Rebuttal of Obama’s SOTU lies about nuclear weapons, Part II
As I predicted, last night, in his SOTU speech, Obama called for deep further cuts in America’s already excessively-cut nuclear deterrent, down to just 1,000-1,100 warheads according to the NYTimes.
To justify his indefensible plan, Obama invoked a very fallacious argument, cynically using North Korea’s Monday nuclear test as a justification for gutting AMerica’s nuclear arsenal. He falsely claimed that the US must cut its nuclear arsenal further and deeply because the world will follow only “when America shows it is willing to lead” – lead on nuclear disarmament in this case.
I correctly predicted that Obama would
“Cutting our nuclear arsenal will convince others to give up their nukes. If we give up ours, North Korea will give up its.”
This false claim is downright laughable. There is zero evidence supporting it. In fact, while the US has been dramatically cutting its nuclear arsenal since the Cold War’s end – from over 20,000 warheads in 1991 to 5,000 today – two new states (Pakistan and North Korea) have joined the nuclear club and fielded ICBMs, while China has dramatically expanded its nuclear arsenal. India and Israel have grown theirs. Moreover, all of these countries consistently refuse to even talk about, let alone give up, their nuclear arsenals. China has recently categorically rejected nuclear disarmament and North Korea has just tested a nuclear weapon. What’s more, China has actively AIDED North Korea’s development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, and a Carnegie Institute analyst has just stated that North Korea’s uranium enrichment program will allow it to buld a nuclear arsenal much larger than what has previously been estimated.
Other countries don’t give a damn about America’s “moral example” or “leadership by example”. They don’t care about American gestures. All they care about is THEIR military strength and how it compares to America’s. If the US cuts its nuclear arsenal, they will only see it as a sign of weakness – which it would be. It will never convince them to give up their nuclear arms.
Signing and implementing New START has not convinced other countries to give up their nukes.
Moreover, further cuts to America’s arsenal will not enhance America’s “credibility” in the eyes of the “international community” or convince that community to place meaningful pressure on North Korea and Iran; the “international community” has utterly failed to do so.
Neither rogue states like North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan, nor major powers like China and Russia, nor other countries, nor the international community at large will be impressed by any, even the deepest, cut in America’s nuclear arsenal. Such cuts will not give America any credibility nor show that America is “willing to lead” on anything except disarming the West unilaterally while North Korea, China, and Iran continue to arm themselves beyond their legitimate self-defense needs. Such cuts will only gravely weaken the West’s defenses and embolden these hostile countries to continue their military buildups while America is gutting its own defense.
Such cuts will therefore utterly fail to convince North Korea and Iran to forego nuclear weapons or the international community to force North Korea to disarm itself. All that such will cuts will do will be a severe weakening of America’s defense. And that is unacceptable and downright treasonous.
And as I said above, the record to date has shown that arms control, inclduing cutting America’s nuclear deterrent, has UTTERLY FAILED to even slow down, let alone stop, nuclear proliferation. If anything, cutting the nuclear deterrent has ENCOURAGED it. Since 1991, the US has dramatically reduced its nuclear arsenal, from over 20,000 to 5,000 warheads, while Pakistan and North Korea joined the nuclear club, North Korea fielded two ICBM types (the TD-2 and the KN-08), China grew its nuclear arsenal to potentially as much as 3,000 nuclear warheads (at least 1,274 of them being deliverable) and produced enough fissile material for 3,600, and Iran made steady progress towards nuclear weapon capability.
In short, arms control and cutting the US nuclear arsenal have utterly failed to stop nuclear proliferation, enhance America’s “credibility” on the subject, or display America’s “leadership”. All they have succeeded in doing is a huge weakening of AMmerica’s defenses.
Thus, it is no surprise that retired USAF LTGEN Brent Scowcroft, a former presidential National Security Advisor, has himself a moderate proponent of further cuts, has challenged other proponents of further reducing America’s nuclear arsenal to prove that such cuts can be done safely and that the present conditions are right for such moves, reminding everyone that “we should not assume that fewer is ipso facto better” – because it isn’t.
Last but not least, Obama plans to circumvent the Senate’s Constitutional advice and consent role in ratifying treaties and instead make the cuts through “presidential initiatives” with Russia or even unilaterally. This would be utterly illegal, because Sec. 2573(b) of Title 22 of the United States Code clearly states that any agreements limiting the US ilitary or any of its weapon inventories – including nuclear weapons – must be written as treaties and are subject to Senate ratification (or rejection, as the case may be).
Thus, not only is Obama planning to deeply cut America’s nuclear deterrent further – at a time when Russia, China, Pakistan, North Korea, and India are all growing their nuclear arsenalsnd while Iran is racing towards nuclear weapon status, he plans to do so ILLEGALLY, by circumventing the US Constitution and laws duly enacted in the pursuance thereof.
Folks, please call yor Congressman and both of your Senators and tell them that you will never vote for them again if they don’t stop Obama’s unilaetral (or bilateral, with Russia) disarmament of the US.