Tag: defense spending

Categories
Quick Analysis

NATO Expands Defense Spending, Criticizes Russia, Part 2

This month, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg presented the NATOs Annual Report. We continue our review by presenting excerpts presenting the Alliance’s views on Russia, and nuclear deterrence.

Russia

Relations with Russia NATO’s policy towards Russia remains consistent: defence and dialogue.

After the Cold War, NATO and Russia were striving towards a strategic partnership. However, after Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014, all practical cooperation was suspended.

At the same time, however, NATO maintains political dialogue and military-to-military lines of communications with Russia. Efforts to reduce risk and increase transparency are also ongoing. At the Warsaw Summit, NATO leaders reaffirmed that the nature of the Alliance’s relations with Russia will be contingent on a clear, constructive change in Russia’s actions – one that demonstrates compliance with international law and its international obligations and responsibilities.

The Alliance maintains a firm position, based on a dual-track approach of strong deterrence and defence complemented by a periodic, focused and meaningful dialogue. That dialogue is carried out on the basis of reciprocity in the NATO-Russia Council. This is important to avoid misunderstanding, miscalculation and unintended escalation, as well as to increase transparency and predictability.

In 2017, the NATO-Russia Council met three times – in March, July and October. At each meeting, the Council discussed the conflict in and around Ukraine, including the need for the full implementation of the Minsk Agreements, issues relating to military activities, transparency and risk reduction, as well as the security situation in Afghanistan and the regional terrorist threat.

NATO continued to maintain a dialogue with Russia on air safety in the Baltic Sea region. In light of the increased air activity in the Baltic Sea region in recent years, it has become increasingly important to boost predictability and transparency in order to prevent incidents and accidents, and avoid unintended escalation. In 2016, the International Civil Aviation Organization’s Baltic Sea Project Team briefed the NATO-Russia Council on this important topic. Subsequently, a Finnish-led Expert Group on Baltic Sea Air Safety was established to build on the work of the Baltic Sea Project Team. The group – with the participation of Allied and partner countries from the region, Russia and NATO, inter alia – developed recommendations and guidance on the handling and resolution of air encounters between all aircraft, both civilian and military, in peacetime. Supported by the Allies, these recommendations were published by the International Civil Aviation Organization in December 2017.

In 2017, the NATO-Russia Council began to exchange advanced reciprocal briefings on upcoming exercises. This mutual exchange has the potential to contribute towards greater predictability and risk reduction in the Euro-Atlantic area. However, these voluntary briefings cannot replace mandatory transparency under the Vienna Document.

The Secretary General met with the Russian Foreign Minister in February, May and September. The Deputy Secretary General maintained regular contact with the Russian Ambassador to NATO throughout the year, as well as with other Russian officials. NATO’s military leaders have also continued to communicate directly with their Russian counterparts.
In PRP method, the doctor takes sildenafil cialis your blood sample and spins it to segregate the components. As an example, a recent study by the ASRM revealed that there are four life style elements accountable for lowering check out content levitra prescription female fertility in American women- Smoking, Overweight/underweight, Sexually transmitted diseases/infections, and Over-aging. As anti-impotence treatment options are easily accessible, people can sildenafil pfizer without any hindrance. People can now buy the medicine cialis 10 mg through a medical stores.

Nuclear Deterence

Nuclear deterrence has made a major contribution to peace and stability in Europe and beyond for more than 70 years, and has been at the heart of NATO’s posture. At the Warsaw Summit in 2016, Allies recognised the importance of nuclear deterrence as a key element of the Allied deterrence posture, for the specific purpose of preserving peace, preventing coercion, and deterring aggression. As long as nuclear weapons exist, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance.

At the same time, the Alliance is committed to seeking the conditions necessary for a world without nuclear weapons, in accordance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and in a step-by-step and verifiable manner.

NATO is also concerned about the threat of nuclear proliferation and it has taken a firm stand in condemning the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea for carrying out nuclear and missile tests. North Korea’s destabilising behaviour poses a threat to international peace and security and the Alliance has called on North Korea to abandon nuclear weapons and nuclear and ballistic missile programmes in a complete, verifiable, and irreversible manner. NATO also urges the country to comply with its international obligations and recommit to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Allied commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty remains unwavering. The Treaty is the cornerstone of the global nuclear non-proliferation and safeguards regime and the basis for global disarmament efforts.

The Alliance also recognises the importance of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty to EuroAtlantic security. The Treaty has contributed to strategic stability and reduced the risk of miscalculation leading to conflict. The Alliance is committed to the preservation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and strongly believes full compliance with this landmark arms control treaty is needed. In December 2017, NATO recognised the United States’ compliance with its obligations under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and its commitment to implementing the Treaty. The Alliance also welcomed the continued efforts by the United States to engage Russia to resolve concerns about Russia’s compliance with the Treaty.

NATO photo

 

 

Categories
Quick Analysis

NATO Expands Defense Spending, Criticizes Russia

This month, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg presented the Alliance’s Annual Report.

In 2017, European Allies and Canada increased spending on defense by almost 5%.  There have now been three consecutive years of growth since 2014. In 2017, twenty-six Allies spent more in real terms on major equipment than the year before.

“All NATO members have pledged to continue to increase defence spending in real terms. The majority have already put in place plans on how to meet the 2% guideline by 2024. And we expect others to follow”, according to Stoltenberg.

At the end of 2017, there were over 23,000 troops serving in NATO deployments, up from just under 18,000 in 2014, before Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea and the rise of ISIS, an increase of 30%.

The Secretary General also addressed the recent use of a nerve agent in the United Kingdom, noting that this was “the first offensive use of a nerve agent on Alliance territory since NATO’s foundation”. “All Allies agree that the attack was a clear breach of international norms and agreements,” and they have “called on Russia to address the UK’s questions”, he noted.

Stoltenberg stated that the backdrop to the attack was “a reckless pattern of Russian behaviour over many years…the illegal annexation of Crimea and military support to separatists in Eastern Ukraine. The military presence in Moldova and Georgia against these countries’ will. Meddling in Montenegro and elsewhere in the Western Balkans. Attempts to subvert democratic elections and institutions. And the military build-up from the North of Europe to the Middle East.” He also warned that the “blurring of the line” between nuclear and conventional warfare “lowers the threshold for Russia’s use of nuclear weapons.”

Key Excepts from NATO’s Annual Report

NATO is adapting. Part of being a truly 21st century Alliance is about speed: speed of awareness, speed of decisionmaking, speed of action, speed of reinforcement and speed of adaptation – what is sometimes called the ‘speed of relevance’. And a more agile, more responsive, more innovative NATO is a stronger and more effective NATO.

2017 was a defining year in that continuing evolution. At our meeting of NATO leaders in Brussels in May, we took important decisions on how to implement fairer burden-sharing and stepping up the fight against terrorism – decisions which are making the Alliance stronger.

Last year, we also deployed four multinational battlegroups to the east of the Alliance and strengthened our Forward Presence in the Black Sea region. We welcomed Montenegro as the 29th member of the Alliance. We joined the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS, with our AWACS planes, and training of Iraqi forces. We increased our support to Jordan and Tunisia. And we worked hand-in-hand with the European Union to keep our seas safe, fight terrorism, and defend against cyber attacks.

A more uncertain security environment requires that we invest more in defence, develop the right military capabilities, and make the necessary contributions to our military operations and missions. In 2014, Allies pledged to stop cuts to their defence budgets, increase defence spending, and move towards investing at least 2% of their GDP in defence within a decade.

Since then we have seen three consecutive years of growth in defence expenditure across Europe and Canada, adding a total of 46 billion dollars to defence. All Allies have pledged to continue to increase defence spending in real terms. In 2017 alone, European Allies and Canada increased their defence expenditure by almost 5%. This year, we expect eight allies to meet the 2% guideline. And the majority of Allies already have plans on how to meet the 2% guideline by 2024.

So the picture is clear: the Alliance is doing more to respond and adapt to an uncertain security environment. All Allies are stepping up: doing more, in more places, in more ways, to strengthen our shared security.

The Alliance remained committed to strengthening its deterrence and defence. In 2017, NATO bolstered its defensive presence in the eastern part of the Alliance. In just a year, the Alliance implemented the Warsaw Summit decision to establish a rotational Forward Presence – deploying four multinational battlegroups to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, and strengthening its presence in the Black Sea region.
Kamagra 100mg pill is rapidly absorbed and should be taken around an viagra samples https://regencygrandenursing.com/about-us/schedule-a-tour hour before performing sexual activity. There are many factors to impotence and one might experience penile issues a number of years earlier than men that are found without diabetes. purchase generic levitra Sam was never so generic cialis online good in the bed, but that day he was in full swing and Martha enjoyed the 3 intense orgasms during the act. Buying a right kind of golf electric trolley effects of viagra is one of the most essential parts of preparing for your forthcoming golf sessions.
NATO maintained an all-round approach to collective defence, including by deepening its focus on threats from the Alliance’s southern flank. For example, NATO established a Regional Hub for the South in September 2017. The Hub aims to improve situational awareness and to enhance engagement with partners.

The Alliance continues to ensure it can perform its three core tasks: collective defence, crisis management, and cooperative security. In recent years, this has required NATO to recalibrate its missions, operations and activities to better meet changing security needs. NATO has wound down some activities, such as its counter-piracy mission off the Horn of Africa, and transformed others, including by transitioning from a combat to a training mission in Afghanistan. At the same time, to keep its nations safe in the face of new security challenges, the Alliance has invested in reinforcing and developing a number of activities, including on Allied territory.

As part of this adaptation process, NATO has strengthened its collective defence, tripling the size of the NATO Response Force from roughly 13,000 to 40,000 troops and establishing a 5,000-strong Very High Readiness Joint Task Force. The Alliance has boosted its Forward Presence in the northeast and southeast of the Alliance and strengthened assurance and support measures inside Alliance territory, including by enhancing air policing. NATO has also adapted its maritime security posture in the Mediterranean and invested in supporting the security and stability of partners by training local institutions and forces to fight terrorism.

Following the 2016 Warsaw Summit decision to make cyberspace an operational domain, the Alliance continued to strengthen its cyber defences and to fully integrate cyber defence into operational planning. At the same time, NATO is undertaking the largest modernisation of its information technology and networks in decades.

NATO also established a new intelligence division at its Headquarters in Brussels, improving Allies’ ability to obtain and share information on potential security threats.

Since the Wales Summit in 2014, NATO has implemented the largest reinforcement of its collective defence in a generation. As part of this extensive effort, NATO has increased its presence in the northeast and southeast of the Alliance. In 2017, NATO deployed four multinational battlegroups in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. Led by the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany and the United States respectively, this Forward Presence became fully operational in the summer. Around 4,500 troops are deployed and embedded in the home defence forces of the host nations, training and exercising with those forces on a daily basis. Over the past year, more than 20 Allies contributed forces and capabilities to this initiative, a clear demonstration of Allied solidarity and commitment. The battlegroups represent a proportionate and defensive force, in line with NATO’s determination to provide effective deterrence and to ensure collective defence. They send a message that an attack against any Ally would be an attack against the whole Alliance, and met with a collective response.

In the face of evolving security challenges in the Black Sea region, NATO also took steps to strengthen its presence in the southeast of the Alliance. This element of NATO’s Forward Presence comprises the deployment of a multinational brigade for training, and an expanded air and maritime presence in the Black Sea region. Together, these are distinct and important contributions to the Alliance’s strengthened deterrence and defence posture, and to its situational awareness.

The multinational framework brigade, led by Romania, was established in April 2017 and is expected to become fully operational by the end of 2018. The brigade is being developed with affiliated forces from Bulgaria, Italy, Poland, Portugal and the United States, with contributions from Canada, Germany, Hungary, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Slovakia and Spain.

NATO’s strengthened Forward Presence does not exist in isolation. The Alliance’s rapid-reinforcement strategy ensures that in a collective defence scenario the multinational battlegroups – alongside national home defence forces – would be reinforced by the brigade-sized Very High Readiness Joint Task Force, ready to be deployed in days, followed by the remainder of the approximately 40,000 troops of the enhanced NATO Response Force.

NATO has also invested in reinforcing its ability to understand and respond to security challenges along its southern borders. The Alliance continues to provide support to Turkey, including by augmenting Turkish air defence capabilities through the deployment of missile batteries, air policing and port visits. NATO actively contributes to security in its southern neighbourhood by being an active member of the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS and by supporting its partners’ efforts to fight terrorism. NATO continues to be present in the Aegean and Mediterranean Seas, working to support maritime situational awareness, counter terrorism, combat illegal trafficking and enhance capacity-building.

In 2017, NATO boosted its awareness of the threats and challenges from the south, including by establishing a Regional Hub at the Allied Joint Force Command Naples. The Alliance has also committed to improving its ability to conduct expeditionary operations, for example by carrying out more high level exercises that reflect challenges emanating from its southern neighbourhood.

NATO photo

The Report Concludes Tomorrow.

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

Should National Security be a Bargaining Chip? Part 2

Should national security be a bargaining chip in budget negotiations?  The New York Analysis of Policy and Government continues its examination of this debate.

Writing in Questia, Lawrence P. Farrell Jr. noted: “…any debate about defense spending must address the strategy issue. An assessment of needed military capabilities flows from the national military strategy…Most pundits ignore this critical link, and much of the discussion that takes place in the media fails to note that analysts, in some very significant ways, redefine strategy for the purposes of their arguments. In some cases, this is explicitly defined, but in others, it is implicit and one wonders if the pundits are even aware of the difference between their analyses and the official national strategy.”

A 2015 Heritage analysis by Justin T. Johnson explained: “Instead of arguing the merits of a particular military spending level, much of the debate [revolves] around Democratic opposition to increasing defense spending without proportional increases to non-defense spending. The usual arguments for cutting defense spending will likely pop up as well. But what’s really needed is a more thoughtful debate… The first step is determining the vital interests of the United States. What must we, as a country, protect?…The next step is figuring out what threatens these vital interests…The third step is figuring out how to protect America’s vital interests from both the threats of today and those of the future.

“Once you have a strategy, you need to develop the tools to implement that strategy. For the military, this means figuring out the capabilities and the capacity needed to execute the strategy…Answering questions of capability and capacity will lead directly to a defense budget… [However] Since the imposition of the Budget Control Act in 2011, the base defense budget (excluding war costs) has gone down by 15 percent in real terms, while the threats to U.S. vital interests have, if anything, increased.”

“The prior administration, Congressional Democrats, and Republican budgets hawks adopted the sequester which effectively cut defense spending. The results were disastrous.  When President Obama prematurely withdrew American forces from Iraq, it allowed ISIS to become a regional power. The former president gave in to Moscow’s demands on anti-ballistic missile defense, and Putin increased nuclear weaponry. Obama refused to confront either Russia or China over aggressive acts in Europe and the Pacific, and these U.S. enemies dramatically ramped up their threats worldwide and expanded their armed presence throughout the planet. Obama withdrew, for the first time since the end of the Second World War, American tanks from Europe, and Putin proceeded to invade and threaten his neighbors.”

President Obama hoped to “Reset” Russian American relations by essentially ceding the lead in military power to Moscow.  His New START treaty gave the Kremlin, for the first time in history, a more powerful nuclear arsenal than Washington. He dramatically weakened the U.S. military presence in Europe.
Price is an important point to be pfizer viagra discount browse description now considered that when Kamagra Chewable effect goes over the tolerance level, then heart/kidney/lungs disorders, eye irritations, etc could occur. This drug is acceptable for those men who are ready to buy the drug at any cost do not touch any machinery after intake of food to effectively cure sexual disorders like semen leaking, premature ejaculation, weakness in male organ, impotence and excessive precum. buy viagra greyandgrey.com If you are suffering from ED then you can easily overcome it by using this product because it interferes with hormones thereby viagra for sale canada resulting in adverse reactions. Ever since that discovery, sildenafil has been used for centuries and so you can be sure about the quality and the efficiency at the time of purchasing sample viagra for free in form of cialis.
President Obama’s attempt to “Reset” relations with Russia was actually the centerpiece of his foreign and defense policies.

Writing in the Moscow Times, Sergei Karagonov opined on what he believes was the flawed concept of Mr. Obama’s reset, even from the Russian perspective: (the perspective of American critics is that it gave too much to Russia without gaining anything substantive in return) “…the U.S. proposed nuclear weapons reductions as the primary mechanism of the diplomatic reset…But progress soon stalled with Russia rejecting U.S. proposals…In the hope of breaking the deadlock, Obama signaled his willingness to compromise.  But Putin had little reason to reciprocate, not least because agreement on the issue would have opened the door to further nuclear arms reductions. Moreover, members of Russia’s military and political elite hoped to use some of the country’s oil revenues to deploy a new generation of ICBMs…By focusing on nuclear disarmament and new START, Obama’s reset strategy remilitarized the U.S.-Russia relationship while marginalizing issues that could have reoriented bilateral ties toward the future.  In this sense, the initiative was doomed from the start, and the whole world has suffered as a result.”

What was manifestly evident was Mr. Obama’s desire to downsize of the U.S. military, regardless of external factors. Indeed, despite the reduction of U.S. defense spending as a percent of the GDP and the federal budget to historic low points, and rising, dangerous threats from abroad, the U.S. military was forced absorb massive new cuts.

During the Obama Administration, in 2014, former Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)  outlined how deeply American forces had been cut.  The U.S. Navy was reduced from 546 ships to 285; The U.S. Army was reduced from 76 brigades to 45; and The USAF lost about half of its fighter and bomber squadrons.  Remember, in the intervening years since then, U.S. armed forces have become older, absorbed more years of use, and endured further inadequate budgets.

The bleeding continues, as American aircraft and naval vessels become increasingly unsafe due to a lack of parts and maintenance, and our personnel become exhausted from excessive workloads mandated by the reduced numbers of soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. Meanwhile,  the threats from Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and terrorists increase.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Should National Security be a Bargaining Chip?

The provision of an adequate defense budget for America’s diminished armed forces in the face of rapidly growing international threats has been held hostage to political issues including immigration, increased domestic programs, and spending caps. It is a dangerous act, the governmental equivalent of a family refusing to fix a collapsed roof in their home until they can also afford a new big-screen television.

The current flashpoint is the tactic by Senator Schumer (Dem-NY) and Rep. Pelosi (D-Ca.)  to withhold necessary defense spending  unless Republicans surrender on immigration issues.

it’s not the first time this tact has been taken. In the past few years, the Obama Administration withheld urgently needed budgetary support for the armed services unless Congress authorized increases in domestic spending, despite the former president’s increase of over 40% in some entitlement programs, his $780 billion stimulus program, and other costly (and, some would argue, unsuccessful) domestic initiatives.

In 2016, the Washington Examiner reported, after Democrats had blocked a defense spending bill for the third time, that “The Obama administration reportedly put together a five-page memo about blocking increases for the Pentagon unless they are accompanied by increases on other programs…It is one thing to insist on fiscal probity within the Pentagon, quite another to prevent proper national defense until the majority party caves in and allows further federal overspending on domestic programs.”

You can increase testosterone levels through consuming discount viagra levitra testosterone boosting foods. This situation impacts 1% with the male population and generika cialis it’s estimated that up to 20% of circumstances of male infertility are due to azoospermia. This means that getting a prescription over the internet isn’t bad at all- just make sure that you get good results. http://secretworldchronicle.com/?s=%EF%BC%BB%EC%98%A8%EB%9D%BC%EC%9D%B8%EC%B9%B4%EC%A7%80%EB%85%B8%EF%BC%BD%E2%99%AA-%EC%95%84%EB%B0%94%ED%83%80%EA%B2%8C%EC%9E%84-%E2%87%9F%EB%8F%84%EB%B0%95+%ED%95%A9%EB%B2%95+%EA%B5%AD%EA%B0%80%E2%87%96%E3%80%90%E3%80%91 levitra 20mg canada As the products are very effective herbal remedies to treat erectile dysfunction, never levitra generic online delay to enjoy the benefit of them right now. The strategy continued into 2017, reports Elana Schor in Politico, when “All but four of the Senate’s 48 Democrats [in December] warned congressional GOP leaders against pursuing a government funding plan that would boost defense spending for the rest of the fiscal year while leaving domestic priorities at current levels…Some Senate Democrats began pushing back… as House conservatives pitched Republican leaders on a full-year hike for the Pentagon paired with a continuing resolution for domestic programs.”

There is a profound difference between the pragmatic worldview of those seeking to provide necessary funds for the Pentagon, and those who view defense as just one more Washington program. The Hill  reported that “Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) said he opposes the administration’s push to expand the U.S. nuclear arsenal because ‘we can’t afford it.’… the congressman argued for ‘a national security strategy that realistically reflects the amount of money that we’re going to have.’”

Rep. Smith’s position fails to pass a logic test.  The world of threats facing America will not respond to Washington’s internecine debates.  The threats are real, not political. Further, it was proven quite rigorously during the Obama Administration that when the U.S. reduces the strength of its military or its military commitments, military dangers increase.

The latest pushback on this extraordinarily hazardous practice came from Speaker Paul Ryan, in a January address to the Center for Strategic and International Studies  :

“…the federal government has a lot of responsibilities, but its first and its foremost responsibility is our national defense… We have to be clear-eyed in laying out for the American people why so much is at stake. Rebuilding our military is essential to confronting the threats we face, threats that are evolving at an alarmingly rapid pace. North Korea is working to build ballistic missiles capable of hitting the continental United States. Iran is marching forward with its quest for regional hegemony by backing terrorism across the globe. And what is left of ISIS is trying to figure out how to expand and influence terrorism in the Middle East, in Afghanistan, and into the West, including by inspiring attacks right here at home…Then there are those countries that want to remake the world order in their authoritarian image…Russia is trying to drive holes through NATO, while threatening some of our closest allies in Eastern Europe; while the Chinese aggression continues to stir instability in the South China Sea. And these threats are particularly serious, because allowing Russia and China to upend the post-Cold War order first and foremost affects us right here at home… We have simply pushed our military past the breaking point. Instead of upgrading our hardware, we have let our equipment age. Instead of equipping our troops for tomorrow’s fight, we have let them become woefully underequipped. Funding for modernizing the Army has been cut in half in the past eight years. Navy sailors are putting in 100-hour work weeks, and less than half of their aircraft are capable of flying. So we’re pushing our sailors to 100-hour work weeks and half of their planes can fly. Roughly 80 percent of the Marine Corps aviation units lack the minimum number of ready basic aircraft. The Air Force is the smallest size in our nation’s history, and the average age of their aircraft is 27 years old. The cost of these readiness deficiencies are really dire, and this is literally costing us lives. Here’s the statistic that gets me the most. In total, we lost 80 lives due to training accidents in 2017 alone. That is four times as many were killed in combat. Four times were lost last year in training accidents versus combat…”

The Report Concludes Tomorrow

Categories
Quick Analysis

FUNDING DEFENSE: MEETING THE CHALLENGE, Part 4

The New York Analysis concludes its review of whether the 2018 defense budget is sufficient to meet threats facing the United States.

China’s military has evolved from a large but unsophisticated force into one that rivals any on Earth for technological prowess. Funded by a vast economy, the People’s Liberation Army (which includes all branches of armed services) draws not only on its publicly admitted budget but also on monies gleaned from companies in which it has control or a vested interest.  Beijing was able to move rapidly ahead thanks to its extensive and sophisticated espionage network, which, targeting both private companies and government entities throughout the west, allowed it to save both decades of years and billions of dollars in weapons development. Add corruption to that approach, as well.  From President Bill Clinton’s OK for the sale of a supercomputer to China at a time when that nation sought to contribute to his campaign, and the greed of some corporations to glean major profits from sales, Beijing was able to leapfrog to the heights of military technology while paying only a fraction of the cost Americans had to devote to their own research and development.

To what end?  Writing in National Review, Victor Davis Hanson presents a disturbing answer. “China is currently following the Japanese model of the 1930s and early 1940s… In our arrogance and complacency, we once scoffed at the Japanese… then suffered what followed. Are we doing the same thing some 75 years later?”

The Congressional Research Service notes that “China is building a modern and regionally powerful military with a limited but growing capability for conducting operations away from China’s immediate periphery…China has engaged in a sustained and broad effort over more than 25 years to transform its military…into a high-technology, networked force with an increasing emphasis on joint operations and naval and air power… From 2005 through 2014, China’s official military budget increased at an average rate of 9.5% per year in real terms, allowing the PLA to improve its capabilities in many dimensions. PLA naval forces feature quieter submarines, large surface combatants with improved air defenses and long-range anti-ship cruise missiles, and a nascent aircraft carrier program. New air power capabilities include modern fighter aircraft, more supporting platforms and a variety of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in production and under development. The PLA has increased the number and accuracy of its ballistic missiles for both nuclear and conventional strike missions. China has launched numerous satellites for military communications, surveillance, and navigation, and also has developed a variety of counter-space capabilities. The cyber operations of the PLA are harder to characterize, but reports indicate that China has invested heavily in this area…since the late 2000s the PLA has expanded the geographic scope of its operations.”

One salient example of Beijing’s exceptional sophistication is its DF-21 missile, believed to be “A complete game-changer in the Pacific.”  Global Security  explains: Peter M. Bilodeau noted in 2011 that “The DF-21D, if fully operational, could reach all current forward bases in the region with the exception of perhaps Guam. Therefore, the US must consider all current forward bases vulnerable to attack… Gregory R. Bamford noted in 2012 that “The loss of a Nuclear Powered Carrier (CVN) and its associated airwing or an Amphibious Assault Ship (multi-purpose) LHD with its Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) components due to PRC use of the DF-21 ASBM would be a significant strategic defeat for US naval forces in the region. The use of the DF-21, combined with the use of intra-theater ballistic missiles against aircraft, surface units and their associated logistical support bases, could close the South China Sea…”

The advances include strategic nuclear weaponry. Consider just one area: advanced means of delivering nuclear weapons.  An Investors Daily study details the challenge:
J http://icks.org/n/data/ijks/1482460790_add_file_4.pdf free viagra in canada Ethnopharmacol 1996;50:69-76.Davis L, Kuttan G. It is important to understand the underlying cause for this condition. viagra 100mg no prescription You might not have too many symptoms of this issue is just to find out a better and cialis wholesale india rapid effect. Reagan went on to win the viagra pill price state that year by less than two points.
“China and post-Soviet Russia are making continued progress on vehicles that can transport nuclear warheads at 10 times the speed of sound … Beijing [has] for the seventh time successfully flight-tested its DF-ZF hypersonic glide vehicle, traveling up to over 7,000 miles per hour…Three days earlier, Russia flight-tested its own hypersonic glider, launched from a ballistic missile…The new vehicles Russia and China are developing go hypersonic in mid-phase, and can maneuver at that high velocity, too fast for missile defenses to be effective…The Defense Department’s Missile Defense Agency says it isn’t funding any initiatives to counter hypersonic attack; a laser weapon that could shoot such weapons in flight won’t even be tested until 2021, years after China is expected to be able to deploy the DF-ZF.”

Bill Gertz, writing in the Free Beacon (which has provided exceptional coverage if China’s military threat) reports that China is “pursuing [a] ‘leap ahead’ high tech arms strategy…China is developing an array of advanced, high technology weapons designed to defeat the United States in a future conflict… ‘China is pursuing a range of advanced weapons with disruptive military potential,’ says the annual report of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. The report outlines six types of advanced arms programs that Beijing has made a priority development in seeking ‘dominance’ in the high-tech weapons area. They include maneuverable missile warheads, hypersonic weapons, laser and beam weapons, electromagnetic railguns, counterspace weapons, and artificial intelligence-directed robots.

The Congressional Research Service notes that “China is building a modern and regionally powerful military with a limited but growing capability for conducting operations away from China’s immediate periphery…China has engaged in a sustained and broad effort over more than 25 years to transform its military…into a high-technology, networked force with an increasing emphasis on joint operations and naval and air power… From 2005 through 2014, China’s official military budget increased at an average rate of 9.5% per year in real terms, allowing the PLA to improve its capabilities in many dimensions. PLA naval forces feature quieter submarines, large surface combatants with improved air defenses and long-range anti-ship cruise missiles, and a nascent aircraft carrier program. New air power capabilities include modern fighter aircraft, more supporting platforms and a variety of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in production and under development. The PLA has increased the number and accuracy of its ballistic missiles for both nuclear and conventional strike missions. China has launched numerous satellites for military communications, surveillance, and navigation, and also has developed a variety of counter-space capabilities. The cyber operations of the PLA are harder to characterize, but reports indicate that China has invested heavily in this area…since the late 2000s the PLA has expanded the geographic scope of its operations.”

An area that is the most publicly-noted aspect of China’s advance both in numbers and sophistication in military is its navy. A just-released report from the Congressional Research Service describes the challenge:

“China since the early to mid-1990s has been steadily building a modern and powerful navy. China’s navy in recent years has emerged as a formidable military force within China’s near-seas region, and it is conducting a growing number of operations in more-distant waters, including the broader waters of the Western Pacific, the Indian Ocean, and waters around Europe. Observers of Chinese and U.S. military forces view China’s improving naval capabilities as posing a challenge in the Western Pacific to the U.S. Navy’s ability to achieve and maintain control of blue-water ocean areas in wartime—the first such challenge the U.S. Navy has faced since the end of the Cold War. More broadly, these observers view China’s naval capabilities as a key element of a broader Chinese military challenge to the long-standing status of the United States as the leading military power in the Western Pacific…China’s naval modernization effort encompasses a wide array of platform and weapon acquisition programs, including anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs), anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs), submarines, surface ships, aircraft, and supporting C4ISR (command and control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance) systems… Observers believe China’s naval modernization effort is oriented toward … displacing U.S. influence in the Western Pacific; and asserting China’s status as a leading regional power and major world power.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

FUNDING DEFENSE: MEETING THE CHALLENGE, Part 3

The New York Analysis continues its review of whether the 2018 defense budget is sufficient to meet threats facing the United States.

Due to its arm modernization and in its aggressive policies, Iran is a significant threat.  This is important both for the significance of its actions as a single nation, as well as a member of the maturing Russian-Chinese-Iranian axis. Tehran continues to develop its missile technology, provide major support and guidance for terrorist organizations, and expand its reach beyond the Middle East.

The Free Beacon  recently reported that “A top Iranian military commander has threatened to launch ballistic missile attacks on U.S. forces in the region amid a public effort by the Islamic Republic to show off its advanced missile capabilities, according to U.S. officials and regional reports.Iranian leaders disclosed that their advanced ballistic missile technology, which could be used as part of a nuclear weapons program, is sophisticated enough to strike U.S. forces up to nearly 1,300 miles, or 2,000 kilometers, away, which encompasses all U.S. bases in the region.”

Iran’s threat extends beyond the Middle East. In 2015, The United States Institute for Peace quoted the Chairman of the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen: “Iran and Hezbollah’s history of involvement in the Western Hemisphere has long been a source of concern for the United States. Given the nature of transnational criminal networks existing in Latin America and the rise of terrorism ideology being exported worldwide from Middle East, it is disturbing that the [Obama] State Department [had] failed to fully allocate necessary resources and attention to properly address this potential threat to our nation. It is well known that Iran poses a security threat to regional affairs and has expanded its ties in countries such as Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, and Ecuador.”

In November, according to a Daily Star report,  Iran’s Navy commander Rear Admiral Hossein Khanzadi “announced the major operation as he pledged to sail warships into the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico…The admiral said: ‘The appearance of our vessels in the Mediterranean and Suez Canal shocked the world and the US also made comments on it.’ He promised the warships would steam close to US waters “in the near future” and would visit nations in South America.”

In 2012, Rep. Jeff Duncan’s (R-SC) noted that Iran used its terrorist Hezbollah proxy force in the tri-border area of Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay, to gain influence and power; built numerous “cultural centers” and overstaffed embassies to assist its covert goals; and supported the activities of the terrorist group Hamas in South America. He specified that Iran was complicit in numerous dangerous unlawful activities in addition to military threats, including drug trafficking, counterfeiting, money laundering, forged travel documents, intellectual property pirating, and providing havens for criminals and other terrorists. Sophisticated narco-tunneling techniques used by Hezbollah in Lebanon have been discovered along the U.S.-Mexican border, and Mexican gang members with Iranian-related tattoos have been captured.

Reports from around the world have highlighted Tehran’s growing military presence in the Western Hemisphere.  Germany’s Die Welt described the Islamic Republic’s construction of intermediate range missile launch pads on Venezuela’s Paraguana Peninsula.

The threat is not confined to low-level tactics.  There is mounting concern that both nuclear and ballistic missile threats are emerging from Venezuelan-Iranian cooperation.
Include partial inflammation of genitals, tumour, dysplasia, malnutrition, intracranial diseases, other endocrine dysfunctions such as abnormal immunity, altering function of ovary and increased prostaglandin, which all may take the tiny pregnancy hope away lowest priced cialis greyandgrey.com through miscarriage. Again, we levitra cheap online look at a system that allows your cells to safely derive energy from oxygen. However this drug does not come with out purchase levitra side affects, some men have complained regarding this drug resulted to the conclusion that it is chewable for people who unfortunately fail to obtain jellies in other form. For many women, they viagra on line uk are anxious to get pregnant after marriage.
The Tehran/Caracas axis, first encouraged by Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, is particularly troubling. The Foundry’s Peter Brookes has  reported  that the two nations have a Memorandum of Understanding “pledging full military support and cooperation that likely increases weapons sales.” One could easily see Tehran using Caracas as a stepping off point for attacking U.S. or other (e.g. Israeli) interests in this hemisphere or even the American homeland, especially if action is taken against Iran’s nuclear program.”

 He goes on to note that “There is concern that Iran and Venezuela are already cooperating on some nuclear issues.  There have been reports that Iran may be prospecting for uranium ore in Venezuela, which could aid both countries’ nuclear programs, should Caracas proceed…  While still prospective, of course, there is the possibility that Tehran, which has an increasingly capable missile program, could sell or help Caracas develop ballistic missiles capable of reaching American shores.”

  Iran’s interest in Latin America entails both its goals of threatening the United States and enhancing its nuclear capability.  In his testimony before the U.S. Senate’s Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, Ilan Berman stressed Iran’s need for uranium ore.

“Iran’s indigenous uranium ore reserves are known to be limited and mostly of poor quality…Cooperation on strategic resources has emerged as a defining feature of the alliance between the Islamic Republic and the Chavez Regime.  Iran is currently known to be mining in the Roraima Basin, adjacent to Venezuela’s border with Guyana.  Significantly, that geologic area is believed to be analogous to Canada’s Athabasca Basin, the world’s largest deposit of uranium.”

 He notes that Iran “boasts an increasingly robust paramilitary presence in the region.  The Pentagon, in its 2010 report to Congress on Iran’s military power, noted that the Qods force, the elite paramilitary unit of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, is now deeply involved in the Americas, stationing ‘operatives in foreign embassies, charities and religious/cultural institutions to foster relationships with people, often building  on socio-economic ties with the well-established Shia Diaspora,’ and even carrying on ‘paramilitary operations to support extremists and destabilize unfriendly regimes.”

Matthew Levitt, writing for the Washington Institute noted: “Iran and Hezbollah remain hyperactive in Latin America…In its 2015 annual terrorism report, the State Department highlighted the financial support networks Hezbollah maintains in Latin America. The report concluded that Hezbollah is “capable of operating around the globe.”

The Report Concludes Tomorrow.

Categories
Quick Analysis

FUNDING DEFENSE: MEETING THE CHALLENGE. Part 2

The New York Analysis continues its review of whether the 2018 defense budget is sufficient to meet threats facing the United States.

One enduring myth that is consistently cited as a counter to arguments to adequately fund U.S. defenses is that the U.S. has a considerable lead in military technology.  That is no longer accurate. In both conventional and nuclear-related areas, China and Russia have equaled and in some cases exceeded America’s lead.

The Threat From Russia

Russia’s new Armata tank has three times the range of America’s Abrams. Task & Purpose reports that “Russia’s next-generation battle tank can reportedly out-stick the American armor in a heartbeat — and it’s coming to battlefields sooner than expected.”

Moscow has accelerated its development of other advanced nuclear weaponry. The Independent reports that Russia has developed a missile with unprecedented power The weapon, named the Satan-2, “ is said to be capable of carrying 12 nuclear warheads and could wipe out a whole country with a single strike.” Nuclear capable bombers are also enjoying a renaissance. The Russian news source RT reports that “A newly built Tupolev Tu-160 long-range heavy strategic bomber [NATO designation Blackjack]…was rolled out of the hangar as Russia resumes production of the world’s largest operational bomber …Russia’s military announced the decision to resume production of the Tu-160s in modernized Tu-160M2 variation back in 2015. Blackjack is largest combat aircraft in the world, with maximum takeoff weight of about 275 tons. It can cover a distance of more than 12,000 kilometers without refueling…The Tu-160 and other long-range aircraft resumed patrol flights over the Pacific and Atlantic in 2007…” The publication also reported  on Moscow’s ambitious submarine program. The Sun described the latest Russian “super-sub:” “RUSSIAN President Vladimir Putin has unveiled his Navy’s most powerful nuclear submarine  – which can easily outgun its American rival. The Knyaz Vladimir is capable of launching 16 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), which can lay waste to cities up to 5,778 miles away. Russia’s nuclear-powered Borei-A-class sub has the ability to dive to about 400 metres, making it hard to detect by sonar. Russia now plans to build a total of eight of the super subs by 2025.”

In 2015, Deputy Secretary of Defense Bob Work stated: “Russia [is] modernizing … Its naval and air units are operating at a pace and an extent that hasn’t been seen in quite some time, to include a large increase in trans-oceanic and global military operations. And as General Dempsey has said, Russia’s activities in the Ukraine are, quote, “giving the world a disturbing image of the hybrid nature of military aggression in the 21st century.”

Various viagra 50mg price websites have been organized to provide the affected males with proper medications. The historical correlation of the slope of the yield difference between 10-year and two-year U.S. treasuries viagra no prescription demonstrates the above historical correlation. One shouldn’t rush to do sex cialis free consultation when under the influence of the anti-impotency drug as visiting a psychologist can help. Any form of http://downtownsault.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Paint-Party-on-Portage_UP4Health-Challenge.pdf viagra 100 mg physical dysfunction can really be disruptive and may drastically alter our lives. General Joseph Dunford (USMC), quoted in the National Interest,  noted that “Russia has made a significant investment in military capabilities.  Putin has recently fielded a wide range of systems to include new intercontinental ballistic missiles, aircraft, nuclear-powered submarines, tanks, and air defense systems.  We’ve seen some of Russia’s more modern conventional capabilities on display in Syria, and we’re closely tracking Russian developments and actions in space and in cyberspace.”

In 2016, the commander of U.S. forces in Europe General Philip Breedlove warned: “we cannot ignore Russia’s increase in military activity which concerns all nations…Russia’s coercive use of energy has grown with threats and outright use of force. Eastern and Central European states, to include the Baltics, are concerned about Russia’s intentions in Europe and consider Russia’s aggression in Ukraine validation of their concerns.”

Moscow Times reports that “Russia’s military spending is set to increase despite the welfare budget decreasing…”

NATO describes Moscow’s drive to establish a dominant military: “Russia is roughly half-way through a major ten-year State Armaments Program, which foresees the procurement of large amounts of new or upgraded weapons systems and other military hardware, across all services of its armed forces, over the period 2011-2020…Overall, a large part of the program is likely to be fulfilled by 2020…”

The Report Continues Tomorrow.

Categories
Quick Analysis

FUNDING DEFENSE: MEETING THE CHALLENGE

The New York Analysis reviews whether the 2018 defense budget is sufficient to meet threats facing the United States.

In November, Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act  (NDAA)of 2018, providing $700 billion for national defense.

According to a Spacewar analysis, “The bill is some $26 billion above Trump’s initial military budget requests, and about 15 percent higher than the authorization in 2016, the last full year of Barack Obama’s presidency. It provides for $626 billion in base budget requirements, $66 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations, or warfighting, and an additional $8 billion for other defense activities. Increased spending is allocated for new F-35 fighter jets, ships and M1 Abrams tanks, military pay is raised by 2.4 percent and $4.9 billion is reserved for Afghanistan security forces, including a program integrating women into the country’s national defense. It also authorizes $12.3 billion for the Missile Defense Agency to bolster homeland, regional, and space missile defenses, including the expansion of ground-based interceptors and the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, which has been recently deployed in South Korea”

Contrary to popular misconception, defense spending accounts for only about 14% of the federal budget, and 3.3% of GDP.According to Business Insider, Russia commits about 5.01% of its GDP for military spending.

It is an enduring mantra of the left that America overspends on defense.  They are joined at times by budget hawks who believe that the task of keeping the U.S. safe can be done on the cheap. While any waste or fraud should be attacked in all government budgets, the dire threats facing the U.S. require substantially more resources. The Pentagon endured substantial budget cuts during the Obama administration, a result both of the former President’s unrealistic views on global affairs and proponents of the sequester concept, who, in an effort to rein in the deficit, made no distinction between truly vital programs and those that are merely pork and fluff.  While President Trump has increased funding, the twin challenges of restoring a military that was gutted for the prior eight years, and the rise of armed threats from Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and terrorists require a more realistic approach.

Some of the shortages facing the U.S. military are extraordinary.  A study from The Hill h reports that “Top Air Force leaders and lawmakers are warning that a pilot shortage of 2,000 could cripple the service, leaving it unready to handle its responsibilities. Military.com revealed that U.S. Navy “officials confirmed …week that the service will need “on the order” of 350 ships to accomplish its global mission in the coming decade… Currently, the Navy has 275 active ships.” The U.S. Navy is facing difficulties funding even its current undersized strength. A Breaking Defense report revealed that “A massive maintenance backlog has idled 15 nuclear-powered attack submarines for a total of 177 months, and the Navy’s plan to mitigate the problem is jeopardized by budget gridlock…Figures provided to us … show 14 other submarines are affected, with projected delays ranging from two months (USS Columbia, Montpellier, and Texas) to 21 (Greenville). And the Navy can’t simply send them back to sea, since without the maintenance work, the submarines can’t be certified as safe to dive…”

A CNN analysis poses the question: “questions are emerging as to whether the US Navy is up to the challenges it faces in the Pacific — from both a nuclear-armed North Korea and a strengthening China — at a time when its top leaders acknowledge it lacks the money, manpower and weapons to ensure success.”
However, impotence issue can 5mg cialis online pdxcommercial.com affect men of all ages. Still, these drugs are found safe and order viagra online pdxcommercial.com effective, if taken under the supervision of a physician. The sexual practice in pdxcommercial.com cheapest levitra men goes around high rate and once in a while to the ground level. Kamagra Takes Around 30 Minutes to Deliver buying sildenafil Its Results The whole process, executed by kamagra 100mg tablets takes 30 – 45 minutes to supply harder erection.
The Army, exhausted from decades of fighting, is both understrength and utterly exhausted.  Marine pilots lack funds for adequate training.

The Obama experiment in cutting defense spending ended in failure, as China, Russia, and North Korea capitalized on the opportunity to expand their aggressive activity.

Unlike many other portions of the federal budget, military spending is in response to external factors beyond Washington’s control. An objective examination of those factors refutes the claims of those who believe the U.S. defense budget can be kept at current or even lower levels.

While media attention is finally being paid to the mistake of not developing a comprehensive missile defense shield  as protection against the rapidly growing nuclear threat from North Korea and elsewhere,  insufficient coverage has been given to the dramatic buildup and aggressive actions of Russia, China, and Iran.  Nor has there been adequate discussion over the fact that those three nations have formed a virtual alliance aimed against Washington and its allies.  Together, they represent the most dangerous and powerful foe America has ever faced.  They constitute the only adversary that is larger geographically, in population, and in industrial capacity the U.S. has ever faced.  Further, unlike the Axis powers Germany and Japan in World War 2, they are contiguous, and able to easily combine their strength.

Some observers may include North Korea in this grouping. Despite a lengthy list of assurances from Beijing that it seeks to restrain Pyongyang, the reality is considerably different. An October Carnegie study  notes: “It may seem as if Beijing finally is ready to work with Washington—but appearances can be deceiving.”

The Report Continues Monday.