No first nuke?
Should America abandon the first strike? That is apparently at the heart of a meeting today between President Obama and defence secretary Robert Gates.
They are working on a document called the Nuclear Posture Review. A lot has been decided.
A senior administration official has told the BBC there will be a "dramatic reductions in the nuclear stockpile, while maintaining a strong and reliable deterrent".
When the paper becomes public the president will announce that he's getting rid of thousands of weapons, and won't develop a new generation of weapons, including the nuclear bunker busters proposed by George W Bush.
Instead there will be a new focus on how conventional missiles will be used. All this is in line with President Obama's vision of a nuclear free world, set out in Prague a little less than a year ago.
Those who've talked with him in private about the issue have no doubt this is a personal priority, not a political stance.
The New York Times reports that one huge issue has yet to be settled. When should nuclear weapons be used?
The left of the president's party says there should be working to make it clear they are only there as a deterrence.
Others want to leave open the possibility of a first strike. I can't see the military wanting to shut off their options, or the president defying them.
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~13~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Blimey President Obama has been reading my posts,on how many boomers (SSBN)
do you need to commit Suicide?They are unusable,& yes Sir MR President, I will accept that large cheque for services to humanity....
Complain about this comment
It would be strategically incompetent for the military to support getting rid of a 'first strike' capability -- which is why the 'Commander In Chief' of the United States is an elected civilian.
I expect the military to be strategically decisive regarding warfare.
I expect the President to have sound domestic and international perspectives guiding his decisions for the greatest possible good.
Military Accountability is a Good Thing.
(As is separation of church and state.)
... besides, nukes are, like, sooooooo last century. Don't you think?
Complain about this comment
What Not waste money developing more nukes.
What a unpatriotic guy. Well done Obama.
(but he also knows we are not buying as much reprocessed bomb material from Russia so we need to get going. Those nuke plants in the future need fuel.)
Complain about this comment
People really seem to be behind the times. To put things in perspective, the average nuke employed during the cold war was only 1 Megaton, now countries are sporting bombs that far surpass 100 Megatons. The thousands of "officially counted" weaponized nukes have enough energy to wipe the surface of the earth 52X over (I assure you as I am a Theoretical Physicist). Obama is saying that we do not need to blow up the earth 52+ times, only 1-4X. Which is a completely valid point. As the amount of nuclear material increases within our world, so does the chance of terrorists acquiring these weapons. And although the globe may be divided by borders, we all share the same atmosphere, just as a volcanic cloud can blanket the earth after an eruption, nuclear fallout also follows this paradigm. So nuking another country extensively would result in our own destruction within a few months.
Regards,
Mike
Complain about this comment
Nuclear doctrine changes from time to time, as both presidents and the world situation change. Here is a link to a discussion of changing policy from the Clinton-era PDD-60 to (the 2nd) Bush-era NSPD-14 policy statements.
http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/11/white_house_guidance_led_to_ne.php
Complain about this comment
While ideology does play a part in this decision, I suspect economic has more to do with it than anything else. Our nuclear stockpile is aging and substantial financial investment is needed to upgrade and modernize it.
Considering our debt, unfunded liabilities, the billions of dollars in interest that we pay on our debt, the need to rebuild our infrastructure and improve our education system, the need to entice corporations to bring their business back to the USA by giving them incentives that would reduce government revenues, the need to fund a healthcare system that matches those in the rest of the industrialized world and other programmatic improvements there is simply no money left for nuclear upgrades to fight a few nuts hiding in caves.
China, Western Europe and Russia, Japan and every major contender on the world stage are focused on economic growth, industrial supremacy, and engaged in ways to improve their standard of living. It is time to abandon our crusades and our addiction to military toys and focus on what is best for the American people, which at the moment includes issues such as getting an education that allows us to compete in the highly technical world we live in, economic growth, good paying jobs, and adequate healthcare for all.
Complain about this comment
I never even knew we had that "first strike" policy. That is kind of scary. I imagined we would only use if they are used against us. There is no need for this "first strike" policy. Every nation with an arsenal of nuclear weapons should live life as a "Nuclear Switzerland". Stay neutral in things, but know you are protected if anybody provokes you.
Complain about this comment
Circumstances always trump policy. A lot of money could be saved and moving in this direction is necessary. For all the Hawks:, there are plenty of weapons available, the US will not be naked before the world and the Taliban will not be riding camels into the Washington D.C. in a week or two. An era of peace would be welcome by most in the world. I think some should be stored under the board of directors for banks meeting rooms with the ability to initiate without warning, like what they did to everyone else. Would consider such an act as retaliation not initiation. The banks present the greatest danger to the world.
Complain about this comment
I suspect this whole thing has more to do with money than anything else. Nukes are expensive to maintain and America could obliterate the planet quite easily with 1000 less than it currently has. It's only taken 20 years for a US president to realise this and stop thinking like a school kid in a sports car!
Obama could easily decomission the whole lot and if he was truely in favour of a nuke free would he would do it, but he is smart enough to know that doing so would also sign Americas death warrent as the only superpower.
All this will do is cut the US deficit a bit or give Obama more money to spend, nothing more.
Complain about this comment
Mike (#4) "... now countries are sporting bombs that far surpass 100 Megatons."
I don't believe that number, one reason being that there are no targets requiring such a yield. US warheads have become smaller over time, probably because improved guidance gives a small warhead the same effectiveness against the target as a large, but inaccurate, warhead.
Here is a link documenting US nuclear warheads:
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Allbombs.html
I would like to see some documentation of your assertion that some country (which one?) has developed warheads far surpassing 100 Mt. Calling yourself a physicist, even if true, does not constitute documentation.
Complain about this comment
Ref 2, Philly-Mom
I support total nuclear disarmament, but since achieving that goals would be almost impossible to achieve given the cultural, political and economic tensions and suspicions that threaten humanity, and the likelihood of violations, I don't see an alternative to having enough nuclear weapons to use as a deterrant. The question is how many do we need to feel secure?
Like Mike pointed out above, we already have enough nuclear weapons in our arsenal (I believe it is over 12,000) to pulverize the planet 52 times over. How many times do we have to end life on Earth before we can consider our goal - whatever it may be - satisfied? Are we afraid an Islamic or commie roach may survive the first 51 sweeps?
Complain about this comment
While I support shrinking our stockpile of nuclear weapons, it's very naive to believe this genie can go back inside the bottle.
Complain about this comment
9. laughingdevil wrote:
'I suspect this whole thing has more to do with money than anything else. Nukes are expensive to maintain and America could obliterate the planet quite easily with 1000 less than it currently has.'
Agreed. Besides, streamlining military spending is a great way to help balance our family budget, don't you think?
Unfortunately (warning: I'm instigating. Feel free to avert your eyes.), our military recruiters have been telling kids for years that if they join the military, they can see Europe on Uncle Sam's dime! Without those nuke-baby-sitting jobs, how will our recruiters sucker kids into signing up? Oh, bother.
-- So much for Oktoberfest in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland...
Complain about this comment
The Americans will never abandon first strike policy; rather, the victim-country will simply not know that it has been struck. The victim-country will think it was simply a natural disaster of catastrophic proportions.
In fact this particular blog is one of the frightening entries that I've ever read.
Why?
IF the United States of America is even thinking about “dramatic reductions in the nuclear stockpile, while maintaining a strong and reliable deterrent", I wonder what is the “strong and realiable deterrent” that will be maintained.
If the President is getting rid of thousands of weapons, and won't be developing a new generation of these weapons, I wonder what new weapon of mass destruction has he got such that he’s no longer worried about nuclear bombs, or what other countries have nuclear bombs.
The United States of America would never restrict itself to conventional weapons. It already has the bunker buster; it already uses white phospherous and depeted uranium.
The world may become nuclear free, but only because the United States of America has a WMD that is 1,000 times worse.
If nuclear arms will only be used for deterrence, what is the weapon of choice for attack, obliteration, population reduction, complete and utter Armageddon for those countries that have dared to challenge the United States of America.
The weapon is “weather control”, the ability to create floods, draughts, hurricanes, earthquakes and tsumnamis. The Americans already have this weapon; it has been tested; it is fully operational. It is called HAARP and is located in Alaska.
Complain about this comment
RE:10
just to put things in perspective, how the world has moved on,
Nagasaki's "Fat Man" gravity bomb 20–22 Kilotonnes Implosion type plutonium-239 fission bomb (the second of the two nuclear weapons used in warfare).
Tsar Bomba device 50,000 Koilotonnes USSR, most powerful nuclear weapon ever detonated, mass of 27 short tons (24,000 kg). In its "full" form (i.e. with a depleted uranium tamper instead of one made of lead) it would have been 100 megatonnes of TNT (420 PJ).
Complain about this comment
ukwales wrote:
"Blimey President Obama has been reading my posts,on how many boomers (SSBN)do you need to commit Suicide?They are unusable,& yes Sir MR President, I will accept that large cheque for services to humanity...."
Anything that would be accepted would be by Americans only.
Complain about this comment
A standard Trident missile carried by the USA & UK can carry up to 12 warheads (though limited to 8 through treaty) each with a yield of 475 kilotonnes ..Thats more or less the smame as 285 Nagasaki's in one missile..
This is just common sense by the government to trip the fat from the stockpile and save money.
The arms race stopped being about capability and became about money/economics. All these weapons were never needed as defence but to force the USSR to keep up and bankrupt themselves
Complain about this comment
#16 AllenT2
"Anything that would be accepted would be by Americans only".
No Mr Allen you are wrong,Mr Obama does nothing with out consulting Wales
first,boy, I bet you are fun to be with,& any way prove me wrong...
Complain about this comment
"All these weapons were never needed as defence but to force the USSR to keep up and bankrupt themselves."
Unfortunately, the Reagan-era military buildup also nearly bankrupted the US:
US National Debt Relative to GDP
Complain about this comment
Once again showing the weakness, naivitee and appeasement of Obama.
Complain about this comment
I wouldn't be too surprised if the military like Obama's unilateral partial disarmament. It means they can get more money to spend on personnel and conventional weapons; the real war stuff.
Complain about this comment
Re 10 and subsequent comments,
100 Megatons (MT) is only 100^0.33 (or 4.6 times) more bang than 1 Megaton (due to volumetric effects). So several distributed warheads is more deadly than a single bigger bang. On the subject of big bangs the max efficiency of nukes is around 6 MT / ton of warhead (never achieved) so the big experimental nukes let off by US and FSU needed specially modified planes to drop them (bombs weighing over 20 tons and dropped on parachutes to avoid blowing plane up). Hence these aren't weapons - more like cold war top trumps.
Anything that reduces the number of warheads in the world has to be good, particularly if it reduces the weapons developed specifically for first strike operations. If economics rather than common sense drives this - I don't really care.
Complain about this comment
re. 20. MagicKirin:
Once again showing the weakness, naivitee and appeasement of Obama.
You are so predictable in your hostility to Obama. In reality, the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks were first proposed by Ronald Reagan in 1982. It has been the policy of succeeding administrations, both Democratic and Republican, ever since to attempt a verified reduction in nuclear weapons, first with the Soviet Union and later with Russia. It's one of those rare bi-partisan policies.
As so many posters here have pointed out, the US has far more nuclear weapons than we need for any conceivable military purpose. By this point everyone on the planet (except you, apparently) understands that wholesale use of nuclear weapons would be as much a catastrophe for the victor as for the defeated. I understand that some weapons may be needed for deterrence, but past a certain number you do not have more deterrence. And you can't deter a terrorist with a nuclear weapon by waving your vast arsenal at him. Who are you going to bomb? He doesn't have a country. Instead you have to reduce the number of weapons available as much as possible and lock down the ones that remain.
And "naivitee" is spelled "naivete". Upgrade your browser to a version that includes spell-check. You quite consistently use bad grammar and bad spelling. It adds to the kook aura.
Complain about this comment
AllenT2 at 16 - As a self proclaimed American patriot, why do you give the impression that what you really want is for the entire world outside the US to leave you alone? You come onto this board and insult other posters who are generally far politer to you than you are to them, I fail to see why you are so angry at the rest of the world!
How long would the US, or any nation last if we all sealed our borders and refused to talk to one another? Freedom to interact, to support, cajole, trade and understand is here to stay so get used to it.
Complain about this comment
#14 BluesBerry,
"The Americans already have this weapon; it has been tested; it is fully operational. It is called HAARP and is located in Alaska."
Well, since the Russians are supposed to have one as well, we could hardly allow for an ionosphere manipulating machine gap, now could we?
Complain about this comment
Astute political move on the part of President Obama. Who could be against destroying old nuclear weapons we don't need? It's sure to raise his poll numbers at home and give him something positive to point to when critics abroad complain about America's nuclear arsenal.
As for a change in the policy governing their use, that's one area where a bit of ambiguity is useful. If potential enemies can't be sure just how hard they can push before geting hit with a nuclear response they may use more restraint than they would otherwise.
The decision not to develop a nuclear bunker buster probably has more to do with engineering limitations than politcs or humanitarian concerns. The problem is developing a penetrator that can get deep enough through rock or concrete without the shock of impact damaging the warhead so it fails to explode. Hard enough with a conventional warhead but nuclear warheads are even more complex, not to mention expensive.
Complain about this comment
Obama is on the right track here but I think it will be a long time before serious non-proliferation can be achieved. Even as a deterent, it still gives other states justification for developing a nuclear programme for the same reason. Ted Sorenson's unitarian vision in JFK's inauguration is still, 50 years later, way out of reach ("Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms--and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations." )
The reform of the UN is the key and that means reform of the Security Council. UK & France have a permanent seat ... none for South America or India. UK & France could cede their seats, one to the EU + one to one of the developing nations. The US together with the EU needs to promote a vision of a secure world based on tolerance and progressive standards at home and a willingness to trade & give aid with & to all nations who work to improve the standards of their countries ... this is a slow burner for sure
Complain about this comment
"Should America abandon the first strike?"
The U.S. has already used nuclear weapons, and we've never given any indication that we regret it, so it's clear that under similar circumstances we'd employ them again. We can say we won't use them first, but why would anyone believe us?
Complain about this comment
The United States can maintain a deterrent and threaten massive and overwhelming counter-strike with relatively few weapons. It is wasteful and politically damaging to maintain a large inventory of excess weapons.
Complain about this comment
ref #23
What you fail to realize by cancelling weapon such as a bunker buster limits the options to destroy Iran's nuclear capability.
Anyone who think it is safe to have this centuries Nazis with nuclear weapons is naive.
Complain about this comment
The Bush doctrine was an inane proposition. It existed primarily to
warn others that we will not permit our conquests of Iraq ,Afganistan, and possibly other simultaneous "un-anticipated" war engagements to end up in similar fashion as Vietnam war. War on two fronts (remember Rumsfeld musings) was all we could take. If China decided to start Taiwan forcible retake, DPRK decided to move borders south, Iran and others took aim at Israel, what could we possibly do?
Yet, what Bush under the guidance of Cheney declared was a cold shower to all nations of this world. It sounded more like a blackmail. Tip toe to our dictates or... you will melt, at our convenience.
In view of the arrogance of the previous administration it is doubtful that other nations will take Obama's declarations of liquidating its nuclear stockpiles seriously. And indeed, how often did anyone see a secretary of defense from the hawkish administration retaining his post in a new, politically different administration and calling the shots? (Check Gates statements issued on presence of US troops in Haiti, in Europe on NATO members responsibilities, on US-China policies etc.)One might think that it is not Clinton who is the secretary of state but Gates.
Obama's presidency shows itself already as a weak one. Lot of talk but hardly anything accomplished. There could be many reasons for the failures but question remains: to what extent Obama's hands are tied up by the system and to what extent it is the effect of his own ineptitude. Obama seems to be highly intelligent person so...
While simple folks like me may wonder, leaders of other nations already know what's being played and act accordingly. Dismantling their own stockpiles of nukes will not be the answer to our president's declarations.
Complain about this comment
14. At 8:38pm on 01 Mar 2010, BluesBerry wrote
Bilge, bunkum and previously used fantasy weapons.
1. The Iranians claimed that the US caused earthquakes that struck them.
Other Muslims claim that the Sumatra quake was an American test.
2. Every natural disaster has been and will continue to be blamed on
the U.S.
This superstitious nonsense isn't even worthy of the time to debunk it. I'll leave the rants to others.
Complain about this comment
SaintDominick,
China, Western Europe and Russia, Japan and every major contender on the world stage are focused on economic growth, industrial supremacy, and engaged in ways to improve their standard of living.
And they still have a very long way to go before they even achieve parity with the United States. The US has been on top for so long and by such a large margin that we've forgotten how to compete. However, I disagree with your assumption that the way forward is to copy what "the rest of the industrialized world" is doing. They've been copying us for 60 years. We'd just be copying ourselves lol. We need to get back to 9American) basics. Copying other people is not what made us a superpower, and it certainly won't keep us a superpower.
It is time to abandon our crusades and our addiction to military toys...
That's quite a leap! Do you normally insert your personal agendas into every discussion, whether relevant or not?
...and focus on what is best for the American people, which at the moment includes...
Who appointed you the "decider" of what is best for the American people?
... issues such as getting an education...
We do need to improve our educational system. But that's only for our own benefit. It won't help us compete, as long as we are shipping manufacturing and services overseas, and now we've even started outsourcing our R&D. And not to mention the never-ending demands that work visa quotas be raised so that corporations can import the best and the brightest from other countries, who are willing to work harder and for less money than Americans are. We'll just have very well educated unemployed/underemployed people, like so many other countries do.
... that allows us to compete in the highly technical world we live in...
Isn't it sad that we have to talk about how we can "compete" in markets we used to dominate, and in many cases still do dominate?
...economic growth, good paying jobs...
We used to have those things in abundance. What do you think happened? :)
...and adequate healthcare for all.
Non sequitur. What do you think American corporations are going to do, if they are burdened even further with higher costs for healthcare or higher taxes to cover employee benefits, or both? Any chance at ALL that they might try to find ways to dodge that, and employ Chinese or Indian peasants to do the work instead? Leave the healthcare debate in the other topics, where it belongs.
Complain about this comment
I guess they've realised that nuclear weapons aren't particularly useful for invading other people's countries - and that's what america loves doing more than anything else.
Complain about this comment
BTW, how does this "abandonment" actually work?
"How do we know that you won't strike first?"
"Because we've promised not to."
"Righto"
Complain about this comment
Oooh hope they're gonna let people recylce and process the waste for reuse - I heard they wont need to store barrels of it in Yucca Mountain if they were just allowed to recycle it. A change like that might even make what Iran is doing quite legal. Common sense for a change - its refreshing.
Complain about this comment
Obama is correct that the US nuclear stockpile should be reduced. He does make two very illogical decisions (based upon what the article implies will happen):
1. The United States will get rid of the policy of "striking first". As no rational person/country would want to use them or use them first this seems to be sensible, but in diplomacy/conflict resolution such a policy reeks of the ignorance of how many wars are actually deterred. This is, most countries fear a first strike. This is because the country who strikes first with nuclear weapons has a huge advantage. Assuring countries the US will not strike them with nuclear weapons first is an unwise policy.
2. Not investing in the future of nuclear technology disregards important tactical lessons from the Iraq war. Just war or not, the bunker buster type nuclear weapons are again essential to making the Kim Jong-il's of the world take notice that despite how far below the surface of the earth they choose to hide, they will not be able to hide.
Again, Obama fails to win the confidence of the American people. Despite what others may think or write, the president's first and more vital job is basic security of the American people. If he continues to look weak and weaken American's hand, then he will suffer even more declining votes of confidence in his job as president. He may want to stay on Health Care, but protecting the LIVES of Americans from premature death is much more important.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 6, SaintDominick :
"It is time to abandon our crusades..."
Inaccurate. We are not on a crusade.
The Crusades were expeditions undertaken, in fulfilment [sic] of a solemn vow, to deliver the Holy Places from Mohammedan tyranny.
-- Catholic Encyclopedia
Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan are considered Christian holy places. Religion is irrelevant to us.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 34, HabitualHero:
"I guess they've realised that nuclear weapons aren't particularly useful for invading other people's countries - and that's what america loves doing more than anything else."
Drivel.
What Americans like doing more than anything is doing business. We love it! It's how you get ahead. It's the pursuit of happiness.
Trade is good for business. We'd much rather trade with a country than invade it. The reason is simple. One makes money, the other loses it -- large amounts, fast -- and we're fond of money. Perhaps you've noticed?
War is not profitable.
The countries around the globe that have figured this much out about us are as a group the wealthiest countries in the world. It's no wonder China and India want in.
Complain about this comment
Seems like we need to use our first strike rights and get it over with. That way all the fear mongers can go to sleep in peace and comfort.There will be nobody "out there" to worry about. NO Commies, no Muslims, No leftists,no non christians,no libbers,no "abortion rights",no "right to lifers" no gay rights, just us and the poor!They can cut our lawns.(After all first strike does not have to be nuclear,see Hitler.)
Complain about this comment
The policy of unilateral disarmament of the United States can be called nothing less than treason. This will be the final nail in the Obama presidency. This is insanity. America disarming itself will not deter anyone who wants nuclear weapons such as Iran from acquiring them. Only the assurance of certain destruction by overwhelming devastating response to an attack using any and every means including nuclear weapons has deterred America's enemies since 1945, it is the only guarantee it will have in the future. This policy is one of national suicide. I expect to hear many loud voices of outrage calling for his impeachment. Mine will be among them.
Complain about this comment
MM wrote: "I can't see the military wanting to shut off their options, or the president defying them."
November election draws closer&closer as days are getting longer&longer.
Congress will decide the issue AFTER the election, just as it'll decide NASA and, generaly, fiscal 2011 budgect only after the election.
[I'm willing to bet on it]
And not only military will then express their views on attempts to weaken U.S. national defense/security a la Jimmy Carter.
By our Commander-in-Chief no less.
Complain about this comment
Is it possible that the super accurate conventional weapons of today replace the nuclear weapons of yesterday?
Will either abandoning or developing weapons stop the threat of humanity against itself? History doesn't say so.
Did our nuclear stockpile help against a commercial airplane?
Do we need the nuclear weapons of yesterday? All I can see is the need to defend ourselves which includes deterring one from walking up to us, putting a 100+megaton bomb over our heads and force us to comply to their demands.
Maybe the stockpile should go the way of other super-duper weapons like the cross-bow or the cannons used in the 18th century. Maybe the tactics of a first-strike should go the way of the battle-lines used in the 17th century.
The stockpile we have today is just an expensive horse and musket. As long as we aren't abandoning our ability to defend ourselves maybe it should be left in the dust of a dirt trail.
BO has made some mistakes in my opinion, but it is too early to tell if this is one. The reasoning is sound, lets see how it is put in place.
Complain about this comment
Somehow, experience in the last twelve months does not impress me greatly on the sincerity of Pres. Obama's public statements. Some of them he lives up to; some he does not. It is impossible for me to tell which class of statement this is.
Not having huge piles of explosive nuclear weapons would be good; but how do you get the djinn back in the bottle? The scientific and engineering knowledge to separate the isotopes of the fissionable material is widely spread; only some of the tools to do the separation and the exact design of the weapon in order to trigger an extremely quick concentration of two or more sub-critical masses into one "above critical" mass to generate an explosion.
An evil but rational dictator would not use against a nuclear-armed opponent, a/c act would be tantamount to suicide. Problem is if non-rational (by my standards) person WANTS to commit suicide, taking a large number of humans with him/her.
On balance, perhaps a hopeful development.
TeaPot562
Complain about this comment
6. At 6:36pm on 01 Mar 2010, SaintDominick wrote:
"Considering our debt, unfunded liabilities, the billions of dollars in interest that we pay on our debt, the need to rebuild our infrastructure and improve our education system, the need to entice corporations to bring their business back to the USA by giving them incentives that would reduce government revenues, the need to fund a healthcare system that matches those in the rest of the industrialized world and other programmatic improvements there is simply no money left for nuclear upgrades to fight a few nuts hiding in caves."
________________________________
Guns and butter. Social entitlement programs will mean we can no longer afford to intimidate the world with raw violence.
The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is this: when forced to decide the true democracies will spend it on their people's quality of life. The dictators will spend it on their military. Look around you.
Hurrah FOR President Barak Hussein Obama.
KScurmudgeon
who used to hide under his desk in school
Complain about this comment
What Obama says doesn't really matter,folks.What Robert Gates and the Military say goes.It would be unamerican to not have the latest war toys.The U.S.and Israel have special NUKES for Iran.I agree with Mike no.4 we have enough nukes on the planet to create the next ice age or destroy the entire planet.Nukes are so obsolete,to even think about repeating Hiro&Naga disasters would be just inhumane and monstrous.There is no doubt in my mind somebody's fingers are itching(ISRAEL)and they will go ahead with it,it's goingg to be a sad day for the world.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
13. At 8:26pm on 01 Mar 2010, Philly-Mom wrote:
"Unfortunately (warning: I'm instigating. Feel free to avert your eyes.), our military recruiters have been telling kids for years that if they join the military, they can see Europe on Uncle Sam's dime! Without those nuke-baby-sitting jobs, how will our recruiters sucker kids into signing up? Oh, bother.
-- So much for Oktoberfest in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland..."
Except of course the nukes being referred to are the US-based ICBMs. Dismantling of part of this force actually makes overseas basing more important as you are forced to get your message across in the conventional sphere. So still plenty of opportunity for Oktoberfest in Deutschland.
Complain about this comment
Slightly off-topic but pertinent to posting here.
Has anyone had an entire post completely vanish?
Clicked 'Post Comment' on a carefully worded post last night and it vanished - gone - never to re-appear.
Complain about this comment
Its nice to see the usual suspects haven’t jumped up and claimed either that Obama is an appeaser and/or traitor……….
As the more logical members of the board have pointed out:
1 The US already has enough nukes to reduce the planet to molten slag (Power: see man made global warming)
2 Nukes are actually a pretty bad way to win a war, first off they make the land hit uninhabitable, second first strike does not mean there will not be a counterstrike. I would imagine if the US realised that a 20 nukes were coming and were going to destroy the country, they would fire off every nuke they had (see point one).
3 There are better, newer and effectively cleaner weapons, ignoring the conspiracy favourite HAARP; neutron bombs, cyber attacks, chemicals, biological etc. These days using nukes would be like using a really, really big hammer to crack a very small egg.
Obviously this is a step forward, though as a few have pointed the question is whether this decision will be believed, or even should be believed. Even if Obama does mean what he says and convinces the military, the next President could be a witchcraft believing, deer hunting, soccer mom who might well believe to save the world the best idea would be to blow it up – after all it would be 2012 and as the film said that’s when the Bible and the Mayans said the world was going to end (ignoring that neither sources said anything of the like).
Complain about this comment
Mark,
Why do I get the feeling that there is something extremely Clouseau like in USA government action at the moment.
Reduction of any nuclear arsenal as others have mentioned is sensible, with or without maintaining the first strike option but I must wonder if this is just being used as a curveball to deflect attention from other disappinting news - specifically the announced recall of 1.3 million GM cars yesterday, going back to 2005.
"A senior administration official has told the BBC......blah blah blah"
An attempt to save face with a diversion? The reserved laughter from Toyota must be deafening and the medicine they were hoping for.
The old "closet ploy" strikes again. Kato would be proud of you participating in a cover up.
Please reassure me that Cadillac One- The Beast, will not be traded in for the Silver Hornet any day soon.
Complain about this comment
First strike to go?
Barack Hussein Obama will be impeached first.
For a dereliction of duty as U.S. Commander-in-Chief.
P.S. Same goes, btw. for 'launch-on-warning'.
Well, tough, 'comrades'. :-)
Complain about this comment
David Murrell,
Had you have even rudimentary knowledge of nuclear weapons you'd know that if we used them en mass - if push ever came to shove - we would create not a global warming (let alone meltdown) but a 'nuclar winter'.
Which PC folks like you should welcome. :-)
P.S. Do they still teach basic physics in British schools?
Or just accounting?
BTW. How is British pound doing these days?
Complain about this comment
Powermeerkat – Obama impeached for what exactly? I wasn’t aware that changing military policy and strategy was a legal matter, if it is what law exactly is he breaking? Your post looks like yet more emotive nonsense ‘salaryman’.
Complain about this comment
"KScurmudgeon
who used to hide under his desk in school"
But they've managed to cure you of that, eventualy, I hope?
If not, please read something on BIOLOGICAL weapons.
Then you'll 'stop fearing the bomb and learn how to love it'.
[for the young ones: that's a quote from "Dr. Strangelove" :)]
Complain about this comment
Powermeerkat – With a passing knowledge of the power of nuclear weapons, a sufficient number would crack the mantel, the result would be a massive and destructive outpouring of magma and superheated gasses, hence my reference to ‘molten slag’.
Two things, one Nuclear Winter is not universally accepted, also I would point you to the idea of a Nuclear Summer.
So yes, how is the state of American literacy skills, since you seem to have missed ‘molten slag’, molten does not imply cooling. As for accounting, hmm not sure the relevance, either to this conversation or me (I am not nor have I ever been an account and no I have never studied accountancy).
While I don’t deal with currencies on a daily basis (really accountancy AND foreign exchange you seem to have an odd idea of what my job entails), it does appear that the idea of a hung parliament has caused some to have jitters – I assume you were discussing the falling exchange rate, which still means the Pound is worth more than the Dollar and the Euro.
Complain about this comment
Obama should not continue to appease the military by buying the latest war toys.
He should remain loyal to Americans in general rather than just the military.
To MagicKirin #20:
How in your view should Obama increase his strength, sophistication and provocation?
Complain about this comment
Sorry, Mr Murrell.
I am not a salary man. Although I've paid out quite a few salaries in my life.
Now, next PC innuendo? :)
Complain about this comment
Ref 51, watermanaquarius
I don't think it is a diversion to deflect attention from the GM recall, but I doubt GM executives will be put through the ringer in Congress the way the TOYOTA foks were.
The first strike decision is consistent with the nuclear disarmament treaties signed by previous administrations and I suspect it is influenced by the fact that there is no longer a need for our huge nuclear arsenal. Some of our nuclear weapons are obsolete and need to be scrapped or upgraded, our present enemies (real or perceived) can be easily dealt with using conventional weapons and other tactics, and we simply can not afford the cost of upgrading and maintaining something that is no longer needed.
The proposed reductions do not compromise our military capabilities, it simply recognizes present realities and projects a semblance of compromise and concern without diminishing our ability to destroy the entire planet many times over.
Complain about this comment
amaryr wrote:
"AllenT2 at 16 - As a self proclaimed American patriot, why do you give the impression that what you really want is for the entire world outside the US to leave you alone? You come onto this board and insult other posters who are generally far politer to you than you are to them, I fail to see why you are so angry at the rest of the world!"
I haven't "proclaimed" anything about my patriotism to anyone on this site. My patriotism for my country is my business. It also has absolutely nothing to do with your question.
Non-Americans who aggressively, arrogantly and disrespectfully address, and attack, an issue of purely American domestic policy (in this case the defense of our nation) as if somehow it is their issue, their business, need to be reminded that ultimately it is not. That is not being impolite.
I'm always open to opinions, which explains my being here, but most non-Americans here are incapable of offering them in a respectful manner without acting like disenfranchised Americans. At best it is bizarre to witness such behavior and at worse it is quite offensive.
Those are the ones that are being insulting, those are the ones that are being impolite and those are the ones that are angry.
"How long would the US, or any nation last if we all sealed our borders and refused to talk to one another? Freedom to interact, to support, cajole, trade and understand is here to stay so get used to it."
You are not understanding the simple and the obvious. America's issues of domestic policies, especially those that have nothing to with non-Americans are ultimately none of their business! Foreign opinions need to be considered and tempered by that fact, in a way that ultimately respects the right of Americans to freely choose how to run their own country.
It is not the place of any non-American to try and "cajole" Americans into running *their country* the way they would like to see it run! The last time I checked America was a free and sovereign nation! That should be respected.
We also do not need to "talk" with anyone outside of America about things we wish to do within our borders that do not affect those outside of them.
Complain about this comment
Ref 45, KScurmudgeon
"who used to hide under his desk in school"
No, he is much too young for that. The nuclear attack preparation exercises you allude to took place a few years before Barack Obama was born.
Complain about this comment
Hi Mark,
Can you please give some comment on Hilary Clintons offering to act a host in discussion of the Fauklands? What is the stance of the American Government on the issue of UK sovernigty?
I think this is more in the UK interest than they US getting rid of a (redundant since the cold war) weapon system or the harping on about health care.
Thank you.
Complain about this comment
Ref 42, powermeerkat
"Congress will decide the issue AFTER the election, just as it'll decide NASA and, generaly, fiscal 2011 budgect only after the election."
You are probably right, but I am puzzled by the Republican position on the privatization of NASA. The GOP has advocated the privatization of government programs, and called for smaller government for decades, and tried to privatize NASA in the Clinton era with no opposition voiced by the GOP majority in Congress then.
Personally, I think the US government should continue to fund and run NASA, but I find the sudden concern as amusing as the sudden focus on fiscal responsibility quite amusing...although I doubt the tens of thousans of unemployed folks affected by the Republican Kentuckian "born-again conservative" very funny...
Complain about this comment
Powermeerkat – Ah pot calling kettle, the one who likes throwing ‘comrade’ out takes issue with being called a ‘salaryman’ (please note it is salaryman, not salary man). Also Salaryman is a Japanese term and not a PC one, it is used to describe a certain section of white collar workers and can be regarded as a euphemism for wage-slave, also not a PC term, hint the term slave is rarely regarded as politically correct. See we need to still get you that dictionary.
Complain about this comment
David Murrell wrote:
"So yes, how is the state of American literacy skills, since you seem to have missed ‘molten slag’, molten does not imply cooling."
What does the "state of American literacy skills" have to do with the *one American* you are addressing?
"As for accounting, hmm not sure the relevance, either to this conversation or me (I am not nor have I ever been an account and no I have never studied accountancy)."
That would be an accountant.
While I don’t deal with currencies on a daily basis (really accountancy AND foreign exchange you seem to have an odd idea of what my job entails), it does appear that the idea of a hung parliament has caused some to have jitters – I assume you were discussing the falling exchange rate, which still means the Pound is worth more than the Dollar and the Euro.
Complain about this comment
But perhaps Mr. Murrell [not an accountant by profession (sorry your nitpicking and inability to see a big picture gave me a wrong impression] since you are a 'European' you should advise British government to join Euro Club, and help Club Med countries (Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy) in their dire need, out of European solidarity?
Which I fail to see much of?
[more like plenty of mutual recriminations and chauvinistic innuendos]
Complain about this comment
The threat of a nuclear first strike was the only reason the USSR and its Warsaw Pact allies did not invade Western Europe with overhwelming armies using conventional weapons. They knew it would be suicide to try and only because of nuclear retaliation. It is the same reason Israel's neighbors won't try to invade it again and the reason at least one of them, Iran wants to acquire one although he'd like to use one of his terrorists surrogates like Hebzollah to detonate some in the US as well.
Nuclear weapons will always be with us. Short of the most invasive and persistant on site inspection on demand which will never happen, non nuclear nations will never feel safe from those who may be building them clandestinely. The Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty is the only way to allow nations who wish to develop nuclear energy for peaceful use to reassure their neighbors they are not building nuclear weaopns. It is not being enforced because the political will does not exist. The proliferation of these weapons to nations that would impose their will on others like Iran and North Korea and to terrorist groups like al Qaeda is a death sentence to civilization as we know it. It is the single most dire threat to our world but few are paying close attention to it. That mistake will one day lead to events that will cause those of us who are left to rue the indifference and paralysis to act pre-emptively and effectively by the leaders we have today.
Even a clever lawyer is not smart enough to understand that taking the moral high ground by disarming America will not solve the problem, it will only make a catastrophic outcome inevitable. If that is President Obama's recommendation, to effectively disarm America of nuclear weapons I will work hard for his impeachment before his insanity can be implimented. I'm sure I will be in lots of good company.
Complain about this comment
Re:53
I've watched my dollar savings worth become decimated over the last few years, So encouraged by the dollar fight back, but gloating over the Euro losing a few cents is just a distaction.
The Euro was once worth $0.95
It the peaked at $1.47
its now worth $1:34
Even to acheive parity the Dollar has a long way to go
Complain about this comment
4. At 6:31pm on 01 Mar 2010, Mike wrote:
People really seem to be behind the times. To put things in perspective, the average nuke employed during the cold war was only 1 Megaton, now countries are sporting bombs that far surpass 100 Megatons.
--
Mike, you say you're a theoretical physicist.. you should know that the largest yielding nuclear weapon ever built was the ridiculous Tsar Bomba built by the USSR in the 60s which had a yield of 57 Megatons. although it was detonated well inside the arctic circle, it blew out windows in Helsinki. 100 Megaton bombs are purely theoretical as size becomes a limiting factor - no rocket will carry it, if a plane could, it couldn't get to a safe distance before detonation. warhead yields have remained in the relatively small 100-200 Kiloton range as they're delivered by MIRV, effectively a carpet bombing technique using nuclear weapons.
aren't we a species deserving of peace and prosperity?
Complain about this comment
Re #59
Saint Dominick wrote: "we simply can not afford the cost of upgrading and maintaining something that is no longer needed."
I hate to tell you this but one of the main reasons nuclear weapons make sense is that they are cheap (you certainly get more 'bang for a buck' from them than out of anything else.
The most expensive part in the U.S. military branch is its soldiers:
their training, gear, salaries, housing, pensions, medical care, etc.
That's why next decades' battlefield is going to be more&more robotized.
P.S. A cost of maintainig or dismantling of nuclear warheads/bombs is much higher than the expense of keeping them in tip-top shape.
[just as the cost of disposing of U.S. chemical weapons was much higher than producing and storing them - check!]
Ask anybody connected to broadly defined "Legacy Program".
BTW. Quite a few nukes will be disposed of anyway as a result of the next U.S.-Russian Strategic Arms Reduction agreement.
To be signed in a few months, hopefully.
[no, somehow I don't think it'll include 'bunker busters'. :)]
Complain about this comment
Ref 38, Andy
"Inaccurate. We are not on a crusade.
The Crusades were expeditions undertaken, in fulfilment [sic] of a solemn vow, to deliver the Holy Places from Mohammedan tyranny.
-- Catholic Encyclopedia
Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan are considered Christian holy places. Religion is irrelevant to us."
Thank you for clarifying the obvious, but since accuracy did not prevent former President George W. Bush from describing our adventure in Iraq as a crusade I feel compelled to do the same.
Complain about this comment
" We", Mr. Murrell, being who exactly?
Or is it just pluralis majestitatis of a former colonialist? ;-)
[although still a 'subject']
BTW. 'Comrade' is not a pejorative.
Particularly if it refers to a "comrade-in-arms".
Although somehow I don't think that could be your case.
[not having anything to do, I hasten to add, with a lack of arms]
P.S. Would a term 'peacenik' be less offensive?
Complain about this comment
The nuclear attack preparation exercises you allude to took place a few years before Barack Obama was born.
Untrue! I'm younger than Obama and we used to run those drills when I was in elementary school.
Complain about this comment
Ref 33, programmercraig
"That's quite a leap! Do you normally insert your personal agendas into every discussion, whether relevant or not?"
Our tendency to meddle in the internal affairs of other nations is at the heart of this decision and it is, therefore, most relevant to this discussion.
"Who appointed you the "decider" of what is best for the American people?"
The same circumstance that, I presume, gave you the right to express your opinion on matters of national importance to our country. I was born, live and plan to die in the USA.
Complain about this comment
AllenT2 - Is it absolutely non-Americans business to be extremely concerned with what the US decides, both in terms of domestic and foreign policy. Everything the US does has some effect on the rest of the world - no-one can or should be isolationist these days. (Unless you are North Korean.)
Policy makers on both sides of the Atlantic pay much attention to popular boards such as the one we interact on - they would be fools not to, since they are all politicians who wish to gain or re-gain power. A trusted and, largely, neutral organisation such as the BBC allows all of us to exchange ideas, air opinions - why would you wish otherwise? You may say you wouldn't, but you are so defensive when anyone says anything you take exception to, I fear for your health. I haven't seen any moderation of your dislike and distrust for non-Americans. There's a lot of us about.
Complain about this comment
Re #63
Saint Dominick, I am not a defender of NASA's budget per se.
It should be patently obvious by know that I deeply resent both: costly proapganda exercises [e.g. Apollo-Soyuz] and low orbit prohibitively expensive endeavours (such as ISS).
The former should never have been attempted, while the latter should haver been left to the American private sector long time ago.
[if pharma industry, engieering companies, etc., need a platform for space experiments, let them pay Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon, Rockwell Rutan, etc. out of their own pockets.]
What I DO objejct to is cutting funds (although it's not final) for basic scientific robotic missions to Neptun, Pluto, and outside our small solar system) which no private company would be willing to fund.
Although judging by Mr. Keck's donations, Webb Space Telescope could have been funded by private donors as well, at least partially.
[There are also quite a few very rich space enhtusiasts in U.S. willing to contribute. Not that Mr. Branson is exactly poor.]
And let me repeat, IMHO, almost anything in NASA budget could be sacrificed if it meant that adequate resources (both manpower and moneywise) would become available for a development of a desperately needed new jest populsion technology.
Goddard and von Braun were great, but it's a high time to move on.
Complain about this comment
Seeing that Obama spent four months pondering the marvels of his navel before making a decision on troops for Afghanistan, if a first strike was warranted today, it would be some time in July before Obama would act.
The premise of "first strike" is as a deterrent and always has been. It is not a promise of action. We have maintained that policy since 1949 and not exercised it.
Obama's military experience is NIL. Obama's military insight is NIL. Obama's propensity to sacriface American soldiers by prohibiting firing before they are fired upon insures America will receive the first strike.
Folks, you have trusted your nation to an incompetent.
Complain about this comment
The RA material used inside these devices are very expensive and as such there has always been a requirement to keep down the amount of material in the device. During the 70's the missile systems weren't accurate and so warhead yileds were high to confirm a kill on the target. Nowdays CEP's for missiles are much lower and so warhead yields HAVE reduced (I used to work in this industry so you can take this to the bank). Typically most modern devices are in the yield range 150-200 KT however there are some devices in the megatonne yield range that would be used for EMF reasons.
The RA materials have reactions with natural elements in similar ways that iron rusts in humid air (this is not to say they rusts). For this reason a device can not just be left to its own devices without routine maintenance because it will become a hazard to those around it and almost certainly fail if ever needed.
Any nation that uses a nuclear device against another nuclear power would almost certainly be attacked with one of these devices. This is what ensured neither the US nor russia going to war during the cold war.
If the US was to use nukes then it would have to accept the possibility of nuclear reprisals, world condemnation and a high likelyhood that either the chinese or russia would retaliate (they would probably be friend with the nation the US attacked). In this case the use of nukes is very limited and can only ever be used to stop a world scale escalation.
Nuclear warheads will be maintained whilst others are ready for use so there will always be more devices around than is really needed. The question though is how many are really needed and stockpiles in the 10's of thousand aren't really enforceable in todays current political and economic climate.
Complain about this comment
This is a storm in a teacup. The US would still be able to destroy the world several times over in just one day.
First strike as a concept is only really relevant against other nations with first strike capability and even then taking out their leadership was the objective rather than preventing a retaliatory strike. Even then if China or Russia did launch first, they'd be just as dead 5 hours later when the cruise missiles hit.
Countries like Iran would struggle to detect an incoming nuclear bomb if it was flown over on the Enola Gay so there is no strategic need for fast nuclear delivery systems in that context. Also, China and Russia would have to be told before any launch on another country to prevent a retaliatory strike from them.
Finally, it may be possible to use tactical nukes against Iran if necessary, but using a bunker buster would be interpretted by Pakistan, India and China as a directly hostile act due to the fallout.
This is a practical step. The US saves money but keeps its military potency.
Complain about this comment
Allen – Well as Powermeerkat seems willing to discuss British physics education based on not reading my message, I believe (especially since I addressed the point to him) it is a matter of goose and gander. You are correct it should have been accountant, but it is also true that I have never been an account either. Many thanks for copying the last paragraph of my post, but since you did not comment it seems a bit superfluous .
Powermeerkat – I am obviously using the royal we, which is perfectly acceptable, unlike picking at straws or failing to answer a direct question – as a reminder, what would your comrade in arms, Obama, be impeached for?
As for comrade-in-arms, yes you could use comrade in that fashion if you so wished. Remind me when did you volunteer for the military? You may well have experienced the draft, depending on your age, conscription had passed in the UK when I applied to Her Majesties Army, for which I was declined due to medical reason, that being a congenital heart defect, namely being born with a hole-in-the-heart. So despite being exempt, even in a time of war (which was not at the time of my application), I offered my services for Queen and Country. In addition, I have trained for a number of years in both oriental and occidental martial arts and can effectively use (that means I could if I so chose kill), with a number of weapons, mostly blade forms. So call me a peacenik all you want, it’s a bit like accountant – wrong and based entirely on your inability to read posts correctly, as I have stated on a number of occasions my application to join the military, my martial arts history, the fact that I am a Compliance Officer of the second largest brokerage house of its kind in the world. If you cannot work out that means that I am neither a pacifist nor a bean counter then that’s your problem not mine!
Seems I touched a nerve, though obviously not the nerve that allows you to act in either a reasonable fashion or gives you the ability to answer a direct question. I trust I haven’t said anything to offend you, I would hate to have one of my posts mysteriously referred again!
Marcus – Actually in the main I agree with what you have said, though I would say from what has been published your President hasn’t suggested disarmament. Yes shocking I know, I agree with you (I may need to get some smelling salts)!
Complain about this comment
Philly-mom, you are the best! Right on target! Of COURSE that's why the hallowed Founding Fathers specified an elected Head of State, superior to the military minds. The military does their job and the President does his. Interestingly, from Washington through T.R. through Eisenhower, our military heroes who have been elected to the Presidency on the strength of their leadership have ALWAYS cautioned us against entangling alliances and the military/industrial complex, now, haven't they?
Complain about this comment
Ref 76, powermeerkat
I agree with much of what you said, but I think it is unrealistic for the US to rely on donations to run projects that contribute to our ability to learn and, at the same time, influence the development of new technologies that often improve our quality of life and improve our competitive posture.
I was never too impressed with the theatrics of manned missions, although I am proud to have been a member of the manned space flight program from its inception until well into the Shuttle program. I always preferred earth orbiting unmanned missions, and eliptical projects designed to learn more about the universe, than seeing astronauts doing tricks in space. I guess the latter did wonders for our national pride and psyche though...
The ISS is not my favorite cup of tea, but it has proven to be a valuable tool for research. Ideally, private industry should take over its operation, but that is simply not going to happen. Every attempt to privatize NASA or some of its most costly programs have failed. The proposals presented by large corporations were nothing more than a cost-plus-incentive-fee award approach identical to what most NASA contractors have enjoyed since the earliest days of the Agency and, consequently, would have achieved nothing measurable when it comes to reducing government expenditures. There is simply too much risk and no guarantee of return on investment to entice corporations to take over a multi-billion dollar agency.
Complain about this comment
I support President Obama. Moral issues aside, nuclear weapons are a huge waste of money. We aren’t going to use them again. There is no longer any credible scenario in which we would use them in a first strike. They are tactically useless; only symbolic; really nothing more than expensive totem poles; and more dangerous to us than to anyone else. I would support getting rid of them all.
Complain about this comment
Ref 73, programmercraig
"Untrue! I'm younger than Obama and we used to run those drills when I was in elementary school."
Sorry to hear you had to endure the same trauma I did a few decades earlier. Hopefully it didn't contribute to the level of paranoia that consumes those that see an enemy behind every tree and check under their beds to make sure there are no commies...or Islamic fundamentalists...before going to bed at night.
My eldest son is 3 years younger than the President and he did not participate in those drills when he attended elementary school in California or when he went to High School and college in Maryland. I reckon he was lucky...
Complain about this comment
Ref, programmercraig
I checked into the "Duck and Cover" issue and found out that, indeed, some school districts continued that practice until the 1980s!
Complain about this comment
Ref 77, Ann
"Seeing that Obama spent four months pondering the marvels of his navel before making a decision on troops for Afghanistan..."
Were you more impressed by President Bush's decision to take his eyes off the ball and focus on Iraq instead of Afghanistan where Al Qaeda had a robust presence at the time?
In case you missed it, President Obama did what President Bush neglected to do, he increased troop levels and focused our attention on Al Qaeda, the organization that attacked us on 9/11.
President Obama is not planning to dismantle our nuclear arsenal, in fact, if he tried such a thing he would not be allowed to do so and would most likely be impeached. Eliminating obsolete weapons and discontinuing a program that, for all intents and purposes duplicates an existing capability does not mean nuclear disarmament or weakens our military might.
Bear in mind that what he announced pales in comparison to the scope of nuclear disarmament, nuclear weapons reductions, and non-proliferation treaties signed by previous Presidents, including George H. W. Bush.
Complain about this comment
What is at issue here is NOT nuclear arms reduction but whether or not the US has a public "first strike" policy. Russia has unequivacably stated that they reserve the right to conduct a first strike if they deem it desirable. China has issued positively SCARY pronouncements that they would be willing to do a first strike if the US (or their growing cadre of enemies) so much as TARGETS their country with nukes. They are placing nuclear tipped missiles aboard ships and one can assume that they would use them, possibly against a target like the US Sixth Fleet...it does not have to be a city, but a purely military target like the fleet would not necessarily bring down world condemnation.
Israel, well, officially they don't have nukes so...ahem!
India has stated that they will use their growing nuclear arsenal only as a response to a nuclear attack. That probably reflects the Indian government's inability to make firm decisions more than judgement...but after all it is the default position if you have nukes, you can't say you won't use them AT ALL...what would then be the point of having them?
There is also widespread misunderstanding of what the purpose of a "first strike" is. A nuclear first strike was intended to wipe out the enemy's nuclear capability. A bit of a sledgehammer blow, but it is not an attack on say Moscow or Beijing. China (and Russia) have been working to "harden" their nuclear missiles so that they can survive a US first strike. So, depending on how effective their measures have been, the purpose of a first strike may already have been defeated.
The military is dominated by politics. You can see that Obama has appointed his pet general Stanley McChrystal and Admiral Mike Mullin must be the least respected admiral in the US Navy...a very mushy CJCS indeed. My bet is Obama will roll over for a tummy rub on this one and give up the first strike option.
Complain about this comment
Can I suggest a new topic: Why after 14:00 GMT does it well over an hour to get posts moderated? This is the second day in a row, if the BBC don’t people to use the service then let us know and withdraw it. There is no point letting journalists post blogs inviting comment then effectively kill the conversation due to time lags. If things don’t shape up quickly, I for one will be looking elsewhere.
Complain about this comment
The esoteric nuclear "first strike" debate serves as a convenient distraction to the decision made by Sen Jim Bunning (R-KY) to block a bill that would have extended unemployment and COBRA benefits to tens of thousands of Americans who have lost their jobs since the recession began.
While I sympathize with his fiscal concerns (I am in favor of a constitutional ammendment to make balanced budgets mandatory) I question the motives of a man that supported tax cuts to the rich and to corporations, and did not hesitate to support wasting $1T in Iraq. Is the plight of the common man less important than impairing the ability of millionaires to achieve their nebulous goals, or the ability of corporations to benefit from sole source contracts associated with "rebuilding" Iraq?
Play ball!
Complain about this comment
The Administration says:"A senior administration official has told the BBC there will be a "dramatic reductions in the nuclear stockpile, while maintaining a strong and reliable deterrent". "
But the raving righties (in this case Marcus @ 67) hear: "Even a clever lawyer is not smart enough to understand that taking the moral high ground by disarming America will not solve the problem, it will only make a catastrophic outcome inevitable. If that is President Obama's recommendation, to effectively disarm America of nuclear weapons I will work hard for his impeachment before his insanity can be implimented. I'm sure I will be in lots of good company.
And here's some of that 'good company' courtesy of Breitbart & Co.: "Team Obama’s anti-anti-missile initiatives are not simply acts of unilateral disarmament of the sort to be expected from an Alinsky acolyte. They seem to fit an increasingly obvious and worrying pattern of official U.S. submission to Islam and the theo-political-legal program the latter’s authorities call Shariah."
Of course, the headline of the above rubbish merely muses "could this possibly be true?"
There is something desperately wrong with the state of the Union when stuff like this is taken seriously.
Complain about this comment
Ref 81, carolinalady
"...from Washington through T.R. through Eisenhower, our military heroes who have been elected to the Presidency on the strength of their leadership have ALWAYS cautioned us against entangling alliances and the military/industrial complex, now, haven't they?"
I suspect Ike's warnings are as irrelevant to the "conservative" crowd as Reagan's cut and run in Lebanon...
They simply ignore them or play them down while engaging in their perennial litany of appeasement, treason or the exact location of some people's birthplace...while ignoring the Panama Canal Zone...
Incidentally, have you heard of McCain's nomination problems in Arizona where he is being accused of being too moderate?
Complain about this comment
Wales Happy belated ST Davids Day BTW
77 But more competent than the idiots you trusted it to.
Complain about this comment
Unilaterely disarming ones' nuclear deterrent would be foolish.
But using them would destroy the user by retaliation and contamination.
In last Sunday's papers, there was an article on British families taking Chernobyl children for month long holidays, to try and boost their immune systems, away from their contaminated homeland.
The children are still dying in large numbers from cancers due to the radio-active fall-out.
Nuclear weapons are the destroyers of worlds,one day may be,they will all be traded away to zero.
One doesn't need more than 4-8 SSBN's for a deterrent.Anything else is a waste of money.
No funds for universal healthcare in the U.S? It's all gone on pointless, useless systems of mass destruction, for the pride of red-neck neanderthals who feel superior if they can destroy more than the next guy,what a total waste...
Complain about this comment
SaintDominick (#51) "I don't think it is a diversion to deflect attention from the GM recall, but I doubt GM executives will be put through the ringer in Congress the way the TOYOTA foks were."
No, because the circumstances don't call for it yet. Every automaker has recalls; that is not the issue. The GM recall is for a problem less serious than the Toyota problem, and only one injury has been attributed to it, not the many deaths associated with Toyota incidents. If GM handles the problem responsibly, they should not be "put through the ringer."
Complain about this comment
David Murrell (#50), a neutron bomb is a "nuke."
Complain about this comment
Mr. Mardell,
Perhaps all is not as it appears. On reading the SORT treaty, I found that the current American stockpiles of perhaps ten thousand (perhaps five thousand currently active, and five thousand more in intact but disarmed) to approximately eighteen hundred operationally deployed warheads. Those are strategic assets. Tactical Nuclear Weapons (neutron bombs for instance) will not be affected by the treaty, or at least so far as I can tell, and so that is another eight hundred to a thousand warheads also. Furthermore there will most likely be a few thousand more strategic warheads in responsive reserve.
In other words, the first-strike option has not been eliminated so much as made less effective. Targets will have to be chosen far more carefully and not as many could be attacked. The idea being to eliminate the possibility of Mutually Assured Destruction. A mindset that favors the ones enemies.
Alas, it matters not. The Leader has spoken and his orders shall be carried out.
I should imagine that even if the President ordered total nuclear disarmament the US military would keep a handful of warheads buried under a mountain somewhere.
Personally I find the idea of a first strike with strategic nuclear weapons anathema. Just because I don't like the idea doesn't mean I don't want to have the option anyway.
"Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum"
"Therefore let he who wishes peace, PREPARE for war"
(Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus)
"If you wish for peace, prepare for war. Going out, picking fights, and starting wars anyway is not the same."
Magnos Iacobos
Complain about this comment
SaintDominick: To be fair, crusade has a secular meaning or non religious meaning, which I'm sure you are aware of, and considering how those conflicts/challenges have been going I think it is fair to say that using the word crusade in its secular way was actually an accurate way to put it. Which is how President Bush meant it but obviously didn't realize it was a bad choice of words when it came to the Muslim communities around the world.
Technically China and Russia are trying to improve living standards but both nations are also increasing their military spending, especially China.
Complain about this comment
Well it looks like AllenT2 and co will get there wish, non Americans keeping their opinions to themselves..
The BBC have announced they are going to focus on domestic programming and make large cuts including their websites...
Shame really....
OF course Americans or Europeans would never try to interfere or comment on the policies of my country :)
Complain about this comment
"BTW. Quite a few nukes will be disposed of anyway as a result of the next U.S.-Russian Strategic Arms Reduction agreement.
To be signed in a few months, hopefully."
First time I read a sensible comment from you.
Ref post 3.
;) Glad some one got it. Sorry, you are one of those that thinks a Nuclear winter is the solution to global warming.
After all when the deal is signed the Ruskies won't want to be subsidising our energy program as they have been for several years now.
The cost of processing the raw materials into fuel being cheaper than the cost of processing the old bombs.
89 St Dominic.
These people seem to like their guns and bombs. Then they wonder why other nations think the same.No reasoning .
You know the answer will be something like.
"Oh don't be disingenuous "
Good to see someone keeping an eye on the balls.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8f8drk5Urw
Complain about this comment
Arthur1958 (#83) " ... I would support getting rid of them all."
Then you do not accept the principle of deterrence? If the United States decommissioned all nuclear-armed missiles while states like North Korea and Iran are developing missile and nuclear warhead capability, would you think that would be better for the US.
My view is that the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) has kept the nuclear powers from making direct war on each other, and that the doctrine is not yet obsolete.
Complain about this comment
88 given the remarks by Mark Thompson we might get lucky .
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8544150.stm
Complain about this comment
shivering.. (#87) "China has issued positively SCARY pronouncements that they would be willing to do a first strike if the US (or their growing cadre of enemies) so much as TARGETS their country with nukes."
Your assertion is at odds with the following article from 2003:
http://www.nti.org/db/china/ndeclar.htm
If there is a more recent document which changes the stated policy, I would like to know what it is.
In any case, there is no way that China could know if they were targeted by a submarine with ballistic missiles. I expect these boats have a file of every conceivable target at hand, whether likely to be used or not.
Complain about this comment
Ref 90, chronophobe
"There is something desperately wrong with the state of the Union when stuff like this is taken seriously."
What is going on is not unprecedented, in fact, it is consistent with the strategy used by Republicans to undermine the effectiveness of Democratic administrations. It has worked well in the past, and they are confident it will be successful once again. The only constant is our failure to remember what happened in the not too distant past.
Complain about this comment
It's not GM's fault, it's Toyotas!
Complain about this comment
David Murrell at 88 - Please don't 'look elsewhere". Your voice is one of the most rational and reasonable on this board. A pleasure to read - except - I read someone else's post and think "Aha! I must reply and say......" and blow me down you've got there first, and said it far more elegantly and interestingly than I could! So no, don't go elsewhere - who else would be "left to counter the right" (Read that any way you like!)
I agree with you 100% over the moderators. It would be good to have an explanation if for no other reason than courtesy. Is the department is down with swine flu or something even more deadly - writers block perhaps?
Complain about this comment
Ref. 71, SaintDominick:
"Thank you for clarifying the obvious, but since accuracy did not prevent former President George W. Bush from describing our adventure in Iraq as a crusade I feel compelled to do the same."
So, if someone claims something as the truth that you know to be wrong, your response is to repeat the fallacy?
Complain about this comment
GH - Yes a neutron bomb is a type of nuclear bomb (an ERW) but it is different from a conventional nuke. The explosion from an ERW is about a tenth that of a standard nuclear weapon. The point of the weapon is to kill people rather than destroy buildings or property (indeed it was originally designed as a large scale anti-tank weapon). The US originally intended it to be used against soviet tanks invading W Europe, the tanks could be destroyed without severely damaging the W European countries.
The point I was making is that the US and possibly China have these weapons, if you want to us a nuke to invade a country you use a neutron bomb.
Complain about this comment
Ref 91: Yes, St. Dom, I know about Senator McCain's problems and Sarah Palin's problems with the TeaParty because she endorsed him over the farther right candidate. The Republicans seem to have rolled in crazy dust lately, or something...not very much they're doing politically is making a lot of practical sense. Party purity doesn't get candidates elected. And the television image of the solid sourpuss group of white GOP men at the State of the Union address in January isn't one that appeals to a younger, more diverse electorate.
Complain about this comment
DM
I have to say the use of Chemical and Biological weapons is no less scary to me than the use of Nukes.
Indeed Chemical pollutants and biological pollutants already worry me as much as Nuke waste.
Bohpal?
( Most opposition to technological advances that are possibly dangerous come from within the scientific community. Before someone accuses me of being a ludite)
Complain about this comment
post 92 almightynonsense.
Thank you so much,my granddaughters aged 6,5&3 came to visit on the way to school,all dressed in Welsh national costume,complete with tall black hats & daffodils,moments like that are so wonderful.
Complain about this comment
Ref 97, noliving
Yes, words such as crusade or war are often used to describe a concerted effort to promote or eliminate something, rather than their more common definitions, but I doubt President Bush was unaware of the significance of the word he used, or how offensive it was in the context he used it...and neither were his supporters.
I read China has increased its "defense" budget significantly, I was unaware that Russia had done the same. However, neither has demonstrated any interest in military adventurism...they are too busy making money!
Complain about this comment
It has been over 60 years since the initial bombs of 'peace' were dropped. And since then the race towards 'peace' has set in motion a global increase of WMD and lethal weaponry the world has never known before. We are living within it now.
To some it's a Mexican Standoff, a balance of power to keep the peace, however, it does our elemental creation that we live upon no good at all; again we live upon it and it is anathema to the natural environment that we, as humans, and our fellow creatures who cope with nuclear environmental waste, should endeavour to correspond with instead of man constantly trying to mimic the power of creation in such heinous ways. For surely it has always been the arrogance of men, the male, attempting to abide to 'being made in God's image' that has set him on a course for ever more achievement in many ways. Call it the 'Adam' (not the Eve) subconscious dysfunction. It was never about 'dominion' over the earth, but 'do minion' - to serve - the Earth. And it has been man's greatest mistake to misinterpret such ancient wisdom. Or literally mistranslate it.
So where are we now? We have a world leader attempting to achieve something that would retrograde the world stockpile. It surely is a brave thing to attempt at this time in the world's history. It must be a discussion for the world now. The general population has no knowledge of the actual weapons of mass destruction, their capabilities, numbers, and locations around the world. Should a global list and explanation be compiled and issued globally then without doubt the peoples would shocked and awed.
It's now a dance. Let it be a dance of peace. Not the accumulation of arms for 'peace'. Let the dance begin and surely it must include the world of Islam because all of it I believe has gone against the principles of Islam. Sadly it has now come to global jihad and in some way we must ask ourselves why and whether global WMD and the path to ever looser morals and behaviour that is rank hypocrisy at many points has played a part in warped extremism - now suffering from the 'Adam dysfunction'.
Israel too, must now attempt peace and properly cleanse themselves of the bloodstained tears they suffered and now inflict upon innocent others in their area - not all of which morally belongs to them.
Let the dance begin.
Good luck President Obama and all who dance with him.
Complain about this comment
"what would your comrade in arms, Obama, be impeached for?"
Sorry, but Mr. Obama could not possibly be my (or anybody else's) comrade in arms since as somebody has already noticed above, the man couldn't tell the butt of the rifle from its barrel. Let alone cruise missile from the ballistic missile or nuclear warhead from EMP warhead.
Personally I hope that our Commander-in-Chief is never impeached but is simply voted out before he manages to do irreparable harm to U.S. national security.
Let him stick to tampering with health insurance business and bailing out failing banks with U.S. taxpayers' money.
That, we as a nation, will survive. Yes, we can! :)
Complain about this comment
98 If this site had not turned into the hate filled site it is I would mourn the loss of this forum.
As it is I will rejoice.
If it is so
Shame but then not a shame.
They had their wish already. They have this blog in a state of permanent deception.
Complain about this comment
For MK.
Complain about this comment
Re #82 SaintDominick wrote:
"There is simply too much risk and no guarantee of return on investment to entice corporations to take over a multi-billion dollar agency."
It depends what what kind of return they'd anticipate.
Look at Rutan/Branson type of enterprise, for example.
A low orbital transport (much cheaper than the shuttle) will be developed simply because investors antitipate enough demand for a more worthy successor to "Vomit Comet".
The same pertains to pharma/biotechnology companies investing in small, mostly robotic space stations if they figure out that without 0 gravity they cannot progress.
And no, I was not talking about taking over the whole multi-billion dollar agency.
Merely specific industrial conscortia paying for specific space programs they're likely to benefit from directly. While government concentrates on space science programs nobody else would fund not seeing short term gains from sizeable investments.
And as for private donors, just look at Keck telescopes (been at Mauna Kea, seen them). If he hasn't taken that initiative, NASA would have to do that (or something very similar), using hundreds of thousands poor taxpayers' money. As it stood, the agency could use public money for something else.
[whether always wisely or efficiently that's a horse of another color.]
So no, we should not rely on such benefactors as Mr. Keck, but we should actively seek and encourage them, just like many charities do.
[cf. Bush/ Clinton Foundation re Haiti]
P.S. My concern about our president's attempt to deprive us of a heavy lift capability stands, but is tempered by my belief that after November election Congress will not let this happen.
I also hope that elected officials are smart enough to see that without a new, much faster jet propulsion, we will literally get nowhere.
[although I would not bet on the latter]
Complain about this comment
Re #78 Steve Diamond wrote:
"Typically most modern devices are in the yield range 150-200 KT.
Popular W-87 (300 kT) and W-88 (475 kT) are twice as powerful.
However there are quite a few devices whose yield is less than 10 kT (and even some under 1 kT), altough, as you know, it can be dialed up.
BTW. Total American magatonnage stands currently at merely 1430 MT.
[and even that will go significantly lower in the near future]
It was 20, 491 MT in 1960.
But then times of briefly deployed 25 MT (3-stage) B-41 are long gone, with B-61's lowest (unboosted) yield now being merely 0.3 kT.
Now, 'bout them BIOLOGICAL weapons nobody seems to be fear...;-)
Complain about this comment
I know they don't teach history these days but some of us "old guys" do remember that the "first strike" policy was adopted because the Soviet Union had overwhelming conventional forces that were more than capable of quickly overwhelming Europe. The "first strike" policy was not a policy of aggression but a statement to the Soviets that the USA was willing to risk the life's of every American to protect Europe.
Things have changed. There is no Soviet Union. Russia's conventional military is not sufficient to quickly overwhelm Nato's ground forces, and politically things are much less tense.
Complain about this comment
Re# 95 GH1618 wrote:
David Murrell (#50), a neutron bomb is a "nuke."
Of course, except in reality there's no such thing as neutron bomb as Sam Cohen would be first to point out.
What's commonly refered to as such is merely an enhanced radiation device.
[it was scraped, btw.]
Complain about this comment
Re #94
GM has actually traced the problem to a part supplied by a company partially owned by...TOYOTA! :-)
Complain about this comment
No First Nuke? The USA is the only Government that has ever used the Nuclear Bomb in a act of WAR. The puppet President Obama is being told to say the USA Military are going to reduce their nuclear arsenal, don't believe it for one moment. The aged and damaged nuclear bombs maybe destroyed but new and greater weapons are always being developed.
There are greater weapons than nuclear weapons to be concerned about. The quiet type the stealth weapons of war that can take over the consciousness of a human being without their awareness. The propaganda machines that nations use painting pictures of life and a world that they wish their citizens to believe to exist, this is the weapon of choice. Today we live in a world that communication systems are implanted in infants at birth and they are used in every avenue of human involvement.
Pre-judgements are cultivated into citizens lives. What to believe, what to accept, what not to accept and how to react. A programmed world exist, citizens are subverted to from the beginning of their existence.
Crimes by governments in the use of their people are being justified and a individuals worth becomes just a number. Democracy, capitalism and freedom they have lost their meaning. Truth everyone is afraid of it lest they say something their government might not like, and attack them constantly it they do.
Complain about this comment
Re #106...
When the likes of Osama Ibn Laden describe us as Crusaders and vow retaliation for Crusades, they don't mean Iraq, but those slighly earlier adventures (some ending in Constantinople).
Very stealthy ones may I add, for United States have not existed then yet. At least not officially. :-)
Complain about this comment
A nuclear-free world is a fool's paradise. Pandora's box has been open for far too long. China, Pakistan, North Korea and India all have nuclear weapons, to name but a few. Iran is next in the chute. The US must maintain a strong nuclear arsenal and be ready to deploy it tactically and strategically.
Complain about this comment
David Murrell (#107) "The point I was making is ..."
Yes, and the point I was making is that you cannot adopt a "no first use" policy and say that neutron bombs don't count. You implied that neutron bombs were not the same as "nukes" but I doubt if any nation attacked with them would agree.
Complain about this comment
amaryr (#105) "Is the department is down with swine flu or something even more deadly - writers block perhaps?"
The BBC has announced that they are cutting back on web services. Perhaps they have begun by letting all the pre-moderators go.
Complain about this comment
Ref 106, Andy
Au contraire, I believe President Bush knew exactly what he was saying when he called our adventure in Iraq a crusade. Obviously, there we other considerations including geo-political neocon priorities, the need to offer the american public something measurable after 9/11 (Afghanistan was not doing the trick), the need to transform W into a war President to guarantee his re-election, business opportunities, a decision to teach an object lesson to the Islamic world...and religious fundamentalism characterized by some, including a US general, who stated that our God was better than theirs.
As a result, and since the true justifications to launch an unprovoked attack against a Third World country and invade it were limited to financial, cultural, political and religious considerations, I am perfectly comfortable calling it what it is...a crusade...not very different from the ones carried out in medieval times, although much larger in scope and damage inflicted.
The WMD ruse was the tool used to legitimize what could not be justified otherwise.
Complain about this comment
Ref 108, Carolinalady
I am getting the impression that the initial Republican enthusiasm with the Tea Party is dissipating very rapidly. Moderate Republicans are becoming targets and are being challenged by ultra-conservative candidates that enjoy TP support, and I would not be surprised if the GOP leadership now see the "historic" herbal movement as a threat to the hegemony of the two-party system.
I think the key to the outcome of the midterm elections is going to be the Independents.
Complain about this comment
SD|: "However, neither (China or Russia) has demonstrated any interest in military adventurism..."
Look no further than Beijing's recent use of the army against Uighurs in PRC-occupied East Turkestan (which Han call Xinjiang) and Russia's agression against Georgia.
Not to mention
Complain about this comment
Crusade - a long and determined attempt to achieve something you believe in strongly. Cambridge Dictionary.
Complain about this comment
Crusade — ORIGIN French croisade, from croisée ‘the state of being marked with the cross’.
I'm with the Muslims on that bit of history. Every man, woman and child were put to the sword when Jeruzalem fell and particular cruelty was reserved for the Jewish population
Complain about this comment
SaintDominick:
Agreed with the first part, as that was one of my points. For the second part I disagree, Russia is making very interesting military moves around Georgia, and their nuclear naval subs have been more active around US coasts, just a few months ago two nuclear weapon carrying subs were about 30 miles off the eastern coastline of the US.
China's military seems to be more on computer warfare at the moment and more and more attacks linked to the Chinese military and its intelligence are growing, excluding google. As for its ground/naval/airforce it does seem to be preparing to grow a significant force that would be impenetrable for US forces in the event that China attacks Taiwan, they have also recommended that China's navy set up some type of base in the region near the red sea. China is also becoming much bolder/aggressive with it claims in the south china sea.
The US is very interested in making money, that is why it engages in military adventures.
Complain about this comment
To all those who have said repeatedly that the USA has enough weapons to wipe out the world several times over, you are all missing the point.
Any conceivable large scale attack on the US would of course include an attack on its nuclear facilities. The assumption must be that some of these attacks would succeed, immediately reducing the strike-back capacity, meaning that more missiles would be needed. Also, another assumption must be that the attacker would have advanced air defense systems, so the vast majority of missiles would not get through, therefore to be sure of a strike succeeding again, more missiles would be needed.
So to say that they only need a few weapons is just not right.
To those who say that these missiles are now redundant since the end of the cold war, who can say what will happen in the next 20 years? 20 years ago, the USSR was a world power, and 30 years ago the threat looked very real, and no one would have believed that in 1990 the USSR would have collapsed. We cannot know now what threats will be around in 10 years, for sure not in 30 - 50. It would be idiotic and irresponsible to assume that weapons systems need only deal with current threats, they must be ready for any future situation.
Complain about this comment
Ref 132 yedidyak-
How nice of General "Buck" Turgidson to drop in for a visit. We'd have to go far beyond the reduction of "first strike" capability before it would effect our ability to retaliate; if retaliation is in any way sensible.
Complain about this comment
MK,
"Anyone who think it is safe to have this centuries Nazis with nuclear weapons is naive."
So Iran are the new nazis?
But only seven years ago Saddam was the new Hitler.
Make your mind up!
It's very confusing for the rest of the world when America can't decide who the new Hitler is. Any clues as to who the next one will be?
Complain about this comment
Obama is an ideologue and we saw what his feeble attempts at imposing his vision through pure hope and symbolism have yielded in Iran and N. Korea.
The good news is that there is only so much damage he can do in just 3 more years - before the next election cycle.
Complain about this comment
"Any conceivable large scale attack on the US would of course include an attack on its nuclear facilities. The assumption must be that some of these attacks would succeed, immediately reducing the strike-back capacity, meaning that more missiles would be needed."
Nope, not really.
Have you ever heard of 'launch on warning'? :)
Complain about this comment
Powermeerkat – So Obama isn’t your comrade-in-arms (which could be construed as being a tad seditious, him being your president and all) and I am not your comrade in arms, so when you said ‘comrade’, which you said was not a soviet reference but ‘comrade-in-arms’, who was it directed at? Oh and why was it tough?
Also you hope that the President isn’t impeached (113), but you prophesise that he will be, isn’t that rather a rather conflicted view, or you just flip-flopping (bit like the “well, tough, ‘comrades’. ” statement – fantastic grammar by the way – which when confronted became comrade-in-arms, except that according to your later responses no it doesn’t)?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Yedidyak (ref. 132), you're right about the need to be prepared for future threats, which is why I find Obama's talk of a "nuclear-free world" to be completely asinine. I don't think anyone can ever know many WWII-style conventional wars have been prevented because of the nuclear threat. It's probably the only reason the Soviet Union and the West didn't go to war in the years following World War II or why China hasn't invaded Taiwan yet.
That said, America's nuclear capability isn't at risk to get taken out in a first strike. Nuclear facilities are spread out across the country, far from the coasts, and we'd have more than ample warning to block or respond to an attack.
I don't have a problem with Obama cutting some of the dead weight from our nuclear stockpile. I'm just not a fan of the flashy way he goes about it, as if he's proud to advertise to the world that America is weakening itself. With the threats we're facing, combined with the fact that most of Asia is dominated by hostile powers (China, Russia, North Korea, Iran), the last thing we need is a President who can't really be taken seriously on military issues. Unfortunately, that's exactly what we have.
Complain about this comment
If you think about it the First Strike policy is pretty pointless anyway, who would it work against. During most of the Cold War both sides knew that any first strike would not destroy the other sides capabilities, initiating it would result in a MAD situation. The same is true of China, too big a country too greatly militarised. So that leaves N. Korea, India, Pakistan, possibly Israel and as an outside possibility Iran, other than NK these all have problems two sometimes three are allies and bombing either Pakistan or India would devastate the other. Bombing Iran would probably mean the end of Israel as well and the poisoning of the Holy Land, important to three of the worlds major religions. Even NK means damaging South Korea and it is not clear other than SK who NK would launch their missiles at, after all they and China have a difficult relationship at times.
So any First Strike policy is only good for some patriotic beating of the chest, good for raising tensions and little else. As President Reagan said “Nuclear war cannot be won and should not be fought.”
Complain about this comment
#16 AllenT
"ukwales wrote:
"Blimey President Obama has been reading my posts,on how many boomers (SSBN)do you need to commit Suicide?They are unusable,& yes Sir MR President, I will accept that large cheque for services to humanity...."
Anything that would be accepted would be by Americans only."
AllenT, I have just spent 20 mins I'll never get back reading your posts, and I have a question: do you have a sense of humour? Yes or no will suffice.
Complain about this comment
Publiusdetroit # 133,
I too think you are missing some of the thoughtful points made here.
The suggestion of survival of the fittest.
List the present day failings around - Health care anomalies. Budget deficits. Unemployment. The housing market. US ice hockey. And now proposed reductions in nuclear capacity and first strike options, to name just a few. Depressing times.
Without some forward thinkers like yedidyak # 132, the chance of saving at least some of USA's population from being wiped off the face of the earth in the future could be lost for ever. Is he ahead of the game?.
Build up and build down together.! Are we mice or men? Perhaps both lemmings and moles together?
Over half our present day problems could be because Bush senior stopped at the gates. Today we have the chance of making a good job of it. The global end game. All your and my worries removed at the push of a button. [Not forgetting Middle East help to ensure the wheels are oiled and it all goes smoothly.]
Nothing is written in stone.
With Yucca mountain the proposed future site for storage of nuclear waste in the bowels of the earth in Nevada already being questioned about it's suitability, why let it go to waste? It can just as easily be converted into living accomodation for remaining, respected servants of government.
Why promote a mineshaft gap when the solution is already to hand?. You must agree that there's a sense in thinking off the grid occasionally.
What was the half-life contamination period of worldwide nuclear exposure again, even using the 'clean' ones?
Bet Ahmadinejad knows.
Complain about this comment
137
"Also you hope that the President isn’t impeached (113), but you prophesise that he will be, isn’t that rather a rather conflicted view, or you just flip-flopping (bit like the “well, tough, ‘comrades’. ” statement – fantastic grammar by the way – which when confronted became comrade-in-arms, except that according to your later responses no it doesn’t)?"
I thought that was obvious.
It lets him pretend that he is a reasonable person by HOPING that Obama will not be impeached while suggesting that the right and proper treatment of Obama would be impeachment.
Sort of the " well I wouldn't put this horse out of it's misery but that will probably be the vets decision."
You know " listen kid I know you love your rex but the doctor knows best.. I know I know I don't want to do it either but the vet has said that he is in too much pain."
Complain about this comment
93 Wales Giving it up to reason again.. How dare you.
.The whole world looks at america and knows that just a few of those bombs would have paid for health care.
Well except that part of the world still too busy screaming "we got a bigger bomb and are stronger than you . Na na."
http://www.brookings.edu/projects/archive/nucweapons/50.aspx
interesting costs there.
11 bombs still missing supposedly. How do you misplace a bomb you never built.
That seems like a good solution to stop loosing them.
Someone went on about how they corrode , the missiles. Do they not corrode when left at the bottom of the sea?
At 21 million a piece those tridents could provide a lot of medical care.
"A further 70 missiles can be accessed from a communal pool at the Strategic".....
Now that is amusing " communal pool" of bombs.
For club members only.
Sound like a bunch of pinkos to me. all that ":communal"
Complain about this comment
134. At 01:36am on 03 Mar 2010, bru_wales wrote:
MK,
"Anyone who think it is safe to have this centuries Nazis with nuclear weapons is naive."
---------
I thought you all must have been talking about some other state . Not Iran.
One that Iran seems to dislike.
But then it seems the state also hates Iran.
Because they have imprisoned thousands. Bombed the hell out of civilians. Claimed religious sites as their own and done their best to undermine any form of democracy in their neighbouring states.
OH they also invade their neighbours on punitive reprisal actions regularly.
Complain about this comment
Well, it seems my post 138 has been ‘referred to the moderators’. I suppose that is because of a use of a quote from Ken Kessy’s book (One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest), because the other quote was from the Bible. But who can say nowadays in the era of political correctness- you are left to wonder whether the fault is with one of TIME Magazine’s best English-language novels from 1923 to 2005, or with the Bible.
Or with people unable to recognise a figure of speech when they see one.
Complain about this comment
David Murrell (#140), the first strike doctrine has always been merely theoretical, applying to contingencies which are extremely unlikey and which the US seeks to avoid. For example, the following quote describes the first (of three) contingencies under PDD-60, the policy developed under the Clinton administration:
"if a state that we are engaged in conflict with is a nuclear-capable state, we do not necessarily intend to wait until that state uses nuclear weapons first--we reserve the right to use nuclear weapons first in a conflict ..." (Robert Bell, senior director for defense policy and arms control at the National Security Council, 1997)
Clearly, the objective is to avoid armed conflict with nuclear powers, not to initiate a preemptive strike. But there is no advantage in declaring to a nuclear power that we will not use every weapon at our disposal when we are at war with a nation possessing nuclear weapons. The doctrine under President Reagan may have been somewhat different, but that era is long gone.
Complain about this comment
Isenhorn (#146), did you read the house rules? Perhaps it was merely considered to be a copyright violation.
Complain about this comment
@ #30
When did we start refering to the iranians as Natzis?!
Complain about this comment
I welcome any decisions to reverse the strike first policy and to reduce the US's nuclear stockpile but I do not want it to go away completely, therefore there should be a next generation of nukes, even if they're based on old designs. If America doesn't have any nukes it is likely the UK and France will follow and there will be nothing to stop the Russians, the Chinese or anyone else from just taking over continental Europe or other vulnerable parts of the world.
Complain about this comment
Re:168
GH1618,
If it was a copyright violation, then we are in a even bigger mess- it would imply we are no loger allowed even to quote passages from books on web-sites.
Complain about this comment
Isenhorn (#151), I've never had a problem with brief quotations, properly attributed. But it's better to provide a link to anything long. Perhaps your quote contained a rude word.
By the way, Sometimes a Great Notion is Kesey's true masterpiece:
http://www.seattlepi.com/books/46819_book16.shtml
Complain about this comment
David Murrell (#140), where do you get the notion that a nuclear attack on one country would automatically damage the neighboring countries? The fallout from nuclear weapons doesn't spread that far. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still habitable and no other parts of Japan saw any significant radiation.
Therefore, a nuclear strike in Pakistan/India or North/South Korea wouldn't necessarily damage their counterpart, nor would an Israeli strike on Iran (or vice versa). There would be pretty much no effect outside the local area of the bombing.
Complain about this comment
For the record: From now on I will not be responding to insecure accountants/bean counters with patently obvious inferiority complex just as I stopped responding to certain colonel-conartists, let alone assorted welders and plumber's helpers.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Where have all the flowers gone?"
Complain about this comment
re. 30. MagicKirin:
What you fail to realize by cancelling weapon such as a bunker buster limits the options to destroy Iran's nuclear capability.
There are several problems with using a nuclear bunker buster weapon. Ground bursts of nuclear weapons are the dirtiest kinds of nuclear explosions. If the explosion breaks up to ground level, you're throwing lots of radioactive dirt/ash/etc. into the atmosphere and you don't really know where it will go. It depends on a lot of variables. If we were to do that to Iran, we could end up dumping fallout onto our own troops in Iraq or Afghanistan. I know what USAF86 said in post 153, but there were a LOT of Japanese with radiation sickness after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and there are lingering effects like increased cancer and birth defect rates.
The other problem with bunker busters is that you had better be sure you've found all the bunkers. It's like cancer surgery. You leave some of them intact and you are worse off than before. And the easy and cheap thing for a country like Iran with lots of territory to do is go on a bunker building spree. They don't have to put weapons in all of them, just build the bunkers. The Soviet Union did that with missile silos during the Cold War. When the time came to decommission them because of arms reduction treaties with the US, the American observers were startled to discover that not all of the silos their satellites had identified had missiles in them. But in the mean time, it creates uncertainty about exactly how many and where your adversary's weapons are.
We don't know for sure how many nuclear refinement facilities they have, how are we going to know for sure where all their bunkers are, or what's in them?
Another problem is that we can be absolutely sure that Iran would strike back in an asymmetrical fashion. And not just at us. Every American, British, Israeli or Jewish building, corporation, airline--you name it--in the world would be a target for car bombs, suicide bombs, all of the grisly techniques of terrorism. It's sort of like Mutual Assured Destruction on the cheap. I mean, we may not like them and some may think they're the personification of evil, but they're not stupid. And we're not stupid either, which is why a preemptive strike will never happen.
Right wingers never seem to think problems through. First solution that presents itself--bam, they're on it. That's how we got into Iraq. "They'll greet us with flowers," Rumsfeld said. "We won't need anything like 300,000 troops to fully occupy Iraq." Right. That's why they were frustrated with Obama's Afghanistan review. "Why is he taking so long?" they all said. Because he actually thinks about things and wants some solid information before making a decision.
And "cancelling" only has one L. Really, look into the latest version of Firefox. You'll thank me for it.
Complain about this comment
134. At 01:36am on 03 Mar 2010, bru_wales wrote:
MK,
"Anyone who think it is safe to have this centuries Nazis with nuclear weapons is naive."
So Iran are the new nazis?
But only seven years ago Saddam was the new Hitler.
Make your mind up!
It's very confusing for the rest of the world when America can't decide who the new Hitler is. Any clues as to who the next one will be?
__________
Regrettably, in this case MK is probably right.
We are all familiar with clocks that are right twice a day.
We had a very long string on this blog 8 months ago on this issue. The trend in Iran appears to be away from a theocratic quasi-dictatorship to a military-dominated dictatorship, and the parallels with the drift from the Weimar Republic into the third Reich are uncomfortable. Think of Khamenei as Paul Hindenburg.
Nothing has improved in the last eight months, and there has been a string of indications that the situation is getting progressively worse. The Revolutionary Guards seem to be consolidating their power in the society - militarily, politically, and commercially.
It looks very much as if Iran is unlikely to see anything like a free and fair election any time soon. Dissent is crushed by the Basij - who are the Brown Shirts and Black Shirts of Iran. Our own correspondent on this blog appears to have been silenced. News is slowly trickling out of more and more deaths of protesters at the hands of the Police or Basij. How is this different from a fascist police state?
President Ahmadinejad's position seems more and more like that of a military strong-man. He is confident enough to arrest family members of his opponents as clear signals of intimidation; he is confident enough to allow talk of execution of the defeated candidates. He is prepared to taunt the western nations, and America in particular. This is a measure of how sure he is that neither America nor anyone else is going to intervene. He is invulnerable, and he is thumbing his nose at all opponents, domestic or foreign. And the western response is just as muddled as France's inability to do anything about the re-militarization of the Saarland, for example.
He is prepared to support proxy wars in the neighbourhood. He has threatened a fairly near neighbour with annihilation. He is plainly bent on re-armament, and it appears fairly clear that nothing short of military force is going to change that.
No, people are often all-too-ready to play the "Hitler" or "Nazi" cards, and usually they don't have much knowledge about either. However, even though having clear differences, in this case the drift in Iranian politics bears uncomfortable similarities to Germany in the 1930's.
And sooner or later, someone is going to have to grasp this nettle.
Complain about this comment
Tim from Ohio?
" And we're not stupid either, which is why a preemptive strike will never happen.
Right wingers never seem to think problems through. First solution that presents itself--bam, they're on it. That's how we got into Iraq. "They'll greet us with flowers," Rumsfeld said. "We won't need anything like 300,000 troops to fully occupy Iraq." Right. That's why they were frustrated with Obama's Afghanistan review. "Why is he taking so long?" they all said. Because he actually thinks about things and wants some solid information before making a decision. "
Two says one may be a possibility if we don't keep with the new trend of voting for intelligent people.
;)
Complain about this comment
"He is prepared to support proxy wars in the neighbourhood. He has threatened a fairly near neighbour with annihilation."
OH interested foreigner.
There you go again.
Like Clinton and Mccain did not threaten Iran with destruction ever.
And like Israel has not used proxies to fight it's battles (as well as obvious amounts of just doing it themselves.
You fail to be impartial on this topic.
as ever.
There may be very little difference between the two states.
but the rality is that isolation breads extreme politics as the people and leaders try to get their thing going andg keep it there.
We have helped create extremist politics, indeed we have almost guaranteed it with the way we have sanctioned them since the days of the hostage crisis.
If we put Israel under sanctions as extreme for 40 years do you not think they too might get a little
extreme.
Complain about this comment
158. Fluffy.
No, I am not at all impartial on this topic.
One of our posters is missing.
She was a contributor here whose posts I liked.
She was an innocent young girl (?) woman (?).
Marbles thought she was naive.
But naive or not, she was exercising a right to freedom of speech that you and I take for granted. She was part of our community here on this blog. She was our friend.
I am very, very much afraid for her safety, and for the safety of her family. I wasn't alone in that - Guns and others were worried, too. Until I see her posting here again, freely and openly, I shall continue to fear for her.
You're darned right I'm not impartial.
I want her back safe and sound.
Complain about this comment
Here, again, is the last posting we ever received from the Princess, from the Justin Webb "Obama's Iran Dilemma" string:
"510. At 11:59pm on 25 Jun 2009, le-petit-pois wrote:
Hello all
T'is I princess - this is my outside of Iran moniker. I have just arrived from Tehran to Europe. Unfortunatly for the past few weeks I have been unable to acccess the BBC site to comment on these pages. The past few weeks, both the run up to the election and the days following have been incredible. Having lived through the revolution 30 years ago I somehow never thought I would go through something as tumultous as this at this point. Having said that, I have been convinced for a long time that Iran would right itself within my lifetime.
I voted for Moussavi in the election. There is no question in my mind that the vote was rigged. I have so many first hand accounts of people's experiences of the ploys used. I think in the first instance the plan was simply to ensure the majority in favour of Ahmadinejad. When the whole election was unraveling in favour of Moussavi I think they panicked and made the biggest mistake of making the win margins as large as they did. If it had been a win of a few percent I think people would have taken it, but the margins given were simply offensive.
There are endless stories of the cheating that I could give you but let me summarise and say that it is right across the board.
In the days following, the rallies and marches have been amazing. I have been on the streets a few days and despite what you may read, it is a huge cross section of society and not just the priviledged in Tehran. Last thursday there were Mullah's, labourer's, students, housewives and every other section of Iranian that you can think of. It was an incredibly moving experince.
These past weeks have totally restored my faith in my country and its people (and frankly I wasn't even jaded before). The patriotism and passion shown has been incredible. I wish I could translate the incredible slogan/rhymns that are being shouted - sadly they simply do not translate, but they are beautiful and moving. These days have restored a great deal of our honour in the world with the diginity of the marches. I never gave my countrymen credit for the sort of discipline that they have shown. On the dot of 10pm the cries of Allah o Akbar are shouted from the roof tops untill precisely 10.30 when it stops. They get louder day but day.
I don't know how this will end but I do know that the genie is out of the bottle and that our youth have got a bit in their mouths that they are not goung to let go of anytime soon.
I pray that it ends well."
__________
This young woman is one of our own.
I want her back, safe and sound.
Complain about this comment
Interested foreigner. there you go. pretending to be reasonable while trying to finger me as someone who was banned.
Hardly acceptable behaviour in a cinema.
The poster princess was for all you know my cousin frank.
There are atrocities in Iran happening. There are in Israel as well.
Maybe different atrocities but they are there.
So get on your high horse and accuse me of being a banned poster (for which you share no concern . I agree there is no death threat in the banned bloggers case.) because you don't want to hear this old argument again.
You bring up Iran like MK brings up Israel.
Complain about this comment
And if you want to ply the "look here is one victim" game.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lVCAUBpG3w&feature=related
Then take two kids. One is Jewish and decides to go to Israel to fight for Israel.
the other is Muslim and goes to Pakistan or Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban.
they both get called terrorist insurgents?
Do they both face imprisonment without trial?
Complain about this comment
PPS Your obsession with Iran started way before princess turned up.
Complain about this comment
re. 156. Interestedforeigner:
Historical analogies are seductive but dangerous. They can be a substitute for rational analysis. Once you've set up your analogy, it's way too easy to select your facts to fit it. And there are always numerous analogies to trot out for every situation.
For example, here's an analogy to counter your comparison: Instead of Iran as Nazi Germany, how about Iran as the Soviet Union? Although it was labeled by Reagan as an evil empire, there was no direct military conflict between the US and the Soviet Union in the Cold War. That's why it was a cold war and not a hot war. Instead there was a bi-partisan policy of containment. Eventually the Soviet Union wasn't defeated, it simply collapsed of its own weight. No bunker-buster bombs needed.
There's an old saying that to a man whose only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. I think that to succeed in the current international climate, the US needs to employ a bigger tool kit than the one used by the Bush administration.
Complain about this comment
164 Well put there Tim .
Complain about this comment
re. 157. almightynonsense:
Tim from Ohio?
The very same. No attempt to change my handle, it's just that I had been away for a while and when I went to sign in the BBC software wanted more information and assigned me the shortened handle. Not important, I suppose.
I really won't be posting often because I don't have that kind of time. But now and then if I see an interesting topic where I can make a contribution, you might see me.
Complain about this comment
PS I'm not defending Iran just knocking the bias of others.
Complain about this comment
161.
I am not trying to "finger" you as someone who was banned.
You know that I think that whole "banning" business is ridiculous. I don't know why they do it, and I wish they would stop doing it. It's infantile.
----------
What Israel does, or does not do, is utterly irrelevant to what is going on domestically in Iran right now - which is a drift into military dictatorship.
Two wrongs do not make a right, and injustices done to Palestinians, or Kurds, or Armenians, or Tibetans, or East Timorese, or Biafrans cannot be used to justify or excuse wrongs done elsewhere - be it in Iran, Northern Ireland, Venezuela, North Korea, Germany, the United States or anywhere else. We had this argument all last Summer, and it is a false argument from beginning to end.
----------
I do not bring up Iran in the manner that other posters bring up other pet topics. I raise it now and again, usually in response to the postings of others.
----------
Maybe she was, or is, your uncle Frank, but neither I nor Guns, nor Marbles thought so. I think she was what she said she was. Her comments tallied pretty well with what I have heard from expatriate Iranians here, too.
And you'd better believe that all of them are worried about remaining family members in Iran. I haven't met one yet who doesn't wish they had brought out their entire extended families and settled them here when they had the chance.
That young woman was (and I hope is) our friend here.
I am not turning my back on her.
Complain about this comment
166 The sense and well written posts seemed to suggest you were the same tim;) but I know there are more.
Don't disagree too hard they might accuse you of being "fluffy" in an attempt to ban you from participating while maintaining an air of " am above the petty".
Complain about this comment
testing
Complain about this comment
159. At 4:56pm on 05 Mar 2010, Interestedforeigner wrote:
158. Fluffy.
No, I am not at all impartial on this topic.
One of our posters is missing.
------------------------
Yet he claims
----------------
168. At 6:10pm on 05 Mar 2010, Interestedforeigner wrote:
161.
I am not trying to "finger" you as someone who was banned.
You know that I think that whole "banning" business is ridiculous. I don't know why they do it, and I wish they would stop doing it. It's infantile.
-------------
Now that would look like a big hairy finger there Interested foreigner (unless they disagree to much).
Can you read "almightynonsense" it has no F no U but the other letters are there.
see Fluffytale
and almightynonsense
How you could confuse the two is truely amazing. Unless you are thick (we know you are not) or you were trying to finger me.
The answer would be "No I don't bat that way"
As to your long standing friendship with the princess after oh how many posts was it she wrote???
I to believe she was real. but then I also believe Marbles was right.
And she has been right a lot of the time when you and others targeted her accusing her of being an agent of Iran.
Sorry "fingered her as a agent of Iran"
She seemed to me and I am sure she will answer herself if she is reading, but she seemed to think we all interfered a little too much and were reenforcing the position of the hard line there.
She was told she knew nothing for the effort she made to say "Hey shut the up you will get that girl killed."
PS in my world friends are created over more time than a few posts.
Glad you sympathise with her but I am not so selective in my sorrow.
I feel for her and the kids in Palestine.
Complain about this comment
171 AN, or fluffy or whomever.
I assumed from your writing style that you were Jack/Fluffy/GeneralP etc., etc.,
You have used the verb "finger" in a pejorative sense, as if I am intending you harm. I am not. I regard the whole "banning" thing as ridiculous.
Complain about this comment
re. 159. Interestedforeigner:
No, I am not at all impartial on this topic.
One of our posters is missing.
It's realistic to be concerned, but another explanation is that she decided to lay low for a while. In the physical world a sudden absence usually means something unpleasant has happened. Online it can simply mean that you're not posting. After a period of being fairly active on this blog, I didn't post for months. I hadn't been picked up by the FBI, I just had other things going on in my life. If the poster
Complain about this comment
173 Tim
Yes, people disappear, and sometimes come back. True enough.
But it's the context.
She was a regular poster on topics concerning Iran. There was no more contentious string on Iran at any time last year. That string continued on for another month after her last posting. She never posted again. Normally, there would have been several.
She was clearly from a relatively well to do, western oriented family. She was young and well educated.
You've read and heard the news since then. They were systematically hunting people who had made cell phone or other electronic communications to western media services.
And we have not heard a word.
Complain about this comment
164. At 5:56pm on 05 Mar 2010, tim wrote:
Historical analogies are seductive but dangerous. They can be a substitute for rational analysis. Once you've set up your analogy, it's way too easy to select your facts to fit it. And there are always numerous analogies to trot out for every situation.
For example, here's an analogy to counter your comparison: Instead of Iran as Nazi Germany, how about Iran as the Soviet Union?
.... there was a bi-partisan policy of containment. Eventually the Soviet Union wasn't defeated, it simply collapsed of its own weight. No bunker-buster bombs needed.
There's an old saying that to a man whose only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. I think that to succeed in the current international climate, the US needs to employ a bigger tool kit than the one used by the Bush administration.
__________
Your comments are true enough, but it still seems more like the drift from Weimar Germany to the Third Reich to me. The shift hasn't been sudden. It has taken place over a dozen, or maybe twenty, years. I'm not sure that this is all that controversial a view - there is a paper cited in the "Obama's Iran Dilemma" string tha makes very much that point, but in far greater deatail, and Hilary Clinton has said much the same thing about the drift to military dictatorship over the last few months. By the time she's saying it in public for the press, it must be pretty old hat.
That's a very familiar saying about hammers and nails. The Obama administration has already expanded the tool box, much to their credit. Whether in the context of Iran or other issues, not sure that it has done much (visible) good, at least not yet. Maybe, slowly, bit-by-bit, over time that may change.
I was a great believer in containment. It ultimately brought one of the most remarkable "victories" of all time. Maybe containment will work here, but it seems to me that there is a multi-polar dynamic that is quite different from the cold war.
In any case, this is a difficult, dangerous problem, and, at least so far, it seems to me that up to now the approach of the western nations has been muddled and inconsistent.
And far from being a help, Israel, and all the baggage that goes with Israel, makes the problem more difficult, not less. I.e., a policy of constructive containment may lots of people us well. It may suit the Turks, Russians, Chinese, Indians and Pakistanis. At some level, it may even suit Saudi Arabia. But if Israel decides to take a different path, all bets are off. The Israeli government doesn't seem very much inclined to take advice from America nowadays.
Complain about this comment
It may be worth noticing that satellite phones (which would allow their owners to by-pass censored/monitored connections and gain access to prohibited sights/portals, such as BBC and VOA, are illegal in such progressive countries as Iran, Libya, North Korea and Syria.
Ah, and of course Cuba, where, as in countries mentioned above owning, let alone using a sat phone is punishable by 'law'.
[not that one can actually BUY one of the gizmos in one of those GULAGs.]
Complain about this comment
Re Turkey...
I am willing to accept bets how many months will pass before Turkish Army - a staunch defender of the secular Turkish Republic as established by Kemal Pasha - will move on crypto-Islamist regime in Ankara.
Just as it moved on Erbakan's Islamist bunch.
And whether it'll require an actual movement of the Turkish commando units, or merely a midnight phone call.
Complain about this comment
When the eldest son of Hamas' founder decides to convert to Christianity and work for Shin Beth, does it make him a traitor, an intelligent guy who saw the light, or both?
Complain about this comment
172. At 8:55pm on 05 Mar 2010, Interestedforeigner wrote:
171 AN, or fluffy or whomever.
I assumed from your writing style that you were Jack/Fluffy/GeneralP etc., etc.,
You have used the verb "finger" in a pejorative sense, as if I am intending you harm. I am not. I regard the whole "banning" thing as ridiculous.
--------------------------------------
So you assume you could walk into a room full of nazi and say "this guy is jewish" and because you have no hatred for the nazi they will be OK and not be persecuted.
Or are you fingering me.
I told you I don't bounce that way.
The fact that you bring it up again is indicative of the lack of truth behind your words.
About Israel . Do you think the provocation of trying to sieze controll over religious sites in an occupied territory is a honest way to enter into the time when america is going to push for peace?
what a show of moderation and non extremist views.
" Hi neighbour I think my grandad likes smoking under your tree so I am going to claim it . sod off I don't care"
And to turkey.. Will the American congress now admit and declare the intentional destruction of the Native tribal peoples of America?
Or do they only care when it is other people that are suffering and when it is not them , the new americans that caused the suffering.
Complain about this comment
As for military dictatorships. If you create a nation and all that live there are in the army how do you get away from a military dictatorship?
Make it a military "democracy" and prevent those that are not ex military from serving.
Complain about this comment
178
Dead
Complain about this comment
172 Sorry IF someone just pointed out you may not be nasty and fingering but you may just be extremely naive .
Complain about this comment
re. 174. Interestedforeigner:
I don't mean to trivialize your concerns, but young people do develop intense interests and then lose them again quite suddenly. It would be quite understandable if she was simply turned off on politics after the election. To trot out another saying, a cynic is simply a disappointed altruist.
Let's hope for the best.
Complain about this comment
183 I hope you are right as well.
Maybe she was a smart cookie and said no to continuing the communication.
I was hoping so.
Revolutionaries don't always need our interference.
Complain about this comment
156 was contridicted by 158
Then suddenly this accusation appears. BUT crucially it was not an attempt to finger one person as a banned person.
159. At 4:56pm on 05 Mar 2010, Interestedforeigner wrote:
158. Fluffy.
No, I am not at all impartial on this topic.
It was not an attempt to link one person with a banned identity. It was merely innocent comment. Over two years IF has not noticed that a certain person has been topic of debate and banned more times than we have discussed the contribution of america to WW2.
So interesting.
Complain about this comment
On the personal priority of the president.
De nuclear .
He's not a fool. I am glad he has a priority that is not like the one GW had.
He does not seem to want to finish his fathers battles,Obama that is.
Humorous considering GW senior was with Obama in thinking that invading Iraq was a fools mission.
Complain about this comment
I've actually never mentioned here, I believe, that for many years I've been involved in trash removal business. With quite a success.
Trash may want to take notice.
Complain about this comment
Now, about recently created US CYBER COMMAND somebody asked about...
Yes, it CAN indentify micreants hiding behind phoney identities, thousands of monikers and proxy servers as well. With an utmost of ease.
Although it's just on a retail level.
Which is not its main focus.
Complain about this comment
183. At 8:05pm on 06 Mar 2010, tim wrote:
re. 174. Interestedforeigner:
"I don't mean to trivialize your concerns, but young people do develop intense interests and then lose them again quite suddenly. It would be quite understandable if she was simply turned off on politics after the election. To trot out another saying, a cynic is simply a disappointed altruist.
Let's hope for the best."
__________
You can see her last posting, copied at 160, above.
Does that look like someone who was finished posting here? I don't think so. It was one of the big news events of last year, and she was in the middle of it.
There is nothing there that even remotely hints at someone who has lost interest, or who doesn't intend ever to post here again.
It is, however, something that the government of Iran would not have appreciated. Her posting was electrifying. It gave the lie to the propaganda of the Iranian government, and of some other persons posting here. As political blogs go, this one was fairly high profile - that's part of why Justin won his award. Iran was monitoring the BBC, and jamming the BBC services.
We have evidence that they beat and murdered students in the streets merely for engaging in peaceful demonstrations. They tortured and beat a Canadian woman journalist to death. That's the kind of people we're dealing with here.
We don't know why the Princess has gone silent.
In any case, I am hoping for the best, as you say.
Complain about this comment
And now read premier Ahmedinnerjacket's most recent pronouncement re
9/11.
Not even a Nurenberg-style trial would be necessary.
Or Gitmno waterboarding.
The thug's just 'fessed up.
P.S. Why do you think BBC's Teheran correspondent cannot report from Teheran?
[perhaps JL should move to Pyongyong to have more freedom to report?]
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS