If you needed further proof that Obama is in over his head as Commander in Chief, you got another example Tuesday as Obama declared we would no longer continue developing nuclear weapons nor would we retaliate with them against states who attack U.S. cities with chemical, biological or cyber weapons.
Add to this Obama's longstanding practice of giving the back of his hand to our friends while turning a blind eye, even a warm handshake to our enemies.
The message being sent by all of the above is clear. Our enemies know they have nothing to fear from Obama. Our friends know he won't stand with them when they need us and thus, they are unlikely to do the same for us.
It's a dangerous combination of liberal delusion about the nature of evil in the world and the groundless belief that if we disarm, our enemies will do the same. It didn't work when Neville Chamberlain tried it with Germany in the 1930's and it won't work now.
Tied in with this delusion is the "blame America first" line of thinking that sees the U.S. as the obstacle to peace instead of it's guarantor these many years since World War II ended.
Iran Ridicules Amateur Obama
Presumably Obama's announcement was meant to let the Iranians know that they need not fear nuclear retaliation from the West and therefore would feel secure enough to give up their nuclear ambitions. But what was the reaction from the Iranians to this peace overture? Laughter and ridicule! Iranian President Ahmadinejad derided Obama on Wednesday saying "Mr. Obama, you are a newcomer (to politics). Wait until your sweat dries and get some experience."
Doesn't Obama realize that weakness, or even perceived weakness, invites the very threats to peace he seeks to avoid?
Bam plan's nuke peril
By MICHAEL GOODWIN
New York Post
April 7, 2010
...The honest-to-Chamberlain truth is that his goal of a nuke-free world is being pursued with a peace-at-any-price recklessness.
That's not a matter of left or right political philosophy. It's a childish fantasy that is dangerous to America's health.
It is one thing to hope the rest of the world will go along if we tie both hands behind our back. It is quite another to behave as though all mankind is already on board the Peace Train.
Obama told The Times the United States would promise not to use nukes against a country that doesn't have them, even if that country first attacks us with chemical or biological weapons. He said there would be exceptions -- he cited Iran and North Korea -- because they have violated nonproliferation treaties.
He also said he wouldn't develop any new weapons, a move sensibly resisted by Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
The combined policies fit into the suspicion that Obama sees American power as a problem in the world rather than a solution. Neutering or reducing our might, he believes, makes us and the world safer.
It's his faith-based initiative, and it makes zero sense. There is simply no historic or common-sense basis for it.
Giving up our advantages unilaterally will almost certainly make us more vulnerable, unless rival nations like Russia and China also stop pursuing their national interests.
But why would they do that? There is no incentive for them to follow us. We've negotiated against our own interests, leaving them free to pursue theirs without penalty or fear of us.
Imagine how our allies will react. If we are no longer able or willing to protect them, they would probably side with our adversaries or ramp up their own militaries to defend themselves. That could destroy the peaceful equilibrium that has kept major nations in Europe and Asia from fighting full-scale wars for more than 50 years.
The bad-nukes mythIn little more than one year in office Obama has made us less safe by consistently undermining the most effective and successful deterrent to war and protector of peace. How long will it be before the dangerous fruits of his delusions are left rotting on our doorstep?
By RALPH PETERS
New York Post
April 7, 2010
...Nuclear weapons are not evil. Terrifying, yes. But their horrific capabilities prevented a Third World War. It all depends on whose finger is on the button.
Until yesterday's formal announcement of the administration's new Nuclear Posture Review, nukes also kept us safe from a range of threats short of a doomsday scenario: Our enemies risked going only so far. Nukes didn't prevent all wars -- but wars remained local.
Yesterday, we threw away a significant part of history's most successful deterrent.
This looks like an act of reckless vanity on the part of the administration, but let's allow that this weakening of our national defense is the result of misguided idealism. The important thing isn't the politics, but the practical consequences.
Of all its malignant provisions, from accomodating Russian demands to preventing overdue updates for our arsenal, the most worrisome is the public declaration that, if the US suffers a biological, chemical or massive cyber attack, we will not respond with nukes.
This is a very real -- and unilateral -- weakening of our national security. In the past, our ambiguity made our enemies hesitate. The new policy guarantees that they'll intensify their pursuit of bugs, gas and weaponized computers.
Intending to halt a nuclear arms race, we've fired the starter pistol for a rush to develop alternative weapons of mass destruction.
Will this policy be the inspiration for an engineered plague that someday scythes through humankind? Chemical attacks are horrible, but local; cyber attacks are potentially devastating. But an innovative virus unleashed on the world could do what Cold War nuclear arsenals never did: Kill hundreds of millions.
This change leaves us far less safe. If a thug has a knife, but knows you're packing a gun, he's considerably less likely to attack you. Why promise him that you won't use the gun -- and might not use your knife?
Idealism has devolved into madness.
The left has never been willing to accept that deterrence works. In the left's world-view, hostile foreign actors aren't the problem. We are. If we disarm, surely they will . . .
This no-nukes obsession dates back to the early Cold War, when the Soviets used every available means, from dollars to earnest dupes, to persuade Western leftists that America's nuclear weapons were about to wipe out humanity. The USSR couldn't expand its European empire in the face of US nukes -- so the Soviets brilliantly portrayed us as the aggressors. (And the left praised Stalin as a man of peace.)