The Disarming of America

On the presidential campaign trail, Barack Obama was often critical of the Bush doctrine of preemptive war. But apparently preemptive disarmament is just fine in the president’s dossier. How else to describe the administration’s infinitely naïve decision yesterday to, in effect, fold up the American nuclear umbrella?

Henceforth, on the administration’s initiative, the United States must desist from using nuclear weapons against officially non-nuclear countries – even if they use such weapons first against the United States – while halting the development of new nuclear weapons. The reasoning seems to be that even if this ends up emboldening America’s enemies and endangering global security, we can all sleep better at night knowing that we’ve “done the right thing.”

To soft-peddle the perils of this monumental concession, the administration has made exemptions for rogue states like North Korea and Iran, for whom “all options” will still be available. But even with this modest nod to the reality of a dangerous world it’s hard to see how surrendering the nuclear option is anything but a setback for U.S. security – especially when it comes on the heels of defense budget cuts; reductions in domestic missile defense spending; and the abandonment of missile defense shields in Poland and the Czech Republic. The last of these can already be judged a failure since it was part of a strategic gambit to buy goodwill from Russia and win Moscow’s support for stiffer measures against Iran. Both have yet to materialize.

Most troubling is the operative principle in these concessions. The administration truly seems to believe that if the United States leads the way in reducing its nuclear stockpiles, the world will follow its shining example. That fantasy is embarrassing enough when expressed by bongo-beating college peaceniks, but it is downright dangerous when it becomes the basis for the country’s national security. If the Iranian experience has taught any lesson, it is that rogue states will be more – not less – emboldened by perceived concessions on the part of the United States. Repeated offers of diplomacy have only encouraged the mullahs to pursue the nuclear weapon more relentlessly, with the consequence that Iran is expected to have an operational nuclear bomb any day now.

Not to worry: The president and his defenders point out that the United States would reserve the right to retaliate militarily in the aftermath of a nuclear attack on its soil. That the administration has not completely signed away the country’s right to self-defense is comforting. But given the staggering devastation of a nuclear attack and the increasing sophistication of nuclear weaponry, the threat of conventional militarily reprisal sounds like the geopolitical equivalent of bringing a knife to a gunfight – after one has been fatally shot.

That highlights yet another flaw in the administration’s plan. While the United States will drop out of the nuclear race, other countries will continue to develop and modernize nuclear technology. Two consequences will follow: First, America’s already aging nuclear arsenal – nuclear and Asia expert Gordon Chang points out the average age of an American nuke is now 26 years – will become even more antiquated. At the same time, other nuclear and aspiring nuclear powers will continue to increase the size and superiority of their nuclear capabilities, with the U.S. falling ever farther behind. China, for instance, has reportedly expanded the size and scope of its nuclear program in recent years, and shows no signs of scaling down its arms buildup: the 7.5 percent spending surge in China’s 2010 military budget was modest only compared to the double-digit increases that have been the norm in recent decades.

What the Obama administration views as virtue looks to the rest of the world like weakness. It is a hard but ineradicable feature of foreign affairs that strength is respected more than surrender, might more than good intentions. President Obama may not agree with that. But so long as he is commander-in-chief, and entrusted with the country’s national security, he has an obligation to act as if he does.

  • Stephen_Brady

    Obama says, "We will drill for oil." Not one oil well will be sunk, while he is President.

    Obama says, "We will license new nuclear power plants." Not one nuke will be licensed, while he is President.

    Obama reserves the right to retaliate against an attack on American soil. While he is President, not one American nuke will be used, no matter the provocation.

    The man is mendacious in the extreme. He cannot be believed. His nuclear policy borders on treason, as he takes 65 years of general peace … since WWII … and throws it away (threatening all of our lives, in the process).

    The lives of my children and grandchildren are being held hostage to the utopian naivete of this man. I once said, at this website, that I wanted to savor the victory on election night, 2012. We don't have that much time. Impeachment is in order, January, 2011 …

    • Jim C.

      Were you complaining when Bush mortgaged us to China and sent our children to a war which to this day has no bearing on the security of the United States (outside, maybe, access to oil fields?)

      I'll hold you to all those predictions; I'll bet you thought Hillary would be the nominee, too, and that McCain would win.

      • Rifleman

        If it was wrong for Bush to 'mortgage us to China' how is it right for hussein to do so for four times the amount in an eighth of the time?

        • Jim C.

          That is a good question. But I'm sure if you can answer the first part, you can answer the second.

          • Rifleman

            I asked you, and my prediction that you wouldn't give a straight answer to it proved correct.

            There were plenty here who did complain about Bush's fiscal policies, myself included, and yes holding hostiles to their agreements with us has obvious bearing on national security. If all we cared about was access to oil fields, we would have just cut a deal for preferred access in exchange for lifting the sanctions, or dealt with saddam under the table, like our 'allies' did.

      • Stephen_Brady

        This is a misdirection. The issue is not about Bush. Also, it's not about Clinton, who sold US missile secrets to China in exchange for campaign cash. Mentioning that is a misdirection, on my part. It's also not about who I thought might get nominated in 2008, in either party. That's a misdirection.

        This has nothing to do with any former President. The issue is this President's abandonment of the most effective deterrent in human history. Does that make you feel good? Does it make you feel safe?

  • BS1977

    Our nation is now in deep deep kim chee…….work for fiscal conservative candidates in 2010 and 2012…..Is the USA bankrupt? Getting close!! A ship of fools will end up on the rocks!!

  • Doggwood

    I might argue that the declaration of policy is irrelevant. The real question is, what will the Commander in Chief do in a moment of grave crisis? Regardless of what's in the policy book, I'm scared as hell that Obama as Commander will do nothing. If America is attacked, he'll shrug and figure it's better to let America fall than to prosecute a war. If Israel disappears in a nuclear flash, Obama will shrug and figure that it's a tragedy, but military reprisals will punish the wrong people and won't bring back Israel. Never mind the damned birth certificate; it's clear that in his heart Obama is not an American. He cares about the world, and he feels the best thing he can do for the world is take America down, both economically and militarily. Since we're in a world full of genocidal maniacs, we'll be lucky if we make it through Obama's term without facing a tragedy of unimaginable proportion.

    • watchful

      I agree.

    • Rick

      You have Obama pegged! Yes, I agree he wants to take down America. I hope he and his liberal congress can be rendered impotent in November. Praying and asking Almighty God to save and heal America is in order I believe.

    • Carbon Dioxide

      The real question is, what will the Commander in Chief do in a moment of grave crisis? You sound right, and…
      There will also be an eloquent and historic speech (so deemed by the media).
      The Joint Chiefs will hail the maintenance of diversity ideology no matter the costs.
      The media will praise the cerebral, professorial and measured response.

    • Jim C.

      You are absolutely right that a declaration of policy is irrelevant.

      As to your "prediction" or what Obama will do, that is also irrelevant. But we do know for a fact that he 1. Ramped up troops overseas, 2. has killed a LOT of terrorists since he's taken office, and 3. took care of those pirates with great haste and decisiveness–ALL of which were WRONGLY predicted by you pretend "patriots."

      You can choose to live in an altered reality if you wish, built on inane "predictions" and conspiratorial supposition, but FACTS MATTER.

      • Doggwood

        I agree that Obama has acted correctly in putting greater emphasis on Afghanistan, which had been deteriorating, and which the Bush Administration had not adequately addressed. Beyond that, Obama is the personification of weakness, disarming America and appeasing enemies and intimidating friends. The most immediate danger is the situation in Iran. A nuclear Iran will inevitably lead to nuclear war before long. If Obama is going to do anything more than twiddle his thumbs and offer mealy-mouthed disapproval, we've yet to see it.

        • Jim C.

          I would call it a much-needed dose of reality rather than this ramped-up puffery. Iran is like a yappy dog that knows if it bites, it will be kicked much harder. Lord knows it would be gratifying to do so, but that is not sound foreign policy. It's belligerence is to be expected, but I would be very much surprised if they had imperial designs.

          Rather than Obama Derangement Syndrome, we need to recognize that our defense posture stays remarkably consistent no matter who the executive is, and that changes in policy are meant to affect other nation's policies.

          • Stephen_Brady

            And abandoning our nuclear deterrence is "remarkably consistent" how?

    • Chris Jones

      You share my fear Doggwood. I think that Israel is going to be hit soon, and that’s going to be it. Obama will make a fine speech and the remaining two-million Jews will be evacked off the beach. That’s what I fear is about to happen. The Arabs didn’t spend a thousand-plus lives in the Gaza War for nothing, they spent those lives in the cause of making the world unsympathetic to Israel. Think about it. That’s a pretty high price to pay for some bad publicity for the other team, unless it’s a vital part of some greater strategy. And I think this is all going to go down very soon. You know, I think we’re all afraid to say what we’re really thinking about Obama…I know I am.

      • Jim C.

        You should not be afraid to say what you think, but you should also consider whether you are being irrational. Israel is the strongest nation in the Middle East and they can and will take care of what they feel the need to take care of. Iran's regime is belligerent but they are not suicidal.

        Honestly–when all your guys' predictions don't come to pass–and they won't–when will you admit your irrationality?

        • Stephen_Brady

          Of course, the regime in Iran is suicidal. Don't you know anything about the 12th Imam, the Mahdi? Do you read, or do you selectively refuse to believe in certain things that you read, because it doesn't fit your "Weltanschaung"?

          The Mullahs who rule Iran, and the diminutive President of Iran, Herr Ahmadinejad, are true believers in a suicidal death-cult which they believe will usher in the necessary chaos necessary for the Mahdi's return … in which all of the world will be forced to convert or die.

          Read, Jim. It might just save your life.

          • Jim C.

            Islamism is their excuse, power is their goal, like any totalitarian regime. We disagree they are suicidal. But even if you are right, the people of Iran are not suicidal. There is a great tension in that country but not one we can tamper with. Our policy should be detached, not belligerent.

  • Peter E. Coleman

    We were warned about a great deceiver coming our way.

    The US is being systematically disarmed. So that Obamas fellow travelers can do all those nasty things the US is accused of.

    Fundamental change is never as complete as when things are totally reversed. Everything Obama has said results in exactly the opposite occurring.

    Obama's statement to fundamentally change America is the only truthful thing he ever said. Lying like a #&%(@#! every step of the way.

    • Jim C.

      Do you understand one single thing about foreign policy? There has been no disarming whatsoever. Jeez you guys are dumb.

      • Stephen_Brady

        This is an ad hominem, Jim. Might I suggest a course in Philosophical Logic?

        • Jim C.

          We still have the gun–we just don't flash it at the party.

  • 9-11 Infidel

    It is too bad the Obominite can't be tried by the military. As CIC he might be charged with, treason, failure to repair and conduct un-becomming of an officer. I'm also wondering if in the event of a nuclear crisis, when the Obomination does nothing, would the military step in and remove the danger that a foolish CIC is to the nations safety?If the choice were to allow the destruction of our cities or remove this fool from power in order to save the nation and its citizens?

    • Jim C.

      That would be tough since Obama and Gates listen to their generals, unlike Bush and Rumsfeld. Petraeus and Obama are very much on the same page.

      • Stephen_Brady

        Misdirection, again.

        • Jim C.

          The first post was not even coherent enough to be called misdirection. A purely emotional fantasy.

  • A Bit Profound

    It should have been obvious to historically astute & decent, moral & ethical people, who Obama was, before he was ever elected, from his known associations. Why was his statements that he was going to "Transform" America not seen as a stunning danger sign and why did it go unquestioned. Transformed into WHAT ? I want it restored not transformed. Can you now see that he is dismantling traditional America and in it's place building a framework for dictatorship? (that is what you call getting everything under government control) Can you now evaluate the frivolous direction of the stimulus money and see that Obama is deliberately trying to drive us into an economic collapse from which there will be back, except the solutions that will be offered in the implementation of the New World Order. A brake down is 1st necessary for revolution. This Video will enlighten you as to the truth of what I say. Saul Alinski's "RULES For RADICALS" — Community Organizing, The Obama Administration & the Transformation of America.

    • Jim C.

      "Why was his statements that he was going to "Transform" America not seen as a stunning danger sign and why did it go unquestioned." Because our country was taken into the toilet by your buddies. It badly needed the changes taking place.

      • Stephen_Brady

        Another misdirection.

        The issue is Obama's actions, not anyone else.

        • Jim C.

          His election justifies the "transformation." These were in no way deep dirty secrets. It's why he was elected. No misdirection whatsoever.

  • Ft. Ticonderoga

    How can anyone not believe, after reading that Obama is "folding up" America's nuclear umbrella, that he isn't deliberately trying to dismantle/destroy the United States? (And after everything else he's done)

    Ft. Ticonderoga

  • A. Gonzalez

    Really scary–especially since I just read about how strong Turkey's economy is and that they boast 34 billionaires…
    Time to pray people…

  • Debi

    It cannot get too much more evident that Obama is islamizing our nation and wil say one day that it is the Islamic Republic of America. He will have beat the great satan and he thinks islamists around the world will appreciate it.. but the problem is that they will still fight each other. There will never be peace on this Earth as long as Islam is a practiced religion.

  • pappy86us

    Well, I hope the people that voted for "Change" are happy in the direction of this country. "Fundamental Change the Country!" I think he (Obama) is doing just what he said. So why are people, especially the people that voted for him! Now unfortunately, the country is about to be no more. The government is slowly caving into PC through groups such as CAIR, SEIU, and ACORN. Also, think about are President when he was a child. Glen Beck on his program air such a case against the President. Both his parents were Marxist, his grandparents had Leftist ties, his favorite poet was a Leftist. He went to college, and with his on admission, sought out Marxist Professors. His former Pastor, Jeremiah Wright is also a far Left loon. Is "Spiritual Leader" now is also a Leftist, who is all for redistribution of wealth. Sound a little strange? I do not think that would have worked with Bush. Either way, this man is out to destroy our great republic. It is a shame that so many have given their lives to the great republic, only to have it slowly destroyed because of a hand full of people that truly hate this great country. Ask yourself this, why is he allowing the enemy to have rights? Why is he removing the word Islamic out of government literature? Why is he surrounding himself with Far Left loons? Why is he just going to pull out of Afghanistan so fast? Why is he tying the hands of our troops? Why did he and his minions push so hard for the stimulus? OOpps (now the jobs bill) What about this new health care that was just shoved down our throats? American's are not dumb people. However, this administration continues to treat us condescendingly. While slowly making government bigger. I pray each day that, just one American will wake up and say, " I get it!" This administration is going to destroy us! Then, they stand up and spread the word about getting our country back ( tea party). Please, please wake up and take a stand against this administration before it is too late!

  • USMCSniper

    The Russian S-400 Triumf (Chinese designator HQ-19) surface-to-air missile system is now a joint development programme with China. The S-300 is already deployed and operational throughout China. The S-300 is one of the most advanced multi-target anti-aircraft missile systems in the world and has a reported ability to track up to 100 targets simultaneously while engaging up to 12 at the same time. It has a range of about 200 km and can hit targets at altitudes of 90,000 feet (27,432 meters). The F-15, F-16, F-18, B-52s, and C130J Gunships are merely target drones to this S-300 multi-target anti-aircraft missile system. And the S-400 will be a considerable upgrade. Of course Obama cancels the F-22 and the B-2 Bomber contracts – and now announces not a MAD policy but a suicide policy with nuclear weapons usage

    I asked my platoon commander when I was in South Vietnam in 1966 what we should do if the Communist Chinese join the North Vietnamese. He said bend over with you head between you legs and kiss you ass goodbye son because you can't carry enough ammunition to kill all these ants when they come outta the nest, so it will go nuclear as that is the only way we will even survive.

    • George

      Of course Devil Dog, the news didn't report this at all what this will truly do to our military. I think I might have heard it on Fox. None of the "SO CALLED" news networks reported this at all. This all falls into the administrations plans. Its almost sickening to watch the slow demise of this country. Obama just made it so the word Jihad is not too be used by his administration. Doesn't seem like he is looking out for the safety of this country.

  • jACKGN

    Impeach the Communist/Islamic Bastard!!!!!!!!!!

    • Jim C.

      On what grounds, dimwit?

      • Stephen_Brady

        Responding to you in this thread is fun!

        Probably, on the grounds that he has endangered the nation and failed to uphold his oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, with his ill-conceived, naive, and Utopian nuclear policy.

        Besides, impeachment is a political process. If there are enough votes for impeachment, and then removal, he will go, and we will be left with President Biden …

        • Jim C.

          Ummm.. be careful what you wish for? ;-)

  • democratichawk

    It's been said that WWII vet Jack Kennedy kept a paperweight on his desk in the Oval Office with the Roman quotation: Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum–If you wish for peace, prepare for war. It guided him for 1000 short days. Fast forward less than five decades to the current president–same party, same office, same evil to contend with–but no paperweight from which to gain wisdom and strength to fight that evil. If the message is that we care not to bear any price, burden or hardship then America is truly at risk! Time to houseclean th Congresss in November 2010 and in 2012 replace the current administration with a leader who will return that paperweight to the Oval Office.

  • ApolloSpeaks

    Obama's announcement on April 5th of the changes being made to a 50 year old nuclear strategic doctrine fell on the 59th anniversary of the sentencing to death of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg for nuclear espionage. This "coincidence" was emblematic of Obama's perilous deconstructing of our national security and strategic defense systems and making the world a more dangerous place.

    Google my name ApolloSpeaks (one word, on Townhall) and read my piece: The End of Nuclear deterrence and the Dismantling of the Reagan Revolution.

  • Jim C.

    To answer your statement: Yes, I am very pleased with the direction the country is going. May it continue. If you thought the last 8 years were where we should be heading, THANK GOD we turned it around before it was too late.

    • Stephen_Brady

      Then … as the Holy Scriptures would say … you have your reward. :)

    • George

      Okay Jim C., You have your right by the United States Constitution and God. Hope I didn't offend you by using the Word God. I'm just curious, what is it that you are pleased with? I can not imagine how a true American could possibly be please with the direction of our country. I do not mean that in any kind of way demeaning to you or anyone else who is all for the direction that this administration is going. Might I ask also, what was SO wrong about Bush? Sure he made some dumb mistakes. However, they were not the kind of mistakes that would lead this great Republic, that I fought for and millions of others have died for. I take it you never served your country, or should I say (the United States Military) have you? Probably not. Or you would " GET IT" with the rest of us that do not want this country to fall.

  • Ron

    Whenever I express what I think in these instances, I'm often called a "conspiracy theorist" (For the first time in my life, I might add!).

    However, I'm basing my opinion on the reams of articles, commentary, newsclips, etc. that I have seen, heard, or read about Sheik Obama in the, now, six years that he has been at the forefront of the national stage.

    It is my firm belief that he is working hard to destroy not only our economy, our system of government, but even our National Security!! This is re-affirmed by almost everything his administration is doing. Both in plain sight, and behind the scenes.

    I also believe that he is muslim, and that someone else is pulling his strings.

    Manchurian Candidate? Perhaps!! But in order to know that for sure, you have to be able to identify the people and/or organizations that are pulling those strings! I have my theories; but, without any firm proof, I would be fearful of expressing them. If I happened to hit the nail on the head: Well you know, anything could happen.