(posted last week; bumped due to its relevance. Updated at bottom)
....he's forcing the nation into doing a grotesque strip-tease, shamefully shedding ourselves of our strength, forcing us to peel off our defenses one by one, making us gyrate humiliatingly in the laps of our adversaries, with the vain hope that by degrading ourselves before them, and leaving ourselves naked and vulnerable, they will not "take advantage", shall we say, of the opportunity a beautiful, disarmed nation offers...
We are led by a socialist pimp, and the American people are his whores. Hand over the money to him, but don't worry - he'll protect us. Via Legal Insurrection:
Mr Obama is expected to rule out the development of new weapons systems — despite reservations from the military, which is mindful that Russia and China are modernising and expanding their nuclear forces respectively. He will also drop the notion, espoused by his predecessor, that nuclear warheads can be deployed in certain circumstances; for example, if another country resorts to attacking US forces with chemical or biological weapons.
Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association in Washington, said that if Mr Obama redefined nuclear arms as purely weapons of deterrence, it would “eliminate the number of potential targets the US military think they need to hit”. It would also reduce the number of nuclear weapons the US believes it needs, he said, which could bring the total well below the 1,550 strategic warheads agreed under the new Start treaty announced last week.
One of the key issues is whether Mr Obama should agree to make a new declaration that the US will never be the first to use nuclear weapons — no first-use, as it is called. Under Mr Bush the policy was deliberately ambiguous.
In reviewing its nuclear arsenal, the US is considering withdrawing from Europe its last tactical nuclear weapons...
This unilateral disarmament serves two purposes: One, enacting the liberal philosophy that we are the problem in the world - if only we disarm, the rest of the world will follow suit, and regional conflicts will vanish overnight, and we will be safer for it. The second thing it accomplishes is freeing up money for expanded government and additional social welfare programs. Even Obama knows his health care reform is a fiscal sham, but by cutting weapon systems, you also eliminate the cost of their upkeep and modernization. And of course, by refusing to fund new weapon systems, we can save tens of billions in research, testing and eventual deployment. Sure, it will mean we will our military will be technologically dwarfed by Russia and China by the decade's end, but hey! - we'll have health care for all! Well, in theory, anyway...
Obama is intent on turning us into a European state - economically stagnant, militarily weak, with a population dependent on government services, and thus enslaved to them. Believe it or not, this is in fact the change the Democratic party was hoping for....
UPDATE 4/6: From The Corner:
I believe that the most alarming aspect of the Obama denuclearization program, however, is its explicit renunciation of new U.S. nuclear weapons — an outcome that required the president to overrule his own defense secretary. Even if there were no new START treaty, no further movement on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and no new wooly-headed declaratory policies, the mere fact that the United States will fail to reverse the steady obsolescence of its deterrent — and the atrophying of the skilled workforce needed to sustain it — will ineluctably achieve what is transparently President Obama’s ultimate goal: a world without American nuclear weapons.
No comments:
Post a Comment