- The Washington Times - Tuesday, April 14, 2009


When it comes to security policy, it seems everyone wants to be a “realist” these days. If that term has any meaning, though, President Obama's nuclear weapons and missile defense policies certainly would not qualify.

To the contrary, these examples of what some call “progressive realism” constitute a near-parody of the ideologically driven disarmament agenda of the radical left. If the implications were not so serious, the discrepancy between Mr. Obama's plans and real-world conditions would be hilarious.

Take, for example, Mr. Obama's announced intention to rid the planet of nuclear weapons. The truth is, no matter how many world leaders, elder statesmen and others champion that goal, it won't happen. The associated technology is too widely available, the strategic value of nuclear weapons is too great and the possibilities of concealment in closed societies are too immutable for all nations to forgo the temptation to retain covert arsenals.

There is only one country on Earth that Team Obama can absolutely, positively denuclearize: ours. To be sure, the president professes his realism by emphasizing that, even as he declares a goal of no nukes, it is unlikely to be achieved anytime soon. Still, the cumulative effect of his nuclear agenda would be to advance inexorably the denuclearization of the United States.

This is how Mr. Obama's defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, described our nuclear posture before last fall's election: “Currently, the United States is the only declared nuclear power that is neither modernizing its nuclear arsenal nor has the capability to produce a new nuclear warhead.” By contrast, he noted, “China and Russia have embarked on an ambitious path to design and field new weapons.” Even “the United Kingdom and France have programs to maintain their deterrent capabilities.” In fact, every other actual nuclear power and wannabe is building up as we are going out of the business.

Mr. Obama not only refuses to modernize our deterrent and establish the capability to produce new warheads. His administration is doing nothing to slow, let alone reverse, the steady decline of the infrastructure - both human and physical - required to maintain the nuclear weapons upon which we currently rely.

In addition, Mr. Obama insists the United States must become a party to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty - an accord a majority of the U.S. Senate rejected 10 years ago on the grounds it was unverifiable and inconsistent with the nation's need to maintain a safe, reliable and therefore credible nuclear deterrent. Such a reversal would effectively and permanently preclude underground tests of the American arsenal, condemning it to assured obsolescence and evaporating credibility.

Far from reducing the global proliferation of nuclear weaponry, the decline of confidence in America's deterrent is likely to exacerbate that trend. As the bipartisan Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States put it in an interim report in December: “Our nonproliferation strategy will continue to depend upon U.S. extended deterrence strategy as one of its pillars. Our military capabilities, both nuclear and conventional, underwrite U.S. security guarantees to our allies, without which many of them would feel enormous pressures to create their own nuclear arsenals. … The U.S. deterrent must be both visible and credible, not only to our possible adversaries, but to our allies as well.”

Ironically, these acts of U.S. self-restraint in the interest of setting an “example” for the rest of the world are quintessential progressive realism - which reflexively asserts that America must stop doing things in its self-defense that, in light of world conditions and hard experience, are perfectly sensible, all in the hope that the rest of the world will behave in ways history suggests are not in the cards.

An even more dramatic example of this vaulting unrealism is the Obama administration's response to the growing threat of ballistic missiles in the hands of actual and potential U.S. adversaries. The Russians and Chinese are perfecting new generations of advanced missiles, including some designed to defeat defenses and destroy carrier battle groups.

Meanwhile, the Iranians and North Koreans are testing ever-longer-range “space-launch vehicles” and other ballistic missiles, apparently with a view to being able to execute strategic electro-magnetic-pulse (EMP) attacks against the United States. (For a vivid insight into the horror such an attack would inflict on our society, see the best-selling new novel by William R. Forstchen, “One Second After.”)

Incredibly, Team Obama thinks the way to address this grave and growing danger is to cut billions from our anti-missile defense programs - especially those designed to protect our homeland against EMP and other attacks; forgo deployment in Europe of missile-defense radars and interceptors as NATO has twice agreed to do; and resuscitate preposterously outdated Cold War notions of U.S.-Russian “stability” by imposing new bilateral restrictions on defenses. The only realistic prognosis from such a U.S. approach would be more threatening missiles around the world and fewer American capabilities to defeat them.

American security policy needs to be rooted in realism, all right, but that should be in the sense of what might be called “conservative realism” - in accordance with which the United States needs to equip itself and behave in light of the way the world really is, not on the basis of some fantasy about how it might be if only we disarmed.

Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy.

Sign up for Daily Opinion Newsletter

Manage Newsletters

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide