Nuclear Retaliation

Feel free to click away. Each link opens in a new tab. Worth your trouble, I assure you. Have a good time.

Every time the President opens his mouth, we get a slap-in-the-face reminder of how brilliant he really is. Every sentence is masterly crafted, with every word perfectly pronounced. Every action of this administration is so well planned.

Anyway, while being interviewed by the witty George Stephanopoulos, Obama had some harsh words for those critical of his decision to take a nuclear strike off the table as a retaliatory response against a foreign aggressor. Stephanopoulos questioned the President on a quote from Sarah Palin in which she stated that taking nuclear retaliation off the table was comparable to a kid on the playground saying 'punch me in the face, I'm not going to retaliate.' When asked for his response, Obama said, "“I really have no response to that. The last I checked, Sarah Palin is not much of an expert on nuclear issues...” Obama went on to say, “What I would say to [...critics] is, is that if the secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff are comfortable with it, I’m probably going to take my advice from them and not from Sarah Palin.” Barack Obama, as we all know, is an expert on nuclear issues.

The question then arises, are the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs comfortable with it? In a speech delivered on October 30, 2008 SecDef Robert Gates said:

"There is no way to ignore efforts by rogue states such as North Korea and Iran to develop and deploy nuclear weapons, or Russian or Chinese strategic modernization programs. As long as other states have or seek nuclear weapons – and potentially can threaten us, our allies, and friends – then we must have a deterrent capacity that makes it clear that challenging the United States in the nuclear arena – or with other weapons of mass destruction – could result in an overwhelming, catastrophic response…

Our nuclear arsenal also helps deter enemies from using chemical and biological weapons. In the first Gulf War, we made it very clear that if Saddam used chemical or biological weapons, then the United States would keep all options on the table. We later learned that this veiled threat had the intended deterrent effect as Iraq considered its options.

While some may not see a real nuclear threat to the United States today, we should be mindful that our friends and allies perceive different levels of risk within their respective regions. Here, our arsenal plays an irreplaceable role in reducing proliferation."

Obviously there is just a minor miscommunication between the SecDef and President Obama. I'm sure they'll have it worked out in no time. The nation is confident in the President's ability to lead. We have elected the right man for the job.

HT: Hot Air

Please take the time to comment! Click the Informed Opinion Link adjacent to the Post Title.