Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Obama's Deadly Disarmamment Scenario - Reducing US Nukes By 80%
President Obama outlined 3 years ago that he planned to shred America's military and leave the country virtually defenseless. So no one should be surprised at his latest gambit to cut our nuclear deterrent by 80%.
Originally,we had 5,000 nuclear missiles when this president took office. Thanks to the insane START treaty with the Russians, we now have 1500. The President plans to scrap all but 300, taking the U.S. back to levels not seen since 1950. Under this president's new plan, we would have far less in the way of nuclear war heads than Russia and slightly less than the Chinese - if our intelligence is even accurate.
This is exactly what he had planned long ago, and to his credit he was at least occasionally open about it. First, to gut our ground forces and air personnel and then to move on to our nuclear arsenal and finally, our Navy.
As I pointed out long ago,President Obama's model is not FDR but UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and New Labour. And during his decade in office, Blair dealt with Britain's military exactly along the lines of President Obama, emasculating it by cutting its funding to the bone and scuttling most of the Royal Navy, something neither the Germans nor the Japanese managed to do in two world wars.
Blair then used the money for further entitlements to pay off his political backers and bribe voters.
This is not a message to our friends and especially to our enemies of a desire for peace. This kind of unilateral disarmament is a message of weakness. And instead of promoting nonproliferation, it will increase it, since the sheriff has put away his six gun, has decided to become a community organizer and hopes no one is going to shoot him in the back.
The idea with nuclear weapons is not about having more than someone else, but about deterrence. There has never been a nuclear weapon produced in America since WWII with the idea it would actually be used, but the idea that we had them and that they could be if necessary. It was President Reagan's placing missiles in Europe and initiating the Star Wars missile defense system that broke the Soviet Union and destroyed the Iron Curtain.
And now, President Obama wants to not only gut our conventional military but our nuclear umbrella.
In his mind, America needs to be disarmed unilaterally so that we can be forced to be subservient to 'the international community' . Because, in th ewords of his spouse, we're a downright mean country and need to be taken down a few pegs.
Do I question this president's patriotism? Whatever gave you that idea?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
i say this will put his J/A/R above 50%.
I think Obama is a last gasp of the old '90s-era of thinking: Love and peace for everyone, our culture needs to be taken down, etc.
I think the US is long overdue for a new generation of politicians, not these washed up hacks that infest both parties.
I'm not sure I'd question his patriotism but I can understand why you or someone else might. I do think it is safe, however, to question his sanity. The US is essentially bankrupt, its economy is in the dumps, it infrastructure is crumbling, its manufacturing infrastructure is incapable of supplying even its most basic needs, its military personnel and equipment are worn down to the point where even basic national defense is problematic at best. Furthermore due to the massive national debt and struggling economy there isn't the funds available to address any of this in any meaningful fashion in the near to mid term. In addition, there is a severe shortage of the type of skilled personnnel that is needed for manufacturing or infrastructure development.
Given all of these issues that the nation faces, there is no realistic way that it can expect to compete with Russia, China, or any of several other countries in the mid term in conventional military fighting capabilities. In order to have a fighting chance at defending our nation against adversaries who have vastly superior techology and vastly superior numbers, we need to upgrade and expand our nulcear arsenal as well as the means to deliver these weapons. These weapons have the advantage of being less expensive than certain conventional weapons platforms and they give us a decent chance to defend our nation. We need them to be able to be able to neutralize the lopsided conventional strength that the Russians, Chinese, and others will have over us in the coming years.
Post a Comment