RSS Feed MenuRonald Reagan famously said that the United States and the Soviet Union didn’t fear each other because they had nuclear weapons; they had nuclear weapons because they feared each other. This insight served as the basis for the Reagan administration’s rearming of America, both conventional and nuclear, and consequent victory in the Cold War.
The Obama administration, not surprisingly, has set out to reverse this winning policy and to begin dismantling America’s nuclear deterrent. This because the president and the far left pine for a world free of nuclear weapons.
“The existence of thousands of nuclear weapons is the most dangerous legacy of the Cold War,” Obama insisted in his April 5, 2009 Prague speech. “So today, I state clearly and with conviction America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.”
Actually, the existence of thousands of nuclear weapons is not the most dangerous legacy of the Cold War; the rise of radical Islam is. Witness Iran, Afghanistan, and the proliferation of Wahhabi mosques and madrassas throughout Saudi Arabia and indeed, much of the Muslim world.
But while facts may be stubborn things for empirical-based thinkers like Reagan and the neoconservatives, they are of little use to the mushy-headed Left, which stubbornly clings to the ludicrous notion that military arms — and particularly nuclear weapons — are an inherent source of instability and danger.
In fact, as the Lexington Institute’s Dan Goure and other American strategists point out, the United States isn’t bothered at all by the fact that Great Britain, France, and even India have nuclear weapons. That’s because we know that none of these countries threaten us or our national security interests.
So quite clearly the problem isn’t nuclear weapons per se; it is the nature and disposition of the governments or political factions that have access to or control nuclear weapons. In short, the National Rifle Association (NRA) has it right: Guns don’t kill; people do — and the corollary of this rule is that dictators, tyrants and despots kill on a dramatic, large, and threatening scale.
But instead of focusing its efforts on how to effect peaceful regime change in Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, and elsewhere, the Obama administration is busy chasing after the chimera — the genuinely dangerous chimera — of a “world without nuclear weapons.”
A world without nuclear weapons is a dangerous chimera for two reasons. First, the United States requires nuclear weapons to deter both conventional and nuclear war. Second, America’s enemies — in Tehran, Pyongyang, Beijing, Caracas, and elsewhere — likely will interpret unilateral American nuclear concessions as a sign of weakness and irresolution. This, in turn, could lead to the type of strategic miscalculations that, throughout history, have often led to war.
For example, Goure notes, we really don’t know for sure why the Chinese haven’t yet tried to annex Taiwan. It may be, he says, that the Chinese dictators fear a retaliatory American nuclear strike. Certainly, the fact that America has that capability — and may, in fact, use it — has helped to keep the peace over Taiwan.
Yet, the New York Times is reporting that the Obama administration is about to unveil a new nuclear strategy which will seriously deprecate the role and importance of nuclear weapons.
Among the changes from the previous Bush administration: dramatic and unilateral reductions in America’s nuclear stockpile; a ban on any new nuclear weapons, including low-yield, deeply-burrowing warheads which might be used to destroy hidden nuclear facilities in Iran or North Korea; and a possible declaration that the “sole purpose” of America’s nuclear arsenal is to deter nuclear attack.
As for this possible declaration, the Times reports: “‘We’re under considerable pressure on this one within our own party,’” one of Mr. Obama’s national security advisers said recently.” Among those exerting this pressure: the Chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein of California.
Of course, the New York Times completely supports the Obama administration’s efforts to disarm America. After all, for many years now, the Times has been waging an editorial jihad to emasculate the defense budget; indeed, it has never met a weapons system that it didn’t want to cut or eliminate.
Unfortunately, the Times has not only the Democrats on its side, but too often the Republicans as well. Senator McCain, remember, was instrumental in giving Obama political cover last year to enact some of the most draconian and ill-advised cuts in the defense budget since Jimmy Carter was president.
These cuts included elimination of the Transformational Satellite program, as well as elimination of eight new Army combat vehicle types, all of which were integral to modernizing U.S. military capabilities for 21st Century irregular warfare.
Now that he is running for re-election and faces a potentially difficult primary challenge from former Congressman J.D. Hayworth, McCain is singing a different tune. He now expresses skepticism and concern over Obama administration disarmament initiatives.
McCain’s election year flip-flop is welcomed and helpful. But it would be more helpful if McCain were a principled defense hawk and not the summertime soldier he more typically is.
It also would be helpful if more Republicans spoke out well and often about the Obama administration’s gutting of the defense budget. But the sad and lamentable truth is that when it comes to neglecting the nation’s defenses, the GOP really doesn’t have much of an advantage, if any, over the Democrats.
mlloyd // Mar 4, 2010 at 9:20 am
How do you view our obligations under Article VI of the NPT?
teabag // Mar 4, 2010 at 9:23 am
How many times over do we need the capacity to destroy the planet, surely one is enough!
sinz54 // Mar 4, 2010 at 9:28 am
mlloyd: The NPT requires the major powers to engage in negotiations to reduce the number of nuclear weapons. It does NOT require unilateral cuts by any nation. If it had, the U.S. Senate would never have ratified it.
Obama’s unilateral cuts are entirely his own pipe dream. Nothing in international law requires it. Only the idiotic notion, promulgated by the Left for 1oo years, that wars can be prevented by military weakness.
sinz54 // Mar 4, 2010 at 9:33 am
teabag:
The purpose of having a flexible and sufficiently large nuclear arsenal isn’t to commit genocide, as you Leftists constantly claim falsely.
The purpose is to be able to neutralize an enemy’s ability to make war.
Our own NORAD headquarters was located inside Cheyenne Mountain, 500 feet below the surface. Only a direct hit by a 20 megaton bomb could knock it out. Russia similarly hardened their own command and control complexes. And now Iran is doing the same with its own nuclear capability.
A nuclear strike on Iran would be designed to MINIMIZE civilian casualties if at all possible, but shaped to eliminate forever Iran’s ability to make war on anybody.
The purpose of that new generation of “bunker-buster” bombs was specifically to accomplish such a mission.
Because if Iran attacks Israel (for example), and we’re unable to destroy Iran’s military without destroying their population too, then Israel and America will have no recourse but to wipe out the Iranian nation.
And that will be the fault of the Left for being so short-sighted. They will have pushed us into a corner from which we will have no other recourse but total war.
Just as they did with Adolf Hitler.
balconesfault // Mar 4, 2010 at 9:40 am
“We seek the total elimination one day of nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth.”
President Ronald Reagan
1985 inaugural address
teabag // Mar 4, 2010 at 9:59 am
Sinz,
One again you misrepresent what people are saying and overlay it with your own prejudice. I said how many time do we need the capacity to destroy the world!
I believe we have a need for a nuclear deterrence just not a crazy number of these weapons. You can only kill someone once!
teabag // Mar 4, 2010 at 10:02 am
“and the corollary of this rule is that dictators, tyrants and despots kill on a dramatic, large, and threatening scale.”
Um the USA has killed more people than any other country over the last 12 years, what does that make us?
kevin47 // Mar 4, 2010 at 11:14 am
“We seek the total elimination one day of nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth.”
Which makes it vitally important to create an anti-missile defense system in space that renders nuclear weapons obsolete. Reagan explained that well, and I agree with Balcone’s here. We should be making major investments in the infrastructure of our missile defense, for the very reason that doing so gives us the ability to negotiate the draw down of nuclear weapons capabilities.
“Um the USA has killed more people than any other country over the last 12 years, what does that make us?”
A country of people who think in talking points, apparently.
GOProud // Mar 4, 2010 at 11:28 am
JohnG, well said; spot-on.
On point, you write: “… the mushy-headed Left, which stubbornly clings to the ludicrous notion that military arms — and particularly nuclear weapons — are an inherent source of instability and danger.”
For generations now going back to Wilson, the liberals and Left have been telling us repeatedly if we just disarm and practice some version of a Quaker’s Let-It-Just-Be-Peace approach, the world will follow. We should overlook the notion that the Soviet Kalashnikov AK-47 is the most prevalent assault rifle in the world… because, as TeaBagged will tell us, the Soviets had to spread that agent of violence throughout the world because American CIA operatives were so good in arming the enemies of the Soviet Empire… it was excuasble self-defense to TeaBagged’s pals.
As TeaBagged demonstrates –America is an evil place of violent men that exports said violence the world over… even making the strange claim that America has killed more people in the world in the last 12 yrs than anyone else. Actually, more people are killed by Democrat Joe-6-pack drunk drivers on our highways and youthful Democrat thug activity in the drug culture in our inner cities… but that’s not what TeaBagged wanted to point out –he wanted to smear our troops as murderous soldiers. Kind of like John Murtha and the Fallujah Marines.
We’re evil. That’s where he and all good Obami Cult begin. It’s why the Messiah needed to go on the World Wide Tour to Beg Forgiveness. It’s why Obama was kow-tow, wow-bowing to nearly every foreign leader in apology for American past excesses –the reason TeaBagged is so good to try to point out.
The same impulse, JohnG, that has liberals practicing the Just-Let-It-Be-Peace and Big Hugs Heal strategies, also drives their antagonism toward all things military (troops, mission, budget… Kerry’s famous line about only idiots go into the natl guard) and this week’s newest example of antagonism toward those who use strength to protect America –NancyP’s petty provoked attack on our natl intel agents.
And the democrats wonder why Americans think they’re soft on natl defense?
Like Mitt Romney recently pointed out, Obama is simply too inexperienced and over-his-head when it comes to how best to conduct foreign affairs.
Obama gave up forward placed strategic defense systems as a way to restart Soviet relations and got nothing in return.
Obama gave the Iranians more time to comply with UN mandates and got nothing in return.
Obama gave Karzai the surge to extend his govt’s grasp at power in that backward, 17th century country and got nothing in return –not even the promise of less corruption or a halt to the Millionaires Row into Kabul built with diverted American taxpayer funds. In fact, Obama will probably send over DOJ lawyers to help Karzai set up an ACORN office in Kabul at some point.
What folly the American voters were duped into in voting for the hype of Hope & Change from a guy who looked believable and a MSM who helped him sell his message.
balconesfault // Mar 4, 2010 at 11:38 am
Obama gave up forward placed strategic defense systems as a way to restart Soviet relations and got nothing in return.
No – he gave them up because he thought them a poor and expensive tool to do what we wanted, and instead replaced them with upgrades to a system which he and Gates thinks will do a much better job.
Spending money on useless toys just to piss off the Russians would not be a smart thing when we’re running a surplus. In a time of massive deficits it’s brain dead.
Obama gave Karzai the surge to extend his govt’s grasp at power in that backward, 17th century country and got nothing in return –not even the promise of less corruption or a halt to the Millionaires Row into Kabul built with diverted American taxpayer funds.
Cool. Now GOPer thinks we should get out of Afghanistan?
Who was running the show when much of that Millionaires Row was being constructed? I will agree that it is a shame that really crappy policies have their own momentum.
GOProud // Mar 4, 2010 at 12:37 pm
TeaBagged whips out a nasty: “Of course to you all those innocent brown victims in Iraq,Afghanistan and Pakistan count for absolutely nothing as you consider them “Non Humans””‘
Never said it, TeaBagged. What, not steeping in your own juices long enough, now? LOL.
I said that your ridiculous Jack Murtha-like claim that America has killed more people in the last 12 yrs was a smearing, disgusting lie meant to slam our troops, their mission and a patently offensive trend amongst farLefties to issue demerits to troops as some ol’ saw of soldiers of wanton murder. Is it your claim now that American troops are not responsible when it comes to stopping innocent collateral deaths from military action. Or are you including everyone and Saddam Hussein in the tally of those killed in war?
You were trying to smear our troops and their mission.
It’s what liberals do in war… and run for the Canadian border, of course.
I said that drunk Joe 6 pack democrats and young drug-cultured Democrat “entrepeneurs” in the inner city kill far more people than all of those you allege the US govt has killed in the last 12 yrs.
Lying to gian political advantage for the Obami is one thing, TeaBagged. Lying to smear our troops is another. That’s why people here call for your ouster. That’s why I call you shameless.
GOProud // Mar 4, 2010 at 12:46 pm
BlankHead gets cheeky with the surfer dewd lingo: “Cool. Now GOPer thinks we should get out of Afghanistan?”
Not at all. I said Obama’s legendary & oft’ demonstrated inexperience failed to secure any concessions from the corrupt Karzai govt in exchange for the surge and NATO’s attempt to extend his govt’s grasp into the countryside.
Just like Obama got jack from the Russians for pulling out our missle defense plans in eastern Europe.
Just like Obama got jack from the Iranians for giving them more time to comply with UN sanctions.
Just like Obama got jack from Karzai for the surge and protecting Karzai’s backside.
Maybe the best we can hope for is that the Karzai govt won’t investigate the new Kabul branch of ACORN? If they do, I know a trial lawyer with limited international affairs experience who can help –Barrie O, ACORN’s own savior. “I’ve been with you guys at every major step in the last 5 or 6 years. We are one on all these issues and goals” -Senator Obama.
SFTor1 // Mar 4, 2010 at 3:03 pm
How far does he want to cut? 1,000? 2,000? 5,000 warheads? Should be plenty. Let’s do it.
GOProud // Mar 4, 2010 at 5:55 pm
Knowing the mentality of the farLeft, Obama must first apologize to all 2nd world countries that aren’t currently our allies for America having had these “evil, diabolical instruments of capitalist hegemony” for so long after he nabbed the Nobel Peace Prize, without merit other than the Prize Committee thought Obama was a fellow farLeft socialist intent on unilateral disarmament of the free world. Of course, they were right.
To our allies, Obama will probably offer a similar apology for having “forced them” to house and deploy said missles on their own country’s soil, forcing the population to live under the threat of assured nuclear destruction for so long and then Obama can announce a new $1 trillion US foreign aid program aimed at cleaning up any toxic weapons sites outside the US, help pay for mental health costs clearly warranted by those countries who were forced to live under those “missles of capitalist hegemony” and Obama should start mothballing US naval assets, SAC bombers and bases, take away the military’s rifles because “mean people kill people with guns” –the Chicago mantra. Gosh, is there anything Obama won’t do to appease his base in the democrat party and the socialists in Europe? Oh wait, same group.
Yep, we can all see it now.
And the US will be the laughing stock it once was under JimmineyCricketCarter. Maybe Obama will get Iraq to shift from a democracy to an Islamic Fundamentalist state?
3/6/10 Links | HBD Books // Mar 6, 2010 at 2:20 pm
[...] a purge of the anti-war right. Apparently, it’s important that America be on guard against cutting its number of nukes. FF seems to have its own litmus test for conservatives too. [...]
tvchurch // Mar 6, 2010 at 3:04 pm
John,
I’m no fan of eliminating the stockpile of nuclear weapons in the United States, but surely there are some nuclear warheads we could live without. I think you would agree that the marginal cost of eliminating a small number (let’s say 10, or even 50) of warheads from our arsenal is pretty close to zero.
Should we stop developing new warheads completely? No. Should we develop bunker-busting nuclear warheads? Yes. And the real question: Can we get rid of a few hundred nuclear warheads without compromising U.S. security? I think so.
-Tom Church