Election Disadvantage



Download 1.8 Mb.
Page54/61
Date19.10.2016
Size1.8 Mb.
#3943
1   ...   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   ...   61

Ext – Modernization Now

U.S. adversaries are modernizing their arsenals and other nations are proliferating.


Ferrara, 4/4/2012 (Peter – Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Heartland Institute and General Counsel of the American Civil Rights Union, served in the White House Office of Policy development under President Reagan, Obama’s Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament, American Spectator, p. http://spectator.org/archives/2012/04/04/obamas-unilateral-nuclear-disa)

Perhaps you do not know that President Obama has asked the Pentagon to develop plans to reduce America's nuclear arsenal by up to 80 percent. That would ultimately leave America with just about 300 nuclear weapons, down from a high of over 31,000 at the height of the Cold War. In 2010, President Obama completed negotiations with Russia for a New Start Treaty, which reduces America's nuclear warheads to 1,550. There were effectively no reductions in Russian weapons in return, because the collapsed Soviet empire was functionally unable to maintain the threatening nuclear arsenal it maintained during the Cold War. President Obama exhibits a very strange lack of recognition of anything that happened during the Reagan years and the 1990s when Republicans gained control of Congress. You can see that in his failure to recognize any of the Reagan economic policies and their astounding success. He acts and talks as if none of that ever happened, perversely returning to the disastrously failed Keynesian economic policies of the 1970s. Similarly, in foreign policy, President Obama acts and talks as if he doesn't know that America under Reagan/Bush won the Cold War without firing a shot, in Margaret Thatcher's celebrated phrase, and the old Soviet power is no more. When he entered office, there were no arms control treaties in effect because the old Soviet Union that was party to START I no longer existed. In this context, reopening and completing New START Treaty negotiations with the surviving Russian Federation raises troubling concerns about President Obama's seemingly eerie state of mind. It is as if, so doggedly pursuing the opposite of everything that Reagan did, he is trying to reopen the Cold War, but this time with the opposite result: America loses. The old Soviet Union cannot easily be put back together. But more troubling for America is that this is no longer a bipolar world. China is a rapidly emerging military power building new, highly advanced nuclear and space weaponry, and a navy that is on course to push American naval forces out of the Western Pacific in a couple of decades, if not sooner. While Newt Gingrich's political opponents ridiculed his proposal for an American moon base by the end of this decade, the Chinese will have one looking down on our food stamp nation within a couple of decades. As Frank Gaffney wrote in the February 22 Washington Times: The Obama Administration continues to assume that the People's Liberation Army has only a few hundred nuclear weapons -- approximately the number to which our commander in chief would like to reduce the American arsenal. A radically different estimate was recently provided, however, in a Georgetown University study led by a former Pentagon strategic forces analyst, Professor Phillip Karber….Mr. Karber's team concluded that, based on the vast infrastructure China has created to conceal its missiles [3,000 miles of hardened tunnels], it may have as many as 3,000 nuclear weapons. Nuclear weaponry is also proliferating to Iran and North Korea, and soon to their rivals as America's nuclear umbrella becomes less and less reliable. That can mean Japan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt, besides Pakistan, which already has nukes that can fall into terrorist hands. And even shrunken Russia recently announced, under its about to be reinstalled President Vladimir Putin, a new $770 billion defense modernization plan with 400 new long range nuclear missiles, quite possibly each one with multiple, independently targeted warheads. This includes modernized ICBMs and submarine launched ballistic missiles. It is all in compliance with President Obama's New Start Treaty


Unilateral Disarm Bad – Nuclear War

Unilateral disarm will result in use-it-or-lose-it pressure that escalates to nuclear war.


Moran, 2/16/2012 (Rick – host of RINO Hour of Power, Obama mulls unilateral disarmament of strategic nukes, American Thinker, p. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/02/obama_mulls_unilateral_disarmament_of_strategic_nukes.html)

So, Obama wants a world free of nuclear weapons. So did Reagan. The difference is, Reagan wanted to make nukes obsolete by building the Strategic Defense Initiative. Obama simply wants to disarm unilaterally - with no planned corresponding reduction from Russia, China, or any other nuclear power. Russia would never agree to such steep cuts anyway And one of his options is to reduce our stockpile of nukes to 300 - a number not seen since 1950. BusinessWeek: Even the most modest option now under consideration would be an historic and politically bold disarmament step in a presidential election year, although the plan is in line with President Barack Obama's 2009 pledge to pursue the elimination of nuclear weapons. No final decision has been made, but the administration is considering at least three options for lower total numbers of deployed strategic nuclear weapons cutting to around 1,000 to 1,100, 700 to 800, or 300 to 400, according to a former government official and a congressional staffer. Both spoke on condition of anonymity in order to reveal internal administration deliberations. The potential cuts would be from a current treaty limit of 1,550 deployed strategic warheads. A level of 300 deployed strategic nuclear weapons would take the U.S. back to levels not seen since 1950 when the nation was ramping up production in an arms race with the Soviet Union. The U.S. numbers peaked at above 12,000 in the late 1980s and first dropped below 5,000 in 2003. Obama has often cited his desire to seek lower levels of nuclear weapons, but specific options for a further round of cuts had been kept under wraps until the AP learned of the three options now on the table. A spokesman for the White House's National Security Council, Tommy Vietor, said Tuesday that the options developed by the Pentagon have not yet been presented to Obama. The Pentagon's press secretary, George Little, declined to comment on specific force level options because they are classified. He said Obama had asked the Pentagon to develop several "alternative approaches" to nuclear deterrence. An "alternative approach" to nuclear deterrence is surrender. If Russia has 3, 4, or 5 times the number of warheads as we do, then the only rational alternative if they threaten us is to give up. That small number of warheads makes nuclear war far more likely. It will be a "use them or lose them" strategy since a surprise attack on our missile force would likely reduce our retaliatory response to the point where Russia might actually think they could survive relatively intact.


Obama will push unilateral disarm --- nuclear deterrence reduces the chance of nuclear war.


Investor Business Daily, 2/15/2012 (Obama’s Irrational Warhead Cuts: Nuclear Gun Control, p. http://news.investors.com/article/601292/201202151830/obama-nuclear-warhead-cuts-are-irrational-.htm?p=full)

The commander in chief who once pined for a world without nuclear weapons has decided a world without an American deterrent is a good start, seeking to cut the U.S. arsenal by 80%. In a world where rogue states with unstable leadership are either in possession of or pursuing nuclear weapons, and with Russia rearming and China emerging as a world military and nuclear superpower, President Obama has ordered the Pentagon to consider cutting U.S. strategic nuclear forces to as few as 300 deployed warheads — below the number believed to be in China's arsenal and far fewer than current Russian strategic weapon stocks. This latest example of presidential naivete, which makes even Jimmy Carter look like a warmongering hawk, seems based not on geostrategic reality but rather on the wishful thinking that the threat posed is nuclear weapons, not the enemies that possess them. Pentagon planners have been asked to consider three force levels as part of a Nuclear Posture Review ordered by President Obama last August: a force of 1,100 to 1,000 warheads, a second scenario of between 700 and 800 warheads, and the lowest level of between 300 and 400 warheads. Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney believes that even considering such deep strategic cuts is irrational. "No sane military leader," he says, "would condone 300 to 400 warheads for an effective nuclear deterrent strategy," he told Bill Gertz of the Washington Free Beacon. Gertz also quotes John Bolton, former U.N. ambassador and undersecretary of state for international security in the Bush administration, as saying the administration's plan to cut the nuclear force as low as 300 is by itself "sufficient to vote against Obama in November." The current U.S. arsenal has about 5,000 warheads. A cut to 300 would put us at a level not seen since 1950. Just as liberals think that guns, not criminals, cause crime, foes of American exceptionalism such as President Obama believe it is nuclear weapons that threaten the world, not the tyrants who possess them. They believe the once-unrivaled arsenal of democracy is really just the instigator of arms races. In the past, we would decide what we need to meet obvious threats. Obama seems to be saying let's disarm and the threats will just go away. As the world's only effective defender of freedom and democracy, the U.S. has a slightly different mission statement and military needs than Russia, China or the rogue states such as North Korea and Iran. To morally equate us with them is like saying there's no difference between cops and criminals because they both carry guns, so let's put restrictions on the guns. In a 2009 speech in Prague, Obama spoke of "America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons," ignoring the fact that before 1945 we lived in such a world and it was neither peaceful nor secure. While Obama envisions a world without nuclear weapons, and moves steadily toward unilateral disarmament of our arsenal, we envision a world without tyrants and thugs willing to use them against us. We do not fear nuclear weapons in the hands of Britain or France, countries that share our love of freedom and democracy. Nuclear weapons in the right hands ended the violence of World War II. In the right hands, they kept Western Europe free and helped win the Cold War. And the fact that they were used made it less likely they would ever be used again.




Download 1.8 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   ...   61



The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message
    Main page
Guide
Instructions
Report
Request
Review