Obama’s Nuclear Reduction Offer is Bad For America

*  Today’s blog is a little longer than usual, but the topic is critically important to us all.

On June 19, speaking at Berlin’s historic Brandenburg Gate, President Obama offered to reduce the United States’ nuclear arsenal by one-third if Russia does the same. What, you didn’t hear about this? It should have been huge news! But the media barely touched it because they don’t want Americans to know that Obama’s offer would be a very bad deal for the US.


In any event, Russian President Vladimir Putin initially dismissed the offer, but later made a counter-offer. It’s an offer that Putin would love the United States to accept, given that it would further increase Russia’s already significant advantage in total nukes. More on Putin’s counter-offer below.

With Russia, China, North Korea and Iran all making rapid progress toward improving their nuclear capabilities, President Obama continues his quest to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the world, starting of course, with our own. The question is, how many nuclear weapons do we need to keep America safe?

To answer that question, I will summarize the latest analysis from LIGNET (Langley Intelligence Group Network) based in Washington, which is run by former CIA and national security officers. LIGNET is highly respected and its research and analyses are only available by subscription.

President Obama justifies his call for another round of reductions in the number of US nuclear weapons by pointing to a Department of Defense study “Nuclear Employment Strategy of the United States.” The report says that the president has determined that the United States can ensure its own security and the security of its allies while safely enacting a one-third reduction in the nuclear deterrent, from 1,550 warheads to about 1,000.

How does the president know that? There is no way for him to know that. Does he not know that the Russians continue to increase and modernize their nuclear forces? Did he consult with Congress before making this offer? No.

Putin insisted that any new negotiations on further reductions of nuclear weapons had to involve other countries with nuclear weapons besides the United States and Russia. Specifically, Putin is insisting that in exchange for a one-third reduction in long-range nuclear weapons, the US must remove ALL of its nuclear weapons in Europe AND convince Britain and France to reduce or eliminate their nukes as well. Doing so would leave Europe vulnerable or defenseless to a Russian attack. This is totally unacceptable, but with President Obama, you just don’t know what he’ll agree to. Thank goodness the Senate has to approve it!

In 2010, as part of his “Global Zero” initiative, President Obama crafted the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) with Russia. That treaty required both sides to reduce their long-range nuclear weapons from between 1,700-2,200 to 1,550. Obama’s latest proposal would further reduce the agreed-upon New START levels by one-third, from 1,550 strategic nuclear weapons to 1,000-1,100 on each side.

During the Cold War, under President Ronald Reagan, US long-range “strategic” nuclear weapons numbered about 12,000. At the same time, the US also had some 15,000 “tactical” nuclear weapons – those that are deliverable to short and medium ranges.

Beginning with Reagan and through subsequent administrations, the US, through bilateral treaties with Russia, has reduced strategic nuclear weapons from 12,000 to the present New START level of 1,550 warheads, a reduction of 87%. If Obama’s latest initiative succeeds in reducing the number of strategic warheads to 1,000, fewer than 10% of the strategic nuclear weapons the US had under Reagan will remain.

In 1991, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States, as a gesture of friendship under President George H.W. Bush, began unilaterally dismantling its 15,000 tactical nuclear weapons. Today, the US has less than 500 tactical nuclear weapons, with 180 of them deployed in Europe.

In his recent Berlin speech, Obama called on Putin to reduce Russia’s vast tactical nuclear arsenal, but no one except Moscow knows the exact number of Russian tactical nuclear weapons that are in place today. The most common estimate is around 8,000. Again, that compares to less than 500 US tactical weapons. At 8,000 tactical nukes, that gives Russia an advantage over the United States in tactical nuclear weapons of 16-to-1!

President Obama wants to reduce strategic weapons on both sides to about 1,000, but if he fails to negotiate significant reductions in Russian tactical nuclear weapons, this will further increase the huge Russian advantage in total numbers of nuclear weapons. I’ve seen no one in the mainstream media address this critical point.

Never during the Cold War did the Soviet Union achieve such an overall preponderance in nuclear weapons as Russia possesses today. President Obama’s offer to further reduce strategic nuclear weapons is made in the context of an outdated US nuclear weapons program that is not even trying to compete anymore with the ambitious nuclear weapons programs in Russia and China. Plus, most US nuclear weapons are decades-old legacies inherited from the Cold War.

In contrast, Russia has developed new “third generation” nuclear weapons that have no counterparts in the US arsenal, including clean neutron warheads for battlefield use and so-called “Super-EMP” warheads that can generate such a powerful electromagnetic pulse that US strategic forces and critical infrastructures could be paralyzed in a single blow. Next year Russia will build a prototype successor to the SS-18 heavy intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), a class of missile unique to Russia, with each having 10 powerful warheads designed to make a disarming first strike on US missiles.

China too is deploying new nuclear weapons, missiles, and submarines. North Korea, reportedly with Russian help, has developed Super-EMP warheads and in December 2012 successfully tested an intercontinental missile. Pakistan and India are in a rapidly escalating nuclear arms race, oblivious to Obama’s Global Zero plans. Iran, by the Obama administration’s own estimate, will likely develop nuclear weapons in less than a year.

Conclusions (verbatim from LIGNET)

“President Reagan’s Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty is widely regarded as the most successful arms control treaty in history. It eliminated an entire class of nuclear missiles, and started Washington and Moscow down the path of deep reductions in nuclear arms. Reagan achieved the INF Treaty because he developed and deployed in NATO a new class of nuclear missiles, giving him leverage to bargain with Moscow. Historically, negotiating from weakness produces no, or catastrophic, results.

Vladimir Putin implicitly has made President Obama a counter-offer. Moscow may be willing to negotiate further nuclear reductions if Washington persuades its allies — Britain, France and possibly Israel — to reduce or Global Zero [eliminate] their nuclear deterrents; if Washington limits or Global Zeros U.S. and NATO missile defenses; and if Washington limits or Global Zeros high-precision conventional bombs and missiles. Reagan would have viewed such an offer as an invitation to surrender.” [Emphasis added.]

Americans should be outraged at our president! But most don’t know anything about this. At least now you do!! Be sure to share this as widely as possible.

If you are surprised by any of this, watch the documentary 2016: Obama’s America. This film predicted all of this and more – if President Obama was re-elected. You should see it!

Putin Is Cleaning Obama’s Clock

Posted 06-28-2013 4:32 PM by Gary D. Halbert
Filed under: ,