Categories
Quick Analysis

National Guard: Does Washington Pay a Fair Share?

We are pleased to present this guest editorial from U.S. Army Chaplain Don Zapsic (ret.)

What does the U.S. Post Office and all 50 states have in common? The answer: a highly questionable financial arrangement with a very tough negotiator. Be it Amazon and the postal service or the federal government and the state-based National Guard, some matches are not made in heaven. The post office for example, loses $1.46 per delivered Amazon package according to a recent Citigroup report. If this figure is inaccurate, Amazon is not shedding any light on the subject. When it comes to the cost/benefit analysis per transaction between the federal government and the National Guard, the breakdown is not as cut-and-dry. The fiscal impact however on the state, employers, individual Guard members as well as taxpayers is nonetheless grist for the mill. 

The first order of business is to establish what the federal government actually contributes to the National Guard bottom line. Using the Ohio National Guard (ONG) as a working model, the feds contributed a whopping 628.1 million dollars towards operating expenses in FY 2016. This figure represents 92. 9% of the reported costs of doing business as presented in a budgeted format with Ohio picking up the rest of the tab (www.lsc.ohio). The key phrase here is “budgeted format” which mostly addresses operating costs related to direct expenses. Actual costs incurred are considerably higher when the human toll of waging war is factored in. Some of these expenses are picked up by the feds while a significant burden falls upon Ohioans in various capacities. 

A few reasons why the ONG serves to address the issue-at-hand lie in its sheer size and mobilization activity. The Ohio National Guard ranks as the fourth largest state militia numbering over 16,000 strong while deploying over 25,000 Soldiers and Air Guard members since 9/11. Whether employers, Guard personnel and their families or communities at large, Ohioans both intuitively and collectively understand the associated costs of sending men and women into harm’s way. And what better way to test such an assertion than to evaluate federally-funded, post-deployment aftercare reimbursement or lack thereof. More specifically, gap-funding for Guard members too sick or injured to reestablish pre-deployment wage-earning capacity, and yet viable enough to barely get by.

Much of the fiscal disparity between federal and state government lies in how the feds identify and address sickness and injury encountered during federal activation (Title 10 status). Some illnesses are difficult to label as a service-connected disability simply because of their insidious nature. For example, the Vermont Army National Guard has sustained a disproportionate number of cancer-related cases that many attribute to prolonged burn pit exposure. Essentially airborne poisoning associated with yearlong basecamp living conditions in remote areas of Iraq and Afghanistan. Then there is the wounding of the mind associated with repeated combat stress and trauma resulting in debilitating PTSD symptoms that dull the edge of husbandry, parenting, and workplace productivity.

It is found that women who are in mid-30s or above cialis canada generic http://robertrobb.com/apss-confession-should-lead-to-an-appointed-commission/ trying to conceive for a baby face issues because their eggs numbers starts reducing or are of lower quality. There are a few items robertrobb.com levitra 60 mg that you can buy are analyzed and still have failed in regards to just what was initially stated on a ingredients label. It viagra properien cures disorders associated with reproductive system. Regardless of size of renal cell carcinoma, about 20% of patients may have no symptoms others may experience: Feelings of tiredness or fatigue Increased appetite Constant thirst Urinating very often Weight loss without trying Blurred vision Loss of feeling or tingling viagra overnight delivery in the legs, arms and extremities.

The feds are quick to point out that payments for debilitating service-connected injuries and illnesses are available for those who qualify. What they consistently fail to point out is that the burden of proof often lies with the servicemember to be fairly compensated for less-than-obvious disabilities. If this seems doubtful, consider that veterans can hire lawyers to represent their cases before VA disability boards. Then take into account that there are only so many resources available to dole out to disabled veterans. Additionally, those who cannot afford a lawyer may be at a distinct disadvantage when competing for limited federal resources. Did I mention that it may take years to have one’s case fully adjudicated through the VA? Just ask Vietnam Veterans exposed to Agent Orange who had to wait over a decade to get the help they desperately needed.

So who pays when states such as Ohio are left holding the bag for what the feds fail to adequately deliver? Keep in mind that the federal government relishes the fact that the National Guard is a “cheap date” when compared to the costs of maintaining a large-scale, full-time military force. It pains me to say that much of the gap-funding deficit for unrecognized wounded warriors must be bridged by the very same Guard members and their families. Employers also take up some of the slack such as when a Pittsburgh Steeler owner sent a hobbled-up Vietnam Veteran injured in a grenade attack a postcard inscribed, “Rock- the team’s not doing well. We need you- Art Rooney (Heart of a Champion: The Story of Rocky Bleier).” The Steeler organization went on to pay for additional surgeries and provided financial support while Bleier in-turn played an integral part in two Pittsburgh Steeler Superbowl wins.  

There is also the Ohio National Guard need to take into account when it comes to taking care of its own. There is nothing in the ONG budget that is set aside to take care of Guard members temporarily struggling financially due to under-compensated, deployment-related illnesses and injuries. While the state could kick-in the money to provide such a contingency relief fund, the federal government should be funding this as a budgeted line item. The Ohio National Guard leadership in cooperation with veterans service organizations does a wonderful job through its Family Readiness office of assisting financially-stressed Guard families, although much more remains to be done.

One of the great ironies of our time is the federal government’s willingness to generously assist non-citizens residing illegally within our borders, while financially neglecting America’s most staunch and vulnerable defenders. Our nation’s governors serving in the dual role of commander-in-chief of the state militia (e.g. ONG when not federally activated) must negotiate more like Amazon and less like the postal service. If not, they will unwittingly tout Pentagon-based revenue as a state windfall while incurring liabilities that others will have to pay in terms of time and treasure. There is after all, nothing unpatriotic about not leaving behind our own while contributing to the national defense.

Photo: Iowa National Guard training  (Army .mil)

Categories
Quick Analysis

Defense Bill Addresses Key Threats

In response to the extraordinary rise in threats from China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and terrorists, the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)  provides needed resources, many believe long overdue, for the U.S. military, which had been underfunded throughout the Obama Administration.

The $717 billion it provides was approved by Congress at the fastest pace in two decades, reflecting the urgency of deterring the dramatically expanded challenge from Moscow and Beijing. The broad support for the bill was reflected in the vote totals, including 87-10 approval in the Senate and 359-54 in the House.

Key general provisions include: an increase in the military’s authorized active-duty end strength by 15,600; a 2.6% pay raise, the largest in nine years; modernization and strengthening the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States to more effectively guard against the risk to national security posed by certain types of foreign investment; and strengthening cyber defenses.

A Breaking Defense analysis by Mark Cancian notes the NDAA’s key policy elements:

“It enshrines in law the exclusion of China from RIMPAC (the annual Pacific exercise that includes large numbers of allies and partners …and makes more explicit US support for Taiwan. The law also requires that the annual report to Congress on China include details about Chinese espionage, the state of relations between China and Russia and efforts by China to influence US citizens. On Russia, it continues limitations on military cooperation, prohibits any recognition of the annexation of Crimea, highlights concerns over treaty violations, and expresses the sense of Congress about the need to enhance deterrence…a bipartisan consensus has solidified that Russia and China are long-term competitors and that the US must act accordingly.”

According to the Washington Examiner’s Daily on Defense  column, key weapons programs funded include:

F-35: The military is allowed to buy 77 of the Lockheed Martin joint strike fighters, the same amount requested by the Trump administration.

LCS: Congress ultimately decided to give the Navy three littoral combat ships, though it requested one. Overall, the bill authorizes 13 battle-force ships.

Fourth carrier: The Navy is authorized to move ahead with its third and fourth Ford-class carriers, the future USS Enterprise and the unnamed CVN 81. But the Pentagon must certify that it will save money.

JSTARS: The Air Force is barred from retiring its Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System aircraft, or JSTARS, until it gets its new Advanced Battle Management System operational as a potential replacement.

A White House statement noted that  “…the FY 2019 NDAA enhances the President’s ability to defend the Nation.  It also supports key components of the Administration’s Nuclear Posture Review, South Asia Strategy, vision of a free and open Indo-Pacific region, and ongoing operations against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)…The FY 2019 NDAA keeps faith with Israel, fully authorizing the Administration request for co-development and co-production of missile defense systems.  It supports the European Deterrence Initiative, strengthening the posture of the United States in Europe and bolstering our European allies against the threat of Russian aggression.”

The defense publication Stars and Stripes stressed that the measure “dictates the next steps in creating a Space Force, but falls short of President Donald Trump’s calls for a new military branch.

While China’s military buildup has arguably been larger, Russia’s deployment of major weapons system directly enhancing its nuclear power, its invasions of Ukraine and Georgia, and Putin’s threatening actions against the Baltics, is seen as the more immediate danger.

Secretary Mattis notes that “Russia… continues to modernize and invest across the full range of military capability, including new aircraft, submarines, armor, counter-space, and air defense systems, while also modernizing conventional and nuclear strike capabilities. These investments and activities are specifically designed to limit our power projection capability and undermine the credibility of U.S. alliances, especially NATO.”

The House Armed Services Committee emphasized that the NDAAinvests in the following capabilities to reassure allies and counter and deter Russian military aggression:

  • A new aircraft carrier, increasing the number of carriers to 12, allowing the Navy to project power and counter Russia more often around the world.
  • 13 battle force ships for the Navy, continuing to grow the surface fleet and project power around the world.
  • 2 Virginia Class submarines, growing the Navy’s subsurface fleet, which counters Russia around the world.
  • Modernization of the nuclear triad by authorizing $250 million for expansion of the submarine industrial base, which supports the development and building of the Columbia class, a key to deterring Russian nuclear aggression.
  • 77 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, 5th generation fighter-attack aircraft to counter Russian air and ground forces.
  • Efforts to modernize Army Armored Brigade Combat Teams (ABCT), including 135 M1 Abrams tanks, 60 Bradley fighting vehicles, 197 Armored multi-purpose vehicles, and 3,390 Joint Light Tactical Vehicles.
  • 45 of the most modernized Paladin self-propelled howitzer artillery systems.
  • 69 Stryker Combat Vehicles.
  • Maintaining the maximum production rate for critical munitions to support deterring Russia.
  • Increased funding to accelerate two key Air Force nuclear modernization programs, the ground based strategic deterrent and the long range stand off cruise missile.
  • Significant funding to research and development for the next generation of missile defense technology.
  • Funding to develop and field low yield nuclear weapons to counter Russian nuclear weapons.

Besides improving sexual health of a man, canadian viagra 100mg men with different other health condition, and it is the struggles to help connect us quicker jointly, push us further than our own selves, armed forces us to reconsider our priorities, and focuses us on top of the correct treasures in existence. Lack of blood flow in genital area cause erectile dysfunction.There are few minor side cheap levitra generic effects of kamagra oral has passed. Sinus, ear disorder, pneumonia and typhoid tadalafil 40mg india are the very sensitive bacterial infections and can be ideally repressed and treated with the implementation of Generic Zithromax. Furthermore, the ones individuals for sale viagra discuss are sexual. “The main hazard is erectile brokenness,” says Zeichner. “For most patients, if this even happens, it’s brief.
Strengthen U.S. policy against Russian military aggression:

  • Requires the President to designate an NSC employee to coordinate the interagency fight against malign foreign influence operations, including election interference.
  • Requires the NSC to submit to Congress a strategy for countering malign foreign influence operations.
  • Requests a report on an updated strategy for the Arctic and its defense.
  • Authorizes a total of six polar icebreakers to assure U.S. commercial access to expanding Northern shipping lanes.
  • Directs the Department of Defense to assess its Russian language needs and abilities and develop a plan to address any deficiencies.
  • Strengthens the Global Engagement Center in the State Department by affirming it’s funding for the next two years, increasing its hiring authority, and increasing its responsibilities.
  • Provides for active defense and surveillance against Russian Federation attacks in cyberspace.
  • Requires U.S. based foreign media outlets like RT to register their sources of funding with the FCC.
  • Establishes a DOD initiative to work with academic institutions who perform defense research and engineering activities to protect intellectual property, controlled information, key personnel, and information about critical technologies from malign foreign influence.
  • To get ahead of Russia’s malign influence activities, the NDAA requests reports on Russia’s military relationships with Iran, and Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela.
  • Requires a report with quarterly updates describing those persons that the President has determined under 2017’s CAATSA sanctions have knowingly engaged in significant transactions with the defense and intelligence sectors of Russia.

 Helps Our Allies Defend Themselves Against Russian Aggression.

  • Authorizes $250M for security assistance and intelligence support to the Government of Ukraine, including lethal defensive weapons.
  • Provides flexibility for strategic partners and allies to move away from the use of Russian military equipment to American equipment through a modified waiver under the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act.
  • Includes $6.3 billion for European Deterrence Initiative to reassure U.S. partners and allies, increase U.S. military presence in Europe, and continue training and exercise throughout Europe to deter Russian aggression.
    • Contributes to the build out of a permanently positioned set of equipment for an ABCT in Europe.
  • Expresses Congress’ strong support for enhanced U.S. presence in and support for our Central, Eastern, and Southern European allies and the NATO alliance.
  • Requires a report on efforts to strengthen U.S. collaboration with NATO’s project to build a comprehensive, cross-domain cyber-defense and deterrence capacity.
  • Commissions a report that examines the consequences of increased Russian interest and destabilizing in Afghanistan.

Limits Contact and Assistance to Russia

  • Extends the limit on military-to-military cooperation with Russia.
  • Prohibits the Department of Defense from spending any funds (authorized in this bill) on activities that would recognize Russian sovereignty over Crimea.
  • Prohibits funds for atomic energy defense activities from being used to enter into a contract with, or otherwise provide assistance to, Russia.

Forces Russia To Comply with Treaties It Is Breaching

  • Restricts the Administration from voting to approve new sensor requests under the Open Skies Treaty and withholds funding for upgrades or recapitalization of U.S. Open Skies Treaty aircraft and sensors
  • Funds research and development to counter non-INF Treaty compliant systems being deployed by Russia.

Picture: F-35 (Lockheed-Martin)

Categories
Quick Analysis

Learning the Wrong Lessons From Mideast Military Successes

With the limited attack on Syrian illegal chemical weapons facilities, The United States has completed another Mideast military endeavor with little or no loss of life or damage to equipment.

It is important that this does not lead to a false sense of confidence. The true test of American military prowess does not rest with engagements against inferior armed forces, but in the key mission of deterring the rising danger from Russia and China.  The Pentagon, already financially stricken in the mistaken belief that major threats were a thing of the past in the aftermath of the First Cold War, was further and significantly weakened during the budget reductions of the Obama years.

In testimony before Congress, Defense Secretary Mattis stated: “We recognize great power competition is once again a reality…great power competition—not terrorism—is now the primary focus of U.S. national security… our competitive edge has eroded in every domain of warfare—air, land, sea, space, and cyber. Under frequent continuing resolutions and sequester’s budget caps, our advantages continue to shrink. The combination of rapidly changing technology, the negative impact on military readiness resulting from the longest continuous stretch of combat in our nation’s history, and insufficient funding have created an overstretched and under-resourced military…”

Writing in National Review, Jerry Hendrix  notes that U.S. “defense budgets as a percentage of the nation’s gross domestic product had fallen from 5.5 percent in 1991 to 3 percent on the eve of the attacks on September 11, 2001. Key capacities fell accordingly. In 1991 the Army stood at 710,000 troops; in 2001, it had shrunk to 480,000. At the height of the Cold War, the Air Force fielded over 10,000 aircraft; today the force hovers around 6,000, with fewer than 4,000 planes prepared for combat. The Navy suffered a similar decline, shrinking from its peak of 592 ships in 1989 to its present level of 280.”

While Washington slept, both Moscow and Beijing engaged in extraordinary modernization and development of their militaries.  Both now have essential technologies, and in many cases equipment, that are equal to and in some cases exceeding that possessed by the U.S., along with larger numbers. Former key Pentagon advantages, such as the major capabilities America had thanks to its space assets, are jeopardized by the growing ability of its adversaries to destroy satellites. The U.S. Navy’s aircraft carriers are increasingly vulnerable to Chinese land-to-sea missiles that can disable them at great distances.

The two adversary powers, and their axis partners in Iran and North Korea, also retain a key geographical advantage.  They are contiguous, and do not need to worry about long and hazardous lines of supply that the U.S. does with its allies in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.

Now that America’s technological advantage has been sharply reduced and, in some areas, eliminated, the issue of numbers again must be considered.  The imbalance in certain types of essential weaponry is startling. On a strategic level, Neither the United States, nor the United States in combination with its allies, is dominant in nuclear weapons, as Russia, for the first time, has a lead in nuclear weapons, and the combination of Russia and China exceeds in overall numbers that possessed by Washington and its allies.
In just a few years, Kamagra Learn More Here order cheap viagra became successful winning hearts of numerous users. Don’t levitra store use it to make gravy. There are plenty of buy levitra good doctors that you can contact in the time of an emergency. There are many references in viagra sale the history wherein we find men suffering from this sexual disorder.
Problems exist on the tactical level as well. Moscow has 20,216 tanks, Beijing, 6,457, and America, 5,884. Russia, notes Global Firepower,fields 14,390 pieces of artillery, and China has 9,726. This compares unfavorably with the 4,564 possessed by the U.S. Throw in the vast amount of artillery possessed by North Korea and the numbers look even worse, even if one factored in the equipment retained by U.S. allies in Europe and Asia. America’s once-dominant navy faces a major rival as China floats more total hulls than the U.S., and a Beijing-Russia combination poses an existential threat to the Western and Japanese alliance. America retains a large lead in total military aircraft, but increasingly, its planes are grounded and incapable due to inadequate maintenance, and pilots are not receiving sufficient training.

A recent Rand study found that “U.S. forces… are failing to keep pace with the modernizing forces of great power adversaries, are poorly postured to meet key challenges in Europe and East Asia, and are insufficiently trained and ready to get the most operational utility from many of its active component units…Important national interests today are being challenged by two major powers — Russia and China — that pose operational and strategic challenges that far outstrip those posed by the regional adversaries that animate DoD’s current force planning construct (FPC)… Force planning in DoD today should place greater priority on modernizing the capabilities and posture of U.S. forces in order to better enable them to deter and defeat aggression by China, Russia, and North Korea. At the same time, force planners should provide for the continued, gradual expansion of special operations forces, modernize U.S. nuclear forces, and raise readiness levels of active component forces. With its growing arsenal of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, North Korea today presents threats for which U.S. and allied forces lack satisfactory answers.”

Secretary Mattis notes that “Given the magnitude of the threats they pose to U.S. security and prosperity today, Congress must commit to both an increased and sustained investment in our capabilities.”

In one of the most high-tech areas crucial to war fighting in the near future, the United States is losing ground to Russia and China, according to a report disclosed to Newsweek.  “The report, from government data analysis group Govini and former Department of Defense Chief Robert Work, says America’s two biggest military competitors are rapidly advancing with AI, [artificial intelligence] leaving the U.S. military with the choice of whether it wants to ‘lead the coming revolution, or fall victim to it.’”

The success of America’s armed forces in the Middle East is not an indicator of how well equipped they are to take on Russia and China.  As those two nations increase in belligerence, power, and technology, the danger grows exponentially.

Photo: B-2 bomber (USAF)

Categories
Quick Analysis

Trump Seeks Change in Defense Strategy Part 2

We continue our review of the Trump Administration’s change in defense strategy. As previously noted, The Trump Administration is seeking a dramatic but little-discussed shift in American defense planning.

Last year, the White House Executive Budget Request noted that  “The surest way to prevent war is to be prepared to win one…” It then altered the strategy that had prevailed since the fall of the Soviet Union, which had largely geared the U.S. military to fight smaller conflicts against less capable forces such as those possessed by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

That perspective began to change in the 2018 budget, when the White House noted that “Long-term strategic competitions with China and Russia are the principal priorities…These competitions require both increased and sustained investment, reflected in the Budget request, because of the magnitude of the threats they pose to U.S. security and prosperity today, and the potential for those threats to increase in the future. Concurrently, the Budget requests funding for sustained DOD efforts to deter and counter rogue regimes such as North Korea and Iran, defeat terrorist threats to the United States, and consolidate gains in Iraq and Afghanistan while ensuring these approaches are resource-sustainable. The Budget ensures the United States can maintain a joint force that possesses decisive advantages for any likely conflict, while remaining proficient across the entire spectrum of conflict.”

A prior Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute analyses of each branch of the military revealed 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.

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.”

Native Americans also used ginseng http://www.devensec.com/sustain/Rosenthal_matrix_article.pdf online levitra canada extensively but this fact is less known. Next reason for cheap viagra india the sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (SOD is the common cause of chronic pain after gallbladder removal. achat viagra pfizer Do not practice it for any other purpose. This event was probably driven generic tadalafil no prescription by social factors with such a great cultural emphasis on personal fulfillment and openness to discuss sexuality, as well as their reported success rate. 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.

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.”

 

 

Categories
Quick Analysis

Trump Seeks Change in Defense Strategy

The Trump Administration is seeking a dramatic but little-discussed shift in American defense strategy, and has made its intention clear in the 2019 Executive Budget Request.

The 2019 Executive Budget Request notes that the White House’s revised National Defense Strategy “prioritizes major power competition, and in particular, reversing the erosion of the U.S. military advantage in relation to China and Russia.” Specifics include increasing end strength for the Army, Navy and Air Force (+25,900), continuing the Department’s Missile Defeat and Defense Enhancement initiative, increasing procurement of preferred and advanced munitions, modernizing equipment for the second Army Armored Brigade Combat Team, buying ten combat ships, increasing production of the F-35 aircraft and F/A-18 aircraft, enhancing deterrence by modernizing the nuclear triad, Increasing funds to enhance communications and resiliency in space, supporting U.S. Armed Forces with a pay raise of 2.6 percent, and  increasing the emphasis on technology innovation for increased lethality.

Following the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, it was mistakenly assumed that the era of great-power military confrontations was over as the Kremlin’s forces went into virtual hibernation.  China was busy developing its economy, and its large but unsophisticated armed forces posed no significant threat to any nation except those directly on its borders. North Korea had yet to develop nuclear weapons, and Iran’s significant military had not developed the missile technology nor the basics of atomic weaponry that could pose a significant threat beyond its own immediate neighborhood.

In response, the American military changed in character. Following 1991, it was substantially reduced. Personnel was slashed, with the Army being reduced from 710,821 personnel to 515,888.  The Navy went from 570,262 to 319,120. The Air Force was cut from 510,432 to 336,432, and the Marine Corps dropped from 194,040 to 192,787.

The Navy best symbolizes the extraordinary change.  It floated approximately 585 ships in 1991, and now has only 285. China’s navy will soon surpass that number.

The world, however, has changed again. Russian President Putin, who considers the end of the USSR the greatest tragedy of the 20th century, has moved to restore Moscow to military dominance. He has committed vast sums to make his nations’ armed forces a vast and world-threatening force. His nation now leads the world in nuclear armaments. He has invaded neighboring nations, established a strong presence in the Middle East, and has engaged in military relations with a number of Latin American nations.
Flaxseed, fishes like tuna and salmon, pumpkin seeds and Walnuts are the better sources of omega-3 fatty acids. browse around over here buy levitra Well can’t actually blame them on that, viagra purchase canada as the price and reviews to get the overall picture. Rest will give the muscle time to robertrobb.com viagra sale heal. There are some other medications that have been prescribed to you. viagra viagra
China’s rate of military spending has increased faster than either that of the USSR or the USA at the height of the Cold War, and those funds have produced results.  Beijing’s military technology equals and in some areas surpasses America’s.

Korea has become a nuclear power, and Iran is on the brink of having missiles that can strike worldwide.

Great power rivalry is again a reality, requiring an enlargement and revitalization of America’s depleted military.

During the Obama Administration, an American Enterprise Institute (AEI) study 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  noted 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 Report Concludes Tomorrow.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Defense Myths that Endanger America, Part 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
Quick Analysis

Defense Myths that Endanger America, Part 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Report concludes Monday.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Defense Myths that Endanger America, Part 2

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

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

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

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

The Alliance for American Manufacturing outlines the challenge:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Report continues tomorrow.    

Categories
Quick Analysis

Defense Myths that Endanger America

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

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

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

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

Those myths include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Report continues tomorrow    

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Budget Mistakes that Endanger America, Part 3

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its examination of the danger posed by inadequate defense budgets.

During its tenure, the Obama Administration engaged in policies which were breathtaking in their scope and in the extraordinary danger they posed. Among  these actions were slashing the defense budget, preventing the development of  an adequate anti-missile shield, proposing unilateral reductions in the U.S. nuclear arsenal, withdrawing all US tanks from Europe, (some have since been returned) cutting benefits to active duty service members, alienating  regional allies such as Israel, betraying key nuclear defense secrets of the United Kingdom to Moscow, prematurely withdrawing U.S. forces from key hot spots, not responding to Chinese aggression towards allies Japan and the Philippines, ignoring Russian, Chinese, and Iranian military growth in Latin America, softening sanctions against Iran’s development of nuclear weapons, and taking no viable steps in response to North Korea’s imminent deployment of nuclear ICBMs.

These actions occur in the face of a US military that was already sharply reduced from its strength in the recent past.  The navy has shrunk from 600 ships to 284, the Army is down from 17 divisions to ten, the Air Force from 37 fighter commands to 20.

This diminished force must contend with a Russia that has returned to cold war strength, possesses a 10 to 1 advantage in tactical nuclear weapons, has invaded two neighboring nations in the past ten years, has returned to cold war bases around the world, assisted in the shooting down of a civilian airliner, and has allied itself with China.

China has engaged in unprecedented espionage against civilian, governmental and military targets in the U.S., and has increased its nuclear and conventional military strength at a pace faster than either the Soviet Union or the United States did at the height of the cold war. It is a full-fledged military superpower on land, sea, air, and space, with technology every bit as capable as Washington’s.  It unabashedly asserts hegemony over a vast swath of seas that it has no legitimate right to, and has brazenly stolen resources from the Philippines. It makes no secret that it views the United States as an adversary, and its extraordinarily powerful armed forces are precisely structured to fight what is left of the American military.

Those with problems leading to ED such as diabetes, high blood pressure, high blood sugar level, kidney problem, blood related problem, cheapest levitra neurological issue, nicotine and wrong lifestyle are some of very common causes of erectile problem. 100mg tablet is said to be standard dosage to treat ED. Importance of Outside canadian discount cialis Help After sharing a conversation about ED, you can prevent it from ruining your relationship. Kamagra Jelly Online is an ingenious tadalafil tablets india invention; especially, for men who cannot swallow pills. Diuretic and Anti-inflammatory Pill is created by herbalist Lee Xiaoping who specializes in the field of male and women sexual dysfunction. wholesale cialis price The oft-cited clichés about the amount the U.S. spends on defense, and its comparison with potential enemies, serve to cloud the debate.  Defense spending as a percent of GDP, at about 3.3%, is at a near post-World War 2 low, and represents less than 16% of the federal budget.

Comparisons with the publicly stated budgets of Russia and China, which those opposed to adequate American defense spending often point to, is deceptive.  The non-transparent governments of those nations hide substantial portions of their military spending. They also do not include within their stated figures many items that their U.S. counterpart does.  Additionally, within their essentially command economies, manufacturers are not taking the type of profit American companies do, making the purchase of weapons exceptionally less costly.

The Trump Administration has called for a $54 billion increase in defense spending, although some estimates indicate that the actual figure may be closer to $30 billion. After the Obama disinvestment years, either figure represents merely treading water.

A True Pundit review of the request notes that “The Trump administration claimed that the proposal increases defense spending by 10 percent (approximately $54 billion), however, that number is based on unfounded estimations from 2011. The increase may actually represent a 3 percent increase, when based on the number former President Barack Obama said he would have liked to have seen last year.[Defense Secretary] Mattis said…while the $30 billion is necessary, it is only enough to fill current gaps, and not enough to improve capabilities in the future.”

Writing for the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) Mackenzie Eaglen explains: “The current outlook for the U.S. defense budget is middling with a chance of disappointment. When Trump’s first budget is eventually signed into law, it will likely just be a more muscular version of the status quo, increasing defense spending only a few percentage points above last year’s enacted levels… On the campaign trail, Trump set a fairly nebulous goal of growing the military to 350 navy ships, 540,000 active-duty army soldiers, 200,000 marines, and more than 1,200 combat-capable air force fighters. Such growth would cost an estimated $60 billion per year more than what Obama planned for in his five-year budget from 2017, or about $90 billion per year more than the levels prescribed by the Budget Control Act.”