Why Pray for the President?

Why pray for the president?

In the last few days, we have seen:

• War in Gaza
  
• A North Korean general on TV threatening the South
  
• Rumors of Somali terrorists in the US trying to disrupt the inauguration
  
• Hugo Chavez talking about Obama's "stench" (seriously, this guy should be a comedian, with oil now trading in the $30s, he may be due for a new career soon)
  
• Someone claiming to be Osama bin Laden releases a tape threatening Obama (I think OBL is dead, but the threat of al-Qaeda remains)
  
• Iranian rent a mobs setting fire to pictures of Obama and signing up for martyrdom operations
  
• Rumors that Saudis are in talks with Pakistan to buy nuclear weapons to counteract the threat of Iran's nuclear program (this has been floating around for years)
  
• The UK threatening to nationalize its banks.

And let's not forget the day after Obama's election, the Russians announced they were moving nuclear missiles to Kalingrad and the ongoing economic crisis.

Why does ANYONE want this job?

My personal safety and prosperity depends much upon what that one man does (too much on one man under my philosophy, but that is a discussion for another day). And he bears a heavy burden. So I pray for him.

US Removes Last Nuclear Weapons from the UK

For some time I have been advocating that our government remove our last nuclear weapons from Europe. One problem though is that it is difficult to determine exactly how many US weapons remain on the continent.

I recently came across this on the blog of the Federation of American Scientists. It is a blog post from July noting that the last US nuclear warheads in the UK have been removed. However, the post notes that the US is doing much of this in secrecy. With those weapons removed, the question now is how many remain? Why the secrecy? As noted by the commenters, NATO is missing a big opening to engage the Russians. And if engaging the Russians is not enough, why not make a big deal about the reductions for PR purposes?

T^he remaining number of US nuclear weapons in Europe is somewhat small and many seem to be housed on allied bases. I assume that those weapons are stationed under the Cold War era agreement between the US and our allies to have nuclear weapons available for them in case of war with Russia. That concern is obsolete, so why keep them there, especially as nuclear weapons require upkeep and security, money that can better be spent addressing other security concerns.

The author of the FAS article wonders if part of the problem is that the US thinks everything involving nuclear weapons must be secret. Yet, with enough digging, he was able from public sources to, with much difficulty, determine the fate of the weapons. I wonder if the real issue is that European governments fear the US is "leaving" Europe. Yes, there are old emotional, military and economic ties between the US and Europe, but since the end of the Cold War, those ties have been fraying. As the United States becomes more Latino and Asian and the history of European immigration becomes a distant memory, I think the US will look to the south and the Pacific, not the Atlantic. And once US forces leave Europe, I doubt they will ever go back there again. For Europeans, that cannot be a good result, as that means they will have to spend more on their security.

Granted, I think it is time we removed the last of our troops there — given that the USSR is no more. I do not see Russia as a threat to the United States, unless we make her one. NATO policy made sense in that the USSR was a threat to the US. It was, however, primarily an ideological treat, so it made sense to say to Europe we have so many troops here that if the Soviets attack, we are in it from the beginning, I have trouble seeing that relevant today.

I hope this will be something the Obama administration will address. He can start by removing the last US warheads from the continent.

Nuclear Decline?

Is the Department of Defense worried about our aging nuclear arsenal? This report argues Secretary Gates is.

The nature of the world has changed since the end of the Cold War. For example, there no longer remains a justification for keeping nuclear weapons in Europe. With Iran I am an advocate of the "Godfather" strategy. Think about the "peace conference" scene in the original Godfather. Don Corleone says that he will make peace, but he needs to make arrangements to get his son Michael home from his Sicilian exile. Corleone says that he is a superstitious man, and that if Michael is "hit by a bolt of lightening" he will blame some of the people in the room.

Our policy with Iran should be similar Yes I agree, try to cut off imports of items which can be used for their nuclear program, but otherwise explain the Godfather strategy. Make it clear that if Hamas or some other group gets hold of a nuclear weapon, we may blame Iran. This hopefully will motivate them to make sure no one decides to freelance nuclear strategy.

Obama says "No Nukes"

Barack Obama is now making his move by calling for a nuclear free world. Obama proposes that the United States enter into discussions to ban all nuclear weapons and prevent others from acquiring them.

It sounds nice, but the nuclear genie is long since out of the bottle. Hence, total disarmament is impossible and considering the nasties out there, I think undesirable. But what might be achievable is to a post-Cold War system of all the nuclear powers (the US, UK, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan and Israel) to limit total yields, with a verification mechanism (trust but verify are great words to live by).

If Obama wants to do propose something to make people take notice, an idea would be to propose decommissioning the remaining 300 US warheads in Europe. But as I am a Republican, I doubt he will take my advice.

Could we be seeing President Obama?

While Clinton is ahead comfortably in the national polls, the polls in Iowa show a close race between Obama, Clinton and John Edwards. The Iowa caucus is very early this year. Furthermore, as a caucus, depth of support is just as important as breath -- it does not matter if 90% of the people want Clinton if the 10% that wants Obama are the only people willing to show up and stand around a gym on a cold January night. Obama has shown that he excites people, so that may be the advantage for him.

A Nuclear Free Europe?

Without fanfare, the US military has reduced its European based nuclear stockpile to about 300 warheads down from about 7000. Maybe it is time to remove the remaining ones. Most of the remaining US warheads are not for US use, but actually there pursuant to agreements with NATO countries for their use in time of war (the stockpile at Ramstein, which has been removed, was there for use by the Germans). After WWII, besides France and Britain, other NATO countries were working on nuclear weapons and this was a way to keep them from developing the weapons.

Britain developed their program as a way of holding onto superpower status. France developed their out of concerns that the US would tire of its NATO security obligations and leave Europe -- they wanted a force that could if not destroy the USSR, make it too expensive for the Soviets to attack. In a remark attributed to De Gaulle:

Within ten years, we shall have the means to kill 80 million Russians. I truly believe that one does not light-heartedly attack people who are able to kill 80 million Russians, even if one can kill 800 million French, that is if there were 800 million French

So the question becomes, why not remove the rest. An empty gesture maybe? Yes, but the weapons were there to protect Western Europe from the Soviet Union. Today, that enemy no longer exists and much of what was the Warsaw Pact is not part of NATO.

In any event, Europe will not truly be "nuclear free". France and Britain will continue to maintain nuclear forces, and though one could imagine Britain giving up theirs, I would find it hard to imagine France doing the same. But considering the changes in Europe since 1990, maybe this could be a coda or exclamation point noting that the times have changed.