US Nuclear Policy Limits Defensive Capability defines naive as “having or showing a lack of experience, judgment, or information; credulous.”  If anyone now doubts that President Obama is naive, well, they just ain’t paying attention.

Yesterday, the Obama administration released a new policy on use of nuclear weapons, as well as plans to aim the world toward a nuclear weapon free planet.  This wouldbe great.  It would also be great if prudish American modesty didn’t prevent women from going topless at the beach, but that’s just not how it is, and it’s cultural.  It would be great if there weren’t any evil people on the earth, people who didn’t believe that the taking of human life is worth the acquisition of power.  It would be awesome if there weren’t several thousand Russian warheads left over from the cold war, and the Russians weren’t in desparate economic times. 

But it just isn’t so. 

What the Obama administration has proclaimed with this policy is that a non-nuclear armed nation that doesn’t wish to be nuclear-armed  will not be attacked using nuclear weapons.  This is problematic in practice, but it makes my heart feel good.  Nuclear weapons are not known for their ability to contain destruction.  If a non-nuclear armed nation is close by a nuclear armed nation, it would make it difficult for the US to respond to an attack from the nuclear nation.  Proximity.  Of course, if we are attacked, I like to think that the president could quickly order a response, but being a liberal appeaser, I’m not so sure he would.  Either way, it would be a response, so many Americans would die, especially since we don’t have a missile defense system in Eastern Europe. 

Next, a nuclear armed nation that abides by a nuclear non-proliferation treaty would also not be attacked using nuclear weapons.  The box is getting smaller and smaller, yes? 

Iran and North Korea are exempt.  Apparently all of our nukes will be pointed at Pyongyang and Tehran.  Boo hoo. 

The Obama administration has done here what it always seems to do.  Set up rules for everyone, then exempt certain groups for a variety of reasons.  I happen to agree with not including Korea and Iran in this deal. However, if China is included, and Korea is a close neighbor, how can we fire a missile at Korea and be 100% sure we won’t accidentally hit China?  This will be the thinking if, God forbid, we ever have to retaliate against North Korea.  Same thing for Iran.  If all of Iran’s neighbors are non nuclear or partners in non-proliferation, would we ever fire at Iran for fear of destruction in other nations?  Not with this president. 

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that if we were to fall victim to a chemical, biological, or cyber attack from an “no fire” nation, we would respond with extreme conventional force.  How long might that take?  Instead of lobbing a few small nuclear devices at an enemy who attacked us, we would have our young men spill their blood to what end?  To prove a point?  The truth is that these guys won’t go in there guns blazing.  They’ll recommend UN sanctions.  They’ll get neighboring nations to fight for us.  They’ll try diplomacy.  They’ll talk.  They’ll negotiate.  All the while forgetting that these guys attacked US.  They’ll make excuses, saying that we have been “arrogant.”  That we brought the attack on ourselves.  They’ll waffle.  They’ll hem.  They’ll haw.  But they will not ACT. 

If the United States no longer has nuclear deterrence in its arsenal, what do we have that is forceful enough to keep crazy dictators from acting like, well, crazy dictators?  What would stop Hugo Chavez from launching a chemical attack against us in the cocaine they sell us?  Venezuela is non-nuclear, right?  Maybe we could send in drones that spray perfume on the enemy.  The perfume counter at JC Penney’s is pretty stinky and irritating.  Perhaps we could mail them a bunch of thick envelopes and hope they get gangrenous paper cuts. 

The whole point of having nuclear weapons is not having to use them because the other guys think you will.  If you promise not to use them, what do you have left?

Obama diplomacy.  This seems to consist solely of weakening the United States to the point that we have no choice but to talk because we can’t fight. 

I guess that will “raise our standing in the world.” 

If that’s what it takes, I’m not interested in a higher standing.  I’d rather know that we don’t have to take millions of casualties than worry about what some nut job in a funny hat halfway around the world thinks of me. 

I’d really like it if that nut job thought, “I’d better not attack them, because they might nuke my ass.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: