Obama to slash nukes: Guardian

posted at 12:55 pm on September 21, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

This should not come as a big surprise, given Barack Obama’s political history, but his drive to drastically restructure the policy on American nuclear weapons could have a far-reaching impact on global security.  Obama will team with Gordon Brown to push for an aggressive schedule of disarmament, so aggressive that even the French have begun to object, according to the Guardian.  Obama apparently hopes to win concessions from Russia and eventually from Iran and North Korea by setting an example:

Barack Obama has demanded the Pentagon conduct a radical review of US nuclear weapons doctrine to prepare the way for deep cuts in the country’s arsenal, the Guardian can reveal.

Obama has rejected the Pentagon’s first draft of the “nuclear posture review” as being too timid, and has called for a range of more far-reaching options consistent with his goal of eventually abolishing nuclear weapons altogether, according to European officials.

Those options include:

• Reconfiguring the US nuclear force to allow for an arsenal measured in hundreds rather than thousands of deployed strategic warheads.

• Redrafting nuclear doctrine to narrow the range of conditions under which the US would use nuclear weapons.

• Exploring ways of guaranteeing the future reliability of nuclear weapons without testing or producing a new generation of warheads.

The review is due to be completed by the end of this year, and European officials say the outcome is not yet clear. But one official said: “Obama is now driving this process. He is saying these are the president’s weapons, and he wants to look again at the doctrine and their role.”

None of this comes out of the blue.  Obama has always echoed strains of the no-nukes crowd in which he marinated in the Ivy League during the 1980s.  His antipathy towards missile defense systems during the campaign hinted at this kind of movement in nuclear-weapons policy.  The Left has often remarked on the supposed hypocrisy of demanding denuclearization of North Korea and prevention of nuclearization of Iran while we keep our own nukes and presumably give tacit agreement to others, especially India and Israel.

However, those arguments ignore the obvious problems of the individual governments that hold the nukes.  India and Israel do not have expansionist or millenial ambitions, as does Iran with its support for radical Islamist terrorist groups.  They are also not totalitarian regimes, as is North Korea, which is also an arms proliferator.  Neither of these governments are likely to be impressed with American disarmament, either.  If we dismantled our entire nuclear regime, this dictators would still pursue their own in order to gain the deterrent they present to aggressive military action.

That is only one of the problems with the utopian no-nukes approach.  Once the technology exists, once the genie has escaped the bottle, it’s impossible to stop.  The problem with nuclear-weapons technology is that it’s becoming rapidly less expensive to produce them, and it’s certainly easier to master than over the past few decades.  There has never been a weapon that disappeared from national stockpiles for reasons other than obsolescence, not long enough so that one nation or another could quickly revive it.

Still, in this age, the threat from nuclear weapons comes not so much from the nation states but from terrorist groups that are their clients, groups that will not be deterred from using them by national stockpiles.  That doesn’t make their deterrent value completely obsolete, but considering the massive damage we could easily inflict on countries like North Korea and Iran without nukes — and the political disaster it would be to use these weapons — reduction may not matter much anyway.

We just need to make sure we get firm concessions and benefits from any reductions, but the track record of this White House thus far indicates we’re much more likely to give away the store.  And that would be a serious blow to American credibility on national and global security.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Alex Castellanos (author, The Truth That Tells a Lie) was Fred Thompson’s guest this afternoon. They discussed Obama’s habit of selecting words that when limited in context, ignoring surrounding facts, a claim may ring true. So…

Breitbart: US President Barack Obama denied that “paranoid” objections from Russia influenced his decision to abandon plans by the former Bush administration to site a missile defense system in Eastern Europe.

1. Obama’s decision was influenced by Russia’s “reasonable” objections.
2. Obama just hates Poland and the Czech Republic.
3. Obama’s strategy is playing the opposite game with the GWBush administration.
4. All of the above.

maverick muse on September 21, 2009 at 2:53 PM

Everything he proposes has the intention of permanency in it.

What would be the sense in cutting nukes so deeply if a succeeding adminstration could simply buy more?

Cap & Trade could be repealed by a subsequent administration.

OboobaCare could be deep-sixed ASAP by a new administration or Republican congress.

Seems like a lot of energy expended on potentially temporary fixes unless there’s a firm expectation that they will not be temporary.

“Never let a good crisis go to waste.”

Akzed on September 21, 2009 at 2:55 PM

Obama simply requires no deal with Russia because Obama is subservient to them, always has been and will be. Hence, Obama forces the USA into subservience, at Russia’s mercy, China’s mercy, North Korea’s mercy, Islam’s mercy, Mexican drug lords mercy.

maverick muse on September 21, 2009 at 2:59 PM

“Never let a good crisis go to waste.”

Akzed on September 21, 2009 at 2:55 PM

Obama Doctrine: Preemptive strike. Never allow the opportunity to create a crisis go to waste.

maverick muse on September 21, 2009 at 3:00 PM

Iran, Russia, and North Korea will just sit back and watch us be “an example” until they’re armed and we’re not.

They’ll just use the usual stalling techniques – “dialog”, “diplomacy”, etc.

Is there any area left, foreign or domestic, that Omama hasn’t screwed up in his first 9 months in office? Any?

Common Sense on September 21, 2009 at 3:01 PM

hicsuget on September 21, 2009 at 2:43 PM

I didn’t indicate anywhere or anything that I support reduction in nuclear stockpiles. We’re not debating whether we should but whether we should by say 30%, 60%, or 90%. I also don’t see where the reductions will be fully reciprocated with Russia. Now if Obama and the Russians agree to a say 40% reduction then fine, but if as it sound Obama is shooting for 90% cuts while the Russians go for 40%, that is extremely dangerous.

I also didn’t mention the smaller nuke countries, because of the reason you mentioned, so that’s not a point of contention. As for China, yes it is dependant on the West for trade so that will always be the case? Even with that dependance they won’t ever do something rash?

My point wouldn’t be an argument against conventional forces being demobilized and then remobilized since we are politically capable of building more tanks and planes later (though as the last decade showed, there’s still a backlash). We will probably find it nigh impossible in 20 years to rebuild the nuclear deterrant if we need it.

As for your last point, to any responsible nation the point of peace is to prepare for war.

jarodea on September 21, 2009 at 3:02 PM

This would be a great place to go through Obama’s college paper on Mutual Disarmament as a means of ending the Cold War.
Too bad it’s sealed and no one in the press has been successful in a FOIA release of it yet.

NTWR on September 21, 2009 at 2:11 PM

srsly???

pseudonominus on September 21, 2009 at 3:04 PM

As for your last point, to any responsible nation the point of peace is to prepare for war.

jarodea on September 21, 2009 at 3:02 PM

I’m afraid you have that point quite backward: the point of preparing for war is to ensure peace.

hicsuget on September 21, 2009 at 3:04 PM

To again add to my last point on the purpose of peace. We have rushed to turn swords into ploughshares and use peace solely to enjoy peace many times in our history, and we have paid for it within 2 decades everytime. The most recent example being Clinton’s procurement holiday in the 90′s that is afflicting our military to this day.

So yeah, I want the US to avoid making that mistake yet again.

jarodea on September 21, 2009 at 3:06 PM

Hmmm. When we had the ‘power’ in the early 90s we were able to dictate strong disarmament terms with the Russians. It just makes you think. This may not be any capitulation to the Russians or have anything whatsoever to do with Iran.

We owe China big time. They’re cashing in. Without China’s checkbook, BO’s domestic agenda is DOA.

Firefly_76 on September 21, 2009 at 3:07 PM

I’m afraid you have that point quite backward: the point of preparing for war is to ensure peace.

hicsuget on September 21, 2009 at 3:04 PM

Which I had/have exactly correct. We don’t ensure peace by unilaterally giving up our nuclear deterent while the authoritarian states do not.

jarodea on September 21, 2009 at 3:08 PM

A narcissist like this cannot leave the world stage (think Carter and Clinton). So Secretary General of the UN would be the next logical position for this Citizen of the World.

Wethal on September 21, 2009 at 1:52 PM

As is the title: “The Man Who Rid The World Of Nuclear Weapons”

pseudonominus on September 21, 2009 at 3:10 PM

Unilateral reduction isn’t on the table–bilateral reduction with Russia is. As for China, their economy is completely dependent on trade with the West, and even were they to win a conventional war the suspension of trade would would cripple them (the Classical Liberals, the classical economists, and even Karl Marx all agreed that international trade makes war next-to-impossible).

That failed in 1756, in 1914 and 1939.

Remember also the joke about the two hikers outrunning a charging bear. One stops to put on running shoes. And the other hiker says “You crazy? Running shoes won’t help you outrun a bear.” And the other says “I don’t have to outrun the bear. I just have to outrun YOU”.

A nuclear war that kills 3/4ths of the Chinese population is a victory for China, if their relative position to everybody else is improved.

Chris_Balsz on September 21, 2009 at 3:14 PM

The most recent example being Clinton’s procurement holiday in the 90’s that is afflicting our military to this day.
jarodea on September 21, 2009 at 3:06 PM

Apart from the new mid-air refueling tanker, I haven’t heard of any equipment we need more of now that was being produced pre-Clinton. UAVs, MRAPs, and up-armored HMMWVs weren’t on the radar screen then. We found out after-the-fact that we needed those things for the present wars, and we fielded them within a relatively-short time frame (which, if I recall my history lessons correctly, was also what happened with strategic nuclear weapons.)

hicsuget on September 21, 2009 at 3:15 PM

Obama is an intelligent lunatic who will be the death of this country. The US has 2100 nukes Russia has 2800 China probably has around 1000. France and England probably have seven hundred each. If the US reduces its 2100 to five hundred as appears that Obama is hoping for, and cancels testing and upgrading our nukes, while hoping other countries follow suit, he will destroy nuclear deterrence, as other countries will simply wait for our stockpiles to deteriorate to the point where they become non functional. At that point all hell will break loose. Why? Nukes guarantee that countries with hundreds of millions of people, such as China won’t invade other countries for fear of massive retaliation. But if the nuclear stockpile is limited and degraded in order to deter aggression against our allies (assuming Obama believes we have allies who we won’t throw under the bus), we would have to massively increase our armed forces. We saw in Afghanistan and Iraq how there is about a five to one ratio needed for us to defend against aggressors. With China or North Korea with a two million person army, we would have to field six million persons into our armed forces to make up for the deterrence now maintained by our nukes. Without a large nuke arsenal and without a large standing army we would kiss Taiwan and South Korea goodbye. We would also lose standing with the rest of the world who would look to the remaining large nuclear powers as the strong horses to back rather than the enfeebled USA.
While I’ve never used LSD, Obama seems to be a bad acid trip from the 80s.

eaglewingz08 on September 21, 2009 at 3:21 PM

IDIOT. IDIOT. IDIOT.
Is this what they teach at Harvard? Nieztche would spit on this Last Man, this imbecile who does not know the reality of power.
How did this man even graduate with an International Relation degree with such a naive view of world politics? How can this man be 45 years old and think like a 17 year child.
I want this naggering irritating nabob to tell the Iranians or Russians to reduce nuclear weapons before any sort of negotiations or reductions in US’s nuclear arsenal. Let’s see how his “smart diplomacy” works. UGH. FOOL.

nyx on September 21, 2009 at 3:21 PM

We are so going to fail now because of this idiot.

nwpammy on September 21, 2009 at 3:25 PM

Thanks, again, swing voters.

BuckeyeSam on September 21, 2009 at 3:25 PM

Has he ever heard of peace through strength?

cmsinaz on September 21, 2009 at 3:28 PM

It’s like every single on of his policies is designed to make America weaker and our enemies happier.

Dongemaharu on September 21, 2009 at 3:29 PM

I’m still trying to get past this:

“Obama is now driving this process. He is saying these are the president’s weapons, and he wants to look again at the doctrine and their role.”

I’ve read it, and reread it – and all I can come up with is…HIS weapons??? Really, now??? And he paid for them all by his little lonesome? And he pays the upkeep out of his own pocket???

Holy crap. What a jackass. 2010 can’t get her soon enough.

uncivilized on September 21, 2009 at 3:31 PM

It’s like every single on of his policies is designed to make America weaker and our enemies happier.

Dongemaharu on September 21, 2009 at 3:29 PM

The only question is whether it is because of malovalence or because of incompetence. In my opinion, malovalence wins.

nyx on September 21, 2009 at 3:34 PM

In other news, to pay for his health care program 0bama will be having a nuclear garage sale at the UN this week…

Wolftech on September 21, 2009 at 3:35 PM

Has he ever heard of peace through strength?

cmsinaz on September 21, 2009 at 3:28 PM

It seems he subscribes to Dennis Kucinich’s imaginary world view, that being…….

Strength thru peace…..HA….
:shakes head..wanders off muttering to myself:

rslancer14 on September 21, 2009 at 3:37 PM

rslancer14 on September 21, 2009 at 3:37 PM

my bad…

cmsinaz on September 21, 2009 at 3:45 PM

Obumble thinks “nukes” is a right wing conspiracy and it’s RACIST!!

Cybergeezer on September 21, 2009 at 3:46 PM

Implementing this policy will take time, and if news stories about it go too long Obama will face another stink like with medical insurance. I’m not surprised he thinks they’re his weapons, for allegedly at Clinton’s first inauguration someone said to him during a flyby, “Those are your fighters now.”

Lefties tend to be delusional even about their own power. Congress might well be Republican in 2011, and Obama might be out of office in 2013. Hence the four-year terms by the Founders–a president can do only so much harm. And every two years the entire House and half the Senate face removal of members.

Think of this: if we disarm and Iran uses nuclear blackmail on America after it gets nukes, how long will Democrats remain a political force? Favoring our enemies is a direct threat to Democrat political power. If I can figure this out as an average Citizen, so have they long before me.

While I don’t like Obama’s notion I’m not too worried about it–yet. The plan will take time to implement and can be stopped in a relatively short period if we have to.

Liam on September 21, 2009 at 3:56 PM

Has he ever heard of peace through strength?

cmsinaz on September 21, 2009 at 3:28 PM

The question at hand here is: how much strength is needed to guarantee what kind of peace?

That failed in 1756, in 1914 and 1939.

Chris_Balsz on September 21, 2009 at 3:14 PM

Classical economists weren’t around yet in 1756. In 1914 and 1938 the countries which started the wars in question were pursuing very illiberal neo-mercantilist economic policies. The Wehrmacht did not depend on imports of British replacement parts, and was not financed by trade with France. A Sino-US war today would be as unthinkable as a Mexican-U.S. or Canadian-U.S. war.

hicsuget on September 21, 2009 at 3:59 PM

Why is it the UK is breaking the story on this? Where is the US media?

JeffinSac on September 21, 2009 at 4:06 PM

Please stop attributing to naivete or stupidity what can more correctly be attributed to specific intent.

We all give him a pass by denouncing his actions as foolish or naive. They are neither. They are shrewdly calculated & have been for a long time. The consequences are also specifically sought. O does not believe that our unilateral disarmament will lead to our enemies following suit. He knows that is laughable AND that no one will really call him on it.

Politically correct thinking (i.e. not calling this what it is which is a knife to the heart of our security) allows traitorous actions to be unassailably wrapped in pathetic excuses for nuanced and shrewd chess moves.

America1st on September 21, 2009 at 4:13 PM

A Sino-US war today would be as unthinkable as a Mexican-U.S. or Canadian-U.S. war.

hicsuget on September 21, 2009 at 3:59 PM

don’t bet on that…the chinese are driven by nationalism more than economics…if they can bury us, they will…

right4life on September 21, 2009 at 4:19 PM

Apart from the new mid-air refueling tanker, I haven’t heard of any equipment we need more of now that was being produced pre-Clinton. UAVs, MRAPs, and up-armored HMMWVs weren’t on the radar screen then.

When were UAV’s developed?

We found out after-the-fact that we needed those things for the present wars, and we fielded them within a relatively-short time frame (which, if I recall my history lessons correctly, was also what happened with strategic nuclear weapons.)
hicsuget on September 21, 2009 at 3:15 PM

Oh yes, strategic nuclear weapons were conjured up in a matter of days on a shoestring budget. /sarc

Chainsaw56 on September 21, 2009 at 4:23 PM

America1st on September 21, 2009 at 4:13 PM

How I wish you were wrong. But you’re not.

Liam on September 21, 2009 at 4:25 PM

Oh yes, strategic nuclear weapons were conjured up in a matter of days on a shoestring budget. /sarc

Chainsaw56 on September 21, 2009 at 4:23 PM

I never said they were. I also never said we should disarm completely. I merely said that we no longer need a survivable strategic nuclear arsenal—especially not in an era of missile defense. We don’t need the capability to destroy the whole world several times over anymore—being able to destroy it once is quite sufficient for today’s threats. As for tomorrow’s threats, they’ll be different than anything we can imagine today (who could have foreseen blitzkrieg in 1936, or nuclear weapons in 1942, or hijacked jetliners in 1999?)

The threat our strategic nuclear arms stockpile was built to counter has evaporated, and defense dollars are not unlimited. Every dollar we spend maintaining it is a dollar we don’t get to spend on useful military hardware.

hicsuget on September 21, 2009 at 4:42 PM

Obama apparently hopes to win concessions from Russia and eventually from Iran and North Korea by setting an example.

Okay, I know I’m crossing my own self-imposed line here but I can’t help it (just this once).

If this unadulterated fool wants to set an example, why doesn’t he just bend over and close his eyes. I think they’ll all get the message.

If they haven’t already.

IndieDogg on September 21, 2009 at 4:48 PM

hicsuget

You said:

We fielded them within a relatively-short time frame (which, if I recall my history lessons correctly, was also what happened with strategic nuclear weapons.)

What do you define as a” relatively-short time frame”?

Chainsaw56 on September 21, 2009 at 4:49 PM

My God, the man is so naive as to be dangerous.

Terrye on September 21, 2009 at 4:56 PM

I merely said that we no longer need a survivable strategic nuclear arsenal—especially not in an era of missile defense.
hicsuget on September 21, 2009 at 4:42 PM

That is, until Fauxbama drops it in favor another vote buying scheme.

Chainsaw56 on September 21, 2009 at 5:03 PM

What do you define as a” relatively-short time frame”?

Chainsaw56 on September 21, 2009 at 4:49 PM

Not to be a smart-ass, but I define it as “short-enough.” MRAPs came on-line early enough to keep insurgents from getting the upper hand, nuclear ICBMs came on-line early enough to keep Russia from using nuclear weapons against us.

hicsuget on September 21, 2009 at 5:11 PM

i am surprised he doesn’t sell them to IRAN. They have money and we need money. We also see him brown nosing Muslims. Obama could by doing so send Israel whom he hates a message.

seven on September 21, 2009 at 5:14 PM

That is, until Fauxbama drops it in favor another vote buying scheme.

Chainsaw56 on September 21, 2009 at 5:03 PM

He’s not dropping missile defense—he’s taking the recommendation of Bush-administration holdover SecDef Gates and—get this—moving forward with a defense system against tactical, rather than strategic, nuclear missiles, i.e. matching the weapons system to the threat.

hicsuget on September 21, 2009 at 5:15 PM

That is, until Fauxbama drops it in favor another vote buying scheme.
Chainsaw56 on September 21, 2009 at 5:03 PM

He’s not dropping missile defense—he’s taking the recommendation of Bush-administration holdover SecDef Gates and—get this—moving forward with a defense system against tactical, rather than strategic, nuclear missiles, i.e. matching the weapons system to the threat.
hicsuget on September 21, 2009 at 5:15 PM

You can say that all the way up to the second that he actually does that, and judging from past trends, that’s probably in the cards.

Not to be a smart-ass, but I define it as “short-enough.”

I define that as not ANSWERING the question, but that’s to be expected, right?

MRAPs came on-line early enough to keep insurgents from getting the upper hand, nuclear ICBMs came on-line early enough to keep Russia from using nuclear weapons against us.
hicsuget on September 21, 2009 at 5:11 PM

I didn’t ask about MRAPs, pay attention, I asked about UAV’s, which you also didn’t answer.

Chainsaw56 on September 21, 2009 at 5:31 PM

who could have foreseen blitzkrieg in 1936, or nuclear weapons in 1942, or hijacked jetliners in 1999?)
hicsuget on September 21, 2009 at 4:42 PM

Blitzkrieg was outlined, though not with that name, as the British war plan for 1919. Whippets on the flanks with infantry riding trucks to deliver the main attack, while heavy tanks and artillery kept the German front pinned in place; O/400 bombers with fighter support would strike local German HQ sites (few of which were in the bunker-trenches for some reason) simultaneously. The fact that the Germans surrendered in November of 1918 caught the Allied and Associated Powers completely off-guard. Naturally, when faced with the costs of maintaining an army capable of a “blitz” during the 1920s, Britain blanched and gave up mastery of land warfare, to the German benefit in the 1930s.

Nuclear weapons were foreseen well before 1942 – hell, the famous “Einstein Letter” was drafted in 1941. Not to mention numerous references to mass strategic aerial bombardment (which was more destructive than the nukes in WW2) as foreseen by H. G. Wells prior to WW1!

And for hijacked airliners, go read Clancy’s Debt of Honor, published in 1994.

Believe it or not, there are people whose job it is to not only come up with “unthinkable” weapons, extrapolating from current trends – it is their job to think of counters for these weapons, and counters for those.

Blacksmith on September 21, 2009 at 5:37 PM

And for hijacked airliners, go read Clancy’s Debt of Honor, published in 1994.
Believe it or not, there are people whose job it is to not only come up with “unthinkable” weapons, extrapolating from current trends – it is their job to think of counters for these weapons, and counters for those.
Blacksmith on September 21, 2009 at 5:37 PM

I would also add, see the pilot episode for the series ‘The lone gunman’.

Chainsaw56 on September 21, 2009 at 5:43 PM

The left was angered by Bush’s “pre-emptive military strikes”….

With this Communist-in-Chief, he is enacting a policy of
PREEMPTIVE SURRENDER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hey Big Brother Barack, just hand a set of keys to the White House to Russia,China,NorthKorea,Cuba,Syria,Iran,Iraq,Afghanistan,Venezuela,and anyone else of that ilk that I have left out. Think of all the money you can put toward single payer health insurance with no military…BRILLIANT!!!!!!

adamsmith on September 21, 2009 at 5:48 PM

Not to be a smart-ass, but I define it as “short-enough.” MRAPs came on-line early enough to keep insurgents from getting the upper hand, nuclear ICBMs came on-line early enough to keep Russia from using nuclear weapons against us.

hicsuget on September 21, 2009 at 5:11 PM

I see you do not know your technical history.

The Soviets invented the ICBM before we did. They did so because they were so far behind us in large military aircraft design (bombers).

pseudonominus on September 21, 2009 at 5:51 PM

***
Two U.S A. nuclear bombs saved hundreds of thousands (millions?) of American military deaths when we used them on Imperial Japan and ended WW2.
***
U.S.A. nuclear bombs prevented our Russian enemy from taking over all of Europe after WW2. Our Russki buddies had far superior ground and air forces in position to win–but the nukes changed the “calculus of war” calculations in our favor–and saved Western Europe for democracy.
***
Yes–what brilliant ideas from our President Obama (PBUH). Let’s UNILATERALY DISARM the new U.S.S.A. and get rid of our limited Missile Defense. When we claim the “moral high ground” our enemies will respect his brilliance and no longer want to destroy our country as we live under the Neville Chamberlain type of “peace in our time” mantra.
***
PEACE THROUGH WEAKNESS worked very well in the 1930′s when 30 or more countries had stronger militaries than the U.S.A.–as it prevented Imperial Japan from attacking us at Pearl Harbor.
***
John Bibb
***

rocketman on September 21, 2009 at 6:43 PM

Obama apparently hopes to win concessions from Russia and eventually from Iran and North Korea by setting an example:

If this man succeeds in drastically cutting our nuclear forces,, well, it’s over folks. At what point does a President’s actions become treasonous?? Seriously. This man is talking about disarming America in the face of ever growing threats. Is he working for our enemies?? Has he lost his mind??
You want to see an expansion of Russian and Chinese aggression?? ,, just let America throw away it’s nukes.
The entire world will be at the mercy of whoever has them and is willing to use them!!!
I fear for our nation. I actually fear for our future. God have mercy on us.
Listen,, if disarmament worked so well then why even have an army??!! Why even have police???!! Why have a Secret Service??? If giving up your weapons brings peace then the police should set the example and just give up their SWAT teams and sidearms. The FBI can make an announcement that they want to set the example for peace in our nation. They could send out a press release next week that all FBI agents, IRS agents, border patrol, ATF, CIA, Secret Service and every other law enforcement agency can all just disarm at the same time on the same day. Get all the local police to join in, Sheriffs and all. Then,, once they set the example, I am sure all the scumbags, crooks, gang members, murderers and thieves will follow next and throw their knives, clubs and guns into the closest river or out onto the street!! Crime will be no more and our nation will finally have peace! Law enforcement just needs to set the example,, just like Obama wants tot US to do. Take it all the way! If it can work for a scumbag murdering tyrant who just happens to be the leader of another nation,, surely it will work back here at home, in our neighborhoods, towns and cities. Crooks everywhere have just been waiting for someone else to set the example.

JellyToast on September 21, 2009 at 6:53 PM

rocketman on September 21, 2009 at 6:43 PM

You missed the biggest humanitarian benefit of the twin nukes. Not only did the War Department expect over half a million deaths in Operation Olympic alone (more than DOUBLE our TOTAL WW2 deaths for taking the easy one of the four “Home Islands!”), plus a million more non-fatal casualties… the operation planners expected north of SEVEN MILLION casualties on the Japanese side, mostly of poorly-trained, worse-equipped civillians conscripted into their last-ditch “home defense” battalions.

THIS WOULD HAVE DECIMATED THE JAPANESE PEOPLE. IT IS MORE DEATH THAN HITLER INFLICTED ON THE JEWS.

And while we’d have hated it, and hated ourselves for doing it – We’d still have done it, short of a complete and unconditional surrender of the Empire. At the end of WW2, the idea of giving up halfway done only to come back and do it AGAIN 20 years later, with MORE deaths, was anathema. WW2 was total warfare on a scale that has never been attempted ever since, and for good reason.

Nukes saved the Japanese people, culture, and modern nation; they saved the American military (and not-coincidentally most of the Boomers, their children, etc); and they saved our national conscience. The example of their use prevented a rush to use them by the thousand in the Cold War flare-ups, particularly during the Cuban Missile Crisis – and thus may have actually saved humanity AS A WHOLE. Their use, while terrible in the immediacy, is overall a net positive for humanity, and anyone who tells you otherwise is a short-sighted idiot, armed with good intentions and poor results.

Blacksmith on September 21, 2009 at 6:57 PM

Pray hat God delivers us from this arrogant naive fool!

MCGIRV on September 21, 2009 at 7:24 PM

that

MCGIRV on September 21, 2009 at 7:24 PM

Who are the cheese-eating surrender monkeys now?

J.E. Dyer on September 21, 2009 at 7:41 PM

We just need to make sure we get firm concessions and benefits from any reductions, but the track record of this White House thus far indicates we’re much more likely to give away the store. And that would be a serious blow to American credibility on national and global security.

The understatement of the day.

chemman on September 21, 2009 at 7:52 PM

Reagan was scared to death of having a nuclear war, accidental or otherwise, and with good reason. Thus he worked very hard to work out mutually verifiable disarmament agreements. Obama, I suspect, has the same justifiable fears, though it remains to be seen how “smart” he is about it.

Putting that very legitimate concern aside for the moment — true, we’ll never be free of nuclear weapons, but I’m afraid you get it wrong when you say:

“Still, in this age, the threat from nuclear weapons comes not so much from the nation states but from ter­ror­ist groups that are their clients, groups that will not be deterred from using them by national stock­piles”

Exactly the opposite is true, and with consequences that go well, Well beyond anything a terrorist group or even N.K. or Iran could do. See: Hot Air Gets It Wrong On Obama & Nuclear Weapons.

I love ya Hot Air, but you’re on the wrong side of the issue on this one . . .

RomanticIdeal on September 21, 2009 at 8:19 PM

Obama is becoming a clear and present danger to the United States.

elduende on September 21, 2009 at 8:33 PM

Apart from the new mid-air refueling tanker, I haven’t heard of any equipment we need more of now that was being produced pre-Clinton. UAVs, MRAPs, and up-armored HMMWVs weren’t on the radar screen then. We found out after-the-fact that we needed those things for the present wars, and we fielded them within a relatively-short time frame (which, if I recall my history lessons correctly, was also what happened with strategic nuclear weapons.)

hicsuget on September 21, 2009 at 3:15 PM

Well you have enough other posters on your case now so I’ll just make a brief response to this and let you off the hook on multiple other counts.

The Clinton procurement holiday didn’t hurt so much in R&D, which was mostly maintained at least in a relative sense. The problem with Clinton’s drawdown was in production numbers. Sure we developed new versions of aircraft, helicopters, AFV’s, missiles, etc., we didn’t produce enough. We instead relied on Cold War surplus.

In otherwords the capital stock of the military was allowed to rapidly depreciate. Now we have to not only rebuild that lost stock but we also have to expand production to meet current needs so it’s doubly expensive and as it’s turned out, beyond the political will of Washington (even to an extent under Bush, which was one of my major complaints about him).

jarodea on September 21, 2009 at 8:45 PM

Sell em to Iran and the Norkies .

borntoraisehogs on September 21, 2009 at 9:14 PM

More shovel ready projects: fall out shelters for all.

Dhuka on September 21, 2009 at 9:51 PM

I usually agree wih Ed but this time he is far too sanguine. We are already on the road to eliminating missile defense. The kinetic kill leg is gone the Missle defense for Europe and the East Coast of North America have been eliminated by the cancellation of the systems in Poland and the Czech Republic. Now, that we will not be able to prevent a first strike, Obama wants to reduce our weapons to such a degree we cannot guarantee a mutual assured destruction of a large opponent such as Russia or China or even Iran. What is to stop them? Hope?

We will be tying our own hands and feet and stretching our necks over the chopping block so that our enemies can cut it off with little fear. Ahmedinajad will destroy both Israel and the US if Obama keeps up this direction through two terms.

KW64 on September 22, 2009 at 12:39 AM

http://www.veteranoutrage.com

I TOLD YOU obama would betray all of us
I TOLD YOU democrats would betray all of us
I TOLD YOU in my now famous top 30 predictions that obama
and pelozi and the democrats and some republicans

Would Betray and then HELP
the enemies of the United states of america

In their qwest to DESTROY us all..

veteranoutrage on September 22, 2009 at 12:43 AM

THis is why I don’t believe the Glenn Becks of the world. How does the boy-President’s love of disarmament help him become a dictator?

Trent1289 on September 21, 2009 at 1:36 PM

Because he’s always had his eye on President of the World.

Alana on September 22, 2009 at 1:56 AM

You know that poster’s dream – where she dreamed of all the people in Congress, in the future, seriously, quietly and grimly working as rapidly as they could, as a unit, to undo all this mess (she described it very well) – I think it was prescient.

Alana on September 22, 2009 at 2:29 AM

First positive consequence of canceling the missile shield in Poland. Ready??? Poland may build its own anti-missile shield.

ktrelski on September 22, 2009 at 8:22 AM

He madi it clear to his base that he would disarm our nuclear capability, in spite of growing concerns of nuclear attainment.

This guy simply doesn’t get it. When he said we needed a civilian national security force as well funded as the DoD. He was really meaning that he was going to gut the DoD so hard that the brownshirts he employs for 10bucks an hour to keep order in the streets once the public starts rejecting this marxist really will be on par with the deballed Military.

James on September 22, 2009 at 8:45 AM

This is Obama do nothing for America and the world. It’s all smoke and mirrors for his legacy.
Nuclear weapons age like any other man-made creation.
Doing a tit for tat reduction with Russia sounds wonderful but is pointless. Russia’s arsenal is old and nearing the end of it’s usefullness and they don’t have the money or resources to refurbish it. This is why Russia has uranium offer other countries for nuke power. They don’t have the resources to put it to use themselves.
Time is having the same effect on America’s arsenal I suspect ours are in far better condition than the Russians with a smaller amoount obsolete.

LeeSeneca on September 22, 2009 at 9:23 AM

Obama has rejected the Pentagon’s first draft of the “nuclear posture review” as being too timid, and has called for a range of more far-reaching options consistent with his goal of eventually abolishing nuclear weapons altogether, according to European officials.

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Perhaps that’s the export version.

unclesmrgol on September 22, 2009 at 12:37 PM

Has he ever heard of peace through strength?

cmsinaz on September 21, 2009 at 3:28 PM

That was yesterday. It’s been replaced by the new and improved Peace Through Appeasement.

JellyToast on September 22, 2009 at 2:23 PM

The Incompetent in Chief has told Israel and the Palestinians that “they have to do more” toward achieving peace in the area; To which they replied, in unison, “Mr. Obama; You have to do more to move forward in your achievement for peace with the Taliban in Afghanistan”.

Cybergeezer on September 22, 2009 at 4:26 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3