 |
This man cannot be acting in the country's best
interest. democrats know this!
|
Again, if one looks for near-sightedness and weak resolve when it comes to confronting hostile countries that wish to do us harm, the progressive socialist liberal democrats take the stance that was so profound when
Barrrack Ogbjmma was our leader, take a knee and hope our acquiescence to non-confrontation will allow us to survive.
Sadly, modern day democrats have a history of leading from behind and allowing adversaries to cross red lines with impunity. It's just easier then to have to take a stand to defend what the nation actually stands for. Morality and ethics are not strong points in the agenda and ideology of socialsit liberal democrats.
democrats know instinctively America wrong headed and therefore they must do what it takes to rejoin the rest of the world that demands America once again becomes the obedient and compliant country to the needs of others they know she always has been.
democrats obediently tie themselves to the post and happily await the lash! This is preferred to having to make a commitment to country.
Never vote democrat, ever again. It is about national security!! Donald Trump will not be tied down and wait for others act to act against us. His main job, as stated in our Constitution is to protect and defend this country and it's people against all foreign and domestic threats. He is committed to our security out of pride and a moral sense of duty.
democrats have no sense of pride or commitment other then to themselves.
A Mark That Misses the Mark: House Democrats and the National Defense Authorization Act
The Democrat-controlled House Armed Services subcommittee on strategic forces is advancing policies on nuclear weapons and missile defense that would make the U.S. and its allies less safe.
This is evident in the markup (or the subcommittee’s version) of the National Defense Authorization Act,(NDAA) which it released Tuesday.
For example, the markup prohibits funding for deployment of the W76-2 low-yield nuclear warhead despite a strong endorsement from Air Force Gen. John Hyten, commander of U.S. Strategic Command, who is charged with executing the deterrence mission.
The action comes on the heels of a letter Monday to leaders of the House and Senate Armed Services committees from 26 national security experts, calling for such a step (as well as for an extension of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, a bad idea of its own).
Not deploying the W76-2 would be a mistake. The low-yield version of the W76 warhead is a “supplemental capability” endorsed in the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review.
A limited number of warheads already are modified, meaning no additional action is required. Which is why the House subcommittee’s “mark” of the National Defense Authorization Act focuses on prohibiting funding for deployment of a weapon, rather than development.
The weapon itself is not a new capability or a new nuclear weapon, as some try to claim. Rather, it’s a necessary response to developments in Russia’s nuclear forces developments.
Russia’s military exercises, doctrinal developments, and fielded low-yield nuclear weapon capabilities indicate that Russia might be inclined to use nuclear weapons in a conventional conflict first, to indicate its resolve and make the United States back down. Such a perception is driven by perceived U.S. inability to respond in kind to Russia’s use of low-yield nuclear weapons.
Russia maintains at least a 10-to-1 advantage in this class of weapons. The decision to defund deployment of the W76-2 warhead will serve only to exacerbate this disadvantage.
It is also worthwhile to note that deploying a low-yield warhead on an existing platform means that the overall yield of actively deployed U.S. warheads will decrease. Although that does not compromise U.S. target coverage, developments in Russia’s nuclear doctrine are deemed so severe that U.S. leadership determined it was necessary to make this trade-off.
The silence of the arms control community on this point is a sign of intellectual inconsistency.
The annual National Defense Authorization Act authorizes appropriations and sets out policies for the Defense Department as well as for military construction and the Energy Department’s national security programs.
The House subcommittee’s mark of the NDAA also unhelpfully walks back the U.S. commitment to a comprehensive layered missile defense system, advanced in a bipartisan manner in the fiscal year 2017 NDAA, which states in part:
It is the policy of the United States to maintain and improve an effective, robust layered missile defense system capable of defending the territory of the United States, allies, deployed forces, and capabilities against the developing and increasingly complex ballistic missile threat with funding subject to the annual authorization of appropriations and the annual appropriation of funds for National Missile Defense.
The subcommittee Democrats seek to limit homeland defense to rogue states while explicitly stating we would rely on nuclear deterrence for near-peer adversary ballistic missile threats. It argues that a similar position is advanced in the 2019 Missile Defense Review.
That is inaccurate. The Missile Defense Review does not preclude a role for missile defenses against threats like those of Russia and China, and is explicit in saying the U.S. would not accept limits on its missile defense programs should they advance to the point of having a substantial capability against Russia and China.
President Donald Trump could not have been clearer in his remarks at the time of the review’s release: “Our goal is simple: to ensure that we can detect and destroy any missile launched against the United States—anywhere, anytime, anyplace.”
Regrettably, Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee do not share the same commitment.
No comments:
Post a Comment