New nuclear plan changes nothing
A lot of speculation has been made about the president’s recent announcement regarding the American nuclear strategy. The left was hoping the president would go further and pledge the United States would never use nuclear weapons first. The right thinks his recent decisions are weakening our defenses. May this columnist be the first to say both sides are dead wrong.
A number of things need to be made clear. First of all, anyone who believes a world without nuclear weapons is possible is sadly mistaken. While eradicating the most destructive weapons from our planet seems like a noble cause, it is entirely impossible. The technology exists to create these weapons and these weapons translate into power. There will always be states that seek power; it’s the natural order of things.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton joins President Barack Obama as he talks about his new nuclear weapons policy.
Possibly related:
- Tech a relationship nuisance · Dec 14
- Letter to the Editor: Gaddafi · Nov 2
- Budget matter of quality vs. price · Oct 23
- Abortion discussion complex · Oct 19
- 'We need to teach values' · Sep 11
Since there is no hope of a nuclear-free world, the disarmament movement amounts to a giant waste of time and resources.
No nuclear power, especially the United States and other nations that have their eyes on becoming international players, would ever relinquish their necessary supply of nuclear weapons. If the United States and Russia both have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world, who cares about the stockpiles of weapons left over after a nuclear catastrophe?
Leaders make a big deal about reducing our supply of weapons, but the practical implications are nonexistent. If we cut our stockpile in half, our capabilities wouldn’t change. If we cut our stockpiles in half again, we could still do as much damage as our original arsenal could have.
It’s pointless for anything other than cheap political points to focus on reducing nuclear weapons. Do we need this many? No, but it doesn’t make a difference if we have them. The only goal in this arena should be the prevention of new nuclear states and nuclear non-state actors like terrorist organizations.
So while the numbers of bombs is irrelevant, the agreements on when we might use them are equally as worthless.
The new policy states that the United States will not strike non-nuclear states that are in compliance with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty with nuclear weapons even if attacked on a massive scale. It exempts Iran and North Korea. So in other words, nothing changed. Not the spirit, not the letter.
The president left himself enough latitude that if any likely attack scenario took place, he could respond with nuclear weapons without violating the new policy. Second, and more importantly, any attack on the United States involving nuclear weapons as a potential response would be a game changer.
This is the point that makes this whole nuclear “renaissance” ridiculous. If the United States was attacked with a chemical, biological or cyber weapon of mass destruction, does anyone seriously believe we would feel obligated to maintain these limits?
The world’s only superpower would be bound not to use nuclear weapons? The reality is if the United States were attacked on such a scale, we would respond with whatever force we deemed fit. It’s foolish to suggest otherwise.
So while everyone is making extreme claims about this new nuclear policy, it doesn’t change anything. It’s about politics. The president is trying to score points. It’s easy to say we aren’t going to use these weapons and it sounds great on television.
But if the United States was attacked with weapons of mass destruction, everything is out the window. All of the rules change.
What the president said last week wouldn’t really matter. In fact, the report was fittingly titled “Nuclear Posture Review.” Why? Because it’s not about substance, it’s about posturing.
- |
by Getting it right when Neil Doesnt.
Reagan wanted a world without nuclear weapons too. I would think you of all people would like it for that reason Neil.
Flag for moderationby ts
that is an irrelevant point. everything brought up here was the God’s honest…to expect the U.S. to cede nuclear weaponry is at best an exercise is a trip to never never land. once that pandoras box is opened it is not to be closed again. to expect or hope or enact a policy that eradicates nuclear weaponry is irresponsible and leaves us as vulnerable as we were in the revolutionary days. removing our warheads by a third means we can only blow up the world 7-12 times over. it will always boil down to we gotta hope our elected or appointed officials world wide are not stupid enough to hit the proverbial red button
Flag for moderationby JS
“Getting it” is correct though… Neil is off in conservative land basically upset Obama is trying to do so much good. It a pretty regular thing for him. I can’t wait til he talks about how much the banking system doesn’t need reforming lol. Neil basically doesn’t like anything Obama does and that’s what he writes about. Of course, the Echo will let anyone write if they have an opinion, no matter how wrong it is.
Ts: What panadora’s box? What are you talking about? Whats the harm in reducing them?
I will agree with you that I thank goodness every day that someone like Palin or McCain does not have their hands over the red button. The only other people in the world crazy enough to use nuclear weapons that have them might be in Israel.
Flag for moderationby J. Snider
After being in briefings held by the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Air Force, and former STRATCOM Commander General Butler all within the past 4 months regarding the topic of our past and present nuclear strategy, I feel that my opinion on the topic ought to have some weight in this argument.
First off, “Getting it” is right that Reagan wanted a world without nuclear weapons. I want a world without poverty, AIDS, and religious radicalism, but like Neil said, “it is entirely impossible.” We already have far too many nuclear weapons to properly dispose of. You are out of your mind to believe that there will ever be a day in which the United States has no nuclear arsenal.
Second, “ts,” I had a little trouble following your comment but I think I get what you’re saying and it sounds right. Even if we did eradicate our nuclear arsenal, there are still multiple countries with nuclear weapons and/or nuclear capability who are NOT big fans of the United States (China, North Korea, Iran, and Syria) and would not follow suit with eradication. I also like your statement that we need to hope officials WORLD WIDE are not stupid enough to hit the red button. American officials are not the ones we need to be worried about regarding using nuclear weapons… but that’s for a later point.
And now, time to address the post which originally caused me to begin spending my time typing this post rather than retiring to my bed early. To begin, “JS,” if you’ve really read many of Neil’s articles, you’d realize that he does not oppose everything Obama does. I will, however, agree that it’s apparent that Neil generally has a conservative opinion, but does that make it wrong? No. Is Neil accusing you of being wrong for blindly following anything Obama does as being good? No. Next, if you honestly believe that the President has final say over whether the “red button” is pushed, you need to stop watching The Sum of All Fears. Even if McCain or Palin were in office, and became as radical as you believe them to be, there are many other people who have say in whether a nuclear weapon is used or not, some of whom are not appointed by the President. Finally, your last statement truly shows how misinformed your post is. Although Israel may be crazy enough to use a WMD, have you heard of these guys named Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-il? Yeah, they’re just two of the most radical leaders currently in charge of nations with nuclear capability. There’s also this other country called Syria that is nuclear capable, and they like Iran, but not so much America. And if you don’t think China would LOVE to see America go nuclear-free, you’re either using a substance which your beloved Obama has yet to legalize or you’re still in middle school.
In the end, I would recommend that you all read up on American nuclear strategy. The whole point behind our nuclear arsenal is deterrence, much like it was in the Cold War. It’s to show countries like North Korea and Iran that our “manhood” is larger than theirs. Do we ever want or plan to use our nuclear weapons? No. But we need them so other countries don’t get the idea to pop one off at someone they don’t like.
Whether you agree or not, it is America’s job as the most influential and powerful nation in the world to be a deterring and coercive force against the proliferation and use of nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, this task requires us to have a nuclear arsenal. Deal with it.
Flag for moderation