Obama mulls unilateral disarmament of strategic nukes

So, Obama wants a world free of nuclear weapons. So did Reagan. The difference is, Reagan wanted to make nukes obsolete by building the Strategic Defense Initiative.

Obama simply wants to disarm unilaterally - with no planned corresponding reduction from Russia, China, or any other nuclear power. Russia would never agree to such steep cuts anyway

And one of his options is to reduce our stockpile of nukes to 300 - a number not seen since 1950.

BusinessWeek:

Even the most modest option now under consideration would be an historic and politically bold disarmament step in a presidential election year, although the plan is in line with President Barack Obama's 2009 pledge to pursue the elimination of nuclear weapons.

No final decision has been made, but the administration is considering at least three options for lower total numbers of deployed strategic nuclear weapons cutting to around 1,000 to 1,100, 700 to 800, or 300 to 400, according to a former government official and a congressional staffer. Both spoke on condition of anonymity in order to reveal internal administration deliberations.

The potential cuts would be from a current treaty limit of 1,550 deployed strategic warheads.

A level of 300 deployed strategic nuclear weapons would take the U.S. back to levels not seen since 1950 when the nation was ramping up production in an arms race with the Soviet Union. The U.S. numbers peaked at above 12,000 in the late 1980s and first dropped below 5,000 in 2003.

Obama has often cited his desire to seek lower levels of nuclear weapons, but specific options for a further round of cuts had been kept under wraps until the AP learned of the three options now on the table.

A spokesman for the White House's National Security Council, Tommy Vietor, said Tuesday that the options developed by the Pentagon have not yet been presented to Obama.

The Pentagon's press secretary, George Little, declined to comment on specific force level options because they are classified. He said Obama had asked the Pentagon to develop several "alternative approaches" to nuclear deterrence.

An "alternative approach" to nuclear deterrence is surrender. If Russia has 3, 4, or 5 times the number of warheads as we do, then the only rational alternative if they threaten us is to give up. That small number of warheads makes nuclear war far more likely. It will be a "use them or lose them" strategy since a surprise attack on our missile force would likely reduce our retaliatory response to the point where Russia might actually think they could survive relatively intact.

No one likes nuclear weapons. They make the world a dangerous place. But presidents are bound by their oath to preserve and protect the United States. How seriously does the president take that oath when he proposes stripping the US of a credible nuclear deterrent?

It seems foolhardy to trust our security to the good graces of our potential adversaries. But that is what Obama is proposing.

So, Obama wants a world free of nuclear weapons. So did Reagan. The difference is, Reagan wanted to make nukes obsolete by building the Strategic Defense Initiative.

Obama simply wants to disarm unilaterally - with no planned corresponding reduction from Russia, China, or any other nuclear power. Russia would never agree to such steep cuts anyway

And one of his options is to reduce our stockpile of nukes to 300 - a number not seen since 1950.

BusinessWeek:

Even the most modest option now under consideration would be an historic and politically bold disarmament step in a presidential election year, although the plan is in line with President Barack Obama's 2009 pledge to pursue the elimination of nuclear weapons.

No final decision has been made, but the administration is considering at least three options for lower total numbers of deployed strategic nuclear weapons cutting to around 1,000 to 1,100, 700 to 800, or 300 to 400, according to a former government official and a congressional staffer. Both spoke on condition of anonymity in order to reveal internal administration deliberations.

The potential cuts would be from a current treaty limit of 1,550 deployed strategic warheads.

A level of 300 deployed strategic nuclear weapons would take the U.S. back to levels not seen since 1950 when the nation was ramping up production in an arms race with the Soviet Union. The U.S. numbers peaked at above 12,000 in the late 1980s and first dropped below 5,000 in 2003.

Obama has often cited his desire to seek lower levels of nuclear weapons, but specific options for a further round of cuts had been kept under wraps until the AP learned of the three options now on the table.

A spokesman for the White House's National Security Council, Tommy Vietor, said Tuesday that the options developed by the Pentagon have not yet been presented to Obama.

The Pentagon's press secretary, George Little, declined to comment on specific force level options because they are classified. He said Obama had asked the Pentagon to develop several "alternative approaches" to nuclear deterrence.

An "alternative approach" to nuclear deterrence is surrender. If Russia has 3, 4, or 5 times the number of warheads as we do, then the only rational alternative if they threaten us is to give up. That small number of warheads makes nuclear war far more likely. It will be a "use them or lose them" strategy since a surprise attack on our missile force would likely reduce our retaliatory response to the point where Russia might actually think they could survive relatively intact.

No one likes nuclear weapons. They make the world a dangerous place. But presidents are bound by their oath to preserve and protect the United States. How seriously does the president take that oath when he proposes stripping the US of a credible nuclear deterrent?

It seems foolhardy to trust our security to the good graces of our potential adversaries. But that is what Obama is proposing.

RECENT VIDEOS