You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Barack Obama ready to slash US nuclear arsenal
2009-09-21
Roll over to Monday ...
Barack Obama has demanded the Pentagon conduct a radical review of US nuclear weapons doctrine to prepare the way for deep cuts in the country's arsenal, the Guardian can reveal.

Obama has rejected the Pentagon's first draft of the "nuclear posture review" as being too timid, and has called for a range of more far-reaching options consistent with his goal of eventually abolishing nuclear weapons altogether, according to European officials.

Those options include:

  • Reconfiguring the US nuclear force to allow for an arsenal measured in hundreds rather than thousands of deployed strategic warheads.

  • Redrafting nuclear doctrine to narrow the range of conditions under which the US would use nuclear weapons.

  • Exploring ways of guaranteeing the future reliability of nuclear weapons without testing or producing a new generation of warheads.

    The review is due to be completed by the end of this year, and European officials say the outcome is not yet clear. But one official said: "Obama is now driving this process. He is saying these are the president's weapons, and he wants to look again at the doctrine and their role."

    The move comes as Obama prepares to take the rare step of chairing a watershed session of the UN security council on Thursday. It is aimed at winning consensus on a new grand bargain: exchanging more radical disarmament by nuclear powers in return for wider global efforts to prevent further proliferation.

    That bargain is at the heart of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which is up for review next year amid signs it is unravelling in the face of Iranian and North Korean nuclear ambitions.
    Gee, why should that matter?
    In an article for the Guardian today, the foreign secretary, David Miliband, argues that failure to win a consensus would be disastrous. "This is one of the most critical issues we face," the foreign secretary writes. "Get it right, and we will increase global security, pave the way for a world without nuclear weapons, ...
    except for Nork, Pak and Iranian nukes ...
    ... and improve access to affordable, safe and dependable energy -- vital to tackle climate change. Get it wrong, and we face the spread of nuclear weapons and the chilling prospect of nuclear material falling into the hands of terrorists."
    They'll get it wrong.
    According to a final draft of the resolution due to be passed on Thursday, however, the UN security council will not wholeheartedly embrace the US and Britain's call for eventual abolition of nuclear weapons. Largely on French insistence, the council will endorse the vaguer aim of seeking "to create the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons".

    Gordon Brown is due to use this week's UN general assembly meeting to renew a diplomatic offensive on Iran for its failure to comply with security council demands that it suspend enrichment of uranium. The issue has been given greater urgency by an International Atomic Energy Agency document leaked last week which showed inspectors for the agency believed Iran already had "sufficient information" to build a warhead, and had tested an important component of a nuclear device.

    Germany is also expected to toughen its position on Iran ahead of a showdown between major powers and the Iranian government on 1 October. But it is not yet clear what position will be taken by Russia, which has hitherto opposed the imposition of further sanctions on Iran.

    Moscow's stance will be closely watched for signs of greater co-operation in return for Obama's decision last week to abandon a missile defence scheme in eastern Europe, a longstanding source of irritation to Russia.

    "I hope the Russians realise they have to do something serious. I don't think a deal has been done, but there is a great deal of expectation," said a British official.

    Russia has approximately 2,780 deployed strategic warheads, compared with around 2,100 in the US. The abandonment of the US missile defence already appears to have spurred arms control talks currently underway between Washington and Moscow: the Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, said today that chances were "quite high" that a deal to reduce arsenals to 1,500 warheads each would be signed by the end of the year.

    The US nuclear posture review is aimed at clearing the path for a new round of deep US-Russian cuts to follow almost immediately after that treaty is ratified, to set lower limits not just on deployed missiles but also on the thousands of warheads both have in their stockpiles.

    The Obama strategy is to create disarmament momentum in the run-up to the non-proliferation treaty review conference next May, in the hope that states without nuclear weapons will not side with Iran, as they did at the last review in 2005, but endorse stronger legal barriers to nuclear proliferation, and forego nuclear weapons programmes themselves.

    "The review has up to now been in the hands of mid-level bureaucrats with a lot of knowledge, but it's knowledge drawn from the cold war. What they are prepared to do is tweak the existing doctrine," said Rebecca Johnson, the head of the Acronym Institute, a pro-disarmament pressure group. "Obama has sent them it back saying: 'Give me more options for what we can do in line with my goals. I'm not saying it's easy, but all you're giving me is business as usual.'"
  • Posted by:john frum

    #33  STRONG NATIONS SHOULD NOT ONLY SURVIVE BUT SHOULD LEAD

    Peace through strength, Joe.
    Posted by: Woozle Uneter9007   2009-09-21 22:51  

    #32  "Reagan insisted on mutual moves, not unilateral disarmament."

    mutual moves with Russia is what we are talking about.

    "And he had only Russia and China to deal with as nuclear peers. The existence of nuclear-armed rogue states signficantly complicates things."

    Im not sure it does, in terms of numbers of warheads.
    Posted by: liberal hawk   2009-09-21 22:39  

    #31  Reagan was thinking in terms of systems that could stop attacks by much larger forces.
    Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain   2009-09-21 22:36  

    #30  I would have thought the number to be much smaller, especially since we're now deploying effective ABM.

    We're deploying just barely enough ABM to be intercepting a couple missiles from a rogue power that doesn't know what it's doing.
    Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain   2009-09-21 22:35  

    #29  SAME > OBAMA SAYS US NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARE HIS AND HE IS GETTING RID OF THEM.

    POSTER - WW3 = WWR Redux where widout Nuclear Deterrence, US may be too weak to intervene + save the Pacific [long lead time, iff any?]. CHINA will be able to take over TAIWAN + PALAU + GUAM-CNMI + JAPAN.

    D *** NG IT, WE MISSED THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS + MINIMA 1/2 OF CONUS-NORAM FOR "LIVING SPACE", DIDN'T WE!? Many CHIN NETTERS > iff the US were mil or geopol weak enough, CHIN COULD + SHOULD + WILL DO SO ["GREAT GAME" + MURPHY'S LAW + "LAW OF SURVIVAL/JUNGLE [Darwinism] > STRONG NATIONS SHOULD NOT ONLY SURVIVE BUT SHOULD LEAD]???
    Posted by: JosephMendiola   2009-09-21 22:18  

    #28  Pardon, it was Ronald Reagan who said the aim should not be arms limitation but arms REDUCTION, and faulted previous efforts for that reason.

    1500 weapons each would dwarf rogue state arsenals, and would keep in the spirit of Reagan
    Posted by: liberal hawk   2009-09-21 22:13  

    #27  

    GUAM PDN FORUMS > BREITBART.com > GATES: CHINA COULD UNDERMINE US MILITARY POWER IN THE PACIFIC [US Forward Air Bases + USN Carrier Strike Groups]. US Dominance under threat frm China + EMERGING POWERS.

    * SAME > POSTER RELATED > GATES: CHINA COULD NEUTRALIZE GUAM.

    Posted by: JosephMendiola   2009-09-21 22:10  

    #26  I'd like to see the nukes reduced on both the Russian and US sides, no matter who is President. But Free Radical brings up an interesting point; is there a link? I would have thought the number to be much smaller, especially since we're now deploying effective ABM.
    Posted by: KBK   2009-09-21 18:08  

    #25  After ending the threat from nuclear weapons by getting rid of ours, let's end crime by getting rid of the cops!
    Posted by: SteveS   2009-09-21 15:49  

    #24  Is Barack Hussain Obama a Muslim ?
    Posted by: Dave UK   2009-09-21 15:35  

    #23  When crunch time comes we may be dependent on those who lied about their beliefs during the Zero administration.
    Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain   2009-09-21 13:13  

    #22  Of course, they could always do the study and conclude by stating that Obama's goals are insane. You know, don't resign, just tell the truth. Defending the Constitution doesn't mean they have to lie, does it?
    Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305   2009-09-21 11:54  

    #21  This is also a test of the political reliability of the General Officer corps. Those who mumble but stay will be rewarded, those who resign will be id'd as 'unreliable'. Consider this a first step in a bloodless Stalinist purge phase of the military upper echelons.
    Posted by: Procopius2k   2009-09-21 08:12  

    #20   if he were an agent of the enemies of the United States what would he be doing differently?

    An enemy agent would be a lot more discreet.
    Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2009-09-21 04:13  

    #19  He needs the money to pay for Obamacare.
    Posted by: crosspatch   2009-09-20 22:22  

    #18  Because those you listed are his friends, Glenmore. One doesn't sell to their friends...they gift them.
    Posted by: Woozle Uneter9007   2009-09-20 21:56  

    #17  Instead of just slashing our nuclear arsenal, he could sell the excess to Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, etc. and transfer the proceeds to help fund ObamaCare.
    Posted by: Glenmore   2009-09-20 21:51  

    #16  It's not like he didn't tell us what his plans were IF he was elected.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0du8wMLzEY&NR=1

    Posted by: Woozle Uneter9007   2009-09-20 21:46  

    #15  VARIOUS MIL FORUMS > NETTERS > seems RUSSIA has a MINIMA 5:1 ADVANTAGEZ, versus the USA = USSA/USR, in NON-STRATEGIC NUCLEAR WEAPONS ESPEC TACTICAL = BATTLEFIELD NUKES???

    The good news is that US GMD-TMD gets to act like our Cold War OFFENSIVE strategic FBM submarines + USAF bombers, SAVE BUT FOR DEFENSE FROM TACNUCWEAPS + IRBMS + MILITANT NUKULAAR TEHWERRISM [NucTerror].
    Posted by: JosephMendiola   2009-09-20 21:40  

    #14  His first loyalty appears to be to the transnational progressive movement, not to America.


    Someone smarter than me made the same point a couple of days ago. The tranzis are a blind spot to me- I can't understand how anyone takes them seriously who isn't blinded by anti-American rage.

    Wasn't there some study done a while back that found via wargaming that the *minimum* nuke arsenals for the great powers should be around 2200? Otherwise a first-strike becomes too attractive?
    Posted by: Free Radical   2009-09-20 21:30  

    #13  Reagan insisted on mutual moves, not unilateral disarmament.

    And he had only Russia and China to deal with as nuclear peers. The existence of nuclear-armed rogue states signficantly complicates things.
    Posted by: lotp   2009-09-20 21:25  

    #12  Nimble, Obama ain't no Ronnie....and no way in hell is Putin a Gorbachev.
    Posted by: Cornsilk Blondie   2009-09-20 21:22  

    #11  Ronnie was ready to go for the same deal at Rekjavik.
    Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2009-09-20 20:48  

    #10  Listen to Peter Finch

    Start each day that the "BIG O" has to start thinking of you and what Mr Finch had to say ... really
    Posted by: Dr. Hannibal Lecter   2009-09-20 20:32  

    #9  Sorry first line garbled, it reads - We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America
    Posted by: Dr. Hannibal Lecter   2009-09-20 20:19  

    #8  We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, , promote the provide for the common defencegeneral Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    Is the President upholding the Constitution of the United States?

    As it reads "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
    Posted by: Dr. Hannibal Lecter   2009-09-20 20:15  

    #7  How many "own goals" can your team captain score before you pull him from the game?

    Obama is a monstrosity - and I shudder to think of the magnitude of the damage he can wreak over the next 40 months.
    Posted by: Lone Ranger   2009-09-20 20:11  

    #6  Well, we already had Madeline Halfbright telling the Russians a few days ago the USA No Longer Intends To Be World's No.1 State. Obama just wants to make it official. Question is how low will we go? Oh, and another question, will the Pentagon's study take into account the combined number of nukes that Russia, China, North Korean, Iran and Pakistan all have pointed at us? Oh, and did Barry ever hear of nuclear blackmail?
    Posted by: Abu Uluque   2009-09-20 20:08  

    #5  time for some General Officers and Flag Rank equivalents to fire their "silver bullets" by going public about this! This man cannot unilaterally undo 65 years of defense policy at a whim! He most certainly is not the F*cking king, and will only stop acting like it when he gets a firm NO!
    Posted by: NoMoreBS   2009-09-20 19:51  

    #4  "Not to beat a dead horse but if he were an agent of the enemies of the United States what would he be doing differently?"

    I've been scratching my head over that very same question for several months now. And the best answer I've been able to come up with is "nothing." His first loyalty appears to be to the transnational progressive movement, not to America.

    Barack Obama is either one of the stupidest, most boneheaded nincompoops ever to occupy the White House, or he's on a barely-clandestine mission to weaken America and destroy its standing as a world power.

    I think we're in DEEP shit.

    Posted by: Dave D.   2009-09-20 19:38  

    #3  This move is two-fer for Obama.

    It significantly reduces American power and security, but it also sets the stage to pressure Israel either to accept extinction by giving up its arsenal or become a pariah state forbidden US aid.
    Posted by: lotp   2009-09-20 19:24  

    #2  "Obama is now driving this process. He is saying these are the president's weapons, and he wants to look again at the doctrine and their role."

    These are NOT the president's weapons. He, despite the Lefts bleatings to the contrary, is the chief executive, not the bloody king. Changing nuclear doctrine this radically will involve the Congress, the military, the nation.

    However, if everyone else wusses out, he is the de facto king, in this department.
    Posted by: Alaska Paul   2009-09-20 18:21  

    #1  Not to beat a dead horse but if he were an agent of the enemies of the United States what would he be doing differently?
    Posted by: Hellfish   2009-09-20 18:15  

    00:00