Feel safer now?

The just concluded nuclear security confab has closed with the agreement to…wait for it…have yet more blathering two years hence. My favorite quotation about this gasfest (fools, don’t they know they’ve contributed to global warming?) is relayed by the Wall Street Journal:

“It’s pretty thin soup,” said Ivan Oelrich, vice president of the Federation of American Scientists and a member of the Fissile Materials Working Group, a nongovernmental group promoting nuclear security.

Well, that’s one man’s opinion, and the FAS is not in my experience a, to quote a term, fair and balanced organization. But he’s right about this result: it’s a big fat zero.

What we have is a group of generally well-behaved nations agreeing to remain well-behaved. And, a not-too fine point, it is not well-behaved nations we need worry about. Or, do we think France or Britain is about to nuke us? Not hardly. It’s not the weapons; it’s who has them.

What’s missing? Anything at all that would enforce any agreement or would be legally binding (not a bad thing for those of us who believe we’re a sovereign nation). Also missing? Addressing the real and actual threats to world peace posed by rogue states like Iran and North Korea. As well as Islamic terrorists around the world who would be the ones most likely to use any loose nukes.

In fairness, it’s hardly a bad thing to have the well-behaved nations reduce their stockpiles of weapons-usable nuclear materials. But it’s nowhere close to sufficient, and it goes back to one essential difference between lefty dreamers like soft-hands* Obama and those of us who have had to work for a living: nuclear weapons are not the problem. It’s who has them that is.

The just-signed arms-reduction treaty with the Russians is a relic of the Cold War, with absolutely zero impact on the risk of a nuclear detonation on our soil. Actually, if anything, when we unilaterally (or bilaterally with Russia) further weaken our nuclear deterrent, we encourage rogue nations and terror groups to acquire nukes. They know, even if Obama doesn’t, that there is no way in hell that our One World “leader” would use nukes. Ever.

_____
*From John Derbyshire’s apt description of Obama: “spoiled-brat soft-hands yuppie narcissist”

Advertisements

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