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 It’s been replaced by the new and improved Peace Through Appeasement.

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.

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.

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.

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..

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.

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).

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 . . .

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.

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.

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.