Obama's Planned Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament - Reason Enough to Vote Against Him in November
Posted 02/15/2012 06:30 PM ET
National Security: The commander
in chief who once pined for a world without nuclear weapons has decided
a world without an American deterrent is a good start, seeking to cut
the U.S. arsenal by 80%.
In a world where rogue states with unstable leadership are either in
possession of or pursuing nuclear weapons, and with Russia rearming and
China emerging as a world military and nuclear superpower, President
Obama has ordered the Pentagon to consider cutting U.S. strategic
nuclear forces to as few as 300 deployed warheads — below the number
believed to be in China's arsenal and far fewer than current Russian
strategic weapon stocks.
This latest example of presidential naivete, which makes even Jimmy
Carter look like a warmongering hawk, seems based not on geostrategic
reality but rather on the wishful thinking that the threat posed is
nuclear weapons, not the enemies that possess them.
Pentagon planners have been asked to consider three force levels as
part of a Nuclear Posture Review ordered by President Obama last August:
a force of 1,100 to 1,000 warheads, a second scenario of between 700
and 800 warheads, and the lowest level of between 300 and 400 warheads.
Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney believes that even
considering such deep strategic cuts is irrational. "No sane military
leader," he says, "would condone 300 to 400 warheads for an effective
nuclear deterrent strategy," he told Bill Gertz of the Washington Free
Beacon. [And no sane Command-in-Chief would even think about asking them to do so!]
Gertz also quotes John Bolton, former U.N. ambassador and
undersecretary of state for international security in the Bush
administration, as saying the administration's plan to cut the nuclear
force as low as 300 is by itself "sufficient to vote against Obama in
The current U.S. arsenal has about 5,000 warheads. A cut to 300 would put us at a level not seen since 1950.
Just as liberals think that guns, not criminals, cause crime, foes of
American exceptionalism such as President Obama believe it is nuclear
weapons that threaten the world, not the tyrants who possess them.
believe the once-unrivaled arsenal of democracy is really just the
instigator of arms races. In the past, we would decide what we need to
meet obvious threats. Obama seems to be saying let's disarm and the
threats will just go away.
As the world's only effective defender of freedom and democracy, the
U.S. has a slightly different mission statement and military needs than
Russia, China or the rogue states such as North Korea and Iran.
To morally equate us with them is like saying there's no difference
between cops and criminals because they both carry guns, so let's put
restrictions on the guns.
In a 2009 speech in Prague, Obama spoke of "America's commitment to
seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons,"
ignoring the fact that before 1945 we lived in such a world and it was
neither peaceful nor secure. [Hardly the first time that Barack Obama has demonstrated an abject ignorance of both U.S. and world history!]
While Obama envisions a world without nuclear weapons, and moves
steadily toward unilateral disarmament of our arsenal, we envision a
world without tyrants and thugs willing to use them against us.
We do not fear nuclear weapons in the hands of Britain or France, countries that share our love of freedom and democracy.
Nuclear weapons in the right hands ended the violence of World War
II. In the right hands, they kept Western Europe free and helped win the
Cold War. And the fact that they were used made it less likely they
would ever be used again.
See Votes by State
News & Politics