Barack Obama wants to disarm America. There simply is no other way to explain his reckless behavior. On Tuesday it came out that the Obama administration is considering plans to unilaterally slash the size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal by up to 80 percent. From a military standpoint, this is utter insanity. Early in his presidency, Barack Obama signed a treaty with Russia that restricts both nations to a maximum of 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads. But now Obama wants to cut the size of the U.S. arsenal down to as low as 300, without requiring the Russians to do anything. In addition, we don’t even have a treaty with the Chinese, and we have no idea how many deployed nuclear warheads they have. For all we know, it could be in the thousands. Unfortunately, very few people are speaking up about this. Most Americans just assume that we have such a massive nuclear arsenal that nobody would ever dare to mess with us. Well, that was true back in the 1980s, but that is not true today. If Barack Obama does unilaterally slash the size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal by 80 percent, that would make another world war much more likely. If we are sitting there with far fewer nukes than Russia and China have, they will not fear us nearly as much.
But we should have all seen this coming. Back in 2009, Obama made a famous speech in Prague in which he pledged to work toward a world without nuclear weapons.
Well, it looks like he plans to start by getting rid of almost all of America’s nuclear weapons.
A few years ago, Obama demanded that the Pentagon conduct a “radical review” of the U.S. nuclear weapons program. When the results came back, Obama rejected them as being “too timid”. Obama is not just intent on trimming the size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The truth is that he wants to gut it.
Currently,the Pentagon is working on a new plan for the reduction of the size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The following is from a USA Today article put out on Tuesday about this plan….
AP, citing “a former U.S. official and a congressional official,” says the administration is debating at least three options to bring the U.S. stockpile down to somewhere between 1,100 and 300. The current treaty allows 1,550.
So what are the “three options” going to be? The three options are detailed in an article in the Houston Chronicle….
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: 1,000 to 1,100; 700 to 800, and 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.
At this point, the plan has not been presented to Obama yet.
But needless to say, he will probably want the biggest cuts possible.
Unfortunately, the truth is that the U.S. nuclear arsenal has already been cut far too much. There is no way that a few hundred nuclear warheads can be an effective deterrent in the 21st century.
Retired Air Force Lt. General Thomas McInerney shared his opinion of this plan with the Washington Free Beacon….
“No sane military leader would condone 300 to 400 warheads for an effective nuclear deterrent strategy”
But Barack Obama is not a “sane military leader”. What Barack Obama wants to do is to unilaterally disarm America.
According to CNN, the size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal reached a peak of “more than 31,255 in 1967”.
The Obama administration has already taken us down to a very small fraction of that. If the Obama administration takes us down to a level of 300 deployed strategic nuclear warheads, we would basically be committing strategic suicide.
To get an idea of just how dramatically the size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal has declined over the years, just check out this chart.
Basically, thanks to Obama we could end up with less than 1 percent of the nuclear warheads that we had during the peak of the Cold War.
Less than one percent.
And if we gut our strategic nuclear arsenal, that will make it much, much more likely that someone will use nuclear weapons against us in the future.
The reason why no other nation has openly attacked the United States since World War II is because they all knew that if anyone attacked us we would nuke them into oblivion.
But if the U.S. only has 300 warheads, and if an enemy thinks that they can hit most of them in a first strike, the entire calculation changes.
Today, the world is becoming increasingly unstable. North Korea has nuclear weapons, Iran is developing a nuclear program and even Venezuela is rumored to be interested in acquiring nukes. It would be a really bad idea to unilaterally disarm right now.
But the most significant threats are Russia and China. If World War III were to erupt, it is quite possible that the U.S. could find itself facing a very formidable Russian/Chinese alliance.
The only advantage that the U.S. would have over such an alliance would be in strategic weaponry. The combined conventional forces of Russia and China would vastly outnumber our own.
So why are we disarming?
And there is another factor to consider as well. As I have written about previously, the START Treaty did absolutely nothing to address the overwhelming superiority that Russia has in tactical nuclear weapons….
The treaty completely ignores the very serious imbalance that exists between the U.S. and Russia when is comes to tactical nuclear weapons. Today it is estimated that the Russians have approximately 10,000 tactical nuclear warheads while the U.S. only has a few hundred. These tactical nuclear warheads can be delivered by cruise missiles, long-range artillery or aircraft. The treaty does nothing to change those numbers. This would put the United States at a very serious strategic disadvantage.
Why in the world would we allow ourselves to be put in such an unfair position?
Are we fools?
As Russia’s economic fortunes have turned around, they have been busy spending money on updating and modernizing their strategic nuclear forces.
The United States has not been doing the same thing.
While the U.S. is busy chasing goat herders around in Afghanistan, Russia is busy preparing for the next war.
During his speech to formally launch his campaign to reclaim the Russian presidency, Vladimir Putin made the following statement….
“In the next five to 10 years we must take our armed forces to a qualitatively new level. Of course, this will require big spending …. but we must do this if we want to defend the dignity of our country”
Russia is preparing for World War III and so is China. They both recognize that someday there is a very good chance that they will have to take on the United States.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration is gutting the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal and is acting like there is no chance that there will ever be a world war ever again.
Sadly, most Americans have bought into the propaganda that the threat of world war is permanently gone and that we don’t even need nukes anymore.
Most people out there simply will not understand why I am making such a big fuss in this article.
But someday all of this will likely become very clear.
Someday America will likely bitterly regret the decisions that the Obama administration is now making.
When Russian and Chinese missiles are raining down on American cities it will be too late to do something about it then.
Please wake up America.
[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]
Shut it all you naysayers. Obama (even Pres. Ahmadinejad of Iran know but will hit Israel IF Israel strikes first . . . see below link) knows that nukes pollute with radioactivity at such degrees that Fukushima would look like a cherry bomb by comparison. Those nukes are UNUSABLE.
Nukes should be left in 20th century – Ahmadinejad to RT
If the enemies of anyone were wiped out, any living things left would follow in a few years unless they lived under a lead dome with nano-particle air filters. How many of city sized versions of these does USA have for civvies? Zero? Maybe a few 10s of bunkers but even those may not be irradiation ready.
USA has 1000s of nukes. And all it would take is just a handful not even 10 to irrevocably irradiate the planet. Why would anyone want to maintain and pay for staff and technicians and guard the weapons which terrorists obviously want to get their hands on to keep that sort of unusable arsenal in place? Then there is the chance of accidental firings due to natural disaster or terrorism, even a bad fire could blow a hole in a series of silos holding say 5-10 of the weapons – COMPLETELY DESTROYING America and possible the rest of the world as well. Dismantke every last nuke, and stick to as large Megatonnage conventionals as needed. The difference between conventionals and nukes is uncontrolled irradiation and a very large crater. Whats left to conquer if it’s all irradiated, potentially for 50,000 year half-lifes of Plutonium or what not?!?
If USA stocked up on super sized conventional explosive missiles, that would make sense. But nukes are as bad as airborne ebola or any exotic virus weapons. So don’t insult Obama here, he knows what he’s doing.
Now if Obama were cutting back on conventional missile weapons, you’ll find me asking why as well. The world likely is beginning to police itself but USA, at least to the non-Muslim/non-Middle East bunch is still a SORT OF global policemen (though the freedoms in USA are already eroding).