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

When you begin to start missing those who screwed us over to begin with…. does that show that the current POTUS is a problem that will never go away?

I think so!

I was born right before Carter… I can’t say I miss him but remember the lines for gas. Do I want to have that remembered by my children or grandchildren?

Reagan was a good president… But there will never be another one like him.

Bush was ok… but was a stepping stone for Clinton. A man who lied consistantly, yet didn’t take away EVERYTHING Americans had worked for.

G.W. Bush got us on the straight again even if he was wishy washy… but at least we had a military force and understood the value of protection. Especially after 9/11.

As for the POTUS in right now…. we are losing everything. Freedom would be the one thing we will all miss.

So saying I miss them all except for the present.. make sense? I can see gas lines in our future and it isn’t looking good.

upinak on September 21, 2009 at 1:28 PM

This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we’ll be lucky to live through it. – Fred Thompson as the Admiral in Hunt for Red October

phreshone on September 21, 2009 at 1:29 PM

in fairness to the Democrats, about 4-10% of Republicans voted for a fool that would’ve done alot worse than this, as hard as that is to beleive.

jp on September 21, 2009 at 1:29 PM

Heck, Franklin Pierce is starting to look like a good alternative at the moment.

Orange Doorhinge on September 21, 2009 at 1:29 PM

I’m starting to doubt our collective ability to make it out alive after this administration is through with us. Seriously.

Diane on September 21, 2009 at 1:30 PM

I have another idea….let’s disarm our military and police too. After all violence is caused by guns right? Criminals won’t use guns if they know police won’t have them….right? This is ridiculous and naive at best. I think Obama feels guilty that we are the only country to use a nuclear weapon offensively. Expect another apology in 3….2….1….

nazo311 on September 21, 2009 at 1:30 PM

The only apology I want to hear from Obama will come right after his resignation.

kingsjester on September 21, 2009 at 1:31 PM

rockmom on September 21, 2009 at 1:27 PM

I was thinking Pawlenty, though Rick Perry make just offer for Texas to take the nukes off Barry’s hands

phreshone on September 21, 2009 at 1:33 PM

Could congress vote to forbid the spending of any money on this project?

(Yea, I know that this one never will, but after 2010, it’s a posibility.)

MarkTheGreat on September 21, 2009 at 1:33 PM

I’m not really against reducing our nuclear stockpile. I just hope we can get something out of it from other nations *cough* missle defense *cough*.

BadgerHawk on September 21, 2009 at 12:58 PM

You mean the thing Obama gave up without so much as a strong word from Russian against Iranian nukes?

Fat chance. Obama’s making us weaker and seems to be completely OK with that.

Esthier on September 21, 2009 at 1:34 PM

Here goes the neighborhood…

Michelle Dubois on September 21, 2009 at 1:34 PM

The problem with nuclear-weapons technology is that it’s becoming rapidly less expensive to produce them…

Coming soon: When you outlaw nukes, only outlaws will have nukes.

There are times I wonder if this country can survive this president, even until 2010. What a tragedy he is.

petefrt on September 21, 2009 at 1:34 PM

The One figured out, during the 9/12 rally, that He couldn’t nuke conservatives, so what’s the use of having them?

IlikedAUH2O on September 21, 2009 at 1:34 PM

Strangely enought, my wife and my step-son just watched the movie “Red Dawn” Saturday night.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087985/

Omen? Hmmmm…

As a side note, Patrick Swayze was in this movie.

Nineball on September 21, 2009 at 1:35 PM

At what point does our military say NO?

mimi1220 on September 21, 2009 at 1:07 PM

U-h-h-h-h… Can’t… It that “obeying the lawful orders of the President of the United States” thing…

If people like the Joint Chiefs of Staff start resigning and holding press conferences, THAT would qualify as “nervous time“… not before…

The last time the Navy had a “Revolt of the Admirals” was in 1949, and that was about possible service consolidation (and Navy elimination!) in the newly formed Department of Defense… So it has been awhile since people “voted with their feet”…

But this is a noteworthy claim the Guardian makes…

Khun Joe on September 21, 2009 at 1:35 PM

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

H*ll, I’m actively looking for jobs in Canada or Israel. I’m getting out whilst the getting’s good.

mjk on September 21, 2009 at 1:14 PM

You know, if I were younger or had young kids to get to safety, I’d be thinking the same thing.

I won’t criticize anyone’s decision in this regard. Some should leave, to try to keep the fire of democracy alive somewhere in case it goes out here. Some should stay here to fight. In my case, being middle-aged (and stubborn), I plan to stay and do what I can to fight the takeover of my country.

Mary in LA on September 21, 2009 at 1:36 PM

Liberalism truly is a disease.

uknowmorethanme on September 21, 2009 at 1:36 PM

Neville Chamberlain In Our Time!

kingsjester on September 21, 2009 at 1:27 PM

The Peace of Paper.

Loxodonta on September 21, 2009 at 1:37 PM

It seems as though just about every day brings a new reason to be really, really scared about where things are heading.

Ex-Dem on September 21, 2009 at 1:38 PM

OK; for the sake of argument, let’s say there is no particular harm in reducing our stockpiles. Question, then: What good does it do us? Why not just maintain them?

Is it cheaper to dismantle the whole lot than simply to maintain them? Can we use the nuclear material for some other purpose – like fueling all those new power plants we’re building? (Don’t think so – I think it’s a different type of material.) So what does it cost us to dispose of all these weapons?

And once they’re all gone … what next? Obama is not just anti-nuke – he’s anti-war. Do we stand by while he dismantles our army, navy and air force, too?

ManUFan on September 21, 2009 at 1:38 PM

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

Not that I give any credence to conspiracy nonsense, but anything that would make the United States weaker would help.

ElectricPhase on September 21, 2009 at 1:39 PM

First Suggestion:

Tell Mainland China to forgive our debt or we give them to Japan and Taiwan.

IlikedAUH2O on September 21, 2009 at 1:39 PM

Can’t this guy go ONE DAY without doing something totally wrong/stupid/infuriating/whatever????

zeebeach on September 21, 2009 at 1:40 PM

When the Russians met with JFK, they realized what a lightweight he was, so they started sending nukes to Cuba. Now that all our enemies have seen what an empty suit Obama is, I wonder what replay of “the missiles of October” we’ll see?

JFK had to man-up back then and stare down the Russkies. Obama will just wee-wee-up since his enemies will be faceless terrorists bombing our cities.

Kafir on September 21, 2009 at 1:41 PM

H*ll, I’m actively looking for jobs in Canada or Israel. I’m getting out whilst the getting’s good.
mjk on September 21, 2009 at 1:14 PM

You know, if I were younger or had young kids to get to safety, I’d be thinking the same thing.
I won’t criticize anyone’s decision in this regard. Some should leave, to try to keep the fire of democracy alive somewhere in case it goes out here. Some should stay here to fight. In my case, being middle-aged (and stubborn), I plan to stay and do what I can to fight the takeover of my country.
Mary in LA on September 21, 2009 at 1:36 PM

Does anybody really think Anywhere will be safe with the way we’re going???

Chainsaw56 on September 21, 2009 at 1:41 PM

As a side note, Patrick Swayze was in this movie.

Nineball on September 21, 2009 at 1:35 PM

Wolverines!!
R.I.P. Patrick! You were one of the good ones! Especially in Road House!

Khun Joe on September 21, 2009 at 1:41 PM

Orange Doorhinge on September 21, 2009 at 1:29 PM

I like Hawkeye, but I wouldn’t vote for him or BJ. Col. Potter, though has my vote.

Wolftech on September 21, 2009 at 1:43 PM

Does anybody really think Anywhere will be safe with the way we’re going???

Chainsaw56 on September 21, 2009 at 1:41 PM

Not “safe”, but possibly safer in the short term. As I said, I’m staying.

Mary in LA on September 21, 2009 at 1:43 PM

U-h-h-h-h… Can’t… It that “obeying the lawful orders of the President of the United States” thing…

If people like the Joint Chiefs of Staff start resigning and holding press conferences, THAT would qualify as “nervous time“… not before…

It may become a Prudent option, if it really is as bad as what we are reading

jp on September 21, 2009 at 1:43 PM

mjk on September 21, 2009 at 1:14 PM

Moving to Israel? Who have nukes pointed at them more then the U.S.?

Canada who is in vicinity of the U.S. on two sides and can still feel the effects of fall out?

Think… seriously sit down and think.

upinak on September 21, 2009 at 1:45 PM

The pacifistic Obambi admin just like the Carter and Clinton admin before it are dismantling our offensive/defensive capabilities and in doing so are placing America’s pants around its ankles while our enemies are plotting and planning our destruction, just like Slick Will did to America in the years leading to 9-11!

This isn’t going to be pretty…gird your loins everyone!

Liberty or Death on September 21, 2009 at 1:45 PM

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

Obama has this fantasy of being more than a U.S. president, even one with dictatorial powers. He wants to be a supra-national world leader. This explains his willingness to malign America in his overseas travels — this proves that he’s shed the primitive parochialism of previous presidents who actually placed America’s interests first — and his willingness to toss away American power and advantage without getting anything in return. His attacks on the economic dynamism of this country are just part of cutting it down to its rightful size and influence among the “world community,” in his view.

Cicero43 on September 21, 2009 at 1:46 PM

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.

I concur completely. Strategic nuclear weapons, and the threat of mutually-assured destruction they make possible, constitute the solution to a problem that no longer exists.

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

Maureen Dowd would be glad to know that somebody else was willing to supply the word that Rep. Wilson omitted.

hicsuget on September 21, 2009 at 1:47 PM

Leftists always forget that W was as multi-lateral as possible when dealing with Iran (the EU-3) and DPRK (UNSC); that PEPFAR was the largest international health initiative in history for a single disease; and that he and Putin also reduced nuclear arsenals through SORT.

But he didn’t do this by jeopardizing the development of more modern nuclear weapons, nor by imperiling the US’ strategic deterrence, nor by shunning his European allies.

Well done, Barry.

Track-A-'Crat on September 21, 2009 at 1:48 PM

The only way O can get down to 1000 warheads is to do two things: 1. Get rid of all ICBM’s. 2. Get rid of all B61 gravity bombs (like the 300 or so in Europe) and all cruise missiles.

Turn our nuclear triad into a submarine only force and let France and England defend Europe.

After that, it’s easy to get to zero- just don’t allow the Pentagon to buy the “safe reliable warhead” while allowing the 1970′s and 80′s vintage warheads to be retired due to planned obsolescence.

The rest of the world will see how magnanimous we are and follow suit. They will, won’t they?

rotorhead on September 21, 2009 at 1:48 PM

There is a reason he is AP’s The One:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/sciencefair/2009/09/obama-may-discourage-terrorism.html

Well, if a scientist says so….

klickink.wordpress.com on September 21, 2009 at 1:48 PM

Anyone else here struck by similarities between obambi’s lecturing pose in the lead photo and that of some of our wonderful ROP spokesholes?

The head kicked to the side a little, the mouth open in mid-harangue, the hand raised half closed with a finger extended?

Just creepy.

Fighton03 on September 21, 2009 at 1:49 PM

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

Hussein sure talks purdy!

What if Isreal shuts down Irans facility…..Oops
What if Russia decides to setup its own defense missle battery in Poland…Oh my!
What is Russia convinces Hugo Chavez to use one of his not yet installed Nuclear Power Generation Plants to produce weapons grade material….Oops
What if Kim Jong Il shoots more rockets threatening South K and/or Japan?
Let’s not forget about the many tyrants and terroist that would love to take a chance.

Some countries do not care about receiving concessions from the US. North K produces Millions of conterfiet Dollars every year! Some are satisfied with their rubels just looking to be the Big Kid on the Block!

And in the end……Hussein sure talks purdy!

BigMike252 on September 21, 2009 at 1:49 PM

Seriously, if it’s not obvious The One is leading the charge to destroy America, what’s left of it, then you have to be an idiot.

klickink.wordpress.com on September 21, 2009 at 1:50 PM

The pacifistic Obambi admin just like the Carter and Clinton admin before it are dismantling our offensive/defensive capabilities and in doing so are placing America’s pants around its ankles while our enemies are plotting and planning our destruction, just like Slick Will did to America in the years leading to 9-11!

This isn’t going to be pretty…gird your loins everyone!

Liberty or Death on September 21, 2009 at 1:45 PM

and everyone likes to forget the Clinton part of this and what he did to our Military in the 1990′s

in alot of ways the Cold War ending and Soviet Union collapsing has hurt us in the long run. Many of today’s college age kids are brainwashed on this stuff and either support Obama or Ron Paul because of their rhetoric/lies about the USA, war, etc.

jp on September 21, 2009 at 1:51 PM

Obama has this fantasy of being more than a U.S. president, even one with dictatorial powers. He wants to be a supra-national world leader. This explains his willingness to malign America in his overseas travels — this proves that he’s shed the primitive parochialism of previous presidents who actually placed America’s interests first — and his willingness to toss away American power and advantage without getting anything in return. His attacks on the economic dynamism of this country are just part of cutting it down to its rightful size and influence among the “world community,” in his view.

Cicero43 on September 21, 2009 at 1:46 PM

Agreed. Unless he can amend the constitution, he needs to do something after he leaves the White House, which he thinks will be in January, 2017.

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

Seriously, if it’s not obvious The One is leading the charge to destroy America, what’s left of it, then you have to be an idiot.
klickink.wordpress.com on September 21, 2009 at 1:50 PM

That kind of statement always brings up the question of what he would be doing differently if he WERE trying to destroy the country?

Chainsaw56 on September 21, 2009 at 1:53 PM

these are the president’s weapons

What ???? I thought they belonged to the United States of America???? When do we get to the impeachable offense stage? Now? PLEASEEEE ?

Filecchio on September 21, 2009 at 1:53 PM

Obama is not just anti-nuke – he’s anti-war. Do we stand by while he dismantles our army, navy and air force, too?

ManUFan on September 21, 2009 at 1:38 PM

I think Obama is pro anything that furthers his image..which I think is the core of his agenda…his legacy.

LEBA on September 21, 2009 at 1:53 PM

massive damage we could easily inflict on countries like North Korea and Iran without nukes

But isn’t Obama also downsizing/reconfiguring our military more for insurgents that straight up large scale conflicts?

aikidoka on September 21, 2009 at 1:55 PM

Barry’s Goal:

1. Destroy the US economy.
2. Destroy our allies like Poland by refusing to defend them.
3. Destroy American credibility by surrendering to the Taliban, leaving those who helped us to their tender mercies.
4. Destroy our ability to defend ourselves by destroying the military.
5. Sit back and wait for a totalitarian nation like China or Russia to invade and destroy us.

This clown must really hate US!

The Rock on September 21, 2009 at 1:55 PM

It’s time for national GOP leadership to call Barry ANTI-American and demand his resignation… First Governor to do so in a session of his/hers state legislature wins the 2012 GOP nomination

phreshone on September 21, 2009 at 1:22 PM
Pawlenty’s getting pretty damn close. Keep an eye on him.

rockmom on September 21, 2009 at 1:27 PM

The media would cover it and he could lay out his case against Obama. I like it.

marklmail on September 21, 2009 at 1:57 PM

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

I anticipate a voice vote, elected by unanimous acclaim, at the first United Nations General Assembly AFTER January 20, 2013… Obambi be looking for work then…

Khun Joe on September 21, 2009 at 1:57 PM

Does anybody really think Anywhere will be safe with the way we’re going???
Chainsaw56 on September 21, 2009 at 1:41 PM

Not “safe”, but possibly safer in the short term. As I said, I’m staying.
Mary in LA on September 21, 2009 at 1:43 PM

I just wonder if people around the world understand the import of what’s happening here.

We are really the lone superpower in the world, the bulwark of stability.
What would happen to the rest of the world if we weren’t around keeping things stable and in check?

The result could make the “Dark ages” look like a ‘tea party’ (pardon the expression)

Chainsaw56 on September 21, 2009 at 1:58 PM

Is this in violation of any protection pact/treaty?

- The Cat

P.S.

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

It’s worse than I thought. He’s an engineer.

MirCat on September 21, 2009 at 2:00 PM

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

…what? Why no mention of China in Obama’s Santa list?

“hopes to win concessions from”

Begin by listing exactly WHO has given Obama a concession to date, other than the UN giving him the distinction as “Chairman of Security”.

maverick muse on September 21, 2009 at 2:00 PM

We just need to make sure we get firm concessions and benefits from any reductions,

Obama already has those concessions…Iran said they weren’t going to build a bomb…

right2bright on September 21, 2009 at 2:00 PM

Obama should just raise the white flag already.

j0 on September 21, 2009 at 2:00 PM

Just when you think he can’t get any worse….

angryed on September 21, 2009 at 2:00 PM

Can’t this guy go ONE DAY without doing something totally wrong/stupid/infuriating/whatever????

zeebeach on September 21, 2009 at 1:40 PM

Alas, it appears not.

As I peruse these threads I can see true fear increasing exponentially. I wish I could say that I felt mis-guided, but I cannot.

With each passing day and it’s accompanying headlines, my level of aprehension is magnified. It is now to the point thatObama’s tenure appears relentless in bringing down all that we hold dear.

I have a deep, dark foreboding that it is not going to get any better either.

Archimedes on September 21, 2009 at 2:01 PM

But isn’t Obama also downsizing/reconfiguring our military more for insurgents that straight up large scale conflicts?

aikidoka on September 21, 2009 at 1:55 PM

We presently have enough of a nuclear arsenal to destroy the entire world several times over. During the Cold War we needed that much, to ensure that if the US were hit first by the Soviets enough nuclear capability would survive to also obliterate the USSR (this is what mutually-assured destruction means).

We no longer face the threat of a massive nuclear strike (if North Korea or Iran were to attack us with nuclear weapons, they’d take out one or two cities at most, and even with the proposed reductions in nuclear weapons we’d still have more than adequate resources to retaliate in kind and then some). We no longer need worldwide Armageddon as a military option–an option to make the northern half of the Korean Peninsula glow in the dark is quite adequate.

hicsuget on September 21, 2009 at 2:01 PM

I’m starting to doubt our collective ability to make it out alive after this administration is through with us. Seriously.

Diane on September 21, 2009 at 1:30 PM

We will. We are Americans and no matter what they do we will fix it.

Just look at the percentages of us who now oppose the Porkulous Bill, ObamaCare, the growth in government just this year, etc. And this is despite the overwhelming media support for all this.

So-called independents more and more are identifying themselves as conservatives and aren’t buying the crap that Obama and company (including the state run stenographers) are trying to sell.

As far as his national defense weaknesses (or deliberate desire to impede same), it’s going to take time to dismantle it and there are plenty of military professionals who can slow things down.

And, don’t forget all those Democrats out there who don’t want to see their entire party completely destroyed.

In the meantime, we’ve got work to do to elect a majority in 2010 in at least the House, which could further slow down the train.

We can do this. We are Americans.

TXUS on September 21, 2009 at 2:03 PM

I just wonder if people around the world understand the import of what’s happening here.

Short answer: Probably not. I’m sure there are elements eagerly looking forward to feasting on the corpse of the USA.

We are really the lone superpower in the world, the bulwark of stability.
What would happen to the rest of the world if we weren’t around keeping things stable and in check?

The result could make the “Dark ages” look like a ‘tea party’ (pardon the expression)

Chainsaw56 on September 21, 2009 at 1:58 PM

I agree with you.

Mary in LA on September 21, 2009 at 2:03 PM

Barry’s Goal:
1. Destroy the US economy.
2. Destroy our allies like Poland by refusing to defend them.
3. Destroy American credibility by surrendering to the Taliban, leaving those who helped us to their tender mercies.
4. Destroy our ability to defend ourselves by destroying the military.
5. Sit back and wait for a totalitarian nation like China or Russia to invade and destroy us.
This clown must really hate US!
The Rock on September 21, 2009 at 1:55 PM

Ohh, I’m really waiting with baited breath for a Leftist to dispute those assertions!

Chainsaw56 on September 21, 2009 at 2:04 PM

He is setting a great example of “acting stupidly”.

workingforpigs on September 21, 2009 at 2:04 PM

Can’t this guy go ONE DAY without doing something totally wrong/stupid/infuriating/whatever????

zeebeach on September 21, 2009 at 1:40 PM

No.

But it’s not just him. This is the flowering of the dream the Left has been harboring for decades. You do know the Hippie “peace emblem” actually symbolizes DEATH TO AMERICA, right?

pseudonominus on September 21, 2009 at 2:05 PM

As I peruse these threads I can see true fear increasing exponentially. I wish I could say that I felt mis-guided, but I cannot.

With each passing day and it’s accompanying headlines, my level of aprehension is magnified. It is now to the point thatObama’s tenure appears relentless in bringing down all that we hold dear.

I have a deep, dark foreboding that it is not going to get any better either.

Archimedes on September 21, 2009 at 2:01 PM

You and me both, my friend.

pseudonominus on September 21, 2009 at 2:07 PM

I’m starting to doubt our collective ability to make it out alive after this administration is through with us. Seriously.

Diane on September 21, 2009 at 1:30 PM

well 2012 is the end of the Mayan Calendar and some say it means the end of human civilization…

phreshone on September 21, 2009 at 2:09 PM

Short answer: Probably not. I’m sure there are elements eagerly looking forward to feasting on the corpse of the USA.

You know what they say, be Real careful about what you wish for.

We are really the lone superpower in the world, the bulwark of stability.
What would happen to the rest of the world if we weren’t around keeping things stable and in check?

The result could make the “Dark ages” look like a ‘tea party’ (pardon the expression)

I agree with you.
Mary in LA on September 21, 2009 at 2:03 PM

I’m in agreement with your point about staying put, I really don’t think anyplace will be safe.

And some people wonder why it’s been difficult to buy ammo since last November.

Chainsaw56 on September 21, 2009 at 2:10 PM

O-M-F-G.

Every day it’s a new revelation.
How much more redonculus is this going to get?
-TV type imagination scene appears above my head with dateline circa 2012.-

King Barack I and Queen Michelle I (whose derriere is now wider than a boxcar) declared today that potato production must double, in order to fulfil the requirements of the Russian vodka industry.

“Uh, I realize that the only non-radioactive arable land is now less than the size of a…uh… large football field, but I trust that the remaining Amerikan people…uh, all twelve hundred of them…can…uh… rise to the challenge demanded of us by our benefactors. We must not forget our obligations to the kind Russian leaders who spared us our remaining crop land by intentionally causing twenty of their missiles to fail to detonate and by accounting for prevailing winds.”

justltl on September 21, 2009 at 2:10 PM

Now that all our enemies have seen what an empty suit Obama is, I wonder what replay of “the missiles of October” we’ll see?

Kafir on September 21, 2009 at 1:41 PM

Nukes to Venezuela. The cover story has already been announced.

MarkTheGreat on September 21, 2009 at 2:10 PM

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

Why didn’t the U.S., Britain and France think of that in the early thirties? It would have turned the Nazis and the Shintos into pacifists and we could have prevented WWII! If only Barack Obama had been President back then.

MB4 on September 21, 2009 at 2:11 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

As long as Obama has a teleprompter, America won’t need nukes anyway.

Cicero43 on September 21, 2009 at 2:15 PM

If hell-bent on lower our stockpiles, could we at least try to drag those “frienemies” along with us? “Hey, guys… err… we’ll cut our supplies dangerously low if you’ll cut your supplies dangerously low…”.
 
Personally, I think better to lead the world in numbers/power than in acquiescence, but if only keeping enough to destroy the earth 5 times is necessary, then I accept. I hate the feeling that we’re laying down with our lovely tenders available for all to poke and attack and are apparently choosing to do so of “our” own choice.

CLaFarge on September 21, 2009 at 2:16 PM

Even Barry cannot be naive enough to believe that if the US does this, then Russia/Iran/DPRK will be more inclined to undertake concessions themselves in return.

So if Barry doesn’t believe that, what then is behind his urge to disarm?

Simple.

Barry sincerely believes that the US is too powerful/dangerous. He is one of those people (whom I’ve experience teaching) who believe that the US’ use of nukes against Japan was genocidal and a crime against humanity.

Track-A-'Crat on September 21, 2009 at 2:18 PM

Track-A-’Crat on September 21, 2009 at 2:18 PM

Actually I think he is going off the 1984 playbook myself.

upinak on September 21, 2009 at 2:18 PM

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.

Crazy terror states shouldn’t be allowed access to nuclear weapons.

Responsible democracies, on the other hand, need them to prevent invasions and extortion from other hostile nations (see: Russia, China).

That’s not hypocrisy. That’s sanity. Leftist foreign policy is emblematic of their moronic utopianism. They don’t understand people, and they never will.

TheUnrepentantGeek on September 21, 2009 at 2:22 PM

again, glad I don’t live in NYC or DC….boom.

right4life on September 21, 2009 at 2:23 PM

This clown must really hate US!
The Rock on September 21, 2009 at 1:55 PM

Ohh, I’m really waiting with baited breath for a Leftist to dispute those assertions!

Chainsaw56 on September 21, 2009 at 2:04 PM

I’m not a leftist, but I’ll bite anyway. There is not one action Obama has yet taken that could not be chalked up to naiveté instead of to malice aforethought. Our President simply has not yet been mugged by reality. Clueless amateur and criminal mastermind are mutually exclusive.

hicsuget on September 21, 2009 at 2:23 PM

Moving to Israel? Who have nukes pointed at them more then the U.S.?

Canada who is in vicinity of the U.S. on two sides and can still feel the effects of fall out?

Think… seriously sit down and think.

upinak on September 21, 2009 at 1:45 PM

I’m a Jew, buttercup. I know where this is going. History repeats itself and considering what people have called me in the past few years, I’m getting the H*ll out before it gets worse than just names.

And I’m Canadian.

If I’m going to be in danger, I’d rather:
(a) be in a country willing to fight
or
(b) be in a country with the rest of the fam.

mjk on September 21, 2009 at 2:23 PM

Ohh, I’m really waiting with baited breath for a Leftist to dispute those assertions!

Chainsaw56 on September 21, 2009 at 2:04 PM

Forgot to mention: the phrase is “with bated breath.”

hicsuget on September 21, 2009 at 2:24 PM

mjk on September 21, 2009 at 2:23 PM

Go to Alaska. We are on the verge of seceding it seems. And you can’t beat the fact is is very much like the Yukon and B.C.

upinak on September 21, 2009 at 2:25 PM

Agh. Get out your Stargate.
We’re gonna need it soon after this surrender.

Badger40 on September 21, 2009 at 2:26 PM

One reason (among many) why I believe that during Democrat(sic) Presidencies the “football” should be passed to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

These people simply cannot be trusted to protect even themselves, much less the rest of us.

Onus on September 21, 2009 at 2:28 PM

Responsible democracies, on the other hand, need them to prevent invasions and extortion from other hostile nations (see: Russia, China).

TheUnrepentantGeek on September 21, 2009 at 2:22 PM

Responsible democracies appearing in front of Russia & China?!
I’m really confused.
Nothing about those 2 countries speaks of democracy OR responsibility.

Badger40 on September 21, 2009 at 2:28 PM

TheUnrepentantGeek on September 21, 2009 at 2:22 PM

OK. NM.
I just had a duh factor.
Hostile nations = Russia & China.
I need to wake up.
It’s homecoming week here at schol. :P

Badger40 on September 21, 2009 at 2:29 PM

We presently have enough of a nuclear arsenal to destroy the entire world several times over. During the Cold War we needed that much, to ensure that if the US were hit first by the Soviets enough nuclear capability would survive to also obliterate the USSR (this is what mutually-assured destruction means).

We no longer face the threat of a massive nuclear strike (if North Korea or Iran were to attack us with nuclear weapons, they’d take out one or two cities at most, and even with the proposed reductions in nuclear weapons we’d still have more than adequate resources to retaliate in kind and then some). We no longer need worldwide Armageddon as a military option–an option to make the northern half of the Korean Peninsula glow in the dark is quite adequate.

hicsuget on September 21, 2009 at 2:01 PM

And we’ll never ever need that option again? I don’t mind reduction in nukes, especially with the survivability of the dominant sea based arm of the triad, but it sounds as though Obama is going well beyond responsible reduction and moving for radical reductions on the way to total disarmament. Kind of like everything else he’s done so far. The cancellation of any work on anything nuclear related (except apparently for “studies”) also doesn’t bode well. Whatever number of nukes we’re left with aren’t going to last forever either.

Essentially though, we have no idea where Russia or China are going to be in 20 years. While it may be difficult politically to use a nuke (though I seriously doubt that if it’s in response to a nuclear attack), it’ll be just as difficult for us to build up nukes again in response to an aggressive nuke building great power. That’s not to mention the unpredictable instability caused by the loss of a serious American nuclear deterrent in a world with the nuclear armed authoritarian states on the march.

jarodea on September 21, 2009 at 2:30 PM

and his willingness to toss away American power and advantage without getting anything in return. His attacks on the economic dynamism of this country are just part of cutting it down to its rightful size and influence among the “world community,” in his view.

Cicero43 on September 21, 2009 at 1:46 PM

Agreed. Unless he can amend the constitution, he needs to do something after he leaves the White House, which he thinks will be in January, 2017.

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

Ciscero43, “and his willingness to toss away American power and advantage without getting anything in return.” Simple and painless so far as HE goes, as he has no concern for America beyond its service to HIM, and so long as it’s us paying his bill, he’ll be moving on as you point out, promoting himself from POTUS-UN-Security-Chairman into UN Secretary General Supreme Commander (as if he can make a decent decision about anything).

Wethal, I agree. This narcissistic “Citizen of the World” began his unending campaign through ACORN and UNIONS toward becoming Weltkaiser via Berlin campaign stop.

Of all Western Europe, the Germanic nations make the hardest resistance to actually buy into Obama. For the US to do so, they dance with glee. But there is no way in hell that Obama would have earned a prestigious university degree in Germany given his one trick, reading aloud. They will repudiate Obama on substance, even while Denmark leads the charge against Islamic Sharia Law. (No, I did not just write that Obama and Sharia are one and the same, though they do relate on dictatorial levels.)

maverick muse on September 21, 2009 at 2:31 PM

Funny, they are doing a remake of “Red Dawn” for 2010 release. I feel like we are currently part of the script.

Oil Can on September 21, 2009 at 2:34 PM

So Pax Americana ends. All that’s kept the world in the rather sad state of peace since the end of WWII has been our nuclear arsenal. That’s the trade we made, nuclear weapons and small wars in exchange for the end to major wars. The only way to forestall the horror of total world war was to make to horrible to conceive. Only nukes could do that.

Obama’s chosen to end all that. Not, apparently, that he’s aware of the choice he’s making. The empty suit makes yet another naive decision based on wishful thinking and an absolute ignorance of the real world.

Watch the Balkins and Eastern Europe. The last two world wars started there. The next will, too.

Strick on September 21, 2009 at 2:34 PM

A general question as an addendum to my above comment, if it’s politically unacceptable to nuke a country as Ed says, why is it going to be politically ok to level them with conventional munitions over several weeks instead? If we’re going to accept the rules of that world (which we may not have a choice I agree) then it sounds like we may as well get out of the entire military business and enjoy the roller coaster ride down.

jarodea on September 21, 2009 at 2:35 PM

Strick on September 21, 2009 at 2:34 PM

he knows exactly what he is doing…turning us into a third-world socialist dictatorship….thats the goal….

right4life on September 21, 2009 at 2:37 PM

I know: let’s just give our nukes to Iran! Then we’ll be BFFs!

Akzed on September 21, 2009 at 2:39 PM

Funny, they are doing a remake of “Red Dawn” for 2010 release. I feel like we are currently part of the script.

Oil Can on September 21, 2009 at 2:34 PM

When life imitates art!

upinak on September 21, 2009 at 2:41 PM

Responsible democracies appearing in front of Russia & China?!
I’m really confused.
Nothing about those 2 countries speaks of democracy OR responsibility.

Badger40 on September 21, 2009 at 2:28 PM

Those would be examples of hostile nations.

/facepalm

TheUnrepentantGeek on September 21, 2009 at 2:41 PM

And we’ll never ever need that option again?

jarodea on September 21, 2009 at 2:30 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).

Due to its small size and small capability for weapons development, North Korea is not a threat to even a dramatically-scaled-down U.S. nuclear arsenal. (The big threat there is that they could threaten to deploy one bomb against Seoul should the U.S. attempt to thwart a conventional invasion against the South, and MAD wouldn’t help us then.) With Iran, the threat is that their own destruction wouldn’t be a deterrent, given the eschatology of their leaders.

Your broader argument—that we should keep our existing stockpiles on-hand just in case we should need them in 20 years—could equally have been used to argue against the reduction in force structure that followed the conclusion of all the 20th century’s wars. At some point you have to beat your swords into plowshares; otherwise there’s not much point to having peace.

hicsuget on September 21, 2009 at 2:43 PM

The worstest president ever. There is nothing he will not try to weaken our country. This man is lower than whale poop.

la.rt.wngr on September 21, 2009 at 2:45 PM

Obama apparently hopes to win concessions from Russia and eventually from Iran and North Korea

CLUELESS!!!!

cmsinaz on September 21, 2009 at 2:49 PM

The ‘store’ is as good as gone.

Griz on September 21, 2009 at 2:50 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3