RSS Feed MenuWolf Blitzer asked on CNN this evening whether Obama would regret expressing “trust” in Russian President Medvedev. My answer: No. As ever, the president’s words were carefully parsed:
I trust President Medvedev to not only listen and to negotiate constructively, but also to follow through on the agreements that are contained here today.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement!
The problem is not the words, but the policy. President Obama and President Medvedev have inked an agreement to reduce nuclear arsenals on both sides further, down to 1,675 warheads each. Obama expressed a hope that this example would inspire others (ie, Iran) to abandon nuclear proliferation too. Good luck with that.
Obama’s invocation of a nuclear-free world makes him sound not inspirational but foolish. Gandhian self-denial will not impress the Iranians. Meanwhile the US is reducing its old nuclear arsenal – while eschewing the nuclear testing that would enable replacement of that arsenal with fewer newer weapons. Without testing, the new weapons can never be fully trusted. In pursuit of an illusion, the president is risking the security not just of the American nation but of all America’s friends as well.
badabing // Jul 7, 2009 at 7:19 pm
You say that the problem is not the words, but the policy – and then you immediately criticize the words and not the policy. The policy, as reported here, is to reduce nuclear arsenals to 1,675 warheads each; you don’t criticize this reduction directly, but instead ridicule Obama’s hopes that it may inspire other nations. It seems that if this article were to live up to its title (“Bad Deal, Mr. President”), that it would make a case that 1,675 warheads is somehow not enough. Not enough for what? Do you agree that at some point the destructive power of nukes becomes redundant and maintaining more than “necessary” only adds to the risk of proliferation, theft, or accidents – especially in Russia? Are you implying that the only reason it was done was as a hopeful gesture to Iran? Seems that to get the big tent coalition you’re after, you have to give the guy some credit when it’s due. Most voters, I think, would consider a reduction to 1,675 to be a good thing.
ottovbvs // Jul 8, 2009 at 9:14 am
1,675 nuclear warheads apiece is quite enough to destroy the entire US and Russia and contaminate the rest of the world with it. David, if you want a stick to beat Obama with and you are constantly searching for them as we know, this seems a very silly one. The US and Russia are never going to see eye to eye on everything. We are great powers, we have interests which sometimes collide. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t find areas of cooperation like arms reduction and create a climate where we can cooperate in other matters. Either you want a return to the cold war climate or you are just looking any reason however mindless to attack the president. Neither suggests much wisdom on your part.