Many previous posts to this blog have documented many media reports that China and Iran are expanding the size and quality of their military arsenals as quickly as they can. Now Russia has announced a major new militarization program over the next decade which will add 400 ICBMs, over 600 warplanes, 2,300 tanks, eight nuclear subs, 50 surface ships and 17,000 new armored vehicles (see first link). Granted, it will take years for these items to enter service, but Russia, flush with energy money, can afford to build them and their militarization plans are clear. Russia, China and Iran are all members of the Gog-Magog military alliance which was prophesied in Ezekiel 38-39 to come into existence in the latter days of our age.
Given the dramatic militarization plans of our nation’s enemies, you would think any US president would respond with necessary modernization of our own nation’s military forces, right? Wrong! In spite of reality screaming at him that the USA needs to upgrade its own aging military forces, President Obama thinks now is a good time to significantly disarm America. The second link and third link report that Obama wants to dramatically cut the USA’s nuclear warheads and may want to cut them to as few as 300-400 warheads! One link notes that GOP presidents reduced the USA’s nuclear warheads in previous years, but there is a huge difference. Those cuts were matched by Russian reductions in their nuclear forces, but Obama wants to unilaterally disarm the USA to perhaps as few nuclear warheads as perhaps France now has without having any matching reductions by Russia or China. China is building nuclear warheads without telling the world how many it is making, so to maintain proper deterrence the USA needs to make sure its nuclear arsenal matches the size of Russia and China’s combined arsenal. None of these realities appear to register on the mind of our current president, who apparently lives in a make-believe world where if we just do really, really nice things, everyone else will be really, really nice too. Is Obama dangerously naive or utterly out of touch with military realities?
Indeed, the USA’s military forces have been worn out by a decade of constant deployments and warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan, and our aging equipment is in major need of replacement by new combat equipment.  The fourth link contains an article by an Alaska newspaper that appeared in newspapers around the nation (including in my hometown newspaper, the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader). It graphically makes clear that America’s military weaponry is aging and deteriorating from prolonged usage and is breaking down. It makes the amazing statement that “More than half the Navy’s deployed aircraft are not ready for combat.” Think about that statement and what it means about the actual capabilities of the US military forces.
The fifth link makes the same point, and it reveals a remarkable fact. Remember that Obama cancelled further procurement of the F-22 Raptor fighter aircraft (arguably the best warplane in the world) when its cost reached $130-140 million per unit? Well, guess what? The F-35, which has been hit with many cost overruns and production problems but was expected to be a cheaper alternative to the F-22, now costs $130 million per unit. By the time it ever reaches production, you know more cost overruns will make its cost even higher. The obvious course of action is a no-brainer. The F-22 Raptor production line should be restarted to equip the US Air Force with modern fighter jets at less cost per unit than the F-35 by the time it reaches real production levels and the F-22s can enter service quickly as the production line exists. Naval warplane needs differ than the Air Force’s needs so the F-35 could still be a naval aircraft. However, the above would be a logical decision. Do you expect any logical decisions from a president who is considering virtually disarming the USA’s nuclear forces to a second-rate nuclear power status?
You have no doubt seen the reports that President Obama wants to dramatically cut the uniformed services and equipment of the US Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps. I have a much better idea. The Dept of Defense can make massive cuts in the number of its civilian employees, foreign military bases and end the Afghan War to permit retaining uniformed personnel and building up America’s aging weaponry. The sixth link shows Sec. of Defense Gates had a recommendation in 2010 to cut 111,000 of the Dept. of Defense’s 743,388 civilian employees. That makes far more sense than cutting uniformed personnel. When a major war comes to America in the future, and Ezekiel 38-39 guarantees it will, do you want more actual soldiers or paper-shufflers to defend the nation?
The seventh link shows no one really knows how many foreign bases the USA has because there are so many of them. As the link notes, the officially reported total is ridiculously low as it did not include bases in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, etc. or the “secret” CIA bases so the total could be as high as 1,100 bases. Huge savings could be realized by closing many of these bases. Also, why continue the Afghan War when everyone knows that “nation” will revert to tribal warfare when we leave (is exists as a “nation” only on maps)? The eighth link is about a US Army Colonel who must have risked his career by openly stating that the war in Afghanistan is going much worse than the US public is being told. Is he right? He obviously thinks he is right or he would not have taken such a risky career step.
So, while Russia, China and Iran are resting their forces and building them up rapidly, the USA is wearing out its forces rapidly and reducing them. The warplanners in Moscow, Beijing and Tehran must be overjoyed that they have such an unwitting ally in the US White House. If former President Reagan could see what is being done to America’s military forces today, I think he’d “roll over in his grave.”