The Perception of Weakness Emboldens Our Enemies
 

If history has taught us anything it has time and again revealed that despots, dictators, tyrants and evil world leaders aren't touched or moved with compassion by efforts to tone down the rhetoric, appear reluctant to use force or have an aversion to war. The perception of weakness emboldens our enemies. Hitler wasn't won over by Chamberlain. Our reluctance to take an offensive posture with the Viet Cong didn't stop them from attacking South Vietnam and eventually running us out on a rail. Clinton's reluctance to apprehend Bin-laden when he had a chance didn't convince him and his cronies that we were nice guys after all. The Clinton Administration's weak responses to the series of terror attacks throughout the 90s convinced Al-Qaeda we did not have the will to fight.

This scaling down of our nuclear arsenal and adopting policies where we limit our use of nuclear weapons may get applause and praise from those who are already our allies and it may impress the New York media elites, the Washington cocktail party circuit, Hollywood celebrities, college and university academics and the naïve liberal left, but Mr. Ahmadenijhad, the leaders of Hezbollah, Hamas, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, Hugo Chavez and other murderous leaders who want and are working for the demise of the US are smiling and thinking, "They are weak." Toughness is the only language that garnishes any respect and engenders any fear in the hearts of totalitarians.

BO and his ideologues don't get it...

Re: The Perception of Weakness Emboldens Our Enemi
 

When we have enough nuclear weapons to decimate those nations 1000 times over... whats it going to matter if we get rid of 50% of them? We could still decimate them 500 times over?

Re: The Perception of Weakness Emboldens Our Enemi
 

He had to do something to try and earn his Nobel Peace Prize.

I read now he's "seriously considering" offering a peace proposal to Israel and the Palestinians.

He's like the energizer bunny ... and just as annoying.

Re: The Perception of Weakness Emboldens Our Enemi
 

The guy makes me sad. He's destroying our country single handed. No man should have that much authority.

Re: The Perception of Weakness Emboldens Our Enemi
 

The key word is "perception". And its not only the issue of downsizing the arsenal, its the declaration to limit their use. Also the warmer approach to certain regimes while acting cool toward our allies like Israel, Poland and the Czech Republic.

Evil men are looking for advantage, not a friendly game of checkers.

Re: The Perception of Weakness Emboldens Our Enemi
 

I hope you guys are aware that Ronald Reagan and G. W. Bush did the same thing right?
Here is video of Regan doing it back in 1982. He begins talking 36 seconds into the clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2omYmK1jhQE

George H. Bush actually went further than Reagan did in 1991
http://peacepalacelibrary-weekly.blo...aty-start.html
http://nucleardreams.wordpress.com/2...orge-h-w-bush/


So following the logic in some posts, President Reagan and Bush weakened America as well. Or is it that when Republicans do it we dont criticize and are silent but when a democrat does the same thing, the sky is falling?


.

Re: The Perception of Weakness Emboldens Our Enemi
 

Reagan was confronting two nuclear armed super-powers during the Cold War. Things were a bit different in 1982. Also, with the Strategic Defense Initiative Reagan was attempting to "checkmate" the use of ICBMs and make them obsolete in that context. This move brought about the end of the Cold War. By also attempting to engage the Soviets and working to reduce tensions, Reagan showed that the U.S. was not interested in using "Star Wars" for offensive purposes.

George H. Bush reaped the benefits of Reagan's work. By 1991, the old policy of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) that had "kept the peace" (sort of) between the super-powers was shelved as it was obsolete. This resulted in a huge net reduction of U.S. nuclear weapons.

Both Reagan and Bush rose to the challenges of their times. Reagan addressed the situation and changed the world. Bush responded well to those changes.

With nuclear proliferation so rampant and declared enemies of the U.S. receiving large amounts of nuclear aid from Russia and China, what conditions today suggest that we should step down our nuclear posture?

Re: The Perception of Weakness Emboldens Our Enemi
 

The context is also very important. RR and GHWB didn't have a track record of associating with anti-military types, people who would love to see the demise of the USA as a superpower and a nation morphed into the UN with a global govt ushering in utopia. Whereas the former presidents believed in peace through strength, BO and the liberal left believe in peace through diplomacy, unilateral disarmament and a world free of nuclear weapons. The problem is that there will always be Hitlers, Castros, Husseins, Ahmajhinadads and Jong Ils who are willing to possess such weapons.

Its a globalist's, environmentalist's and humanist's pipe dream.

Re: The Perception of Weakness Emboldens Our Enemi
 

Regardless of how it is painted, the current President is simply fulfilling the role as the elected leader of the world's NUMBER ONE DEFENDER OF PEACE.

Many Presidents have done this before and many will do this in the future.


Don't think for a moment that his actions are weakening our posture.

As for the perception, name one country that's froggy enough to jump based on the idea that America doesn't have as many weapons as it used to so now is a good time to attack them?


You can't.



If/When America is attacked again, it will be for ideological reasons-- having nothing to do with thought that maybe America does not have as many nuclear weapons to defend herself now that President Obama is President.




Whatever the "right" can do to paint this guy in a negative light.....

Re: The Perception of Weakness Emboldens Our Enemi
 

The limited use BO is promoting is that we will not retaliate with nukes if someone uses chemical or biological weapons against us. Really misguided policy here. And by the way, JD, I praised the Prez when he gave his speech when accepting his Nobel Peace Prize. So at least for me I am not looking to criticize him for every reason. He has just given me very little to applaud him for.

Re: The Perception of Weakness Emboldens Our Enemi
 

Iran
North Korea
and several "non-states" like Somalia, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Taliban, al Queda, etc.
Just did.

When the United States is attacked again it will be because of those ideological reasons you stated.

If the United States is attacked with a nuke, it will be specifically because the Democrat controlled Congress and President Obama have banned the development of a single specific nuclear weapon - the "bunker buster."

They can git rid of hundreds of those shiny missiles and cruise warheads but we need to have about a half dozen bunker busters on hand. Obama and Pelosi/Reid have refused to even let development proceed on those.

You and Barry seem to have forgotten how close Iran is. And, how they already operate 4 well equipped proxy armies throughout the world including a force in the Brazillian/Uruguay/Paraguay no man's land that was responsible for destroying a Jewish owned building in downtown Buenos Aires a few years back.

Yup. It would be good to let those guys have nukes. Don't need any clean underground bunker busters for that job. Nope.

Re: The Perception of Weakness Emboldens Our Enemi
 

Often, we agree.

Re: The Perception of Weakness Emboldens Our Enemi
 

Dude,

YOU KNOW that Iran and North Korea are not going to try to attack the United States!


Your "non-states" comment is more on point.

However, the reason for the attack will not be, "America is too weak to defend herself."

The reasoning will be that "Aemrica is evil and must be destroyed."



NO ONE IS GOING TO ATTACK AMERICA FOR PUBLICLY MAKING A STANCE FOR PEACE IN THE WORLD!



Typical right-wing scare tactics are being employed by Pel....

Re: The Perception of Weakness Emboldens Our Enemi
 

I couldnt say it much better
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/th...ig-bang-treaty


.

Re: The Perception of Weakness Emboldens Our Enemi
 

What did America get in return for the move? Admiration? Warmed hearts? Thank you cards? Did Medvedev and Putin sudeenly become more trustworthy? Did China suddenly become less threatening? Did our enemies from the Islamic world suddenly have an epiphany that we are good-hearted and deserve their friendship?

No, its the same principle as the Israeli-Palestinian issue. The good guys do all the giving in and the bad guys do little to nothing. In a few years the bad guys are crying that we aren't doing enough to promote world peace and we're expected to "lead" the way. Problem is, no one is following.

Re: The Perception of Weakness Emboldens Our Enemi
 

LOL... until they really do attack.

North Korea has attacked American targets repeatedly for over 50 years including firing upon and actually boarding U.S. naval ship, taking and holding the crew members hostage for months on end.

North Korea has also fired missiles directly over the nations of Japan and South Korea as a means of threatening the Japanese and the West and extorting additional aid. By treaty, any attack upon Japan is considered an attack on the United States. There is a similar provision in our treaties with South Korea.

As I pointed out, Iran has several well armed, well trained and well funded proxy armies that have been involved in real terrorist activities including attacks on U.S. embassies and the killing of 281 Marines in 1982. One of those armies, Hezbollah, gave Israel all they could handle recently. Iran has said repeatedly and said again recently, that if their nuke processing plants are attacked by Israel they will retaliate against the United States.

Iran has repeatedly run "swarming" exercises in the Gulf targeting U.S. vessels resulting in the exchange of gun fire.

Prior to 9/11 Osama Bin Laden stated clearly that they did NOT expect any retaliation from the U.S. beyond freezing assets and maybe a few cruise missiles. Al Queda said that they fully expected their attack to be so demoralizing that the U.S. would pretty much fold soon after.

This is evidence of just how "strong" they thought us to be.

Re: The Perception of Weakness Emboldens Our Enemi
 

Pel,

There isn't any nation, any group, or any one person who is intent on doing harm to the U.S. who expects the U.S. to respond with a nuclear weapon, unless they use one on us first.

The deal between President Obama and Mevdev concerns stockpiles of nuclear weapons and the pursuit of security and peace so that the threat of nuclear attack can be lessened, even if it is only a little bit.


Again, most of what was done was symbolic-- the President of this world's strongest defender of peace publicly taking action that encourages peace.


Nothing was said or done to make America appear weak in this.


Seriously, you have swallowed hook, line and sinker a negative spin on a positive action by our President.

Re: The Perception of Weakness Emboldens Our Enemi
 

JD, again I ask, what did we gain from this? Read this and think again about how smart this move was:

Nuclear doctrine consists of thinking the unthinkable. It involves making threats and promising retaliation that is cruel and destructive beyond imagining. But it has its purpose: to prevent war in the first place.

During the Cold War, we let the Russians know that if they dared use their huge conventional military advantage and invaded Western Europe, they risked massive U.S. nuclear retaliation. Goodbye Moscow.
Was this credible? Would we have done it? Who knows? No one's ever been there. A nuclear posture is just that -- a declaratory policy designed to make the other guy think twice. Our policies did. The result was called deterrence. For half a century, it held. The Soviets never invaded. We never used nukes. That's why nuclear doctrine is important.

The Obama administration has just issued a new one that "includes significant changes to the U.S. nuclear posture," said Defense Secretary Bob Gates. First among these involves the U.S. response to being attacked with biological or chemical weapons.

Under the old doctrine, supported by every president of both parties for decades, any aggressor ran the risk of a cataclysmic U.S. nuclear response that would leave the attacking nation a cinder and a memory.

Again: Credible? Doable? No one knows. But the threat was very effective. Under President Obama's new policy, however, if the state that has just attacked us with biological or chemical weapons is "in compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)," explained Gates, then "the U.S. pledges not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against it."

Imagine the scenario: Hundreds of thousands are lying dead in the streets of Boston after a massive anthrax or nerve gas attack. The president immediately calls in the lawyers to determine whether the attacking state is in compliance with the NPT. If it turns out that the attacker is up-to-date with its latest IAEA inspections, well, it gets immunity from nuclear retaliation. (Our response is then restricted to bullets, bombs and other conventional munitions.) However, if the lawyers tell the president that the attacking state is NPT noncompliant, we are free to blow the b******s to nuclear kingdom come.

This is quite insane. It's like saying that if a terrorist deliberately uses his car to mow down a hundred people waiting at a bus stop, the decision as to whether he gets (a) hanged or (b) 100 hours of community service hinges entirely on whether his car had passed emissions inspections.

Apart from being morally bizarre, the Obama policy is strategically loopy. Does anyone believe that North Korea or Iran will be more persuaded to abjure nuclear weapons because they could then carry out a biological or chemical attack on the U.S. without fear of nuclear retaliation? The naivete is stunning.

Similarly the Obama pledge to forswear development of any new nuclear warheads, indeed, to permit no replacement of aging nuclear components without the authorization of the president himself. This under the theory that our moral example will move other countries to eschew nukes. On the contrary.

The last quarter-century -- the time of greatest superpower nuclear arms reduction -- is precisely when Iran and North Korea went hellbent into the development of nuclear weapons. It gets worse. The administration's Nuclear Posture Review declares U.S. determination to "continue to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in deterring non-nuclear attacks." The ultimate aim is to get to a blanket doctrine of no first use.

This is deeply worrying to many small nations who for half a century relied on the extended U.S. nuclear umbrella to keep them from being attacked or overrun by far more powerful neighbors. When smaller allies see the United States determined to move inexorably away from that posture -- and for them it's not posture, but existential protection -- what are they to think? Fend for yourself. Get yourself your own WMDs. Go nuclear if you have to. Do you imagine they are not thinking that in the Persian Gulf?

This administration seems to believe that by restricting retaliatory threats and by downplaying our reliance on nuclear weapons, it is discouraging proliferation. But the opposite is true. Since World War II, smaller countries have agreed to forgo the acquisition of deterrent forces -- nuclear, biological and chemical -- precisely because they placed their trust in the firmness, power and reliability of the American deterrent. Seeing America retreat, they will rethink. And some will arm.

There is no greater spur to hyper-proliferation than the furling of the American nuclear umbrella.

(The above is an editorial by Charles Krauthammer)

Weighing history and the patterns that enemies have displayed, the outcry against this move is not more "anti-Obama" vitriol, its a grave concern foer what is factual and logical. I would that we would err on the side of strength versus on the side of weakness.

Again, WHAT DO WE GAIN FROM SUCH A POSTURE?

Re: The Perception of Weakness Emboldens Our Enemi
 

I'd like to ask Mr. Krauthaumer personally does he really believe that Iran or North Korea have plans to use a nuclear weapon to attack America in the first place.


If I searched for it, I could find an editorial that praised the President's actions in this arena.


Strategically loopy?

The policy is obviously crafted to strengthen the international agencies responsible for non-biased inspections of nuclear facilities around the world.

When these agencies are seen as independent of American influence and when these agencies are perceived as strong on their own, then they will be more effective in their purpose.

Furthermore, strong and independent nuclear inspecting agencies stating that a nation is non-compliant makes for easier justification for stiff sanctions, and if necessary, military action in operations that don't rely primarilly on American forces.


What a novel idea-- a world that doesn't depend on America to always take care of the dirty work!

Re: The Perception of Weakness Emboldens Our Enemi
 

Don't we have the power and capability to completely anhililate a country WITHOUT the use of nuclear weapons-- regardless if we were attacked with a nuke or not?


Of course, I'd rather fight nukes with nukes, but the whole world loses in that scenario!


Anything that America can do to not proliferate nuclear weapons we should do, as long as our actions don't violate our own national security.

Re: The Perception of Weakness Emboldens Our Enemi
 

JD, we are not only reducing the number we have, we are restricting their use. We are quantifying when and where we will use nukes in limited fashion. We are sending the wrong message to both our friends and enemies. Our friends who depended on our unwavering commitment to protect them when threatened or attacked, our enemies, who you seem to take lightly, may perceive a reluctance from this admin to be strong on defense. It may not result on a the enemy showing up on our shores ready to fight. It may result in other actions that kill our allies, our soldiers or our citizens. The chance that other nations, as Krauthammer points out, will seek to provide their own security through nuclear weapons development, thus defeating the notion that unilateral disarmament will inspire others to follow suit.

And I do not believe the total elimination of nuclear weapons will ever happen.

You still have not answered my question: what have we gained by reducing our stockpile and announcing that we will limit the use of nukes?

Re: The Perception of Weakness Emboldens Our Enemi
 

I'm still a bit hazy on what the law or whatever actually says on how we will limit the use of nukes.

As far as getting other nations to reduce their nukes... that is a good thing. However, there is one drawback. I think reducing stockpiles of nukes may lead to a terrorist getting their hands on one. As long as everything has to be accounted for a nuke probly won't go missing. But the moment some are supposed to be destroyed and can go missing without anyone noticing... well with enough money involved ya never know...

Re: The Perception of Weakness Emboldens Our Enemi
 

Our allies that possess nukes are not a threat. If the Ukraine reduces their stockpiles, so what? We aren't convincing truly threatening nations like North Korea and Iran aren't moved by our token reductions and our image management. While we are trying to influence nations that are no threat, the real threats continue to snub their noses at us while we lob idle threats toward them.

Re: The Perception of Weakness Emboldens Our Enemi
 

It's a gesture promoting peace, harmony and the non-proliferation of mukes around the world.

However, in the end, it is a gesture.


I agree with you, we'll never be rid of nukes and I don't think we ever should get rid of all of our nukes.

Re: The Perception of Weakness Emboldens Our Enemi
 

Reduction is a good thing.

not modernizing is idiocy.

GWB reduced. Obama refuses to modernize.

Re: The Perception of Weakness Emboldens Our Enemi
 

Maybe his refusal has something to do with the principles that he has concerning nuclear weapons.

Has he shed any light on his logic in not modernizing our weapons?


Maybe he wants to avoid hypocrisy in this area.

To say we're going to reduce but then turn around and modernize what we do have smacks of hypocrisy to me.

How much more modernizing do our nuclear weapons need anyway?


If his goal is to not proliferate nuclear weapons, "modernizing" our nuclear weapons would be hypocritical.

Re: The Perception of Weakness Emboldens Our Enemi
 

I believe this is 100% accurate. And I consider this to be proof positive that the man should not be President.

WeHii is the key to understaning the man.


Well Educated, Highly Intelegent Idiot.

Re: The Perception of Weakness Emboldens Our Enemi
 

Ok, so that's established.


His decision is based on principles, right?

You and I may not share that particular principle, but more than half of the country (you konow those folks who voted for him) apparently do.

He is definitely in step with his Democrat base by not proliferating nuclear weapons.


If that is his modus operandi, then it really isn't a shocker.

It would be very contradictory for him to sign a non proliferation pact, promise to dispose of some of our nuclear weapons, AND AT THE SAME TIME modernize our stockpile.

Speaking of money, do we have the money to "modernize" these?


Is it even necessary?

I am sure that our stuff isn't broken, dusty or rusty. Republicans haven't been out of office 2 years yet.


What do we need, extra strength nuclear weaponry?

Turbo-Charged nuclear weaponry?

Or maybe he should be putting money into modernizing our nuclear weapons in a way to make them more eco-friendly?


C'mon Ferd!

Refusing to modernize our nuclear weapons is a loaded phrase. But what does it mean?

Re: The Perception of Weakness Emboldens Our Enemi
 

It is his principles that are the problem.

There is a very real need to move to a modernized delivery platform. I have no issue with reduction of the stockpile. that is a good thing.

but if we are not willing to insure that our deliery methodology is the best it can be (and that is the real issue here) then we signal our enemies that we are weak and not willing to use what weapons we have MAD is only MAD if everyone plays along. we arent because WeHii wont.

Re: The Perception of Weakness Emboldens Our Enemi
 

Not at all. He is stating the truth on this. Liberals will of course, disagree with him.
JD I am afraid you are the one that has taken the bait on this issue.
[QUOTE=jfrog;897453]I'm still a bit hazy on what the law or whatever actually says on how we will limit the use of nukes.

As far as getting other nations to reduce their nukes... that is a good thing. However, there is one drawback. I think reducing stockpiles of nukes may lead to a terrorist getting their hands on one. As long as everything has to be accounted for a nuke probly won't go missing. But the moment some are supposed to be destroyed and can go missing without anyone noticing... well with enough money involved ya never know...[/QUOTE]

Good point. Remember that is exactly what happened when Russia supposedly got rid of some of their dirty bombs.


Also, has anyone considered this angle. With the notification to the world we are doing all we can to make it easier for you to attack us, that this could throw us into war giving BO the opportunity to declare marshall law AND stop future elections for president???