Investor’s Business Daily had an article called Duck and Cover: Obama Style (December 17, 2010) on the present administration’s attitudes on a nuclear strike against America. The article compares this present, and new, attitude – which quietly sneers at people who want to make our risk zero by pre-empting terrorist states with nuclear weapons – with the Left’s previous attitude toward the survivability of a nuclear attack/war. If you have forgotten, the Left for decades sneered at the idea of even bothering to try to survive, because it would not be possible. The only solution was total disarmament: only Flower Power would counterbalance the Russians’ weaponry. “All we are aaaskiiiinnng, is give peace a chance.”
An excerpt from the editorial:
The administration even has a CitizenCorps.gov Web site. “Scientific analysis has shown that today’s threat is different” than the Cold War nuclear threat, the site’s “Planning for a Nuclear Detonation” section assures its readers .
The danger today is “potentially survivable for thousands, especially with adequate shelter and education,” it states. “Spending the first few hours in a good shelter, such as the center of a multi-story building, can keep radiation exposure at a non-lethal level.”
Another soothing reassurance is that a nuclear terrorist blast is a “much smaller explosion than the strategic thermonuclear weapons of the Cold War, though people within a few miles of the blast could still be killed or injured.” No kidding. You think?
“Breathing in fallout dust is only a minor concern,” the nuclear survival Web site says. “The good news is that fallout decays and radiation levels will decrease rapidly over the first few hours and days,” so “spending the first hour in an urban shelter such as a multi-story building can keep radiation exposures at a non-lethal level.”
For years, detente proponents joked that the only reason to “duck and cover” during a nuclear attack was to kiss your posterior goodbye. Now, instead of going all-out to prevent Islamofascist Iran from building a nuclear bomb, the Obama administration is telling the American people: don’t be fatalistic. The “good news” is that nuclear terrorism is “more survivable” than you think.
And so why this change of attitude?
Given the hostility of the Left and of BIG BRObama himself (e.g. read his books) toward America, toward American History, toward American exceptionalism, toward American capitalist and religious culture, I fear there is only answer.
They must believe that America is not worth reducing this threat to zero, or at least as low as possible. It is possible they consciously or subconsciously believe that – for the sake of fairness – America needs to be hit with a nuclear weapon, so that it can receive payback for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so that it can receive payback for developing missiles and nuclear warheads to protect itself from Russian and Chinese Communism (who really were peace-loving, according to the Left), so that it can be paid back for supporting Israel against peace-loving, freedom-loving Islamic states, so that it can be paid back for African slavery, so that it can be paid back for harming the environment, so that it can be paid back for stealing the whole country from the Native Americans, so that it can be paid back for whatever ill The Left imagines we are guilty of!
And so this most questionable administration will apparently do nothing beyond mouth-flapping to stop Iran, North Korea, or any other rogue state from developing nuclear bombs, states which have openly expressed their desire to hit us and other countries allied with us with nuclear weapons. It wants to disarm America (recall BIG BRObama’s infamous speech about his intentions on weapon programs of the future: see the link below) and tie our hands with worthless treaties, like START, which History has shown the Russians and Chinese will instantly violate, while screaming that the U.S. needs to adhere to it.