Putin Threatens

Russian President Vladimir Putin, speaking during his state-of-the-nation address Wednesday, warned that Russia will aim new hypersonic missiles at the US should it deploy new intermediate-range missiles in Europe.

Russia and its predecessor USSR have aimed weapons, including nuclear weapons—ICBMs, SLBMS, nuclear-armed bombers—at the US since they first acquired the weapons.  Does anyone really believe Putin doesn’t already have nuclear weapons aimed at the US today?  Is anyone interested in some beachfront property north of Santa Fe?

No, Putin’s threat just puts a premium on our deploying anti-missile systems at home, in Europe, around Asia, and in orbit as well as on developing heavily upgraded such systems and then deploying them, too.  Putin’s threat also puts a premium on developing upgraded offensive systems, including nuclear, and deploying them at home, in Europe, around Asia, and in orbit.

This is an arms race that Russia can no more afford to sustain technologically or fiscally than could the USSR a prior arms race.  It’s an arms race we should strongly encourage and actively pursue.

Border Crises

There are two, and both of them are real.  One is the caravans, organized by three Central American nations’ activists explicitly to overwhelm our southern border and border enforcers with illegal alien wannabes and faux asylum seekers (false because they’ve already been offered asylum—and job opportunities, to boot—by Mexico).  Secreted among these seemingly innocuous ones (aside from their deliberate numbers) are drug smugglers, firearms smugglers, human traffickers, and outright thugs.

The other crisis, wholly artificially done, is the Progressive-Democrats’ efforts to block the installation of security measures to protect our borders and so our interior and our citizens.  That obstructionist and open-border policy is now exemplified by their lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s national emergency declaration and associated reallocation of Federal funds to build walls in key sectors of that border.

The lawsuit seeks an injunction to prevent Trump from shifting billions of dollars from military construction to the border without explicit congressional approval. The suit also asks a court to declare Trump’s actions illegal, arguing that Trump showed a “flagrant disregard of fundamental separation of powers principles engrained in the United States Constitution” by violating the Constitution’s Presentment and Appropriations Clauses, which govern federal spending.

Never mind that the Courts have no say in what constitutes a national emergency; that’s strictly an Executive Branch decision.  Never mind that the funds being shifted have already been appropriated and allocated to the relevant Department and Agency heads.  Never mind that the funds being reallocated were never earmarked by Congress within those facilities to specific purposes, as the vast majority of appropriated funds are—these few funds explicitly were left to those Department and Agency heads’ discretion regarding the things on which they would be spent.

And never mind, either, that the targets for the spending are directly related to the Department/Agency functions: military construction funds are going to be spent on construction.  Drug interdiction funds are going to be spent on drug interdiction—that being one of the purposes of the walls.  Funds for ATF not specifically allocated are going to be spent on interdicting trafficked firearms—that being another purpose of the walls.  Never mind that DHS funds not otherwise specifically allocated are going to be spent on interdicting human traffickers and violent criminals—that being another purpose of the walls.

And never mind that while there is considerable money appropriated and allocated for border and border crossing point detection surveillance technology, increased border personnel, increased numbers of immigration judges assigned to the border cases, and increased asylum seeker housing, these are useless without walls, just as walls are useless without those others.

This second border crisis is a wholly artificial crisis manufactured solely for the personal political gain of Progressive-Democrats and for the benefit of Party.

Full stop.

Progress

Even in the midst of the US government’s partial shutdown imbroglio and Great Britain’s Brexit fiasco, the two found time and energy to conduct joint operations training in the South China Sea.

Even though this only involved two ships—the Arleigh-Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS McCampbell and Royal Navy Type 23 frigate HMS Argyll—it’s a critical beginning (not really a resumption; the last such joint exercise was eight years ago).

We need to expand on this, though.  We need, also, to run joint flotilla- and fleet-level exercises in the South China Sea, and then we need to involve Vietnam, the Republic of Korea, and Japan in this sort of joint exercise.  In their aggregate, they need to occur a couple of times per year—and they need to include island assault exercises.

It’s true that we also run RIMPAC exercises that involve US and Pacific Rim nations (excluding People’s Republic of China observers as of last year), and while these are advertised as warfare exercises, they’re only biennial, and they serve different warfare purposes: political, to promote stability in broader venues among the participating nations’ interactions, and occasionally to experiment with new weapons and new systems.

What I’m proposing has a more straight up military practicality: joint offensive training of actual assault operations against the sort of target we’re likely to face if the PRC decides to get overt in its occupation of the South China Sea, trying to enforce its seizure at gunpoint.

As an aside, it also would be useful to get the Republic of China started thinking about REFORGER-type exercises.

DACA and Walls

When President Donald Trump made his latest offer and attempt at negotiation last Saturday, it already had been rejected by the Progressive-Democrats—yes, even before Trump spoke.  In a Monday editorial, the Wall Street Journal was generous when it suggested the Dreamers (and TPS folks, I add) are pawns in the eyes of Progressive-Democrats. Reality isn’t that good.  Dreamers and TPS folks aren’t even human to Progressive-Democrats—they’re just votes and potential votes, just marked ballots.

This is shown by Pelosi’s stated utter refusal even to discuss DACA recipients anymore.

Here, though, the WSJ‘s editors are wrong:

Mr Trump is wrong that this will magically reduce drug traffic or illegal crossings. The solution to the flood of drugs is lower US demand [and, better] a legal system that gives migrants the chance to move back and forth….

For one thing, a wall will, indeed, contribute to a reduction of the flow of drugs and illegal crossings. Actual experts, including those who work the borders, say this unequivocally. No less a light than Progressive-Democrat and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer agrees they work in places.

The other thing is that “the solution to…” includes those additional steps. They and walls are complementary, not mutually exclusive.

Hysteria

Some Congressmen are working on bills that, in their aggregate, would bar sales of critical computer components to the People’s Republic of China’s communications companies Huawei, ZTE, and other PRC companies caught violating our export laws or sanctions on those companies or companies with which these do business.

The PRC is upset.

Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said it was all “hysteria,” and

I believe the action of these few representatives are an expression of extreme arrogance and an extreme lack of self-confidence[.]

The PRC’s insults and hysterical response, whether individual or taken together, are sufficient evidence that we’re on the right track.

We cannot allow PRC insults to influence our domestic matters (or our international matters, come to that), particularly including moves to hold those doing business in our nation accountable for their illegal activities.

PRC hysteria should simply be disregarded where it’s not ridiculed.