The post-World War i disarmament movement, as journalist Walter Lippmann observed in 1943, was “tragically successful in disarming the nations that believed in disarmament” (emphasis mine throughout). Those who weren’t believers, of course, were responsible for the nightmare that was the Second World War.

History is now repeating itself.

On Monday, one year after the Prague pledge to seek “a world without nuclear weapons,” President Obama told the New York Times that he would not use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state, even if that nation attacked the U.S. with biological or chemical weapons. Whether or not that actually represents a dramatic change in American strategy, it certainly represents a radical shift in the current administration’s approach to maintaining the peace.

Previous presidents have traditionally played the nuclear card close to the chest in order to keep potential adversaries off balance. But not President Obama. His cards are on the table for all the world to see. If the dream of a world free of nuclear weapons is ever to be fully realized, President Obama believes the United States must lead by example and be the first to dismantle its arsenal.

On Tuesday, the president introduced the Pentagon’s Nuclear Posture Review by saying, “[T]he greatest threat to U.S. and global security is no longer a nuclear exchange between nations, but nuclear terrorism by violent extremists and nuclear proliferation to an increasing number of states.”

He’s dead wrong about that. Nuclear war is the greatest threat facing the United States! Prophecy says so (Amos 5:3; Matthew 24:21-22)—which is why America’s quest for a nuke-free world is of special significance. It’s actually accelerating the fulfillment of those end-time prophecies. Even 20th-century history teaches that lesson.

Yesterday, President Obama signed a nuclear disarmament treaty with Russia, agreeing to slash America’s nuclear weapons arsenal by one third and to cut in half the number of missiles, submarines and bombers used to deliver them. This, the president said, will set the stage for further cuts. “It is just one step on a longer journey,” he added.

A majority of Americans, meanwhile, oppose downsizing the U.S. arsenal. Only 31 percent believe Russia will honor yesterday’s agreement.

All one has to do to know Moscow’s intentions is look at what it has been busy doing in the lead-up to this treaty signing: Distributing as many weapons as possible to America’s enemies—and promising nuclear assistance to the anti-U.S. Hugo Chávez’s Venezuela.

Just a week ago, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, visiting Venezuela for the first time, signed 31 agreements in oil, trade—and nuclear power. The two leaders signed a letter of intent to build a nuclear power station—which of course Chávez hastily assured the world would not be used to build a nuclear bomb. Upon returning to Moscow, Putin said Russia’s arms exports to Venezuela may exceed $5 billion. Already, Venezuela has bought $4 billion worth of military equipment from Russia in the past five years.

Also a week ago, China took delivery of S-300 anti-aircraft missiles from Russia as part of a contract worth up to $2.25 billion. Meanwhile, as American Thinker reports, “Russia has been conducting quite a business by selling the same S-300 ‘Favorit’ (the world’s most powerful and efficient air defense system) to many countries hostile to the U.S. and Israel: Syria, India, Algeria, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Saudi Arabia”—and possibly Iran.

Russia certainly has its own idea of arms control.

But never mind that—President Obama believes in unilateral disarmament.

Besides dismantling nukes and promising not to use the remaining arsenal to retaliate against a chemical or biological attack, this week President Obama also reassured potential enemies that America will not conduct nuclear testing, or pursue new military missions, or develop any new nuclear weapons, or develop new capabilities for nuclear weapons.

Out with the old—and out with the new! Even the New York Times sees America’s Cold War stockpile of weapons as “an aging, oversized, increasingly outmoded nuclear arsenal.” But don’t count on there being any upgrades—at least not during the present administration.

Meanwhile, absolutely nothing prevents Russia, China or the European Union—not to mention Iran and North Korea—from continuing the research and development they need to build the next generation of nuclear weapons.

And they will continue to build even as America continues its one-man-nuclear-disarmament-show. The president firmly believes that America’s national security, as well as that of its allies, “can be increasingly defended by America’s unsurpassed conventional military capabilities and strong missile defenses.”

Why focus on nukes when the “greatest threat” now comes from “violent extremists”? Who these violent extremists actually are is an open question, judging by the revisions being made to the official document outlining America’s national security strategy. According to FoxNews.com, President Obama’s advisers are currently removing terms like Islamic extremism and jihad in order to “emphasize that the United States does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terror.”

Thus, the strategic approach to fighting radical Islam is effectively this: Close your eyes and hope they go away. And as for the possibility of global nuclear war, the National Posture Review reassures us that the threat is “remote.”

What a stunning display of national weakness. It’s nothing short of a step-by-step reenactment of the 1930s. And it will result in the greatest explosion of violence this world has ever seen.

Only then, after yet another painfully sad repetition of history, will the illusion of arms control be horrifically revealed as a tragic success.