Obama To Make America 3rd-Rate Nuclear Power Behind Russia and China

In a stunning move that has military officials scrambling to refocus the Obama administration, President Obama has ordered the Pentagon to conduct a plan to slash the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal to levels below those of both Russia and China.

(President Obama bowing to China’s Communist Leader Hu Jintao)

 

Giving voters yet another glimpse into what a second Barack Obama term would hold, the Obama administration appears willing to slash America’s nuclear capability by an astonishing 80% – levels that would leave America trailing both Russia and China in overall nuclear weaponry.  Reports are already circulating among both Congressional and Pentagon staff as to the unprecedented nature of the Obama administration’s request:

A congressional official said no president in the past ever told the Pentagon to conduct a review based on specific numbers of warheads.

“In the past, the way it worked was, ‘tell me what the world is like and then tell me what the force should be,’” the official said. “That is not happening in this review.”

…The plan has come under fire from senior military officers in charge of maintaining nuclear deterrence against Russia, China, and future nuclear rogue states.

…Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney said even considering such deep strategic cuts is irrational.

“No sane military leader would condone 300 to 400 warheads for an effective nuclear deterrent strategy,” McInerney told the Washington Free Beacon.

 

So as other world powers such as China and Russia continue to further enhance their own military powers, the Obama administration now appears quite willing to slash America’s military and defense budget to ensure further growth in the Big Government social programs so very much in favor with the administration.  And as China and Russia increase their own military capability, let us not forget North Korea’s continued move to enhance its own nuclear weapons capabilities, as well as both Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Lt. General Thomas McInerney has it right – regarding the defense of the United States, the Obama administration’s policies are insane…

__________________

LINK

795 days ago by in News | You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
About the

Be courteous to all, but intimate with few, and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence. -G. Washington

14 Comments to Obama To Make America 3rd-Rate Nuclear Power Behind Russia and China
      • Air Force Brat
      • Maybe so, but will the military follow too? I’ve got a feeling they won’t take castration lying down . . . .

        Please note that I’m not referring to that small segment of career brass who cares ONLY about their positions and cushy pensions.

        • Air Force Brat
        • Oh great, I clicked “Post Comment” too soon. I meant to add that I believe the military as a whole will NOT take castration lying down. (But of course you guys already figured that out). :D :D :D

          • ThroughTheLookingGlass
          • From an Army Brat: I think we all got the meaning of your first post! Barry wants to level the playing field…even with the military. It’s obvious his own castration is a psychological issue that he’s having difficulty dealing with. All he can do is castrate everyone else. That’s what he calls leveling the playing field and ‘fair share.’ He has no cojones, therefore, no one else will either. He’s bound and determined to screw this country without a kiss. That’s what whores do. Except for foreign dignitaries…those he bows and bends over for.

    • BJ
    • Preparing the “Lamb” for the “Slaughter”!!! Remember his comment in one of his alleged books, If things go sour I will side with the muslim.

    • ShainS
    • Since the cowards in Congress won’t stop this Manchurian Boy-Kenyian candidate, maybe we’ll have to rely on a good ol’ fashioned military coup, one which eventually creates new elections and makes sure that future candidates think twice about not taking their oaths seriously, because there exists this little extra-constitutional incentive to do so owing to the fact that most in the military do … consider it the unwritten next-to-last resort check-and-balance, the last of course being all-out revolution (French-style).

      • tbarrelier
      • @ShainS

        Putting the issue of nukes aside, Obama should be arrested by the Joint Chiefs of Staff for fraudulently taking the oath of office of POTUS. He was never eligible for the office under Article 2, Section 1, paragraph 5 as he was a BRITISH SUBJECT upon his birth. It doesn’t matter if he was born in Hawaii; he could have been born in Lincoln’s log cabin, but that doesn’t nullify or cancel out his British nativity.

        Son of Liberty

    • tbarrelier
    • Let’s do some thinking about this. How many nukes would it take to effectively destroy the US? Probably ten (10), successfully delivered. One for NYC, one for DC, one for Chicago, one for LA, one for San Francisco, one for St. Louis, one for San Diego, one for New Orleans, one for Seattle, one for Houston. That leaves a lot of the US “intact”, but with major political, financial and communications centers gone the rest of the country would be DOA. Read Warday, by Whitley Strieber and James Kunetka. That will give you an idea of what I’m talking about. Let’s say each of the above targets were hit by two (2) nukes. That’s a total of twenty. How about five (5) each: that’s a total of fifty (50). Get my drift? So the Russkies, for example, having 5,000 and we only having say 1,000 really doesn’t mean anything. If we hit their top ten (10) cites they’re going to hell too.

      Maybe our reducing this insane arsenal will inspire others to do likewise. If it doesn’t, we can still certainly protect ourselves, if you want to call the prospect of nuclear war a form of protection. At the least, we will save an enormous amount of money that could be spent, as necessary, on more realistic defense requirements, or even, perish the thought, infrastructure or human needs.

      Nukes are not usable military weapons–they are weapons of terror, i.e., weapons of mass destruction. Please remember that only one (1) nation has ever used these weapons against human beings, the USA–yes, WE HAVE. Wouldn’t it be amazing if we led the way to their elimination?

      And before anyone out there calls me a COMMIE-PINKO-CHEESE-EATING-SURRENDER-MONKEY please know that I am a four-year US Army veteran with an honorable discharge. I just see this country has gone completely to hell since I’ve been a kid and few are using any measure of rational thinking to start sorting this mess out. That certainly includes every major politician, excepting Ron Paul.

      Son Of Liberty

      P.S.–I am not a supporter of Obama and will not, under any circumstances, vote for him this coming November. He is a usurper who is illegally occupying the office of POTUS, but that is another issue not to be addressed here.

      • JAWilson
      • My problem is the unilateral nature of the reduction if it does indeed occur. Why can’t Obama convene a summit and cut a deal to mutually reduce the arsenals?

        • tbarrelier
        • @JAWilson

          Your idea is certainly one way to go. Knowing Obama, however, as a pathological narcissist, any summit will probably not work with the certain PR spin-factor that would be part of any public negotiations. Perhaps secret negotiations would be best. Again, we lose no defensive capability even if we cut to 500 deliverable nukes and that would be a great signal to other nuclear states that we are serious. Face it, Israel has around that number and no one is going to mess with them. Ultimately, we must be totally rational regarding our REAL defense needs. With the two oceans that frame our continent and modern naval technology I don’t think invasion by sea is plausible. If we closed our overseas bases, in conjunction with a real, 5 to 10 year program of energy independence, we could cut our military spending (I estimate) by three quarters (3/4). We’re presently running a defense budget of about $664 billion (fy2010). A 3/4 reduction would result in savings of $498 billion for one year alone! Wouldn’t it be nice to have that for other purposes?

          My whole point is nukes are not usable military weapons, so why the hell are they continued as part of our military expenditures? It really makes no sense, if you think about it.

          SOL out.

    • rhcrest
    • It is quite obvious that Obama is setting us up for economic collapse through all the spending. Once the economy has collapsed, we will easily be invaded by Russian and China through Alaska and we will have only a shell of a military to defend us. Obama is a Russian plant. May God help us.

Leave A Response

* Required

-->