Nuking Our Defense: America Exposed

June 08, 2010

Nuking Our Defense: America Exposed

By John Griffing
15 Comments

For the past few decades, members of both political parties have pursued drastic cuts in America's defense infrastructure, all under the guise of peacetime "guns-to-butter" policies designed to increase social spending at the expense of military strength. But to date, no administration has left America without the basic tools it needed to meet the fundamental historic test of national security -- the ability to execute two major wars in different theatres of deployment simultaneously.

Barack Obama is poised to be the first president to leave America at the mercy of its enemies. President Obama's recent decision to begin announcing once-secret U.S. missile tests and satellite launches is just the first of many subversive acts carried out by the Obama administration against America's defense.

Obama also chose to unilaterally end a crucial strategic practice called "calculated ambiguity" by publicizing the exact number of warheads in America's arsenal. His pledges to "de-MIRV" all American ICBMs, dramatically reducing options if an exchange ever took place between the United States and Russia, as there were some three thousand strategic targets listed in the former Soviet Union as of 2000. Even if it were assumed that the American arsenal carried enough heat to cause significant economic damage to the Russians, this assumes a Western mentality, an attachment to human life or possessions that has since the advent of Communism been absent in the Russian bear. America cannot afford even the prospect of failure in a nuclear exchange. We get only one shot.

At present, the U.S. nuclear arsenal is capable of devastating one nuclear adversary, but this capability began to dwindle under the Bush administration, when fifty ICBMs were retired from service. After these reductions, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists estimated that the U.S. would be unable to eliminate every potentially hostile WMD facility worldwide. To the average American, this means that if Russia and China, or some other coalition of nuclear states, decided to blackmail the United States, America would be unable under current conditions to repel the ensuing Holocaust. The facts suggest the world may be nearing such an encounter. As part of the new Shanghai Cooperation Organization -- a Warsaw Pact for the new century -- both Russia and China frequently engage in joint nuclear exercises in which they practice varying modes of attack against the United States[i].

And with the loss of the brand new Ground Based Interceptors (GBIs) developed during the Bush years, with an 80 percent accuracy rating, America is completely exposed to any would-be aggressor, as are America's allies once dependent on this technology. In a move reminiscent of JFK's decision to sell out Italy and Turkey during the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Obama betrayed Eastern European allies for Russian promises of collaboration on Iran.

It is because of the fragile state in which America finds its nuclear posture that we should be terrified at President Obama's bold decision to slash the U.S. arsenal by 50 percent as part of a broad arms reduction deal with the Russians. When Obama's comparable actions are considered -- e.g., posting the TSA playbook online for the world to see, attempting to give self-declared foreign terrorists civilian trials with the rights of citizens, and advocating the goals of the controversial Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas -- his latest move simply forms part of a pattern of anti-American and overtly treasonous behavior. Any other president would have long ago entered the realm of impeachment. President Clinton was impeached for much less. Even President Nixon's impeachment didn't center on such serious offenses.

What is clear is that President Obama's chief concern is not the security of the American people.

Moreover, America has never verified Russia's compliance with previous arms reduction agreements. In fact, Russians have consistently refused access to facilities slated for inspection, leaving America in the dark. How safe is it for America to honor its obligations with no certainty of reciprocation on the other side? Ronald Reagan famously uttered the words, "Trust but verify." America has been very trusting, but where Russia is concerned, verification has been impossible.

As it stands right now, Russian nuclear firepower could still reach Cold War levels. Available statistics are not adequate to determine the actual size of Russia's arsenal. In the Cold War, it was not uncommon for Russia to field warheads of 50 megatons (MT). A single 1-MT warhead, if detonated in Detroit, would destroy any civilized life out to eleven miles, according to the U.S. Office of Technology. Imagine what a few 50-MT warheads would do to the West Coast, or the Eastern Seaboard. To get an idea of just how alarming it is that Russia may be packing a Cold War-sized punch, consider that at the height of the Cold War, the American arsenal alone was equivalent to 1,400,000 Hiroshimas. Now, imagine that Russia may have never really disarmed. The very thought should be spine-chilling.

The signs are everywhere. While America is talking disarmament, Russia is developing ever more deadly nuclear weapons, and all in public view. What are we doing? Are we completely insane, or just suicidal? It cannot escape President Obama, with access to intricate defense data and top-notch advisors, that his proposed reductions will leave America helpless, the servant of those nations with bigger arsenals. Why, then, would he, with full knowledge of this reality, choose to weaken America so devastatingly? This question answers itself.

America is a superpower whether President Obama likes it or not, but those days will come to an end if President Obama is allowed to sabotage America's means of defense. Let's stop pretending Obama is our friend.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[i] Bill Gertz, "Russian Forces Help China in Mock Conflict Nuclear War on U.S. Troops," The Washington Times, 20 April 2001, p. A1.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/ ... a_exp.html

many links on this post; go to the link above if you wish to view them