Obama & nukes: The Weakness Doctrine
The latest expression of the Obama administration's perilous stance on U.S. nuclear weapons is a State Department advisory board urging cuts beyond already dangerous New START treaty levels.
The Washington Free Beacon reports the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) also advocates “unilateral or informal reductions to avoid expected Senate ratification battles.” The ISAB would have America reduce to New START levels more quickly and amend the treaty to cover both tactical and strategic warhead cuts, too.
The ISAB recommendations reflect President Obama's ill-advised aim of eliminating all U.S. nuclear weapons — and are even more disturbing in the context of:
• His administration's delay, past the election, of its months-overdue study urging cuts beyond New START's 1,550-warhead level
• His infamous March “open-mic” comment to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev about “more flexibility” post-election on missile defense in Europe
• His seeming intention to now ignore nuclear-weapons modernization, promised to Senate Republicans to get New START ratified.
“The Obama administration is hellbent to denuclearize the world starting with our arsenal,” says Frank Gaffney, who heads the Center for Security Policy. He calls the ISAB recommendations an “actually reckless policy approach.”
This White House apparently — and absurdly — believes it can achieve peace through weakness.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.