Obama's Dangerous Nuclear Policy Ideas and the Importance of Uncooked and Heeded Intelligence

You may be wondering why the Iran nuclear deal and nuclear weapons got so much attention in the last two blogs about the Obama/Hillary approach to ISIS and islamic jihadist terrorism. It was for this reason -- nuclear warfare is a current hot issue and it is impacted by fqluty intelligence. ~~~~~~ The media reports that Russia is building many underground nuclear command bunkers. The Associated Press has published a photo of an SS-19 strategic missile warhead being loaded into a silo at a site near Saratov, on the Volga River 563 miles south of Moscow. Newsmax's Brian Freeman reported on Monday that this is the latest indication that Moscow is pushing ahead with a major modernization of its armed forces, part of which is to construct numerous nuclear command bunkers. Freeman was quoting the Washington Free Beacon, which reported that American intelligence officials say the building of dozens of underground bunkers has been proceeding for years and is a clear sign that the West should be concerned about the nuclear use doctrine Moscow is adopting. Recently, NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe, General Curtis Scaparrotti, warned that Moscow is considering using low-yield nuclear weapons in future conflicts in order to win quickly, confident that the West would not respond with nuclear weapons of its own. The General said this is why he insists that the West's nuclear deterrence must be enhanced and taken seriously, especially since the Obama administration has been considering a declaration that it would not use nuclear weapons to stop aggression by conventional forces. ~~~~~~ Yes -- President Obama is making another decision that reeks of what I would call his 'America Last' policy. In mid-July, US military leaders heavily criticized the White House's plan for a "no-first-use" nuclear policy, saying the plan could undermine global security at a time when "the threat environment is volatile." The Washington Free Beacon's Bill Gertz reported that Strategic Command Chief Admiral Cecil Haney warned the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces : "We know the current policy has served us well over many years, and if there's some movement to change that, it would require some scrutiny to make sure we're not going to impact strategic stability at large by such a move. The United States needs to be very careful, given the directions and the developments we see around the world, that we do everything in our power to maintain strategic stability." President Obama is considering a no-first-use policy, along with other disarmament measures, but Haney considers the policy change dangerous because of the growing nuclear threats from Russia, China, and North Korea. No-first-use was rejected by the Pentagon in 2010 and again in 2013 in its Nuclear Posture review. House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee Chairman Mike Rogers, according to Gertz, urged the Obama administration to follow through with plans to modernize the nation's nuclear forces and enterprise, which he said are "aging rapidly while potential adversaries are modernizing and deploying new capabilities. We hope he will ignore the small -- but well-funded and vocal -- nuclear disarmament echo chamber," Rogers said. General Robin Rand, commander of Air Force Strike Command, told the Subcommittee that he also wants to keep the current policy : "The current nuclear threat environment facing our nation has never been more complex, and will only become more so in the near future," said Rand, who added that the current US nuclear air-launched cruise missile has "aged out" and must be replaced. Even using existing nuclear warheads and bombs, military officials testifying before the Subcommittee in July said that modernizing the nuclear forces by adding new equipment will cost between $350 billion and $450 billion over the next decade. But the nation is at the point where it can "ill afford to wait longer" to modernize forces, Haney said. ~~~~~~ NATO Supreme Commander General Scaparrotti has warned that, according to the Kremlin-controlled RT media outlet, in addition to its nuclear capability and doctrine, the Russian military has progressed in recent years to become a very serious adversary that must be countered. Other nuclear experts agree. The Daily Caller cites Mark Schneider of the National Institute for Public Policy, who says : "the West's strategy must be the full modernization of the US nuclear deterrent to counter Russia's massive build-up of new nuclear weapons and defenses." The National Institute for Public Policy told the Washington Free Beacon that the reasoning behind Russian strategy is to use its nuclear buildup and change in doctrine as a way to intimidate and deter Western states fearful of an escalation from attempting to interfere militarily against Russian expansionism. Russia's nuclear war preparations are estimated to be costing billions of dollars. ~~~~~~ Newsmax's Peter Pry wrote an open letter to President Obama in July. Since Pry is executive director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security and has served in the Congressional EMP Commission, the Congressional Strategic Posture Commission, the House Armed Services Committee, and the CIA, President Obama might do well to listen to his advice about now is not the time to adopt a policy of no-first-use of nuclear weapons. Pry makes the point in his letter by recounting that at a July NATO meeting in Warsaw, Obama agreed to deploy 4,000 NATO troops to the Baltic states and Poland to serve as a "tripwire" to deter Russian aggression. Pry says : "Mr. President, 4,000 NATO troops are inadequate to defend against Russian aggression. Russian exercises mobilized 150,000 troops against Poland and the Baltics in a few days. Analysis by RAND and your own Defense Department warns the Russian Army can overrun this part of NATO in 60 hours. The 4,000 NATO troops cannot stop the Russian Army. They are merely symbolic. That is why they are called a "tripwire" -- meaning that Russian aggression against them could trigger nuclear retaliation by NATO. Mr. President, if you now declare the US will not use nuclear weapons to stop aggression by conventional forces, you will dangerously undermine NATO's credibility. You will also cancel the credibility of other US "tripwires" in South Korea, Japan, and the Western Pacific, intended to deter aggression by North Korea and China. Indeed, a US nuclear "no first use" pledge will embolden Russia, China, and North Korea to continue the expansion of their nuclear arsenals. These hostiles may reasonably conclude a US "no first use" pledge is prompted by fear of their recent nuclear threats and growing capabilities -- and could trigger aggression." Pry then comments on the dangers posed by White House advisors talking about reneging on President Obama's promise to Congress to modernize the aged US nuclear deterrent : "Mr. President, the US strategic nuclear deterrent is antique, perhaps obsolete, compared to the modern brand new strategic missiles being deployed by Russia and China. Russia and China also enjoy a virtual monopoly in tactical nuclear weapons, because the US dismantled its tactical nuclear weapons unilaterally. Mr. President, your failure to modernize the US nuclear deterrent and to strengthen National Missile Defense is forcing your Defense Department to adopt plans for preventive warfare that are far riskier and more dangerous than the US nuclear posture that has deterred World War III for over 70 years." ~~~~~~ In addition, Pry and Gertz warn Obama to stand firm on building defenses against Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) attacks, which some 'experts,' including Obama defense advisor Peter Singer, who is on the editorial board of Popular Science, seem to believe are not possible. A July Popular Science article blamed Republicans for over-estimating EMP in an article titled, "GOP Platform Vows To Protect US From A Fantasy Weapon: An EMP Is An Empty Threat." But, Pry says the 2016 Republican platform deserves high praise for promising to protect our nation from the existential threat from an EMP attack : "A single nuclear weapon detonated at high altitude over this country would collapse our electrical grid and other critical [electronically-controlled] infrastructures and endanger the lives of millions....With North Korea in possession of nuclear missiles and Iran close to having them, EMP is no longer a theoretical concern -- it is a real threat." Every major US government study agrees that an EMP attack would have catastrophic consequences and that the US must be protected. The Congressional EMP Commission of renowned experts warned in 2004 : " A determined adversary can achieve an EMP attack capability without having a high level of sophistication....It has the capability to produce significant damage to critical infrastructure...as well as to the ability of the United States and Western nations to project influence and military power." According to Pry, the US Defense Department 2015 report "Military and Security Developments Involving the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea" warns that North Korea now has nuclear-armed mobile ICBMs, the KN-08 and KN-14, that can strike the United States. And, North Korea has orbiting over the US two satellites on trajectories optimized to evade US early warning radars and National Missile Defenses that could generate EMP fields over North America, if they were nuclear-armed. Naysayers believe that no nation would carry out an EMP attack because it would be thermonuclear war. Yet, says Pry, Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran -- in military doctrine and exercises -- regard EMP attack as part of an all-out cyber warfare operation that could achieve decisive victory without nuclear war. Thus far, the Obama administration has heeded the US Department of Defense and not Peter Singer on the EMP threat. DoD is currently spending nearly $1 billion to further enhance the North American Aerospace Defense (NORAD) command against a nuclear EMP attack from North Korea and other actors. DoD officials have told congressional hearings they are working on new cyber and EMP weapons to preempt launching of nuclear missiles by potential adversaries. ~~~~~~ Dear readers, to come full circle on the CENTCOM intelligence manipulation scandal, after eight years of the Obama-Hillary administration, there are still brave intelligence officers willing to say, for example, that Iran might already have nuclear weapons, but they risk being fired or re-assigned to desk jobs. Pry warns that under the Obama/Hillary administration, senior executives and managers of intelligence have not risen to their positions by "speaking truth to power" -- the intelligence community can become "fatally corrupted" when senior executives and managers, who decide what constitutes accurate intelligence, are forced through intimidation to become political pawns. This can be seen in the CENTCOM scandal, although the jury is still out on whether it was the US military or civilians on the political command chain who doctored CENTCOM intelligence reports. Today, President Obama's top intelligence advisor is James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence (DNI). Clapper during his service to Obama/Hillary has, for example, accepted their public position that Islam is not the ideological source of jihadist terrorism, that the Moslem Brotherhood is an acceptable advisor to the White House, and that the Iran nuclear deal is verifiable. In 2013, Clapper seemed to help President Obama cover up his lie to the American people that North Korea did not yet have nuclear-armed missiles and thus could not deliver on its threats to carry out nuclear missile strikes against the US, South Korea, and Japan. Yet, says Pry, the Defense Intelligence Agency had briefed Congress that North Korea does have nuclear-armed missiles, even if they are still in test mode. Another Obama intelligence advisor was former acting director of the CIA, Mike Morrell, who agreed with Hillary when she lied to the American people and families of the Benghazi victims to the effect that the Benghazi attack was a spontaneous demonstration and not a pre-planned act of jihadist terrorism. Later, Morrell tried to help Hillary cover-up the lie in hearings before Congress. We also have the Obama/Hillary falsehood that the Iran nuclear deal has delayed Iran from developing nuclear weapons and is verifiable, when, in fact, Israeli analysts and some US experts -- Ambassador R. James Woolsey (former director of Central Intelligence), Dr. William Graham (President Reagan's science adviser and director of NASA), Fritz Ermarth (former Chairman of the National Intelligence Council), and Ambassador Henry Cooper (former Director of the Strategic Defense Initiative) -- have warned that Iran probably already has nuclear-armed missiles. We also hear from Obama and Hillary that China and Russia oppose North Korea's development of nuclear arms and are helping the US to contain North Korea's nuclear program. The reality is that Russia and China have helped North Korea with its nuclear and missile programs, as well as hemping with Iran's nuclear and missile programs. In truth, mixing intelligence and political agendas is a very dangerous business. Sadly, Americans have come to expect lies from politicians -- including Obama and Hillary -- that advance their political agendas. But, when intelligence is manipulated to support political agendas and lies, the ramifications are far-reaching and potentially lethal. Intelligence shapes military goals, determines congressional military budgets, and alerts America and its allies to the real dangers lurking at or within their borders. Political leaders must not be allowed to play fast and loose with intelligence. The standard of care for dealing with intelligence ought to be perfection -- if intelligence is too sensitive to divulge, then say nothing; but, if a political leader chooses to speak, then absolute truth is the standard. And, if a political leader or his or her staff apply political pressure to alter intelligence, then they should be impeached and removed from office for they have committed a fundamental breach of trust.