The reason for a very robust U.S. Nuclear Warfare presence is greater today than during the “hot” cold-war. And Israel is, or sure ought to be, worried sick over Obama’s antics with the Russians.

Put bluntly, Israel must have a credible failback on the nuclear forces of the United States to deter IRAN from a first strike if Iran gains that capacity.

To be clear: the failback is not strickly to deter Iran, but to checkmate more capable nuclear forces from arraying their atomic weaponry in defense of Iran to Israel’s great strategic detriment.

This morning Megan Kelly, by inference, extoled Obama’s brilliance in arranging a meeting with Putin TO SIGN a nuclear disarmament Treaty with the “ex”-Soviets. I didn’t catch the date Megan gave but it was in early April and may have been as soon as April 9th.

Megan mentioned in passing the need for the Senate’s consent to ratification but glided over that point as if it entailed a mere “tradition.”

It was unclear whether she meant before or after the signing ceremony in Moscow. It would not be unusual to have the President sign subject to Senate approval, but in the case of this rogue administration, implimentation on the Obama signature alone is highly likely under the rubric of the inherent powers of the Commander-in-Chief.

The State Department often asserts, falsely, that the signing of a treaty “ad referendum” obliges the U.S. to do nothing in derogation of the treaty terms during its pendency before the Senate. This doctrine is complete nonsense, but the danger here is even worse. Will Obama simply draw down our nuclear deterent BEFORE consent to it?

As to the treaty terms as we are sparely informed of them, it appears that the U.S. would reduce its forces by one-third and Russia would reduce its forces by a similar amount. That is very bad for our position as a nuclear power, as to Russian, as to China, and as to both of them in our dealing with third-world powers with atom bombs.

The point is that Russia’s atomic arsenal is already so much larger than ours that a one-third reduction for them means eliminating fat while a one-third reduction for the U.S. means eliminating muscle.

The proposed treaty should be assessed against one measure, the American Plan for fighting a nuclear war and winning. That plan, based on adequate nuclear arms, is why we are RIGHT NOW protected from a surprise nuclear attack. Does Obama care if he destroys or cripples that plan? He has done enough to our country already for us to know the answer.

they are very resourceful, active, and relentless.

[I wrote a long disertation on senate procedure in executive session and how the government can be shut down for at least two months, easily, under treaty consideration procedures -- particularly of a bad treaty.]

Somehow my entire text disappeared toward the end. I’m going to take a break and try again later. The procedures are complex, but they cut very much our way and are designed to preclude foreign “entanglements.”

My main point was that the proposed deal with the Russia on nuclear arms is terrible, but it presents a golden oppotunity to us — if Mitch is not allowed to soft shoe around a real danger to the country and a great opening for us to win one of overridding importance — while also inflicting massive and severe collateral damage.

More to follow.