Tuesday, January 5, 2010


It is one thing for Obama to, embarrassingly, step onto the world stage and wax like a high school sophomore on how wonderful it would be if the world would rid itself of nuclear weapons. But in a world where nuclear threats abound and nuclear proliferation is at its highest ever, Obama's twin threats of unilaterally disarming America and cutting our missile defense program seem insane indeed. Obama is a far left ideologoue with no grasp of the lessons of history and, thus, out of touch with reality. Thank God, at least some in the Pentagon are pushing back. This from the LA Times:

President Obama's ambitious plan to begin phasing out nuclear weapons has run up against powerful resistance from officials in the Pentagon and other U.S. agencies, posing a threat to one of his most important foreign policy initiatives.

Obama laid out his vision of a nuclear-free world in a speech in Prague, Czech Republic, last April, pledging that the U.S. would take dramatic steps to lead the way. Nine months later, the administration is locked in internal debate over a top-secret policy blueprint for shrinking the U.S. nuclear arsenal and reducing the role of such weapons in America's military strategy and foreign policy.

Officials in the Pentagon and elsewhere have pushed back against Obama administration proposals to cut the number of weapons and narrow their mission, according to U.S. officials and outsiders who have been briefed on the process.

In turn, White House officials, unhappy with early Pentagon-led drafts of the blueprint known as the Nuclear Posture Review, have stepped up their involvement in the deliberations and ordered that the document reflect Obama's preference for sweeping change, according to the U.S. officials and others, who described discussions on condition of anonymity because of their sensitivity and secrecy.

The Pentagon has stressed the importance of continued U.S. deterrence, an objective Obama has said he agrees with. But a senior Defense official acknowledged in an interview that some officials are concerned that the administration may be going too far. He described the debate as "spirited. . . . I think we have every possible point of view in the world represented."

The debate represents another collision between Obama's administration and key parts of the national security establishment, after scrapes over troop levels in Afghanistan and missile defenses in Eastern Europe. . . .

The government maintains an estimated 9,400 nuclear weapons, about 1,000 fewer than in 2002. But Obama believes that stepping up efforts to reduce the stockpile will give U.S. officials added credibility in their quest to strengthen the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the cornerstone international arms-control pact. . . .

A core issue under debate, officials said, is whether the United States should shed its long-standing ambiguity about whether it would use nuclear weapons in certain circumstances, in hopes that greater specificity would give foreign governments more confidence to make their own decisions on nuclear arms.

Some in the U.S. argue that the administration should assure foreign governments that it won't use nuclear weapons in reaction to a biological, chemical or conventional attack, but only in a nuclear exchange. Others argue that the United States should promise that it would never use nuclear weapons first, but only in response to a nuclear attack.

Pentagon officials question the value of such public declarations, contending that foreign governments may not even believe them, said the U.S. officials and others. . . .

Another issue being debated is how to scale back the U.S. stockpile while continuing to provide nuclear protection to allies, in part to keep them from developing their own nuclear arsenals. The U.S. maintains hundreds of nuclear weapons overseas for such purposes.

For instance, some U.S. submarines in the Pacific carry nuclear-tipped torpedoes, which, Ferguson said, many Japanese officials like for their possible deterrent effect against a growing Chinese navy. Because nuclear weapons provide such assurance to a key ally, some U.S. officials are reluctant to cut back on the capability.

For similar reasons, some U.S. officials want to keep about 200 U.S. bombs at European bases, providing security for Eastern European countries.

Another debate is whether the U.S. needs three major delivery systems for its nuclear weapons -- long-range missiles, submarines and bombers. But eliminating one of them would face strong resistance from the affected military services and the lawmakers who support them.

The senior Defense official said the nuclear posture debate centers on the different ways toward the twin goals of nonproliferation and deterrence.

"We are not looking at whether to reduce the roles of nuclear weapons and whether to reduce [their numbers]," he said.

"We're looking at how."

Obama seems bound and determined to take us from the status of a superpower to that of one among equals. If he does not see the danger in that, he has no understanding of history. There have been few extended periods of relative peace in the world. The Pax Romana, the Roman peace, came about because Rome was the world's superpower and no one was willing to challenge them. The Pax Americana, if you will, which has existed since 1945 in Europe, has existed only because the Soviets were unwilling to challenge the U.S. If Obama wants world peace, the path towards it is not disarming the U.S., it is the opposite.


suek said...

I think the police should lay down their arms as well. I'm sure that if they did, criminals would disarm themselves as well. (/sarc)

O Bloody Hell said...

Sue, right idea, wrong group.

I'm sure if the Secret Service laid down their weapons, no one would ever threaten Obama ever again.


Somehow I don't think The Big O would be all that much in favor of that idea.