Taking the Nuc Out of Nuclear Deterrence

When a colleague asked me last week how I felt about the US-Russia nuclear disarmament treaty, I said I had to read more about it before drawing any conclusions. He didn't seem to comprehend my answer, so I told him that on its face it seemed logical, but I wanted to know what else was at stake, if anything. As I initially understood it, a 30% decrease in US nuclear weapons, of which there are 9,000, and a similar Soviet decrease in an arsenal of 12,000 weapons sounded like a good idea. Of course I was right, as is always the case with Obama, there was more to it. As Krauthammer explained in the linked article, while signing the treaty during the nuclear summit that just ended today, Obama was simultaneously editing the country's Nuclear Posture Review, which had not been amended by any previous president. What did he change? Most glaringly, he changed our posture from one of deterrence to discouragement. Prior to its amendment, the old posture stated that any aggressor nation using any means of aggression "ran the risk of a cataclysmic U.S. nuclear response" that would leave a country's cities in shambles. This policy, whether credible or not after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was understood by our enemies and deterred their use of nuclear weapons. Under Obama's new policy, if an aggressor nation that attacked us with biological or chemical weapons was “in compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),” the U.S. would "not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against it.” As Krauthammer said, "Imagine the scenario: Hundreds of thousands are lying dead in the streets of Boston after a massive anthrax or nerve-gas attack. The president immediately calls in the lawyers to determine whether the attacking state is in compliance with the NPT. If it turns out that the attacker is up to date with its latest IAEA inspections, well, it gets immunity from nuclear retaliation. Our response is then restricted to bullets, bombs, and other conventional munitions." Further, Obama pledged not to develop replacements for outdated nuclear warheads, rendering our nuclear program handicapped and eventually ineffective. How naive and destructive can this man be? Does he really believe that our enemies will forestall their quest for nuclear weapons in favor of using biological or chemical weapons against us as they would no longer fear nuclear retaliation? Obviously, Obama believes there is no provacation worthy of a nuclear response. Of course, no American wants to again witness our use of such destructive weapons, but creating a blanket policy against it weighs heavily against our self preservation.