Obama Would Leave America Defenseless Against Nuclear Attack
It came out of the blue on a clear September day. Several simultaneous attacks on the United States of America, targeting thousands of innocent civilians, the Pentagon, and more. The perpetrators, their motives, the scope of their plot uknown in the first hours and days. Multiple hijackings, explosions, horror, devastation, and death.
Thousands died, some so thoroughly annihilated that their remains will never be found. Where two proud towers once touched the sky, there was a smoldering pit of hell.
How soon we forget.
Less than seven years later in 2008, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama proposes to weaken America's conventional and nuclear military capability and leave America defenseless against nuclear attack.
Don't take my word for it. Here are his own words. Watch if you will, and then read on.
For starters, Obama would "slow our development of future combat systems." Obama thus would weaken America's conventional military preparedness.
Second, Obama would "not develop new nuclear weapons" and would, in his own words, achieve "deep" cuts in America's nuclear arsenals and take America's ICBMs off "hair trigger alert."
What does this mean as a practical matter? If you don't develop new nuclear weapons, America will be left with an increasingly obsolete nuclear capability and will have little or no nuclear option in case of a threat to its survival.
If America's nuclear arsenal is deeply cut, America will be less prepared for any attack, may have too many of its nuclear missiles wiped out in a first strike leaving it unable to respond, or may be unable to respond at all to a nuclear attack from certain nations.
If America's ICBMs are off "hair trigger alert," then any response to a nuclear attack may come too late to do any good at all. This at a time when nations such as Iran and North Korea are working furiously to arm themselves with nuclear weapons, with the aid of nations such as Russia.
Even worse, Obama would cancel Americas's missile defense program. He tries to put a fig leaf on his own rash statement by referring to "cutting investments in unproven missile defense systems," but also flatly says that he would not "weaponize space," which is how opponents of missile defense have characterized it.
Obama's "defense" strategy is thus actually a strategy of across-the-board unilateral disarmament. It makes about as much sense as taking all or most of the weapons away from your local police force and expecting that nothing bad will happen as a result.
As i've written before, a missile like this one, launched in a test of the U.S. missile defense system, could save your life someday:
Missiles such as this are no less important to your safety and security than your local police who are there to help if you are the target of a crime. In fact, this missile is far more important in the long run than any police force.
Is the U.S. missile defense system fully functional yet? Of course not. Is it foolproof? No. It's new technology, still in the process of development. Is it "unproven"? Well, yes, but only in the same way every other useful invention in the history of humankind was unproven before it was proven and then accepted, and then commonplace and taken for granted. The telephone, the airplane, space travel, the computer, open heart surgery -- every useful invention and human advance -- was unproven at first.
The question about missile defense is not whether it is proven, but whether it is necessary. The answer to that is absolutely yes.
Even the limited missile defense capability the United States has at this date must give pause to North Korea and other rogue states. If anyone were to launch a missile with a nuclear warhead at the United States, it could not be certain that the missile would not be intercepted. The first strike opportunity would be lost, and the wrath and military might of the United States would rain down on the perpetrator. So even the limited missile defense capability the U.S. has now is already serving as an important part of America's national defense.
Thanks to the endless appeasement of North Korea and Iran that the left has demanded, the battle to prevent worldwide nuclear weapons proliferation will soon be lost.
There will likely be one or more nuclear missile attacks somewhere in the world within the next 75 years -- probably much sooner. Mutually assured destruction won't stop terrorists and rogue states. They may launch sneak attacks anonymously. Without missile defense, we are simply biding our time until our eventual destruction. If you think Ground Zero was bad, you haven't seen anything yet.
Barack Obama may be serious about many things, but he isn't serious about national security. That is a major weakness in a potential commander in chief.
we need 5100 nuclear missles? how much of the world could that destroy?
our having nuclear weapons tells other countries its okay to have them. Note that the USA is the only country to have used a nuclear bomb?
Posted by: Dan Doe | September 25, 2008 at 08:07 PM