1
Nuclear!

Bring your cash-in while we're slash-in'!

2 So, I am going to lay out my own thoughts in the hopes that it will spur some discussion. Who is right? Obama? Ace? Me? All of the above? None of the above?

someguy or the hypnotoad, not sure which yet

3 The question is simple: Would Hitler have thought twice about invading Poland if he thought we might nuke him in response?

4 But, actually, I think Jack M.'s right. 

5 Hear, hear! I couldn't agree more with you, Jack M. Obama didn't even bother learning about the nuclear war plans with Russia and China for months after assuming office. This was dereliction of duty. One of my greatest fears with Obama is, and always has been, how he would handle a nuclear crisis, by not handling it. Now he's signalling his intention to not handle it. This is a big deal.

6 I LOVE YOU JACK!!! You see it right. It was the "threat" that saved us from the COLD WAR. It was not that we promised not to use nukes if they did.

7 AoS agrees with AoS. Nobody is nuking nobody. Islamists are a different problem.

8

I'm with you dude.

9
^{cob-loogers: whoever writes the next Nuclear post, please include this vid}

10 What get's me is why??  He sez your country has to have signed the Non-proliferation Treaty...which does not include the two countries that would be most likely to use them...Iran and the NORKs...

So what's the point???

11 The only criticism I have Jack is that your statement wasn't in the haiku standard format.
Everything else I agree with wholeheartedly.

12 So what's the point???

I think the point is to get Republicans/neocons/Joos on record as being for the use of nuclear weapons. 

Personally, I can live with that. 

13

For 50 years. every time some idiot threatened us, we could cue up the Hiroshima photos.

Quite effective,that.

But these crazy bastards we're dealing with now WANT to die.

14 No worries, Jack. Ace has a duty to ease up on the retard throttle every once in a while in order to maintain appearances.

15 Yeah, ace blew that one like Chris Matthews blows Bambi.

16 Didn't need to read the whole thing to agree with you, Jack M. You win the internets.

17 I agree with Ace in general but disagree with him in the particular.  Ace's point is that this is OK because we were never going to use nukes anyway.  I say that this is OK because regardless of this announced policy, we will still use nukes if we have to anyway.   I agree with Jack that the Obama policy makes the world more dangerous, not less dangerous, in that to some unknown degree, deterrence is lessened.  In this dangerous world made more dangerous by Obama's stated policy, if the right thing were to happen, even Obama would use the nukes.  (You may have not noticed, but Obama's promise keeping stats are not good.)  I think even the Norks and the Crazy Beards in Iran know that.

18 !!!! PENDANT ALERT !!!! Reagan deployed Pershings to Europe, not Minutemen.

19 Hey Obama, the word deterrent doesn't mean what you think it means.

20 Your title-fu is a little weak, Jack M. Forget the n after "A", but more relevantly, I'm sure no one here thinks you'd have a dishonest agreement with Ace. I suggest something like "Principled", "Regrettably Substantial", or "Key" next time.

21
We were elected to protect the country and have no intention of continuing the dangerous policies put in place by the previous administration. Next question?

22

Bring Back the Bomb

What Makes it So Wrong?

23 Only point of detail, Reagan deployed the Pershing II IRBM (intermediate range ballistic missile), a successor to the Pershing I that had greater range but MUCH greater accuracy, making it a forward deployed "counterforce" asset. Basically it was accurate enough to hit Soviet missile silos, and the diminished engagement range reduced the amount of time the Russians had to fuel and launch those missiles. That scared the Russians shitless to the point that a complete elimination of tactical and medium range nukes was the first major arms control breakthrough between Reagan and Gorbachev.

24 20 Your title-fu is a little weak, Jack M. Forget the n after "A", but more relevantly, I'm sure no one here thinks you'd have a dishonest agreement with Ace.

How about "heated, man on ewok disagreement"? 

25 "The same is true of Ronald Reagan. Remember when he caught all sorts of holy hell among nuclear non-proliferation types for deploying the Minuteman missiles to Europe?"

Reagan ordered the deployment of Tomahawks and Pershing IIs to Europe.

26 Commodus = Christoph Anyway, I support your idea. Consider it my old sales training raising its ugly head. I was always taught never to say, "Honestly...." because it raises a red flag in the prospect who then thinks, "Well, what other alternative is there? Dishonestly?" 'Cause in sales, at least, they're concerned about it already: No need to underline it.

27

Circa's Postulates of American Foreign Policy

Number 1 (for more weeks running that I have even been alive):  If it annoys the Russians, it is a good thing.

This announcement does not.

Next.

28

#18, you hit Post before I did.

#22, love that fuckin' song.

29 How about "heated, man on ewok disagreement"? Oh yeah.

30 Neither of you iz wrong, but you iz More Better Right than Ace.

Because we don't know what would have happened if we had a much weaker nuclear deterrent, we can't go back ( or forwards ) and predict what would have happened or what will happen as a result of this Obama Lite policy

Probably, as with the economy, we're all f-ked

31 More importantly, don't you, in your gut, know that that perception was valuable in its own right?

Right-on. 

32 Your title-fu is a little weak, Jack M. Forget the n after "A".

Posted by: Commodus at April 06, 2010 05:32 PM (0fq7b)

I'm pro "An" on this.  The rule is about the phonetics, not the actual spelling.  We don't say, "HHHHHonest."  We say, " 'onest."  It is "a horse" but "an honest."

33 Right-on. 
Posted by: Kratos (missing from the side of Mt Olympus)

Very 70s Kratos.
Still luv ya.

34
Commodus: the mythical god of agreeable porcelain chairs

35
Yep.  Reagan purposefully scared the bone marrow out of the Kremlin when he gave the "I've outlawed the Soviet Union,  the missiles are flying" on air comment.  It was designed to paint Reagan as a cowboy who was a wee bit unhinged.  It worked.  They were scared.  It had to be done to show there was not another Carter in the White House.

36

I'm pro "An" on this.  The rule is about the phonetics, not the actual spelling.

THIS

37 OK..It was Pershing and not Minuteman missiles! STOP NUKING ME WITH CORRECTIONS!!!!! I'll go correct that to just read missiles. Not because I'm embarrassed about the mistake, but because this is supposed to be a "smart military blog."

38 Why give any comfort to the rogue nation states or independent groups saying you won't nuke them. Make them take it into account. I'm on Jack M.'s flank in this skirmish.

39

I'm pro "An" on this.  The rule is about the phonetics, not the actual spelling.  We don't say, "HHHHHonest."  We say, " 'onest."  It is "a horse" but "an honest."

Posted by: WalrusRex at April 06, 2010 05:36 PM (xxgag)

The Precedent prefers to always use "a".  "Aaay honest" or "aaay enormous" or "aaay illegal".

Just sayin'.  The times we live in.

40

#22, love that fuckin' song.

That is the best 'Track One' - EVER.  No competition.  Nothing hits harder than the First Notes of War Party.

GWAR Fucking Rules!

41

OK..It was Pershing and not Minuteman missiles!

Hey, everyone remember when Reagan based the MX just outside of Minsk?

42

I'm sorry, what's the controversy again?

We shouldn't use nuclear weapons against Michael Steele?

I don't get it, why shouldn't we?

43 Good point: We all knew Obama is a wimp. All he's done is say "I hearby puss out on any potential use of nukes in the future." Hard to see why any future president would be thus bound, other than by non-binding resolutions by UN pussies.

44 #34  Very 70s Kratos.
Still luv ya.

Thanks.  You shouldn't, though.

#25  It keeps the barbarians in line.

Drop the bombshell

45 Double Pedant alert. Guvnah - I thiink you meant Pedant, not "Pendant."

46 I gotta go with Jack M on this. 

47 Pershings vs. Minutemen aside, I gotta +1 Jack on this debate. There is a definitive "dismantling" taking place with this administration. The nukes are just the latest example. Liberals are for some insane reason comfortable negotiating from a position of weakness. Historically, that has always been a suicidal proposition.

48

Hey, everyone remember when Reagan based the MX just outside of Minsk?

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at April 06, 2010 05:42 PM (B+qrE)

Those were heady days that had Ivan very scared... and somewhat confused, but mostly scared.

49

Folks--the new "doctrine" is just an outgrowth of the usual lefty twaddle about "fairness."

They want that in war, too.

The mind reels.

50 Only two things scare me and one of them is nuclear war.
.
.
.
Well, not anymore.

Now I'm only scared of carnies. Circus folk. Nomads, you know. Smell like cabbage. Small hands.

51

Porn Star Dumps Democrats, Declares Herself a Republican

 

52 18 !!!! PENDANT ALERT !!!!
Reagan deployed Pershings to Europe, not Minutemen.

-----

In other news, a Pershing looks nice and twinkly hanging from a string around your neck.

53

I understand where Ace is coming from -- he may be right in regards to us never using nukes, or being so reluctant to do so as to make them inconsequential (this is probably a good thing -- nukes are nasty things).

However, I agree with you Jack -- while one may be reluctant to use them to the point of it being moot, it was incredibly stupid to broadcast that. 

The only thing I can hope for is that this was indeed a ruse, which somehow I doubt.  If it was a ruse it could flush some baddies out and put some pressure on Iran...otherwise it was some of the most inept foreign policy ever.  As my uncle the lawyer used to say: "volunteer absolutely nothing"; wise words for defendants, spouses, and particularly heads of state.

So far, this dolt can't seem to keep his damn mouth shut when it comes to foreign policy; to the point, dare I say, of being treasonously negligent.  That changes a lot of things, even though the substance is still very much the same.

54
Is a nation's defense strengthened by limiting the options for response or by increasing the numbers of possibility?

Egg-zactly.  The whole idea of deterrence is that constant, nagging uncertainty in the minds of the rogue dictators and nutjobs of the world...the U.S. won't use nukes, will they?  Well, WILL they???  They might  - or not.  You never, ever show your opponent your hand. 
Also, is it just me, or did Shrillary look especially worn/drawn/hateful at the noontime announcement?

55 !!!! PEDANT ALERT !!!!

It's "pedant," not "pendant."

That said, I don't know why everyone says we won't use nukes so our whole policy before was a wink and a nudge. We really for super-serial did once, and I always liked to think we would again if faced with an existential threat.

56 I'm with JackM on this one.

57 So are our soldiers supposed to wear MOPP gear 24/7 now? How's that gonna work?

58

Hey, everyone remember when Reagan based the MX just outside of Minsk?

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at April 06, 2010 05:42 PM (B+qrE)

Those were heady days that had Ivan very scared... and somewhat confused, but mostly scared.

Posted by: Jim in San Diego

Damn I miss Reagan.  That was my first time voting for President.  Pulled the lever for Reagan.
Also, Nancy was a class act.

59

 Pershings vs. Minutemen

_{(Minutemen...everytime.  "Punch in Punch Out" - Not Down!)}

60 Obama never draws a line without blurring it.

That way he can say he never said what he never meant to say.

61

In other news, a Pershing looks nice and twinkly hanging from a string around your neck.

That's a big neck.  (For either the General or the missile.)

62 Ace has the a point that the ambiguity deterrence was not worth as much as it was, say in 1960, given the silence of weapons of late given the amount of time that has passed and our pussifus maximus public discourse on the subject. But it certainly was worth something, and worth a lot more to national defense than any campfire kumbayaa feelings that might have been gained (but really weren't) by dropping our trow and publicly zip tying our hands to a pipe. If someone you totally wanted to f*** did that, would you be all, he/she they totally trusts me, I can totally respect them on another level now; Or would you say "SCORE!" ?

63 So are our soldiers supposed to wear MOPP gear 24/7 now? How's that gonna work? Posted by: Rat Patrol

No, they are supposed to act out their feelings with appropriate finger puppets and paper mache heads.
That'll scare them.

64 We really for super-serial did once, and I always liked to think we would again if faced with an existential threat.

Posted by: Ella at April 06, 2010 05:45 PM (pmhqV)

We must fight existential threats with surrealist weapons of destruction.

65 "Hey, everyone remember when Reagan based the MX just outside of Minsk?" Dude, why are you talking about that here? That's a top secret program to run 'em across Russia in disguised rail cars. You totally blew my plan.

66 #66  Thanks for that analogy, MtM.

/It would probably be the latter or "SCORE!".

67 It is the lack of understanding of the word thoughts that Jack M. write thinks that gets countries doinked in the squeakhole.

68

If someone you totally wanted to f*** did that, would you be all, he/she they totally trusts me, I can totally respect them on another level now; Or would you say "SCORE!" ?

And we can read that question in either sense.

Brilliant.

69
The Pershing 2 missile is less widest than the Minuteman missile.

70 Even though Barack Obama will likely never feel the need to push the button, does this mean that his successor should be so limited? Is a nation's defense strengthened by limiting the options for response or by increasing the numbers of possibility?

A better question would be to ask: why should I care? I can bounce around on my cancer-swollen balls and smoke Obamapot all day... I love Obamacare.

Hey! Better question for all Obamavoters: Who's on Dancing With the Stars Tonight?

71

_{Posted by: Barack Obama, Super Triple Agent at April 06, 2010 05:49 PM}

I want to play RISK with you.

For Money.

-Garrett

72 There is a reason everyone knows Israel has nukes, but they don't go on the record about them.

Ambiguity matters.

73 What's to argue, OF COURSE it was the perceived threat of nukes that kept/keeps the worst at bay.

74 Deterrence only works when the entity you are trying to deter acts rationally. 

If Iran or North Korea has plans to nuke the U.S. or its interests, they are not thinking rationally.  It makes no difference whether we announce we will retaliate in-kind or won't.

If a group of jihadis gets ahold of a nuke and detonates it in a U.S. city, they are not thinking rationally, and frankly do not care about retaliation.  In fact, they're planning to die in the blast.

Deterrence worked in the Cold War because our Soviet counterparts were, in the end, rational thinkers.  They weighed the risks and consequences of MAD, and cooler heads always prevailed. 

The people who present the greatest risk of a nuclear attack don't have cool heads.

Ace is right. 

75 Barack Obama, Super Triple Agent a.k.a. Christoph No you don't. I've never lost a game and I'm uncommonly awesome at that, Axis and Allies, and such. My mind works that way. But I'd love to play Barack Obama. Man that would be funny.

76

The Precedent prefers to always use "a".  "Aaay honest" or "aaay enormous" or "aaay illegal".

Just sayin'.  The times we live in.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at April 06, 2010 05:41 PM (N49h9)

Next we'll have legislation to overturn the I before E except after C rule.

77 The art of war teaches us to rely not on the likelihood of the enemy's not coming, but on our own readiness to receive him; not on the chance of his not attacking, but rather on the fact that we have made our position unassailable.

78 "The art of war teaches us to rely not on the likelihood of the enemy's not coming, but on our own readiness to receive him; not on the chance of his not attacking, but rather on the fact that we have made our position unassailable." But we're talking about Barack Obama here: rainbows, unicorns, mirrors to examine his awesomeness.

79 I don't agree with Ace at all. I also think you left out that under Nixon, Dr Kissinger famously promoted the other "MAD" doctrine: The idea was that Nixon was militarily unstable and just as likely to use nukes as not. I remember the knashing of teeth on the Left about that. I also seem to recall recently (I could be wrong about this though) that Barak, along with abandoning our Allies in Eastern Europe, also agreed to remove all of our tactical nukes, gratis. That says we'll never use nukes with a big smiley face. God I despise our President.

80 I'm with Jack.

Best move for Obama now is to announce that he he took the wrong pills, and then go out and waste a few hobos, just to keep the 'slightly unbalanced US cowboy" image alive.

Uncertainty on the world stage is not always a bad thing.

81 There is a reason everyone knows Israel has nukes, but they don't go on the record about them.

Ambiguity matters.

Posted by: Amused Observer at April 06, 2010 05:51 PM (HksSe)

Is that what everyone was screaming about?

82 Some would-be pedants got hoisted on their own petard, which they confused with pendants--because you wouldn't wanna hang a pedant around your neck..........

83 "Best move for Obama now is..." You sure you're not confusing Obama with a loyal American president?

84 "Some would-be pedants got hoisted on their own petard, which they confused with pendants--because you wouldn't wanna hang a pedant around your neck.........." There should only be 4 dots in that trailing ellipsis.

85

You want cool...this is cool:

Reagan basing Poseidans in Laos and Sri Lanka.

That was cool.

[Runs from room to avoid gunfire from Jack M.]

86 Where the hell IS my petard, anyway? [looking around]

87
I understand the whole terrorists want to die and are crazy angle.

But you also have the Arafat style old fat terrorist who doesn't want to die.  The old fat style terrorist who like humping little boys and eating Twinkies®.  Those fuckers do not want to die.  Why do you think Arafat stole millions of dollars in Pali-Aid?  The make himself a kick ass tomb?  No,  it was to buy little boys and Twinkies® because he liked 'em.  And they will rat out any young idealistic true believer style terrorist who is going to turn his corner of the sandbox into a nuclear missile magnet.

Remove the potential of imminent death in retaliation to a terrorist strike and the Arafat style terrorist has no incentive to rat out anyone.

88 And, can I say, again, what a despicable worm Gates is?

Gates is a despicable worm.

89 #88 Yeah, you're right. My bad.

90

"So are our soldiers supposed to wear MOPP gear 24/7 now? How's that gonna work? "

Absolutely.  There is no nuance.  Letting our enemies have any hesitation.  Let's do a FOI, of all our policies, and military contingencies plans.  Let's leave no doubt.  Doubt doesn't count.  Forget history.

91 I firmly  believe that the reason the Ayatollah released the hostages on the day Reagan was sworn in was that they were genuinely scared spitless of Reagan.  Reagan had a spine, Obama has . . . has . . .  neatly creased pants.  

I don't know if BHO has placed ideology above his responsibilities or if he is just a "in over his head" two bit street hustler. It doesn't matter; the result will be the same.  It will not be pleasant. 

92

Barack's Pocket Guide to Game Theory Vol. I ed. xii -

On Poker:

Poker is all in How You Stack Your Chips. 

Sure some folks will tell you that you should never go 'All In' for this, or 'Check Raise' with that.  But what they don't tell you is how important your Chip Stack is.  Believe it.   

93

I agree with Jack's gentle smack of Ace.

Also, Jack's title-fu was correct using the AN regarless of what our idiot pecedent uses. Examples: an honest boy (sounds like onest,' i.e. begins with a vowel 'o' sound although started with a consonant h, so 'an' is used), an hour.
So, the choice of articles a or an is decided by the sound of the succeeding noun/adjective rather than based on whether the first alphabet is a vowel or a consonant

 

94

Didn't we used to have the policy that if any country used any type of WMD, be it chemical, biological or radiological, against us or an ally, that we would respond with nuc's since that was the only WMD we have in our arsenal?  I could be wrong on this and if so please correct me.  Has the new policy changed that?

Sorry I've been away so long but the new "websense" control at work calls the 'new comments thingy' a social and networking site and deems it a no-no.  Jeez

95 Some would-be pedants got hoisted on their own petard, which they confused with pendants--because you wouldn't wanna hang a pedant around your neck..........

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at April 06, 2010 05:59 PM (JrRME)

pedantic point #2214 in the continuing series:

Hoist WITH (or BY) ones own petard.

"on" sounds better, but it's really the above.

96 86 Some would-be pedants got hoisted on their own petard, which they confused with pendants--because you wouldn't wanna hang a pedant around your neck...

Unless he or she was a particularly small and cute pedant.

97 You say petard, I say pendant-mounted crane

98 The important thing is that if Iran builds a nuke and gives it to Hezballah to float into Baltimore harbor, even though Iran is on the "Outlier" list, we won't nuke Tehran when everyone in Md dies. Now Iran and Hezballah have no reason to be mad at us. I mean, we're not bullies anymore. Right?

99 Obama is just projecting his terrorist-handling policy to the larger picture of war.

What does he and fellow travelers do? Tell the enemy/threat what we will do and reveal methods. Somehow, in Obama's mind, this showing of underbelly is supposed to project strength. Same thing with our most potent weapons and apart from such defensive tools besides waterboarding or the uncertainty of worse threats. He tells our enemies how far we'll go and under what circumstances.

He is purposefully tying our hands and setting up situations where our options become more limited. Even if he ultimately decides to respond in contradiction to his own stated policy due to emergency response, he is establishing diplomatic scenarios and "understandings" that he'll have to explain away after the fact (an unnecessarily self-created dynamic), or he'll be setting up the next administration for international political fallout when it has to rescind Obama's idiocy.

This does not help this nation. This is exactly what Obama wants to have happen. He is attempting to prostrate the U.S. to the globe due to his and his own peers' sense that the U.S. owes penance for its historical gains and "hegemony." Odds are the real shit won't hit the fan for some time (at least until Obama is out of office) so the nation can coast a bit due to the historical momentum of our strong defense; but Obama is removing planks... because of "justice."

100
One time,  I got really drunk and I slipped in the kitchen and my petard got stuck in my no-no spot.  Really.  I had to go to the emergency room and it was really embarrassing.

101

Barack's Pocket Guide to Game Theory Vol. I ed. xii -

On RISK:

You want Europe so you can Strike Simultaneously at Africa, Asia, and North America.

You can never have enough Fronts.  Joe Biden told me he got that in a Fortune Cookie once.  That whole 'Two Fronts...' Stigma doesn't apply to Community Organiser's when you're Rollin'!

Clackety, Clackety...

102 Remove the potential of imminent death in retaliation to a terrorist strike and the Arafat style terrorist has no incentive to rat out anyone.

That potential remains.  Snipers and other methods of conventional (i.e. non-nuclear) warfare are not off the table. 

I don't think we'd nuke the entire Gaza strip because a "twinkie terrorist" knew about a true believer and failed to rat him out. 

103

Barack's Pocket Guide to Game Theory Vol. I ed. xii -

On Rock, Paper, Scissor:

Nothing Beats Paper. Nothing.

Executive Order, Baby!!!!

 

104 In any military endeavor you NEVER take options off the table except one.

That is losing.

Obama unilaterally has taken options off the table without gaining a verifiable concession. .

105

Barack's Pocket Guide to Game Theory Vol. I ed. xii -

On Rochambeau:

Always Go Second.  Always.

106

Jack M., could you summarize your dissertation in 50 words or less?

Your dissertation was familiar.

Otter: Ladies and gentlemen, I’ll be brief. The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules, or took a few liberties with our female party guests – we did.
[winks at Dean Wormer]
Otter: But you can’t hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn’t we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn’t this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Greg – isn’t this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we’re not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!
[Leads the Deltas out of the hearing, all humming the Star-Spangled Banner]

107 Dems have come a long way since JFK, who threatened - on national TV - to incinerate tens of millions of Soviet men, women, children and pets if Cuba launched a nuke at French Guyana or Haiti.

From his nationally televised speech regarding the Cuban missile crisis:

Third: It shall be the policy of this Nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union.

Yep.  Let that sink in for a bit.

108 Barack... God love 'im.. He's responding to his test and failing miserably, but he looks good, all clean and articulate...Stand up, Barack!...Oh, listen to me...he's prostrated in an ass-kissing position, and I'm...never mind...time to catch the choo-choo..

109

Barack's Pocket Guide to Game Theory Vol. I ed. xii -

On Checkers:

Always Choose Black. Always.

 

110  
AnonymousDrivel,  Obama also believes that hate only comes from fear.  It's where all that "phobic" BS comes from but it's wrong.  Obama thinks that his recent decision will cause the terrorists to have less fear of us,  and thus,  less hate for us.

In the terrorists mindset this will be seen as weakness and they hate weakness.  So he just about pegged out their hate meter on us now.

111 I agree with Jack.  A little "crazy talk" and owning some big guns (nukes) has always kept the insanity of the despots at bay.  Imajismwad makes a lot of threats, but the ruling mullahs still want to have their goat orgies.

112 Oh, and as a policy announcement, I favor nuking the entire Gaza strip if a terrorist of any class so much as looks at a twinkie

113 Shouldn't he just publicly get rid of the "football" and replace it with a hotline to the UN? He could call it the "Basketball" or "Beachball" or something.

114

Good points, JackM. (Ace, too.) But let's take a broad look at the world as it is today.

Right now, we find ourselves in at least two existential conflicts. There's the obvious (to us, anyway) war between the forces of liberal civilization and the Islamofascists who seek to destroy our way of life. There's also the culture clash between those within our societies who cherish freedom and see the world as Thomas Jefferson and Milton Friedman did versus the progressives who continue the work of V. I. Lenin.

It's this latter group that President Obama is appealing to. (For now, let's shelve the discussion as to whether Obama is one of them.) Remember, these are the people who were quick to apologize for the 9/11 hijackers. They praised the terrorists and found fault with those who became casualties on that day. It's sad (and unnerving) these people are no longer just on the fringe; it's hard to say just how much influence these people have.

By condemning the use of nuclear weapons in virtually all situations, Obama is preventing this domestic adversary group from defending a nuclear terrorist attack in the United States. If it's OK for the U.S. to use nuclear weapons, they'd certainly say, why can't someone else who feels like they're at war use them too? By expressing extreme reluctance to ever use nuclear weapons, Obama has made it more difficult for anyone to express acceptance of anyone using them, ever.

By removing this argument from our foes within, our president (Obama or whoever) can more easily wage war should it again become necessary. Remember: Democracies need a measure of popular support to effectively go to war.

Besides, I'm not sure that Obama's statement emboldens our foes. That's just talk, Ace would probably say. If we're against using them, why do we still have them? an astute commenter would say. Well, having them implies that they can be used.

Consider a cop with a gun: You know there are strict guidelines dictating when a cop can even unsnap his gun hoslter. You know that he'll have to file a stack of paperwork if he ever takes it out of its holster. You know that there'll be a lot of questions if he fires his gun outside of the shooting range. If he shoots someone, there will be inquiries. If he kills someone, there will be headlines nationwide. The cop's life is changed forever. You know all this, and you know that he knows this, too. His gun is off-limits to him. But you don't give him a hard time. Why? Because he has a gun.

115
Third: It shall be the policy of this Nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union.

Yep.  Let that sink in for a bit.
Posted by: progressoverpeace


I guess I was late to class that day.  Never heard of it.

116 Barack, you magnificent son-of-a-Kenyan...God love ya...this is a big fuckin' deal!

117 "Unless he or she was a particularly small and cute pedant." Mmmm... yumm. If the pedant's a tiny midget you can always hang it around your neck upside down. EVERYONE should have a midget at least once.

118 Who is this "Kennedy" of which you speak?

119 I dunno, I usually get drunk, turn up the stereo and fire off the .50 BMG on weekends and I've NEVER had a break-in. Works for the South.

120 I guess I was late to class that day.  Never heard of it.

Posted by: Obambi at April 06, 2010 06:18 PM (UA4gE)

You were only 1 year old at the time, so you're excused.

121 @114 Master Yoda said "Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering." ACE- "What the fuck happened to you, man? Shit, your ass used to be beautiful!"

122 <snort>!

As if "deterrence" has anything to do with the threat of horrible, overwhelming retaliation. Graspy, clingy little 'baggers.

123

But these crazy bastards we're dealing with now WANT to die.

And our side is striving for zero civilian casualties. Aren't nukes with their after-the-fact deadliness obsolete?

124 Jack M., the reason you are correct is that under Ace's hypothesis, diplomacy is utterly useless when not used on Allies. I seem to remember a certain Libyan dictator whose tune changed significantly after September 11 (especially after the shock-and-awe campaign in Afghanistan). Which I guess plays into Ace's action-versus-talking point, but only somewhat. After seeing how the world's unfolded, I think Quadaffi would handle things quite differently now, and for all intents and purposes, Obama's actions are pretty identical to President Bush's actions when it comes to war. He hasn't started any, but you can't say he's backed away from them either. The rhetoric of the Obama administration has drastically shifted world politics. It wasn't but a few months ago when, I believe on this very site, foreign allied leaders were quoted stating that, essentially, they felt like they were on their own defensively, and that they were concerned whether this President had what it takes to defeat the Al-Qaeda and similar organizations. Maybe part of that was from looking Obama in the eye (ala Putin) and judging him wanting, but what the administration has said publicly has to weigh into their decisions. The rhetoric is important, not only to rogue states, but to allies as well. So the facts of what Obama actually said in this deal aren't nearly as important as the spirit conveyed by signing the agreement. The spectre of MAD assuredly played a role in the deterrence arena, but it didn't rule out the use of nukes in appropriate circumstances. This move, while textually insignificant, projects an executive policy that future Presidents will have to deal with. Jack M. is dead on in his analysis that this spectre will haunt future Presidents much more than the "nuclear winter/MAD" spectre ever did. That's the real failure here. All you need to do is look to any Supreme Court cases involving the Executive Departments or recent military action (read: war) over the past 20 or so years. Desert Storm? Bush asked for an AUMF, but explicitly stated he didn't NEED it to do what he did. Why? Because the burden of actively giving up that power creates a precedent for future Presidents, and shifts power that the Executive arguably has under the Constitution to Congress. Even Clinton understood that with Bosnia, Somalia, et al. I'll point you to Supreme Court Justice Jackson's concurring opinion in the Youngstown Sheet and Tube case (his opinion may be the most important words on Executive Power compared to Congressional Power in US History, at least with regard to the modern roles of each branch). While I realize that precedent in dealing with Congress as President isn't the same as precedent in the President dealing with foreign relations, the weight of former officeholders' actions upon future officeholders is significant, and requires a leader of Reagan-esque fortitude to change. So far I haven't seen any politicians walking around with elephantiasis issues (you know the type by their walk). Therefore, this posturing is significant and will affect the defensive stance of the United States for years to come.

125 Maoist rebels killed 75 Indian troops, today.

Where is Van Jones at?  On "vacation"?

126 yeah, what jtkerch79 said.

127 Obummer has some good ideas.  I think I'll put a sign up in my front yard proclaiming my house as a gun free zone. 

128 Jack M., the reason you are correct is that under Ace's hypothesis, diplomacy is utterly useless when not used on Allies. I seem to remember a certain Libyan dictator whose tune changed significantly after September 11 (especially after the shock-and-awe campaign in Afghanistan). 

Posted by: jtkerch79 at April 06, 2010 06:25 PM (wY0P0)

It was the Iraq War that scared the shit out of Qadafi and got him to cough up his whole nuke program - and, thus, let us see the inner workings and real extent of the AQ Khan network and shut that down.

The Iraq War turned up more WMD than anyone had ever thought (and more important WMD).  It just wasn't in Iraq.

I never understood why the Bush White House, or conservatives, didn't offer this simple argument to shut up the constant "no WMD" bleating from the treasonous left.

129
wooohooo!   blog-fight!!!!!

130 Too true, Dang@114. Foolishness squared. I mean, if Obama and his family wants to go all Daniel Pearle and have a fireside chat with Jihadists, for example, hey, free country and all that. I suggest he pack ties with reinforced steel threading. Unfortunately, Obama's childish insistence that the world isn't a dangerous place under the proper management, or his unstated denial that it has been made safer due a heavily armed and threatening (when necessary) national defense, threaten indirectly if not directly yours and my family's safety.

Ultimately, however, I'm moving further into progressoverpeace's camp. Obama really does hate this country. He's just trying to create a new version that he can love and that Michelle Obama can be proud of for the second time.

131 Everybody keeps saying how the Islamists want to die. I disagree. Certainly, there is a small contingent willing to die under "heroic" circumstances, but first of all, there's a cadre of those types in every culture. Second, and more importantly, I don't think Islamic leaders are all that sanguine with the whole "72 virgins" awaiting their own "heroic" demise. Like all leaders, they really want the other sonovabitch to die for his country; barring that, they want the other country confused and/or demoralized enough to simply walk away.
.
Okay, now that that's out of the way, I'm with Ace on this one. Anything that alerts our enemies to an unwillingness to use every weapon in our arsenal is foolish. Going all nuance-y on nuclear willingness doesn't help.

132

118  Well, you're perhaps right, IF this whole no nukes stuff is indeed a ruse and/or we really do have something much better that makes nukes obsolete. 

I seriously doubt the progs would complain greatly if this president were "forced" to use nukes (oh, they might for a bit, but not for long -- not with all the domestic policy lusciousness dropping in their laps).

So, it was an unnecessary pronouncement, especially after the talk of talks with Russia and the pull out of E. Europe...plus that little thing with giving Iran the green light (although you know that has got to have some of the mullahs shitting bricks behind the scenes).

At the very least, he could have given a more ambiguous, (dare I say) nuanced sound bite.

133 Obama is who they (and we) thought he was.  This supposed policy change may have been announced today, but I doubt it really requires enemies and potential enemies to recalculate much of anything.  This policy was baked in the cake the moment he was sworn in. 

134 Ultimately, however, I'm moving further into progressoverpeace's camp. Obama really does hate this country. He's just trying to create a new version that he can love and that Michelle Obama can be proud of for the second time.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at April 06, 2010 06:33 PM (swuwV)

Come on in, Anonymous!  We've got franks and beans waiting for you, and, while unpleasant to hold, a view that makes all of The Precedent's actions easily predictable.

135 I see the nuke policy of Dear Leader to be just another low bow to our enemies.

136

At the very least, he could have given a more ambiguous, (dare I say) nuanced sound bite.

Indeed. Something like, "We're probably never going to use these here weapons of ours which we're keeping."

(And what's this about pulling out of Eastern Europe? You think the Baltic coast would be a bad place to expatriate to now?)

137 progressoverpeace,

I'm always anxious about going all in. I guess I'm pretty much there. Too much makes too much sense when you readjust your goggles and accept things for what they are. His entire life and pedigree has been Marxist/socialist. His educational record (classes, not grades) and autobiography supports that interpretation. As does his faith and church. As does his political activism as a progressive socialist in Chicago. As do his political gaffes during campaigns. And now we see his federal policy and appointed personnel. Every issue he addresses is in contradiction to what America has been.

He is the anti-President. To say anti-American is superficially slanderous. However, I'm at the point of not worrying about the blowback. The man is anti-classical-American which is to say that he is against the America I've known. Apparently, 52% of America at one point in time, agreed with his vision. Fortunately, that number is dropping precipitously and an increasing number of citizens will be joining you in going "all in."

I'll bring marshmallows.

138 There should only be 4 dots in that trailing ellipsis.

Posted by: Christoph at April 06, 2010 06:01 PM (0fq7b)

"on" sounds better, but it's really the above.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at April 06, 2010 06:06 PM (N49h9)

res ipsa loquitur

139 "I see the nuke policy of Dear Leader to be just another low bow to our enemies." Occam's razor.

140 Love Ace but he's ambiguously wrong

141

Only postive I see here is that WHEN some group of meanies decides to test an NBC type weapon in the US, with luck they will look to cause maximum casualties and so will take out DC or some other large liberal bastion.

So glad the daughter has moved away from the DC area. 

142 Obama might feel completely different if he actually has to come up with something other than the names of White Sox players he likes... the man is such a poser. One bite of serious attack, and the D's will be crying like little girls...

143 Not sure the "seek legitimacy thru a WMD program" is as popular with dictators anymore?

144 The real game theory message foreigners should receive is based on the PAL being set to 0000000.  When push comes to shove, you need to assess how the old warrants in the White House Communications Agency and SAC are going to handle the situation and less our political leaders.

145

140  Depending upon how long you'd like to stay: how's your ability with Russian?  (it would take them a while, but as with many things, what our leader says encourages them...and at the risk of redundancy, if this is a ruse, then possible kudos of "well played", but  not betting on it).

 

146 148  That's the optimistic hope I'm holding out for.

147

To say anti-American is superficially slanderous.

Agreed. Actually, I agree with all of #141.

Question: How many of those 66 million people do you think really agreed with that vision, as opposed to something they just had to get out of their system? That is, do you really think a majority of voting Americans have adopted socialism, or were they just frustrated with Bush/war/financial crisis, wanted to be part of the historicness of the election, etc., and were willfully blind to the candidate's background?

148

how's your ability with Russian?

Having trouble with "Æ". (In other words, I have a long ways to go.)

149

Having trouble with "¨¡".

Case in point. I meant to insert a ¬.

(I probably messed it up again. I meant to insert the Cyrillic letter that looks like two Ks back to back.)

150 ïðîêëèíàòü!

151

It should be noted that with the exception of the UK and France who already have nuclear weapons other NATO nations depend on the American nuclear arsenal for their own protection.

Far from lowering the possibility that  other nations will acquire nuclear weapons, because of their small size and inability to field large conventional forces, Obama's decision will encourage smaller NATO nations to develop their own personal arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.

What exactly are the "incentives" Obama imagines the U.S. has to give these nations to deter them from filling the gap that he has created in their defences when they have a standard of living and per capita GDP which is comparable to that of the U.S. but a lower GNP?

Believe it or not these nations has the knowledge and technology to produce their own nuclear weapons very quickly if they see the need.

152 Ace is wrong.Even if our enemies thought we would not use nuclear weapons they could not be sure.Now they can be sure.No president since the advent of nukes has taken their use off the table this way(not even Peanuts or Bubba).

153

Besides, I'm not sure that Obama's statement emboldens our foes. That's just talk, Ace would probably say. If we're against using them, why do we still have them? an astute commenter would say. Well, having them implies that they can be used.

Consider a cop with a gun: You know there are strict guidelines dictating when a cop can even unsnap his gun hoslter. You know that he'll have to file a stack of paperwork if he ever takes it out of its holster. You know that there'll be a lot of questions if he fires his gun outside of the shooting range. If he shoots someone, there will be inquiries. If he kills someone, there will be headlines nationwide. The cop's life is changed forever. You know all this, and you know that he knows this, too. His gun is off-limits to him. But you don't give him a hard time. Why? Because he has a gun.

Posted by: FireHorse at April 06, 2010 06:18 PM (cQyWA)

Consider the two scenarios.  In one, the USA's position is, "If you attack us with any weapon of mass destruction, we may retaliate with nuclear weapons."  The rogue regime considering an attack has to gamble that the American President won't carry out that threat.

In the other, the USA's position is, "If you attack us with any weapon of mass destruction, we will NOT retaliate with nuclear weapons unless you fall into a narrowly-defined category of 'nuke-worthy' attackers."  The rogue regime considering an attack now faces the gamble that the American President will violate his own stated policy and use nukes anyway.

The former scenario is safer for America because it raises the risk to the rogue regimes in their risk calculations and at least gives them pause when considering what America might do in response to a WMD attack.  In your cop metaphor, cops were a lot safer in the days when they were allowed to shoot on sight and to shoot fleeing suspects, armed or not;  whether that meant the cops could unreasonably violate the rights of citizens, one could argue that most citizens were safer then because of the sobering effect on criminals of knowing the cops could shoot them at will.

154 FireHorse,

I was way too loose with the 52% agreeing with the vision thing. Clearly that majority agreed in no way whatsoever hence the meteoric collapse of support.

My gut tells me about a third of the electorate - probably a few points less - really want socialism with about half of that of the ideological sort who would go murderous-regime Mao/Stalin if given a) the tools and b) a recognizable and assailable domestic enemy. I figure about 40%, i.e. the real "independents" and not the unaffiliated partisans who should really be pigeonholed as Left or Right, waffle in and out based on acute circumstance, phase of the moon, mood, and TV scheduling. The final cluster approximating a decent chunk beyond a third remain ideologically, if not pragmatically, coalitionally conservative.

So, effectually, much less than the trumped up 52% actually supported with real commitment Sortero's ideology. That's the upside. The downside is that the majority made a catastrophic mistake and there will be consequences, some trivial but some deadly consequential, that will plague us for a long time. In fact the country's fabric will be changed if we cannot undo what this Marxist has planted. The coming election will give those with buyer's remorse a chance to repent. And they will.

Your assessment is clearly the right interpretation of the 52%-ers showing.

155 Jack M., Ace et al., I think you should watch this clip with Fox's All-Star panel and Krauthammer: http://tinyurl.com/ybmuamn The main problem, as I see it, is the Chinese or Russians can fight conventional wars without (or at least with far less) fear of retaliation. In Eastern Europe, India, Taiwan, or where have you.

156

#157: Agreed. (Well put, too.)

#158: Agreed as well. I calculate it differently, but the result is about the same. I figure about 10% are vocal, die-hard socialists, with another 10% or so willing to see government take steps to protect people from themselves (i.e., tell everyone what to do) which is essentially the same thing. Thankfully, only a smattering would take to the streets like Bolsheviks.

But your one-sixth that would gladly let someone else do the door-kicking for them seems about right. You should some of hear the things I hear from "compassionate" progs. Their opinions go in herds, so if you see it on CNN or hear it on NPR, they're saying it on Main Street in your town, too. (They currently seem bent on controlling our food supply.) Chilling stuff.

(Thanks, stuiec and AnonDrivel. You gave me things to think about, if not reasons to sleep easier.)

157 Consider a cop with a gun: You know there are strict guidelines dictating when a cop can even unsnap his gun hoslter. You know that he'll have to file a stack of paperwork if he ever takes it out of its holster. You know that there'll be a lot of questions if he fires his gun outside of the shooting range. If he shoots someone, there will be inquiries. If he kills someone, there will be headlines nationwide. The cop's life is changed forever. You know all this, and you know that he knows this, too. His gun is off-limits to him. But you don't give him a hard time. Why? Because he has a gun.

Extended scenario, he's the cop who has cheap, Brazilian .25 in a ziploc bag that he is going to drop on your dead ass for mouthing off to him.  His nametag - Cheney, Dornan, Rumsfield, LeMay ...  you don't give him a hard time - you get him a cup of coffee and cross to other side of street.

158 Ahmed Ibn Fahdlan: You, you could have killed him at will.
Herger the Joyous: Yes?
Ahmed Ibn Fahdlan: Well, why the deception?
Herger the Joyous: Deception is the point! Any fool can calculate strength. That one has been doing it since we arrived. Now he has to calculate what he can't see.
Ahmed Ibn Fahdlan: And fear... what he doesn't know.

Jack is right!

159 AnonymousDrivel - that third that wants Socialism:  I'm guessing 5% are the real vanguard of the proletariat who would whack you with a hoe for running a noodle shop -- the rest just want free stuff.

160 As with any action Obie Wan Nothing does, you have to calculate how the action will help our enemies and the enemies of Democracy.  Nothing less can be done.  Everything that he does is done to weaken America.  Perhaps it is so that when his muslime buddies come a callin', there will only be token resistence.  But watch out.  Always fear a coward with his finger on THE button.

161 I know what you're thinking.  You just put a dirty bomb on Manhattan and poisoned half the main stream media.  Well did Obama promise not to nuke you for that or not?  To tell tell you the truth, in all his international groveling, I kind of lost track myself.  But being as this is still the most powerful military, run by the most arrogant, narcissistic liar in the world, you've got to ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya, punk?

162 To relate to my post in the other thread, it is conventional wisdom that GHW Bush quietly told Saddam Hussein that if he used chemical weapons during Desert Storm we would nuke him. Whether we would have or not, I cannot say but having that deterrent threat on the table makes even the worst dictators think twice before trying something. Saddam had plenty of chems for use during that first war but he never used them on our troops.

163

I haven't read many comments above, but:

The inevitable consequence of NOT immediately nuking anyone foolish enough to attack us with WMDs is that our enemy will have plenty of time to set up defenses againg the non-nuclear retaliation that would surely (OK, with Obambi, make that "might") come....eventually.

So we place tens of thousands of military forces in harm's way, and remain liable to be hit with more WMD's in the meantime, as we, and the enemy, prepare for a massive attack.

......While we could have sent a couple of nukes from submarines straight into the heart of ....name your enemy capital....within an hour, knowing no defenses could stop them.

Yeah, the Fuckwit-in-Chief is a real strategic genius.

 

 

164 Ronald Reagan hated nukes...and he removed more nukes from the face of the earth than anybody else in history. But he did it through strength, not weakness, through vision, not blinders and by standing up to dictators, not appeasing them.

One of the ways he did this was with Missile Defense. Despite success after success, Obama is squandering, defunding and bowing to bullies on this.

Why would you tell a rogue regime that they can attack us with WMDs  and not face a nuclear response? How can that possibly contribute to our safety?

If you are Japan or Saudi Arabia, does this reassure you that you are protected by a nuclear umbrella? Or does it make you consider building your own nukes? If Obama wouldn't even avenge America, would he defend you?

Obama thinks America was a bully...until His Coming. His bows before the Saudi King and the Japanese Emperor were apologies for the atom bomb and the War on Terror. But now that He's in charge, America is good. And he's begging people to like us.

Reagan achieved Peace through Strength.
Obama thinks Strength comes through Peace.

It's exactly backwards and deadly dangerous.

165 I'm not sure it matters what Obama says he will or will not do.  He lies, and will do whatever is convenient at the time.  It is not in his nature however, to defend this country.  This really was just a submissive gesture to the rest of the world, kind of like a passive dog rolling on his back to expose his belly. 

166 168 Ronald Reagan hated nukes...and he removed more nukes from the face of the earth than anybody else in history.

Didn't Reagan create the MX (Peacekeeper), the railcar-based missile that was probably the straw that broke the Soviets' back?

I agree with JackM. 

Obama just pasted a huge "Kick Me" sign on our collective backs.

167

No need to overanalyze this... The threat of using Nuclear weapons against an enemy is a detrrent to aggressive regiemes that threaten the United States security and interests.

The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasiaki saved both American and Japanese lives ultimately.... reagrding Ace's position that we would never really use them anyway is baseless.. reference back to Japan to identify the only country that has ever used them.

My opinion is that the icing on the cake is not land based ICBM's... it's the Trident III submarine... virtually undetectable and parked right outside your doorstep.

Zero is not fit to be a men's room attendent let alone Commander In Chief.

168 Does this treaty need to be approved by congress? Or are we above all that stuff these days?

169 "Obama just pasted a huge "Kick Me" sign on our collective backs." I'll correct it for you: Obama just pasted a huge "Kick Me" sign on our collective backs cities.

170

Obama has just told the international community "So long as you only use a knife, or have promised you'll never buy a gun, we wont bring our gun.  we'll keep our gun completely disassembled and leave it in a locked cabinet."

Fixed.

171 I have to go with Jack over Ace this time. In this world of sin, there are some hell-bent villains who will neversit down at the table to play nice. Or if they do, it will be to lie in favor of buying time to strike. It's always better to make those people know ahead of time that if they cross the line without permission, they get crushed. Respect born of fear may seem cheap, but it's genuine respect at least. Obaka wants to trade away that respect for respect because....he is himself? He is really likable? We're magically a different nation than we were on January 19, 2009? I'm sure Obaka thinks he can make the world a kinder, better place for you and me. The problem is, the evil thugs that lord it over half the world hear what he says, and say "wow, what a dumbass, let's go for broke, kick his ass, then take all we can get".

172 Basically, we've gone from
"Best Friend, Worst Enemy" to
"Worst Friend, Best Enemy".

 Just a little transposition.  Nothing to worry about ...

173

At the risk of sounding too much like Sen. Kerry, you're both right.

Ace is right that it's just another Obama non-decision to appeal to his base, while - as a practical matter - it really has little or no effect on what would actually happen if a situation came up.  Just look at the oil drilling fraud from the other day - make it sound like you're in favor of something popular, while really doing nothing (or even less than nothing).

But I would say that Jack is right on a "higher level", for lack of a better term. There is no advantage to spelling out to potential enemies that our response will be reduced, vs. our older policy. Sure, it's easy to say "nobody believes we'd nuke without being nuked" from OUR end, but if you're the guy who's potentially on the recieving end of The Big One, courtesy of the world's only superpower - well I don't know if anybody really has "big brass ones" that would fill the bill.  You would pretty much have to be crazy, but the unfortunate fact is that the crazies are entering the arena these days.

The bottom line is that the President has gone out of his way to display how weak he is, and that degrades national security.  What's disgusting is that he's compromising national security to play politics for the sake of the hippies on the left. Or maybe he's really just doing it to tell HIMSELF the lie.  After all, he isn't exactly a devoted follower of that thing called "Reality".

But what's really, really, disgusting is that the silver lining in all this is that you cannot believe for a minute that Obama would necessarily really follow the policy.  It's all theater; who knows what he'd REALLY do?  He can go back on what he says - as he does all the time - and then just magically say "it's not so" when you call him on it (without even actually defending himself).  But the flip side of THAT is that it's not a good thing for the country that the President's word is meaningless.  So it's really just bad, all 'round.

174

Ace is right that it's just another Obama non-decision to appeal to his base, while - as a practical matter - it really has little or no effect on what would actually happen if a situation came up. 

Posted by: Optimizer at April 07, 2010 12:39 AM (acVo

It's not a matter of "if a situation came up".  It's the stance that comprises the bulk of the deterrent, and he has turned around in the stance. 

It's not just a private matter that affects how individual enemies think (where they might have already known that The Precedent would likely not retaliate against much of anything, in any more than a token fashion) but how enemy populations think, too, determining what they are confortable with.  If Iranians in Tehran were scared that their city was on the verge of incineration, because of their government, they would be acting much differently.  They don't fear that.  They just have some disagreements with the current government.  They generally like the nuke program.

175

@173 The Senate (not the entire Congress) ratifies treaties, but this is a matter of unilateral policy by the President as Commander-in-Chief.

That being said, wouldn't that recent agreement with the Russians have to be ratified as a treaty?

176 Does this treaty need to be approved by congress? Or are we above all that stuff these days? --jb

Not a treaty, so no approval needed for the new policy.

But I do think we're missing an opportunity here:  I think this is a great time to *agree* w/ Duh Won and get the word out to all troublemaking regimes that all of us Merkins are absolutely fine with Barracky's new policy.  And take great care to be sure they know that as far as the U.S. military is concerned, anyone can nuke Washington DC and be absolutely confident that no one here will raise an eyebrow to retaliate.

Yessir, the more I think on this, the better it sounds!  I think this policy may have a really good effect.

177 @179 You've kind of cherry-picked what I wrote. Ace is speaking from an operational ("what we would actually do") standpoint, and you have quoted where I address that. But Jack is speaking from a strategic ("big picture") viewpoint, and my later reference to the degraded state of national security due to the President displaying how weak he is certainly was meant to include the kinds of things you bring up.

178 I'm a little late here but yes, Jack is right.

179 @179 You've kind of cherry-picked what I wrote.

I didn't mean to. It just stood out to me.

Ace is speaking from an operational ("what we would actually do") standpoint, and you have quoted where I address that. But Jack is speaking from a strategic ("big picture") viewpoint, and my later reference to the degraded state of national security due to the President displaying how weak he is certainly was meant to include the kinds of things you bring up.

Posted by: Optimizer at April 07, 2010 12:55 AM (acVo

Yes. I was extending it a little further, to the populations, themselves. I agree with most of what you are saying, including your final conclusion, though I see a much more sinister motivation behind it all, wrapped up in some stupendous stupidity on The Precedent's part.  He's a malevolent imbecile bent on some delusion of revenge against us.  That is pretty well communicated through this new insane policy, I think.

180

the best thing is not to use nuclear.

181

"Consider a cop with a gun: You know there are strict guidelines dictating when a cop can even unsnap his gun hoslter. You know that he'll have to file a stack of paperwork if he ever takes it out of its holster. You know that there'll be a lot of questions if he fires his gun outside of the shooting range. If he shoots someone, there will be inquiries. If he kills someone, there will be headlines nationwide. The cop's life is changed forever. You know all this, and you know that he knows this, too. His gun is off-limits to him. But you don't give him a hard time. Why? Because he has a gun."

The problem with this, FireHorse, is that you and I wouldn't mess with the cop because (1) we're sort of rational people, hopefully; (2) in general we probably respect and support what he stands for; and (3) if none of those apply, yeah he does have a gun, and at the end of the day I won't fool with that.

But what if you're a psycho badguy to whom who 1 and 2 are meaningless? And what if the police department has gone on the public record and said "if attacked bysomeone with a knife, machete or club, or whatever, we will not ever pull that gun.We will pull the gun ONLY if someone else threatens us specifically with a gun."  Think that cop and the people he is trying to protect might be in just a little bit more risk of a violent confrontation and danger?

182 Mr. Spades continues to drift left.

183 How effective a statement would "Get off my lawn" have been if Eastwood wasn't holding a rifle?  The same statement with nothing but your dick in your hand, or less than that in your hand if you are the current POTUS, doesn't carry the same weight.  End of discussion.

184

Well, you're both right,  each in a different way.  In the end, it depends on who is president.  That Johnson's campaign staff convinced a significant portion of the voting public that Goldwater was a trigger-happy fool who couldn't wait to start nuking everything in sight did not mean that our enemies believed that Johnson wouldn't strike back if they stepped over the line.  Johnson was, after all, the macho dude who escalated the war in Southeast Asia into a full-blown conflict, involving Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. 

With Obama, you've got another problem.  He is apparently following the advice of his Commie foreign policy staff, who espouse a weak, pitiful America, on the theory that this will make us a less inviting target to our enemies. (These staffers, when back in grade school, were the kids who stood there cringing, letting bullies beat them up, hoping -- in vain-- that the bullies would leave them alone if they submitted to a good beating.  They learned nothing from this experience.)   By now, the entire world, especially our enemies, have come to see that Obama is a complicated mixture of complete phoney, pathological liar, grandiose snakeoil salesman, and spoiled child.  This may save us, since who in his right mind would believe anything Obama says, including his pledge of peaceful and submissive behavior to his Islamist allies in the Middle East? 

 

185 xxx

186

ÈäÇÊ ÇáÇÍÓÇÁ Ã£Ã¤ÃŠÃÃ¬ ÇáÇÍÓÇÁ

ãäÊÏì ÇáÇÍÓÇÁ ÇáËÞÇÝí