Apparently this drunk fellow forgot that women are to be treated like ladies. In this video, he can be seen shoving a woman into a green table. He gets a
Our land victories in the War of 1812 were few an far between. If you view the happenings from the viewpoint of engagements between US forces (regular and militia) and British forces, and exclude skirmishes and battles fought with British Indian allies then the score approaches a shut out with a couple of ties (Chippewa and Lundy’s Lane). The signal American land victory of the war was the Battle of New Orleans (be sure to read my colleague Joe Cunningham’s rundown of the battle).
On April 11, 1814, the allies in the War of the Sixth Coalition signed the Treaty of Fonatainbleu with France. One of the provisions of that treaty was the exile of Napoleon Bonaparte to Elba. While this allowed the British to focus their attention on the pimple on their behind that was the war with the United States, Britain was experiencing economic and social turmoil as it had been at war with France and whatever allies France had at the moment nearly continuously since 1792 and wanted to bring the matter to a close. While General Sir Edward Packenham was dispatched with an army fresh from fight France to assume command of operations in North America, the governments of the United States and Great Britain were engaged in negotiations to end the war. A treaty ending the war was signed on December 24, 1814 in Ghent. By that time Packenham was in the Gulf of Mexico and it took about six weeks for a ship to transit the Atlantic.
So on January 8, 1815, two weeks after a peace treaty had been signed, the Old Hickory “met the bloody British in the town of New Orleans.” The Battle of New Orleans contributed a mighty legend to popular US history, gave us a damned good song by Jimmy Driftwood, and produced a future president in the person of Andrew Jackson the rap that has always been hung on the that battle was that it didn’t matter.
As it turns out, it did matter one helluva lot.
“What I was taught in school, like most of us, was that the Battle of New Orleans was irrelevant,” said C.J. Longanecker, a former National Park Service ranger who worked for years at the Chalmette Battlefield, a national park dedicated to the battle.
In reality, historians now say, the peace treaty was only as good as the paper it was written on.
A big discovery has come from British war records: A set of secret orders given in October 1814 to Maj. Gen. Edward Pakenham, the commander of the British invasion of the Gulf Coast.
The orders directed Pakenham to fight on regardless of any peace deal and capture New Orleans, said Ronald Drez, the military historian who uncovered the orders. He dug up the records last spring during research in London for his new book, “The War of 1812, Conflict and Deception: The British Attempt to Seize New Orleans and Nullify the Louisiana Purchase.”
This should put to rest any doubt about British designs in America, Drez argues.
“It truly is the smoking gun,” Drez said. “They say to Pakenham: ‘If you hear of a peace treaty, pay no attention, continue to fight.'”
Drez found the orders among military records in The National Archives at Kew in London.
This bit of information changes the strategic context of the last couple of months of the War of 1812. In September 1814, a small detachment of British marines tried to take Fort Bowyer near Mobile, AL. Mobile has a great natural anchorage suited for maintaining naval control of the Gulf and could serve as a dockyard as well. New Orleans controlled access to the Mississippi River. If the British owned New Orleans, the future of the Louisiana Purchase was up for grabs as overland commerce did not become a reality until the commercial development of the railroad. Without New Orleans, trade between the Purchase and the eastern seaboard of the United States simply could not have happened. The rapid settlement of the Mississippi Valley would have been prevented. That, in turn, would have delayed the move west. Even if gold had still been discovered at Sutter’s Mill, without well equipped jumping off points like St. Louis the trip would have been much more arduous. The Monroe Doctrine would never have been promulgated if the Gulf Coast had been controlled by Britain. Texas and the Gadsden Purchase would still be in Mexico because the route used by Americans to travel to Texas was via New Orleans.
A British victory followed by a refusal to evacuate Mobile and New Orleans would have altered the history of the United States and the western world in ways that are nearly unimaginable.
Little did the backwoodsmen and Gulf Coast pirates and Creole militia that crouched behind those cotton bales on that January day realize what was at stake.
December 24, 1814
It seems ages ago now, but there really was a time when some
civil libertarians held out hope for Barack Obama's presidency. If
elected, this former constitutional law professor might be "our
first president who is a civil libertarian," Jeffrey Rosen enthused
in The New York Times in March 2008. On inauguration night in 2009,
defense lawyers at Guantanamo Bay actually formed a celebratory
conga line, chanting "rule of law, baby!"
They and many other Obama optimists, writes Gene Healy, woke up
to a hell of a hangover, one that's lasted six years. The president
has launched more than six times as many drone strikes as George W.
Bush; ordered the remote-control execution of an American citizen;
continued and expanded dragnet domestic surveillance programs based
on a secret interpretation of the PATRIOT Act; and launched two
On April 29, 1992, a California jury acquitted
four white Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officers of the
brutal beating of black motorist Rodney King, causing dismay among
minority residents of the city. As the dismay turned to anger and
the anger turned to violence, five days of rioting ensued; more
than 55 people died, and CNN reported economic damage of over $1
billion. Twenty-two years on, many of the same themes have driven
residents of Ferguson, Missouri; New York City; Washington, D.C.;
and other cities around the country back into the streets.
The Lesson in MSM’s Response to Rudy A week or so ago, the MSM wanted Rudy Giuliani boiled in oil for daring to question Obama’s love for America. They were
"Doubt is our product"
Peter Sinclair from the Yale Climate Forum reviews a documentary that details how marketing doubt about science became profitable for multiple industries and their shills.
In March 2015, Robert Kenner, the Director of "Food Inc" and other acclaimed documentaries, will debut his newest, "Merchants of Doubt". ...
acceptable to have drunk sex? Most people who aren't citizens of
the Islamic State or followers of some frigid Christian group will
answer with an emphatic: "Hell, yeah." Not only is it acceptable,
they'll think; it's good, one of life's great pleasures, a rare
moment when you can ditch the pesky rational thinking required in
everyday life and instead abandon yourself—mind, soul, and
genitals—to a moment of dumb, beautiful joy.
Well, enjoy it while you can, folks, warns Brendan O'Neill.
Because like everything else pleasurable in the 21st
century—smoking in a bar, complimenting a lady on her looks,
drinking a bucket-sized Coke—drunk sex is under attack from that
new caste of killjoys who wouldn’t recognize fun if it offered to
buy them a drink ("unwanted sexual advance"). Drunk sex is being
demonized, even criminalized: turned from something that can be
either wonderful or awkward into, effectively, rape. They warned us
for years, "Don't drink and drive." Now it’s "Don't drink and
Reports of alleged secret deal on long term DHS funding between establishment GOPers and Democrats has sparked rumblings of Boehner’s removal as Speaker
From The Last Tradition I doubt very much that this is goona happen because there are simply not enough real conservatives with guts in The House to kick Boehner to
Another “OMG, Doom!!!!” talking point/prognostication from the World Of Climatology has bitten the dust Polar bear population bounces back despite climate change warning Dr Susan Crockford said: “On almost every
The War of 1812 is an underrated turning point in American
history, rivaling the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, and the
two world wars. Indeed, the War of 1812 helped to launch the empire
that manifested itself in those later conflicts. In its aftermath,
America’s rulers could believe that their continental and global
ambitions, backed by the army and a global navy, were fully
realizable. They just needed a government equal to the
It’s not too much to say that modern America was born in
1812–1815, writes Sheldon Richman. The war had enduring illiberal
domestic consequences beyond the immediate transgressions of taxes,
debt, and trade embargoes, and dangerous precedents were set.
Last year, Congress created two major programs for farmers that, not surprisingly, will shatter Congressional Budget Office’s cost projections. Taxpayers’ liability for these programs is open-ended because a widely-supported limit on costs to protect taxpayers didn’t make it in the final farm bill. Congress should put an end to this liability immediately.
The 2014 farm bill eliminated the infamous direct payments program that gave farmers subsidies regardless of need. However, it also created two new programs that are likely to be even more expensive.
Farmers can participate in either the Agricultural Risk Coverage or Price Loss Coverage programs on a crop-by-crop basis. The Agricultural Risk Coverage program covers shallow losses (i.e. minor losses) incurred by farmers. The Price Loss Coverage program provides payments to farmers when commodity prices fall below a fixed reference price set in law. This program set the reference prices so high that, for some commodities (such as corn), payments were likely to be triggered from the outset.
Critics of these programs warned that assuming prices would stay at or near record highs was a mistake because prices would likely decline. As a result, the programs would incur far greater costs than projected.
Even before the farm bill passed, corn and wheat prices had already dropped significantly. CBO was using outdated price projections, and Congress failed to wait a couple of weeks until the U.S. Department of Agriculture could provide more updated price projections.
That was some costly impatience. Between using assumptions that did not reflect declining prices and setting reference prices in the Price Loss Coverage program far too high, Congress almost ensured that the new programs would cost far more than projected.
Sure enough, the new programs are shattering cost projections and will likely be more expensive than the projected costs (about $4.5 billion annually) of the old direct payments program. Right before the 2014 farm bill’s passage, CBO projected the new programs would cost taxpayers $3.6 billion annually over their first five years. Its just released (January 2015) report, however, projects annual costs of $5.3 billion. That’s a 47 percent increase, less than a year after passage of the farm bill.
Even these numbers are very conservative. Some well-respected experts are estimating that these new programs will cost as much as $8 billion in the first year alone. That would be more than double the $3.8 billion originally projected by CBO for the first year.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack recently explained, “Well, with crop and commodity prices coming down rather precipitously in the last 12 months, it’s anticipated we’re actually going to have to spend a lot more on ARC [Agricultural Risk Coverage] and PLC [Price Loss Coverage].”
He’s right. But it should be noted that when Vilsack says “we’re” going to have to spend a lot more, he really means “taxpayers.”
The House in a bipartisan manner recognized the potential risk that could exist for taxpayers due to these programs. An amendment to the original House farm bill that would have capped the costs of these programs overwhelmingly passed. While the original House farm bill was never passed, the bill that did get through the House maintained the cost cap provision.
Inexcusably, the provision was removed when the House and Senate worked out the final farm bill. Taxpayers are going to pay the price for this action. Congress should immediately pass a cap similar to the one originally included by the House. It would have capped the costs at 110 percent of the CBO projections. A new cap should be based on CBO’s projections right before passage of the farm bill.
As much as legislators are touting that they got rid of direct payments, they should be embarrassed that these two new programs will likely cost even more than what direct payments were projected to cost. At a minimum, Congress should develop a cap for these programs that limits total costs for the five-year bill to what direct payments were projected to cost, about $22.5 billion.
Make no mistake, these new programs should be repealed. They are costly, unnecessary, and provide subsidies that effectively eliminate most risk, even normal business risk. In the interim though, Congress can provide some immediate protection for taxpayers by creating a common-sense cap.
Originally published in American Thinker
The post How These Two Government Programs for Farmers Could Hurt You appeared first on Daily Signal.
Team Obama’s decision last month to disclose to the press the operational outline for an all-out assault on the Islamic State (aka ISIS)-held Iraqi city of Mosul is a bit of a head scratcher.
It’s like: “Hey, ISIS—please save the date.”
The Pentagon also reportedly told the press that the April-May offensive would include as many as 25,000 Iraqi/Kurdish Peshmerga troops, alongside Sunni tribesmen and local police.
Now, it’s not as if we gave them the exact hour of the exact day, but we’ve certainly taken away the time-old, treasured military element of surprise—often an important factor.
Plus, given that urban assault can be a serious slog with street fighting and house-to-house clearing operations, isn’t it going to be even more difficult with the steps the enemy will now take to improve its odds of prevailing?
For instance, while the Islamic State expected that Mosul would be contested at some point, its fighters will find the best sniper locations, set up fields of fire, plant IEDs, etc.—ASAP.
Worse, news analysis seems to indicate the Iraqi army probably won’t be ready by the spring and the Kurds aren’t properly armed yet due to Baghdad’s sensitivities about bolstering the Peshamerga forces.
ISIS will also probably look for opportunities to distract the coalition militarily elsewhere from its planned operation against Mosul. In fact, the announcement of the upcoming fight might “turbo-charge” militant recruitment (via social media, of course) to defend the caliphate’s eastern outpost.
None of this is good. So what might account for broadcasting operational information to the enemy?
First, the Obama administration just ended a “Combating Violent Extremism” conference in Washington where the outcome seemed (from the outside) to be more “thud” than “thunder.”
The president came under fire—again—for not calling the violent extremism we’re experiencing either “Islamic” or “Islamist,” even though that is what the conference seemed to be mostly about.
It’s possible the White House concluded that since the confab came off as a bit academic, replete with ideas such as “jobs for jihadists” and “education for extremists,” maybe its overall message needed some muscling up.
What better way than announcing a military operation against ISIS?
Then, perhaps Team Obama wanted to put pressure on the Iraqi political/military leadership to get hot on defeating the Islamic State, especially after last summer’s Mosul humiliation—which included its troops stripping off their uniforms while in full retreat.
In other words: Baghdad, it’s time to get your act together and take back your country—of which ISIS owns a third, oh, by the way.
It’s also conceivable that perhaps by giving the Islamic State plenty of notice of a spring offensive that it might rapidly retreat for Raqqa or give the nearly two million civilians in Mosul tons of time to beat feet before the bullets start flying.
Regardless of the possible reasons, none seem to satisfy.
The ISIS “pre-vite” also seems to require a successful outcome for the operation, something that has been in short supply. Indeed, anything short of overwhelming victory for the coalition will look like a win for the Islamic State.
Originally published in Boston Herald.
The post In Puzzler, President Lets ISIS Know Iraq Battle Schedule appeared first on Daily Signal.
If there were ever a right time to eliminate the estate tax in America, it is right now.
The latest tax collection data make an overwhelmingly persuasive case for abolishing the most immoral and counterproductive of all federal taxes.
Here is what the latest IRS numbers tell us: In 2013, the estate tax raised $12.7 billion. And estate tax revenue is falling, not rising. In 2001 the tax collected nearly twice as much money as 2013 ($23.5 billion).
This $12.7 billion raised was out of about $2.8 trillion in total federal revenue in 2013. In other words, a trivial 0.46 percent of federal tax receipts now comes from estates.
Its impact on the federal deficit is minimal. If we got rid of the estate tax altogether, the feds, at worst, would still collect more than 99 percent of all federal revenue.
Why does the tax raise such a pittance, compared with income taxes, business taxes, even customs duties? It’s partly because the exemption level was raised to $5 million, indexed for inflation (rising to $5.43 million this year) as part of the tax deal in 2012.
The tax rate was also cut to 40 percent from 55 percent. But the other factor that appears to be driving lower collections is that wealthy Americans are getting savvier in avoiding the tax.
Which brings us to the stupendous inefficiency of the tax. In 2013, only 4,687 estates paid any estate tax. This was about one-fifth of a percentage point of all deaths that year. Yet nearly every medium-sized estate has to waste time and money filling out catalogs of tax forms.
The joke in legal circles today is that we have an estate tax not to raise money, but to keep thousands of accountants and lawyers in jobs.
The common objection screamed from the rooftops to eliminating this tax is: tax cuts for rich trust fund babies.
Actually, no. Most of the billionaire households—Gates, Buffett, Rockefeller, etc.—will pay almost no estate tax. In the case of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, billions of dollars of their wealth is sheltered from the IRS through the creation of tax-exempt entities like the Gates Foundation.
In many cases, the income parked there will never be taxed, neither while they are alive nor after they are dead—thanks to this mother of all tax shelters.
Dick Patten, who runs a coalition of family business owners dedicated to ending the death tax, reminds me that the third plank of Karl Marx’s and Friedrich Engels’ “The Communist Manifesto” was to abolish all rights of inheritance.
“With a 100 percent inheritance tax, the government eventually owns everything. That’s the point, right?” And with an effective federal 57 percent inheritance tax, as President Obama has proposed, the government, in some cases, owns more than half.
Most of the billionaire households—Gates, Buffett, Rockefeller, etc.—will pay almost no estate tax.
This is all so economically self-defeating. Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz, who served as chairman on Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisors, once found in a research paper that the estate tax may increase inequality by reducing savings and driving up returns on capital.
Former Clinton Treasury Secretary and Obama economic adviser Larry Summers co-authored a 1981 study finding that the estate tax reduces capital formation. And a 2012 study by the Joint Economic Committee’s Republicans showed that the estate tax, since its inception nearly a century ago, has reduced the capital stock by approximately $1.1 trillion.
The major propeller of growth in a nation is that one generation after another leaves wealth to the next. This makes societies richer over time as trillions of dollars of wealth are passed to children and grandchildren.
The higher the estate tax rate, the less the incentive for wealth creation in the first place. The incentive is to die broke—in which case future generations get nothing, but the government gets shut out, too. This is called a lose-lose for everyone.
Amazingly, many socialist or former communist nations, like Sweden and Russia, have eliminated their death taxes. They found the tax to be economically counterproductive. America should do the same—at almost no cost to the Treasury, according to the new revenue numbers, and maybe even a big gain.
Originally published in the Orange County Register.
People who believe in the power of individual liberty and free enterprise have had a rough time lately. And with so many recent examples of government intrusion, it’s hard to feel good about the future of capitalism.
In the case of financial markets, the tide has never really turned in favor of free markets. At the federal level, the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act effectively enshrines as law the progressive movement’s paternalistic view of regulation. Under this view, it’s not enough to merely deter and punish fraud; the government also has to protect everyone from virtually everything that could go wrong.
Thankfully, there’s a ray of hope for everyone’s inner capitalist – a spirited defense of capitalism from Frank Keating, president of the American Bankers Association. In a recent Wall Street Journal interview, Keating argued it’s not the federal government’s business to dictate private companies’ salaries. According to Keating:
[I]f it’s private money, if it’s not FDIC-insured money, for example, if it’s private capital, private stockholders, whatever they pay or don’t pay is their business. This is a free enterprise capitalist system after all.
Now, if you’d like to remain in a state of capitalistic bliss, read no further in that interview. Please. Because the rest of Keating’s interview displays symptoms far more in keeping with the paternalistic approach to regulating financial markets.
This approach goes well beyond simply providing legal protections for property rights and against fraud. Instead, it defines exactly what people must consider high risk versus low risk, and it dictates which risky activities are acceptable for which people.
As a result, we end up with exactly what we have: a giant mess that hinders the formation and use of capital and subjects it to political whims.
The last part of Keating’s defense is dead wrong because we really don’t have a free enterprise capitalist system. We haven’t had one for decades.
To paraphrase financial journalist Jim Grant, what we have is much closer to some sort of smiley-faced socialism. Government doesn’t fully own the means of production, but it directs the daylights out of them. Especially in financial markets.
The 2010 Dodd-Frank Act is a great example of the ills that come with smiley-faced socialism.
By the end of 2014, federal financial regulators had finalized more than 11,000 pages of rules and regulations. But they had also missed more than 36 percent of the Act’s rule-making deadlines, and they hadn’t even bothered to propose more than 20 percent of the required rules.
Anyone paying attention to this rule-making process over the last few years can see that the process spawns crony capitalism. Regulators work with industry employees to craft the rules because they have to.
Employees have expertise regulators need to do their job, and vice versa. In a social sense, they end up working together. Nobody should be surprised that some of these people build symbiotic social relationships rather than antagonistic ones.
Our paternalistic system also lends itself nicely to cronyism because financial executives are very good at making basic economic calculations. They understand, for instance, that it is often more profitable to make a deal with the government rather than to outright oppose new regulations.
We shouldn’t be surprised that people with big money at risk are often happy to accept a bit more regulation for good press and more taxpayer backing.
For a great example, we can go right back to Keating’s interview.
Keating suggests it’s appropriate for regulators to focus on “the responsibilities” of corporate compensation committees and of employees that make financial decisions. He also argues that it is “reasonable for regulators to determine just how much of a banker’s pay can be deducted on taxes.”
Reasonable to whom? Reasonable to executives willing to give up a tiny share of earnings in return for looking reasonable to populists politicians?
This sort of rule dictates that shareholders’ after tax return, all else equal, must be lower.
This dangerous way of thinking opens up a slimy can of worms because it literally means that legitimate business expenses are no longer tax deductible.
How long before a whole industry – oil drilling, perhaps – finds that its business expenses are no longer deductible? Too far-fetched? Turns out that some policymakers have already proposed this idea for insurance and advertising expenses. Over time, this policy would make the statutory tax rate meaningless.
But beyond this short-term apparent victory, the free market suffers. As it has for years, especially in the financial sector. (Banks are a case-study unto themselves, but the problem goes well past the banking segment.)
Here’s a tiny handful of the countless ways the federal government directs financial resources – the capital that’s supposed to fuel capitalism.
- Banks – and in some cases nonbanks – have to comply with mind-numbingly complex minimum capital rules. The government has a decades-long record of literally deciding what levels of capital are sufficient and what items count as capital.
- Federal law dictates that no more than 12 ¼ percent of credit unions’ loans can be to small businesses.
- Under Securities and Exchange Commission regulations, loans to small businesses by banks, credit unions, finance companies or individuals are almost always treated as exempt from registration requirements. But loans via peer-to-peer lending platforms are not.
- SEC regulations S-K and S-X impose high costs on companies seeking to access the public securities markets. These regulations make it almost prohibitively expensive for small and medium-sized companies to raise capital.
- Federal regulations dictate who can invest in certain companies. For example, entrepreneurs who want to advertise they are raising money have to take “reasonable steps to verify” that investors qualify as “accredited investors.” (Prior to 2013, entrepreneurs couldn’t legally advertise in this way at all.) SEC rules effectively require companies to obtain sensitive private tax return and financial information from investors.
- Federal policies suggest private companies should not be allowed to lend to poor people – unless they do so in the name of furthering some socio-political goal, such as increasing home ownership.
- Private entities can recommend specific investments for retirement accounts, but only if the recommendations fit regulators’ definition of suitable. And, apparently, only if the companies don’t make too much money.
It condescendingly assumes a group of elites should tell everyone else what to do; it breeds cronyism, limits competition thus putting upward pressure on consumer prices, and it hinders capital formation.
If we want a free enterprise capitalist system, we need to go back to the drawing board. Let the government deter and punish fraud, but don’t let it dictate the size and structure of financial markets. Let investors invest and accept their own risks.
To his credit, Keating wants policies that “make sure the taxpayers are not burned even though your stockholders may be burned.” That’s a capital idea.
Originally published in Forbes.
The post We Haven’t Had a True Free Enterprise System for Decades appeared first on Daily Signal.
As Russia and other nations around the world flex their “nuclear muscles,” when it comes to the United States, maintaining a credible nuclear force is certainly a tough task. Challenges include: declining research, development and acquisition budgets; uncertain prospects for modernization, and an American public that lacks a clear understanding of how nuclear weapons contribute to national security.
The U.S. nuclear force has prevented a great power war for seven decades. Yet the commitment to maintain a credible nuclear force appears shaky.
That is certainly not the case in competitor nations such as Russia, China and North Korea. While sanctions and low oil prices have crippled Russia’s economy, the Kremlin is still doggedly spending billions of dollars on modernizing its strategic rocket forces. Washington’s lack of commitment takes a toll on more than investment. It does not go unnoticed by the men and women who man the nation’s nuclear submarines, bombers, and intercontinental ballistic missiles. That only makes executing a nuclear mission more difficult, both practically and morally.
State of Affairs
Imagine being out on the vast prairie of Montana, North Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado or Nebraska in the dead of winter, the blasts of wind making the sub-zero temperatures nearly unbearable. After driving one to three hours to reach your missile alert facility, you go down into the launch control center where the 50-year-old equipment smells the same as it did to your father, who pulled alerts here before you were born. During winter, heavy snow may trap maintenance and missile alert crews in the missile field for days. When they finally get to go home, the smell of old equipment and chemicals lingers on their clothes.
Much the same can be said for the bomber crews who fly the exact same aircraft their fathers flew and their sons or daughters will likely fly.
The Heritage Foundation’s newly released “2015 Index of U.S. Military Strength” evaluates the health of the U.S. nuclear complex according to nine categories. In four of those categories—warhead modernization, delivery systems modernization, nuclear weapons complex and nuclear test readiness—the complex was rated as “weak” (the second worst rating possible).
One of the main factors behind these low scores is sequestration. Its “automatic pilot” budget regimen threatens sustained and predictable funding—a major problem for addressing issues within the nuclear complex. It has already forced a delay in plans to replace aging delivery systems. This includes everything from a new bomber and its nuclear certifications, to a replacement for the Ohio-class strategic submarine, to a follow-on intercontinental ballistic missile.
Another major factor contributing to lower scores are the government’s conflicting policies regarding the nuclear complex. We say we care about the nuclear force and the complex that supports it, yet manpower and resources available to execute the nuclear mission have been steadily declining until recently. We say we are in favor of a robust nuclear modernization program, yet proclaim, at the same time, we need to get to a world without nuclear weapons—all while refusing to truly modernize our weapons.
The president’s fiscal year 2016 budget dedicates over $75 million for the ground-based strategic deterrent, better known as the Minuteman replacement. While the current missiles are in fact woefully archaic—they were first deployed in the 1970s—there is no provision for replacing the even older silos and launch control centers from which a new missile would be launched.
On the bright side, the president’s budget accelerates by two years the Long-Range Standoff missile, an essential advancement in American capabilities. This project is particularly vital considering the limited number of available stealth bombers and the angle of attack needed to counter the tunneling efforts of our adversaries, which make targets hard to reach.
The main question, however, is what Congress will do. At the end of the day, it’s the House and Senate that decide which programs get funded and at what level.
The Index’s low rankings indicate the areas of America’s nuclear force that are in greatest need of investment. And it’s a force that must be sustained. The nuclear mission is critical. Its ultimate purpose is to deter a catastrophic attack on our homeland, our forces abroad, and our allies. While it is true that we require a nuclear force we never hope to launch, it is important to recognize that our nuclear weapons serve to keep the peace every day.
Originally published in Real Clear Defense
The post Russia and China Aren’t Less Committed to Nuclear Force. So Why Are We? appeared first on Daily Signal.
I admit it: I love the snow and the cold. I love to be outside, gazing up at the stars on cold, crisp evenings. I love how the snow blankets