Charles Krauthammer is undeniably the leading anti-Obama commentator. From his perch on the “All-Star Panel” on Fox News Channel’s “Special Report with Bret Baier,” other FNC appearances (The O’Reilly Factor, for instance), and his syndicated column, Mr. Krauthammer frequently takes down Obama and his minions with the rhetorical force of an atomic weapon.
National Review had him on its cover. Newsmax has called Krauthammer “the top intellectual critic of President Barack Obama.” Conservatives everywhere cheer every time he takes Obama down.
This week’s syndicated column is one of those instances.
Titled “The irrelevance of START,” the column goes in-depth as to why the new START treaty is a completely worthless and potentially harmful agreement.
Below is a preview, but you can read the rest here.
It’s a lame-duck session. Time is running out. Unemployment is high, the economy is dangerously weak and, with five weeks to go, no one knows what tax anyone will be paying on everything from income to dividends to death when the current rates expire Jan. 1. And what is the president demanding that Congress pass as “a top priority”? To what did he devote his latest weekly radio address? Ratification of his New START treaty.
Good grief. Even among national security concerns, New START is way down at the bottom of the list. From the naval treaties of the 1920s to this day, arms control has oscillated between mere symbolism at its best to major harm at its worst, with general uselessness being the norm.
The reason is obvious. The problem is never the weapon; it is the nature of the regime controlling the weapon. That’s why no one stays up nights worrying about British nukes, while everyone worries about Iranian nukes.
In Soviet days, arms control at least could be justified as giving us something to talk about when there was nothing else to talk about, symbolically relieving tensions between mortal enemies. It could be argued that it at least had a soporific and therapeutic effect in the age of “the balance of terror.”
But in post-Soviet days? The Russians are no longer an existential threat. A nuclear exchange between Washington and Moscow is inconceivable. What difference does it make how many nukes Russia builds? If they want to spend themselves into penury creating a bloated nuclear arsenal, be our guest.
President Obama insists that New START is important as a step toward his dream of a nuclear-free world. Where does one begin? A world without nukes would be the ultimate nightmare. We voluntarily disarm while the world’s rogues and psychopaths develop nukes in secret. Just last week we found out about a hidden, unknown, highly advanced North Korean uranium enrichment facility. An ostensibly nuclear-free world would place these weapons in the hands of radical regimes that would not hesitate to use them – against a civilized world that would have given up its deterrent.
Moreover, Obama’s idea that the great powers must reduce their weapons to set a moral example for the rest of the world to disarm is simply childish. Does anyone seriously believe that the mullahs in Iran or the thugs in Pyongyang will in any way be deflected from their pursuit of nukes by a reduction in the U.S. arsenal?
Charles Krauthammer is completely right. Obama is so utterly naive to believe in “a world without nuclear weapons.” I can understand why hippies and peaceniks favor complete unilateral nuclear disarmament. They are either stoned druggies or mental midgets. But a U.S. President? I hope this “no nukes” talk is just another of Obama’s rhetorical flourishes.
We all wish nukes didn’t exist, but they do, and it is the responsibility of powerful nations to make sure that whackjobs like Kim Jong-Il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad don’t get them, or at least can’t threaten the whole world with them. That’s where nuclear deterrence comes in. Because the U.S., U.K., and other responsible nations have nukes, the bad guys (hopefully) won’t use them. Unilateral disarmament would be a disaster, inviting all kinds of scum to stock up on nukes. START isn’t much better.