It is falsely claimed that:

1)      Nuclear weapons are irrelevant in the 21^st century security environment. They are relics of the Cold War.

2)      A “world without nuclear weapons” is both realistically attainable and desirable.

3)      The nuclear triad is too expensive and not worth the cost.

4)      The entire nuclear arsenal is too expensive and siphons money away from other defense programs.

5)      Conventional weapons, missile defense systems, and cyberweapons can replace nuclear weapons in a very wide range of missions and scenarios and against the vast majority of targets.

6)      The fewer nuclear weapons the US has, the better; cutting America’s nuclear deterrent makes America safer.

Let’s deal with these myths one after another.

Myth #1: Nuclear weapons are irrelevant in the 21^st century security environment. They are relics of the Cold War.

The facts: Nuclear weapons are HIGHLY RELEVANT in the 21^st century security environment. They protect America and all of its allies against the following three, potentially catastrophic, security threats: a nuclear/chemical/biological attack, a large-scale conventional attack, and nuclear proliferation.

megoizzy (CC)

Russia has 2,800 strategic nuclear warheads (including 1,550 deployed) and up to 4,000 tactical warheads – and the means to deliver all 6,800 if need be. Its 434 ICBMs can collectively deliver 1,684 warheads to the CONUS; its 14 ballistic missile submarines can deliver over 2,200 warheads to the CONUS (while sitting in their ports); and each of its 251 strategic bombers can carry up to 7 warheads (1 freefall bomb and 6 nuclear-tipped cruise missiles). Its Tu-95 bomber fleet alone can deliver over 700 warheads to the middle of America.

China has at least 1,800, and up to 3,000, nuclear warheads, and the means to deliver 1,274 of them. Among these are almost 70 ICBMs, 120-140 MRBMs, over 1,600 SRBMs, dozens of land-attack cruise missiles, six ballistic missile submarines, and 440 nuclear-capable aircraft. While the vast majority of its SRBMs and cruise missiles are reportedly conventionally-armed at present, they could be armed with nuclear weapons anytime, which is called “breakout capability.”

Then there’s North Korea with its nuclear arsenal (which it has announced it will grow) and ICBMs capable of reaching the US, and Iran, which is coming closer to achieving nuclear weapon status everyday.

Besides deterring nuclear attack, nuclear weapons also protect America’s treaty allies against a large-scale conventional attack – ensuring that it has never happened so far.

Myth #2: A “world without nuclear weapons” is both realistically attainable and desirable. 

The facts: A world without nuclear weapons (“Global Zero”) is neither achievable nor desirable. Not achievable, because no other country in the world is following America’s disarmament “example” (and foreign countries don’t care about America’s “examples”; they care only about their self-interest). No other country is following the US on the road to “Global Zero”. Accordingly, there will NEVER be a world without nuclear weapons.

Russia has recently declared it will not cut its nuclear arsenal nor enter into any negotiations to that end. It is actually building UP its arsenal (as allowed to do so by the New START) and modernizing it. China, which has up to 3,000 nuclear warheads, is also rapidly building up and modernizing its arsenal, and refusing to even disclose its size or enter into any talks – let alone formal treaty negotiations – about it. Likewise, India and Pakistan refuse to join the Nonproliferation Treaty, disclose the size of their arsenals, or enter into any talks – let alone arms control treaties – pertaining to these arsenals. Ditto North Korea, which has recently announced it will NEVER give up its nuclear arsenal and that, if anything, it will INCREASE its size and restart the Yongboyng reactor to harvest plutonium from spent fuel rods.

So NO nuclear power wants to join the West in its suicidal nuclear disarmament quest. None whatsoever. Not Russia, not China, not India and Pakistan, not North Korea. And, of course, Iran is racing towards nuclear power status.

Even Bruce Blair, a supporter of America’s nuclear disarmament, testified recently before the House Armed Services Committee on March 19^th that even if America cut its nuclear arsenal deeply, e.g. along the lines of what his organization (Global Zero) proposes, NOBODY would reciprocate. (1:04:41)

Which is true – Russia, China, North Korea, India, Pakistan, etc., are all refusing to even cut, let alone eliminate, their nuclear arsenals. Obama has NO followers on the road to his totally unrealistic goal of “global zero”. There will never be a “global zero.”

Nuclear weaponry is a genie that cannot be put back into the bottle. It cannot be “un-invented” or banished from the face of the Earth, contrary to the unrealistic dreams of several US Presidents, including Ronald Reagan (this shows that, alas, Reagan wasn’t perfect and had some flaws).

Nor would a “nuclear-free world” be safer and more peaceful than it is now, contrary to Obama’s false claims that the US should “seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” On the contrary, it would be less peaceful and secure.

Humanity lived through “Global Zero” – in a world without nukes – for almost its entire history from its dawn to 1945. During that time, there were numerous and horribly destructive wars between the great powers of the time, each one leading to huge casualties among combatants and civilians and to great destruction. Examples included the Peloponesian war, Rome’s wars of conquest, the Hundred Years War, the Wars of Religion, the Thirty Years War, the Seven Years’ War, the Napoleonic Wars, and of course, the two World Wars. Not to mention the numerous bloody civil wars such as those in the US (1861-1865) and Russia (1918-1923).

5 million people, including 1 million Frenchmen, died in the Napoleonic Wars. Proportionally to the populations of today, that would be 50 million Europeans, including 10 million Frenchmen. French casualties in these wars were 14% higher than in WW1. In that war alone, about 10 million people died; in World War 2, over 60 million, and its perpetrators attempted the extermination of entire nations (peoples) and even races. The sheer barbarity and murder witnessed during that war is unmatched by any conflict before or after that war.

Since 1945, however – the advent of nuclear weapons – there has been NO war between the great powers. And it is mostly, if not entirely, because of nuclear weapons, which have moderated their behavior and forced them to accept coexistence with each other even if they have diametrically opposed ideologies. Nuclear weapons have taught them that even the most difficult compromise is better than a nuclear exchange.

Nuclear weapons have not ended war completely – no invention will ever do that – but they have eliminated great power wars. All wars since 1945 have been either between smaller, non-world-power countries (e.g. conflicts between Israel and its Arab neighbors), or between a world power and a weaker country (e.g. Iraq, Vietnam), or between a country and an insurgency (e.g. the US vs the Taleban).

Such conflicts have a much smaller scale, body count, and destructive power than great power wars. Since WW2, there hasn’t been a conflict even approaching the sheer barbarity and destruction of WW2, and it is mostly, if not entirely, due to nuclear weapons.

Instead of seeking their scrapping, we should all learn to love them.

Myth #3: The nuclear triad is too expensive and not worth the cost.

The facts: The nuclear triad is NOT too expensive and is well worth the cost. The ICBM leg of the nuclear triad – the cheapest, most ready, most responsive, and most dispersed leg – costs only $1.1 bn per year to maintain; the bomber leg, only $2.5 bn per year. The entire nuclear arsenal, including all the warheads, missiles, bombers, submarines, supporting facilities, and personnel costs only $32-38 bn per year to maintain, which is only 6.3% of the entire military budget ($611 bn in FY2013, pre-sequestration).

For that low cost, taxpayers get a large, diverse, survivable nuclear triad capable of surviving even a large-scale first strike and of striking anywhere in the world with any needed measure of power. A triad that gives the President huge flexibility in where, when, and how to strike; a triad that keeps the enemy guessing as to how the US would retaliate.

As Robert Kaplan says, “Don’t give your enemy too few problems to solve because if you do, he’ll solve them.”

Without the ICBM leg, the enemy would have to destroy only 2 submarine bases, 3 bomber bases, and any SSBNs that would be on patrol. WITH the ICBM leg still existing, the enemy would also have to make sure he destroys every single USAF ICBM silo; there are 450, and the USAF may have built decoy siloes.

Numbers don’t lie. Liberals do.

Without a triad, the nuclear deterrent would’ve been much less survivable than it is. This will be even MORE important as the arsenal is cut to even lower, post-New-START, levels.

A nuclear triad is the most survivable and most flexible nuclear arsenal arrangement ever invented, which is why the US, Russia, China, and Israel all have it, and why India is developing it. The Air Force is also considering the development of a rail-mobile ICBM, which could be hidden in innocently-looking, civilian-style railroad cars.

Myth #4: The entire nuclear arsenal is too expensive and siphons money away from other defense programs.

The facts: According to the Stimson Center, maintaining the US nuclear deterrent costs ca. $32–36 bn per year, including all the warheads, delivery systems, support facilities, personnel, and nuclear-related intelligence. This is a paltry 5.872% of the FY2013 military budget ($613 bn per the FY2013 NDAA). Modernizing the nuclear arsenal will, according to Stimson, cost up to $390 bn over the next decade, i.e. $39 bn per year on average. This is 6.4% of the FY2013 military budget. These are microscoping percentages.

So the US provides a large nuclear umbrella to itself and to over 30 allies at a cost of only 6% of its total military budget.

Furthermore, even if the ENTIRE nuclear arsenal were scrapped IMMEDIATELY and UNILATERALLY today, that would “save” a paltry $36 bn per year and thus fail to come even close to paying for sequestration, let alone balancing the federal budget.

No, the US nuclear arsenal is not siphoning money away from anything. As usual, it’s a scapegoat for liberals.

It is, in fact, other, more costly defense programs that are siphoning money away from nuclear deterrence and other defense priorities. For example, the development and acquisition of 2,400 short-range, understealthed, slow, sluggish F-35 strike jets will cost $400 bn. A single aircraft carrier costs $15 bn, yet is tragically vulnerable to ballistic and cruise missiles, submarines, and naval mines. Yet, the biggest cost drivers in the defense budget are personnel programs (pay, benefits, healthcare, retirement, etc.), which, unless seriously reformed, will consume the ENTIRE defense budget by no later than FY2039. That means no money for nuclear deterrence or for weapons of any kind.

And while F-35s and aircraft carriers are increasingly and prohibitively expensive, they’re also increasingly vulnerable and useless for the threat environments the US military will have to operate in. Meanwhile, the next generation bomber will be able to strike from well over the horizon – even the CONUS – and submarines have always been stealthy. USAF ICBMs sit in hardened siloes, can strike any place on the planet, and may be replaced by rail-mobile ones (see above).

Myth #5: Conventional weapons, missile defense systems, and cyberweapons can replace nuclear weapons in a very wide range of missions and scenarios and against the vast majority of targets.

The facts: Such claims are preposterous. None of these weapons have anything even close to the destructive, crippling power of atomic weapons.

Conventional weapons utterly lack such power. Even the most powerful conventional bombs – MOABs and the now-retired Daisy Cutters – have the explosive power approaching only that of the lowest-yield nuclear warheads, and MOAB is not even designed to penetrate anything.

Cyberweapons can shut down computer networks, but only temporarily, and can’t physically destroy anything. Buildings, vehicles, warships, aircraft, and humans will still exist. Cyberweapons can only complement other types of arms, but never replace them.

Nor can missile defense ever replace nuclear weapons. It has long been an article of faith among conservatives, including conservative think-tank analysts, that it can, but the truth is that it can’t. This truth will be uncomfortable for them, but my job as defense analysts is to tell people the truth, not what they want to hear.

Missile defense technology is still in its infancy. Moreover, one needs several interceptors to shoot down one missile. For example, to shoot down one Russian ICBM would take 7 ground-based interceptors of the type deployed in AK and CA. US missile defense systems (except the PATRIOT) have never been tested in massive missile barrages – the type of missile attacks the US will actually have to counter.

Furthermore, BMD systems’ ability to distinguish real warheads from decoys is yet unclear, and there are no systems available for boost-phase interception. But worst of all, BMD interceptors are far more expensive than the ballistic missiles they’re designed to intercept. A THAAD missile costs $9-10 mn; an SM-3, $10 mn; a ground-based interceptor, $70 mn. It is far cheaper to build and launch ballistic missiles than to intercept them. Furthermore, America’s enemies already have such huge inventories of BMs of all types – measured in thousands – that they are and will always be able to overwhelm American BMD systems through sheer numbers.

The best way to protect against missiles of any kind is to kill the archer, not the arrow. Only “offensive” systems – strike systems – can do that. This includes ICBMs, SLBMs, cruise missiles, bombers, and theater strike aircraft.

Myth #6: The fewer nuclear weapons the US has, the better; cutting America’s nuclear deterrent makes America safer.

The facts: These claims are also completely false. No nation in history has become more secure by disarming itself – whether uni-, bi-, or multilaterally. No nation in history has increased its security by indulging in arms reduction and disarmament – such policies have only weakened, and reduced the security of, the  nations practicing them.

Myth #6 is, in fact, an utter rejection of any principle or notion of deterrence or of peace through strength; it turns these principles upside down. Myth #6 is essentially a claim that weakness is good and leads to peace and security; that weakening one’s own military (and that’s what cutting its arsenals of weapons does – it weakens the military) makes one more secure and the world more peaceful.

Many variations of this myth have been uttered by the Left. For example, during the forementioned HASC Strategic Forces Subcommitteee hearing, its ranking member, Democrat Jim Cooper of Tennessee, an ardent enemy of nuclear weapons, claimed that the biggest cut in America’s nuclear deterrent – made by the elder President Bush in the early 1990s – was “a good thing”, that it made America and the world more secure and peaceful, and that this is supposedly shared by the “mainstream” of American opinion. Another strident leftist, John Garamendi (D-CA), claimed that “whatever we can do to cut nuclear arsenals – here, in North Korea, around the world”  is a good thing.

Their claims are blatant lies, of course. As I’ve already stated, no nation in history has become more secure by disarming itself, and America won’t be the first. President Bush’s deep unilateral cut in America’s deterrent is a textbook example of that. He cut the arsenal by almost half, withdrew US nuclear weapons from Korea and from surface warships unilaterally, terminated MX ICBM production and B-2 bomber production at just 21 aircraft, terminated the Midgetman SRBM, and terminated warhead production and testing.

Yet, no one else has reciprocated. Since then, China has dramatically increased its nuclear arsenal – to at least 1,800 and up to 3,000 warheads – while North Korea and Pakistan joined the nuclear club, India and these two countries have conducted nuclear tests, and Iran has made dramatic progress towards nuclear weapon capability. Russia has begun rebuilding and modernizing its arsenal.

So Bush’s deep nuclear cuts only weakened America’s deterrent (and confidence in it) while utterly failing to discourage others from developing or increasing their own arsenals. Two new states have joined the nuclear club, others have conducted tests, and Iran is well on its way there.

That’s because cutting America’s nuclear deterrent DOES NOTHING to prevent or even slow down nuclear proliferation or encourage others to disarm themselves. It is perceived (correctly) as a sign of American weakness and appeasement. It only emboldens America’s enemies while leading America’s allies to doubt the US umbrella. It does NOTHING, and will never do anything, to eliminate or even reduce the arsenals of other powers.

Other nuclear (and aspiring) powers don’t care about America’s “example” or observance of arms control treaties; they care only about their own military strength and see nuclear weapons as a key element of that. America has NO followers on the road to “Global Zero” – which other nuclear powers simply DON’T want to travel. Even Bruce Blair has admitted at 1:04:41 that even if the US totally disarmed itself, NO ONE would follow suit.

Thus, we have refuted all of the 6 most popular leftist lies about nuclear weapons. It is impossible (and not even necessary) to refute all myths that have been made about these crucial instruments of deterrence; and the vast majority of the lies about them fall under one of these 6 categories.

Nuclear weapons are NOT a threat to America’s or the world’s security; on the contrary, they are key to preserving it far into the future. They are irreplaceable instruments of peace and deterrence.

South African President Jacob Zuma saud that the group has ”decided to enter formal negotiations to establish a BRICS-led new development Bank based on our own considerable infrastructure needs, which amount to around $4.5 trillion over the next five years.”

Today Brazil and China announced that they will do business using each other’s currencies instead of using the U.S. Dollar – the world’s predominate reserve currency.

As the BRICS development bank matures, the members hope it will allow some of the world’s largest emerging economies to ignore and later supplant the World Bank and IMF.

Others are skeptical. .

Chief executive of the Johannesburg-based Frontier Advisory Martyn Davies said “I think there was too much hype around it”. Davies continued saying that the BRICS”are still battling to create the economic institutions to back their geopolitical rhetoric … the rhetoric is not supported by the substance.”

Where the World Bank has been largely the puppet of the U.S. and the IMF under the hand of Europe, the BRICS development bank effort is being largely pushed by China.

Many of the nations involved are economic powerhouses in their own regions, but the group is not yet a functional alliance. Many experts believe that for the bank to emerge as a global economic power, it will need to pull in new members from other emerging nations.

The Atheists Humanists Agnostics (AHA) of Dartmouth College plan to consider Mother Teresa’s character by looking through the lenses of Christopher Hitchens’s Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice. According to Hitchens’s Mother Teresa was anything but “good.”[1] Her love and commitment to the poor was simply a façade. The title of the book itself is a strong indicator of Hitchens’s (err) position. Hitchens uses cheap, vulgar, and double meaning to make his case and it is obvious that his interest is merely in selling his book and bagging the funds. Unfortunately, Dartmouth College students blinded by anti-Christian rhetoric are more than happy to support his pathetic cause. It would be interesting to see how many of them have actually done anything to help the poor in their own communities let alone abroad.

It is easy to cast the stone on a woman, now gone forever, who gave up everything to help those who were in deep need. Perhaps these wonderful atheists should consider taking a trip to India and spend one day doing what Mother Teresa did gladly for most of her life. Life in India is hardly as glamorous as Bollywood would have one believe. For the “enlightened” ones who follow Hitchens and listen to the Deepak Chopras of the world, no, the beaches of Goa do not equate to the slums of Calcutta. The heat in itself is enough to make one insane and that is nothing to say of disease, oppression, congestion, filth, or death.

Of course, the idea would hardly occur to these thinkers since the plight of the poor in India is hardly the objective of their gimmick. Indeed, in this case, their idea is to extend a “healthy debate” sitting atop the cushioned seats of Dartmouth College where they rip Christianity to shreds.  After all, how dare Mother Teresa think she could give up everything, travel halfway around the world, live (and die) in the midst of strangers?  How dare she show compassion and love to the poor, an unfortunate group shunned shamelessly by their own society? Such a notion is apparently inconceivable to these godless students. It is unimportant if the poor in India themselves loved Mother Teresa or were grateful for her service.  What is important is that people should have the freedom to debate, defame and destroy Christianity at any cost.  Yes, we should all listen to these great, godless thinkers of Dartmouth College and follow suit without fail. Right.

We’ve been hearing that EU is going to crash any day now, that Americans are over-leveraged and as Conservatives we know all about the looming debt crisis.

Today, Greek Prime Minister Lucas Papademos will be asking for new legislation that would impose losses on anyone who had been foolish enough to invest in the country. This provision would be triggered if no agreement could be reached in debt negotiations that will start on Wednesday. Papademos said, “The talks are not straightforward, because they aim at a voluntary restructuring of public debt, and to achieve a number of objectives simultaneously, objectives that involve trade-offs”

Of course that doesn’t mean the collapse of the Greek banking system (yet) which would lead to the fall of the EU (but not now) and then an eventual collapse of the global economy and life as we know it (if it were really happening). Nope, not that – not just this minute.

What about that middle east and Asia thing? @Zerohedge announced that the Oil Minister of India (one of the hottest new economies in the world) is now preparing for “all eventualities over Iran oil supplies”. And now, somehow, a middle-eastern country is about to run out of .. petroleum products. Nothing to see here, please move along.

The international community has its issues and apparently the United States is also on the precipice of catastrophe. The New York Times reminds us that “Few Cities Have regained Lost Jobs“, Reddit is going on strike, Palin would vote for Gingrich (in South Carolina), the unemployment rate is only getting better because more people have decided to quit looking for work and Colbert is being taken seriously by a major news outlet – you get the point.

So the world sucks, it’s 2012 so the whole Mayan calendar thing is coming, and we’re faced with the prospect of another 4 years of Barack Obama – who wouldn’t build a bunker, trim the hedges to create clear lines of fire and stock up a 50 year supply of that crappy astronaut ice cream  to weather the storm? Who?!

There is an economic storm brewing. The mainstream media needs you to keep trucking along so they can keep a steady stream of viable sponsors paying their bills. The politicians in power need you to believe things are stable so you’ll re-elect them and banks need you to think that it’s just fine to keep borrowing and spending your way to happiness. So don’t worry, be happy.

So who do you believe? Is Greece finally on the edge, will Iran prove a tipping point for Asian and European markets, will America’s debt-to-GDP ratio finally render the world’s largest economy defunct – or as Obama has told us, are things improving? Perhaps you should make sure your food store is stocked, you have cash, gold, chickens or whatever because after all, Rocks from Mars are Falling on Morocco - and if that’s not a indicator of the apocalypse.. what is?

Pakistani Political Commentator Zaid Hamid Threatens the US and India: We Are a Nuclear-Armed Islamic Army; “Your 150,000 troops Will Be Slaughtered and Butchered”

Some interesting rhetoric considering the current tension between the U.S. and Pakistan.

Clip and transcripts provided by the Middle East Media Research Institute.

Two major news headlines came out yesterday, Dec. 11, 2011, that when read separately do not lead the readers to see the complete picture of how one is directly connected to the other. Headline 1, from Business Standard was titled, Canada quits Kyoto Protocol, becomes first nation to do so. The second headline is from Fox News.com titled, >U.N. Climate Conference Reaches Hard-Fought Agreement.

In the first headline from Business Standard we see the following explanation about Canada dropping out of the original Kyoto Protocol, which is explained here from the United Nations Kyoto Protocol/Climate Change homepage as:

The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement linked to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The major feature of the Kyoto Protocol is that it sets binding targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European community for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions .These amount to an average of five per cent against 1990 levels over the five-year period 2008-2012
The major distinction between the Protocol and the Convention is that while the Convention encouraged industrialized countries to stabilize GHG emissions, the Protocol commits them to do so.
(emphasis mine)

As the above headline states, Canada has now refused to abide by any further mandates by the globalists in the U.N. that were inserted into the original Kyoto protocol. Canada’s conservative P.M., Stephan Harper and their Environmental Minister, Peter Kent released the following statements as to why they will no longer allow the U.N. Climate Change manipulators to basically charge Canada for carbon emissions, siphon off that wealth to other countries, while the two largest emitters, China and the United States are not covered under the newest U.N Climate Change mandates that were established just two days ago at the U.N. Climate Change Conference held in Durban, S. Africa.( now known as the Durban Platform)

“We are invoking Canada’s legal right to formally withdraw from Kyoto,” Environment Minister Peter Kent said, two days after a marathon UN climate conference in Durban, South Africa, at which 194 nations agreed to work on a new roadmap to curb global carbon emissions. Before this week, the Kyoto Protocol covered less than 30% of global emissions. Now it covers less than 13% — and that number is only shrinking. The Kyoto Protocol does not cover the world’s two largest emitters – the United States and China – and therefore will not work” he said.

As the original Kyoto Protocol was shown to be pretty much a lopsided failure, as is usually the case when people try to get many different nations to agree on one set of rules, it has now been proven to be just the initial step in allowing the U.N. Climate Change plutocracy to take massive amounts of wealth from one country and give it to another country based on very shady and cloudy Global Warming theory-based mandates. We see this proven by several of the U.N. Durban conference attendee statements after the headlines hit the news announcing, U.N. Climate Change Conference Reaches Hard-Fought Agreement. From the above-linked Fox News article we see the following tidbits: (emphasis mine)

The proposed Durban Platform (COP17) offered answers to problems that have bedeviled global warming negotiations for years about sharing the responsibility for controlling carbon emissions and helping the world’s poorest and most climate-vulnerable nations cope with changing forces of nature.
Sunday’s deal also sets up the bodies that will collect, govern and distribute tens of billions of dollars a year for poor countries. Other documents in the package lay out rules for monitoring and verifying emissions reductions, protecting forests, transferring clean technologies to developing countries and scores of technical issues.

While the debate raged on, India objected to being included in the Durban Platform mandates under the guise that “developing nations” of the past 20 years should not pay for 200 years of Global warming caused by industrialized nations. If that is to be considered fair, how about “developing nations” compensating industrial nations for developing the very technology that reduces carbon reductions in the first place? India’s Environmental Minister, Jayanthi Natarajan did have the most compelling comment of the conference: “How do I give a blank check and give a legally binding agreement to sign away the rights of 1.2 billion people?”

This is the main problem with the U.N. being given the power to take wealth and technology from one nation to give it to the nation of their choice, under the guise of being World Climate Change Czars. This is also being driven by a conglomerate of Socialists that seem to want Americans to ignore just what that Socialism has done recently to the European Union countries. Canada has taken the lead in pulling out of this One World Government scheme that is hiding behind the initials U.N.

It would be wise for the U.S to pull out of this recently announced Durban Platform/Kyoto Protocol redo, and take a firm stand against this unfair attempt at redistributing America’s wealth and technology under the guise of saving the planet from the evil carbon emissions that have in fact, allowed America to help feed and develop other nations for over 200 years. Unless of course, the Globalists at the U.N. would like to discuss the other nations being mandated to pay America back for her centuries of contributions to carbon emission reductions, clean-air technology, food production, electricity generation etc. America’s system of capitalism has allowed the rest of the world to benefit from it for a long time now. Is that something we should bend over and let the U.N. Climate Change plutocrats and fear-mongers penalize us for?

Footnote: Actual commitments from the last minute “negotiations” at the Durban Platform conference have been slow to hit the news. Relative updates will be posted as they develop, including a final summary of just what, if anything this conference accomplished.

Update: Ed Morrissey over at hotair.com summed it up nicely:

So the “agreement” is a non-binding pledge to meet again and make another agreement in, oh, three or four years, and that agreement won’t have to take effect for another five years after that. The only commitments in the near future for the Durban agreement is some voluntary reduction goals that emerging nations won’t bother to meet and industrial nations will ignore. Just like … Kyoto.