Put down your Weapons and We’ll all be Friends

The walk-on-water president, who made health care better and more affordable, is now making good on his promise to rid the world of nuclear weapons.

If you believe the former than you should have no trouble believing that his Kodak moment in Prague today, where he signed a new arms limitation agreement with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, is a step in the right direction.  If not, you have a right, no, an obligation to be skeptical. 

It’s been a busy week.  On Tuesday, the Obama Administration announced that it will limit the circumstances under which we will use our nukes.  If a country has signed onto the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty and lived up to those obligations, it can attack us with chemical or biological weapons, even launch a crippling cyber attack that brings us to our knees, and we will not go for the big guns.

Let me put this in perspective:  You are alone in a dark alley when you are confronted by a knife-welding desperado intent on removing you wallet and maybe your head.  All you have on you is your trusty .45.   But this poor sap doesn’t have a gun.  How unfair!  The injustice of it all!

In a gesture of friendship, you put down your trusty handgun and hold out your arms.  The thug is overcome by your act of generosity, tosses the knife and collapses into your warm embrace.  Hug, hug; kiss, kiss!

In your dreams!   Welcome to Obamatopia.

The U.S. doesn’t use chemical or biological weapons.  We ended our production of these weapons in 1969.  In 1975, the U.S. ratified both the 1925 Geneva Protocol and the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention — these are international treaties outlawing biological warfare.  The United States renounced chemical weapons in 1997 and destruction of stockpiled weapons is still ongoing.

Why, then would the Obama Administration release a statement that ties our hands in the event of such an attack against our country.  It is patently naive and really dumb.

To be sure, the nuclear weapons in our arsenal are meant as a deterrent and, hopefully, we will never have to use them.   However, until we have a fully deployed, fully functional missile defense system that can – with 100 percent accuracy – knock down an incoming missile armed with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons before it enters our atmosphere, these weapons are our only real deterrent.

This latest announcement should be viewed as it is – an act of desperation by the Obama administration to get Iran and North Korea to submit to international demands.  It has as much of a chance of getting these two rogue nations to come to the table as anything else it has tried.  How many times can you threaten Kim Jong-il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and not deliver on the threats?  Can he send them to bed without supper or cut off their allowance?  Oooh!

Unfortunately, the treaty Obama just signed with Medvedev today in Prague is another act of desperation.  Obama has failed at national diplomacy.  He is increasingly viewed as weak.  He needed a win, and desperate people do desperate things.  Bottom line: Obama wanted this treaty a heck of a lot more than the Russians and they exploited that in the negotiations.

What is it really worth anyway?

The Russia also signed onto the Biological Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention but did not live up to the terms of these agreements or the verification requirements.  Why should we trust the Russians now?   In 2008, the country declared an arsenal of 28,000 tons of chemical weapons, presumably to lure us into giving them more of our money to destroy them.
Currently, Russia possesses the largest stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in the world and, in the new START treaty agreement with Obama, it wants to limit our deployment of missile defense.

The Obama Administration (If you are satisfied with your doctor, you can keep him) says it isn’t so but the Russians have a different opinion, and that is just the beginning of this treaty’s problems.

Fortunately, the new treaty will have to be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate before it is binding.  Unfortunately, Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the committee, who swoons at the very mention of an international treaty, has already indicated he will sign on.  Hopefully, the other defense-minded senators will be a lot tougher or we soon will lose our ability to defend this nation and our allies.

Put down your weapons  and we’ll all be friends.  Hug, hug; kiss, kiss!  It’s a siren song and a prescription for disaster.

5 thoughts on “Put down your Weapons and We’ll all be Friends

  1. Well said Jane. When guns (or nukes or WMD’s) are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns (or nukes or WMD’s).

    If the liberal administration in Washington is not going to provide for the security of the nation, I don’t know what we need them for.


  2. I believe this is a proposed treaty which means it has to be ratified by 3/4 of the Senate. Get on the phone, folks and start letting your Republcan senators know how you feel about this because they hold the key to the vote! There are only 58 Democrats which falls way short without the Republican vote.


  3. My apologies for the late thoughts. One thing that the “peace in our time” crowd miss is the millenniums long development of Just War Theory. I tend to appeal to Augustine of Hippo or Thomas Aquinas but appeal can also be made to Aristotle (if you don’t want to use Catholic theologians). Just War Theory defines the when war can be legitimately fought and how it can be fought. An interesting side effect is the idea that if there is ever an excuse for a “just” war, even one, then there is also such a thing as an unjust peace. To not go to war when the criteria for a just war is met is just as evil as going to war without just cause. An example: you and friends are walking down a street and a man with a knife chases a woman in the street and starts stabbing her. You pull your gun (now the questions); do you have to consult with your friends before you use deadly force to defend the victim? If they say you may not use force, are you blameless in her death by not using the gun in accord with their wishes? If they say use force but they are wrong, are you blameless in the injury or death of the apparent assailant if you use force with their concurrence? Are you free of guilt by choosing to not go armed just so you won’t be faced with this problem or are you simply a coward? In the grown up world, choices are not often easy so it is necessary for each adult to develop a moral and ethical strength that will enable them to face the difficult choices. Interestingly enough, if you follow a solid code of ethics and morals, dilemmas rarely appear and are usually quickly resolved. Peace through superior firepower is a well proven part of military and diplomatic strategy. Sun Tsu knew this, as did Machiavelli, the Alexander and all the great military and state leaders. A weak state can not negotiate anything except, perhaps, the date of its own death. A strong state, even in defeat can often survive. Just war is for the morally strong; capitulation is for cowards. I fear we have cowards in our government.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s