Ed's Blog

"Some people know everything, but that's all they know."

OBAMA’S NUCLEAR WEAPONS STRATEGY

I wasn’t going to write about President Obama’s new nuclear weapons strategy–a central tenet of which is that the US would not authorize a nuclear strike against a nonnuclear country in retaliation for a chemical or biological attack if that country is in compliance with its nonproliferation obligations under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Then, on Friday, April 9, I listened to Washington Post columnist Sally Quinn tell Laura Ingraham, sitting in for Bill O’Reilly on the Fox News Channel’s The O’Reilly Factor, that people like Sarah Palin who oppose the president’s new strategy (principally conservatives) aren’t smart enough to understand it. (more)

Advertisements

Filed under: Healthcare, Military, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2 Responses

  1. Falana says:

    Your article states: “a central tenet of which is that the US would not authorize a nuclear strike against a nonnuclear country in retaliation for a chemical or biological attack if that country is in compliance with its nonproliferation obligations under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT).”
    —–

    This is incorrect. The policy states that “the US Reserves the right to make adjustments to this policy in the event of a biological threat.”
    —–

    Your article also states: “What is not complex or difficult to understand about Obama’s new nuclear weapons strategy is that it abandons what has worked well for 11 US presidents for over 60 years for the dubious and uncertain hope that the new U.S. posture will discourage nuclear proliferation.”

    This in incorrect as well. The reduction in arms covered by the new treaty mirrors the START 1 treaty that was proposed by Ronald Reagan and signed by George H.W. Bush in 1991, i.e. reduce our arsenal by 1/3.

  2. EWRoss says:

    Thanks for your comment. On your first point. Of course the US reserves the right to alter its policy. Nevertheless, the new policy itself undercuts deterrence and may fail to deter just such an attack. On your second point, what the current administration has abandoned is not arms reduction but the intentional ambiguity prior presidents have maintained on how we might respond to an attack. I took no issue with the treaty.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Share This Blog

Bookmark and Share

EWRoss on Twiter

RSS EWRoss.com RSS

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
%d bloggers like this: