Since the dawn of the nuclear age, the United States of America has held fast to the truth that the best deterrent to war is strength, a posture which has ensured a global peace throughout the most tumultuous time in human history. Every tyrant, from Josef Stalin in the former Soviet Union to Mahmoud Imadamnwhackjob in Iran, has understood the reality of engaging in conflict with the United States: Ya’ mess with the bull, ya’ gets the horns.
And just as that posture was not rooted in arrogance or some sense of entitlement as some would have us believe, our rationale was not based on some idealistic belief that nuclear weapons were evil and needed to be eliminated. It was based on firsthand knowledge that the overwhelming power of nuclear weapons totally destroys an enemy’s ability and will to continue in conflict.
Through our possession and willingness to use such weapons, humanity no longer feared the butchery of world war. And, because of this stance, man has never again had to use nuclear weapons against his fellows.
For the past 65 years this policy has worked and maintained balance, if not actual peace. The only use of the most powerful and destructive devices ever conceived by man was to end war, not start it. Nuclear weapons have only been employed to save lives. By ending World War II in the skies above Hiroshima and Nagasaki, millions upon millions of lives were, in fact, saved. Since that time, the dictators of the world knew they were on a short leash, a leash held with a strong, firm hand by the United States of America. And only because of this has the world been safe.
Today, that era ended.
With a passive whimper, the strength and greatness that was once America’s leadership of free peoples everywhere died. The president of the United States, once the most powerful force for good in the world, has relegated himself to the level of influence held by a CITGO restroom attendant in Equatorial Guinea.
Plain and simple, by changing our nuclear policy to not developing new nuclear weapons and to limiting the circumstances as to the use of those we have, Barack Obama has done more to weaken our nation than anyone in history. Now, any tin-pot bully with an Encyclopedia Britannica, a decent chemistry set and a wad of cash is free to set his own terms for our surrender.
It would be easy to say this is the result of naiveté, or idealism, or simply the product of a passionate, uber-altruistic desire to make the world a better, safer place. However, when you scrap a policy that has worked in every scenario we have faced, you have to wonder if this isn’t a deliberate scheme to undermine our security.
Japan did not surrender because Harry Truman told them we wouldn’t destroy them; he showed them that we could. Nikita Khrushchev didn’t withdraw the missiles from Cuba because John Kennedy promised to reduce our nuclear arsenal; Jack got in his face and made him back off. The Soviet Union did not collapse because we asked them to. It did so because Ronald Reagan showed them we were willing to not only meet, but beat, their threat. We won because our enemies knew that their price to continue was too high to pay.
So, how does Barack Obama’s new nuclear strategy make the world, and particularly the United States, safer? It doesn’t!
It is simply, unequivocally impossible to be secure when you tell your enemies what you won’t do to them. It just doesn’t work. Instead, President Obama’s new stance on nuclear weapons and the use thereof is as asinine as a cornered woman telling her attacker: “I won’t scream. I won’t fight. Do what you want.” All that will get you is raped.
Guess what we got today?