Bad nuke-cuts timing
Bad nuke-cuts timing
The editorial “America's nuclear posture: Weaker under Obama” (Feb. 19 and TribLIVE.com) reported that “senior administration officials ... say America's already reduced arsenal can be cut further — by at least a third — without jeopardizing national security.” What rose-colored glasses are these folks looking through? Some relevant facts:
• Hackers operating out of China are infiltrating the Internet and routinely breaking into corporate networks.
• The Chinese are nearing completion of a huge aircraft carrier and have indicated they have plans for more.
• The North Koreans now have nuclear weapons.
It's not a Herculean step from hacking into a company to hacking into the U.S. electric grid, pipeline network, communications systems, intelligence agencies and military. Nor is it unreasonable to ask exactly what China plans to do with a fleet of aircraft carriers.
It's not unlikely that China, second in economic strength only to the U.S., is bankrolling the North Korean nuclear program and providing technical assistance.
If President Obama and his senior administration officials would take the time to “connect the dots,” they would easily conclude that China most likely plans to become “adventuresome” and that this is not a good time to reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal.
Wayne E. Baughman
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.
- Biased? Guilty as charged
- It’s not personal
- ‘Food fight’ lamentable
- Unhappy returns
- UMW fighting EPA regulations
- Cockpit safety stalled