Our allies object to "No First Use" nuclear pledge by lame duck Obama

As  our lame President Barack Obama ducks leadership responsibility over first strike options should there be a threat posed to the U.S. or any of our allies, the fear is that our enemies will view Obama for the weak pantywaist that he is, and be more than happy to take over the role of first striker. 

Our so-called president's term is thankfully coming to an end (unless he declares martial law should Hillary get indicted before she takes office, should she win) and our allies are worried that Obama will publicly pledge that the U.S. would never be first to use nuclear weapons in a conflict (he wants to wait for the blinding flash report that he would get from his protected bunker) Josh Rogin of The Washington Post reported Sunday.

Japan, France, Britain and South Korea have "all privately communicated their concerns" about what would be "a landmark change in America's nuclear posture," Rogin reported.

Shinzo Abe, Japan's Prime Minister, spoke with U.S. Pacific Commander Admiral Harry Harris Jr. telling him that he is worried that an American pledge of "no first use" of nuclear weapons will reduce deterrence of rogue nuclear states such as North Korea and increase the possibility of war.

But Barack Obama claimed to be the "most transparent president" in the history of the office, and when it comes to tipping his hand to the enemies of the U.S. and our allies, he is telling the truth, for a change. Not only does Obama tell our enemies how he plans to respond, he lets them know how long he will allow our troops to stay in the conflict before we pack up and go home.

Another problem this notion of refusing first nuclear response is that our European allies are put in an awkward position. They don't want significant differences between their nuclear policies and ours, particularly because the UK, France and the U.S. are permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, and if there becomes a bellicose situation, the policy differences could cause serious coordination problems, the most difficult of which would likely be having to find the Obama's hiding place if war breaks out.

Former Obama administration State Department official and smart Jewish guy Joel Rubin explained "While the goal of a 'no first use' policy is correct--to never be the first country to launch a cataclysmic nuclear strike--doing so unilaterally could run the risk of weakening our allies' confidence in our security guarantees. This would not be in our interest."

"Go ahead, you big bully,  take the first punch." That's the 'intelligent' strategy Obama brings to the kiddy table.

No enemy should have total confidence that they can take the first punch with a nuclear strike. That's not only stupid and naive, it's downright insane and suicidal.

Our allies living under our nuclear umbrella are frustrated that they weren't consulted about any possible changes in our nuclear policy, Rogin said. 

Now our allies understand how we wish we, the American people, were consulted when Obama paid Iran a ransom of $400 million to release 4 hostages.

Supposedly, an administration official [liar] told Rogin that the concerns our allies have were being taken into account [and likely ignored] and that an official 'no first use' declaration was falling out of favor as a means to advance Obama's nuclear non-proliferation aspirations.

According to Rogin, Obama is looking to move toward his goal of global disarmament that he expressed in Prague back in 2009 "while maintaining a credible deterrent for the United States, our allies and our partners," National Security Council spokesman (or-however-he-she-it identifies) told the Post. 

So what can we next expect from this amateur administration? Telling our enemies how long we will wait after attacked with nuclear force? How long after we counter-attack will we continue to fight before we pull out our troops and 'end the war'?

Tweet