In 1967, during the height of the cold war with the Soviet Union, America had 31,255 nuclear warheads. By the time the Soviet Union fell, we had 22,217 nuclear warheads. By 2010, that number had been reduced to 5,113 warheads. Obama is now considering whether to unilaterally reduce our nuclear arsenal to 300 warheads.
To put that in perspective, that would leave us with approximately the same number of nuclear weapons as France, just a few more than China, about two times as many as Pakistan, and about twenty times less than Russia. Obama would see us go from overwhelming nuclear superiority to something akin to nuclear parity with other nuclear powers. He would do so without respect to tomorrow's threats, nor in consideration of how such unilateral disarmament will effect the perception of either our allies who depend on our nuclear umbrella or, more importantly, our opponents, who must consider it.
In an AEI Center For Defense Studies working paper, written at the time that Obama was promising to significantly reduce our nuclear arsenal as part of START to just under 2,000 warheards, the authors wrote:
The third atomic age demands American nuclear capabilities that are flexible, adaptable and resilient in the face of new challenges and emerging threats, the likely rise of additional nuclear powers and the expansion of nuclear strike capabilities among a number of existing nuclear weapon states. Current American policy, however, seems to be moving in the opposite direction. U.S. nuclear forces are being reduced; new nuclear weapons, capabilities and missions have been proscribed; the conditions under which the United States would threaten nuclear retaliation have been narrowed; the enduring value of nuclear weapons is being challenged; and the vision of a nuclear-free world is being heralded as a desirable – and ultimately achievable – goal, if only the United States leads the way.
We are concerned with the trends evident in the evolution of U.S. nuclear policy. They suggest to us a highly questionable premise; namely, that the mere possession of weapons that have helped keep the peace for more than 60 years is more dangerous to American security today than the motivations of those who may possess – or actually use – them tomorrow. In addition, we suggest that our current nuclear course reflects a failure to understand America’s rise as the dominant global security ―provider.‖ Influence in world affairs has resulted not simply from its liberal philosophy, its commitment to democratic principles and the rule of law or its military-technical superiority in conventional forces, but from the skillful management and prudent application of its nuclear muscle – as both a deterrent to attack and a guarantor of security for others. The implications of this suggest that America has grown weary of the global responsibility it has assumed as a result of its nuclear might and would prefer to shed the burdens associated with global leadership. And this portends additional challenges to America’s supremacy by those who would see U.S. policy as a further sign of American weakness and decline and an opportunity to restructure world affairs more to their own liking.
As a young campus leftie at Columbia, Obama penned an article that reads as a paean to the anti-war agenda of 80's campus radicals. At one point in the article, "Breaking the War Mentality," Obama argued for a nuclear freeze - a movement we now know was started by Soviet agents in Western Europe - and criticized Reagan for pushing ahead with new weapons systems. And in 2009, Obama, as our new leader announced the penultimate leftie fantasy, a world without nuclear weapons. Obama would bet our national defense, and the defense of the free West, on pure fairy dust. Nonetheless, it appears that Obama is trying to make good towards that campaign promise, irrespective of how dangerous it might be for the U.S. or, that matter, the world.
Obama's desire to disarm America also must be looked at in Obama's much larger plan to minimize work on our ABM shield and gut our conventional forces. The game he is playing is incredibly dangerous. At a minimum, if he is allowed to continue ahead with all of his plans, it will mean that the Pax American of the past 60 years is rapidly coming to a close. It will create a power vacuum that most assuredly will be filled by others - Russia in Europe, China in the East, and Iran in the Middle East seem the most likely bets. And it will lead to nuclear proliferation throughout the world as allies no longer feel protected by the U.S. nuclear umbrella, and opponents may be inspired to overcome our much depleted umbrella. Such is the cost to fund Obama's entitlements and his reelection campaign.