MONROE: The antiquation of America’s nuclear weapons

As mentioned many times here: As the list of America’s enemies continues to grow so do their threats and capacity to act upon them. The logical response would be to increase the would-be penalty for even coming close to showing intent in harming the United States. Yet, only what is counter-intuitive is the priority. Only in today’s times would people develop the illusion that total disarmament by the U.S. would be a demonstration of “moral strength.” Truth be told, there is nothing immoral about America preserving its military pre-eminence in the world.

In regards to a free world, when America (which is not untouchable) goes, so goes the rest of the free world. Any other Democratic countries are already too dependent on America for it’s security umbrella and will cave in to the demands of Russia and China (Shanghai Cooperation Organization — the new world war axis) after Washington gets hit with One Clenched Fist. It’s now 2013, a new year… and The United States is still consuming New Lies for Old.

Disarming while the world gears up a dangerous strategy

America is moving down a slippery slope, about to pass the point of no return. Our nuclear weapons capability is disintegrating. Here’s a quick assessment.

President Obama’s national goal — a world without nuclear weapons — is impossible and undesirable. Yet his administration is trying to lead the way into this fantasy land by making unilateral prohibitions, reductions, delays and cutbacks of all kinds. Today’s nuclear weapons policies — established by the Obama team in the Nuclear Posture Review — lead to nuclear weakness, rather than the nuclear strength that has kept us safe for over half a century.

While all this is happening here, nuclear weapons threats are increasing apace throughout the world. Every other nuclear weapons state is modernizing (and in many cases expanding) its nuclear arsenal. Russia has a robust development and production program for advanced nuclear weapons, and Kremlin strategy now calls for their early use in all conflicts. China, newly belligerent, is in the midst of an immense strategic modernization program, and the growing size of their improved, longer-range nuclear arsenal is cloaked in secrecy. Pakistan is rapidly increasing its nuclear stockpile, and India is responding with theirs. North Korea’s tests of nuclear weapons and long-range missiles are in the news daily, as is Iran’s absolute determination to achieve full nuclear weapons status. Mr. Obama, after four years’ nuclear disarmament effort, hasn’t a single nation-state follower.

The nuclear era began 70 years ago. The 12 presidents (six Democrats, six Republicans) who led us for the first 66 of those years proclaimed nuclear weapons to be the cornerstone of our national security, our country’s highest priority. Four years ago Mr. Obama reversed this proven policy. He devalued nuclear weapons, declaring them an evil to be eliminated. In a world of awesome dangers, he launched us on the slippery slope. Ronald Reagan’s statement should be remembered: “Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong.” Common sense would have us return to a policy of nuclear strength, not weakness.

Focus now on the future. What new nuclear threats will America face in five years, 10 or 20? The answers are unknown — and unknowable. If we start today, it will take us about five years to research and design a single advanced weapon appropriate for deterring today’s nuclear threats. About five more years will be needed to test and produce the first prototype weapon. America has no pit production facility (for nuclear weapon triggers), and about 15 years will be required to design and build one. So it will be about 20 years before we’ll be able to start production of our first modern nuclear weapon. It will be about 30 years before we’re well into stockpile replacement. This is not a prudent risk, and common sense counsels immediate action to stop the downward slide.

America is at a turning point in history. It’s time we had a national debate on nuclear strength versus nuclear weakness. This is the way democracies resolve issues of national survival.

Full article: MONROE: The antiquation of America’s nuclear weapons (Washington Times)

Comments are closed.