And when those ‘experts’ are on the payroll of the Saudis?

And they’re probably right — at least, it shouldn’t matter. That’s the point of having a professional bureaucracy: keep the experts notwithstanding party affiliation.

Of course, that’s another reason to suspect that Barnett supports Kerry for reasons of ambition, not convictin.

(BTW, love the Siamese picture.)

There are several FoPo types on the democratic side who have good ideas and a vision. And they claim it doesn’t matter actually who is president because some of these factors are so self-evident that an administration on either side would pay attention to them.

On a certain level that’s probably true, but the devil is in the details. All I have to remember is the Jimmy Carter presidency.

As I understand it Barnett was advising an underling of Rumsfeld. And the only criticism of Bush’s policies I got out of the talk was not enough coziness with China and India in our coalition of the willing. I think he’s right there. But it doesn’t mean Bush wouldn’t work to change that.

Kerry will work harder for France and Germany neither of whom matter as much to the future as China and India.

The threat would have to be against all those in a position to supply nuclear weapons,that no matter who the proxies are,the probable suppliers would be targeted.A form of reverse terrorism but a way to deter the use of proxies.Yes it is a threat against innocent people,but we are there already,a nuclear strike signals total war,sad that the seventh century can pollute the twenty first.

Also I think that host nations with terrorist cells are inclined to eliminate them, as Saddam Hussein did with Abu Nidal,if they expose them to retaliation.

I am presuming, from the example of Yasser Arafat and Osama bin Laden,that the leadership of any nation disseminating nuclear or biological weapons, wishes to survive,no matter how fanatical they are.I also presume that the Mullahs for example love their country,they may be milking it, but it is theirs,that is a very powerful emotion.Risking that by giving al Qaeda,which has nothing to lose, nuclear weapons doesn’t seem much of a bargain.

Any nuclear strike and the rules change,the niceties of human rights, the rules of interrogation, arrest warrants and assassination would be re-written.No western government could survive if it did not produce results.

We won’t like the new world, but any perpetrators would be found and they would talk and there would be a reckoning.

Hey, I am not just another pretty face y’know.

I don’t doubt Kerry has some smart people somewhere on his side. But the point is there really should not be sides in this.

If a bomb goes off, what do we do and who do we do it to?

This is why proliferation is such a serious, non-linear problem. It changes the nature of the problem from the simple one of nuclear deterrence against a missile delivered nuke, to the complex on of being willing to destroy whoever nuked you, when you don’t know who that was.

In a proliferation scenario, the deterrence strategy falls apart. You either kill a very large number of relatively innocent people, or you let someone get away with it.

I was addressing John Moore,the subject was deterence and whether it is possible with theocratic Iran,I did not mention Europe the EU or european industry.

Go and be clever at someone elses expense.

Makes sense to me, but then I’m still a registered Democrat…