Corker: Further Reduction Of U.S. Nuclear Arsenal Without Modernization First Could Amount To “Unilateral Disarmament”

The Chattanoogan, June 19, 2013 - Responding to President Barack Obama's speech in Berlin signaling further reduction of U.S. nuclear forces, Senator Bob Corker, R-Tn., the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, on Wednesday said any additional limitations of the U.S. nuclear arsenal without first fulfilling commitments to modernization of existing forces could amount to “unilateral disarmament.”  ...(link)


Remarks by President Obama at the Brandenburg Gate: I've determined we can cut 1/3 of nukes.

Excerpts from White House press release- Peace with justice means pursuing the security of a world without nuclear weapons -- no matter how distant that dream may be.  And so, as President, I've strengthened our efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and reduced the number and role of America’s nuclear weapons.  Because of the New START Treaty, we’re on track to cut American and Russian deployed nuclear warheads to their lowest levels since the 1950s.  (Applause.)

But we have more work to do.  So today, I’m announcing additional steps forward.  After a comprehensive review, I’ve determined that we can ensure the security of America and our allies, and maintain a strong and credible strategic deterrent, while reducing our deployed strategic nuclear weapons by up to one-third.  And I intend to seek negotiated cuts with Russia to move beyond Cold War nuclear postures.  (Applause.)

At the same time, we’ll work with our NATO allies to seek bold reductions in U.S. and Russian tactical weapons in Europe.  And we can forge a new international framework for peaceful nuclear power, and reject the nuclear weaponization that North Korea and Iran may be seeking. (link)

My Comment: I supported the last New Start treaty primarily because it was supported by the last six Republican Secretaries of State. I trust them, more than I trust the critics of Start. I also think the World would be a safer place with fewer nuclear weapons. However, along with approval of the last Start treaty, we were supposed to spend up to $85 billion dollars to test and modernize our nuclear arsenal.  Unless that has been done, we should not begin negotiations on further reductions. I'm glad we have Bob Corker as ranking Republican member of the Foreign Relations Committee.

One thing that continues to gall me about President Obama is his arrogance. Instead of saying, "I've determined...," why not say, "We have determined that a reduction of one-third of the ....," or why not say, "The State Department has concluded.." or "in the opinion of our arms control experts..."

There is a difference between self confidence and arrogance.  Obama is arrogant. "I've determined" sounds like the statement of an emperor.

Top Stories

Toward a Nuclear-Free World

By GEORGE P. SHULTZ, WILLIAM J. PERRY, HENRY A. KISSINGER and SAM NUNNJanuary 15, 2008; Page A13, Wall Street Journal (link)

The accelerating spread of nuclear weapons, nuclear know-how and nuclear material has brought us to a nuclear tipping point. We face a very real possibility that the deadliest weapons ever invented could fall into dangerous hands.
The steps we are taking now to address these threats are not adequate to the danger. With nuclear weapons more widely available, deterrence is decreasingly effective and increasingly hazardous.

One year ago, in an essay in this paper, we called for a global effort to reduce reliance on nuclear weapons, to prevent their spread into potentially dangerous hands, and ultimately to end them as a threat to the world. The interest, momentum and growing political space that has been created to address these issues over the past year has been extraordinary, with strong positive responses from people all over the world.

Commentary: It is time for worldwide nuclear disarmament. It is time to sit in place mechanism that assure nuclear weapons do not fall into the wrong hands. Times have changed. The Soviet threat is over. It is time to make nuclear disarmament a goal and a priority.

Many, especially those on the right, will resist the effort to disarm. Unfortunately people get locked into a position and do not change their position despite changes in circumstances. During the cold war, we needed to insure that we had parity if not supremacy in the nuclear arms race. We had to be armed to keep the peace. At times, a nuclear build-up was even necessary so we could have a bargaining chip to advance further nuclear arms control. We could not afford to be weak or be in second place.

The Nuclear Freeze movement was naïve. Some of those advocating unilateral nuclear disarmament may have been disloyal and had objectives of advancing the cause of our enemies. Unilateral disarmament would have been folly and would have assured America’s destructions. Mutual arms reduction agreements without verification would have been irresponsible and foolish. However, that was then and this in now. In a war against modern terrorist, the logic of Mutual Assured Destruction does not apply.

Those who only became politically aware since the end of the cold war or who were not paying attention, may not be aware of how close we came to the horror of nuclear annihilation. While the threat is different than at the height of the cold war, the threat of nuclear war is still real. The new nuclear threat is that terrorist or rouge states can get and use nuclear weapons. While we remain the only super power, we should do all we can now to remove the threat of nuclear war.

The people who authored this call to disarm are hard-nosed realist and old cold warriors. Kissenger, Shultz and Sam Nunn are not moonbeam, starry-eyed leftist, or Hollywood airheads. You do not have to be an old hippie humming “Imagine” to see the logic of freeing the World of Nuclear weapons. When Reagan was president he called for "the total elimination one day of nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth." That day should be today.

Top Stories

But, Everyone Thought Saddam Had Nuclear Weapons

Bush loyalist continue to insist that despite not finding any nuclear weapons in Iraq, that absolutely everyone who had adequate knowledge to have an informed opinion had concluded that Iraq had nuclear weapons. The argument is that we can’t blame Bush for being wrong; everyone else was wrong also.

“Why did Clinton three times cite the nuclear danger of Iraq in his December 1998 speech?” a fellow group member on a discussion site to which I belong asked in a recent exchange. “The Clinton and Bush Administration had exactly the same basic intelligence estimate regarding Iraq.” Statements from Al Gore, Sandy Berger, Hillary Clinton, Madeline Albright, John Kerry, and numerous others will be quoted to justify Bush’s decision to go to war with Iraq.

But what the Bush loyalists choose to ignore is the time factor. At one point in time, the Clinton Administration did conclude Saddam probably was reconstituting his weapons program. They did believe he was a threat. And, I think Bush was correct to apply pressure on Saddam, forcing him to allow the IAEC inspectors back in the country. But then, Bush ignored what they found. But by the time Bush led us to war, the inspectors had been back in the country and the IAEC testified they could find no trace of nuclear weapons.

By the time Bush decided to go to war, there was ample reason to believe Iraq did not have nuclear weapons. The important issue facing us now, is how to get out of Iraq, not how we got in. Nevertheless, the truth should be told, from time to time, simply so it is not forgotten. And maybe, by acknowledging our mistakes we will be less likely to repeat them. If told that an event occurred a certain way often enough, then overtime it is easy to forget what really happened.

In the March 7, 2003 presentation to the U.N. Security Council on the progress of the inspection effort in Iraq, Agency Director General Mohamed of The International Atomic Energy Commission stated that the IAEA had conducted a total of 218 nuclear inspections at 141 sites, including 21 that have not been inspected before. These inspections were not only visual inspections but analysis of sediment and air and soil samples. In addition to the sites, 75 facilities such as military bases and storage facilities had been inspected. They also interviewed scientist and technicians with knowledge of nuclear development. The IAEA director stated that Iraq had been forthcoming in its cooperation.

He said that as of that date “there is no indication of resumed nuclear activities” and that “ there is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import uranium since 1990”. Also. “no indication that Iraq has attempted to import aluminum tubes for use in centrifuge enrichment.”
And finally, “no indication to date that Iraq imported magnets for use in centrifuge enrichment program.”

Don’t accept it when a Bush apologist says, “Everyone thought Saddam had Nuclear Weapons”. For the full transcript of the March 7th IAEC report, see the following link:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/07/sprj.irq.un.transcript.elbaradei/

Top Stories