Posted on 07/08/2009 11:21:00 AM PDT by pissant
By Duncan Hunter, U.S. Rep. (ret.) Chairman, Armed Services Committee, 2002-2006
At the height of the Cold War the United States maintained more than 32,000 nuclear weapons and the Soviet Union deployed more than 45,000 such weapons. Ronald Reagan, having rebuilt U.S. military strength during the l980s, initiated, with Mikhail Gorbachev, a reduction regimen which continued through the break-up of the Soviet Empire. Since the Reagan breakthrough, the strategic armories of the U.S. and Russia have fallen to a few more than 2,000 nuclear weapons apiece.
Now, five months before the expiration of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (which was signed in l97l) President Obama has agreed with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to further cut the deployed nuclear warhead levels to no more than 1,675 for each country.
During the same meeting President Obama was reported to have told Medvedev that his administration was “still completing review of the missile-defense options in Europe.” This statement opened the door for the possibility that the U.S. will stop its program to place missile interceptors and radars in Poland and Czechoslovakia. Halting the American plans for such a deployment has been a key Russian objective.
President Obama’s agreement to reduce nuclear weapon inventories further and his weakening on missile defense represents the substitution of hope for a sound policy.
Weapons reductions have been negotiated in the past for a compelling reason: to bring about change in the behavior of the Soviet Union and thereby the reduction of the danger of nuclear war. Today, however, the effect on other nations which intend to develop, or are developing nuclear weapons must be considered.
North Korea now has a small number of nuclear weapons and continues to develop the missile capability that will, one day, allow them to reach the U.S. with a strategic weapon.
What effect on the less-than -stable North Korean leadership will President Obama’s agreement to reduce America’s nukes have? According to President Obama, this display of “leadership” will marshal international opposition to the nuclear programs of North Korea and Iran.
If this is true than we could expect to see, in the next several months, the free world really cranking up the pressure on these two nations. Of course it won’t happen for two reasons.
First, our allies follow their own immediate security and economic interests and long ago relegated to Uncle Sam the tough ones like these two problem countries. Second, none of our allies are “holding back” from pressuring the Iranians and North Koreans to stop their nuke programs. In reality, our allies have little leverage with either country and what little clout they are inclined to use they have already called up.
In fact, if Mr. Obama really wanted to motivate another nation to pressure Iran he could have started with Russian President Medvedev, whose contractors are building the nuclear reactor currently under construction in Iran.
China, meanwhile, uninhibited by the agreement and with newly acquired economic muscle from the transfer of the American industrial base to her shores, moves ahead with the fielding of its new road-mobile ICBM and advanced capability in submarines, satellites, aircraft and electronic warfare.
The recent report of the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States warns that “China is today of rising importance in the U.S. Strategic landscape.” According to the commission, China has a stockpile of around 400 nuclear weapons. It is a sure bet that Mr. Obama’s agreement to reduce American strategic weapons will have no effect on China’s ongoing program to deploy such weapons. Furthermore, China is clearly the world’s next military superpower.
It is entirely appropriate for President Obama to embark on a “Get to know you” world tour. It is however, a disservice to our security to trade a large portion of our strategic deterrent for hope.
It’s almost shocking to see someone deliver comments like that anymore.
You know (and I know you know), we need to get behind people who are a little less flashy, and push them into higher office.
Why are we wasting our time on people like McQuieg, Romney, the Huckster, and others, when we have a guy that is rock solid on the issues? Hunter is the go to guy. He was last year too.
He won’t get a moment’s coverage in the media, but you know what, they won’t give him that moment because he’s exactly who we should be championing. He’s been around a long time. He’s solid on the issues. What more do we want?
“t’s almost shocking to see someone deliver comments like that anymore.
You know (and I know you know), we need to get behind people who are a little less flashy, and push them into higher office.
Why are we wasting our time on people like McQuieg, Romney, the Huckster, and others, when we have a guy that is rock solid on the issues? Hunter is the go to guy. He was last year too.”
______________
Hunter/DeMint/Inhofe.....when Sarah gets lined up with these three, she’ll be headed in the right direction. Anything less is a waste of time and this nation.
“Hunter needs more visibility—he should do more policy papers like this and get them published.”
It’s not just the mainstream media who won’t put Hunter’s words out there....why is this article delegated to “Bloggers”??? Michael Jackson gets front page, but Hunter??
That’s my desire. Let’s hope she isn’t enticed by the ‘middle ground’ like so many others have been.
I wish Hunter would run for U.S. senator, so he has a better chance to become POTUS.
“I think Rep. Hunter should run for the Senate in 2010, and write a best seller in his spare time to get back into the public eye.”
Good ideas.
My problem with that is if he wanted to stay in Congress, then he should have stayed put. He was invaluable as the chairman, then ranking republican, of the HASC. He was the one who saved our military from much stupidity from people like Slick Willie, McCain, Kerry, Pelosi, and even GWB on occasion.
I see what you’re saying about wishing he were still there, but since he now IS out of Congress, why not run for U.S. Senator?
It’s a step down to be a freshman senator.
But he’ll still be very effective in protecting our country, and we NEED him, now more than ever!
I agree. He needs to become president.
Hey Sun! Thanks. Several others have said that he should go directly to running for President because people are finally waking up. Raster said Rep. Hunter was the one of the few who kept his day job during his run in ‘08. An honorable man, just think of that, America! And I agree that it would be easier on him not to be tied down with one of those again.
At any rate, the very idea of Rep. Hunter back in the race has improved my blood circulation immensely! :o)
I cried when Hunter dropped out, literally.
The foolish people who vote for sound bites are ruining our country. Will they ever learn?
Now, five months before the expiration of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (which was signed in l97l) President Obama has agreed with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to further cut the deployed nuclear warhead levels to no more than 1,675 for each country.START I is part of the Reagan legacy and agenda, and was signed around 1991.
bttt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.