Trump's Nuclear Policy Recognizes that Nonproliferation Is a Concept from a Past Era

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich told The Cats Roundtable Sunday that Donald Trump has a real chance to bounce back from his latest polling deficits. Gingrich noted that Trump had been ahead of Democratic rival Hillary Clinton "in every poll, so the chance for him to bounce back again I think is very real." In the TV interview, Gingrich said the last two weeks have been "tough" on the GOP nominee, but he called the post-convention political climate "a period of turmoil" : "A lot of Republicans get very scared," Gingrich said, adding that "The elite media is 95 percent against Trump and doing everything they can to fan the flames of a panic, but the fact is, that I think that this race is a long, long ways from over." Gingrich has been critical of Trump over his attacks attacking the father of a fallen Moslem American soldier and his initial reluctance to endorse House Speaker Paul Ryan, Senator John McCain and Senator Kelly Ayotte for re-election -- Trump has since endorsed all three GOP candidates; but, he says he has the right to defend himself against the attacks of the fallen soldier's father. Gingrich said the fight ahead needs to be focused on Clinton : "Hillary has enormous liabilities … It is a period of turmoil....And the truth is that Hillary Clinton is probably the most dishonest person ever to run for President — and certainly the most corrupt ever to be nominated for President." ~~~~~~ Gingrich joined Trump in several other positions that have divided Republicans and caused boisterous attacks on Trump from the mainstream media, the Clinton campaign and even President Obama. Gingrich told Newsmax last weekend that he would "tear up the Iran nuclear deal on day one of a Trump presidency." Most Americans agree with this Trump position. Gingrich, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, also recently expressed his determination to interrogate Moslems in the US about their beliefs and support of sharia law. While this may sound like anti-First-Amendment religious-based testing of immigrants -- as it is often described by the media and Democrats -- it is in fact not that at all. The cry from the Progressive camp that "this is not who we are" is their way of improperly using the First Amendment to further their agenda of importing at least another half million Syrian and other Middle Eastern refugees into the US without proper vetting -- something that is now impossible because of the Syrian civil war and turmoil in countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Sudan and Somalia, where many of the "refugees" come from. If America can learn anything from Europe, it is that unvetted refugees are often not escaping personal political or religious persecution at home but seeking better economic conditions in their destination countries. The US can also learn from Europe that with unvetted "refugees" come a number of unmarried young men who are already radicalized and intent on carrying out jihad in Europe. The US Constitution and the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom have nothing to do with vetting immigrants, a procedure that has gone on for at least 140 years as waves of immigrants were "vetted" for their political and religious positions, as well as for their English language and job skills before being admitted. ~~~~~~ But, in the last two weeks, the biggest outcry has come from Democrats and establishment Republicans who are "nervous" about Donald Trump's rhetoric concerning nuclear weapons. ~~~~~~ THE ANTI-TRUMP NUCLEAR ARGUMENT. They describe Trump’s rhetoric about using nuclear weapons and potentially allowing them to be obtained by US allies as dangerous and disqualifying for the presidency. During a press conference at the Pentagon last week, President Obama said this : “Just listen to what Mr. Trump has to say and make your own judgment with respect to how confident you feel about his ability to manage things like our nuclear triad,” the three-pronged set of air, land and sea defenses that have been the backbone of nuclear weapons policy for a generation. Earlier last week, Obama called Trump “unfit” to serve as commander-in-chief, and his comments have been supported by some Republicans. Former Senator Gordon Humphrey described Trump as a 'sociopath' in an email to NBC News, calling him 'pathologically insecure' : "To imagine Trump in charge of our armed forces at a moment of crisis is frightening.” Hillary Clinton and her supporters say that Trump’s inexperience makes him too dangerous a liability for the White House. ~~~~~~ THE PRO-TRUMP NUCLEAR ARGUMENT. Trump surrogates and supporters say the characterizations made by Clinton and Trump opponents are unfair. Roger Stone, longtime Trump ally and advisor to President Reagan, said the new accusations are "echoes of longtime Democratic efforts to portray Republican candidates as prone to using nuclear weapons....We have always used nuclear weapons as a deterrent, Trump is in that exact same tradition. What are they trying to say? That he's trigger happy, he's mentally unstable and he would push the button? Nonsense.” Stone also blasted Hillary Clinton's hawkish views on national defense, citing her record of support for the Iraq War to turn the accusations back around : “He's the peace candidate -- she's more likely to use the arsenal than he is. She supported war when he's been opposed to war. He has a lovely family that he has no interest in destroying in a nuclear holocaust. It's an absurd notion.” TheHill noted that Trump’s position on nuclear weapons was fed by remarks of MSNBC “Morning Joe” host Joe Scarborough, a former Republican member of Congress, who said the GOP nominee had repeatedly asked a foreign policy briefer why the US could not use its vast nuclear arsenal. The Trump campaign has denied the report and Trump confidantes characterized Scarborough's accusation as a political smear. Roger Stone said : “Unless he can produce the name of said advisor, I'm calling bullshit on this.” ~~~~~~ WHAT NUCLEAR EXPERTS SAY. “This is the most dangerous thing that he has said, among many dangerous and stupid things,” said Mark Fitzpatrick, 26-year State Department veteran who worked on nonproliferation issues under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Fitzpatrick, executive director of the US office of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, who has been publicly critical of Trump, added : “This could really trigger nuclear wars that could end mankind. Is that what he wants? Talking about nuclear weapons the way he talked about it is not rational.” Kingston Reif, director for disarmament and threat reduction policy at the Arms Control Association, who told TheHill he is not politically involved this election cycle but gave this opinion : “If the United States were to reduce our defense commitment to Japan or South Korea and give either one of those countries, basically, a green light to pursue nuclear weapons, in my view it would vastly undermine the security situation in the region, increase the threat posed by nuclear weapons and, ultimately, to the United States.” Reif said if Japan were free to acquire nuclear weapons, South Korea might not be far behind. And then both China and North Korea might be propelled to increase their nuclear arsenals : “Every President since Eisenhower has pursued a policy of trying to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and that’s Republican and Democrat. It’s a very well established article of faith among both parties that the US should try to prevent additional countries from developing nuclear weapons.” Douglas Feith, a Pentagon official under George W. Bush, said Trump's comments will force other countries to question US commitment to their security, potentially propelling them to explore amassing nuclear weapons : “Even though they don’t directly relate to nuclear weapons, they have an effect on nuclear weapons,” said Feith, who does not support Trump’s White House bid, “because if our allies believe that he is unreliable, that he is not a faithful ally, then they won’t rely on our nuclear umbrella and they will possibly come to the conclusion that the only way they can have security is to develop a nuclear arsenal of their own.” James Acton, co-director of the nuclear policy program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who is neutral in the presidential race, said : “When it comes to nuclear weapons, [lack of] message discipline is a policy weakness." ~~~~~~ WHAT TRUMP ACTUALLY SAYS. Trump has suggested that Japan, South Korea and possibly Saudi Arabia should obtain nuclear stockpiles. In March, Trump told the New York Times : "If Japan had that nuclear threat, I’m not sure that would be a bad thing for us.” His comments cut against a core concept of US nuclear policy for the last six decades : that fewer countries, not more, should have nuclear weapons. This policy has led the US to promise its nuclear umbrella to countries such as Japan and South Korea in order to discourage them from acquiring weapons of their own. What is often not noted is that Trump also told the NYT that the prospect of greater proliferation inevitable, but the current situation over-extends US resources : “Biggest problem, to me, in the world, is nuclear, and proliferation. At the same time, you know, we’re a country that doesn’t have money.” Trump's nuclear position echoes his over-arching “America first” theme that has received criticism from both the Democrat and GOP establishments. US security foreign commitments have come at the expense of its domestic needs, Trump claims. He also questions global security agreements and organizations. Last month, Trump raised eyebrows by refusing to unconditionally pledge to come to the aide of NATO allies in Europe if they were invaded by Russia. Recently, he clarified his statement that Putin will never invade Ukraine -- adding "not while I'm President." ~~~~~~ Dear readers, Trump has been willing to talk more openly about his foreign policy plans than any other current American politician. He will demand financial participation from NATO allies. He will demand that Japan and South Korea increase their military participation in regional Asian defense preparedness. He has raised the possibility of using nuclear weapons in a future conflict, something other politicians have not done. Not only has he said he might be willing to use nuclear weapons in a conflict in Europe, but he says he might employ them in a fight against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. While Trump's suggestions are a dramatic change in the concept of how nuclear weapons are used, he has also shone a light on reality. Russia already has nuclear weapons and has threatened to use them in eastern Europe if NATO tries to undo the Russian occupation of eastern Ukraine and Crimea. The Axis of Evil composed of Russia/Iran/North Korea is rushing toward nuclear weapons and ICBM nuclear missile capability for Iran and North Korea. It would be foolish to believe that China does not have nuclear capability. So, what is the viability of the nuclear "nonproliferation" issue today? It exists in the minds and rhetoric of nuclear experts whose income and power depend on assuring the world that all will be well if only we follow their advice. And, it exists in the public pronouncements of establishment politicians who would find it easier to lie than to tell their citizens the truth. The truth is that nonproliferation is a concept of the past mocked by today's rogue states. The last shred of credibility for nuclear nonproliferation ended the day Barack Obama signed the Iran nuclear deal.