Home   Bookmark and Share

Obama Backs First-Strike Nuclear War as U.S. Polic

By Francis A. Boyle

June 24, 2013 "Information Clearing House I have now had the chance to read Obama’s Report on Nuclear Employment Strategy of the United States, that just came out on Friday, June 21, 2013.  The critical passage can be found on page 5:

“The 2010 Nuclear Posture Review established the Administration’s goal to set conditions that would allow the United States to safely adopt a policy of making deterrence of nuclear attack the sole purpose of U.S. nuclear weapons. Although we cannot  adopt such a policy today, the new guidance re-iterates the intention to work towards that goal over time.”

In other words, “nuclear deterrence” is not now and has not been the policy of the Obama administration going back to and including  their 2010 Nuclear Posture Review as well.  Since “nuclear deterrence” is not now and has never been the Obama administration’s nuclear weapons  policy from the get-go, then by default this means that offensive first-strike  strategic  nuclear war  fighting is now and has always been the Obama administration’s nuclear weapons policy. This policy will also be pursued and augmented by means of  “integrated non-nuclear strike options.” Id.

Therefore the entire 2013 NPR and Obama’s recent nuclear arms “reduction”  proposals must be understood within this context of the United States pursuing an offensive, strategic first-strike  nuclear war-fighting capability as augmented by non-nuclear strike forces:

“After a comprehensive review of our nuclear forces, the President has determined that we can ensure the security of the United States and our Allies and partners and maintain a strong and credible strategic deterrent while safely pursuing a one-third reduction in deployed nuclear  weapons from the level established  in the New START Treaty.” Id. at 6.

And we know now for sure that all the Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD)  systems that Obama is currently in the process of deploying in Europe, Asia, and the United States, on land, at  sea and perhaps in Outer Space are designed to provide the United States with a  strategic,  offensive, first strike nuclear war fighting capability against Russia and China and Iran and North Korea and Syria  for starters. The latter three because the United States has taken the position that they are not in compliance with their obligations under the Nuclear  Non-Proliferation Treaty: “…the United States has relied increasingly on non-nuclear elements to strengthen regional security architectures, including a forward U.S. conventional  presence and effective theater ballistic missile defenses…” Id. at 9.

So  the United States government  is currently preparing to launch, wage and win an offensive,  first-strike strategic nuclear war against Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and Syria. All the rest is just palaver. Including by our Dissembler-in-Chief. An “honors”  graduate of Harvard Law School.

Francis A. Boyle is a graduate of the University of Chicago and Harvard Law School. He has advised numerous international bodies in the areas of human rights, war crimes, genocide, nuclear policy, and bio warfare. He received a PHD in political science from Harvard University.

What's your response? -  Scroll down to add / read comments 

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for our FREE Daily Email Newsletter

For Email Marketing you can trust

  Support Information Clearing House

Monthly Subscription To Information Clearing House
   
   
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 Please read our  Comment Policy before posting -

We ask readers to play a proactive role and click the "Report link [at the base of each comment] when in your opinion, comments cross the line and become purely offensive, racist or disrespectful to others.

 
 

 

 

 

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information ClearingHouse endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)