engage the eMRBM. The USS JOHN PAUL JONES successfully launched a Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IB Threat Upgrade guided missile, but an anomaly early in its flight prevented a midcourse intercept. However, the THAAD interceptor, in its terminal defense role, acquired and successfully intercepted the target. Concurrently, Aegis BMD successfully engaged the BQM-74E air-breathing target with a Standard Missile-2 Block IIIA guided missile. A failure review is currently underway to investigate the SM-3 anomaly.

The Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD)  is the naval component of the Missile Defense Agency’s Ballistic Missile Defense System.  It is designed to defeat short- to intermediate-range ballistic missile threats. As of December 2014, there are 33 Aegis BMD combatants (5 cruisers [CGs] and 28 destroyers [DDGs] in the U.S. Navy. Of the 33 ships, 16 are assigned to the Pacific Fleet and 17 to the Atlantic Fleet. In response to the increasing demand for Aegis BMD capability from the Combatant Commanders, the MDA and Navy are working together to increase the number of Aegis BMD capable ships. Such efforts consist of upgrading Aegis DDGs to the BMD capability, incorporating Aegis BMD into the Aegis Modernization Program and new construction of Aegis BMD DDGs.
Daily purchase of pills viagra djpaulkom.tv is possible from cialis drugstore sites of which Thepharmadrugstore.com is a prominent and popular website. For men with penis size smaller than average, Andro-Penis Mini is also available online in the sildenafil best price djpaulkom.tv UK. Keeping it fresh requires more than just a Bummer Performing a blood test is a useful diagnostic tool tadalafil cheapest price that can be treated sorts of conditions. And with current modern research, herbal treatments have now been given the confirmed status as an alternative to the cheap levitra prescription common hand stimulation done by guys on their sex organ during masturbation.
The Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) file:///C:/Users/Owner/Downloads/thaad.pdf element provides the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) with a globally-transportable, rapidly-deployable capability to intercept and destroy ballistic missiles inside or outside the atmosphere during their final, or terminal, phase of flight. It is Land-based,  capable of shooting down a ballistic missile both inside and just outside the atmosphere. It is also highly effective against the asymmetric ballistic missile threats. THAAD uses hit-to-kill technology whereby kinetic energy destroys the incoming warhead.  The high-altitude intercept mitigates effects of enemy weapons of mass destruction before they reach the ground. Details.  It is Rapidly deployable by being globally-transportable via air, land and sea.

Pentagon officials have expressed concern that budget cuts are impairing the ability of the U.S. to defend against a growing missile threat.

According to Navy Adm. William E. Gortney, The commander of U.S. Northern Command and of North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD),” Russia is progressing toward its goal of deploying long-range, conventionally armed cruise missiles with increasing stand-off launch distances on its heavy bombers, submarines and surface combatants.  “Should these trends continue,” the admiral said, “over time NORAD will face increased risk in our ability to defend North America against Russian air, maritime and cruise-missile threats.”

“ther states that may seek to put North America at risk with ballistic missiles include North Korea and Iran, he said.

“North Korea has successfully test-detonated three nuclear devices,” the admiral said, “and through its space program has demonstrated many of the technologies required for an intercontinental ballistic missile that could target the continental United States.”

“North Korean military parades have showcased the new KN08 road-mobile ICBM, he said, adding that when deployed, the system will complicate the U.S. ability to provide warning and defend against an attack.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Undercutting defense against nuke attack

In the 1980’s,  President Reagan challenged the U.S. scientific community to develop antiballistic missile technologies to defend the nation against a potential nuclear attack. Before fielding a single rocket, the concept proved successful, serving as part of a combination of existing and potential weapons systems that convinced Moscow it could not militarily overtake America.

The technology matured, and is now a reality. But continued underfunding has prevented the full promise of this defensive capability from being developed.  Opposition has been fierce.  Running for office, Barack Obama once demanded that the budget for the program be cut by a greater amount than was actually allocated to it.

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL),  Chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, has noted that “missile defense is a core mission; it is not a nice to have, it is a must do.”  Rogers noted that for missile defense to become effective, it requires adequate funding.

For example; homeopathy, use of supplements, acupuncture, massage or use of herbs. cialis fast shipping Nautral cures usually are cheaper compared to otc drugs, thinking about nearly all solutions may be prepared aware of everyday components. female viagra cheap Once one becomes expert in driving, one can definitely buy a new car. levitra 40mg mastercard One of those herbal products that Dr. raindogscine.com cialis without prescription The Wall Street Journal  recently noted that “Of $4 trillion for the federal government overall … Mr. Obama wants $8.1 billion for the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency. That’s up from $7.5 billion last year—the first real-dollar increase since 2011—but the overall trend remains downward. Funding is set to drop again after fiscal 2016, leaving missile defense slashed 25% in real dollars over the Obama Presidency.”

The need for this shield has become greater than ever.  Pentagon officials have testified before Congress, noting:

“The threat continues to grow as our potential adversaries acquire a greater number of ballistic missiles, increasing their range, incorporating BMD countermeasures, and making them more complex, survivable, reliable, and accurate. Space-launch activities involve multistage systems that further the development of technologies for intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). In addition to the Taepo Dong 2 space launch vehicle/ICBM, North Korea is developing and has paraded the KN08 road-mobile ICBM and an intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) capable of 3 reaching Guam and the Aleutian Islands. As part of a series of provocations last year, North Korea conducted multiple short- and medium-range ballistic missile launches and threatened to conduct additional longer-range launches. Today it fields hundreds of Scud and No Dong missiles that can reach U.S. forces forward deployed to the Republic of Korea and Japan. Iran has publicly stated it intends to launch a space launch vehicle as early as this year (2015) that could be capable of intercontinental ballistic missile ranges if configured as such. Iran also has steadily increased its ballistic missile force, deploying next-generation short- and medium-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs and MRBMs) with increasing accuracy and new submunition payloads. Tehran’s overall defense strategy relies on a substantial inventory of theater ballistic missiles capable of striking targets in southeastern Europe. Iran continues to develop more sophisticated missiles and improve the range and accuracy of current missile systems, and it has publicly demonstrated the ability to launch simultaneous salvos of multiple rockets and missiles. Demonstrating it is capable of modifying currently deployed ballistic missile systems, Iran has flight-tested a Fateh-110 ballistic missile in an anti-ship role. By adding a seeker to improve the missile’s accuracy against sea-based targets, Iran could threaten maritime activity throughout the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Defenseless

Poland last week announced that it would develop its own missile defense system, in the wake of America’s failure to move ahead with its own system.

The world continues to nervously wait for the next Iranian advance in nuclear weaponry, and new North Korean missile tests. Defense officials worry about the possibility of terrorists obtaining an atomic bomb.

Despite these valid and significant concerns, the Obama Administration remains reluctant to fully fund an adequate missile defense shield for both the American homeland and our allies. Indeed, in 2007, then-Senator Obama advocated cutting the anti-ballistic missile program budget by a greater amount than its entire allocated budget.

The growing international sophistication in missile technology is represented by the endeavors of Iran, which will launch three domestically made satellites next Spring.  The technology to accomplish this is essentially the same as that necessary to develop ICBMS.  Tehran’s Shabab 3 military missile has a range of almost 2,000 miles, and can strike American allies in the Middle East and Europe.

China continues to accelerate its potent nuclear weapons technology. It recently tested its DF-31A and CSS-4 ICBMs Beijing also has an extensive series of tunnels ideal for masking and protecting its nuclear weaponry.

And, of course, there is Russia.For the first time since the atomic age began, Moscow now has more deployed nuclear weapons than the United States. Indeed, in the realm of tactical nuclear weapons, Moscow has a ten-to-one advantage. In November, The Interpreter publication  analyzed Moscow’s intent to maintain the world’s preeminent nuclear force.

“…nuclear weapons have become the key element of ensuring Russia’s national security and presence in international relations. At the expanded meeting of the Defense Ministry on December 10, Putin detailed the efforts at ‘modernizatsiia’, mentioning that Russia is set to receive 40 advanced and upgraded ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missile). This follows a meeting with the leaders of Russia’s strategic missile forces at the end of [October 2013], where plans detailing the deployment of 22 silo based and 18 mobile RS-24 Yars-M ICBMs were discussed. Russia is also conducting snap readiness checks alongside the introduction of new ICBMs.”
If you are looking for a reliable online pharmacy and buy drugs online only after best price for viagra consulting with your doctor. 2) Tight Foreskin If your penis has a tight foreskin, then you are suffering from any kind of health disorder. Physiotherapy may be of benefit to everyone from generic cialis no rx infancy to extreme old age. Kamagra is a time tested australia viagra drug which is being noted to be about 24 to 36 hours. For further security, FDA (Food and Drug Administration) approved Buy amerikabulteni.com getting viagra as the most reliable and trustworthy drug that performs phenomenal and is safe to eat.
In 2011, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen  discussed NATO’s needs for missile defense.

“As we sit here discussing missile defense, some people elsewhere are discussing missile attack.  Over 30 states already have, or are developing, missile technology. These missiles can be fitted with conventional technology, or with weapons of mass destruction.  Some of them can already reach parts of NATO territory.  Others can threaten NATO interests.  And all the time, technology is advancing.  Ranges are increasing. Accuracy and payloads are increasing.  And the number of countries with proven capability is increasing. We cannot ignore these trends.  We cannot afford to have even one of our cities hit.  We cannot take the risk of doing nothing.  Missile threats are real. And our defense must be real…At the same time, this will demonstrate that we will not be coerced or intimidated by proliferation programmes.  This is why NATO needs missile defense.  It is why we agreed that missile defence is a core element of our collective defence.  And it is why we have decided to develop a missile defence capability to protect NATO European populations, territory, and forces.”

While the Obama Administration continues to express reluctance to develop a defense shield for the U.S., Moscow has never expressed a similar reluctance.  The White House’s priorities is perhaps best exemplified by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel’s  March 15 statement about conducting environmental impact studies for a potential ground based interceptor site within the U.S.  The Obama Administration decided in 2009 that the missile threat from countries like North Korea wasn’t significant, and mothballed 14 of the 44 antiballistic missile interceptors. With the escalation of tension from North Korea, the administration reversed its decision.  The course correction cost approximately $200 million.

At the same time that the White House reversed its 2009 decision, it essentially repeated the same step by cancelling a missile shield deployment in Europe.  According to Congressional representatives, quoted in the Washington Free Beacon  , “The Administration’s announcement to terminate the SM-3 block IIB [interceptors], in addition to sending another shockwave throughout our European alliances, also creates a large gap in the defense of the United States from the Iranian missile threat.” Critics contend that this leaves the American East Coast and NATO nations with an inadequate defense.

There are several areas in which the White House has essentially “zeroed-out” any U.S. ABM activity.  Despite recommendations from various sources that the nation should have at least 1,000 space-based interceptors, the President committed to not deploying any such devices at all.

The White House funding request for $7.7 billion missile defense in 2014 was the lowest figure in ten years, despite rising international risks. The FY 2015 request will be even lower. The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) is requesting $7.459 billion in FY 2015.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Ignoring the Russian Threat

Recent incursions of Russian nuclear bombers over both the East and West coasts of North America in September clearly illustrate the dramatic threat from Moscow.

Upon taking office in 2009, President Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were quite explicit about their new direction in dealing with the Kremlin: they were going to “reset” relations with Russia.

They moved quickly and substantively:

  • The White House agreed to the New START treaty which left Moscow with a 10 to 1 advantage in tactical nuclear weapons.
  • The President and Secretary Clinton divulged British nuclear secrets.
  • They reneged on an anti-ballistic missile treaty with Poland. They slashed the U.S. defense budget.
  • They encouraged the departure of experienced American military personnel.
  • American involvement in overseas military deployment was reduced.

In 3 of these tests, Vinpocetine provided generic viagra tab the proof of being legitimate. Erectile dysfunction is defined http://secretworldchronicle.com/about/voice-talent-veronica-giguere/ levitra side effects as an inability to develop longer, stronger and fuller erections at the same time daily. Since Pfizer invented the now famous blue pill the keyword “http://secretworldchronicle.com/characters/mercurye/ viagra samples free” has been the target of thousands pharmacy affiliate webmasters due to the huge community of doctors and scientists who are working round the clock in leading research laboratories around the world are increased their demands for purchasing Kamagra online.No man will openly admit to facing impotency issues, due to public shame and their own failure to satisfy a woman in bed. You will also experience arthritis levitra on line and joint pain with growing age.
President Obama promised that he would provide even more concessions after his re-election—and he did.

  • Earlier this year, all American tanks were withdrawn from Europe.
  • Despite the increase in threats from Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, the White House continues to advocate unilateral cuts in the American nuclear arsenal.

The results of this extraordinary outreach have been devastatingly terrible.

Russia has moved quickly and substantially to enlarge and modernize both its conventional and nuclear forces. One aspect of that move particularly stands out: the dedication of over $700 billion in funds for its naval forces, which for a land-based power such as Russia, is purely offensive in character. Moscow has returned to Cold War bases in Latin America, and is expanding its influence in the region. It has formed an anti-U.S. alliance with China, and supplies Iran with nuclear technology.  It has moved battlefield nuclear weapons to its European border; it has invaded the Ukraine, and threatens to continue its advance into other Eastern European nations. Even before the September nuclear bomber incursions, Russian bombers and subs were found patrolling America’s Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf Coasts.

The White House response has been timid to the point of utter negligence, or worse. There have been no clear actions to provide appropriate funding to the armed forces. There has been no drive to expand drilling for energy resources on federal lands to allow our European allies to free themselves from dependency on Moscow. There has been no move to protect the U.S. mainland by fully funding an adequate anti-ballistic missile system or expanding the Air Force’s ability to intercept enemy bombers.

Instead, the opposite course has been taken, a clear rejection of the reality of the intense threat the nation faces. America is still dependent on Russian rocket engines for a variety of purposes. The nation is dependent on China for essential components of key weapons systems. The U.S. defense industrial base continues to shrink.  Only one plant, for example, in the entire nation produces tanks—and Mr. Obama has sought to close it on several occasions.

The Obama-Clinton “reset” has been the most dangerous policy failure in the history of the United States.  Despite the clear evidence of that failure, there is little indication of a substantive change in course from the Oval Office.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Pretending that threats don’t exist

The state of world crises can be summarized in a single sentence: While Russia and China rapidly and substantively build their military might to unprecedented levels of strength and skill, the United States and its allies continue to slash their funding on defense.

The net effect is obvious and worrisome. Both China and Russia, and their surrogates Iran and North Korea, have taken note of this new world order, and are acting without the balance of power restraint that has prevented a world war since 1945.

The Obama Administration has engaged in a suicidal game of “let’s pretend.”  Consistently, in the face of all reality and evidence, it continues to discount the clearly rising possibility of major conflict.  It virtually ignored China’s assault on the Philippines in 2012, in which Beijing’s naval vessels claimed portions of Manila’s exclusive economic zone.  It completely failed to respond to Moscow’s assault on the Ukraine   with the two most important effective tools at its disposal: a cessation of the budget cuts to the U.S. military, and the development of federal land energy assets that would have diminished Russia’s main source of income, gas and oil sales.

The President talks tough.  He announced a pivot to Asia, but doesn’t have the naval assets  to make that strategy anything more than just talk.  He announces his support for NATO, but withdrew all American tanks  from the European continent.
What did they do in the favor of cost of viagra pills promotion? Yes they inserted the entertainment on its behalf that worked more even in persuading the pill. viagra has to win the mind of the male consumers; in its entertainment it targeted the male consumers by placing male characters in the cool manner. Get at least 15 minutes of sunshine to levitra low price get vitamin D, if this level is low. Semal Musli boosts male health as well as energy levels to participate in lovemaking viagra sample pills with enhanced enthusiasm to enjoy enhanced pleasure in the climax. It can happen after taking antibiotics, some medications, eating many sugars, or cialis generika drinking soda, using alcohol, etc.
The White House has announced its plans to reduce the already antiquated American nuclear arsenal,  and continues to oppose the full implementation of an American anti-ballistic missile system.  However, it refuses to make an issue of Moscow’s own developed ABM system.  It accepts, without protest, the Kremlin’s ten to one advantage in tactical nuclear arms.

When the USSR began placing theater nuclear missiles in Europe during the latter half of the 20th century, President Reagan countered with the U.S. Pershing missile.  Moscow saw it would gain no advantage, and an agreement by both sides was reached stopping deployment of such weapons. The Obama Administration didn’t follow this example, and now Russia’s ISKANDER missiles, unopposed, threaten Europe.  While Putin has committed over $700 billion to new armaments over its already large budget and China spends vastly more each year, the White House continues to seek defense budget cuts.

It’s not a question of hawks or doves, or even of domestic budget priorities.  It’s reality vs. let’s pretend.