A reminder of Obama’s own nuclear ignorance; Update: At SRLC, Palin strikes back at “Obama Doctrine;” vid added
Scroll for updates…video added below…
As you know, the Sage of 1600 Pennsylvania took a snippy shot at Sarah Palin yesterday over his nuclear policy:
“I really have no response,” he told ABC News. “Because last I checked, Sarah Palin’s not much of an expert on nuclear issues.”
Someone get him a skin thickener, stat.
It’s funny. Not so very long ago, renowned nuclear scientist Barack Obama was on the campaign trail in Washington state when he was forced to admit to a supporter that he had no clue about one of the country’s longest-standing and most notorious nuclear controversies.
Remember? Video: Obama stumped on Hanford nuke waste clean-up, “Uhhhhhhhhhh.” (Thanks to Andy M for reminding me.)
Refresher from May 2008:
If you put yourself out there as the presidential candidate most in touch with The People, if you put yourself out there as the champion of the environment, and if you put yourself out there as the candidate best able to represent the Pacific Northwest and bring about “change,” you should have a staff competent enough to brief you on the biggest policy issues consuming the electorate’s energies there as you campaign for votes.
The Hanford nuclear waste clean-up has gone on for decades. It’s been a cause celebre for environmentalists and the PNW congressional delegation. When I worked at the Seattle Times, I took a tour of the now-closed Fast Flux Test Facility at Hanford, which some cancer researchers said could have been used to produce life-saving medical isotopes. Every year brings new funding battles. Hanford is to the region as Yucca Mountain is to Nevada, and Obama was plenty opinionated about the latter issue.
…Over the weekend, Obama also took a question about Hanford. Let’s underscore here that Hanford is not some tiny municipal dump. It’s the nation’s most contaminated nuclear site. Obama’s response?
The transcript:
Here’s something that you will rarely hear from a politician, and that is that I’m not familiar with the Hanford, uuuuhh, site, so I don’t know exactly what’s going on there. (Applause.) Now, having said that, I promise you I’ll learn about it by the time I leave here on the ride back to the airport.
Yes, typical Obama supporters applauded and cheered him for announcing his ignorance and then using it as an exercise in self-congratulations.
Humility is becoming, Mr. President. Try it more often.
***
Update 1:49pm Eastern: Palin at SRLC in New Orleans strikes back at Obama’s jibe, poking at his acquisition of nuclear knowledge through “community organizing.”
Transcript from Weekly Standard:
In foreign policy, we’ve got the makings of the Obama Doctrine: coddling our enemies while alienating allies.
The administration eased sanctions on Cuba and sided with Chavez against Honduran democracy. They won’t bring up human rights with China because, quote, ‘we know what they are going to say.’ They offer tepid sanctions on North Korea and ‘gold stars and cookies’ for the Sudanese President. They send letters to Iranian mullahs but can barely muster a word of support for the Green Movement seeking freedom and women’s rights in Iran!
And President Obama, with all that vast nuclear expertise he acquired as a community organizer, a part-time senator, and a candidate for president, has accomplished nothing to date with Iran or North Korea.
Meanwhile, this administration alienates our friends. They treated Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai poorly and acted surprised when he reacted in kind. And they escalated a minor zoning decision into a major breach with Israel, our closest ally in the Middle East.
Folks, someone needs to remind the President: Jerusalem is not a settlement. Israel is our friend. And the critical nuclear concerns of our time are North Korea, who has nuclear weapons, and Iran, who wants them.
Update: Here’s the video, thanks to The Right Scoop:
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Obama’s latest campaign angle: I’ve been saving America from wild Republican debts
May 24, 2012 04:33 PM by Doug Powers
47 Comments
Stammertime: Jay Carney asked if Chicago protests have soured Obama’s support for OWS
May 23, 2012 07:44 PM by Doug Powers
54 Comments
S.E. Cupp, Hustler, and the four stages of conservative female abuse
May 23, 2012 02:13 PM by Michelle Malkin
142 CommentsBiden: Tea Party stopped us from growing the economy
May 23, 2012 01:55 PM by Doug Powers
44 Comments
Palin officially endorses desperate, clingy Orrin Hatch; time to rally around Dan Liljenquist
May 22, 2012 11:32 PM by Michelle Malkin
83 CommentsCatholic lawsuit against Obamacare mandate cites 1993 legislation written by Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer
May 22, 2012 04:35 PM by Doug Powers
48 Comments
Biden: Hey, I don’t blame people for voting for a convicted felon instead of my boss
May 18, 2012 01:21 PM by Doug Powers
73 Comments
Categories: Barack Obama,Sarah Palin
Villainous Company
» Must Read Post of the Day. Possibly, the YearSister Toldjah
» Barack Obama: Can we call him a Socialist now?
… but she is smarter than you.
“A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. And no matter how great the obstacles may seem, we must never stop our efforts to reduce the weapons of war. We must never stop at all until we see the day when nuclear arms have been banished from the face of this Earth.”
Absolutely. And you don’t reduce the threat of war or the armaments to fight them by unilaterally disarming. You do it by convincing the tyrants their armaments will do them no good.
You should look up the word “unilaterally.”
Already seen Reagan quoted out of context regarding nukes. What else you got?
Applause? Why would you applaud a guy for admitting he hasn’t even heard of Hanford and it’s role in America’s nuclear industry? Amazing. Jawdropping. Has he heard of WWII? The Cuban missile crisis? Speed Racer?
Obama is a professional Sham Wow salesman and nothing more. They tell him what to sell and he sells the hell out of it. But please don’t ask him to understand anything.
Didn’t Obama write his columbia senior thesis on “Soviet Nuclear Disarmament” but nobody will let us see it because it proposes US disarmament first? I guess since his “mentor” Frank Marshall Davis was an ally of Moscow, Obama has more trust for them than we do.
Why? Didn’t we go into Iraq “unilaterally?” That’s what we were told, wasn’t it?
And where are the North Korean reductions? Are India and Pakistan on board? And is Iran scrapping its nuclear program? Kumbaya, dude.
Reality. It’s a real hoot. You should try it some time.
Now let’s not go slamming the Sham Wow guy. He may be selling junk, but at least he’s fun to watch.
He can’t even admit he’s really a liberal.
Okay, Rogue. How about the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty?
Too bad it can never happen.
I would be pleased to give up our nuclear weapons. All of them.
When we have something better.
Yes, and he’s really peeved Kennedy kept Marxist Missles out of Cuba.
It was pre-emptive, not unilateral. It’s not perfect. But when two countries come together to sign a treaty to reduce the number of nuclear weapons they possess and those two countries just happen to have the most nuclear weapons, I think that’s a good thing. It’s not like we’re emptying the cupboard. Grow up.
Do you have a point you are trying to make?
Of course not. Let’s just scream about how the Manchurian Candidate is getting rid of all our nuclear weapons, leading to our imminent destruction by Iran. MUSHROOM CLOUDS OVER AMERICAN CITIES! That’s more fun, right?
Don’t you think announcing he won’t use them is a pretty stupid play?
“This property guarded by toothless rottweiler.” Scary, huh?
Who did he say he wouldn’t use them against?
To be fair, I believe this was originally the Carter Doctrine. Obama is just reviving it.
I love it when people stand up to this joke/fraud of a President and make him look stupid. It’s so easy to do.
Obama is so stupid and evil.
“First, the United States will take concrete steps towards a world without nuclear weapons. To put an end to Cold War thinking, we will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy, and urge others to do the same. Make no mistake: As long as these weapons exist, the United States will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defense to our allies — including the Czech Republic. But we will begin the work of reducing our arsenal.
To reduce our warheads and stockpiles, we will negotiate a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with the Russians this year.”
Bho has no class, principles or values. We have a POTUS who has a hissy fit every time he isn’t the center of attraction. He’s an immature, petty bully and a failed leader. He reminds me of one of those druggie actors just prior to over dosing.
Hey, if that’s what Obama says, then it must be true. He’d never try to deceive us. He’s a “spin free” President.
Whirled peas is coming!
Any reductions in submerged launch ballistic missiles (SLBMs) is foolish. They are the most survivable link in the Triad.
Get real. Nukes will never be banished until they’re obsolete and replaced with something even more Earth-shattering capable.
Mutually Assured Destruction may be insane in concept, but it actually works as long as the person across the negotiating table is at least partially sane.
Giving up our arsenal for a feel-good photo op is just moronic. Every time he turns around, Obama deliberately makes the same stupid mistakes made by previous Presidents.
Anyone else looking forward to gas lines and a hostage crisis in Iran?
That’s just what I am trying to help my grandchildren to do - be able to grow up without marxism and communism having taken over their little lives.
How is maintaining 1550 warheads either not enough for MAD or “giving up our arsenal”?
Not sure what the INF Treaty has to do with what Obama is doing now. The USSR had the advantage in the IRBM class of weapons when that was signed.
The Soviets had been deploying SS-20 missiles since 1976 with a range 3x greater than our Pershing II.
Chap and Neocon? that’s a good one, go on back to Huffpo, you will be overcome with reality and logic on this site. It is painful watching you walk around with all those arrows stickin’ out.
Flowers and unicorns foreverr!
Hey, all I have done is ask two questions. Neither of which anyone has even tried to answer.
On April 9th, 2010 at 2:04 pm, AlohaGuy said:
Exactly.
In my opinion, it appears that Kennedy was the last anti-Communist Democratic POTUS. I think LBJ was, and Carter, Clinton, and Obama are, all Marxists.
In my opinion, it appears that Clinton is more aligned with the Chinese Communists, while Carter and Obama are more aligned with the Russian Communists. But they all helped further the Communist Goals of 1963.
We’ve really only had one President since JFK who was
truly anti-Communist:
Actually, 1550 warheads is not a large number considering the amount of target aimpoints in the SIOP.
There are much, much more than 1550 railroad depots, government buildings, powerplants, harbors, universities, air bases, naval bases, airports, bridges, dams, meat packing plants, granaries, armories, steel mills, etc. in the former Soviet Union (and satellite countries), N. Korea, China, Pakistan, Iran, India, Vietnam, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela, Israel, France, U.K., and Turkey.
It adds up quickly.
The thing that troubles me about whatever treaty Hope-a-Dope has signed with the Russians isn’t the numbers of warheads or delivery vehicles. The big, bad Soviet bear isn’t so big and bad anymore, so there isn’t the need to maintain such a large nuclear deterrent.
Rather, the reservations are:
1. What did Hope-a-Dope give away that he’s either not talking about, or lying about? You know he gave away something of value in exchange for an empty promise or for nothing — that’s what donks call “negotiating” with people who can hit them back. What was it?
2. It’s been said that women who dress too scantily lose the most powerful weapon in their inventory: a man’s imagination. Similarly, when we start ruling out in advance the possibility that rogue states should worry about the prospect of getting vaporized if they provoke us, we remove the most powerful aspect of deterrence: Fear.
“Oderint dum metuant” has much to recommend it when it comes to dealing with non-rational governments that don’t subscribe to notions like “mutual assured destruction.”
The inherent danger of the Western belief that “Nuclear war is un-winnable and must never be fought” is that nobody outside the West shares it. Other countries have their own ideas of “winning” with nukes.
The Soviets believed that they could “win” with a massive bunker-building effort to protect their leadership from retaliatory strikes. For their part the Iranian mullahs would have no problem seeing Iran reduced to radioactive slag as a consequence of destroying Israel — because wiping out “The Zionist Entity” (plus the resultant return of the “12th Imam” from the well or whatever) would be worth it to them as a greater victory for Mohammedanism.
To have the USA saying in advance that it wouldn’t have the stomach to retaliate in kind if WMDs were used against it tells the mullahs all they need to know about what our response would be if they nuke Israel. That just makes such an attack even more tempting. And that is our policy now.
President Obama is weakening our:
Economy;
Currency;
Defense;
Alliances;
Energy infrastructure;
Perceived resolve; and
Individual initiative.
And is implementing policies to further weaken all of the above.
I guess +/- 500+ warheads doesn’t matter, in the big picture. (sarc/ off)
Good point. Add to the that the fact that multiple warheads are assigned to certain hardened targets (like a missile silo).
Okay, what about it?
Obama is going to reduce our arsenal while Russia has retained the right to opt out, and China, N.Korea and Iran are going to grow theirs. Gee, I feel safer already. Say what you will but MAD worked. Saying we won’t retaliate with extreme prejudice even if struck first is just an invitation to a bully to have at it. How many swirlies and atomic wedgies did you endure in school?
Um…I don’t think we would use an ICBM to take out a single bridge or a meat packing plant.
And, as you no doubt are aware, the treaty does not cover tactical nuclear weapons.
Where did we say that?
Thanks to Obama, pretty soon you can say goodbye to that speed bump along the southern border of N. Korea called 40,000 soldiers. Do you think N. Korea was afraid of the soldiers or the threat of nukes?
Oh, and the treaty changed the definition of what a “warhead” is, such that there will really not be that much reduction.
A meat packing plant and a single bridge is a strategic target. And a single ICBM would not be allocated to take them out.
U.S. ICBMs and SLBMs are MIRV capable.
Two points…
1: You need enough weapons to survive a first strike, and still destroy your opponent, otherwise a first strike option becomes viable.
2. Chemical and Biological weapons ARE Weapons of Mass Destruction. It has been the American policy to retaliate against WMDs with WMDs… but the only WMD we have left are Nukes. Now Obama is saying use a WMD on us, and we will not retaliate in kind… its like saying we only have an M-16, but we only shoot at you if you are shooting at us with an M-16… if you use an AK47 we will only use our knives… STUPID.
And didn’t we basically get rid of all of those already after START II?
And in any case, as I said before, multiple warheads in one missile is still considered one warhead.
That’s the new policy as I have seen it expressed in multiple news accounts: If, for example, somebody uses a biological or chemical weapon against us, we will not retaliate with WMDs of our own (unless the casualties reach some unknown tipping point); or if a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty nukes us, we might not respond in kind.
It’s arguable that such a “policy” would crumble if, for example, somebody used plutonium to poison a city’s water supply and murder 50,000 people; the pressure to hit back with more than a handful of conventional PGMs would be immense.
But it is the height of irresponsibility to advertise in advance that you’d just turn the other cheek if the bad guys use WMDs. That’s practically double-dog daring them to do just that.
neocon527 said:
You clipped that from a Reagan Speech – here is the rest of what he said, what he stood for and above all how light years ahead in intellect he was compared to Zippy the Fearless leader:
“The defence policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor. We maintain our strength in order to deter and defend against aggression – to preserve freedom and peace.”
“Since the dawn of the atomic age, we’ve sought to reduce the risk of war by maintaining a strong deterrent and by seeking genuine arms control. “Deterrence” means simply this: making sure any adversary who thinks about attacking the United States, or our allies, or our vital interests, concludes that the risks to him outweigh any potential gains. Once he understands that, he won’t attack.”
Now if you want to cut and paste part of an entire speech that’s fine but, following the tack of the DemoRat policy of pointing a finger and saying” But he said it first” does not wash. You and your ilk should try to think of something original and constructive.
And it still is.
Because 1,550 warheads will not destroy enough of out potential enemies’ strategic targets to deter their willingness to attack us.
Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.
Yeah and the government made the mess at Hanford but will they be accountable, just like the messes at St. Louis Airport, Middlesex, NJ, Tonawanda, NY, Fernald, Ohio, New Mmexico and the Savannah river Site. Not to mention the multitudes of radioactive waste our government dumps right off the coast.
If 1,550 isn’t enough to deter them, I seriously doubt 2,000 will be.
Not. It is considered one delivery vehicle.
Say, I’m a Russian planner, and I want to take out Oklahoma City. I have ONE ICBM allocated for Oklahoma City. And this ICBM contains 10 nuclear warheads.
I would make 3 warheads take out Tinker A.F.B., 1 warhead take out the State Capitol building, 1 warhead take out the intersection of I-40 and I-35, 1 warhead take out Will Rogers World Airport, 1 take out the Oklahoma City Stockyards, 1 take out the intersection of I-44 and I-40, 1 take out the University of Oklahoma, and 1 take out the Federal Building.
You do not send all 10 warheads to the same aimpoint. Not unless you are digging very deep holes.
For the purposes of the arms limitations, it is considered one warhead. Semantics aside.
Nope, thats a CYA quote, saying we reserve the right to change our policy… not a statement OF Policy.
Agreed, it is not.
Will someone please remind me again of how a “community organizer” is so much greater an expert on Nuclear policy?
If you have the absolute right to change your mind about a policy, then it is not really a policy, now is it?
Fearless Leaders lack of thought and coupled with his complete ignorance of Strategic thinking and experience is so evident that walking with your feet on fire could not be more evident. Never tell an enemy or potential enemy what you are willing or are going to do in any situation –ever. Sock Puppet pretty much negated that premise. The other thing concerning this dolt is – he does not have the spine or will to retaliate against anyone that does harm to us. The first thing out of his gob will be either it was our fault or he will say he was sorry. Look how long it took this individual to make a decision to send extra troops to Afghanistan – date night in New York and his golfing were more important.
Then the deterrence argument is moot, no?
Never.
Then why bother stating a Policy in the first place?
It is if you are talking about nations or people for which deterrence is impossible, no matter how many nukes we have.
Having 100,000 nuclear warheads would be the same as having none, if you were unwilling to use them.
neocon and chap: you two need to stop thinking like typical libs by looking at the world through your straw. Why is it you folks know absolutely nothing about how fools constantly find a way to repeat history??
I would also point out, that Policys are put in place to guide your subordinates, when you are incommunicado, or in the case of WMDs, potentialy dead.
This Policy will guide the Pentagon in its response, including all the other Command Centers in place (such as Looking Glass) in case of war.
THEY will not be able to change this policy… until an effective Civilian leadership tells them they can… which in the case of a WMD conflict, could be difficult, or at least time consuming.
We played all these scenarios out back in the Cold War… and if they decapitate the Command Authority in Washington, this Policy will throw our response into chaos.
This is all about leaving Israel twisting in the wind…
It’s always about Israel.
True, and it is also bad if the theater commanders and task force commanders lose confidence in the same Command Authority.
I forgot who said it but, this rings truer now than ever.
“It is more dangerous to be Americas friend than be Americas enemy.”
Chaps:
When you’ve ACTUALLY been on the front lines as an Air Force Missileer (of which I know many) and know the ACTUAL capability of our nukes and delivery system, then can you say what the true IMPACT of this “treaty” actually is?
What about China? India? Iran? N. Korea? Terrorists? Reducing our nukes will not make those dangers go away no matter how much you wish it.
Why don’t you talk to an ACTUAL missileer who knows about those weapons, how they’re delivered, and the impact without them as a deterrance?
Because, other than that, you’re nothing more than an Obeyme appeaser, appologist, and tool.
And sorry, just because you became a lawyer on the Navy’s dime (I believe that’s a tidbit from your past that makes you “qualified” to comment) doesn’t mean you have any knowledge of our nukes and why we NEED them.
You’re about as qualified to comment as is Obeyme. Sorry, no sell.
spaceycakes said:
Fearless Leader and his Reverand Wright think they are only Jews afterall.
Not moot, but insufficent to cover ever scenario.
Correction…Under the treaty, if ratified, each side within seven years would be barred from deploying more than 1,550 strategic warheads or 700 launchers. Because of counting rules and past reductions, neither side would have to eliminate large numbers of weapons to meet the new limits. But the treaty re-establishes an inspection regime that lapsed in December and could serve as a foundation for deeper reductions later.
The rapprochement worries many in a region once dominated by Moscow. The cover of the influential Czech weekly Reflex showed Mr. Obama kissing Leonid Brezhnev, along with the warning, “dangerous kisses with Moscow.” The leading Polish newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza ran a snide commentary titled “Obama is coming, but it’s no longer our Obama.”
Lubos Dobrovsky, a former Czech defense minister who presided over the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, said he feared that Mr. Obama was appeasing Russia. “This treaty is a diplomatic and military victory for Moscow,” he said in an interview, “and I am not happy that this American defeat is being showcased in Prague.”
Also keep this in mind, the largest US bomb now ranks in terms of yeild at 100 to 375 Kt. A far cry from early US weapons, versus the Russian average yield of 100 to 750 kt (with a 20 MT gage weapon). Clearly given new missiles, the Russian’s have the better force. Chiense weapons are anywhere (in the start zone) from 200 kt to 5 mt. Also Tactical weapons typically have a yield much less than 10-5kt. Russian weapons once more in this area have a higher yield and more importantly….
Launch Authority is under the supervision of military commanders in wartime and the new STAVIC. Saddly in todays world given smaller yeidls, smaller stockpiles, and better defensive systems all around the nuke isn’t the peace keeper anymore, in fact it might be likely to fight and litterally win a war with atomic arms. It is these factors why R&D among many nations is in future arms, such as kenitic weapons (plasma/charged paritcal cannon) rail guns, and even space based deployment systems.
The US has currently slashed and outright cancelled R&D in these area’s and will pay a price. For instance on the cutting block is the F-22. It should be noted the current mass produced Su-27 in use among Russia, China and its allies have been evaluated by the Finns and Sweds to outperform (even with modest training) our F-15 by a 4 to one margerine, the 16 by a 3 to 1, and the F-18 2 to 1. Only the F-22 had a favorable review of 2 to 1 versus the Su-27. This is only one in a larger array of US military hardware that is outdated and out gunned on a modern battlefield. At the Same time Chinese sub production jumps leaps and bounds while we have done away with most of our antisub airborne force, and also Russia has us beat in Bombers by huge numbers, when we no longer have interceptors like the F-14 in the field. I could go on with even more weak spots in our defense.
Course can’t point that out to the average man on the street given the Gulf Wars in which 60′s era cast offs (soviet/russians never sold state of the art gear always a few things missing to its Arab and EastEuo “friends”) versus state of the art 80′s gear, all the while the guy in the 60′s got slotted in the back all the while waiting in fox holes for the Americans to meet them head on. Not a good battle to make stock of your military might.
The US has and is doing what it always had after a war. Making love and wigging out some someone can sucker punch it in the teeth.
From the Convention speech in 2008 up to now, Sarah Palin has aptly demonstrated on TV and on her blog, that she has absolute way with words.
She is very effective speaker.
Delivers the message in a convincing way on the first try, unlike the brilliant orator who is failing measurably to sell his Health Care boondoggle, even after hundreds of TV and Town Hall appearances.
For a supposedly dumb woman, Palin is absolutely kicking the brilliant orator’s arse!
I am certain Chris Matthew’s legs have stopped tingling BUT his entire body is SHAKING with rage.
I love it.
For perspective http://www.blogiseverything.com/files/pics/nuclear_bomb_comparison.gif
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/images/nuke-size.gif
The “Mike” bomb is standard among some of the US’s foes, while our own big hitter is many times smaller than that. Also keep in mind the “grave destruction” Of Heroshima and Nagasaki were on Cities who at the time were only five miles across. Today Cities are much larger. So the City buster as it were of the end of WW2 is more of a “hood” buster now and thus isn’t as deadly as western media thinks.
On April 9th, 2010 at 2:45 pm, chapoutier said:
?
The problem is the “maintaining” part. We have closed most if not all of the facilities to make weapons grade fissionables and the cores for fusion bombs (H-bombs). While that isn’t Barack Obama’s fault (it was his predecessors from 1987 to 2002). Our nuclear weapons are aging and fissionables deteriorate (radioactive decay) over time. Many of the warheads have been or are reaching end of lifecycle in terms of reliably detonating in a fusion blast. The numbers are classified and there are efforts at several laboratories across the US to perform a Service Lifetime Extension on these weapons the reliability of these processes has not been fully tested. Also, the various delivery systems have a certain degree of reliability issues (just look at NASAs record in on time launches and launch system failures). So while 1550 sound like a significant number, how many are actually effective and available when needed is open to debate and was debated many times in the past. Originally, some 3,000+ warheads were what was considered to be sufficient for the US to guarantee the MAD scenario for a second strike capability against the Soviet Union. Changes in the Presidential policy on weapons use reduced those numbers during the Reagan administration (and scared the Democrats sh**less)allowing the original START treaty. To reduced from START I and back off of those policies especially in a world where there isn’t a single nuclear armed power may not be the wisest decision.
So the short answer is; we aren’t sure whether we truly have 1550 ‘effective’ warheads and backing off the policies that made that number acceptable in a world where there was only one other nuclear power (OK, France was there too but not considered a threat) might be construed as “giving up our arsenal”.
BTW, On a separate note, I could have used your more educated palate to determine which wine goes with a pair of .45s.
One of the reasons for smaller U.S. warhead yield is improvements in technology.
The greater your accuracy, the smaller a warhead you can deploy. The smaller the warhead, the more you can deploy in a single launch vehicle.
Smaller also means less weight, which extends launch vehicle range.(I can throw a baseball a lot farther than I can throw a bowling ball)
Of course, against hardened targets, bigger is always better. Accurate and bigger is better than just bigger.
On April 9th, 2010 at 3:11 pm, chapoutier said:
.
Agreed, but there would be some hardened C3I (Command Control Communications, Intelligence) sites that would have been targeted for multiple weapons in the event a given weapon is not or cannot be launched or the facility survives the initial blast. This in addition to targeting every strategic military base/facility identifiable and the non-hardened C3I centers including telecommunications sites and nowadays computation assets (e.g., data centers). Lots and lots of targets probably well over 1550. The other thing that one has to wonder whether this is in that strategic plan is whether or not we have considered what to do about other threats to national security in the event of a nuclear exchange. Do we take them out of the strategic picture or leave them alone or do we do something in the middle?
There is the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces treaty that covers that between the Soviet Union and the US (which I believe Russia has continued to adhere to) deals with that issue regarding those two countries. However there are a number of countries that are developing IRBMs (Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles) such as North Korea, Iran, India and Pakistan who aren’t signatories. Moreover, the US Pershing II system while still more or less combat effective, is an aging technology (over 20 years old). Our impending removal of those weapons from Germany (see recent news briefs) also affects our ability to use them on targets in Iran (from Germany) or any other Middle Eastern area and any removals (none known to be pending) may affect defensive strategy in the Far East particularly Japan, Taiwan and South Korea.
There is also no treaty regarding SADMs (Small Atomic Demolition Munitions) and MADMs (Medium Atomic Demolition Munitions) both of which may be available to terrorist organizations now or in the near future.
BTW the only WMD in the US Arsenal is the nuclear device as chemical and biological weapons have been pretty much or completely destroyed by the US at our Johnson Island and other sites across the country. Almost all Chemical and Biological weapons have been destroyed and the delivery systems rendered inoperable.
How many world leaders are left who think Obama could find a big stick if he needed one – much less the balls to use it?
I love that woman!
Run, Sarah, Run!
All during the run to the nomination and election he told us his positions. Nuclear disarmament is the first step in total disarmament and has been a One Worlder goal for generations. I am sure it will bring peace as well as the 1921-22 and 1930 Naval Tonnage Treaty did.
But I imagine Chappy knows those details too.
Europe lives under U.S. protection which is why their defense budgets are low. Obama’s new defense ideas of Kumbaya isn’t going to sit well with them.
There is so much wrong with what Sarah Palin had to say about Pres Obama, it escapes reality.
Yep, Pres Obama to a bit of a shot at Sarah Palin, and he should have avoided addressing her directly.
Yep, Sarah Palin took many shots at Pres Obama, but she did it without context or providing answers as to how she would we deal with those issues. It is not enough to say what you are against, but far more important to say what you are for.
Yes, there is North Korea, but what President has been effective in dealing with them? What is your strategy with dealing with North Korea?
Yes, there is Iran, but what President has been effective in dealing with them? What is your strategy with dealing with Iran? Which President removed our proxy for confronting Iran?
Yes, there is Cuba, but what President has been effective in dealing with them? Have they changed anything about how they conduct themselves? Have sanctions worked? How would you deal with Cuba?
Part time Senator? Please. He moved to a higher officer and Sarah Palin quit half way through her term as Governor.
Treating Pres Karzai poorly is the price that is paid for our sacrificing our blood and treasure to keep him where he is. Are we supposed to accept whatever he does? On the same theme, are we to continue to support a Musharraf who came to power in a coup and gave sanctuary to terrorist, but arressted members of the judiciary? Which President did that?
Yeah, Sarah Palin took a shot at Pres Obama, but what was not mentioned was that he referenced the influence the Sec of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff had on his decision. Who has influenced Sarah Palin’s position?
It is easy to take shots, but what what have you got? This is the one thing that is frustrating about Sarah Palin, she gets no follow up questions. I’d like to her expand her remarks and provide greater detail.
Bumper sticker rhetoric is not substance.
zyzzyg
Just take a hike. You’ll not get any converts here.
So there is an upside
The Hell With Europe.
There is so much wrong with what Sarah Palin had to say about Pres Obama, it escapes reality.
Mmmm Mmmm Mmmm — and the Sock Puppet waffles, weasels and outright lies about anything and everything. When a woman asks a question about taxes and receives a 17 minute ramble you have the gall to say there is something wrong with Palin — you make me laugh.
Not interested in converts, just interested in having questions answered. Are you afraid of having questions answered?
Are you afraid of having Sarah Palin addressing follow-up questions? I’d like to know what Sarah Palin proposes with regard to North Korea, Iran, Chavez, Cuba, Afganistan, etc? Do you? We have had enough of lip service. Tell me what you are going to do to address the issues Sarah Palin raised in taking Pres Obama to task.
Yep, it is easy to take a cheap shot, but tell me how you will address the issues raised?
I’d like to know when Sarah Palin would use our nuclear strike capabilities. Yes, we know when Pres Obama will not use nuclear weapons and I would like to know what her trigger is?
I am not knocking Sarah Palin, or Pres Obama, just asking a question. I am looking for an affirmative response. What, if any, is her trigger to use nuclear weapons?
zzzz
It matters not what anyone here thinks. It’s what your fearless leader thinks and his cronies of mass weapons abandonment.
You want answers: Take the high road and join the military, rely on the ‘expertise’ of Wikipedia – or read a cheap novel. You can look up the answers to 99% of the junk questions you ask.
Second hand knowledge is no replacement for first hand knowledge.
People with real first hand knowledge are prevented from sharing the answers to your questions on a blogsite by threat of charges of treason.
Looks like somebody (zyzzyg) finally came complete out of the closet. Defending Obama’s experience while denigrating Palin’s was kind of a giveaway.
You don’t have to submit those long boring posts any longer. You can just insult and/or gloat and leave.
Nuclear and other disarmament is part and parcel of who these people are. Reading through Phyllis Schlafly’s 1964 “A Choice Not an Echo” on page 12:
And The Walt W. Rostow Report-a plan that called for the elimination of our first strike weapons as the communist were mellowing and thus we much not encourage resistance to communism behind the iron curtain.
Kennedy/Johnson were soft on communism before they were hard on communism. Oh well they didn’t have any sons to die in the fetid jungles of Southeast Asia. Flip flop.
It was probably Sarah Palin’s fault, think?
A Choice Not an Echo–never discard a great read.
http://www.phyllisschlafly.com/
John Deaux
You got that right, a giveaway.
Many of our posters are active/former military and zzzz is either a troll or someone that simply chooses to not get it that there are real reasons of national security their petty questions cannot be answered to anyone, even their spouses or closest friends.
Sarah Palin is not an immediate concern. Obama is the person who has the man with “the football” constantly at his side. How he makes decisions on the use of which of those operations orders in the “football” is what counts.
I suggest Z instead of asking about Sarah Palin, you read the book. “Inside the Soviet Army” by Victor Suvorov, dated 1982. Read Part V. The Soviet Union is gone, but the Russian mindset is not.
That is your opponent. You read that and then tell us if you think of Obama’s new nuclear strategy. I can tell you from experience his odds of success will be higher if he puts on ruby slippers and clicks his heels three times.
After applying the Law of Unintended Consequences to Obama’s new policy on the use of nuclear weapons, I can now make a prediction.
Many of our allies and friends have not developed their own nuclear weapons because they felt confident they could rely on the USA to defend them in the event they were attacked. But now they have reason to be less confident. They now know that Obama is reluctant to respond forcibly to any provocation. If he refuses to respond with nukes to a serious biological or chemical threat against his own country, why would he respond in any serious manner to a threat against another country?
So, if these countries conclude that they can no longer rely on us, many of them will feel it necessary to develop their own nuclear weapons to protect themselves. Thus, my prediction is that, instead of creating a world without nukes as Obama intends, his policy will result in the creation of more nukes in more countries and a more dangerous world.
On April 9th, 2010 at 11:28 pm, Flyoverman said:
An excellent book and a good insight into the Russian mindset even with the Soviet overlay that’s not entirely applicable. But, Chapter V. is still a very good look into the Russian mindset which remains the same.
Be so kind as to point out what is a lie.
You have changed the subject and that is OK, it is what Liberals do when they are cornered and lack a coherent response.
I addressed what Sarah Palin said, not the ridiculoisly long answer Pres Obama gave. When you are ready to discuss the substance of Sarah Palin’s remarks, let me know.
Like it or not, it matters what Pres Obama’s critics think, especially when they take him to task, while not providing context and substance to their assertions.
Such a tangent, I nearly got whiplash. None of what you suggested will provide answers to my questions to Sarah Palin.
On it’s face, that sounds good. But, I do not need to slam my hand with a hammer to know first hand that it will hurt.
Knowing Sarah Palin’s position and strategy in dealing with Iran, Chavez, Cuba, etc is not a National Security issue. Having her explain how other Presidents dealt, failed or succeeded, with Iran, Chavez, Cuba, etc is also not a National Security issue.
These are fairly reasonable questions that in all likelihood will be asked of candidates for most National offices.
Why are you afraid of questions?
I am not defending or denigrating anyone. I asked questions. Why are you afraid of questions?
I would like to more fully understand Sarah Palin’s approach to the issues she raised.
Thank you for the suggestion, I’ll take it under advisement.
Sarah Palin raised these issues. What is exactly wrong with wanting a greater understanding of how she would approach these issues? What is wrong with her providing the added context of how other Presidents dealt with these issues?
Thank for the suggestion.
If Russia is our opponent and uses nuclear weapons on us, there is nothing in Pres Obama’s policy that prevents us from responding in kind.
For the record, I believed we should have used nukes after 9/11 on Afghanistan. That is a different discussion and a bit of a tangent. I’ve got no problem with using nukes, chemical or biological weapons.
I think this is the first time the US has ever surrendered BEFORE we were attacked…
But I am glad Chappy continues to demonstrate his “flawless” understanding of nuclear arms limitation and reduction issues as well as a “stunning” grasp of targeting of strategic weapons… Discussing nuclear force issues with Chappy is a bit like discussing personal hygiene with the French. They pretend to listen for a while but have no intention of learning or applying any lessons…
And now wiggy ziggy is completely “outed” as a full-fledged Obamunista. But most of us have known that for a long time.
After less than 18 months in office America is teetering on the brink of financial and military collapse. Jimmy Carter must be so grateful that he can no longer be called the worst president in the history of the Republic…
Here is where I am on Sarah…
If she were running for the top job against Obama in 2012, I would certainly vote for her…anything to thwart the socialist, anti-American agenda.
But I am very disappointed in Sarah, who I embraced feverently and was thrilled to vote for on the McCain/Palin ticket, even though I despise McCain.
I am sick now, of her folksie sarcasm…but that is repeating criticism that I have already made of her in this forum.
What is more significant is my disappointment in how Sarah has used her time since the 08 election. I didn’t criticize her for not being intellectually up to speed…I thought of her as being in the Harry Truman vein (although Truman was a diligent student of history in spite of his lack of formal education).
What has really disappointed me is that Sarah has not used her time to prepare herself for greater things. She could have assembled a team of tutors from the intellectual Right who would have been thrilled at the opportunity of putting her through a crash, graduate-level course in history, economics, government, and public policy. She would not have had to slog through a lot of late-night reading in a lonely college library…they would have have spoon fed her. And then she could have embarked on lifelong reading.
Instead, she has acted like Kate Gosselin or some other flash-in-the-pan celebrity. I see nothing that makes me think she is a serious person. After seeing her campaigning for McLame, I don’t even think she is much of a conservative.
So, yes, I’d vote for her to get the Dems out of power. But if she really is the great hope and future of American conservatism, then we are in deep doo-doo.
I would submit that you don’t know what Sarah Palin has been doing with her time when she isn’t on TV talking to you.
Would you prefer her policy briefings be live on CSPAN so you can follow along and grade her progress?
Her role right now is high profile political activist. She has decided to help get Pelosi fired, in any way she can.
She is doing a good job at that so far.
After the mid term elections, we will find out more about what her intentions are, what her specific proposals will be.
There are policy people working with her behind the scenes, have been for quite a while.
She is not running for President right now, and neither is anyone else, with the exception of the perpetual campaign of the current President.
There is another book in the works, probably due out sometime in the next 6-8 months. That may answer many questions.
I honestly believe she has not decided whether to run or not, keeping all options open for now.
When the time comes, if she has decided to run she will begin a shift in her public persona from the role she is filling right now, to a more specific platform.
Sarah Palin has nothing to prove right now, to you or anyone else. Job #1 is destroying the Throne of Queen Nancy the Arrogant I. After that has been done, then we move on to the next stage, taking down King Barack.
What is so hard to grasp about this for some people?
Brian72,
Good point about Sarah being at work on a second book.
I’m glad that she writes books; I just think that she ought to take time out to read a couple.