Flash back to March, the last time President Obama met with the Russians. A hot mic caught him making a curious promise.
President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.
President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…
President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.
President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.
The Russians have continued to behave they way they tend to, sending devastating attack helicopters to the Assad regime in Syria, and following that up by sending a pair of amphibious assault war ships, loaded with Russian marines, to the Syrian coast. Russia is siding with the Assad regime, while the United States is siding with the rebels trying to oust Assad, at least in terms of rhetoric.
President Obama, meanwhile, may be giving us a glimpse of that “flexibility” he noted in pursuing a wrong-headed policy he promised in 2007 — to unilaterally begin the disarmament of the United States. The president has decided to make a sharp unilateral cut in our nuclear arsenal, down to as few as 1,000 warheads. That is far below the 1,500 warheads required by the controversial 2010 US-Russia Nuclear Arms Treaty. The Russians have announced no corresponding voluntary cut in their arsenal. The Free Beacon reports that the “lower warhead levels would be contrary to recent congressional testimony from a strategic forces commander who said further cuts would weaken the ability to deter nuclear states like Russia and China.” Not only are Russia and China not cutting their nuclear forces, North Korea and Iran are building up their nuclear capability.
After the announced cuts, the United States may end up with fewer nuclear warheads than China currently has.
President Obama makes this cut not in a time of relative stability and peace, but in a time when tensions are rising in the Middle East, China is rising as a world power and becoming more of a challenge to our allies, Asia is increasingly locked in an arms race as India also faces unstable nuclear enemy Pakistan, and the Russians themselves have threatened to counter the US missile shield with a nuclear build-up. Add in the fact that the United States is economically weakened and in need of rebuilding our conventional forces after long wars against terrorists overseas.
It is in the face of all of this, that President Obama is slashing the US nuclear arsenal down to a dangerous level. Apparently Obama didn’t even need to be re-elected to start flexing his “flexibility.”
Update: Now Iran, Russia, Syria and China are planning the largest joint military exercise in Mideast history.
If the continued reduction of our nuclear arsenal were to embolden China and Russia, it would still not necessarily mean the end of our nation. As IJN Admiral Yamamoto is (erroneously it would appear) supposed to have said “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” Even if the Admiral DID NOT say that, it is still, none the less, true – perhaps now even more than in Yamamoto’s time. In 2011 alone more firearms were sold in this country than there members of the SEVENTEEN (17) LARGEST ARMED FORCES ON THE PLANET – COMBINED! And the monthly sales numbers so far this year are running 20-25% ABOVE last year. That’s a WHOLE LOTTA GUNS, boys and girls. Add in that the militia movement is going strong and the members are being trained by recently separated veterans of both the sandbox AND the rockpile and anyone invading our shores would face a nightmare in securing the land.
But how many of these gun owners would pull a “Red Dawn” if there was truly an issue? Invasion by Cubans perhaps. But marshal law by Obama? Nationwide curfew? Moving of people into labor camps? Would we be more like sheeple than Americans, fighting for liberty and independence?
Exactly. Fighting invading Cubans or Chinese as a freedom fighter is easy (whether it could really happen is something else entirely). Fighting an insidious Anti-freedom government which is slowly eroding our liberties is much much harder. People are willing to give up their freedom to the government in the form of health care – what should be the most sacred and private transaction with a health provider – it isn’t a stretch to think people would be willing to give up other less obvious freedoms too.
Look at how hard it is to transport sporting guns through some of our states (Illinois is a good example), and the regulations those people accept, and then consider what would happen if the Feds were just as onerous.
They don’t need to invade. They only need to detonate (or have a proxy *cough* Iran *cough* detonate) an EMP device, delivered by a missile launched from a container ship over the central US, and within a year walk into a depopulated country. The few survivors will be in no position to put up much of a fight.
The plot of (the original) “Red Dawn” is starting to look less and less ridiculous, isn’t it?
I’m all for reducing our nuclear arsenal. Let’s see, one for Tehran, one for Damascus,….. Delivered by either air or missile. Hmmm, who else deserves one?
If Barry the Great ordered ANY branch of the armed forces to take up arms against the people of this country, they would laugh in his face and refuse; we could see the first coup in American history. But, I am sure there are legal mechanisms in place to quickly remove any president that actually tried something that assinine.