« | »

Obama To Dramatically Reduce US Nukes

From a giddy New York Times:

White House Is Rethinking Nuclear Policy

By DAVID E. SANGER and THOM SHANKER

February 28, 2010

WASHINGTON — As President Obama begins making final decisions on a broad new nuclear strategy for the United States, senior aides say he will permanently reduce America’s arsenal by thousands of weapons. But the administration has rejected proposals that the United States declare it would never be the first to use nuclear weapons, aides said.

Mr. Obama’s new strategy — which would annul or reverse several initiatives by the Bush administration — will be contained in a nearly completed document called the Nuclear Posture Review, which all presidents undertake

What excellent news for Russia and China, and of course their client states, such as Iran and North Korea.

Many elements of the new strategy have already been completed, according to senior administration and military officials who have been involved in more than a half-dozen Situation Room debates about it, and outside strategists consulted by the White House.

As described by those officials, the new strategy commits the United States to developing no new nuclear weapons, including the nuclear bunker-busters advocated by the Bush administration. But Mr. Obama has already announced that he will spend billions of dollars more on updating America’s weapons laboratories to assure the reliability of what he intends to be a much smaller arsenal. Increased confidence in the reliability of American weapons, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. said in a speech in February, would make elimination of “redundant” nuclear weapons possible.

“It will be clear in the document that there will be very dramatic reductions — in the thousands — as relates to the stockpile,” according to one senior administration official whom the White House authorized to discuss the issue this weekend. Much of that would come from the retirement of large numbers of weapons now kept in storage.

Other officials, not officially allowed to speak on the issue, say that in back-channel discussions with allies, the administration has also been quietly broaching the question of whether to withdraw American tactical nuclear weapons from Europe, where they provide more political reassurance than actual defense. Those weapons are now believed to be in Germany, Italy, Belgium, Turkey and the Netherlands.

At the same time, the new document will steer the United States toward more non-nuclear defenses. It relies more heavily on missile defense, much of it arrayed within striking distance of the Persian Gulf, focused on the emerging threat from Iran. Mr. Obama’s recently published Quadrennial Defense Review also includes support for a new class of non-nuclear weapons, called “Prompt Global Strike,” that could be fired from the United States and hit a target anywhere in less than an hour…

While Mr. Obama ended financing last year for a new nuclear warhead sought by the Bush administration, the new strategy goes further. It commits Mr. Obama to developing no new nuclear weapons, including a low-yield, deeply-burrowing nuclear warhead that the Pentagon sought to strike buried targets, like the nuclear facilities in North Korea and Iran. Mr. Obama, officials said, has determined he could not stop other countries from seeking new weapons if the United States was doing the same

That’s right, we’re going to embarrass and shame North Korea and Iran into giving up nuclear weapons by getting rid of our own.

That will work for sure.

At the center of the new strategy is a renewed focus on arms control and nonproliferation agreements, which were largely dismissed by the Bush administration. That includes an effort to win passage of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which was defeated during the Clinton administration and faces huge hurdles in the Senate, and revisions of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to close loopholes that critics say have been exploited by Iran and North Korea.

Yes, we certainly know that Mr. Putin and the Chi-coms, as well as their client states will surely be bound by such treaties.

In fact, who can doubt that if it weren’t for these darned “loopholes” North Korea and Iran would certainly not be doing what they are doing today?

Mr. Obama’s reliance on new, non-nuclear Prompt Global Strike weapons is bound to be contentious. As described by advocates within the Pentagon and in the military, the new weapons could achieve the effects of a nuclear weapon, without turning a conventional war into a nuclear one. As a result, the administration believes it could create a new form of deterrence — a way to contain countries that possess or hope to develop nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, without resorting to a nuclear option.

Huh. Here we thought the one blessing of the atomic age was that that the potential for nuclear annihilation would curb conventional warfare.

We must have been wrong about that.

Apparently, conventional wars aren’t so bad, after all.

By the way, where are we going to put all of the nuclear waste from these retired weapons?

This article was posted by Steve on Monday, March 1st, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

14 Responses to “Obama To Dramatically Reduce US Nukes”

  1. proreason says:

    Well, here is what we can say with certainty.

    Nobody older than 17 is stupid enough to believe that other countries will disarm because we do. Even Obamy doesn’t believe it.

    So this kind of foolish talk has another purpose than trying to make the world safer.

    Don’t forget that the Phd acquaintance of Obamy who was recently interviewed by Newsmax and Brietbart was absolutely clear about one thing…..Obamy at 20 was a hard-core committed Marxist, and not one of the “sophisticated ” European kind. He was a true believer in the revolutionary form of Marxism.

    Fortunately, since Obamy has been elected we can see how he is so totally into revising his world views in reaction to good rational arguments.

    Right?

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      Well, I always wondered what the country would do if an avowed marxist came to power in this country. Now I know—And I’m not happy about it.

  2. BillK says:

    Hey, it’s all OK, this way the number of nuclear powers will remain the same:

    USA: -1
    Iran: +1

  3. Reality Bytes says:

    What’s this about Obama’s doctor telling him to lighten up on the booze?!

  4. joeblough says:

    Do we get to impeach this guy yet?

  5. Liberals Demise says:

    I don’t care………..I ain’t singing no song with the looney left!!

  6. wirenut says:

    From Clancy’s “Red Storm Rising” classic, to Oblameus’ regrettable footnotes. Our history and lifestyles are about to be fundamentally transformed. No longer will the free and the strong be able to help the oppressed around the world. We must tear this nation down to feel the “hurt” of other’s. B.S.! If Clancy’s novel was fiction, Oblameus is sure folly.
    Oh! How many progressives have cut military spending to prop-up social spending? HINT:
    ALL OF THEM!

  7. TwilightZoned says:

    “By the way, where are we going to put all of the nuclear waste from these retired weapons?”

    Bend over Barry.

    • JohnMG says:

      Why don’t we just send them to Iran on a B-2 since we don’t need ’em any more. But in the interest of fairness, I’d be inclined to spread the wealth around a bit, so Afghanistan and a whole host of other places can have some too.

    • TwilightZoned says:

      Splendid idea! Humor me by making sure the first one we share is protruding from Barry’s bottom.

    • Liberals Demise says:

      Allah be praised

    • JohnMG says:

      I’m not sure we can do that under the terms of the Geneva Convention………something about prohibiting biological warfare. Or spreading toxic waste.

    • TwilightZoned says:

      Bottom…mouth. Seems to me either way someone gets exposed to toxic waste. Better them than us. Breach of Geneva Convention…too late!

  8. Liberals Demise says:

    (removed by sender)


« Front Page | To Top
« | »