April 6, 2009

Obama On Nukes

Barack Obama says he's not naïve.

He's wrong.

If he truly believes that it's possible to have a world without nuclear weapons, he's extremely naïve.

From Newsweek:

Speaking just hours after North Korea launched what the U.S. and others believe was a test of its long-range missile capabilities, President Obama called for an international effort toward nuclear disarmament, calling nukes the “most dangerous legacy of the Cold War.”

What timing!

Apparently, Obama didn't realize how bizarre his remarks would sound given North Korea's actions. It's like he's in a bubble, buying into the myth that he's a savior. If you think you can walk on water, I guess you think you can ban nukes.

Obama said that America, as the only nuclear power to have actually used a nuclear weapon, had a “moral responsibility to act” and would “immediately and aggressively” seek, among other things, the long-stalled ratification of a comprehensive ban on such weapons. “I’m not naïve. This goal will not be reached quickly—perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence,” Obama said, liking it to Prague's long, but eventual rise above communism. “(We) must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change.” Invoking a familiar line from his presidential campaign, Obama said the world had to insist, “Yes, we can.”

There he goes again, talking like a "blame America," radical Leftist. (He talks that way because that's what he is.)

We all know the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon is the United States. We all know why, or we all should know why.

By highlighting that WE are "the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon," and then adding that as a result of the U.S. dropping the bombs that ended World War II WE have a moral responsibility to act to ban nuclear weapons, Obama is once again depicting America as a nation in love with war and bullying other countries. WE must repent for the sins of our past. More than any other country, WE must repent.

Instead of apologizing for the U.S. bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, he should be highlighting how much blood and treasure America gave to free Europe and literally save the world. Obama doesn't do that.

I've never heard him make clear reference to the sacrifices our country has made in the name of human rights and freeing people from the oppression of dictators and tyrants and maniacs, especially during the past eight years.

Obama seems to like his role as global citizen, savior of humanity. If anyone is looking for someone to thank for their freedom, chances are they should be thanking members of the American Armed Forces. They were and continue to be the true saviors of millions and millions of the oppressed and suffering, and the guardians of freedom.

The speech, delivered in an old square outside Prague Castle, attracted more than 20,000 people and, on day five, was the first major speech of Obama’s week-long trip to Europe. But it remains unclear if the speech will be regarded as incredibly timely or overshadowed by North Korea’s launch. Although aides said North Korea had always been mentioned in the speech, speechwriters tweaked some paragraphs after word of North Korea's controversial launch."Rules must be minded. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something," Obama said, calling the launch a "provocative" act that violated UN Security Council resolutions."The world must stand together to stop the spread of these weapons."

This is where Obama's naïveté really becomes clear, and rather frightening.

Obama is right when he says that "words must mean something."

The problem is his words don't.

What does he mean by "[t]he world must stand together to stop the spread of these weapons"?

Stand together in what way?

Holding hands? Singing "Kumbaya"?

If he thinks that North Korea is suddenly going to do what he tells it to do, then Obama is really nuts. He's worse than naïve. He's delusional.

I wish we didn't live under the threat of a nuclear attack, but we do.

We could never ban nuclear weapons without seriously jeopardizing our nation's security.

Obama doesn't seem to understand that there are and always will be enemies of freedom.

There are nutjobs like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong-il and Hugo Chavez and Osama bin Laden. And there will be others following in their footsteps. They don't want peace and they don't want democracy.

We can't disarm. That's sad, but that's reality.

Regarding a ban on nukes: OBAMA, NO WE CAN'T.

Transcript excerpt, Obama's remarks
Hradcany Square
Prague, Czech Republic
10:21 A.M. (Local)

Now, one of those issues that I'll focus on today is fundamental to the security of our nations and to the peace of the world -– that's the future of nuclear weapons in the 21st century. The existence of thousands of nuclear weapons is the most dangerous legacy of the Cold War. No nuclear war was fought between the United States and the Soviet Union, but generations lived with the knowledge that their world could be erased in a single flash of light. Cities like Prague that existed for centuries, that embodied the beauty and the talent of so much of humanity, would have ceased to exist.

There was no nuclear war between the U.S. and the USSR because of the deterrence of mutual assured destruction.

It was our military strength, not weakness, that defeated the USSR and won the Cold War. That's right. We won.

Today, the Cold War has disappeared but thousands of those weapons have not. In a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up. More nations have acquired these weapons. Testing has continued. Black market trade in nuclear secrets and nuclear materials abound. The technology to build a bomb has spread. Terrorists are determined to buy, build or steal one. Our efforts to contain these dangers are centered on a global non-proliferation regime, but as more people and nations break the rules, we could reach the point where the center cannot hold.

Obama lays out some good arguments for the necessity of maintaining a nuclear arsenal. If nuclear weapons are banned, only terrorists and thug nations will have nuclear weapons.

Not good.

Now, understand, this matters to people everywhere. One nuclear weapon exploded in one city -– be it New York or Moscow, Islamabad or Mumbai, Tokyo or Tel Aviv, Paris or Prague –- could kill hundreds of thousands of people. And no matter where it happens, there is no end to what the consequences might be -– for our global safety, our security, our society, our economy, to our ultimate survival.

Some argue that the spread of these weapons cannot be stopped, cannot be checked -– that we are destined to live in a world where more nations and more people possess the ultimate tools of destruction. Such fatalism is a deadly adversary, for if we believe that the spread of nuclear weapons is inevitable, then in some way we are admitting to ourselves that the use of nuclear weapons is inevitable. Just as we stood for freedom in the 20th century, we must stand together for the right of people everywhere to live free from fear in the 21st century. (Applause.) And as nuclear power –- as a nuclear power, as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act. We cannot succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it, we can start it.

The U.S. has a moral responsibility to protect the innocent and defend freedom.

So today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. (Applause.) I'm not naive. This goal will not be reached quickly –- perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence. But now we, too, must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change. We have to insist, "Yes, we can." (Applause.)

Yes, Obama, you are naïve.

Evil exists as surely as nuclear technology does. Neither will disappear.

We must work for peace, but we can't be naïve and act recklessly, endangering ourselves.

Now, let me describe to you the trajectory we need to be on. 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. (Applause.) President Medvedev and I began this process in London, and will seek a new agreement by the end of this year that is legally binding and sufficiently bold. And this will set the stage for further cuts, and we will seek to include all nuclear weapons states in this endeavor.

To achieve a global ban on nuclear testing, my administration will immediately and aggressively pursue U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. (Applause.) After more than five decades of talks, it is time for the testing of nuclear weapons to finally be banned. And to cut off the building blocks needed for a bomb, the United States will seek a new treaty that verifiably ends the production of fissile materials intended for use in state nuclear weapons. If we are serious about stopping the spread of these weapons, then we should put an end to the dedicated production of weapons-grade materials that create them. That's the first step.

Second, together we will strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a basis for cooperation. The basic bargain is sound: Countries with nuclear weapons will move towards disarmament, countries without nuclear weapons will not acquire them, and all countries can access peaceful nuclear energy. To strengthen the treaty, we should embrace several principles. We need more resources and authority to strengthen international inspections. We need real and immediate consequences for countries caught breaking the rules or trying to leave the treaty without cause.

What are the "real and immediate consequences for countries caught breaking the rules"?

A speech chastising them?

Obama offers no specifics. In this case, those specifics are critical. But hey, why screw up a lofty sounding speech with messy details?

And we should build a new framework for civil nuclear cooperation, including an international fuel bank, so that countries can access peaceful power without increasing the risks of proliferation. That must be the right of every nation that renounces nuclear weapons, especially developing countries embarking on peaceful programs. And no approach will succeed if it's based on the denial of rights to nations that play by the rules. We must harness the power of nuclear energy on behalf of our efforts to combat climate change, and to advance peace opportunity for all people.

An "international fuel bank"?

Good grief. Who would run the international fuel bank? Kofi Annan?

So naïve.

No comments:

Post a Comment