Be careful above all things not to let go of the atomic weapon until you are sure, and more than sure, that other means of preserving peace are in your hands.” -Winston Churchill in a warning to the United States
The Obama Administration has expressed its opinion numerous times to do away with nuclear weapons. As some like to call it “nuclear zero.” The Nuclear Posturing Review (NPR) was recently released. What were our President’s priority? James Jay Carafano (with the Heritage Foundation for Foreign Policy and International Studies) explains, “The president lists five priorities in the NPR. Defending the U.S. isn’t one of them.”
What are his goals? He lists:
1. Preventing nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism;
2. Reducing the role of U.S. nuclear weapons in U.S. national security strategy;
3. Maintaining strategic deterrence and stability at reduced nuclear force levels;
4. Strengthening regional deterrence and reassuring U.S. allies and partners; and
5. Sustaining a safe, secure, and effective nuclear arsenal.
These goals contradict themselves. The first one is to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and terrorism, but the second one is to reduce our strength. How do you stop proliferation and terrorism without strength? The third, fourth, and fifth are unachievable without a healthy nuclear arsenal.
President Obama and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev recently signed a treaty to reduce our nuclear arsenal by 30%. But Russia has not expressed a positive view towards such treaties, and may not uphold them. Keith Payne with National Review (April 19th, 2010 issue) explains,
Some who are not our allies are no less eager to retain nuclear weapons, seeing U.S. enthusiasm for nuclear zero as a gambit to undercut their security. Russian officials have openly said this. According to the Washington Post, when nuclear-zero proponents ‘tried the idea on [Russian president] Putin in a private meeting in July 2007, the Russian scoffed at the proposal as just another trick to weaken his country.’ More recently, Russian president Dmitri Medvedev emphasized that ‘the possession of nuclear weapons is a defining condition for Russia to conduct an independent policy and to preserve its sovereignty.'” -Keith B. Payne with National Review April 19, 2010
Payne also explains that by reducing our nuclear arsenal we reduce the security of our allies. Especially countries that don’t have nuclear weapons of their own, or have very few due to a lack of resources.
As Payne puts it, “It is important to remember in this regard that their vulnerabilities are our vulnerabilities — their wars become our wars.”
Carafano sets up an alternative list of priorities:
“The correct U.S. defense strategy would emphasize:
a modernized, credible nuclear force;
comprehensive missile defense;
robust conventional forces, as well as vigorous efforts to prevent proliferation, illicit trafficking in nuclear technology and materials; and
That would be a more robust and effective deterrent for a post–Cold War world than Obama’s road to nowhere.”
Indeed, the U.S. is one of the most powerful nation’s in the world, and our allies with many. A reduction in our nuclear arsenal would be criminal. Maintaining our strength is necessary to our own security as well as others. We need to follow Winston Churchill’s advice, to not let go of nuclear weapons. Relying heavily on conventional defences, and reducing nuclear arms, is like bringing a knife to a gun fight, it puts you at a definite disadvantage.
President Obama’s priorities, are just one more voice in the anti-war, everyone should just “get along” movement. It is a ridiculous chance to make this planet a utopia, which is impossible to fully achieve due to the nature of man. Taking steps that are based on the fact that everyone in the world is just out for peace is foolish and unrealistic. President Obama himself has declared, “there is evil in the world.” And yet he is acting as though there is not… Unless the President… Never mind.