| Opinion/The Review

Larger text Larger text Smaller text Smaller text | Order Photo Reprints

America's nuclear posture: Weaker under Obama

Daily Photo Galleries

Monday, Feb. 18, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

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.

Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.



Show commenting policy

Most-Read Editorials

  1. The Thursday wrap
  2. State of surveillanc: The DEA database
  3. Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
  4. Open records: Hold the phone?
  5. The atom smasher
  6. Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
  7. Shenango shakedown: Public money at risk
  8. Greensburg Tuesday takes
  9. The Arneson firing: Legally dubious
  10. U.N. Watch: Climate games
  11. Those new methane rules: More eco-extremism