(Fox) President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Thursday signed a peace treaty to shrink their nation's nuclear arsenals, the biggest pact between the "former" Cold War foes in a generation. The signing took place at Prague, in the Czech Republic. The treaty commits both nations to slash the number of strategic nuclear warheads by one-third and more than halve the number of missiles, submarines, and bombers carrying them.
In a lavish chamber within the Czech capital's presidential castle complex, the two presidents placed their names to history. Consequently, it's not history that's in the best interest of the United States or the Western Hemisphere. The treaty must now be ratified by Russia's parliament and by the U.S. Senate, where the White House lobbying effort is under way. President Obama will be trying to woo Senate Republicans in promoting this treaty. "Today is an important milestone for nuclear security and nonproliferation, and for U.S.-Russia relations." Medvedev hailed the signing as a historic event that would launch a new chapter of "cooperation" between the two countries. The new treaty will shrink the limit of nuclear warheads to 1550 per country over seven years. That still allows for mutual destruction several times over, according to the news report. It's supposedly intended to send a strong signal that Russia and the U.S.--which between them own more than 90% of the world's nuclear weapons--are serious about disarmament. Obama said the treaty sets a foundation for further cuts in nuclear arms. Obama pledged more conversation with Medvedev about missile defense, which was a source of strain between the two countries since Bush backed a nuclear missile defense system early in his presidency. However, President Obama made the decision last fall to scrap the long-range missile defense system that Bush had proposed. Whatever missile defense system Obama supports won't be as effective as the original defense system that Bush backed several years ago.
Many historians will say this is a historic precedence when it comes to nuclear arms reduction. However, this tends to be one-sided. Why doesn't President Obama bring Iran and North Korea to the table and force them to sign a treaty where they can't have a massive buildup of nuclear arms. Who knows how many nuclear weapons that Iran and North Korea presently have built. Russia was our Cold War enemy just short of two decades ago. How can we trust that Russia will abide by it's promise to reduce nuclear warheads? Why in a time when our world is in an upheaval with Islamic terrorism and the threat of Iran and North Korea to launch nuclear warheads are we negotiating a treaty to reduce our nuclear arsenal stockpile? It doensn't make sense. Never before in the history of mankind has these rogue countries had the ability to decimate our world as today. Today's not the time to negotiate treaties reducing nuclear arms. We need to beef up our forces to withstand the onslaught of Islamic terrorism and rogue countries such as Iran and North Korea. Reducing our nuclear stockpile at a time like this will weaken the U.S. if North Korea decides to launch a missile on the shores of the U.S. or anywhere in the Western Hemisphere. This signing of the treaty gives the green light to the world to strike at us. The goal is to promote the policy of nuclear disarmament. The world knows the U.S. will keep its word about reducing the number of nuclear missiles. I can't trust Russia, because Russia has been our enemy before. I'm not certain Russia has changed for the better. There's still comunism in Russia.
Thursday evening I was listening to the Alan Colmes show on radio. Colmes is a talk-show host who once was co-host of "Hannity and Colmes" on Fox News. Colmes is a self-avowed liberal. He was criticizing Republicans such as Sarah Palin who derided Obama's efforts to reduce our nuclear capacity. Colmes was saying they need to recall the attempted negotiations Reagan made with Mikhail Gorbachev. Colmes was repeatedly making reference to former President Ronald Reagan's attempt with Mikhail Gorbachev to negotiate a treaty such as in Iceland, for example to reduce the number of nuclear warheads. My response to Colmes is this: I believe Ronald Reagan was the best president elected in my lifetime. However President Reagan wasn't perfect. I don't place him on a pedastal. I am a supporter of the Constitution and conservative principles. Conservative principles take place over any man. Many Republicans and even talk-show hosts such as Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh have placed Reagan on a pedastal and they'll even go as far ask the question, "What would Reagan do?" Reagan is an iconic figure to today's conservative Republicans. However, Reagan made mistakes throughout his presidency. Posing the question, "What would Reagan do?" in a broad sense is foolish because not all of Reagan's policies were correct. One example was when the U.S. Marines were killed in Lebanon in 1983. Reagan ordered the soldiers to leave the area. I didn't agree with that because I believe there should've been retaliation against those terrorists that attacked our soldiers. Another bad policy example was when Reagan signed the amnesty bill in 1986. It didn't solve the problem with illegal immigration. Reagan didn't close our borders, either. I believe Reagan's attempts to negotiate with Gorbachev in reducing our nuclear arsenal was also wrong. Truth is truth regardless which man is in office. Just because Reagan supported it as president doesn't make it right. Principles should be held to a higher standard than any mortal man.
The policy that the U.S. should have in regards to weapons is the policy of deterrence. We should beef up our forces and remain the strongest country in this world. We should place this world, any dictator, and any terrorist group on notice that we have the weapons to bring them down. If they attempt to strike at the U.S., then the U.S. will bring that country to toast. That's how it should be done. We need to rebuild our nuclear capacity. We need to place a long-range nuclear missile defense shield in Poland to deter any long-range missiles that may be launched from Iran. Russia doesn't like that because Russia does business with Iran. President Reagan even practiced deterrence early in his presidency. He was right about that. America's policy should be peace through strength. We as a country should rebuild our military capacity and become the strongest nation in the world. We also should promote peace if possible. We shouldn't fire a nuclear missile at any country unless all efforts at diplomacy have failed and America's national interests are at stake. However, the world needs to fear the U.S. and know it can't launch a missile at us and not pay a price for us. The signing today tells the world that we're vulnerable and if they were to strike at us today, they won't need to fear the consequences.
No comments:
Post a Comment