Tag: defense budget

Categories
Quick Analysis

America’s Sinking Navy: The Russian Threat

The New York Analysis of Policy & Government concludes its review of key naval developments. 

U.S. Navy Adm. Mark Ferguson, who commands NATO’s Allied Joint Force Command in Naples, Italy, and U.S. Navy forces in Europe and Africa,  reports that “From the North Atlantic to the Black Sea, Russia is fielding an increasingly capable navy…unveiling a new maritime strategy and demonstrating new equipment and capabilities at sea. The strategy is clearly aimed at deterring NATO maritime forces, he said, and is not defensive. The proficiency and operational tempo of the Russian submarine force is increasing…”

The Office of Naval Intelligence  notes that Moscow’s navy “is capable of delivering nuclear and conventional strikes against an enemy’s land facilities, destroying enemy naval formations at sea and in base, interdicting enemy maritime and oceanic sea lines of communication while protecting its own shipping, cooperating with ground forces in continental theaters of military operations, making amphibious landings, repelling enemy landings, and fulfilling other missions.”

Research from Ponars Eurasia  explains that “Russia’s takeover of Crimea in 2014 and subsequent reinforcement of the region’s military forces have been combined with a general increase in naval activity—including aggressive activity vis-à-vis NATO countries’ maritime interests beyond the Black Sea…”

The Federation of American Scientists notes that “The new technologically advanced Russian Navy… will also provide a flexible platform for Russia to demonstrate offensive capability, threaten neighbors, project power regionally, and advance President Putin’s stated goal of returning Russia to clear great power status…As Russia asserts itself on the world stage, it is giving priority of effort and funding to recapitalizing its navy. The Commander in Chief of the Russian Navy, Admiral Viktor Chirkov, has asserted that “The Russian Navy is being equipped with the newest; including precision long-range strike weapons, and has big nuclear power. Naval forces today are capable of operating for a long time and with high combat readiness in operationally important areas of the global ocean”

Sputnik News reports that “The Russian Navy received a total of four combat surface ships, four submarines and 52 auxiliary ships in 2015,” according to Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov.
Also, natural products tend greyandgrey.com commander viagra to take time to show its effectiveness. Passion Flower aids in reducing stress and panic which is also one of the reasons of loss of erection increases with the age; however it levitra de prescription is necessarily a consequence of aging. The males fall prey of such hardships due to a number of aspects that include excess consumption of alcohol, too women viagra online much of tobacco smoking, atherosclerosis, diabetes, etc. These medicines work by acting discount levitra rx on the IL-6/IL-6R system.
While Europe remains the main focus of the Russian military, the Russian Navy has been intent on dominating the Arctic and significantly increasing its power in the Pacific, where it has held joint war training games with China.

Moscow has established a number of new bases in the Arctic. Stratfor  reports that “…the militarization of the Arctic — and by extension, the construction of new bases or the repurposing of old Soviet facilities — will remain one of the Russian military’s top priorities in the coming years.”

A Japan Times/Reuters article notes that “Interviews with officials and military analysts and reviews of government documents show Russia’s buildup is the biggest since the 1991 Soviet fall and will, in some areas, give Moscow more military capabilities than the Soviet Union once had…The expansion has far-reaching financial and geopolitical ramifications… It is building three nuclear icebreakers, including the world’s largest, to bolster its fleet of around 40 breakers, six of which are nuclear. No other country has a nuclear breaker fleet, used to clear channels for military and civilian ships. U.S. Defense Secretary Mattis, in a separate written submission, described Moscow’s Arctic moves as ‘aggressive steps.’… “The modernization of Arctic forces and of Arctic military infrastructure is taking place at an unprecedented pace not seen even in Soviet times,’ Mikhail Barabanov, editor-in-chief of Moscow Defense Brief, told Reuters. He said two special Arctic brigades had been set up, something the USSR never had, and that there were plans to form a third as well as special Arctic coastal defense divisions.

Russia’s extraordinary naval buildup far from Europe is not confined to the colder climes. Moscow’s military presence in the Pacific is being bolstered by new ships, submarines, and strengthened bases.

U.S. Pacific Commander Admiral Harris warned the Senate Armed Services Committee that “Ships and submarines of the Russian Pacific Fleet and long range aircraft routinely demonstrate Russia’s message that it is a Pacific power. 6 Russian ballistic missile and attack submarines remain especially active in the region. The arrival in late 2015 of Russia’s newest class of nuclear ballistic missile submarine (DOLGORUKIY SSBN) in the Far East is part of a modernization program for the Russian Pacific Fleet and signals the seriousness with which Moscow views this region.

Categories
Quick Analysis

America’s Sinking Navy: The Chinese Threat

Part 2 of The New York Analysis of Policy and Government’s three-part series on the growing danger from a weakened American Navy, at a time when Russia and China have dramatically strengthened their fleets. 

GROWING THREATS

The perilous and diminished condition of the U.S. Navy must be contrasted with the rapidly growing strength of its Russian and Chinese adversaries.

CHINA

Andrew Erickson, writing for the National Interest, notes that “ China has parlayed the world’s second-largest economy and second-largest defense budget into the world’s largest ongoing comprehensive naval buildup, which has already yielded the world’s second-largest navy China may assemble a combat fleet that in overall order of battle (hardware only) is quantitatively, and perhaps even qualitatively, in the same league as the USN. In my personal opinion, even the perception that China was on track to achieve such parity would have grave consequences for America’s standing and influence across the Asia-Pacific and around the world.

The ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS “Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2016” notes that “Over the past 15 years, China’s ambitious naval modernization program has produced a more technologically advanced and flexible force. The PLAN now possesses the largest number of vessels in Asia, with more than 300 surface ships, submarines, amphibious ships, and patrol craft. China is rapidly retiring legacy combatants in favor of larger, multi-mission ships equipped with advanced anti-ship, antiair, and anti-submarine weapons and sensors. China continues its gradual shift from “near sea” defense to “far seas” protection.”…China is expanding its access to foreign ports to pre-position the necessary logistics support to regularize and sustain deployments in the “far seas,” waters as distant as the Indian Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, and Atlantic Ocean. In late November, China publicly confirmed its intention to build military supporting facilities in Djibouti…This Chinese initiative both reflects and amplifies China’s growing geopolitical clout, extending the reach of its influence and armed forces…

Admiral Harris, the U.S. Navy Pacific Commander, has told the U.S. Senate that China’s Navy is increasing its routine operations in the Indian Ocean, expanding the area and duration of operations and exercises in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, and is beginning to act as a global navy – venturing into other areas, including Europe, North America, South America, Africa, and the Middle East.

The Congressional Research Service has released its analysis of the challenge. The New York Analysis of Policy and Government provides this summary:

China is building a modern and regionally powerful navy with a limited but growing capability for conducting operations beyond China’s near-seas region. Observers of Chinese and U.S. military forces view China’s improving naval capabilities as posing a potential challenge in the Western Pacific to the U.S. Navy’s ability to achieve and maintain control of blue-water ocean areas in wartime—the first such challenge the U.S. Navy has faced since the end of the Cold War. More broadly, these observers view China’s naval capabilities as a key element of an emerging broader Chinese military challenge to the long-standing status of the United States as the leading military power in the Western Pacific. The question of how the United States should respond to China’s military modernization effort, including its naval modernization effort, is a key issue in U.S. defense planning.

China’s naval modernization effort encompasses a broad array of platform and weapon acquisition programs, including anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs), anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs), submarines, surface ships, aircraft, and supporting C4ISR (command and control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance) systems. China’s naval modernization effort also includes improvements in maintenance and logistics, doctrine, personnel quality, education and training, and exercises…

Potential oversight issues for Congress include the following:

  • whether the U.S. Navy in coming years will be large enough and capable enough to adequately counter improved Chinese maritime A2/AD forces while also adequately performing other missions around the world;
  • whether the Navy’s plans for developing and procuring long-range carrier-based aircraft and long-range ship-and aircraft-launched weapons are appropriate;
  • whether the Navy can effectively counter Chinese ASBMs and submarines; and
  • whether the Navy, in response to China’s maritime A2/AD capabilities, should shift over time to a more distributed fleet architecture.

It has been prescribed to use one pill overnight cialis delivery in a day found to be sufficient; it must be taken regularly. Herbal pills like No Fall capsules boost secretion you could try these out tadalafil tablets india of testosterone and improves desire for lovemaking. Don’t get insecure- Many sildenafil 100mg tablets relationships have been spoiled completely. But, if they feel that other factors are contributing towards their problem, they can depend on herbal treatment for erectile dysfunction problem, it is no less important to know that this product must not be used by the body to provide the energy which enables us to perform all of our regular bodily functions. http://valsonindia.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Related-Party-Transactions-Policy.pdf cheapest tadalafil india

The Report concludes tomorrow

Categories
Quick Analysis

America’s Sinking Navy

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government begins a three-part series on the growing danger from a weakened American Navy, at a time when Russia and China have dramatically strengthened their fleets. 

The severe effects of eight years of disinvestment are taking hold on the United States Navy, at the same time that massive investment by Russia and China have dramatically increased the threat at sea. America has not been this imperiled on the oceans since the middle of World War 2.

An unclassified study by the Mitre organization found that the “Navy’s budget is insufficient to fund required force levels. The Navy’s budget is insufficient to develop, procure, operate, and sustain all the forces need to meet the revised defeat / hold scenario force structure. In addition, budget instability forces the Navy to make acquisition decisions that undermine affordability initiatives…for the last four years, the Navy has been operating under reduced top-lines and significant shortfalls. There will likely continue to be increasing pressure on the procurement accounts, which in turn threatens the near-term health of the defense industrial base.”

Testifying before the House Armed Services Committee, Adm. William F. Moran painted a dismal picture of a Navy that has been strained to the limit. Moran told committee members the ongoing demand for U.S. Naval forces far exceeds its long-term supply. And, he added, the Navy is the smallest it’s been in 99 years, making it urgent to “adequately fund, fix and maintain the fleet we do have.”The U.S. Navy has never been busier in a world of global threats, Admiral Moran said. While the Navy is getting the job done the unrelenting pace, inadequate resources and small size are taking their toll.

“For years, we’ve all learned to live with less and less, we have certainly learned to execute our budget inefficiently with nine consecutive continuing resolutions,” Moran said. But this has forced the Navy to repeatedly take money from cash accounts that are the lifeblood of building long-term readiness in its ranks, he added.

Mainly its used best cheap viagra by men as it has been sanctioned to beat the issue of male impotence. Ordered drugs are delivered at the consumers footstep best prices on sildenafil without any extra charge. Often, many children on the spectrum struggle online pharmacy viagra with sensory dysfunction and other unique challenges. Fortunately different rx tadalafil medical remedies are there to cure this problem. Moran’s testimony  painted a dismal picture of a Navy that has been strained to the limit, noting that “As our Sailors and Navy civilians… prepare to ensure our next ships and aircraft squadrons deploy with all that they need, the strain is significant and growing…our shipyards and aviation depots are struggling to get our ships and airplanes through maintenance periods on time. In turn, these delays directly impact the time Sailors have to train and hone their skills prior to deployment. These challenges are further exacerbated by low stocks of critical parts and fleet-wide shortfalls in ordnance, and an aging shore infrastructure…It has become clear to me that the Navy’s overall readiness has reached its lowest level in many years…

“Our readiness challenges go deeper than ship and aircraft maintenance, directly affecting our ability to care for the Navy Team. Our people are what make the U.S. Navy the best in the world, but our actions do not reflect that reality. To meet the constraints of the Balanced Budget Act, the Navy’s FY 2017 budget request was forced to reduce funding for Permanent Change of Station (PCS) moves. These reductions have been compounded by the Continuing Resolution, which imposed even further reductions on that account. Without sufficient PCS funding, the Navy will be unable to move Sailors to replace ship and squadron crewmembers leaving service, increasing the strain on those who remain. This is an area in which timing also matters greatly. Even if the money comes eventually, if it is too late, necessary moves will be delayed until the beginning of the new fiscal year. That means our Sailors with children will be forced to relocate their children in the middle of a school year. And because we don’t know if and when additional PCS funding may come, we cannot give our Sailors and their families much time to prepare, often leaving them with weeks, rather than months, to prepare for and conduct a move, often from one coast, or even one country, to another. Meanwhile, our shore infrastructure has become severely degraded and is getting worse because it has been a repeated bill payer for other readiness accounts in an effort to maintain afloat readiness. Consequently, we continue to carry a substantial backlog of facilities maintenance and replacement, approaching $8 billion.

“Time is running out. Years of sustained deployments and constrained and uncertain funding have resulted in a readiness debt that will take years to pay down. If the slow pace of readiness recovery continues, unnecessary equipment damage, poorly trained operators at sea, and a force improperly trained and equipped to sustain itself will result. Absent sufficient funding for readiness, modernization and force structure, the Navy cannot return to full health, where it can continue to meet its mission on a sustainable basis.”

A Defense News analysis put the crisis in stark terms: “…nearly two-thirds of the fleet’s strike fighters can’t fly — grounded because they’re either undergoing maintenance or simply waiting for parts or their turn in line on the aviation depot backlog…more than half the Navy’s aircraft are grounded, most because there isn’t enough money to fix them…there isn’t enough money to fix the fleet’s ships, and the backlog of ships needing work continues to grow…some submarines are out of service for prolonged periods.”

The Report continues Monday

Categories
NY Analysis

America’s Defense Crisis

Following eight years of reduced budgetary support for the U.S. military, at a time when threats have increased dramatically from Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and terrorists, the ability of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines to defend the nation has reached a near-crisis level.

The warning signs have been apparent for some time. In 2015, General Martin Dempsey, who was serving as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the U.S. military, noted that funding for the armed forces was at the “lower ragged edge” of what was necessary to keep the nation safe. The latest assessments of American strength confirm that the ability of the nation to protect itself is only marginal. Even more troubling, according to another report, is that the infrastructure necessary to rebuild the military to a more acceptable level is itself below par.

The Defense Budget

At the start of 2016r, Senator John McCain   displayed consternation at the inadequate budget proposed by President Obama.  “…the Senate Armed Services Committee received testimony from the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper who said that he cannot recall a more diverse array of challenges and crises in his more than fifty years of service to the nation…at a time when U.S. military deployments are increasing to confront growing global threats, the President’s budget request is actually less, in real dollars, than what Congress enacted last year…rather than request an increase in defense spending that reflects what our military really needs, the President’s request [will cut] important defense needs – cutting 15,000 current Army soldiers and 4,000 sailors, reducing major modernization programs, and proposing a pay increase for service members much lower than what is needed to compete with private sector wages.”

Contrary to popular misconception, the U.S. defense budget, notes the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, is a relatively small percentage of the federal budget, and a minor part of America’s GDP. “…the FY 2017 Department of Defense budget [prepared as instructed by the Obama White House] … would be 3 percent of GDP, and 14.2 percent of overall federal spending. Overall, the share of defense spending as a percentage of GDP has declined steadily since the end of the Korean War. What makes the Obama drawdown of the Pentagon unique is that, unlike the aftermath of prior wars or the Cold War, the potential threat to the U.S. is rising, not diminishing.”

“Woefully Inadequate”

The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) describes the state of U.S. defenses as “a force-planning construct that is woefully inadequate for the global and everyday demands of wartime and peacetime… Gone is any plan that foresees conflict taking longer than one year in duration or any contingency with a whiff of stability operations, long-term counterinsurgency or counter-insurrection, or nation building of the type seen in Iraq and Afghanistan… After six years of budget cuts and operational shifts, hard choices have in many cases turned into stupid or bad ones. Fewer resources and the lack of bipartisan consensus in favor of a strong defense have forced commanders and planners across services to accept previously unthinkable risks as they pick and choose which portions of the national defense strategy to implement… Unmentioned is that the risk to the force grows each passing year. It is now at crisis levels and promises unnecessarily longer wars, higher numbers of wounded or killed in action, and outright potential for mission failure.”

Defense One  notes that it’s not just manpower and hardware that’s the problem. America is losing its lead in technology as well.  “The Pentagon is worried that rivals are developing their capabilities faster than the U.S. is rolling out new ones. The edge is shrinking.”

The Heritage Foundation’s report on U.S. military strength presents a worrisome picture of an understrength military. “The common theme across the services and the U.S. nuclear enterprise is one of force degradation resulting from many years of underinvestment, poor execution of modernization programs, and the negative effects of budget sequestration (cuts in funding) on readiness and capacity. While the military has been heavily engaged in operations, primarily in the Middle East but elsewhere as well, since September 11, 2001, experience is both ephemeral and context-sensitive. Valuable combat experience is lost over time as the service members who individually gained experience leave the force, and it maintains direct relevance only for future operations of a similar type (e.g., counterinsurgency operations in Iraq are fundamentally different from major conventional operations against a state like Iran or China). Thus, although the current Joint Force is experienced in some types of operations, it is still aged and shrinking in its capacity for operations.”

The Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute analyses of each branch of the military reveals the following deficiencies:

Army: The U.S. Army should have 50 brigade combat teams (BCTs); Currently, it has only 32.   The force is rated as weak in capacity, readiness, and marginal in capability.“The Army has continued to trade end strength and modernization for improved readiness for current operations. However, accepting risks in these areas has enabled the Army to keep only one-third of its force at acceptable levels of readiness, and even for units deployed abroad, the Army has had to increase its reliance on contracted support to meet maintenance requirements. Budget cuts have affected combat units disproportionately: A 16 percent reduction in total end strength has led to a 32 percent reduction in the number of brigade combat teams and similar reductions in the number of combat aviation brigades. In summary, the Army is smaller, older, and weaker, a condition that is unlikely to change in the near future.”

What would this mean in the event of a major conflict? According to AEI “…a recent RAND war game found that U.S. European Command could not prevent Russian occupation of Baltic capitals within three days, leaving follow-on forces to fight through the Russian Kaliningrad exclave, which bristles with weapons and troops.”

Navy: The U.S. Navy should have 346 surface combatants; currently, it has only 273, and only one-third of those are considered mission-capable.  The force is rated as weak in capability, and marginal in capacity and readiness. “While the Navy is maintaining a moderate global presence, it has little ability to surge to meet wartime demands. Deferred maintenance has kept ships at sea but is also beginning to affect the Navy’s ability to deploy. With scores of ‘weak’ in capability (due largely to old platforms and troubled modernization programs) and ‘marginal’ in capacity, the Navy is currently just able to meet operational requirements. Continuing budget shortfalls in its shipbuilding account will hinder the Navy’s ability to improve its situation, both materially and quantitatively, for the next several years.

It’s an ongoing debate, most people are scared to admit that they might be suffering from this medical condition, then you will experience swelling, pain or burning during cialis generika 5mg urination Persistent need to urinate at night Blood in urine diminished pigmentation of the skin failure of bone mineral concreteness Fluid preservation Bleeding gums Rectal bleeding eminent triglyceride levels Seizures Decreased night apparition harsh skin retorts Citizens sensitive to isotretinoin can. If you want the on-site support, you need to call generico cialis on line the qualified technician and schedule a visit. These natural ingredients they contained work as free cialis sample http://deeprootsmag.org/2018/04/15/knockout-punch/ a diuretic which helps increase urination. Cheap Sildamax provides buy vardenafil levitra http://deeprootsmag.org/2013/05/14/sun-unleashes-spectacular-solar-eruption/ the good treatment of erectile dysfunction in men. According to AEI combatant commanders have only 62 percent of the attack submarines they need. It also is short of fighter planes. One example: Defense One  reports “The U.S. Navy says it needs about 30 new Super Hornets, but it has only funded two in the Pentagon’s 2017 war budget. It has listed 14 planes as “unfunded priorities” and money would be needed for an additional 14 planes in 2018.”

Air Force: The U.S. Air Force requires 1,200 fighter/ground-attack aircraft, but has only 1,113, many of which are overaged. The force is rated as marginal in capability and readiness, but strong in capacity. “the USAF’s accumulating shortage of pilots (700) and maintenance personnel (4,000) has begun to affect its ability to generate combat power. The Air Force … lack of ability to fly and maintain its tactical aircraft, especially in a high-tempo/threat combat environment, means that its usable inventory of such aircraft is actually much smaller. This reduced ability is a result of funding deficiencies that also result in a lack of spare parts, fewer flying hours, and compromised modernization programs.”

According to AEI, budget contractions have resulted in the current Air Force’s dubious honor of being the smallest and oldest in its history…as F-15/F-16 retirements outpace F-35 production. Another recent RAND war game showed it would require more fighter air wings than the Air Force currently fields in total to defeat a surge of Chinese aircraft over Taiwan.

Marine Corps: The USMC needs 36 battalions; it has only 24. It’s rated as weak in capacity marginal in capability and readiness. “The Corps continues to deal with readiness challenges driven by the combined effects of high operational tempo and low levels of funding. At times during 2016, less than one-third of its F/A-18s, a little more than a quarter of its heavy-lift helicopters, and only 43 percent of its overall aviation fleet were available for operational employment. Pilots not already in a deployed status were getting less than half of needed flight hours. The Corps’ modernization programs are generally in good shape, but it will take several years for the new equipment to be produced and fielded…the Corps has only two-thirds of the combat units that it actually needs, especially when accounting for expanded requirements that include cyber units and more crisis-response forces.”

The Nuclear Deterrent: [As the New York Analysis of Policy and Government has previously noted, Russia, for the first time in history, leads the world in nuclear weaponry.] The American nuclear arsenal is rated as weak in warhead modernization, delivery system modernization, and nuclear weapons complex, and marginal in readiness  and lab talent  It is only ranked strong in warhead surety and delivery reliability.  “Modernization, testing, and investment in intellectual and talent underpinnings continue to be the chief problems facing America’s nuclear enterprise. Delivery platforms are good, but the force depends on a very limited set of weapons (in number of designs) and models that are quite old, in stark contrast to the aggressive programs of competitor states. Of growing concern is the “marginal” score for ‘Allied Assurance’ at a time when Russia has rattled its nuclear saber in a number of recent provocative exercises; China has been more aggressive in militarily pressing its claims to the South and East China Seas; North Korea is heavily investing in a submarine-launched ballistic missile capability; and Iran has achieved a nuclear deal with the West that effectively preserves its nuclear capabilities development program for the foreseeable future.”

Russia has a larger nuclear capability than the U.S. China has more submarines and will soon have a larger navy. Both nations pose key threats to the U.S. Air Force, Notes the American Enterprise Institute. (AEI).  “…the [U.S.] Air Force has weakened relative to its adversaries. As China and Russia produce and export advanced air defense and counter-stealth systems alongside fifth-generation stealth fighters, the [U.S.] Air Force treads water, buying small numbers of F-35s while spending ever-larger sums on keeping F-15s and F-16s operational – though those aircraft cannot survive on the first-day front lines of modern air combat…Simply put, the armed forces are not large enough, modern enough and ready enough to meet today’s or tomorrow’s mission requirements. This is the outcome not only of fewer dollars, but of the reduced purchasing power of those investments, rising unbudgeted costs for politically difficult reforms continuously deferred, and a now-absent bipartisan consensus on U.S. national security that existed for generations.

In prior times of military crisis, the once-mighty U.S. industrial infrastructure was capable of rapidly turning out new ships, tanks, and aircraft. According to the Alliance for American Manufacturing, (AAM) that may no longer be the case. “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…With the closing of factories across the United States and the mass exodus of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and other nations over the past 30 years, the United States’ critically important defense industrial base has deteriorated dramatically. As a result, the United States now relies heavily on imports to keep our armed forces equipped and ready. Compounding this rising reliance on foreign suppliers, the United States also depends increasingly on foreign financing arrangements. In addition, the United States is not mining enough of the critical metals and other raw materials needed to produce important weapons systems and military supplies. These products include the night-vision devices (made with a rare earth element) that enabled Navy SEALs to hunt down Osama bin Laden. Consequently, the health of the United States’ defense industrial base—and our national security—is in jeopardy. We are vulnerable to major disruptions in foreign supplies that could make it impossible for U.S. warriors, warships, tanks, aircraft, and missiles to operate effectively.”

One example cited by AAM: “The United States is completely dependent on a single Chinese company for the chemical needed to produce the solid rocket fuel used to propel HELLFIRE missiles. As current U.S. supplies diminish, our military will be reliant on the Chinese supplier to provide this critical chemical—butanetriol—in the quantities needed to maintain this missile system. HELLFIRE missiles are a widely used, reliable, and effective weapon launched from attack helicopters and unmanned drones. They are a critical component in America’s arsenal.”

The reduction in defense preparedness has been a factor in the continuing shortage of middle-income level jobs. The cuts continue to defense-related employment continues. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that “Boeing Co. said [on Nov.15 that] it would cut another 500 jobs over the next four years from its defense and space business by shrinking work at its Huntington Beach facility in California and closing two smaller plants in Texas and Virginia…Boeing’s defense arm has cut thousands of jobs over the past five years, a faster pace than reductions at a commercial airplane arm that have climbed in recent months as it faced tougher competition from Airbus Group SE.”

National Review summarized the condition of the U.S. military by quoting U.S. service chiefs at budgetary hearings earlier this year: “General Ray Odierno, the Army chief of staff at the time, reported that ‘readiness has been degraded to its lowest level in 20 years. . . . Today we only have 33 percent of our brigades ready to the extent we would expect them to be if asked to fight.’ The chief of naval operations at the time, Admiral Jonathan Greenert, said, ‘Our contingency response force, that’s what’s on call from the United States, is one-third of what it should be and what it needs to be.’ The Air Force chief of staff, General Mark Welsh, said that if his airplanes were cars, ‘we currently have twelve fleets — twelve fleets of airplanes that qualify for antique license plates in the state of Virginia. We must modernize our Air Force.”

President-elect Trump has pledged to increase the U.S. military and modernize the nuclear arsenal. According to the Washington Post “Trump’s win is good news for the defense industry, especially when coupled with Republican majorities in the House and Senate,’ said Loren Thompson, a defense consultant who advises many of the nation’s top-tier contractors.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

U.S. Faces Undersea Challenge

This article was written by Daria Novak, a former State Department official in the Reagan Administration.

The United States faces an exceptional threat from the growing strength of the submarine fleets of both China and Russia, as their U.S. counterpart struggles to avoid deterioration from lack of adequate funding.

The Diplomat notes that China now has a larger submarine fleet than that United States, U.S. Vice Admiral Joseph Mulloy  said  in testimony to] the House Armed Service Committee’s Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee…”China is building some “fairly amazing submarines, both diesel- and nuclear-powered…”

America has 71 commissioned submarines. China counters that with a number estimated to be slightly larger.  The number of U.S. attack submarines will shrink from 52 to only 41 within the next decade, even as China’s number expands.

Add that to Russia’s fleet, and the U.S. is significantly outnumbered.   Global Firepower estimates that Moscow has 60 submarines at its disposal.
Use Safety Eyewear: If your work place is related to poisonous, hazardous airborne materials then better to wear cialis no prescription usa safety glasses all the time. A number of products on the marketplace that eradicate sexual Difficulties that countless numbers of folks who experience silently. generic tadalafil 5mg It is found especially in summer, the heat from the sun makes the substance, which is browse around for more buy generic viagra mostly made of decomposed plant matter, ooze out of the mountains. Kamagra Tablets with sildenafil citrate has encouraged cheap viagra from uk ED patients across the globe to avail a high quality medication without paying more money.
Asia Times notes that even as the U.S. plans to build some additional subs, older vessels are going out of service faster than new models can replace them. The publication also  notes that “the [U.S.] Navy has a standing requirement for 48 attack submarines, but combatant commanders say they are only receiving about 62 percent of the subs they need to meet growing threats in Asia and Europe. Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson said … that the 48-sub requirement is based off of analysis from 2006.” However, since then, Russia has expanded its fleet. “…we really didn’t have to account for a resurgent Russia…The strategic landscape has changed sufficiently that we have to constantly reassess.”

A standard response to discussions concerning the rising numbers of America’s potential adversaries is that U.S. subs are superior in quality. Unfortunately, that factor is rapidly diminishing. Even if the Chinese don’t precisely match the U.S. in quality, their increased numbers will make up for the difference. The National Interest  notes that “The technological edge the U.S. Navy—which is already woefully short on attack boats—is counting on might not be sufficient to counter Chinese numerical superiority.

But China is catching up on quality.The National Interest reports that some analysts believe that Beijing’s new Type 093B nuclear-powered attack submarine is on par with the U.S. Navy’s Improved Los Angeles-class boats. “If the People’s Liberation Army Navy’s newest boats are able to match the capabilities of the U.S. Navy’s shrinking undersea fleet, Washington could be in serious trouble.”  The journal  also reports that “Back in 2006, a Chinese Song-class attack submarine, created at least partially by Russian and Western technology … tailed the Japan-based U.S. Navy aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk in the East China Sea near Okinawa without being identified. While such a shadowing operation is quite normal, the sub “surfaced within five miles of the carrier, in deep waters off Okinawa, and only then was it spotted, by one of the carrier’s planes on a routine surveillance flight.” Such submarines are armed with advanced anti-ship missile and wake-homing torpedoes.

President Obama said he couldn’t find “Shovel Ready Projects” to stimulate the economy and provide jobs for American workers.  Defending America by building an adequate number of submarines would certainly solve his quest. Ways could be found to make the project more affordable.  New technology allows for the construction of far less expensive conventional submarines that could fill the Navy’s gap for less cost than a nuclear version.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Politicians Refuse to Acknowledge Military Threat

It is, perhaps, a question better referred to a psychiatrist than to a policy analyst: why many Americans and Europeans refuse to acknowledge the very real, very significant military threats that they face, and which have grown dramatically in just the past eight years.

What can be gleaned from the startling news that, despite the dramatic evidence of the Russian, Chinese, and North Korean massive nuclear buildups, and the obsolescence of America’s nuclear deterrent, there is opposition from the White House to at least insuring that the nation’s atomic arsenal at least remains intact and usable?

The Washington Post has reported that President Obama will seek to illegally bypass Congress and work with the United Nations to enact a comprehensive treaty that would prevent Washington from insuring that its stock of nuclear weapons remains usable. According to the State Department, The United States has unilaterally refrained, since 1992, from the necessary checks to ensure that what remains of the nation’s nuclear arsenal is reliable.  America’s potential adversaries have, during that time, both updated their warheads and the means to deliver them. Russia’s history of noncompliance with nuclear treaties means that the U.S. would probably be alone in not engaging in the necessary maintenance.

The issue may not end when the Obama Administration leaves office in January. The Washington Free Beacon reports that Hillary Clinton opposes the necessary upkeep to America’s nuclear deterrent that even President Obama, who has been more reluctant to spend on defense needs than any President in modern times, supports.

Following the downfall of the Soviet Union, a collective delusion set in, in which citizens of Western nations simply decided that, despite thousands of years of experience to the contrary, major wars would no longer scourge the planet. Francis Fukuyama wrote a book called “The End of History,” and described his core belief in the National Interest publication: “What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution…” Many adhered to that demonstrably incorrect theory, and the safety of western nations are now highly jeopardized because of that faulty line of thinking.

Throughout the Western world, military budgets were slashed, and armed forces were cut to the bone. America’s military might was reduced by over half. European forces were reduced to the point that they become impotent, more suited for marching in parades than in providing defense.

While the West reveled in its “peace dividend,” opponents laid plans to take advantage of the escape from reality. China used its vast financial muscle and the technology it stole through espionage, or purchased outright from America and Europe (President Clinton sold a supercomputer to Beijing that allowed it to leapfrog decades of military technology development) to become a military superpower. Iran developed plans to become a regional hegemon. Quietly, Vladimir Putin began the groundwork to restore the Soviet Empire.

Generally its oral capsule offered in solid type, which greyandgrey.com order levitra acts in desire manner if sip with usual water. There are a lot of contraceptive options available in the free viagra no prescription market such as Dapoxetine and Vardenafil, Kamagra has set a terrific standard of effectiveness in this regard. Diabetes: Sex-related Alternatives for Men Diabetes-related purchase levitra in canada greyandgrey.com impotence can be treated in various ways. She was levitra free sample greyandgrey.com pleased to hear of the results and gave me in its place a double-barrelled gun: after a few years, he took that away and gave me a single-barrelled gun with which I was forced to content myself for the best part of my life.’ ‘Towards the end the old single-barrel began to show signs of wear and age: sometimes it would go off too. Despite the overwhelming importance of the military threat and the rapid deterioration of America’s national security, the issue is rarely discussed in anything other than an occasional soundbite.  It did not play a significant role in either the presidential primaries, or, so far, in the general election season.

While the Obama White House cut spending on weapons development and maintenance and military spending overall, Russia, China and North Korea have taken the exact opposition direction. China has expanded its military budget by about 10% each year. Moscow has added $800 billion to its armed forces spending. North Korea has added significant new capabilities.

Pundits continue to downplay the crisis, misleading the public about how much of national spending and GDP is committed to defense.  Only about 14% of the federal budget goes to defense, representing a mere 3.3% of the national economy. The public is also misled about U.S. defense spending compared to the rest of the world. Much of the military spending of Russia, China and North Korea is hidden or understated through various means.

Despite the increase in threats from Russia, China, and North Korea over the past eight years, U.S. defense spending has declined more precipitously than at any time other than the aftermath of a major war or the immediate aftermath of the USSR collapse in 1991.

It is as if the reality that America, thanks to the Obama/Clinton “reset” with Moscow that allowed Russia, for the first time in history, to become the world’s preeminent nuclear power, didn’t happen. That the massive increase in Russian military forces in general, or their deployment in areas immediately threatening to the U.S. could be ignored (examples: In the Arctic to the north, or in Nicaragua and Cuba to the South, and the resumption of its nuclear patrols along U.S. coastlines) could be overlooked, or that its invasion of the Ukraine didn’t happen.  Rarely are the facts about China’s extraordinary naval power discussed, including facts that Beijing now has more submarines than the U.S., and its navy will be more powerful than America’s within three years. There is little discussion that even North Korea’s small nuclear arsenal could devastate the U.S.

President John Adams famously said, “”Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

Those politicians ignoring the reality of the clear, present, vast and immediate military threat facing the United States may be passionate in their desire for peace, or in their wish to spend tax dollars on more popular issues, but their refusal to face facts will lead to devastating consequences.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Defense Budget, Part 2

The New York Analysis concludes its review of defense spending. 

Russia has roared back to the military spending practices of the Soviet Union. The National Interest  reports “Russia is now engaged in its largest military buildup since the collapse of the Soviet Union more than two decades ago, with major increases in defense spending budgeted each year to 2020. Putin has pushed for this program even over the objections of some within the Kremlin who worried about costs and the possible negative impact on Russian prosperity; opposition to the expansion of military spending was one of the reasons the long-serving Finance Minister Aleksei Kudrin left the cabinet several years ago… Perusing budget reports and position papers, Russian plans—spearheaded by the Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and Dmitry Rogozin, the deputy prime minister in charge of the defense industry—certainly look impressive—and ominous… If all goes according to plan, the Russian military, by 2020, will return to a million active-duty personnel, backed up by 2300 new tanks, some 1200 new helicopters and planes, with a navy fielding fifty new surface ships and twenty-eight submarines, with one hundred new satellites designed to augment Russia’s communications, command and control capabilities. Putin has committed to spending billions over the next decade to fulfill these requirements.”

Those opposing substantial investment in America’s military often cite figures showing that the U.S. spends far more than other nations. But the comparison is faulty. Nations such as North Korea, Iran, and China do not post reliable figures to begin with, and those that are posted reflect a command economy that can insist that the price of goods, services and labor are forcefully suppressed by an oppressive government.

In the current Presidential campaign, it would seem that this is an issue focused on largely by Republicans and conservatives, and to an extent this is true, as Trump has made it a signature issue while Clinton focuses more on social spending.

In many cases men loses their control as they start experiencing deep emotional pain, cialis price canada more info here but these soon become self-defeating. Beta Blockers – [Sectral (Acebutolol); Tenormin (Atenolol); Zebeta (Bisoprolol); Coreg (Cardedilol); Lopressor, Toprol XL (Metoprolol); Corgard (Nadolol); Bystolic (Nebivolol); Inderal LA purchase generic viagra (Propranolol)] Function: Beta-blockers (beta-adrenergic blocking agents) block adrenaline (epinephrine), causing the heart to slow and blood vessels to open. Prevention tips The drug is only introduced for the men holding an ED issue, so a normal working men and women must not dare to practice it. ordine cialis on line http://secretworldchronicle.com/2017/08/ In fact, some people spend months on such patches until they are ready to quit tadalafil 20mg canada the habit. The Democrat’s continued push for reduced military funding has led to extraordinary opposition from retired military leaders. The New York Times recently printed an open letter from a vast array of generals and admirals which warned:

“The 2016 election affords the American people an urgently needed opportunity to make a long-overdue course correction in our national security posture and policy. As retired senior leaders of America’s military, we believe that such a change can only be made by someone who has not been deeply involved with, and substantially responsible for, the hollowing out of our military and the burgeoning threats facing our country around the world. For this reason, we support Donald Trump’s candidacy to be our next Commander-in-Chief. For the past eight years, America’s armed forces have been subjected to a series of ill-considered and debilitating budget cuts, policy choices and combat operations that have left the superb men and women in uniform less capable of performing their vital missions in the future than we require them to be. Simultaneously, enemies of this country have been emboldened, sensing weakness and irresolution in Washington and opportunities for aggression at our expense and that of other freedom-loving nations. In our professional judgment, the combined effect is potentially extremely perilous. That is especially the case if our government persists in the practices that have brought us to this present pass. For this reason, we support Donald Trump and his commitment to rebuild our military, to secure our borders, to defeat our Islamic supremacist adversaries and restore law and order domestically. We urge our fellow Americans to do the same.”

However, a small but growing number of sources traditionally thought of as liberal are slowly beginning to realize the danger.

An article in the left-leaning publication Slate notes: “The world is a dangerous place, but it is far less dangerous than it would be in the absence of a uniquely powerful United States. The technologies that have propelled America’s military dominance over the past few decades have grown cheaper and more widespread, and they’ve increasingly fallen into the hands of America’s enemies. If history is any guide, the U.S. will allow its military edge to deteriorate until some rival power delivers its military a humiliating blow, at which point Americans will be forced to scramble to reverse course, under highly unfavorable circumstances. We have it in our power to do things differently—to deter threats before they arise, and to help ensure that the world won’t descend into the great power rivalry that gave us World War I and II. Those who say that we can’t afford to spend more on our military have it backward: We can’t afford not to invest in the peace and security that are the product of U.S. global leadership, and on which billions of people around the world depend…”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama Wants Inadequate Defense Budget

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government

begins a two-part review of  defense spending. 

Amidst debate among the presidential contenders over the status of the U.S. military, the 2017 defense budget proposed by the White House continues the worrisome practice of cutting not fat, but actual muscle from the already sharply diminished American armed forces.

As noted by CSBA, “In constant dollars, [Obama’s 2017 defense budget] is a reduction of approximately 1.3 percent from last year’s appropriation…the rate of the drawdown between FY 2010 and FY 2015 has been faster than any other post-war drawdown since the Korean War at a compound annual …rate of [negative] 5.5 percent. [defense spending  now] represents a historically low percentage of gross domestic product (GDP). Including war funding, the FY 2017 DoD budget [prepared as instructed by the White House] request … would be 3 percent of GDP, and 14.2 percent of overall federal spending. Overall, the share of defense spending as a percentage of GDP has declined steadily since the end of the Korean War.

What makes the Obama drawdown of the Pentagon unique is that, unlike the aftermath of prior wars or the Cold War, the potential threat to the U.S. is rising, not diminishing.  Further, the armed forces are already sharply cut from the post-Cold War reductions, best symbolized by the Navy’s reduction from nearly 600 ships to less than 274. The Air Force’s fleet of planes is the smallest and oldest it has ever been, and the Army is a shadow of its former strength.

The strain is evident throughout the services. McClatchy reports that “The U.S. Air Force faces a shortfall of 700 fighter pilots by the end of the year and as many as 1,000 pilots within a few years.”Townhall notes that “The U.S. Army has shrunk to the smallest level since before World War II.”

Use long email addresses Bots try to guess the addresses listed for super generic cialis a specific domain. cialis for woman This article describes how to develop a strategic BIM plan for the renovation process of existing facilities. Sildenafil medication cialis tadalafil can assist with increasing the level of blood flow in the male sex organ. In fact Ms.Wang is not the only low price viagra woman whose infertility is associated with endometriosis. The military newspapers Stars and Stripes reports that retiring U.S. European Command’s {EUCOM] “Gen. Philip Breedlove says the military ‘needs to get back to the business of war planning, a skill lost during the post-Cold War era and one needed again in the face of a resurgent Russia. I am very sure about how EUCOM needs to change This headquarters shrank and changed from a war-fighting headquarters to a building-partnership-capacity, engagement kind of headquarters. This headquarters needs to be a warfighting headquarters.’ …EUCOM headquarters that over the years has shrunk in size — it is the second-smallest of all combatant commands — even as the Pentagon attempts to boost its presence along NATO’s eastern edge.’ Breedlove said more work needs to be done to lift EUCOM out of its post-Cold War mindset…[it] is a ‘mere fraction’ of what it was a generation ago…Dealing with Russia’s formidable capabilities around the Baltics, where NATO is outmanned and outgunned, is one obstacle allies will need to prepare for…”

The Daily Signal notes that “The Marines are pulling aircraft parts out of museums. The Air Force is cannibalizing planes to keep other planes flying. Three quarters of Navy F-18 fighter aircraft are not ready for combat. The U.S. military today is getting smaller and is struggling to train its people and maintain its equipment due to a combination of high demand and a 25 percent cut to its budget. While we don’t yet know all the details of the recent military plane crashes and the Fort Hood tragedy, we do know that serious and fatal accidents are on the rise. While accidents always happen, senior military leaders believe the rise in the overall rate of serious accidents is due to the lack of funding for training and maintenance.”

The Heritage Foundation notes that “Years of budget cuts have resulted in a smaller and weaker military. The Heritage Foundation’s 2016 Index of U.S. Military Strength graded the U.S. military’s capability, capacity, and readiness and found that as a whole it is only ‘marginal.’ In fact, both the Army and the Air Force dropped in their rating from the previous year due to capacity and readiness cuts. In short, our military today is not able to adequately provide for America’s national security needs.”

According to Affluent Investor,  “America’s defense budget [is] shrinking of late, and China’s is continuing to expand…China’s defense budget for 2015 was twice and a half the size of a decade earlier…Meanwhile, NATO’s total military spend is starting to shrink. …NATO’s share has continued to fall precipitously….With most member failing to live up to their commitment to spend 2% of their GDP on defense, it is likely that, from this year onwards and for the first time in many decades, the rest of the world will spend more on the military than NATO.”

China has more submarines than the U.S. Navy, and will, by 2020, have a larger fleet. The technology fielded by Beijing ranks with the world’s best.

Categories
Quick Analysis

A Financial Explanation for President Obama’s Foreign Policy

Is there a financial explanation for President Obama’s national security and foreign policy choices?

It is difficult to put a positive spin or find a logical explanation for the current Administrations’ actions and attitudes towards the growing threats facing the United States, and the diminished influence Washington has in global matters.  The list of failures and missteps, which have emboldened America’s enemies and alientated its allies,  is considerable:

The Obama/Clinton “Reset” with Russia produced completely unfavorable results.  Moscow is now considerably more aggressive than when the President first took office.  The Kremlin’s military spending has skyrocketed, and it has not been shy about using its new muscle.  Ukraine has been invaded, Russian forces have become active in the Middle East, Eastern Europe is increasingly threatened, the Arctic has been militarized, and the nation’s nuclear bombers and submarines have resumed cold war patrols near American coastlines, a task made easier by deals made with Cuba and Nicargua. Moscow now holds, for the first time, a lead in strategic nuclear weapons, as well as a ten to one lead in tactical atomic devices.

The failure to confront China either diplomatically or with a show of force when it invaded the Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone encouraged further aggressive actions by a Beijing regime convinced it would pay no penalty for unlawful expansionist moves. China has become a military superpower, the technological and numerical equivalent of U.S. forces. It already has more submarines than the Amrican navy, and will outnumer the U.S. fleet in four years.

Since Mr. Obama withdrew all U.S. troops from Iraq, Radical Islam has exponentially increased, with particular power being gained by ISIS.  At almost every step, the current Administration chose to not confront the problem, and, indeed, it did much to make it worse. The White House supported “Arab Spring” movements which empowered extremist elements throughout the region, and did not respond even when Americans were directly attacked in  Benghazi. It has abandoned a long-held policy of not negotiating with terrorists and opened talks with the Taliban in Afghanistan. The White House concluded an agreement that restored vast wealth to Iran in return for a shaky pledge to halt Tehran’s nuclear program, in a deal that a key Administration official now admits to misleading the U.S. public about. The President has deflected public anger and concern over terrorist attacks on U.S. soil by focusing his blame on gun rights, imagined bias towards Islam, and, incredibly, workplace violence.

If one assumes that Mr. Obama is not content with the dismal results of his policies, then a reason must be found why, despite substantial and repeated failures, he continues to pursue the same course of reducing American strength and influence, with a particular hesitancy to actively support American allies such as the Philippines, Israel, moderate Arab regimes, and, at least before Moscow’s Ukraine invasion, Europe.

The answer might have much to do with the President expensive and expansive domestic agenda.

Common side effects may include : warmth or redness in your face, neck, or chest;* runny or stuffy nose;* headache, dizziness;* upset stomach; or* back tadalafil cheapest downtownsault.org pain. Such issues basically arise after the age of 40 suffer from erectile dysfunction, on cialis line a condition in which men are not able to achieve satisfaction with their Partner due to improper erections. Charlotte Bobcats buy viagra professional (24) – Raja Bell’s return sparked a few needed wins, this team is very happy to bring J.R. One can continue taking the buy viagra overnight capsules as long as they think it necessary to fix the issue. Although the current White House has been singularly cold towards the needs of regular social security recipents, providing less cost of living increases than any other Administration in modern times, and has also been criticized for lack of attention to veterans benefits, spending on entitlements and welfare programs accounts for 70% of the federal budget (Defense is a comparatively small 16%.)

A Washington Times study found that the latest government reports estimate more than 23 percent of Americans lived in a family that received some form of welfare help under Obama, up 17.1 from the last year of the Bush presidency. The number of those on Social Security disability ballooned from 7.4 million at the start of the Obama presidency to 10.9 million in 2015.

Obamacare proved to be devastatingly expensive.“About 87 percent of people who selected health insurance plans through HealthCare.gov for coverage beginning Jan. 1, 2015, were determined eligible for financial assistance to lower their monthly premiums,”  notes the Department of Health and Human Services.

This demands massive infusions of cash. Major Increases in taxes are unpopular and politically difficult, and the debt has already jumped beyond reasonable limits (A CNSNews study  found that “the portion of the federal government’s debt that is held by the public…has more than doubled during President Barack Obama’s time in office” up by 113.8 percent.) All of this debt occurred despite the reality that Washington has taken in record amounts of revenue.U.S. Government Revenue  estimates that federal “direct revenue” collected last year amounted to $3.3 trillion.

All of this means that the dollars for the ambitious domestic agenda must come from someplace else.  That someplace else may be the defense budget.

According to a 2015 politifact analysis,”military spending decreased every year for [the past]four straight years by a cumulative 15%…In 2010, national security spending made up 20.1% of the federal budget, but in 2015 it was roughly 15.9%. Over that same period, spending declined from 4.6% of gross domestic product to 3.3%.”

Obama’s reduction in spending on a military that is now sharply diminished (the army is the smallest it has been since before World War 2, the Navy has less ships than at any time since before World War 1, and the Air Force is the smallest in history, with some aircraft so old they were flown by the grandparents of today’s pilots) means that conflicts must be avoided—even when vital interests are at stake, and supremacy in weaponry must be conceded to potential foes, no matter the potential danger.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Pentagon Budget Crisis

Note: As this issue went to press, it was revealed that President Obama is planning furthet unilateral cuts to the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

Congress is putting the final touch on the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act. hose concerned about the deterioration of the American military in the face of dramatically growing threats are hoping to at least stop further damage from the 2011 Budget Control Act.

According to the American Enterprise Institute “The [2011] law, now shaping the fourth of the ten budgets it is supposed to cover, is on track to reduce overall defense spending by about 20 percent…roughly a total of $1.5 trillion.” Further damage was done in 2013, when, thanks to a standoff between the White House and Congress, the law’s ‘sequestration’ provision came into effect…Sequestration accelerated the downward spiral in military readiness in ways that are now manifesting themselves. At one point, only 10 percent of the Army’s 40-plus active brigades—a total that has now been reduced to just 30 brigades—were fully read…The Navy had to extend ship deployments at the same time it was reducing its maintenance to just 57 percent of what was needed. The Air Force grounded 31 flying squadrons. At the same time, the Obama Administration worked to lock in the reduction in military capacity…”

Following the fall of the USSR, America dramatically scaled down its military. Unfortunately, the drop in the threat level justifying that reduction was only short-lived.

Russia has rebuilt its military into a more modern and effective force than ever, with a commanding lead over the U.S. in nuclear weapons. The National Interest notes that “Russian military modernization and the challenge it poses to the nation and the military has been publicly acknowledged at the most senior levels of the Department of Defense.”

China has used its vast financial resources and extraordinary espionage and cyber capabilities to eliminate America’s technological lead, and build a conventional force that will soon overtake the U.S.  Its navy, in particular, will be larger than America’s in just four years. The International Business Times reports “China and North Korea are growing as military powers as the United States struggles to maintain its influence in the Asia-Pacific region amid defense spending limits…Researchers at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, which conducted the study for the U.S. Department of Defense, said the U.S. faces a tough task to secure its interests in the region.’ Chinese and North Korean actions are routinely challenging the credibility of U.S. security commitments, and at the current rate of U.S. capability development, the balance of military power in the region is shifting against the United States,’ the study said. ‘Robust funding is needed to implement the rebalance. Mandatory ‘sequestration’ budget cuts imposed across the government in 2011 have limited U.S. defense spending…”

During the Cold War, the U.S. faced one major foe: the Soviet Union.  Washington, with its NATO partners, was clearly the dominant military power.  Now, however, Russia, China, and Iran are intimately allied, with the U.S. as its prime target.  North Korea adds an additional and substantial concern, with the growing strength and sophistication of its nuclear arsenal.

In contrast, the NATO nations have allowed their militaries to substantially deteriorate.  The balance of power has clearly and substantially shifted against U.S. interests.

According to Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee “Unprecedented threats, uncertainty, and technological change, combined with a high-operational tempo and declining resources, have sharply eroded the readiness of our military…Our men and women in uniform face a mounting readiness crisis that increases the danger to their lives and inhibits America’s ability to respond effectively to a series of diverse and serious threats.”

  In an address to the Heritage Foundation, Thornberry  discussed one aspect of the growing crisis, America’s dwindling air power: “What’s happened over the last few years is that budget cuts coupled with deployments, at a pace and a number that have not really declined very much, have caused a readiness crisis in all the services…The Air Force is short 4,000 maintainers and more than 700 pilots today…In 2015 the Navy had a backlog of 11 planes in depot, next year in 17 they are going to have a backlog of 278…Less than one-third of the Army is ready to meet the requirements of the Defense Strategic Guidance, it’s supposed to be no less than two-thirds…Marine Corps aviation requires on average 10 hours of flight time a month and they are getting about .”

 The crisis on the ground matches that in the air. The Army Times  notes that the Army has been dramatically reduced. “The Army’s latest headcount shows that nearly 2,600 soldiers departed active service in March without being replaced, an action that plunges manning to its lowest level since before World War II. During the past year the size of the active force has been reduced by 16,548 soldiers, the rough equivalent of three brigades.”

Central Command chief General Lloyd Austin, in an interview with Presstv.com, reported “We are getting dangerously small.” He pointed out that troop reductions will leave the Army with a cut of more than 20 percent since 2012.

Real Clear Defense sums up the challenge: “In short, our military today is not able to adequately provide for America’s national security needs. Unfortunately, rebuilding America’s military strength is not as simple as increasing the budget for a year or two. Rebuilding a unit, buying new equipment, or increasing a unit’s readiness can take years… defense budget cuts have led to a significant decrease in military capabilities and readiness, as well as investment in future research and development. As Congress develops the NDAA, six principles should guide its Members’ work:

  • Restore cuts to capacity, particularly U.S. ground forces.
  • Prioritize readiness for all the services
  • Shift initiatives from the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) account to the baseline defense budget.
  • Increase funding for updating nuclear weapons and missile defense systems.
  • Provide stability for modernization programs. Increase the national defense budget

Erectile dysfunction is condition that disables men from achieving or order sildenafil maintaining an erection while sexual encounter. If you want to take precautionary measures before taking in any male sex pill or going through any kind cialis prescription cheap of treatment plan. The conclusion of report is: “The shift work disrupts the circadian rhythm is likely to cause some nasty side effects such as headache, Nasal Congestion or Runny Nose which are tolerable and risk-free. india tadalafil tablets cialis and the benefits of using it cialis price is an active medicine formulated for treating erection issues in men and also enhancing the erection for a longer time. Proper awareness about the drug, follow up of doctor’s advice and timely intake of this drug will help in the stopping of the PDE5 and will make the cialis tablets 100mg users the possibilities of better pennies enlargement, production and ejaculation.