Category Archives: U.S.

A Marriage on the Rocks? Saudis Look Beyond U.S. After Iran Deal – Bloomberg Business

Former Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal once compared the bond with the U.S. to a “Muslim marriage,” or one that wasn’t necessarily monogamous.

The kingdom’s recent overtures to other partners suggest the relationship is going through another reappraisal because of the landmark accord with regional rival Iran. After visiting Russia and France last month, Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman returned home with $23 billion of aircraft and energy contracts.

“Trust between Saudi Arabia and the U.S. has been damaged by the Iran nuclear deal,” said Paul Sullivan, a Middle East specialist at Georgetown University in Washington. “Many in Saudi Arabia feel abandoned by the U.S.”

A Marriage on the Rocks? Saudis Look Beyond U.S. After Iran Deal – Bloomberg Business

Putin Threatens America with Nuclear Annihilation

As the National Institute for Public Policy documents in the report, “Foreign Nuclear Developments: A Gathering Storm,” Russia has a new military doctrine that anticipates using nuclear weapons, and the regime has embarked on “a massive strategic modernization program to deploy new nuclear weapons and delivery systems.”

Not only that, but Russia has a ballistic missile defense to use against us.

Geopolitical analyst Jeff Nyquist tells Accuracy in Media, “The Russians became angry and threatening when NATO tried to build a very modest missile defense system to stop an Iranian missile. Yet Russia has over 10,000 dual purpose SAM/ABMs for defense against our missiles and will be deploying a new ABM prototype next year.”

He adds, “Russia has potential war winning advantages over the U.S. and NATO—not necessarily in the number of nuclear weapons but in the number of its ABM batteries, and the upgrading of these batteries with a new generation of interceptor rockets while the American side makes no effort in this direction. The U.S. ABMs in Alaska and California would be lucky to stop 12 Russian warheads.”

Putin Threatens America with Nuclear Annihilation

The Iran Deal Will Bring Us Nothing But War and Shame

The now-concluded Iran nuclear negotiations predictably reflect ancient truths of appeasement.

While members of the Obama administration are high-fiving each other over a deal with the Iranian theocracy, they should remember unchanging laws that will surely haunt the United States later on.

First, appeasement always brings short-term jubilation at the expense of long-term security. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain was a beloved peacemaker after the Munich Agreement of 1938 with Adolf Hitler but derided as a conceited fool and naif by May 1940.

Second, the appeasement of autocrats always pulls the rug out from under domestic reformers and idealists. After the Western capitulation at Munich, no dissenter in Germany dared to question the ascendant dictatorship of Adolf Hitler.

Third, appeasers always wrongly insist that the only alternative to their foolish concessions is war. Just the opposite is true.

Fourth, beneficiaries grow to hate their appeasers. Such ingratitude might seem counterintuitive, given the gifts that the Iranians have just received from the Obama administration. But we should remember that Hitler called his Munich appeasers “worms” and pushed them even further.


China and Russia will never again see any advantage in joining the West in embargoing and sanctioning a would-be nuclear state – not when such a hard-won common front can become utterly nullified at any moment by a fickle United States. Both powers will grow closer to Iran.

In 2015, we naively hail peace with honor, but by 2020, sadder and wiser, we will lament war and shame.

The Iran Deal Will Bring Us Nothing But War and Shame | National Review Online

Russian Bombers Flew Within 40 Miles of N. California Coast | Washington Free Beacon

Two Russian nuclear bombers flew within 40 miles of the California coast and one of the pilots relayed a veiled threat during the Fourth of July aerial incident, defense officials said.


Meanwhile, Russia’s across-the-board buildup of nuclear forces and revised doctrine are increasing the danger of a nuclear war, according to a think tank report on nuclear threats.

Defense officials and the Colorado-based U.S. Northern Command said this week that two U.S. F-15 jets intercepted the Russian bombers on July 4 as they flew as close as 39 miles from the coast of Mendocino County, north of San Francisco.

During the intercept, a crew member on one of the bombers issued a warning in a radio message, according to defense officials familiar with the incident this week.

Earlier the same day, the Bear bombers intruded on the U.S. air defense identification zone (ADIZ) near Alaska. The zone is a 200-mile controlled airspace patrolled by U.S. and Canadian jets under the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).

One official said the nuclear-capable bomber flights so close to U.S. shores are part of nuclear saber-rattling by Moscow, and much more of a concern than routine U.S. aerial surveillance missions near Russia’s coasts.

“These are nuclear-capable bombers and that is a big problem,” the official said.

The report on nuclear threats, “Foreign Nuclear Developments: The Gathering Storm,” warns that Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran are substantially increasing nuclear weapons and delivery systems at a time when the United States is reducing its reliance on nuclear forces.

“Under these circumstances, the possibility that Russia may trigger events leading to their actual use of nuclear weapons cannot be dismissed out of hand.”

Russian Bombers Flew Within 40 Miles of N. California Coast | Washington Free Beacon

Foreign Nuclear Developments: The Gathering Storm

Introduction

While Western leaders, particularly in the United States and the United Kingdom, continue to advocate policies supporting the goal of ultimately eliminating nuclear weapons, the nuclear postures of Russia, China, and other states appear to be heading in precisely the opposite direction. This disconnect is growing and worrisome.

Despite the fact that many in the West believe nuclear weapons are Cold War relics with diminishing utility and relevance in the 21st century, Russian military and civilian leaders increasingly brandish nuclear threats and declare nuclear weapons to be of growing importance. Moreover, despite an approximately 80 percent reduction in the number of U.S. nuclear weapons and a planned 50 percent drop in the number of UK nuclear weapons since the end of the Cold War, Russia has made nuclear weapons the centerpiece of its military modernization program, while China continues to aggressively increase the size and quality of its nuclear arsenal.

Russia is seeking to reinforce its great power status, establish influence and control along its periphery, and undermine Western influence and alliances. Its national security policy and military doctrine emphasize nuclear forces. Russia is engaged in an extensive and comprehensive nuclear modernization program, developing and deploying modern and more sophisticated nuclear weapons, and upgrading all elements of its strategic nuclear delivery systems. Russian leaders have threatened to launch nuclear attacks on NATO members and have conducted frequent and unprecedented military exercises involving nuclear forces and bomber patrols in Europe, Asia, and the Western Hemisphere exceeding the scope and breadth of what was witnessed during the darkest days of the Cold War. And Russia is knocking down one of the last barriers to a full-scale nuclear buildup by violating its nuclear arms control commitments.

These developments suggest that Russia’s nuclear posture is evolving in ways diametrically opposite those of the United States and the United Kingdom. Aggressive Russian behavior, coupled with Russia’s brandishing of nuclear threats against the United States, the United Kingdom, their allies and friends, and simulated first use of nuclear weapons in many of its military exercises, are a cause of serious concern.

At the same time, China is engaged in an extensive nuclear weapons buildup, developing a range of new capabilities intended to underpin Beijing’s dominant role in the Far East and challenge the U.S. presence in the Asia-Pacific region. China’s modernized nuclear capabilities – including both strategic and non-strategic nuclear systems – serve as the backdrop for its aggressive geostrategic moves to assert sovereignty over territories claimed by its neighbors, including U.S. friends and allies. China has the largest ballistic missile program in the world today and is building up its conventional force projection capabilities, backed by significant increases in military spending.

In addition to Russia and China, North Korea is improving its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile capabilities as its leadership becomes increasingly bellicose in its rhetoric. Threats to target nuclear weapons against U.S. allies in the region, as well as against the U.S. homeland itself, are being enabled by the development of new nuclear and missile capabilities. North Korea’s efforts to assist Iran in the development of its nuclear capabilities are ongoing, despite the negotiation of a Framework Agreement intended to limit Tehran’s nuclear breakout potential. Iran appears to be seeking ways to preserve the capability to develop nuclear weapons as a counter to U.S. influence in the region and a means of intimidating U.S. allies and friends like Israel.

In the face of these developments, it may be time for a serious reassessment of the nuclear policies of the United States and its allies.

This brochure is intended to inform and facilitate serious discussion of the challenges to U.S. and international security posed by Russian, Chinese, North Korean, and Iranian nuclear developments.

Conclusion

As the Cold War recedes further into history, the nuclear threats posed by others to the United States and the West have not. In fact, the opposite appears to be the case.

Russia places the highest priority on nuclear weapons because it believes that its status as a “great power” is based upon them. Russia’s statements on nuclear policy, its official doctrine, its extensive across-the-board strategic modernization programs, its direct nuclear threats against others, its unprecedented level of Cold War-type strategic exercises, and its violation of nuclear arms control agreements all suggest a troubling and dangerous move toward a more aggressive overall nuclear posture for the foreseeable future. The implications of these actions, coupled with Russia’s increasingly belligerent behavior on the world stage and willingness to use military force – such as its annexation of Crimea, invasion of Ukraine, and incursions into the sovereign airspace of other countries – threaten the very foundations of peace and stability and challenge the notion that Russia can be a reliable partner in ensuring a tranquil world in the 21st century.

While many in the West believe that the end of the Cold War has meant the end of a confrontational and adversarial relationship with Russia, recent events suggest this hoped-for outcome is more the result of wishful thinking than of a sober and realistic assessment of the current geostrategic environment. Under these circumstances, the possibility that Russia may trigger events leading to their actual use of nuclear weapons cannot be dismissed out of hand. Senior Russian officials, including President Putin, have threatened that NATO allies may be targets for Russian nuclear forces, and President Putin has suggested he would have used nuclear weapons, if necessary, in the Russian invasion of Crimea. The invasion of a Baltic state comparable to Russia’s military action against Ukraine would trigger Article V of the NATO Treaty, which declares “an armed attack against one” will be considered “an armed attack against them all.”

Likewise, China has adopted an increasingly belligerent stance in global affairs, challenging the territorial sovereignty of its neighbors and U.S. regional allies while expanding the military means for implementing its strategic objectives – including enhancing its nuclear arsenal both quantitatively and qualitatively. Beijing appears increasingly reliant on its nuclear forces to underpin its aggressive behavior, with increasing concerns in the West about its adherence to the carefully-calibrated policy of “no first use” on issues it considers to be of the utmost national importance.

North Korea’s militarized state, coupled with its seemingly erratic and eccentric leadership, poses a significant threat to U.S. allies as well as the U.S. homeland. North Korea’s nuclear programs are ongoing, and its continuing development of capabilities to launch nuclear weapons on ballistic missiles of sufficient range to travel intercontinental distances is a cause of serious concern. And, with North Korea’s help, Iran’s clerical leadership appears bent on achieving a nuclear weapons capability that can successfully threaten U.S. allies and deter the United States from acting to protect its own interests in the region.

Although the goal of a nuclear weapons-free world remains official U.S. and British policy and has the support of a number of Western leaders, that goal appears further from reality than ever. The growing emphasis and reliance that others appear to place on nuclear weapons as tools of coercion and intimidation – not to mention the possibility of their actual use in conflict – suggest that continued pursuit of a “nuclear zero” option may be both unrealistic and counterproductive.

Proposals by some in the West, particularly in the United States, to eliminate ICBMs (moving from a strategic nuclear triad to a dyad), eliminate all U.S. non-strategic nuclear forces, and substantially reduce investment in nuclear modernization programs, appear to ignore the greater emphasis placed by others on nuclear weapons and their relative importance as a counter to U.S. conventional force dominance, a deterrent to U.S. military actions, and an enabler of their own aggressive policies.

All of this suggests that the nuclear postures of the East and the West are on divergent paths. This cannot bode well for the continued functioning of deterrence in an increasingly uncertain and dangerous world. Western policy makers should take heed of these developments as they craft national security policies appropriate to the challenges and threats of the 21st century.

Foreign Nuclear Developments: The Gathering Storm [PDF Format]

Gen. Milley To SASC: World Getting Worse, Army Getting Smaller « Breaking Defense

UPDATED: Russia is No. 1 threat, Milley tells Senate; give “defensive” arms to Ukraine
CAPITOL HILL: The world has changed, and not for the better. That’s the message Gen. Mark Milley brings to the Senate this morning.

The current Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Raymond Odierno, has often said the Army cannot execute the national strategy if the Budget Control Act caps (aka sequester) go into full effect. Gen. Milley, his designated successor, goes further: He says the current strategy may be too optimistic.

In 63 pages of questions and answers provided to the Senate Armed Services Committee (and Breaking Defense) in advance of the hearing, the prospective Army Chief of Staff warns that the foundational 2012 and 2014 documents defining the current strategy may have been overtaken by events — events like the rise of the Islamic State, Chinese brinksmanship in the Pacific, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Gen. Milley To SASC: World Getting Worse, Army Getting Smaller « Breaking Defense

Military leaders name Russia as top threat to U.S. – Washington Times

Sen. Joe Manchin, West Virginia Democrat, has asked the three nominees who appeared before the committee so far how they would rank the threats to the U.S. All three who have had their confirmation hearings have said Russia poses the greatest threat to America.

“My assessment today is that Russia poses the greatest threat to our national security,” Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Dunford told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this month in a hearing to consider his nomination to be the next chairman of the joint chiefs. “If you look at their behavior, it’s nothing short of alarming.”

Air Force Gen. Paul Selva, the nominee to serve as vice chairman of the joint chiefs, also put Russia at the top of his list of threats. He put the Islamic State and other al Qaeda-inspired groups at the bottom of the list.

“Right now [the Islamic State] does not present a clear and presence threat to our homeland and to our nation,” he said at his confirmation hearing earlier this month. “It is a threat we must deal with … but it does not threaten us at home.”

Military leaders name Russia as top threat to U.S. – Washington Times

Top Pentagon Generals Deem Russia Largest ‘Existential Threat’ to U.S. | Washington Free Beacon

Two Pentagon generals tapped by President Obama to hold top posts at the Department of Defense have named Vladimir Putin’s Russia as the most significant threat to the United States.

Foreign Policy reported that U.S. Air Force Gen. Paul Selva, nominated by Obama to serve as the next vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in remarks to the Senate Committee on Armed Services Tuesday labeled Russia, China, and Iran the top three countries posing threats to the United States.

Selva said he “would put the threats to this nation in the following order: Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and all of the organizations that have grown around ideology that was articulated by al Qaeda.”

When pressed by Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.), who chairs the Armed Services Committee, on why terrorists such as the Islamic State (IS, also known as ISIL or ISIS) fall at the end of his list, Selva insisted that such terrorists “[do] not present a clear and present threat to our homeland.”

More concerning, Selva argued, is the fact that the Russian military could pose an “existential threat to this country should they choose to be.”

Top Pentagon Generals Deem Russia Largest ‘Existential Threat’ to U.S. | Washington Free Beacon

The Fading U.S. Nuclear Deterrent – WSJ

None of the presidential candidates is talking about it, but one of the most important issues in the 2016 election should be the precarious decline of America’s nuclear forces.

When the Cold War ended in 1991 with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the U.S. began a debilitating nuclear freeze, establishing ever-broader antinuclear policies and largely ignoring the growing threat posed by these massively destructive weapons.

Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s military strategy focuses on early use of these weapons in conflicts large and small. China is in the midst of an immense strategic modernization. India and Pakistan are expanding and improving their nuclear arsenals. North Korea issues nuclear threats almost weekly. The Mideast is dissolving into chaos, and Iran’s advanced nuclear-weapons program has been on the front pages for two years.

To address these multiplying threats, U.S. nuclear policy must undergo radical changes. …

The Fading U.S. Nuclear Deterrent – WSJ

U.S. Has Established a State Religion: What Now for Christians?

The extremists of the LGBT movement display all the characteristics of a cult-like religion, including opposing critical thinking, severely penalizing any opposition, demanding complete and unwavering acceptance of its doctrines, putting loyalty to the cult above family and any other institution, including the Church, disallowing any member the right to change one’s mind and leave or seek change without dire consequences, as well as essentially demanding complete capitulation of conscience of doubtful converts.

Just as importantly, the LGBT movement deals with ultimate questions belonging to theology. The movement holds to theological doctrines concerning the nature of the human being, sexual identity and behavior, the definition of marriage, the family and the place of children, the role of government, and the transformation of traditional American institutions and documents adhering to Christian principles, particularly the Church — and the US Constitution. It has set itself up as a new sexual orthodoxy that usurps the place of orthodox Christianity and Judaism.

In brief, the establishment of the new state orthodoxy, the genesis of which can be found in ancient pagan phallic cults, is the culmination of several generations of efforts to displace Christianity and Judaism in America. Now that the modern sexual creed is woven into the very fabric of the executive and judicial branches, both will accelerate attempts to promulgate the sex cult, increasingly targeting Orthodox Christians and Jews.

U.S. Has Established a State Religion: What Now for Christians?

Poisoning The Well Of U.S.-China Relations

It was bound to happen. As China’s stock market continued its wild ride, dropping 30% by early July from a seven-year high only a month prior, rumors started swirling that Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and George Soros, among other vague forces of international capital, were to blame for the stock market plunge. No matter that foreign investors have only limited access to mainland Chinese stock exchanges, the current Chinese leadership has become addicted to the foreigner blame game. The phrase “hostile foreign forces” has become a catch-all for Chinese officials, scholars and media commentators who cannot acknowledge the reality of China’s current political and economic situation.

In the past few years, virtually no area of Chinese policy has remained untouched by the influence of “hostile foreign forces.” …

This flurry of anti-Western rhetoric has also been accompanied by a number of legislative efforts designed to limit Western influence. …

While the Chinese leadership may see such rhetoric and policies as a cheap and easy way of deflecting attention from their inability to address the challenges before them, this strategy trades short-term gain for long-term pain. As the political atmosphere turns sour, China will become a less attractive destination for many foreigners. …

Poisoning The Well Of U.S.-China Relations