| Submit your comments on this article | ||||
| Home Front: Politix | ||||
| Disarming America | ||||
| 2010-04-07 | ||||
It's bad enough that President Obama is about to sign a new START agreement with Russia--an accord that is little more than a gift to Moscow.
Previewing his new policy for the court stenographers at The New York Times, the president set limits on how the U.S. might use nuclear weapons, even in self-defense. Mr. Obama said the United States would commit "to not using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states that adhere to non-proliferation treaties--even if those countries attack the U.S. with chemical or biological weapons." While stopping short of a "no first use" policy, the Obama doctrine clearly constrains our potential employment of nuclear weapons. In his interview with the Times, the president said one of his goals is to "move towards less emphasis on nuclear weapons, to make sure that our conventional weapons capability is an effective deterrent in all but the most extreme circumstances." Some of those "circumstances" could include rogue states like Iran and North Korea. Mr. Obama's policy makes exceptions for those adversaries. Pyongyang has already demonstrated a limited nuclear capability while Iran is working actively to develop nuclear weapons. The President says our revised posture will "set an example" for the rest of the world, and persuade more nations to curb their nuclear programs. It's tempting to ask just how well that example is working. North Korea has threatened both the U.S. and South Korea with nuclear attacks, and even shared their technology with Syria. Apparently, Pyongyang is unconcerned about our "example," or the potential for American nuclear retaliation. And the pace of Iran's nuclear program has only accelerated over the past year, suggesting that Iran has little fear of the administration and its nuclear policies. But the decline in our nuclear forces goes well beyond our political statements, and how they play in places like Iran and North Korea. Mr. Obama is telegraphing how he would use nuclear weapons, eliminating the policy "ambiguity" that has kept enemies guessing--and served us well--for more than 60 years. Equally distressing, President Obama remains committed to a continuing erosion in our nuclear capabilities. As former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Frank Gaffney observes: I believe that the most alarming aspect of the Obama denuclearization program, however, is its explicit renunciation of new U.S. nuclear weapons -- an outcome that required the president to overrule his own defense secretary. Even if there were no new START treaty, no further movement on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and no new wooly-headed declaratory policies, the mere fact that the United States will fail to reverse the steady obsolescence of its deterrent -- and the atrophying of the skilled workforce needed to sustain it -- will ineluctably achieve what is transparently President Obama's ultimate goal: a world without American nuclear weapons. Given the outlines of Mr. Obama's policy, it's hard to disagree. Not only will our nuclear forces grow smaller in the coming years, they will also become less capable, with the president mandating a "procurement holiday" for that category of weapons, and the infrastructure and produces them. Additionally, the newly-negotiated Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) will take a further toll on our deterrent capabilities, by cutting the number of warheads (to 1,500 for both the U.S. and Russia) and placing limits on delivery systems. By agreeing to that provision, Mr. Obama and his security team essentially traded away an American strength. Two decades after the Cold War ended, the U.S. is the only global power with a true nuclear "triad," consisting of land-based ICBMs, sub-launched ballistic missiles and long-range nuclear bombers. Reaching treaty goals means the United States will surrender some of its advantage in those latter categories. Russia, on the other hand, has only a token ballistic missile fleet and a handful of long-range bombers. Clearly, the U.S. must make most of the cuts to comply with the new agreement. It's also worth noting that some of the American bombers facing elimination are dual-capable systems, designed for nuclear strike missions and extended-range conventional sorties. Writing at the American Thinker, Thomas Lifson speculates that Russia's real goal wasn't a reduction in nuclear weapons, but rather, a decrease in our global, precision-strike capabilities. With fewer dual-capable bombers in the inventory, it will be more difficult to mount "shock and awe" campaigns in the future and inject U.S. power in areas that Moscow wants to dominate. No matter how you slice it, the new START agreement (and Mr. Obama's revised nuclear posture statement) are bad policy, pure and simple. After a year in the Oval Office, the commander-in-chief still has a myopic view of the world, believing that nuclear weapons can simply be wished or negotiated away. In reality, President Obama is sewing the seeds of a new arms race. Allies in eastern Europe and the Far East (think Taiwan) that have long counted on the American nuclear umbrella will now be tempted to developed their own weapons, deducing (correctly) that the U.S. may be unwilling or unable to protect them. Sad to say, but the new treaty and nuclear posture statement represent the worst security policy since the United States signed the Kellogg-Briand pact back in 1928. That was the agreement that "prohibited war as an instrument of national policy," except in matters of self-defense. You know how that one worked out. | ||||
| Posted by:tu3031 |
| #3 Oh where oh where to begin. To wit, TOPIX > VARIOUS > OBAMA NUKE PLAN RAISES TERROR FEARS AGZ US [Inspiration of TerrOps agz CONUS = US o A ]; + US EXPANDS WAR FRONT THROUGHOUT THE WORLD ['Tis WW3 in all but Name + lack of formal USG Declaration of War], + OBAMA EXPANDS MILITARY OPS IN AFRICA + US CONGRES REPORT: MELTING ARCTIC IS SECURITY THREAT TO US. "STAR TREK" OLD VULCAN SAYING > "ONLY OBAMA [Nixon] COULD GO TO CHINA [Africa]". D *** NG IT, "And NIXON VPOTUS SPIRO AGNEW to GUAM". * SAME > IRAN DM:IFF ISRAEL ATTACKS, NOTHING WILL REMAIN/BE LEFT OF IT; + LEBANON PRESIDENT: COUNTRY WILL SIDE/FIGHT WITH HEZBOLLAH IFF ISRAEL ATTACKS. * SAME > [Yemen Intel]YEMEN: SENIOR AL QAEDA HAVE LANDED IN YEMEN [from Afghanistan + Iraq bases due to US-ALLIED MIL PRESSURE], + HIZBUL ISLAM: WE INVITED OSAMA, AL QAEDA TO SOMALIA. * SAME > [Africa Water Trubles, Wars?] KENYA: DAM "BUSTERS" CLAIM GIBE 3 PUTS THOUSANDS AT RISK |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2010-04-07 23:32 |
| #2 CBRN love to 'em all. Eff-em! |
| Posted by: Asymmetrical Triangulation 2010-04-07 22:33 |
| #1 Those bastards are going to go door to door takin' all our nukes away! You can have my A-Bomb when you pry it from my cold, dead, slightly radioactive hands! |
| Posted by: Cheresh Black7582 2010-04-07 01:52 |