|
Posted on 04/10/2010 6:02:14 PM PDT by Graybeard58
Who knew? The nuclear-freeze movement, an enterprise run from the Kremlin during the 1970s and '80s, is alive and well. The Obama administration wants to push the reset button on America's nuclear deterrent, essentially by defining WMDs down. Under George W. Bush and his predecessors, Democratic and Republican, an enemy that launched a biological or chemical attack could face a retaliatory nuclear strike. President Obama would not use nuclear weapons in such an instance unless the attacker had nuclear weapons as well.
"Those threats, Mr. Obama argued, could be deterred with 'a series of graded options,' a combination of old and new conventional weapons," The New York Times reported. But everyone knows conventional weapons have limits. Remember "shock and awe"?
Mr. Obama professes to be concerned about protecting Americans from WMD attacks, but he seems not to grasp that an enemy bent on crippling the United States, even temporarily, would be willing to endure a season of shock and awe. Knowing nuclear retaliation has been foreclosed, the enemy's disincentive to use WMDs is inestimably weaker. Moreover, it's no secret in Moscow, Tehran or anywhere else that America is buried under a mountain of debt that may preclude any repetition of the conventional military strategy used against the Taliban and the Husseins.
There is not the slightest hint of evidence America has had a quick finger on the nuclear trigger at any time during the past 64 years. Adding further restrictions to this deterrent would not deter Iran or other rogue states from continuing their quest to join the nuclear club. It may even encourage them to place a bet on resurgent American isolationism by launching a biological or chemical attack against one or more U.S. cities.
In 1982, President Reagan renamed the MX intercontinental ballistic missile system the "Peacekeeper" because he believed it would deter world wars like the ones fought by his generation and the one before it. There is nothing in the historical record to disprove this belief, and much to demonstrate Mr. Obama's posture — a precursor to unilateral disarmament — is enormously risky to America and to Western civilization.
Ping to a Republican-American Editorial.
If you want on or off this list, let me know.
The Kremlin has finally put its man in the wh. So now we do what?
Pray.
It's the ONE thing that our communist handlers CAN'T take from us...
I thoght he was a muslim working for the arabs?
Just a squeegee guy taking everything that isn’t nailed down.
Thanks for the ping Graybeard. I see my thoughts are already reflected in the posts of others.
|
Perhaps the white house needs to be nuked..... maybe his impression would change...it is great to offer America out to sacrifice.
Allah akber! hey obama?
It seems that all of America’s enemies could have collaborated to elevate the Kenyan to the White House.
And, they know that after 1012, there will probably be someone else in the White House, and the U.S. policy can do an about-face.
I’m mostly bothered by the suspension of research and testing, at least as I understand it to be the case.
although he, recently at least, hails from Chicago, apparently Obama hasn't seen The Untouchables. Proportionality increases risk....Obama is an idiot.
“Obama is an idiot.”
There’s nothing necessarily wrong with his being an idiot. What makes him so dangerous is that he’s a hard working idiot.
He’s not an idiot. He’s a dangerous megalomaniac fulfilling his assigned mission to destroy the United States in four years.
You do make a good point, if he was a lazy idiot he'd do less harm.
He IS our FAAP
F irst
A ffirmative
A ction
President
It’s from something I heard in the military. There are four kinds of leaders:
1. A smart, industrious leader.
2. A smart, lazy leader.
3. A stupid, lazy leader.
4. A stupid, industrious leader.
There isn’t too much difference between #’s 1,2,and 3. Even in the case of #3, with a reasonably good army, people down the line can pick up the slack. Can’t happen if the top man is a #4.
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.
I'm not going to get too wound up about this. I don't believe a word of it, and I don't believe that the Russians, the Iranians, or the Nokors believe a word of it. If any of them told us that they wouldn't use nuclear weapons, would we believe them? Of course not. And they're not going to believe Obama. They'll figure it's either yet more proof that the guy is too naïve for words, or it's all just Pablum for his liberal base.