General Non-Nuclear Response

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?

Share

Comments

  1. HonestAmerican says:

    What part of Obama is a Communist do people not understand?

  2. Gail B. says:

    Ye gads! Before I got a space in the state parking garage, I had to park my car on the street, which, by the time my assigned hours got me to work, was down where the Atlanta Police Department did not go! (It cost me two cigarettes a day for the woman who had nothing better to do than sit on her porch and tell people to leave my car alone.) The point is, the police were armed (and that woman may have been armed, too) but knew a dangerous situation when they saw one. The only time they ventured into that neighborhood was when there was BACKUP! This translates to having a greater force than the “enemy.” That works equally well on the national level. What is I-Obama THINKING?!

    I didn’t feel as safe long before this as I did when Bush was in office. And, now THIS!

    They have all this ado about airline security, but what about our borders? They’re a freaking joke! (And so is SC Senator Lindsey Graham!)

  3. Gail B. says:

    John Pratt? Look at his bio, folks–and a good look at his picture. This man means BUSINESS!

    Mr. Pratt, that was a great piece, and thank you for your civilian and military service!

  4. NO dirt clods, kids says:

    Kindergarten Cop, worse,
    Kindergarten Commander-in-Chief

  5. Back when men were men says:

    That photo is depressing. Never again will we get an unconditional surrender from anybody. Not even from those that wear Bed-Bath&Beyond on their head.

  6. No Red Phone for the blackberry Pres says:

    The Obama antithesis to the 60′s novel Fail-Safe,
    Fail-To-Make-Us-Safe.

  7. A Liberal says:

    Well, the fact that we had nuclear weapons did not stop 19 men from hijacking 3 commercial airplanes and killing 2,973 US citizens. The rules have changed and the enemy has changed. So should our policies and our funding. Also, I don’t think anyone really believes we would actually ever use a nuclear weapon on another country and God help us if we ever did.

  8. Old Richard says:

    Good old Teddy said
    “Walk softly but carry a BIG stick”
    That has worked !!!!
    Some one need to slap our stupid president with a stick and get his
    attention. He is not the reason America is great, but he is the reason
    America is becoming a third world country.
    November—VOTE ,VOTE. Take away all his power with enough consertives
    to even over ride a veto. and take our America back.
    Too many of us older generation have invested our time and skills and
    service to our country to have this snot nosed no account destroy it.
    I and all the people I know or talk to are fed up.
    If the vote doesn’t work than we need to look at revolt.

    Just sayin

    Old Richard

  9. Randy Wills says:

    To the “Liberal” @ 12:06 AM:

    So I take it that you do not believe that any other country or organization would use a nuclear weapon on the U.S. even if we didn’t maintain an equivalent nuclear deterrent along with an unfeigned pledge to retaliate in kind if attacked?

    I say if we WOULDN’T do that, God help us (and Israel). Mutually-assured destruction has kept the world safe for more than 60 years. To abandon that strategy now would be nothing short of insanity. That is, unless you have found a universal cure for evil.

    Randy

  10. Boston Blackie says:

    Can someone please give president Obeyme a dictionary so he can understand the meaning of deterrent. Every time I think that he could not get any more clueless and dangerous, he shocks me again and again. I can’t even imagine this guy playing poker never mind coming up against Putin. He just doesn’t get it.
    BTW, off subject, but since he barred all kids from private and parochial schools from participating in the WH Easter egg hunt did that mean his daughters were barred as well.

  11. Anonymous says:

    A liberal, I probably won’t ever use this 9mm on my hip either.

  12. whats_up says:

    Perhaps my fellow conservatives should actually look at what Obama did rather than jumping to conclusions. What he said was that we would not use a nuclear weapon against a country that was non-nuclear and abidding by the Non-nuclear proliferation treaties. That means any country that goes against that treaty (hint: Iran, North Korea) wouldnt qualify. Also he left in place the mutual destruction scenarios that apply to those countries that use Nuclear arms. Also stated that a large enough biological attack could be retaliated against with a nuclear weapon. Now I know that conservatives are scarred by Libya and Somolia but get real people.

  13. BLack and Conservative . . . . wow! says:

    Sorry Boston Blackie — I respect your commentary but I must differ. Our TOTUS gets it very well. Divide and conquer . . . death and resurrection . . . equalize and redistribute … oh, gets it he does! He is the vicarious savior whom the people reject in increasing numbers. His precarious style of governance I believe will ultimately be to his demise.

  14. Anonymous says:

    Threaten foreign countries with chapters of ACORN or SEIU instead….. they seem to be very destructive as well.

  15. Mutually Assured Dumbness says:

    Our POTUS just PUTUS in danger.

  16. Joe Vines says:

    Say, where can I find an uncensored version of that fighter pilot poster?

  17. A Liberal says:

    To Randy Wills – My response to your question is exactly the point made by whats_up. If you read what actually occurred yesterday instead of getting sucked into the propaganda (like this commentary), you would know that the new position by no means implies we would eliminate our current nuclear capabilities and would respond if we were attacked. The real change is to stop spending tax dollars on any NEW nuclear weapon development and use that money in some other capacity. It’s funny to me how Republicans don’t mind spending billions of dollars on weapons that will more than likely NEVER get used, but doesn’t want to spend money on providing basic health care to US citizens. Funny how spending money on health care is Socialist but spending money on nuclear weapons is “American”. Blows my mind….

  18. John M. Pratt says:

    A Liberal, The last I looked, the government was constitutionally obligated to “provide for the common defense”. Could you please cite in any of our founding documents provisions for basic needs, wants, desires and self-actualization.

    You may also want to consult a history text or two. We have, in fact, used nuclear weapons against another country. Twice. As stated, their use ended the worse conflict the world has ever seen. And our subsequent comittment to constantly develop and field new and improved weapons has been an essential element in their not having been used again.

  19. TheOldMan says:

    Diplomacy and negotiation only work when there is a credible threat of force behind them. I don’t go looking for trouble, I go out of my way to avoid it, but if trouble comes to me and will not leave after being told to, I have S&W and Mossberg.

  20. Joe Six-Pack says:

    “The best battle plan never survives first contact with the enemy.”

    I sure hope that President Obama is smart enough to understand that EVERYTHING is different AFTER the attack. Wars are won by the side that escalates to the point the other side either cannot or will not match.

  21. Randy Wills says:

    To “A Liberal” @ 4:28 PM:

    Thanks for responding to my comment.

    The reason that they (the weapons) might well never be used is because we HAVE them and have never left any doubt in anyone’s mind that, if attacked, we will use them.

    And before your mind gets any more blown than it already is, national defense is a constitutional obligation of the federal government whereas taxpayer-funded universal health care is not.

    It’s not that I don’t understand where liberals such as yourself are coming from. I would like all persons to live in peace and prosperity, just as you do, I’m sure, but I can find no place in history where a government has been able to provide that result. It just doesn’t work because the problem lies within the heart of man and cannot be solved by a government of men. Only hearts changed by God can remedy the sickness of the world.

    So, to get back to the issue of nuclear weapons, evil exists, and all the good intentions in the world are not going to protect you from it. If good intentions would, we wouldn’t need armies, police forces, prisons, borders, etc, etc. Evil is ALWAYS active and on the move to destroy that which is good, such as the freedom, AS INDIVIDUALS, to exercise free will. That has been the only logical basis for productive human activity since the creation of man.

    Randy

  22. John Buyon says:

    hey look more liberals :) whats up?

    conservatives now go to liberal sites ! learn from each other!

    unfortunately I have to disagree with both sides here

    1. Defense is more important than anything else, more important than universal healthcare, more important than roads, more important than schools. you cant provide social services until you can defend yourself.

    2. why do we need 5000 nukes anyway? who are we scared of?
    we aint fighting the soviet Union here were fighting cripples of a country
    (Iran, N.Korea) both these countries will be completely and utterly annihilated if they use a WMD offensively, by us or by the people in their neighborhood eg. Israel.

    3. Unless you forgot conservatives, our enemy is al-qaeda and other islamist jihad organizations, I don’t think 5000 nukes are effective against bin-ladin or his crew.

  23. Jordan Bell says:

    Given the picture used for this article, for anyone interested here is the video taken of the surrendering of the Japanase forces.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=vcnH_kF1zXc&feature=player_embedded

  24. Bankroller says:

    Fortunately, this madness will be “nuked” thanks to Article.2. Section.2. Paragraph 2, which requires 2/3′s Senate approval for ratification; that’s 67 “yea” votes. The founding fathers were brilliant.

  25. Tax advisers to hookers says:

    That $6.000,000,000 TO ACORN would buy some sweet defense.

  26. whats_up says:

    to Bankroller:

    This isnt a treaty, the Senate doesnt have to confirm it.

  27. DFWlady says:

    I may be confused, but doesn’t the Senate have to ratify all treaties by a two-thirds vote? And, if so, is it a foregone conclusion that Obama will get those votes or can we hope that there’ll be more than 40 senators that will have enough sense to vote against this NPT? Thank you.

  28. Jeff Schreiber says:

    Hey there, folks. Just a quick note.

    I want to apologize for not having much material up her for the past few days. Much of the work I do on AR is done late at night, after the house is quiet. Over the past few days, though, my allergies have been so terrible that I’ve been completely zonking out on Benadryl very early (early even by normal people standards!) and haven’t had the chance to do squat — no schoolwork, no bills, no AR, nothing.

    Hopefully, things will improve. I still very much want to get John Feeny up and running with administrative editing privileges, as he’s been doing such a great job with the interviews. But the next few months are going to be interesting, allergies or not. So, please understand if there are lulls here and there.

    Now, if your excuse me, the Benadryl is taking hold. I can almost breathe! And sleep beckons…

  29. Gail B. says:

    The New York Times is carrying this story, and here’s the teaser:

    Iranian Anger Rises Over Obama’s Revised Nuclear Policy
    By NAZILA FATHI
    A large majority of Iranian lawmakers urged their government to formally complain to the United Nations about the policy that conspicuously makes Iran and North Korea possible targets.

  30. Anonymous says:

    whats_up,

    The new treaty must be ratified by the Senate, though not the House of Representatives, to take effect.

    Ratification requires yes votes from at least 67 of the 100 senators, meaning support from several Republican lawmakers must be secured.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100415/pl_afp/usrussiamissiledefensecongress

  31. whats_up says:

    to anonymous:

    Yes the new treaty with Russia must be approved by the Senate, however Obamas new stand on non-nuclear parties (which is the object of this story) doesnt have to be approved by anyone to take effect.

Speak Your Mind

*