The Left (including RINOs such as John McCain, George P. Shultz, Henry Kissinger, Condoleezza Rice, and Colin Powell) constantly (and falsely) claims that the US needs to continue reducing its nuclear arsenal, even unilaterally, with a view towards ultimate complete nuclear disarmament of the US.
They falsely claim that not only can the US afford to do so, but that it “needs” to do so; that to be secure, it needs to continually cut and eventually completely scrap its arsenal; that any cut in America’s nuclear stockpile, no matter how deep and no matter if unilateral, is “a good thing”; that the elder President Bush’s 50% cut in that stockpile and its associated delivery systems was “a good thing”; that cutting the US nuclear deterrent will make America and the world more secure!
It is on that basis that they demand that America’s nuke deterrent be cut further and eventually scrapped altogether, and it is on that claim – which leftists (including the forementioned RINOs) have elevated to a religious dogma – that all disarmament/arms control treaties and policies are based.
Leftists claim that the US “needs” to cut its weapon arsenals – nuclear and conventional – because it would supposedly make America more secure.
Even some non-RINO Republicans, such as House Strategic Forces Subcommittee Mike Rogers (R-AL), have accepted this faulty logic and this utterly false claim and say they’re OK with deep cuts to America’s nuclear deterrent – as long as it’s done by treaty or by an Act of Congress. 13 Republicans, including Johnny Isakson, voted for New START, and Saxby Chambliss said in December 2010 that he “wanted to vote for it”.
But they’re dead wrong. Cutting America’s arsenals of weapons – nuclear, conventional, or otherwise – has never made and will never make America more secure. Read on, and I’ll show you why, in simple terms and with simple examples.
Firstly, history proves that disarmament proponents are dead wrong. No nation that disarmed itself – whether uni-, bi-, or multilaterally – became more secure as a result. On the contrary, disarmament and arms control have always made the nations practicing such suicidal policies LESS SECURE.
A classic example is the West during the 1920s and 1930s – Western nations (other than Germany) disarmed themselves, signed a number of “arms control treaties” and honored them, but Germany (from 1933 onwards) and Japan did not and armed themselves to the teeth. Peaceful Western nations (the US, Britain, France) refused to arm themselves even after 1933, after Germany’s and Japan’s aggressive designs were obvious to anyone with half a brain – and as a result, their militaries were too weak and too obsolete to stop German and Japan aggression.
Indeed, after WW2, George F. Kennan, the author of the Containment Doctrine, pointed these facts out and strongly condemned the “disarmament will make us safer” fantasy as a distraction that unnecessarily absorbed the West’s attention at a time when Western countries should’ve been rearming and modernizing their militaries. Kennan was likewise highly critical of the calls for disarmament made after WW2; he knew they were lunacies.
Had George F. Kennan been alive today, he would’ve likewise strongly condemned the Arms Control Association, the Ploughshares Fund, Global Zero, the “Project on Government Oversight”, and the “Council for a Livable World” and the suicidal unilateral disarmament policies these extremely leftist organizations advocate.
George Kennan is best known as the author of the Containment Doctrine, but he would have been the first to admit that the doctrine was based primarily on the power of America’s nuclear deterrent (the US had a nuclear monopoly until 1949) and on a global network of military bases surrounding the Soviet Union. In other words, on STRENGTH, not weakness. Because it is STRENGTH that deters aggressors. Weakness only invites aggression. This is another truth that has ALWAYS been proven correct throughout ALL of human history.
The facts are really simple: the fewer nuclear weapons you have, the weaker and more liable to aggression you are, and the fewer enemy targets you can hold at risk (and strike if need be), thus reducing the enemy’s risks should he commit aggression. Also, a smaller nuclear arsenal is less survivable and more liable to an enemy’s disarming first strike. Fewer warheads, submarines, and missiles on your side make fewer targets for the enemy to destroy.
By making the utterly farcical claim that cutting America’s nuclear deterrent will make America safer, the Left has turned the “peace through strength” method on its head – they essentially claim that weakness makes one secure and the weaker America is, the safer she is!
Of course, common sense alone tells us that this is utter garbage. The actual national security record of “arms control” (read: disarmament) treaties in recent decades has been even more dismal.
Although President Obama has announced his intention to rid the world of nuclear weapons, and is disarming the US unilaterally, NO ONE – no other country – is following America’s lead. Obama’s claim that America must “lead by example” has been exposed as an utter farce. Even Britain and France are (understandably) unwilling to disarm themselves unilaterally or in concert with the US while Russia, China, and others retain their nuclear arsenals.
Meanwhile, Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan, and India all utterly refuse to cut their nuclear arsenals by even one warhead or delivery system and, in fact, are EXPANDING their nuclear arsenals – North Korea even publicly announced its intention to do so a few months ago. Russia claims that it’s nuclear arsenal is “sacred.”
In fact, Moscow has, since 2010, been steadily expanding its nuclear arsenal, and plans to continue doing so, as it is allowed to do so by New START. China now has at least 1,600, and up to 3,000, nuclear warheads (per General Viktor Yesin and Professor Philip Karber, respectively), enough fissile material for 3,600, and over 3,000 miles of tunnels in which to hide these warheads and their delivery systems. And of course, Iran is racing towards nuclear weapon status.
This, by the way, utterly refutes the Left’s promises that if America were just nice enough to cut its nuclear arsenal, other countries would follow suit, and Iran would stop pursuing nuclear weapons.
But it isn’t just America’s enemies who are refusing to disarm and growing their arsenals. Many of America’s allies are capable of going nuclear in several months, and willing to do so if the US continues to cut its nuclear umbrella. They know they can’t afford to bet their security and their very existence on America breaking free of its “nuclear disarmament will make us safer” kool-aid by 2016, especially since the US couldn’t do that in 2012 and foolishly reelected Obama.
For example, according to a recent poll, 66.5% of South Koreans believe their country should acquire its own nuclear weapons, and 70% support the reintroduction of US tactical nukes to the peninsula. Japan could go nuclear in months and has recently opened a nuclear fuel processing plant which would allow it to produce 2,000 nuclear warheads per year, as reported by the Center for Security Policy.
Thus, America’s nuclear deterrent is crucial not just for the protection of America and its allies, but also for preventing nuclear proliferation – a problem which will become much worse if that deterrent is cut further.
Over 20 years of deeply cutting that deterrent, usually unilaterally, has done NOTHING WHATSOEVER to improve US national security. It has only undermined it. It has made America much weaker and much less secure, while undermining allies’ confidence in the deterrent, emboldening America’s enemies, and encouraging rather than nuclear proliferation. Cutting the US nuclear arsenal does NOTHING to stop proliferation – it only encourages it.
As the Center for Security Policy rightly says, it is time to stop pursuing that suicidal policy and completely reverse course. For that to happen, however, the Republican Party will have to win back the White House and the Senate.