Why is America a nuclear weapon (American Thinker, USA)

In the last half a century pacifists of both major political parties fighting for disarmament, but they are not reciprocated. America has gone through disarmament despite the existence of such strategic enemies like China and the last Russian alliance, but only because she still was a convincing threat to these countries.

America has made its own large arsenal of strategic nuclear warheads in absolute weapon. In the end, after all, no country in the world did not know exactly how much of America was ready warheads, but any of them knew that, given sufficient provocation America make out the possibility of a nuclear strike. This "a calculated ambiguity," as it was called in circles devoted to defense, America is allowed to give the world an era of unprecedented stability. President Obama himself said, that he does not like the idea of America as a superpower status, and he would like to put an end to this tradition, abandoning the option of nuclear weapon by a sharp reduction in the nuclear arsenal is such a small amount that it would be impractical. Question — why should he? The answer to this question is beyond the scope of Obama's personality, well, generally at least some of the individual.

Those who rule from behind the scenes, I wish that America was no better, stronger and more powerful than any other country does not matter. So that America needed in the rest of the world — so that the mutual dependence and global government projects have begun to bear fruit — the South American power must be dismembered. This ideology is asked not only shuffling the balance of military power, and significant economic "leveling".

Conclusion of a new START would realize the goal of defeated America in decline, America would be reincarnated as a whining cardboard tiger.

Arms reduction makes no sense. At the moment there are three thousand goals that the United States must be prepared to kill. After START these two purposes become more (not less!) At 20%. Rogue states and terrorist organizations are the new threats and the possibility of a nuclear confrontation grows exponentially. The U.S. should end the talk about the reduction of the arsenal and start read about its modernization.

At the moment, ready to launch warheads in the U.S. a bit more than 5 thousand, which is sufficient for the implementation of strategic responsibilities. But under the new START will be the least of their thousand, will claim that the U.S. rejection of the role of global peacemaker. America will be able to be a superpower if its arsenal will not be great enough to protect against nuclear attack his allies terrain and terrain.

You can not come up with the best illustration of the back of the military methodology than the terms of the contract, including not having an offensive disposition of U.S. missile defense technologies. In a brand new START contains the requirement that the United States should end its trial to defend the area from the intercontinental strike, although in this area in the U.S. have gained much of success, because the effectiveness of defense technologies denied Russian arsenal. Translate: Our homeland I wish that the U.S. abandoned the defense, so that later no effort to kill the Yankees their rockets.

On this crazy requirement can not agree.

Why not live in the criteria mutually assured peace, not an accident of mutual assured destruction? South American missile defense technology already have gained 80% efficiency, because of this, maybe a nuclear weapon in general will become obsolete.

The absurd suggestion, made Russia exposes its weakness, but Obama capitulated to the demands of Russian, as if they would have commanded here. Our homeland but frankly trying to bluff with the new START Treaty, but from time to time to expose the bluff, you should be ready to go. Manifested in Reykjavik, Ronald Reagan unwillingness to sacrifice applets SDI was later recognized by Russian authorities of cool turning point of the war, which led ultimately to the collapse of the Soviet Union. For what at the moment to go back on their word?

Specifically, in this paradigm Americans should strive to understand the use of nuclear weapons and its present place in the strategic scenario. Many Americans want to believe in the existence of universal values enshrined in the universal fear of nuclear weapons. But the South American values — it is not universal values.

For example, in communist China do not value human life because in America, where everyone mourn fallen soldier. If America is at one point would not be beneficial to China as a partner for trade and investment, and reincarnated as a burden — China does not hesitate to kill an irritant in the face of America.

No true Yankees can not speak in support of such a policy that will leave America completely defenseless against possible aggressors. President Obama seeks to reduce nuclear arsenal U.S. se hour and it states that it is in fact who serves.

Our homeland, almost a century suffered from communist atheism, has no logical reason to allow America to continue to build the world by South American concepts, if it will not have a corresponding nuclear potential. So for what countries that hate America, her suffer if she finishes being strong? Judgments of good will? At the request of the Judeo-Christian ethic?

No, Ronald Reagan was aware that peace can only be achieved by force. When are constant conflicts and turmoil, the only source of true security is the ability to kill a potential enemy, in this case it is necessary that this possibility was clear to all.

In general, the nuclear forces of the Russian Federation in a state of mess, but the modernization of nuclear forces Our homeland ahead of the U.S.. Our homeland makes it more deadly tool. China sharpens its strategic advantages, following the example of the U.S. failure squadron of submarines filled with multifunctional ballistic missiles. Maybe not so long ago America witnessed the first test launch similar missiles, while Obama was sitting warehouse hands and decided to remain silent.

What still makes America? Pokorlivo America agrees to an even greater reduction in their own arsenals, and its available strategic scenarios. America shall be removed from the modernization, namely, the missiles MXC-Peacekeeper, and plunges his own people at the mercy of crumbling, and for many years have not tested Minuteman-III. Obama has openly proposed to deprive the United States share missile warheads, although exactly they were our main means of simultaneous destruction of several locations. If we give up, and from this, our motherland will become the only state possessing such missiles. Our home will be able to knock on many towns of America, and America in response to this will be able to just slap her hands.

One proposal says that Obama is in the power of delusion. Like many leftist radicals in the 1980s, Obama believes that America will be able to survive without nuclear triad, it can disarm a one-sided manner and that nothing wrong will come of it. It seems that in the center of his case to a nuclear weapon is a line from the song under the title of Queen Hammer to Fall: «just give, and it will not hurt."

But the South American postmodern fantasy — it's not what keeps the world. The world is sustained by terror. The world is sustained by force.
Whether America will retain its power?

Like this post? Please share to your friends: