The Very Definition Of Naivete

I have had so much fun beating Senator Obama like a bongo drum today that I figured that I should not stop yet. Senator Obama, thy name is naivete. (Yes, the link is to an AP story, but I will not cite it here.)

Basically, this story is about a roundtable discussion he had at Purdue University today. The subject of the discussion was of his plans to disarm all nations of nuclear weapons within his first term in office. Not only is this simply obtuse on its face, but it is nearly impossible to achieve.

The United States will not give up its nuclear arsenal. It is a deterrent, and Senator Obama should know this. (Of course he does not because he does not believe we need it now, or that we probably never needed it.) Let us face some facts here that I am sure he did not take into account.

First, let us speak of North Korea. While they may (or may not have ended their nuclear program) as John Bolten explained in this timely op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, does he think that Kim Jong-Il will give up the nuclear weapons he claims he possesses?

And what of Iran, which still continues to deny they are working on nuclear weapons. Israel, based on intelligence gathered by Mossad, says that Iran is lying.

Will Russia give up its nuclear deterrent?

With things heating up a little with Pakistan will India give up their nukes? Will Pakistan?

Worse yet, the inexperienced one believes if we adhere to the NPT that regimes like Iran and North Korea will respect that, and abide by them as well. Excuse me senator, but we were abiding by the treaty when both of those nations started up their nucelar programs. So what will make them respect and abide by the treaty this time around, tea and crumpets with you?

What makes Senator Obama believe he can persuade these nations to give up their weapons, or curb the ambitions of nations like Syria? Nuclear non-proliferation should be one of the foremost stances we take as a free nation. It is the way that we have protected ourselves and our allies.

He claims that we are "still fighting the last war" instead of focusing on the threat that are arising today. Senator Obama, please tell us how nations like North Korea and Iran do not figure into your threat assessment given the fact that they have either developed and tested them (North Korea), or they are working towards those ends (Iran). Would it not be prudent to acknowledge and understand that A) Mutual-assured destruction does not influence these nations nuclear policy, and B) that there is no way to convince them to give up such weapons sans use of force.

"Fighting the last war" would mean we have nuclear adversaries out there that are concerned about mutual-assured destruction -- the doctrine that if we are attacked by a nuclear nation with their nukes, we will respond in like kind, and we will both threaten nearly all life on the plant. MAD, as it was called back in the 1980s, was the key deterrent keeping the then-Soviets from striking at us with their arsenal.

Senator Obama has a lot to learn about the world, and especially about why we still have nukes. It is not because we are warmongers, but rather we would like to have the tactical upper hand. Additionally, should nations like Poland, the Czech Republic, or other nations in Eastern Europe (or Western Europe for that matter) are attacked with nuclear weapons, we can annihilate who hit them. The same goes for Israel (though that is unneeded as they have nukes, as well), or Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Japan, etc. Of course, Senator Obama would probably urge us to engage in some sort of conflict resolution should such an attack occur. (After all, this is a man that after the 9/11 attacks urged us to not give into our rage, and "understand" our enemy, and sympathize with their rage instead.)

Senator, you have much to learn, and the presidency does not abide fools who look at the office as some sort of on-the-job training.

Marcie