So President Obama made us marginally less safe yesterday. Jen Rubin calls the move “incomprehensible,” and I can’t argue with that. Here’s the story as reported by the Washington Post:
Under the new policy, the administration will foreswear the use of the deadly weapons against nonnuclear countries, officials said, in contrast to previous administrations, which indicated they might use nuclear arms against nonnuclear states in retaliation for a biological or chemical attack.
For decades, and especially after the US destroyed its chemical and biological weapons stores in the early 1970s, our policy has been simple: A nuke bomb is a chemical bomb is a biological bomb. We did not discern between WMDs — and we would retaliate with our own WMDs if struck by enemy WMDs.
And since we had no chemical or biological weapons, that meant one thing: We’re coming after you with nukes. Result? No weapon of mass destruction has ever been used against the United States. Pretty cool, that.
We went even further than that to keep the peace, believe it or not. During the Cold War, the Soviets loudly proclaimed they would never be the first to use nuclear weapons. (Although their defense posture, weapons procurement, and doctrine all showed that proclamation to be disingenuous at best.) Moscow then dared us to make the same commitment. And we stayed silent instead.
Result? The Soviets tread more gently than they otherwise might have. Because one treads lightly in a minefield — especially a nuclear one. Never define exactly what enemy action would make you push the button, and you keep the strategic initiative. Important, that.
Well, yesterday Obama — facing no pressure or need to change anything at all — quite recklessly turned over the strategic initiative (operational, too, for that matter) to the other guys.
Little countries can now act, with chemical or biological agents, sure in the knowledge that however we respond, we will respond with less. The other guy now gets to determine how much punishment he is willing to take. Before yesterday, we determined how much punishment we were willing to dish out (plenty).
President Johnson (and to a lesser extent, Nixon) made the same mistake in dealing with North Vietnam. “Escalation,” tit-for-tat, let Hanoi dictate the pace of the war, while simultaneously learning how to deal with, and obviate, our military might. Result: We lost the initiative and eventually the war. Sucky, that.
As of today, the little guys just got a bit bigger. They can hit us with the worst they’ve got, safe in the knowledge that the full weight of our might will never come down on them. (Note: This is not to advocate the use of nuclear weapons. But by publicly keeping our options open, the odds of us ever having to use those terrible things is reduced.)
The little guys, feeling a bit bigger, might feel big enough to push us around. And if they push hard enough, we might just find ourselves in a situation where nukes become the only answer, no matter what nice words might be contained in the President’s new Nuclear Posture Review.
About the best thing that can be said about the new NPR is this: Some in the Administration (the President himself?) wanted to make it even stupider, by forswearing first use unilaterally. But WaPo reported that the Pentagon and the State Department both worried (and rightly so) that such a move would “unnerve” our allies — allies President Obama has already made a habit of ignoring, snubbing or insulting.
And don’t think the little guys haven’t noticed — as the Iranian leadership continues to ignore, snub and insult Obama.
But, hey, Obama feels it’s his duty to “help the little guy.” What a shame some of those little guys sit in very nice offices in Pyongyang, Tehran, and Damascus. And in Beijing and Moscow, too.
The world hasn’t suddenly become a much more dangerous place — only marginally so. But the question is: Why? What pressure, foreign or domestic, did we face to make us change decades of smart defense policy? Answer: None. Stupid, that.
If you didn’t already question Obama’s judgement, now would be a good time to start.
UPDATE: Just a little something I just now noticed. The headline writers at the Washington Post call the new, emasculated NPR, a “middle course.” Well, I guess somewhere between “smart, proven policy” and “gosh, where did all those exploding enemy WMDs suddenly come from?” is indeed the middle.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Doug Mataconis agrees, and has a linktastic roundup of blogger reaction.
ONE MORE: Maybe Jen was too generous with “incomprehensible.” Roger L. Simon goes for “deranged,” instead.
On the other hand, this is Mr. Broken Promises Obama we’re talking about.
With hat off to Jim G, fortunately everything BHO says comes with an expiration date. Everything.
Please. Our enemies, who wouldn’t hesitate to use nukes if they thought they wouldn’t be hit in return, won’t believe him. I don’t believe him. And if nukes hit NYC, SF, and LA, and Obama didn’t hit back, he’d be replaced with someone who would.
“If you didn’t already question Obama’s judgement, now would be a good time to start”
Real insight into Commandate Zero’s actions.
That same thought just occurred to me earlier this morning. I fear that Obama has set the stage for a WMD attack on the U.S. to lead to a military coup d’etat.
I don’t think that was what he meant to do — but then, for all the man’s ability to string words together, he’s an idiot.
Obama has officially turned my head into a yo-yo. The difficulty is that, unlike Jimmy Carter who you knew exactly where he was coming from, Obama is completely unpredictable. I have no idea what drives Obama’s policy making decisions. He’s clearly not a pacifist, or he wouldn’t be doubling down with a surge and increased drone strikes in AfPak. On the other hand, he’s setting unrealistic and arbitrary time-tables that just happen coincide with reelection season.
Even more of a mystery to me is where exactly this policy is coming from. The only conclusion that I can make from this is that this Administration is a non-pacifist, Left-leaning Administration wrapped in a shroud of incompetence. This policy is an unforced error, which seems to rely on some Leftist canard that all you have to do to get enemies to back down from a fight is to throw down your superior weapons and tell them that “we are the world.” But, even if this is true, the unilateral way this decision has been enacted is so devoid of any geopolitical savy, you can only be left scratching your head. Even worse, with all the geopolitical issues we are dealing with right now, why on God’s green Earth did this become a priority?
The next 2 years are going to give me ulcers. What else is this nutter going to cook up? Full withdrawal from South Korea? Turning over Okinawa? Giving Texas back to Mexico? Sad thing is, I’m only slightly kidding.
Roger Simon’s two articles “President Weirdo” and “President Weirdo Goes Anti-Nuke” have good insights and many insightful comments regarding the O’s sanity or lack there of. Daily we recieve more and more evidence that supports the majority of commenter belief that that in addition to being a radical leftist he suffers at least some level or personality disorder if not actual derangement. It is my belief that POTUS is literaly cracking under the first pressure he’s ever been exposed to. Hopefully as he decends from disorder to neurosese to full blown psychosis he’ll not be able to take us all with him.
I wouldn’t bet on that.
“Giving Texas back to Mexico”?
The US had nothing to do with defending Texas from Mexico in the first place.
The more likely result would be simply losing Texas from the Union. And I’m not sure that would be a disaster.
- Texan
Obama… completely unpredictable”? NO, HE IS CATEGORICALLY NOT!!! Among words to describe bho, are strong ones such as: calculating, unprincipled, deceptive (or so he may fancy himself), traitorous, anarchistic, opportunistic, arrogant, hypocritical, evil, bastardly, narcissistic, putrid, so smart that he is actually stupid, ungrateful, etc. But unpredictable? NEVER!!!! I have expected the deliberately worst White House administration from him since the day I first heard of him, and EVERYTHING he’s done and said has validated my expectations. I seriously doubt he can surprise any reasonably observant and sensible advocate of American sovereignty, freedom and the respective private citizens’ self reliance. Another commentator stated that should any of our enemies dare to launch a WMD against us, either the dirtbag obama will retaliate with a nuke, or be replaced. I would only rejoice, should the day come that he is replaced.
As Achillea said, talk is cheap.
I read this as simple posturing to the Progressive/peaceniks and to the Euroleft.
I can’t imagine who would actually be emboldened by this new stance, even if they believed it; there aren’t any states I can think of who’d try a chem/bio attack on the US in the first place, right about now.
(Iran might, maybe, want to at some level but has no way to carry it out – and I don’t think for a second that they believe there wouldn’t be a 250 kiloton response.)
And terrorist types, of course, aren’t worried about a nuclear counter-attack.
(And screw you, Pajamas Media, for having the “subscribe to the Daily Digest” checkbox pre-checked. Opt-out? Seriously? in 2010?)
Actually the line reads “Click here to subscribe to the DALLY Digest” (emphasis mine). Now leaving aside for the moment why PJs would offer us a digest that by definition would dwadle on it’s way to our inboxes, as your complaint refers to a “Daily Digest” which PJs does not yet offer (tho they should) you obviously didn’t read the info under comment box. You should be more carefull as the checked box could have obligated you to give your fortune to Stephen Green. Now about that dilly dallying digest.
There are three typos in your note about the typo. Or are they spelling errors? (Not including “tho” which I assume is intentional shorthand.)
Thanks for the constructive criticism. At least your paying attention apparently PJ’s is not. Now if only that Digest would arrive expeditiously.
I cannot see an American submarine commander with his cargo of Nukes holding back after a crippling strike cyber, chemical, biological or nuclear takes the country into ruin.
Boomer skippers do still have the launch when contact with National command is lost option. Some will not launch obviously BUT there are some who will launch and with extreme predjudice.
Not to worry. The sec. of defense, Gates, says Iran and North Korea are exempt from the new nuclear rules of engagement. So I gather Iran and North Korea could still suffer a precautionary covert “nuclear accident.” Terrorists do have mishaps with their explosive devices all the time, blowing themselves up. I suppose it could happen to a whole city from a purloined atomic device. Though on a minor scale, it’s happened before with American radicals from the Weather Underground in the 60s, some Northern California tree huggers in the 90s went poof on the way to the scene of the crime, and it happens to Muslims all time on perpetual jihad. I don’t see why Syrians should be an exception to the rule of accidental nuclear explosions; when it comes to accidental man made disasters, Gates didn’t mention an exemption for Syria. Maybe the President did dazzle the Syrians with hope and change for the better?
My own view is that this is the opening gambit in some new maneuver aimed at making Mr. Obama relevant in foreign policy. It certainly is balm to his hard-core constituency of anti-war “activists” and it gets them off his back about our continued invovlement in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is willing to take short term political and tactical gains at the expense of long-term national security. This speaks for itself.
Stephen Green,
The Obama Administration nuclear policy is all about domestic politics and misdirection.
Obama is trying, and suceeding, in getting unemployment and health care reform out of the news cycle.
This is good for him given the two up coming House of Representatives special elections.
Sure, he got 67 million morons to vote for him in 2008; did anyone think that a sufficiently large number of those morons suddenly de-moronized to make any difference?
People and countries make mistakes, the US made one by electing the O ring. From the outside I guess I look at it and say my faith and loyalty to the US has not diminished one iota, it’s still the leader of the free world and has my full respect. This hick up of a president in the overall scheme of things means nothing, going ahead is put on hold and clean up will be required.
The unfortunate part is it can take decades to clean up as we have seen with the peanut farmer’s legacy.
Alfred E Neuman is the perfect reference.
Just making the world safe for terrorists. This is an open call to strike us, cause panic in the streets so martial law can be declared, elections forever postponed, guns confiscated, etc, etc.
“Walk softly and carry a big stick.”
One of the things that Teddy Roosevelt got right. (He was a progressive)
The problem is, America has been like an obnoxious drunk at a garden party for at least a couple of decades, and now, we’re throwing away the stick.
“Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far”
http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/life/quotes.htm
To Doug #4.
Nobody’s going to give Texas back to Mexico. Texas can kick Mexico’s ass all by itself.
Keep in mind that President Gormless went all in for Copenhagen, even though the supports were being kicked out from the anthropogenic global warming myth. He just isn’t the brightest bulb in the box. He will continue to act according to his leftist training despite all evidece to the contrary that it is the path to ruination. For this manchild appearence is everything. But speaking of appearences, he should really stay out of ball parks.
The current Obamanation is an Abomination of our Amercian principles. Someone should start Impeachment hearings… maybe after the mid-terms.
*American… I fingers faster than brain.
sally-dont bother with impeachment-it will NEVER happen. The Senate has to vote 2/3 to REMOVE the commie trash. Do you beleive for 1 minute UPCHUCK U SCHUMER, Bernie Saunders, Dickhead Durban, are going to vote to remove the trash? It will never happen.
Oh, by the way-we do not need to get hit with a thermonuke to get seriously damaged. An EMP would work just fine thank you, fry out EVERY electronic device within blast range. Im wondering if Iran is testing devices designed to explode ABOVE ground. After all, its long been known an air burst is the most effective type of nuclear blast, since it takes other variables out of the equation. And just think of the coincidence-the week ObamaPOS is telling the world we wont use a nuclear response, PUTIN is in VENEZUELA meeting with commie CHAVEZ. 3 guesses what that meeting was about? If there is still a USA in 2-5 yrs, VENEZUELA will be the first Latin American country with nukes. Imagine this-CHAVEZ trying to finish the job that Castro and Che Guevarra failed to accomplish during the Cuban missle crisis of 1962. Funny how in the end, Khrushev came to fear what Castro and Che might do rather than what JFK did do.
I bet Obama sucks at poker too. Why show someone your cards?
He’s trying to grow into his Peace Prize?
Not merely incomprehensibly deranged but unfathomably ridiculous. The gap between his self regard and his competence grows even wider.
probably bipolar. the impulsiveness, no regard for consequences. adores moslems. crazy bstard.
That ridiculous amateur in the White House is simply pandering to his lefty base, playing politics as usual, and completely oblivious to the danger he keeps putting us in.
Does this fall under the “High crimes and misdemeanors” category?
“I do not worry”. Next time there is a gunfight the C. in C. (clown in the circuis) will protect me by bringing his little spring-loaded plastic knife. No one should be alarmed!!!!!
I guess unlike so many books he at least pretends to have read, Barry doesn’t even make his usual effort at deceit in relation to Sun Tzu or von Clausewitz.
A real “wow.” moment.
It is shortsighted to show your cards to the world, no argument there.
However the wailing and whining on this board that the US not having anything to retaliate with is ignorant in of itself. There are weapons more efficient than nukes on the table, and whoever states the US is not currently manufacturing and maintaining chemical and biological weapons is blind; The weaponized anthrax sent to US Senators in 2001 was from current US military research programs. The F22 and F35 technology is 30 years old….who knows what is being flown or tested at night in the Deserts and Us territories.
President Obama may have mis stepped in whatever his strategy is disclosing when we use Nukes, but over reaction is just as wrong.
We do research on how to combat other people’s weapons. We don’t have stockpiles of either chemical or bioweapons; they’re simply too dangerous.
As for our smart conventional weapons – the simple answer is that they’re great if you actually want to kill something. However, they’re a lousy deterrent. A nuclear deterrent says “I don’t have to invade, I don’t have to worry about you shooting down bombers, I don’t have to worry about you taking prisoners: I’m simply going to flatten your cities and leave them uninhabitable for the next 50 years.”
Mr. Green,
You’re about ten months behind the rest of. You write, “If you didn’t already question Obama’s judgement, now would be a good time to start.” Sir, there’s nothing wrong with Obama’s judgment. Everything he does is planned out, thought through, executed. And intentional. Obama has no desire to preserve, protect and defend the United States and our Constitution. Just the opposite, he’s out to destroy us. If you don’t already question Obama’s motivation, you’d better start.
” . . . he’s out to destroy us.”
Exactly. It can’t be said often enough. Too many thick heads out there still don’t get it.
Mr. Green:
“No weapon of mass destruction has ever been used against the United States. Pretty cool, that.”
Um, not to pick a nit, but we already have been attacked with WMD’s…and suffered mortal casualties from it.
Anthrax…late 2001.
That all aside:
“If you didn’t already question Obama’s judgement, now would be a good time to start.”
What? You don’t like our “post-racial” Nuclear Posture?
(The fact that it may turn out to be post-HUMAN racial shouldn’t bother you in the least.
Think of how much you’ll save in ObamaCare Tax by taking advantage of the “Dead Taxpayer Exemption”.
At any rate, if you plan on voting for the DemocRats this November, see if you can get a coffin subsidy for you and your family.
Why wait for the Obamageddon rush?
Bilgeman, the obvious constraint here is weapon of mass destruction. And how many people died from that Anthrax attack? …
It’s obvious that you are not at all familiar with this site, else you would not be posting fatuous comments such as
The idea that Stephen Green would vote for Obama (or current Democrats) is as absurd as the idea that he would prefer straight grain alcohol to Vodka…
And if you don’t get that joke you should just leave. Now. Before you piss off the regulars.
Jesus, Stephen, did you kick over the crazy-nutjob antpile, or what? I especially enjoyed #28, who demonstrated a truly classic non sequitur with its link to UK hospital hiring practices.
You know what this thread reminds me of? The Boys from Brazil. Except that instead of cloning Hitler, by some clusterf**k they cloned Joe McCarthy instead.
Just shoot me now…
But wait, we weren’t attacked after 9/11. All the Bush folks said so. In fact, according to Dana Perino, we weren’t attacked at all during the Bush administration.
“We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush.” Dana Perino on, wait for it, the Sean Hannity Show.
So, which way do you want it to be . . . today?
Here is a quick glimpse into the Illegal Immigrant Amnesty future for the USA and ObamaCare.
From Algeria to Zimbabwe, the atlas of nations in ONE hospital
By Sophie Borland
Last updated at 1:06 AM on 07th April 2010
The astonishing range of nationalities employed at an NHS hospital was laid bare yesterday.
Staff at Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals represent an A to Z of nations, from Antigua to Ghana, Hungary to Zimbabwe.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1264033/From-Algeria-Zimbabwe-atlas-nations-ONE-hospital.html#ixzz0kOTxUdQF
The impression I get, once more, is that The One and his sycophants (they can hardly be called “advisors” with a straight face) are completely ignorant of not only Sun-Tzu and von Clausewitz, but even the more basic principles of Commoner’s Law (“Actions have consequences”), or even the Law of Unintended Consequences. To wit;
One of the basic functions of nuclear deterrence, beyond that of preventing nuclear war and the use of WMDs in general, has been to keep existing or potential conflicts from escalating. The message, never explicitly stated but always there, has been, “If you take it too far, we will destroy you.” To see how effectively this policy worked, look at the various “brushfire wars” that characterized the early to mid Cold War period. Only Korea approached the nuclear threshold, due to a miscalculation made on both sides (by Mao in Beijing and MacArthur at I Corps). Truman managed to salvage the situation.
By essentially taking the nuclear option “off the table”, Obama has said to non-nuclear states, “No matter what you do, we will only respond in kind”. This takes us back to the “graded escalation” policy used in Vietnam (as Mr. Green has stated), except that it is under the control of a President, and a party, with no stomach for standing their ground against anyone but… their own country, which they hold as the “real villain” in all matters.
What Obama does not seem to understand, at all, is that if you want to “deter war” without the use of nuclear options, you must have the conventional arms strength to present a credible threat to the potential aggressors. Which we do not have, to the degree needed to make up the difference, and in the future will have even less of due to Obama’s determination to cut military spending in pursuit of his dream of multilateralism.
In the 1960s, the NATO countries, led by the UK, cut back their conventional forces in the belief that all they needed was just enough “boots on the ground” to act as a “tripwire” to trigger nuclear retaliation in event of a Warsaw Pact invasion. It came very close to causing just such an invasion, because of a perception on the WP side that NATO, and the U.S., simply did not mean what they said about the nuclear retaliation part. This conclusion largely being drawn form the statements of people like Jimmy Carter, and those who, among other things, mentored Barack Obama.
With this “reform”, Obama has given that impression to every potential aggressor on the planet- and there are a lot of them. We won’t use nuclear weapons, and we won’t spend the money to build up the conventional forces to deter aggression by the ability to project force, i.e., beat the crap out of a would-be empire builder the old-fashioned way. (One reason for the “tripwire” policy to begin with is that a credible nuclear arsenal is cheaper to build and maintain than an equivalent throw-weight of conventional forces- look it up.) This leaves us with no response that any would-be Napoleon (or even Mussolini) is going to take seriously for a second.
Obama tells himself he is creating the conditions for world peace, I’m sure. What he is really creating are the ideal conditions for war without end. And that war will not be a “limited” one, except insofar as there won’t be mushroom clouds sprouting over cities.
At least, not at first.
There’s an old saying that goes “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions”. Disregarding the subject of whether or not The One’s intentions are “good” or not, we must also consider that said road is laid over a subgrade of mistaken assumptions, delusions, arrogance, and simple stupidity. Which is what we are seeing in action in the White House, right now.
clear ether
eon
Stephen,
I think this is farther reaching than your already deppressing post.
This announcement effectively marks the end of the American nuclear
unbrella. After this, no responsible country can count on USA
protection/determent from Chinese or Russian aggression. Countries
like Australia, Japan, South Korea will have to evaluate the
possibility of arming themselves with nuclear arms as a determent to
Chinese aggression. Ditto Poland and others vs Russia.
If Putin agrees to a nuclear pact with Chavez, Brazil, Colombia and
Chile could be in play.
This move by our President increases significantly the likelihood
of expansion of proliferation.
As #26 Rachel says, this is not by accident. It is an announcement
to the world that the USA will no longer be the world’s
policeman. This in turn enables a significant reduction in our
current approx. 4% of GDP expenditure on defense – dedicating the
savings to more dependency generating expenditures.
This is truly transformational change – just not what I can believe
in.
Like I’ve said before: Obama is far more prepared to attack American citizens than America’s enemies.
Obama must be the worst poker player in the world.
Obama: “Punch back twice as hard … at Ameicans, not her Enemies.”
In Retrospect, It May Not Have Been A Wise Move To Elect The Drunken Illegitimate Indonesian Grandson Of An African Witch Doctor As President Of The USA.
This policy creates an asymmetric threat against US armed forces by countries that possess chemical weapons. Imagine the first Gulf War conducted under this policy – rather than Saddam having been told on the down low that using his chemical stockpiles against coalition forces would invite a nuclear response, he would be free to use them against US forces with only a conventional response, which is no response because his country would already be under conventional attack.
How many dead soldiers is this feel-good policy worth? Because that is exactly what this provocatively weak policy invites – American troops in the field without the US nuclear umbrella protecting them from enemy chemical attack.
Stunningly naive and foolish. Worst. President. Ever.
all iran needs is ONE nuke, and it’s game over…
where they detonate means little.
they just demonstrate the capability, and inform the world that they have parked a boat with a similar device anywhere upon the thousands miles of navigable waterways in the US. (so much for their poor rocket tech)
the mass migration from eastern urban port cities alone would cause our fragile economy to implode, and permanently transfer a large majority of wealthy individuals into the red states.
what does obama mean for US and israeli security?
iran is on an expedited schedule. forget never letting a crisis go to waste…
the iranians are thinking ‘never let the second coming of jimmy carter go to waste’.
two months ago, I thought cheney’s criticism of of obama ‘inviting disaster’ was over the top. who knew that obama would prove him correct, so quickly?
To echo Steve MacDonald #30, the biggest impact of this policy change will be in INCREASE nuclear proliferation, not decrease it. If countries with the ability to build nuclear weapons no longer feel they can count on the US umbrella, they will in all likelihood take the final step to acquire their own deterrent capability. So… by trying to make the world safer (I’m being generous re: intentions), the world is about to get more dangerous.
Just when I thought this administration couldn’t get any whackier, they go and do something like this!
Hate to imagine what else they have planned for us.
This person masquerading as the President of the United States is the most inept, incompetent and DANGEROUS POTUS in the history of our Nation.
God help us get through the next 2 years and 7 months before we DRIVE HIM FROM OFFICE.
If your pitcher starts hurling bean balls at our batters, we promise not to retaliate. Now, I ask you. How much sense does that make if you’re the manager of a baseball team? Enough to get yourself lynched.
And this makes even less sense, for at least the manager can argue that showing restraint grants his team a strategic advantage- getting hit by a pitch is a free pass to first base, so as long as no injuries are sustained, those inside fastballs are a gift, why send it back?
Hmm, you went from a baseball dugout to a hanging tree. Something tells me there’s a little more than just a mixed metaphor at work there, Peepsie.
“What’s that hanging from my neighbor’s tree? Why it looks like colored folk to me.”
- Frank appa
THE END OF NUCLEAR DETERRENCE
Obama’s announcement on April 5th of the changes being made to a 50 year old nuclear strategic doctrine fell on the 59th anniversary of the sentencing to death of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg for nuclear espionage. This “coincidence” was emblematic of Obama’s perilous deconstructing of our national security and strategic defense systems and making the world a more dangerous place.
Google my name ApolloSpeaks (one word, on Townhall) and read my piece: The End of Nuclear Deterrence and the Dismantling of the Reagan Revolution.
Humbling America
In a forthright and unsettling piece on CNS.com, Ben Shapiro writes of “Obama’s Plan to Humble America” in which he compares the president’s machinations with “gargantuan” domestic expenditures coupled with equally expensive wars to LBJ’s vain efforts to provide America with “Guns and Butter.”
The guns were intended to win the war in Viet Nam, or at least not lose that war, the guns. At the same time Johnson wanted to effect his Great Society programs, the butter. The end result of that juggling was that we kept the welfare and other domestic programs and ignominiously lost the war due to half-hearted commitment.
According to Shapiro, our current president is on the same social welfare/wars path with one notable twist: Obama knows where he and the country are headed and is planning for failure: “First, Obama wants to weaken us on the home front by ’spreading the wealth around’ in the name of equality. Second, Obama wants to use that aggravated economic weakness to undermine America’s foreign policy standing around the world.”
That’s a strong charge to make and it’s what makes Shapiro’s article unsettling. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1619)
1500 Nukes isn’t a deterrent?
oh, right, only 700 delivery vehicles, (no change from current status) but of course, this changes everything!
we can still hit countries outside the NPT whenever we want (though we haven’t deployed a combat nuke since 1945).
Strategically, this changes nothing, but ratchets down the animosity a tiny bit between USA and Russia. how awful.
this wall is outrageously paranoid. Reagan proposed a 1/3 reduction too, that commie-sympathizer.
keep the sanity guys, you get to vote soon (cast a ballot, not a bullet hopefully, although in this echo-chamber, who knows).
hope your kids get a better education, learn about the world a bit, and take a breath once in a while.
good luck.
“It is my fervent goal and hope…that we will some day no longer have to rely on nuclear weapons to deter aggression and assure world peace. To that end the United States is now engaged in a serious and sustained effort to negotiate major reductions in levels of offensive nuclear weapons with the ultimate goal of eliminating these weapons from the face of the earth.”
Ronald Reagan, October 20, 1986
No scroll back through the comments and apply them to Reagan. Why would you want such a “calculating, unprincipled, deceptive (or so he may fancy himself), traitorous, anarchistic, opportunistic, arrogant, hypocritical, evil, bastardly, narcissistic, putrid, so smart that he is actually stupid, ungrateful” guy on the $50 bill?
As a registered Republican, I find myself in the odd position of agreeing with Obama here.
“America will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states, as long as they sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and are in compliance with its obligation. Nukes won’t be on the table even if those countries attack us with chemical or biological weapons.”
First, what, exactly is wrong with this? Considering that nuclear weapons are meant to target larger areas, particularly population centers, indiscriminately and kill/destroy anything there… Why is the above policy a bad thing?
If some country threw gas at us, or dumped Anthrax into some water supply, call me crazy if you like, but I wouldn’t say “XYZ country has monstrously and indiscriminately attacked men, women and children of our country. Let us likewise monstrously and indiscriminately attack their men, women and children in return! (what, do you think nukes check the age and sex of people before applying several hundred thousand degrees of heat and blastwave to their flesh?)
Because if that IS what so many of you want, then we need to stop pretending that the enemy’s women and children are not valid targets. If we are to promote evil such as that, then we should at least be honest about what we are doing.
Here is what I believe:
Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation.
Second, is “not using nukes against a non-nuclear state” identical with “not retaliating? No. A little common sense here people.
When I see civilians dancing in the streets celebrating the deaths of my innocent countrymen, I consider them to be just as guilty as the people who carried out the attacks. That said, no one ever said we had to vaporize cities; I would instead recommend that we vaporize Islamic holy sites and military targets, crippling both their spirit and their ability to wage war. If they still insist on jihad, then we exterminate them like the cockroaches they are.
“then we exterminate them like the cockroaches they are”
– That includes even the youngest children, I assume? What about the women, shall they be incinerated along with their men, or would you somehow sort them out first? Would you be personally willing to do that act yourself, or would you simply order someone else to execute this genocide in order to keep your hands clean?
“we vaporize Islamic holy sites”
- These sites are not like some Phillips 66 station in central Arizona, ie, they aren’t just standing in the middle of nowhere by themselves. They are all in cities. Cities that, yes, would get vaporized along with their people.
“military targets”
- For almost every one of those, see above.
Simply put again, unless you’re willing to murder tens of thousands of civilians, nuclear weapons are not usable. At least for SANE people.
As a side note, since when did AMERICANS start seeing civilians as valid military targets?
“crippling both their spirit”
- You think like someone who doesn’t understand people at all. From the very beginning, such acts don’t break people’s spirit. When the Moors captured Jerusalem, was Europe’s spirit broken? Or did they respond by launching several crusades and engaging in hundreds of years of warfare? Even with non-religious targets: Did they ‘crush our spirit’ when they brought the towers down? Or did it spur us to launch a war and invade and occupy two countries?
Understanding human nature: you fail at it.