FYI -1) There are just 21 days before the election; are you praying for it and our nation? (go to http://www.truthinaction.org/index.php/40-days-of-prayer/?src=TIA-10.2); 2) Be sure YOU are REGISTERED to VOTE; 3) Try to either read the book (you can get it from your library)"Obama's America" or see the movie "2016"( http://personalliberty.com/2012/09/21/the-movie-that-could-defeat-obama/). Beginning today, you can now rent it on DVD. I promise you, you will not understand our President's worldview until you do.; and 4) You might also try to get a copy of the book, "Divider-In-Chief"; you can also go to the follow site to read a lengthy excerpt from it: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1621570118/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1621570118&linkCode=as2&tag=null07-20#reader_1621570118
PRAYER REQUESTS for TONIGHT'S 2nd Presidential Debate - from "The Presidential Prayer Team" (not affiliated with the Obama administration):
a) That it will focus on issues and not personal attacks. That a "more aggressive" tone won't translate into a distraction from the key issues facing voters.
b) That voters will look beyond the sound bites and political ads to where the candidates stand on important issues such as the economy, jobs, taxes, national security, terrorism and social issues.
c) That God’s hand will be upon the November 6 election to keep it honest and free of fraud. That safeguards will be put in place now to protect the integrity of the vote.
----------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: As we note the 50 anniversary this week of the Cuban missle crisis, it is instructive that the United States finds itself with a nuclear arms disparity with Russia, thanks in part to ill-advised efforts by the Obama administration. After the article below, you will find excerpts from another article addressing lessons we should have learned from 50 years ago. - Stan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- by Michaela Bendikova, October 10, 2012 http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/10/despite-arms-reduction-treaty-russia-is-increasing-its-nuclear-capability/
About a year and a half ago, the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) entered into force. The Obama Administration ensured the American people and the Senate that the treaty would contribute to strategic stability between the United States and the Russian Federation. The treaty was touted as a crown jewel of the Administration’s “reset” policy, but yet another State Department data declaration confirms that the treaty is hopelessly biased in the Kremlin’s favor and that the “reset” policy is in shambles.
The treaty, in fact, undermines strategic stability. The State Department’s data show that Russia lowered the number of its intercontinental-range ballistic missiles (ICBM), submarine-launched ballistic missiles—or bombers—by three (compared to the March 1, 2012, data declaration).
At the same time, the country increased the number of its accountable warheads by seven (if the March 1, 2012, data declaration is taken as a baseline of comparison). This means that the Russians are putting more nuclear warheads, or Multiple Independent Reentry Vehicles (MIRVs), on each of their delivery vehicles. The process is also known as MIRVing and has been considered destabilizing for decades because it is said to incentivize the other side to strike first.
The Obama Administration recognized this in its 2010 Nuclear Posture Review and ordered all U.S. ICBMs be deployed with one nuclear warhead to “enhance the stability of the nuclear balance by reducing the incentives for either side to strike first.” The Administration, however, did nothing to negotiate a ban on MIRVing in New START, and the Russians are taking the advantage of this loophole. Currently, Moscow out-MIRVs the U.S. by one per each accountable deployed delivery system.
To exacerbate the disparity, the U.S. is the only state with nuclear weapons without a substantive nuclear weapons modernization program. Since New START entered into force, the Russians have announced the most massive nuclear weapons build-up since the end of the Cold War. Over time, if the U.S. does not change its policy or Russia adopts a fundamentally different strategic posture, Washington policymakers will be left with a qualitative and quantitative disadvantage vis-à-vis Moscow and potentially other nuclear-armed states.
President Obama touted New START as an essential step on the road toward a world free of nuclear weapons—U.S. nuclear weapons, that is, because the assumption that if the U.S. unilaterally disarms, others will follow, is just not true. Historically, South Africa gave up its nuclear weapons while the U.S. built up and tested its nuclear weapons. North Korea and Pakistan emerged as new nuclear weapons players, while the U.S. reduced its nuclear weapons and stopped testing them.
Countries base their nuclear weapons programs on their respective perceptions of threats, not on steps taken by the United States. In a world with many nuclear-armed players, it is important that the U.S. adopts a “protect and defend” strategic posture comprising offensive and defensive systems. Such a posture would allow the military to defend the American people, territories, institutions, and infrastructure from actors who mean the country and its allies harm.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"50 Years Later: What the Cuban Missile Crisis Teaches Us About Nuclear Policy," - Michaela Bendikova and Baker Spring, October 15, 2012; http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/15/50-years-later-what-the-cuban-missile-crisis-teaches-us-about-nuclear-policy/
'Fifty years ago, the world came to the brink of nuclear war. On October 14, 1962, U.S. policymakers learned that the Soviet Union was building missile bases in Cuba, which would have allowed Moscow to attack anywhere in the continental United States within minutes. An international crisis followed, and while the crisis did not end in a nuclear exchange, it is important that U.S. policymakers never forget lessons the crisis taught us. The most important one is that it is very difficult to manage allies once they are nuclear-armed..."
"...Indeed, findings in The Heritage Foundation’s 2010 report on the arms race and arms control dynamic following the spread of nuclear weapons show difficulties involved in managing allied desire to obtain their own nuclear capabilities, especially absent strong U.S. nuclear security assurances and guarantees. The exercise on which the report is based showed that the Obama Administration’s policies for nuclear arms control, disarmament, and limited defensive capabilities are inadvertently serving to undermine the NATO security umbrella and increase the appetite for nuclear weapons in allied countries. It has been two years since the report was published, and 54 percent of Turkish survey respondents say they favor Turkey developing its own nuclear weapons in response to an Iranian nuclear threat."
"...To hedge against both dangers, the U.S. should provide credible assurance to its allies that rely on U.S. nuclear umbrella. The U.S. should also adopt a “protect and defend” strategic posture, which entails fielding missile defenses, adopting other defensive measures, and maintaining strong conventional forces and a modernized, credible nuclear deterrent."
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment