America's nuclear posture: Weaker under Obama
With re-election safely behind Barack Obama, senior administration officials working on the president's “nuclear posture” review say America's already reduced arsenal can be cut further — by at least a third — without jeopardizing national security.
And to augment their argument, anonymous administration sources also say a reduction of this scale would save billions of dollars in a federal budget that's hemorrhaging red ink. Never mind that this so-called “consensus” came last year but was kept under wraps.
Is this the “flexibility” that Obama promised Russia post-re-election?
The presumption that the world somehow will be safer if the U.S. adopts minimal nuclear “effectiveness” is sheer nonsense. Despite the U.S. reducing its nuclear weapons stockpile by 75 percent since the end of the Cold War, according to The Heritage Foundation, the dangers have become increasingly apparent.
Nuclear nettlesome North Korea responded to United Nations sanctions by conducting an underground nuclear bomb test. And Iran, insisting its nuclear agenda is peaceful, wants to reconfigure the Middle East without Israel.
“(T)he U.S. should increase its options to deter and defend, not decrease them,” write Heritage scholars Rebeccah Heinrichs and Baker Spring.
Experts also warn that the wrong nuclear “posture,” with further weapon reductions, is not easily reversed. Congress must resist cuts that reduce American's nuclear deterrence to a quaint notion.
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.
- The Wolf budget: Taxing & spending
- The Thursday wrap
- Mon-Yough communities need evacuation plans for rail disasters
- Netanyahu’s speech
- The IRS scandal: A cover-up grows
- SCI Greensburg: A dubious deal
- Taxing consequences: The Shell effect
- ObamaCare in court
- U.N. Watch: Russian buffing
- Unsolved McKeesport murders raise concerns
- The Obamanet: An Internet threat