By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 04/18/10

We are now more vulnerable as a nation due to an inscrutable Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) last week from the administration. President Obama’s NPR pledged that the U.S. “will not conduct nuclear testing, and will seek ratification and entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty,” “will not develop new nuclear warheads,” and “will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and in compliance with their nuclear nonproliferation obligations.”

By so doing, it also eliminates the protection to the country afforded by what Defense Secretary Robert Gates calls “calculated ambiguity.” Attempting to explain the move, Gates said, “If a non-nuclear-weapon state is in compliance with the nonproliferation treaty and its obligations, the U.S. pledges not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against it.” Instead, such an enemy “would face the prospect of a devastating conventional military response”—even if that enemy “were to use chemical or biological weapons against the United States or its allies or partners.”

To put the new NPR in perspective in simple terms, it’s like George Washington admitting that he would not use cannons against any foe who claimed they didn’t have cannons, (whether they really had them or not, as long as they said they didn’t have any), in retaliation for an attack on colonial America.

Proclaiming to the world, our enemies and our allies, when we will and won’t use our nuclear arsenal, is a seriously flawed policy that places the country more at risk. Secretary Gates alluded to that, even as he attempted to explain away the NPR as cited above.

Of course all this plays very well with the “blame America first” crowd. Those who, apparently like Obama, think America is to blame for if not all, at least most, of the problems of the world. Those who think if we dismantled our arsenal, every other country would follow our “moral” lead, are delusional. Rogue nations like North Korea (which already has them, confirmed through seismological and spectral analysis) and Iran (which is on the verge of having them) would be undeterred and unfettered in their misuse.

Which brings us to the Presidents’ summit at the White House this week where he said, “The prospect of nuclear terrorism is the single biggest threat to U.S. security, both short-term, medium-term and long-term.” If he truly felt that way, he wouldn’t be telegraphing to the world, especially our avowed enemies, our nuclear deterrence strategy, reducing our deterrence stockpiles, refusing to fund development of advanced deterrence technology, eliminating funding for a missile defense shield, and allowing the terrorist states of North Korea and Iran to continue unabated in developing their nuclear programs.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was obviously not impressed and mocked the new policy. He declared, “American materialist politicians, whenever they are beaten by logic, immediately resort to their weapons like cowboys. Mr. Obama, you are a newcomer. Wait until your sweat dries and get some experience. Be careful not to read just any paper put in front of you or repeat any statement recommended.” It appears he was not motivated to abandon his nuclear ambitions by Obama’s idealism. The miscreants of the world never are.

According to the Center for Defense Studies, “The message being sent to the rest of the world is that the United States finds nuclear deterrence distasteful and wants to get out of the nuclear weapons business….The result may be a more volatile and dangerous world.”

Columnist and former Carter administration official Charles Krauthammer explains, “Nuclear doctrine consists of thinking the unthinkable. It involves making threats and promising retaliation that is cruel and destructive beyond imagining. But it has its purpose: to prevent war in the first place…A nuclear posture is just that - a declaratory policy designed to make the other guy think twice. Our policies did. The result was called deterrence.”

Referring to the new Obama policy, Krauthammer continues “This is quite insane. It's like saying that if a terrorist deliberately uses his car to mow down a hundred people waiting at a bus stop, the decision as to whether he gets (a) hanged or (b) 100 hours of community service hinges entirely on whether his car had passed emissions inspections. Apart from being morally bizarre, the Obama policy is strategically loopy. Does anyone believe that North Korea or Iran will be more persuaded to abjure nuclear weapons because they could then carry out a biological or chemical attack on the U.S. without fear of nuclear retaliation?”

You don’t have to be a foreign or military policy expert to see the flaws in this nuclear posturing. Common sense would lead anyone to realize that America is weakened when we promulgate our weapons usage policy, and inflict self-imposed limitations with our deterrent system. We are now more at risk now than we were a week ago, to the very thing Obama said constitutes our greatest threat.

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 04/04/10

This time of year has special significance to my family, as it does for all who call themselves Christian. Easter acknowledges what William F. Albright and Sir William Ramsey claim is one of the most documented historical events in ancient history: the resurrection of one Jesus of Nazareth. For Christians, Holy Week, Paschal Triduum, Good Friday, and Easter are significant to us not because of the historicity of the event, but because of what it represents theologically.

Ours is a Christian nation. Not in a theocratic sense, but historically, culturally, and ethically. Some basic tenets of Judeo-Christian values comprise the very foundation of our justice system. Much of our legal system is based on moral principles, including protection of life, protection of liberty, and the protection of property. Evidence is abundant, from our currency, “In God We Trust,” to the top of the Washington Monument, “Laus Deo,” or “Praise Be To God.”

However, institutionally and as a nation, we are not a theocracy. And the salvific precepts of holy writ cannot be imposed on an institution, a government, or a nation. The difficulty in imposing such values on our government, for example, becomes obvious when we acknowledge what the two greatest commandments are love of God and love of our fellow man. How can an institution, or a government, love? Plus, the politically-correct among us demand that our Christian values are to be kept as far away from government as possible. To them, there is to be a “wall of separation” between the two. Hence, to use Judeo-Christian values as an argument for government control of our health-care is disingenuous at best.

In the context of the health-care debate, some have attempted to impose onto government what was clearly intended as private morality based upon a fundamental belief in God. Christ’s message was to individuals. As individuals we are, as Paul said, to work out our salvation before God. Institutions have no redemption to seek and no grace to secure. And if Christ had intended for governments to abide by the deeply personal morality he was conveying to his disciples, he would have been promulgating his message to the Sanhedrin and the Roman leaders of his time, not to the primarily lower class residents of Judea.

Even our founding fathers recognized this crucial distinction. John Adams said, “It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.” We have become increasingly corrupt as a culture, as ethics have morphed into relative or situational rather than absolute principles.

Fundamental to the Judeo-Christian value system is the free agency to choose for ourselves. Institutions don’t make teleological or eschatological decisions, individuals do. When institutions attempt to co-opt a belief system and then forcibly execute it on the public, it is not moral, but rather immoral. The First Amendment legally precludes Congress from doing that very thing.

This is singularly important in the discussion regarding health-care reform. Some in the public dialogue, including some letters submitted to the Journal editor, attempt to apply a Christian morality on the government, that it is the role of government to redistribute wealth, provide health care to all, and provide a cradle to grave security for all Americans.

It was this concept of security provided by government that Benjamin Franklin referred to many times, one variation of which is found at the base of the Statue of Liberty. “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” During the early days of the Patriot Act, those among us who were so concerned that George Bush and Homeland Security would be listening in on their overseas calls to terrorists or monitoring the sordid and questionable books they check out from the public library, were obsessed with this line. They were convinced they were sacrificing their liberty for their security. That security, however, is mandated by the Constitution. It’s called national security. The security Franklin was denouncing was the security bought with our liberty: sacrificing personal freedom for the security of governmental control over our lives. When government completely controls our health-care, who can deny that we have sacrificed immense personal liberty?

I don’t know anyone who doesn’t see problems with health-care costs. What emerged from Congress was the wrong prescription for the health-care ailments afflicting the nation. Attempts to classify governmental absorption of nearly one-fifth of our economy as “Christian,” or “moral,” lack comprehension of what both are, and they belie the affects of the legislation. We have done precisely what Franklin warned against. We have sacrificed essential liberty to obtain a little security. Perhaps his conclusion was correct. We deserve neither.