Why We Need Nukes; And Why Obama Is Wrong

It’s been said that one should never bring a knife to a gun fight. What that means is that if there is a fight about to go down, you want to be the one with the strongest, most sophisticated weapon. If your enemy has a better weapon than you, your elimination is certain. You want to go in with the best odds. This makes sense, even in an everyday context; you want to be the best; better than your competitors. Even more, this mentality means everything when it comes to national defense.

Ever since the invention of nuclear weapons, there have been those who decry their use, and even their existence when inert. One could definitely argue the merits and the disadvantages of nuclear weapons having been created in the first place; but that’s not the point. The point is that they do exist. Now, what do we do?

In the age of nuclear weapons, it is essential—specifically given the fact that we are in a constant war with terrorists; and several countries would just love to eliminate us—that we keep a high profile. We need to have the most nuclear weapons, and we need to have the most powerful nuclear weapons. This is basic defense strategy. Coming as a surprise to no one, the Liberals have a distorted understanding of this issue.

During his current “Sorry about America” world tour, President Obama gave a speech in Berlin, in which he discussed the elimination of nuclear weapons:

We may no longer live in fear of global annihilation, but so long as nuclear weapons exist, we are not truly safe.  (Applause.)  We may strike blows against terrorist networks, but if we ignore the instability and intolerance that fuels extremism, our own freedom will eventually be endangered…Peace with justice means pursuing the security of a world without nuclear weapon…And so, as President, I’ve strengthened our efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and reduced the number and role of America’s nuclear weapons.  Because of the New START Treaty, we’re on track to cut American and Russian deployed nuclear warheads to their lowest levels since the 1950s…After a comprehensive review, I’ve determined that we can ensure the security of America and our allies, and maintain a strong and credible strategic deterrent, while reducing our deployed strategic nuclear weapons by up to one-third.  And I intend to seek negotiated cuts with Russia to move beyond Cold War nuclear postures.

Were we living in a perfect world, full of love, humility, and free candy for all, this might be an understandably worthy goal: to eliminate nuclear weapons. However, that is certainly not the world in which we live. That being the case, can we afford to eliminate nuclear weapons; even by a third? The answer is a resounding NO.

We are surrounded by countries and organizations that would jump at the chance to wipe us out completely: North Korea, Iran, possibly Pakistan, Al Qaida; and despite what the President seems to believe, Russia. Russia has been leaning further and further towards Cold War era posturing, and I have absolutely no faith that they will follow any treaty.

The President has an obligation to protect our nation, and it would not be wise to continue this hippie-fueled run at elimination of nuclear weapons. Because no matter how much we don’t want to have to use them, there will come a time when we have to. If we try to be PC, and achieve “peace through nuclear elimination,” we will fall.

As Margaret Thatcher said: “A world without nuclear weapons would be less stable and more dangerous for all of us.”

It may seem counterintuitive to think that nuclear weapons help keep us safe, but living in a post-nuclear world, that is exactly the case.

[js-disqus]