Category Archives: defense policy

Orbiting Nuclear Weapons

Posted on by
Reply

Russia is working on antisatellite weapon systems that would use nuclear explosions in orbit to destroy satellites in large numbers rather than conventional weapons that would attack satellites individually. A Wall Street Journal article centered on a Russian two-year-old launch of a satellite intended to conduct research into such a weapon had this, which is concerning for other reasons, also.

The eventual weapon, if and when deployed in orbit, could wipe out satellites in a part of space dominated by American government and commercial assets, they said, including SpaceX’s Starlink constellation….

An at least as large concern is that such a detonation or detonations would create EMP pulses that would be extremely damaging to our electric grid and the computer networks controlling that grid; to our oil, natural gas, and water distribution grids; and to the data centers handling our communications and financial systems.

Deliberate Insult?

Posted on by
Reply

Amid the hoo-raw over Hamas claiming to agree to a sham deal for a cease fire and Israel sending tanks into Rafah to secure the Gaza side of the border crossing there despite Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden’s order not to and his already withholding weapons shipments to Israel, there’s this tidbit:

An Israeli delegation, Hamas officials, mediators from Qatar, and the head of the Central Intelligence Agency arrived in Cairo for discussions on a cease-fire proposal from the militant group. CIA Director William Burns arrived there from Qatar….

Leave aside the WSJ‘s dishonesty in claiming Hamas terrorists are a militant group. Biden sent an underling from an agency that has no authority to conclude any sort of international agreement, nor any sort of agreement between nations and a terrorist network entity. The CIA has no such capacity in its portfolio, not even the Director. Biden has sent his SecState to prior such discussions, and he’s sent his SecDef to prior such discussions. These two do have authority to conclude diplomatic or military agreements. Biden chose, this time though, to send his head spy instead.

So: a calculated insult by Biden aimed at the man for whom he has such blatant and public disdain—Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—or just another example of Biden’s oblivious incompetence?

(Aside: one outcome of the IDF’s seizing the Gaza side of the border crossing could be one of making safer and easier the entry into the Gaza Strip of humanitarian aid, done by isolating the terrorists from the entry point. Of course, the press and the Biden administration don’t want to mention that part.)

A Plan to Protect Rafah Civilians

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden, and especially his Secretary of State Antony Blinken, have made plain their opposition to Israel’s military entering Rafah without a realistic plan to move civilians out of harm’s way. And this, from Tel Aviv-based Institute for National Security Studies Executive Director Tamir Hayman:

The benefits are very few, especially if you compare it to the negative effects[.]

Apparently, he thinks destroying Hamas and preventing the permanently serial occurrences of October 7s promised by Hamas leadership doesn’t outweigh the potential loss of opportunity to normalize relations with Saudi Arabia and build a regional partnership that could act as a counterweight to Iran on the line. Or he doesn’t believe Hamas’ promise to continue its campaign of destruction of Israel. On either of those alternatives, I think he’s wrong.

Thus, I propose a plan that would, if not permanently, at least for a very long time, protect those Rafah civilians, and all of the civilians of the Gaza Strip.

The IDF should go into Rafah without further delay, go in in force, and utterly destroy the remaining Hamas terrorists. That would release those civilians from being used as shields by the terrorists, and it would stop those civilians’ residences, schools, mosques, and hospitals being used by the terrorists as weapons storage sites, weapons launching facilities, and command centers.

The destruction of Hamas, removing the cause of civilian harm, is the best and most long-term effective way to move civilians out of harm’s way.

Suckers

Posted on by
Reply

As the WSJ editors note, Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden is so desperate in his kowtowing to his terrorist-supporting Left and to the just as enthusiastically terrorist-supporting staff in his administration, that he’s gone so far as to hold up a weapons shipment for Israel. He’s anxiously trying to force Israel to agree a cease fire right damn now.

Meanwhile, he’s ignoring the simple fact that Hamas is demanding a permanent end to the war it began last October 7 and continues to prosecute. Biden also is ignoring that Hamas has walked away from the latest round of cease fire “negotiations” because Israel can’t agree to an end to a war that Hamas can only be trusted to resume.

We’re told that Hamas hasn’t budged on its negotiating demands, which include a permanent end to the war, not merely a cease-fire.

Israel is right on that. Hamas will never honor an agreement for a permanent end to the war: Hamas has promised October 7 attacks until Israel is destroyed. This is just Hamas playing Biden—and far too many others in his administration and in administrations in Europe—for the suckers they are.

Now, as I write this, in the moment Israel has warned Rafah residents to evacuate to a set-up-for-the-purpose humanitarian aid area in al-Masawi (roughly 3-4 miles north of Rafah and within a quarter mile of the sea coast) in advance of an imminent assault on the city, comes word that Hamas claims to have agreed a framework for a cease fire. But framework only, and with no mention of any hostage releases or trades.

That’s another Hamas sucker play.

The Draft

Posted on by
Reply

A correspondent to The Wall Street Journal‘s Tuesday’s Letters wrote of the consequences of ending the military draft and of the need for reinstating it.

He’s spot on, including his call for keeping exemptions to a bare minimum.

If we are to reinstate the draft, exemptions must be few and confined to medical reasons. American youth deserve fairness if they are to respond to the call of freedom.

I agree with reinstating the draft, but I would add two opportunities for delay by one drafted.

College/trade school students who are drafted should be allowed an opportunity to finish their degrees/certifications before heading to boot camp. That opportunity, though, should come with its own limit. College degrees take four, or at most five years, and trade school programs take two, or at most three years. A drafted student’s delay clock should start from the first year of his time in school, and the delay should expire at the end of those four/five years or two/three years, whether he’s finished his program or not.

Graduate students would have no such delay; they should be required to report on the specified date.

The other delay—which could convert to an exemption—should apply to those enrolled in ROTC programs. When I went through USAF ROTC some while ago, the program proceeded in two phases. The first was a General Military Course, which lasted for two years, and at the conclusion conferred no obligation to enlist. Any student could enroll in the GMC. The second phase, the Professional Officer Course, was open only to those who had completed the GMC (the requirement could be waived, but that was only rarely done), and enrolling in the POC involved formally enlisting in the Air Force as an NCO. Cadets could resign from the POC at any time, but they were then expected to report for duty at their NCO rank (a requirement that, in the realization, wasn’t always enforced.)

A draft/delay exemption would apply to ROTC enrollees in this way. Their draft delays would date from their enrollment in the GMC. Resigning from the GMC, or declining to subsequently enroll in the POC would require the draft-delayed student to report to boot camp on the next available date. Students who resign from the POC would be required—with no exceptions—to report for duty at their NCO rank. A cadet who completes the ROTC program and is commissioned would see his draft status OBE.