Fake News: Nuclear posture is sagging

WASHINGTON (April 7) — President Obama released a Nuclear Posture Review Tuesday outlining conditions under which the U.S. might use atomic weapons, and it pointedly omits a central tenet of his predecessor’s policy. No longer would America consider unleashing its nuclear arsenal “just because we felt like it.”

The plan under former president George W. Bush stated that weapons might be employed in response to a conventional attack by a non-nuclear nation or simply, according to one Defense Department official in the previous administration, “if we’re having a bad day and need a little pyrotechnic pick-me-up.”

“What’s the point of having thousands of warheads if you can’t ever use them?” retired general Robert Calvin said. “It’d be like loading up on fireworks for the Fourth of July, and then just sitting around watching the Boston Pops concert on PBS.”

Obama’s new policy says the weapons stockpile represents a “fundamental role” in deterring a nuclear attack on the U.S., as opposed to the Bush strategy in which the bombs played a “critical role”.

“I don’t care if it’s a fundamental role, a critical role or a cinnamon roll, this policy simply represents weakness on our part,” said Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann. “We need to threaten potential adversaries to make sure we get our way on a whole range of issues.”

Bachmann cited currently stalled negotiations on new import treaties with Australia, and tariff issues with India’s software and entertainment industries as two examples where “a little nuclear saber-rattling could go a long way toward making foreign nations see things our way.”

“You don’t want to ship us more kangaroos? Fine. Expect to see a cruise missile headed for the Sydney Opera House by this time tomorrow,” Bachmann said. “Refuse to take those shrieking, high-pitched violin interludes out of Bollywood movie soundtracks, and the Gandhi Center for International Peace in Mumbai is rubble.”

The new Obama posture, which is noticeably more stooped than when he took office a year ago, would not apply to nations that aren’t parties to nonproliferation treaties, such as Iran and North Korea. They can still be blown off the face of the planet at a moment’s notice. But attacks from other countries on the U.S. or its allies, even those that used chemical or biological weapons, would not face an atomic response.

“I’d say it’ll be more of a tit-for-tat scenario,” said Obama’s Undersecretary for Military Weakness and Hesitation Thomas Stern. “If we’re chemically attacked, we might respond with bug spray or a really cheap perfume, like the Faith Hill Eau du Parfum now on sale at Walmart for only $14 a six-pack. If it’s a biological assault, we send in American Idol finalist Andrew Garcia.”

The announcement Tuesday is part of a broader effort by the president to pursue further arms reductions with Russia. Instead of the current scenario in which each side has an estimated 2,200 strategic warheads, Obama has proposed the so-called “one-for-you, one-for-me, two-for-you, two-for-me” principle in which both nations would pool all their weapons, then take turns picking their favorite few.

Observers also believe another option in the president’s pocket would be a game of Scrabble between himself and Russian president Dmitri Medvedev. The winner would then set the terms for all future negotiations. And no fair using those Russian Cyrillic characters like ζ and ∫ and ¶.

“Of course he would reserve the right to use proper names, but only as a final recourse,” Stern said of the president.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: