|
|
|
New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject:
Good analysis
usajoe1
7/8/2009 10:43:32 PM
|
By Nile Gardiner, July 7th, 2009
It is hard to fathom what the United States will gain from Barack Obama?s much-hyped agreement with Dmitry Medvedev to further cut America?s nuclear arsenal. Washington and Moscow have agreed in principle a framework to reduce their nukes by about a third, to 1,500 to 1,675 warheads over the next seven years. Even more significantly, the two leaders have pledged to cut their nuclear delivery systems (intercontinental ballistic missiles and long-range bombers for example) to just 500-
1,100 units, a move that works greatly to Russia?s advantage as its force projection is far weaker than the U.S. in this area.
The new deal, which Obama hopes to wrap up with the Kremlin by December, creates a far more level playing field for the Russians, whose strategic conventional weapons capability is greatly outclassed by that of the Americans, and whose deteriorating nuclear weapons stockpile is aging and in decline. The whole agreement makes no sense, and is little more than a vanity exercise for Barack Obama who has ludicrously pledged to carve out a nuclear-free world. Surely a better strategy would be to further build up America?s defences, including a global missile defence shield, rather than cut defence spending and further gut the superpower?s nuclear capability.
At this rate, even Jimmy Carter looks like General Patton compared to the dove-like current U.S. president. Why cut nuclear weapons at a time when rogue regimes such as North Korea and Iran are busy building their own programmes? Does the President seriously believe this move will encourage the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong Il to renounce their nuclear designs? What evidence is there in history that a unilateral policy of disarmament will prompt tyrannical regimes to change their behaviour?
It is also unclear what kind of odious quid pro quo deal Washington will have to sign up to in order move the agreement forward. President Medvedev, who serves as little more than Vladimir Putin?s right hand, has made it abundantly clear that the United States will have to sacrifice any plans for a ?third site? missile defence system in eastern and central Europe for Moscow to sign up to a news arms treaty. This would be a huge betrayal of key U.S. allies Poland and the Czech Republic. No doubt Moscow will also demand the Obama administration give the Russians a bigger say over NATO expansion eastwards, including blocking the entry of Georgia and Ukraine.
By agreeing to a grand bargain with the Medvedev/Putin regime, President Obama has unwisely opened a Pandora?s box of concessions that will only enhance Russia?s hand in its ?Near Abroad?. At the same time, the Obama administration?s naïve approach will strengthen the resolve of America?s enemies such as Iran to aggressively pursue their nuclear ambitions and exploit the weakness of a president who is gravely undercutting American global power in an increasingly dangerous world.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
