SIGN UP - IT'S FREE!
SEARCH FSM
| National Debt Clock |
A million seconds pass in 12 days.
A billion seconds pass in 31 years.
A trillion seconds pass in 31,688 years!
March 11, 2009
Exclusive: President Obama and His ‘Nuclear Naïveté’
“If you want peace, prepare for war.” –Sun Tzu
The wisdom of Sun Tzu, prophetic for centuries, seems to have eluded the current leadership in Washington. Recently there been some worrisome revelations from the White House, Iran and Russia’s proxies.
THE COLD WAR REVISTED?
The Sunday Boston Globe, among other papers, revealed the Obama Nuclear plan: “President Obama is preparing to move ahead with the most ambitious arms-control agenda in decades, calling for dramatic cuts in US and Russian arsenals, a halt to the Bush administration's plan for a more advanced nuclear warhead, and the ratification of a global treaty banning underground nuclear tests.” Does Obama get it? Does he understand the world is a dangerous place and isn’t just a global stage for his rousing but largely unsubstantial orations? If his first four weeks are indicator of future performance, there’s not a lot of room for optimism. Let’s take a quick look at the grown-up players our rookie president must face (here’s a review Mr. Obama).
Vladimir Putin
Former high ranking KGB agent. Master at martial arts. Highly educated. Savvy and wealthy businessman. Ruthless leader. Charismatic. Dangerous. Effective.
Putin once described the collapse of the Soviet Union as the greatest tragedy of the 20th century – one he was determined to reverse. Using energy hegemony, Putin has already commenced on an impressive rearmament program. The military is a visible projection of power and influence – if you have any doubt about his resolve, think Georgia or Chechnya.
Several accounts confirm that the Russian military has been considering commissioning 70 strategic missiles over the next three years – a significant increase in the production rate of their land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).
The missiles would be part of a multibillion dollar procurement package for 2009-2011, according to Vladislav Putilin, a deputy head of the Russian cabinet's military-industrial commission in charge of weapons industries. While Russia has only produced about a ½ dozen Topol-M ICBMs a year since the late 1990s, her stockpiles of several hundred heavy Soviet-era SS-19 Stiletto missiles are rapidly reaching the end of their working life.
Russian president Medvedev used some aggressive rhetoric when Obama was elected. Medvedev announced plans to station short-range Iskander missiles in Russia's Kaliningrad exclave if the U.S. goes ahead with building a missile defense system in Europe.
In July of 2008 as the Bush Administration was in discussion concerning military protection with Eastern European allies, Dmitry Rogozin, Russia's ambassador to NATO clearly sent a Sicilian message how the Kremlin would retaliate if Poland acquired an American missile defense shield when he alluded that it would a "pleasant surprise." More specifically beyond the prospect of Russian missiles pointing in its direction but also risks "100%" a military attack. Perhaps a bit too much theater….Gen. Anatoly Nogovitysn asserted that under Russia's military doctrine, the Kremlin had every justification to launch a nuclear strike against Poland if the missile shield is built. While that was a year ago, does anyone think the philosophy of Russia first that emanates from the Kremlin has been replaced by the song “put a little love in your heart?”
The new START treaty that Obama is hot to trot – quelle surprise – plays right into Putin’s hand.
Russia has been upgrading their nuclear weapons; as such eliminating their older stockpiles is not problematic and does not compromise their capabilities. In fact their aging arsenal is a benefit – they use it as a bargaining chip, are eager to get rid of it, and if they play their cards right, the UN even the U.S. will help them dispose of the stuff.
RUSSIAN PROXIES
Russia is also building, shielding or enabling nuclear proxies that can be an extension of these doctrines, Iran being a pivotal partner. Yet instead of acknowledging Iran is following a Putin playbook, Obama actually believes Russia has an interest in preventing Ahmadinejad from becoming nuclear. Iran has Russian nuclear technology, scientists, and advisors. In what language does that sound like the Kremlin is distancing itself from or trying to restrict Tehran’s nuclear ambitions?
As part of his strategy to bring Russia back to global dominance Putin, through a variety of alliances, clearly considers Iran a valued partner if not pure proxy, having committed resources – military and technological (nuclear, energy, weapons, industrial. As part of his strategy to remedy the humiliation the West imposed upon his nation, Putin has set his eyes on virtually every region – from South America to Central Asia, Europe and the Middle East. By identifying nations ruled by leaders aligned with his own philosophy – Venezuela, Iran, Syria, Cuba for example – he is able to gain a foothold worldwide. Through the use of military might, economic influence or energy extortion, he is unwavering in his goals. We should take Putin at his word. And we should dig out our old Cold War dictionary to translate Putin speak.
IRAN
Recently, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) revealed their finding that Iran has enough uranium to create a nuclear device. The IAEA said it had discovered an additional 460 pounds of low-enriched uranium, a third more than Iran had previously disclosed. The agency made the find during its annual physical inventory of nuclear materials at Iran’s sprawling desert enrichment plant at Natanz.
“It’s worse than we thought,” Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, said in an interview. “It’s alarming that the actual production was underreported by a third.”
Apparently our friends in Tehran underreported the quantities that they had. Imagine that. And our government international watch dog agency and experts were surprised because…? If annual inspections of a large country with several enrichment facilities are supposed to make the world safe, we’re all in trouble.
The World at Risk Report – an excellent document and guide to reducing the threat of weapons of mass destruction world wide – while also basing threat reduction on cooperation with nations avowed to challenge our interests, at least laid out, albeit in the broad strokes, guidelines how to improve verification and inspection procedures, and enhance the capabilities of agencies tasked with performing those activities. The Reagan approach: Trust and verify.
When Putin says he has tried to limit Iran’s uranium access and would never enable them to use their nuclear technology for anything but energy, not weapons, we should realize he means “I’ll make sure Kazakhstan, with 15% of the world’s uranium deposits, and an increasingly important player in the global uranium trade will make the borders somewhat porous.” Kazakhstan has recently grown even closer to Moscow; with Putin’s guidance their goal of becoming the world’s largest producer may become a reality. Another Putin puppet, Uzbekistan, also has large uranium deposits and a leading supplier for weapons-grade material during Soviet times. If Obama gets a map, he might see the geographic proximity between Iran and the “Stan nations.”
Experts (probably the same ones that said North Korea didn’t have the bomb) claim that there is no direct evidence that Iran sought uranium from either country. Never the less, these two nations remain one of the potential weak spots in countering nuclear proliferation – and Iran would be a beneficiary.
The Obama/Carter Approach
The White House has made it clear that they are committed to reducing our nuclear arsenal and getting Russia to sign a nuclear treaty – in spite of the fact this treaty, more symbolic than effective, will neither make the world or the U.S. safer. In reality, we will be weaker.
A hallmark of Jimmy Carter and his failed presidency was the persistent trust placed in the words of others. He never got the idea that bad guys lie. Hello – bad guys! That’s what they do.
Not everyone plays by the rules or discloses their duplicity.
Under Jimmy Carter, Russia invaded Afghanistan and Iran fell to the Ayatollah right under his very nose. And to the end, old Jimmy thought they were just kidding or somehow would apologize and go home. He actually thought discussion and negotiation was the key. It took Reagan to get Russia out of Afghanistan, and the hostages back home to the U.S. Carter and the left have never grasped or accepted the concept of peace through strength.
Obama – month one of his presidency is showing an amazing likeness to Carter. Don’t let facts get in the way of your rose colored vision. Obama, like Carter, is committed to a non nuclear world. If he can figure out how to turn back the clock, return the genie back in the bottle, dismantle all the nuclear programs, eliminate the desire for atomic weapons, eliminate al Qaeda, and remove evil from the hearts of despots – wow, that’d be impressive! Now let’s get serious. His view of how the world should be flies in the face of how it is.
If Iran builds nuclear weapons – a game changer in the region and potentially internationally – it will be part of a concerted effort by Moscow to control the Middle East and extend his influence globally.
For all the public pronouncement of Putin et al that Russia is eager to promote peace and support nuclear treaties, by inference the only delay being the U.S., in reality it is all a ruse. Russia has made no secret that it will use any and all means, including nuclear, to protect its interests. Putin has made it clear he wants new and advanced nuclear warheads to complement his advanced missile defense systems, upgraded rockets, and newly planned carrier navy to replace an aging fleet.
“Never interrupt an enemy when they are making a mistake.”
Obama et al seem to ignore the very pronouncements and objectives our adversaries – fill in the blank which ones – have publicly stated. Putin reveres Stalin and thinks his predecessors have weakened Russia; a mistake he has pledged to reverse. Syria has reached out to Russia and rolled out a floating red carpet. Iran has made no secret about nuclear aspirations. Through the actions of another trustworthy group of folks – North Korea – Iran has been able to move forward with missile technology. Iran launched a satellite on a modified platform that likely will allow warhead delivery to Israel and other U.S. allies. Thanks to Russian and Chinese technology, Iran is the latest satellite launching nation. Should it surprise anyone but the left that the launch rockets can also propel warheads to our allies? Or that much of Iran’s nuclear technology is courtesy of the Kremlin? Russia has made no secret about the importance of Iran in terms of gas pipelines, military collaboration, an increased access to the Middle East through a proxy nation, and supporting a nation that has been a persistent thorn in the side of the United States for three decades.
While some “experts” suggest Iran doesn’t have enough yellowcake uranium to meet its nuclear needs, given significant supplies are just a secret border crossing away, would you bet the farm on their assessment?
Several issues that the West continues to ignore are:
1. Why does one of the leading natural gas nations need nuclear except for weapons which Ahmadinejad has expressed a desire for. Buying into the Iran company line that they only want nuclear for energy is a major mistake in judgment.
2. The recent revelation that they have more enriched uranium than admitted – why would we think that the experts this administration relies on “get it?” These same experts claimed North Korea didn’t have enough material for weapons, right up until Kim Jong Il announced he had several weapons. Maybe we need better experts.
3. Tehran while supposedly trying to allay global concern about Iran’s nuclear efforts, decrying suspicion as Western paranoia then unveils secret centrifuges and plans more hidden facilities
4. The Putin controlled “Stan” countries which are well endowed with uranium; they are a source for Iran.
5. The “Stan” nations need money. Their allegiance is up to the highest bidder and the partner that offers the best package – money, protection, opportunities.
6. Our allies need our leadership – not our abandonment.
Unfortunately Obama thinks by weakening our nation we can bring about weapons reduction by nations avowed to use all means to advance their agenda, have demonstrated willingness to use aggression and are historically liars. This isn’t just gullible, or arrogant, it is stupid.
Many of Obama’s supporters disparage military experts who express concern that we are on the brink of another Cold War or at the very least face serious competition globally. Actions speak louder than words. Yet the left constantly accepts virtuous words as a legitimate alternative for virtuous actions. Sound like Jimmy Carter?
That the administration thinks international law will curtail weapons proliferation and aggression, this notion flies in the face of reality. Russia invaded Georgia last summer – without provocation, and it was against international law. Russia tried to freeze out the Ukraine this winter, and it was against international law if not immoral. North Korea has broken international treaties by breaking into the select group of nuclear nations. Genocide in Darfur persists – against international law. So where are the consequences? Where are the deterrents?
If Obama and his anti-proliferation team really believe any nation can be trusted to act outside their leaders or national interests, they can add foolishness to the list of flaws and failure; and the near treasonous underlying subordination of the needs of the U.S. in favor of global opinion. And why should the U.S. subordinate itself or interests to appease the aggressor states, or the world? Russia is unmoved and not fearful of public opinion when such is in conflict with national objectives. So should we.
Consider the hypocrisy and hyperbole when Obama-maniacs and much of the international community, following the Russian lead, suggest that the U.S. missile defense systems, and proposed placement in our Eastern European allies have been the barrier to peace, nuclear treaties or global harmony. Look who is calling the kettle black. Russia has the nerve to talk about peace after sending tanks into Georgia? And the administration has the naïveté to add credence to the idiotic notion that if we only hold off protecting our allies, then Russia will feel more comfortable. To suggest or actually believe that Russia is only posturing as a response to our making Moscow feel uncomfortable or threatened by “defensive” systems can only be an accepted mindset if you are a moron. Russia needs no provocation to be aggressive; it has a global agenda and, unlike the U.S., knows how to use soft power – propaganda, media manipulation, political influences, along with hard power – military, to achieve its goals. Russia is unapologetic, Russia artfully twists reality to create the impression our nation is the aggressor. And they do it deftly. Obama either buys into this or panders to a group of folks who buy into it.
Decades ago, socialists suggested a new more acceptable banner behind which to regroup and reemerge towards changing the fabric of America from a capitalist, democratic nation that supports the value of the individual in favor of collectivism and subjugation under a ruling elite: ”liberalism.”
THE IMMEDIATE THREAT
Peace and strength are not mutually exclusive. In fact it can be well argued that peace comes from strength; clearly weak nations throughout history have been denied security or peace – cautionary tale that the left seems to ignore. Clearly the United States has a right, some would argue a moral imperative to remain strong; we are the last great bastion of democracy and a source of rescue if not refuge for weaker nations, fledgling democracies and the oppressed. The message of limiting nuclear proliferation is important; the reality is always a contentious matter based upon the pledge of a nation and their underlying sincerity to uphold the promises. Most treaties are filled with loopholes and opportunities to beat the system. All sides know how to and in fact exploit these loopholes.
The biggest threat we face is domestic leadership that fails to recognize dangerous regimes, the influence of our adversaries and our vulnerabilities – economic, political, military, energy and global influence.
While Obama et al are yammering about environmentalism, a non-nuclear world and arranging the melody line for a global Kumbaya sing along, the two most critical issues facing us are energy and terrorism. Our economy will rebound; with or without the great money give a way, especially if we focus on developing an energy industry that covers the Arctic and new technology for alternative fuels. But no: we have to worry about the spotted reindeer. It is well known that Osama bin Laden has made it a priority for al Qaeda to obtain a nuclear weapon. A rationale behind the nuclear treaty is the notion that unless we take a lead role in reducing our arsenal, others won’t, and thus terrorists will be more likely to acquire a bomb. Again, the burden is placed on the United States. In reality it is likely such materials will be diverted intentionally infiltration of Russia’s stockpiles or by nations such as Iran or North Korea – countries that have proven they are not trustworthy.
WARNING
Russia is extorting the West; while Bush wouldn’t be an enabler, Obama is all too willing to acquiesce. Russia wants Obama to limit NATO and our missile defense efforts for our allies. Putin considers our missile defense systems provocative, in spite of the fact they are a response to his re-emerging military and placement of short, mid and long range weapons in proximity to Europe. He has sold that song all the way to platinum. It is time the West stop playing it! Nobody wants nuclear war. But allowing our arsenal to age without commensurate upgrades or military superiority to our adversaries is serving the nation up to defeat. Obama’s efforts will not make us safer, but will make the world happier and Russia more secure. Given there is a global effort towards weakening the West, it might be prudent to stand up against those who threaten us and make it clear the U.S. will not allow itself to take a subordinate role. Yet ironically Obama thinks he is leading the way, and with him the U.S. is recapturing its moral authority and true global leadership by cutting our nuclear arsenal, new weapons development and military budget. The Soros, Huffington and Hollywood crowd, including the Kremlin must be celebrating. It may make Obama and his ilk feel better about themselves and reinforce their self imposed feelings of intellectual and moral superiority; the reality it will be said “we had Russia right where they wanted us!”
A stronger set of plays from the U.S. perspective would be to tell Putin – move your weapons systems away from our allies, loosen your control on the “Stan” nations including authorizing the reopening of our bases in Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan to the US military so we can supply our troops in Afghanistan, and then we’ll consider other options. We should be using our own leverage points to extort some concessions out of Russia. Instead, Obama is capitulating to bullies under the rhetoric of peace promotion; it is madness. Validating Putin’s assertions by even considering his demands is an indicator of our president’s priorities, and should worry every American. Against a capable adversary, it is foolish to let your guard down.
Reducing our mutual stockpiles may seem reasonable and even desirable. But the angels are in the details. Our nuclear arsenal is aging to the point of potential danger and unreliability, according to Secretary Gates and other experts. We need newer nuclear weapons – the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW). Without such an investment, he suggested our defense is vulnerable. According to Gates, “no one has designed a new nuclear weapon in the United States since the 1980s, and no one has built a new one since the early 1990s,” he said. The older and less reliable the nuclear arsenal is, he added, the more difficult it will be to make sharp cuts in the U.S. stockpile and reduce the number of nuclear weapons. There is absolutely no way we can maintain a credible deterrent and reduce the number of weapons in our stockpile without resorting to testing our stockpile or pursuing a modernization program.”
It is likely Obama and his largely anti military Democrats in Congress will cut defense spending overall, including delaying or derailing the new nuclear warhead that numerous security professionals, military analysts, oh and our current Secretary of Defense still state that we need.
What is more insidious is the widely held notion that the Cold War is over; Russia no longer poses a threat to the United States and it is our nation that is the aggressor. If you feel like this is the Wonderland and up is down, down is up, good is painted evil and evil painted good, you aren’t alone.
Obama also wants to ban our testing capabilities. Without new and improved nuclear weapons, according to Gates and others, if we needed to use our older warheads, without effective testing, it may be unknown if they will work. Anti-testing advocates suggest computer models are a viable surrogate for actual testing.
The U.S. is on the precipice again. Russia is led by a far smarter team than the bullies of the 20th century, and a more effective leader than his counterpart at 1600 Pennsylvania. The Middle East is far more volatile and vulnerable to the Kremlin. Obama and his crowd are apologizing for our strength and validating adversary assertions that the only roadblocks to peace are U.S. actions – helping former Soviet satellites gain true security and sovereignty,
The clock is ticking. Our interests – here and abroad are threatened. We need a president who watches the store, not gives it away.
CONCLUSION
A president’s political ideology should not outweigh the duty to protect his nation. Obama’s strategy to create a non-nuclear world is likely to weaken the United States. His narrow focus on far left issues such as save the polar bears, give away money to deadbeats who over borrowed, and cutting the defense budget (swords into plow shares) to the exclusion of critical problems – tapping our Arctic energy sources, rebuilding our military, strengthening our industrial infrastructure, and putting outcomes measures on the dollars we are giving away. While Obama is far more articulate, and forceful than Carter, he is never the less a puppet of and panderer to the left and all too reminiscent of the Carter messianic notion of world peace – his notions fly in the face of global realities.
Russia is back. Iran is a nuclear nation. Whether they have the bomb or not today is irrelevant; they will have it, just as North Korea. And it is only a matter of time when other Putin allies get it, like Venezuela. We have underestimated our adversaries long enough. Putin is the ultimate agent provocateur – using his influence globally, while fomenting unrest and antagonism towards the West.
Obama and Putin have unwitting or nitwit supporters in the U.S. left. Iran is the game changer in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is also the game changer in the Middle East; the U.S. has allies but we are thousands of miles away; and with an overstretched military about to suffer budget cuts and stepchild status in the anti- military administration, our influence will erode with Egypt, Turkey, and Jordan. Proximity and self preservation are powerful motivators. Russia wins again.
But we can counter if we have the will.
In Obama’s efforts to apologize for some perceived insult the world feels the U.S. has levied upon it, and his goal to earn global belovedness status, he is sacrificing our sovereignty. To make matters worse, he is surrounded by a fawning and protective media that will alter or ignore a story that seems less than supportive of the new world order of Obama. Historically, a united media can control the message, create the story that the public know and manipulate the masses towards a predictable outcome.
There’s no one to blame but ourselves for the president we have leading the United States. Common sense and patriotism were outvoted by the entitlement generation. The folks who would rather spend a trillion on an untested social welfare program than billions on vitally needed energy exploration or the military (people who actually work) or security projects likely to enhance our national security, create jobs, ensure domestic wellbeing and defense - have won.
Unless we in the minority – the loyal, dare I say patriotic opposition – continue to raise awareness and provide analysis of his dangerous policies, mobilize to influence or attenuate his actions, utilize media outlets not yet co-opted, and generate a political movement for the 2010 election, these next four years could result in a weaker nation – economically, militarily and influentially in the world.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Dr. Robin McFee is a physician and medical toxicologist. An expert in WMD preparedness, she is a consultant to government agencies, corporations and the media. Dr. McFee is a member of the Global Terrorism, Political Instability and International Crime Council of ASIS International. She has authored numerous articles on terrorism, health care and preparedness, and coauthored two books: Toxico-Terrorism by McGraw Hill and The Handbook of Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Agents, published by Informa/CRC Press.
Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (0) | Sign Up for FSM Updates!
