TO ARIZONA REPUBLICAN LEADERS.................
The announcement April 5th that the president wished to change the rules of nuclear containment could have chilling impact for not only for American security but for the rest of the world.
Further evidence that President Obama clearly does not understand either the value of American nuclear deterrent or our Super Power role . It will be interesting to hear the reaction of our Arizona democrat members of the the US Congress to this radical new direction in American security policy.
Bruce Ash
National Committeeman
WHAT 2 WATCH 4:OBAMA WANTS TO DISARM AMERICA'S NUCLEAR DETERRENT
As He Unveils His Nuclear Posture Review, Will Obama Sacrifice National Security By Ignoring Pentagon And Military Experts?
__________ ______________________________________________________________
View This Research Briefing At GOP.com
Follow RNC Research on Twitter
Learn More in our "Stomping Grounds" Blog
OBAMA MAY USE NUCLEAR POSTURE REVIEW TO SLASH NUCLEAR DETERRENT
Pentagon Officials Worried Obama's Nuclear Cuts "May Be Going Too Far." "The Pentagon has stressed the importance of continued U.S. deterrence, an objective Obama has said he agrees with. But a senior Defense official acknowledged in an interview that some officials are concerned that the administration may be going too far." (Paul Richter, "Obama's Nuclear-Free Vision Mired In Debate," The Los Angeles Times, 1/4/10)
As Senior Administration Official Says Nuclear Posture Review Will Bring "Dramatic Reductions" To US Nuclear Arsenal. "A senior administration official said last month that President Barack Obama planned 'dramatic reductions' in the country's arsenal of nuclear weapons as part of his administration's sweeping review." ("US To Release Nuclear Strategy Tuesday," Agence France Presse, 4/5/10)
Arsenal Reductions Could Be "Destabilizing At A Time When Russia, China, And Other Nations Are Modernizing Their Inventories Of Nuclear Weapons." "Many [current and former commanders, top officials, and leading specialists] also express fear that reducing the arsenal too much will be destabilizing at a time when Russia, China, and other nations are modernizing their inventories of nuclear weapons and the United States is not." (Bryan Bender, "Obama Presses Review Of Nuclear Strategy," The Boston Globe, 1/3/10)
Czech Ambassador Says Nuclear Posture Review Could "Embolden Other Nuclear-Armed Powers." "'A country like ours, with a very special experience with its own history, we are maybe more cautious than some other countries,' said Petr Kolar, the Czech ambassador, referring to past Soviet domination... Kolar said big policy changes such as promising not to use nuclear weapons first in a crisis could embolden other nuclear-armed powers. 'My personal perspective is . . . we shouldn't actually lose the instruments we so far have,' he said. 'What's the change that would be gained by that?'" (Mary Beth Sheridan And Walter Pincus, "Obama Must Decide Degree To Which U.S. Swears Off Nuclear Weapons," The Washington Post, 3/6/10)
WHICH WOULD REMOVE IMPORTANT PROGRAM
DESIGNED TO COUNTER THREATS FROM ROGUE REGIMES
Obama Will Call For End To "Bunker Buster" Nuclear Weapons. "It will also 'point to a greater role for conventional weapons in deterrence' and rule out the need to develop low-yield 'bunker-buster' nuclear weapons for penetrating underground targets, said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity." ("US To Release Nuclear Strategy Tuesday," AFP, 4/5/10)
Designed Specifically To Destroy Underground Bunkers In Iran, North Korea Or Syria. "In comparison, the previous nuclear review, completed under President George W. Bush, called for new nuclear weapons to destroy underground bunkers, including those that might hold unconventional weapons, in Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria and Libya." (Thom Shanker and Eric Scmitt, "U.S. To Make Stopping Nuclear Terror Key Aim," The New York Times, 12/18/09)
Obama Thinks No New Nuclear Weapons Is Best For The Country. "While Mr. Obama ended financing last year for a new nuclear warhead sought by the Bush administration, the new strategy goes further. It commits Mr. Obama to developing no new nuclear weapons, including a low-yield, deeply-burrowing nuclear warhead that the Pentagon sought to strike buried targets, like the nuclear facilities in North Korea and Iran." (David E. Sanger and Thom Shanker, "White House Is Rethinking Nuclear Policy," The New York Times, 2/28/10)
CALLING FOR BAN ON FUTURE WEAPONS TESTS
Six Former Defense Secretaries Say Would Undermine Nuclear Deterrent. "We believe these considerations render a permanent, zero-yield Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty incompatible with the nation's international commitments and vital security interests and believe it does not deserve the Senate's advice and consent. Accordingly, we respectfully urge you and your colleagues to preserve the right of this nation to conduct nuclear tests necessary to the future of our nuclear deterrent by rejecting approval of the present CTBT." (James R. Schlesinger, et-al, Letter To Sens Lott And Daschle, 10/6/99)
Obama's Sec. Of Defense Gates Says No Way To Maintain Credible Deterrent Without Testing Future Weapons.
"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. The United Kingdom and France have programs to maintain their deterrent capabilities. China and Russia have embarked on ambitious paths to design and field new weapons. To be blunt, there is absolutely no way we can maintain a credible deterrent and reduce the number of weapons in our stockpile without either resorting to testing our stockpile or pursuing a modernization program." (Sec. Robert Gates, Speech To Carnegie Endowment For International Peace, Washington, DC, 10/28/08)
Former National Security Officials Say Test Ban Treaty Would Undermine Nuclear Deterrent.
"For the U.S. deterrent to be credible, the Nation must retain an arsenal comprising modern, safe and reliable nuclear weapons, and the scientific and industrial base necessary to ensure the availability of such weapons over the long-term. In our professional judgment, the zero-yield Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is incompatible with these requirements and, therefore, is inconsistent with America's national security interests." (Richard V. Allen, et al, Letter To Sen. Lott, 9/9/99)
IGNORING NUCLEAR SCIENTISTS BY ELIMINATING ABILITY TO IMPROVE AND CREATE FUTURE WEAPONS SYSTEMS
Former Secretary of Defense Weinberger Says Testing Only Way To Assure Nuclear Deterrent. "Mr. Chairman, the essence of this question seems to me to come down to, if we need nuclear weapons, we have to know that they work. That is the essence of their deterrence. If there is uncertainty about that, the deterrent capability is weakened. The only assurance that you have that they will work is to test them, and the only way to test them is the most effective way to test them...." (Caspar Weinberger, Committee On Foreign Relations, Senate, Testimony, 10/7/99)
Nuclear Weapons Scientists Say Current Programs Unable To Ensure Viability Of "Aging" Nuclear Weapons.
"In a challenge to the White House, the nation's nuclear weapons laboratories have warned Congress that federal programs to extend the life of the nation's aging nuclear arsenal are insufficient to guarantee the viability of the weapons for decades to come." (William Broad, "Nuclear Labs Raise Doubts Over Viability Of Arsenals", The New York Times, 3/26/2010)
And Say Obama Administration "Downplayed" Risks In Maintaining Arsenal.
"The directors of three national laboratories are warning that the unclassified version of a scientific report the Obama administration released last year downplayed the risk and complexity involved in trying to maintain the nation's nuclear arsenal without building newly designed weapons systems or warheads." (Jen Dimascio and Josh Gerstein, "Lab Chiefs Share Nuke Safety Doubts", Politico, 3/25/2010)
In Absence Of New Weapons, Annual Certification Process Will Create Uncertainties In Nuclear Weapon Reliability.
"In the absence of new weapons production and underground nuclear testing, the strategy for sustaining confidence in the future is based on the Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP) and the Annual Certification Process (ACP). Over the long run, this strategy poses significant technical challenges. Aging and unavoidable changes are already introducing uncertainties regarding component and system performance." (Harold M. Agnew, Et al, "FY 2000 Report to Congress," Panel to Assess the Reliability, Safety, and Security of the United States Nuclear Stockpile, 2/1/01)
As Current Strategy "Poses Significant Technical Challenges" Already Impacting Performance.
"In the absence of new weapons production and underground nuclear testing, the strategy for sustaining confidence in the future is based on the Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP) and the Annual Certification Process (ACP). Over the long run, this strategy poses significant technical challenges. Aging and unavoidable changes are al ready introducing uncertainties regarding component and system performance." (Harold M. Agnew, Et al, "FY 2000 Report to Congress," Panel to Assess the Reliability, Safety, and Security of the United States Nuclear Stockpile, 2/1/01)
No comments:
Post a Comment