Posted on 05/05/2009 12:32:46 PM PDT by La Lydia
...a gaggle of Johnnys - notably former Clinton Defense Secretary William J. Perry and other worthies who should know better - are telling the American people that it is safe and responsible to do the national equivalent of jumping off a bridge. They contend that the United States can prudently get rid of most of our nuclear arsenal, en route to what they say is a desirable end-state: a "nuclear-free" world.
For a sense of how surreal this recommendation is, consider the prospect that Pakistan's virulent Taliban may be within weeks of joining the nuclear "club" by taking over the country and its arsenal. Does anyone really think these Shariah-espousing Islamists - to say nothing of the Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, Iranians - will actually go "nuclear free"?
Worse yet, the "smart people" who espouse denuclearization explicitly embrace another radical idea: the notion that we can allow the continuing, and inexorable, deterioration of what is left of our nuclear stockpile and the infrastructure required to maintain it.
...many of those - including Obama - who favor "global zero" assure us it will take many years to achieve. Until then, Mr. Perry and others blithely aver that our nuclear arsenal must be kept safe and reliable. The logic of the denuclearizers' bridge-jump proposal, however, and certainly its practical effect, is the opposite: to discourage the investment needed to maintain the U.S. arsenal, to say nothing of any development, testing or deployment of new weapons...
Will America jump off a bridge because these "smart people" say to? Or will we recognize that a world in which, among a growing number of others, the marauding Taliban in Pakistan might soon have nuclear weapons is not one in which the United States can safely heed such advice by continuing its denuclearization?
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Use ‘em or lose ‘em?
I suggest using some of our nukes on North Korea, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and any other commie or muslim country which wages or supports war against us.
The BHO administration is doing nothing to stop Iran and N. Korea from getting nukes. At the same time, it wants to get rid of American nukes.
Why not just sell some surplus nukes to Iran & N. Korea (and others, who might try to develop their own)? That would help pay down the U.S. debt & save the expense of reinventing the (nuclear) wheel.
(In today’s world, how can this be satire?)
“Why not just sell some surplus nukes to Iran & N. Korea”
Whoa! Rahm’s going to be mighty steamed about you letting his cat out of the bag. Doncha know this was supposed to be Plan B (after cap and trade) for obtaining the revenues needed for Obama’s health plan?
No wonder they’re not worried about whether the Chinese will continue to be willing to bankroll trillions more in U.S. debt: they’d be happy to pay top dollar for U.S. missiles that are vastly superior to their own.
Russia has more warheads than we do even according to the very liberal publication The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. And we want to sign a treaty with the Russians? The same people who cheated on every other treaty we ever signed with them? (no exaggeration) Obama is dangerously naive, or an outright traitor. Remember, the Russians happily murdered 40 million of their own people and lost 20 million more in WW2, so if they could do the same and eliminate “Glavni Vrag” (the main enemy) in one move, do we trust their humanity not to?
After WW2 we swore there would be no more Pearl Harbors. We seem to have forgotten that. We deserve whatever we get.
That was before we decided to commit suicide to atone for our sins.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.