Who knew that electing Barack Obama would result in the publication of America's nuclear strategy to our enemies - along with everyone else?
Who knew that the nuclear freeze position adopted by the Democrats in the 1984 party platform - when they were trounced by Ronald Reagan - would be enacted unilaterally 26 years later?
Here's the link to the story. And here's the crux of it . . . the United States is publicly promising that we won't use our nuclear weapons to defend ourselves against non-nuclear countries . . . even if they attack us with chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction. And, we're also promising not to develop any new nuclear weapons. Unlike our enemies, we're also quite likely to keep those promises.
Now nobody in their right mind is warm and fuzzy over nuclear weapons. I'm certainly not fond of the big guns. They certainly shouldn't be fired off at the drop of a hat. But I live in the real world. In the real world, it makes no sense to tell people when and where a country would or would not use anything in its arsenal. Doing so allows our enemies to trot right up to the line and know what not to do to cross it. With ambiguity, they might stay farther from the line, just to be on the safe side.
Promising a nuclear freeze in the short term might not be a big deal. America is well-armed. But what does the future hold? Will systems deteriorate? Will defenses be developed? Will our deterrent be diminished? Declaring a freeze on development of new nuclear weapons is a threat to America's future national security.