VERY IMPORTANT ! Please watch !
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
The Perilous Future of U.S. Strategic Forces
The Perilous Future of U.S. Strategic Forces
Bradley A. Thayer &
Thomas M. Skypek
Today, the United States finds itself in a curious position in international politics. While its conventional military power remains unparalleled, its once-formidable strategic deterrent—encapsulated in its nuclear forces and infrastructure—is atrophying.
It is painfully clear that Washington’s interest in its strategic forces has waned greatly since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The United States has not produced a new nuclear warhead in almost two decades, and its Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) force and nuclear infrastructure are stretched to the point of exhaustion with their current missions. Problems that would have been unthinkable during the Cold War now seem to be commonplace. Such a decline is unprecedented, and will have grand strategic consequences for American power in the years ahead.
Understanding this state of affairs is important for several reasons. First, conventional wisdom has it that the strategic forces and infrastructure of the United States are strong and will remain so into the future. In fact, however, quite the opposite is true. America’s nuclear capabilities are sufficient at present, but are decaying in every aspect—from the nuclear warheads themselves to the missiles that deliver them to the specialized scientists and engineers who build them. There are serious weaknesses in the nuclear arsenal that will manifest themselves in the years ahead, and cause U.S. strategic forces to fail to meet future mission requirements.
Second, if this problem is not addressed, the credibility of the U.S. extended deterrent will be doubted by both allies and adversaries. A weak extended deterrent capability will make aggression more likely, and further hinder Washington’s ability to advance U.S. interests against foes who—for the first time in history—may be better-armed with nuclear weapons than the United States.
Third, if the credibility of America’s strategic deterrent is in question, the United States will have created an incentive to proliferate. Under those conditions, it is reasonable to expect that many states now covered by U.S. extended deterrent commitments, such as Japan, Saudi Arabia, and South Korea, would themselves be driven to acquire nuclear forces.
The bear is back
While the United States faces substantial problems in its strategic force posture, and is, indeed, the only nuclear country that cannot manufacture a new nuclear weapon, other nuclear states—China, France, Great Britain, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, and Russia—have not taken a similar “nuclear holiday.” As we noted not long ago in The National Interest, the strategic nuclear balance has changed appreciably in recent years, and not in Washington’s favor.1
While Chinese nuclear modernization is important, and will become ever more so, it is salient for our discussion to acknowledge what Moscow is accomplishing. This is because, first, Chinese strategic modernization continues slowly and steadily but is still modest. China’s Xia SSBN, for example, has never conducted a deterrent patrol; second, and more important, is the inescapable conclusion that the strategic torch has been passed from Washington to Moscow.
Quite simply, Russia is building a twenty-first-century nuclear arsenal, while the United States is not. If the United States does not change course and take the necessary steps to modernize its arsenal, Russia will secure strategic dominance, with the accompanying political benefits accruing to Moscow.
This is not to argue that the Russian nuclear enterprise is flawless. It is not. Moscow’s nuclear command and control suffers from serious deficiencies, particularly in the realm of Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities. In time, however these deficiencies will be resolved. Indeed, the Russians are moving to solve them already, through improvements to both their strategic and conventional forces.
Since 1999, the Russians have conducted annual strategic exercises, the scale of which matches what was typical during the Cold War, and far beyond what the United States has undertaken. Russian exercises also involve the highest echelons of their government. In August 2005, during a major exercise, President Vladimir Putin himself flew in a Blackjack bomber that launched four Kh-555 land attack cruise missiles. The commitment of the Russian leadership to building and maintaining a modernized nuclear arsenal is unquestionable. The most convincing evidence is the depth and breadth of their modernization efforts.
Russian strategic modernization began in earnest this decade. Unlike the United States, Russia is modernizing each leg of its triad, has significantly reformed its nuclear doctrine, and continues to build new nuclear weapons. The Russian strategic hiatus of the 1990s, in other words, ended with the ascension of Vladimir Putin to the Russian presidency roughly a decade ago. It continues today under the leadership of Putin’s handpicked protégé, Dmitry Medvedev.
While it has never been the cornerstone of the Russian triad, Moscow’s modernization of its strategic bomber fleet nevertheless continues steadily. Two strategic bombers will be commissioned into the Russian Air Force every three years, according to General Vladimir Mikhailov, the commander of the Russian Air Force.2 Russia has three types of bombers in its fleet, the Tu-160 “Blackjack,” Tu-22 “Blinder,” and Tu-95 “Bear.” The new bombers will be Tu-160s.
Like bombers, submarines have always played second fiddle to the Russian ICBM force. Still, there is significant modernization under way to this leg as well. This modernization began by eliminating the vestiges of the Soviet ballistic missile submarine fleet. By the start of 2007, Russia had decommissioned 148 out of 197 Soviet-era submarines. Russia dismantles eighteen nuclear submarines annually, and Moscow expects to have decommissioned all Soviet-era submarines by 2010.3
Russia is also making progress on its sea-launched ballistic missile capabilities. In June 2007, it successfully tested its new Bulava SLBM, following a series of failed tests throughout 2006. Russia’s leadership remains committed to the system, despite the failure of the Bulava’s most recent (December 2008) test. Colonel General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, deputy chief of the Russian General Staff, announced in January 2009 that tests of the Bulava will continue.4 Once operational, the Bulava—a slightly modified version of the new Topol-M ICBM—will equip Russia’s three new Borei-class nuclear submarines. It carries a single 500 kiloton nuclear weapon, plus decoys, and has a maneuvering capability of unknown effectiveness intended to defeat U.S. missile defenses.
As was the case with the Soviet Union in its day, the backbone of Russia’s strategic nuclear forces lies with its ICBMs. The SS-18 will stay in service until 2016. In addition, Russia has developed the silo-based SS-27, of which it has 40 now, and will add 34 more. A road mobile derivative is also under development, and Russia is expected to have 50 by 2015.5 Additionally, in May and December 2007, Russia tested a new MIRVed ICBM, the RS-24. This missile, which has not yet been given a NATO designation, will replace the old SS-18 and SS-19 ICBMs by 2050.
There are also reports that Russia is working on a new liquid-fueled ICBM which will carry ten warheads with a throw-weight of four tons.6 This would far outclass its closest U.S. counterparts, the Minuteman and Trident II. Also in the realm of potential weapons, the Russians have discussed the development of a hypersonic glide vehicle that would reach distant continents quickly and would be able to penetrate U.S. missile defenses.7
The Russians are also modernizing their low-yield nuclear warheads, which may be used for tactical or strategic purposes. Moscow is developing a precision, low-yield nuclear weapon, on the order of several tens of tons to 100 tons of TNT, and a “clean” nuclear earth penetrator, even as Congress has canceled new low-yield programs such as the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP).8
Moscow is also interested in EMP weapons, and is believed to possess a robust capability that could give it the capacity to target the U.S.’ dependency on insufficiently hardened electronics for its military and key civilian sectors. Such a scenario may sound far-fetched, but it is plausible—and potentially catastrophic. As Brian Kennedy of the Claremont Institute recently outlined in the Wall Street Journal:
Gamma rays from the explosion, through the Compton Effect, generate three classes of disruptive electromagnetic pulses, which permanently destroy consumer electronics, the electronics in some automobiles and, most importantly, the hundreds of large transformers that distribute power throughout the U.S. All of our lights, refrigerators, water-pumping stations, TVs and radios stop running. We have no communication and no ability to provide food and water to 300 million Americans.9
Russia has the world’s largest nuclear weapons production complex, with two plants for nuclear weapons assembly and one plant for plutonium and uranium pit production. Russia has the stated capacity to disassemble 2,000 warheads a year, which equals the technical capability to produce about the same number of warheads. The United States, meanwhile, is not developing or producing any new warheads, and has not since 1989. In an emergency, the U.S. might be able to produce about 40 warheads a year at the TA-55 facility at Los Alamos. Not until 2023, under present plans, will the U.S. have large scale pit production capability. Russia’s nuclear testing facilities require minimal lead time in order to conduct a nuclear test, and Russia has admitted to conducting a robust program of hydrodynamic experiments, or “sub-critical” tests, that produce a very small yield, the equivalent of 0.1 gram of TNT.
From the above survey, it is abundantly clear that the Russian leadership has made the modernization of its strategic nuclear weapons a priority. While other states may not, Russia recognizes that nuclear weapons remain a major source of strategic power, and for that reason it will continue to produce the most advanced nuclear forces in the world. Their nuclear infrastructure is also the most advanced and capable in the world. Given these capabilities, and its conventional weakness, it is no surprise that Russia has the lowest declared threshold for nuclear use of any of the major nuclear powers. In January 2008, Yury Baluyevsky, then the Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, detailed publicly exactly how low that threshold actually is:
We do not intend to attack anyone, but we consider it necessary for all our partners in the world community to understand clearly... that to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Russia and its allies, military forces will be used, including preventively, including with the use of nuclear weapons.10
Baluyevsky’s remarks about the preventive use of nuclear weapons underscore the value Russia places on its nuclear capabilities. Nuclear weapons and strategic strike capabilities will remain the highest force maintenance and procurement priority of the Russian Federation for decades to come.
An agenda for renewal
In Washington, by contrast, nuclear weapons have become an afterthought for policymakers and military leadership alike. If U.S. nuclear forces were a stock, its price would have collapsed in the 1990s, and its value would remain near an all-time low. Yet nuclear modernization is a non-negotiable imperative if the United States wishes to achieve its grand strategic goals into the future, including credible extended deterrence commitments to allies like Japan and South Korea. Given the time required to develop these complicated systems, and the period needed to integrate them into the force, modernization must begin immediately.
Using 2009 as a baseline, the ages of the current systems of the nuclear triad are 39 years for the Minuteman III, 19 years for the Trident II D-5 SLBM, 48 years for the B-52H, 12 years for the B-2, and 28 years for the Ohio Class SSBNs. The startling age of these strategic systems and the increasing costs to deploy and maintain them accounts in large part for the rapid reductions in the nuclear forces of the United States that have taken place since 2001—including an 18 percent reduction in ICBMs, a 63 percent decline in the number of bombers in service, and a constriction of nearly a quarter in the size of the SSBN fleet.11
The first step toward reversing this decline is to modernize the U.S. ICBM force. Today, ICBMs serve as the anchor of the United States’ strategic deterrent, for good reason. ICBMs possess a robust payload capacity and are survivable against would-be first strikes initiated by any current likely adversaries. In addition, ICBMs have the power to hold a spectrum of targets at prompt risk, whether using nuclear or conventional warheads.
However, drastic reductions in the size of the ICBM force—due to Minuteman II, Minuteman III, and Peacekeeper retirements, and the lack of a replacement ICBM for the Minuteman III—will raise doubts about the capabilities of the United States in the years ahead. America’s ICBM force may be robust now, but it will not be in the future.
A second area of focus must be the development of robust defenses against ballistic and cruise missiles. The global proliferation of ballistic and cruise missile technologies has left the U.S. homeland vulnerable. Ballistic missiles are capable of delivering WMD as well as large conventional payloads, and the technologies needed to build them are widely available, often indigenously or on the global market. At present, there are 25 states armed with ballistic missiles. Many, like Iran and North Korea, not only produce ballistic missiles but export them as well, and share critical missile technologies with other states. For example, Pakistan’s Ghauri medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) is based on the North Korean No Dong, and was produced with North Korean assistance. Iran’s Shahab-3 MRBM is a version of the No Dong that has been improved with Russian assistance. Even ICBMs are no longer a monopoly of the superpowers. In the next eight to ten years, North Korea and Iran are expected to develop an ICBM capability, which would allow them to target the United States, as well as its allies.
To combat the growing threat of ballistic missiles, the Bush administration deployed a limited defense during its time in office. Key components of this system are the ground-based interceptors based at Fort Greely in Alaska and Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. A third interceptor site, which would give the United States and NATO the capability for limited defense against the Iranian Shahab family of missiles, is currently planned for Poland and the Czech Republic.
It is unclear, as of yet, how the Obama administration plans to approach the issue of missile defense. Early signs, however, are not encouraging. In November 2008, the Obama transition team released the following statement after a telephone call with Polish President Lech Kaczynski: “President-elect Obama made no commitment on it [placing interceptors in Poland]. His position is as it was throughout the campaign—that he supports deploying a missile defense system when the technology is proved to be workable.”12 This ambiguity is troubling, since a robust missile defense capability not only strengthens Washington’s deterrence posture but also hedges against a failure of deterrence.
The technologies in question, moreover, are mature. The Pentagon’s successful shoot-down of a damaged U.S. satellite with a Standard Missile-3 in February 2008 demonstrated the versatility of hit-to-kill technology. The operation also highlighted why further investments are warranted. It is important that the leadership in Beijing, Moscow, Pyongyang, and Tehran knows that U.S. missile defense technologies work.
But significant work remains. Cruise missiles, for example, pre-sent as serious a danger to the United States as ballistic missiles, and yet this threat currently receives almost no attention from policymakers or the popular media. Cruise missiles may be launched from any location: the ground, on or under the sea, or in the air. They are very difficult to detect because they fly at low altitudes, at relatively high speeds, and have a low radar cross section with a modest infrared signature.
Cruise missiles are ideal platforms for countries like China, Iran, or North Korea to attack the United States because they are proven weapons systems, easily affordable, easier to maintain and deploy, hard to defeat, and can be delivered by several different weapons platforms. The United States is deeply vulnerable; seventy-five percent of the U.S. population and 80 percent of the wealth of the U.S. lie within 200 miles of the coast. Cruise missiles are even more widely distributed than ballistic missiles, moreover. About 75 countries are estimated to possess cruise missiles, and by 2015, at least 24 states are expected to pose a serious cruise missile threat to the United States due to the proliferation of sophisticated systems. With effective missile defenses, the United States could not only defend itself against ballistic or cruise missile attack, but also assure allies that they will be protected as well.
Another, seldom analyzed, problem for the strategic forces of the United States is an aging workforce—one created by our long national procurement holiday for strategic systems. No other nuclear country faces this problem, since all others are modernizing their strategic forces. And this “critical skills” gap is only widening. The Defense Science Board Task Force on Future Strategic Strike Skills convened in 2006 evaluated the critical skills of the United States in six categories: development capabilities and skills; production capabilities and skills; sustainment capabilities and skills; material availability; critical suppliers; and special facilities, such as for nuclear testing. The DSB report is shocking in its assessments. It found that the United States faces great dangers in the reliability of the guidance, re-entry systems, and propulsion of the ICBM force.13 The state of the U.S. SLBM and SSBN force is better, at least for the moment. But, as the DSB study made clear, current demographics do not favor the maintenance of critical skills over the next ten years.14
With respect to nuclear command and control issues, there are two areas of concern. The first is access to space, upon which many U.S. military capabilities rely. The shrinking launch schedules due to commercial satellite providers, decreasing military and NASA missile launches, and an aging workforce mean that fewer individuals have participated in a successful launch and know the difficulties that may be encountered and how to solve them. Second, the aging workforce also hinders the government’s ability to gauge nuclear weapons effects on systems. As the DSB recognizes:
Today, the number of individuals working on the various C4ISR [Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance] programs who have worried about system or subsystem vulnerabilities to EMP [Electromagnetic Pulse]—including black-out, red-out, or other nuclear weapon-induced effects—continues to decline, and the people with these skill sets are not being replaced.15
These vulnerabilities, moreover, will almost certainly increase if they are not addressed immediately, because many of the people who addressed EMP vulnerability during the Cold War are retiring.
When it comes to strategic forces—including warheads and delivery systems—the United States is faring even worse, for three major reasons. First, spending on nuclear weapons systems has declined significantly in the post-Cold War period, and is now the smallest share of the defense budget since the 1940s. The decline has been greatest in nuclear offensive strike systems. For these systems, funding has fallen to 4 percent of DoD’s total current budget. In 1991, the United States funded the last SSBN and the last Peacekeeper ICBM; and, in 1993, it bought the last B-2 of its fleet. So, funding has declined, while each component of the triad has aged.
The second major problem is the nuclear warheads themselves. At the present time, the key challenge for the United States is ensuring the reliability of its strategic arsenal. The Bush administration opposed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, but did not break our country’s nearly twenty-year moratorium on nuclear testing. As a result, the nuclear weapons labs are confronted with the momentous challenge of ensuring reliability without the scientific evidence that only testing can provide.
Congress, meanwhile, has consistently reduced and/or eliminated funding for nuclear modernization programs, including the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program. In September 2008, Congress refused once again to fund RRW. Opposition on Capitol Hill has been bipartisan. Only a handful of members, such as Senators Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Jeff Sessions (R-AL), and Representative Terry Everett (R-AL), have consistently voted to fund critical modernization efforts such as RRW. Fortunately, the Obama administration shows signs that it could spur greater attention to this issue. Writing in the January/February 2009 issue of Foreign Affairs, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates indicated as much when he challenged congressional inaction on the RRW, stating that “Congress needs to do its part by funding the Reliable Replacement Warhead Program—for safety, for security, and for a more reliable deterrent.”16
Toward a nuclear renaissance
In the post-Cold War world, the United States will continue to depend on its strategic nuclear forces to accomplish its grand strategic goals. That will become increasingly difficult if it does not act—and act now—to redress the key vulnerabilities in its arsenal. While these vulnerabilities may not receive significant attention in the press, they are noticed by the allies and foes of the United States. Nuclear weapons remain a tremendous source of power in the international system. Quite simply, states with nuclear weapons are treated differently than those without them.
America currently shows few signs of understanding this reality. There are no new ICBMs or SLBMs under development, and the U.S. targets no states with its missiles. B-2 production has halted, and no U.S. bombers are on alert. Many strategic and tactical nuclear weapons programs have been canceled. U.S. Army, Marines, and Navy surface and air components are out of the nuclear weapons business. There has been a reduction of over 85 percent in the number of NATO sub-strategic nuclear weapons in Europe as their delivery systems have dropped from eleven to one.
The upcoming Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and Nuclear Posture Review (NPR)—both of which will be gearing up in the coming months—present a major opportunity for the Obama administration to ameliorate America’s deteriorating nuclear weapons enterprise. Modernization of the entire nuclear enterprise should be the chief priority of these strategic policy documents.
The stakes could not be higher. The overwhelming military superiority of the United States is not guaranteed into perpetuity. Eventually, as its nuclear capabilities and skills atrophy, the United States will lose the great advantages it now possesses, because other nuclear states will continue to modernize their arsenals and maintain robust nuclear infrastructure. And, once lost, recapturing a credible extended deterrent capability will be increasingly difficult for America to accomplish.
Bradley A. Thayer is an Associate Professor of Defense and Strategic Studies at Missouri State University, located in Fairfax, Virginia. Thomas M. Skypek is a Washington-based defense policy analyst. The views expressed herein are exclusively those of the authors.
Bradley A. Thayer and Thomas M. Skypek, “Russia Goes Ballistic,” The National Interest, no. 97 (September/October 2008), 61-68.
“Russian Air Force to Get Two Strategic Bombers Every Three Years,” RIA Novosti, January 19, 2007, http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/airforce/Russian_Air_Force_To_Get_Strategic_Bombers100010013.php.
“Russia Scraps 148 out of 197 Decommissioned Nuclear Submarines,” RIA Novosti, December 27, 2006, http://en.rian.ru/russia/20061227/57958170.html.
“Russia not to Give up Bulava Missile Test Launches,” RIA Novosti, January 4, 2009, http://en.rian.ru/russia/20090104/119365579.html.
Vladimir Isachenkov, “Weapons Plan Strives to Beat Soviet Readiness,” Washington Times, February 8, 2007, http://www.washtimes.com/world/20070207-104140-3775r.htm.
Mark B. Schneider, “The Strategic Nuclear Forces and Doctrine of the Russian Federation,” in Bradley A. Thayer, ed., American National Security Policy: Essays in Honor of William R. Van Cleave (Fairfax, VA: National Institute Press, 2007), 148.
“Arms Control and Proliferation Profile: Russia,” Arms Control Association, November 2007, http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/russiaprofile.
Schneider, “The Strategic Nuclear Forces and Doctrine of the Russian Federation,” 148.
Brian T. Kennedy, “What a Single Nuclear Warhead Could Do,” Wall Street Journal, November 24, 2008, http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB122748923919852015-lMyQjAxMDI4MjI3MzQyODM5Wj.html.
Steve Gutterman, “Baluyevsky Warns of Nuclear Defense,” Moscow Times, January 21, 2008, http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2008/01/21/017.html.
These percentages are based on nuclear force reductions in the U.S. arsenal from 2001 to 2007.
Christina Bellantoni, “Obama, Polish President at Odds on Call,” Washington Times, November 9, 2008, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/09/obama-polish-president-at-odds-on-call/.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Future Strategic Strike Skills, March 2006, 24-26.
Ibid., 32-34.
Ibidem, 43.
Robert Gates, “How to Reprogram the Pentagon,” Foreign Affairs, January/February 2009.
© Copyright 2001-2009 JINSA. All rights reserved. Terms of Use. top home
Bradley A. Thayer &
Thomas M. Skypek
Today, the United States finds itself in a curious position in international politics. While its conventional military power remains unparalleled, its once-formidable strategic deterrent—encapsulated in its nuclear forces and infrastructure—is atrophying.
It is painfully clear that Washington’s interest in its strategic forces has waned greatly since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The United States has not produced a new nuclear warhead in almost two decades, and its Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) force and nuclear infrastructure are stretched to the point of exhaustion with their current missions. Problems that would have been unthinkable during the Cold War now seem to be commonplace. Such a decline is unprecedented, and will have grand strategic consequences for American power in the years ahead.
Understanding this state of affairs is important for several reasons. First, conventional wisdom has it that the strategic forces and infrastructure of the United States are strong and will remain so into the future. In fact, however, quite the opposite is true. America’s nuclear capabilities are sufficient at present, but are decaying in every aspect—from the nuclear warheads themselves to the missiles that deliver them to the specialized scientists and engineers who build them. There are serious weaknesses in the nuclear arsenal that will manifest themselves in the years ahead, and cause U.S. strategic forces to fail to meet future mission requirements.
Second, if this problem is not addressed, the credibility of the U.S. extended deterrent will be doubted by both allies and adversaries. A weak extended deterrent capability will make aggression more likely, and further hinder Washington’s ability to advance U.S. interests against foes who—for the first time in history—may be better-armed with nuclear weapons than the United States.
Third, if the credibility of America’s strategic deterrent is in question, the United States will have created an incentive to proliferate. Under those conditions, it is reasonable to expect that many states now covered by U.S. extended deterrent commitments, such as Japan, Saudi Arabia, and South Korea, would themselves be driven to acquire nuclear forces.
The bear is back
While the United States faces substantial problems in its strategic force posture, and is, indeed, the only nuclear country that cannot manufacture a new nuclear weapon, other nuclear states—China, France, Great Britain, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, and Russia—have not taken a similar “nuclear holiday.” As we noted not long ago in The National Interest, the strategic nuclear balance has changed appreciably in recent years, and not in Washington’s favor.1
While Chinese nuclear modernization is important, and will become ever more so, it is salient for our discussion to acknowledge what Moscow is accomplishing. This is because, first, Chinese strategic modernization continues slowly and steadily but is still modest. China’s Xia SSBN, for example, has never conducted a deterrent patrol; second, and more important, is the inescapable conclusion that the strategic torch has been passed from Washington to Moscow.
Quite simply, Russia is building a twenty-first-century nuclear arsenal, while the United States is not. If the United States does not change course and take the necessary steps to modernize its arsenal, Russia will secure strategic dominance, with the accompanying political benefits accruing to Moscow.
This is not to argue that the Russian nuclear enterprise is flawless. It is not. Moscow’s nuclear command and control suffers from serious deficiencies, particularly in the realm of Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities. In time, however these deficiencies will be resolved. Indeed, the Russians are moving to solve them already, through improvements to both their strategic and conventional forces.
Since 1999, the Russians have conducted annual strategic exercises, the scale of which matches what was typical during the Cold War, and far beyond what the United States has undertaken. Russian exercises also involve the highest echelons of their government. In August 2005, during a major exercise, President Vladimir Putin himself flew in a Blackjack bomber that launched four Kh-555 land attack cruise missiles. The commitment of the Russian leadership to building and maintaining a modernized nuclear arsenal is unquestionable. The most convincing evidence is the depth and breadth of their modernization efforts.
Russian strategic modernization began in earnest this decade. Unlike the United States, Russia is modernizing each leg of its triad, has significantly reformed its nuclear doctrine, and continues to build new nuclear weapons. The Russian strategic hiatus of the 1990s, in other words, ended with the ascension of Vladimir Putin to the Russian presidency roughly a decade ago. It continues today under the leadership of Putin’s handpicked protégé, Dmitry Medvedev.
While it has never been the cornerstone of the Russian triad, Moscow’s modernization of its strategic bomber fleet nevertheless continues steadily. Two strategic bombers will be commissioned into the Russian Air Force every three years, according to General Vladimir Mikhailov, the commander of the Russian Air Force.2 Russia has three types of bombers in its fleet, the Tu-160 “Blackjack,” Tu-22 “Blinder,” and Tu-95 “Bear.” The new bombers will be Tu-160s.
Like bombers, submarines have always played second fiddle to the Russian ICBM force. Still, there is significant modernization under way to this leg as well. This modernization began by eliminating the vestiges of the Soviet ballistic missile submarine fleet. By the start of 2007, Russia had decommissioned 148 out of 197 Soviet-era submarines. Russia dismantles eighteen nuclear submarines annually, and Moscow expects to have decommissioned all Soviet-era submarines by 2010.3
Russia is also making progress on its sea-launched ballistic missile capabilities. In June 2007, it successfully tested its new Bulava SLBM, following a series of failed tests throughout 2006. Russia’s leadership remains committed to the system, despite the failure of the Bulava’s most recent (December 2008) test. Colonel General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, deputy chief of the Russian General Staff, announced in January 2009 that tests of the Bulava will continue.4 Once operational, the Bulava—a slightly modified version of the new Topol-M ICBM—will equip Russia’s three new Borei-class nuclear submarines. It carries a single 500 kiloton nuclear weapon, plus decoys, and has a maneuvering capability of unknown effectiveness intended to defeat U.S. missile defenses.
As was the case with the Soviet Union in its day, the backbone of Russia’s strategic nuclear forces lies with its ICBMs. The SS-18 will stay in service until 2016. In addition, Russia has developed the silo-based SS-27, of which it has 40 now, and will add 34 more. A road mobile derivative is also under development, and Russia is expected to have 50 by 2015.5 Additionally, in May and December 2007, Russia tested a new MIRVed ICBM, the RS-24. This missile, which has not yet been given a NATO designation, will replace the old SS-18 and SS-19 ICBMs by 2050.
There are also reports that Russia is working on a new liquid-fueled ICBM which will carry ten warheads with a throw-weight of four tons.6 This would far outclass its closest U.S. counterparts, the Minuteman and Trident II. Also in the realm of potential weapons, the Russians have discussed the development of a hypersonic glide vehicle that would reach distant continents quickly and would be able to penetrate U.S. missile defenses.7
The Russians are also modernizing their low-yield nuclear warheads, which may be used for tactical or strategic purposes. Moscow is developing a precision, low-yield nuclear weapon, on the order of several tens of tons to 100 tons of TNT, and a “clean” nuclear earth penetrator, even as Congress has canceled new low-yield programs such as the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP).8
Moscow is also interested in EMP weapons, and is believed to possess a robust capability that could give it the capacity to target the U.S.’ dependency on insufficiently hardened electronics for its military and key civilian sectors. Such a scenario may sound far-fetched, but it is plausible—and potentially catastrophic. As Brian Kennedy of the Claremont Institute recently outlined in the Wall Street Journal:
Gamma rays from the explosion, through the Compton Effect, generate three classes of disruptive electromagnetic pulses, which permanently destroy consumer electronics, the electronics in some automobiles and, most importantly, the hundreds of large transformers that distribute power throughout the U.S. All of our lights, refrigerators, water-pumping stations, TVs and radios stop running. We have no communication and no ability to provide food and water to 300 million Americans.9
Russia has the world’s largest nuclear weapons production complex, with two plants for nuclear weapons assembly and one plant for plutonium and uranium pit production. Russia has the stated capacity to disassemble 2,000 warheads a year, which equals the technical capability to produce about the same number of warheads. The United States, meanwhile, is not developing or producing any new warheads, and has not since 1989. In an emergency, the U.S. might be able to produce about 40 warheads a year at the TA-55 facility at Los Alamos. Not until 2023, under present plans, will the U.S. have large scale pit production capability. Russia’s nuclear testing facilities require minimal lead time in order to conduct a nuclear test, and Russia has admitted to conducting a robust program of hydrodynamic experiments, or “sub-critical” tests, that produce a very small yield, the equivalent of 0.1 gram of TNT.
From the above survey, it is abundantly clear that the Russian leadership has made the modernization of its strategic nuclear weapons a priority. While other states may not, Russia recognizes that nuclear weapons remain a major source of strategic power, and for that reason it will continue to produce the most advanced nuclear forces in the world. Their nuclear infrastructure is also the most advanced and capable in the world. Given these capabilities, and its conventional weakness, it is no surprise that Russia has the lowest declared threshold for nuclear use of any of the major nuclear powers. In January 2008, Yury Baluyevsky, then the Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, detailed publicly exactly how low that threshold actually is:
We do not intend to attack anyone, but we consider it necessary for all our partners in the world community to understand clearly... that to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Russia and its allies, military forces will be used, including preventively, including with the use of nuclear weapons.10
Baluyevsky’s remarks about the preventive use of nuclear weapons underscore the value Russia places on its nuclear capabilities. Nuclear weapons and strategic strike capabilities will remain the highest force maintenance and procurement priority of the Russian Federation for decades to come.
An agenda for renewal
In Washington, by contrast, nuclear weapons have become an afterthought for policymakers and military leadership alike. If U.S. nuclear forces were a stock, its price would have collapsed in the 1990s, and its value would remain near an all-time low. Yet nuclear modernization is a non-negotiable imperative if the United States wishes to achieve its grand strategic goals into the future, including credible extended deterrence commitments to allies like Japan and South Korea. Given the time required to develop these complicated systems, and the period needed to integrate them into the force, modernization must begin immediately.
Using 2009 as a baseline, the ages of the current systems of the nuclear triad are 39 years for the Minuteman III, 19 years for the Trident II D-5 SLBM, 48 years for the B-52H, 12 years for the B-2, and 28 years for the Ohio Class SSBNs. The startling age of these strategic systems and the increasing costs to deploy and maintain them accounts in large part for the rapid reductions in the nuclear forces of the United States that have taken place since 2001—including an 18 percent reduction in ICBMs, a 63 percent decline in the number of bombers in service, and a constriction of nearly a quarter in the size of the SSBN fleet.11
The first step toward reversing this decline is to modernize the U.S. ICBM force. Today, ICBMs serve as the anchor of the United States’ strategic deterrent, for good reason. ICBMs possess a robust payload capacity and are survivable against would-be first strikes initiated by any current likely adversaries. In addition, ICBMs have the power to hold a spectrum of targets at prompt risk, whether using nuclear or conventional warheads.
However, drastic reductions in the size of the ICBM force—due to Minuteman II, Minuteman III, and Peacekeeper retirements, and the lack of a replacement ICBM for the Minuteman III—will raise doubts about the capabilities of the United States in the years ahead. America’s ICBM force may be robust now, but it will not be in the future.
A second area of focus must be the development of robust defenses against ballistic and cruise missiles. The global proliferation of ballistic and cruise missile technologies has left the U.S. homeland vulnerable. Ballistic missiles are capable of delivering WMD as well as large conventional payloads, and the technologies needed to build them are widely available, often indigenously or on the global market. At present, there are 25 states armed with ballistic missiles. Many, like Iran and North Korea, not only produce ballistic missiles but export them as well, and share critical missile technologies with other states. For example, Pakistan’s Ghauri medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) is based on the North Korean No Dong, and was produced with North Korean assistance. Iran’s Shahab-3 MRBM is a version of the No Dong that has been improved with Russian assistance. Even ICBMs are no longer a monopoly of the superpowers. In the next eight to ten years, North Korea and Iran are expected to develop an ICBM capability, which would allow them to target the United States, as well as its allies.
To combat the growing threat of ballistic missiles, the Bush administration deployed a limited defense during its time in office. Key components of this system are the ground-based interceptors based at Fort Greely in Alaska and Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. A third interceptor site, which would give the United States and NATO the capability for limited defense against the Iranian Shahab family of missiles, is currently planned for Poland and the Czech Republic.
It is unclear, as of yet, how the Obama administration plans to approach the issue of missile defense. Early signs, however, are not encouraging. In November 2008, the Obama transition team released the following statement after a telephone call with Polish President Lech Kaczynski: “President-elect Obama made no commitment on it [placing interceptors in Poland]. His position is as it was throughout the campaign—that he supports deploying a missile defense system when the technology is proved to be workable.”12 This ambiguity is troubling, since a robust missile defense capability not only strengthens Washington’s deterrence posture but also hedges against a failure of deterrence.
The technologies in question, moreover, are mature. The Pentagon’s successful shoot-down of a damaged U.S. satellite with a Standard Missile-3 in February 2008 demonstrated the versatility of hit-to-kill technology. The operation also highlighted why further investments are warranted. It is important that the leadership in Beijing, Moscow, Pyongyang, and Tehran knows that U.S. missile defense technologies work.
But significant work remains. Cruise missiles, for example, pre-sent as serious a danger to the United States as ballistic missiles, and yet this threat currently receives almost no attention from policymakers or the popular media. Cruise missiles may be launched from any location: the ground, on or under the sea, or in the air. They are very difficult to detect because they fly at low altitudes, at relatively high speeds, and have a low radar cross section with a modest infrared signature.
Cruise missiles are ideal platforms for countries like China, Iran, or North Korea to attack the United States because they are proven weapons systems, easily affordable, easier to maintain and deploy, hard to defeat, and can be delivered by several different weapons platforms. The United States is deeply vulnerable; seventy-five percent of the U.S. population and 80 percent of the wealth of the U.S. lie within 200 miles of the coast. Cruise missiles are even more widely distributed than ballistic missiles, moreover. About 75 countries are estimated to possess cruise missiles, and by 2015, at least 24 states are expected to pose a serious cruise missile threat to the United States due to the proliferation of sophisticated systems. With effective missile defenses, the United States could not only defend itself against ballistic or cruise missile attack, but also assure allies that they will be protected as well.
Another, seldom analyzed, problem for the strategic forces of the United States is an aging workforce—one created by our long national procurement holiday for strategic systems. No other nuclear country faces this problem, since all others are modernizing their strategic forces. And this “critical skills” gap is only widening. The Defense Science Board Task Force on Future Strategic Strike Skills convened in 2006 evaluated the critical skills of the United States in six categories: development capabilities and skills; production capabilities and skills; sustainment capabilities and skills; material availability; critical suppliers; and special facilities, such as for nuclear testing. The DSB report is shocking in its assessments. It found that the United States faces great dangers in the reliability of the guidance, re-entry systems, and propulsion of the ICBM force.13 The state of the U.S. SLBM and SSBN force is better, at least for the moment. But, as the DSB study made clear, current demographics do not favor the maintenance of critical skills over the next ten years.14
With respect to nuclear command and control issues, there are two areas of concern. The first is access to space, upon which many U.S. military capabilities rely. The shrinking launch schedules due to commercial satellite providers, decreasing military and NASA missile launches, and an aging workforce mean that fewer individuals have participated in a successful launch and know the difficulties that may be encountered and how to solve them. Second, the aging workforce also hinders the government’s ability to gauge nuclear weapons effects on systems. As the DSB recognizes:
Today, the number of individuals working on the various C4ISR [Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance] programs who have worried about system or subsystem vulnerabilities to EMP [Electromagnetic Pulse]—including black-out, red-out, or other nuclear weapon-induced effects—continues to decline, and the people with these skill sets are not being replaced.15
These vulnerabilities, moreover, will almost certainly increase if they are not addressed immediately, because many of the people who addressed EMP vulnerability during the Cold War are retiring.
When it comes to strategic forces—including warheads and delivery systems—the United States is faring even worse, for three major reasons. First, spending on nuclear weapons systems has declined significantly in the post-Cold War period, and is now the smallest share of the defense budget since the 1940s. The decline has been greatest in nuclear offensive strike systems. For these systems, funding has fallen to 4 percent of DoD’s total current budget. In 1991, the United States funded the last SSBN and the last Peacekeeper ICBM; and, in 1993, it bought the last B-2 of its fleet. So, funding has declined, while each component of the triad has aged.
The second major problem is the nuclear warheads themselves. At the present time, the key challenge for the United States is ensuring the reliability of its strategic arsenal. The Bush administration opposed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, but did not break our country’s nearly twenty-year moratorium on nuclear testing. As a result, the nuclear weapons labs are confronted with the momentous challenge of ensuring reliability without the scientific evidence that only testing can provide.
Congress, meanwhile, has consistently reduced and/or eliminated funding for nuclear modernization programs, including the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program. In September 2008, Congress refused once again to fund RRW. Opposition on Capitol Hill has been bipartisan. Only a handful of members, such as Senators Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Jeff Sessions (R-AL), and Representative Terry Everett (R-AL), have consistently voted to fund critical modernization efforts such as RRW. Fortunately, the Obama administration shows signs that it could spur greater attention to this issue. Writing in the January/February 2009 issue of Foreign Affairs, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates indicated as much when he challenged congressional inaction on the RRW, stating that “Congress needs to do its part by funding the Reliable Replacement Warhead Program—for safety, for security, and for a more reliable deterrent.”16
Toward a nuclear renaissance
In the post-Cold War world, the United States will continue to depend on its strategic nuclear forces to accomplish its grand strategic goals. That will become increasingly difficult if it does not act—and act now—to redress the key vulnerabilities in its arsenal. While these vulnerabilities may not receive significant attention in the press, they are noticed by the allies and foes of the United States. Nuclear weapons remain a tremendous source of power in the international system. Quite simply, states with nuclear weapons are treated differently than those without them.
America currently shows few signs of understanding this reality. There are no new ICBMs or SLBMs under development, and the U.S. targets no states with its missiles. B-2 production has halted, and no U.S. bombers are on alert. Many strategic and tactical nuclear weapons programs have been canceled. U.S. Army, Marines, and Navy surface and air components are out of the nuclear weapons business. There has been a reduction of over 85 percent in the number of NATO sub-strategic nuclear weapons in Europe as their delivery systems have dropped from eleven to one.
The upcoming Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and Nuclear Posture Review (NPR)—both of which will be gearing up in the coming months—present a major opportunity for the Obama administration to ameliorate America’s deteriorating nuclear weapons enterprise. Modernization of the entire nuclear enterprise should be the chief priority of these strategic policy documents.
The stakes could not be higher. The overwhelming military superiority of the United States is not guaranteed into perpetuity. Eventually, as its nuclear capabilities and skills atrophy, the United States will lose the great advantages it now possesses, because other nuclear states will continue to modernize their arsenals and maintain robust nuclear infrastructure. And, once lost, recapturing a credible extended deterrent capability will be increasingly difficult for America to accomplish.
Bradley A. Thayer is an Associate Professor of Defense and Strategic Studies at Missouri State University, located in Fairfax, Virginia. Thomas M. Skypek is a Washington-based defense policy analyst. The views expressed herein are exclusively those of the authors.
Bradley A. Thayer and Thomas M. Skypek, “Russia Goes Ballistic,” The National Interest, no. 97 (September/October 2008), 61-68.
“Russian Air Force to Get Two Strategic Bombers Every Three Years,” RIA Novosti, January 19, 2007, http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/airforce/Russian_Air_Force_To_Get_Strategic_Bombers100010013.php.
“Russia Scraps 148 out of 197 Decommissioned Nuclear Submarines,” RIA Novosti, December 27, 2006, http://en.rian.ru/russia/20061227/57958170.html.
“Russia not to Give up Bulava Missile Test Launches,” RIA Novosti, January 4, 2009, http://en.rian.ru/russia/20090104/119365579.html.
Vladimir Isachenkov, “Weapons Plan Strives to Beat Soviet Readiness,” Washington Times, February 8, 2007, http://www.washtimes.com/world/20070207-104140-3775r.htm.
Mark B. Schneider, “The Strategic Nuclear Forces and Doctrine of the Russian Federation,” in Bradley A. Thayer, ed., American National Security Policy: Essays in Honor of William R. Van Cleave (Fairfax, VA: National Institute Press, 2007), 148.
“Arms Control and Proliferation Profile: Russia,” Arms Control Association, November 2007, http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/russiaprofile.
Schneider, “The Strategic Nuclear Forces and Doctrine of the Russian Federation,” 148.
Brian T. Kennedy, “What a Single Nuclear Warhead Could Do,” Wall Street Journal, November 24, 2008, http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB122748923919852015-lMyQjAxMDI4MjI3MzQyODM5Wj.html.
Steve Gutterman, “Baluyevsky Warns of Nuclear Defense,” Moscow Times, January 21, 2008, http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2008/01/21/017.html.
These percentages are based on nuclear force reductions in the U.S. arsenal from 2001 to 2007.
Christina Bellantoni, “Obama, Polish President at Odds on Call,” Washington Times, November 9, 2008, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/09/obama-polish-president-at-odds-on-call/.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Future Strategic Strike Skills, March 2006, 24-26.
Ibid., 32-34.
Ibidem, 43.
Robert Gates, “How to Reprogram the Pentagon,” Foreign Affairs, January/February 2009.
© Copyright 2001-2009 JINSA. All rights reserved. Terms of Use. top home
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
FASCIST STYLE BRAIN WASHING IN OUR SCHOOLS!
Check this website out and decide for yourselves. This is why my children will not attend public schools.
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2009/11/04/elementary-epidemic-11-uncovered-videos-show-school-children-performing-praises-to-obama/
Welcome to the Socialist states of America.,
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2009/11/04/elementary-epidemic-11-uncovered-videos-show-school-children-performing-praises-to-obama/
Friday, October 30, 2009
Another one goes to China
Another one goes to China
J. Thompson II
I visited Agilent Technologies in Liberty lake, Washington while executing my regular work duties. I had never been there before, as I entered the complex I noticed it lacked something, employees! I checked in at the front desk and found I needed a visitors pass, and would be escorted at all times by a security guard. My work is mostly with banks so I am used to strict security, but this seemed odd. The place felt empty.
I asked the guard, He said the security was always high because the things they manufactured were 'very sensitive'. I later found out this facillity developed, built, and tested, test and measurement equipment prototypes, related to Biological, chemical, and Electronic analysis equipment. He also let me know the operation had been sold to an over seas company. I guessed correctly that it was China. Only a skeleton crew of about 100 people remained completing certain tasks. Originally the facility employed over 3,000. He said by next March it will be completely shut down and gone. Another one gone to China, maybe they will relocate next to the company that builds gyroscopes for our guided missiles. In history, has a nation ever commited suicide the way the United States is right now ? Giving the finances and the technology to our enemies to destroy us with. I would say 'God help us!' but our government asked Him to leave along time ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agilent_Technologies
__________________
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
Benjamin Franklin
J. Thompson II
I visited Agilent Technologies in Liberty lake, Washington while executing my regular work duties. I had never been there before, as I entered the complex I noticed it lacked something, employees! I checked in at the front desk and found I needed a visitors pass, and would be escorted at all times by a security guard. My work is mostly with banks so I am used to strict security, but this seemed odd. The place felt empty.
I asked the guard, He said the security was always high because the things they manufactured were 'very sensitive'. I later found out this facillity developed, built, and tested, test and measurement equipment prototypes, related to Biological, chemical, and Electronic analysis equipment. He also let me know the operation had been sold to an over seas company. I guessed correctly that it was China. Only a skeleton crew of about 100 people remained completing certain tasks. Originally the facility employed over 3,000. He said by next March it will be completely shut down and gone. Another one gone to China, maybe they will relocate next to the company that builds gyroscopes for our guided missiles. In history, has a nation ever commited suicide the way the United States is right now ? Giving the finances and the technology to our enemies to destroy us with. I would say 'God help us!' but our government asked Him to leave along time ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agilent_Technologies
__________________
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
Benjamin Franklin
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Friday, September 4, 2009
A Declaration of the Free People of America -
A Declaration of the Free People of America -
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal. Not that some men are more equal than others because of their skin color or minority status. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Not healthcare, living wages and "social justice"
That to secure these rights of life, liberty and happiness, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it. And we charge this government and those now in power as being destructive to our lives, our liberty and our happiness. In the course our Founders declared, we have such right to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as our Founding Fathers laid them down to effect in the best perfection achievable by man - our Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind is more disposed to suffer tyranny, while tyranny is sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they have become enslaved. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Such has been the patient sufferance of Conservative Americans; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter and abolish the federal Systems of Socialism in Government.
The history of this present Administration, Congress and the Judiciary and to extents, the previous twelve Administrations, Congresses and Courts, is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States and the people in them. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world:
They have violated our Constitutionally-protected rights of free exercise of religion and worship by abolishing Christian exercise and presence in public via courts pushing a secular religion.
They have violated our Constitutionally-protected right of speech by passing laws that criminalize belief and opinion; by laws written to impact and restrict citizen support in elective campaigns of representatives; by requiring licenses, fees, tickets and other assorted sundry demands to peaceably assemble; by demonizing citizens petitioning for a redress of grievances and shutting constituents from meetings to discuss pending legislation by stacking the halls with bussed-in supporters; by creating a climate of hatred, fear and loathing for those opposed to this government's actions.
They seek to violate our Constitutionally-protected right of press and political speech by use of clever locality, diversity and content applications designed to restrict opinions and punish mass communication providers that do not comply with government-mandated rules designed to suppress dissent.
They have violated our Constitutionally-protected right to bear arms in outright infringement and by nefarious tax schemes intended to bar the right of the citizen to arms and possessions of arms to carry on his person or own in his own home.
They have bankrupted the entire nation in unfathomable and unrecoverable debt in behemoth government social programs robbing the treasury of the People by welfare ponzi schemes that have created mass entitlements designed to keep the people dependent on government assistance.
They have bankrupted the social security and medical aid programs that take by fiat, a portion of every income to support continued abuse and misappropriations by government bureaucrats.
They have bankrupted private industry by mandating regulations designed for cronyism and dependence of constituents to politicians for reelection.
They pass into law, thousands of pages of legislation, written by unknown persons and lobbyists without reading the bills or knowing what they contain.
They pass into law by inserting hidden 'riders' and 'pork', programs, taxes, regulations and tyranny into bills having nothing to do with the purpose of the proposed legislation.
They hamstring industry vital to national infrastructure by myriad regulations beholden to environmentalists that lobby Congress with money and advisement that ensure our national dependence on foreign energy supplies.
They have robbed wholesale the taxpaying public by nationalizing the private business and industry of mortgage banking and auto manufacturers, misappropriating billions of funds to bail out unspecified recipients and impoverishing the people and future generations of Americans in the process.
They are in the process of unconstitutionally mandating all citizens purchase government health insurance or face penalty.
They have designed bureaucratic panels to rule on matters of life and death in health care that they devise to take over.
They pass laws on the citizenry that they exempt themselves from.
They have continually violated the law of the land and diminished the rights of American citizens by allowing foreign illegal immigrants entry and rein into the country without consequence at the expense of the citizenry for the purpose of expanding a political party with dependents.
They have provided aid and comfort to an Islamic enemy at war with the people of the nation, and afforded non-citizen enemy combatants with rights that are the sole province of American citizens.
The Courts have routinely legislated from the bench without any authority in cases brought before them.
The Courts have stated their decisions to rule according to foreign laws, personal life experiences and biases and not by the rule of the Constitution of the United States.
The Courts have overturned the express will of the people who have petitioned and passed legislation to alleviate their burdens by personal political biases that are ruled unconstitutional based on wrongful precedents.
The Executive has unlawfully nationalized private business with taxpayer money, without our consent.
The Executive has engaged in treason by denouncing his country and his countrymen on foreign soil.
The Executive has pursued a goal of redistributing wealth and private property by demonizing private citizens and enacting policies designed to in his words "return the nation's wealth to their rightful owners".
The Executive is engaged in creating a standing civilian political army answerable only to him, that is "just as strong, just as large and just as well funded as the military".
The Executive is engaged in a preemptive and constant program of demagoguery and derision of political opponents to the point of using federal agencies to declare opponents "domestic terrorists" and to turn the citizenry against specific individuals and professions in order to enact takeovers of those properties.
The Executive has established a government snitch program by requiring citizens report opponents of the President's policies to a White House website that collected the information of 'dissidents' for further use in violation of the Constitution and law.
The Executive has unlawfully and unconstitutionally breached the Separation of Powers and duties specifically assigned to Congress by running the 2010 Census out of the Oval Office with a host of invasive questions for the purpose of redistricting the nation to ensure permanent political office for their party.
The Executive has engaged in routine deception of his policies, plans and statements, even concealing his eligibility for the High Office that he holds by refusing to reveal and release information that would qualify his tenure.
The Executive has erected a multitude of New Czars, unaccountable, unreviewable and untenable to oversight or the recall of the people who will make law and policy outside of legislation to send swarms of Officers to harass our people, eat out of their substance and impoversh classes of Americans.
The Executive has combined with others to subject us to an ideology and jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts without Legislation.
For protecting Jihad terrorists and Black Panther poll intimidators, by immunity from investigation or punishment for any lawbreaking which they should commit on the citizens of these States:
For penalizing our industries in deference to third world nations:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us of our liberties:
For abolishing the Free Market System, establishing therein a Marxist government, and enlarging its power so as to render it at once as an absolute oligarchy of power in this country.
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the foundation and principles of the nation:
He has declared us "an unjust nation" and is waging War against us.
He has plundered our wealth, ravaged our liberty, impoverished our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time recruiting large armies of political Mercenaries to complete the works of redistribution, enslavement, death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Oppression and Enslavement paralleled in brutal Marxist regimes, and totally unworthy to hold the office of a civilized nation.
He has encouraged our fellow Citizens taken captive by decades of indoctrination, to bear false witness and eventually Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our nation, merciless Socialism and despotism whose history is one of destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A government, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define tyranny, is unfit to govern of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our government-supporting brethren. We have warned them of attempts by their government to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us all. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our liberty and the facts in our Constitution here. We have appealed to our commonality of citizenry and love of liberty to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably enslave us all. They too seem deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the free individuals and Conservative people of the united States of America, in General Agreement, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of God Almighty and our fellow citizens, solemnly publish and declare, That we sovereign citizens of America are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent from the authoritarian arm of the federal government, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the federal government, and that all political connection between them and the federal government in Washington D.C., is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent Sovereign Citizens, have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things that our Founder’s intended within the boundaries of the Constitution of the United States of America which was our bulwark against an oppressive and intrusive government.
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
Thomas Jefferson updated by Invar
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal. Not that some men are more equal than others because of their skin color or minority status. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Not healthcare, living wages and "social justice"
That to secure these rights of life, liberty and happiness, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it. And we charge this government and those now in power as being destructive to our lives, our liberty and our happiness. In the course our Founders declared, we have such right to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as our Founding Fathers laid them down to effect in the best perfection achievable by man - our Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind is more disposed to suffer tyranny, while tyranny is sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they have become enslaved. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Such has been the patient sufferance of Conservative Americans; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter and abolish the federal Systems of Socialism in Government.
The history of this present Administration, Congress and the Judiciary and to extents, the previous twelve Administrations, Congresses and Courts, is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States and the people in them. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world:
They have violated our Constitutionally-protected rights of free exercise of religion and worship by abolishing Christian exercise and presence in public via courts pushing a secular religion.
They have violated our Constitutionally-protected right of speech by passing laws that criminalize belief and opinion; by laws written to impact and restrict citizen support in elective campaigns of representatives; by requiring licenses, fees, tickets and other assorted sundry demands to peaceably assemble; by demonizing citizens petitioning for a redress of grievances and shutting constituents from meetings to discuss pending legislation by stacking the halls with bussed-in supporters; by creating a climate of hatred, fear and loathing for those opposed to this government's actions.
They seek to violate our Constitutionally-protected right of press and political speech by use of clever locality, diversity and content applications designed to restrict opinions and punish mass communication providers that do not comply with government-mandated rules designed to suppress dissent.
They have violated our Constitutionally-protected right to bear arms in outright infringement and by nefarious tax schemes intended to bar the right of the citizen to arms and possessions of arms to carry on his person or own in his own home.
They have bankrupted the entire nation in unfathomable and unrecoverable debt in behemoth government social programs robbing the treasury of the People by welfare ponzi schemes that have created mass entitlements designed to keep the people dependent on government assistance.
They have bankrupted the social security and medical aid programs that take by fiat, a portion of every income to support continued abuse and misappropriations by government bureaucrats.
They have bankrupted private industry by mandating regulations designed for cronyism and dependence of constituents to politicians for reelection.
They pass into law, thousands of pages of legislation, written by unknown persons and lobbyists without reading the bills or knowing what they contain.
They pass into law by inserting hidden 'riders' and 'pork', programs, taxes, regulations and tyranny into bills having nothing to do with the purpose of the proposed legislation.
They hamstring industry vital to national infrastructure by myriad regulations beholden to environmentalists that lobby Congress with money and advisement that ensure our national dependence on foreign energy supplies.
They have robbed wholesale the taxpaying public by nationalizing the private business and industry of mortgage banking and auto manufacturers, misappropriating billions of funds to bail out unspecified recipients and impoverishing the people and future generations of Americans in the process.
They are in the process of unconstitutionally mandating all citizens purchase government health insurance or face penalty.
They have designed bureaucratic panels to rule on matters of life and death in health care that they devise to take over.
They pass laws on the citizenry that they exempt themselves from.
They have continually violated the law of the land and diminished the rights of American citizens by allowing foreign illegal immigrants entry and rein into the country without consequence at the expense of the citizenry for the purpose of expanding a political party with dependents.
They have provided aid and comfort to an Islamic enemy at war with the people of the nation, and afforded non-citizen enemy combatants with rights that are the sole province of American citizens.
The Courts have routinely legislated from the bench without any authority in cases brought before them.
The Courts have stated their decisions to rule according to foreign laws, personal life experiences and biases and not by the rule of the Constitution of the United States.
The Courts have overturned the express will of the people who have petitioned and passed legislation to alleviate their burdens by personal political biases that are ruled unconstitutional based on wrongful precedents.
The Executive has unlawfully nationalized private business with taxpayer money, without our consent.
The Executive has engaged in treason by denouncing his country and his countrymen on foreign soil.
The Executive has pursued a goal of redistributing wealth and private property by demonizing private citizens and enacting policies designed to in his words "return the nation's wealth to their rightful owners".
The Executive is engaged in creating a standing civilian political army answerable only to him, that is "just as strong, just as large and just as well funded as the military".
The Executive is engaged in a preemptive and constant program of demagoguery and derision of political opponents to the point of using federal agencies to declare opponents "domestic terrorists" and to turn the citizenry against specific individuals and professions in order to enact takeovers of those properties.
The Executive has established a government snitch program by requiring citizens report opponents of the President's policies to a White House website that collected the information of 'dissidents' for further use in violation of the Constitution and law.
The Executive has unlawfully and unconstitutionally breached the Separation of Powers and duties specifically assigned to Congress by running the 2010 Census out of the Oval Office with a host of invasive questions for the purpose of redistricting the nation to ensure permanent political office for their party.
The Executive has engaged in routine deception of his policies, plans and statements, even concealing his eligibility for the High Office that he holds by refusing to reveal and release information that would qualify his tenure.
The Executive has erected a multitude of New Czars, unaccountable, unreviewable and untenable to oversight or the recall of the people who will make law and policy outside of legislation to send swarms of Officers to harass our people, eat out of their substance and impoversh classes of Americans.
The Executive has combined with others to subject us to an ideology and jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts without Legislation.
For protecting Jihad terrorists and Black Panther poll intimidators, by immunity from investigation or punishment for any lawbreaking which they should commit on the citizens of these States:
For penalizing our industries in deference to third world nations:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us of our liberties:
For abolishing the Free Market System, establishing therein a Marxist government, and enlarging its power so as to render it at once as an absolute oligarchy of power in this country.
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the foundation and principles of the nation:
He has declared us "an unjust nation" and is waging War against us.
He has plundered our wealth, ravaged our liberty, impoverished our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time recruiting large armies of political Mercenaries to complete the works of redistribution, enslavement, death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Oppression and Enslavement paralleled in brutal Marxist regimes, and totally unworthy to hold the office of a civilized nation.
He has encouraged our fellow Citizens taken captive by decades of indoctrination, to bear false witness and eventually Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our nation, merciless Socialism and despotism whose history is one of destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A government, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define tyranny, is unfit to govern of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our government-supporting brethren. We have warned them of attempts by their government to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us all. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our liberty and the facts in our Constitution here. We have appealed to our commonality of citizenry and love of liberty to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably enslave us all. They too seem deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the free individuals and Conservative people of the united States of America, in General Agreement, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of God Almighty and our fellow citizens, solemnly publish and declare, That we sovereign citizens of America are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent from the authoritarian arm of the federal government, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the federal government, and that all political connection between them and the federal government in Washington D.C., is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent Sovereign Citizens, have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things that our Founder’s intended within the boundaries of the Constitution of the United States of America which was our bulwark against an oppressive and intrusive government.
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
Thomas Jefferson updated by Invar
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
How ?
I have been listening to various radio and television programs talking about the progressive (means Communist/fascist) push to remake the United States. Almost without exception, they list and warn about all the different bills, EOs (exec. orders), the power of the unelected tzars, gov. take over of banks, and auto companies. The fact that the deficit is now bigger than all previous deficits combined, and climbing. These are all true and legitimate concerns. They also point out correctly, that this government projects anger and hostility at opponents of their agenda. This government also has shown the willingnes to use its power against its own citizens to squash opposition. Another common thread of commentary is that this administration shows no signs of relenting in its push for power. We are advised constantly not to do anything provacative, or extreme.
The radio commentators inform their audiences, which rightly become more incensed with each new revelation. We are encouraged to attend tea partys, write our congressman, call the whitehouse and more. All of these ideas are good and should be done, but what if this administration doesn't repond to our concerns ? What if they continue in their march toward socialism/communism ? At some point, and it is approaching quickly, we will reach a moment very similar to that moment in 1776. We will keep telling the government to stop, to leave us alone, to follow the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Indepenence, but I don't think they care. So to the patriotic media leaders, the ones that seem to speak for us. The ones telling us to remain calm, what next ? How do we respond when they shut down the web, or install media controls like The Peoples Republic of China, USSR, or Nazi Germany ? I know what I'll do, But what do you say ? What do we say to the pro 'O' cops that tell us they can arrest us for anything they want, simply because we don't agree with their leader. There is anger and unrest growing in this country, I hope the politicians start paying attention.
I travelled across part of the US this summer with my family, People out there are unhappy about many things; being ignored by their elected officials, being marginalized by the state run media, being taxed to death, being called rascist, nazis and basically stupid. Oh yes, we remember, We bitter people, clinging to our God, and our Constitution. The funny thing is, we ignorant unwashed masses can do something our elitist elected officials say they can't, ...read the bills they try to force down out throats !
Now to end this post I'd like to leave you with something chilling. It's a video, the man in it was part of Bill Ayers terrorist group. Listen to what he says and remember, Bill Ayers is one of Obama's long time supporters and friends, their goals are the same. Bill Ayers has never repented for what he attempted to do in the 70s, in fact, he has made statements indicating he wishes they had done more.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWMIwziGrAQ
JB Maccabee Sept. 1, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
