US urged to cut nuclear arsenal, then maybe China will talk arms control
During the Reagan administration, the phrase used was “trust but verify.” If we agreed to reduce our nuclear weapon footprint, the USSR would do the same, but Reagan demanded verification of reductions. A “influential” panel has suggested if we just reduced the number of nuclear weapons, China might come to the table and talk.
I guess it’s kind of like telling Hamas, the Taliban and al-Qaida…
“Hey, we’re going to leave the Middle East next week. Since we’re leaving we expect you will think they might stop harassing the Israelis and recognize their state. We also will expect you to think they might faithfully honor the human rights of women and children”.
What kind of foreign policy game is this?
An influential panel is calling for an 80 percent reduction of U.S. nuclear weapons and an elimination of all nuclear armed intercontinental ballistic missiles.
In a report for the advocacy group Global Zero, retired Gen. James Cartwright and others argue that the U.S. needs no more than 900 total nuclear weapons for its security in a post-Cold War world. The report chaired by Cartwright, a former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff known to be close to President Barack Obama, comes at a time that the president is weighing a range of sharp nuclear reductions.
The president isn’t weighing much of anything right now, except the cash flowing into his reelection campaign. He won’t mention this at all until after the election. If he wins, we already know he’ll feel he has more flexibility to act unilaterally.
The report argues that such drastic cuts in nuclear forces by the United States and Russia could open the way for the two countries to open arms control talks with other countries, including China.
That’s funny, and the first thing I thought was “what about North Korea?” I guess if they mentioned North Korea, their report would lose all credibility.
7 Comments
The website's content and articles were migrated to a new framework in October 2023. You may see [shortcodes in brackets] that do not make any sense. Please ignore that stuff. We may fix it at some point, but we do not have the time now.
You'll also note comments migrated over may have misplaced question marks and missing spaces. All comments were migrated, but trackbacks may not show.
The site is not broken.
?
?
Obama is closer to the Chinese philosophically than he is to America. I think his goals are to cripple the US economy, make as many people dependent on the government as he can, establish himself as the beginning of a ruling dynasty and remove the United States as a world power permanently.
Trusting the Chinese is just plain wrong. Destroying a large amount of our nuclear capacity, i.e. our ability to defend ourselves and deter aggression, because Obama thinks the Chinese will do the same? Wrong. The Chinese are only looking for an advantage, especially a nuclear advantage, over the United States.
Obama and our Secretary of State seem to believe that a ready smile and an apology will win us friends. The Regime needs to wake up and realize that the Chinese and many other governments hate us.
Trust the Chinese? Wrong, terminally wrong.
?
We need to bomb those 21 sites in Iran & ignore any kind of arms control talk. WE ARE THE ONLY SUPERPOWER & EVERYONE KNOWS WE CAN DESTROY ANYONE ONE WE CHOOSE ANYTIME.
Hey ricbee, that type of attitude did not work very well in Iraq, and similarly not well in Afghanistan. I don’t think a country needs nukes to send the US into a very painful spin: a few airplanes did it in 2001.
How is it possible for so many inept people to get into such crucial positions??
Can taking guns from law biding citizens be far behind??
Remember – this is the same Feds that won’t do their job of securing our borders – John McCain (R-AZ) included.?
And when Arizona tries to defend itself, our Feds?says no.??
And the these Feds?whine to the UN !!!???
These people continue to threaten our security.?
Threaten us with financial slavery with their spending addictions and letting Wall St off scott free.??
Threaten the very Constitution by forcing folks to buy insurance or pay a penalty, suspending Habeus corpus?with the Patriot Act, etc.??
?Going back on their word to a religious institution speaks loudly about how they feel about the American people as individuals.
We must consider what we, as prudent Americans, need to?do about this.?
Washington is greedy and self serving at worst and party blind at best.
Then consider that these guys set up the rules so that big corporations make billions and pay no taxes.?
For a long time, there has been nothing?that says they are about the interests of the American citizen.
JBS is correct – something is VERY wrong here.
?