NATO formed to protect Europe against the Soviet Union. As it struggles for a reason for being, President Obama cited Iran as the looming threat. Never mind that Western nuclear weapons could obliterate the Persian country, in a one sided decimation. The AP reported:
And Israel's nuclear weapons and range of missiles don't pose a threat to its neighbors? Ask Lebanon and Gaza. Yet, President elect Obama stayed stoically silent during the 25 days of razing Gaza. He offered the Israeli line in support of Lebanon's pummeling summer 2006.
Israel paints the threat of Iran giving a nuclear bomb to terrorists, who would smuggle it into Israel or its allies. That could include Europe, however missile defense doesn't help in such a scenario.
The United States one strategic advantage is its overwhelming military might. Might the U.S. want to keep this relative position via disarmament? Restarting START with Russia could have nuclear warheads declining to 1,000 each. Do fewer missiles increase the odds of successful missile defense?
The talk of world-wide disarmament is odd given the Pentagon's plans to implement the reliable replacement warhead. It helps to lead by example. But the President used the traditional nonspecific citation of "some talk".
The use of tactical nuclear weapons was argued by the Bush/Cheney cabal. They advocated using smaller nuclear weapons in a range of situations:
Does President Obama think the American people have no memory? Or is his talk a diversion? The current race is to weaponize space. That's where the next level of human pathology will express.
Obama said Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile activity posed a real threat to the US and its allies, and Iran's neighbors.
And Israel's nuclear weapons and range of missiles don't pose a threat to its neighbors? Ask Lebanon and Gaza. Yet, President elect Obama stayed stoically silent during the 25 days of razing Gaza. He offered the Israeli line in support of Lebanon's pummeling summer 2006.
Israel paints the threat of Iran giving a nuclear bomb to terrorists, who would smuggle it into Israel or its allies. That could include Europe, however missile defense doesn't help in such a scenario.
The United States one strategic advantage is its overwhelming military might. Might the U.S. want to keep this relative position via disarmament? Restarting START with Russia could have nuclear warheads declining to 1,000 each. Do fewer missiles increase the odds of successful missile defense?
The US president called nuclear weapons "the most dangerous legacy of the Cold War" and saying the US has a moral responsibility to lead as the only nation ever to have used one.
The talk of world-wide disarmament is odd given the Pentagon's plans to implement the reliable replacement warhead. It helps to lead by example. But the President used the traditional nonspecific citation of "some talk".
"Some argue that the spread of these weapons cannot be checked - that we are destined to live in a world where more nations and more people possess the ultimate tools of destruction," Obama said to a huge crowd in a square outside the Prague Castle gates.
"This fatalism is a deadly adversary," he said. "For if we believe that the spread of nuclear weapons is inevitable, then we are admitting to ourselves that the use of nuclear weapons is inevitable."
The use of tactical nuclear weapons was argued by the Bush/Cheney cabal. They advocated using smaller nuclear weapons in a range of situations:
The Bush Administration s Nuclear Posture Review proposes building a new generation of small nuclear bombs to be used against terrorists hiding in caves, as well as against underground command posts and biological weapon facilities. The goal, says Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is to provide the president with a range of options to defeat any aggressor.
Does President Obama think the American people have no memory? Or is his talk a diversion? The current race is to weaponize space. That's where the next level of human pathology will express.
