WSJ Editorial - Obama's Nuclear Plan
Clipped from the WSJ:
"Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something."
So declared President Obama Sunday in Prague regarding North Korea's missile launch, which America's U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice added was a direct violation of U.N. resolutions. At which point, the Security Council spent hours debating its nonresponse, thus proving to nuclear proliferators everywhere that rules aren't binding, violations won't be punished, and words of warning mean nothing.
Rarely has a Presidential speech been so immediately and transparently divorced from reality as Mr. Obama's in Prague. The President delivered a stirring call to banish nuclear weapons at the very moment that North Korea and Iran are bidding to trigger the greatest proliferation breakout in the nuclear age. Mr. Obama also proposed an elaborate new arms-control regime to reduce nuclear weapons, even as both Pyongyang and Tehran are proving that the world's great powers lack the will to enforce current arms-control treaties.
[snip]
The truth is that Mr. Obama's nuclear vision has reality exactly backward. To the extent that the U.S. has maintained a large and credible nuclear arsenal, it has prevented war, defeated the Soviet Union, shored up our alliances and created an umbrella that persuaded other nations that they don't need a bomb to defend themselves.
The fact is, appeasement and carrots never work. Nor does banning nuclear weapons. Yet these are exactly the two strategies the Obama administration is seeking to use during a dangerous time of nuclear proliferation. Appeasement and carrots have failed with Iran, India, Pakistan, Russia, and 5,409,056 times with N. Korea.
Actually banning weapons has an even more amusing history.
1) The Second Lateran Council under Pope Innocent II in 1139 banned the use of crossbows against Christians.
2) Hague IV, which reaffirmed and updated Hague II (1899), contains the following clauses:
Article 25: The attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations or buildings which are not defended, is prohibited.
Article 26: The Commander of an attacking force, before commencing a bombardment, except in the case of an assault, should do all he can to warn the authorities.
Article 27: In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps should be taken to spare as far as possible edifices devoted to religion, art, science, and charity, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not used at the same time for military purposes.
The besieged should indicate these buildings or places by some particular and visible signs, which should previously be notified to the assailants.
3)the Geneva Convention of 1925 prohibits the use of chemical weapons in combat
etc. etc. I could go on for a long time. The point is that bans dont mean a damn thing - only balancing one threat against another does.
"Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something."
So declared President Obama Sunday in Prague regarding North Korea's missile launch, which America's U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice added was a direct violation of U.N. resolutions. At which point, the Security Council spent hours debating its nonresponse, thus proving to nuclear proliferators everywhere that rules aren't binding, violations won't be punished, and words of warning mean nothing.
Rarely has a Presidential speech been so immediately and transparently divorced from reality as Mr. Obama's in Prague. The President delivered a stirring call to banish nuclear weapons at the very moment that North Korea and Iran are bidding to trigger the greatest proliferation breakout in the nuclear age. Mr. Obama also proposed an elaborate new arms-control regime to reduce nuclear weapons, even as both Pyongyang and Tehran are proving that the world's great powers lack the will to enforce current arms-control treaties.
[snip]
The truth is that Mr. Obama's nuclear vision has reality exactly backward. To the extent that the U.S. has maintained a large and credible nuclear arsenal, it has prevented war, defeated the Soviet Union, shored up our alliances and created an umbrella that persuaded other nations that they don't need a bomb to defend themselves.
The fact is, appeasement and carrots never work. Nor does banning nuclear weapons. Yet these are exactly the two strategies the Obama administration is seeking to use during a dangerous time of nuclear proliferation. Appeasement and carrots have failed with Iran, India, Pakistan, Russia, and 5,409,056 times with N. Korea.
Actually banning weapons has an even more amusing history.
1) The Second Lateran Council under Pope Innocent II in 1139 banned the use of crossbows against Christians.
2) Hague IV, which reaffirmed and updated Hague II (1899), contains the following clauses:
Article 25: The attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations or buildings which are not defended, is prohibited.
Article 26: The Commander of an attacking force, before commencing a bombardment, except in the case of an assault, should do all he can to warn the authorities.
Article 27: In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps should be taken to spare as far as possible edifices devoted to religion, art, science, and charity, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not used at the same time for military purposes.
The besieged should indicate these buildings or places by some particular and visible signs, which should previously be notified to the assailants.
3)the Geneva Convention of 1925 prohibits the use of chemical weapons in combat
etc. etc. I could go on for a long time. The point is that bans dont mean a damn thing - only balancing one threat against another does.
Comments
Post a Comment