Obama cancels America's nuclear program
This time, no one can accuse him of lying. When President Obama said that he wanted to bring about nuclear disarmament 'by example' he apparently meant it. Whether its the right thing to do is a separate issue.The Obama administration has removed all funding from the 2010 budget for what is known as the Reliable Replacement Warhead Program. The program was created to design a new generation of nuclear weapons that does not need to be tested. For the past two years, the Democrat-controlled Congress has refused to fund the program. But Obama's move kills it altogether (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
"My colleagues just stared at that line," says Joe Cirincione, a longtime nonproliferation expert and president of the Ploughshares Fund. "They had never seen anything like that." Killing the program, he said, was "the first programmatic impact of the new [zero nukes] policy. People have said they want to see more than words, this is the very first action."The only words that come to mind are "hoplessly naive." Whom does Obama believe will follow him? Iran? North Korea? Syria? Pakistan? Russia? China?
Here's the relevant language from Obama's budget explaining the thinking behind the move:In the upcoming year, NNSA will participate in the national debate to lay out a vision for our nation’s nuclear security and non-proliferation goals. This vision is based on the reality that nuclear security is not just about warheads and the size of the stockpile. The vision emphasizes that we must increase our focus on nuclear security and transforming the Cold War nuclear weapons complex into a 21st century national security enterprise. We must ensure our evolving strategic posture places the stewardship of our nuclear arsenal, nonproliferation programs, missile defenses, and the international arms control objectives into one comprehensive strategy that protects the American people and our allies.One particularly interesting angle here: Obama has overruled his secretary of defense, Robert Gates, who has been pushing for months to maintain the warhead program. Last October, Gates warned that"[t]o be blunt, there is absolutely no way we can maintain a credible deterrent and reduce the number of weapons in our stockpile without resorting to testing our stockpile or pursuing a modernization program."
Unbelievable. Or as Glenn Reynolds notes:
So, a question: If Obama were trying to wreck America as a superpower, what would he be doing differently?Not much, I'm afraid.
Maybe Israel should offer to put the US under its (ambiguous) nuclear umbrella rather than vice versa.
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 10:58 AM
6 Comments:
Im kinda speechless on this one. Of course it would be nice if there were no more nukes in the world but somehow I don't think he bastions of democracy such as Russia, China N.Korea etc. will ever come to the party.
Less than 4 years to go...
Obama believes nuclear weapons are more dangerous than evil people.
With thinking like that, what could go wrong indeed
Its going to be a very long four years.
Brack Obama isn't interested in making Americans safer, he's making their enemies safer.
This is beyond treasonous. While middle eastern countries are rushing towards nuclear capabilities, America will disarm?
This man needs to be impeached. However, his popularity still precludes it....
speachless. They're mad.....
it took me a full 5 minutes to lift my jaw off the floor
The liberals and Democrats (but I repeat myself!) have been itching to destroy the U.S. for many decades. It looks like they are close to breaking the tape on this one. How can an adult--living among the savages that populate the third world--hold the views that Øbama holds? Pure hatred and ignorance, that's how. This man is evil in ways that we have yet to divine...
Post a Comment
<< Home