Because if you don't feel safer, then you get no benefit from this - since in reality such an agreement makes the world less safe.
The Obama crowd somehow believes if we limit our nuclear arsenal, it makes it less likely that Iran and other nations will develop their own nuclear weapons - as if America's overwhelming conventional military superiority was irrelevant to Iran's strategic considerations. This is, of course, ridiculous - our weak posture in the world as reflected in Obama's foreign policy, of which this nuclear treaty is just one example, emboldens Iran and America's enemies to think they can get away with their ambitions. Note French President Sarkozy's question last year about Obama: "Is he weak"?
America's nuclear deterrent is directed against many threats and to protecting its many allies. We need to deter Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan, and possible new extrants to the nuclear club like Iran - and protect under our nuclear umbrella large chunks of Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. Russia doesn't protect anyone with its nuclear weapons other than itself and maybe Belarus. We need a nuclear arsenal of sufficient size, modernization, and flexibility to address this multitude of concerns, not one driven by a good photo op and diplomatic "win" for Obama.
The nuclear arsenals of the United States and Russia have been shrinking without a formal treaty requiring such reductions, reflecting the diminished tensions between the two nations. Russia's arsenal is on a path to continued declines, reflecting its relative poverty as compared to America - as Joe Biden so aptly stated it last year.
America's nuclear deterrent is directed against many threats and to protecting its many allies. We need to deter Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan, and possible new extrants to the nuclear club like Iran - and protect under our nuclear umbrella large chunks of Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. Russia doesn't protect anyone with its nuclear weapons other than itself and maybe Belarus. We need a nuclear arsenal of sufficient size, modernization, and flexibility to address this multitude of concerns, not one driven by a good photo op and diplomatic "win" for Obama.
The nuclear arsenals of the United States and Russia have been shrinking without a formal treaty requiring such reductions, reflecting the diminished tensions between the two nations. Russia's arsenal is on a path to continued declines, reflecting its relative poverty as compared to America - as Joe Biden so aptly stated it last year.
So we are proposing a treaty that either codifies that which will happen anyway and/or limit our flexibility to deal with a a greater number of nuclear powers. And we have been anxious to strike such a bargain with Russia, who has naturally seen our anxiety and taken advantage of it in the negotiations.
More of the "change" voters probably didn't bargain for in November 2008.
No comments:
Post a Comment