President Obama Sets New Limits on US Nuclear Policy

US News • Views: 3,435

President Obama is revising the nuclear strategy of the United States, substantially limiting the conditions under which the US would use nuclear weapons.

The most controversial part of the new strategy: Obama is committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that comply with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attack the US with biological or chemical weapons: Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms.

However, please note that the new policy leaves intact the first-strike strategy, contains “exceptions” for nations like Iran and North Korea, and reserves the option to reconsider nuclear retaliation against a biological or chemical attack.

Jump to bottom

497 comments
1 MrSilverDragon  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:01:03am

I’m for those bomb limits. Now, lets use that material for reactors!

2 SpaceJesus  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:03:41am

that’s fine, so long as we strike back with chemical and biological weapons

3 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:04:58am

re: #2 SpaceJesus

that’s fine, so long as we strike back with chemical and biological weapons

Concur. We have to respond with WMDs if thy are used against us.

4 garhighway  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:05:31am

re: #3 Dark_Falcon

Concur. We have to respond with WMDs if thy are used against us.

Why?

5 steve_davis  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:05:31am

errr…this isn’t exactly correct. Gates said in the press conference that, because biological weapons are part of a kind of evolutionary process of continued refinements (I’m not paraphrasing him very well here), that no one should consider anything in the new U.S. posture as limiting our right to use whatever is necessary (implicitly nuclear weapons) against countries that threaten us with such an attack.

Bugger, I’m a bad paraphraser. But read Gates’ statement from the press conference. This is carefully crafted to make sure we keep options pretty much wide open. The only nations that are going to threaten us with nukes are nations that aren’t part of the non-proliferation treaty anyway. (Russia could certainly nuke us, but NATO countries would be pretty much treaty-bound to nuke hell out of them along with us, and France has a pretty significant nuclear-submarine arsenal, if I remember that correctly).

6 Locker  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:07:06am

Just because another entity does something horrible to us does not mean we have to do it back to them. Chemical and Biological weapons are terrible and devastating. I hope we never would and never have to use this technology.

7 Chaplain  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:07:07am

+1 MrSilverDragon. We definitely need more reactors.

As far as the policy goes, I am glad Obama is open to making exceptions for current problem countries.

8 SpaceJesus  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:07:25am

re: #3 Dark_Falcon

Concur. We have to respond with WMDs if thy are used against us.


i wouldn’t say we have to, but the option should definitely be there. depends on the scale and success of the attack i suppose.

9 William Barnett-Lewis  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:07:59am

re: #3 Dark_Falcon

Concur. We have to respond with WMDs if thy are used against us.

Why? I see no need to use nuclear weapons in response to anything less than a nuclear attack by a nation state. Even then the weapon use should be limited to strategic weapon denial &/or command and control decapitation.

William

10 lawhawk  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:08:30am

re: #2 SpaceJesus

The US is committed to eliminating its chemical and biological weapons stocks. We are currently dismantling our chemical weapons stocks at various facilities around the country including at Tooele. The US is nearing its goal to eliminate all chemical weapons in our inventory at the Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal Facility, which uses various processes to dismantle and destroy and/or render inert the chemical agents, including GB (sarin), mustard, and VX.

11 jamesfirecat  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:08:39am

re: #4 garhighway

Why?

I second this question, couldn’t we just bring out the really big bombs, or the orbital lazers from space?

I’m sure the US military has ways of getting its displeasure across which are less likely to spread to much of the civilian population of the country we use it on….

12 jamesfirecat  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:10:20am

re: #10 lawhawk

The US is committed to eliminating its chemical and biological weapons stocks. We are currently dismantling our chemical weapons stocks at various facilities around the country including at Tooele. The US is nearing its goal to eliminate all chemical weapons in our inventory at the Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal Facility, which uses various processes to dismantle and destroy and/or render inert the chemical agents, including GB (sarin), mustard, and VX.

But if they do that how will we make a sequel to The Rock?

13 charles_martel  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:11:05am

An attack on us with WMD’s should be met with an overwhelmigly severe response. But it doesn’t necessarily have to be use of WMD’s on our part. If we are nuked, a nuke response would be appropriate.

14 Charles Johnson  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:11:10am

Pamela “Shrieking Harpy” Geller manages to combine ignorance, a complete lack of class, and blatant racism in one illiterate sentence: NObama’s ‘Nuclear Posture Poser Review’: No Nukes, Even in Self Defense or if Hit with Chemical/Bio weapons … G-d Help Us - Atlas Shrugs.

Obama says to our enemies, bring it on, we won’t fight ya — leaving us bare naked vulnerable like a virgin slipped a Rohypnol on her first date with a Chicagoland gangsta.

15 jamesfirecat  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:11:55am

re: #14 Charles

Pamela “Shrieking Harpy” Geller manages to combine ignorance, a complete lack of class, and blatant racism in one illiterate sentence: NObama’s ‘Nuclear Posture Poser Review’: No Nukes, Even in Self Defense or if Hit with Chemical/Bio weapons … G-d Help Us - Atlas Shrugs.

Wow its a trifecta of repulsiveness!

16 avanti  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:12:14am

Reading about the policy, I get the impression we would not use nukes if a non-nuke rogue state attacked a subway with a biological weapon for example, but would or could respond with nukes for a large scale attack.

17 lawhawk  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:12:15am

Why exactly does this policy, which has been in effect for more than 60 years need to be turned on its head and made far more complex than it need be? I’m waiting to hear why that’s the case. The Obama Administration, if it god forbid faced this situation, could have simply chosen to not retaliate with a nuclear strike as is its right and judgment as commander in chief. Instead, he’s made it a public acknowledgment and telegraphed a policy change that our nation’s enemies may use against us. That’s fundamentally destabilizing.

18 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:12:23am

re: #9 wlewisiii

Why? I see no need to use nuclear weapons in response to anything less than a nuclear attack by a nation state. Even then the weapon use should be limited to strategic weapon denial &/or command and control decapitation.

William


Even if that command and control strike took out millions of citizens in one fell swoop?

19 Soap_Man  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:12:42am
However, please note that the new policy leaves intact the first-strike strategy, contains “exceptions” for nations like Iran and North Korea, and reserves the option to reconsider nuclear retaliation against a biological or chemical attack.

Ummm… so these are more like guidelines than rules right? Basically it seems that Obama can still use the nukes however he wants.

20 Chaplain  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:13:05am

re: #14 Charles

Pamela “Shrieking Harpy” Geller manages to combine ignorance, a complete lack of class, and blatant racism in one illiterate sentence: NObama’s ‘Nuclear Posture Poser Review’: No Nukes, Even in Self Defense or if Hit with Chemical/Bio weapons … G-d Help Us - Atlas Shrugs.

“leaving us bare naked vulnerable like a virgin slipped a Rohypnol on her first date with a Chicagoland gangsta.” Sounds like the premise to a movie I watched once… okay… maybe twice.

21 SpaceJesus  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:13:53am

re: #10 lawhawk


pretty sure i don’t agree with this policy

22 garhighway  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:13:57am

re: #17 lawhawk

Why exactly does this policy, which has been in effect for more than 60 years need to be turned on its head and made far more complex than it need be? I’m waiting to hear why that’s the case. The Obama Administration, if it god forbid faced this situation, could have simply chosen to not retaliate with a nuclear strike as is its right and judgment as commander in chief. Instead, he’s made it a public acknowledgment and telegraphed a policy change that our nation’s enemies may use against us. That’s fundamentally destabilizing.

I do not get why this is destabilizing. Dead is dead. Does some warlord really give a shit how we kill him?

23 jamesfirecat  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:14:21am

re: #17 lawhawk

Why exactly does this policy, which has been in effect for more than 60 years need to be turned on its head and made far more complex than it need be? I’m waiting to hear why that’s the case. The Obama Administration, if it god forbid faced this situation, could have simply chosen to not retaliate with a nuclear strike as is its right and judgment as commander in chief. Instead, he’s made it a public acknowledgment and telegraphed a policy change that our nation’s enemies may use against us. That’s fundamentally destabilizing.

Well I guess the president shouldn’t be trying to remind the world that America is one of the good guys who isn’t about to go around using nukes on those who have no effective way to respond to us glassing their country….

24 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:15:12am

‘Kay, so…how many of you can pronounce Tooele, other than me?

Just wondering.

Our nuclear policy will always reflect whoever sits in the Oval office, and I think our allies and enemies know this.

25 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:15:32am

re: #14 Charles

Pamela “Shrieking Harpy” Geller manages to combine ignorance, a complete lack of class, and blatant racism in one illiterate sentence: NObama’s ‘Nuclear Posture Poser Review’: No Nukes, Even in Self Defense or if Hit with Chemical/Bio weapons … G-d Help Us - Atlas Shrugs.

Horrid. Still, Pam’s dug clear through the Earth’s core and she’s half way through the other side of the mantle. Soon, she’ll be China’s problem.

26 charles_martel  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:15:39am

re: #22 garhighway

A perceived sign of weakness or hesitation will encourage belligerents.

27 Capitalist Tool  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:16:16am

If it ever gets to the point where we would have to use nukes, the situation would have to be exceedingly desperate.
Any statement “now” that we would not ever use ‘em would likely be discarded in any worst- case scenario.
Hopefully, any rational leader of any “enemy” state has the sense to realize this.

Many are of the opinion that the first nuke deployment saved a lot more lives than it destroyed.

28 jamesfirecat  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:17:42am

re: #26 charles_martel

A perceived sign of weakness or hesitation will encourage belligerents.

Yes I’m sure people are lining up to attack America now that they know we won’t use nukes and instead only have our “invisible” to radar planes drop bunker busters on their heads if they piss us off.

29 garhighway  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:18:13am

re: #26 charles_martel

A perceived sign of weakness or hesitation will encourage belligerents.

And us saying we will use one weapon system as opposed to another is weak how, exactly?

Like I said, dead is dead. The fact that we might prefer more surgical options over using nukes seems like a good thing, unless we are fetishising (sp?) nukes.

30 William Barnett-Lewis  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:18:30am

re: #18 Walter L. Newton

Even if that command and control strike took out millions of citizens in one fell swoop?

Yep. Nuclear war is a bitch isn’t it?

Of course that’s why the US, UK, Russia, etc tend to put the real command and control centers deep under mountains, but hey…

William

31 avanti  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:18:52am

re: #19 Soap_Man

Ummm… so these are more like guidelines than rules right? Basically it seems that Obama can still use the nukes however he wants.

It’s simply a diplomatic tap dance to put more pressure to gain support for limiting nuclear expansion in Iran and elsewhere. Sort of a “We have a gun, but won’t shoot you while you are unarmed unless you really piss us off” comment.

32 charles_martel  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:19:06am

re: #28 jamesfirecat

Yes I’m sure people are lining up to attack America now that they know we won’t use nukes and instead only have our “invisible” to radar planes drop bunker busters on their heads if they piss us off.

Insane fanatics like Ahmadinejad are not rational, and they have a terror network to deliver WMD’s

33 jamesfirecat  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:19:46am

re: #32 charles_martel

Insane fanatics like Ahmadinejad are not rational, and they have a terror network to deliver WMD’s

If they’re not rational why should they be scared of nukes more than of bunker busters?

34 lawhawk  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:19:47am

re: #22 garhighway

No, but if they know that the US will fire only a couple of shock and awe bunker busters, they might try their luck because they’ve seen that such attacks are not always successful (see Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom and the attacks to go after Saddam’s C4I infrastructure). They didn’t get the job done. A nuclear strike threat would send a message that if you attempt anything so heinous such as a WMD attack, you and your nation would cease to exist as you presently know it. It creates a calculus among regime leaders that are some things you simply do not do.

Even Obama recognizes that this is a fundamentally correct posture since he’s not altering it for rogue states like Iran and North Korea. He’s playing around with the fringes of the nuclear strike posture, even though there is no reason to do so. It does not improve US national security.

35 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:19:56am

re: #27 Capitalist Tool

For the record, I’m only here because of those two nuclear bombs.

Grandpa was scheduled to go ashore in the first waves on the Japanese mainland (as were lots and lots of other men.)

My dad was born in 1947.

You do the math.

36 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:20:10am

re: #33 jamesfirecat

If they’re not rational why should they be scared of nukes more than of bunker busters?

Damn good point, James.

37 goddamnedfrank  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:20:36am

162 Nations have signed the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, Article VII of which requires all members to “assist States which have been exposed to a danger as a result of a violation of the BWC.” Scorn the world all you wish, carrying out a biological or chemical attack would be practical suicide for any modern nation state.

Why we need to let our enemies’ behavior dictate our own values and tactics is something I am probably never going to understand.

38 Soap_Man  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:20:54am

If some smaller or mid-sized country attacks with bio or chem weapons, it seems like we have a ton of ways to rain fire from the skies without the need of the nukes.

39 lawhawk  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:21:12am

re: #31 avanti

Except that the policy is continuing as before for Iran and North Korea - it’s adjusting at the fringes for other regimes around the world. It isn’t going to change anyone’s mind about US nuclear doctrine since Obama has more than made it clear he wants to see nuclear arsenals dismantled across the board.

40 charles_martel  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:22:28am

re: #29 garhighway

And us saying we will use one weapon system as opposed to another is weak how, exactly?

Like I said, dead is dead. The fact that we might prefer more surgical options over using nukes seems like a good thing, unless we are fetishising (sp?) nukes.

I said upthread that we should only use nukes if we were nuked. Perceived hesitancy is destabilizing because a long, protracted war is something we may not have the stomach for, while a WMD strike is quick and easy, militarily speaking. It is all about how potential belligerents think we will have the political and societal will to follow through with.

41 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:22:39am

re: #30 wlewisiii

Yep. Nuclear war is a bitch isn’t it?

Of course that’s why the US, UK, Russia, etc tend to put the real command and control centers deep under mountains, but hey…

William

I’m fine with using nukes when our government decides the situation warrants it, I was just interested in your opinion.

I would rather the administrations policy be “we will use whatever methods that we deem necessary in any given situation” and leave it at that.

This current policy, and policies in the past, sort of offers other nations a strategic check list of what they may or may not be able to do if they have some reason to do it.

I think a vague public strategy is the best public strategy.

42 lawhawk  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:22:57am

re: #38 Soap_Man

We had all manner of weapons systems to go after Saddam’s C4I and even Saddam himself during Operation Iraqi Freedom, and yet they didn’t get the job done and we couldn’t target him and his leaders effectively. New engineering techniques make it far more difficult to attack bunkers with conventional munitions as well. That’s one of the reasons that the Iranians are building their nuclear infrastructure underground - to avoid an airstrike similar to what Israel did to Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981.

43 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:23:05am

re: #33 jamesfirecat

If they’re not rational why should they be scared of nukes more than of bunker busters?

Perhaps the fear of being incinerated will motive their populations to revolt and induce their militaries to do the same. I’m going to blunt: If we lose tens of thousands to a WMD attack, I would endorse a nuclear attack simply on the principle of reprisal.

44 Mad Al-Jaffee  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:23:13am

If someone attacks us with WMDs (or, as Ali G calls them, BLTs) we should force them to watch Jersey Shore. But that might be against the Geneva Conventions.

45 garhighway  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:24:20am

re: #34 lawhawk

No, but if they know that the US will fire only a couple of shock and awe bunker busters, they might try their luck because they’ve seen that such attacks are not always successful (see Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom and the attacks to go after Saddam’s C4I infrastructure). They didn’t get the job done. A nuclear strike threat would send a message that if you attempt anything so heinous such as a WMD attack, you and your nation would cease to exist as you presently know it. It creates a calculus among regime leaders that are some things you simply do not do.

Even Obama recognizes that this is a fundamentally correct posture since he’s not altering it for rogue states like Iran and North Korea. He’s playing around with the fringes of the nuclear strike posture, even though there is no reason to do so. It does not improve US national security.

I think there is a difference between adversaries assessing our will to respond versus our ability to respond. Our ability to respond is unquestioned by all, and nothing in today’s tweaking of policy changes that. Our willingness to respond will depend on the provocation, the political actors, and a zillion other factors that this policy does not and cannot address.

46 avanti  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:24:41am

re: #32 charles_martel

Insane fanatics like Ahmadinejad are not rational, and they have a terror network to deliver WMD’s

OK, quick question about the “new” policy. Why didn’t Bush vaporize Afghanistan with nukes after 9-11 under the old policy ?
I think the answer is obvious. The murder of 3000 US citizens by a terrorist state, as horrible as it was did note rise to the level of a nuke response.

47 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:25:13am

re: #45 garhighway

I think there is a difference between adversaries assessing our will to respond versus our ability to respond. Our ability to respond is unquestioned by all, and nothing in today’s tweaking of policy changes that. Our willingness to respond will depend on the provocation, the political actors, and a zillion other factors that this policy does not and cannot address.

That’s why I said above…

This current policy, and policies in the past, sort of offers other nations a strategic check list of what they may or may not be able to do if they have some reason to do it.

I think a vague public strategy is the best public strategy.

48 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:25:19am

re: #43 Dark_Falcon

The principle of reprisal is not a very American principle, DF.

I think that we should strike back in whatever way is best to cripple those who attacked us, remove their capacity to do so, and then remove that leadership.

I do not think simply dropping atomic weapons would do that in the best way.

49 jamesfirecat  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:26:01am

re: #43 Dark_Falcon

Perhaps the fear of being incinerated will motive their populations to revolt and induce their militaries to do the same. I’m going to blunt: If we lose tens of thousands to a WMD attack, I would endorse a nuclear attack simply on the principle of reprisal.

In my heart of hearts, I probably would feel the same way. Still I like to think (like to hope) that we’re getting better at who gets on flights and monitoring what goes into our ports by see or airports by plane.

It is for the moment hard for me to imagine the US suffering a major Bio or Chem attack…

Granted I don’t know much about them besides what I’ve seen in movies, anyone want to fill me in on the standard MO for such a thing?

50 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:26:08am

re: #46 avanti

OK, quick question about the “new” policy. Why didn’t Bush vaporize Afghanistan with nukes after 9-11 under the old policy ?
I think the answer is obvious. The murder of 3000 US citizens by a terrorist state, as horrible as it was did note rise to the level of a nuke response.

There was also the fact that the majority of Aghan citizens hadn’t been involved. Nuking them wouldn’t have been justice.

51 albusteve  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:26:22am

re: #35 EmmmieG

For the record, I’m only here because of those two nuclear bombs.

Grandpa was scheduled to go ashore in the first waves on the Japanese mainland (as were lots and lots of other men.)

My dad was born in 1947.

You do the math.

the 2d Marines were issuing winter supplies in preparation to invade Kyushu…my dad’s division…by all serious estimation casualties would have been in the hundreds of thousands and even higher to reduce Japan by invasion

52 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:26:42am

re: #46 avanti

OK, quick question about the “new” policy. Why didn’t Bush vaporize Afghanistan with nukes after 9-11 under the old policy ?
I think the answer is obvious. The murder of 3000 US citizens by a terrorist state, as horrible as it was did note rise to the level of a nuke response.

I would think first that since the 9/11 action wasn’t directly state sponsored, nuking anyone would have been hard to justify in any event.

53 garhighway  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:27:46am

re: #52 Walter L. Newton

I would think first that since the 9/11 action wasn’t directly state sponsored, nuking anyone would have been hard to justify in any event.

Agree: the thornier issues in this space are posed by the non-state actors. Against whom nukes are not useful.

54 Sigma_x  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:27:57am

Wait - so you mean to tell me that Drudge is lying when his headline screamed No Nukes: Even in Self Defense!!!?

Matt Drudge?! Lying? Why that’s the craziest thing I ever hoid.

55 jamesfirecat  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:28:16am

re: #51 albusteve

the 2d Marines were issuing winter supplies in preparation to invade Kyushu…my dad’s division…by all serious estimation casualties would have been in the hundreds of thousands and even higher to reduce Japan by invasion

From what I understand, I’ve every single purple heart we’ve given out since WW2 was made in preparation for handing out to someone involved in the Invasion of Japan…..

56 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:28:45am

re: #55 jamesfirecat

Sounds very urban legendy to me.

57 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:29:38am

re: #55 jamesfirecat

Son of a bitch, you’re right!

Nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of the casualties resulting from the invasion of Japan. To the present date, all the American military casualties of the sixty years following the end of World War II—including the Korean and Vietnam Wars—have not exceeded that number. In 2003, there were still 120,000 of these Purple Heart medals in stock.[48] There are so many in surplus that combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan are able to keep Purple Hearts on-hand for immediate award to wounded soldiers on the field.[48]

58 Sigma_x  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:29:53am

The administration’s new policy on nukes specifically allows the use of nuclear weapons in self-defense when nuclear weapons are used against us. But it doesn’t allow using nuclear weapons in response to a “biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.” Naturally, this makes perfect sense.

That last detail? It’s from the exact article that Drudge links to with his headline.

59 jamesfirecat  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:31:11am

re: #56 Obdicut

Sounds very urban legendy to me.

Not really.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org…]

[Link: www.purplehearts.net…]

60 albusteve  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:31:12am

re: #55 jamesfirecat

From what I understand, I’ve every single purple heart we’ve given out since WW2 was made in preparation for handing out to someone involved in the Invasion of Japan…

could be….it would have been a massive, epic, slaughter…in this case hyperbole would be excused…imo

61 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:32:11am

re: #48 Obdicut

The principle of reprisal is not a very American principle, DF.

I think that we should strike back in whatever way is best to cripple those who attacked us, remove their capacity to do so, and then remove that leadership.

I do not think simply dropping atomic weapons would do that in the best way.

I know its not an American principle, but it’s what I support. This is a place where my views part company from most of the country. I not going to argue the point further, since I may well be wrong. My views are in this case based on strong emotions and are highly resistant to reasoning. I’ll hang back for a bit and wait for the conversation to shift. I don’t want to end up defending things I shouldn’t.

62 jamesfirecat  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:32:19am

re: #57 Obdicut

Son of a bitch, you’re right!

Really makes you think, doesn’t it?

63 lawhawk  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:32:46am

re: #56 Obdicut

Nope. It appears to be on the level.

64 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:32:53am

re: #53 garhighway

Agree: the thornier issues in this space are posed by the non-state actors. Against whom nukes are not useful.

No let’s take this one step further. On 9/11, nuking anyone would have been hard to justify. But since that time, I believe that we have made it know that any state supporting terrorists in any way are open to a possible military response against that state.

So now we come full circle. Is there a situation where a nuclear attack on a terrorist supporting state is justified?

That’s why I go back to my statement “I think a vague public strategy is the best public strategy.”

65 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:33:43am

re: #17 lawhawk

Why exactly does this policy, which has been in effect for more than 60 years need to be turned on its head and made far more complex than it need be? I’m waiting to hear why that’s the case. The Obama Administration, if it god forbid faced this situation, could have simply chosen to not retaliate with a nuclear strike as is its right and judgment as commander in chief. Instead, he’s made it a public acknowledgment and telegraphed a policy change that our nation’s enemies may use against us. That’s fundamentally destabilizing.

Pretty much what I was thinking when I read this. I don’t really disagree with the policy on the use of nuclear weapons, but I sure as hell disagree with the policy of announcing it to the whole freaking world. I’m getting the impression that this administration would hire a marching band to celebrate being dealt a Royal Flush.

66 avanti  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:34:23am

re: #52 Walter L. Newton

I would think first that since the 9/11 action wasn’t directly state sponsored, nuking anyone would have been hard to justify in any event.

OK, another hypothetical. Dinnerjacket OK’s poisoning the water supply in DC, and 10,000 die, what is the appropriate response ?

67 harrylook  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:34:32am

Some seem to have forgotten that the rationale for our nuclear policy has always been to dissuade others from using WMD against us. It’s not about actually using nukes. The whole point is to convince the enemy not to attack, thereby preventing nukes from ever being used, either against us or by us.

I agree with those that think this policy change seems like an attempt to ‘send a message’ of some sort. But it’s quite a dangerous way to send a message.

68 goddamnedfrank  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:35:41am

re: #66 avanti

OK, another hypothetical. Dinnerjacket OK’s poisoning the water supply in DC, and 10,000 die, what is the appropriate response ?

We release the Kraken.

69 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:35:50am

re: #62 jamesfirecat

My grandpa was a combat engineer specializing in beach landings. It is unlikely he would have survived an assault on Japan, and I’m glad we didn’t have to.

70 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:36:49am

re: #60 albusteve

could be…it would have been a massive, epic, slaughter…in this case hyperbole would be excused…imo

Indeed. Operation Downfall would have been an attack right into the teeth of the IJA’s defenses. Projects were bad enough that the 2nd Marine Division, one of the lead assaulting forces, was not even on the tactical projects for X+5. It was assumed that 4 days of that level of combat would eliminate its ability to function as a division.

71 Soap_Man  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:36:58am

re: #61 Dark_Falcon

I know its not an American principle, but it’s what I support. This is a place where my views part company from most of the country. I not going to argue the point further, since I may well be wrong. My views are in this case based on strong emotions and are highly resistant to reasoning. I’ll hang back for a bit and wait for the conversation to shift. I don’t want to end up defending things I shouldn’t.

It’s a fair line of thought. I’m still not sure where I stand on this.

My friend once asked “If Russia nuked New York, just once, and all intelligence pointed to that being the only attack (perhaps made by a rogue general arrested right after the launch, a leader moments before being ousted or something), would you nuke Moscow in response?”

I really don’t know. If you don’t, you are basically saying that you can nuke us once so long as you promise not to do it again. If you do, then you are killing many people who had nothing to do with the original crime, a crime that was isolated and wont be repeated.

Anyway, one of the reasons why I would never want to be president.

72 Capitalist Tool  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:37:38am

re: #35 EmmmieG

For the record, I’m only here because of those two nuclear bombs.

Grandpa was scheduled to go ashore in the first waves on the Japanese mainland (as were lots and lots of other men.)

My dad was born in 1947.

You do the math.


I’m kind of in the same boat, except it would have been my Dad fighting. He’s one of those old WWII- Korean War- era Marines… I was born in ‘51.

Over 12,000 US soldiers, sailors and airmen died during the battle for Okinawa against 3 divisions of Japanese troops who were essentially cut off from any aid. Over 70,000 Japanese combatants lost their lives along with 80,000 Okinawan civilians.
To believe that an invasion of the home islands would have been preferable to the bomb defies any logic or simple metric.
Even after Hiroshima, there were revolts against and assassinations of any Japanese politician who dared to openly speak of peace, or surrender. The militarists would not quit.

Still, there are many worldwide- as well as here- who continue to damn the US for the bombings.

73 albusteve  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:37:42am

re: #66 avanti

OK, another hypothetical. Dinnerjacket OK’s poisoning the water supply in DC, and 10,000 die, what is the appropriate response ?

two or three air-burst techs…take out his capacity to move oil….flatten everything, no radiation

74 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:37:47am

re: #68 goddamnedfrank

We release the Kraken.

Was Clash of the Titans worth seeing?

75 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:37:50am

re: #58 Sigma_x

The administration’s new policy on nukes specifically allows the use of nuclear weapons in self-defense when nuclear weapons are used against us. But it doesn’t allow using nuclear weapons in response to a “biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.” Naturally, this makes perfect sense.

That last detail? It’s from the exact article that Drudge links to with his headline.

I don’t think it makes any sense. A cyber attack or a biological or chemical weapons attack could be confined to a city or a region. But there is also the scenario that posits that an attack of this sort could be country wide, debilitating a lot of the country.

Public statement like this, some sort of “retaliation checklist” is useless and only makes us appear to be weak.

No matter what, the decision of what do do will be made as a direct response to a certain situation, and you can bet that no one will be going down some checklist to make a decision.

That’s why I go back to my statement “I think a vague public strategy is the best public strategy.”

76 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:38:40am

re: #66 avanti

OK, another hypothetical. Dinnerjacket OK’s poisoning the water supply in DC, and 10,000 die, what is the appropriate response ?

What ever we decide to do based on the facts and evidence. A retaliation checklist is a useless device.

That’s why I go back to my statement “I think a vague public strategy is the best public strategy.”

77 Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:38:45am

I can’t be the only person who read this as not changing a whole heck of a lot, but it sure sounds nice and people will like us for saying it?

If you’re allowed to reconsider this policy in light of a non nuclear attack, then really, I’d hope the 24 hour rule applies when dealing with millions of lives anyway.

78 avanti  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:38:52am

re: #71 Soap_Man

It’s a fair line of thought. I’m still not sure where I stand on this.

My friend once asked “If Russia nuked New York, just once, and all intelligence pointed to that being the only attack (perhaps made by a rogue general arrested right after the launch, a leader moments before being ousted or something), would you nuke Moscow in response?”

I really don’t know. If you don’t, you are basically saying that you can nuke us once so long as you promise not to do it again. If you do, then you are killing many people who had nothing to do with the original crime, a crime that was isolated and wont be repeated.

Anyway, one of the reasons why I would never want to be president.

There was a movie based on that, we traded cities to be nuked to even the scale.

79 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:39:29am

re: #78 avanti

There was a movie based on that, we traded cities to be nuked to even the scale.

Failsafe was its name, if memory serves.

80 jamesfirecat  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:39:33am

re: #73 albusteve

two or three air-burst techs…take out his capacity to move oil…flatten everything, no radiation

Actually like the way you think on that one. Ground also then should be ready fertilized for some new more reasonable people to move in….

81 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:39:47am

re: #72 Capitalist Tool

Not that I would ever say it, because it would just have been picking a fight, but I used to look at my Japanese friends and think “You wouldn’t be here, either.”

82 Mad Al-Jaffee  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:40:16am

re: #78 avanti

There was a movie based on that, we traded cities to be nuked to even the scale.

Fail-Safe

83 avanti  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:40:36am

re: #73 albusteve

two or three air-burst techs…take out his capacity to move oil…flatten everything, no radiation

I would not use nukes, but take out the leadership, the military and the infrastructure.

84 jamesfirecat  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:40:50am

re: #79 Dark_Falcon

Failsafe was its name, if memory serves.

Yes and Stanley Kubrick sued the people making it so that Doctor Strangelove would get to theaters first believe it or not!

85 Spider Mensch  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:41:01am

here’s your scenario…a nuclear weapon is smuggled into Seattle harbor in an everyday container ship, with let’s say panamanian registry, but last stop was…Pakistan. the weapon is detonated. Seattle and most of the northwest corner of the state of Washington is leveled..gone..unhabitable for many years. fallout will probably spread thru prevailing westerlies to most of the midwest at least causing even more problems…what does the POTUS do? what can he do? That’s your most plausible scenario for a massive attack on US that leaves millions dead…but what could be done as far as retaliation? I don’t see any place to retaliate against….do you?

86 Capitalist Tool  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:41:55am

re: #51 albusteve

the 2d Marines were issuing winter supplies in preparation to invade Kyushu…my dad’s division…by all serious estimation casualties would have been in the hundreds of thousands and even higher to reduce Japan by invasion


If the Okinawan casualty rate of 35% were applied to Kyushu, and it likely would have been much worse, then around 270,000 US combatants would have perished… that’s just Kyushu.. that’s just with the initial invasion force.

87 goddamnedfrank  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:41:57am

re: #74 Dark_Falcon

Was Clash of the Titans worth seeing?

You must have me confused with a masochist, just referencing.

88 Mad Al-Jaffee  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:43:16am

Another interesting movie about a nuke scenario is Deterrence.

89 ShaunP  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:44:01am

The wording of this is very specific. Is it possible that this is just a way to bait N. Korea back into the NPT?

90 albusteve  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:44:34am

re: #72 Capitalist Tool

I’m kind of in the same boat, except it would have been my Dad fighting. He’s one of those old WWII- Korean War- era Marines… I was born in ‘51.

Over 12,000 US soldiers, sailors and airmen died during the battle for Okinawa against 3 divisions of Japanese troops who were essentially cut off from any aid. Over 70,000 Japanese combatants lost their lives along with 80,000 Okinawan civilians.
To believe that an invasion of the home islands would have been preferable to the bomb defies any logic or simple metric.
Even after Hiroshima, there were revolts against and assassinations of any Japanese politician who dared to openly speak of peace, or surrender. The militarists would not quit.

Still, there are many worldwide- as well as here- who continue to damn the US for the bombings.

losing Saipan, Japan knew it was finished militarily…if we had the bomb at that point it should have been used…but we didn’t and I have mixed thoughts about Okinawa, but we had to press on and not give Japan any relief

91 Capitalist Tool  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:45:42am

re: #81 EmmmieG

Not that I would ever say it, because it would just have been picking a fight, but I used to look at my Japanese friends and think “You wouldn’t be here, either.”


My first nuclear physics class was taught by a Japanese professor, Dr. Katsunori Mita.
He was of the same opinion, more or less.

92 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:45:56am

re: #77 bloodstar

I can’t be the only person who read this as not changing a whole heck of a lot, but it sure sounds nice and people will like us for saying it?

If you’re allowed to reconsider this policy in light of a non nuclear attack, then really, I’d hope the 24 hour rule applies when dealing with millions of lives anyway.

Honestly, I think we would do what ever we thought was necessary at any given moment, and all statements like these would be off the table.

93 albusteve  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:46:23am

re: #80 jamesfirecat

Actually like the way you think on that one. Ground also then should be ready fertilized for some new more reasonable people to move in…

JOBS!

94 drcordell  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:46:59am

re: #65 CyanSnowHawk

Pretty much what I was thinking when I read this. I don’t really disagree with the policy on the use of nuclear weapons, but I sure as hell disagree with the policy of announcing it to the whole freaking world. I’m getting the impression that this administration would hire a marching band to celebrate being dealt a Royal Flush.

He’s conducting a Congressionally-mandated review of the nation’s nuclear defense strategy. Apparently that’s not newsworthy to you? You’d prefer some nice pictures of the White House Easter Egg roll maybe?

95 Capitalist Tool  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:47:33am

re: #92 Walter L. Newton

Honestly, I think we would do what ever we thought was necessary at any given moment, and all statements like these would be off the table.


Most likely. Never can tell about political idiocy, or hidden agendas, however.

96 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:47:36am

re: #65 CyanSnowHawk

I’ve been playing poker for twenty years and never gotten a royal flush.

I might hire a marching band if I got one.

97 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:48:08am

re: #74 Dark_Falcon

Was Clash of the Titans worth seeing?

The reviews I’ve seen so far indicate no. The 3D is flat and muddy, and the story is dull and lifeless. Rotten Tomatoes had it at 30% yesterday when I had a look. I’ve not seen it, so can only relay info second hand though.

98 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:48:35am

re: #88 Mad Al-Jaffee

Another interesting movie about a nuke scenario is Deterrence.

That’s a pretty good movie, IMO.

99 gegenkritik  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:48:44am

Sorry for offtopic, but here’s an interesting article by Yaacov Lozowick about this Wikileaks-Video:

Collateral… What?

Sadly, the needs of a democracy for transparency, and the needs for a military in obscureness, while both are legitimate, really do contradict each other sometimes. You’d think any reasonable person could appreciate the problem; alas, you’d obviously be wrong.

Also, interpreting human action is complicated. Whoever claims otherwise, be they journalists, politicians, human rights activists, bloggers: they’re all quacks. Serious scholars who spend their lives on slow, well-informed attempts, often get it wrong. The immediate-truth-brigade doesn’t really stand a chance.

(Disclaimer: Lozowick is also an outspoken defender of Israel, so I apologize if a link to his blog offends any of the “pro”-Israel people here).

100 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:49:22am

re: #97 CyanSnowHawk

The reviews I’ve seen so far indicate no. The 3D is flat and muddy, and the story is dull and lifeless. Rotten Tomatoes had it at 30% yesterday when I had a look. I’ve not seen it, so can only relay info second hand though.

Thank you, still. That helps.

101 drcordell  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:49:52am

re: #99 gegenkritik

Sorry for offtopic, but here’s an interesting article by Yaacov Lozowick about this Wikileaks-Video:

Collateral… What?

(Disclaimer: Lozowick is also an outspoken defender of Israel, so I apologize if a link to his blog offends any of the “pro”-Israel people here).

I apologize for insinuating that you are a “prick” for using the term “pro”-Israel.

102 albusteve  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:49:53am

re: #96 Obdicut

I’ve been playing poker for twenty years and never gotten a royal flush.

I might hire a marching band if I got one.

I was playing cribbage with my dad and he hit a 29…maybe more unlikely than a royal flush

103 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:50:14am

re: #99 gegenkritik

You claimed SFZ was anti-Israel. You suck.

104 Capitalist Tool  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:50:28am

re: #97 CyanSnowHawk

The reviews I’ve seen so far indicate no. The 3D is flat and muddy, and the story is dull and lifeless. Rotten Tomatoes had it at 30% yesterday when I had a look. I’ve not seen it, so can only relay info second hand though.


Speaking of 3D, early reports from friends about 3D TV are that it makes Avatar look like it was filmed with a Brownie-flex.

105 jamesfirecat  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:50:59am

re: #99 gegenkritik

Sorry for offtopic, but here’s an interesting article by Yaacov Lozowick about this Wikileaks-Video:

Collateral… What?

(Disclaimer: Lozowick is also an outspoken defender of Israel, so I apologize if a link to his blog offends any of the “pro”-Israel people here).

I don’t get your thought process in your disclaimer… wouldn’t that be like saying “Person X is an outspoken member of PETA so I apologize if a link to their blog offends any of the vegetarians here”?

106 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:52:18am

re: #105 jamesfirecat

I don’t get your thought process in your disclaimer… wouldn’t that be like saying “Person X is an outspoken member of PETA so I apologize if a link to their blog offends any of the vegetarians here”?

Don’t bother with logic.

107 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:52:18am

re: #94 drcordell

Your opinion. The administration says… “Obama is committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that comply with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attack the US with biological or chemical weapons.”

Would there be any level of an attack of this nature (biological or chemical weapons) that you think the administration should take this off the table and retaliate with nukes if we were absolutely sure of the state who sponsored this attack?

Or, no matter how widespread and devastating a biological or chemical weapons attack could be made on this country, if we said we would not use nukes to retaliate, we should stick to that promise?

108 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:52:50am

re: #99 gegenkritik

Sorry for offtopic, but here’s an interesting article by Yaacov Lozowick about this Wikileaks-Video:

Collateral… What?

(Disclaimer: Lozowick is also an outspoken defender of Israel, so I apologize if a link to his blog offends any of the “pro”-Israel people here).

That’s a good and fair-minded article, gegenkritik. Thank you for posting it. Still, I’d ask you to please hold off on the preemptive hostility when posting something like that. It keeps you from getting the updings you post would otherwise deserve.

109 avanti  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:53:00am

re: #76 Walter L. Newton

What ever we decide to do based on the facts and evidence. A retaliation checklist is a useless device.

That’s why I go back to my statement “I think a vague public strategy is the best public strategy.”

Actually, a mandated update was overdue:

Newsweek.

110 Gus  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:53:08am

re: #99 gegenkritik

There you go again with the snarky innuendo. That’s number two for today. I guess you’ve gotten to the point where you can’t post something here without attempting to insult people here based on your bigoted view of them.

111 [deleted]  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:53:16am
112 Mad Al-Jaffee  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:53:42am

re: #97 CyanSnowHawk

The reviews I’ve seen so far indicate no. The 3D is flat and muddy, and the story is dull and lifeless. Rotten Tomatoes had it at 30% yesterday when I had a look. I’ve not seen it, so can only relay info second hand though.

Does it have boobies? The original one did. That’s something I appreciated at 11 years old.

113 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:53:49am

re: #94 drcordell

He’s conducting a Congressionally-mandated review of the nation’s nuclear defense strategy. Apparently that’s not newsworthy to you? You’d prefer some nice pictures of the White House Easter Egg roll maybe?

Do you have any concept whatsoever of OPSEC? The only information that should be publicly acknowledged about our nuclear weapons and the policies on use should be “Yes, we have them, No we will not tell you when we might use them.”

114 subsailor68  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:53:51am

re: #96 Obdicut

I’ve been playing poker for twenty years and never gotten a royal flush.

I might hire a marching band if I got one.

Hi Obdicut! LOL! But, remember - don’t let them start playing until the hand is over and you’ve raked in the pot.

;-)

115 Capitalist Tool  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:54:28am

re: #112 Mad Al-Jaffee

Does it have boobies? The original one did. That’s something I appreciated at 11 years old.


Hoping you still do… c’mon holodeck!

116 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:55:11am

re: #109 avanti

Actually, a mandated update was overdue:

Newsweek.

Fine… and was he mandated to frame the “update” in the language he did? Of course not.

117 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:55:46am

re: #111 gegenkritik

People who do not condemn Islam unilaterally are not ‘ignoring’ the problems that Israel faces, no.

And no go on trashtalking, moron.

I’d like to nominate this sentence to win today’s Immediate Hypocrisy award.

118 Mad Al-Jaffee  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:55:56am

re: #115 Capitalist Tool

Hoping you still do… c’mon holodeck!

Oh I do, even more so now!

119 [deleted]  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:56:14am
120 MilkOfMalfeasance  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:56:43am

re: #14 Charles

She’s a delight.

/wretch

121 drcordell  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 10:59:19am

re: #107 Walter L. Newton

Your opinion. The administration says… “Obama is committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that comply with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attack the US with biological or chemical weapons.”

Would there be any level of an attack of this nature (biological or chemical weapons) that you think the administration should take this off the table and retaliate with nukes if we were absolutely sure of the state who sponsored this attack?

Or, no matter how widespread and devastating a biological or chemical weapons attack could be made on this country, if we said we would not use nukes to retaliate, we should stick to that promise?

First and foremost I think it should be fairly obvious that a large number details regarding our nuclear policy that will remain classified. Additionally, I think it should be noted that this policy doesn’t seem to be binding in any, way, shape or form.

To me, the entire purpose of announcing this shift in policy is for the purposes of non-proliferation. Obama is attempting to reach out to the world’s non-nuclear powers and show them that they do not need to develop nuclear weapons in order to protect themselves against a U.S. nuclear-strike. It has less to do with U.S. military strategy and more to do with diplomacy.

Personally I do not think that the use of a nuclear weapon against a nation in response to a chemical or biological terror attack would be warranted. Our conventional military power is more than sufficient to inflict whatever degree of damage we wish upon a nation that is a state sponsor of terror. Not to mention the fact that the burden of the humanitarian crisis created by a nuclear weapons strike on a civilian population would end up being placed on the U.S. I have no desire to incinerate tens of thousands of civilians and then pay for the medical treatment of the rest we didn’t kill.

122 lostlakehiker  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:00:04am

re: #53 garhighway

Agree: the thornier issues in this space are posed by the non-state actors. Against whom nukes are not useful.

It’s not clear even how useful nukes are against state actors. Nukes, when used against big cities, pose a threat to the next decade or two of world farming.

Here are some considerations.

(1) How much damage did we take?

(2) How much damage would we stand to take if another round of attacks were to occur?

(3) Can we prevent a second round of attacks by nuking the places from which such attacks would otherwise be mounted?

(4) How much collateral damage would we inflict, particularly on ourselves, secondarily on innocent third parties?

If (1) is small, we should be slow to wrath. A few thousands or tens of thousands of dead is not sufficient grounds for a nuclear response. We can exact retribution by conventional means.

If (2) is small, all the more reason to keep our nukes in their silos and sheds.

If the answer to (3) is no, then the only reason to have a policy of using nukes anyhow is deterrence. Non-state actors might be susceptible to deterrence; any large and effective organization must surely include decision makers who want their own society to survive. The smaller the slice of society that is needed to mount an attack, the less we can be sure that it will include people who care about the fate of the larger society they live in.

The answer to (4) again varies with the extent to which the society from which the attack was mounted is involved. Consider two extremes: first extreme: if, say, the attack came not from Pakistan, but from rogue elements in the ISI that were able to suborn key officers in the Pakistani Strategic Rocket force, then for all practical purposes, it came from Pakistan as a nation. Those officers ought to know, in advance, that we would not cut Pakistan any slack because the president or other officials who were left out of the loop were not involved. Second extreme: the attack came from a mad scientist working at a lab somewhere who quit, snuck out some nasty viruses, and proceeded from there with the help of six friends.

We won’t have any way to know for sure just how much involvement a State agency had in an attack, but we can make guesses. Some attacks simply cannot be mounted without access to resources that only a nation-state can produce.

Question (4) is very important. Any large-scale incineration of cities must throw dangerous quantities of fine soot into the stratosphere. We would then have to get through some decades of below-normal sunlight at ground level. A spasm-type nuclear war between two major powers would plunge the earth into a severe famine, with near total crop failures everywhere for several years or even decades. Humanity as a species would almost surely come through, for there are isolated reserves of grain and other foods, but not one person in a thousand would survive.

The thermonuclear destruction of a “small” number big cities would carry in its wake a major worldwide famine. Millions or billions would die. Who can be sure there wouldn’t be a second war over food? And if that went nuclear, then we’re back to Armageddon-famine.
(Scientific American ran an article on the soot problem, several months to a year back.)

We cannot afford to use our own nukes on any substantial number of enemy cities because the collateral damage to ourselves would exceed the direct effect on ourselves of having that number of our own cities nuked. Conservely, no halfway sane enemy can afford to hit enough of our cities to crush us, because he would be signing his own death warrant even if we didn’t retaliate. The smoke from our dead cities would starve him.

Executive summary: nukes are satanic weapons and any policy on their use must be very heavily weighted on the side of caution.

123 gegenkritik  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:00:13am

re: #105 jamesfirecat

I don’t get your thought process in your disclaimer… wouldn’t that be like saying “Person X is an outspoken member of PETA so I apologize if a link to their blog offends any of the vegetarians here”?

The quotation marks in the “pro”-Israel give a hint that those people are actually not pro Israel. It’s those people who denounce every critique of Islam, cry over Jews who build houses in Israel but at the same tie consider themselves as pro-Israel.

124 drcordell  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:01:41am

re: #113 CyanSnowHawk

Do you have any concept whatsoever of OPSEC? The only information that should be publicly acknowledged about our nuclear weapons and the policies on use should be “Yes, we have them, No we will not tell you when we might use them.”

That’s a mighty fine opinion you have. Except for the fact that this isn’t the way the United States has operated since at least 2002. So, please go ahead and continue your Obama Derangement Syndrome unabated. I’ll be here watching your meltdown while he simply continues to act in the exact same manner as President Bush did with regard to discussing our nuclear strategies.

125 avanti  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:01:49am

re: #116 Walter L. Newton

Fine… and was he mandated to frame the “update” in the language he did? Of course not.

I don’t disagree with the language, you may. The point was that the review was not just a whim on the POTUS’s part. BTW, this line in the Newsweek piece has the right wing blogs going nuts.

“According to a knowledgeable source who would not be identified discussing sensitive national-security matters, President Obama wasn’t briefed on the U.S. nuclear-strike plan against Russia and China until some months after he had taken office. “

126 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:02:19am

re: #119 gegenkritik

Actually, that’s a good way to avoid “updings” from people I don’t share any views with.

With respect, that’s the wrong way to think about it. That’s the sort of thinking Fred Phelps uses (I am not comparing you to him more generally, as you do not say things that are utterly hateful like he does): Seeing oneself as shouting the truth to the heathen, with no expectation they will listen. If you want people to listen (and I think you do) you need to phrase your posts better. Just my opinion, take it as you will.

127 Capitalist Tool  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:04:21am

re: #126 Dark_Falcon

With respect, that’s the wrong way to think about it. That’s the sort of thinking Fred Phelps uses (I am not comparing you to him more generally, as you do not say things that are utterly hateful like he does): Seeing oneself as shouting the truth to the heathen, with no expectation they will listen. If you want people to listen (and I think you do) you need to phrase your posts better. Just my opinion, take it as you will.


Agreed.
It’s all too easy to shoot yourself in the foot, or otherwise betray yourself.

128 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:04:23am

re: #123 gegenkritik

And you decided to do this by, at one point, renaming SFZ as SanFranciscoAntiZionist, which was disgusting of you.

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]

129 [deleted]  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:05:14am
130 Gus  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:05:48am

re: #129 gegenkritik

Troll.

131 [deleted]  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:05:55am
132 drcordell  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:06:01am

re: #123 gegenkritik

The quotation marks in the “pro”-Israel give a hint that those people are actually not pro Israel. It’s those people who denounce every critique of Islam, cry over Jews who build houses in Israel but at the same tie consider themselves as pro-Israel.

Yes gegenkritik, it’s completely obvious what you meant by “pro” Israel. It’s the same trope used by Sarah Palin to differentiate between Americans and “real” Americans.

133 charles_martel  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:08:07am

re: #78 avanti

There was a movie based on that, we traded cities to be nuked to even the scale.

“Fail Safe”. Excellent movie.

134 [deleted]  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:08:24am
135 Charles Johnson  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:08:29am

re: #129 gegenkritik

If you continue with this baiting crap, I’m simply going to block your account. I’m sick and tired of it, and I’m not going to let you hijack any more threads with this bullshit.

136 [deleted]  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:09:57am
137 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:10:11am

re: #135 Charles

If you continue with this baiting crap, I’m simply going to block your account. I’m sick and tired of it, and I’m not going to let you hijack any more threads with this bullshit.

Thanks for that. He’s got opinions, fine, he’s got points to make, fine, he has facts to share, fine… but the bullshit dumping on Lizards… not fine.

138 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:10:16am

re: #123 gegenkritik

The quotation marks in the “pro”-Israel give a hint that those people are actually not pro Israel. It’s those people who denounce every critique of Islam, cry over Jews who build houses in Israel but at the same tie consider themselves as pro-Israel.

calling a good Jewish person who we know well an “anti-zionist” only proves your utter inability to diagnose the world around us.

139 The Curmudgeon  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:10:20am

The problem in the world since 1945 hasn’t been that the US is running around nuking everyone. But that’s what Obama’s policy is aimed at fixing. He misunderstands — perhaps in ignorance, perhaps not — the whole object of our having nukes. It’s to provide an effective deterrent to potential aggressors. By reducing that deterrent, we risk — however slightly — giving encouragement to the crazies out there. Sorry, guys, but this policy is misguided.

140 Charles Johnson  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:10:27am

re: #136 gegenkritik

You asked for it, you got it.

141 Gus  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:10:36am

re: #136 gegenkritik

Good bye!

142 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:11:08am

re: #136 gegenkritik

taille moi un pompier, trou de cul.

143 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:11:18am

I’ve baked some brownies for the barbecue.

144 Jack Burton  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:12:02am

re: #136 gegenkritik

Youtube Video
145 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:12:02am

re: #137 Walter L. Newton

Thanks for that. He’s got opinions, fine, he’s got points to make, fine, he has facts to share, fine… but the bullshit dumping on Lizards… not fine.

If Charles decides to block his account… fine.

146 MrSilverDragon  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:12:33am

re: #136 gegenkritik

Good night, and… well, just good night.

147 Randall Gross  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:12:42am

I don’t see much change here. Nukes are not going to be the most dangerous weapons within a couple of decades, just the flashiest.

148 Charles Johnson  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:12:50am

Now will come the inevitable hate mail, which will be filed immediately in the trash.

149 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:12:59am

BBIAB - got to get ready for work.

150 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:13:05am

re: #124 drcordell

That’s a mighty fine opinion you have. Except for the fact that this isn’t the way the United States has operated since at least 2002. So, please go ahead and continue your Obama Derangement Syndrome unabated. I’ll be here watching your meltdown while he simply continues to act in the exact same manner as President Bush did with regard to discussing our nuclear strategies.

If Bush announced said policies in a similarly public manner, then my criticism stands for him as well ON THAT POINT.

151 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:13:30am

re: #142 Aceofwhat?

Yeah, I had a feeling when I couldn’t read that right off it contained the kinds of words my high school French teacher never taught us.

152 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:13:39am

re: #148 Charles

it’s all so unoriginal…

153 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:14:38am

re: #151 EmmmieG

Yeah, I had a feeling when I couldn’t read that right off it contained the kinds of words my high school French teacher never taught us.

that and a particularly…uhhh…creative expression that i always liked.

154 goddamnedfrank  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:15:09am

re: #128 Obdicut

And you decided to do this by, at one point, renaming SFZ as SanFranciscoAntiZionist, which was disgusting of you.

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]

I thought that halal-bratwurst was the best one. Meta-turning the dietary equivalent of kosher into an insult takes religious intolerance to a whole new level. It is simultaneously hilarious and very sad that he meant it in earnest.

155 MrSilverDragon  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:15:10am

re: #148 Charles

Now will come the inevitable hate mail, which will be filed immediately in the trash.

Or possibly the begging of forgiveness to be allowed back… nah.

156 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:15:20am

re: #136 gegenkritik

“And so Charles, tiring of the troll’s endless spewing, shoved a martyr cookie up its arse before braining it with the great Ban Stick Clue-by-Four. After this, the Lizard Army gathered to feast on the trolls Gamey Buttocks. For the weather was now fair, and Dark_Falcon could grill them properly.”

157 harrylook  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:16:55am

re: #142 Aceofwhat?

taille moi un pompier, trou de cul.

trou *du* cul. It’s a good insult - I want to make sure you deliver it perfectly. :)

158 jamesfirecat  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:17:05am

re: #156 Dark_Falcon

“And so Charles, tiring of the troll’s endless spewing, shoved a martyr cookie up its arse before braining it with the great Ban Stick Clue-by-Four. After this, the Lizard Army gathered to feast on the trolls Gamey Buttocks. For the weather was now fair, and Dark_Falcon could grill them properly.”

And there was much rejoicing.

159 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:17:16am

re: #155 MrSilverDragon

Or possibly the begging of forgiveness to be allowed back… nah.

I don’t think a humble apology or request is his strong suit.

160 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:17:41am

re: #155 MrSilverDragon

Or possibly the begging of forgiveness to be allowed back… nah.

No, he clearly wanted to be booted. He’s the kind who will wear the imprint of Charles’ bicycle cleat as a badge of honor. Expect him to pop up on the stalker blog within an hour.

161 drcordell  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:18:08am

re: #150 CyanSnowHawk

If Bush announced said policies in a similarly public manner, then my criticism stands for him as well ON THAT POINT.

So you think our foreign policy with regard for nuclear weapons should be completely opaque? Non-nuclear weapons states should be operating on the assumption that the U.S. will use nuclear weapons against them? It’s good for non-proliferation for nations to assume that acquiring a nuclear deterrent is the only way to guarantee they will not be hit with a nuke themselves?

162 badger1970  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:18:09am

re: #158 jamesfirecat

*yeah*

163 MrSilverDragon  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:18:11am

re: #156 Dark_Falcon

“And so Charles, tiring of the troll’s endless spewing, shoved a martyr cookie up its arse before braining it with the great Ban Stick Clue-by-Four. After this, the Lizard Army gathered to feast on the trolls Gamey Buttocks. For the weather was now fair, and Dark_Falcon could grill them properly.”

And the Lord did grin, and people did feast upon the lambs, and sloths, and carp, and anchovies, and orangutans, and breakfast cereals, and fruit bats, and large…

…</Monty Python>

164 Kilroy01  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:18:57am

Let’s be honest. If a country uses biological or chemical weapons on the United States, the United States will respond. The effects of these weapons, if deployed to maximum effect (subway, domed stadium ect..) would be devastating to people. However it doesn’t touch the infrastructure.
The financial harm to the nation isn’t long lasting.
I’d suggest anyone who wonders what a nuclear bomb blast does to civilian populations just look at the results of the two, now tiny, atomic bombs on Japan.

Nuclear weapons are a strategic deterrent against other people with nuclear weapons. We may soon see if Israel and Iran can make MAD work like it did for the US and Soviet Union.

165 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:19:09am

re: #157 harrylook

trou *du* cul. It’s a good insult - I want to make sure you deliver it perfectly. :)

quite right. i’ve written it wrong for 20 years - it’s just a reflex. i pronounce it more like “trou d’cul”, so I always fall for the phonetic rather than the grammatically correct spelling.

166 Eclectic Infidel  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:19:18am

re: #2 SpaceJesus

that’s fine, so long as we strike back with chemical and biological weapons

Why? Why not just strike back with conventional weapons? Why punish the civilian population for the actions of their government? What’s wrong with just using surgical strikes against government and military targets?

167 jamesfirecat  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:19:23am

Anyways, as much fun as it is to hang around here with you lizards I’ve got some homework to work on I maybe back in an hour or three though….

168 MrSilverDragon  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:20:01am

re: #159 CyanSnowHawk

re: #160 Dark_Falcon

But can you just imagine how horrible that apology letter would be? Makes me snicker just thinking about it.

169 jamesfirecat  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:21:05am

re: #164 Kilroy01

Let’s be honest. If a country uses biological or chemical weapons on the United States, the United States will respond. The effects of these weapons, if deployed to maximum effect (subway, domed stadium ect..) would be devastating to people. However it doesn’t touch the infrastructure.
The financial harm to the nation isn’t long lasting.
I’d suggest anyone who wonders what a nuclear bomb blast does to civilian populations just look at the results of the two, now tiny, atomic bombs on Japan.

Nuclear weapons are a strategic deterrent against other people with nuclear weapons. We may soon see if Israel and Iran can make MAD work like it did for the US and Soviet Union.

The niggling feeling in my gut that makes me afraid that it might not work is that the US and the USSR had a disagreement over economic issues, and which economic system was better, a debate settled when one of them went bankrupt and the other didn’t.

Israel and Iran are arguing over religious issues which have a way of making that much more complicated….

170 keloyd  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:21:13am

re: #166 eclectic infidel

Besides, we (wink) signed a treaty, and (wink) don’t have biological weapons (wink wink).

171 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:21:15am

re: #166 eclectic infidel

Why? Why not just strike back with conventional weapons? Why punish the civilian population for the actions of their government? What’s wrong with just using surgical strikes against government and military targets?

our not being able to imagine a scenario where a larger strike saves more lives in the long run does not mean that such a scenario is guaranteed never to happen.

172 jamesfirecat  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:21:45am

re: #170 keloyd

Besides, we (wink) signed a treaty, and (wink) don’t have biological weapons (wink wink).

Know what I mean, know what I mean? Say no more, say no more!

173 keloyd  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:24:57am

re: #169 jamesfirecat

I too will be happier in 50 years when Israel has done a deal, Iran is a quisling of either the Chinese or Russians, and our big enemy is China. They’re easy to read and ruthlessly rational, as an international political adversary - a good, honest, what-you-see-is-what-you-get enemy, kind of like Britain and France used to be for each other.

174 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:25:08am

re: #161 drcordell

So you think our foreign policy with regard for nuclear weapons should be completely opaque? Non-nuclear weapons states should be operating on the assumption that the U.S. will use nuclear weapons against them? It’s good for non-proliferation for nations to assume that acquiring a nuclear deterrent is the only way to guarantee they will not be hit with a nuke themselves?

Publicly opaque would be suitable.

175 Gus  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:25:10am

I think Gates said it well today:

New U.S. Nuclear Policy Sends ‘Strong Message’ To Iran, North Korea, Officials Say

“I actually think that the NPR [review] has a very strong message for both Iran and North Korea,” Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said. “We essentially carve out states like Iran and North Korea that are not in compliance with NPT.”

The message to these countries, Gates said, “is that if you’re going to play by the rules … then we will undertake certain obligations to you. But if you’re not going to play by the rules, then all options are on the table.”

Gates told reporters the United States will “hold accountable” terrorist states despite the new policy and will continue to go after terrorists who want to acquire weapons of mass destruction.

There is also the caveat that the United States can revisit the policies if circumstances change.

“The United States reserves the right to make any adjustment to this policy,” he said. “We also recognize the real world we continue to live in.”

There you have it: The United States reserves the right to make any adjustment to this policy.

176 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:27:28am

re: #175 Gus 802

I think Gates said it well today:

New U.S. Nuclear Policy Sends ‘Strong Message’ To Iran, North Korea, Officials Say

There you have it: The United States reserves the right to make any adjustment to this policy.

that’s a good way of stating it. But those who dislike either the administration and America in general will still see the weakness they are determined to see.

177 Cato the Elder  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:32:10am

The Sanity Inspector is now inspecting Gegenkritik’s critical faculties for sanity, whilst Gegenkritik critiques The Sanity Inspector’s critical soundness.

In bed.

178 darthstar  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:32:53am

re: #176 Dark_Falcon

that’s a good way of stating it. But those who dislike either the administration and America in general will still see the weakness they are determined to see.

Those who dislike the administration and thus dismiss everything it does as a threat to their freedom can read this.

179 Gus  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:33:20am

re: #176 Dark_Falcon

that’s a good way of stating it. But those who dislike either the administration and America in general will still see the weakness they are determined to see.

True. But they can think all they want to think but they’d still be delusional. With regards to deliverable warheads even if we cut it down to 1000 or 600 that would be enough firepower to destroy almost all life on Earth as we know it. Right now we have approximately 5,500 warheads. That doesn’t include deliverable warheads. Those numbers were based on survivability during an attack from the Soviet Union or China during the Cold War.

180 drcordell  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:35:20am

re: #174 CyanSnowHawk

Publicly opaque would be suitable.

You’re certainly entitled to your own perspective, but that doesn’t really make much sense. What the hell kind of a deterrent is a completely opaque nuclear policy? Obama has made it explicitly clear that we are fully prepared to wield our nuclear club at any nation that isn’t a signatory of the NPT. If you are, don’t worry about us nuking you. If you aren’t, might want to watch yourself. That seems like a much more effective use of our deterrence than complete opacity.

181 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:35:29am

re: #173 keloyd

I too will be happier in 50 years when Israel has done a deal, Iran is a quisling of either the Chinese or Russians, and our big enemy is China. They’re easy to read and ruthlessly rational, as an international political adversary - a good, honest, what-you-see-is-what-you-get enemy, kind of like Britain and France used to be for each other.



i like Chineeese…i like Chineeese…

182 Gus  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:35:47am

re: #176 Dark_Falcon

that’s a good way of stating it. But those who dislike either the administration and America in general will still see the weakness they are determined to see.

Also. It will be disliked by those that want to see the current policy maintained or those that wanted to see full disarmament from the president. The latter of course would be in line with those that want to see the creation of “Department of Peace”, etc.

183 drcordell  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:36:29am

re: #179 Gus 802

True. But they can think all they want to think but they’d still be delusional. With regards to deliverable warheads even if we cut it down to 1000 or 600 that would be enough firepower to destroy almost all life on Earth as we know it. Right now we have approximately 5,500 warheads. That doesn’t include deliverable warheads. Those numbers were based on survivability during an attack from the Soviet Union or China during the Cold War.

The last President to seriously try and reduce our nuclear stockpile was that hippie Reagan. Obama is just following in his liberal footsteps.

184 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:36:36am

re: #182 Gus 802

heh

185 webevintage  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:36:57am

Posting on the run.

This is what has made me laugh today:
April 6th is Congresswoman Bachmann’s birthday! Take this opportunity to show your appreciation for her tireless work advancing your freedoms and fighting back against liberal, big government intrusion into your life.
[Link: www.ipetitions.com…]
Some of the signatures are just a hoot!!
[Link: www.ipetitions.com…]

186 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:38:20am

re: #180 drcordell

You’re certainly entitled to your own perspective, but that doesn’t really make much sense. What the hell kind of a deterrent is a completely opaque nuclear policy? Obama has made it explicitly clear that we are fully prepared to wield our nuclear club at any nation that isn’t a signatory of the NPT. If you are, don’t worry about us nuking you. If you aren’t, might want to watch yourself. That seems like a much more effective use of our deterrence than complete opacity.

And what if a signatory of the NPT nukes us? What should our response be. Honest question. I agree with most of what you say, just have a little problem with locking any option in stone. We have to be ready to adapt and change if necessary.

187 Capitalist Tool  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:39:09am

re: #14 Charles
I am personally aware of P.G. and myriad others like her only through links in these pages.
I suppose Charles needs to open a mechanism of balance to the insanities and inanities… that’s what blogs are about.
Unless my attention is drawn to promulgators of information or opinion, or they somehow pique my interests, they remain unknown to me.
If they don’t rise to my level, I’ll not find them on theirs.

188 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:39:38am

re: #185 webevintage

Posting on the run.

This is what has made me laugh today:
April 6th is Congresswoman Bachmann’s birthday! Take this opportunity to show your appreciation for her tireless work advancing your freedoms and fighting back against liberal, big government intrusion into your life.
[Link: www.ipetitions.com…]
Some of the signatures are just a hoot!!
[Link: www.ipetitions.com…]

Apparently she was 5 days late.

189 Stuart Leviton  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:39:41am

re: #99 gegenkritik
Thanks genenkritik. That was one troubling film to watch.

190 ryannon  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:39:54am

re: #23 jamesfirecat

Well I guess the president shouldn’t be trying to remind the world that America is one of the good guys who isn’t about to go around using nukes on those who have no effective way to respond to us glassing their country…

Other than gassing ours - in a first-strike.

Things are sure getting ugly out there.

(same as it ever was - only the centrifuge is speeding up)

191 lawhawk  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:40:17am

re: #179 Gus 802

Current inventory is about 4,075 with what the report calls about 200 spares. That includes Minuteman III, Trident Mk 3 and 4, and air launched cruise missiles and bombs.

Another 1,260 are in reserve. Another 5,000+ are awaiting dismantlement.

President Bush ordered the dismantlement of about 50% of the US inventory then in existence (over 10,000 total) in 2004; the result was achieved 5 years early. The stockpile is supposed to be further reduced by 15% by 2012.

192 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:40:24am

re: #185 webevintage

Posting on the run.

This is what has made me laugh today:
April 6th is Congresswoman Bachmann’s birthday! Take this opportunity to show your appreciation for her tireless work advancing your freedoms and fighting back against liberal, big government intrusion into your life.
[Link: www.ipetitions.com…]
Some of the signatures are just a hoot!!
[Link: www.ipetitions.com…]

Good to see that Jack Mehoff made a first-page appearance!

193 keloyd  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:41:07am

re: #181 Aceofwhat?


i like Chineeese…i like Chineeese…

HA! My spidey sense was tingling, and then it was exactly what I guessed. No one does ethnic humor like the British, and few are easy targets like the British.

194 drcordell  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:41:09am

re: #186 Walter L. Newton

And what if a signatory of the NPT nukes us? What should our response be. Honest question. I agree with most of what you say, just have a little problem with locking any option in stone. We have to be ready to adapt and change if necessary.

None of this is locked in stone. Absolutely none of it. That is made quite crystal clear in all of the source articles for this story.

195 drcordell  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:42:19am

re: #186 Walter L. Newton

And what if a signatory of the NPT nukes us? What should our response be. Honest question. I agree with most of what you say, just have a little problem with locking any option in stone. We have to be ready to adapt and change if necessary.

Also, read your own question. By definition a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty doesn’t have nuclear weapons. If you are a signatory and you get nukes, you are kicked out. See: North Korea.

197 Kilroy01  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:42:38am

re: #169 jamesfirecat

I know it may sound sappy but don’t you think Iranian’s love their children too? Israel has somewhere between 100 and 300 nuclear devices and missiles that can deliver them. I can’t see why Iran would invite megadeath no matter how “religious” their leaders.

198 Gus  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:43:38am

re: #186 Walter L. Newton

And what if a signatory of the NPT nukes us? What should our response be. Honest question. I agree with most of what you say, just have a little problem with locking any option in stone. We have to be ready to adapt and change if necessary.

If this is correct than the option of a nuclear strike remains open:

But Mr. Bush’s document also reserved the right to use nuclear weapons “to deter a wide range of threats,” including banned chemical and biological weapons and large-scale conventional attacks. Mr. Obama’s strategy abandons that option — except if the attack is by a nuclear state, or a nonsignatory or violator of the nonproliferation treaty.

This is from the article linked above.

199 MrSilverDragon  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:44:44am

re: #197 Kilroy01

I know it may sound sappy but don’t you think Iranian’s love their children too? Israel has somewhere between 100 and 300 nuclear devices and missiles that can deliver them. I can’t see why Iran would invite megadeath no matter how “religious” their leaders.

I think the Iranian people love their children. I think the Iranian ideology of most of its religious hierarchical body doesn’t give a damn.

200 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:44:55am

re: #195 drcordell

re: #198 Gus 802

That’s why I asked… thanks for the info.

201 lawhawk  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:45:03am

re: #194 drcordell

So, if none of this is locked in stone, why take a position that makes it all the more difficult for the president to deal with politically should we actually suffer from a terror strike using nukes or biologicals that can be tied back to a rogue regime (not including Iran or North Korea).

Obama wants to change his mind at any time? That’s fine. But why make the pronoucement at all if it’s not set in stone. Simply state that the mandated review has been undertaken and the US reserves the right to conduct its national nuclear strategy as it deems prudent.

Instead, he risks angering both sides of the aisle - the right for being weak on national security and from the left for not going far enough.

202 ryannon  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:46:43am

re: #197 Kilroy01

I know it may sound sappy but don’t you think Iranian’s love their children too? Israel has somewhere between 100 and 300 nuclear devices and missiles that can deliver them. I can’t see why Iran would invite megadeath no matter how “religious” their leaders.

Hi! My name is Mahdi, and I’ll be serving you tonight!

203 Decatur Deb  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:47:18am

re: #194 drcordell

None of this is locked in stone. Absolutely none of it. That is made quite crystal clear in all of the source articles for this story.

Yes. This is hardly more than the Pres telling the world what the Pres thinks about weapon use. Unless it is converted into real-world changes in stockpiles or deployments, it can be reversed in less time than it takes to sign it. The value is mostly internal and external gamesmanship.

204 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:47:41am

re: #201 lawhawk

So, if none of this is locked in stone, why take a position that makes it all the more difficult for the president to deal with politically should we actually suffer from a terror strike using nukes or biologicals that can be tied back to a rogue regime (not including Iran or North Korea).

Obama wants to change his mind at any time? That’s fine. But why make the pronoucement at all if it’s not set in stone. Simply state that the mandated review has been undertaken and the US reserves the right to conduct its national nuclear strategy as it deems prudent.

Instead, he risks angering both sides of the aisle - the right for being weak on national security and from the left for not going far enough.

Well, he would be unifying both extremes then, so he has that going for him.
/

205 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:48:11am

re: #201 lawhawk

So, if none of this is locked in stone, why take a position that makes it all the more difficult for the president to deal with politically should we actually suffer from a terror strike using nukes or biologicals that can be tied back to a rogue regime (not including Iran or North Korea).

Obama wants to change his mind at any time? That’s fine. But why make the pronoucement at all if it’s not set in stone. Simply state that the mandated review has been undertaken and the US reserves the right to conduct its national nuclear strategy as it deems prudent.

Instead, he risks angering both sides of the aisle - the right for being weak on national security and from the left for not going far enough.

After reading your comment above, I need to reframe my comments above. Just because a nation is a signatory of the NPT, does that mean that there is no way they could launch a nuke at us? It’s just not possible?

206 avanti  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:48:19am

re: #196 Killgore Trout

Right-wing delusion: Net neutrality is government plot to control Internet content

Well, it is. It wants to the control the freedom on net access to all, and limit corporations ability to favor big users by limited the rest of us.

207 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:48:23am

re: #202 ryannon

Hi! My name is Mahdi, and I’ll be serving you tonight!

AAAAHH! It’s a cookbook!

208 Gus  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:50:50am

re: #201 lawhawk

So, if none of this is locked in stone, why take a position that makes it all the more difficult for the president to deal with politically should we actually suffer from a terror strike using nukes or biologicals that can be tied back to a rogue regime (not including Iran or North Korea).

Obama wants to change his mind at any time? That’s fine. But why make the pronoucement at all if it’s not set in stone. Simply state that the mandated review has been undertaken and the US reserves the right to conduct its national nuclear strategy as it deems prudent.

Instead, he risks angering both sides of the aisle - the right for being weak on national security and from the left for not going far enough.

Well, it could also be seen as a “sign the Non-Proliferation treaty or else.”

More here.

209 drcordell  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:50:57am

re: #201 lawhawk

So, if none of this is locked in stone, why take a position that makes it all the more difficult for the president to deal with politically should we actually suffer from a terror strike using nukes or biologicals that can be tied back to a rogue regime (not including Iran or North Korea).

Obama wants to change his mind at any time? That’s fine. But why make the pronoucement at all if it’s not set in stone. Simply state that the mandated review has been undertaken and the US reserves the right to conduct its national nuclear strategy as it deems prudent.

Instead, he risks angering both sides of the aisle - the right for being weak on national security and from the left for not going far enough.

By that standard why does the President announce anything about any U.S. foreign policy? It’s not “locked in stone” so why bother? Clearly Obama feels that by making it known that NPT signatories are not at risk of a nuclear attack, he is helping to increase the likelihood of non-proliferation succeeding.

And yes, he risks taking political flak from dumbasses on both sides of the aisle. Quite frankly, I find it refreshing that our President isn’t making every decision only after running it through his pollsters to see if he has 51% approval for it. I don’t think the best policies are often the most popular. And I don’t think our foreign policy choices should be dictated by politics.

210 ryannon  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:51:01am

re: #207 CyanSnowHawk

AAAHH! It’s a cookbook!

With lots of recipes for the end of the world.

211 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:51:53am

re: #210 ryannon

With lots of recipes for the end of the world.

check, please/

212 Stuart Leviton  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:52:13am

Farewell Gegenkritik. Thank you for teaching me there is a respectful way to present information so as to be an effective communicator.

213 Capitalist Tool  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:52:14am

re: #197 Kilroy01

I know it may sound sappy but don’t you think Iranian’s love their children too? Israel has somewhere between 100 and 300 nuclear devices and missiles that can deliver them. I can’t see why Iran would invite megadeath no matter how “religious” their leaders.


You’re right, Sting, it sounds sappy.
Iran is also ruled by a bunch of bearded- wonders who make public pronouncements about bringing on the end of the world so that the 13th Imam will return and then they’ll all live happily forever in paradise.
The Iranians also have a deeply- imbedded cultural thing about how they once ruled the world and need to return to those times.
If it hadn’t been for that pesky Alexander…
Who knows how much of their rhetoric is leg- pullin’.

214 MrSilverDragon  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:52:27am

re: #207 CyanSnowHawk

AAAHH! It’s a cookbook!

After blowing off all the space dust, was the title “How to Cook for Forty Humans”?

215 Cato the Elder  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:52:32am

re: #206 avanti

Well, it is. It wants to the control the freedom on net access to all, and limit corporations ability to favor big users by limited the rest of us.

Could you put that in English, please?

216 Mad Al-Jaffee  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:52:39am

re: #207 CyanSnowHawk

AAAHH! It’s a cookbook!

“How to Cook for Forty Humans”

217 ryannon  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:52:39am

re: #211 Aceofwhat?

check, please/

It’s on the house.

218 drcordell  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:52:52am

re: #208 Gus 802

Well, it could also be seen as a “sign the Non-Proliferation treaty or else.”

That’s certainly the way I look at it. It’s an explicit threat to any nation that isn’t a signatory that we won’t have a problem using nuclear weapons against them.

219 keloyd  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:54:11am

re: #197 Kilroy01

I know it may sound sappy but don’t you think Iranian’s love their children too? Israel has somewhere between 100 and 300 nuclear devices and missiles that can deliver them. I can’t see why Iran would invite megadeath no matter how “religious” their leaders.

If I can make the point with less humanity - the last election demonstrated their equivalent “military industrial complex” is more in charge than Ahmadinijad. Generals may not be democratic, but they’re smart and rational. The Iranian public is more secular and US-friendly than most countries we’ve liberated. Ahmadinijad’s juicy quotes keep his right flank happy, but that’s all it is, and the locals are the only intended audience. The BBC and Al Jazeera have both reported at some length that Ahmadinijad was never popular with the mullahs because he’s too strident/conservative/zealous. 70% of what we see in the States is our media trying to find a new excuse to stir up emotional froth for its ratings, imho.

220 avanti  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:54:12am

In fairness to any AGW skeptics that post every day it’s cold or snows, It’s 88 degrees in MD today, but it’s still just weather. (although we are setting 100 year records and went straight from winter to summer so far)

221 Mad Al-Jaffee  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:54:13am

re: #217 ryannon

It’s on the house.

“Drinks are on the house!”

-Kermit the Frog

222 lawhawk  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:54:48am

re: #209 drcordell

Some matters are best dealt with ambiguity rather than a flat out pronoucement. How we would respond to an attack is one such thing. Why telegraph that we’d do X, when that suggests that we’d keep Y and Z off the table.

Other matters do require announcements and concrete steps - such as verifying a treaty obligation to reduce weapons totals.

See the difference?

223 Cato the Elder  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:54:54am

re: #175 Gus 802

I think Gates said it well today:

New U.S. Nuclear Policy Sends ‘Strong Message’ To Iran, North Korea, Officials Say

There you have it: The United States reserves the right to make any adjustment to this policy.

But…but…but how can you trust Robert Gates? He was appointed by…

Oh, wait.

224 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:54:58am

re: #221 Mad Al-Jaffee

“Drinks are on the house!”

-Kermit the Frog

He always struck me as a lush…

225 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:55:46am

re: #220 avanti

In fairness to any AGW skeptics that post every day it’s cold or snows, It’s 88 degrees in MD today, but it’s still just weather. (although we are setting 100 year records and went straight from winter to summer so far)

Spring is so over-rated.
/

226 Capitalist Tool  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:56:26am

re: #214 MrSilverDragon

After blowing off all the space dust, was the title “How to Cook for Forty Humans”?

“To Serve Man”

227 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:56:30am

re: #221 Mad Al-Jaffee

“Drinks are on the house!”

-Kermit the Frog

You trying to start a lizard stampede to the roof Mad?

228 MrSilverDragon  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:56:31am

re: #221 Mad Al-Jaffee

“Drinks are on the house!”

-Kermit the Frog

“Bear left.”

“Right frog.”

That movie is still in my top 10 favorites of all time.

229 rwdflynavy  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:56:39am

re: #101 drcordell

I apologize for insinuating that you are a “prick” for using the term “pro”-Israel.

Holy Crap! I just had to upding drcordell!

I feel so dirty!
//

230 Gus  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:56:55am

re: #218 drcordell

That’s certainly the way I look at it. It’s an explicit threat to any nation that isn’t a signatory that we won’t have a problem using nuclear weapons against them.

Yes. And while Iran is a signatory to the treaty they’re also in violation of the treaty. That qualifies them as a target.

231 watching you tiny alien kittens are  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:57:00am

re: #196 Killgore Trout

Right-wing delusion: Net neutrality is government plot to control Internet content

Well that is certainly turning it around completely bass ackwards isn’t it?

It sounds like they are actually in favor of allowing corporations to determine what sites you are able to access on the internet. KOS and Huffpo gone, Fox nation as your mandatory homepage maybe?

/

232 ryannon  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:57:12am

re: #213 Capitalist Tool

You’re right, Sting, it sounds sappy.
Iran is also ruled by a bunch of bearded- wonders who make public pronouncements about bringing on the end of the world so that the 13th 12th Imam will return and then they’ll all live happily forever in paradise.
The Iranians also have a deeply- imbedded cultural thing about how they once ruled the world and need to return to those times.
If it hadn’t been for that pesky Alexander…
Who knows how much of their rhetoric is leg- pullin’.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org…]

233 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:57:17am

Ok… no answer… so I’ll throw this out to all…

Just because a nation is a signatory of the NPT, does that mean that there is no way they could launch a nuke at us? It’s just not possible?

234 Kilroy01  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:57:30am

re: #207 CyanSnowHawk

I’ll be having the Blackened Fertile Crescent.
Oh, and a diet coke.

235 Mad Al-Jaffee  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:58:40am

re: #228 MrSilverDragon

“Bear left.”

“Right frog.”

That movie is still in my top 10 favorites of all time.

“That’s a myth.”

“Yeth?”

“A myth, a myth!”

“Yeth? Yeth?”

236 ryannon  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:59:14am

re: #233 Walter L. Newton

Ok… no answer… so I’ll throw this out to all…

Just because a nation is a signatory of the NPT, does that mean that there is no way they could launch a nuke at us? It’s just not possible?

Of course not.

A treaty is a treaty.

/

237 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:59:22am

re: #234 Kilroy01

I’ll be having the Blackened Fertile Crescent.
Oh, and a diet coke.

There’s still a lot of troll left over…and Emmie made brownies…

238 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:59:26am

re: #221 Mad Al-Jaffee

“Drinks are on the house!”

-Kermit the Frog

It was actually Fozzie the Bear who said that line in The Muppet Movie. It also had a brief cameo by Edgar Bergin and his famous puppet, Charlie McCarthy.

239 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:59:28am

re: #229 rwdflynavy

Holy Crap! I just had to upding drcordell!

I feel so dirty!
//

People are used to that with Doctors, it’s a feeling that is usually preceded by a loud snap of a rubber glove and the Dr. saying bend over and spread your cheeks.

240 Feline Fearless Leader  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:59:32am

re: #71 Soap_Man

re: #79 Dark_Falcon

re: #102 albusteve

I was playing cribbage with my dad and he hit a 29…maybe more unlikely than a royal flush

I’ve been playing in a 10-12 member cribbage club for three years and we’ve not seen a 29-hand yet. (That’s about 50 games/week x 36 weeks x 3 years.)
Two 28-hands, but no 29-hands. If you get either in sanctioned play the American Cribbage Congress sends you a certificate.

From Wikipedia:
The odds of getting a perfect 29 hand in a two-player game are 1 in 216,580
A quick check indicates that a royal flush is 1 in 649,740 in standard 5-card poker.

Higher chance in cribbage since you start with six cards.

241 Kilroy01  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 11:59:33am

re: #224 Aceofwhat?

Of course he drinks a lot, he’s an amphibian…

242 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:00:10pm

re: #6 Locker

Just because another entity does something horrible to us does not mean we have to do it back to them. Chemical and Biological weapons are terrible and devastating. I hope we never would and never have to use this technology.

The difference between strategic response and just punching back because no one makes the U.S. bleed our own blood.

243 MrSilverDragon  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:00:20pm

re: #235 Mad Al-Jaffee

“Would you like to smell the bottle-cap?”

Ok, I’ll stop quoting now, but I could probably recite the film from beginning to end!

244 rwdflynavy  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:00:40pm

re: #239 CyanSnowHawk

People are used to that with Doctors, it’s a feeling that is usually preceded by a loud snap of a rubber glove and the Dr. saying bend over and spread your cheeks.

Doc, why are both your hands on my shoulders!?!?!

Hey Doc, did you ever do any time?

Gotta use the whole fist doc!?!?

245 Mad Al-Jaffee  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:00:41pm

re: #238 Dark_Falcon

It was actually Fozzie the Bear who said that line in The Muppet Movie. It also had a brief cameo by Edgar Bergin and his famous puppet, Charlie McCarthy.

I wasn’t sure if it was Kermit or Fozzie.

I guess you appreciate the Muppets in a much deeper way than I do.

246 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:00:51pm

re: #237 Aceofwhat?

There’s still a lot of troll left over…and Emmie made brownies…

Yeah. The Teutonic Troll had frenzied regularly, and was full grown. He made a great roast.

247 Capitalist Tool  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:01:01pm

re: #232 ryannon

[Link: en.wikipedia.org…]


Won’t they be surprised if he turns out to be a future Pope…

248 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:01:06pm

re: #241 Kilroy01

Of course he drinks a lot, he’s an amphibian…

and he needs the beer goggles, considering/

249 avanti  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:01:09pm

re: #215 Cato the Elder

Could you put that in English, please?

Sure. The big users want priority for there data packets so they can push video for example, while the rest get a smaller pipe. It’s sort of a private fast lane on the internet super highway.

“The principle states that if a given user pays for a certain level of Internet access, and another user pays for the same level of access, that the two users should be able to connect to each other at the subscribed level of access.”

i.e. the providers can’t slow you done in favor of Netflex.

250 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:01:17pm

re: #14 Charles

Pamela “Shrieking Harpy” Geller manages to combine ignorance, a complete lack of class, and blatant racism in one illiterate sentence: NObama’s ‘Nuclear Posture Poser Review’: No Nukes, Even in Self Defense or if Hit with Chemical/Bio weapons … G-d Help Us - Atlas Shrugs.

Yeah, because President Bush threatened to nuke everyone, all the time!!!

(Wait, he didn’t? Well, I’m sure they understood he would. Like, on a minute’s notice!!!)

251 Mad Al-Jaffee  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:01:53pm

re: #244 rwdflynavy

Doc, why are both your hands on my shoulders!?!?!

Hey Doc, did you ever do any time?

Gotta use the whole fist doc!?!?

Do you like gladiator movies?

252 keloyd  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:01:55pm

re: #240 oaktree

On the internet everyone scores 29 at cribbage! //

(on what other blog can you do a cribbage joke?)

253 Capitalist Tool  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:02:00pm

re: #237 Aceofwhat?

There’s still a lot of troll left over…and Emmie made brownies…

…am enjoying mine, right now- smoked over a slow pecan wood fire…

254 rwdflynavy  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:02:19pm

Gotta run, BBLL

255 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:02:34pm

re: #19 Soap_Man

Ummm… so these are more like guidelines than rules right? Basically it seems that Obama can still use the nukes however he wants.

Yeah. This part is diplomacy. Come the real hard choices, no one in the War Room is gonna say, “But Mr. President, that’s not what we said…”

256 Killgore Trout  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:02:57pm

re: #250 SanFranciscoZionist

He’s gonna Nook da T-Parteeees!

257 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:03:40pm

re: #20 Chaplain

“leaving us bare naked vulnerable like a virgin slipped a Rohypnol on her first date with a Chicagoland gangsta.” Sounds like the premise to a movie I watched once… okay… maybe twice.

Now, is a non-virgin slipped a Roofie by a ‘Chicagoland gangsta’ (nice snipe, Pam) really in a less vulnerable situation than a virgin?

258 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:04:04pm

re: #245 Mad Al-Jaffee

I wasn’t sure if it was Kermit or Fozzie.

I guess you appreciate the Muppets in a much deeper way than I do.

I think that Congress needs Statler and Waldorf for their C-Span coverage.

259 Varek Raith  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:04:12pm

Call me naive but, responding to a horrible WMD attack on our civilians by unleashing a far greater WMD attack on the enemy’s civilians strikes me as…savage.

260 goddamnedfrank  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:04:32pm

re: #250 SanFranciscoZionist

Yeah, because President Bush threatened to nuke everyone, all the time!!!

(Wait, he didn’t? Well, I’m sure they understood he would. Like, on a minute’s notice!!!)

Yeah, but George Bush was ten feet tall and carved out of mesquite, his belt buckle was a missile shield and his pickup truck was Optimus Prime.

261 MrSilverDragon  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:04:55pm

re: #258 CyanSnowHawk

I think that Congress needs Statler and Waldorf for their C-Span coverage.

I bet their observations would be more poignant than the actual news.

262 Gus  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:04:58pm

re: #233 Walter L. Newton

Ok… no answer… so I’ll throw this out to all…

Just because a nation is a signatory of the NPT, does that mean that there is no way they could launch a nuke at us? It’s just not possible?

Any nation that would is signatory to the NPT that becomes nuclear capable would invalidate their status as a non-NWS nation or in violation of Article II of the NPT:

ARTICLE II

Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

Therefor that would invalidate their status as a signatory.

263 Decatur Deb  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:05:05pm

re: #255 SanFranciscoZionist

Yeah. This part is diplomacy. Come the real hard choices, no one in the War Room is gonna say, “But Mr. President, that’s not what we said…”

It is my firm policy to have 1 glass of wine each day. Sometimes I have 3.

264 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:05:10pm

re: #25 Dark_Falcon

Horrid. Still, Pam’s dug clear through the Earth’s core and she’s half way through the other side of the mantle. Soon, she’ll be China’s problem.

I once actually checked this out—I don’t know where Pam is, exactly, but from much of the US, if you dig straight through, you end up bobbing in the Indian Ocean.

265 Locker  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:05:28pm

Tom Coburn defends Nancy Pelosi and calls her a “nice lady”.

[Link: politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com…]

266 Gus  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:05:36pm

re: #262 Gus 802

Therefore. That is. PIMF.

267 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:05:42pm

re: #259 Varek Raith

Call me naive but, responding to a horrible WMD attack on our civilians by unleashing a far greater WMD attack on the enemy’s civilians strikes me as…savage.

naive.

it’s never that simple.

268 Varek Raith  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:06:10pm

re: #267 Aceofwhat?

naive.

it’s never that simple.

Heh, ok.
Explain.

269 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:06:33pm

re: #26 charles_martel

A perceived sign of weakness or hesitation will encourage belligerents.

I think that’s very much a matter of interpretation and opinion, especially when dealing with the type of NGO belligerents we get these days.

270 Decatur Deb  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:06:37pm

re: #259 Varek Raith

Call me naive but, responding to a horrible WMD attack on our civilians by unleashing a far greater WMD attack on the enemy’s civilians strikes me as…savage.

It would be, but it has kept all us savages in line since the 1950s.

271 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:06:39pm

re: #265 Locker

Tom Coburn defends Nancy Pelosi and calls her a “nice lady”.

[Link: politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com…]

Oh god, I hope he didn’t use the Jerry Lewis voice.

272 drcordell  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:06:55pm

re: #222 lawhawk

Some matters are best dealt with ambiguity rather than a flat out pronoucement. How we would respond to an attack is one such thing. Why telegraph that we’d do X, when that suggests that we’d keep Y and Z off the table.

Other matters do require announcements and concrete steps - such as verifying a treaty obligation to reduce weapons totals.

See the difference?

Except the U.S. has been doing these sorts of nuclear policy reviews since at least 2002 as far as I can tell. And before that we made unofficial pronouncements of what our nuclear policies were, and weren’t.

You’re acting like this is anything more than diplomacy. Nothing has been taken off the table. In no way shape or form has the President ceded any right to do anything he wants with our nuclear weapons. This was an implicit threat against Iran and North Korea if anything. See the difference?

273 brookly red  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:07:01pm

re: #267 Aceofwhat?

naive.

it’s never that simple.

what ever happened to “speak softly & carry a big stick”?

274 avanti  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:07:10pm

re: #265 Locker

Tom Coburn defends Nancy Pelosi and calls her a “nice lady”.

[Link: politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com…]

RINO/ He’s better show up hat in hand on Beck’s show and plead for mercy.

275 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:07:46pm

re: #32 charles_martel

Insane fanatics like Ahmadinejad are not rational, and they have a terror network to deliver WMD’s

Ahmadinejad doesn’t hold the reins in Iran, and his masters are crazy like a pack of very religious foxes.

276 Capitalist Tool  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:08:28pm

re: #249 avanti

Sure. The big users want priority for there data packets so they can push video for example, while the rest get a smaller pipe. It’s sort of a private fast lane on the internet super highway.

“The principle states that if a given user pays for a certain level of Internet access, and another user pays for the same level of access, that the two users should be able to connect to each other at the subscribed level of access.”

i.e. the providers can’t slow you done in favor of Netflex.


Comcast has a point. Residents in/around a local university have awful bandwidth and the local cable company can’t really be blamed- they keep adding/splitting nodes to the area, but the student downloaders all suck it up.
It’s like the cableco has Niagara Falls dumping into the area and you get to sip with a coffe stir- stick by the time it gets to you.
DSL in the area is worse.

277 Locker  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:08:33pm

re: #271 CyanSnowHawk

Oh god, I hope he didn’t use the Jerry Lewis voice.

Not sure, it was in print but he defended her and also told the members of his town hall meeting not to use Fox News as their only source of information. Fairly stand up, imo.

278 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:08:53pm

re: #268 Varek Raith

Heh, ok.
Explain.

what if the only thing you knew about the attacking nation was that they had more of the same stashed in 1 of 2 cities, and you were pretty sure that another attack was imminent?

wipe out the 2 cities.

279 ryannon  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:09:06pm

re: #259 Varek Raith

Call me naive but, responding to a horrible WMD attack on our civilians by unleashing a far greater WMD attack on the enemy’s civilians strikes me as…savage.

Yes, why can’t we all just get along?

Organize a peace conference. Work out our differences.

280 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:09:24pm

re: #275 SanFranciscoZionist

Ahmadinejad doesn’t hold the reins in Iran, and his masters are crazy like a pack of very religious foxes.

What, do they say grace before they raid the henhouse?

281 lawhawk  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:09:27pm

re: #272 drcordell

BZZZZ Wrong.

North Korea and Iran were specifically excepted from this change.

Want to try again?

282 Capitalist Tool  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:10:08pm

re: #259 Varek Raith

Call me naive but, responding to a horrible WMD attack on our civilians by unleashing a far greater WMD attack on the enemy’s civilians strikes me as…savage.

Would it seem as savage if you were to discover that the enemy was about to do it again?

283 Gus  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:10:20pm

Once a nation signs the NPT as a non-nuclear-weapon State Party they have to adhere to the stipulations of the treaty most particularly Article II.

284 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:10:44pm

re: #46 avanti

OK, quick question about the “new” policy. Why didn’t Bush vaporize Afghanistan with nukes after 9-11 under the old policy ?
I think the answer is obvious. The murder of 3000 US citizens by a terrorist state, as horrible as it was did note rise to the level of a nuke response.

And, also, vaporizing Afghanistan would not have solved our problems. It MIGHT have taken out al-Qaeda’s upper command, or they might have been in Peshawar that week. It would certainly not have brought an end to jihad against the West, in fact it would have become a recruiting tool for generations to come.

We had no reason to go nuclear.

285 ryannon  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:11:17pm

re: #283 Gus 802

Once a nation signs the NPT as a non-nuclear-weapon State Party they have to adhere to the stipulations of the treaty most particularly Article II.

Or else they can’t post at the UN Blog anymore?

286 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:11:27pm

re: #277 Locker

Not sure, it was in print but he defended her and also told the members of his town hall meeting not to use Fox News as their only source of information. Fairly stand up, imo.

“Sarchasm: the gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the recipient who doesn’t get it. (Tom Witte, Gaithersburg)” Washington Post August 2, 1998, Style.

287 Varek Raith  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:11:39pm

Yeah, yeah, I get it. Wiping out civilians on a massive scale is a ok as long as they’re the bad guys.

288 Gus  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:12:15pm

re: #285 ryannon

Or else they can’t post at the UN Blog anymore?

Correct. And no more donuts.

/

289 SixDegrees  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:12:26pm

The policy, basically, says “We’re changing our policy, but we’ll still do whatever we decide is right at the time we make the decision.” The policy, therefore, became utterly meaningless between the time it fell from the President’s lips and the time it hit the floor with an irrelevant “thud.”

Why bother making such an announcement at all? It is completely empty, neither encouragement nor deterrent.

290 ryannon  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:12:57pm

re: #288 Gus 802

Correct. And no more donuts.

/

Realpolitik!

Tough love!

291 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:13:23pm

re: #196 Killgore Trout

Right-wing delusion: Net neutrality is government plot to control Internet content

Here’s Cnet’s article on today’s ruling
[Link: news.cnet.com…]

292 brookly red  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:13:27pm

re: #287 Varek Raith

Yeah, yeah, I get it. Wiping out civilians on a massive scale is a ok as long as they’re the bad guys.

I think it is more of the threat then the action, it is the threat that is the deterrent, the action after the fact would just be payback.

293 Stuart Leviton  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:13:44pm

Gegenkritik, may I suggest that if you are going to write Charles, do write a letter of apology.

Who is strong? He who conquers his evil inclination (Pirkei Avos)
Just as water from a high place always seeks out a low place, so too, Torah is only maintained in one whose awareness [of self] is lowly. (Ta’anit 4a)

Good luck, my friend.

294 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:13:44pm

re: #287 Varek Raith

Yeah, yeah, I get it. Wiping out civilians on a massive scale is a ok as long as they’re the bad guys.

Your analysis seems a little binary.

295 Cato the Elder  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:13:54pm

re: #249 avanti

Sure. The big users want priority for there data packets so they can push video for example, while the rest get a smaller pipe. It’s sort of a private fast lane on the internet super highway.

“The principle states that if a given user pays for a certain level of Internet access, and another user pays for the same level of access, that the two users should be able to connect to each other at the subscribed level of access.”

i.e. the providers can’t slow you done in favor of Netflex.

Ah.

That’s what I thought it meant.

296 Feline Fearless Leader  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:13:56pm

re: #232 ryannon

It seems that all the radical-reactionary groups want the world to regress to their particular “golden age”.

Radical-shia Islam want a resurgent Iran (Persia)

Radical-sunni Islam want a resurgent Arabia (Caliphate)

Radical-US wingnutia want us back in the early 50s as a world power with nukes and a dominant economy since most of the rest of the world economy was undeveloped or still bombed out from WW2.

I presume the UK-wingnuts want things back to early 1900s before two world wars bankrupted the British Empire. And from some of their rhetoric I presume they see that period as a time when the minorities and underclasses knew their place.

And without looking further I bet the radical groups in various other areas would also have their selected time in the past when their group (or what they view as the proper ancestor of their group) was large and in charge.

297 Locker  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:14:11pm

re: #286 CyanSnowHawk

“Sarchasm: the gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the recipient who doesn’t get it. (Tom Witte, Gaithersburg)” Washington Post August 2, 1998, Style.

Oh I got it but it seems you didn’t get my efforts to be subjectively accurate. He “could” have used the Jerry Lewis voice, it’s possible ;)

298 Varek Raith  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:14:16pm

re: #292 brookly red

I think it is more of the threat then the action, it is the threat that is the deterrent, the action after the fact would just be payback.

Sorry, I’m unusually worked up today.
I see your point.
:)

299 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:15:24pm

re: #287 Varek Raith

Yeah, yeah, I get it. Wiping out civilians on a massive scale is a ok as long as they’re the bad guys.

good one. *eyeroll*

300 drcordell  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:15:26pm

I can see it now! Rogue states are already prepping their biological and chemical weapons attacks for launch against the U.S. because they now have 100% confirmation that Obama will not retaliate in any way.re: #278 Aceofwhat?

what if the only thing you knew about the attacking nation was that they had more of the same stashed in 1 of 2 cities, and you were pretty sure that another attack was imminent?

wipe out the 2 cities.

What are you, a writer for 24? When is that ever going to happen except for on a TV show or in a movie? And a bad movie at that. Stupid hypotheticals such as this one distract from the real foreign policy issues at hand here.

It’s as if you’re basing your entire view of the morality of torture based on whether or not you think Jack Bauer should be able to shoot a terrorist in the leg who knows the “deactivation code” for the time bomb sitting next to him. Oh… wait….

301 brookly red  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:15:30pm

re: #298 Varek Raith

Sorry, I’m unusually worked up today.
I see your point.
:)

it is all good…

302 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:15:49pm

re: #276 Capitalist Tool

Comcast has a point. Residents in/around a local university have awful bandwidth and the local cable company can’t really be blamed- they keep adding/splitting nodes to the area, but the student downloaders all suck it up.
It’s like the cableco has Niagara Falls dumping into the area and you get to sip with a coffe stir- stick by the time it gets to you.
DSL in the area is worse.

Actually, DSL can be fine in certain situations. I live up in the Rocky Mountains, the houses up here, in my neighborhood are on appox. two acre lots. We just don’t have the saturation of people on the same line as you would on a DSL line in a more populated area. Even though I was spoiled with the highest speed broadband I could buy down hill, in the case of the DSL service I have here, it’s not a big problem.

Of course, I’m not bit-torrenting illegal material 24 hours a day either, or watching streaming content all day, I stick to news and informational sites.

303 ryannon  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:15:54pm

re: #296 oaktree

That’s certainly part of the picture.

And that’s all I have to say about that.

304 Feline Fearless Leader  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:16:03pm

re: #252 keloyd

In Soviet Russia cribbage scores you! :-D

305 Kilroy01  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:16:47pm

Baron Munchausen: What’s this?
Vulcan: Oh, this is our prototype. RX, uh, Intercontinental, radar-sneaky, multi-warheaded nuclear missile.
Baron Munchausen: Ah! What does it do?
Vulcan: Do? Kills the enemy.
Baron Munchausen: All the enemy?
Vulcan: Aye, all of them. All their wives, and all their children, and all their sheep, and all their cattle, and all their cats and dogs. All of them. All of them gone for good.
Sally: That’s horrible.
Vulcan: Ahh. Well, you see, the advantage is you don’t have to see one single one of them die. You just sit comfortably thousands of miles away from the battlefield and simply press the button.
Berthold: Well, where’s the fun in that?

306 goddamnedfrank  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:16:54pm

re: #281 lawhawk

BZZZ Wrong.

North Korea and Iran were specifically excepted from this change.

Want to try again?

You misunderstood, he’s saying that announcing the change only to simultaneously carve out an exception for Iran and NK is explicitly meant to put them on notice. Calling them “outliers” says that they aren’t part of the civilized world and will not be afforded such consideration in the future.

307 Decatur Deb  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:17:03pm

re: #298 Varek Raith

Sorry, I’m unusually worked up today.
I see your point.
:)

Console yourself with the thought MAD perhaps saved 10s of millions of lives during the paranoid 50s and 60s.

308 cliffster  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:17:50pm

Charge people per megabyte. Problem solved. You pay for all the water coming into your house. And all the water leaving it (or a rough approximation) for that matter

309 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:18:14pm

re: #300 drcordell

boo. thanks for jumping in halfway. i didn’t say it was realistic. it is possible to imagine a scenario where we would use nuclear weapons. pronouncements about their use in advance of understanding the scenario, therefore, are often useless.

when you don’t read all the way back through a conversation before you jump in, you risk sounding foolish. just so you know.

310 drcordell  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:18:51pm

re: #281 lawhawk

BZZZ Wrong.

North Korea and Iran were specifically excepted from this change.

Want to try again?

FAIL. Is it not obvious to you that specifically exempting two nations from a change in our nuclear policy can be considered a veiled threat? Obama came out and pronounced that he will not use a nuclear first strike against any nations except North Korea and Iran. By name he explicitly stated that he would still allow the use of a nuclear first-strike against those nations. See the difference?

311 brookly red  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:20:02pm

re: #310 drcordell

FAIL. Is it not obvious to you that specifically exempting two nations from a change in our nuclear policy can be considered a veiled threat? Obama came out and pronounced that he will not use a nuclear first strike against any nations except North Korea and Iran. By name he explicitly stated that he would still allow the use of a nuclear first-strike against those nations. See the difference?

you have a point.

312 MrSilverDragon  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:20:06pm

re: #305 Kilroy01

Baron Munchausen: What’s this?
Vulcan: Oh, this is our prototype. RX, uh, Intercontinental, radar-sneaky, multi-warheaded nuclear missile.
Baron Munchausen: Ah! What does it do?
Vulcan: Do? Kills the enemy.
Baron Munchausen: All the enemy?
Vulcan: Aye, all of them. All their wives, and all their children, and all their sheep, and all their cattle, and all their cats and dogs. All of them. All of them gone for good.
Sally: That’s horrible.
Vulcan: Ahh. Well, you see, the advantage is you don’t have to see one single one of them die. You just sit comfortably thousands of miles away from the battlefield and simply press the button.
Berthold: Well, where’s the fun in that?

+1 for The Adventures of Baron Munchausen quotes. Damn fine film.

313 Varek Raith  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:20:58pm

re: #299 Aceofwhat?

good one. *eyeroll*

It was the best I could do in a bad mood. Not even sure as to why
:P
I really do see your points.

314 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:20:59pm

re: #181 Aceofwhat?


i like Chineeese…i like Chineeese…

There’s nine hundred million of ‘em in the world today,
You’d better learn to like ‘em, that’s what I say…

315 lawhawk  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:21:01pm

re: #306 goddamnedfrank

They’ve been on notice for years - this announcement doesn’t change anything. It also doesn’t encourage any further diplomacy on the matter since the Chinese and Russians are still dragging their feet on sanctions against the two countries, and both North Korea and Iran are still plodding ahead with their respective programs. This announcement and calling them outliers is even weaker than when Bush labeled them part of the Axis of Evil.

It certainly isn’t going to get either Iran or North Korea to give up their nuclear ambitions either.

316 cliffster  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:21:37pm

re: #287 Varek Raith

Yeah, yeah, I get it. Wiping out civilians on a massive scale is a ok as long as they’re the bad guys.

I often make the point that one can over-analyze things, and usually people respond with, “no, it’s complicated, it can’t be over-analyzed”. But that’s wrong, the forest is very often missed while mucking around with the trees. At risk of sounding condescending, which I’m not trying to be, the average 5th grader in the playground understands, at least at a conceptual level, why you might have to drop a nuke.. that you have to fight back harder when someone attacks you. If you don’t, people will piss on you forever.

317 SpaceJesus  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:22:05pm

re: #166 eclectic infidel

Why? Why not just strike back with conventional weapons? Why punish the civilian population for the actions of their government? What’s wrong with just using surgical strikes against government and military targets?

those weapons are effective against troops as well, not just civilians and I would support using them in a combat situation.

318 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:22:11pm

re: #210 ryannon

With lots of recipes for the end of the world.

Well, if the Iranians are going to bring the world to an end, at least the food will be good. Persian food rocks.

319 Cato the Elder  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:22:24pm

re: #296 oaktree

It seems that all the radical-reactionary groups want the world to regress to their particular “golden age”. […]

I presume the UK-wingnuts want things back to early 1900s before two world wars bankrupted the British Empire. And from some of their rhetoric I presume they see that period as a time when the minorities and underclasses knew their place

You should check out Barbara Tuchman’s “The Proud Tower” sometime. There’s no better history of the age immediately preceding WWI.

320 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:22:54pm

re: #313 Varek Raith

It was the best I could do in a bad mood. Not even sure as to why
:P
I really do see your points.

it’s cool. i make eyes roll all the time. you’re a good dude.

321 Gus  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:23:53pm

re: #315 lawhawk

They’ve been on notice for years - this announcement doesn’t change anything. It also doesn’t encourage any further diplomacy on the matter since the Chinese and Russians are still dragging their feet on sanctions against the two countries, and both North Korea and Iran are still plodding ahead with their respective programs. This announcement and calling them outliers is even weaker than when Bush labeled them part of the Axis of Evil.

It certainly isn’t going to get either Iran or North Korea to give up their nuclear ambitions either.

This is a precursor to the upcoming START treaty talks. There’s more to this than just the defensive or offensive policies. This was part of the president’s comments:

Finally, we are fulfilling our responsibilities as a nuclear power committed to the NPT. The United States will not conduct nuclear testing and will seek ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The United States will not develop new nuclear warheads or pursue new military missions or new capabilities for nuclear weapons.

322 Capitalist Tool  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:24:02pm

re: #302 Walter L. Newton

Right- DSL’s ok, just meant locally- nobody can keep up…

In other news, the Feds now have a bandwidth speed test site of their own.
In typical dumb- ass bureaucrat style, they want you to register with your street address…

323 lawhawk  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:24:18pm

re: #310 drcordell

A veiled threat? Do you honestly think that Tehran or Pyongyang are doing anything but laughing at this latest pronouncement? They’re not going to change their policy because of this. Neither country is going to change their behavior because of this. But it does give other rogue regimes ideas on what they could do.

Both North Korea and Iran see that sanctions aren’t going to get done anytime soon; they can keep working on their nuclear programs without further interference.

324 drcordell  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:24:31pm

re: #322 Capitalist Tool

Right- DSL’s ok, just meant locally- nobody can keep up…

In other news, the Feds now have a bandwidth speed test site of their own.
In typical dumb- ass bureaucrat style, they want you to register with your street address…

I have Verizon FIOS and I can’t imagine life without it.

325 Cato the Elder  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:25:04pm

re: #14 Charles

Pamela “Shrieking Harpy” Geller manages to combine ignorance, a complete lack of class, and blatant racism in one illiterate sentence: NObama’s ‘Nuclear Posture Poser Review’: No Nukes, Even in Self Defense or if Hit with Chemical/Bio weapons … G-d Help Us - Atlas Shrugs.

Wait…weren’t the census thugs supposed to finish her off?

326 bosforus  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:25:07pm

re: #24 EmmmieG

‘Kay, so…how many of you can pronounce Tooele, other than me?

It’s Tuwiller, right? At least that’s how we say it on the east side of the Oquirrh.

328 Varek Raith  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:25:47pm

re: #325 Cato the Elder

Wait…weren’t the census thugs supposed to finish her off?

Their helicopter’s cloaking device was malfunctioning….

329 brookly red  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:25:59pm

re: #325 Cato the Elder

Wait…weren’t the census thugs supposed to finish her off?

/shovel ready jobs?

330 bosforus  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:26:11pm

re: #327 Killgore Trout

Scientists find new species of lizard with double penis

Advantage - lizard.

331 tradewind  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:26:23pm

re: #310 drcordell
…And he just as explicitly said he’d outlaw lobbyists in his administration and make sure that all the HCR bill debate was broadcast on C-Span.
Just saying.
Get the salt shaker, set on coarse.

332 lawhawk  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:26:43pm

re: #321 Gus 802

Again, he’s pushing for limitations on US military capabilities at a time when foreign countries are not doing the same. The Russians are trying to get their latest missile system operative after multiple problems. The Chinese certainly aren’t standing still on their nuclear capabilities either. This ties the hands of the US and keeps the US from updating our current nuclear inventory.

He’s leading in to these talks already showing his hand. That’s the exact opposite of what you’d do as a negotiator - you don’t show your hand before talks because that becomes the starting point for the other side to hammer home to their advantage - not yours.

333 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:26:46pm

re: #280 CyanSnowHawk

What, do they say grace before they raid the henhouse?

“Dear Lord, please make this bear a Christian…”

334 brookly red  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:26:55pm

re: #327 Killgore Trout

Scientists find new species of lizard with double penis

Hey! eyes front at the urinal dude…

335 ryannon  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:27:56pm

re: #318 SanFranciscoZionist

Well, if the Iranians are going to bring the world to an end, at least the food will be good. Persian food rocks.

Personally, I wish it were the Thais.

336 McSpiff  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:28:19pm

re: #332 lawhawk

Again, he’s pushing for limitations on US military capabilities at a time when foreign countries are not doing the same. The Russians are trying to get their latest missile system operative after multiple problems. The Chinese certainly aren’t standing still on their nuclear capabilities either. This ties the hands of the US and keeps the US from updating our current nuclear inventory.

He’s leading in to these talks already showing his hand. That’s the exact opposite of what you’d do as a negotiator - you don’t show your hand before talks because that becomes the starting point for the other side to hammer home to their advantage - not yours.

Other than Russia agreeing to stockpile cuts. And China already having a no first use policy.

337 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:28:22pm

re: #330 bosforus

Advantage - lizard.

Not really. The Filipinos are hunting and deforesting it to death…

338 Feline Fearless Leader  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:28:23pm

re: #305 Kilroy01

Massive up-ding for finding a movie quote that summarizes things so well.

339 cliffster  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:28:54pm

re: #327 Killgore Trout

Scientists find new species of lizard with double penis

The two penises are often used in alternation, and sometimes contain spines or hooks that serve to anchor the male within the female during intercourse.

[comment area rhetorically left blank]

340 drcordell  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:29:01pm

re: #323 lawhawk

A veiled threat? Do you honestly think that Tehran or Pyongyang are doing anything but laughing at this latest pronouncement? They’re not going to change their policy because of this. Neither country is going to change their behavior because of this. But it does give other rogue regimes ideas on what they could do.

Both North Korea and Iran see that sanctions aren’t going to get done anytime soon; they can keep working on their nuclear programs without further interference.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make here? Obviously NoKo and Iran aren’t worried that Obama is going to first-strike them with a nuke. Because a first-strike would be complete and utter insanity.

Because of this other regimes are going to get ideas? Like the brilliant thought that if they quit the NPT they will earn themselves a spot on the list of countries America won’t hesitate to nuke pre-emptively? That’s really the criticism of Obama that you have settled on here. Don’t threaten non-NPT nations because it might make other nations wish to get threatened too? This is coming from a supporter of Mr. pre-emptive war himself GW Bush?

341 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:29:13pm

re: #305 Kilroy01

Baron Munchausen: What’s this?
Vulcan: Oh, this is our prototype. RX, uh, Intercontinental, radar-sneaky, multi-warheaded nuclear missile.
Baron Munchausen: Ah! What does it do?
Vulcan: Do? Kills the enemy.
Baron Munchausen: All the enemy?
Vulcan: Aye, all of them. All their wives, and all their children, and all their sheep, and all their cattle, and all their cats and dogs. All of them. All of them gone for good.
Sally: That’s horrible.
Vulcan: Ahh. Well, you see, the advantage is you don’t have to see one single one of them die. You just sit comfortably thousands of miles away from the battlefield and simply press the button.
Berthold: Well, where’s the fun in that?

Such a good movie. (For those of you who haven’t seen it, as he says ‘simply press the button’, he presses on the little girl’s nose.)

342 Scriptorium  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:29:22pm

Sorry if this was covered earlier (I just skimmed through), but nukes as well as chemical weapons are bad for the planet. There is the planet to think about—and all its denizens. So if we can, as a, if not THE, world’s major player, help nudge things along to a non-nuke world, I’m all for it. So I think the tone, verbiage, and symbolism all count for the good side.

343 Cato the Elder  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:29:33pm

re: #333 SanFranciscoZionist

“Dear Lord, please make this bear a Christian…”

Doesn’t work, even if it works. The new Christian bear or fox or whatever just says grace before he eats the hens.

344 prairiefire  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:30:18pm

This book looks good. It’s the featured book for the Big Read program this year. The critic also reeled off some fantasy and sci-fi picks. I will have to post.[Link: www.kclibrary.org…]

345 Feline Fearless Leader  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:30:27pm

re: #319 Cato the Elder

You should check out Barbara Tuchman’s “The Proud Tower” sometime. There’s no better history of the age immediately preceding WWI.

I’ll look for it. I’ve read her _A Distant Mirror_ and found that a very interesting look at the medieval mindset.

346 Capitalist Tool  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:30:55pm

re: #324 drcordell

I have Verizon FIOS and I can’t imagine life without it.

That’s fiber- to- the- curb right? To your home and not to your pc/digital box?

My local cableco (Cox) is rolling out 50Mbps in a couple of months and 100Mbps a while after that. Don’t care how they get it here, I want it.

347 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:30:55pm

re: #342 Scriptorium

Sorry if this was covered earlier (I just skimmed through), but nukes as well as chemical weapons are bad for the planet. There is the planet to think about—and all its denizens. So if we can, as a, if not THE, world’s major player, help nudge things along to a non-nuke world, I’m all for it. So I think the tone, verbiage, and symbolism all count for the good side.

they’re a lot worse for humans than for the planet. actually, i think that humans are worse for the planet than nukes.

348 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:31:08pm

re: #323 lawhawk

A veiled threat? Do you honestly think that Tehran or Pyongyang are doing anything but laughing at this latest pronouncement? They’re not going to change their policy because of this. Neither country is going to change their behavior because of this. But it does give other rogue regimes ideas on what they could do.

Both North Korea and Iran see that sanctions aren’t going to get done anytime soon; they can keep working on their nuclear programs without further interference.

Do you really think that there’s a rogue nation out there that’s held back their hand from us for fear of a nuclear strike, but now that we’ve made a public statement that we don’t wanna nuke anyone, they’ll move?

Who?

349 Jimmah  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:31:21pm

re: #141 Gus 802

Good bye!

Aw shucks. I’m sure we’ll all miss his relentless stupid baiting, and his hissy fits about being criticised on his English…///

Youtube Video
350 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:31:49pm

re: #344 prairiefire

it doesn’t show anything under “Events” when i click…?

351 tradewind  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:31:56pm

re: #332 lawhawk
It’s gonna be okay. All he needs is an open hand and a retro theme to deter any threat.

Youtube Video
352 Varek Raith  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:32:05pm

re: #349 Jimmah

Aw shucks. I’m sure we’ll all miss his relentless stupid baiting, and his hissy fits about being criticised on his English…///


[Video]

Dammit. He never answered my question…
I iz sad :(

353 prairiefire  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:32:26pm

re: #140 Charles

You asked for it, you got it.

Hooray! Thank you, Charles.

354 drcordell  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:32:36pm

re: #342 Scriptorium

Sorry if this was covered earlier (I just skimmed through), but nukes as well as chemical weapons are bad for the planet. There is the planet to think about—and all its denizens. So if we can, as a, if not THE, world’s major player, help nudge things along to a non-nuke world, I’m all for it. So I think the tone, verbiage, and symbolism all count for the good side.

That casual Reaganite attitude doesn’t fly anymore buddy. Reagan was President in a different time. A time when we weren’t faced with a constant state of war and potential annihilation.

355 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:33:42pm

re: #325 Cato the Elder

Wait…weren’t the census thugs supposed to finish her off?

Apparently, after yelling through the mail slot “Hello? Hello? You OK in there? Ms. Geller, this is the Census Bureau, can I talk to you for just a minute? Everything OK in there?”, Ms. Nina Jackson, nursing student and mother of two, gave up and went on to her next address.

Pam had to have a stiff drink to two to get her nerves under control.

356 Gus  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:33:56pm

re: #349 Jimmah

Aw shucks. I’m sure we’ll all miss his relentless stupid baiting, and his hissy fits about being criticised on his English…///

[Video]

Pass out the party favors!

What a relief.

357 prairiefire  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:34:11pm

Try this:[Link: www.kclibrary.org…]

358 drcordell  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:34:24pm

re: #346 Capitalist Tool

That’s fiber- to- the- curb right? To your home and not to your pc/digital box?

My local cableco (Cox) is rolling out 50Mbps in a couple of months and 100Mbps a while after that. Don’t care how they get it here, I want it.

I live in an apartment, but yeah. They run a straight up fiber-optic home run line directly into a little box that’s in one of my closets. From there everything in the apartment is distributed via coaxial. It really is unbelievable. The internet is obviously face-meltingly fast, but the TV is amazing as well. Absolutely no macro-blocking from compression on any of the HD channels. Completely crystal clear 100% of the time.

359 Capitalist Tool  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:34:35pm

re: #355 SanFranciscoZionist

Apparently, after yelling through the mail slot “Hello? Hello? You OK in there? Ms. Geller, this is the Census Bureau, can I talk to you for just a minute? Everything OK in there?”, Ms. Nina Jackson, nursing student and mother of two, gave up and went on to her next address.

Pam had to have a stiff drink to two to get her nerves under control.

i’d give her a stiff one///

360 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:34:44pm

re: #342 Scriptorium

Sorry if this was covered earlier (I just skimmed through), but nukes as well as chemical weapons are bad for the planet. There is the planet to think about—and all its denizens. So if we can, as a, if not THE, world’s major player, help nudge things along to a non-nuke world, I’m all for it. So I think the tone, verbiage, and symbolism all count for the good side.

Good point. I hope that if we get hit by a nuke from Iran or NK, that we think about the planet and consider that if we retaliate, we may be helping along the extinction of the snail darter or something like that. We’ll keep that in mind. Possibly, we just won’t do anything, and let Iran of NK take all the blame for radiating half the planet. Yep, that’ll show them.

361 Slap  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:35:36pm

re: #345 oaktree

She’s just plain gifted. Tie Cato’s recommendation to The Zimmerman Telegram and The Guns of August, and you’ll have quite a remarkable picture of the world before it killed itself into the new millennium.

(Cato, if I could but ding more than once….recommending Tuchman will always get smiles from me…)

362 drcordell  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:35:58pm

re: #360 Walter L. Newton

Good point. I hope that if we get hit by a nuke from Iran or NK, that we think about the planet and consider that if we retaliate, we may be helping along the extinction of the snail darter or something like that. We’ll keep that in mind. Possibly, we just won’t do anything, and let Iran of NK take all the blame for radiating half the planet. Yep, that’ll show them.

If North Korea or Iran had the missile technology to even hit the U.S. mainland I’d take this situation a little more seriously.

363 Kilroy01  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:36:10pm

re: #342 Scriptorium

Chemical weapons don’t don’t throw megatons of radioactive crap into the air to circle the globe. Chemical attacks are pin point accurate and don’t destroy “stuff” in comparison. Also Chemicals can be washed off and don’t have a half life.

Now Biological weapons.. that is a completely different Pandora’s Box.

365 cliffster  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:36:23pm

re: #362 drcordell

If North Korea or Iran had the missile technology to even hit the U.S. mainland I’d take this situation a little more seriously.

N Korea can hit California. They said so

366 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:37:01pm

re: #354 drcordell

That casual Reaganite attitude doesn’t fly anymore buddy. Reagan was President in a different time. A time when we weren’t faced with a constant state of war and potential annihilation.

Wait a minute. If I remember the Reagan years correctly, we were faced with potential annihilation. If we weren’t, what the hell did my classmates and I spend all that time for making peace cranes and worrying about mushroom clouds?

367 Capitalist Tool  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:37:05pm

re: #358 drcordell
How fat’s yer pipe?
i get an ‘advertised’ 20Mb, but actually pull around 26 most of the time… they give you more so they can more- or- less meet their guaranteed speed.

368 drcordell  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:37:49pm

re: #365 cliffster

N Korea can hit California. They said so

Yeah and Kim Jong Il says that his birth was foretold by a swallow, and heralded by the appearance of a double-rainbow and a new star in the night sky. Do you believe that too?

369 tradewind  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:37:56pm

re: #364 Killgore Trout
And in Selah, WA, of all places. Oh, the irony.

370 cliffster  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:38:02pm

re: #364 Killgore Trout

Charles Alan Wilson Charged With Threatening Sen. Patty Muray’s Life

What kind of internet surfing do you do that turns up 2-dicked lizards and a representative getting death threats?

371 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:38:13pm

re: #362 drcordell

If North Korea or Iran had the missile technology to even hit the U.S. mainland I’d take this situation a little more seriously.

The Norks are within range of Japan and Seoul, that’s the real problem with the Norks.

372 drcordell  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:38:24pm

re: #367 Capitalist Tool

How fat’s yer pipe?
i get an ‘advertised’ 20Mb, but actually pull around 26 most of the time… they give you more so they can more- or- less meet their guaranteed speed.

I wanna say we have the 30/25 package? 30mbps downstream and 25mpbs upload sounds about right.

373 Capitalist Tool  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:38:32pm

re: #366 SanFranciscoZionist

Wait a minute. If I remember the Reagan years correctly, we were faced with potential annihilation. If we weren’t, what the hell did my classmates and I spend all that time for making peace cranes and worrying about mushroom clouds?

Talk about a generation gap- we did “duck and cover”.

374 cliffster  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:38:33pm

re: #368 drcordell

Yeah and Kim Jong Il says that his birth was foretold by a swallow, and heralded by the appearance of a double-rainbow and a new star in the night sky. Do you believe that too?

I don’t know - let’s see what his birth certificate says

375 Feline Fearless Leader  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:38:36pm

re: #361 Slap

She’s just plain gifted. Tie Cato’s recommendation to The Zimmerman Telegram and The Guns of August, and you’ll have quite a remarkable picture of the world before it killed itself into the new millennium.

(Cato, if I could but ding more than once…recommending Tuchman will always get smiles from me…)

I’ve read _Guns of August_. Currently getting a bit of that worldview since I’m almost done with D’Este’s Warlord which is a biography of Churchill up through the end of WW2 and focusing on his military experience among other things.

376 Varek Raith  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:38:42pm

re: #370 cliffster

What kind of internet surfing do you do that turns up 2-dicked lizards and a representative getting death threats?

…
Heh, sounds like an interesting google search…
:)

377 Gus  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:38:52pm

re: #332 lawhawk

Again, he’s pushing for limitations on US military capabilities at a time when foreign countries are not doing the same. The Russians are trying to get their latest missile system operative after multiple problems. The Chinese certainly aren’t standing still on their nuclear capabilities either. This ties the hands of the US and keeps the US from updating our current nuclear inventory.

He’s leading in to these talks already showing his hand. That’s the exact opposite of what you’d do as a negotiator - you don’t show your hand before talks because that becomes the starting point for the other side to hammer home to their advantage - not yours.

I would have completely agreed with that during the Cold War. However, the primary threat is from North Korea, Iran, and yet unknown rogue nations.

A lot of this still hinges upon nuclear defense plans which has not been mentioned. That remains the trump card that the Russians typically find objectionable.

In the end we have to see what comes out of START and read through the fine print. Right now it’s still rhetoric.

378 McSpiff  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:38:52pm

re: #366 SanFranciscoZionist

Wait a minute. If I remember the Reagan years correctly, we were faced with potential annihilation. If we weren’t, what the hell did my classmates and I spend all that time for making peace cranes and worrying about mushroom clouds?

Hell, I was in school in the 90s, living the dream of the peace dividend, and we still had to make peace cranes. I swear lesson plans are updated about once every 20 years…

379 drcordell  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:39:05pm

re: #371 SanFranciscoZionist

The Norks are within range of Japan and Seoul, that’s the real problem with the Norks.

Yeah but they don’t need a nuke for that. Hell, they have 5,000 artillery pieces aimed at Seoul right now that could level the city in about 3 minutes flat with almost no warning.

380 Cheese Eating Victory Monkey  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:39:13pm

France’s position on this topic a few years ago. Oh how the times have changed.

381 lawhawk  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:39:36pm

re: #362 drcordell

Hawaii and Alaska don’t count?

382 Macha  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:39:59pm

re: #327 Killgore Trout

Scientists find new species of lizard with double penis

Double the pleasure, double the fun.

383 Feline Fearless Leader  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:40:04pm

re: #370 cliffster

He threatened her with a lizard?!?

O_o

384 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:40:07pm

re: #373 Capitalist Tool

Talk about a generation gap- we did “duck and cover”.

What is duck and cover supposed to actually do, anyway? I guess it shields your eyes from the blast…

Never totally got that.

385 Capitalist Tool  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:40:12pm

re: #368 drcordell

Yeah and Kim Jong Il says that his birth was foretold by a swallow, and heralded by the appearance of a double-rainbow and a new star in the night sky. Do you believe that too?


Can’t tranlate swallow, but the other part is likely… same as it was for Cato the Elder, for instance.

386 Cato the Elder  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:40:36pm

Anyone who believes that this nuclear policy statement is Obama trying to weaken America must also believe that Robert Gates, the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and everybody high up in the chain of command charged with protecting us has been bought off, is asleep on the job, or is a seekrit Kenyan Moooslim terror-loving tool who has a deep-seated hatred of this country and wants to kill pink people.

In particular, you have to believe that Gates loves his job more than his country.

Not that that will stop any of the screaming. Just sayin’.

387 drcordell  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:40:37pm

re: #381 lawhawk

Hawaii and Alaska don’t count?

U.S. mainland. As I said earlier. And quite frankly I don’t even think NoKo’s crappy missiles can even hit Hawaii.

388 Varek Raith  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:40:58pm

re: #384 SanFranciscoZionist

What is duck and cover supposed to actually do, anyway? I guess it shields your eyes from the blast…

Never totally got that.

Duck and Cover!
.
.
.
.
Then, kiss your ass goodbye!

389 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:41:09pm

re: #379 drcordell

Yeah but they don’t need a nuke for that. Hell, they have 5,000 artillery pieces aimed at Seoul right now that could level the city in about 3 minutes flat with almost no warning.

(SFZ goes into the kitchen, finds the whiskey, and dumps some in her coffee)

390 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:41:39pm

re: #389 SanFranciscoZionist

(SFZ goes into the kitchen, finds the whiskey, and dumps some in her coffee)

i’ll take a dram, if you’re offering…

391 Jimmah  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:41:59pm

re: #356 Gus 802

Pass out the party favors!

What a relief.

Yep indeed.

Youtube Video
392 Capitalist Tool  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:42:08pm

re: #384 SanFranciscoZionist

What is duck and cover supposed to actually do, anyway? I guess it shields your eyes from the blast…

Never totally got that.


Give you something to do or hope for, I suppose- like building your own personal nuke shelter in the backyard, or going on scrap metal drives, like in WWII.

393 Decatur Deb  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:42:33pm

re: #377 Gus 802

I would have completely agreed with that during the Cold War. However, the primary threat is from North Korea, Iran, and yet unknown rogue nations.

A lot of this still hinges upon nuclear defense plans which has not been mentioned. That remains the trump card that the Russians typically find objectionable.

In the end we have to see what comes out of START and read through the fine print. Right now it’s still rhetoric.

One possible target audience for the rhetoric are the sane political and military staffs buried under the less-sane national leaders. It might strengthen their resolve to “underperform” if they start getting really scary vibes from the top.

394 goddamnedfrank  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:42:34pm

re: #384 SanFranciscoZionist

What is duck and cover supposed to actually do, anyway? I guess it shields your eyes from the blast…

Never totally got that.

It gives you the opportunity to kiss your ass goodbye.

395 drcordell  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:42:41pm

re: #389 SanFranciscoZionist

(SFZ goes into the kitchen, finds the whiskey, and dumps some in her coffee)

Seriously. Maybe that’s why the South Koreans have such a heavy drinking culture.

396 Macha  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:42:43pm

re: #384 SanFranciscoZionist

What is duck and cover supposed to actually do, anyway? I guess it shields your eyes from the blast…

Never totally got that.

I think it was duck under something. A desk and cover your head and eyes with your arms.

397 Scriptorium  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:42:45pm

re: #363 Kilroy01

Chemical weapons don’t don’t throw megatons of radioactive crap into the air to circle the globe. Chemical attacks are pin point accurate and don’t destroy “stuff” in comparison. Also Chemicals can be washed off and don’t have a half life.

Now Biological weapons.. that is a completely different Pandora’s Box.

Good point. Biologicals are what I should have said. And it’s not an odd snail darter or something that is of concern, but air, water, ecosystems—you know, big stuff (referencing Walter Newman’s #360 comment).

398 ryannon  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:42:54pm

re: #380 Cheese Eating Victory Monkey

France’s position on this topic a few years ago. Oh how the times have changed.

The French politicians love to talk tough. It’s a national pastime.

399 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:43:10pm

re: #386 Cato the Elder

Anyone who believes that this nuclear policy statement is Obama trying to weaken America must also believe that Robert Gates, the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and everybody high up in the chain of command charged with protecting us has been bought off, is asleep on the job, or is a seekrit Kenyan Moooslim terror-loving tool who has a deep-seated hatred of this country and wants to kill pink people.

In particular, you have to believe that Gates loves his job more than his country.

Not that that will stop any of the screaming. Just sayin’.

Please note, also, folks, that not everything Obama says is what Obama thinks.

400 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:43:31pm

re: #397 Scriptorium

Good point. Biologicals are what I should have said. And it’s not an odd snail darter or something that is of concern, but air, water, ecosystems—you know, big stuff (referencing Walter Newman’s #360 comment).

Newton… if you’re going to disagree with me get the fucking name right :)

401 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:44:00pm

re: #386 Cato the Elder

Anyone who believes that this nuclear policy statement is Obama trying to weaken America must also believe that Robert Gates, the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and everybody high up in the chain of command charged with protecting us has been bought off, is asleep on the job, or is a seekrit Kenyan Moooslim terror-loving tool who has a deep-seated hatred of this country and wants to kill pink people.

In particular, you have to believe that Gates loves his job more than his country.

Not that that will stop any of the screaming. Just sayin’.

Nobody here believes that, but Glenn Beck will probably diagram it on his blackboards in about an hour.

402 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:44:11pm

re: #399 SanFranciscoZionist

Please note, also, folks, that not everything Obama says is what Obama thinks.

I think we can ALL agree with that. Not for the same reasons, but all in all, we can agree.

403 Feline Fearless Leader  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:44:34pm

re: #389 SanFranciscoZionist

Speaking of alcohol, I was gifted by my sister-in-law with a bottle of lychee-flavored liquor. Any suggestions for how to use it?

404 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:44:35pm

re: #370 cliffster

What kind of internet surfing do you do that turns up 2-dicked lizards and a representative getting death threats?

LOL!
Very interesting internet surfing!
Cue Artie Johnson voice..

405 Capitalist Tool  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:44:39pm

re: #400 Walter L. Newton

Newman! - in my best Seinfeld voice.

406 Decatur Deb  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:44:48pm

re: #392 Capitalist Tool

Give you something to do or hope for, I suppose- like building your own personal nuke shelter in the backyard, or going on scrap metal drives, like in WWII.

If your school was on the fringe, it kept the acoustical tile off your head.

407 Capitalist Tool  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:45:11pm

re: #403 oaktree

Speaking of alcohol, I was gifted by my sister-in-law with a bottle of lychee-flavored liquor. Any suggestions for how to use it?

re: #403 oaktree

Speaking of alcohol, I was gifted by my sister-in-law with a bottle of lychee-flavored liquor. Any suggestions for how to use it?

Drink!

408 ryannon  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:45:29pm

re: #384 SanFranciscoZionist

What is duck and cover supposed to actually do, anyway? I guess it shields your eyes from the blast…

Never totally got that.

It was the saddest thing. A siren going off in grammar school. Kids filing out into the darkened hallways, crouching down, covering their head with their arms. As young as we were, we knew we could kiss our ass goodbye if the bombs ever fell.

409 tradewind  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:45:42pm

re: #386 Cato the Elder
I don’t believe he’s trying to weaken America…. he is our president, and I have to believe that he is a patriot.
I do think he’s seriously misinformed and that his inexperience is showing.
The weakening , if it occurs, will be an unintended consequence of the president’s world view.

410 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:45:46pm

re: #397 Scriptorium

Good point. Biologicals are what I should have said. And it’s not an odd snail darter or something that is of concern, but air, water, ecosystems—you know, big stuff (referencing Walter Newman’s #360 comment).

And you didn’t even understand my comment. Anyone using any sort of WMD is NOT INTERESTED in the ecology of the planet. Appealing to that sentiment is naive.

411 Feline Fearless Leader  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:46:03pm

re: #407 Capitalist Tool

Drink!

That’s the default. I was wondering if there was some sort of magical mixed-drink concoction I should try it in first.

412 prairiefire  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:46:15pm

re: #384 SanFranciscoZionist

re: #403 oaktree

A martini?

413 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:46:20pm

re: #405 Capitalist Tool

Newman! - in my best Seinfeld voice.

I never watched Seinfeld, don’t know what you mean.

414 cliffster  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:46:28pm

re: #403 oaktree

Speaking of alcohol, I was gifted by my sister-in-law with a bottle of lychee-flavored liquor. Any suggestions for how to use it?

I can show you.

415 tradewind  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:46:34pm

re: #403 oaktree
Use it to flavor creme brulee or add it to fresh fruit salad.

416 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:46:38pm

re: #395 drcordell

Seriously. Maybe that’s why the South Koreans have such a heavy drinking culture.

I always thought that was the cold, but I imagine having the Norks up on the border does not help.

417 drcordell  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:46:48pm

re: #403 oaktree

Speaking of alcohol, I was gifted by my sister-in-law with a bottle of lychee-flavored liquor. Any suggestions for how to use it?

I’ve seen it used in lychee martinis at a few bars in NYC. Basic recipe seems to be a measure of vodka, another measure of the lychee liquor, a twist of lemon and maybe a few floating lychees.

418 Capitalist Tool  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:46:53pm

re: #406 Decatur Deb

If your school was on the fringe, it kept the acoustical tile off your head.

We had 2 kinds of drills in elementay school… 1st, we’d hop down next to our desks and cover our little heads,
2nd, we’d all file quietly into the hall and sit along the walls all covered up.

419 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:47:05pm

re: #410 Walter L. Newton

And you didn’t even understand my comment. Anyone using any sort of WMD is NOT INTERESTED in the ecology of the planet. Appealing to that sentiment is naive.

well, and outside of the immediate blast zone, the local ecology will recover just fine, too. so it’s not really that big of an ecological concern…i think a massive chem exposure might actually be worse.

420 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:47:09pm

re: #395 drcordell

Seriously. Maybe that’s why the South Koreans have such a heavy drinking culture.

I wonder if Israel’s Iron dome system would help in that case.

421 prairiefire  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:47:21pm

re: #384 SanFranciscoZionist

It was something to do, but a lesson in futility.

422 Macha  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:47:24pm

re: #411 oaktree

That’s the default. I was wondering if there was some sort of magical mixed-drink concoction I should try it in first.

In a pinch, disinfectant

423 garhighway  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:47:29pm

re: #386 Cato the Elder

Anyone who believes that this nuclear policy statement is Obama trying to weaken America must also believe that Robert Gates, the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and everybody high up in the chain of command charged with protecting us has been bought off, is asleep on the job, or is a seekrit Kenyan Moooslim terror-loving tool who has a deep-seated hatred of this country and wants to kill pink people.

In particular, you have to believe that Gates loves his job more than his country.

Not that that will stop any of the screaming. Just sayin’.

Obviously, Gates is a commie.

424 Capitalist Tool  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:47:37pm

re: #411 oaktree

That’s the default. I was wondering if there was some sort of magical mixed-drink concoction I should try it in first.

Ice!

425 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:47:51pm

re: #409 tradewind

I don’t believe he’s trying to weaken America… he is our president, and I have to believe that he is a patriot.
I do think he’s seriously misinformed and that his inexperience is showing.
The weakening , if it occurs, will be an unintended consequence of the president’s world view.

Quite Concur.

426 drcordell  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:47:51pm

re: #420 Dark_Falcon

I wonder if Israel’s Iron dome system would help in that case.

Doubtful. I don’t think there’s much you can do when your enemy is so close they are within artillery range.

427 Jimmah  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:47:53pm

re: #386 Cato the Elder

Anyone who believes that this nuclear policy statement is Obama trying to weaken America must also believe that Robert Gates, the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and everybody high up in the chain of command charged with protecting us has been bought off, is asleep on the job, or is a seekrit Kenyan Moooslim terror-loving tool who has a deep-seated hatred of this country and wants to kill pink people.

In particular, you have to believe that Gates loves his job more than his country.

Not that that will stop any of the screaming. Just sayin’.

It won’t because you just described the alternative universe many on the right inhabit. This is the actual view from the Geller quadrant of wingnut space.

428 Feline Fearless Leader  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:48:05pm

re: #419 Aceofwhat?

well, and outside of the immediate blast zone, the local ecology will recover just fine, too. so it’s not really that big of an ecological concern…i think a massive chem exposure might actually be worse.

Until the giants ants come out of hiding and set us to work in their dark sugar mines…

(I for one welcome our new insect overlords.)

429 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:48:05pm

re: #403 oaktree

Speaking of alcohol, I was gifted by my sister-in-law with a bottle of lychee-flavored liquor. Any suggestions for how to use it?

Uh, are you thinking more of cocktails, or cooking? Sounds like it might make a nice marinade or glaze for a chicken dish.

430 Scriptorium  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:48:22pm

re: #400 Walter L. Newton

Newton… if you’re going to disagree with me get the fucking name right :)

oops — how tacky of me, sorry!

431 Gus  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:48:26pm

re: #423 garhighway

Obviously, Gates is a commie.

They’ve gotten to him!!11!!

Gates is now One of Them™

/

432 Decatur Deb  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:48:37pm

re: #418 Capitalist Tool

We had 2 kinds of drills in elementay school… 1st, we’d hop down next to our desks and cover our little heads,
2nd, we’d all file quietly into the hall and sit along the walls all covered up.

Pittsburgh schools followed the drill, but we were proud that our mills were high on the first-strike list.

433 Macha  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:48:51pm

re: #408 ryannon

It was the saddest thing. A siren going off in grammar school. Kids filing out into the darkened hallways, crouching down, covering their head with their arms. As young as we were, we knew we could kiss our ass goodbye if the bombs ever fell.

Yep, and the big posters were up on the wall in every classroom as a constant reminder.

434 Capitalist Tool  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:48:51pm

re: #413 Walter L. Newton

I never watched Seinfeld, don’t know what you mean.

lol-

435 tradewind  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:48:53pm

re: #359 Capitalist Tool
There’s just no accounting for taste….

436 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:49:02pm

re: #428 oaktree

Until the giants ants come out of hiding and set us to work in their dark sugar mines…

(I for one welcome our new insect overlords.)

Ha! THEM! I loved that movie as a kid-

437 Gus  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:49:04pm

re: #427 Jimmah

It won’t because you just described the alternative universe many on the right inhabit. This is the actual view from the Geller quadrant of wingnut space.

Get drunk and stare at the Drudge headline.

/

438 ryannon  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:49:29pm

re: #418 Capitalist Tool

We had 2 kinds of drills in elementay school… 1st, we’d hop down next to our desks and cover our little heads,
2nd, we’d all file quietly into the hall and sit along the walls all covered up.

Then we’d go home and have nightmares.

I believe that some of the first serial killers (young people, sometimes couples) started appearing during this period.

439 Capitalist Tool  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:49:52pm

re: #428 oaktree

Until the giants ants come out of hiding and set us to work in their dark sugar mines…

(I for one welcome our new insect overlords.)

Unless they’re like that thing in Cloverfield

440 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:50:03pm

re: #418 Capitalist Tool

We had 2 kinds of drills in elementay school… 1st, we’d hop down next to our desks and cover our little heads,
2nd, we’d all file quietly into the hall and sit along the walls all covered up.

We do duck cover and hold for earthquake drills in my school.

First day of school, I told the kids, get your head covered and pointing away from the windows. It’s better to take the glass in your butt than your face.

One boy informed me that he would take his chances with his face, because ‘my buns are perfect’.

441 Feline Fearless Leader  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:50:03pm

re: #429 SanFranciscoZionist

Uh, are you thinking more of cocktails, or cooking? Sounds like it might make a nice marinade or glaze for a chicken dish.

Cooking was something I hadn’t thought of. That’s possible. I tend to do “hot” for glazes using either jalapeno jelly or some specialty “steak” sauce I have a supply of.

Thanks for the suggestion.

442 Mad Al-Jaffee  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:50:28pm

re: #432 Decatur Deb

Pittsburgh schools followed the drill, but we were proud that our mills were high on the first-strike list.

I grew up miles from DC and NSA. I always knew that if we were ever attacked, I would be vaporized.

443 cliffster  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:50:53pm

re: #440 SanFranciscoZionist

We do duck cover and hold for earthquake drills in my school.

First day of school, I told the kids, get your head covered and pointing away from the windows. It’s better to take the glass in your butt than your face.

One boy informed me that he would take his chances with his face, because ‘my buns are perfect’.

don’t you teach Jr High?

444 Scriptorium  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:51:32pm

re: #410 Walter L. Newton

And you didn’t even understand my comment. Anyone using any sort of WMD is NOT INTERESTED in the ecology of the planet. Appealing to that sentiment is naive.

No, I did. I think holding the option to respond in overwhelming force is prudent. But I also think the good guys have to be consistent about leading from the good. Edging, nudging, leading, working to decrease planet/civilization-lethal weapons—without defanging ourselves in the process. A tightrope process that I hope our gov. and other allies are up to.

445 ryannon  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:51:34pm

re: #433 Macha

Yep, and the big posters were up on the wall in every classroom as a constant reminder.

That must have been in California.

In my school in Chicago, posters were routinely ripped off the walls.

It was a tough house.

446 Capitalist Tool  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:52:07pm

I’m amazed… thought the duck and cover thing went out in the late 50’s - had no idea.

447 ryannon  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:53:41pm

re: #446 Capitalist Tool

I’m amazed… thought the duck and cover thing went out in the late 50’s - had no idea.

It did.

448 cliffster  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:53:46pm

Stop, drop, and roll

449 Kilroy01  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:54:27pm

re: #419 Aceofwhat?

i think a massive chem exposure might actually be worse.

Depends on what you mean by massive.
That kind of attack isn’t something you can deliver with a missile or a single tanker truck (then you need to disperse it, which adds to the “fun”).

450 Bagua  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:55:05pm

Such an unimaginable choice for any president.

451 Cato the Elder  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:55:51pm

re: #409 tradewind

I don’t believe he’s trying to weaken America… he is our president, and I have to believe that he is a patriot.
I do think he’s seriously misinformed and that his inexperience is showing.
The weakening , if it occurs, will be an unintended consequence of the president’s world view.

Oh, cut me a break. His “world view” trumps that of everybody in the military hierarchy?

If this represents a dangerous weakening of our security in the world, wouldn’t you think someone a little higher up the chain of command than a few St. Sgts. (Ret.) and ex-PFCs from the Oath Keepers with names like Gat Buano and Firepants would be telling us about it?

452 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:56:03pm

re: #449 Kilroy01

Depends on what you mean by massive.
That kind of attack isn’t something you can deliver with a missile or a single tanker truck (then you need to disperse it, which adds to the “fun”).

true. but again, outside of the vaporization zone, the ecology recovers faster than the humans. i think the thousands of human deaths are by far the overriding concern on this particular topic.

453 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:56:26pm

re: #451 Cato the Elder

Oh, cut me a break. His “world view” trumps that of everybody in the military hierarchy?

If this represents a dangerous weakening of our security in the world, wouldn’t you think someone a little higher up the chain of command than a few St. Sgts. (Ret.) and ex-PFCs from the Oath Keepers with names like Gat Buano and Firepants would be telling us about it?

i wonder what the Mall Ninja thinks/

454 Macha  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:56:38pm

re: #449 Kilroy01

Dispersing a biological or chemical weapon is actually quite difficult. It is extremely effective though, in instilling mass panic among a population.

455 Decatur Deb  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:56:43pm

re: #449 Kilroy01

Depends on what you mean by massive.
That kind of attack isn’t something you can deliver with a missile or a single tanker truck (then you need to disperse it, which adds to the “fun”).

Even the word “persistent”, applied to the worst of the chem weapons, refers to a matter of days. We put many tons of similar stuff out every year as agricultural pesticides.

456 Kilroy01  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:57:22pm

re: #452 Aceofwhat?

True enough but other weapons can have the same effect without all that political nastiness.

457 ryannon  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:57:32pm

re: #448 cliffster

Stop, drop, and roll

Shake, rattle, and roll

458 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:58:09pm

re: #443 cliffster

don’t you teach Jr High?

High school.

459 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 12:59:21pm

re: #456 Kilroy01

True enough but other weapons can have the same effect without all that political nastiness.

not on the same scale. but i was only referring to the ecological bit.

460 cliffster  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 1:00:22pm

re: #458 SanFranciscoZionist

High school.

Heh. I’m sure you received good training in the right way to respond to that statement.

461 Randall Gross  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 1:00:49pm

re: #364 Killgore Trout

Charles Alan Wilson Charged With Threatening Sen. Patty Muray’s Life

Maybe he’s part of that Yakima Militia that someone said didn’t exist the other day… on the other hand he’s probably just another Senior who the R’s have scared to death with the coming healthpocalypse.

462 tradewind  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 1:02:02pm

re: #370 cliffster
’ Good morning, HAL, Show me the latest rightwing atrocity ‘.//

463 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 1:02:12pm

re: #426 drcordell

Doubtful. I don’t think there’s much you can do when your enemy is so close they are within artillery range.

The Norks do have a lot of rocket artillery and some the pieces ranged on Seoul are those types of systems. It could help against those. Might be worth Israel and the ROK talking about. I’m just thinking out loud, mostly.

464 Capitalist Tool  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 1:02:31pm

re: #453 Aceofwhat?

i wonder what the Mall Ninja thinks/

Ask him…

465 tradewind  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 1:03:37pm

re: #451 Cato the Elder
General Petraeus.
Just saying.
The title CIC is not an honorary one.

466 Bagua  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 1:07:29pm

re: #463 Dark_Falcon

The Norks do have a lot of rocket artillery and some the pieces ranged on Seoul are those types of systems. It could help against those. Might be worth Israel and the ROK talking about. I’m just thinking out loud, mostly.

The problems becomes scale, NK has such a tremendous volume of artillery aimed at Seoul, they could overwhelm any defense shield.

467 3eff Jeff  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 1:10:22pm

re: #85Spider Mensch

Alright. This is my first post. Hi everyone, I live in the Bay Area now, but I grew up in Washington.

Ok, Spider, I down-dinged you, because you don’t seem to know how nukes work. I actually worked this out for a school project once. If you take a 20MT nuke (which is gigantic by any standard), and drop it right on the Space Needle with an optimal air burst, you’ll take out most of Seattle and the Greater Seattle Area in the fireball and high devastation zones. There would be a firestorm in the Tacoma/Everett radius, and you’d be able to feel it in Olympia, but everyone there would be mostly Ok. That’s at an optimal airburst, eg, bomber or ICBM delivered bomb detonating at 17,000ft (IIRC).

A ground burst, particularly in the Puget Sound isn’t going to work half as well. The Seattle Harbor is shrouded by a bunch tall hills, which would greatly damp the fireball and high devastation zone. Much less effective. If you’re anywhere near downtown Seattle (lots of high tech and financials there), sucks to be you, but you have a reasonable chance of surviving if you are a couple miles away. Probably a pretty good one if you’re on the other side of Lake Washington.

As for the fallout, the prevailing winds would run it right into the Cascade mountains. It would stay mostly on the Western side of the state. The fallout that got into the upper layers of the atmosphere would be lightly deposited over sections of Western Washington, and hardly any would reach the Midwest. If you were on the other side of the Cascades, your life would likely remain unchanged.

That’s for a 20MT bomb. The W88 that is the United State’s biggest bomb that we keep on hand for nuking people is 495kT. That’s right, just less than half a megaton. It’s largely considered overkill. Terrorists aren’t going to get their hands on a 20MT bomb. A couple of hundred kilotons is probably as large as we’ll ever see in a nuclear terrorism plot, because that’s what you could steal from a nuke armed country. If you’re sourcing from NK or Iran, you’re unlikely to get a bomb bigger than a few tens of kilotons. Those are orders of magnitude smaller than what I just described.

It would suck, it would be horrible, I would cry for friends and family if Seattle got hit. I’d want some sort of retaliation (but as Walter keeps implying, it depends strongly on the exact circumstances). However, the city would not be beyond rebuilding (see Hiroshima and Nagasaki, particularly if it was a ground burst, which is wildly sub-optimal), and the only damage done to the hinterlands would be from talking heads inciting people who know nothing about radiation to behave like beheaded chickens.

Nuclear terrorism is bad. But quit fearmongering.

468 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 1:12:33pm

re: #467 3eff Jeff

Long post, but very knowledgeable. Welcome to LGF.

469 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 1:13:06pm

re: #466 Bagua

The problems becomes scale, NK has such a tremendous volume of artillery aimed at Seoul, they could overwhelm any defense shield.

I know. But it might reduce the number of hits. It was just an idea.

470 canuckistan  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 1:13:46pm

re: #446 Capitalist Tool

I’m amazed… thought the duck and cover thing went out in the late 50’s - had no idea.

It’s still here for elementary students. It’s called “lockdown” these days. The teachers lock the doors, and the kids hide in closets or under piles of jackets. It’s in case a shooter goes on a rampage.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org…]

In the 50’s the danger was from without… now it’s from within. :(

471 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 1:15:17pm

re: #460 cliffster

Heh. I’m sure you received good training in the right way to respond to that statement.

Not particularly…

472 Ericus58  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 1:15:37pm

Lockheed F-35 to Carry Nuclear Weapons, Pentagon Says

[Link: www.bloomberg.com…]

““The Air Force will retain a dual-capable fighter” that can deliver both conventional and nuclear weapons “as it replaces F-16s with F-35 Joint Strike Fighter,” the defense department said in its Nuclear Posture Review released today. The Pentagon said it will “retain the capability to forward- deploy U.S. nuclear weapons on tactical fighter bombers,” including the F-35 and heavy-bombers including the B-2 and B- 52s.”

473 3eff Jeff  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 1:20:57pm

re: #468 Dark_Falcon

Why thank you, sir.

474 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 1:20:58pm

I wish President Obama success in this endeavor.

475 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 1:21:47pm

re: #473 3eff Jeff

Took you 400 comments to write that, or did you jot that down in a few minutes?

Excellent post. Informative.

476 Bagua  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 1:22:04pm

re: #469 Dark_Falcon

I know. But it might reduce the number of hits. It was just an idea.

It does makes sense for whatever limited shield it proves, coupled with a massive first strike it might reduce the destruction, but Seoul is really impossible to protect fully. The North Koreans have thousands of artillery pieces dug into the hills about 30 miles away, as you know.

477 3eff Jeff  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 1:22:40pm

re: #475 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Came onto the thread late. That’s off the top of my head.

478 Cato the Elder  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 1:24:12pm

re: #465 tradewind

General Petraeus.
Just saying.
The title CIC is not an honorary one.

It was meant to be. The framers of the constitution intended it to be conferred only in time of war and only after war had been declared by Congress. When said war was ended, the title would revert to potentiality.

And the notion that the president can decide at a moment’s notice to order the 82nd Airborne into action in Somalia, or command a battlefield unit to stand down in Afghanistan, without consultation and just on a whim, is nonsense.

479 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 1:24:39pm

re: #477 3eff Jeff

Geeze. Gosh. Heck. Other mild expletives.

Impressive.

480 3eff Jeff  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 1:28:02pm

re: #479 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Yeah, well, my mini-essay and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee, and not a good one at that.

481 eastsider  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 1:29:29pm

The threats we face today are way different since the USSR fell. We have to alter our defensive posture, tactics, spending, as well as the communications and signals we send to the world.

Nukes haven’t and won’t ever deter terrorism. Nor can you use them effectively against terrorists.

If this signal and the shift in subsequent American policy reduces the number Nukes in the world by some number, that’s a number less that current (and future) terrorists will be unable to get their hands on.

Frankly, I don’t feel naked or unprotected at all.

482 eastsider  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 1:32:06pm

And the outrage we’re seeing over this is pretty consistent with the right wing outrage of the past 14 months.

They’re refusing to accept that the world is changing around them (gays = okay, carbon = bad environmental policy, uninformed bravado + nuclear arsenal = bad foreign policy). And instead of adapting themselves to the way things work, they’re lashing out at Obama, who is simply trying to best position America for greatness in this shifting landscape.

Abject stupidity.

483 William Barnett-Lewis  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 1:35:57pm

re: #467 3eff Jeff

Interesting. High accuracy level, too. Welcome to the lizard looney bin.

William

484 lostlakehiker  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 1:36:51pm

re: #166 eclectic infidel

Why? Why not just strike back with conventional weapons? Why punish the civilian population for the actions of their government? What’s wrong with just using surgical strikes against government and military targets?

That’s grossly insufficient, is what’s wrong with it. The response to a serious WMD attack must be war, with the war aim being to kill everyone who had a major hand in the attack, kill many of those who had a peripheral hand in it, overthrow the offending regime, and install a government that we can trust not to try anything of the sort again.

If we can manage that without using nukes, that would be best. If we can manage it without using nukes on cities, that would be second best. We have to be willing to take some losses in conventional fighting; nukes are too serious to be thought of as a way to save a platoon here and there.

But one way or the other, the guys who staged that attack must be hunted down and killed. If it takes decades to find the last few fugitives, so be it. Wherever they are, whoever’s sanctuary they enjoy. Cloak and dagger stuff allowed.

Not using nukes is both prudence and mercy for the innocent. The guilty can never be excused and should not be spared.

485 3eff Jeff  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 1:37:11pm

Also, how to survive a nuclear attack: [Link: www.ted.com…]

Awesome TED talk. He covers what to do if a terrorist bomb pops in your town. (For anyone who hasn’t moved onto the next thread.)

486 ShaunP  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 1:37:14pm

Just wanted to add a bit of context for everyone out there; this isn’t really a drastic change in policy:

[Link: en.wikipedia.org…]

Five states are recognized by the NPT as nuclear weapon states (NWS): China (signed 1992), France (1992), the Soviet Union (1968; obligations and rights now assumed by the Russian Federation), the United Kingdom (1968), and the United States (1968)…
…The five NWS parties have made undertakings not to use their nuclear weapons against a non-NWS party except in response to a nuclear attack, or a conventional attack in alliance with a Nuclear Weapons State. However, these undertakings have not been incorporated formally into the treaty, and the exact details have varied over time.

487 HypnoToad  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 1:45:38pm

In the early 1960s, I was still doing duck and cover in elementary school in Southern Cal. I also have strong memories of watching SAC bombers flying over the L.A. basin on at least a weekly basis, with fighters flying practice intercepts on them. The sky would be covered with long straight or slightly curving contrails with others S turning along them. I even remember hearing the deep drone of the B-36 on a few occasions when I was small.

488 harrylook  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 1:57:55pm

re: #259 Varek Raith

Call me naive but, responding to a horrible WMD attack on our civilians by unleashing a far greater WMD attack on the enemy’s civilians strikes me as…savage.

You’re missing the point. Making the enemy believe you would indeed be that savage is what actually saves us from the whole scenario taking place. We must have a credible nuclear threat, or WMD attack against us is more likely.

489 Jimmah  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 2:11:16pm

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]

NB : Although not posting on this thread, it seems Spare O Lake was butthurt enough about Gegenkritik getting banned to downding these posts. How sad.

490 bratwurst  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 2:19:11pm

re: #349 Jimmah

Aw shucks. I’m sure we’ll all miss his relentless stupid baiting, and his hissy fits about being criticised on his English…///


[Video]

I would contend Israel has too many enemies to have “friends” like him. You mileage may very. BTW, unlike myself he refused to reveal what he does to support Israel…except making lists of LGF posters he dislikes, of course.

491 albusteve  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 2:38:57pm

re: #426 drcordell

Doubtful. I don’t think there’s much you can do when your enemy is so close they are within artillery range.

that’s what tac nukes are for….no doubt S Korea is not gonna sit there and get hammered into dust

492 CuriousLurker  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 2:48:02pm

re: #156 Dark_Falcon

Dang, if I’d known you guys were having grilled troll I wouldn’t have eaten that plate of spaghetti I just finished.

493 Bob Levin  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 3:18:51pm

It seems that the fundamental weakness of the President’s statement, like so many of his statements, is that his meaning is ultimately not clear. On the one hand he says A, and then in the next paragraph he takes A away. And so there’s been a disagreement here saying that the President said such and such, and the other side is that the President didn’t say that because he qualified it with the exception. And both sides are correct. Does this signify a change in policy? I don’t know. Is this statement just a formality that a President has to do once a year in reviewing our nuclear arsenal? I don’t know.

It’s also unclear who the statement is for. Putin? Why would Putin think we would attack Russia? Why would we think Russia would attack the US? If it didn’t happen in the sixties and seventies, it’s probably no longer a possibility. Was the statement addressed to Hugo Chavez? Like Chavez is going to care? How about all of the nations in the Middle East who are starting nuclear programs? They aren’t starting those programs because of the US or even Israel. They are starting them because of Iran.

So is this statement directed to Iran? If so, what indicators are there that this statement will register? I don’t think there are any.

After all is said and done, I’m not sure anything was said or done with this Presidential statement.

494 Bob Levin  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 3:23:40pm

Oh, and the Gegenkritik ban, I believe, was fair. After he writes the topic becomes Gegenkritik and not the topical post.

495 Political Atheist  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 3:56:57pm

Maybe someone got into this before-From some reading I did over a couple years-so IMHO here- -Nukes have a lousy shelf life. Literally disarming themselves as certain elements decay and even hardy military grade technology decays. Life is rough right near weapons grade material.

We have a test ban. I do not expect anyone to trust untested nuclear warheads. It costs a lot to maintain the old ones. To reduce your arsenal, all you have to do is ignore it. We use rebuilds & upgrades that may or may not have been tested before the ban.

We have the new nuclear arms limit treaty with the Russians. We have an aging stockpile. We face a huge cost to maintain that many warheads. We have spent our money already.

Obviously incentives to de emphasize our nuclear arsenal abound.

“Global Strike” the ability to hit any target on the globe in two hours or so (maybe less) with ultra high precision bunker bombs reduces our need for the strategic arsenal. If/when all of the treaty “denuclearized” delivery systems are fully disarmed, they can be destroyed or redeployed with kinetic (solid tungsten or such) or conventional explosives.

For the US, nukes are becoming more of a liability. The next generation of strategic weapons beckons, and it has no nuclear warheads.

496 im_gumby_damnit  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 4:37:50pm

Frankly, I don’t really see the point of this policy announcement. It’s mushy and provides lots of wiggle room, which seems to undermine the underlying intent. At the same time, however, it also conveys to would-be WMD attackers that our response to such an attack would be, well, a little softer than under previous administrations.

How can that be a good message to convey? Regardless of whether we would (or should) use nuclear weapons in response to a biological or chemical attack, uncertainty about how the U.S. would respond is a deterrent.

I guess this is another example of “soft power.” I don’t get it.

497 captdiggs  Tue, Apr 6, 2010 6:11:24pm

re: #17 lawhawk

Why exactly does this policy, which has been in effect for more than 60 years need to be turned on its head and made far more complex than it need be? I’m waiting to hear why that’s the case. The Obama Administration, if it god forbid faced this situation, could have simply chosen to not retaliate with a nuclear strike as is its right and judgment as commander in chief. Instead, he’s made it a public acknowledgment and telegraphed a policy change that our nation’s enemies may use against us. That’s fundamentally destabilizing.

I concur.
I see no point in it at all. The entire posture was fine tuned by Kennedy as basically *you don’t know how we will respond* which was entirely appropriate.
Ultimately, no matter what the fine print, the enemies, and more than a few friends, of the US will define this as further weakness of will.—imo


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
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
3 weeks ago
Views: 440 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1