Show everyone that you want
Colorado to be a RED state in 2012!
Barack Obama from all appearances is a well-dressed man, modest and neat. But he exhibits certain postures and behaviors that betray a more tawdry side. He often looks like a man willing to throw out his values, and throw off American’s security, in order to please the crowd—in this case the crowd of foreign countries with interests that run counter to ours. Considering the current state of international affairs, the emergence of nuclear regimes like North Korea, China, and Iran, and the decade’s long peeling away of America’s existing nuclear capabilities, one might regard the Obama Administration’s proposal to further cut our nuclear arsenal by another 80% to be a very dangerous striptease.
The Associated Press reported on February 15, 2012, that Barack Obama is considering a plan that would reduce the nation’s inventory of nuclear warheads to around 300, down from its present 1,790. The guidelines within the New START treaty require that number to shrink to 1,550 within 6 years of its implementation, which is still significantly more than the 300 mentioned in the AP report. These numbers may look impressive on their own, if one holds to the idea that 300 nukes are sufficient to blow up the world. But the United States’ nuclear arsenal is not designed to “blow up the world,” but rather a deterrent which would prevent madmen and rogue regimes from blowing up the world. The United States’ nuclear arsenal is a tool of peace, so why would the Administration strip away a powerful and effective safeguard against nuclear attack that we have been building and maintaining for decades?
Army General Martin Dempsey testified before the House Armed Services Committee that the president is considering a reduction of up to 80% of currently deployed nuclear weapons, but gave no reason why this proposal is coming from the Obama Administration at this time. One may speculate that this is another budget-driven cut in defense spending. And it’s true that it is very expensive to maintain the nuclear arsenal, and replace obsolete components and systems as needed. But that’s not a cut and dried argument since to remove, transport, and dispose of some 1,200 nukes would, in both the short-term and long-term, would be expensive as well. There are no pressing treaties, old or new, that require the United States at this time to further denude its nuclear capabilities and gut its arsenal. So one is left wondering, why would the president do something that reverses the country’s military readiness and leaves its people more defenseless and exposed?
The timing of this proposal, as well as the highly unpredictable and constantly shifting status of other nuclear nations are troubling as well. Since 1966 America’s nuclear arsenal has decreased from over 32,000 nuclear weapons to around 1,500(about a 95% decrease) today. Conversely the USSR had a peak number of around 45,000 in 1990 just prior to its collapse. Present-day Russia has continued to build its strategic and tactical nuclear programs. The actual numbers of weapons that currently exist in Russia’s nuclear arsenal are hard to pin down and estimates range from 2,000 to 8,000. Present-day Russia and the former Soviet Union have loomed for many years as the United States’ greatest nuclear adversaries. While the mutual, though unequal, disarmament process has gone on between the two nuclear superpowers, other nations have surfaced as nuclear powers, some presenting even greater dangers to the West than that of the Russians. France, The U.K., South Africa, and, India, Israel (though unofficially a nuclear state) are allies whose nuclear capabilities are not problematic for the United States. But North Korea, China, and Pakistan, have either governments, or governmental and/or social factions which have declared themselves enemies to the United States of America. Iran is believed to have evolving nuclear capabilities, and their ability to launch a nuke in the immediate future is a real possibility. Iran is the one regime who has openly declared their hostilities towards Israel and the West. This appears to many a clear declaration of Iran’s willingness to use nukes, once operational, in an open attack on other nations.
With no compelling rationale for the Obama Administration to announce a dramatic and unilateral cutback in America’s nuclear arsenal, it seems increasingly possible that this is another attempt by the President to win favor on the international stage through appeasement and the abatement of our military vigor. Nuclear disarmament is not new, and the United States has kept its promises by gradually dismantling and disposing of its nuclear weapons for 5 decades. But the February 15th announcement by the White House shines a light on a more disturbing aspect of the nuclear disarmament dance. Obama is doing a strip tease on the world stage, and he has very little left to peel away and throw to the audience before he leaves the country completely stripped of deterrent nuclear capabilities. Any grown-up knows what crosses the minds of those watching a dancer slowly peel their defenses down to nothing. A strip tease like this one tempts people with bad intentions to do very bad things. When those bad intentions include nukes and a naked target, it can’t end well.
By Marjorie Haun 2/18/12
[…] NUCLEAR STRIPTEASE « National Defense « 2012 Elections « reagangirl.com […]