In his latest New York Post column, the Heritage Foundations Peter Brookes lambasts the Obama administration for allegedly considering reductions in deployed strategic warheads below the New START limit of 1,550. No surprise here, given that Brookes vehemently opposed the New START treaty.
We could have plenty of fun with most everything in the op-ed, but the third to last paragraph was my favorite:
Yes, Republican presidents have ditched plenty of nukes over the years. But those reductions came with US arms-control wins, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of the Soviet Union and our indisputable conventional superiority.
In other words, it’s fine when Republican presidents move to reduce the arsenal (1) by pursuing arms control agreements, (2) because the world has changed, and (3) due to our overwhelming conventional superiority. But it’s basically appeasement when Democratic presidents move to reduce the arsenal (1) by pursuing arms control agreements, (2) because the world has changed, and (3) due to our overwhelming conventional superiority.
Sounds like Robert Burns’ follow-up story on the administration’s review titled “Boldest nuclear cutters recently? It’s been GOP” struck a nerve with the Heritage folks.
There are legitimate arguments one can make against further reductions in the arsenal. See this contribution from Elbridge Colby, for example. I strongly disagree with Colby (that’s a post for another night), but it’s a seriously argued case.
The same can’t be said of Brookes latest diatribe.
