Obama defense doctrine means pre-emptive disarmament

An interesting article from http://www.hughhewitt.com/ which talks Barack's nulcear strategy. Note how this is expected to create a shortage of American scientists as Obamacare creates a shortage of doctors. This follows this post Iran's own missle development and this article about the recent news about offshore drilling to encourage American energy independence that follows this previous post about it.. This is a key issue to prevent money from going to hostile countries such as Iran and Venezuela. For more posts like this click here.


Hugh Hewitt: Obama defense doctrine means pre-emptive disarmament
By: Hugh Hewitt Examiner Columnist

President Obama unveiled a radical shift in American military doctrine last week that ought to be known as "the Obama Doctrine: the embrace of unilateral, pre-emptive disarmament."
The new policy was announced in a handful of sentences in the just released "Nuclear Posture Review Report" ("NPR").
The two passages that are genuinely radical and that mark a significant break with all of post-World War II history have not received much attention and deserve underlining and sustained debate, especially in Congress.
The first comes at Page xiv:
"The United States will not develop new nuclear warheads. Life Extension Programs (LEPs) will use only nuclear components based on previously tested designs, and will not support new military missions or provide for new military capabilities." (Emphasis added)
The same position is restated in slightly different form at Page 40 of the NPR, with the unqualified statement that the United States"will not develop new nuclear warheads, and it will be structured so as not to require nuclear testing."
Thus Obama commits his administration to a policy of not producing a new nuclear weapon, no matter how strategic its effect or significant its deterrent value, and no matter what our enemies are doing.
Nuclear weapons will never again, under the Obama doctrine, be used for a new military mission no matter how effective that mission might become via the integration of nuclear weapons or -- and this should be stressed -- even if the deployment of the new weapon or mission might lead to less loss of life rather than more; fewer American casualties rather than more; a quicker end to war rather than a prolonged and devastating campaign.
This isn't a military strategy -- it is a military theology, one founded on the central belief that evolutions in nuclear weapons are always and everywhere evil. If FDR or Truman had embraced the Obama Doctrine, there would have been no Manhattan Project and no end to the war in Japan except for the invasion of the home islands.
If Reagan had begun his tenure in the White House in 1981 with such a pledge, the collapse of the Soviet Union under the stress of attempting to keep up with American innovation in both defensive strategy ("Star Wars") and new generations of ballistic missiles might not have occurred.
The idea of Obama binding America to static technology even as our enemies innovate and expand the capabilities of their nuclear arsenals has not yet sunk in.
No similar pledge would ever be considered vis-a-vis any other military technology, but the president's hard-left understanding of the role of nuclear weapons -- strike that, American nuclear weapons -- is sufficient to power this stunning departure from past practice of all presidents of both parties forward.
The shut-down of all R&D into new generations of nuclear weapons will have deleterious effects beyond Obama's time in office, even if a replacement arrives in 2013 and announces the doctrine's immediate repeal.
This is the sort of knockdown punch that drives scientists and engineers into other fields as they see their area of expertise unilaterally declared by the commander in chief to be not merely useless but somehow destructive of the security of America.
There are reports that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates opposed this part of the NPR. When Gates next appears before Senate and House committees, we have to hope he is questioned closely on the internal debate leading up to the adoption of this policy of pre-emptive disarmament.
There is no precedent for so radical a change in policy with so little public discussion or congressional input since the world entered the nuclear age, and Congress must assert its central role in the design of American defense policy.
Washington Examiner Columnist Hugh Hewitt is a law professor at Chapman University Law School and a nationally syndicated radio talk show host who blogs daily at HughHewitt.com

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Obama-defense-doctrine-means-pre-emptive-disarmament-90572049.html#ixzz0l5z3zN75