America's Nuclear Surrender

America's Nuclear Surrender

The administration has proudly revealed a state secret to our enemies before a U.N. conference on nuclear nonproliferation. It wants to lead by example on disarmament, but Iran and North Korea aren't following. And the administration cannot convince them to use logic.

State Hillary Clinton openly disclosed U.S. nuclear secrets to the U.N. conference while arrogantly proclaiming it showed that America is sending "a clear, unmistakable signal" that this nation is committed to nuclear disarmament.

Not since the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact that sought to outlaw war as an instrument of national policy has there been such an astonishing display of naïveté. It is important to note that Kellogg-Briand laid the groundwork for Munich in 1938, Pearl Harbor in 1941 and the disaster of World War II. Among the signatories were Germany and Japan. It is evident that claiming to be for peace and disarmament brings neither.

President Kennedy was correct when he said "only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed." Compare that call with Hillary Clinton's proclamation that "beginning today, the United States will make public the number of nuclear weapons in our stockpile and the number of weapons we have dismantled since 1991." Does she, or her boss, think that North Korea and Iran give a 'rats ass' about complying? Pardon my language.

The U.S. evidently thinks it can shame Pyongyang and Tehran into compliance. Well, good luck with that pipe dream. A national policy that seems to be one of peace through weakness and timid negotiation will never succeed. Never has, never will.

President Ahmadinejad, who has pledged to eliminate Israel whenever Tehran achieves a nuclear bomb, reminded the UN that the U.S. was the only nation to use nuclear weapons. Our position should be: "Want to test our resolve, Mahmoud?"

Instead, President Obama sent a letter that said, "We will see whether nations without nuclear weapons will fulfill their obligation to forsake them." The answer to that with rogue nations like N. Korea and Iran is a foregone conclusion. Diplomatic success? Fat chance.

Our nuclear arsenal at present is not only smaller, but older and less reliable. The current administration refuses to do the testing necessary to insure an adequate arsenal or to develop a replacements to keep America's nuclear deterrent current and credible. Instead they think it is only a matter of talking nice and they will suddenly become sane and rational friends of peace.

The White House recently announced a Nuclear Posture Review that restricts the instances where the U.S. would use nuclear weapons in its defense. It also tells the enemy what the instances are. Now there is a nice invitation. Be sure to RSVP In a speech in Prague last year, Obama spoke of "America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons," ignoring the fact that before 1945 we lived in such a world and it was neither peaceful nor secure.

Under conditions proposed by Obama it is evident that, should we be confronted with the dire need of either pre-emptive or defensive response, it may test our resolve to defend freedom . . . and hope that the US ends up on the winning side.

DE