President Barack Obama is set to deliver his State of the Union Address tomorrow. In it, he’ll push for new stimulus spending, pay raises for federal employees (public sector unions) and a host of other programs including immigration reform and methods to address “climate change.” Also on the President’s agenda is a move to further reduce America’s nuclear arsenal.
This is a dangerous continuation of Obama’s irresponsible, perhaps reckless, agenda regarding our nuclear deterrence. Consider the events of the last four years and ask yourself whether or not the President is jeopardizing our national security.
As the Presidential election kicks into high-gear, foreign policy has been brought to the fore with the one year anniversary of the killing of terror mastermind and al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden. With some tit-for-tat going back and forth between President Barack Obama and presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney over whether Romney would have ordered “the raid to capture Osama bin Laden last year,” I began to think about President Obama’s record as Commander-in-Chief. The more I thought and the more I dug into his record, the more I couldn’t help but think about Ronald Reagan and a few choice words he had to say:
From the “you just can’t make this stuff up” file, The Weekly Standard reported yesterday that North Korea has been appointed Chair of the United Nations Conference on Disarmament.
So Iran tested missiles “capable of delivering a nuclear payload.” Why is it that when these things happen, people act surprised? It is not as if we had no idea Iran has been working on a missile program capable of carrying nuclear war heads.
Back in February 2010, CNN reported that according to a draft report by the International Atomic Agency (IAEA), Iran is “secretly developing a nuclear warhead for a missile.” Of course this was no surprise. In Mid-December 2009, The Associated Press reported that Iran tested a new advanced missile that is capable of striking Israel, parts of Europe and U.S bases in the Middle East.
Remember that START Treaty President Barack Obama insisted the lame-duck Congress pass?
In December 2010, Obama Used His Weekly Radio Adress To Push For Lame-Duck Vote On His START Treaty. “‘Before going away for the holiday break, I’m hopeful we can also come together on another urgent national priority – and that is, the new START treaty that will reduce the world’s nuclear arsenals and make America more secure,’ Obama said in a weekly address delivered Saturday.” (Alexander Bolton, “Obama Aims For Second Lame-Duck Victory With START Treaty Push,” The Hill, 12/18/10)
Well, Obama signed what is considered to be a cornerstone of his Presidency in foreign policy this week, but did so without reporters and without TV cameras.
Obama has made it his goal to see a world without nuclear weapons. Idealistic? Naïve?
Both. The fact of the matter is nuclear dangers are growing. Without getting into North Korea’s nuclear program or their efforts to transfer technology to Syria and Myanmar, or Iran’s drive to acquire a nuclear capability, we need look no further for evidence than our old Cold War foe, Russia, or the emerging Communist superpower, China.
Nine months ago, the Obama Administration released a revised Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) designed to limit the uses of our nuclear weapons.
Yesterday, the “U.N. Security Council imposed a fourth round of sanctions in as many years on a defiant Iran” in hopes of keeping the Islamic Republic from “developing atomic weapons.” President Barack Obama trumpeted the new sanctions as an “unmistakable message about the international community’s commitment to stopping the spread of nuclear weapons.”
Two questions: 1. what exactly is the “unmistakable message” and 2. what good will a “fourth round of sanctions in as many years achieve?”
The answer to the first question is that Iran and other countries seeking nuclear weapons can continue in their quest so long as they can ride out sanctions that do nothing more than hurt the citizens who reside under the boot heels of despotic regimes and military juntas. It's plainly obvious there is no will to truly stop Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon.
Much has been made of the newly drafted Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) and President Barack Obama’s plans to revamp the rules of engagement over the use and application of America’s nuclear weapons arsenal. It should not have come as a surprise, the Obama Administration telegraphed this last fall. Critics fear Obama aims to use the new NPR and recently negotiated START Treaty with Russia as a pretext to unilaterally disarm the United States. Others (liberals) contend Obama doesn’t go far enough.
There’s plenty of room for debate over the merits and real world application of the NPR and whether START should be ratified by the U.S. Senate. We’ll let policy wonks battle this out who have far greater expertise on how many missiles our country really needs, whether we still need the TRIAD of missiles, bombers and submarines to launch such weapons, and the nuts and bolts of the rules of engagement.
CNN is reporting this afternoon that according to a draft report by the International Atomic Agency (IAEA), Iran is “secretly developing a nuclear warhead for a missile.”
Is this surprising? In Mid-December last year, The Associated Press reported that Iran tested a new advanced missile that is capable of striking Israel, parts of Europe and U.S bases in the Middle East.
“Iran On Wednesday Test-Fired An Upgraded Version Of Its Most Advanced Missile . . .” (Ali Akbar Dareini, “Iran Test-Fires Its Most Advanced Missile,” The Associated Press, 12/16/09)
“Wednesday's Test Was For The Latest Version Of Iran's Longest-Range Missile, The Sajjil-2, With A Range Of About 1,200 Miles (2,000 Kilometers).” (Ali Akbar Dareini, “Iran Test-Fires Its Most Advanced Missile,” The Associated Press, 12/16/09)
“The White House Responded Sharply Wednesday To Word That Iran Has Tested An Upgraded Version Of Its Most Advanced Missile, Which Is Capable Of Hitting Israel And Parts Of Europe.” (Matthew Mosk, “U.S. Condemns Iran Long-Range Missile Test,” The Washington Times, 12/17/09)