Strategic Command and State Dept. confirm: Russia is building UP its nuke arsenal

For many years, this writer has been warning against any reductions in the US nuclear arsenal, based on the fact that Russia was building up its own, China’s nuclear arsenal’s size was unknown and likely to be in the thousands of warheads, and North Korea’s nuclear capabilities were steadily increasing.

Accordingly, this writer has always consistently opposed any cuts in the US nuclear arsenal, including those mandated by the New START treaty, and has argued vocally against proposals by Obama admin officials and non-governmental arms control advocates like the “Arms Control Association” to cut the nuclear deterrent even further.

As time passed, more and more evidence emerged proving this writer’s claims – and proving nuclear disarmament advocates wrong.

But last Wednesday, the most powerful piece of evidence arrived: State Department cables from Moscow and Congressional testimony by Adm. Cecil Haney, commander of the Strategic Command, in charge of America’s entire nuclear commander.

According to US State Department diplomats in Moscow, who monitor Russia daily, Moscow is “vastly increasing” its nuclear arsenal and aims to reach “nuclear superiority over, not nuclear parity with, the US”, as Bill Gertz reports in his newest column in the Washington Free Beacon.

This is consistent with previous media and think-tank reports that Russia was building up its nuclear arsenal, was building additional strategic Tu-160 bombers, and had ordered 400 new ICBMs. The State Department and Bill Gertz have now simply confirmed this.

Thus, we have irrefutable evidence that a) Russia is dramatically increasing its nuclear arsenal, and b) its buildup is aimed at achieving nuclear superiority over, not parity with, the US. Which also proves that  New START is a treasonous treaty highly dangerous to US and allied security, because it requires nuclear arsenal cuts only of the US, while allowing Russia to dramatically increase its own arsenal.

Russia currently has:

• About 414-434 ICBMs capable of delivering at least 1,684 (and probably more) nuclear warheads to the CONUS, with its fleet of 68-75 SS-18 Satan ICBMs alone being able to deliver 10 warheads each (750 in total);


• 13 ballistic missile submarines, each armed with 16 ballistic missiles (20 in the case of the sole Typhoon class boat), each missile being itself capable of delivering 4-8 warheads (12 in the future, when Bulava and Liner missiles replace the currently-used Skiff) to the CONUS even if launched from Russian ports (Moscow has had such long-ranged missiles since the late 1980s), meaning over 1,400 warheads in total deliverable by Russia’s strategic submarine fleet;


• 251 strategic bombers (Tu-95, Tu-160, Tu-22M), each capable of delivering between 7 (Tu-95) and 12 (Tu-22M) nuclear warheads to the CONUS. Russian bombers have, in recent years, repeatedly flown close to, and sometimes into, US airspace.


• 2,800 strategic nuclear warheads in total, of which 1,500 are now deployed – and more will be deployed in the future – on the forementioned ICBMs, submarines, and bombers.


• Over 20 attack and cruise missile submarines, each carrying nuclear-armed cruise missiles (one such submarine of the Akula class popped up last year near the US submarine base at King’s Bay, GA).


• The world’s largest tactical nuclear arsenal, with around 4,000 warheads deliverable by a very wide range of systems, from short-range ballistic missiles to artillery pieces to tactical aircraft (Su-24, Su-25, the Flanker family, Su-34), to surface ships using nuclear depth charges.


• Illegal (banned by the INF Treaty) intermediate-range nuclear-armed missiles (Yars-M, R-500, Iskander-M) that can target any place in Europe and China. (Nonetheless, despite these facts, the Obama administration and NATO are too afraid to recognize and name Russia as an INF Treaty violator.)

Russia is now dramatically increasing that arsenal, as the State Department and the Strategic Command’s leader have now confirmed. In addition to deploying more warheads and building more bombers from stockpiled components, it is:

• Deploying new submarine-launched ballistic missiles (the Bulava and the Liner) that can carry 10-12 warheads each. Russia plans to procure around 140-150 missiles of each type; when these are fully deployed on Russia’s 13 ballistic missile subs, that fleet will be able to carry 2,000-2,200 nuclear warheads all by itself.


• Deploying additional Yars-M, R-500, and Iskander-M IRBMs – in violation of the INF Treaty.

Russia is also steadily modernizing its existing nuclear arsenal and fleet of delivery systems. It is:

• Developing and deploying a new class of ballistic missile submarines capable of carrying missiles such as the Bulava and the Liner. Two of them have already been commissioned and at least eight in total will be built.


• Developing a next-generation intercontinental bomber, slated to first fly in 2020 – before the USAF’s planned Long Range Strike Bomber will.


• Developing a new submarine-launched cruise missile, the Kaliber;


• Procuring and deploying a new air-launched cruise missile, the Kh-101/102;


• Developing and deploying three new ICBM types – the light Yars (RS-24, SS-29) to replace the single-warhead Topol and Topol-M missiles, the midweight Avangard/Rubezh (slated to replace SS-19 Stiletto missiles), and the Sarmat (AKA Son of Satan), intended to replace the SS-18 Satan heavy ICBMs.


• Developing a rail-based ICBM type on top of the forementioned ICBM classes.


• Developing a hypersonic missile that could carry nuclear warheads to any point on Earth in an hour and easily penetrate US missile defenses.

Note that the RS-24 (SS-29) Yars ICBMs will be able to carry 10 warheads each, whereas the missiles they’re replacing – the Topol (SS-25 Sickle) and Topol-M (SS-27 Sickle-B) – can carry only one warhead. Therefore, as these missiles enter service, the warhead carriage capacity of the Russian ICBM fleet will greatly increase beyond the (already huge) number of 1,684 warheads immediately deliverable to the CONUS.

By 2018, 80%, and by 2021, 100% of Russia’s ICBMs will be missiles of the new generation – the he Avangard/Rubezh, and the Sarmat heavy ICBM, as well as the forementioned rail-based ICBM.

By contrast, the US, under the Obama administration, has unilaterally retired and scrapped its nuclear-armed Tomahawk submarine-launched cruise missiles and their warheads, plans to kill the procurement of conventional Tomahawks, has no program to replace its ICBMs or air-launched cruise missiles, has delayed the induction of its next-generation bomber until the mid-2020s (and plans to procure only 80-100 of these crucial aircraft), has no plans to develop or deploy mobile ICBMs or medium- or short-range ballistic missiles, and has delayed its ballistic missile submarine replacement program. And even when these boats enter service, there will be only 12 of them, each carrying 16 missiles as opposed to the current Ohio class carrying 24 missiles each.

This is as simple as “Russia and China have nuclear-armed submarine- and ground-launched cruise missiles and IRBMs, the US does not.”

Which means that, even without further cuts, the US will be at a nuclear disadvantage vis-a-vis Russia (and China).

Russia would’ve been a huge nuclear threat necessitating the maintenance of the US nuclear arsenal at no less than its current size even WITHOUT this nuclear buildup. With it, it is becoming an even greater nuclear threat, thus necessitating that the US nuclear arsenal be increased, too.

This isn’t just Zbigniew Mazurak speaking; this is the State Department (through its diplomats in Moscow) and the Strategic Command’s leader, Adm. Haney (who is in charge of all US nuclear weapons), speaking. As Bill Gertz of the Washington Free Beacon reports:

“The blunt comments [by Adm. Haney - ZM] came in response to reports that Russian strategic nuclear forces recently held a large-scale nuclear exercise coinciding with saber-rattling conventional military deployments close to Russia’s eastern border with Ukraine.

Haney said the Russians conduct periodic nuclear war games and in 2013 produced a YouTube video that highlighted “every aspect of their capability.” (…)

State Department cables sent to Washington earlier this year included dire warnings that Russia is vastly increasing its nuclear arsenal under policies similar to those Moscow followed during the Soviet era. The cables, according to officials familiar with them, also stated that the Russian strategic nuclear forces buildup appears aimed at achieving nuclear superiority over the United States and not nuclear parity.

The nuclear modernization has been “continuous” and includes adding fixed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and mobile ICBMs, along with a new class of strategic missile submarines, Haney said in testimony.

“Russia has articulated their value in having strategic capability, and as such, each area they have invested in both in terms of nuclear strategic capability as well as space capability and cyberspace capability in terms of things,” Haney said.

“And as a result, we have seen them demonstrate their capability through a variety of exercises and operations. They maintain their readiness of that capability on a continuous fashion. And it’s a capability I don’t see them backing away from.”

By contrast, Haney testified to the committee that U.S. nuclear forces are in urgent need of modernization to update aging nuclear weapons, delivery systems, and support and production infrastructure, most of which were made decades ago. Under budget sequestration, which could be re-imposed in 2016, U.S. nuclear force modernization will be undermined.”

These facts utterly refute any claims – including those of Barack Obama, Congressional Democrats, and other nuclear disarmament advocates like the Arms Control Association and the Ploughshares Fund – that the US has too many warheads and can afford to cut its nuclear arsenal safely, or that this arsenal is a “Cold War relic” cutting which is “overdue and in the national interest.”

These despicable traitors wanted – and still want – America to cut its nuclear arsenal further and unilaterally, without Russian reciprocation. And for that, they should be severely punished with the maximum penalty foreseen by law for treason.

They have been blatantly lying. All of their claims, without any exception, are blatant lies. No, the US nuclear is not “too large”, “ripe for cuts”, nor a “Cold War relic.” No, its mission is not obsolete by any means – on the contrary, its mission (nuclear deterrence) is more important now than ever. No, cutting the US nuclear arsenal is not “overdue” nor “in the national interest” – it would be completely AGAINST the US national interest and utterly suicidal. It would invoke a Russian nuclear first strike on the US.

No, America cannot afford to cut its nuclear arsenal ANY FURTHER. It should increase, not cut, her nuclear arsenal.

Specifically, the US must:

• Not enter into any more arms reduction agreements ever again, especially not with countries which routinely violate such treaties, like Russia.


• Not reduce its nuclear arsenal by even one warhead and not retire any warheads except those whose service lives cannot be extended.


• Begin quickly increasing its arsenal and the production of cheap, simple plutonium-based warheads. Ample plutonium for their production can be easily obtained from spent fuel from American nuclear reactors.


• Resume nuclear testing.


• Accelerate the development of the Long-Range Strike Bomber and procure 200, not 80-100, of these aircraft; and require that they be certified as nuclear-capable from the moment they enter service.


• Quickly begin developing and procuring new, longer-ranged, stealthy replacements for the USAF’s cruise missiles as well as the Navy’s Tomahawk. The new cruise missiles should be of the same type, launchable from a wide range of platforms, and capable of delivering nuclear and conventional warheads. Their range should be at least 2,000 kms.


• Accelerate the development of hypersonic weapons. The B-52, the B-1, and the B-2 should all be made capable of launching hypersonic missiles. The HTV and Blackswift programs should also be resumed.


• Accelerate the Ohio class replacement program.


• Develop and deploy a new ICBM for the USAF, which should come in rail- and silo-based variants.


• Build more tactical nuclear warheads to reassure US allies around the world.

Once again, it must be repeated: THE US MUST NOT CUT ITS NUCLEAR ARSENAL ANY FURTHER, WHETHER UNI-, BI-, OR MULTILATERALLY. PERIOD.

Conservative Daily News

Strategic Command and State Dept. confirm: Russia is building UP its nuke arsenal

Iran deal could change the strategic calculus

The new deal on Iran’s nuclear program could bring one of the most sweeping changes in decades to Washington’s strategic calculus — if it holds.

The Pentagon has devoted tens of thousands of troops, billions of dollars’ worth of weapons and a huge amount of brainpower toward deterring the Iranian nuclear nightmare that this weekend’s announcement might ultimately forestall.

Continue Reading

From aircraft carrier strike groups to massive bunker-busting weapons to the bases of “Southwest Asia” – a polite fiction the Air Force uses to sidestep acknowledging its troops and warplanes in places such as Qatar and Kuwait – the American military effort to deter Iranian aggression is immense.

So if Iran gave up its ability to obtain nuclear weapons, there’s no telling what ripple effects could ultimately result for the U.S. military and security throughout the Middle East and the world.

In announcing the Geneva agreement late Saturday, President Barack Obama said he believed Washington and the world had the duty to explore those possibilities.

“I have a profound responsibility to try to resolve our differences peacefully, rather than rush toward conflict,” he said at the White House. “Today, we have a real opportunity to achieve a comprehensive, peaceful settlement, and I believe we must test it.”

Even the most optimistic Middle East analyst probably is not cockeyed enough to expect that Iran’s nuclear agreement also means it would withdraw the many tentacles it uses to work its will in places from Syria to Iraq to the tiny Gulf kingdom of Bahrain. But eliminating the nuclear threat from the geostrategic equation in the neighborhood would reduce the risks to the U.S. and its allies – especially Israel – by many orders of magnitude.

And there could be political and diplomatic ramifications much farther afield.

For example, a nuclear-free Iran might mean the U.S. and its European allies could scale back or abandon their plans to build an American-backed missile defense shield, designed to protect European capitals from an Iranian missile attack. American destroyers already patrol the Mediterranean Sea as part of the missile defense effort and U.S. and Romanian officials broke ground late last month on the “Aegis Ashore” missile defense complex at Romania’s Deveselu Air Base.

The European missile defense shield has been a major diplomatic problem for the U.S. and Russia, partly because Russian President Vladimir Putin fears it could threaten Russia’s strategic arsenal. If the Iranian nuclear threat went away and took with it the dispute over European missile defense, that would be one less problem between Washington and Moscow – although there certainly are many others.

Missile defense advocates in the United States such as Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), who have been pushing for a new East Coast site to defend against a potential Iranian attack, might find that case much tougher to make with the threat from Tehran gone.

There could be other such second and third-order effects. Just the same, no one in Washington is daydreaming yet about how to spend any Iranian peace dividend.

The president himself tried to manage expectations in his remarks Saturday night to praise the deal. “It won’t be easy and huge challenges remain ahead,” he said. And administration officials said they remain clear-eyed about Iran’s record of duplicity.

Conservatives were even more skeptical about the nuclear deal.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) — a vocal sanctions hawk who wants to add new restrictions to the defense authorizatin bill the Senate left in limbo – said Saturday night he thought Iran was getting off easy since it’s keeping its enrichment centrifuges.

And Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), used a talking point that Republicans first leveled at the president when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) opted to use the so-called “nuclear option” to change its filibuster rules on Thursday: Obama and Democrats are only trying to change the storyline in Washington away from the botched rollout of the Affordable Care Act.

Advocates for diplomacy urged the U.S., its allies and Iran not to be swayed by the voices in Israel and some other countries that might suspect a trick or urge the players to hold out for what they believe is a better deal.

“This is the beginning, not the end of the process,” said Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council. “Many obstacles and potential spoilers remain. Hardliners in both countries will work harder than ever to sabotage this pivot towards a diplomatic path. Those whose only currency is confrontation will search for any opportunities they can find to undermine and sabotage this interim deal.”

And arms control advocates said that the prospects for an end to the Iranian nuclear threat and worth the effort that would go into a permanent agreement.

“A verifiable freeze of Iran’s nuclear program is an important step toward increasing American security and the security of our allies in the Middle East,” said Joel Rubin, director of policy and government affairs for the Ploughshares Fund. “Now is the time for patience. As diplomacy continues, we applaud the bipartisan members of Congress who stand ready to support America’s negotiators in their ongoing diplomatic efforts.”

POLITICO – TOP Stories

Iran deal could change the strategic calculus

Cutting Aid to Egypt Signals a Big Strategic Shift For Obama

Cutting Aid to Egypt Signals a Big Strategic Shift For Obama

The decision to withdraw military aid to Egypt should be hailed as a victory for a more conscientious and appropriate American grand strategy. For too long, the U.S. has been policing the world with a puffed-up chest. This move is more than a slight, calibrated adjustment, but a signal that President Obama intends to change course entirely. It shifts the emphasis of American foreign policy away from “Do as I say, not as I do” at the point of a gun and towards a more honest, morally defensible, and humble posture.

Indeed, the symbolic power of this move outweighs the on-the-ground Realpolitik results. Some may argue that we cannot afford to lose our leverage with a country’s military as important as Egypt’s. Indeed, this is an unfortunate side effect of cancelling this deal. However, going through with arms shipments is a mere band-aid solution to the greater crisis of legitimacy in the country and other countries in the region. If the U.S. gets too comfortable with a government that owes its existence to a military coup, we will continue our unfortunate tradition of trampling our own name in the mud.

Obama, for his part, is absolutely right to stay out of the affairs of the Egyptians and take a wait-and-see approach to the situation. The cancelling of the trade of these arms should be seen not as an active move in opposition to the standing government of Egypt but as a sort of “reset” in which all matters are on the table for renegotiation. It is a recognition of the fact that immense political shock has just occurred in Egypt and it is time to tread lightly, rather than blindly assume that the status quo is still the way. It would be hypocritical for the U.S. to ignore the outcome of a fair and free election as being the ultimate legitimating device.

This path that Obama has started down is consonant with the rest of his stated and implied grand strategic approach to international affairs. Ultimately, he is signalling that the U.S. is no longer in the business of international security and that our allies can no longer count on us to blindly deliver security regardless of the particular circumstances. This adjustment, a large step back, sets us on a sustainable path toward the future and allows us more flexibility to ignore crises in which we don’t have a stake and intervene where we do. If the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan prove nothing else, it is that the U.S. is bad at judging its own best interests abroad with a “maximalist” approach.

It’s time for a “minimalist” approach in which we focus on our strengths, export our culture, and support legitimate democracies everywhere. This isn’t to say that military threats have no role in foreign policy. Rather, we should be in complete control of those threats. Giving weapons to others is tantamount to turning over our hard power to others and letting them do what they will, whether we approve or not. This is reckless and counter productive.

Image Credit: AP

Eric Tillberg

I graduated from Oberlin College in 2007 with degrees in Art History and Music Performance (double bass). Currently studying International Relations at the Yale Jackson Institute for Global Affairs, I’m interested in Turkey and the Turkic world. I play Go at the KGS 6k level and am an avid fan of the board game Diplomacy. Check out my adventure blog: http://ericsadventureblog.blogspot.com/

PolicyMic

Cutting Aid to Egypt Signals a Big Strategic Shift For Obama

Greek PM calls ties with Israel ‘strategic, long term’

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu meets with his Greek counterpart, Antonis Samaras, in Jerusalem. Photo: Amos Ben-Gershom/GPO

Greece views its new and improved relationship with Israel as a strategic, long term partnership that is not dependent on the fate of Israel’s relationship with Turkey, Greek Prime Minister Antonis Samaras told Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Tuesday.

The comments, according to diplomatic officials, came during a meeting the two leaders had as part of the first Israeli- Greek government-to-government meeting. Samaras arrived in Israel along with eight of his ministers to hold a day of intensive bilateral meetings during which some 10 agreements were signed in a variety of fields from public security to tourism and culture.

Related:

• 
  
  Greek ambassador: Despite apology, Turkey blocking Israel-NATO cooperation
  
  


• 
  
  Greek PM Samaris calls to ‘deracinate’ Golden Dawn party
  
  

Among the issues Netanyahu raised with Samaras was the EU settlement guidelines set to go into effect on January 1. The guidelines call, among other elements, for Israel to sign a “territorial clause” before entering into any new agreements with the EU that would stipulate that the agreement is inapplicable in east Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and the West Bank. Israel has said it would not sign such a clause and the two sides are currently negotiating over the implementation of the guidelines.

Greek Foreign Minister Evangelos Venizelos discussed the matter during a meeting with Deputy Foreign Minister Ze’ev Elkin. Elkin said that Venizelos supported Israel’s position on this matter, and has made his position clear to EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton.

Elkin said that Greece’s position on this matter had added importance since it will be taking over the EU’s rotating presidency on January 1.

Israeli officials have expressed confidence that a resolution to the issue can be found, citing the support of political leaders in a number of European states.

Among the areas of cooperation Netanyahu and Samaras discussed was the possibility of creating a gas triangle – Israel- Cyprus-Greece – with Greece the hub of Israeli and Cypriot gas exports to the rest of Europe.

Israel’s ambassador to Greece, Aryeh Mekel, said this government-to-government meeting “constitutes the peak in the new and upgraded relations between Israel and Greece that began some three years ago. As opposed to the past, today there is close cooperation in a number of fields.”

Mekel said there has also been a dramatic change in Greek public opinion, which in the past was negative toward Israel, but which today is in favor of close cooperation.

“In the long run this could be the most important element of the improvement in relations,” he said.

The flowering in Greek-Israeli ties began in 2010 and coincided with the sharp deterioration of Israeli-Turkish ties.

Netanyahu, during his meeting with Samaras, praised the Greeks for taking a tough stand against the neo-fascist Golden Dawn Party and arresting six of the party’s MPs following a public furor over the murder of an anti-fascist rapper by a Golden Dawn member.

In a joint appearance with Samaras after their meeting, Netanyahu said he wanted to commend his government for its “resolute opposition to neo- Nazism, anti-Semitism and racism. You have taken important steps, courageous steps that demonstrate clearly that Greece is a land of tolerance and freedom.”

He also commended Samaras for the way he has handled Greece’s economic crisis, and encouraged Israeli businessmen to “go and invest in Greece, it’s probably a very good deal.”

Netanyahu said the “smart money should be going to Greece now, as the smart money should be going to Israel always.”

One area where the two countries do not see eye-to-eye, however, is Iran, although the differences were not aired in public. While Netanyahu repeated his mantra that the pressure must be kept on Tehran, diplomatic officials have said that Greece – whose economy has been hurt by the sanctions it has imposed on oil imports from Iran – is in favor of giving Iranian President Hassan Rouhani a chance to prove himself, and that the West should perhaps ease up on some sanctions as a good will gesture.

During his public comments Netanyahu said that the Iranian regime sought a partial agreement that will ease the sanctions that have significantly hurt the Iranian economy.

“Of course what they want is merely the relaxation of sanctions without the real cessation of Iran’s program to develop military nuclear capability,” he said. “That is unacceptable. The sanctions must be continued, they must be strengthened until the Iranian military nuclear program is dismantled.”

Samaras, in his public comments, tellingly did not mention Iran.

WHAT REALLY HAPPENED

Greek PM calls ties with Israel ‘strategic, long term’