Obama's Unilateral Disarmament Of The U.S.

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.  

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

Kumbaya

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.

Read More...

Summary only...