Watchmen Missile Defense & Nuclear Proliferation

Comment

Contributor Comment by Roger O'Daniel on July 25, 2012 at 2:22am

The most potent threat is the electromagnetic pulse, created by a high-altitude burst of a synchronized cluster of neutron bombs.  For those who want to learn more about this threat, here is a link to the post on this site:

http://resistance.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-electromagnetic-pulse...

The newest treaty is severely flawed.  There is no distinction defined for tactical versus strategic nuclear weapons.  Tactical nuclear weapons are exempt.  Communist China has no treaty on any kind of arms reduction with anyone.

Comment by Kathleen St on January 16, 2011 at 8:54pm

Dale, I have no experiences like your's to share but am interested in what you can tell us.

Comment by Dale Wells on January 16, 2011 at 8:38pm

My interests are in Asia, particularly North Korea and Japan. I lived in Japan for many years. There is a North Korean sponsored university there and I had the good fortune of teaching English to two of its "professors". This lasted for about one year. With your permission, I would like to post or blog mostly on North Korea, but occasionally on Japan also. If anyone has similar interests or experiences, I would love to hear from you.

Comment by Buck on November 17, 2010 at 3:54pm

I have and will continue to tell my representative and senators to not support this weakening of out superpower status .

Comment by Michelle Stanley VA State Dir on August 19, 2010 at 9:22am

Will Isreal Strike Iran in 48 hours?

Comment by David McVearry Anderson-Colcord on May 29, 2010 at 5:16am

By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
Their flag to April's breeze unfurled.
Here once the embattled farmers stood,
And fired the shot heard round the world.
Ralph Waldo Emerson

On this Memorial Day weekend, may any who knows little of him, consider learning about the challenge that confronted Colonial officer Isaac Davis, and the actions he took when duty compelled him to stir against the British tyrants:
http://blogofcorrespondence.blogspot.com/2009/08/portrait-of-americ...

Be an American Rifleman, and please vote
www.rwva.org

Comment by Lee Prince on December 19, 2009 at 8:26pm

It's actually NOT in Russia's interests long term to work with Iran. They are competitors as oil producers and the Muslims in the 'Stans have been shaking the Russian state for years...going back to WWI. The problem is they think BHusseinO can be rolled and the bad part about it is--he can.

Comment by Laura Alcorn-East Region Coord on December 18, 2009 at 9:01pm

Obama's year-end deadline for Iran to respond to international demands on the nuclear issue or face “tough” sanctions is coming up fast. But China is unable to fit in a meeting in the coming days to discuss the matter. Are they using the Chinese calendar?

Comment by Laura Alcorn-East Region Coord on November 17, 2009 at 4:03pm

Obama said Sunday the US and Russia would have a replacement treaty on reducing nuclear arms ready for approval by year's end, an announcement ending at the summit with Asia-Pacific leaders.

While publicizing progress with Russia on arms control - part of Obama's agenda to advance nuclear disarmament - the president and other leaders bowed to the obvious on climate change. They discussed a compromise agreement for a 192-nation gathering next month in Copenhagen, indirectly admitting that the meeting would not produce a new global treaty to reduce the heat-trapping carbon emissions that are warming the planet.

Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev met on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific summit of APEC nations to announced good progress in negotiations on an updated pact to replace the START nuclear arms agreement that expires on Dec. 5.

Obama said the pair discussed a successor to the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty and described "excellent progress over the last several months." "Medvedev said he hoped negotiators would "finalize the text of the document by December."

Obama and Medvedev agreed in April to reach a new nuclear arms reduction pact to replace and expand upon the one that was signed by former President George H.W. Bush and Soviet leader Michael Gorbachev.

During a July summit in Moscow, Obama and Medvedev further agreed to cut the number of nuclear warheads each nation possesses to between 1,500 and 1,675 within seven years.

U.S. officials say the two nations now have agreed on the broad outlines of a new treaty, which could be signed during Obama's travels to Europe in early December to accept the Nobel Peace Prize.



It still was not clear if Obama would use that same trip to attend the Copenhagen climate summit, given that any agreement reached on cutting greenhouse gas emissions would serve only as an interim, political document.



"There was an assessment by the leaders that it is unrealistic to expect a full internationally, legally binding agreement could be negotiated between now and Copenhagen which starts in 22 days," said Michael Froman, Obama's deputy national security adviser for international economic matters.



The prime minister of Denmark, Lars Loekke Rasmussen, the U.N.-sponsored climate conference's chairman, flew overnight to Singapore to present a proposal shifting the goal of the meeting to a "politically binding" agreement, in hopes of breathing life into the struggling process.



A fully binding legal agreement would be left to a second meeting next year in Mexico City, Froman said.



Obama backed the approach, cautioning the group not to let the "perfect be the enemy of the good," Froman said.



A major bill dealing with energy and climate in the U.S. Senate, a domestic priority of Obama's, is bogged down with scant hope of completion by next month. That would leave Obama little to show in Copenhagen.



During his Asia trip, which continued later Sunday to China, Obama also pushed for continued pressure on Iran and its nuclear program. Appearing with Medvedev, Obama said "we are now running out of time."



"Unfortunately, so far it appears Iran has been unable to say yes," to the proposal on uranium reprocessing, Obama said.



Medvedev continued: "We are prepared to work further and I hope our joint work will reach a positive result. In case we fail, other options remain on the table." He has said further sanctions against Iran were possible if it did not open its nuclear program to inspections to prove it was not trying to build a bomb.



The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council - the U.S., Britain, France, Russia and China - along with Germany have engaged Iran on its nuclear program, most recently with a deal for it to ship enriched uranium to Russia for further processing as fuel for an aging reactor used for medical treatments.



The United States and its allies believe Iran is using it's nuclear program as a cover for building a bomb. Tehran says it only wants to build nuclear reactors to generate electricity.



Obama wrapped his official schedule in Singapore late Sunday afternoon by meeting with Indonesia's Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, president of the world's largest Muslim nation and Obama's home as a boy. Obama said he was excited about the prospect of improving relations with Indonesia and repeated his plan to visit next year.

Comment by Laura Alcorn-East Region Coord on November 13, 2009 at 11:00am

Cut/pasted from the Heritage Foundation

Last month, The Washington Post reported that President Barack Obama had asked senior officials for a province-by-province analysis of Afghanistan “to help determine which regions are being managed effectively by local leaders and which require international help.” He supposedly wanted “the clearest possible understanding of what the challenges are to our forces and what is required to meet the challenges.

Two weeks later the Associated Press reports that President Obama has rejected all of the options presented by his national security team and is now asking for “revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government.”

The White House continues to assert that Obama just needs more time to properly calibrate how to communicate to the Afghan government that it “must improve in a reasonable period of time.” But Obama has been President for ten months now, and his rhetoric during the campaign would tend to suggest that he has been aware for sometime of our struggles in Afghanistan.

The truth is the Pentagon has been scrutinizing the failures of our AfPak strategy for over two years and the new administration has benefited from all the work done before it took the White House. The argument that we need more study, or that half measures will do, is wearing pretty thin. All this news makes it look like the president is shopping for a rationale to justify a commitment that is “politically” acceptable in Washington.

In fact, the ongoing public debate about Afghanistan has already cost the U.S. credibility with its NATO allies and is confusing our regional partners who are starting to hedge their bets and plan for a decreased U.S. commitment to the region. As well-known Pakistan expert Ahmed Rashid commented on October 27th in an article in the National Interest, “Every sign of the United States or NATO dithering over strategy only convinces the Pakistani military about keeping its Taliban option open.”

Yes, the recent flawed Afghan election was a setback to international efforts to stabilize Afghanistan, but as Heritage senior research fellow Lisa Curtis notes: “Part of the reason Karzai’s reputation has suffered is the deteriorating security situation — so it stands to reason that providing additional U.S. troops to reverse Taliban momentum, as Gen. Stanley McChrystal has requested, would also increase the credibility of the Afghan regime. While the Obama administration is right to demand cleaner rule from Karzai, it also must be realistic about the security situation and acknowledge that stemming Taliban advances is vital to U.S. national security interests.”

The Obama administration used to believe that defeating the Taliban was a vital national security interest. It was just this past August when President Obama said: “This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is a — this is fundamental to the defense of our people.”

We need a decision from President Obama, and pretty compelling rationale to support it, soon. Obama’s Afghan strategy should provide U.S. military commanders on the ground with the resources they need to fight a successful counterinsurgency campaign against the Taliban. Depriving our commanders of the resources they require is a recipe for failure.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page