Is the Obama Administration in denial
about nuclear weapons?

a blog by
Ruth McClung
April 13, 2010

Last week, the Obama Administration released its new Nuclear Posture Review. There are a few decent things, but there are some extremely disturbing parts. One of these is: The United States will not fight back with nuclear weapons if another country attacks us with a different type of WMD (weapon of mass destruction), namely a chemical or biological weapon.

There are several grave problems with this policy. First, since the United States has no intention of ever using nuclear weapons except in self defense, the purpose of these bombs is to serve as a deterrent. However, if we promise not to attack except when a nuclear weapon is used, this deterrent is gone.

As an example, Saddam Hussein had a horrific history of using chemical weapons. During the first Gulf War, there was fear that these WMDs would be used on our troops. The first President Bush only hinted that if these weapons were used, we might retaliate with nuclear weapons. Just this threat saved countless lives, because the threat had power behind it.

A second problem is on how Secretary Gates stated that we will only respond with conventional military weapons. This statement doesn't make sense, since the Administration has been making huge cuts to those conventional weapons and resources. Cutting the F-22 is just one example. Missile defense is another. Obama is also wanting to limit our conventional weapons. My question is: what weapon and shield will our government allow for America's protection? A big stick?!

Charles Krauthammer in his article summed up how ludicrous Obama's policy is in his article "U.S. Shouldn't Play Nice on Nukes."

"Imagine the scenario: Hundreds of thousands are lying dead in the streets of Boston after a massive anthrax or nerve gas attack. The president immediately calls in the lawyers to determine whether the attacking state is in compliance with the NPT. If it turns out that the attacker is up-to-date with its latest IAEA inspections, well, it gets immunity from nuclear retaliation. (Our response is then restricted to bullets, bombs and other conventional munitions.)"
"This is quite insane. It's like saying that if a terrorist deliberately uses his car to mow down a hundred people waiting at a bus stop, the decision as to whether he gets (a) hanged or (b) 100 hours of community service hinges entirely on whether his car had passed emissions inspections."

Who doesn't want a nuke-free world except for terrorists and the like? But the only way to negotiate arms control is to approach it from a position of military strength, not weakness - where Obama's policies are quickly taking us.

Who do you want to make decisions on nuclear weapons? A community organizer or a rocket scientist?

Ruth

 

 

 

Ruth McClung for US Congress Arizona CD 7

 

 

back to front page

donate online
or by mail

volunteer

 

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for our Email Newsletter

 

 

 

Paid for by Ruth McClung for Congress

Ruth McClung for Congress

PO Box 40544

Tucson, AZ 85717

ruth@ruth4az.com

website managed by: 4 Campaigning (Managing and Marketing)
4campaigning.com becauseofGod.com