Tag: nuclear arms

Categories
Quick Analysis

Deeper Danger Behind Russia’s INF Violation, Part 2

Russia has persistently violated the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty, (INF) and China, never a signatory to the pact, is free to develop any such weapons it chooses.

House Armed Forces Committee Chair Mac Thornberry noted earlier this year, “It is foolish to try and pick and choose what aggression we will stand against and which we will let go unanswered. It is not enough to advocate for a more robust cyber response to Russia’s attempts to meddle in our elections but waiver on our response to their renewed nuclear or territorial ambitions. Likewise, we can’t simply build up our missile defenses and nuclear deterrent but leave significant cyber intrusions unanswered. We have to be willing to do it all.”

In response to partisan criticism of the White House decision to leave the INF treaty, the House Armed Service Committee issued the following response:

National Security leaders from both parties have been concerned about Russia’s violation of the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty for some time. After repeated calls from Congressional leaders, repeated votes to hold Russia accountable, at least four hearings on Treaty violations over four years, and warning from senior military commanders and national security experts, Russia refused to return to compliance with the treaty. As threats from Russia and China mount, President Trump has little choice but to withdraw from a treaty only the United States is adhering to.

Russian Cheating Is Nothing New: Obama administration officials were concerned about Russian INF cheating as far back as 2008, and concerns have only been growing:

·  In 2008, according to a later interview, then-Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs Rose Gottemoeller, Russia started testing “a ground-launched cruise missile that flies to ranges banned by the treaty. The banned ranges are between 500 and 5,500 kilometers. We are quite sure they have tested a capable missile that flies to those ranges, and they tried to get away with it.”

·  In 2013, HASC Chairman McKeon wrote twice to President Obama to express the Committee’s concerns about Russian violations of arms control agreements. Then-Senator John Kerry expressed concerns about Russian cheating, according to the Daily Beast. While the Obama Administration claims to have raised the issue with Russia, President Obama threatened to veto the FY13 NDAA because it would have forced his administration to make a determination on Russian cheating.

·  In 2014, the then-Chairmen of the House Armed Services, Foreign Relations, and Intelligence Committees wrote to President Obama reinforcing their concerns about Russian violations. That same year the Obama administration concluded that Russia had violated the INF Treaty. According to the New York Times, this was “the most serious allegation of an arms control treaty violation that the Obama administration has leveled against Russia.”

·  In 2016, Chairmen Thornberry and Nunes again wrote to President Obama, urging his administration to take Russian violations seriously.

·  In 2017, Air Force General Paul Selva, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff confirmedthat Russia has deployed a new type of cruise missile that violates the INF Treaty. The Trump Administration imposed sanctions on Russia for violating the treaty in December 2017.

·  In the spring of 2018, Russian President Vladimir Putin publicly announced new classes of nuclear weapons that would violate the INF Treaty.


The Threat From China Is Growing: Over the past two decades, China has developed numerous missile systems that far outrange U.S. systems. United States’ compliance to INF, coupled with unconstrained Chinese missile development, has contributed to a significant disparity in ballistic missile force structure which may have strategic and operational impacts in the Indo-Pacific region.

·  “Largest and most diverse missile force in the world”: According to Admiral Harris, formerly the Commander for U.S. Pacific Command, the PLA Rocket Force (PLARF) controls the largest and most diverse missile force in the world, with an inventory of more than 2,000 ballistic and cruise missiles. This fact is significant because the U.S. has no comparable capability against 95% of the PLARF’s missiles due to our adherence to the INF Treaty with Russia.

·  The United States has no comparable capability due to INF restrictions: The INF Treaty prevents the United States from developing comparable capabilities against the following operational Chinese missiles: DF-11 SRBM, DF-26 IRBM, DF-16 SRBM, DF-4 IRBM, DF-15 SRBM, HN-3 Cruise Missile, HN-2 Cruise Missile, DF-21 MRBM, among several others.


Congress Has Acted Repeatedly: Members from both sides of the aisle, and in both chambers, have voted repeatedly to hold Russia accountable:

·  Since 2014, the House Armed Services Committee has held four hearings into Russia’s violation of the INF Treaty.

·  In March of 2014, a bipartisan group in the House and Senate introduced a resolution to hold Russia accountable for its violations of the INF Treaty, a version of which was included in the FY15 NDAA.

·  The FY15 NDAA included additional measures aimed at Russia’s treaty violations.

·  The FY17 NDAA banned companies who contributed to Russia’s violation of the INF Treaty from doing business with the U.S. government.

·  The FY18 NDAA authorized funding to counter INF violations, including research on the potential development of U.S. missiles that would travel between 500 and 5,500km. It also required the executive branch to develop a plan to sanction Russia and key persons for non-compliance with the INF Treaty.

Homeopathy acts on the ageing affects of tissues, stimulating detoxicant cellular mechanism and restoring efficacy of albuminous molecules #4. cialis in kanada Since the whole formation cheapest viagra generic of the method of achieving wellness. pdxcommercial.com cialis 10 mg To be on the safe side, it is highly advised for all those who are craving a good intimate moments. Cross checking is an essential part best price on viagra and should surely not be overlooked. 3- There are a few rogue pharmacies that don’t require prescription at all in order to provide medication and neither had they let a doctor speak to you.
Photo: Iskander Missile (Russian Ministry of Defense)

Categories
Quick Analysis

America’s Nuclear Posture, Part 2

Yesterday, the New York Analysis of Policy & Government presented the reasons the White House gave that mandated a review of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, and international responses to to the report.  Today, we present the specific recommendations of the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review:

Specifics of the Report

 The report states that “the United States will sustain and replace its nuclear capabilities, modernize NC3, and strengthen the integration of nuclear and non-nuclear military planning. Combatant Commands and Service components will be organized and resourced for this mission, and will plan, train, and exercise to integrate U.S. nuclear and non-nuclear forces to operate in the face of adversary nuclear threats and employment. The United States will coordinate integration activities with allies facing nuclear threats and examine opportunities for additional allied burden sharing of the nuclear deterrence mission…. Given the increasing prominence of nuclear weapons in potential adversaries’ defense policies and strategies, and the uncertainties of the future threat environment, U.S. nuclear capabilities and the ability to quickly modify those capabilities can be essential to mitigate or overcome risk, including the unexpected…The increasing need for this diversity and flexibility, in turn, is one of the primary reasons why sustaining and replacing the nuclear triad and non-strategic nuclear capabilities, (NC3) and modernizing  NC3, is necessary now. The triad’s synergy and overlapping attributes help ensure the enduring survivability of our deterrence capabilities against attack and our capacity to hold at risk a range of adversary targets throughout a crisis or conflict. Eliminating any leg of the triad would greatly ease adversary attack planning and allow an adversary to concentrate resources and attention on defeating the remaining two legs. Therefore, we will sustain our legacy triad systems until the planned replacement programs are deployed.”

Specific weapons systems

“The United States currently operates 14 OHIO-class SSBNs and will continue to take the steps needed to ensure that OHIO SSBNs remain operationally effective and survivable until replaced by the COLUMBIA-class SSBN. The COLUMBIA program will deliver a minimum of 12 SSBNs to replace the current OHIO fleet and is designed to provide required deterrence capabilities for decades.

“The ICBM force consists of 400 single-warhead Minuteman III missiles deployed in underground silos and dispersed across several states. The United States has initiated the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) program to begin the replacement of Minuteman III in 2029. The GBSD program will also modernize the 450 ICBM launch facilities that will support the fielding of 400 ICBMs.

“The bomber leg of the triad consists of 46 nuclear-capable B-52H and 20 nuclear-capable B-2A “stealth” strategic bombers. The United States has initiated a program to develop and deploy the next-generation bomber, the B-21 Raider. It will first supplement, and eventually replace elements of the conventional and nuclear-capable bomber force beginning in the mid-2020s.

“The B83-1 and B61-11 gravity bombs can hold at risk a variety of protected targets. As a result, both will be retained in the stockpile, at least until there is sufficient confidence in the B61-12 gravity bomb that will be available in 2020.

“Beginning in 1982, B-52H bombers were equipped with ALCMs. Armed with ALCMs, the B-52H can stay outside adversary air defenses and remain effective. The ALCM, however, is now more than 25 years past its design life and faces continuously improving adversary air defense systems. The Long-Range Stand-Off (LRSO) cruise missile replacement program will maintain into the future the bomber force capability to deliver stand-off weapons that can penetrate and survive advanced integrated air defense systems, thus supporting the long-term effectiveness of the bomber leg.

“The current non-strategic nuclear force consists exclusively of a relatively small number of B61 gravity bombs carried by F-15E and allied dual capable aircraft (DCA). The United States is incorporating nuclear capability onto the forward-deployable, nuclear capable F-35 as a replacement for the current aging DCA. In conjunction with the ongoing life extension program for the B61 bomb, it will be a key contributor to continued regional deterrence stability and the assurance of allies.”

Cost

 “…even the highest of these projections place the highpoint of the future cost at approximately 6.4 percent of the current DoD budget. Maintaining and operating our current aging nuclear forces now requires between two and three percent of the DoD budget. The replacement program to rebuild the triad for decades of service will peak for several years at only approximately four percent beyond the ongoing two to three percent needed for maintenance and operations. This 6.4 percent of the current DoD budget required for the long-term replacement program represents less than one percent of the overall federal budget. This level of spending to replace U.S. nuclear capabilities compares favorably to the 10.6 percent of the DoD budget required during the last such investment period in the 1980s, which at the time was almost 3.7 percent of the federal budget, and the 17.1 percent of the DoD budget required in the early 1960s.”

Enhancing Deterrence with Non-strategic Nuclear Capabilities

 Existing elements of the nuclear force replacement program predate the dramatic deterioration of the strategic environment. To meet the emerging requirements of U.S. strategy, the United States will now pursue select supplements to the replacement program to enhance the flexibility and responsiveness of U.S. nuclear forces. It is a reflection of the versatility and flexibility of the U.S. triad that only modest supplements are now required in this much more challenging threat environment.

These supplements will enhance deterrence by denying potential adversaries any mistaken confidence that limited nuclear employment can provide a useful advantage over the United States and its allies. Russia’s belief that limited nuclear first use, potentially including low-yield weapons, can provide such an advantage is based, in part, on Moscow’s perception that its greater number and variety of non-strategic nuclear systems provide a coercive advantage in crises and at lower levels of conflict. Recent Russian statements on this evolving nuclear weapons doctrine appear to lower the threshold for Moscow’s first-use of nuclear weapons. Russia demonstrates its perception of the advantage these systems provide through numerous exercises and statements. Correcting this mistaken Russian perception is a strategic imperative.

To address these types of challenges and preserve deterrence stability, the United States will enhance the flexibility and range of its tailored deterrence options. To be clear, this is not intended to, nor does it enable, “nuclear war-fighting.” Expanding flexible U.S. nuclear options now, to include low-yield options, is important for the preservation of credible deterrence against regional aggression. It will raise the nuclear threshold and help ensure that potential adversaries perceive no possible advantage in limited nuclear escalation, making nuclear employment less likely.

Consequently, the United States will maintain, and enhance as necessary, the capability to forward deploy nuclear bombers and DCA around the world. We are committed to upgrading DCA with the nuclear-capable F-35 aircraft. We will work with NATO to best ensure—and improve where needed—the readiness, survivability, and operational effectiveness of DCA based in Europe.

Additionally, in the near-term, the United States will modify a small number of existing SLBM warheads to provide a low-yield option, and in the longer term, pursue a modern nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile (SLCM). Unlike DCA, a low-yield SLBM warhead and SLCM will not require or rely on host nation support to provide deterrent effect. They will provide additional diversity in platforms, range, and survivability, and a valuable hedge against future nuclear “break out” scenarios.

DoD and National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) will develop for deployment a low-yield SLBM warhead to ensure a prompt response option that is able to penetrate adversary defenses. This is a comparatively low-cost and near term modification to an existing capability that will help counter any mistaken perception of an exploitable “gap” in U.S. regional deterrence capabilities.

Nuclear Command, Control, and Communications Modernization

 Today’s NC3 system is a legacy of the Cold War, last comprehensively updated almost three decades ago. It includes interconnected elements composed of warning satellites and radars; communications satellites, aircraft, and ground stations; fixed and mobile command posts; and the control centers for nuclear systems.
With Forzest 20mg cialis order administration, men can get upset both at physical & emotional levels. Healing mineral water is usually made of genuine Karlovy Vary thermal spring salt. professional viagra online Of course, there are many reasons levitra free consultation which can lead to azoospermia, for example the common genitourinary system disease, and azoospermia caused by this reason is curable. In taking more amount of Kamagra can lead to poisonous outcome and it is better to contact the company when they need to ask questions or cialis overnight when making an order.
 While once state-of-the-art, the NC3 system is now subject to challenges from both aging system components and new, growing 21st century threats. Of particular concern are expanding threats in space and cyber space, adversary strategies of limited nuclear escalation, and the broad diffusion within DoD of authority and responsibility for governance of the NC3 system, a function which, by its nature, must be integrated. In light of the critical need to ensure our NC3 system remains survivable and effective, the United States will pursue a series of initiatives. This includes: strengthening protection against cyber threats, strengthening protection against space-based threats, enhancing integrated tactical warning and attack assessment, improving command post and communication links, advancing decision support technology, integrating planning and operations, and reforming governance of the overall NC3 system.

Nuclear Weapons Infrastructure

 Over the past several decades, the U.S. nuclear weapons infrastructure has suffered the effects of age and underfunding. Over half of NNSA’s infrastructure is over 40 years old, and a quarter dates back to the Manhattan Project era. All previous NPRs highlighted the need to maintain a modern nuclear weapons infrastructure, but the United States has fallen short in sustaining a modern infrastructure that is resilient and has the capacity to respond to unforeseen developments. There now is no margin for further delay in recapitalizing the physical infrastructure needed to produce strategic materials and components for U.S. nuclear weapons. Just as our nuclear forces are an affordable priority, so is a resilient and effective nuclear weapons infrastructure, without which our nuclear deterrent cannot exist. The U.S. must have the ability to maintain and certify a safe, secure, and effective nuclear arsenal. Synchronized with DoD replacement programs, the United States will sustain and deliver on-time the warheads needed to support both strategic and non-strategic nuclear capabilities by:

› Completing the W76-1 Life Extension Program (LEP) by Fiscal Year (FY) 2019; › Completing the B61-12 LEP by FY2024; › Completing the W88 alterations by FY2024; › Synchronizing NNSA’s W80-4 life extension, with DoD’s LRSO program and completing the W80-4 LEP by FY2031; › Advancing the W78 warhead replacement one year to FY19 to support fielding on GBSD by 2030 and investigate the feasibility of fielding the nuclear explosive package in a Navy flight vehicle; › Sustaining the B83-1 past its currently planned retirement date until a suitable replacement is identified; and, › Exploring future ballistic missile warhead requirements based on the threats and vulnerabilities of potential adversaries, including the possibility of common reentry systems between Air Force and Navy systems.

The United States will pursue initiatives to ensure the necessary capability, capacity, and responsiveness of the nuclear weapons infrastructure and the needed skills of the workforce, including the following:

› Pursue a joint DoD and Department of Energy advanced technology development capability to ensure that efforts are appropriately integrated to meet DoD needs.

› Provide the enduring capability and capacity to produce plutonium pits at a rate of no fewer than 80 pits per year by 2030. A delay in this would result in the need for a higher rate of pit production at higher cost.

› Ensure that current plans to reconstitute the U.S. capability to produce lithium compounds are sufficient to meet military requirements.

› Fully fund the Uranium Processing Facility and ensure availability of sufficient low enriched uranium to meet military requirements.

› Ensure the necessary reactor capacity to produce an adequate supply of tritium to meet military requirements.

› Ensure continuity in the U.S. capability to develop and manufacture secure, trusted strategic radiation-hardened microelectronic systems beyond 2025 to support stockpile modernization.

› Rapidly pursue the Stockpile Responsiveness Program established by Congress to expand opportunities for young scientists and engineers to advance warhead design, development, and production skills.

› Develop an NNSA roadmap that sizes production capacity to modernization and hedging requirements.

› Retain confidence in nuclear gravity bombs needed to meet deterrence needs.

› Maintain and enhance the computational, experimental, and testing capabilities needed to annually assess nuclear weapons.

Photo: Unarmed Minuteman missile launch, DoD

Categories
Quick Analysis

America’s Nuclear Posture

170808-F-CG053-0010

According to the White House “Over the past decade, despite United States efforts to reduce the roles and numbers of nuclear weapons, other nuclear nations grew their stockpiles, increased the prominence of nuclear weapons in their security strategies, and—in some cases—pursued the development of new nuclear capabilities to threaten other nations. Meanwhile, successive United States administrations deferred much-needed modernization of our nuclear weapons, infrastructure, and delivery systems.”

Since the end of the first Cold War, the U.S. reduced its nuclear stockpile by over 85 percent and did not deploy any new nuclear capabilities.  Despite that, international adversaries, including Russia, China, and North Korea have significantly enhanced their nuclear arsenals, and Iran has made considerable progress in building an intercontinental missile capability.

In response to those developments, the Administration issued a new “Nuclear Posture Review” (NPR.)

The growing problem has been highlighted by Putin’s recent test of its “Sarmat” missile, a hypersonic rocket, and its growing arsenal of Iskander short range nuclear missiles, which violate nuclear arms agreements.  (The New START treaty, signed by President Obama in 2010, gave Russia the lead in nuclear weapons for the first time in history.)

China, too, is undertaking formidable increases in its nuclear weapons capabilities.  The National Interest notes that “technical developments are likely to propel China to undertake a significant nuclear buildup in the coming years. The first of these is China’s acquisition of a viable nuclear triad for the first time… China has now deployed a sea-based deterrent in the form of the JIN-class (Type 094) nuclear-powered ballistic-missile submarines (SSBNs). China has already commissioned four JIN-class SSBNs and will build at least another one of these vessels. Each Jin-class SSBN has twelve missile tubes and carries JL-2 submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), which have a range of 7,500 kilometers…[also] China is MIRVing its traditional land-based ballistic missiles. According to press reports, earlier this year China tested its DF-5C missile using ten MIRVed warheads. It is also believed to be MIRVing its older DF-5B, with somewhere between three and ten warheads.

It promotes production acquisition de viagra of testosterone and rejuvenates your reproductive organs. Provestra is a actual ablaze way of cheap cialis accretion the animal admiration of the women. In order to have correct treatment with the use of this viagra 100mg pfizer drug. Even the most focused and driven individuals will hesitate to challenge their peers on counterproductive actions and behaviours if they believe those actions and behaviours if they believe those actions and behaviours were never agreed upon in the first place. click this page order levitra online The NPR  Review notes that “While the United States has continued to reduce the number and salience of nuclear weapons, others, including Russia and China, have moved in the opposite direction. They have added new types of nuclear capabilities to their arsenals, increased the salience of nuclear forces in their strategies and plans, and engaged in increasingly aggressive behavior, including in outer space and cyber space. North Korea continues its illicit pursuit of nuclear weapons and missile capabilities in direct violation of United Nations (U.N.) Security Council resolutions. Iran…it retains the technological capability and much of the capacity necessary to develop a nuclear weapon within one year of a decision to do so. There now exists an unprecedented range and mix of threats, including major conventional, chemical, biological, nuclear, space, and cyber threats, and violent nonstate actors. These developments have produced increased uncertainty and risk. This rapid deterioration of the threat environment …must now shape our thinking as we formulate policy and strategy, and initiate the sustainment and replacement of U.S. nuclear forces.”

War on the Rocks believes that “the most controversial element of the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review has been the push to deploy a low-yield submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) warhead.”

Response to the NPR from potential adversaries has been, as expected, negative. According to China’s Xinhuanet publication, “China firmly opposes the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) published by the United States Department of Defense…The U.S. document presumptuously speculated about the intentions behind China’s development and played up the threat of China’s nuclear strength….”

Russia’s reaction was reported by the Memri news service  “The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs is primarily concerned by what it described as “Washington’s no-limits approach” of nuclear weapons. “[The U.S.] might use nuclear weapons in ‘extreme circumstances,’ which are not limited to military scenarios in the new U.S. doctrine. Moreover, even military scenarios are presented so ambiguously that it seems like the U.S. planners may view practically any use of military capability as a reason for delivering a nuclear strike against anyone they consider an ‘aggressor’.”

Tomorrow: Specifics of the NPR

Photo: USAF, B-52

Categories
Quick Analysis

White House Ignores Russia’s Arms Pact Violations

The danger from Moscow’s lead in both strategic and conventional weaponry has been increased by that nation’s violation of weapons pacts made with the U.S., according to recently discovered information.

The imbalance in atomic weaponry  become a major factor as a result of the New START treaty signed by President Obama shortly after he assumed office, although the obsolescence of America’s arsenal was already becoming a concern before his administration. Bizarrely, members of the White House, especially Secretary of State John Kerry, continue to hail that agreement.

While the actual terms of the treaty are not favorable to Washington, Moscow’s history of noncompliance with the accord produces additional problems.

Bill Gertz, writing for the Washington Free Beacon, reports that Russia has again been in serious violation of the measure. According to Gertz, “U.S. nuclear arms inspectors recently discovered that Russia is violating the New START arms treaty… by improperly eliminating SS-25 mobile missiles… U.S. technicians found critical components of SS-25s—road-mobile, intercontinental ballistic missiles—had been unbolted instead of cut to permanently disable the components. Additionally, American inspectors were unable to verify missiles slated for elimination had been destroyed. Instead, only missile launch canisters were inspected.”

The end result is that America continues to disarm weapons, the Kremlin only pretends to, furthering the already expanding gap.

The Obama Administration seems unconcerned.

Gertz notes that key observers, including House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry have expressed concern over the White House’s disconnected attitude. “Whether it’s Russian violations of the Open Skies Treaty, the Biological and Chemical Weapons Conventions, or multiple violations of the INF treaty, this administration has proven singularly unconcerned with arms control compliance…John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and a former State Department undersecretary for arms control, said the latest Russian treaty issue raises questions about whether Moscow may have helped Iran to circumvent treaties.”
This component assists purchase viagra from canada in facing a proper flow of blood to this penis. These drugs are known to be very effective in treating the problem of ED in men. india viagra generic Although, some autism kids cialis prescription cialis prescription report are known to be mute or can’t speak, there is an autism treatment that could help the condition of the child but results vary from one child to another. As it is rich in calcium buy cheap viagra it makes our work meaningful.
Neither most politicians nor most pundits choose to discuss the rapidly growing crisis, fearing ridicule and retribution by a White House that desperately seeks to finance its continuously expanding entitlement agenda by limiting spending on defense.

The reality, however, is that nuclear nightmares have made a comeback, thanks to a Russian resurgence based primarily on force and the threat of force. While the United States atomic deterrent slips into obsolescence, Moscow has modernized its arsenal. In both quality and, for the first time in history, quantity, Russia is now the globe’s predominant nuclear superpower.

Objective observers have begun to write about the growing disparity between Washington and the Kremlin in atomic weaponry, headlined by Russia’s ten to advantage in tactical nukes as well as a growing lead in strategic weapons.

According to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists,  “Russia is in the middle of a broad modernization of its strategic and nonstrategic nuclear forces, including some new developments. The authors estimate that as of early 2016, the country had a stockpile of approximately 4500 nuclear warheads assigned for use by long-range strategic launchers and shorter range tactical nuclear forces. In addition, as many as 2800 retired but still largely intact warheads awaited dismantlement, for a total inventory of about 7300. The modernization program reflects the government’s conviction that strategic nuclear forces are indispensable for Russia’s security and status as a great power. Unless a new arms reduction agreement is reached in the near future, the shrinking of Russia’s strategic nuclear arsenal that has characterized the past two decades will likely come to an end, with the force leveling out at around 500 launchers with roughly 2400 assigned warheads. Combined with an increased number of military exercises and operations, as well as occasional explicit nuclear threats against other countries, the modernizations contribute to growing concern abroad about Russian intentions.”

Compare that with the Bulletin’s analysis of the American deterrent:

“The U.S. nuclear arsenal remained roughly unchanged in the last year, with the Defense Department maintaining an estimated stockpile of some 4,670 warheads to be delivered via ballistic missiles and aircraft. Most of these warheads are not deployed but stored, and many are destined to be retired. Of the approximately 1,930 warheads that are deployed, roughly 1,750 are on ballistic missiles or at bomber bases in the United States, with another 180 tactical bombs deployed at European bases.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Pretending that threats don’t exist

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
Quick Analysis

US Cuts Nuclear Arms as Russia Moves Ahead

President Obama is conducting, without the consent of Congress or the American public, a high-risk experiment in unilateral disarmament.  He is doing so despite all evidence that his concept is fundamentally flawed. His action is exceptionally endangering the safety and sovereignty of both the United States and its allies.

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 last week before the House Armed Services Committee  that the United States will cut nuclear stockpiles under the New START treaty with Russia.

In October, Russia tested it SS-25 mobile ICBM, the fourth time in the past two years it engaged in tests violative of the 1987 agreement. In January, the treaty was again violated by the deployment of the RS-26 missile test.

In January, it became public that Russia was also violating the 1987 missile treaty. Despite that fact, the U.S. has taken 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.
The condition refers to the inability to achieve or maintain an erection during sexual intercourse. generic cheap viagra cute-n-tiny.com It cannot be taken more than one levitra overnight shipping pill daily. You don’t have to step one foot outside of your home to buy the medication. cheapest cialis get viagra prescription These medications mainly belong to the PDE5 enzymes drug class.
It is done in compliance with a treaty despite Moscow’s obvious current and historical record of treaty violations, in response to a treaty that was bad for the United States since it allowed Moscow a 10-1 advantage in tactical nuclear weapons, and one that is especially inappropriate in the face of the dramatic change in international conditions since the rise of China as a nuclear power that is hostile to the United States and its allies.

In addition to the development and deployment of new atomic weapons systems, Russia has engaged in updating and testing of its nuclear weapons, while the American arsenal has gone untested and un-updated for decades.

President Obama’s planned cutback comes in the face of undeniable evidence of massive Russian cheating.  It comes at a time when Russia has evidenced its hostile intent through its invasion of Crimea, its threats to other parts of the former Soviet Empire, and its return to engagement in military-related activities in Latin America, especially in Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. It comes as the United States has slashed its military spending, while Russia and China dramatically expand their armed forces budget.

A full analysis of the nuclear weapons reduction issue will be published Monday, April 14.