It Was Fun While It Lasted: AOC Parody Account Has Been Deleted
Trump Asks When He'll Be 'Fully Exonerated' After Pence Cleared in Classified Doc...
Liberal Media Pulls the Trigger on This Reaction to Joe's Fall at the...
'Dead Heat': Daniel Cameron Already Tied With Democrat Gov. Andy Beshear
What's Hilarious About Gavin Newsom's Tweet About Conservatives
Have Some Organizations Already Backed Away From Their Rainbow Logos?
One State Is Going to Offer Free Illegal Immigrants
Biden's Series of Misfortunate Accidents Prove America Needs a New President
GOP Demands the FBI to Explain Trump Probe Despite No Evidence to Attack...
Crowd Boos at Sean Hannity, Cheers 'We Love Trump'
Prestigious University May Expel Students Who 'Misgender' Trans Peers
Artificial Intelligence 'True Crime' TikTok Trend Raises Horrifying Ethical Concerns
U.S. Navy Removes Pride Month Posts From Instagram, Twitter
DeSantis: 'Biden's Fall Across the Stage Symbolizes the State of the Nation'
D.C. Crime Trending Toward Decade Highs

Does a Weaker America Make the World Safer?

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of

How does reducing the number of nuclear weapons in America’s arsenal make our nation stronger or safer? How does it help to deter potential chemical or biological attacks if we rule out nuclear retaliation in advance? The newly-announced Obama defense strategy is so profoundly illogical that it’s more likely to inspire confusion than indignation.

On the one hand, the administration suggests that the push toward disarmament will inspire better behavior from Iran and North Korea—ignoring the fact that whenever a nation reduces or limits its own power, it only encourages more aggressiveness from its adversaries. The ill-fated disarmament agreements of the 1920’s, along with the Kellogg-Briand treaty that formerly outlawed war (and won its architects Nobel Peace Prizes), only made the world safe for Japanese Imperialism and Nazism—not for democracy or self-determination. The president and the secretary of state seem to have altered the entire purpose of American security policy: rather than focusing on a stronger nation, we now aim for a “safer” world.

Sean Hannity FREE

In an article that appeared in Britain’s leftwing journal The Guardian, Secretary of State Clinton gushed over “our giant step towards a world free from nuclear danger.” According to her logic, we took that step by reducing our own stockpile of operational weapons and renouncing technological advances that would upgrade or even update our nuclear capacity. If this makes the world less dangerous, then it reflects the core leftist belief that American power is a threat to world peace, rather than the chief guarantor of international order. This belief helps to define the crucial distinction in our politics between liberals and conservatives, and between Democrats and Republicans.

The right believes that it will serve our country and all of humanity if the United States influences the rest of the world in the direction of American norms and values. The left maintains that both the U.S. and the world will benefit if the “community of nations” pushes our country toward a more internationalist posture, with less insistence on American distinctiveness and exceptionalism. If you believe that the United States would be better off as one more member of the world community rather than the dominant global power, then the Obama nuclear policy almost makes sense. <[>The same left-leaning ideologues who want to implement an economic leveling among all Americans also long to see a power-leveling among all nations of the earth. In the upcoming elections, most Americans may not comprehend the arcane details of nuclear policy, but they will certainly understand that a president who seeks to limit our military power and retaliatory options in no way contributes to our national security.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member


Trending on Townhall Video