President Obama is getting a taste of what it is like to be a president whose ideas aren't embraced by the rest of the world. While he speaks of a world without nuclear weaponry, North Korea shoots off a rocket! Guess they let us know what they think of a nuke free world! Rather like a big thumbing of the proverbial nose, eh? Saying, "North Korea broke the rules" is hardly going to make the North Korean's quake in their boots!

What is he going to do as a threat? Talk them to death? He reminds me of my elderly neighbor in Milwaukee who used to scold her dog for incessant barking. "Now Charlie, stop barking," she would say and then wouldn't do anything to remedy the situation. Pathetic.

Look back to the Cuban Missile Crisis; it wasn't our rhetoric that saved the day, it was our technology. We had The Ace in the Hole a.k.a. the Minuteman Missile. And President Obama wants to cut new development of offensive and defensive weapons? Our president's naivete' is stunning and scary.

Some suggest the US should put greater pressure on China to keep North Korea in line. But we are hardly in any position to lay down the law with China, since they hold so much of our debt.

It is ironic that one of the primary purposes of even having a federal government is national security, and this is an area the President proposes cutting? That's "both breathtakingly naive and incredibly dangerous to our national security."

More reading:

US Offers to Cut Nuclear Arms

...The administration is also working to develop an international nuclear-fuel bank, potentially hosted by Kazakhstan, that fledgling nuclear-power states could tap, according to a senior Obama administration official.

And the Rockets' Red Glare

In Prague on Sunday, President Obama pledged an effort to rid the world of nuclear weapons, calling them "the most dangerous legacy of the Cold War."

Well, we won that war in part because of our possession of those weapons and in part to the commitment by President Ronald Reagan to build a missile defense against them.

Obama's Unreality Tour

Barack Obama vowed to turn to the U.N. Security Council for strong action following North Korea's weekend missile launch. He would have done better by turning to Dr. Phil.

So, as the good doctor likes to say: Get real. Get real about North Korea. Get real about the U.N. Get real, also, about NATO, arms control, Russia, the global financial system, and every other item headlining the president's unreality tour through the capitals of Europe.

The military will eventually suffer combat readiness problems as it did under Democratic presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, who both inflicted deep wounds in defense spending.

With a rocket, Obama's hope is shot back down to earth 

History may one day record it as a stark irony - and let us hope an amusing one rather than the tragic kind - that on the very day that Barack Obama was sketching out to an adoring throng in Prague his vision of a post-nuclear world, North Korea launched a rocket that may one day give it the capacity to fire a nuclear warhead as far as 3,700 miles. This means, to get down to brass tacks, that it could hit Alaska.

Palin Attacks Obama's Anti-Missile Cuts

Responding to North Korea's missile test, Gov. Sarah Palin reaffirmed Alaska's commitment to protecting America from rogue nation missile attacks, according to a statement her office released Monday.

 

"I am deeply concerned with North Korea's development and testing program which has clear potential of impacting Alaska, a sovereign state of the United States, with a potentially nuclear armed warhead," Palin said.

 

"I can't emphasize enough how important it is that we continue to develop and perfect the global missile defense network. Alaska's strategic location and the system in place here have proven invaluable in defending the nation."

Links: 

In case you missed this little tidbit, amidst the important news of Rush Limbaugh ;-) or Obama's earmark reform announcement that doesn't keep him from signing the current "Imperfect" spending bill--loaded with 1,000s of earmarks!...Here is some news that affects us all.

I was shocked over the weekend to hear President Obama say he was going to reach out to the moderate Taliban. I can't say I think much Obama's diplomatic talents so far: Snub our best ally; reach out to moderate terrorists.  Moderate? What makes a Taliban a moderate? Does he just use dynamite instead of C4?

One of Obama's first actions in office was signing the executive order to close Guantanamo prison, but he had not worked out yet what to do with the prisoners. One thing for sure is that releasing them is not a good idea. President Bush faced the same problem. He contended that prisoners at Guantanamo were treated well,

Bush said the U.S. military is making sure to follow accepted rules for treating prisoners, but it would be unwise to release prisoners for the sake of public relations.

 

Release has proved to be a BAD idea. In the news today, Officials: Afghanistan Taliban leader was at Gitmo: (My emphasis) 

The Taliban's new top operations officer in southern Afghanistan had been a prisoner at the Guantanamo Bay detention center, the latest example of a freed detainee who took a militant leadership role and a potential complication for the Obama administration's efforts to close the prison. U.S. authorities handed over the detainee to the Afghan government, which in turn released him, according to Pentagon and CIA officials.

 

Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul, formerly Guantanamo prisoner No. 008, was among 13 Afghan prisoners released to the Afghan government in December 2007. Rasoul is now known as Mullah Abdullah Zakir, a nom de guerre that Pentagon and intelligence officials say is used by a Taliban leader who is in charge of operations against U.S. and Afghan forces in southern Afghanistan.

 

The officials, who spoke anonymously because they are not authorized to release the information, said Rasoul has joined a growing faction of former Guantanamo prisoners who have rejoined militant groups and taken action against U.S. interests. Pentagon officials have said that as many as 60 former detainees have resurfaced on foreign battlefields.

 

...According to the Pentagon, at least 18 former Guantanamo detainees have "returned to the fight" and 43 others are suspected of resuming terrorist activities. The Pentagon has declined to provide a complete list of the former prisoners they suspect are now on the battlefield.

 

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, BetterBrookfield, Vicki McKenna, Jay Weber, The Right View Wisconsin, Randy Melchert, Mark Levin, The Heritage Foundation, CNS News

Remember when Sen. Joe Biden predicted an international crisis if Obama was elected? "Mark my words, it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy" (Actually, Kennedy's test came 22 months after taking office.)

Although the idea that an Obama presidency would generate an "international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy" is troubling, yet the comparison of Obama being like John F. Kennedy is flattering. Unfortunately, there is no comparison.

Yes, both men were young, but that is pretty much where the similarity ends.

JFK was a war veteran. He was squarely behind defending liberty throughout the world. From his Inaugural Address:

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge--and more.

JFK did not spurn the use of technology to keep the world safe as Obama has. In fact, the technological breakthrough of the solid rocket fueled Minuteman missiles served as a deterrent to the Soviets during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

We learned about the Minuteman deterrent when we visited an actual Minuteman II Missile Site while on vacation 2 years ago. (Photo is of huge bank style vault door)

The National Park Service preserved this last remaining facility for its historic significance, and we were privileged to have Kerry Davis, a former Minuteman employee, as our tour guide.

Ranger Davis (pictured, but my family is photoshopped out) used to work in a Minuteman II facility just like this one. We were far below the surface of the earth in this vault-like bunker command station. Davis told us how he belted himself into the red rolling chair on tracks during his shift. They did this so in case of nuclear attack, he could still launch our missiles, God forbid, if needed.

He also told us why the Minuteman was nicknamed the Ace in the hole during the Cuban Missile Crisis. President Kennedy knew he could launch in 5 minutes, if needed. Presumably Khrushchev and Castro knew it too.

No longer did our offensive nuclear missiles require time consuming fueling before take off. Prior to the Minuteman, the fueling process took so long that missiles from Russia would already be blasting America before our liquid-fuel rockets could get off the ground. The Minuteman was a solid rocket system--always at the ready in 5 minutes, hence the name Minuteman.

If you look at the Minuteman Missile History, you see that Minuteman I became operational just 8 days after the crisis began...

and 1 DAY before we went to DEFCON 2.

(My emphasis throughout) 

LGM-30A/B Minuteman I:  In the late 1950s advances in solid-fuel propellants enabled the Air Force to develop its first solid-fuel ICBM, the Minuteman I (LGM-30A/B). Formal development began in September 1958, and after an extraordinarily rapid development program, the Air Force put its first ten Minuteman ICBMs on operational alert at Malmstrom AFB, Montana, in October 1962. Deployment proceeded at an equally furious pace, and within 5 years 1,000 of the solid-fuel missiles stood poised in their silos.

... On October 22, 1962, SAC placed its first flight of ten Minuteman missiles on operational alert.

On the night of October 23, the Joint Chiefs of Staff instructed Strategic Air Command to go to DEFCON 2, for the only time in history. The message, and the response, were deliberately transmitted uncoded, (unencrypted), in order to allow Soviet intelligence to capture them.^[3] Operation Falling Leaves quickly set up three radar bases to watch for missile launches from Cuba.^[clarify] The radars were experimental models ahead of their time. Each base was connected with a hotline to NORAD control.

NORAD was the central control for the 10 new Minuteman I stations. America played a gut-wrenching game of chicken with the Soviets and Cuba. By the grace of God, the crisis passed.

 ...After much deliberation between the Soviet Union and Kennedy's cabinet, Kennedy agreed to remove all missiles set in Turkey on the border of the Soviet Union in exchange for Khrushchev removing all missiles in Cuba.

If America did not possess the capability to launch before Russia or Cuba could, or if we had not developed new weaponry, would the Cuban Missile Crisis have resolved peacefully?

I doubt it.

Countries that were weak militarily in Europe were taken over by the Soviet Union.

I believe it was only Providence that caused the Soviets to believe America was a force to be reckoned with, that the situation resolved as well as it did.

Now contrast Kennedy's attitude toward military technology with Obama's on military spending and technology:

...I will cut 10s of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investment in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slop our development of future combat systems...

I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons. I will seek a global ban on production of fissial material and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMS off hair trigger alert and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.

Obama's naivete' on military technology and preparedness is frightening. Where would we be today if President Eisenhower and Kennedy had not embraced military technology? Maybe part of the Soviet Union?

President Kennedy might have been young and tested just 22 months into his presidency. At least he was realistic about the importance of new technology. Obama is not. 

After our tour of the Minuteman command bunker, the Ranger took us to an actual missile silo. We were told about how many warheads have been dismantled since the end of the Cold War and how the military was doing a soft standing down of Cheyenne Mountain/NORAD command center--they felt they didn't really need it anymore. Since North Korea had just fired a test long-range missile, I was not so sure a soft standing down was wise. Are there other Minutemen missiles I asked? Yes, the Minuteman IIIs are in service. I felt a little better. (Photo is of missile in glass topped silo)

The world is a much more dangerous place since our visit 2 years ago. North Korea and Iran continue to work on developing nuclear weapons. Russia is becoming more aggressive. Can we afford to "slow our development of future combat systems?" or "cut investment in unproven missile defense systems?" or "take our ICBMs off hair trigger," as Obama promotes? I would say, no, not in today's dangerous world. At least not if America wishes to remain a superpower.

P.S.--A serendipitous find: We stumbled on the ATK Corporation, out in the middle of nowhere in Utah. The T stands for Thiokol Chemical Corporation, the maker of solid rockets. Their entire front lawn held a collection of solid rocket history. Very interesting.

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: