Nuclear Fantasies Given Thumbs-Up By Associated Press

World • Views: 2,472

Associated Press “military writer” Anne Gearan wants us to know that Obama’s no-nukes pledge is not so farfetched.

She gives this penetrating analysis of the arguments in favor of magically making all the nuclear weapons in the world vanish:

* Nuclear weapons have become more trouble than they are worth, an expensive luxury for superpowers and a threat for the rest of the world.

* The size of the U.S. and Russian arsenals inspires nuclear starter-states such as China to add to their stockpiles and give non-nuclear states a reason to join the club.

* Getting serious about eliminating nuclear weapons makes the United States more credible when it argues that states such as Iran should not be able to build their own arsenals.

What’s missing? Any acknowledgment whatsoever that non-nuclear states like Iran and Saudi Arabia might have other than altruistic goals for obtaining the world’s most powerful weapons, or that their aspirations for nukes might not be contingent on what the US does.

“An expensive luxury and a threat for the rest of the world?” That’s exactly why Iran wants nuclear weapons—to threaten the rest of the world.

Jump to bottom

247 comments
1 Bob Dillon  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:46:02am

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

2 yesandno  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:46:26am

Always thought that it was an interesting argument that Iran needed nuclear power for domestic energy needs.....while sitting on large reserves of oil.

Guess they are "greening" a lot sooner then they could

//Hope we can survive their greening.

3 republic  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:47:54am

The rogue nations of the world will never give up their nuclear ambitions, because there is never any real consequences given them.

The days of a country like Libya giving up their nuclear programs, out of fear, are over.

4 jcm  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:47:54am

1900 - Aug. 1945 -- 120 million killed in wars.
Sept. 1945 - 1990 -- 17 million killed in wars.

Who says nuclear weapons are worth it?

5 Sharmuta  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:47:55am
Getting serious about eliminating nuclear weapons makes the United States more credible when it argues that states such as Iran should not be able to build their own arsenals.

This is just beyond naive. What makes people and countries credible is backing up words with actions.

6 albusteve  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:47:59am

somehow I don't really feel enlightened after reading that...I guess my pie is in the sky

7 Killian Bundy  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:48:37am

Give up your nuclear weapons!

/or you'll make TOTUS cry

8 albusteve  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:49:06am

re: #2 yesandno

Always thought that it was an interesting argument that Iran needed nuclear power for domestic energy needs.....while sitting on large reserves of oil.

Guess they are "greening" a lot sooner then they could

//Hope we can survive their greening.

the left embraces that idea for Iran but not for ourselves....lunatics

9 yesandno  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:49:27am
* Getting serious about eliminating nuclear weapons makes the United States more credible when it argues that states such as Iran should not be able to build their own arsenals.

On the other hand, if we just give our excess nukes to Iran, then we are making it fair for everyone. Wasn't it Albright who suggested that we didn't want to be the only superpower in the world?

Of course, she never asked the rest of us how we felt about that.

10 jcm  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:49:49am

Nuclear weapons are not some something that can be wished away.

Nuclear weapons are a fact of physics.

E=MC2

You must do away with physics to do away with nuclear weapons.

Obama does think he is g-d.

11 Guanxi88  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:50:42am

re: #9 yesandno

On the other hand, if we just give our excess nukes to Iran, then we are making it fair for everyone. Wasn't it Albright who suggested that we didn't want to be the only superpower in the world?

Of course, she never asked the rest of us how we felt about that.

Ahh, yes, Albright. As poorly-named as any secretary of state in memory. Somehow, one can't help thinking the the Great Author pulled a Dickens and gave her an absurd name that pointed to her character flaws.

12 DeerMusic  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:50:59am

When it comes to shaping public opinion, as long as the naive voices have greater access than the more mature ones (or are just a lot louder), there will be trouble ahead. That goes for voices in the media, in business, and most certainly in government,

13 republic  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:51:17am

"Unicorns eating in fields of cotton candy, baskets full of puppies and kittens for all the world"

/

Alfred Hitchcock couldn't have created a scenario that is as bizarre as the current state of perception.

14 scottishbuzzsaw  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:51:27am
Obama has hired a coterie of advisers and aides with extensive arms control and nonproliferation pedigrees.

No good can come of this.

15 opnion  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:51:37am

THe nuclear Genie is out of the bottle, it is not going back in.
We are numerically outnumbered by potential enemies, & our nuclear arsenal is a deterent. The goal should be keeping regimes like Iran & NK from getting a nuclear capability

16 yesandno  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:52:17am

If you stick your head in the sand long enough, someone is bound to kick you in the butt.

17 Guanxi88  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:52:28am

re: #10 jcm

Nuclear weapons are not some something that can be wished away.

Nuclear weapons are a fact of physics.

E=MC2

You must do away with physics to do away with nuclear weapons.

Obama does think he is g-d.

True enough; nuclear proliferation is, to some extent, an inevitability. And I do agree that, in the hands of rational actors, nukes save lives by preventing little dust-ups from turning into full-on wars of annihilation. But if the folks with nukes are not in all respects reasonable, then the whole calculus is changed.

18 Bloodnok  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:53:10am
And Ashton B. Carter, Obama's nominee as the Pentagon's chief weapons acquisition official, is a Harvard professor who is a leading authority on arms control and an occasional critic of past defense policy.

It's okay. 0bama has a Harvard professor on the job.

//

19 republic  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:54:04am

Obama's plan will be to print more American trillions, paid for with real money by American taxpayers, further devalueing the American dollar, to try and give to the vermin of the world to stop their nuclear proliferation.

Before Obama's 4 years are done, there just may be a global currency.

20 nyc redneck  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:54:28am

these people are fools,
dreamers in a dangerous world.
there will always evil people waiting for opportunities laid in their laps
by gullible weaklings.

we need to increase our weapons at this point and begin immediately to
stop the rouge unstable bullies from getting stronger.
that is the only hope for peace.

21 reggie  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:55:10am

OMG- This guy is amazing! What CAN'T he tackle in his first 90 days? Nothing! He's omniscient, he's omnipresent... Obama for president of the world!

22 Bloodnok  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:55:10am
Former secretaries of state Kissinger and Schultz and two others, former Defense Secretary William Perry and former Sen. Sam Nunn, have jointly written opinion pieces outlining a goal of total eradication.
"When Bill Perry and Henry Kissinger say that this is a good idea, he's got some cover," said John Nagl, now head of the Center for a New American Security co-founded by Flournoy.

What's left to say?

23 avanti  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:55:37am

I don't think either Reagan or BHO plan to eliminate all nukes was realistic. It may have just be a unobtainable goal that we could shoot far, and end up just reducing the stock pile to more realistic levels. 100 warheads on either side are just as good a deterrent as 10,000.
One you get 1000's of war heads, you are just bouncing the rubble.

24 yesandno  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:55:47am

re: #18 Bloodnok

It's okay. 0bama has a Harvard professor on the job.

//


Oh, that is reassuring......NOT

25 esch  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:56:23am

Ok, I give up. I'm convinced now.

This guy is absolutely fucking batshit insane.

We're in really really deep doodoo.

26 republic  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:56:34am

re: #20 nyc redneck

these people are fools,
dreamers in a dangerous world.
there will always evil people waiting for opportunities laid in their laps
by gullible weaklings.

we need to increase our weapons at this point and begin immediately to
stop the rouge unstable bullies from getting stronger.
that is the only hope for peace.


The sad thing is, that sound, reasonable thinking has been replaced with fantasy, and then implemented as law.

27 columbus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:56:42am

Are we so gullible as to think these agreements would be worth anything? Sure, our adversaries will claim to give up nukes yet hide them away. The shell game with bombs...

28 anotherindyfilmguy  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:57:08am

Of the media say it's possible... the O' said it so it must be true... plus it's on the liberal fantasy wish list of "we wish it was so therefore it can become so 'cause we want it to be so" feel good wishy-washy diet of horseshit...

The O'pression continues happily paving the way for WW3 or 9/11 part II...

29 Macker  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:57:27am

re: #1 Bobibutu

When guns nuclear weapons are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns nuclear weapons.

There, fixed that for ya!

30 Macker  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:58:06am

re: #23 avanti

I don't think either Reagan or BHO plan to eliminate all nukes was realistic. It may have just be a unobtainable goal that we could shoot far, and end up just reducing the stock pile to more realistic levels. 100 warheads on either side are just as good a deterrent as 10,000.
One you get 1000's of war heads, you are just bouncing the rubble.

Actually, you'd be pounding the rubble into dust.

31 jcm  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:58:13am

re: #17 Guanxi88

True enough; nuclear proliferation is, to some extent, an inevitability. And I do agree that, in the hands of rational actors, nukes save lives by preventing little dust-ups from turning into full-on wars of annihilation. But if the folks with nukes are not in all respects reasonable, then the whole calculus is changed.

As technology improves building the will be easier.

The hydrocodes that consumed so much time and energy in '45 can be done on a laptop. The design of the primary can be done with off the shelf CAD programs from those calculations. The precision timing that was so difficult in '45 is now commonly used in cell phones. The milling machines are common now.

The kicker is and will be for some time, acquiring the nuclear material.

States with an Armageddon complex like Iran are all the more reason to maintain a strong nuclear force. And in a case like that pre-emption should always be an option.

32 zombie  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:58:14am

Obama's nuclear proposals are a total joke. As Charles points out, his entire plan is based on a liberal do-gooder fantasy of what we wish people and nations were like.

Unfortunately, all is not unicorns and rainbows in this world.

If the US unilaterally disarms, that would probably spur more rogue stats to accelerate their nuclear programs, hoping to supplant us at the top of the power hierarchy.

Luckily, if you read between the lines, it's obvious Obama is lying through his teeth to the Europeans, so he can bask in their love. He has no intention of actually disarming the United States -- at least until every other nation does so. And since they never will be disarming, especially any time in the next four or eight years, neither will we.

What's more significant is that Obama and the US in general have been so browbeaten about nukes that he will almost certainly never use them under any circumstances anyway, so we might as might not have them in the first place.

33 Guanxi88  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:58:16am

For a very brief period after WWII, the US was the world's sole atomic weapons power. We had a window of opportunity to impose our will using a weapon against which there was no defense, and dor which there was no response. And yet, we did not.

Why? Range of reasons, of course: we don't start wars of aggression, we've always sort of preferred not to start acting like a hegemon on the world stage, and we're a fundamentally decent nation and people. Still, for one brief moment, we had it all, and might very well have been able to re-shape the entire second half of the twentieth century.

I imagine that Iran seeks to attain the same status at the regional level with its nukes, although I do not doubt that there regime would seek to use them to impose its will on its neighbors and others within missile-range.

34 FrogMarch  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:58:18am

I know - let's diamante all of our nukes, and HOPE that the rest of the world will do the same.

After that, we should un-invent the gun.

35 Bloodnok  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:58:18am

re: #25 esch

Ok, I give up. I'm convinced now.

This guy is absolutely fucking batshit insane.

We're in really really deep doodoo.

You're forgetting. 0bama's HEART is in the right place on this. Therefore it is good..

36 BryanS  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:59:03am

re: #17 Guanxi88

True enough; nuclear proliferation is, to some extent, an inevitability. And I do agree that, in the hands of rational actors, nukes save lives by preventing little dust-ups from turning into full-on wars of annihilation. But if the folks with nukes are not in all respects reasonable, then the whole calculus is changed.

I wonder if it is ever really possible to have a world without "rogue" states with irrational actors. I do not think that is likely and nuclear proliferation is not a matter of if but when. That is the reason I think missile defense is our only real way to protect ourselves from that kind of threat. But Obama just dismisses missile defense in the old 80's derisive "star wars" way. Obama's certainly no Kennedy, who put his trust in American ingenuity and got us to the moon.

37 Timbre  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:59:31am
“An expensive luxury and a threat for the rest of the world?” That’s exactly why Iran wants nuclear weapons—to threaten the rest of the world.

...and North Korea (who allegedly already has more than one weapon.)

38 razorbacker  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:59:48am

AFAIK, only one nuclear power has ever given up its nukes.

South Africa.

Now a credible argument can be made that the white government of South Africa didn't want to turn over nukes to a black-run government, but still they are to date the only ones to give it up.

39 Guanxi88  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:00:26am

re: #36 BryanS

I wonder if it is ever really possible to have a world without "rogue" states with irrational actors. I do not think that is likely and nuclear proliferation is not a matter of if but when. That is the reason I think missile defense is our only real way to protect ourselves from that kind of threat. But Obama just dismisses missile defense in the old 80's derisive "star wars" way. Obama's certainly no Kennedy, who put his trust in American ingenuity and got us to the moon.

Of course a missile defense system is necessary to our safety and the safety of our allies; this is precisely why Barry wants the system scaled back as a first step toward scrapping the whole project.

40 anotherindyfilmguy  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:00:48am

re: #19 republic

Obama's plan will be to print more American trillions, paid for with real money by American taxpayers, further devalueing the American dollar, to try and give to the vermin of the world to stop their nuclear proliferation.

Before Obama's 4 years are done, there just may be a global currency.

We already have a global currency... it's called the Dollar and that fact drives the enemies of the US insane... the fact that the O'pression and minions are actively and deliberately undermining the Dollar as fast as they can speaks volumes that they *are not on our side at all*...

41 VegasRick  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:00:51am

Sorry for the OT, but does anybody know more about this guy?

[Link: www.zimbio.com...]

42 opinionated  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:01:05am

The US and Israel should give up their nukes in exchange for the rest of the World not being such assholes.

Them first.

43 yesandno  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:01:18am

re: #35 Bloodnok

You're forgetting. 0bama's HEART is in the right place on this. Therefore it is good..

True, so true......but his brain is definately elsewhere.

44 Athos  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:01:30am

Peace comes from strength - not weakness.

re: #17 Guanxi88

I disagree that proliferation is evitable. Far too many think that the possession of these weapons or other weapons of mass destruction is a right as opposed to being a priviledge extended and supported by other civilized nations who see the ownership of these weapons as a deterrent to rogue and evil states. What is utterly lacking is the will to define nations as rogue and evil states and to confront that evil using force if needed. Once the capability is gained, then we are subject to the nuclear blackmail and threats from these nations - let alone the horror of their use.

45 republic  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:01:32am

re: #35 Bloodnok

You're forgetting. 0bama's HEART is in the right place on this. Therefore it is good..

Obama wants control and power, which means this is not coming from his heart.

46 Idle Drifter  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:01:45am

ALL HAIL THE CHILD-KING IN HIS QUEST TO RID THE WORLD OF THE EVIL ATOM!

///////////////////////////I'm sorry, that's all I'm getting from this article.

47 Sharmuta  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:02:08am
Students of history have always recognized that armament races are a symptom of international friction- not a cause of it. Peace has never been achieved, and it will not in our time, by rival nations suddenly deciding to turn their swords into plowshares. No nation in its right mind will give up the means of defending itself without first making sure that hostile powers are no longer in a position to threaten it.

-Barry Goldwater, The Conscience of a Conservative

Clearly- this nation is not being ruled by people learned in history or in their right mind.

48 Bloodnok  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:02:45am

re: #37 Timbre

...and North Korea (who allegedly already has more than one weapon.)

Thanks to Ashton Carter.

Carter directed military planning during the 1994 crisis over North Korea's nuclear weapons program; was instrumental in removing all nuclear weapons from the territories of Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus; directed the establishment of defense and intelligence relationships with the countries of the former Soviet Union when the Cold War ended; and participated in the negotiations that led to the deployment of Russian troops as part of the Bosnia Peace Plan Implementation Force.

From 1998 to 2000, he was deputy to William J. Perry in the North Korea Policy Review and traveled with him to Pyongyang. In 2001-2002,

49 Macker  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:02:45am

re: #38 razorbacker

AFAIK, only one nuclear power has ever given up its nukes.

South Africa.

Now a credible argument can be made that the white government of South Africa didn't want to turn over nukes to a black-run government, but still they are to date the only ones to give it up.

Now that would be an interestiing alternate historical topic!

50 anotherindyfilmguy  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:02:46am

re: #32 zombie

We'll use them under the right circumstances... retaliation for being nuked. Not much else though would provoke their use, IMO.

51 zombie  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:03:57am

The fatal flaw in the left-wing grasp of international diplomacy is that the liberals treat the psychology of nation-states as they would that of an individual person.

So, in this instance, we're exhibiting "poor modeling behavior" for the little toddler nations playing around our ankles: "Look, the Big Daddy nation has big weapons! When I grow up, I want big weapons too!"

The liberals want to change that to, "See? Daddy put the dangerous things away. That's what responsible grownups do. So, children, why don't you all put the dangerous things away too?"

It's so insultingly condescending that I'm too embarrassed to even watch Obama's antics.

52 Guanxi88  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:04:12am

re: #44 Athos

Peace comes from strength - not weakness.

I disagree that proliferation is evitable. Far too many think that the possession of these weapons or other weapons of mass destruction is a right as opposed to being a priviledge extended and supported by other civilized nations who see the ownership of these weapons as a deterrent to rogue and evil states. What is utterly lacking is the will to define nations as rogue and evil states and to confront that evil using force if needed. Once the capability is gained, then we are subject to the nuclear blackmail and threats from these nations - let alone the horror of their use.

Of course, peace through strength is the only rational defense or military policy for a decent and humane nation. Again, this is why Barry et al wish to allow our enemies to arm unmolested while we sit atop a stockpile of aging and (in short order, unless maintenance is resumed) soon-to-be unreliable nuclear weapons. They want the US weak and vulnerable.

53 Sharmuta  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:04:18am

This is the epitome of the unconstrained vision at work. 0bama thinks he can literally talk people into being good and they will agree because of reason. The first flaw of the unconstrained vision is thinking that the motivations of others are as pure as theirs. Madness.

54 BryanS  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:04:21am

re: #39 Guanxi88

Of course a missile defense system is necessary to our safety and the safety of our allies; this is precisely why Barry wants the system scaled back as a first step toward scrapping the whole project.

For the libs to be opposed to a defense system that is truly a defense system and one that would reduce our stockpiles of nuclear armaments--well that's just crazy. The only explanation for that point of view is that libs think the only way to make the world safe is for the US to be weak.

55 Macker  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:04:24am

re: #50 anotherindyfilmguy

We'll use them under the right circumstances... retaliation for being nuked. Not much else though would provoke their use, IMO.

I still don't think БХО will have the balls to do even that. He'd vote "Present" at the destruction of the first Western city.

56 yma o hyd  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:04:25am

Has anybody got any data for this extraordinary statement:
'* Nuclear weapons have become more trouble than they are worth, an expensive luxury for superpowers and a threat for the rest of the world.'?
('Moonbat thinking' is not a sufficient explanation!')

And look at this:
'* The size of the U.S. and Russian arsenals inspires nuclear starter-states such as China to add to their stockpiles and give non-nuclear states a reason to join the club.'

Oh yes? That must be the reason then for the vast nuclear arms of Norway, Iceland, Belgium, The Netherlands, Austria, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, and of course Germany!

That lady is a 'military writer'?
Good grief!

57 opinionated  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:04:30am

re: #47 Sharmuta

hostile powers

Problem is that the only hostile power Obama recognizes is Rush Limbaugh.

58 jcm  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:04:55am

re: #36 BryanS

I wonder if it is ever really possible to have a world without "rogue" states with irrational actors. I do not think that is likely and nuclear proliferation is not a matter of if but when. That is the reason I think missile defense is our only real way to protect ourselves from that kind of threat. But Obama just dismisses missile defense in the old 80's derisive "star wars" way. Obama's certainly no Kennedy, who put his trust in American ingenuity and got us to the moon.

We could get rid of rogue states.

We whack any Thug that hijacks a State. Then tell that State put in a government that behaves or will whack them too.

Missile defense is THE ONLY way to prevent a rogue state from starting a nuclear conflict.

Rogue state launches a nuc strike, it takes out a US city. We MUST respond or forever be at the mercy of rogue nuclear states.

With missile defense we can prevent that scenario and have other response options available since the strike did not succeed.

59 irongrampa  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:05:00am

But we mustn't wish him to fail.

60 Guanxi88  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:05:27am

re: #54 BryanS

For the libs to be opposed to a defense system that is truly a defense system and one that would reduce our stockpiles of nuclear armaments--well that's just crazy. The only explanation for that point of view is that libs think the only way to make the world safe is for the US to be weak.

I think zombie there nailed part of it; it's an insultingly condescending approach that personalizes and pyschologizes (sorry for the neologism) international diplomacy.

61 Killian Bundy  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:05:27am

Susan Rice: 'We Will Not Stand for Violations of International Law'

Let's invade Israel!

/*snicker*, is this an American administration or a traveling comedy troupe?

62 big steve  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:05:35am

re: #51 zombie

The fatal flaw in the left-wing grasp of international diplomacy is that the liberals treat the psychology of nation-states as they would that of an individual person.

So, in this instance, we're exhibiting "poor modeling behavior" for the little toddler nations playing around our ankles: "Look, the Big Daddy nation has big weapons! When I grow up, I want big weapons too!"

The liberals want to change that to, "See? Daddy put the dangerous things away. That's what responsible grownups do. So, children, why don't you all put the dangerous things away too?"

It's so insultingly condescending that I'm too embarrassed to even watch Obama's antics.

absolutely agree......not to quote Nixon but; "the world is a dark back alley"

63 Macker  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:06:33am

re: #59 irongrampa

But we mustn't wish him to fail.

In a way, you're right. If БХО fails...the Western world loses at least one city.

64 Guanxi88  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:06:35am

re: #62 big steve

absolutely agree......not to quote Nixon but; "the world is a dark back alley"

No shame in quoting America's only Quaker President; all hail Nixon!

65 Killgore Trout  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:07:04am

re: #41 VegasRick

A quick scroll though his blog makes me think he's a garden variety and slightly nutty right wing blogger.

66 ShumBaayaMyLord  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:07:04am

I live in Tokyo -- impossible not to pay attention to the Norks across the water. I was always horrified at the prospect of Obama becoming POTUS (or TOTUS), but things are getting beyond horrifying with this toxic narcissist.

His reaction to the Nork launch? Initiate a counterlaunch -- of talk and nothing but at the UN.

Two reasons I can see for this reaction:

1) Coming down too hard on the Norks, and by extension the Iranians, would complicate Obama's brilliant plan to create a dramatic diplomatic opening to Iran via offering the mullahs a program of direct US-Iran military cooperation. (Word has it that Obama sees this as having the added benefit of bolstering the Iranian stake in helping stabilize Afghanistan and Pakistan -- as if. Israel, never beloved by Obama & Team anyway, to be shown the plank of course.)

2) Keeping the reaction within the bounds of the UN helps along Obama's other aim of radical diminution of sovereignty at the major-nation-state level. (See recent OpEd on this by Melanie Phillips and in particular John Bolton's essay "The Coming War on Sovereignty" in a recent Commentary magazine edition.) On Friday, Charles Krauthammer correctly called out Obama's domestic-policy approach as that of "the great leveller" -- funnily enough, Obama is in pursuit of something similar on the international stage too.

Delusional. Incompetent. Toxic. Narcissist.

He's going to get a lotta people killed (R"L) at this rate.

67 Opinionated  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:07:14am

re: #61 Killian Bundy

Susan Rice: 'We Will Not Stand for Violations of International Law'

That letter to N Korea is going to have in it some really really nasty words?

68 itellu3times  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:07:58am

re: #31 jcm

Apparently it's not all *that* easy, the Pakistani and Indian nuclear tests were only just barely successful, and there were even questions whether the Nork test was faked. They "only" got the equivalent of 200 tons (not kilotons) of TNT. That's a big boom, but it's way, way short of what US weapons would deliver in a counterstrike.

69 BryanS  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:08:04am

re: #58 jcm

We could get rid of rogue states.

Ahh, but then we'd be bullies. Just ask our buddy Chavez down south.

70 Athos  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:09:02am

re: #47 Sharmuta

Clearly- this nation is not being ruled by people learned in history or in their right mind.

Unfortunately, the history learned by the present leaders is the revisionist history taught by marxists and leftists in our education system.

I seeing this first hand in a class I am taking on US History since 1945. In one assignment on the Cold War, we were tasked to write about the impact and 'horrors' of McCarthyism - fully painting the entire hunt for Communists in the government and positions of influence as being under McCarthy. I pointed out that this started well before McCarthy - with the Smith Act and Truman's 1947 executive order requiring loyalty oaths and checks on government officials - and banning Communisty Party members from government jobs - and that the items the left like to focus on as being McCarthyism, going after leftists in Hollywood, were led by the House UnAmerican Activities Committee of which McCarthy wasn't a member. Finally, using materials decrypted and declassified from the Venona projects, I was able to demonstrate that the majority of those accused by McCarthy in his committee were Soviet agents. The professor had never heard of the Venona project or the results of it even though it was declassified in 1995.

71 aboo-Hoo-Hoo  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:09:06am

re: #39 Guanxi88

Of course a missile defense system is necessary to our safety and the safety of our allies; this is precisely why Barry wants the system scaled back as a first step toward scrapping the whole project.

That's evidently changed - read this piece - now he's saying missile defense for the Euro's if the Mullah's don't stop. Go figure.

Looks like we really do have a pathological liar(amongst other charges) on our hands.

72 Killian Bundy  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:09:10am

Gates Prepares 'Fundamental Shift' in Defense Funding Priorities

Ballistic missile defense, which represents the Pentagon's largest acquisitions program, also could be on the chopping block. Futuristic missile defense components are at particular risk, including the Airborne Laser Program, the Kinetic Energy Interceptor, the Space Based Interceptor, along with plans to begin construction on two missile defense sites in Eastern Europe.

/because why would we, you know, actually want to defend ourselves?

73 big steve  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:09:12am

Has anyone noticed that every comment that Obama makes regarding foreign policy always follows the same rhetoric:

1. Mention something that the US does wrong first (we must disarm to show the way.......we have been arrogant in thinking about Europe......we have made mistakes with Iran......

2. Then follow it up with the "but the other guy needs to change also".......but N. Korea shouldn't do this........but Europe has institutional anti-americanism......but Iran needs to unclench their fist...

74 BryanS  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:09:18am

re: #60 Guanxi88

Agreed. Libs love psychoanalysis.

75 Sharmuta  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:09:56am

re: #70 Athos

Yes?

76 jcm  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:10:06am

re: #68 itellu3times

Apparently it's not all *that* easy, the Pakistani and Indian nuclear tests were only just barely successful, and there were even questions whether the Nork test was faked. They "only" got the equivalent of 200 tons (not kilotons) of TNT. That's a big boom, but it's way, way short of what US weapons would deliver in a counterstrike.

It's still not, correct. But technology is making it easier every day. The level of precision required is off the charts.

My point is that the regardless of Obama's wishes, nuclear proliferation will only get worse.

77 republic  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:10:37am

I remember the good ol days when a prick like Ghadafi just surrendered his nuclear program to Pres. Bush.

Heh.

Those days are gone.

78 Guanxi88  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:10:46am

re: #71 aboo-Hoo-Hoo

That's evidently changed - read this piece - now he's saying missile defense for the Euro's if the Mullah's don't stop. Go figure.

Looks like we really do have a pathological liar(amongst other charges) on our hands.

I think this statement is subject to the "24 day" rule; we wait to see what comes out next, and then try to figure out what, if anything, he meant by any of it.

79 yma o hyd  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:10:48am

re: #51 zombie

The fatal flaw in the left-wing grasp of international diplomacy is that the liberals treat the psychology of nation-states as they would that of an individual person.

So, in this instance, we're exhibiting "poor modeling behavior" for the little toddler nations playing around our ankles: "Look, the Big Daddy nation has big weapons! When I grow up, I want big weapons too!"

The liberals want to change that to, "See? Daddy put the dangerous things away. That's what responsible grownups do. So, children, why don't you all put the dangerous things away too?"

It's so insultingly condescending that I'm too embarrassed to even watch Obama's antics.

Well said, that zombie!

But don't try to show those LLL how and that they are condescending and patronising - they would not even begin to understand ...

80 Opinionated  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:11:10am

re: #58 jcm

We could get rid of rogue states.

Rogue states is soon going to have an entire different composition for the Obama Administration.

Wait and see, there will come a time when the only State the US responds to as being "rogue" - will be Israel.

81 Guanxi88  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:11:48am

re: #80 Opinionated

Rogue states is soon going to have an entire different composition for the Obama Administration.

Wait and see, there will come a time when the only State the US responds to as being "rogue" - will be Israel.

May the day never come.

82 esch  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:12:16am

re: #73 big steve

Has anyone noticed that every comment that Obama makes regarding foreign policy always follows the same rhetoric:

1. Mention something that the US does wrong first (we must disarm to show the way.......we have been arrogant in thinking about Europe......we have made mistakes with Iran......

2. Then follow it up with the "but the other guy needs to change also".......but N. Korea shouldn't do this........but Europe has institutional anti-americanism......but Iran needs to unclench their fist...

It's too bad that's the exact WRONG path to take when you're talking about national geopolitical strategy. You never make intentionally make yourself look weaker, for any reason. That's the road to suicide.

83 irongrampa  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:12:27am

re: #63 Macker

I think the odds are higher we'll lose a country--if he succeeds.

84 zombie  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:13:11am

re: #73 big steve

Has anyone noticed that every comment that Obama makes regarding foreign policy always follows the same rhetoric:

1. Mention something that the US does wrong first (we must disarm to show the way.......we have been arrogant in thinking about Europe......we have made mistakes with Iran......

2. Then follow it up with the "but the other guy needs to change also".......but N. Korea shouldn't do this........but Europe has institutional anti-americanism......but Iran needs to unclench their fist...

That's exactly what I'm talking about when I say that Obama (and fellow liberals) treat nations as having a "psychology" which can be manipulated. He's acting like a second-rate therapist. It's just embarrassing to watch.

85 formercorpsman  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:13:18am

re: #13 republic

Yes, I think you are probably right.

86 MandyManners  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:13:38am
“An expensive luxury and a threat for the rest of the world?”

I bet she's a fan of El Baradei. From his Wiki page:

"We must abandon the unworkable notion that it is morally reprehensible for some countries to pursue weapons of mass destruction, yet morally acceptable for others to rely on them for security - and indeed to continue to refine their capacities and postulate plans for their use."[58] He went on to say "If the world does not change course, we risk self-destruction."

Abandon the idea that it's not okay for Iran, North Korea and Syria to get nukes.

87 Athos  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:14:07am

re: #52 Guanxi88

They want the US weak and vulnerable.

While this may be the result of the actions, and reflect a certain leftist fascination with 'we have to destroy it to save it' philosophy - I think that the focus is not on making the US weak, but making the US more liked by the global community and mistakingly seeing the problems as being caused by the US as opposed to the evil and rogue nations who are pursuing their own agenda.

It fundamentally starts from an faulty and naive assumption in their world view and escalates from there as Zombie so well defined in #51.

88 yma o hyd  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:14:42am

re: #61 Killian Bundy

Susan Rice: 'We Will Not Stand for Violations of International Law'

Let's invade Israel!

/*snicker*, is this an American administration or a traveling comedy troupe?

That article is another fine illustration of the condescending tone with which the Obowma inions speak to those they perceive to be beneath them - in this case a journalist (doesn't matter if he's a moonbat as well ...).

89 Sharmuta  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:15:12am

Athos- I didn't see anything in your #70 except my name. Which is too bad, because I'm sure you had a point to share.

90 rightymouse  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:15:15am
"Getting serious about eliminating nuclear weapons makes the United States more credible when it argues that states such as Iran should not be able to build their own arsenals."

What a bunch of asinine gibberish.

Iran will build nuclear weapons no matter what.

And eliminating our own puts a huge "KICK ME" sign on the United States.

91 jcm  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:15:30am

re: #84 zombie

That's exactly what I'm talking about when I say that Obama (and fellow liberals) treat nations as having a "psychology" which can be manipulated. He's acting like a second-rate therapist. It's just embarrassing to watch.

He's organizing the international community.

A community organizer points out the flaws with the government.
Then then rally the people for the corrective action.

Obama is still in the same mode.
Except he is now the government and hasn't figured that part out yet.

92 MandyManners  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:15:47am

re: #66 ShumBaayaMyLord

Do you see Japan beefing up their military now?

93 Guanxi88  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:16:04am

re: #87 Athos

While this may be the result of the actions, and reflect a certain leftist fascination with 'we have to destroy it to save it' philosophy - I think that the focus is not on making the US weak, but making the US more liked by the global community and mistakingly seeing the problems as being caused by the US as opposed to the evil and rogue nations who are pursuing their own agenda.

It fundamentally starts from an faulty and naive assumption in their world view and escalates from there as Zombie so well defined in #51.

Yes, and building on it, this is rather like the behavior of a zoo-keeper when he enters the kangaroo's pen:

If he walks in upright, and with his hands in front of him, the animal interprets this as an aggressive stance, and a fight is likely, whereas if the keeper enters with his head down, and arms to his side, and make no direct eye-contact, the kangaroo interprets him as an older or weaker animal, a submissive kangaroo, and leaves him alone.

94 Macker  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:16:09am

re: #90 rightymouse

What a bunch of asinine gibberish.

Iran will build nuclear weapons no matter what.

And eliminating our own puts a huge "KICK NUKE ME" sign on the United States.

There, fixed that for ya!

95 jaunte  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:16:12am

re: #84 zombie

That manipulative tendency is also on display in thie Freeman Dyson piece for the NYT, in which he states that getting rid of nukes is possible, but only if you have 'strong nerves.'

Americans tend to think of nuclear weapons as an invincible force of which we should be mortally afraid. Stalin knew better. If we are to succeed in abolishing nuclear weapons, it is not enough to be mortally afraid. We shall have a better chance if we understand that nuclear weapons are useless and dangerous toys which we are free to discard if our nerves are strong.


[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

96 stevieray  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:17:20am

This article is a perfect example of cognitive egocentrism -- the belief that everyone thinks about life and human nature exactly the same way that you do.

Everyone is not, deep down, a lefty humanities professor. Everyone does not, deep down, want to get along with their neighbors. Everyone does not, deep down, relish "diversity" and "tolerance".

Most of the people in world are not ironic hipsters, bathed in cynicism, who believe nothing really matters anymore 'cause we are postmodern and post true belief. Most of the world works by the simple law of "Rule or be ruled"... and they wanna rule.

97 aboo-Hoo-Hoo  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:17:32am

re: #78 Guanxi88

I think this statement is subject to the "24 day" rule; we wait to see what comes out next, and then try to figure out what, if anything, he meant by any of it.

Guan, he's over there doing exactly what he did here on the campaign trail - telling each audience what they want to hear and then completely contradicting the position in another speech not even a day or two later.

98 Opinionated  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:18:03am

Before he gets to abolishing our nuclear deterrence I wish Obams would first complete some of his campaign promises.

I am waiting to see "the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal".

Whatever that means.

99 yma o hyd  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:18:08am

re: #80 Opinionated

Rogue states is soon going to have an entire different composition for the Obama Administration.

Wait and see, there will come a time when the only State the US responds to as being "rogue" - will be Israel.

Israel might well be joined by Japan, if she doesn't get satisfaction from that UNSC meeting ...

100 Guanxi88  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:18:30am

re: #97 aboo-Hoo-Hoo

Guan, he's over there doing exactly what he did here on the campaign trail - telling each audience what they want to hear and then completely contradicting the position in another speech not even a day or two later.

That's why you've gotta give 24 days to figure out if the words carried any meaning or intention other than pleasing the man who spoke them.

101 The Other Les  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:18:36am

re: #90 rightymouse

What a bunch of asinine gibberish.

Iran will build nuclear weapons no matter what.

And eliminating our own puts a huge "KICK ME" sign on the United States.

Actually the sign would say, "NUKE ME."

102 BryanS  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:18:58am

re: #92 MandyManners

Do you see Japan beefing up their military now?

I don't see how Japan could hold themselves back much longer. Many Southeast Asian countries still harbor fears and animosities towards Japan's historical aggressions. One would think China would once and for all put the kibosh on N Korea's nonsense.

103 Jimash  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:19:31am

We see in this article the same attitude that someone else has mentioned here: The belief that all other countries simply react to the US, and that nobody has any agenda, free will, or volition outside of that narrow focus.
It's like trofers insisting that only Uncle Sam could do such a thing.
In this case they expect our avowed enemies to respect our forbearance and
follow our lead, something they have shown little sign of doing up till now.
Why do these "liberal/progresives//whateverthey ares assume so fully that none of these other countries has any ambitions of their own ?
Why do they want to not have a kill shot to end conflicts ?
From whence does this dangerous Naivete hail ?

104 MandyManners  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:19:31am

All I could find searching for Gearan.

105 lawhawk  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:20:34am

Where to start with all this? Naive optimism? Drinking the kool aid? There's absolutely no reason to believe that US disarmament is going to improve US national security, let alone lead to worldwide nuclear disarmament.

There's no reason to believe that the missile test was a plea by the North Koreans to open dialogue either.

These are tests of the new Administration, and the Administration is failing. Instead of showing resolve, they're showing weakness.

Instead of recognizing the limitations of the UN, they're going to the UN to "enforce" UN SCR 1718, which prohibits North Korea from carrying out ballistic missile tests. Yeah, what good that has done. The North Koreans carry out their tests and everyone shrugs their shoulders as the North moves closer to the day when they can fire missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

And don't think for a moment that the Iranians aren't watching and learning everything they can about this as well. The Iranian missile tech is largely based on North Korean designs, and they too are pursuing nuclear weapons.

And Iran is far more likely to use the nuclear weapon as a first strike capability than anyone else because of their ideological and theological positions. They've got a jihad to win (against the US, Israel, and the Sunni Muslims), and the UN and IAEA are incapable of doing anything.

At the same time, the Obama administration is not only more than willing to toss our own nuclear weapons on the scrap heap (undermining US deterrence strategy and second-strike capability and giving rogue regimes the ability to fire single warheads to disrupt and incapacitate large areas via EMP or similar strategies), but he's more than willing to limit deployment of missile defense systems and has called for elimination of unproven missile defense systems.

The North Koreans (and Iran by proxy) are testing the Administration, and the Administration is failing. This is real bad news.

106 MandyManners  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:20:43am

re: #102 BryanS

I don't see how Japan could hold themselves back much longer. Many Southeast Asian countries still harbor fears and animosities towards Japan's historical aggressions. One would think China would once and for all put the kibosh on N Korea's nonsense.

Isn't NK a Chinese proxy-state?

107 republic  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:20:46am

There is a message, to this clear fact, that when there is a Dem President, the terrorists of the world are convinced that the U.S. is a "paper tiger", at least since FDR/Truman.

There is a very clear message in that.

Until the great majority of Americans get some intestinal fortitude, this will not change.

America is perceived as weak, when there is a Dem controlled America, and the actions of these rogue nations is proof.

108 zombie  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:20:49am

re: #91 jcm

He's organizing the international community.

A community organizer points out the flaws with the government.
Then then rally the people for the corrective action.

Obama is still in the same mode.
Except he is now the government and hasn't figured that part out yet.

So very very true.

And what he probably didn't realize even back in his community organizer days is that the entire purpose of pointing out government flaws and then rallying the people for change is to foment a revolution to overthrow -- the government. (This is spelled out explicitly in the founding documents of the "organizer" concept by Gramsci, Alinsky and other communist strategists.) As a result we now have a president of the Untied States who is unconsciously trying to overthrow himself.

109 Opinionated  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:21:09am

re: #99 yma o hyd

In Obama World, everything is the opposite of what it should be.

The productive are evil and the unproductive are saints.

The enemy we reach out to and friends we disdain.

110 hellosnackbar  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:21:33am

Giving up nuclear weapons is as Mrs T would say;is for people who live in cloud cuckoo land.
In a Utopian futurewhere every country is a parliamentary democracy and all are prosperous and educated then perhaps.
However,despite an optimistic demeanor I can't imagine such a state of affairs.(far to many dangerous madmen in the world).in my or my children's
lifetime.

111 irongrampa  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:21:35am

re: #102 BryanS

I'd hazard a guess that China doen't want the fallout from the collapse of North Korea's government more than anything else. South Korea probably shares that too.

112 Guanxi88  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:21:38am

re: #102 BryanS

I don't see how Japan could hold themselves back much longer. Many Southeast Asian countries still harbor fears and animosities towards Japan's historical aggressions. One would think China would once and for all put the kibosh on N Korea's nonsense.

Too great a risk for China; hundreds of thousands of starved, heavily-armed NorKs fed a steady diet of Juche propaganda since about 1945, this is not a pleasant prospect for China at the moment. They just gotta keep them on a leash till they can figure out what to do about them, is all. Sad thing is, there's nothing to do but keep dumping rice and fuel in to keep the population (barely) alive; all they can do is prolong the agony.

If things got any worse in NK, the flood of refugees into China would be unstoppable, and would certainly de-stabilize China. At all costs, this has to be prevented.

113 yesandno  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:21:47am

re: #61 Killian Bundy

Susan Rice: 'We Will Not Stand for Violations of International Law'

Let's invade Israel!

/*snicker*, is this an American administration or a traveling comedy troupe?

They are going to be sitting down and talking about all of this when the big one takes out a city....at which time they will discuss if we should have taken action or not, and why you couldn't predict it based on the actions of the offender but could have expected it based upon the actions of the victim.....

WE caused our own annihilation when we decided to defend ourselves.

//Out damn spot.

114 zombie  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:22:06am

re: #96 stevieray

This article is a perfect example of cognitive egocentrism -- the belief that everyone thinks about life and human nature exactly the same way that you do.

Everyone is not, deep down, a lefty humanities professor. Everyone does not, deep down, want to get along with their neighbors. Everyone does not, deep down, relish "diversity" and "tolerance".

Most of the people in world are not ironic hipsters, bathed in cynicism, who believe nothing really matters anymore 'cause we are postmodern and post true belief. Most of the world works by the simple law of "Rule or be ruled"... and they wanna rule.

Excellent observation.

115 itellu3times  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:22:16am

re: #66 ShumBaayaMyLord

Two reasons I can see for this reaction:

You forget one other thing:

China

/was the caption on a New Yorker cartoon about thirty years ago, but still good

116 Killian Bundy  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:22:20am

re: #61 Killian Bundy

Susan Rice: 'We Will Not Stand for Violations of International Law'

Let's invade Israel!

/*snicker*, is this an American administration or a traveling comedy troupe?

Oops, my bad, it was Samantha Power who wanted to invade Israel.

/getting my close Obama advisors confused

117 BryanS  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:22:23am

re: #106 MandyManners

Isn't NK a Chinese proxy-state?

An embarrassment of one, yes. But it's more a buffer against the west led by the US than anything else. China has the ability to reign them in, but has allowed N Korea to continue its nonsense.

118 Dr. Shalit  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:22:43am

re: #22 Bloodnok

What's left to say?

Bloodnok -

Even the Late President Reagan had "NO (Weapon) NUKES" as a goal with a methodology of "Trust/Verify."
On another front, the North Korean launch went off. Very smoothly 'til it got past Japan, then Stage 2, Stage 3 and payload went into the Pacific Ocean.
Things that make you go "...hmmmm..." What did they do wrong - OR - WE do right. One thing for sure, If I were the Iranian Regime, I would be very hesitant to buy North Korean ICBM's.

-S-

119 rightymouse  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:22:47am

re: #101 The Other Les

Actually the sign would say, "NUKE ME."

Macker fixed that for me. :)

120 kynna  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:23:00am

re: #96 stevieray

This article is a perfect example of cognitive egocentrism -- the belief that everyone thinks about life and human nature exactly the same way that you do.

Everyone is not, deep down, a lefty humanities professor. Everyone does not, deep down, want to get along with their neighbors. Everyone does not, deep down, relish "diversity" and "tolerance".

Most of the people in world are not ironic hipsters, bathed in cynicism, who believe nothing really matters anymore 'cause we are postmodern and post true belief. Most of the world works by the simple law of "Rule or be ruled"... and they wanna rule.

This describes the thinking behind those inane "coexist" bumper stickers and t-shirts. That slogan is a perfect example of utter stupidity and ignorance of reality and the displayers are so smug about it. Truly scary that they're the type that are in charge.

121 MandyManners  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:23:03am

re: #105 lawhawk

I wonder how many Iranians and Syrians were at the launch? Weren't there a number of North Koreans killed in that Israeli strike in Syria?

122 Perplexed  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:23:24am

Want war? Disarm.
Want peace? Prepare for war.

I would much rather have a military wearing out equipment through practice than wearing out equipment by using it for total war. Wearing it out in practice means we prevented a war from being fought. Deterrence always has been preferred to all out war.

Anne Gearan, mind if I call you an incredible asshole? You do mind? Tough shit, IA. Explain what went wrong when you're dying from radiation exposure because a state like Iran detonates a crude device in NYC or London.

123 Athos  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:23:48am

re: #47 Sharmuta

Let's try this again since the first response failed somehow.....probably my user error.

Clearly- this nation is not being ruled by people learned in history or in their right mind.

The issue is that these people learned their history from the revisionist versions propigated for political / ideological reasons in the 'modern' education system.

I am seeing this firsthand in a class I am taking on US History since 1945. One of the assignments was to write on the 'horrors' of McCarthyism - with the text of the book painting the entire 'red-baiting' era as being driven by McCarthy and that none of the accused were guilty. Ignored were things like the FDR Smith Act or Truman's 1947 excecutive order not only requiring loyalty oaths and checks, but banning communist party members from government jobs. Also ignored were the actions of the House UnAmerican Activities Committee which tackled Hollywood, not McCarthy, or the results of the Venona decrypts which identified that most of those accused by McCarthy were Soviet agents as were many who claim victimhood under 'McCarthyism' like defenders of Hiss, Rosenbergs, etc.

My professer admitted she hadn't heard of the Venona project or the results - despite being declassified in 1995. Her premise was McCarthy was evil and unfair - and he alone led the 'witch hunts'. Now, this professor has some re-education to do based on the sources I used...but ultimately, the history will likely remain revised (he who controls the present controls the past).

Our leaders are working this same agenda.

124 Caton  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:23:52am

re: #108 zombie

Untied States

That'll take O another couple of months

125 itellu3times  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:24:03am

re: #116 Killian Bundy

Oops, my bad, it was Samantha Power who wanted to invade Israel.

/getting my close Obama advisors confused

Yeah me too. Like I said, Susan Rice on ABC News this morning, acquited herself respectably. To my relief and surprise.

126 LGoPs  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:24:07am

This is the kind of dangerous naivite that will get a lot of people killed.

127 Bob Dillon  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:24:14am

re: #67 Opinionated

That letter to N Korea is going to have in it some really really nasty words?

Certainly not! We do not wish to offend them ... get a grip!

128 J.D.  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:24:40am

re: #104 MandyManners

All I could find searching for Gearan.

There's a little more there that I found when I googled.
She went to Allegheny College, it seems.

129 yma o hyd  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:24:46am

re: #106 MandyManners

Isn't NK a Chinese proxy-state?

Yep - so one is allowed to ask, why has China allowed this to happen?
Its not as if this NORK missile launch was a big secret - they annouced they'd do it, and China had ample time to put a stop to it.
They obviously didn't want to: they wanted to test Obowma.
Well - they have tested, and Obowma failed, miserably.

Oh - and Putin will be pretty gleeful as well ...

130 avanti  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:24:54am

re: #95 jaunte

That manipulative tendency is also on display in thie Freeman Dyson piece for the NYT, in which he states that getting rid of nukes is possible, but only if you have 'strong nerves.'



I think total elimination is more of a pipe dream now the then it was when Reagan was criticized for suggesting it 30 years ago. He did reduce the warheads my 80% with the start treaty and further reductions are possible, but not getting down to zero IMHO.
At least now, the cold war is over, and reductions by the super powers will be easier.There will be more Wal Marts in China that war heads pretty soon.

131 BryanS  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:25:09am

re: #112 Guanxi88

Too great a risk for China; hundreds of thousands of starved, heavily-armed NorKs fed a steady diet of Juche propaganda since about 1945, this is not a pleasant prospect for China at the moment. They just gotta keep them on a leash till they can figure out what to do about them, is all. Sad thing is, there's nothing to do but keep dumping rice and fuel in to keep the population (barely) alive; all they can do is prolong the agony.

If things got any worse in NK, the flood of refugees into China would be unstoppable, and would certainly de-stabilize China. At all costs, this has to be prevented.

If that's the case, then we don't have any reason to hold back Japan's re-armament then, do we? That's the choice I think China faces--which is worse from their perspective.

132 Wm T Sherman  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:25:18am

It's an expensive luxury for an impoverished country such as Iran to piss away enormous sums of money on a nuclear weapons program.

The U.S. and Russia have been downsizing their arsenals for years. Thousands of warheads taken apart. People tend to forget that.

133 zombie  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:25:21am

re: #124 Caton

That'll take O another couple of months

Yeah, I was going to PIMF the typo, but left it in, thinking it more appropriate.

134 jcm  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:25:31am

re: #108 zombie

So very very true.

And what he probably didn't realize even back in his community organizer days is that the entire purpose of pointing out government flaws and then rallying the people for change is to foment a revolution to overthrow -- the government. (This is spelled out explicitly in the founding documents of the "organizer" concept by Gramsci, Alinsky and other communist strategists.) As a result we now have a president of the Untied States who is unconsciously trying to overthrow himself.

So if he FAILS we continue as we have been.... a two party evil money cult.
If he succeeds he overthrows the government we have a chance to restore the Republic!

Or is it....

If he FAILs we get to restore the Republic.
And if he succeeds we have socialism.

/that is so tongue in cheek!

135 MandyManners  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:25:35am

I hope everyone who refused to vote for McCain because he wasn't conservative enough is fucking happy now.

136 razorbacker  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:25:47am

re: #111 irongrampa

I'd hazard a guess that China doen't want the fallout from the collapse of North Korea's government more than anything else. South Korea probably shares that too.

South Korea has the experience of East/West Germany to contemplate.

Whatever the benefits of reunion, no one can say that it has been easy, or cheap.

137 Bob Dillon  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:25:48am

re: #92 MandyManners

Do you see Japan beefing up their military now?

Especially covert ops and counterintelligence.

138 jaunte  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:26:08am

re: #4 jcm

1900 - Aug. 1945 -- 120 million killed in wars.
Sept. 1945 - 1990 -- 17 million killed in wars.

Who says nuclear weapons are worth it?

Some of the same people who want disarmament also want fewer people on the earth.

139 Killgore Trout  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:26:26am

DKOS Top recommended diary....
KKK revival and the Fox Noise Talking Heads.


I am not sure how much the recent spate of senseless gun crimes is related to the incitement by the likes of Beck, O'Rielly, Hannity, Coulter and Limbaugh etcetera, it depends on how much influence you are willing to accredit them with, and judging by Limbaugh's and Fox's popularity this seems significant.

However there is another organisation making a come back since we elected an African American who is desperately trying to repair the shattered economy left by his Phoney Texas Ranger Rancher predecessor.

Now the KKK is making a slow steady comeback at it is easy to see why..
....
It is no wonder this lot are making a slow comeback, all you have to do is spend five minutes on the Free Republic, Little Green Footballs or Redstate and the picture becomes clear.
....
The Klan is adapting its message and the conditions are ripe for its return as can be seen from many comments on right wing websites such as Free Republic, Redstate, and Little Green Footballs. You don't even need to go to white supremacist websites to see the build up of hate.

140 BryanS  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:26:54am

re: #129 yma o hyd

Yep - so one is allowed to ask, why has China allowed this to happen?
Its not as if this NORK missile launch was a big secret - they annouced they'd do it, and China had ample time to put a stop to it.
They obviously didn't want to: they wanted to test Obowma.
Well - they have tested, and Obowma failed, miserably.

Oh - and Putin will be pretty gleeful as well ...

I think China does from time to time use N Korea to test/threaten the west by proxy.

141 republic  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:27:12am

re: #91 jcm

He's organizing the international community.

A community organizer points out the flaws with the government.
Then then rally the people for the corrective action.

Obama is still in the same mode.
Except he is now the government and hasn't figured that part out yet.


It would be different if Obama had any, and I mean any positive outcomes of his attemps at community organization, but Obama's history at community organization is an abject failure from top to bottom.

I realize that leftists are only to be judged by their "intentions", I'm just saying.

The housing complex that he and Ayers scammed the Federal govt out of like $150 million, while he was in IL., is 100% completely uninhabitable.

Obama hasn't brought a penny of lasting prosperity to anyone he has tried to help, whom he claimed, poor, on the contrary, he has done nothing but dampen their spirits and made them worse off, by their own choice, and this has been public knowledge for years.

142 Emerald  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:27:17am

Perfect example of why the MSM is dying. This piece is not factual; it's entirely opinion presented as reality. And the writer probably has no clue that it's biased. Everyone Anne knows believes the same thing, no doubt, so how can it be anything but the whole truth?

The deliberate disconnect from reality needed to write such a pile of crap is amazing. It totally ignores the history of the arms race, the evil that terrorist-supporting states will gladly promote with nuclear weapons, and the inherent danger of countries with inadequate research and resources trying to maintain a nuclear stockpile.

143 irongrampa  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:27:30am

re: #136 razorbacker

Absolutely--and the scale here is so much greater. Has to have both countries highly nervous.

144 lawhawk  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:27:39am

re: #118 Dr. Shalit

The Iranians don't buy the missiles directly, but have largely based their designs on North Korean (and Chinese/Russian) designs. Two-stage missiles are more than sufficient to fire a payload more than 1,000 miles. A 3-stage missile would have achieved orbit, although the size of the payload is a mystery. Some suggest the payload size was not much bigger than the size of Sputnik - tiny indeed. However, using the same 3-stage missile, you could boost a larger payload a heck of a long distance. And that's the worrisome part.

145 Tazzerman  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:27:52am

It all stems from the lefts view of America being the root of all evil. Of course we can't be trusted to have nukes OURSELVES since we've already used them not once, but TWICE! I mean afterall, we ARE the only country to have used them right? That just shows you how 'belicose' and war like we are. We are NOT to be trusted..

Taken to the extreme, I believe that there's a strong strain on the left that really thinks the world would be better off if the US didn't have nukes, but everyone else DID!

We are living in VERY 'interesting times' my friends, very...

146 LGoPs  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:27:57am

In the calculus of history, nuclear weapons have ironically kept the world a safer place, at least until now.
The Soviet buildup of hundreds of divisions during the Cold War was ultimately stayed not by the dozen of so US and Allied divisions opposing them in West Germany but by the threat of unleashing US and British tactical nuclear weapons if they attacked. The Soviets were evil but they were sane as well and they understood that Europe in a nuclear ruin would serve them no good.

147 MandyManners  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:28:02am

re: #117 BryanS

An embarrassment of one, yes. But it's more a buffer against the west led by the US than anything else. China has the ability to reign them in, but has allowed N Korea to continue its nonsense.

How could China rein them in?

148 Steve Rogers  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:28:04am

One of the liberal's biggest flaws is his projection of himself onto others.

Thus when a liberal says, "You shouldn't have a gun because you might accidentally shoot yourself in the foot or get mad at the guy who cuts you off in traffic and shoot him." In reality, the liberal is saying, "If I had a gun, I would accidentally shoot myself in the foot and shoot anyone who cut me off in traffic!"

A liberal can't imagine an intruder coming into their house at night, so they don't want a gun to protect themselves. And they can't understand why anyone else could think differently than they do. They are projecting themselves and the way they think onto other people.

Likewise, the liberal can't imagine any other nation wishing harm on the United States via nuclear weapons. They simply can't see any other points of view other than their own.

149 Occasional Reader  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:28:07am

Today's rare spot of good news; probable NorKor rocket launch (partial) FAIL.

Officials from the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and the U.S. Northern Command countered that the rocket's payload cleared Japanese airspace, but later fell into the Pacific Ocean.

"Stage one of the missile fell into the Sea of Japan. The remaining stages along with the payload itself landed in the Pacific Ocean," according to a statement from NORAD and the Northern Command, read by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. See details of rocket and its path »

"No object entered orbit and no debris fell on Japan," the statement added. "NORAD and (the Northern Command) assesses the launch vehicle as not a threat to North America or Hawaii and took no action in response to this launch."

150 Sharmuta  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:28:26am

re: #139 Killgore Trout

Assholes!

151 pat  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:28:36am

Let me understand. Bush was ridiculed by this paper for trusting Putin, but Obama is willing to put the nation at rick of a nuclear holocaust and she is OK with it. And then there is China. 400+ nukes. This woman and Obama are dolts.

152 zombie  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:28:44am

re: #139 Killgore Trout

DKOS Top recommended diary....
KKK revival and the Fox Noise Talking Heads.

You'd think, having seized power, the Kossacks would start acting a little more sane and rational. But no -- they go even further off the deep end. Puzzling.

153 Guanxi88  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:28:57am

re: #131 BryanS

If that's the case, then we don't have any reason to hold back Japan's re-armament then, do we? That's the choice I think China faces--which is worse from their perspective.

Japan re-arming would kick off hyper-nationalistic frenzies of paranoia in China and North korea, and would be viewed, perhaps, with some concern by South Korea as well.

Again, the PRC's leadership want stability at home and power abroad. An arms-race involving the Japanese would not be the sort of thing they'd want any part of; they ahve enough trouble already dealing with a NATO-style force. Given Japanese efficiency and effectiveness, they'd be a qualitatively superior force in all respects to the PLA, and the Chinese simply do not need that right now.

154 Opinionated  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:28:58am

I would love to advise the President on nuclear policy but unfortunately I just disqualified myself from being appointed to any Administration position.

Did the 2008 taxes- and didn't cheat.

155 jaunte  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:29:01am

re: #139 Killgore Trout

Kos pitchforkers, getting psyched up.

156 marge45b  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:29:07am

Obama wants to take away our missile defense shield and not weaponize space. However, we need to defend the "High Ground" (outer space and low earth orbit) to deter missiles. If the US keeps it guard up then any crack pot dictator who shoots off a missile will be shot down.

157 Timbre  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:29:17am

re: #121 MandyManners

Weren't there a number of North Koreans killed in that Israeli strike in Syria?

Not enough!

158 yma o hyd  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:29:24am

re: #112 Guanxi88

Too great a risk for China; hundreds of thousands of starved, heavily-armed NorKs fed a steady diet of Juche propaganda since about 1945, this is not a pleasant prospect for China at the moment. They just gotta keep them on a leash till they can figure out what to do about them, is all. Sad thing is, there's nothing to do but keep dumping rice and fuel in to keep the population (barely) alive; all they can do is prolong the agony.

If things got any worse in NK, the flood of refugees into China would be unstoppable, and would certainly de-stabilize China. At all costs, this has to be prevented.

Sure - but when both South Korea and especially Japan see from PB0's reaction and whatever will happen at the UNSC that the USA under PB0 is good with words but nothing else, why would they not take measures to ratched up their own defenses, re-arm and re-militarise?
Thus becoming a greater threat to China and the region - making the situation even more unpredictable.

If that happens, the blame lies not exclusively at China's door, but at PB0s, sorry.

159 LGoPs  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:29:28am

re: #145 Tazzerman

It all stems from the lefts view of America being the root of all evil. Of course we can't be trusted to have nukes OURSELVES since we've already used them not once, but TWICE! I mean afterall, we ARE the only country to have used them right? That just shows you how 'belicose' and war like we are. We are NOT to be trusted..

Taken to the extreme, I believe that there's a strong strain on the left that really thinks the world would be better off if the US didn't have nukes, but everyone else DID!

We are living in VERY 'interesting times' my friends, very...

There is a hard core in the Left that thinks the world would be better off if the United States didn't exist.
There are enemies within.

160 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:29:36am

re: #139 Killgore Trout

DKOS Top recommended diary....
KKK revival and the Fox Noise Talking Heads.

I was about to go strip the bed and wash linens.
Sometimes I forget myself.
I should just WEAR the sheet instead.

/

161 Bob Dillon  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:29:43am

re: #135 MandyManners

I hope everyone who refused to vote for McCain because he wasn't conservative enough is fucking happy now.

Double digits.

162 Guanxi88  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:30:04am

re: #152 zombie

You'd think, having seized power, the Kossacks would start acting a little more sane and rational. But no -- they go even further off the deep end. Puzzling.

You dance with the one who brung ya. Being out-of-control crazy is what brought "them" to power; why change horses mid-stream?

163 zombie  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:30:19am

re: #148 Steve Rogers

One of the liberal's biggest flaws is his projection of himself onto others.

Thus when a liberal says, "You shouldn't have a gun because you might accidentally shoot yourself in the foot or get mad at the guy who cuts you off in traffic and shoot him." In reality, the liberal is saying, "If I had a gun, I would accidentally shoot myself in the foot and shoot anyone who cut me off in traffic!"

A liberal can't imagine an intruder coming into their house at night, so they don't want a gun to protect themselves. And they can't understand why anyone else could think differently than they do. They are projecting themselves and the way they think onto other people.

Likewise, the liberal can't imagine any other nation wishing harm on the United States via nuclear weapons. They simply can't see any other points of view other than their own.

Lotta great comments on this thread!

164 formercorpsman  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:30:22am

re: #23 avanti


You know Avanti, I have held off trying to respond to you simply because you have more than enough folks here willing to participate in the circle jerks.

As well, in the past where I have stated my opinion as to the flame wars between people claiming prior military service, thus questioning another's validity. (I don't like it, there is no place for it, if someone is lying about their own claim, they can live with the lie)

I have taken your word for it. I don't question it.

The one aspect of the military is consistent. They support, in very large numbers, those who historically support them. They are not stupid. I know, I was there. As well, we had those who served and saw things differently, I'll grant you that.

I do question however, your blind obsession to this clown. Moreover, parsing this subject matter with someone like Reagan, and making comparisons as far as policy matters go, is pure lunacy on your part.

But considering how they campaigned, what their platform consisted of in dealing with nuclear proliferation, and actual threat analysis, you could not be more wrong.

I have been fair, and critical of some of Reagan's non-reactions while on his watch. Overall, he passed with flying colors as far as I am concerned.

The Norks just fired their missile. Iran is joining the nuclear club. The threats facing the western world have been just increased exponentially, and you are making comparisons in policy while your buddy is making apologies for us covering not Europe's, but the asses of other nations.

This is rich.

165 Occasional Reader  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:30:22am

re: #139 Killgore Trout

DKOS Top recommended diary....
KKK revival and the Fox Noise Talking Heads.

Oh noes! Our secret online Klaven has been discovered!

/morons

166 BryanS  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:30:33am

re: #147 MandyManners

How could China rein them in?

Stop shipping them the fuel they cannot afford to buy themselves. Stop providing them diplomatic cover--for example releasing the statement after this most recent incident that all parties should not "overreact" . You can read that as "enact sanctions".

167 The Other Les  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:30:54am

re: #148 Steve Rogers

If they could see a point of view other than their own they would have to realize that their point of view is wrong.

168 LGoPs  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:30:57am

re: #148 Steve Rogers

One of the liberal's biggest flaws is his projection of himself onto others.

Thus when a liberal says, "You shouldn't have a gun because you might accidentally shoot yourself in the foot or get mad at the guy who cuts you off in traffic and shoot him." In reality, the liberal is saying, "If I had a gun, I would accidentally shoot myself in the foot and shoot anyone who cut me off in traffic!"

A liberal can't imagine an intruder coming into their house at night, so they don't want a gun to protect themselves. And they can't understand why anyone else could think differently than they do. They are projecting themselves and the way they think onto other people.

Likewise, the liberal can't imagine any other nation wishing harm on the United States via nuclear weapons. They simply can't see any other points of view other than their own.

Dead on. That is the key to understanding liberals. Projection. Whatever they accuse the conservatives of doing is precisely what they intend to do.

169 Macker  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:30:57am

re: #153 Guanxi88

Japan re-arming would kick off hyper-nationalistic frenzies of paranoia in China and North korea, and would be viewed, perhaps, with some concern by South Korea as well.

Again, the PRC's leadership want stability at home and power abroad. An arms-race involving the Japanese would not be the sort of thing they'd want any part of; they ahve enough trouble already dealing with a NATO-style force. Given Japanese efficiency and effectiveness, they'd be a qualitatively superior force in all respects to the PLA, and the Chinese simply do not need that right now.

Perhaps if Japan re-armed, their quality might have a quantity all its own....

170 Killgore Trout  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:31:13am

Kos Kid Komment....

Just got back from LittleGreenFootballs (7+ / 0-)

one of the conservative sites LaF refreneced.

So...what's the difference between DKos and them? Earlier this week Markos was "trashed" by a diarist who disagreed with Markos position on NY-20. Result? Good discussion.

On that conservative website, on the front page, there was this note:

I’ve become aware that there is a contingent of disgruntled LGF readers who have been using the Lizard Lounge — that I’ve been paying for, for the past three years — to trash and insult LGF and myself. As of right now, the Lounge is closed until further notice.

The difference is profound. We on the progressive left welcome, invite, encourage discussion. On the right...not so much!

OMG...this is a time for us - allof us -- to be vigilant, very vigilant


Progressive!

171 irongrampa  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:31:15am

re: #150 Sharmuta

One of the advantages of the "reality-based community" living in a fiction-based reality.

They're stupid, evil people.

172 Kronocide  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:31:27am

Getting serious about eliminating nuclear weapons makes the United States more credible when it argues that states such as Iran should not be able to build their own arsenals.

This is a credible statement if you're arguing with a 12 year old. The level of logic and critical thinking matches.

173 Timbre  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:31:40am

If the NK missile launch was a flop, I wonder how many summary executions there were in the past few hours?

174 republic  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:31:41am

Universal leftists belief,

"evil is the victim of Good"

175 lawhawk  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:31:45am

re: #130 avanti

Reagan's trust-but-verify was a novel way to deal with the problem of verification of destroyed weapons between large nuclear powers where a small shift or number of weapons involved could provide one nation with the ability to carry out a devastating first strike and eliminate the possibility for reprisal.

Once numbers of weapons go below a certain point, there is an instability in outcomes; you can't necessarily predict what would happen if let's say Russia decides to attack out of the blue, because with so few US weapons remaining, the Russians could wipe out US weapons in the silo and not worry about a reprisal strike. It means that as countries approach zero weapons, they become even more susceptible to rogue regimes that have nothing to lose and everything to gain from a first-strike capacity.

Reagan's missile reductions - which were actually the SALT treaties, not START, reduced US missile numbers and allowed the US to phase out older missiles while retaining the MX missiles. The US phased out fewer weapons than the Russians, but proportionally more weapons overall because of the size of the stockpiles involved.

176 Guanxi88  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:32:11am

re: #158 yma o hyd

Sure - but when both South Korea and especially Japan see from PB0's reaction and whatever will happen at the UNSC that the USA under PB0 is good with words but nothing else, why would they not take measures to ratched up their own defenses, re-arm and re-militarise?
Thus becoming a greater threat to China and the region - making the situation even more unpredictable.

If that happens, the blame lies not exclusively at China's door, but at PB0s, sorry.

Hey, the Chinese are every bit as much at fault in this as the NorK's; it's like the jack-ass small-time drug-dealer who keeps a vicious dog to scare the neighbors and competition; one day, the damned thing is too f'ing aggressive for even him to control, becomes unpredictable, and ends up mauling him or someone in his family.

They never should have let the NorK's get this far, but now that they have, there's nothing they can do to reverse it.

177 BryanS  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:32:28am

re: #153 Guanxi88

Japan re-arming would kick off hyper-nationalistic frenzies of paranoia in China and North korea, and would be viewed, perhaps, with some concern by South Korea as well.

Again, the PRC's leadership want stability at home and power abroad. An arms-race involving the Japanese would not be the sort of thing they'd want any part of; they ahve enough trouble already dealing with a NATO-style force. Given Japanese efficiency and effectiveness, they'd be a qualitatively superior force in all respects to the PLA, and the Chinese simply do not need that right now.

Precisely the reason we should be telling China they either deal with N Korea or the Japanese, with US assistance, will start a nice arms race.

178 Caton  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:32:32am

re: #151 pat

[...] and Obama are dolts.

That's unfair. Blame the teleprompter, not whoever's reading it.

179 Killgore Trout  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:33:27am

re: #152 zombie

Since they slowed down with the antisemitism about a year ago I don't read there as much as I used to. Most of it is just nuts and bolts political strategizing about obscure congressional races in Wisconsin.

180 Killian Bundy  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:33:38am

re: #156 marge45b

Obama wants to take away our missile defense shield and not weaponize space.

He doesn't just want to take it away, he is going to take it away.

/just wait for the release of the defense budget, which starts tomorrow

181 The Other Les  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:33:55am

re: #174 republic

Universal leftists belief,

"evil is the victim of Good"

Therefore Good is evil.

182 Athos  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:34:04am

re: #166 BryanS

Stop shipping them the fuel they cannot afford to buy themselves. Stop providing them diplomatic cover--for example releasing the statement after this most recent incident that all parties should not "overreact" . You can read that as "enact sanctions".

It is not in the interests of the PRC to rein in the DPRK or that of Russia to stop facilitating Iran. It is far better to use rogue states and non-state organizations as proxies than it is to be overt in working one's agenda - particularly when it works against a naive foreign policy and a lack of will.

183 Kronocide  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:34:08am

re: #103 Jimash

We see in this article the same attitude that someone else has mentioned here: The belief that all other countries simply react to the US, and that nobody has any agenda, free will, or volition outside of that narrow focus.


Zactly.

184 J.S.  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:34:08am

I think it's somewhat ironic that The Zero made his rose-colored glasses speech about ridding the world of nuclear weapons (even including that resounding banality: "yes we can!") in front of a Prague, Czech castle -- the country which would have had played a role in a missile shield (defensive) program...Of course, the defensive missile shield program has been scrapped...as will the rest of the civilized world's defenses? for this blithering moron? the rainbows and unicorns POTUS? the one who wishes to embolden terrorists and rogue states, while weakening the West.

185 BryanS  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:34:37am

re: #170 Killgore Trout

Kos Kid Komment....


Progressive!

And the US could use an armed ally--not like there are many left in Europe.

186 Dr. Shalit  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:34:55am

re: #112 Guanxi88

Too great a risk for China; hundreds of thousands of starved, heavily-armed NorKs fed a steady diet of Juche propaganda since about 1945, this is not a pleasant prospect for China at the moment. They just gotta keep them on a leash till they can figure out what to do about them, is all. Sad thing is, there's nothing to do but keep dumping rice and fuel in to keep the population (barely) alive; all they can do is prolong the agony.

If things got any worse in NK, the flood of refugees into China would be unstoppable, and would certainly de-stabilize China. At all costs, this has to be prevented.

Guanxi88 -

If the DPRK regime folded tomorrow, wouldn't you think the flow would be more towards their brothers in the ROK? The basic thing the Chinese don't want is the US Military on the Yalu River. I don't think we want to be there either - Korean and Chinese Customs Officials would be enough in this new state of affairs. If the Chinese were less paranoid on this issue they would be positive towards Korean Reunification. The costs of reunification will be borne mainly by the ROK - much like it was by West Germany - and like Germany - will keep the ROK busy and out of China's hair for years to come.

-S-

187 yma o hyd  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:35:04am

re: #146 LGoPs

In the calculus of history, nuclear weapons have ironically kept the world a safer place, at least until now.
The Soviet buildup of hundreds of divisions during the Cold War was ultimately stayed not by the dozen of so US and Allied divisions opposing them in West Germany but by the threat of unleashing US and British tactical nuclear weapons if they attacked. The Soviets were evil but they were sane as well and they understood that Europe in a nuclear ruin would serve them no good.

And, not to forget - their leaders up to Gorbatchev, all had experience of the 'Great Patriotic War', that is the Nazi invasion of their country.
They knew what war is really like, on the ground - and not just from movies.

188 Guanxi88  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:35:45am

re: #169 Macker

Perhaps if Japan re-armed, their quality might have a quantity all its own....

Exactly; could you just imagine what a Six Sigma fighting force would be like? :)

189 MandyManners  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:35:50am

re: #170 Killgore Trout

Kos Kid Komment....


Progressive!

These are the assholes who probably spray-painted graffiti on their parents' houses.

190 rightymouse  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:36:14am

re: #123 Athos

My professer admitted she hadn't heard of the Venona project or the results - despite being declassified in 1995. Her premise was McCarthy was evil and unfair - and he alone led the 'witch hunts'. Now, this professor has some re-education to do based on the sources I used...but ultimately, the history will likely remain revised (he who controls the present controls the past).

I don't care for McCarthy's tactics, but it is reprehensible for a professor of History to blame him alone, ignore the fact that we did have a real threat in communism here in the U.S. and on top of things, be so ignorant as to not know about the Venona files.

191 callahan23  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:36:22am

re: #159 LGoPs

There is a hard core in the Left that thinks the world would be better off if the United States didn't exist.
There are enemies within.

The latest edition of 'Shire Network News' podcast came out on the first of April. It deals in it's interview exactly with this subject.

Shire Network News talks to Dr Richard Cravatts, director of Boston University's Program in Publishing at the Center for Professional Education.

As usual the show is entertaining and educational at same time.

192 pat  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:36:40am

re: #139 Killgore Trout

I searched in vain for any credible story whatsoever to show a resurgence of the Klan. The stories they cite are all liberal fear mongers who are paid to advocate that position. Most attributable to The Southern Poverty Law Center, a group that frequently release fraudulent information in the guise of a 'study'.

193 BryanS  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:36:59am

re: #182 Athos

It is not in the interests of the PRC to rein in the DPRK or that of Russia to stop facilitating Iran. It is far better to use rogue states and non-state organizations as proxies than it is to be overt in working one's agenda - particularly when it works against a naive foreign policy and a lack of will.

And it's time we start calling their bluff. Japan should rearm. Clearly our stronger enemies are using proxies to poke us in the eye.

194 Occasional Reader  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:37:13am

re: #188 Guanxi88

Exactly; could you just imagine what a Six Sigma fighting force would be like? :)

Highly efficient, yet relentlessly polite?

195 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:37:18am

re: #152 zombie

You'd think, having seized power, the Kossacks would start acting a little more sane and rational. But no -- they go even further off the deep end. Puzzling.

Puzzling? Maybe not so much, though there are undoubtedly many types of people posting over there.

Remember the Free Speech Movement. After the original goal was won, it flopped around aimlessly for a while, then reinvented itself as the Filthy Speech Movement.

Having a capital-C Cause can be an emotional necessity.

196 MandyManners  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:37:53am

I keep on shuting down due to the random JetBlue pop-ups.

197 BryanS  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:38:32am

re: #185 BryanS

And the US could use an armed ally--not like there are many left in Europe.

Meant as reply to #169

198 republic  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:38:37am

re: #181 The Other Les

Therefore Good is evil.

I believe that they sympathize with evil, because they believe that only good intentions are what people can be judged by, and those good intentions must come from a leftist, if any good intentions come from a moderate or conservative, then they sympathize with "evil is the victim of Good".

199 jcm  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:38:55am

re: #196 MandyManners

I keep on shuting down due to the random JetBlue pop-ups.

Adwareblocker.

200 razorbacker  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:38:57am

re: #194 Occasional Reader

Highly efficient, yet relentlessly polite?

Be polite.

Be professional.

Understand that you may need to kill everyone that you meet today, and craft a workable plan should that become necessary.

201 Killian Bundy  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:38:58am

re: #196 MandyManners

I keep on shuting down due to the random JetBlue pop-ups.

/you've got spyware

202 Guanxi88  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:38:59am

re: #186 Dr. Shalit

Guanxi88 -

If the DPRK regime folded tomorrow, wouldn't you think the flow would be more towards their brothers in the ROK? The basic thing the Chinese don't want is the US Military on the Yalu River. I don't think we want to be there either - Korean and Chinese Customs Officials would be enough in this new state of affairs. If the Chinese were less paranoid on this issue they would be positive towards Korean Reunification. The costs of reunification will be borne mainly by the ROK - much like it was by West Germany - and like Germany - will keep the ROK busy and out of China's hair for years to come.

-S-

Such transport infra-structure as exists in NK is mainly land-lines of communication to the PRC. They have some infrastructure built right up to the DMZ, but remember, most of their armed forces ar e there already, and a good chunk of the area is cleared out of civilians altogether. To get to the South, they'd have to pass through an area guarded quite heavily by NorK solidery; don't forget the militia, the internal security forces, etc., all of whom would, to one degree or another, continue operation even if the leadership folded. Safer to run north into China.

203 BryanS  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:40:43am

re: #196 MandyManners

I keep on shuting down due to the random JetBlue pop-ups.

Try malware bytes. It's great at removing even the most stubborn malware.

204 Idle Drifter  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:41:00am

re: #139 Killgore Trout

DKOS Top recommended diary....
KKK revival and the Fox Noise Talking Heads.

This is the same trick Micheal Moore used in Bowling for Columbine by trying to paint the NRA as the KKK with coincidence and ham handed innuendo. Blatant lies!

205 MandyManners  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:41:20am

re: #199 jcm

Adwareblocker.

re: #201 Killian Bundy

/you've got spyware

I thought my Norton took care of that crap.

206 republic  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:41:27am

All this talk of nuclear reduction is, for Obama, is a way to try and pick up his flagging poll numbers, both here, and abroad.

It was just a few short weeks ago, that the world, and most in this country, were saying that Obama's dealings with the financial crisis was a "road to hell", and now, it's "all hail Obama".

Sheesh.

207 Steve Rogers  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:42:43am

re: #168 LGoPs

Dead on. That is the key to understanding liberals. Projection. Whatever they accuse the conservatives of doing is precisely what they intend to do.

More Liberal Projection Examples:

Liberals scream that they care for people and want to help them -- Yet liberals are far less likely to donate to charity than conservatives.

Liberals claim they are the sole champions of women's rights -- yet they stood by while Bill Clinton treated a woman half his age as nothing more than a sexual ashtray.

Liberals scream they are the most tolerant of all people -- yet they won't bring up Sen. Robert Byrd's KKK past, or Obama's association with "Rev." Wright.

Liberals claim they are champions of the First Amendment -- yet all the "speech codes" and attempts to outlaw "hate speech" universally come from the left.

208 BryanS  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:42:48am

re: #205 MandyManners

I thought my Norton took care of that crap.

Norton is not very good--plain and simple. Not that there are many good alternatives since all the commercial antivirus vendors do not do a great job of keeping up with all the threats.

209 Killian Bundy  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:44:16am

re: #205 MandyManners

I thought my Norton took care of that crap.

Spybot

AdAware

/besides scanning, make sure you also use the "immunize" function in Spybt

210 Perplexed  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:44:17am

re: #202 Guanxi88

Also, the walls of the canyons leading south from the DMZ in S. Korea are heavily mined and that the S. Koreans would bring down the canyon walls in order to prevent an easy walk south.

211 yesandno  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:44:27am

Wonder who called for the test....isn't the NK great one still incapacitated?

212 irongrampa  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:44:36am

re: #194 Occasional Reader

Heh. I think you just described the USMC.

213 pingjockey  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:44:55am

These people, the msm. Are delusional. Iran nukes...ho hum. Israel nukes...BAD!

214 Jimash  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:45:52am

re: #205 MandyManners

No one program gets them all. Ad-Aware is good but be careful of fakes.
Trend Micro is good but takes forever.
Pareto Anti-Spyware is quite good at the really pernicious ones.
If you have a problem ( and you might) it could take several of these programs to nip it.

215 LGoPs  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:46:00am

re: #207 Steve Rogers

More Liberal Projection Examples:

Liberals scream that they care for people and want to help them -- Yet liberals are far less likely to donate to charity than conservatives.

Liberals claim they are the sole champions of women's rights -- yet they stood by while Bill Clinton treated a woman half his age as nothing more than a sexual ashtray.

Liberals scream they are the most tolerant of all people -- yet they won't bring up Sen. Robert Byrd's KKK past, or Obama's association with "Rev." Wright.

Liberals claim they are champions of the First Amendment -- yet all the "speech codes" and attempts to outlaw "hate speech" universally come from the left.

Agreed. And with all those examples what perplexes me the most is that they continue to retain the perception of being tolerant and open minded and generous whereas in reality they are anything but. They truly are the fascists among us.
Bastards.

216 razorbacker  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:46:12am

In my limited experience with Norton, Norton primarily takes care of Norton.

For example, look at the hoops through which you have to jump in order to uninstall the product.

217 avanti  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:46:36am

re: #175 lawhawk

Reagan's trust-but-verify was a novel way to deal with the problem of verification of destroyed weapons between large nuclear powers where a small shift or number of weapons involved could provide one nation with the ability to carry out a devastating first strike and eliminate the possibility for reprisal.

Once numbers of weapons go below a certain point, there is an instability in outcomes; you can't necessarily predict what would happen if let's say Russia decides to attack out of the blue, because with so few US weapons remaining, the Russians could wipe out US weapons in the silo and not worry about a reprisal strike. It means that as countries approach zero weapons, they become even more susceptible to rogue regimes that have nothing to lose and everything to gain from a first-strike capacity. Snip

You made a lot of good points and I think reinforce the idea that elimination, even with a Reagan style trust and verify is not going to happen. As you point even close to zero, perhaps under 100 may not work for either side.

218 jcm  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:47:02am

re: #205 MandyManners

I thought my Norton took care of that crap.

Slightly different critters.

219 Son of the Black Dog  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:48:41am

re: #68 itellu3times

Apparently it's not all *that* easy, the Pakistani and Indian nuclear tests were only just barely successful, and there were even questions whether the Nork test was faked. They "only" got the equivalent of 200 tons (not kilotons) of TNT. That's a big boom, but it's way, way short of what US weapons would deliver in a counterstrike.

As I've said before here, it is a mistake to assume that the NORK test was a fizzle or a failure. It could have been a larger explosion, and simply well masked. Remember, we never really got a good read on the yield, according to everything I read. It could have been a test of the first stage of a multi-stage weapon, say fission-fusion-fission. Or it might have been a test to see just how little plutonium they could use, possibly for a tactical weapon. Too many possibilities to assume failure.

If we assume it was successful and act accordingly, little harm done.
If we proceed on the assumption that it was a failure, that could have serious consequences.

220 pingjockey  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:48:46am

re: #217 avanti
We have the Trident subs. The Russians can't find them and they are a very credible deterrent. One sub can carry 200+ warheads and they have a CEP of less than 50 yds and can take out hardened targets.

221 debutaunt  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:49:20am

re: #67 Opinionated

That letter to N Korea is going to have in it some really really nasty words?

One hour on the comfy couch - that'll teach 'em.

222 pingjockey  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:51:09am

re: #221 debutaunt
Why does the UN and our state dept. think 'strongly' worded letters to dictators will do any good? How many resolutions did the UN have against Saddam? Fat lot of good those did.

223 itellu3times  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:52:58am

re: #219 Son of the Black Dog

Agreed.

But the most likely scenario is still minimal success.

224 ShumBaayaMyLord  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:54:27am

Sorry to be late getting back to:

#92 MandyManners

and

#153 Guanxi88

plus all exchange in between that.

As a percentage of GDP the military outlays here in Japan are pretty considerable already for quite some years now. I would agree with Guanxi88's latest post here and add that Japan has to tread an "interesting" line as far as its military spend is concerned, for the reason that Japan has a strong economic stake in PRC domestic stability. So Japan's doing things in the military sphere that the PRC takes as an open, truly strategic challenge (beyond atmospherics) is to be handled with extreme care from Tokyo's point of view. This is not to say that Japan is going to shy away from taking responsible measures for its defense (often more responsible than the US -- for instance seeking to acquire the F-22 fighter aircraft!). But Japan has to also take into account the economic relationship with China, which effectively brought Japan ought of its 10-year recession.

In any case, I do think that China hosed Hillary on her visit to the region the other month. And the US (as voiced by Hillary and Gates) hosed Japan the other week in advance of the Nork launch. Local reports here indicate that the missile-tracking and homefront-defense management efforts by the Japanese authorities were almost on the order of Keystone Kops. I'd like to hope that such reports might wake up the Pentagon to the need to coordinate much more closely with Japan to rectify stuff like this. But unfortunately I have every confidence that SecDef Gates will continue to be a remorseless implementer of Obama's plans to break faith with allies and gargle enemy testicles.

225 Dr. Shalit  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:58:40am

re: #144 lawhawk

The Iranians don't buy the missiles directly, but have largely based their designs on North Korean (and Chinese/Russian) designs. Two-stage missiles are more than sufficient to fire a payload more than 1,000 miles. A 3-stage missile would have achieved orbit, although the size of the payload is a mystery. Some suggest the payload size was not much bigger than the size of Sputnik - tiny indeed. However, using the same 3-stage missile, you could boost a larger payload a heck of a long distance. And that's the worrisome part.

lawhawk -

True - AND - first you have to make the missile work correctly. Be glad, very glad that ROK "Chebols" like Hyundai & Daewoo and electronics firms like Samsung & LG are not involved. Unlike the North Koreans, they would get it right by the second try at the latest.

-S-

226 Son of the Black Dog  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:07:46am

re: #149 Occasional Reader

Today's rare spot of good news; probable NorKor rocket launch (partial) FAIL.

Once more, assuming failure is a mistake. The real question is: Did the warhead land where the NORK's intended it to?

227 Dr. Shalit  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:07:51am

re: #202 Guanxi88

Such transport infra-structure as exists in NK is mainly land-lines of communication to the PRC. They have some infrastructure built right up to the DMZ, but remember, most of their armed forces ar e there already, and a good chunk of the area is cleared out of civilians altogether. To get to the South, they'd have to pass through an area guarded quite heavily by NorK solidery; don't forget the militia, the internal security forces, etc., all of whom would, to one degree or another, continue operation even if the leadership folded. Safer to run north into China.

Guanxi88 -

All true - AND - remember, my posit was a regime COLLAPSE. At that point, the loyalty of DPRK grunts on the ground becomes questionable. Remember East Berlin, 1989. DDR Troops refused to fire on their own people letting them pass through and tear down barricades. My hunch is that the same would happen in Korea were the Kim Regime to fall.

-S-

228 tradewind  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:10:42am

Not so su re that what Iran & Co. want is to be able to threaten the world. Subjugate, annihilate, decimate..... those seem more likely.

229 jvic  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:11:16am

About ten years ago, distinguished bipartisan gurus Robert Rubin, Alan Greenspan, Larry Summers and Phil Gramm told the government to leave Wall Street alone. Don't interfere with financial innovations that will increase our wealth and reduce our risk, they said. If you're worried, that just shows you're not smart enough to understand modern finance.

From the AP link:

Former secretaries of state Kissinger and Schultz and two others, former Defense Secretary William Perry and former Sen. Sam Nunn, have jointly written opinion pieces outlining a goal of total eradication.

See the previous paragraph.

230 [deleted]  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:19:26am
231 jjmckay1216  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:30:01am

re: #139 Killgore Trout

IS that the old, "Conservatives are all recists" crap again? I do not recall EVER seeing racism on this site. If I did, I would have said something really bad to that person. Now, we have a president of color who happens to not be up for the job. If THAT'S racist, then we are all screwed. At least i know that if he gets sick, we certainly would NOT hope that he dies. That's for the Lefty's and KOS to wish on republicans and conservatives....

232 Caton  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:34:33am

re: #231 jjmckay1216

Now, we have a president of color who happens to not be up for the job. If THAT'S racist, then we are all screwed. At least i know that if he gets sick, we certainly would NOT hope that he dies. That's for the Lefty's and KOS to wish on republicans and conservatives....

Having Biden as VP was very smart... it guarantees nobody in his right mind wants O to die.

233 [deleted]  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:44:24am
234 Caton  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:47:56am

re: #233 Iron Fist

Hey, brother! Good point. How's life treating you? Over here, they are trying to make up their minds as to whether we're going to have an economic crash that drives us into the arms of socialism as Obama and the Democrats nationalize just about everything, or we've just blown two trillion (and counting) of the taxpayer's money (money out of my pocket) on the most massive porkfest boondogle in the history of the world.

Of course, it could be that we're going to get both this year. Along with inflation. Lots and lots of inflation.

I'm doing OK, nice, interesting, well-paid job that is about as recession-proof as can be.

O's economical policy is even worse than his foreign policy, so you probably should be worried. The US will recover, I think, but I have no idea how long it will take. However, the dollar as global corrency is history, IMO.

235 redseeped  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:59:59am

This is a direct offspring of the 70's unilateral disarmament movement fashionable mainly in West Europe. The rev. was right: "the chickens HAVE come home to roost".
The historical fact is that should the West have done so, there would have been prolonged misery for the East Europeans and the Soviets would still be bullying the rest of us with their stupid ideological BS.
We are sailing in dangerous waters!

236 shane  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:09:33am

The obvious answer is that they, like most liberals, can't distingish any difference between cultures. They simply won't discriminate between a physco and and a non-physco. It would mean they discriminate and that is bad. So they chose not to see anything bad.

237 Robert Schwartz  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:09:36am
Iran wants nuclear weapons—to threaten the rest of the world.

Threaten? No. Iran will not threaten. They will attack.

"A world become one, of salads and sun, only a fool would say that"

- Steely Dan

238 shaker  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:28:44am

Obama wants to unilaterally disarm the United States.

239 Musicmaven  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:34:51am

re: #67 Opinionated

That letter to N Korea is going to have in it some really really nasty words?

N.Korea launches a missile ....... The Big Dohbama's answer...........let's ban all nuclear weapons! What a moroon!
Let's just "Imagine Peace" and ride unicorns over the rainbow!

240 abolitionist  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 12:08:59pm

re: #104 MandyManners

All I could find searching for Gearan.

I get about 50 hits searching "anne gearan" at dogpile.com

241 rhino2  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 12:17:28pm

It must be nice to live Candyland, maybe the rest of us will get to join BO there some day.

/

242 rhino2  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 12:18:19pm

live in Candyland, PIMF

243 cartoonboy  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 2:54:51pm

While we're de-nuclearizing let's also disarm our police forces. Guns can be used to do some evil things like kill people and stuff. Police should seek law and order in more gentle, peaceful ways like maybe handing out candy bars to criminals instead putting these misunderstood comrads behind bars. We can dream of a day when peace spreads naturally like a daiper stain or robust fart.

(Sarcasm alert)

244 Spartacus50  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 3:10:08pm

Just another propaganda piece from the Greek Chorus of AP writers.

245 jordash1212  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 3:56:11pm

What's missing? Any semblance of rationality. Irrespective of Iran and Saudi aspirations for nukes, the United States would never, ever, ever, ever, throw away its nukes. It'd be any instant target for other world powers political and economic will. The reason the United States is such an economic force is precisely because of its military capacity. A large part of that being nuclear weaponry. Journalists are so stupid sometimes all the time.

246 PSGInfinity  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 5:23:33pm

re: #135 MandyManners

I hope everyone who refused to vote for McCain because he wasn't conservative enough is fucking happy now.

(Raises hand)
I subscribe to the 'extreme rebound' theory, in that having one Moderate Pubby follow another would've torqued off so many folks that we'd never get a word in edgewise for fifty years. Whereas watching the Lefties act out will be a bracing tonic when Mitt, Bobby and Sarah come calling in 2012.

247 Toastrider  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 6:36:00pm

There is a way, of course, to encourage disarmament. I doubt Obama would use it, though:

Restart and revitalize the Strategic Defense Initiative originally envisioned by Reagan; a network of anti-ICBM measures to take out a launched missile. Once you ensure that such weapons are obsolete, there's no point in building them.

And to ensure nobody worries about the U.S. 'threatening' people from behind its shield (not that we would anyways), open-source the designs so that other nations can deploy anti-missile defenses.

This does nothing, of course, for smuggled or suitcase nukes; we'll have to find other ways to tackle those. But it would certainly nullify one aspect of the nuclear threat.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
3 days ago
Views: 116 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 278 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1