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. Continue reading

When Israel Strikes Iran in October

Israel is in a political and security quandary.

Officials are convinced it’s only a matter of time before Iran uses its nuclear capability against the Jewish state, living up to the dire threats its leaders have been making for years now.

But Israeli leaders also fear they will lose the window of opportunity to deal a devastating military blow to Iran’s nuclear development if such a strike is not conducted by October of this year.

Why?

Because they believe Barack Obama has a reasonable expectation of being re-elected to the White House – and, if he is, he is likely, unconstrained by concerns about a future election, to be a political liability in the wake of such an action.

However, if the strike is made prior to the election, Obama is much more likely not to condemn Israel. It just wouldn’t be a popular political move for him. Even most Democrats in the U.S. Congress will support Israel’s right to defend itself.

But here’s the quandary – not only for Israel but for Americans who want to see Obama defeated in 2012: Will that kind of “October surprise” indeed help Obama to win the election?

Most Israeli leaders don’t want to see that. But what choice do they have when their nation’s survival is at stake?

Full article: When Israel Strikes Iran in October (WND)