Election Disadvantage
Obama Bad Impacts (Foreign Policy)
Download 1.8 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Ext – Obama Kills Deterrence
- Obama reelection undermines nuclear deterrence --- sparks arms races and conflict.
- Obama reelection undermines nuclear deterrence --- lack of funding.
Obama Bad Impacts (Foreign Policy)Deterrence 2NCObama reelection results in unilateral disarm --- kills deterrence and results in nuclear war.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) America's Nuclear Suicide Obama's literally crazy idea is that if we just lead by example and phase out our nuclear weapons, everyone else will realize we mean them no harm, and do the same. As a result, because of the messiah, the lion will lie down with the lamb, and the world will live as one. As Gaffney further explained, "He evidently is prepared to take such a step unilaterally in order to encourage by our example other nations to join his long-standing ambition to 'rid the world of nuclear weapons.'" The problem is if President Obama is reelected, he as the commander-in-chief would be free to carry out this flower child policy on his own authority, without Congressional approval. As Gaffney further explained in the March 27 Washington Times, "Mr. Obama's subordinates are signaling, however, that he is prepared to disarm us unilaterally through what one of them, Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller, recently called 'executive action.'" Gaffney rightly concluded in his February 22 column, "It is an astonishing insight into the President's commitment to 'fundamentally transforming the United States of America' -- in the worst sense of the phrase -- that he is willing to take such steps in the midst of his reelection campaign. Imagine what he would do if the last vestiges of restraining accountability are removed in a second term." In these modern times, a full blown nuclear war would be over in a matter of days. America will not have four years to build up the arsenal of democracy if caught by surprise. A dew-eyed miscalculation on these matters literally threatens your very life, and the lives of your family and children. That is why not only President Obama must be held accountable for this national defense foolishness, but the entire Democrat party that supports and enables him. That includes his contributors, whose names are publicly available, and his voters. This is a Paul Revere moment. The survival of you, your family and your nation is at stake, far more so than even on that April night in 1775. Exercise your rights of freedom of speech and democratic participation while you still have them, indeed, while you are still alive. Ext – Obama Kills DeterrenceObama will unilaterally disarm the U.S. --- undermines nuclear deterrence.Gaffney, 3/26/2012 (Frank – president of the Center for Security Policy, Leading no followers to ‘Global Zero’, The Washington Times, p. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/26/leading-no-followers-to-global-zero/) In Seoul, South Korea, on Monday, President Obama enthused once again about his vision of a world without nuclear weapons. It’s a dream he has had since he was a radical leftist studying at Columbia University in the early 1980s. In the hope of advancing it now as commander in chief of the United States of America, he declared that - since he is convinced we have more of these weapons than we need - he is going to reduce our arsenal. According to some accounts, he has in mind cutting it to one roughly the size of Pakistan‘s. In his address at Hankuk University, Mr. Obama suggested that he would get the Russians to do the same. That surely will come as a surprise to their once-and-future president, Vladimir Putin, since he has been quite aggressively beefing up the Kremlin’s nuclear forces. In fact, Mr. Putin recently unveiled a $770 billion defense modernization plan which would, among other things, buy 400 new long-range ballistic missiles. It is a safe bet that they will be outfitted with modern nuclear weapons, probably multiple, independently targetable ones at that. It seems no more likely that the Russians will agree to reduce their vast monopoly on tactical nuclear weapons or their undisclosed and “nondeployed” stocks of strategic nuclear weapons - two other initiatives Mr. Obama declared he wanted to take. Even if they would, any such agreement would be wholly unverifiable. If the Russians won’t play ball, it’s a safe bet no one else will, either. Mr. Obama’s subordinates are signaling, however, that he is prepared to disarm us unilaterally through what one of them, Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller, recently called “executive action.” In short, the president seems to be replacing his notorious “lead from behind” strategy in Libya with a “lead with no one behind” approach. Mr. Obama has sparked disbelief and outrage on Capitol Hill with the revelation that he has tasked the Pentagon with developing options that would eliminate as much as 80 percent of the deployed weapon levels set just two years ago by his seriously defective “New Start” Treaty. On March 7, Rep. Michael R. Turner, who chairs the House Armed Services Committee’s Strategic Forces Subcommittee, wrote in Politico: “Traditionally, a president has directed his military advisers to determine, chiefly, what level of our nuclear force is needed to deter a potential adversary from attacking us or our allies. The answer to that question should be what drives the strategy - not a president’s political ideology.” In addition, on Feb. 17, Mr. Turner and 33 other members of Congress threw down the gauntlet in a letter to Mr. Obama. It said, in part: “We seek your assurance that in view of the ambitious nuclear weapons modernization programs of Russia, communist China, Pakistan and others, the deep cuts to U.S. conventional capabilities per the Budget Control Act, and your failure to follow through on your pledged [modernization of the deterrent], that you will cease to pursue such unprecedented reductions in the U.S. deterrent and extended deterrent.” The legislators’ point about the president’s failure to honor the commitment made to secure Senate approval of New Start in a cynical and heavy-handed power play during the 2010 lame-duck session is particularly apt. Even if Mr. Obama can’t get away with the sweeping reductions he has in mind, all he has to do to accomplish America’s unilateral disarmament is perpetuate the atrophying of our increasingly obsolescent nuclear forces - most of which are more than 25 years old and have not been realistically tested through underground detonations for two decades. Later this week, a new push will be made for a treaty that would lock our deterrent permanently into just such a death spiral. The National Academy of Sciences will release a study that is expected to deem the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty verifiable and further underground testing unnecessary. Much evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, proponents of the treaty and advocates of “Global Zero” - the multimillion-dollar campaign to eliminate all nuclear weapons that would, at most, rid the world of ours (and perhaps those of other, Free World nations that honor their international commitments) - hope to use the academy’s analysis to prevail upon the U.S. Senate to reverse its previous rejection of this accord. At the same time as the Obama administration is wreaking havoc on our nuclear deterrent, it is undermining the other insurance policy we need against catastrophic, potentially country-cratering attacks such as those involving ballistic-missile-delivered electromagnetic pulse strikes: effective national, or better yet global, missile defenses. Policy decisions and budget cuts are taking their toll on our anti-missile programs. So is the president’s willingness to cede technology or vetoes to the Russians. In the latter connection, Mr. Obama was overheard telling outgoing Russian President Dmitri Medvedev in Seoul on Monday: “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for [Putin] to give me space. … This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.” Translation: If President Obama is re-elected, we should expect even more U.S. disarmament - whether or not anybody is following our lead. Shouldn’t that grim prospect be a centerpiece of the campaign this year and the American people offered a robust alternative come November? Ext – Obama Kills Deterrence Obama reelection undermines nuclear deterrence --- sparks arms races and conflict.Washington Times, 2/16/2012 (Editorial: Obama’s unilateral disarmament, p. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/16/obamas-unilateral-disarmament/) President Obama is working to realize the leftist dream of unilateral nuclear disarmament. This will leave the United States pitifully weak and create conditions for catastrophic deterrence failure.¶ The White House has told the Pentagon to study options for reducing the number of U.S. nuclear warheads by as much as 80 percent. The future nuclear force could have as few as 300 weapons, far below the cuts to 1,550 required by the START 2 nuclear treaty with Russia. It would give America an arsenal about the size of France's Force de Frappe and raise serious questions on whether it would have sufficient strength for even minimal deterrence.¶ Supporters of radical weapons reduction contend that Mr. Obama’s “nuclear zero” is not a unilateralist strategy and that deep cuts would only come as part of a framework of global arms reduction. This is mere rhetoric. No such framework has been established or is being negotiated, and no other country in the world is contemplating such extreme cuts. START 2, which the Obama administration claims is a model for the global framework, committed the United States to nuclear cuts while giving Russia the green light for nuclear-force modernization and expansion. The weak verification regime in the treaty puts America in the position of having to take Moscow’s word for it that Russia is complying with the agreed-upon terms. Ronald Reagan counseled “Trust but verify,” but Mr. Obama signed off on “Let’s just hope they aren’t lying.”¶ Communist China has never agreed to be part of any strategic nuclear framework. There are no reliable official numbers on the size of Beijing’s nuclear forces, though a 2011 Georgetown University study concluded the Chinese already may have the world’s largest nuclear arsenal. The White House hasn’t pursued any nuclear negotiations with Beijing and seems to think if the People’s Republic doesn’t mention its strategic forces, they don’t exist.¶ Rising regional powers aren’t buying into Mr. Obama’s anti-nuke line. Pakistan, India, North Korea and Iran have or are pursuing nuclear weapons. As the U.S. arsenal shrinks, the relative value of their weapons increases, so they have every incentive to continue to move down this path. This illustrates a dangerous flaw in Mr. Obama’s thinking. At the same time he is pushing America toward “nuclear zero,” the White House is promising to extend the U.S. nuclear-deterrence umbrella to countries such as Israel and Saudi Arabia to assuage fears of the nuclear threat from Tehran. Given this credibility gap, it’s no wonder many Middle Eastern states are planning to initiate their own nuclear programs if Iran gets the bomb. In this respect, “nuclear zero” is weakening deterrence, spurring an arms race and making conflict more likely.¶ It will be left to Mr. Obama’s successor to dump “nuclear zero” and reverse the dangerous erosion of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. If America rejects the security responsibilities of a superpower, it has no business calling itself one. Obama reelection undermines nuclear deterrence --- lack of funding.Guarino, 4/18/2012 (Douglas – staff writer for the Global Security Newswire, Obama Reelection Could Threaten U.S. Nuclear Deterrent, GOP Suggests, National Journal, p. http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/obama-reelection-could-threaten-u-s-nuclear-deterrent-gop-suggests-20120418) Key congressional Republicans on Tuesday suggested that President Obama’s potential reelection could undermine the United States’ ability to deter enemy attacks, even as a GOP-controlled House Appropriations panel approved legislation on Wednesday that largely endorses the president’s plan for nuclear weapons spending (see GSN, Feb. 28). Under the Obama administration’s fiscal 2013 proposal, the National Nuclear Security Administration is requesting $7.6 billion for programs “to maintain a safe, secure and effective nuclear deterrent.” The figure is a 5 percent increase from funding Congress provided for the current fiscal year, but $372 million less than what the administration projected in 2010. The 2010 projections were aimed at supporting Obama’s pledge to provide $85 billion over a decade for modernizing the U.S. nuclear arsenal and associated infrastructure. Obama made the pledge during the successful push for ratification of the New START nuclear arms control treaty with Russia. Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., who was a key player in the 2010 New START negotiations but ultimately voted against the accord, said on Tuesday the fiscal 2013 budget requests demonstrates that the “gap between what was promised and what was delivered continues to grow.” Kyl said he was skeptical of assurances from administration and military officials that the proposed cuts to projected spending would create a “manageable risk” so long as they do not continue beyond fiscal 2013. Spending shortfalls have been defended similarly in past years, he argued during a breakfast talk at the Capitol Hill Club. “When do you cross the line between manageable risk and peril when each year we’re told we’re at the end of the line?” Kyl asked. “What happens if President Obama is reelected and is no longer answerable for another election to the American people—what’s likely to happen to these programs at that time?” Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 1.8 Mb. Share with your friends:
|