Bush's Nuclear Deterrent Disarmament Plan Opposed by Pentagon

Carter's policies would have led to defeat. There was a steam-roller of countries turning to the Soviet Union's orbit. It was only by the grace of God that we were given a stay of execution, and Carter was fired by the voters before his policies could become irreversible. He still runs around like his rejection didn't happen. And he is just as stupid as ever.

Sorry for jumping down your throat, but it appeared that you were ignoring the thrust of the policy critique, and absolving the source based on the truly fine appointments he has made to the national security posts (with the exception of Tom Ridge and Norman Manetta, and his failure to clean house at CIA and DOE). I am just worried that these good appointments of Rummy and Wolfowitz et al., were primarily to put us off our guard, and use their good reputations to silence opposition on the right. Recall the first couple defense budgets pre 9-11? And even now it sucks. Poor Donald Rumsfeld. He plays it straight, and then he has to either resign or make the best of a budget given to him out of ulterior motives. So far he hasn't resigned. But I am wondering just how close he got after being ordered to cease undermining the unilateral disarmament plot of GWB.

LOL! It doesn't take clear vision to see the past.

Obviously, it does in your case or you wouldn't be spouting all this nonsense about how the nuclear disarmament of the United States in the face of a continuing danger from the already numerically far superior Russian nuclear arsenal is such a great thing.

Your choice of the term "Cold War II" is interesting. Should it come to pass, what makes you think that W's policies will ensure a defeat? By your own reasoning, Carter's policies should have ensured a defeat in Cold War I.

Carter never dreamed about disarming the US nuclear arsenal down to the levels that Bush has proposed. When Carter left office, the US had 10,000-11,000 strategic nukes and 30,000 plus nukes overall. Carter's policies were short term and were quickly reversed by Ronald Reagan. However, Bush, only recently elected is likely to get a second term and see his decimation of our strategic nuclear arsenal mostly implemented. Also, there is no visionary Ronald Reagan waiting in the wings to reverse course from Bush's dangerous unilateral disarmament/Communist appeasement policies when Bush leaves office.

Your point is well-taken, but consider the biggest differences:

Carter--Cold War ongoing, Soviet Union hostile.
Bush--Cold War over, Russians "cooperative."

...nonsense about how the nuclear disarmament of the United States in the face of a continuing danger from the already numerically far superior Russian nuclear arsenal is such a great thing.

You say this as it's a fact. If you posted facts, real facts, about how we're doomed, I haven't seen it.

Carter--Cold War ongoing, Soviet Union hostile. Bush--Cold War over, Russians "cooperative."

I think RW2 is saying that Russia is still an enemy, not "cooperative." And he also is alarmed that we may have less nukes than Russia, even though we have enough.

Our "Treaty of Locarno"....

(For some, but clearly not all, of the readers who posted the posts above this one, who are too ignorant to understand what I meant by that, the Treaty of Locarno was the major modification to the Treaty of Versailles which rewarded the recalcitrant, lying and deceptive Weimar Germany with a framework of guaranteed continued appeasesment by the Triple Entente powers as well as a major "see no evil" message vis a vis their already extensive, secret and evil war preparations. Hitler would eventually inherit all of the preps, and it would allow him to surprise the world regarding how quickly Germany would turn to highly effective overt aggression. We have failed to learn from history once again. Pay heed.)

While I sympathize with the intent of your post here, I have to disagree with your read of history. The Treaty of Lucarno in 1925 was a belated attempt by the Allies to mend the massively unjust Treaty of Versailles of 1919 whose very oppressive terms were responsible for the rise of Hitler in the first place. It was concluded with a democratic Germany that was not lying, deceptive or corrupt, but one that was free, though economically downtrodden thanks to the Allies. It was not appeasement in the least. No there was never any appeasement of Hitler until Munich in 1938. Previous to that it was merely a question of allowing the Allied injustices toward Germany to be remedied.

Furthermore to say that Weimar Germany "was engaged in extensive, secret and evil war preparations" is a travesty and injustice to history. Nothing could be further from the truth. Germany was limited by the unjust Allies to an Army of only 100,000 with no tanks, planes, battleships, or heavy artillery. With the exception of some armor and aircraft prototypes tested in Russia, the Germans kept the terms of the Versailles Treaty until around 1934-35 when Hitler began trying to catch up with the much more massive Allied war machines. As late as 1937, the Allies could have crushed the German military with impunity. It took until 1940 for the Germans to build up to a level where victory over France was even hypothetically possible.

The primary lesson of history in the interwar period is not to conclude unjust one-sided treaties that constitute nothing but "the peace of the victors" and only secondarily not to appease one's enemies. Hitler could never have come to power in an economically prosperous Germany whose economy had not been destroyed by the oppressive and vengeful Allies with their $33 billion reparation payments. That being the case without Versailles there would have been no World War Two and thus no "great leap forward" for Communism in 1945-49. With a united Germany in place in the center of Europe allied with the Western powers against Soviet Communism, Communism would have remained checked at the eastern boundary of Poland in 1939. World War Two might have been fought between the West allied with Germany and the Soviet invaders of Eastern Europe.

Had there been no Hitler and no fall of France or Battle of Britain, FDR would not have likely goaded the Japanese to attack us at Pearl Harbor with his oil embargo which he fully expected would lead to a Japanese pre-emptive attack against us. Thus, the US would not likely have gone to war with Japan, which would not likely have invaded the Phillipines, Indonesia, Malaysia or Papua New Guinea and the Pacific Islands in a bid to resupply their Empire. As long as the Japanese Empire and not the Soviet Empire remained in control of Manchuria, Mao's Red Army could not be rearmed and resupplied and could never have conquered mainland China, which accordingly would have remained led by Christian Nationalists for decades thereafter. A war between the Western Allies and Germany against the most murderous regime in world history at the time--Stalin's Soviet Union--would have likely led to Soviet defeat and thus liberation of the entire world from Communism. We could have then dealt with the Japanese Empire at our leisure. History would have been very different indeed and would have turned out much better for the cause of world freedom.

Have you read either "Modern Times" by Paul R. Johnson or "While America Sleeps" by Kagan and Kagan? I think that perhaps there are nuggets of truth in what you wrote, however, I also believe that Weimar Germany was not nearly as innocent as many currently believe (and believed in the past). In fact, one major area of ongoing rationalization on the part of successive UK governments in not dealing with a resurgent Germany was taking the successive Weimar governments outward facades at face value. Vis a vis the 100,000 troop limit this was conveniently eluded by redesignating many troops as "internal security police." At one point I had similar views to what you wrote, however now I have learned a few new things that made me refine my views further. I guess in the end we can agree to disagree, because I know that you are a patriotic American and in favor of many of the same things I am. Take care!

I don't see Russia as the main problem. China is another story. As long as the US has an overwhelming number of warheads and missiles, there is no way they can compete with us. However, If we reduce to less than a few thousand warheads, they will feel tempted to try to achieve parity and superpower status. Here is some info on China's nuclear arsenal.

The problem with both Reagan and the two Bushes is that they have been too optimistic and idealistic about missile defense. They have all seemed to think that if you build a good enough shield you won't need any deterrence at all. It is one thing to not rely exclusively on MAD. It is another to think we don't need an offensive capability. In order for missile defense to be effective, the enemy has to believe that you have a second strike capability.