My more immediate concern is a nuclear false-flag later this month in Chicago.
"Obama’s nuclear plan tangled in election politics" April 30, 2012|By Bryan Bender
WASHINGTON
- A review of President Obama’s promised plan to substantially reduce
America’s nuclear arsenal is nearing completion, triggering a new phase
of the deliberations: how to deal with the political consequences and
whether the unveiling should wait until after the November election.
Senior officials are engaged in an internal debate over how and when to
reveal the results of the secret review by a national security team,
according to several current and former advisers who have been involved
in the discussion.
The president and his team strongly believe the
nation can adequately deter nuclear attacks with a much smaller and
less expensive weapons stockpile - which now costs about $50 billion a
year to maintain.
The
White House is said to be weighing a variety of election-year factors.
One is the inevitable criticism from probable Republican rival Mitt
Romney, who has said he opposes any reduction in nuclear arms. Another
is the concerns of Democrats in Congress whose states do not want to
lose the economic benefit of having nuclear silos and air bases, or of
building ships and submarines armed with nuclear weapons.
Even
some backers of steeper reductions worry that the political risk may be
too great to release the details in the heat of an election.
“I see the tensions’’ in internal discussions among the president’s advisers, said a senior Obama campaign adviser.
Another
adviser, a former senior White House official who has been directly
involved in the discussions, said the Obama team is devising arguments
to counter any GOP accusations that the president is soft on national
security.
“One of the questions [that is being debated] is how
does he communicate these decisions,’’ said the former official. “The
Republicans are going to try to paint the president as weak and naive
and hit these old talking points.’’
Both advisors asked not to be identified because of the sensitive nature of the private discussions.
The
White House review is just one step in a multiyear endeavor. Any
reductions would almost certainly be pursued along with Russia, the
second-largest nuclear power after the United States, in the form of a
new treaty, the officials said. That would require approval from the
Senate. The House and Senate also would have to sign off on any
scaled-down budget for nuclear arms.
Arms control advocates argue
that a smaller arsenal would still guarantee US security and that of its
allies, while helping reduce the spread of nuclear weapons around the
world and saving the government billions of dollars each year for other
priorities.
Amazing, isn't it? Here AmeriKa goes around the world saying you can't have a nuke, you can, you can't, you can, and yet they are vital to our "defense." Even without them we would spend far more than the world combined, and still have all the fancy technological gizmos, etc.
Various
assessments of nuclear strategy since Obama took office have supported
that view. For example, in April 2010 the Pentagon’s Nuclear Posture
Review more narrowly defined the mission of the nuclear arsenal to
deterring nuclear attacks, rather than its Cold War mission of
prevailing in a nuclear war or acting as a hedge against conventional
armies and chemical or biological weapons.
More recently, the
Pentagon published a strategy that stated “it is possible that our
deterrence goals can be achieved with a smaller nuclear force.’’
According
to officials who have been consulted by the White House, the president
will probably decide to keep about 1,000 strategic nuclear weapons on
alert, down from the 1,550 the United States plans to maintain under its
latest treaty with Russia.
“Almost certainly that is what he is
going to decide, but whether he announces it is unclear,’’ said Joe
Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund, an arms control group
that has recently discussed the issue with White House officials.
The White House declined a request for an interview, and calls to Obama’s reelection campaign in Chicago were not returned....
Robert G. Joseph, a former senior State
Department official now advising Romney on nuclear strategy, said, “It still
is a very dangerous security environment, and we need to be prudent and
realistic. Russia is increasing its nuclear arsenal. China is
modernizing. Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons and long-range missiles.
And many expect North Korea to conduct yet another nuclear test in the
days ahead.’’
******************************
“If
we lead by example and no else is following we can do real harm,’’ said
Joseph, who served in President George W. Bush’s administration. “The
last thing we want is to signal to adversaries and friends that our
nuclear deterrent is no longer credible.’’
I'm smelling the stink of fried hypocrisy, although admit it, you missed the lies of the previous cabal of presidential war criminals.
The White House also
has to consider the political fortunes of some key Democrats -
especially if they want to maintain their majority in the Senate this
fall.
A
particularly wary block of lawmakers represents the three western
states - Wyoming, North Dakota, and Montana - that are home to the
nation’s 450 deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles.
In
Montana, where Malmstrom Air Force Base has 150 nuclear missile silos,
Democratic Senator Jon Tester is locked in a tough reelection fight. His
ability to protect his state’s military assets is seen by voters as a
plus.
Is it, because if so this is what is wrong with Democrats. I was raised, inculcated, and indoctrinated to believe Democrats were the party of peace. Only in the last decade has it dawned on me that they are simply one faction of the War Party that runs this country.
Tester joined a number of Democrats and Republicans last
month in urging Senate colleagues to safeguard the missile force from
significant cutbacks.
“Montana
is less than a million people, so the revenue that a place like
Malmstrom brings into the state is substantial,’’ said Adam Lowther, a
professor at the Air Force Research Institute at Maxwell Air Force Base
in Alabama and a specialist in nuclear weapons studies. “A senator who
is representing his constituents is going to fight to maintain that.’’
Yup, maintaining the bankrupting empire with savaging social services to the poor is good politics!
The
nuclear weapons lobby extends to other regions of the country. In New
England, for example, where shipbuilding is a key part of the industrial
base, there are concerns about potential cuts to the fleet of 14
ballistic missile submarines.
Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, a
Connecticut independent who is retiring this year and whose seat
Democrats hope to win, wrote a letter recently to the Democratic and
Republican leaders of the Armed Services Committee advocating that cuts
be postponed until the White House provides a detailed funding plan for
how it is going to upgrade the reliability of older weapons systems.
Oh, yeah, did I mention we modernize and upgrade as we scold others (except Israel) about even having one?
Yeah, how sad would it be if we dropped a bomb and it was a dud and all those innocent people lived and the surrounding area wasn't contaminated with fallout?
Others, meanwhile, believe the president has a real opportunity this year to advance the issue.
“There
is a pretty powerful case than can be made for nuclear cuts,’’ said
Representative Edward J. Markey, a Malden Democrat who has proposed
legislation to slash $100 billion from the nuclear weapons budget over
the next decade. “It’s wasted money that should be spent on grandma’s
nursing home bed because she has Alzheimer’s. I think the public would
understand it if it was explained to them.’’
Senator John F.
Kerry, who as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee would oversee
the ratification of any nuclear treaty, said he believes the discussion
about the future of the nuclear arsenal must take place, especially in
an election year.
“These debates are healthy and in many ways overdue.’’
--more--"
So when do we start bombing Iran for Israel?
