The Obama administration is weighing options for sharp new cuts to the U.S. nuclear force, including a reduction of up to 80 percent in the number of deployed weapons, The Associated Press has learned. [February, 2012]
A recent update on the START Treaty was presented at the U.S. Strategic Command 2012 Deterrence Symposium by Rose Gottemoeller, Acting Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security. To summarize, it’s going well.
The START Treaty is the nuclear reduction treaty with our “ally,” the Russians. Who wouldn’t trust Putin? It includes no other country like, say, China.
At the present time, Russia and the U.S. have the majority of the nuclear weapons but it will not always be that way, especially if some powers pool their resources.
Obama wants a world without nuclear weapons – don’t we all – but he wants the U.S. to lead the way with almost no commitment or oversight from other countries to do the same.
This President is destroying our nuclear weapons as Iran and North Korea continue to grow their stockpiles. He is not going to mention nuclear weapons as part of his questionable strategy [nuclear weapons will be erased from the lexicon. It’s going the way of the words, Islamic terrorism.]:
“… this President and his Administration are committed to reducing the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy. We are not developing new nuclear weapons or pursuing new nuclear missions; we have committed not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear-weapon states that are party to the NPT and in compliance with their nuclear nonproliferation obligations; and we have clearly stated that it is in everyone’s interest to extend forever the more than 65-year record of non-use of nuclear weapons.
As we continue to reduce global nuclear stockpiles and include additional categories of weapons in that process, the importance of verification and transparency will only grow. Having confidence in what other states are doing is critical for creating conditions for further progress in arms control and disarmament, which is why we made our 2010 Nuclear Posture Review public and revealed the size of our stockpile – 5,113 weapons as of September 2009.”
Our amateurish President’s representative, Ms. Gottemoeller, called this serious issue a homework period as she gave her report:
“We are now spending a lot time thinking about next steps in deterrence, stability, and arms control. I sometimes refer to it as a homework period, which is not a bad term for what we are doing. We are looking at fundamentals and lessons learned, as we work to develop new policies to advance our security.”
Obama said he wants to keep enough nuclear weapons to deter our enemies but don’t count on it since he won’t even include it as part of his “strategy”:
“Success will only be reached through a step-by-step process in which we maintain and support a safe, secure, and effective stockpile – sufficient to deter any adversary and guarantee the defense of our allies- at the same time that we pursue responsible reductions through arms control.”
I wonder if Iran and North Korea got the memo:
“For arms control, that means pulling back to the basic level. Simply put, arms control contributes to international security by committing nations to submit voluntarily to regimes that limit the development, production, stockpiling, and deployment of weapons. Because arms control is based on reciprocity and is typically accompanied by verification, confidence building and transparency measures, it helps to build predictability into relationships.”
Our administration has a committee doing the “big thinking.” Those are the words Ms. Gottemoeller used, they’re not mine. The committee wants to pay off, I mean incentivize, people to not develop nuclear weapons (I’m sure they can be trusted). This brilliant committee has a report coming out soon on what other things they can do besides pay people off.
“The State Department’s International Security Advisory Board, or ISAB, is helping us with some “big thinking.” This Federal Advisory Committee…to manage a transition from a world of mutual assured destruction to a world of mutual assured stability, characterized by increasingly interdependent states having incentives to cooperate on political, military, and economic issues, thereby reducing the need for adversarial approaches to managing security challenges…”
Now this President wants to negotiate with our “ally,” the Russians, to cut nonstrategic nuclear weapons (nuclear mines; artillery; short, medium, and long-range ballistic missiles; cruise missiles; and gravity bombs) which are meant to protect the military in the field. They were used during the Cold War to discourage our “good friends,” the Russians. This President wants to count on NATO for defense which aligns with his “global” view which does not include U.S. sovereignty but will primarily rely on our money and our military:
“Both the President and the Senate – in the New START Resolution of Ratification – have placed a priority on seeking to initiate new negotiations with the Russians on nonstrategic nuclear weapons (NSNW).
Over the course of the past few years, the Administration has taken a number of steps towards this goal…[The U.N. is pleased.]”
This President, with his amateurish approach to self-defense, also wants to control conventional arms while protecting Europe. Oddly, Obama thinks a weakened country will improve security:
“While the problems of 1989 are no longer, it is my view that conventional arms control, done right, can significantly improve security on the continent by helping to address today’s concerns. It can provide confidence regarding the military forces and intentions of neighbors, especially in sensitive areas…”
Once these weapons are gone, they are gone. We will never be able to spend the funds to replenish the supply, leaving us vulnerable to countries with larger supplies.
Russia never wanted any part of this treaty so how do we find out if they are abiding by it? Again, did Iran and N. Korea get the memo?
Does anyone still doubt that President Obama wants to eliminate the second amendment?
Obama is doing what he said he’d do. Were you listening? Read the State Department news release here.