• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Nuclear-Free Hopes vs. Reality

    We weren’t the only ones that found President Barack Obama’s “nuclear free” Prague speech a bit too heavy on hope and a little light on reality. The Washington Post’s Anne Applebaum writes today:

    Clearly, the “no nukes” policy is one close to the president’s heart. The Prague speech even carried echoes of that most famous of all Obama speeches, the one he made after losing the New Hampshire primary. “There are those who hear talk of a world without nuclear weapons and doubt whether it is worth setting a goal that seems impossible,” he told his Czech audience. (Recall: “We have been told we cannot do this by a chorus of cynics.”) “When nations and peoples allow themselves to be defined by their differences, the gulf between them widens,” he continued. (“We are not as divided as our politics suggests.”) He didn’t say “Yes, we can” at the end, but he did say “human destiny will be what we make of it” — which amounts to the same thing.

    Which is all very nice — but as the central plank in an American president’s foreign policy, a call for universal nuclear disarmament seems rather beside the point. Apparently, Obama’s intention is to lead by example: If the United States cuts its own nuclear arsenal and bans testing, then, allegedly, others will follow.

    Yet there is no evidence that U.S. nuclear arms reductions have ever inspired others to do the same. All of the world’s more recent nuclear powers — Israel, India, Pakistan — acquired their weapons well after such talks began, more than 40 years ago.

    Posted in Security [slideshow_deploy]

    7 Responses to Nuclear-Free Hopes vs. Reality

    1. Ozzy6900, CT says:

      As I always say, if you do not learn your History, you will never understand the Future!

      It actually comical watching this President make the same mistakes in 2009 as were made (and should have been learned) 40 and 50 years ago.

    2. jr., Michigan says:

      more nukes! more nukes!

    3. Ron Thompson says:

      Neval chamberland all over again! The assumption that if we disarm, then everyone one else will follow suit is just flat naive! While our enemies will encourage us to led the way, they will never follow the same path! This type of talk is no better than the argument on torture. we stop, but they don't! Who suffers in these equations? US! At what point does protecting the United States and the Constitution against all enemies,become a factor. I'm seeing reduction in strength and increasing of vulnerability!

    4. Lynn B. DeSpain says:

      We are defined by our differences, not our similarities! That is what makes this such a unique and interesting World!

      Its like a marraige. If both people are the same, one of them are not needed!


    5. Bob, PhD., Washingto says:

      Leadership for America is certainly needed; but the Heritage Foundation is obviously in dire need of new leadership to allow such a jaded and half-truth article to be published; how cheap. Although I'm a staunch conservative and have operated, maintained, and politically dealt with nuclear weapons for well over 30 years, even at just 6000 warheads that's well above any needed probability of kill for today's minimized target set. The Pres. merely set no nukes as a very far future goal. You knee-jerk commentors [heavy on the jerk] need to listen. And the original 1000 Minuteman ICBM missiles ordered and deployed under President Kennedy had absolutely ZERO statistical analysis to justify that number; it was strictly a political compromise. The War Hawks wanted 2000, and the Peace Doves wanted only 600 missiles. Yes, as long as any other nation on the planet might have nukes, the U.S. needs them, but there is significant room to safely reduce from the current 6000. Wouldn't some statistical anaylsis be amazingly appropriate NOW!? For Heritage, maybe having the same leader for over 30 years indicates some new leadership is desperately needed to address the new history of today… peace out.

    6. Dennis, Idaho says:

      This man (I do not call him president) does not live in reality.

      He cannot tell the difference between his dream world and the real world. Remember he is not an American born citizen. He has a certificate of live birth from Hawaii but no long form birth certificate that has the name of the hospital and attending doctor. He thinks that he is an American because he has lived here most of his miserable life. Misery loves company.

    7. Jerome Zacny says:

      There is nothing wrong with trying to reduce the nuclear arms race, or with trying to get the nations of the world to reduce and hopefully eliminate their nuclear stockpiles. Working toward that end is a noble undertaking and the utmost in common sense. However, common sense tells us you don't want to be the only nation without them.

    8. Gary, Pennsylvania says:

      Naive, foolhardy, reckless, and ultimately, dangerous. This man is the quintessential "useful idiot."

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.