-
Time to Go for the Kill
May 22, 2013 | 67 comments
-
Obamacare Implodes
May 15, 2013 | 41 comments
-
Obama’s Rising Inequality
May 8, 2013 | 101 comments
-
Downsize the Liberals
May 1, 2013 | 53 comments
-
Fight Back! Privatize the FAA!
April 24, 2013 | 65 comments
Special Report
Obama’s Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament
The decline and fall of America under a pinko, flower-child president.
Perhaps you do not know that President Obama has asked the Pentagon to develop plans to reduce America’s nuclear arsenal by up to 80 percent. That would ultimately leave America with just about 300 nuclear weapons, down from a high of over 31,000 at the height of the Cold War.
In 2010, President Obama completed negotiations with Russia for a New Start Treaty, which reduces America’s nuclear warheads to 1,550. There were effectively no reductions in Russian weapons in return, because the collapsed Soviet empire was functionally unable to maintain the threatening nuclear arsenal it maintained during the Cold War.
President Obama exhibits a very strange lack of recognition of anything that happened during the Reagan years and the 1990s when Republicans gained control of Congress. You can see that in his failure to recognize any of the Reagan economic policies and their astounding success. He acts and talks as if none of that ever happened, perversely returning to the disastrously failed Keynesian economic policies of the 1970s.
Similarly, in foreign policy, President Obama acts and talks as if he doesn’t know that America under Reagan/Bush won the Cold War without firing a shot, in Margaret Thatcher’s celebrated phrase, and the old Soviet power is no more. When he entered office, there were no arms control treaties in effect because the old Soviet Union that was party to START I no longer existed.
In this context, reopening and completing New START Treaty negotiations with the surviving Russian Federation raises troubling concerns about President Obama’s seemingly eerie state of mind. It is as if, so doggedly pursuing the opposite of everything that Reagan did, he is trying to reopen the Cold War, but this time with the opposite result: America loses.
The old Soviet Union cannot easily be put back together. But more troubling for America is that this is no longer a bipolar world. China is a rapidly emerging military power building new, highly advanced nuclear and space weaponry, and a navy that is on course to push American naval forces out of the Western Pacific in a couple of decades, if not sooner. While Newt Gingrich’s political opponents ridiculed his proposal for an American moon base by the end of this decade, the Chinese will have one looking down on our food stamp nation within a couple of decades.
As Frank Gaffney wrote in the February 22 Washington Times:
The Obama Administration continues to assume that the People’s Liberation Army has only a few hundred nuclear weapons — approximately the number to which our commander in chief would like to reduce the American arsenal. A radically different estimate was recently provided, however, in a Georgetown University study led by a former Pentagon strategic forces analyst, Professor Phillip Karber….Mr. Karber’s team concluded that, based on the vast infrastructure China has created to conceal its missiles [3,000 miles of hardened tunnels], it may have as many as 3,000 nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weaponry is also proliferating to Iran and North Korea, and soon to their rivals as America’s nuclear umbrella becomes less and less reliable. That can mean Japan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt, besides Pakistan, which already has nukes that can fall into terrorist hands. And even shrunken Russia recently announced, under its about to be reinstalled President Vladimir Putin, a new $770 billion defense modernization plan with 400 new long range nuclear missiles, quite possibly each one with multiple, independently targeted warheads. This includes modernized ICBMs and submarine launched ballistic missiles. It is all in compliance with President Obama’s New Start Treaty
In this real world of today, agreeing with Russia alone to reduce American nuclear arsenals further makes no sense.
The Reagan Pretense
In his
trip to South Korea last week, President Obama once again extolled
his dream of a world without nuclear weapons, a vision he has
treasured since his days as a radical student leftist at Columbia
University. He announced that, even with the New Start nuclear
reductions, he “can say with confidence that we have more nuclear
weapons than we need.” That is why he asked the Pentagon to prepare
plans for him to reduce America’s nuclear deterrent by up to 80
percent. As Frank Gaffney
explained in the March 27 Washington Times, President
Obama declared in South Korea that “since he is convinced we have
more of those weapons than we need — he is going to reduce our
arsenal. According to some accounts, he has in mind cutting it to
roughly the size of Pakistan’s.”
President Obama pretends that he is just carrying out Reagan’s professed dream of a world without nuclear weapons. But that was to be for a day with highly advanced nuclear missile defenses, when the world did not include such aggressive military rivals as still threaten us.
President Obama secured enough Republican votes for passage of the New Start Treaty by promising to expand and complete U.S. missile defenses, and to modernize our own badly aging nuclear deterrent. That involved completing all four phases of the planned U.S. missile defenses in Europe and nearby seas, and modernizing and completing the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) on the American homeland. That also involved promises to fully fund America’s depreciating nuclear weapons laboratories essential to keeping up with the modernization of the Russian and Chinese arsenals.
But President Obama is backing down from those promises. He never proposed or supported that full modernization funding. As Gaffney explained in the February 22 Washington Times, “the administration also is walking away from its promises to modernize what remains of our deterrent. Over time, the practical effect of combining the draconian nuclear cuts Mr. Obama seeks and his failure to arrest and reverse the atrophying of the obsolescing arsenal will leave us functionally disarmed.”
While America never ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, it voluntarily follows a policy of no testing. That means we cannot be sure of the degree to which our nuclear arsenal is actually functional. President Bush was pursuing the Reliable Replacement Warhead program, which would have modernized America’s force with much more reliable, new, modern weapons that would not need as much service and maintenance over time. But vigorously opposed by the Democrats, the program has been terminated by President Obama.
About the Author
Peter Ferrara is Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy at the Heartland Institute, General Counsel of the American Civil Rights Union, Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, and Senior Policy Advisor on Entitlements and Budget Policy at the National Tax Limitation Foundation. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under President George H.W. Bush.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (92) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Peter Ferrara
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/04/04/obamas-unilateral-nuclear-disa
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Jack in Wi.| 4.4.12 @ 7:53AM
Reagan's dream was to rid the world of nuclear weapons. He signed huge nuclear arms reduction treaties. There is nothing more unchristian and insane, then a MAD doctrine. It would destroy hundreds of millions of people and poison the world for thouseands of years. I haven't studied Obama's proposals in any depth. But if they reduce nuclear weapons good for him.
BTims| 4.4.12 @ 8:14AM
Why aren't you out protesting against tiny reductions in entitlements for the government class Jack?
What a joke. Hussein bin Obama, like his mommy, a left-wing, academic, peacenik. He is even against missle defense. Duh.
Only problem with that mentality Jack is one can not guarantee what others do, others like Russia, China, and the Mohammedans (Barry's people).
Once The One (termer) is dispatched in the fall, we will begin to rebuild US forces, in particular, the Navy, the Air Force and our strategic nuclear forces.
ENOUGH ROPE| 4.5.12 @ 5:25AM
Obama is the most anti-Christ, most anti-American, and most racist American president ever. That should become a superpac campaign slogan.
Months ago, Mark Levin interviewed John Lott (More Guns, Less Crime) who was employed by the U Chicago Law School while Obama taught there. According to Lott, Obama did NOT teach constitutional law.
Conservative Not Republican| 4.4.12 @ 11:21AM
Don't fret, Mr. Ferrara, Obama only has 4.5 more years, then you and the rest of the neocon warmongers can build nukes till you are blue in the face. BTW, calling people names like Pinko is sophomoric, don't you think?
Conservative Not Republican| 4.4.12 @ 11:32AM
I'll wager BTims is a self-described Christian, who thinks the word Peacenik is a slur. "Jesus hated peace, he was a warmongering NeoCon!" Jesus will smite thou.
SpiralArchitect| 4.4.12 @ 3:28PM
Yes, Marxist is the accurate term.
Mike Hawk| 4.4.12 @ 11:40AM
Stepped on your pecker with both feet again Jackov. Suggest you get off it.
Nancy in NC| 4.4.12 @ 8:04AM
Doesn't it just give you the warm and fuzzies to see the leader of the free world all cozy with the leader of Russia? And how unfortunate that an open mic caught the little "after my election" snippet?
I know I'll sleep better knowing the president wants to make us weaker as a Nation. Seems he wants to do more than spread the wealth around. It just wouldn't be "fair" if we had more nuclear weapon than say...North Korean.
Kingofthenet| 4.5.12 @ 12:11AM
Yeah, because it makes you STRONGER to kill 100 million people a little more efficiently. You don't want them dying in agony a few weeks later from Radiation poisoning, you need to have they vaporized.
Teaghan| 4.4.12 @ 8:06AM
What good does it do Jack if they have them but we don't. Perhaps you need to reread the article.
Timothy L. Pennell| 4.4.12 @ 9:57AM
He doesn't seek a World without Nukes. He seeks an AMERICA without Nukes. He seeks an America without Borders, an America without a Middle Class, an America without Jobs, an America that doesn't Drill it's own Energy Resources on FEDERAL LANDS, an America with a Decimated Armed Forces, and an America that will Turn Away from its Founding Fathers, Founding Documents, Founding Principals, and God.
"Barack will never let you return to your lives, as usual. He will change our History, our Traditions, and the way we do things."
He HATES this Country, and every White Skinned Man, Women, and Child, that does not bend his or her knee, to HIM.
He HATES the Church, for "The Muslim Call To Prayer, is the most beautiful sound in the world", and we've already got a Messiah - HIM. That is why he refused to speak at Georgetown University, unless they agreed to REMOVE all References to JESUS CHRIST, from the room where he was to speak. He pushes the Christian Church, and the Jewish State, even as he Kisses the Ass of Godless Russia, and the Blood Soaked Religion of Peace, in the Middle East.
His goal is to weaken the only Force on Earth, that dares stand up, against his Murderous Brethren. Tell me what he's done that makes us STRONGER. Militarily, Economically, Energy Wise, or even as a People. He has been a DIVIDER of us, since Day 1. By Race, by Creed and by Colour. By Religion, by Class, and by Legal vs. Illegal Status. He has waged War on E Pluribus Unum, in an effort to Divide and Conquer.
He is the Enemy of the State, the Manchurian Candidate, and The Destroyer of Worlds, rolled in to The One.
Israel sits on a Razor's Edge, as the man who refused to "MEDDLE" when the Iranian People, took to the streets, in search of FREEDOM, Fed the Islamists' desire by Abandoning Mubarak, and removing Khaddafi, and handing Libya over to them, while doing NOTHING, as THOUSANDS are Murdered in the Streets of Syria.
And now he has betrayed Israel, not once, but twice, by revealing Ultra Secret Attack Plans and Strategies, that can only Help IRAN.
"And I saw the BEAST rise from the Sea. And he was given a MOUTH, to speak Haughty and Blasphemous words. And he was allowed to exercise Authority for forty two Months." Revelation 13-5.
It couldn't be more obvious.
It's as plain as the Fat Ass in Michelle's pants.
MadMadder | 4.4.12 @ 10:18AM
The only hate I see is the hate you're pouring out....
It's funny how you quote the bible, like you know it, then ignore the message of Jesus' love, with this spewing rant of hate you posted.
Tim the Enchanter| 4.4.12 @ 2:25PM
Jesus did not love evil.
A Grin without a Cat| 4.4.12 @ 12:25PM
"Barack will never let you return to your lives, as usual..."
Whom are you quoting? Is this quote exact, or is it a paraphrase?
Skippy| 4.4.12 @ 1:43PM
It's a tattoo.
All the Dem's have one like it.
Motorhead| 4.4.12 @ 1:50PM
Moochelle - and she oughta know!
SpiralArchitect| 4.4.12 @ 3:34PM
President Decline is the equalizer. He has longed to bring America down to the likes of 3rd world nations.
Anyone that wants to look can find this information from his own words from many statements over many years.
Too bad that the ignorance of some will lead to the demise of most of American citizens.
Fret not, the usurper will remain safe & continue living in the lap of luxury as American's suffer as he enacts his payback to America for the things they have done - achieve liberty & freedom for her citizenry.
This person has not been impeached nor is there even talk about such actions - this nation will fold if we invite the totalitarian to stay longer.
numbatdog| 4.4.12 @ 8:38AM
MAD worked well because either side had the capability to shower each other with thousands of nukes, an unsurvivable attack.
Having a limited amount of ICBM missiles, even with multiple warheads means having to think twice before committing even one. In short, they become too important to use at all.
This changes the MAD balance as a limited nuclear attack on the USA might not attract immediate retaliation but instead a government conference and a begging letter to the UN.
SpiralArchitect| 4.4.12 @ 3:36PM
we could receive a multiple nuclear stike in the USA and I doubt the usurper would even consider any form of retaliation. Because America deserves such a demise (his opinion is clear on what should happen to the US) not because of some unknowm morality he may have.
Von Mises Jr.| 4.4.12 @ 8:44AM
In the eyes of Agenda21 "One World Government" elites, if they cannot undermine our unalienable rights in our Constitution that creates our liberty and freedom; perhaps the only option left is to take America down militarily.
This may sound nuts; but look carefully at what Marxism promotes: "One World Socialist Government," "material productive forces" that take us from direct exchange to capitalism to late capitalism (where they think we are now) to communism and finally pure socialism where everybody is perfected to the point where they no longer need Dictators and "Brown Shirts" (since the people cooperate willingly with the "General Will). And they advance the achievment of these goals through violent revolution.
So methinks I am not crazy for simply pointing out how crazy a hairbrain scheme Marxism and socialism have always been.
Watch Agenda21 YouTube "for dummies" to learn what our "Dear Leaders" have in mind for Constitutional America. It will open your eyes to why things are occurring. As Allen West said, one must know one's enemy.
SpiralArchitect| 4.4.12 @ 3:42PM
Global population reduction is another component of NWO type plans.
Dr. X| 4.4.12 @ 10:03AM
This is an excellent article about a VERY serious problem that is not getting nearly enough press.
Nuclear weapons are necessary as a deterrent to preserve the peace. The doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction worked quite well for the 40+ years of the Cold War.
What is not widely understood about the danger in Obama's plan to cut the U.S. deployable nuclear arsenal to 300 or below is that in order to overcome an opponent's second-strike capability, a nuclear power will target his opponent's weapons, before targeting his cities. This is known as counterforce targeting.
If our deployable nuclear arsenal is sufficiently small, it creates the possibility that an opponent can target most or all of our deterrent arsenal, undermining deterrence and enabling him to launch a successful first strike without fear of a second-strike response. Thus, deterrence fails, and he can win on the first strike.
One thing that is not mentioned here is that America's "nuclear umbrella" extends over Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, Australia, Canada, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and and Western Europe. 300 warheads is FAR too few to extend security guarantees to all those nations.
Thus the paradox of Obama's nuclear self-castration is that it is likely to perpetuate a global nuclear arms race as regional powers no longer confident upon American nuclear security guarantees strive to acquire their own nuclear arsenals.
"Pinko flower child" is exactly what Obama is. It's high time somebody said it. Question is, how are we going to rid this country of such people without a second civil war?
MadMadder | 4.4.12 @ 10:24AM
All those Countries without Nuc's must be so worried that they are weak, almost on the verge of being over ran without Nuc's to protect them..... lol.
Calvin| 4.4.12 @ 10:11AM
The left bet the farm on non-proliferation but never realized that it could only be achieved through active strength. That idea is really over despite what happens in Iran. We have to consider how we will defend ourselves from all sorts of nuclear threats. Peace through weakness is not an option. Well I guess it is to the various ideologues of the left and "right".
Gerald Wells| 4.4.12 @ 10:19AM
If Obama is elected again, then would be the time for "Seven Days in May". Under military rule would be better that being under Obama. Without a strong military our country would be taken over by our enemies.
Dr. X| 4.4.12 @ 12:28PM
I agree 100%. Would you rather be ruled by the patriots in the USMC , or by Obama?
Frankly I'd take the USMC.
DRed| 4.4.12 @ 2:09PM
When do I report for the concentration camp, doc?
SpiralArchitect| 4.4.12 @ 3:46PM
Fema camps have been built around the country and stocked with food supplies (easy to find on google).
Homeland Security (nice name, right) has signed a contract for 450 million hollow tip rifle rounds (those are bullets, Jack). To be used for what??
The lists go on & on but what could be the purpose??
My concern is we will see very soon exactly what they are for...
jjheinis| 4.4.12 @ 3:51PM
Well, I guess this is the start of Rush'es Reich
DRed| 4.4.12 @ 4:05PM
The only logical deduction is that they plan to shoot us all.
Or, maybe they've entered into a contract that guarantees a price for all bullets ordered over a certain period of time up to a maximum of 450 million.
Conservative Not Republican| 4.4.12 @ 6:12PM
Your tinfoil hat is on a bit tight, ain't it? Geez Louise.
Kingofthenet| 4.5.12 @ 12:58AM
Remember it's better to be on the Bridge of the Death Star, than on Tatooine
BackToBasics| 4.5.12 @ 12:58AM
The Feds are also giving more armored military hardware to police departments all the time.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/.....partments-
Dr. X| 4.4.12 @ 4:03PM
Soon as I'm in charge, pal.
DRed| 4.4.12 @ 4:07PM
haha. The best thing about you is that nobody on here seems to understand that there's an actual fascist leftist among them.
smith| 4.4.12 @ 10:26AM
What scares the living hell out of me is, the resetting of the goal posts for the worst president ever. I thought Jimmy Cartor had this distingustion sewn up... But this ingorant, arrogrant, nuclearego, manaic has blown by Jimmy like he was backing up. How low can he go?
Dr. X| 4.4.12 @ 12:26PM
Comparing Obama to Carter is a faulty comparison. Obama is FAR worse.
Carter was a weak and ineffective president. However, the following can be said of Carter that cannot be said of Obama:
1) Carter was actually a real Christian.
2) Carter had serious military service by serving as a naval officer on nuclear submarines
3) Carter actually ran a business that hired employees and paid taxes and needed to make a profit (the family peanut farm).
I'm not defending Carter. I'm saying that Obama is worse by an enormous order of magnitude.
SpiralArchitect| 4.4.12 @ 3:47PM
Carter, I believe, remains a proud American.
Conservative Not Republican| 4.4.12 @ 6:10PM
Bellyachers. You get the govt. you deserve. America overwhelmingly voted for him. Now deal with it. Sore loserman.
Anthony| 4.4.12 @ 10:45AM
Meanwhile, Obozo has NASA and its infrastructure rusting away on the launching pad, with nothing to launch.
I wonder if the Russians "profile" Americans, like cab drivers do, when we stand on the corner asking for a ride to the space shuttle?
But not to worry, Obozo has NASA's Hansen out chasing Anthropogenic Global Warming and praising the Muslim's for their contribution to science.
What' s the cost of the "cab ride" to the space shuttle, does anybody know?
cuban pete| 4.4.12 @ 10:50AM
Years ago some Greek guy said something like, "If you want peace prepare for war".
Dr. X| 4.4.12 @ 12:30PM
It's a Roman phrase. "Si vi pacem, para bellum." The "9mm Parabellum" cartridge is named after this phrase.
loupgarous| 4.8.12 @ 1:10PM
A Roman named Vegetius said that around 300 AD, in a book on military strategy (De Rei Militari) which was for centuries afterward the STANDARD text on the subject. Greece had long since ceased to be significant militarily by then.
Bob| 4.4.12 @ 11:15AM
While I agree that Obama's foreign policy with regards to nuclear weapons, especially in a world where Russia is a former world power and several emerging and regional powers are acquiring nuclear weapons, is naive and disastrous, that last paragraph was a little too much fear mongering, don't you think?
rcw| 4.4.12 @ 12:09PM
the continued use of "naive" by the author and in comments is horrifying. shows that even the relatively aware refuse to believe the obvious re Obama's intentions.
BTW Use of "well-intentioned" to describe every hare-brained idea of the left is similarly obtuse.
Bob| 4.4.12 @ 1:18PM
Anyone relatively aware can plainly see that Obama aims to ruin the US and turn it into "just another country". There are many ways in which Obama can be naive, such as assuming the American people will just sit back and do nothing.
SpiralArchitect| 4.4.12 @ 3:48PM
Indeed. This admin is quite transparent and you have seen the agenda clearly.
loupgarous| 4.8.12 @ 1:21PM
No, it's not. Not unless you think the warheads on the 72 Topol-M ICBMs Russia has purchased since the 1990s have a chewy nougat filling, and that the Chinese intend something unlike domination of their corner of the world with the 1,000 or so (that's almost certainly a low-ball figure, but the best we have from the Pentagon's Quadrennial Military Reviews) nuclear-armed ICBMs. I found that last paragraph to be almost low-key considering the real dimensions of the nuclear threat we face from two countries which have never disavowed their view of us as an obstacle to their global military ambitions.
Of course, there were people who thought that Churchill was "fear-mongering" up until the moment German troops entered France.
loupgarous| 4.8.12 @ 1:23PM
self-correction: not all of the Chinese nuclear-armed missiles are ICBMs. Only a few hundred are, most notably the DF-31s. But ALL of them have the capacity to wreak mass havoc on SOME target, and it's ridiculous to believe that ANY of them aren't targeted on us or one of our allies.
dnr| 4.4.12 @ 12:18PM
What is the strategic goal of the nuculer arsenal and how many bombs are required?
300 nuculer bombs would devastate all the other nuculer powers, ally and adversary, in one go. If more than that is necessary, how many is enough?
dc| 4.4.12 @ 12:46PM
DNR and other idiot pacifists on this comment thread:
First, learn to spell.
Second, what Dear Leader (aka Russians' Bitch) Maobama is doing to anti-missile defenses is almost worse than what he intends to do to dilute or destroy offensive missile capabilities. The Soviets/Russians have been building and improving their own missile defenses since the mid-1980s, including rail-mounted mobile ABM batteries. China has them too, meaning the Norks have them if they ask, meaning, the Iranians will soon have them too. Can the U.S. know for sure which of its aging 300 warheads will actually get through an ABM defensive shield? Of course not. Which is why, the value of an offensive deterrent is inversely proportional to the nature/number/quality of ABM defenses possessed by the prospective deter-ee. I know it's hard for leftist assmonkeys to understand, because they wallow so deeply in ignorance, self-righteousness, and the historically illiterate belief that one's own weakness and cowardice deters aggression, but the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, Norks, and others really do want America weak and defenseless, so that it's easier to first blackmail, then kill us. They don't give a Flying F how many, by the way. They killed tens of millions of their own people in the service of the ideology you leftists still worship--what makes you think they will hesitate to do the same to us IF we keep heading down the Neville Obama road to unilateral disarmament and advertised weakness?
Also, if you're going to bother to comment on Ferrara's articles, at least try to address one or more of his arguments. He's not foolproof, and neither am I, but whining, sniveling, stating that it's better for the U.S. to be a supine, slave nation, and saying "you're a meanie" can't be all you have in response, right? Right?
jjheinis| 4.4.12 @ 3:56PM
How about a first strike? I will drink some of the fluoridated water which Commies don't drink a la General Ripper in Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove: or how I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb.
SpiralArchitect| 4.4.12 @ 4:02PM
Probable that you used too many words to make your point(s) greatly reducing any likelyhood of any liberal retort.
dnr| 4.4.12 @ 4:56PM
So how many is enough? Ten thousand? 50 thousand?
billg| 4.5.12 @ 10:55PM
Probably what we have right now assclown. That's the point of the article.
Conservative Not Republican| 4.4.12 @ 6:09PM
We wouldn't need one nuke if we minded our own g-d business.
loupgarous| 4.8.12 @ 12:42PM
Actually, we minded our own business before World War II and Japan attacked us. We needed at least two nukes to wrap that episode of our history up.
BackToBasics| 4.5.12 @ 12:53AM
What makes you think he will stop at 300 if he is reelected? I could see him cutting us to zero nukes and then spout off some dribble about how we are setting an example for the rest of the world.
Some example, try being blackmailed or conquered by a foreign power with nukes.
loupgarous| 4.8.12 @ 2:45PM
The current goal of the US nuclear arsenal is deterrence of attacks through readiness to destroy military targets in other countries. These targets can be weapons of mass destruction or conventional targets such as enemy military bases or troop formations. And 300 weapons wouldn't even suffice to destroy ONE adversary's military if the military we're speaking of is China's or Russia's, spread across several time zones and millions of square miles. A "simple" pre-emptive strike on (say) the Russian nuclear arsenal would require more than 300 missiles because there are over 1,000 missiles to hit and many of them are in hardened silos. Past targeting guidelines have called for two or even three weapons per silo for a counterforce strike, so that even with MIRVing and three weapons or so on each missile, you wouldn't have even 1,000 warheads on those 300 missiles. And that's completely neglecting enemy cities or leadership targets (such as their underground control bunkers, of which there are several).
Again, that's just positing a SINGLE adversary. If, as is probable, Russia and China continue their current informal alliance against us, we would have TWO or MORE counterforce strikes to make, requiring several thousand warheads to kill every military target we would want to destroy.
That being the case, 3,000 warheads seems to be a reasonable ground figure - the LEAST that a prudent targeter would need to hit every target in a war against China and Russia. At our current MIRV bus loading of three warheads per missile, that would be a minimum of 1,000 missiles.
I'd like to add here that so far, being armed to the teeth has served us well. We have used NO nuclear weapon in anger since Nagasaki, despite a total of 50,000 weapons existing at one point during the Cold War.
Having fewer nuclear weapons, while intuitively safer, might actually lead a reckless adversary (such as Putin has revealed himself to be) to believe his generals when they say they can declare a "limited nuclear war" in order to resist pressure from other nations to do something or other (or stop doing something, like invading Georgia).
During the most tensely-armed period of the Cold War, a ground war between Soviet and US forces was "unthinkable" because of the potential for escalation to a general conflict in which nuclear weapons would be used. We have seen since the collapse of the Soviet Union that Russia has felt free to invade allies of ours such as Georgia to demonstrate their political and military control of the region (and also demonstrate the limited value of alliance with the United States of America).
A future in which official limits on the number of nuclear weapons on missiles exist might actually serve to embolden irresponsible foreign leaders to act in ways that would provoke a response from the United States of America - and we have to contend with the fact that at present we rely on our nuclear arsenal as a force multiplier that reduces the number of men we have to have under arms and probably keeps us from having to have a military draft to defend the country. Reducing the size of the nuclear arsenal means re-instituting the draft or accepting attacks on the United States of America which would formerly be unthinkable. Considering that we now have had to concede control of large acreages along the border of Mexico to criminal gangs, it's not unreasonable to think we're already entering that era.
Vox Populi| 4.4.12 @ 1:14PM
"How are we going to rid this country of such people without a second civil war?"
Exactly. Exactly.
It gets worse. Britain, under its COIN Prime Minister, has destroyed most of its nuclear arsenal and delivery systems.
Find a good, isolated hill-top and fortify it.
Prey the birthers get solid evidence. fast.
SpiralArchitect| 4.4.12 @ 4:06PM
Keeping The Food Stamp President out of the White House after this year will only be accomplished by keeping the usurper off the ballot.
This Gov mandates people have ID present to see a doctor to verify their insurance yet the same Gov sues states that trie to madate voter ID - states that provide all means (at no cost, that means free, Jack) to obtain said voter ID
davelnaf| 4.4.12 @ 1:52PM
After this past week it doesn’t surprise to learn that Obama is willing to sell-out our nuclear deterrent for no other reason than to puff himself up, in his own eyes, as an historically significant figure, which he is not in any substantive way. Had Obama been a mediocre Clinton-like president such a promise, given as it was on the sly to a Russian autocrat, would have produced a volcano of criticism. There has been a decent amount of criticism of the promise, but not a Krakatoa, and the simple reason is that we’ve gotten used to the indescribable awfulness of Obama.
The presidents since Reagan have left something—sometimes a lot—to be desired. We were bound, sooner or later, to get a very bad president, who, inhibited by temperament, intellectual shortcomings, and ideology, could not serve competently to save his—or her—life. We’ve gotten one now and his reelection, we recently learned, also hangs like a sword of Damocles over our heads.
kwan| 4.4.12 @ 2:46PM
Why doesn't Commander-n-Traitor Obama raise a white flag and surrender the United States to Zimbabwe. No doubt Mugabe one of his Marxist heroes would be very pleased.
jjheinis| 4.4.12 @ 3:46PM
Here is a question for the "conservative" who replies to this post. Who is the TARGET for these nuclear weapons? The USSR (disintegrated to the CIS and related states), the PRC (now supplies the manufactured goods of the world), North Korea, Cuba, Iran. There are plenty of warheads left over.
etta| 4.4.12 @ 4:59PM
The justification for the nukes is to deter the crazies like iran and n korea. The justification for missle defense is the nukes don't deter crazy folk. The important consideration is both systems are very expensive and channels money to the primary target.
loupgarous| 4.8.12 @ 1:01PM
Answer: Why do the Chinese need at least 1,000 nuclear warheads? They're allied with the Russians in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. So whom, exactly, are those weapons pointed at? Us.
Answer: Why, exactly, have the Russians been building new land-based and submarine-launched ICBMs? Just in the past 15 years, they've added at least 72 Topol-M ICBMs (both silo and mobile launched versions) while we took the Peacekeeper ICBM completely out of service. Who are they contemplating their doctrine of "limited nuclear war" (their words) against?
Counting the various Topol ICBMs and the legacy systems such as the SS-18 Satan, there are many more than 300 targets for counterforce strikes alone in Russia, before we touch the first city in that country. There are many more than 300 Chinese ICBMs, and realistically, every one of those is targeted on us or one of our allies.
I don't know what world you live on, but here on Earth, there are several THOUSAND nuclear weapons on missiles pointed at the United States of America by nations whose military and political leaders have at one time or another threatened us with them. That Obama is considering reducing our nuclear arsenal at all in an age when the number of nuclear powers is INCREASING is folly. Unless it's treason. In either case, it's another reason we need a new President.
Fielding Melish| 4.4.12 @ 4:11PM
This column ends on a [very] serious note, the Nation's survival and I whole heartedly agree. But what to do about it in the mean time, with the time Obuckethead has left?
My plan: Lure POTUS to the Pentagon with some ruse or another and separate him from his security detail, [could be possible in a pseudo friendly atmosphere]. Then secret him to the Pentagon dungeon with a sack over his head and a sock in his mouth. When anyone is asked where POTUS is, a shrug of the shoulders is all anyone is able to express -- dunno, search-me, can't help-ya, check the head??? Of course, this would involve some consequences, so a modicum of discretion is advised -- good luck!!! We'll need it!!!
Indy| 4.4.12 @ 4:46PM
I will never forget the Lame Duck captiulation votes, the New Start Treaty had plenty of GOP supporters, they are at fault, all of them. Lugar has a lot in his history we don't know...
Where does his funding come from? Here's one PAC I didn't know about until recently
http://www.trevorloudon.com/20.....peace-pac/
Conservative Not Republican| 4.4.12 @ 6:06PM
Nothing conservative about an arms race.
billg| 4.5.12 @ 10:58PM
It worked pretty well during the 80's, eh..... l Selective amnesia is grand.
loupgarous| 4.8.12 @ 1:26PM
No, according to you, to be conservative we must disarm, grab our ankles and drop our trousers when Vladimir Putin approaches. Your view of "conservatism" is odd, indeed.
ABNCP| 4.4.12 @ 6:14PM
When are the majority of Americans going to bite the bullet and realize that Obama was put in place by a Soros cabal to do everything he could to ruin, weaken, degrade and divide this country. When is someone going to put together a list of the actions he has put in place since he became President (God help us) and the results that are going to, or have followed from those actions. Nothing good will or has come from them. If the Republican nominee for President would use that list for talking points he could not lose. The many horrible political decisions Obama has put in place cannot be coincidence, there are far too many of them and they are far too distructive to this country. They are all part of the agenda Soros structured for him to put in place.
Mark in LA| 4.4.12 @ 7:01PM
Reagan's economic policies, huh? I wonder how Obama (or anybody for that matter) would look if the guy previous to you put in Paul Volker as FED chief who then broke the back of the inflation plaguing the economy in the 70's allowing interest rates to fall all during you administration. I wonder how you would look if you deficit spent and trippled the national debt. Imagine an endless stream of new credit cards you never pay off. Yeah, what a "miracle".
Of course Bush got to take the blame for the S&L crisis Reagan left him and the middle class got to take the shaft for his support of illegal aliens, guest workers, and free trade.
jstwndring| 4.4.12 @ 7:25PM
So, the Republicans screwed us again, eh? What a surprise. I find it amusing that the bulk of blame is being directed at a man (Obama) who is obviously an enemy to the Republic while largely ignoring those Republicans who are enabling this Muslim Marxist to carry out his plan to destroy us. Again, I see little difference between the two parties. Will the Republicans EVER do ANYTHING to reverse ANY Democrat Party plan to weaken us militarily, economically, socially? You know they won't.
loupgarous| 4.8.12 @ 1:35PM
For which you can thank the "social conservatives" who have destroyed whatever legitimate focus and general appeal the Republican party once had. If Santorum REALLY had the interests of the party and the nation at heart, he'd realize he can't win this election and withdraw from the race in order to give Romney the best chance possible. You don't have to be a leftist to see how far the Republican Party's fallen since Pat Robertson decided to deal himself into the game; since then, party leaders have had to placate people who can't be satisfied; every 'advance' they get leads to more ambitious plans to make everyone else worship and live as they do. Compare and contrast to the Reagan campaigns; then again, we had real trouble at that time, and were recovering from someone arguably just as clueless and careless of the nation's survival as the man in office now. No one was interested in pushing through abortion bans or any such nonsense. Chances are we'll need another four years of Obama before the Republican party discovers that it needs more than 40 percent of the electorate to win elections and stops pissing everyone else off.
Dmitry Aleksandrovich | 4.4.12 @ 9:37PM
I don't understand why so called conservatives have a problem with Obama talking nuclear arms reduction with the Russians. The Russians are no longer part of the Soviet Union for the Soviet Union no longer exists. Russia is not an enemy of the United States yet the United States government maintains hostile policies toward Russia and has done so consistantly in the post-Cold War era. Let me count the aggressive actions. The expansion of NATO right up to the borders of Russia. The NATO bombardment in the 90's of Russia's closest and traditional Orthodox ally Serbia. The color coded revolutions in former Soviet states. The 2008 Georgian war started by the American loving Georgian nationalist mad man Sakaashvilli. There is even evidence of American influence in the Chechen insurgency. Also there can be no doubt of American involvement in trying to subvert Russian elections. Last but not least is the insult of the ABM shield in Poland, Romania, Turkey and the U.S. trying to convince Russians that the shield is meant for Iran when the CIA itself says that Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons. If you ask me Putin has been lenient in his dealings with the Americans.
loupgarous| 4.8.12 @ 1:46PM
Nice try, Dmitry. The reason many of us have trouble talking nuclear arms reduction with the Russians is that the Russians have the worst record of compliance with arms control treaties in history. There's no point at all in negotiating a treaty which history shows the other side will break at the first chance, and Russia has done it. Seismic evidence shows that Russia (after the collapse of the Soviet Union) has been detonating weapons at the Novaya Zemlya range long after the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty went into effect; research at Vektor and other Biopreparat-related facilities continues which has no other possible purpose than to develop biological weapons systems in contravention of the Biological Weapons Convention; Russia has continued work on "novichok" nerve agents in direct violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention.
So it doesn't take a hyperactive imagination (especially given the Russian acquisition of new Topol-M ICBMs while we took the Peacekeeper ICBM out of service) to show that any new arms control treaties with Russia would be to our disadvantage because we haven't been able to rely on Russia to keep their word on those treaties before.
As far as "Putin being lenient in his dealings with the Americans," does that include having generals with the Strategic Rocket Forces threaten our Secretary of State with electromagnetic pulse attacks on the North American continent if we proceeded with purely defensive antimissile installations in Poland and the Czech republic?
Russia's view on arms control is that it must be allowed to hold the US and her allies at risk of nuclear destruction, and that seems to be a non-negotiable position. In my view, President Bush was excessively lenient with Russia and President Obama qualifies as "craven."
Dmitry Aleksandrovich| 4.9.12 @ 2:45AM
As I said before Russia is not an enemy of the United States, but the United States is actively trying to make Russia an enemy. The anti-missile installations in Poland, Romania and the Czech Republic are not aimed at Iran (which has no such nuclear capabilities). It is clearly aimed at Russia and Russia has done nothing to Europe or the United States to warrant such hostility.
Kingofthenet| 4.5.12 @ 12:03AM
Didn't McNamara teach us ANYTHING, there IS no missile defense, you build a system and the Russians will go on a OFFENSIVE building spree to overwhelm ANY system. Only 300 missiles? with 10 MIRV'ed Warheads each at 500kt, we might ONLY be able to nuke EVERY Russian city 10 times over, Lordy Lordy!
Nick| 4.5.12 @ 12:54AM
Don't pretend that you know what a MIRV is, KooK!
We all know how stupid you are.
loupgarous| 4.8.12 @ 2:03PM
First, we don't fully populate our MIRV buses, and haven't in years. Each MIRV missile we have has about three weapons on the bus. And not every ICBM we have has a MIRV bus.
Second, the major mission of the US nuclear arsenal is not city-busting and has not been in some time. There are three missions under current deterrence policy for our nuclear arsenal: destruction of targets of a nuclear-armed state with which we are at war (whether those targets are Weapons of Mass Destruction or conventional military forces); destruction of Weapons of Mass Destruction in the hands of a non-signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty with which we are at war; and retaliation for an attack on the United States by ANY state regardless of its nuclear armament status or compliance with NNPT.
NONE of those missions specifically envision countervalue ("city-busting") targeting of our nuclear arsenal. We need more than 300 nuclear missiles because our enemies have more than 300 military installations we might have to destroy in the event of a war. It's that simple.
BackToBasics| 4.5.12 @ 12:46AM
From the article - "President Obama exhibits a very strange lack of recognition of anything that happened during the Reagan years and the 1990s when Republicans gained control of Congress."
He does NOT have a lack of recognition about the 80's or 1990's. He WANTS to weaken America. Why do so many pundits othe right not see, beleive or admit this?
BackToBasics| 4.5.12 @ 1:07AM
I will add that this disarmament is not of the flower-child variety. Flower children truly and naively believed in peace through disarmament. Obam is more sinister by far. He wants to disarm us before our enemies knowing that we will be conquered once this is accomplished.
Russell| 4.5.12 @ 6:29AM
Peter Ferrara is not entitled to his own strategic reality . His creative accounting recalls Carl Sagan's nuclear gamesmanship, which Richard Pearl deounced as 'sharp analytical practice,
Ferrara's point of departure is an 80 % cut leaving the US with just 300 nuclear weapons, which implies having only 1,500 to begin with.
That's not true.
In addition to 2,150 operational strategic weapons and 200 locked and loaded tactical nukes , there are 2,850 nuclear and thermonuclear weapons on reserve and a further 5,000 in military stockpiles, for a total of 10,200, an 80% reduction in which would leave not 300, but 2,040.
If Peter seems reluctant to reveal the first 300 targets on his Must Vaporize list , it must be the existential willies about having to think up 1,740 more.
Kingofthenet| 4.5.12 @ 1:03PM
But don't you get it, Peter makes the point that if you don't have PLENTY of extras, you might not decide to use them WILLY-NILLY, and what a shame it would be NOT to actually Holocaust the world.
loupgarous| 4.8.12 @ 12:38PM
Considering just the counterforce mission, 300 missiles won't do what we need. I know it's fashionable for arms control advocates to inhabit a world in which no one ever would think of lifting a finger against the United States, but the deals Kissinger worked out during "detente" in the early 1970s with the Soviets gave them so many openings to out-gun us, they have to be considered part of the reason why we and the Russians wound up pointing 50,000 weapons at each other by the peak of the Cold War in the 1980s. The Soviets couldn't resist the urge to capitalize on the leeway we gave them during arms control talks.
And please let's not forget the most egregious violation of an arms-control treaty in history, when the Soviets - AFTER solemnly swearing they would not make biological weapons - did exactly the opposite, building the massive "Biopreparat" biological weapons agency. One of Biopreparat's less-famous projects was - at Mikhail Gorbachev's orders - the filling of Soviet ICBM warheads with weaponized anthrax, aimed at the US and UK (who kept their word in that very same treaty and destroyed THEIR biological weapons).
But getting back the magic number of 300, that's not enough to even make the Russians slightly nervous about a return volley in the event they use THEIR nuclear arsenal on us. Their once and future president/oligarch Vladimir Putin has assured us that THEY have not neglected their missile defense systems the way Obama has neglected OURS, and we have to remember that there are essentially NO arms control treaties with the Russians/Soviets that we can say for sure they haven't broken. They militarized space first - putting aircraft cannons on spacecraft and space stations - and they built radars that make no sense without there being an antimissile system in Russia far in excess of what was allowed by treaties under which we reduced OUR antimissile arsenal to very bare bones indeed. The Russians are STILL working with offensive biological agents despite assurances they would not, and they informed a delegation led by Secretary of State Rice that they were were prepared to use nuclear weapons to destroy the electronic and electrical infrastructure of North America if we went ahead with deployment of antimissiles in Poland and the Czech republic.
In the real world of military planning, you're not allowed to plan on the best possible set of circumstances; you plan based on the worst information about what your enemy can and will do to you that you have. No matter what the Russians TOLD the Obama administration they will do for us with Iran, the available information tells us (a) they ARE a military threat to us (b) they break arms control treaties with us whenever they can and (c) they have no trouble at all threatening us with nuclear weapons NOW if they don't get what they want. These are NOT people we can trust, and for an American president to be wheedling to them for "space" on issues like the national survival of the United States of America is disgraceful and dangerous.
This president's broken. We need a new one.
loupgarous| 4.8.12 @ 2:21PM
I can think of 2,000 targets on a hypothetical "absolutely, positively, must destroy" list - because our current nuclear deterrence policy requires us to plan not for a "city-busting" countervalue war, but one of three general types of war which will require us to target the enemy's military capabilities. It's not (as several leftist posters have implied here) a matter of hauling down the CIA World Facthook and looking up enemy cities to destroy, but taking out his bases, any weapons of mass destruction he may be threatening us with ("threat" being the military definition, not Khrushchev banging his shoe on the desk at the UN or shouting "We will bury you!"), or masses of troops about to swarm into territory we or our allies would like to keep.
Nuclear missiles being not as flexible as we'd like, we have to dedicate them to specific targets, with gravimetric "maps" of the route from where they are launched to their targets (though GPS has made that task a bit simpler, we can count on any sizable enemy trying to kill GPS or make it unusable during a full-on war).
But the Obama "open mike" incident and his need to wait until he couldn't be un-elected before giving the Russians what they wanted in missile defense was a surprise to most of us in specific terms (we suspected he was giving the store away but had to give him the benefit of the doubt). Certainly, an 80 percent cut in our nuclear arsenal was surprising to me, no matter how it is calculated. I'm disinclined to trust that your explanation (Obama starting from the 10,200 weapon figure to arrive at a end number over what our current deployment is) is the actual plan.
But like most of the rest of us, I don't know, because while the President's talking to Putin and Medvedev about these things, he's not talking to US.
Kpar| 4.5.12 @ 2:54PM
Reading this article reminded me of something I heard during the Russian war on neighboring Georgia. It was noted that the Russkies were using brand new tanks and APCs, not old Cold War leftovers, and the new stuff had been paid for with the oil money Russia was getting from the high price of petroleum at the time.
Further, the real reason the Russians attacked was to gain control of the pipelines going through Georgia.
Does this put a different slant on Barry's efforts to stymie American energy development? In light of the overheard comments to Medvedev, does it make you wonder who this guy is working for?
james gore| 4.6.12 @ 8:31PM
The deplorable state of the nuclear weapons compex needs to be brought to the attention of the US public. Without serious improvement to the complex, it doesn't matter what limits are agreed to.
loupgarous| 4.8.12 @ 12:00PM
Looking at Obama's foreign policy, it really appears this man wishes the United States of America to have as few options as possible for dealing with foreign threats. His disarmament schemes - which he's implementing without having taken them to the American people - are disastrous.
Our nuclear arsenal would be reduced to a number insufficient to hold the major nuclear threat (the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a Warsaw Pact-like military alliance which contains Russia, China, North Korea, and as candidate members, Pakistan and Iran) at risk. Further, since Obama has reneged on his undertaking to restore funding to the national nuclear weapons laboratories and other technical means of support for our nuclear weapons arsenal, the remaining nuclear weapons in the US arsenal cannot be maintained in an guaranteed working ccndition. As it is, the W76 warhead which comprises a large portion of our submarine-launched arsenal (the portion which would probably survive weapons reduction as it is being discussed today) is known to have some very severe potential problems because the hohlraum (the structure around the warhead which helps the nuclear reactions build to the level needed to sustain the nuclear yield desired) for the W76 is beer-can thin; testing of the device indicates reliability issues that should have been addressed by replacement of the W76 with the Reliable Replacement Warhead. But under three successive administrations, our voluntary compliance with the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty has not permitted us to actually see how reliable the W76 is, by detonating samples underground.
In all of this, Obama is either playing to the tune called by his supporters in the arms control community (the Natural Resources Defense Council, notably) - "let them rot and take them apart," instead of what we ought to have been doing all along - designing and building smarter nuclear devices which create less fallout and take more advantage of the accuracy of our delivery systems to transfer almost ALL of their energy into the target - not the surrounding area.
A truly moral policy on nuclear weapons would be to maintain the forces we need to protect ourselves from threats from overseas - especially a China and Russia which are both pushing expansionist agendas - while harming as few civilians outside of target areas as absolutely possible. The Obama agenda would saddle us with a reduced number of Cold War relics that can (in the numbers he's asking for) do neither objective.
loupgarous| 4.8.12 @ 12:19PM
We need to encourage the good people of Indiana to give us a better senator than Richard Lugar anyway. His enduring legacy to the nation, the Nunn-Lugar Threat Reduction Act, has not reduced the aggregate threat from former Soviet missiles to the US homeland as much as it has given Russia funding to replace defunct missiles with the "Bulava" and "Topaz" ICBMs, which despite some teething problems are unquestionably MORE reliable (thus MORE threatening to the US targets they could be reprogrammed to strike within 30 minutes of the decision to do so) than what they replaced. Nunn-Lugar money (paid from the US taxpayer to Russia) also helped fund the manufacture of several tons of "novichok" nerve agents against which our current antidotes are pretty much useless. It would be difficult to imagine a treaty more in line with the re-armament of Russia into a threat to the United States than Nunn-Lugar.
At least Sam Nunn had the excuse that he's a Democrat and SUPPOSED to vote for things that hurt our military preparedness (going by his party's published platform and legislative record). It's difficult to think of an honorable reason for Richard Lugar to have inflicted this treaty on the United States.
loupgarous| 4.8.12 @ 3:40PM
For "Topaz" please read "Topol". Mea culpa.