• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • President Obama's Dangerous Dream of a Nuclear-Free World

    One of the attention-grabbing scenes in the movie 2016: Obama’s America shows the President’s nuclear summit in 2009.

    The idea behind the summit was that if the United States led the world in cutting its nuclear arsenal, others would follow. We would be leveling the nuclear playing field, creating a world where many countries have equal power and arrive, according to Obama, eventually at “a nuclear-free world.” Of course, the President also promised that he would reverse global warming and stop the ocean tides from rising.

    Ironically, as author and narrator of 2016 Dinesh D’Souza reminds us, while Obama invited America’s allies to the summit, no invitation went out to the world’s nuclear troublemakers: Iran and North Korea. Equally ironically, New START, signed by Russia and the U.S. the following year, will reduce American warheads to 1,500, while actually allowing the Russians to grow their number.

    And, according to the movie, the President has even asked the Pentagon to study the feasibility of taking U.S. nuclear warheads down to 300. This fits perfectly with the scene of President Obama whispering to then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in March promising further “flexibility” on U.S. nuclear missile defense after the November U.S. election.

    Research by The Heritage Foundation, based on a series of nuclear war games, has shown that no scenario is as destabilizing for the world as American unilateral nuclear disarmament. According to a study by Heritage experts Baker Spring and Peter Brookes, “What Nuclear Games Tell Us about New START,” an American attempt to lead by example on nuclear disarmament “was a failure”:

    U.S. arms control leadership was rejected by other states, with no other player following the U.S. disarmament example. Each instead pursued its own strategic interests. In some cases, nations used the threat of nuclear weapons or of acquiring more nuclear weapons to advance their interests. In the end, the U.S. was unable to stem growing regional and worldwide instability. For example, confrontation between the Iran and Israeli players escalated, despite U.S. efforts to broker peace. In addition, states that had formerly relied on a strong and stabilizing U.S. presence to protect their interests turned instead to ally with Russia.

    Is this really the world we want to live in and to leave to our children? “Pax Americana” has stabilized the world since World War II—and has the power to do so for this century unless we disarm ourselves. No one else has the power to do it.

    It can be debated whether the President’s approach to disarmament is dangerously naïve or part of an overall strategy to diminish American global power. That it is dangerous is beyond doubt.

    Posted in Featured [slideshow_deploy]

    12 Responses to President Obama's Dangerous Dream of a Nuclear-Free World

    1. Harry Schell says:

      The "nuclear-free world" is a "gun-free zone" on steroids. There are a lot of things that would be nice, but life without risk or the presence of evil is a delusion with dangerous consequences for those on the sharp end. Mayor Bloomberg has his NYPD phalanxes, and Obamas have their security teams. They can propose to disarm anyone else and tell us how much safer we will be with no exposure of themselves, any "skin" in the game. Not interested, thank you.

    2. Obama's plan at the summit is and always is "Lethal" to us when he has cut our defense while those who are our enemies are building theirs. If you do not show strength than the enemy raises his' ugly head ' and then Strikes. We should realize this even when we had more strength from 911. We have weaken our forces and compromised our intelligence by leaks that puts our brave men and women in harms way like sitting ducks. This President has not aligned himself up with America and God but with other religions that hate Christians and American ways . He stopped The National Day of prayer and didn't want to "offend" others and has not upheld The Constitution that was written for the people. How with the devastation in this dangerous world can people vote for a person who has Hurt Americans and blatantly spends our money and comes and goes on his trips and golf games and say he understands there are people hurting…is a total falsehood…like his Record…

    3. wallyworkswell says:

      The Presidents actions to pass Healthcare, prove a desre to control others, for what you think they should be doing, shows the idea of universal disarmament is a pipedream! There is always a group of people, who believe they should be in control, of everybody else! So, whoever the contolling political group is, they are always aware of, different political parties who want to move them out of power! wallyworkswell@yahoo.com

    4. uh huh... says:

      so tell me helle. how do you win a war no one survives?

    5. Sanford Olnhausen says:

      Obama is not naive, so it has to be part of his overall strategy to diminish American global power.

    6. Gregory Weigle says:

      The disarming of the United States is tantamount to treason. I dislike using that word, but the first duty of the U.S. government is to "protect and defend the United States.." and to initiate that, well I see no other way to describe it. Also, I believe that the citizens of our country will do everything possible to prevent the politicians from disarming us. It is incredible to me that this is even being contemplated, yet citizens will still vote for this administration.

    7. Sanford Olnhausen says:

      Obama is not naive!

    8. Lloyd Scallan says:

      It all about Obama's plan to weaken our nation. It's the same ideology as gun control. If nukes were band, does anyone with a half a brain, think that the bad guys out there will give up theirs?

    9. Bobbie says:

      No matter how much the President wants to cover it up, Americans live by and rule by with proof, in respect for civil humanities and common decencies the world does not show. It's only right for the world to go first. UN!

    10. Sterling says:

      Those that oppose unilateral disarmament should make a pre-election political advertisement on TV so the public is made aware.

    11. Blair Franconia, NH says:

      How naive can you get?

    12. Matthew McKinzie says:

      Regrettably, Ms Dale's brief blog does not highlight the most relevant findings from the Heritage nuclear war gaming study for strategic nuclear weapons issues facing President Obama or facing the next U.S. president, whomever that may be. The United States must regularly revisit the question: "Does our nuclear deterrent make us safer?" Why is this an important question and why does it require continual attention? Russia and the United States both maintain launch-ready nuclear forces sufficient to utterly destroy each other in an attack that could last less than an hour. Speaking just about capabilities and not intentions, the Russian nuclear arsenal is a mortal threat to the United States, just as the U.S. nuclear arsenal is a mortal threat to Russia. Optimally, our deterrent and Russia's deterrent would together create a situation of stability on a day-to-day basis. Because of the ever-shifting political-military situation in the world and emerging new technologies, the optimum, safest configuration for the U.S. deterrent has and will change over time. The Heritage war gaming study considered a number of important factors for strategic stability: non-proliferation, treaty compliance, force modernization, quantitative reductions and alliance structures, for example. Limiting the topic of discussion to unilateral nuclear disarmament, which is frankly not actionable for the next president, distracts from the pressing questions and potential solutions to what really is a matter of survival.

    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.

    ×