Obama's Planned Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament - Reason Enough to Vote Against Him in November
|
|
|||||
|
3 votes
|
|
18% | ||
|
2 votes
|
|
12% | ||
|
0 votes
|
|
0% | ||
|
10 votes
|
|
59% | ||
|
2 votes
|
|
12% | ||
IBD Editorials
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
November."
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.
They
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.
Top Opinion
-
Kane Fernau 2012/02/19 03:44:02Americans should be very afraid with this dunce as our Commander-in-Chief!
+5A friend here on SH told me it costs more to destroy nukes than it does to dismantle them.
If he is reelected in November, you can expect the Federal Government to gain a lot of power domestically, and lose a lot of power on foreign matters, which will spell the end of American being a great nation. Hopefully people will wise up, and the defeat of the Obama Administration and its policies will be a sound one.
“We mustn’t tempt anyone with our weakness,” Putin wrote in the government daily Rossiyskaya Gazeta.
Putin said the government plans spending about 23 trillion rubles (about $770 billion dollars) over the next decade to purchase more than 400 intercontinental ballistic missiles, more than 600 combat aircraft, dozens of submarines and other navy vessels and thousands of armored vehicles.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/0...
How's that for a balance of power?
Counting the down-time for crew turnaround and maintenance and rework, the Navy will be hard-put to have even five or six of the thirteen remaining cruisers deployed and on duty to intercept an attack on the U.S.
Standard Missile test launch
It may seem odd to some people that information be gathered before making a decision, but to most folks it's the right way to do things.
Most anti sub chopper squadrons fly 7 or 8 helicopters though, so you've been misinformed about that. HS-14 has twelve, but the rest are smaller.
I think the President knows every military fact he wants to know, and I think that's likely to be a whole lot more than you or I will ever know. I was in over thirty years ago and there are still things I know that would breach my clearance if I talked about them, so I don't.
You might want to think about that before you start describing specific capabilities in a social forum, they really frown on it when our nuclear abilities are put out in the public domain.
.
"I think the President knows every military fact he wants to know, and I think that's likely to be a whole lot more than you or I will ever know."
You may think that but I'll tell you what I know from over 22 years of service in the military - 300 warheads isn't enough to even begin to arm our deployed aircraft with the necessary weapons to pose the deterrent that is needed to protect this nation, and to even ask the Pentagon to consider dropping our total number or warheads to 300 - 400 is pure idiocy.
BTW, this is all in the public domain, and please, don't attempt to lecture me on security: We have 18 SSBNs (those are nuclear powered ballistic missile submarines) each capable of carrying 24 ballistic missiles with up to 8 warheads per missile. That's 192 warheads to arm a single SSBN -- for 18 SSBNs it would take 3456 warheads to fully arm them. If you wanted to arm only half of them, and swap out the missiles at each turn-around, it would still take over 1700 warheads just for our SSBN deterrent, what do you think a limit of only 400 warheads would do to our deterrent forces? . But the fact is that our SSBNs operate with two crews, Blue and Gold, ...
.
"I think the President knows every military fact he wants to know, and I think that's likely to be a whole lot more than you or I will ever know."
You may think that but I'll tell you what I know from over 22 years of service in the military - 300 warheads isn't enough to even begin to arm our deployed aircraft with the necessary weapons to pose the deterrent that is needed to protect this nation, and to even ask the Pentagon to consider dropping our total number or warheads to 300 - 400 is pure idiocy.
BTW, this is all in the public domain, and please, don't attempt to lecture me on security: We have 18 SSBNs (those are nuclear powered ballistic missile submarines) each capable of carrying 24 ballistic missiles with up to 8 warheads per missile. That's 192 warheads to arm a single SSBN -- for 18 SSBNs it would take 3456 warheads to fully arm them. If you wanted to arm only half of them, and swap out the missiles at each turn-around, it would still take over 1700 warheads just for our SSBN deterrent, what do you think a limit of only 400 warheads would do to our deterrent forces? . But the fact is that our SSBNs operate with two crews, Blue and Gold, so very little "swapping" could occur because the subs spend the majority of the time cruising the oceans submerged, ready to do their job if necessary.
Do you even understand the meaning of the word "deterrent?" Our nuclear capabilities have kept us safe for nearly 70 years and Barack Obama wants to at least consider emasculating them.
I'm obviously not as impressed with you as you are, but I bet you get that a lot.
Check your paperwork quick and see if there's a title in there in your name for a property call "The United States of America." While you're in there, have a look for access to all information pertinent to US nuclear arms and assets.
Then tell me why your head turns purple when the President asks a question you have no ability to answer yourself. This isn't a policy he's implimenting, it's research to help formulate policy, I like a President who does his research before making decisions that affect the security of the nation.
As a citizen of these United States, I wasn't aware that I needed to hold title to the entire nation in order to be able to voice an opinion - I always thought the First Amendment gave me that right. But you libs don't like the First Amendment all that much, do you? You would just as soon that freedom of speech didn't apply to those with whom you disagree!
"Then tell me why your head turns purple when the President asks a question you have no ability to answer yourself."
You are truly a jackA$$! My head "turns purple"? LMFAO! I do have an answer to the question you seek to avoid: Why would President
Obama order the Pentagon to consider cutting U.S. strategic nuclear forces to as few as 300 deployed warheads?" Because he has no understanding of the role of our nuclear armament in deterring an attack and insuring peace, and he doesn't like the fact of America's position as the world's only "superpower", it embarrasses him, and he would like to change it.
...
As a citizen of these United States, I wasn't aware that I needed to hold title to the entire nation in order to be able to voice an opinion - I always thought the First Amendment gave me that right. But you libs don't like the First Amendment all that much, do you? You would just as soon that freedom of speech didn't apply to those with whom you disagree!
"Then tell me why your head turns purple when the President asks a question you have no ability to answer yourself."
You are truly a jackA$$! My head "turns purple"? LMFAO! I do have an answer to the question you seek to avoid: Why would President
Obama order the Pentagon to consider cutting U.S. strategic nuclear forces to as few as 300 deployed warheads?" Because he has no understanding of the role of our nuclear armament in deterring an attack and insuring peace, and he doesn't like the fact of America's position as the world's only "superpower", it embarrasses him, and he would like to change it.
If this president had done any "research" at all, he would have known that asking the Pentagon to even consider a cut to as few as 300 nuclear warheads would be suicidal for the nation.
Don't bother me anymore.
Last time I looked, this was my blog. So don't bother me any more with your idiocy and your lies.
That is indeed, SCARY.
Our enemies world-wide rejoice that we have such a pussy and a wimp as a US President.
There are approximately 23,300 nuclear weapons in the world today, posing a direct and constant threat to global security and human survival. Thousands are kept on hair-trigger alert — ready to be launched within minutes. They divert funds from health care, education and other services. The United States alone spends enough on its nuclear weapons — more than $US40 billion a year — to end world poverty by 2030.
Unless we get rid of all nuclear weapons, it is likely that they will be used again — intentionally or by accident — and the effects would be catastrophic. The two nuclear bombs dropped on Japan in 1945 killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people. We must not risk nuclear weapons being used again.
Today nine countries have nuclear weapons, and five more have US nuclear weapons on their soil. The overwhelming majority of the world’s people and governments want them abolished, and there is a legal obligation to negotiate a ban. ICAN is helping to generate a groundswell of popular support for the abolition of nuclear weapons.
http://fwd4.me/0uqU
And just what law would that be? If your figures are correct and there are more than 23,300 nuclear weapons in the world, if the U.S. cut 4,700 from its arsenal there would still be 18,600 left. Add to that the fact that the U.S. has had nuclear weapons longer than any other nation and has used them only once in anger, and that to save lives of both Japanese and Americans to bring a quick end to World War II.
But for the use of the two nuclear weapons in 1945 that you so decry, it is highly likely that millions of Japanese would have died in an invasion of the Japanese home islands. Contrast that to the estimated toll of killed and wounded in Hiroshima (150,000) and Nagasaki (75,000), and those numbers pale by comparison.
Japan's militarist leaders were actually arming old men, women and children with pointed bamboo sticks and urging them to fight to the death. Alternatively, an invasion of the home islands would most certainly have brought about mass-suicides among the civilian populous, as it did on the island of Saipan which had a large Japanese civilian population..
Other than that use in 1945, the U.S. has used its nuclear arsenal to keep the peace for over 60 years, including the providing of a "nuclear um...
And just what law would that be? If your figures are correct and there are more than 23,300 nuclear weapons in the world, if the U.S. cut 4,700 from its arsenal there would still be 18,600 left. Add to that the fact that the U.S. has had nuclear weapons longer than any other nation and has used them only once in anger, and that to save lives of both Japanese and Americans to bring a quick end to World War II.
But for the use of the two nuclear weapons in 1945 that you so decry, it is highly likely that millions of Japanese would have died in an invasion of the Japanese home islands. Contrast that to the estimated toll of killed and wounded in Hiroshima (150,000) and Nagasaki (75,000), and those numbers pale by comparison.
Japan's militarist leaders were actually arming old men, women and children with pointed bamboo sticks and urging them to fight to the death. Alternatively, an invasion of the home islands would most certainly have brought about mass-suicides among the civilian populous, as it did on the island of Saipan which had a large Japanese civilian population..
Other than that use in 1945, the U.S. has used its nuclear arsenal to keep the peace for over 60 years, including the providing of a "nuclear umbrella" over Europe during the days of Soviet expansionism..
Also, assuming your $40 billion figure for U.S. nuclear weapons is accurate, that's less than ten days of borrowing in this Obama economy.- hardly enough to end world hunger.
Credible and verifiable links please ...........