🔥The 9th Round of Easy Loan, Earn $40 Reward is in progress❗️ ⏰ Promotion Period: January 15th - Feburary 15th, 2025 👉 Register now and check more details at gate.io/campaigns/358

The fin on the side indicates these are two nuclear-capable B-52 bombers. Just in case certain countries need a little reminding about U.S. global reach, firepower, and integration with allies.

Strangely enough, this is not the first conflict in which Columbians have been pitted against North Koreans. That distinction goes to the Korean War in which Columbia sent some soldiers as part of the U.N. And yes... I probably do need to get a life. Working on it.

All nuclear weapons are not the same, especially those wielded by authoritarian regimes. My latest in RealClearDefense, co-authored with Matt Costlow realcleardefense.com/articles/2025/…

Kyle Balzer and I ask (and answer!) one of the great dividing questions in debates about nuclear policy: is man or machine the greater danger? (RealClearDefense link below) How the U.S. government responds will help drive policy for decades into the future. 1/2

Thank you to RealClearDefense for publishing Kyle Balzer and my recent piece that asks: "What is the greater nuclear danger: man or machine?" See how we answer (link below). 1/2

🚨Check out my latest Occasional Paper!📢 “Anxious and Indispensable: U.S. Allies and Partners Confronting New Challenges” How and why are U.S. alliances strained? How does this play out in South Korea? Analysis on these topics and more. (Link below) 1/2

John Garamendi's amendment to freeze funding for the Sentinel ICBM program is defeted handily, 15-42. 11 Dems opposed it.

HASC defeats Gil Cisneros' amendment to remove funding from the nuclear sea-launched cruise missile na 27-30 party-line vote.

Democrats are forgetting that the Biden Administration supported SLCM-N in its final year.

I will never understand the theological opposition to missile defense among nuclear disarmament proponents. They now *quite literally* say relying on fear (induced by offensive forces) is a "reckless gamble" but dont you dare try to reduce the effectiveness of offensive forces!

If the nuclear disarmers’ goal is to reduce nuclear risk on the way to total disarmament, then how do you get there without decreasing the effectiveness (and thus perceived value) of nukes / delivery systems? Absent fundamental shift in human nature, requires missile defenses.

💯 Eliminating ICBMs would increase adversary threats and risk of conflict by (vastly) improving the perceived benefits of coercive strikes (SSBN in port? 20 SLBMs for the price of one) Not to mention increasing “use or lose” pressures on remaining US forces.