Speaking in Japan at the Hiroshima memorial, dedicated to the victims to the first use of atomic weaponry in world history, President Obama called for a “moral revolution” that would ultimately lead to the elimination of such weapons. According to a report filed in the New York Times by Gardiner Harris, the President said
“We must have the courage to escape the logic of fear and pursue a world without them. We may not realize this goal in my lifetime. But consistent effort can roll back the possibility of catastrophe.”
Excellent sentiments, but how does the president explain, or explain away, the fact that his administration has authorized a $1 trillion “modernization” of our massive nuclear arsenal (over three decades), which is all too likely to lead to a variety of cool new weapons, weapons that, some of us Nervous Nellies fear, might be too cool not to use? Those in charge of such things of course—and in a year, Obama won’t be—feel that America must possess “overwhelming” strength as the only sure means to guarantee “peace” and will do everything to achieve that goal. Meanwhile, other nations, principally China and Russia,1 won’t be in the mood to be overwhelmed and a new arms race will be born, which is exactly what “the Blob” wants. And so one must ask the question, Is Obama the Blob’s master, or its bitch?
Afterwords
The Right never forgave Ronald Reagan for ending the Cold War, the man they elected to ensure its eternal perpetuation. The “Indispensable Nation” doctrine of virtuous interventionism, erected in the Bush I-Clinton years to justify the continuation of the Cold War edifice, threatened to collapse under its own weight (and its own incompetence) during the Bush II years. But President Obama has done distressingly little to move away from this model. Presidents come and go, but the bureaucracy endures.
- Russia has a massive, aging arsenal already in existence, but a shriveled economy. China has a small arsenal, but an expanding economy. ↩︎
