The Dillard Doctrine

Urban Conservative Commentary on Politics & Life

Disarming Unilaterally

I know national security isn’t foremost on everyone’s minds right now, but this cannot end well:

President Obama said Monday that he was revamping American nuclear strategy to substantially narrow the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons.

Discussing his approach to nuclear security the day before formally releasing his new strategy, Mr. Obama described his policy as part of a broader effort to edge the world toward making nuclear weapons obsolete, and to create incentives for countries to give up any nuclear ambitions. To set an example, the new strategy renounces the development of any new nuclear weapons, overruling the initial position of his own defense secretary.
Reason number 100 (or so) why I couldn’t be a Democrat.
Here’s what people-many on the left-don’t understand about nuclear weapons. Yes, they’re devestatingly powerful, so much so that anyone who would use them should weigh that choice very carefully-and consider other methods and weapons systems before employing nukes. They’re not, in a civilized world, first use weapons.
Problem is, there’s some in our world who aren’t exactly civilized…and believe their nukes are for first use. Or worse, view them as a cash cow that can be sold to whatever rogue organization has the money for them. For those nations, organizations, and people, the only thing keeping them from using nukes-or any weapon of mass destruction-is the sure and certain knowledge that if they’re used against us, whoever gives such an order may well find themselves the ruler of an unpopulated parking lot.
In fairness to the president, he did mention creating different circumstances for using nukes against countries like North Korea and Iran. But why would we except them from the rules that have been in place for decades…or put differently, why change those rules in the first place? What else would we do-carpet bomb Pyongyang or Tehran into nonexistence? We gave up on that as a tactic a long time ago (again, for good reason).
 
The reality is that nuclear weapons are essential to our national security, as is the ability to use them anywhere, at any time. “Peace through strength,” as Reagan put it-and our nukes are the cornerstone of our strength as well as our best deterrent. They’re not going anywhere…
unless, or apparently until, our arsenal is so out of date or in such poor condition that it becomes strategically irrelevant. “Strength beyond challenge,” as Bush the Younger put it. You don’t stop developing weapons systems for the vague hope that other nations will follow suit. Historically, that hasn’t turned out very well. That’s the same misguided logic that drives the gun control debate-“take away the guns, and we’ll all be safer!”
South Africa had nukes at one point. Did anyone threaten them to the point they decided that nuclear weapons would be their last best defense?Apartheid was bad, but it wasn’t “bomb them into submission” bad.
We’re stuck with nukes, for good or for bad. Giving away the store, or restricting access to it, isn’t going to make us any safer.
HB2DF, Coby
Advertisements

Written by Coby Dillard

April 6, 2010 at 12:32 pm

One Response

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I couldn’t agree with you more! And when our President finishes reducing our nuclear arsenal, rogue nations will use that as an excuse to hold us hostage to their demands. This is worse than a bad idea!

    Linda Gunn

    April 6, 2010 at 12:50 pm


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: