When at the beginning of his presidency, Barack Obama received the Nobel peace prize, all of humanity, including himself, took it as an advance for the future. But his future becomes the past. And what? Being in Asia for the G-20 summit, Obama made the decision to first use in an armed conflict of nuclear weapons. This contradicted his earlier offer of no first use of nuclear weapons. According to the newspaper “new York times, such a turn was made at the urging of his top advisers on national security. The latter supposedly proved Obama that his old decision “will undermine the allies and, on the contrary, “encourage” Russia and China.
photo: Alexander Astafyev
Obama counted the reduction of nuclear weapons and its role as “critically important” for his presidency. But he was “upset” critics, including his former top aides, who believed that the modernization plans for nuclear weapons, which will cost one trillion dollars, undermining the commitments he assumed in 2009.
Supporters of arms control during the long months required steps, meet his promises “to follow the creation of a world without nuclear weapons”. One of the most important steps was to be a promise of no first use of nuclear weapons. It was supposed, alleged that even in practical terms, no us President will not use nuclear weapons first, because it has many other options. That said, for example, former defense Secretary William Perry: “the Promise of no first use of nuclear weapons only formalizes what has been the unspoken policy of America in a few decades.”
But in the end, Obama apparently followed their current advisers, who during the meetings, especially this summer, and warned him that “the Declaration of the first strike” shock of such US allies as Japan and South Korea. Moreover, the team of Republican presidential candidate trump hints at the withdrawal of America from Asia.
Minister of defense Ashton Carter and Secretary of state John Kerry, according to this version, too, has expressed its concerns in light of the “new steps of China and Russia from the Baltic to the South China sea. These steps have created is not the time for the Declaration of no first strike.” They were joined by Secretary of energy Moniz, the Agency which oversees the nuclear Arsenal of the United States.
So it turns out that the Nobel peace prize winner is innocent. It was the work of his Ministers and advisers. Here we must remember that nuclear weapons were used by America against Japan on the orders of President Truman in 1945.
However, after that all presidents, inherited a Truman vowed that nuclear weapons will only be used in extreme cases. Therefore, a promising move of Obama was not something new, and now he took a step back compared to their predecessors.
And that’s the American “nuclear umbrella” once again revealed in all its width. And then there’s trump demanded that Japan and South Korea have become nuclear powers, not “freeloaders” at the expense of America.
So Obama and his closest aides refused to “second option” (option): withdrawal of nuclear missiles from the first readiness of the application of atomic attack. They felt that such “unwillingness” in a moment of crisis will lead only to escalation of the conflict.
The turn was reflected in the fact that Obama decided to abandon the elimination of one of the elements of the “triad” — land, air and underwater nuclear weapons. Was rejected the idea of “withdraw” missiles, which are considered obsolete and are vulnerable to first strike the enemy. The Pentagon has insisted that land-based missiles are part of the system with which they have the most reliable connection, and therefore “get rid” of them is very risky. Here, the Nobel peace prize lost to the Pentagon.
Last year, supporters of arms control, including some former aides of Obama, talking about the fact that he still has time to repair its reputation as a nuclear visionary”. “Give Obama the opportunity to stay with Obama!” exclaimed the assistant Secretary of defense for nuclear programs in the 2009-2014 Andrew Weber. Weber strongly opposes the approval of the White house of using cruise missiles. “The defensive complex (that is, supporters of the first strike — MS) is the pressure all over the field, and it is very difficult to change the course of things,” says Weber.
But the opinion of General James Cartwright, once the favorite of Obama and Vice-chair of the joint group of chiefs of staff of the United States. Last month, he wrote in the new York times” together with Princeton Professor and former launch officer, “the minute man” by Bruce Blair, “nuclear weapons today no longer serves any purpose in addition to protection from similar weapons of our enemies.” And further: “Our non-nuclear power, including economic and diplomatic strength, our alliances, cyber-warfare and technological progress, represent a global military steamroller, which has no equal in history.”
During the presidential campaign of 2008, Obama announced the possible elimination of nuclear weapons as Central to this campaign. But Hillary Clinton, the candidate of the Democrats for President, keep quiet about their nuclear plans. Trump nuclear arms race. Now, however, all of them, so to say, patronales.
When Obama took office the U.S. President, his ambitions were slightly trimmed. And while it has made such an important agreement on arms control as a “new start” in 2010, which Kerry barely dragged in the Senate, he had to pay a very high price — the modernization of the entire us nuclear Arsenal and building a new generation of nuclear delivery vehicles, including bombers, missiles and submarines.
In 2013, some former members of Obama’s entourage began to warn that such a plan would jeopardize all of the disarmament activities of the President. Among the doubters was Philip Coyle and Steve fetter, who only recently left the White house.
The Federation of American scientists released an analysis showing that Obama essentially disarmed fewer nuclear warheads than any other President since the cold war. Inside the White house, Obama continued to ask about new ideas in order to move forward its agenda after leaving from a presidential post. In may, Obama visited Hiroshima. He is the only American President who did this. Speaking in Hiroshima how would he reaffirmed his vision of a nuclear-free world. “We must have the courage to avoid the logic of fear,” he said at the Hiroshima peace memorial. We may not be able to perform this task in our lifetime. But the urgent efforts in this direction can push back the possibility of disaster.” Ten days later, the Deputy national security adviser Benjamin Rhodes, spoke at the Association for arms control. He talked about such things like this audience. Listed measures to control weapons, Rhodes stated: “the President will continue to review these plans, thinking about how he will pass the baton to his successor. This review includes a commitment of no first use of nuclear weapons.”
But behind the scenes, Washington’s defense Minister Carter has proven quite the opposite. He said that the non-first use of nuclear weapons “is a bad decision.” As an example, he cited North Korea and its policy of nuclear weapon tests as a measure of pressure on Japan and South Korea. About the same spoke and Secretary of state Kerry against Japan. True, Kerry, and Carter has often made similar statements in order to not look like people trying to influence President Obama.
As you can see Obama was Napoleon’s plan, but the arch Gavrila-setter. And small as the elimination of Guantanamo Bay prison, and in the large, as the transformation of our planet into a nuclear-free. Apparently, in the future, the Nobel Committee will have to give the peace prize not only to the presidents of the United States, but to all their assistants and the Pentagon, as a holistic institution. But then the Nobel Committee will have to rename their award of the peace prize to nuclear war.