Fantasy vs. Reality.

Barak Obama , Sunday April 5, 2009, Prague:

“…So today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. I'm not naive. This goal will not be reached quickly -- perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence. But now we, too, must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change. We have to insist, "Yes, we can."…”

I have one thing to say to Obama about that statement, “actions speak louder than words“! If this is Obama’s dream, one would imagine that some serious diplomacy is going to be needed to influence those nations that are rapidly trying to get or spread nuclear technology.

To date, the Obama Administration has not shown a very strong hand with diplomacy. Just this week, North Korea tested a long range missile capable of carrying a nuclear payload and hitting Alaska or Hawaii. What was the Obama Administration’s response? Obama’s official statement was; "Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something," and then he promptly ran to the UN, like the teacher's pet snitching on the bad kids. To make matters worse the very next day Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announces that we are cutting spending on missile defense.

The one big stick we could possibly use against North Korea’s ambitions for long range missiles, has now been broken in half by Obama’s insane military spending cuts. Beefed up missile defense for our western most states or our allies (South Korea and Japan) who could be threatened by North Korea, has now been scaled back by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates as per Obama’s requested cuts.

Some argue that North Korea using long range nuclear weapons against us is highly unlikely. While this argument has some merit, it doesn’t answer another likely scenario. The scenario of North Korea selling it long range missile technology to a nation that would use it against us. Iran immediately comes to mind. Iran which is run by Islamic extremist, are racing toward getting nuclear technology. Their tactic of buying time by entering and exiting diplomatic talks have proven very successful for them.

The real threat comes from the fact that Islamic extremists are not deterred by the notion of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). This is because for the Islamic extremist, the survival of Islam takes precedence over the survival of their nation. Therefore losing Tehran in a nuclear exchange is acceptable so long as it advanced the causes of Islam as they see it. So to deter a nation with this kind of belief, the passive role of having a large nuclear stockpile will not do. Instead a more proactive approach is required (I.e. missile defense, aggressive diplomacy and stopping their plans early). Currently the Obama Administration is doing none of these.

So while Obama claims not to be naïve and dreams that “yes we can have a nuclear free world”, reality is taking a very different and dangerous tract.