Monday, July 20, 2009

Nuclear Bananas-3

"Consider the president's declaration, in a major speech this spring in Prague, of 'America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.' Will such a world be peaceful and secure? It is far from self-evident. In the nuclear-free world that ended in 1945 there was neither peace nor security. ... Consider also that while the administration accepts the urgency of halting the spread of nuclear weapons, the policies it has embraced to reach that goal are likely to make matters worse. Thus, in the Prague speech, Mr. Obama announced that the US world 'immediately and aggressively' pursue ratification of the comprehensive ban on the testing of nuclear weapons. The administration believes, without evidence, that ratification of the test-ban treaty will discourage other countries from developing nuclear weapons. Which countries does it have in mind? Iran? North Korea? Syria? Countries alarmed by the nuclear ambitions of their enemies? Allies who may one day lose confidence in our nuclear umbrella? ... The attempt to do so in 1999 failed in the Senate, mostly out of concerns about verification--it simply is not verifiable. ... Suppose future problems in our nuclear arsenal emerge that cannot be solved without testing? Would our predicament discourage nuclear proliferation--or stimulate it? ... There are some who believe that failing to invest adequately in our nuclear deterrent wlll move us closer to a nuclear free world. In fact, blocking crucial modernization means unilateral disarmament by unilateral obsolescence. This unilateral disarmanent will only encourage nuclear proliferation, since our allies will see the danger and our adversaries the opportunity. ... There is a fashionable notion that if only we and the Russians reduced our nuclear forces, other nations would reduce their existing arsenals or abandon plans to acquire nuclear weapons altogether. This idea, an article of faith of the 'soft power' approach to halting nuclear prolifeation, assumes that the nuclear ambitions of Kim Il Jong II or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would be curtailed or abandoned in response to American and Russian deterrent forces--or that India, Pakistan or China would respond with reductions of their own. This is dangerous, wishful thinking", my emphasis, Jon Kyl and Richard Perle at the WSJ, 29 June 2009, link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124623202363966157.html.

POTUS Obama is a child. What more can one say? "Mr. 57 States" is a total historical ignoramus. Wow. I'm softening up in my old age, I'm being nice to Obama today.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Take pity on him IA... he is our leader... it is painful to see him crumble so quickly...

It's going to be long term for him and for us.

Jr Deputy Accountant said...

Oh come on. When *I* act like a total ass you aren't so nice to ME, I expect that you will be harder on our dear POTUS in the future :P

Jr

Kesha H. said...

Bush was better these last eight (LONG) years? Or McCain and his sideshow sidekick was a better choice? PRESIDENT (c'mon now, didn't they teach you in school to address people by their titles?) Obama has only been in office for 6 months... give him a break... sheesh... he's trying to fix something that took a long time to get "effed up" and he's under alot of pressure from people :like you: who put him under extra scrutiny... I'd like to see you in the same position as he is and turn this country and the world's view of it around...

"Everybody wants to be a coach, but nobody wants to [or has the balls to] be the player."

Kesha H.

By the way... Michelle Obama '16 :]