Underscoring what critics have been calling a resumption of the Cold War under the Obama Administration, a State Department fact sheet released Wednesday shows that for the first time, Russia has more deployed nuclear warheads than the United States does.
It’s only one more — 1,643 vs. our 1,642 — but it’s a drastic change from the days when U.S. nuclear might far exceeded that of the old Soviet Union.
Reductions in numbers of nuclear warheads are called for under the 2010 so-called New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which says each side may have no more than 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads.
Despite that, both Russia and the United States reported an increase in deployed warheads since the last report.
The U.S. reported an increase of 57 warheads since March. The Russians’ deployed warheads have increased by 131 over the same time period.
Also, Russia’s arsenal of ballistic missiles and bombers has increased by 30, to 528, since the last report.
Former Pentagon weapons specialist Mark Schneider said, “While so little information is released under New START that there is no way to say for sure, the Russian increases appears to reflect the arming of the two new Borey class ballistic missile submarines. … All U.S. numbers have declined since New START entry into force. The fact that this is happening reflects the ineffectiveness of the Obama administration’s approach to New START.”
Sen. James Inhofe, Senate Armed Services Committee ranking Republican, said that the Russians are building up their nuclear arsenal, posing a direct threat, and the U.S. needs a policy to stop them.
“Not only did Russia violate the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, signed by President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987, it did so while negotiating with the Obama administration over New START, a 2010 arms reduction treaty,” Inhofe wrote in Foreign Policy. “The White House was at best nave to Russian duplicity; at worst it was complicit.”
Inhofe makes a good point. Russian leader Vladimir Putin clearly dominates President Obama in every respect and has since the beginning of the Obama Administration, when Obama and Hillary Clinton put their heads together and came up with the gag gift of a big red “reset” button (that didn’t even say “reset” in Russian).
Obama, possibly due to his lack of experience in just about anything, tried to treat U.S.-Russian relations as an interoffice watercooler romance, when it has always been a contest between the eagle and the bear.
Since then, Putin has always had the winning hand while holding his cards close to his chest. When Obama wanted to bomb Syria just a year ago, Putin pulled the rug out from under his feet with one phone call to Bashar Assad, revealing Obama as weak and ineffectual. (Dueling exercise videos of the two presidents haven’t helped Obama’s case any.)
Obama himself is steeped in the ideas and goals of American Marxism, having been raised among ultraliberal elites his entire life. It has been convincingly suggested that he embraces his biological father’s hatred of Western “imperialism” and ideas like personal rights and liberty.
So it’s a lingering question that I’m not sure anyone can definitively answer: Is Obama weakening U.S. military might out of some naive notions of “peace,” or are his policies aimed exclusively (and secretly) at putting the U.S. “in its place” as merely one country among many, rather than the leader of the free world?