• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

The “war” in Kosovo, now that an unworkable peace has been
established, is no longer featured on the front pages of most major U.S.
newspapers. All we are left with is cleaning up the mess, picking up
the costs of our damage, patting Clinton on the back for his “military
genius,” and babysitting two warring factions — again — for the next
millennium.

A far more dire military situation than Kosovo has evolved, however,
in regards to U.S. national security. And no matter how you try to spin
it, the seriousness of it is nobody’s fault except William Jefferson
Clinton. As de facto “commander” of the U.S. military and president of
this great nation, ultimately it is he who sets national security
policies real military leaders must follow.

For years defense experts and, in some cases, serving military
commanders have been trying to warn Americans that the Clinton
administration is decapitating U.S. nuclear weapons systems to the point
where many are now non-existent. Simultaneously, with the help of a
compliant mainstream press, Americans have been told that those concerns
are unfounded because Russia and China are no enemies of this state,
that they too are disarming as we are, and that no Russian or Chinese
nuclear threats exist in the first place. Besides, Clinton apologists
maintain, even if they were a threat, neither can match the
“power, reach and technological superiority” of the United States.

Maybe in 1988 after the Reagan years, but in terms of military
technology that was a long time ago. And as hundreds of thousands of
current and former military personnel will attest, a lot can happen –
or not happen — in a decade.

At this time our nuclear force is a shell of what it once was, which
would be just peachy if the United States did not face any threats to
our existence from potential enemies with similar or better nuclear
capabilities. But America does face those threats, and the list
of countries that could be aligned against us in the future is growing.
Worse, the U.S. has either directly provided much of the necessary
upgrading technology or, at a minimum, has — via the taxpayers — paid
for upgrading the newest weapons systems.

Hostile countries are now fielding those weapons and, if you care to,
you can take a guess as to where they are being aimed.

It’s one thing to shut down a tank production line or scale back the
number of B-2 bombers you plan to build. But in this day and age, it’s
quite a different (and more dangerous) thing to unilaterally rid
yourself of nuclear weapons. But that is what the Clinton administration
is doing.

Here’s a rundown of our current unilateral nuclear disarmament:

     

  • Clinton has signed Presidential Decision Directive 60, which changed
    the onus of our nuclear response. In the past the U.S. military has
    been able to “respond on warning” of a nuclear attack. No longer;
    Clinton has required our military commanders to receive direct approval
    from him before they can order the retaliatory launch of U.S.
    nuclear weapons against a country who launched at us first, even though
    U.S. commanders would know within seconds — via satellite — when an
    enemy’s missiles were launched, and from where.

     

  • Clinton has ordered that America reduce her nuclear warhead
    deployment to 2,500 warheads — far fewer than Russia, and before Russia
    has even considering ratifying a treaty limiting warhead deployment.
    This means, essentially, that the doctrine of “MAD” — Mutually Assured
    Destruction — no longer applies because the Russians can destroy our
    retaliatory capability at once, and still have enough inventory in
    reserve in case they need to launch further nuclear strikes.

     

  • According to Joel M. Skousen, a political scientist and avid Russia
    analyst, “The most savvy Soviet-watchers can point to a host of evidence
    indicating that the so-called ‘collapse’ was engineered to disarm the
    West and garner billions in direct aid to assist Russia while inducing
    the West to take over the economic burden of the former satellite
    states. But the most ominous evidence is found in defectors from Russia
    who tell the same story: Russia is cheating on all aspects of
    disarmament, and is siphoning off billions in Western aid money to
    modernize and deploy top-of-the-line new weapons systems aimed at taking
    down the U.S. military in one huge, decapitating nuclear strike.”

     

  • Though considered at one time, the Clinton administration has killed
    any effort to build a U.S.-version of a mobile nuclear ICBM. The
    conventional nuclear missile deployment wisdom in other countries
    rejects the notion of a fixed in-ground launch site because of the
    U.S.’ ability to locate and target those sites. And since those
    countries do not possess the number of weapons America has, they have
    opted to build and deploy mobile missiles because they’re harder to
    target and destroy.

     

  • Clinton has refused to acknowledge the absolute necessity of an
    advanced anti-ballistic missile defense system (ABM), even though the
    proliferation of these weapons has increased nearly 5-fold since he
    became president.

     

  • Clinton has ordered all nuclear weapons production halted, while the
    Russians, Chinese, Indians, Pakistanis and North Koreans continue to
    develop them. Our current top ICBM, the Peacemaker, is over ten years
    old and the technology is stagnant.

     

  • There are reports that the new Russian Topol-M ICBM has technology
    incorporated within its warhead that scrambles U.S. radar signals
    necessary to target them with an ABM system. Without new research and
    testing, the U.S. cannot possibly develop the necessary countermeasure
    to defeat this technology, which leaves us vulnerable.

     

  • While the Russians especially have a large and complex civil defense
    program, the U.S. has abandoned any notion of civil defense, leaving
    every man, woman and child at risk during a nuclear attack.

     

  • PDD 60 also forbids any naval sub nuclear retaliation without direct
    contact with the president. This is a mistake considering any first
    strike by an enemy would almost certainly destroy most, if not all, U.S.
    communications links.

Clearly, military policies like these serve only to weaken this
nation and commit it to suicide. What I can’t figure out is where in
the United States Bill Clinton thinks he’ll be safe from the fallout of
countless nuclear attacks made possible by his own clueless
irresponsibility? Hollywood?

May God bless us and keep us safe until we can reverse this ignorance
in November 2000.

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.