The Hammer: Nuke Policy “Insane or Ridiculous”


Charles Krauthammer pinpoints the problem with Obama’s new nuclear policy:

Honestly, I think the policy is both insane and ridiculous. What’s the point in having the biggest guns if you’re going to pinky-promise never ever to use them?

The phrase “peace through superior firepower” may sound silly; may sound hackneyed; may even sound hawk-like; but the fact remains that it has stood America and her allies in good stead for over half a century.

Peace through throwing away half our guns and promising not to use the other half” doesn’t inspire confidence, nor should it. It’s a wimpy, wussy, kum-by-yah viewpoint unworthy of the United States Commander-in-Chief.  

But it sounds just exactly like something President Obama would try to implement.



4 Responses to The Hammer: Nuke Policy “Insane or Ridiculous”

  1. Birdseed Anarchist says:

    Hey c’mon Stoutcat, You know these libs know everything, Right? Chaos is coming, absolute chaos. Somebody out there (smarter than me) please tell me how this country and world can escape what we all know is coming. Really shaking my head today.

  2. Gerry Ashley says:

    Costa Rica is sounding pretty good, right about now, dontcha think? Except for one big problem: I’m an American, and I’m not going to be chased out of my homeland by a week-kneed con-artist with a Socialist agenda. And neither are several hundred million other Americans, either.

    It’s bad enough President Barrack Hussein Obama wants to run this country down the road to financial armegeddon. NOW he’s eviscerating our defense system… yeah THAT defense system that has kept us from being attacked by any other country via traditional military methods for generations.

    Mr. President: We’ve had Nuclear capabilities for the entire 40 years of the cold war. We’ve NEVER used them during the entire cold war. The only time they were ever used was during the second World War and that was done to end the war as quickly as possible. It did the job, but it was used only against a country that had attacked us. While it brought Japan to its knees it also brought an end to the war which, had it continued, would have taken who knows how many more lives than were lost in those two cities? Since then, although we have had the ability and the materials, we NEVER used them again. Not during the cold war and NEVER as a strike against any country, including several we have been at war with:

    Did we use them in Korea? Absolutely NOT.

    Did we have use them in Vietnam? Absolutely NOT.

    Have we used them in Afghanistan? Iraq? Anywhere else in the world? We have been vigilant and responsible in our ownership of this power, living up to our claim that they are in our possession only as a retailiation in the event another nation chooses to detonate such a device on American soil. There was never any serious consideration of using nuclear weapons for any offensive position in battle. THAT’S the difference between a superpower that is responsible with such power and an ambitious hothead like Ahmadinejad who open states his desire to wipe another country off the face of the earth. So, Mr. President, for you to proclaim we need to reduce the number of weapons in our arsenal while trusting our adversaries and other countries to do the same, once again, flies in the face of common sense and creates a CLEAR and PRESENT danger by presenting our enemies with confirmed information on what level of protection we NO LONGER have as well as the conditions under which we WON’T use the remaining weapons we DO have. Clearly, you have no concept of how to keep your enemy guessing.

    All you need to do now is provide our enemies with a list (with maps) of our secret government bunkers used in the event of a nuclear attack. But hey… all you need to do is delegate that to Joe Biden since he is so good at this. I guess all you have to do is buy him a beer and you can consider it done.

    But riddle me THIS, Barackman: Given our record of NEVER having used nuclear weapons in war, what is the gain for us here? And WHO is going to tell China, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela and even Cuba that it’s not ok for THEM to ADD nuclear capabilities to THEIR aresenals? Ooops… another one of those pesky little details, eh?

    Let’s see… how did that pesky little oath of office you were forced to take go? Oh yeah:

    “I, Barrack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States; and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend, the Constitution of the United States.”

    You are in clear violation of that oath, Mr. President. But to all those who, like myself, are shocked and angered by a President who willfully breaks his oath of office and works AGAINST the Constitution (and has conveniently surrounded himself with like-minded radicals who won’t hold him accountable), I would point out that we should NOT be surprised. After all… that pesky little oath of office – a mere formality to the likes of Barack Obama – is FROM the Constitution, – Article II section 1 (damn the luck, huh?). But since you don’t acknowledge or respect the Constitution, it’s no big deal, right?

    Remember in November, folks.

    • Tom says:

      Gerry, ol’ Buddy, I hate to be the one to point this out, but the US of A is the ONLY country ever to use nuclear weapons in war. Remember, we ended WWII that way.

      This little niggling fact notwithstanding, your basic point is valid. No weapon is useful as a deterrent if a declaration to never use it is given beforehand. Would one declare to the home invader that “my gun is empty, but don’t you dare to come in!”? I think not.

      As you suggest, only a fool would act in such a way. But, then we all know our current White House occupant is just that.

      • Gerry Ashley says:

        Hi Tom,

        That’s what I get for tring to edit myself while on break…

        You are, of course, correct. If you will note, I mentioned we’ve had the capability for “40” years (as opposed to nearly 70 years total). That’s because what I was referring to was the 40 odd years of cold war during which time we never used nuclear weapons. The fact that we HAD used them in war was enough of a deterrent.

        “Since then, in the 40-some odd years of cold war, we have never used nuclear weapons” is what it originally said. In my haste I edited the reply myself and cut out the portion of that paragraph that referred to the “Post-WWII era” and “Cold War Era.”

        So I actually had it in there and then referenced that cold war period when we had it but didn’t actually use it.

        Glad you caught that and mentioned it. It gave me a chance to explain the missing part. I have put back into my response, the section I accidentally deleted to clarify this. I’ve also emboldened it to make it easier to find. Thanks for catching that omission.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s