Jews with a Kabbalistic bent like to use an Aramaic expression to describe this existence: Alma deshikra, world of falsehood. Through my life I have been comforted by the notion that much of the truth that does seep into contemporary consciousness begins its journey here in the United States. Yet with each new major utterance by our President, I am overwhelmed by the distorted lens through which he filters our experiences. The world Barack Obama describes is very close to being the exact opposite of reality. With the launching of a nuclear rocket by North Korea and his response in a major address in the Czech Republic, we are again confronted with this inversion of truth.
At this point, our obligation to protest, founded in the intellectual realm, crosses into the grim turf of physical self-defense. Obama, flashing his trademark illogic, has committed our nation to a path toward suicide for us and genocide for humanity. All this because the initial premises diverge from truth, building in an inevitably corrosive warp.
Before a teeming throng of Czechs, he declared that nuclear weapons must be eliminated from the world. This may take a long time, he averred, beyond even his own lifetime. The United States is morally obligated to lead in this effort because — pay close attention now — it is the only nation to have actually used such a device in war. Thus Barack Obama, the man entrusted by the American People with its highest office.
What is the truth? What is the realistic, logical, responsible path? Au contraire: the United States should commit to the world that it will never, under any circumstances, in any financial conditions, under any Presidential administration, ever allow itself to be gulled into giving up its nuclear weapons. It has a moral obligation to do this because it is the only steadfast polity that employs its military and financial might strictly for the purposes of mankind. Case in point: we used nuclear weapons only to end a world war that was killing millions but never to support any nationalistic goal.
Let’s think about these two courses and their source assumptions. Obama asserts that a world without nuclear weapons is a safer world. I assert it is far more dangerous. Remember, we cannot unlearn the science; the know-how will continue to exist even if every actual weapon is dismantled. If it can be made, it is a real danger. If it is a danger, it requires a solution. Even a working missile defense can never be a foolproof solution. Any realistic plan requires a trustworthy monitor with its own nuclear weaponry, who can threaten to shoot first and guarantee to shoot second.
Yes, the world was safer before such weapons existed. But there is no Luddite button to take us back there, even if the State Department finally figures out the correct Russian word for “Reset.” We must deal with what is, and that includes nuclear weapons as a possibility. This, even if one could convince Russia, China, India and Pakistan to voluntarily disarm.
Obama’s moral statement is even more dubious, not to mention obnoxious. In what sense does our having used atomic weapons obligate us to lead the world in eliminating them? Only if we assume it was wrong to have used them — as taught by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright — and we must do penance for this transgression. This is not true in the least. We used them only as a last resort in a World War, never in a Korea or Vietnam. The Vietnam Memorial has 58,000 names of lives we sacrificed rather than drop one atom bomb in Hanoi. We have behaved admirably with our arsenal, using these weapons to deter and not to demolish, and this grants us moral authority to lead.
Additionally, his signaling that he would not make Harry Truman’s decision if faced by Harry Truman’s battlefield broadcasts a unilateral surrender to bellicose nations. You can attack us to the degree of the Japanese in World War II without fear of nuclear reprisal. How is that helpful to our cause or to the welfare of mankind at large?
In conclusion, it would not be a virtue if we disarmed, even if everyone seemed to join our initiative. On the contrary, it would be an abdication. We would be handing off leadership and replacing it with a perceived partnership; a partnership with too many ill-fitting parts and loose ends. Turning a cheek is one thing, but turning a back is another matter entirely. Turn your back on your enemies and you turn your back on the world.
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://thespectator.com/world.