We Are The Biggest Threat
Barry the militant pacifist is at it again.
Entirely failing to see the point in retaining nuclear weapons and maintaining the development of new, more reliable and even more explode-y nukes no matter what, Barry wants a radical shake-up in the US’ nuclear and strategy.
Reducing the number of nukes is no biggie: it’s been going on for ages and, though he doesn’t get any credit for it, W. reached a nuclear reduction accord with Vlad the Mad in 2002.
But Barry is once again jumping in at the deep-end, without even attempting to take any measurements. Most significantly, Obama wants to (1) redraft nuclear doctrine to narrow the range of conditions under which the US would use nuclear weapons and (2) guarantee the future reliability of nuclear weapons without testing or producing a new generation of warheads.
Here’s a couple of hints for you, Barry. Please don’t make (1) contingent upon the US being struck with a nuke first, before it can launch one itself. I feel that this is necessary to say because you’re so terrifyingly peacenik and reluctant to state what the world knows: we are the best. At everything. And, (2), before the generals and scientists tell you this, is impossible. The only way that we can ensure that our nukes are reliable (thus, safe) is by testing them. If you’re thinking about replacing real tests with virtual ones, don’t.
Even Barry cannot be naive enough to believe that if the US does this, then Russia/Iran/DPRK will be more inclined to undertake concessions themselves in return. That will never happen.
So if Barry doesn’t believe that, what then lies behind his urge to disarm?
Simple.
Barry sincerely believes that the US is too powerful/dangerous. He is one of those people (whom I’ve experience teaching) who believe that the US’ use of nukes against Japan was genocidal and a crime against humanity. So he will neuter the US in an unrequited act of love towards the not-free world.
Finally, to those who think that nukes are an antiquated remnant of a world long gone, think again: as we so evidently cannot predict future threats, why should we deprive ourselves of one of the means of protection against them?
PS – Here’s the equation for legitimate ownership of nuclear weapons, in case anyone needs reminding:
Democracy + nukes = good.
Non-democracies + nukes = disaster.
And it’s no coincidence that that neatly draws a line between “us” and “them”, too.
September 21st, 2009 at 16:03
Having him in charge is simply too dangerous. I remember during the Clinton administration, everyone was throwing around the words “impeachable offense”, but I’m not certain there’s any legal definition. Couldn’t we get him impeached simply by having the votes? I suspect within about a year we’ll have the votes. I hate that we have to go this route, but he’s a monster, and we’re getting closer to a country with a number of very large, very dead cities.
Candle´s last blog ..I’m totally conflicted….
September 21st, 2009 at 18:13
If anyone would read their freakin’ history book, they would see that the use of nukes against Japan was necessary because they WOULD NEVER HAVE STOPPED FIGHTING OTHERWISE.
September 21st, 2009 at 18:16
Sorry, didn’t get to finish. According to Japanese culture, if they had surrendered, it would’ve been a dishonor, so they would have killed every man, woman and child in fighting that war. For the libtards, who think this is some right-wing propaganda: I got this info from someone who lived in Japan for many years and knew the culture. They still harbor resentment for the nukes, but, bet a clue. They started it. We finished it.
September 21st, 2009 at 18:17
“get” not bet. Geesh! I think I need a beer!
September 21st, 2009 at 18:20
Candle – his lack of foresight is terrifying. Barry cares only about perceptions, being the conventional politician that he is, and has no concept of long-term consequences at all.
skiri’ki – I only heard a couple students say that it was genocide, but that was two too many. I, of course, proceeded to destroy their insane views through calm and measured rebuttals.
As you say, without dropping Little Boy and Fat Man, God only knows how/when the war in the Pacific would have ended.
I truly believe that Barry believes this to have been unnecessary, showing (again) his ignorance of history and reflexive Marxist stance.
September 21st, 2009 at 18:28
So, more and more of the “peace through appeasement and capitulation” plan emerges.
Just Google “Operation Downfall.” You can get a lot of details about our planned invasion of the Japanese home islands. Not only was it going to be a bloodbath, but we discovered, after the surrender, that they had thousands more planes and other equipment hidden away in caves. The resistance would have been worse than our estimates, which were horrific from the start.
September 21st, 2009 at 19:15
Iran is not going to stop their nuclear weapons program (oops, I mean their peaceful nuclear power program, ahem), and this scares me. No amount of diplomacy is going to stop them. Obama obviously doesn’t believe in “peace through strength”.
The Conservative Lady´s last blog ..See…It’s Not About Race
September 22nd, 2009 at 08:51
Democracy + Nukes = Good
Afghanistan is a democracy
Therefore Afghanistan + Nukes = Good
Until the democracy is replaced. As could happen in Pakistan. And could happen elsewhere?
September 22nd, 2009 at 08:54
Pete,
Good to hear from you!
And thanks for pointing out the flaw in my (admittedly simplistic) equation.
By “democracy”, I mean/should have written “stable, entrenched democracy” not “pretend democracy”, as Afghanistan and Pakistan both are.