Let’s Turn Colorado RED in 2012!


Show everyone that you want
Colorado to be a RED state in 2012!





Capitalist @ ConservativeShir


This article was published by Zigibniew Mazurak on February 19, 2012, and subsequently re-posted on

Nuclear Disarmament

Destroying the deterrent

Congressman Ed Markey, a strident anti-defense liberal from Massachusetts, has recently introuced a bill which, if passed (God forbid), would cut the spending on US nuclear weapons by $100 bn over a decade, i.e. $10 bn per year. His bill is cosponsored by 34 other pro-disarmament Congressmen and follows Markey’s 2011 proposal to the now-defunct “Super Committee” to cut this kind of spending by a whopping $200 bn a decade, i.e. $20 bn per year.

Congressman Ed Markey’s proposal to cut spending on the US nuclear arsenal by $100 bn over a decade, i.e. $10 bn per year, is unwise, suicidal, and wrong, and must be completely rejected. The same applies to his proposal to the now-defunct “Super Committee” from last year to cut this kind of spending by $200 bn over a decade, i.e. $20 bn per year.

The US nuclear arsenal is a needed, irreplaceable deterrent which has kept America safe and has kept the peace for the last 66 years, preventing wars between superpowers, forcing them to tolerate each other, and preventing nuclear war. It also protects over 30 allies of the United States, thus making it unnecessary to develop their own nuclear weapons or expand their stockpiles (in France’s and Britain’s case), thus dramatically limiting the proliferation problem.

Cutting it (or spending on it, or its modernization and maintenance programs) would not only discredit this nuclear umbrella and force US allies to develop their nuclear weapons (thus making the proliferation problem much worse), it would weaken the US military and, if done unilaterally, amount to unilateral disarmament, thus making America much less secure and inviting (if not guaranteeing) a nuclear first strike by Russia or perhaps even China, depending on how deep the cuts would go.

Congressman Markey’s proposals would dramatically cut (if not completely cut off) funding for the maintenance and viability of US nuclear weapons, at $10-$20 bn per year (compared to a total DOE defense-related budget of ca. $17 bn), thus totally gutting the US nuclear arsenal, which would amount to unilateral nuclear disarmament, and thus invite a nuclear first strike by Russia and China. This has been confirmed by experts such as Rep. Michael Turner and Baker Spring of the Heritage Foundation. Here’s what they say about Markey’s proposal:

“Representative Edward Markey (D–MA) has grave misconceptions regarding contributions that nuclear weapons make to the U.S. and allied national security. On Wednesday, he introduced a bill that would cut $100 billion in nuclear weapons programs. This bill is co-sponsored by 34 other Representatives.

Not only would such cuts be disastrous for the already under-funded U.S. nuclear weapons infrastructure; they would also call into question U.S. commitment to extended deterrence and viability of the New Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty (New START) with the Russian Federation. In addition, the proposed cuts would do very little to solve the country’s fiscal problems.

Last October, Markey sent a letter to the Joint Select Committee on the Deficit in which he stated that the U.S. spends “over $50 billion a year on the U.S. nuclear arsenal” and called on “the Super Committee to cut $20 billion a year, or $200 billion over the next ten years, from the U.S. nuclear weapons budget.”

But according to Principal Deputy Undersecretary of Defense James Miller, the figure was close to $214 billion over 10 years (about $88 billion for the Department of Energy and more than $125 billion for the Department of Defense). Markey’s initial call of gutting $200 billion over the next 10 years would result “in the immediate and unilateral nuclear disarmament of the United States,” according to Congressman Mike Turner (R–OH). A $100 billion cut would be just as devastating.

Currently, more than 30 countries all over the world rely on U.S. nuclear weapons. These countries have not developed their own nuclear weapons or expanded their current arsenals because they have believed that the U.S. would respond with a devastating force if they are threatened. Credibility—whether an enemy actor believes the U.S. will come to the aid of its allies—is a key consideration for any opponent when deciding whether to launch an attack. The credibility of U.S. nuclear weapons will diminish if they are not properly maintained. This could cause allies to develop or expand their current nuclear weapon arsenals.”

Any proposals to cut the US nuclear arsenal or funding for it must be completely rejected. (

The opinions of Ziggy’s Defense Blog do not necessarily reflect those of

  1. Ed Markey’s legislation would, among other things, permanently PROHIBIT (that is the word used in the legislation) the development or fielding of a next generation penetrator bomber, nuclear or conventional. He claims there is no need for such a bomber, which is a blatant lie. There is, and has been, a clear requirement for such aircraft, as validated by both the 2006 QDR and the 2010 QDR, conducted by two different administrations of two different parties, and by successive Secretaries of Defense from Donald Rumsfeld to Leon Panetta, not to mention outside experts. B-52s are very old (the youngest B-52 was produced in 1962) and unsurvivable in even moderately-defended environments. B-1s are only conventional capable. That leaves the USAF’s 20 B-2s as the only penetrator bombers of the nuclear triad, and they won’t be able to serve forever, although they can serve until the 2040s. Hostile countries such as Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela have fielded modern, dense, redundant, lethal SAM and AAA networks that make it impossible for any nonstealthy aircraft to bomb them, thus meaning that only B-2s and the nuclear-tippled cruise missiles carried by B-52s (as well as ICBMs and SLBMs) can strike them, and that only B-2s and the cruise missiles of B-52s can currently serve as parts of the air leg of the nuclear triad. In other words, to be able to deter these countries, one has to be able to credibly threaten them with a retaliatory strike in the event of aggression, and for that to be possible, one must possess a viable nuclear triad – not monad, not dyad, but triad – and that must include a viable air leg, including cruise missiles and penetrator bombers. Yet, Markey’s legislation, were it to pass (God forbid), would permanently prohibit the development or fielding of such bombers.

    Traitor Markey also supports the cancellation of the nuclear-armed cruise missile development program, which is necessary to replace the current aging ALCMs used by B-52s, which will be retired by FY2030.That would, in turn, leave B-52s toothless, without any nuclear weapons or missions whatsoever, and thus cut the air leg of the triad to just 20 B-2 bombers. Again, there is a clear, repeatedly validated requirement for a replacement cruise missile for B-52s.

    His treasonous legislation would also dramatically cut the number of SSBNs (from 14 to 8) and ICBMs, thus gutting the nuclear triad (all of its legs) completely and reducing the US nuclear arsenal so deeply that it would invite a nuclear first strike on the US by Russia or perhaps even China.

    As I have already said, his legislation must be rejected completely.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search ReaganGirl
Newest Posts
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
The Truth About Islam
Networked Blogs

Hi, guest!


WordPress SEO fine-tune by Meta SEO Pack from Poradnik Webmastera