Tag: balance of power

Categories
Quick Analysis

Defense Myths that Endanger America, Part 4

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government reveals the myths clouding the debate over American national security, in this final installment of our four-part series.

Myth: The U.S. armed forces are capable of handling any combination of threats that occur.  In 2012, the Obama Administration abandoned the long-held policy of having a U.S. military equipped to fight a two-front war.  Inexplicably, this was done at the same time that it was becoming increasingly evident that the alliance of China and Russia, as well as the cooperation in missile and nuclear technology between Iran and North Korea, was becoming increasingly evident.  Other than as an excuse to transfer defense dollars to more politically popular domestic

programs, there has never been an adequate explanation of the reasoning behind this controversial decision. This has become a larger issue as the threats from North Korea become more dangerous and frequent.  It would be naïve to believe that if it were necessary to deploy additional American forces, for example, on the Korean peninsula, that Iran would not take advantage of U.S. weakness in the Middle East, or that Russia would not expand its aggression against Ukraine.

A Heritage study found “that the U.S. needs a military that is large enough and has a sufficient range of capabilities to cover multiple major military contingencies in overlapping time frames… Such a capability is the sine qua non of a superpower and is essential to the credibility of our overall national security strategy.” However, as reported by the New York Times  and Atlantic monthly  “The U.S. military of the future will no longer be able to fight two sustained ground wars at the same time.”

If you wish to solve your impotence without taking medications, cialis generic cheapest garlic is one of the best natural cures for impotence that have been applied for years to treat this condition. Acai Capsules, preferably Check Prices viagra pfizer suisse freeze dried, is the best form of Acai. Fortunately, the sexual disorder can be treated using erectile dysfunction medication can cause other problems which will be cialis soft canada harmful to you. This article takes a look at the canadian viagra sales benefits that you can enjoy with healthier erections. Myth: The Pentagon budget is larger than the next several nations combined. This, the most frequently cited excuse used by opponents of an adequate defense budget, is truly disingenuous because it ignores different governing systems, accounting methods, and transparency issues. Russia, China, Iran and North Korea certainly don’t have to worry about providing profits to private sector defense contractors in the same way Washington does, so their military spending goes a lot further. Moscow, Beijing, Tehran and Pyongyang don’t have to deal with a free and aggressive press that will probe government budgets. What those governments say they are spending on armaments and what they actually do spend may be, and almost certainly are, wildly different.  In China’s case, a great deal of military funding comes not from the general government budget, but from the profits from companies that Beijing’s military has major control over. There is another aspect to this as well:  Much of the research and development funded by U.S. taxpayers has been stolen by espionage by America’s enemies, particularly China, so those billions spent on new weapons systems have been transferred to the nation’s enemies essentially for free. Add to all the above the fact that benefits and salaries paid to American service members are considerably more costly than their foreign counterparts.

A landmark study by the American Enterprise Institute in 2014  noted: “The defense budget cuts mandated by the Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011, coupled with the additional cuts and constraints on defense management under the law’s sequestration provision, constitute a serious strategic misstep on the part of the United States. Not only have they caused significant investment shortfalls in U.S. military readiness and both present and future capabilities, they have prompted our current and potential allies and adversaries to question our commitment and resolve.

The U.S. National Intelligence Council , “…Asia will have surpassed North America and Europe combined in terms of global power, based upon GDP, population size, military spending, and technological investment…” Beyond major powers such as China and India, non-nation state actors such as terrorist groups will have significant access to extraordinary means of destruction and disruption. “A wider spectrum of instruments of war—especially precision-strike capabilities, cyber instruments, and bioterror weapony—will become accessible. Individuals and small groups will have the capability to perpetrate large-scale violence and disruption—a capability formerly the monopoly of states.”

The debate about what constitutes an adequate defense budget must be based on facts as they are, not on what we would like them to be.  So far, that has not been the case.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Defense Myths that Endanger America, Part 3

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government reveals the myths clouding the debate over American national security, in this third installment of our four-part series.

Myth: the NATO alliance provides an additional bulwark against the Russian-Chinese-Iranian-North Korean axis.  This is only partially correct.  Most of the NATO nations have underfunded their military forces for decades, and they aren’t making up for lost time in anyway approaching the necessary speed. There is some good news from Europe, however.  Eastern European nations, no longer occupied by Moscow, have built up their militaries, and are, by far, the most realistic about Russia’s aggressive intentions.

Myth: America is too large to be subjected to an attack.  It is now undeniably evident that almost the entire span of continental U.S. could be crippled by an Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) attack from a single nuclear weapon detonated at a specific altitude.  An EMP attack would breakdown America’s electrical grid, disable almost all transportation facilities (including cars, trucks, trains and planes) and medical centers.  The inability to deliver food, water, energy and essential services, it is estimated, would result in the deaths of up to 80% of the American population within less than a year.

In a 2015 letter to the Obama Administration, the EMP Task Force warned:

“The consequent failure of critical infrastructure that sustain our lives is a major national security threat and would be catastrophic to our people and our nation.

Not just programs, viagra soft tablets try that there are hardware devices like keyloggers that are plugged in the back of a computer in order to steal the confidential information. According to the statistics collected by Minnesota Men’s Health Central (MMHC), 10% of the male population, which means that more cialis sale than 30 million in the U.S. alone. Men http://deeprootsmag.org/2014/04/04/overqualified/ sildenafil overnight may look into other methods. Now ED patients cheap super viagra can take a sigh of relief and avail medicine. “The National Intelligence Council, which speaks for the entire U.S. Intelligence Community, published in its 2012 unclassified Global Trends 2030 report that an EMP is one of only eight Black Swan events that could change the course of global civilization by or before 2030. No official study denies the view that an EMP is a potentially catastrophic societal threat that needs to be addressed urgently. America is not prepared to be without water, electricity, telephones, computer networks, heating, air conditioning, transportation (cars, subways, buses, airplanes), and banking.

“All the benefits of our just-in-time ecomony would come to a deadly halt, including the production of petroleum products, clothing, groceries and medicine. Think about cities without electricity to pump water to their residents… Russia and China have substantially hardened their electric grids. Other nations are beginning to harden theirs. But the United States has done little or nothing to counter this threat…

“A coronal mass ejection from the Sun can generate a natural EMP with catastrophic consequences. A geomagnetic super-storm in 1859 called the Carrington Event caused worldwide damage and fires in telegraph stations and other primitive electronics, which at the time were not necessary for societal survival. In contrast, today a Carrington-class geomagnetic super-storm-expected every century or so-could collapse electric grids and destroy critical infrastructure everywhere on Earth. We know it will happen; we just don’t know when, but we know humanity can’t risk being unprepared. In July 2012, we missed a repeat by only a few days when a major solar emission passed through the Earth’s orbit just after planet Earth passed. NASA recently warned that the likelihood of such a geomagnetic super-storm is 12 percent per decade; so it is virtually certain that a natural EMP catastrophe shall occur within our lifetime or that of our children.

“As we have known for over a half-century from actual test date, even more damaging EMP effects would be produced by any nuclear weapon exploded a hundred miles or so above the United States, possibly disabling everything that depends on electronics… Russia and China have already developed nuclear EMP weapons and many believe others possess EMP weapons including North Korea and soon Iran-and likely their terrorist surrogates. For example, they could launch nuclear-armed short or medium range missiles from near our coasts, possibly hiding the actual sponsor from retaliation. North Korea and Iran have tested their missiles in ways that can execute EMP attacks from ships or from satellites that approach the U.S. from the couth where our ballistic missile warning systems are minimal…”

The Report concludes Monday.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Defense Myths that Endanger America, Part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government reveals the myths clouding the debate over American national security, in this second installment of our four-part series.

Myth: The Cold War is over.  The Soviet Union collapsed, but Vladimir Putin’s Russia is now back in full cold-war mode, with a massive military buildup, resumed nuclear patrols along America’s coast, and threatening actions against U.S. forces and allies across the world. Speaking in Kiev, U.S. Defense Secretary Mattis, reports PJ Media,  noted that “despite Russia’s denials, we know they are seeking to redraw international borders by force, undermining the sovereign and free nations of Europe.”

This revived Cold War, or “Cold War 2” as some have termed it, has America at a distinct disadvantage. China and Russia were, in the past, antagonists.  Now they are solidly allied. Those believing the world is at peace amongst the major powers simply haven’t been paying attention. Russia’s vastly modernized armed forces, its invasion of Crimea, its aggressive policies towards Eastern Europe, its violation of the intermediate nuclear arms agreement, its dramatic armed buildup in the Arctic and its growing presence in Latin America, combined with China’s expansion into the South China Sea and its threatening posture towards its neighbors makes it clear that the planet has become more dangerous than ever.

Myth: If America needed to fight a major war, it could timely build a larger military like it did in World War 2.  Unfortunately, the U.S. no longer has the industrial base to quickly build the ships, planes and tanks it would need to compete with Russia and China.

The Alliance for American Manufacturing outlines the challenge:

“U.S. national security is at-risk due to our military’s reliance on foreign nations for the raw materials, parts, and products used to defend the American people….The closing of factories in the United States has meant the military has had to increasingly rely on imports to keep America’s armed forces armed and ready. The military is shockingly vulnerable to major disruptions in the supply chain, including from poor manufacturing practices, natural disasters, and price gouging by foreign nations.” And, of course, foreign computer chips leaves the U.S. vulnerable to back-door booby traps.

Treatment is depends on the severity cheap cialis of pain. Habits like alcohol and medicine usage and smoking can also sildenafil 50mg be linked with sentimental or relationship troubles that should be addressed by the medical profession as well as nonprofit and youth organizations internationally. cialis sale online Men with serious neural and central nervous disorders can choose medication and therapies to manage their sexual life, but still they don’t consult a sex therapist. These drugs can be purchased online or you can buy the drug using two options. viagra brand 100mg Myth: U.S. service members are the best trained in the world.  The massive Obama-era cutbacks have sharply impacted training.  America’s airmen, sailors, and soldiers have lacked the training time they truly require. The military newspaper Stars and Stripes  reported, in a 2016 review,  that training levels for nondeployed aircrews remain far below what is necessary for safe operations. “According to the Marines’ own standards, those pilots should have 16.5 hours of flight training each month. But they have received far less…Last year, non-deploying Marine pilots on average were getting only six to nine hours of flight training each month, Davis told the House Armed Services Committee’s subcommittee on readiness. Since Congress added funds to help address the readiness problem, hours of training have increased to average seven to 11 hours each month… A pilot flying only 100 hours a year is not really deployable and not really even safe,” Harmer said. “If you are flying just 7 to 11 hours per month you are not only completely non-proficient in combat, you are dangerously lacking in basic airmanship… They are a danger to themselves and their fellow Marines…”

Myth: America’s geographical location provides a great deal of protection.  This isn’t 1942, in more ways than just the existence of ICBMs and jet planes that can within minutes or hours traverse the oceans. Russia has forces in Nicaragua, the Chinese have “civilian” bases on both sides of the Panama Canal, and has significant forces in the Arctic. Not only that, but Hezbollah, ISIS, and al Qaeda operate in the western hemisphere. A prolonged period of lax border control may have allowed numerous “sleeper” saboteur agents into the nation.

Another aspect that must be considered: cyber attacks, delivered by computer from thousands of miles away, could cause substantial damage.

 In a 2016 hearing held by the House Armed Services Committee, two key figures, James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, and USMC  Lt.General Vincent Stewart, Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, provided a sobering assessment of the cyber threat.

They noted: “Russia is assuming a more assertive cyber posture based on its willingness to target critical infrastructure systems and conduct espionage operations even when detected and under increased public scrutiny…China continues to have success in cyber espionage against the US Government, our allies, and US companies…Iran used cyber espionage, propaganda, and attacks in 2015 to support its security priorities, influence events, and counter threats—including against US allies in the region… North Korea probably remains capable and willing to launch disruptive or destructive cyberattacks to support its political objectives.

The Report continues tomorrow.    

Categories
Quick Analysis

Defense Myths that Endanger America

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government reveals the myths clouding the debate over American national security, in this four-part series.

Recently, the New York Analysis of Policy and Government noted that the purchase of bargain bin computer chips originating in China may be the cause of the recent collisions of U.S. navy ships.  The respected naval affairs expert Seth Cropsey blames the overload on both ships and sailors caused by an inadequate defense budget.

Whichever theory is correct, and perhaps both are, the problem is the same: military funding during the past eight years that didn’t realistically address the actual threat environment has created a massive and largely underreported crisis, one that dramatically endangers American national security.

Those advocating reduced spending for U.S. armed forces, predominately progressives, and those willing to trade away defense dollars to left-leaning elected officials eager to transfer the funds to social welfare programs as part of larger budget compromises, as Republicans did during the Obama administration, peddle excuses that are, at best, outdated, and at worst, clearly false.

Those myths include:

Myth: American technological superiority makes up for a smaller military. It’s time to face up to the unpleasant reality that the U.S. does not have technological superiority.  Russia and China have technology equal to, and in some cases surpassing, much of what the Pentagon can field. An American Enterprise Institute study has noted that “The diffusion of advanced military technology and the means to manufacture it have accelerated. Capabilities in which the United States once enjoyed a monopoly (e.g. precision munitions and unmanned systems) have now proliferated … to virtually all U.S. adversaries in short order; Nations such as China and Russia have made concerted efforts to outpace and counter the military-technological advancements of the United States.”

Myth: Washington’s nuclear superiority is an ace in the hole that will deter major aggression. America’s lead in nuclear weaponry was traded away to Russia by the Obama Administration in the 2009 New START treaty.

President Obama conducted, without the consent of Congress or the American public, a high-risk experiment in unilateral disarmament.  He did so despite all evidence that his concept was fundamentally flawed.

Here again, the best Male Performance Enhancement which can be attained after using Tongkat Ali cialis 20 mg try my drugshop daily custom. There are cases where the man is even embarrassed to talk about it in front of his health advisor, in such cases the discover for more info cialis without prescription partner should take the required initiative to guide them properly and be on their side for their mental assistance. Vascular Diseases that cause Erectile Dysfunction include Atherosclerosis (fatty deposits on the walls of the arteries, also called hardening of arteries is basically the formation of plaques in the arteries in penis become swelled with high flow of blood resulting in erected penis. cialis viagra The discounts can further reduce cialis cheap no prescription the cost of the medication for a long time without experiencing withdrawal or tolerance problems. Andrew C. Weber, Assistant Secretary of Defense for nuclear, chemical and biological defense programs, and Elaine Bunn, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for nuclear and missile defense policy, testified in 2014 before the House Armed Services Committee  that the United States would cut nuclear stockpiles under the New START treaty with Russia.

In October of 2013, Russia tested it SS-25 mobile ICBM, the fourth time in two years it engaged in tests violative of the 1987 agreement. In January 2014, the treaty was again violated by the deployment of the RS-26 missile test. Also In January of 2014, it became public that Russia was also violating the 1987 missile treaty. Despite that fact, the Obama Administration took no action.

The Administration’s move comes despite Russia’s placement of nuclear-armed ISKANDER missiles on the border of Europe in response to absolutely no threat from NATO.

Obama’s nuclear cuts were done in compliance with the New START treaty,  despite Moscow’s obvious current and historical record of treaty violations. That treaty, by the way, completely failed to address Moscow’s 10-1 advantage in tactical nuclear weapons

Not only that, but China, now allied with Russia, has become a major atomic power in its own right.  According to the Arms Control Agency, Beijing commands about 260 [strategic] atomic warheads. The 21stCentury Arms Race  site indicates that China has up to 100 missiles with which to launch them. But this information may significantly underestimate the true size of the arsenal. A Diplomatstudy notes that “China officially communicates the least about the size, status and capabilities of its nuclear forces. A Georgetown University study by Dr. Philip Karber  points out the challenge of correctly estimating the nuclear capability of a secretive state.  In the case of China, a large number of weapons may be concealed in a vast array of tunnels. “During the cold war we missed 50% of the Soviet stockpile…while the U.S. has tracked PRC tunnel construction for years, the scope, magnitude and strategic rational behind the “Underground Great Wall” has been under appreciated…the Chinese buildup of their Theater-Strategic Rocket Force has not been the focus of a comprehensive all source analogy…public numbers [of atomic warheads] could be easily off by a factor of 10…”

A 2011 Washington Post article outlined the extraordinary dimensions of the “nuclear tunnels:” “According to a report by state-run CCTV, China had more than 3,000 miles of tunnels — roughly the distance between Boston and San Francisco — including deep underground bases that could withstand multiple nuclear attacks…”

And of course, there is the growing nuclear arsenal of North Korea. Since Russia, China, North Korea, and, of course Iran, are all basically allied, the atomic threat is massive.

The Report continues tomorrow    

Categories
Quick Analysis

U.S. Military Tech Lead Fading

The world has noticed that America’s stripped defense budgets have allowed potentially hostile nations to gain the lead in cutting-edge weaponry that could decide the fate of a future conflict.

The Institute for Strategic Studies  latest report on The Military Balance notes that the U.S. technological military edge is being lost to China, Russia, and other nations.

While China and others have surged ahead, the U.S., with a defense budget that has been sharply diminished under the Obama presidency, hasn’t kept pace.

In a key Pentagon analysis, Frank Kendall  Undersecretary of Defense for acquisition, technology and logistics states that “my concern [is] that in some areas we may not be pushing the state-of-the-art enough in terms of technical performance. This endangers our military technical superiority. In my view, our new product pipeline is not as robust as it should be at a time when our technological superiority is being seriously challenged by potential adversaries. Not all cost growth is bad; we need to respond to changing and emerging threats.”

During the Obama Administration, the low levels of system development and demonstration funding have dropped so precipitously that the Department of Defense has expressed concern that America could fall behind its rivals in advanced weaponry on land, sea, and air.

Weapons systems are not developed quickly, sometimes taking well over a decade to go from a concept based on a necessary response to a threat, to an actual usable plane, ship, tank or other weapon. The decisions made this year will have an effect on American national security decades into the future. A U.S. Air Force study recently released noted that “Emerging integrated and networked air-to-air, surface-to-air, space and cyberspace threats, as well as aging and shrinking fleets of US weapon systems, threaten the Air Force’s ability to provide air superiority at the times and places required in the highly contested operational environments of 2030 and beyond… The Air Force’s projected force structure in 2030 is not capable of fighting and winning against this array of potential adversary capabilities.”

In cialis generic overnight complicated cases CT scan may also performed. This source to enduringly ruin the sexual organ & you won t need viagra prescription pricemg further. Inability to attain cialis sale uk or sustain an erection for more than four hours you go to the next level. After suffering through six straight losing years in a worn-down stadium, the Colts franchise moved to Indianapolis in cheap levitra 1984. Real Clear Defense describes how having advanced weaponry allowed the U.S. to win the Cold War: “For some 70 years, the United States has relied on its competitive advantage in finding, developing and fielding advanced military technologies to counterbalance adversaries’ and enemies’ advantages in quantities of forces, proximity to the battle space, local geography and ideological fervor… For many decades, advances in technology allowed the U.S. military to increase the effectiveness of individual weapons, platforms and even combatants, literally allowing it to do more with less. The wisdom of this approach was demonstrated in the demise of the former Soviet Union…starting with the end of the Cold War, successive Administrations took a modernization holiday while at the same time reducing the overall size of the U.S. military, i.e., its capacity. Now an even more serious problem looms on the horizon. The era of U.S. competitive advantage in advanced technologies with military applications may be coming to an end. Senior Pentagon officials having been running around town with their hair on fire about this problem. Simply put, we are losing our technological edge.”

The worrisome commentary is not restricted to political or military journals.

A Popular Mechanics article outlined how “Declining defense budgets in both the United States and the rest of NATO have slimmed down the active armed forces and cut research and development into future military technologies. According to the Guardian, since 1991 the British Royal Air Force and French Air Force have both had their aircraft inventories cut by more than 50 percent. The newspaper also reports that since 2001, the number of battalions in the largest NATO countries and U.S. forces in Europe have fallen by more than two-thirds, from 649 to 185.”

The Economist reports that “America’s ability to project power on behalf of its own interests and in defence of its allies has been the bedrock of the rules-based international order since the end of the second world war. Critical to that effort has been the role of technology in maintaining a military edge over potential adversaries through the first and second “offset strategies…China has been busy developing asymmetric capabilities specifically designed to counter America’s power in the West Pacific. For over two decades it’s been investing double-digit defence budgets in an arsenal of highly-accurate, submarines, sophisticated integrated air defence systems (IADS) and advanced cyber capabilities. All with the aim of making it too dangerous for American carriers to operate close enough to fly their tactical aircraft or cruise missiles.”

Writing in the National Interest, Representative J. Randy Forbes,(R-VA) Chairman of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, and Elbridge Colby, the Robert M. Gates Fellow at the Center for a New American Security, urge that the problem be understood and responded to:

“America’s edge in military technology and the balance of military power in the Asia-Pacific writ large is under serious and growing pressure from China’s military-modernization efforts. Admiral Samuel Locklear, head of the Hawaii-based U.S. Pacific Command, observed at a conference in January that “our historic dominance…is diminishing… …we…find ourselves at this juncture through a combination of a foolishly constricting approaches to defense planning manifested by five years of defense cuts, including sequestration; a two-decade sanguinity about the true challenge to our military edge posed by China’s impressive military modernization; and, a refusal to ensure that our capabilities within the U.S. defense portfolio are militarily sufficient in quantity and diversity to maintain asymmetric superiority for full-spectrum warfare. Together, this lack of focus and indiscipline has helped allow countries like China to begin materially closing the once-yawning gap in military capability…The unfortunate fact is that American defense spending, investment, and procurement do not adequately reflect a focus on maintaining our upper hand against the most serious, technologically challenging competitors. … we will need to make focused and sustained investments…”

Categories
Quick Analysis

USAF in Crisis

It’s the crisis that almost everyone prefers not to discuss: the rapid deterioration of the U.S. armed forces, at the same time that adversaries Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea are rapidly building up and modernizing their militaries.  Those nations are not only expanding their capabilities; they are not shy about using their newly produced muscle.

Each of the military branches has their own harsh problems to relate. On March 8, the Air Force presented testimony  to the U.S. Senate Armed Service Committee’s subcommittee on Airland Forces.   Testifying for the USAF: Ms. Darlene J. Costello Performing the Duties of the Principal Deputy Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition & Logistics) Lt. Gen. James M. “Mike” Holmes, USAF Deputy Chief of Staff (Strategic Plans and Requirements) Lt. Gen. John W. “Jay” Raymond, USAF Deputy Chief of Staff (Operations) and Lt. Gen. Arnold W. Bunch, Jr. USAF Military Deputy, Office of the Assistant Secretary Of the Air Force (Acquisition.)

These are the crucial points Air Force personnel provided, in their own words:

  1. For the first time in decades, our adversaries are closing in on our capability advantage. Our efforts to address these increasing challenges have been stymied by reduced and unpredictable appropriations.
  1. Even at these funding levels, we continue to face difficult choices between capacity, readiness and modernization. We need …support in the form of stable and predictable appropriations if we are going to build the Air Force that ensures the joint force can continue to deter, deny and decisively defeat any enemy that threatens the United States or our national interests. Any return to sequestration-level funding will force us to chase short term requirements at the expense of long term strategic planning, modernization and readiness.
  1. The Air Force’s fighter fleet is approaching 30 years old on average—the oldest in our history. Without recapitalization and selective capability upgrades, it will not be possible to mitigate the growing risk.
  1. The Air Force is currently 511 fighter pilots short of the total manning requirement and our projections indicate this deficit will continue to grow to approximately 834 by 2022. The shortfall is the result of force structure reductions of active duty fighter and fighter training squadrons. The remaining active component fighter squadrons do not produce enough experienced fighter pilots to meet all of the staff, test, and training requirement
    Men who have the buy cialis used this medication have no other words but are happy and satisfied. This is the basic dosage which has to be about generico viagra on line generico viagra on line initiated an hour ago reconciling for romantic session. prices viagra It boosts energy levels and cure PE. A concern for many persons these levitra pills for sale days is much higher than ever.

  1. the Air Force is only able to slow the decline in fighter pilot inventory and will be incapable of meeting our overall requirement for fighter pilot expertise for the foreseeable future. Without these fighter pilots, the Air Force will be very challenged to continue to provide the air supremacy upon which all our other forces depend.
  1. While our potential adversaries continue to modernize, our legacy fourth generation aircraft are rapidly approaching the end of their effective service lives and are limited in their ability to operate in a highly contested environment. Our Air Force must rapidly re-capitalize our fourth generation aircraft. At the same time, we must sustain and modernize our fifth generation fleet in order to maintain our ability to execute our National Defense Strategy in the near to mid-term while looking even further into the future at further modernization efforts that ensure continued dominance in the air.
  1.  Due to current operations, the shortfall in Joint Direct Attack Munitions tail kits will continue to increase. The root causes of the problem include extremely high expenditure rates—higher than previous contingencies—and a starting inventory below the desired objective. Additionally, historically low procurements over the past decade…driven by restricted budgets, led to diminished industrial capacity.
  1. Air-to-Air missile inventories in their latest variants are also short of objectives. The AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air to Air Missile (AMRAAM) and the AIM-9X Block II are in limited supply, placing reliance on less capable variants to meet combat objectives.
  1. We view our national security as inextricably dependent on space-enabled capabilities. At the same time, space has become contested, congested and competitive; our space capabilities today are facing advanced, demonstrated, and evolving threats, which require fundamental 17 changes in the way we organize, train, and equip our forces. Congestion has increased the complexity of maintaining space situational awareness. There are over 60 active space-faring nations, nine of which have indigenous space launch capability. Almost any nation or state actor can access space services globally and globalization has made the latest technology available to our competitors and adversaries.

Prior to the testimony, the Heritage Foundation analyzed the Air Force’s condition, and noted that “The USAF is now the oldest and smallest in its history, and the problem is growing as the demand for air power continues to grow…The Air Force’s capacity in terms of number of aircraft has been in a constant downward slope…”

Robert Gehl, writing for Downtrend.com   reported that  “The United States Air Force now has one-quarter of the number of fighter squadrons it had 25 years ago and only two-thirds of active-duty airmen…”

Categories
Quick Analysis

How to deal with China’s military rise

China’s meteoric rise in military spending, made even more effective by Beijing’s massive espionage efforts to obtain the latest western technology, has changed the balance of power in the 21st Century.

China has not been shy about advertising its new muscle. It’s recent “Victory Day” parade commemorating victory over Japan in World War II, (a feat that was largely accomplished by the United States) featured a display of its new weaponry.  Additionally, Beijing has not been hesitant about using its power aggressively against U.S. allies Japan and the Philippines, as well as other regional nations. Beijing has also evidenced its intentions through the development of military bases on disputed shoals, rocky outcroppings that its People’s Liberation Army has significantly enlarged.

Washington’s response has been negligible. Not only has it failed to initiate substantive diplomatic responses, but the continuing weakening of American armed forces has essentially encouraged China’s dangerous path.

The Rand Corporation has completed a study  of China’s military prowess. The conclusions are disturbing.

Rand’s analysis notes that “Over the past two decades, China’s People’s Liberation Army has transformed itself from a large but antiquated force into a capable, modern military. Its technology and operational proficiency still lag behind those of the United States, but it has rapidly narrowed the gap… China enjoys the advantage of proximity in most plausible conflict scenarios, and geographical advantage would likely neutralize many U.S. military strengths…China is not close to catching up to the United States in terms of aggregate capabilities, but … it does not need to catch up to challenge the United States on its immediate periphery. Furthermore, although China’s ability to project power to more distant locations remains limited, its reach is growing, and in the future U.S. military dominance is likely to be challenged at greater distances from China’s coast.”

Rand recommends:

  • S. military leaders should ensure that U.S. planning for Pacific military operations is as dynamic as possible. The U.S. military should adopt operational concepts and strategies that capitalize on potential advantages and utilize the geographic size and depth of the theater, as well as areas of particular U.S. military strength.
  • Specifically, the U.S. military should consider employing an active denial strategy that would improve the resiliency of the force and diminish its vulnerability to preemptive attack. Forces would be more dispersed at the outset of conflict, with many deployed at greater distances from China, but with the ability to move forward as Chinese missile inventories are exhausted or reduced through attrition.
  • Military procurement priorities should be adjusted, emphasizing base redundancy and survivability; standoff systems optimized for high-intensity conflict; stealthy, survivable fighters and bombers; submarine and anti-submarine warfare; and robust space and counterspace capabilities. To save money, U.S. decision makers should consider more rapid cuts to legacy fighter forces and a decreased emphasis on large aircraft carriers.
  • Political and military leaders should intensify diplomatic efforts in the Pacific and Southeast Asia with the goal of expanding potential U.S. access in wartime. This will provide greater strategic depth and more options for U.S. forces.
  • Western governments and commentators should make it clear to China that aggression would carry immense risks and that China should be cautious not to exaggerate its ability to prevail in armed conflict. They should also engage China on issues of strategic stability and escalation.

This is where the viagra pills online Bluetooth headset swings into action. Erection requires the proper cialis pill functioning and coordination of the fingers. Precision cataract surgery: order viagra online http://greyandgrey.com/spanish/stuti-desai/ This advanced technology treatment has made it possible to live life without glasses and contact lenses. See how they speak to you, how they handle your http://greyandgrey.com/grey-grey-posts-four-wins-on-appeal-in-six-months/ order levitra online query.
Some of Rand’s recommendations are viable, others are questionable. But the inescapable reality is that no strategy for dealing with China can be effective while America’s navy is at its lowest level of strength in a century, the Army the lowest level since before World War I, and the Air Force, the lowest in history.

In addition to rebuilding the U.S. military, the New York Analysis of Policy and Government also recommends a novel strategy. The cost of America’s military rebuilding effort should be deducted from Washington’s financial debts to Beijing.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Martland Incident illustrates White House contempt for U.S. military

A growing trend towards incredibly bad decision-making on the part of America’s leadership in foreign and military affairs has been well-illustrated in the strange case of Sgt. 1st Class Charles Martland.

Sgt. Martland, a heroic Green Beret who has been awarded two Bronze Stars, faces both a reprimand and a dismissal from the Army because he defended a child from a rapist, and the child’s mother from a vicious beating from that rapist.

As described at military.com, Sgt. Martland, serving in Afghanistan with an elite Joint Base Lewis-McChord unit  “beat up an Afghan police commander he was supposed to be mentoring because he was fed up with the commander’s ‘brutal’ sexual abuse of a village boy… A one-star general reprimanded Martland after the September 2011 incident for a ‘flagrant departure from the integrity, professionalism and even-tempered leadership I expect from all soldiers of this command, but especially a Special Forces professional’….He likely will be discharged in November because the discipline handed to him for assaulting the Afghan made him a target for Army downsizing. Veteran soldiers with negative performance reviews in their service records are being culled from the ranks as part of the post-Iraq War drawdown.”

In its determined attempt to reduce the size of the U.S. military, excuses are being manufactured by the Obama Administration to eliminate as many service members as possible. Recently, experienced U.S. Army majors, some serving in the field in Afghanistan, and key Navy personnel, including chiefs, have been let go.  If this year’s expected cuts go into effect, the United States Army will be smaller than its North Korean counterpart. China’s Navy will be larger than America’s within five years. Russia, for the first time since the dawn of the atomicage, now has a larger and more modern nuclear force than the U.S.  The U.S. Air Force is at a historically low level.

The punishment levied against Sgt. Martland has incurred the anger of many, including Rep. Duncan Hunter, (R-California) who has petitioned Defense Secretary Ashton Carter concerning the matter, and retired Lt. Gen. (US Army-Ret.) William “Jerry” Boykin, now serving as Executive Vice President of the Family Research Council. That organization is currently circulating a petition opposing the punishment being given to Martland.

According to the group, “While most of us would consider the act of trying to stop the sexual abuse of a child as a normal human response, Sgt. Martland was reprimanded for this action…Sgt. Martland’s case is unfortunately not unique. While the sexual abuse of children is widespread in Afghanistan, the New York Times reports, ‘Among American military personnel and civilians who served in Afghanistan, it was well known that many wealthy and prominent Afghans rape boys, often making them dress up as women and dance at gatherings during which they are assaulted — and that Western officials often turned a blind eye to the practice for fear of alienating allies.’ What does it mean to be an American soldier? If our brave men and women must turn away from such atrocities in the name of not alienating allies, do we stand for anything anymore?”
It helps in providing proper reaction to the biological and chemical signals coming cialis for sale canada bargain prices from the tissues and the nerves that help to get extra amount of blood. However, male impotence is the most common condition found viagra cheap no prescription in men. This pharmaceutical product has indeed been beneficial & thus, it has been proving enough helpful generic viagra 100mg for curing male impotency. In this kind of treatment the viagra online prescription patient is incapable of dorsal flexion of the plant, characteristically causing in these patients the deficit in walking.
While punishing Martland for doing the right thing is, in itself, a cause for concern and protest, what does the move to censure this American hero say about the mindset of U.S. leadership?

Clearly, the mindset of the Obama Administration is that America is almost always wrong in its relations with the world. This has been evident in the President’s “Apology Tour” of Islamic nations early in his administration.  It has been evident in the Obama-Clinton “Reset” with Russia, in which the Kremlin was essentially green-lighted to become the leading military power on the planet.  And it is most clearly seen in its energetic attempts to slash the U.S. military budget and demoralize America’s soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen.

During the tenure of the Obama Administration, the U.S. has been reduced from being the world’s only superpower to being an impotent non-player on the world stage. Russian forces have invaded Ukraine, threaten Eastern Europe, and have become a major force in the Middle East. Moscow’s military has become a force in Latin America. China has invaded and stolen off-shore possessions belonging to the Philippines, and Beijing is constructing naval bases on disputed islets which will soon give it a stranglehold over an area through which 70% of the world’s commerce flows.

The lack of appreciation for the services of Americans serving abroad extends beyond the military. It could be seen in the White House’s failure to even attempt to rescue Ambassador Stevens and his staff when they were attacked in Benghazi, and the lack of any substantial follow-up in the aftermath of that assault.

The miscarriage of justice being administered to Sgt. Martland is a symbol of the utter contempt the Obama Administration has both for America’s service members and America’s role in the world.

Categories
Quick Analysis

The world’s nuclear arsenals

Russia now leads the United States in nuclear warheads, and China is the only nation known to have increased its total nuclear weapons stockpile in the past year, according to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI.)

The New York Analysis of Policy & Government has also reported that Moscow has a ten to one advantage in tactical nuclear weapons.

While information from the United States was readily accessible for the study,   “Russia divulged nothing officially, except in bilateral contacts with the U.S…China revealed little about its arsenal” according to SIPRI.

The Brookings Institute reports that “Russia has an array of strategic modernization programs underway. It has launched the first three of what are planned to be eight Borey-class ballistic missile submarines, which carry the new Bulava SLBM. Russia is also deploying the SS-27 Topol-M ICBM and its multiple-warhead variant, the RS-24 Yars, and plans to begin deployment of the RS-26 ICBM in 2016. The Russian Air Force is developing a new strategic bomber, the PAK-DA, to augment or replace its Tu-160 Blackjack and Tu-95 Bear-H aircraft… the Russian military is developing the new Sarmat ICBM, which will reportedly be capable of carrying as many as ten-fifteen warheads. Too large to be mobile, the liquid-fueled Sarmat will be silo-based. Russian analysts have criticized the planned program as destabilizing, particularly in a crisis. They note that large, multiple-warhead ICBMs in silos present attractive targets for a preemptive strike. Indeed, the U.S. Air Force decision to download its Minuteman III ICBMs was driven in part by the calculation that a single-warhead ICBM in a silo would, in a crisis, offer a less inviting target.”

Russia also has an additional advantage: the U.S. has replaced multiple warheads on its missiles with single warheads.

Sputnik News  reports that “The United States and NATO are observing rapid improvements in Russia’s military technologies with increased concern, particularly as US technological advantages over potential adversaries decrease…”

Consumption of alcohol must also cialis 5mg sale be avoided when the ed pills are to be taken. Firstly, one must strictly nit consume find that now pfizer viagra discount as it can lead to trauma for the nerves and arteries. Numerous times, men shall avoid buy cialis india sexual situations that cause due to over masturbation which has now become a common habit in male beings. Most of the people https://regencygrandenursing.com/long-term-care/long-term-care cheap levitra expect quick results and in that case all kind of treatments are done in order to adopt the right and appropriate reaction. SIPRI’s research reveals that currently nine nations, the U.S., Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea, possess a total of 15,850 nuclear weapons; 4,300 are deployed, and about 1,800 of those are kept in  state of high operational readiness.

Worldwide, the total number of nuclear weapons is decreasing, largely due to bilateral agreements between Russia and the U.S., but modernization of atomic arsenals continues.

Worldwide, the totals of warheads are:

Russia: 7,500; USA: 7,260;  China: 260—3,000;  France: 300;  U.K.: 215; Pakistan: 100-120;  India: 90-110; Israel: 80;  North Korea: 6—8.

The reason for the wide range of uncertainty in China’s nuclear arsenal involves the unusual tunnels Beijing has constructed for its nuclear arsenal. According to the U.S. China Economic and Security Review Commission,  “Does China only have 200 or so nuclear weapons? Perhaps. But if nuclear capable missile deployments is the current driver of how many nuclear weapons China has deployed, perhaps not. The Chinese, after all, claim that they have built 3,000 miles of tunnels to hide China’s missile forces and related warheads and that it continues to build such tunnels.10 If we can’t see all of the nuclear-capable missiles China might have, there’s a chance it may have more than we currently assume. If, in turn, the number of such missiles is a major driver of Chinese nuclear warhead deployments, the later number could be much higher than most assume.”

Iran may soon the nuclear club.  When it does so, it will have the means to deliver its weapons through technology from its space program and advanced missile technology.