« UPDATE on BHO's Order To Withdraw Charges Against USS Cole Bombing Mastermind | Main | Remembering President Ronald Reagan »
February 06, 2009
Obama = Jimmy Carter On Steriods
"I think the signing of a nuclear disarmament pact with the Soviet Union is at best an act of naivete, and at worst an unsupportable negligence. We've stayed alive because we've built up an arsenal, and we've kept the peace because we've dealt with an enemy who knew we would use that arsenal. And now we're asked to believe that a piece of paper will take the place of missile sites and Polaris submarines, and that an enemy who hasn't honored one solemn treaty in the history of its existence will now, for our convenience, do precisely that. I have strong doubts, gentlemen........"
Another quote from the film not in this video that pertain to the article below:
General James Mattoon Scott: And if you want to talk about your oath of office, I'm here to tell you face to face, President Lyman, that you violated that oath when you stripped this country of its muscles - when you deliberately played upon the fear and fatigue of the people and told them they could remove that fear by the stroke of a pen. And then when this nation rejected you, lost faith in you, and began militantly to oppose you, you violated that oath by not resigning from office and turning the country over to someone who could represent the people of the United States.
Concerns on Proposed Reduction of U.S. Nuclear Stockpile to 1,000 Weapons
According to press reports, President Obama has directed the U.S. to seek a future strategic arms control treaty with Russia that will reduce the U.S. nuclear stockpile to 1,000 weapons, an 80 percent reduction.
This leads to the question of how President Obama chose this number of 1,000. Unfortunately, circumstances make it clear that President Obama and his Administration have chosen this number arbitrarily.
When the U.S. undertakes an effort as sensitive and fundamental to its security as negotiating a strategic nuclear arms control treaty, it should do so on the basis of careful planning:
First, the President and his Administration must settle on a clear strategy and define the means by which the treaty will bolster that strategy;
Second, this strategy must identify the military and political requirements the U.S. nuclear force must fulfill over the expected life of the treaty; and
Third, such a strategy must establish a clear means of verifying compliance with the expected treaty and have specific plans for enforcing the terms of the treaty during its implementation.
These are the fundamental standards for effective arms control.
A Clear Lack of Planning
When the press reports announcing the pending arms control treaty were published, President Obama had been office precisely 17 days. It is utterly implausible that he and his Administration have taken any of the planning steps necessary to implement such an ambitious strategic nuclear arms control treaty. Obama's national security strategy, at a minimum, is months away from completion.
More importantly, there is no indication that the President has established the criteria for assuring the political and military utility of the U.S. nuclear stockpile and active arsenal that would remain in place following the ratification and execution of the planned treaty. Politically, it must be determined, among other things:
* How the remaining nuclear arsenal will increase stability and lessen the likelihood of strategic strikes against the U.S. and its allies,
* Whether the force will be based primarily on deterring strategic attacks by countering them or by relying on retaliatory strikes; and
* How to extend the U.S. nuclear umbrella for the protection of its allies.
The Obama Administration has made no public assertion that any of these planning steps have been taken. What makes this lack of planning particularly disturbing is that there has been a torrent of recent reports that the state of the U.S. nuclear weapons infrastructure is in decline.
The Need for Caution
If President Obama's stated commitment to maintain a strong deterrent until global denuclearization is something more than subterfuge, then he should state that reports asserting that he has directed the U.S. to engage in negotiations with Russia to reduce the U.S. nuclear stockpile to 1,000 weapons are inaccurate.
Such a statement should also make it clear that any such negotiations will be undertaken in substantive terms only after Obama's Administration has concluded a careful planning process. It is a gross understatement to say that a policy based on the assumption that nuclear weapons have no value--and that nuclear arms control is therefore a low stakes game--is fraught with danger. President Obama needs to be more careful and deliberate.
Wild Thing's comment..........
IMO the United States needs to maintain a nuclear stockpile sufficient to utterly destroy any country that might attack us. And Russsia will play Obama like a fiddle. Putin will give up 80% of his nukes when Hell freezes over.
Obama thinking the Russians will abide by any agreement to reduce nuclear stockpiles. Fat chance!
My worry is that this could be part of an Obama / Ayers Doctrine to weaken the United States defense capability.
I remember reading an account years ago about Jimmy Carter very first meeting with his national security team. He expressed an interest in reducing nuclear arms, and the team dutifully laid out the current state of negotiations with the Soviets, their capabilities, etc.
The newly-elected Carter stunned the military men into utter silence when he said his goal was to reduce nearly all of America’s nuclear weaponry. As I recall, the writer put it something like this: “Everyone in the room gasped inaudibly....”
From "45 Communist Goals":
Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35
January 10, 1963:
1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
'Goals' 4-45 can be found here ....Communist Goals
....Thank you Mark for sending this to me.
Mark
3rd Mar.Div. 1st Battalion 9th Marine Regiment
1/9 Marines aka The Walking Dead
VN 66-67
Posted by Wild Thing at February 6, 2009 04:55 AM
Comments
I think in 6 months if this nitwit gets his way, we will be virtually defenseless. If the numbers are correct, that we currently have 5000 Nuclear weapons and to reduce them by 80% this is suicide. So much for his oath of office and defending the country against all enemies Foreign and domestic. obama's route to his self described utopia is right on track. Only problem is the whole world is just waiting for it to happen. Thanks to 52.9% of the electorate they have vouchsafed us with a dud.
Posted by: Mark at February 6, 2009 07:16 AM
Putin must be having one major orgasm after another over the idiocy of this flake of a president!! I think we are now seeing how some of the hard core commies felt when Gorbachev opened the door to democracy in the old Soviet Union. Only this time "O" is opening the flood gates to communism!!!
A good offense requires a strong defense. But "O" doesn't have the slightest clue as to the meaning of either. He thinks that by being the "Chosen One", all he has to do is wish it and it will be so!!! This man (and I use that term extremely loosely) is a total joke. And sadly, with everyone so amorously enthralled by his forked, slippery tongue, he will lead this great nation to total destruction!!!
I agree with you Mark...."O" is on track to totally disarm and neuter this country in 6 months or less if continues to get his way.
These words from Peter, Paul, and Mary song "Where Have All The Flowers Gone" are truer now under "O" than ever before......
Where have all the soldiers gone?
They've gone to graveyards, every one.
Oh, when will they ever learn?
Oh, when will they ever learn?
I'm trying to decide....should I start leaning how to speak Arabic, Russian, Chinese, or all three?!?!?!
Posted by: John at February 6, 2009 08:16 AM
"The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States …” "
— George Orwell
I seem to smell the stench of appeasement in the air.
Margaret Thatcher
"Make the bad man go away!"
Me
Posted by: yankeemom at February 6, 2009 08:55 AM
Remember it was Jimmy Carter who halted production of the B-1 Bomber and development of the Neutron Bomb.
Ronald Reagan was feared, thus he was respected. We lived in peace during his Administration. Obama will viewed as weak by the Russians, Chinese, and Muslim world. His concessions will weaken this nation both diplomatically and militarily.
Posted by: BobF at February 6, 2009 10:07 AM
Yeah, like all our treaties with Russia have worked so well. Putin is Krushchev all over again. But Obama just knows that the Russians will also drink his kool-aid. Obama, like Carter, is living in a world where intentions carry more weight than reality. Our nuclear arsenal has served us well. We need to keep it strong and potent.
Posted by: TomR at February 6, 2009 10:29 AM
I think we need to start a petition to have O'Vomit removed from office due to severe mental retardation before he gets us all killed.
Posted by: cuchieddie at February 6, 2009 11:18 AM
We stood on the sidewalk yesterday on a fabulous Springtime-in-the-Rockies day and talked about disarmament. I was building Pershing II's back in the '80s that we knew Reagan was bargaining away in the SALT talks and that would all be destroyed. It didn't bother me because down at the other end of the huge bay was a Peacekeeper case that would go out into the desert on a rail car to roam around until fired to defend us all. In another bay were replacement Polaris missiles to go to the British, our most staunch Allies. Bigger and better weapons of defense were coming like the Tridents out there under the ocean now at the beck of today's democratically elected President.
I told my fellow .40 and .45 shooters on the sidewalk yesterday that the last two weeks had pushed aside my fear of this President picking up my hand guns. Hell, think of all the jobs to be created to demilitarize all those nuclear warheads and all the great steel to be cut out of those subs. And the electronics to be resold to the Chinese who were given the software from Clinton in exchange for election contributions. A gold mine of profit for winning the White House. Handguns and surplus military rifles are becoming irrelevant under a President with audacity. The Australians turned theirs in--they didn't have to be picked up. Gun owners are being called to March on D.C. soon. I hope to be there. May be my last march. We have come a long way since Reagan and the Pershing II's.
Posted by: horace at February 6, 2009 11:31 AM
We have a media created president, not the first. Back under Camelot, that other Democrat president with all the media credentials submitted this relevant document, it's worth re-reading since it is all but impossible to find like Ted's Chappaquiddick lifeguard swimsuit.
http://www.mikenew.com/pub7277.html
Understand now why they were so upset that Caroline was bypassed. This is the Kennedy Legacy.
Posted by: Jack at February 6, 2009 12:33 PM
Fuckin' commie should get the rosenberg treatment.
I've got a great Idea Launch 2,000 ICBM's at russia and 2,000 ICBM's at china and BAM! we've now reduced our stockpiles by 80%. Then with the remaining 1,000 we could blanket the middle east. There terrorism is now eliminated.
Posted by: JohnE PFC U.S. Army at February 6, 2009 01:31 PM
It doesn't matter whether the United States has 5000, 1000, or 10 nuclear weapons. The fact of the matter is that our enemies know that B. Hussein Obama would never use any of them under any circumstance. No way! No how!
Obama probably gave as much thought to reducing our nuclear arsenal by 80% as he gave to logistically withdrawing all combat troops from Iraq in 16 months and closing Gitmo with it's 248 dangerous detainees in one year. Just how will Obama disarm 4000 nuclear weapons and where will he locate the remaining nuclear material?
Obama says no nukes under any circumstance
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ke99JAQRep4&feature=related
Obama's plan for protecting the United States from a nuclear attack
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/08/10/opinion/coyote.jpg
Payback to the Obama campaign
http://www.israpundit.com/2008/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/obama_prp.jpg
Posted by: Les at February 6, 2009 04:11 PM
I have to disagree with Les.
It makes a huge difference if our enemies see their window of opportunaty as one that can be slammed shut, as BHO leaves or do they see their window of opportunaty as one where we would have to rebuild the wall and reinstall a window before we could close it. What BHO is doing is vastly more dangerous than outright surrender.
The worst part is he is too ignorant to understand that "there are no stable solutions to the three body problem." This is from systems engineering but it applies to Astronomy and Diplomacy too. Where ever you have the tugs of forces and momentum applies.
A stable configuration can have one great power and many small powers. They can settle into a relatively stable system like the Solar system. Two great powers with many smaller powers have many stable configurations as long as the two bodies are far larger than anything else is in the area. Once you get three equal bodies, stability is gone with mathematical certainty. Obama wants a system with five powers, US, Russia, China, France and England to having roughly equal nuclear weapons.
Given that the 550 tons of uranium that Bush brought back to the United States from Iraq would support, with effort, fabrication of seven hundred nuclear devices (triggers for bigger fusion devices instead of fission only bombs) and it does not mater if Russia cheats. Somebody who is not even seen as being at the table will cheat and start the war.
C. Norhcote Parkinson and Max Weber's research into Bureaucracy make plain that no peace administration can be achieved among five parties and that if we get eight parties involved (Japan, India and anyone else) deadlock will be inevitable.
It is said that most wars are triggered by diplomatic miscalculation. We face four years of diplomacy by a man who does not even know that there is calculation to diplomacy.
Posted by: Avitar at February 6, 2009 05:32 PM
Horace we might just be fighting side by side against the russians, chinese, and whatever youth corps "o" makes if obama takes measures to disband the military. Stalin and Hitler did that shit using children to fight and so do viscious african warlords they use child soldiers and obama will likely make them fight like the damn red army. There was a russian army general that once said that the last Army he would want to face is the U.S. Army. He said something like we train to a certain doctrine but when we get downrange that doctrine goes out the window and it's anything it takes to win. obama can't stand that we Troops don't play pc butt darts, Generals might we don't.
Posted by: JohnE PFC U.S. Army at February 6, 2009 05:32 PM
Mark, your right, and I agree too with what you said about the entire world.
" So much for his oath of office and defending the country against all enemies Foreign and domestic. "
Posted by: Wild Thing at February 6, 2009 06:14 PM
John, I agree!
"Putin must be having one major orgasm after another over the idiocy of this flake of a president!!"
Posted by: Wild Thing at February 6, 2009 06:16 PM
Yankeemom, good ones!!!!
Posted by: Wild Thing at February 6, 2009 06:20 PM
BobF, your so right, what a huge difference.
Posted by: Wild Thing at February 6, 2009 06:22 PM
Tom, yes I want to keep all our things and keep us strong and feared to by those that need to fear us.
Posted by: Wild Thing at February 6, 2009 06:25 PM
cuchieddie, yes he sure will get us killed and more of our troops killed too.
Posted by: Wild Thing at February 6, 2009 06:27 PM
Horace, thank you for sharing about all of that. I hope you are able to go to the Gun Owners March on D.C.
Posted by: Wild Thing at February 6, 2009 06:32 PM
Jack, thank you so much for the link to that.
Posted by: Wild Thing at February 6, 2009 06:34 PM
JohnE PFC U.S. Army, heh heh now see you just solved it.
Posted by: Wild Thing at February 6, 2009 06:36 PM
Les, I don't know, the article didn't say how what they do with the parts etc. when they break them down. I would not want to have that job though.
Posted by: Wild Thing at February 6, 2009 06:41 PM
Les, thank you for the links too.
Posted by: Wild Thing at February 6, 2009 06:44 PM
Avitar, yes, this is so true.
"We face four years of diplomacy by a man who does not even know that there is calculation to diplomacy."
Posted by: Wild Thing at February 6, 2009 06:48 PM
