Fish Eaters Traditional Catholic Forum
March 21, 2010, 01:57:PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Join in on the ongoing Rosary! Click here
 
   Fish Eaters    Forum Index   Forum Rules   Help Search Calendar Members Chat Room   Who's Chatting   Login Register  
Pages: [1]
 
Author Topic: Barack Obama holds a fire sale of America's nuclear defences in Moscow  (Read 165 times)
Beware_the_Ides

Gender: Male
Posts: 839



« on: July 08, 2009, 06:17:PM »

I listened to Michael Savage talking about this story - link here - http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100002433/barack-obama-holds-a-fire-sale-of-americas-nuclear-defences-in-moscow/

Quote
Barack Obama holds a fire sale of America's nuclear defences in Moscow

By Gerald Warner World Last updated: July 7th, 2009

No apologies for posting consecutively on Barack Obama: the Looney Tunes President’s sell-out of US and Western interests is proceeding at such a speed that it is difficult to keep pace. Well said, Nile Gardiner, for asking if Barack Obama is the most naïve president in American history. The answer is undoubtedly yes – unless he has a secret agenda to cut America down to size.

It was always in Russia that Obama threatened to do most damage and, as Nile Gardiner has rightly pointed out, these forebodings have been fulfilled. His supposed missile deal with Vladimir Putin (let’s cut straight to the organ-grinder and by-pass Medvedev, the monkey) is very satisfactory to Russian ambitions and realpolitik.

The nuclear power balance, as at 2007, was a Russian superiority of 2,146 land-launched nuclear warheads to 1,600 US; this was counterbalanced by a US superiority of 3,168 sea-launched US warheads to 1,392 Russian and 1,098 air-launched US warheads to 624 Russian. What should also be factored in is the leaking, deteriorating, rust-bucket condition of some of Russia’s deterrent ordnance, although it has already decommissioned the most basket-case Soviet weaponry. The bottom line, however, is that it is Russia which is now in the lead in ICBM development, not America.

For America voluntarily to reduce its nuclear superiority is madness. Bien-pensant talk of a nuclear-free world displays total stupidity in a global situation where nuclear weaponry is proliferating, not receding. There is even a nuclear bomb in Pakistan, which is teetering on the brink of failed statehood at the hands of Islamist insurgents. Is this a time for America to disarm, to “sell the store” as one trenchant right-wing commentator has already described Obama’s posturing in Moscow?

For Obama, success is not the delivery of watertight nuclear security for America; it is a feel-good news conference and photo opportunity that will create huge approval ratings on liberal campuses where the delusions of 1968 and the anti-Vietnam war movement still linger on in these isolated Jurassic Parks.

It seems certain Obama will sacrifice the anti-missile shield in Europe that would have been our defence against a nuclear Iran after the ayatollahs, with Russian help, emerge as potential vapourising agents of the infidel. The interceptor missiles do not even carry warheads: they rely on an impact at 14,900mph to destroy any incoming missile, so Russian hysteria about this “threat” is synthetic.

Where I disagree with Nile Gardiner is on restricting the expansion of Nato. The alliance always relied for its effectiveness on being a compact group of mature nations. The alliance’s “All for one, one for all” philosophy means that if Georgia had been a Nato member last year when its irresponsible president so conveniently provoked Russia, the consequences could have been disastrous. Allow Russia her sphere of influence, but do not drop the West’s guard. With our own Dave Cameron flaky on renewal of Trident, Obama’s fire-sale diplomacy augurs ill for our future.

If you (as you should) group together China's nuclear capabilities with Russia's, we may as well be waving a pop gun.

Logged

Memento, homo, quia pulvis es, et in pulverum reverteris
devotedknuckles
Of course this land is dangerous! All of the animals Are capably murderous

Personality type: MisfitTrad
Posts: 9,416



« Reply #1 on: July 08, 2009, 06:35:PM »

here is Zeros 1983 article on such a thing. think hes changed.
sip sip


http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obamas-radical-1983-anti-war-article


Obama’s 1983 Nuclear Freeze Article

From the day late and dollar short New York Times:

Obama’s Youth Shaped His Nuclear-Free Vision
By WILLIAM J. BROAD and DAVID E. SANGER

In the depths of the cold war, in 1983, a senior at Columbia University wrote in a campus newsmagazine, Sundial, about the vision of “a nuclear free world.” He railed against discussions of “first- versus second-strike capabilities” that “suit the military-industrial interests” with their “billion-dollar erector sets,” and agitated for the elimination of global arsenals holding tens of thousands of deadly warheads.

The student was Barack Obama, and he was clearly trying to sort out his thoughts. In the conclusion, he denounced “the twisted logic of which we are a part today” and praised student efforts to realize “the possibility of a decent world.” But his article, “Breaking the War Mentality,” which only recently has been rediscovered, said little about how to achieve the utopian dream…

“I personally came of age,” Mr. Obama wrote in “The Audacity of Hope,” his second memoir, “during the Reagan presidency.”
It was a time when President Ronald Reagan began a trillion-dollar arms buildup, called the Soviet Union “an evil empire” and ordered scores of atomic detonations under the Nevada desert. Some Reagan aides talked of fighting and winning a nuclear war.

The popular response was the nuclear freeze movement. Dozens of books warned that Mr. Reagan’s policies threatened to end civilization and most life on Earth. In June 1982, a million protesters gathered in Central Park, their placards reading “Bread Not Bombs” and “Freeze or Burn.” The nation’s Roman Catholic bishops issued a pastoral letter denouncing nuclear war.
Many Columbia students campaigned for the freeze movement, which sought a halt to additional nuclear arms deployments. Mr. Obama explored going further.

In the interview, Mr. Obama noted that he was too young to “remember having to do drills under the desk.” But as a student “interested broadly in foreign policy,” he recalled, he focused on “a central question: how would the United States and the Soviet Union effectively manage these nuclear arsenals, and were there ways to dial down the dangers that humanity faced?”

In his senior year, he began Dr. Baron’s seminar on presidential decision-making in American foreign policy. The first semester, starting in fall 1982, covered such cold-war flashpoints as the Cuban missile crisis — a dramatic study in the decision-making style of President John F. Kennedy. In the second semester, students focused on particular topics, and Mr. Obama wrote a lengthy paper about how to negotiate with the Soviets to cut nuclear arsenals.

“His focus was the nature of the strategic talks and what kind of negotiating positions might be put forward,” Dr. Baron said. “It was not a polemical paper — not arguing that the U.S. should have this or that position. It was how to get from here to there and avoid misperception and conflict.
“He got an A,” recalled Dr. Baron, who now runs a digital media business. Later, he wrote Mr. Obama a recommendation for Harvard Law School.
It was during that seminar that Mr. Obama wrote his Sundial article, profiling two campus groups, Arms Race Alternatives and Students Against Militarism. Photographs with the March 1983 article showed students at an antiwar rally in front of Butler Library.

Mr. Obama’s journalistic voice was edgy with disdain for what he called “the relentless, often silent spread of militarism in the country” amid “the growing threat of war.” The two groups, he wrote, “visualizing the possibilities of destruction and grasping the tendencies of distorted national priorities, are throwing their weight into shifting America off the dead-end track.”
Despite Mr. Obama’s sympathetic portrayal of the two groups, the article seemed to question the popular goal of freezing nuclear arsenals rather than reducing them, the topic of his seminar paper. Mr. Obama wondered if the freeze movement “stems from young people’s penchant for the latest ‘happenings.’ ”

What clearly excited him was the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, which would have ended the testing and development of new weapons, and thus, in the minds of arms controllers, the nuclear arms race.
The Reagan administration vehemently opposed the treaty. One Columbia activist, Mr. Obama wrote, argued that the United States should initiate the ban “as a powerful first step towards a nuclear free world.”

That phrase — a “nuclear free world,” which was Mr. Obama’s paraphrase — would re-emerge decades later as the signature item of his nuclear agenda.
The article was lost for years — some of Mr. Obama’s campaign advisers said they had heard of its existence and went looking for it, presumably to see if it contained anything that might prove embarrassing. It came to light on the Internet just before the inauguration, and some conservative bloggers called it naïve, anti-American and blind to the Soviet threat.

Precisely how the article found its way onto the Internet is unclear. But late last year, a Columbia alumni publication said it had learned of it from an alumnus, Stephen M. Brockmann, who also had an article in the same Sundial issue. Dr. Brockmann, now a professor of German at Carnegie Mellon University, said he found the issue “while rummaging through some old stuff.” When he saw the Obama article, he recalled, “I could hardly believe my eyes.” …

It really is worth the trouble to go to the original article (a pdf file) and read the full extent of Mr. Obama’s thinking at the time.

Especially in view of his current dangerously naive negotiations with the Russians.

Alas, his thinking does not seem to have advanced much at all in twenty-six years.

The article was lost for years — some of Mr. Obama’s campaign advisers said they had heard of its existence and went looking for it, presumably to see if it contained anything that might prove embarrassing… It came to light on the Internet just before the inauguration…

Obviously the Obama campaign advisers found it first.
And they suppressed it until Mr. Obama was safely elected.
Logged

"I do not like this word "bomb." It is not a bomb. It is a device that is exploding."
- French ambassador to New Zealand Jacques le Blanc, regarding press coverage of France's nuclear weapons tests in the Pacific

http://www.martinjetpack.com/

http://www.mugshotmuseum.com/
SIP

I never trust a fighting man who doesn't smoke or drink.
- Admiral William Halsey
Pages: [1]
 
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.8 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC