« | »

Obama ‘Re-Writes’ US Nuclear Strategy

From a positively giddy New York Times:

Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms


April 5, 2010

WASHINGTON — President Obama said Monday that he was revamping American nuclear strategy to substantially narrow the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons.

But the president said in an interview that he was carving out an exception for “outliers like Iran and North Korea” that have violated or renounced the main treaty to halt nuclear proliferation.

He will show them!

Discussing his approach to nuclear security the day before formally releasing his new strategy, Mr. Obama described his policy as part of a broader effort to edge the world toward making nuclear weapons obsolete, and to create incentives for countries to give up any nuclear ambitions.

Unilateral disarmament has worked so well in the past, except every time it has been tried. (For instance, before WWI, before WWII.)

To set an example, the new strategy renounces the development of any new nuclear weapons, overruling the initial position of his own defense secretary.

Well, who would know more about such things? Defense Secretary Robert Gates or ACORN instructor Barack Obama?

Mr. Obama’s strategy is a sharp shift from those of his predecessors and seeks to revamp the nation’s nuclear posture for a new age in which rogue states and terrorist organizations are greater threats than traditional powers like Russia and China.

And by “revamp” they mean make it easier for such rogue states and terrorist organizations to attack with impunity.

It eliminates much of the ambiguity that has deliberately existed in American nuclear policy since the opening days of the cold war. For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.

Those threats, Mr. Obama argued, could be deterred with “a series of graded options,” a combination of old and new conventional weapons. “I’m going to preserve all the tools that are necessary in order to make sure that the American people are safe and secure,” he said in the interview in the Oval Office.

What exactly is the proper “graded option” if New York City is wiped out by an anthrax attack done by Iran?  Which, by the way, is a “nonnuclear states that is in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.”

Would Mr. Obama order a ground invasion of Iran? Or wouldn’t he explain to the American populace that such a thing would not bring back the dead, and that we need to do all we can to understand how we provoked Iran’s anger.

After all, isn’t that what he said after 9/11?

White House officials said the new strategy would include the option of reconsidering the use of nuclear retaliation against a biological attack, if the development of such weapons reached a level that made the United States vulnerable to a devastating strike

Would the destruction of New York City reach the level of a "devastating strike"? How about Boston? Will we have a bi-partisan debate after the attack? Maybe a couple of summits? Will we ask the United Nations to decide what we should do?

The release of the new strategy, known as the Nuclear Posture Review, opens an intensive nine days of nuclear diplomacy geared toward reducing weapons. Mr. Obama plans to fly to Prague to sign a new arms-control agreement with Russia on Thursday and then next week will host 47 world leaders in Washington for a summit meeting on nuclear security…

In the year since Mr. Obama gave a speech in Prague declaring that he would shift the policy of the United States toward the elimination of nuclear weapons, his staff has been meeting — and arguing — over how to turn that commitment into a workable policy, without undermining the credibility of the country’s nuclear deterrent.

It’s all a big show for Mr. Obama. He made a speech in Prague about eliminating nuclear weapons, so now the signing of his ill conceived “arms control” agreement has to be signed in Prague.

And never mind the carbon emitted doing so. (You can’t hug a tree with nuclear arms.)

The strategy to be released on Tuesday is months late, partly because Mr. Obama had to adjudicate among advisers who feared he was not changing American policy significantly enough, and those who feared that anything too precipitous could embolden potential adversaries. One senior official said that the new strategy was the product of 150 meetings, including 30 convened by the White House National Security Council, and that even then Mr. Obama had to step in to order rewrites.

Wow. They took the time to have 30 meetings before changing a policy that has been amazingly successful for 65 years.

Mr. Obama undoubtedly “had to step in” because no one else wanted to be responsible for such a dangerous change to such a fundamental defense policy.

He ended up with a document that differed considerably from the one President George W. Bush published in early 2002, just three months after the Sept. 11 attacks…

Mr. Bush’s document reserved the right to use nuclear weapons “to deter a wide range of threats,” including banned chemical and biological weapons and large-scale conventional attacks. Mr. Obama’s strategy abandons that option — except if the attack is by a nuclear state, or a nonsignatory or violator of the nonproliferation treaty.

So again, if the government of Egypt decides that they have finally had enough of the Jews of New York City and wipes out the town with some chemical attack — since they are neither a nuclear state or a violator of the proliferation treaty — we are left with the option of retaliating in ways that will cost us untold numbers of our military in a grinding and probably unwinnable conventional war.

This makes no sense whatsoever.

Mr. Obama is throwing away our carefully wrought national security with both hands. Policies that have been evolved over the last 65 years by some very brilliant and patriotic Americans.

And all for what? — To placate North Korea or Iran?

It will have exactly the opposite effect.

This article was posted by Steve on Tuesday, April 6th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

19 Responses to “Obama ‘Re-Writes’ US Nuclear Strategy”

  1. mr_bill says:

    On the heels of the announcement of this new nuclear “policy,” I heard Obama has hired a French design firm to redesign our flag. Details are that he wants only one white stripe on the flag; one really, really big white stripe top-to-bottom and side-to-side.

  2. GetBackJack says:

    Back to asking the mostly critical question of our time – who decides who and what are Domestic Enemies?

    Our military take Oaths to defend the Nation. When the worst enemy of all is inside the tent, when do they act to expel the enemy?

    This is a serious question not meant to elicit cat calls and chest thumping about the armed forces.

    • mr_bill says:

      I’ve been pondering the same question for some time. When the actions of an individual are so reckless and dangerous that their only design can be to intentionally inflict harm on our country and imperil its survival, but those actions are not illegal, per se, what legal recourse is there?

      It’s a shame that the founders did not provide for presidential recall in the Constitution, although in their defense, how could they ever have imagined that the voters would ever do such a horrid thing as electing somebody like this.

    • AcornsRNutz says:

      First of all, although I completely see your point and respond in the following paragraph, the slight nit I need to pick is that we do not take an oath to defend a nation. We take an oath to dfend the constitution from all threats foreign and domestic. In theory there would be no difference, but obviously that is not the case. As such, these are my thoughts.

      As one in this situation, I have to be very careful what I say these days, as we are very closely monitored, and I do not want anything I feel to be construed as speaking out in favor of action against my commander in cheif. All I can say is that a good number of people in the military who actually have made a pact with their very God, are deeply troubled by what that oath is starting to mean. I myself have considered leaving the armed forces over the fact that I do not and would not ever profess to condone armed action against our government by the military, but on the flip side of that coin, I can not in good conscience serve at the behest of the very people who are the largest and most dangerous threat to the Constitution I promised God I would defend. It is a difficult and very painful position for we in the service to deal with. The final conclusion I came to is that if and when I am actually called upon to do something detrimental to the Constitution myself, I will refuse and leave the service. At this point the power these goons have to ruin the Constitution is only that which they have been granted by a citizenry that has been complacent too long, and therein lies the source of any repairs that need to be made. Until the citizenry completely fails at its goal to set thigns right, there should be no involvement by the military, and I believe that what the military will ultimately do in that instance would be to simply quit, and refuse to be used as the governments enforcement agency to control the subjects by force. Of course there would likely be a schism within the miltary over this point, but I think the real meat of the military, not the politicians wearing stars but the grunts and patriots who make it function, would likely never stand against the people to enforce an unjust proclamation by a self appointed king. And even though we are a long way from it at this point, if the current trends in government continue, there will have to be a point where the use of force will be the only means of ensuring compliance, and I pray with all that I have in my soul that it is not allowed by the people to get that far while they still have a chance to do something about it. Sorry for the rant.

    • Right of the People says:

      I would think that if the current ruling clique were to issue an order that would be harmful to the country and contrary to the constitution the members of our armed forces could refuse to execute it as it would be an “unlawful” order. If I remember from my time in the military you were not bound to do something that was considered illegal or unlawful.

      I have a little experience in this as once I was ordered to do something that was in direct contradistinction to a regulation concerning my uniform. I refused and when we went before the company commander I quoted the reg which he looked up and told the NCO who’d issued the order that he was wrong. I know this is a small matter but it has applied to much larger issues in the past and I think would give our military the legal footing to refuse.

      I just hope it doesn’t come down to this, the troops having to take sides.

    • proreason says:

      The moron made a huge mistake insulting Generals Petraeus and McChystal.

      More examples of his overweening arrogance and pretension.

      The mark of a bully is domination of the weak and honorable people whose hands are bound by law.

      Bully’s are cowards and mental children.

      Obama is a bully.

      It’s hard to imagine military people supporting him. I think he’s afraid of them.

  3. BillK says:

    This is great:

    For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.

    So, basically Barry has given our enemies carte blanche to fire up their chemical and biological weapons programs as well as to develop EMP weapons without fear of retribution by anything but possibly conventional weapons, unless The Chosen One deems them to be dangerous.

    Guess the Russians can feel free to spin Biopreperat back up and build satellite facilities in other countries.

    I wonder if merely purchasing nuclear weapons on the black market is a violation of the non-proliferation treaty?

    White House officials said the new strategy would include the option of reconsidering the use of nuclear retaliation against a biological attack, if the development of such weapons reached a level that made the United States vulnerable to a devastating strike

    What, precisely, about weaponized smallpox, anthrax and Ebola, all of which the former Soviet Union had in their stockpiles, doesn’t reach this criterion now?

    Apparently to “defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” bit from the oath of office now means “don’t worry, we won’t bother to defend ourselves.”

    Thanks for giving our enemies carte blanche Mr. President.

    By comparison, Neville Chamberlain was a hawk.

  4. beautyofreason says:

    I’m convinced that the biggest factor that has prevented a new world war is the consideration of nuclear arms as a deterrent.

    When Obama denounces their use in order to sound more peaceful on paper, he’s missing the whole point of having nukes to deter war. It’s like a man saying to a robber, ‘hey, I have a gun, but I won’t use it on you, even if you attack me because it’s not a nice thing to do.’

    Russia has sensed this weakness and will plunge forward with their own military objectives, perhaps distributing nuclear material to Iran or Venezuela. And soon our world will be a little less safe for free people.

    Nature hates a vacuum. The world where America is no longer an acting superpower is the world where Venezuela, North Korea, Iran, and mini dictatorships define “leadership” and have free reign to arm as they please. These dictators rightly smell the well-intentioned pacifism of our president as a weakness and will stick to their power grabs until a non-sissy takes office.

    Which unfortunately, is still several years away at best.

  5. misanthropicus says:

    Si vis pacem, parabellum –

    “It eliminates much of the ambiguity that has deliberately existed in American nuclear policy since the opening days of the cold war.” (NYT) –

    Said ambiguity can be (and was so) a very potent deterrent in the confrontation with the Soviet Union and other potential trouble-makers in the word –

    Considering the applause that came from all the lefties who, ironically enough, spent decades protesting and sabotaging exactly what gave them the safety and freedom to protest and sabotage (a deterring military ambiguity), Obama acts again against the very interests of this nation – it’s almost like trying to satisfy the desires of those Norwegian buffoons who gave him the Nobel Prize –

    I simply can see no advantage in formally declare that regardless of the attack on us (or our allies) we’ll be in the outhouse, pants down reading the paper –

    This decision further lessens our safety – and guess what – of the entire world as well –

  6. proreason says:

    I hope he announces the US won’t use nukes under any circumstances.

    What’s with the pussy-footing.

    Take the mask completely off.

    Bring it on.

  7. JohnMG says:

    …..“I’m going to preserve all the tools that are necessary in order to make sure that the American people are safe and secure,…….”

    I mean, what the hell………its only anthrax, you know that seemingly harmless white powdered substance that caused those pussies in the Senate and House to completely cease operations not so long ago.

    Besides, they are now adequately protected, and I’m sure Obama has determined a threshold number of the population that would have to be destroyed or maimed before the devastation reached a level that made the United States vulnerable. In other words, he certainly has considered just how many US lives are expendable before he would act.

    And does anybody believe this?

    …..”In the year since Mr. Obama gave a speech in Prague declaring that he would shift the policy of the United States toward the elimination of nuclear weapons, his staff has been meeting…….”

    or this?

    …..”One senior official said that the new strategy was the product of 150 meetings…….”

    Do the math. That would be three meetings or more a week on this topic alone. The Moron hasn’t held 150 meetings, total, since being seated, although he’s probably had that many date-nights with the Silverback in that length of time.

    How on earth did the American people ever elect this shit-for-brains rabble-rouser to the presidency?

  8. FCAFlyer says:

    Is providing aid and comfort to the enemy not a treasoness act?

  9. joeblough says:

    So are we doing impeachment for treason yet or what?

  10. Mithrandir says:

    This is EXACTLY what you get when you hire a LAWYER!

    They don’t do ANYTHING. They are not business people, or doctors, or insurance actuaries, or farmers, they DON’T produce or make anything!

    They sit around, and micromanage. That is what they do. Do you people get it yet? They sit and make addendums, adjustments, if-this-than-this sub titles, add in a rider or an attachment to an established policy, make an extention here, and augmentation there, flip a few words around and some other editing. THAT’S IT!

    What a brilliant illustration of the folly of electing lawyers to office. When will we learn? Now, not only is our gov’t bogged down in minutia of every day life, it will extend to our nuclear policy. Before we can react, we have to get a team of lawyers together to sift through the leagalese of every situation, and tediously make sure we are robotically acting in accordance with the letter of the policy or law. Add another 2,700 pages of nonesense to a fairly simple nuclear strategy: “You nuke us, we nuke you.”

    • proreason says:

      I’m not so sure it’s a lawyer thing, Mith, since he’s a really really BAAAD lawyer.

      I attribute it to a lifetime of living in a dormroom dream-world with other bisexual and asexual dorks. He really believes his fantasies, and he’s got a megalomania complex that hasn’t been seen in about 100 years.

  11. BillK says:

    Don’t worry about other countries, just nuclear “terrorism.”

    From a fawning Associated Press:

    Obama calls nuke terrorism the top threat to US

    By Robert Burns and Anne Flaherty

    WASHINGTON – Rewriting America’s nuclear strategy, the White House on Tuesday announced a fundamental shift that calls the spread of atomic weapons to rogue states or terrorists a worse threat than the nuclear Armageddon feared during the Cold War.

    The Obama administration is suddenly moving on multiple fronts with a goal of limiting the threat of a catastrophic international conflict, although it’s not yet clear how far and how fast the rest of the world is ready to follow.

    In releasing the results of an in-depth nuclear strategy review, President Barack Obama said his administration would narrow the circumstances in which the U.S. might launch a nuclear strike, that it would forgo the development of new nuclear warheads and would seek even deeper reductions in American and Russian arsenals.

    His defense secretary, Robert Gates, said the focus would now be on terror groups such as al-Qaida as well as North Korea’s nuclear buildup and Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

    For the first time, preventing nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism is now at the top of America’s nuclear agenda,” Obama said, distancing his administration from the decades-long U.S. focus on arms competition with Russia and on the threat posed by nuclear missiles on hair-trigger alert.

    The greatest threat to U.S. and global security is no longer a nuclear exchange between nations, but nuclear terrorism by violent extremists and nuclear proliferation to an increasing number of states,” he said, spelling out the core theme of the new strategy. …


    North Korea and Iran will be happy to hear of our new focus.

    Meanwhile, it’s great to see Barry is making some on the left happy:

    “This is not a breakthrough; it’s a common-sense refinement” of U.S. policy, said Daryl Kimball, president of the Arms Control Association.

    Yet others still whine:

    Some private nuclear weapons experts said Obama should have gone further to reduce reliance on U.S. nuclear weapons as a deterrent.

    There’s no real indication of the deep shifts in thinking necessary to begin giving up the nuclear fix,” said Paul Ingram, executive director of the British American Security Information Council.

    But hey, at least the Italians agree:

    The right signal at the right time,” said Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini.

    We can only hope that whomever succeeds Barry will put us back on a policy of “We will use whatever means we deem necessary to defend the United States.”

    Or for that matter “We begin bombing in five minutes.”

  12. Reality Bytes says:

    Words fail me…OK I’m over it. Obama is hiding behind the words of Reagan while employing the surrender terms of Kruschev. If his decision is based on ideaology, then explain it. If strategic, then explain it. Explain how the suspension of nuclear arms development conforms to his sworn duty up protect America & its citizenry.

    All this will not result in a global Kum Bay Ya moment. Instead this & his other acquiescence will lead to encroachment on our national security that the only result, history tells us will be, WAR.

    Ironically, war may be the only circumstance that could protect Obama from removal from office, either through impeachment or forced resignation. But that’s another subject.

  13. Rusty Shackleford says:

    The boy is emboldened by the passing of hell-care. He now thinks he is untouchable and invincible. This will serve conservatives well as he continues to step on his d___ everywhere and anywhere possible. He believes that anything he says will be taken as the absolute intellectual pure truth, no matter how ridiculous or stupid it sounds.

    Thus, even the smarter libs will say “huh?” when he utters yet another sterling example of his stupidity. Oh, they’ll still think he’s the best thing since sliced bread…but with a bit of mold on it.

    • proreason says:

      The boy is emboldened

      He sure is. I’m all for it. The Moron got this far with the big con. Now we’ll see what America thinks of the unrepentant radical boy king.

      We’ll find out once and for all whether the dual strategies of dumbing down and buying off Americans has worked.

      If BillK is right, and the situation is hopeless, I’d rather know now than later.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »