Leave it to The NY Times to misrepresent U.S. nuclear weapons strategy

This nation has been down this road before, justifying to liberals the need for nuclear weapons. The New York Times just does not get it. If it was up to them we would just destroy all our weapons, build a campfire, and then stand around holding hands and singing songs. 

The New York Times editorial board does not see the need for nuclear deterrence. They live in a bubble shielded safe space that does not allow them to see the bad guys in the real world. They need to go back and read the history of the cold war. One thing is for sure: Without our nuclear arsenal, we would probably be speaking Russian by now.

As Written By Michaela Dodge for the Daily Signal:

Leave it to The New York Times to misrepresent U.S. nuclear weapons strategy.

In its Oct. 26 editorial, the Times completely misses the point of possessing nuclear weapons: to deter large-scale attacks against the United States, assure our allies so that they won’t develop their own nuclear capabilities, and win a nuclear war should the extreme circumstance demand it.

The Trump administration’s 2018 Nuclear Posture Review has a unique opportunity to not only recognize these benefits, but also to put U.S. nuclear weapons policy on a sounder footing following years of neglect.

The Times’ metric for destruction is the elimination of one-quarter of a given country’s population. But the assumption that nuclear weapons are only good to kill civilian populations is faulty in the extreme.

Not only would deliberate targeting of civilians be immoral and a break with decades-old U.S. nuclear targeting policy, it would also unlikely deter countries like North Korea. The North Korean regime does not care about its population, it cares about its own survival.

The primary……


New York Times Doesn’t Get Why Nuclear Weapons Are Actually Necessary

Leave a Comment

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.