Obama’s Nuclear-Free World
[Guest post by DRJ]
Barack Obama will travel to Moscow on Monday for two days of meetings, and the White House has announced the negotiations could lead to a new nuclear arms control treaty by the end of the year:
“Obama is scheduled to arrive Monday in Moscow for two days of meetings. Negotiations on arms control are expected to dominate, with the current START I accord set to expire Dec. 5.
Both sides agree in principle to cut warheads from more than 2,000 each to as low as 1,500 apiece.
It’s important that any agreement “be free of the cold war burden of intrusive inspections,” [Gary Samore, the president’s coordinator for weapons of mass destruction] told reporters ahead of Obama’s arrival.”
Even though the START I deadline is 5 months away, the Administration is concerned it won’t have time to get Senate ratification of a new treaty, and it is looking at other “ways to enforce some aspects on an executive level while waiting for ratification.” It’s difficult to imagine ratification can’t be accomplished by December given the Democrats’ filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Maybe the problem is not with the Senate but with Obama.
Yesterday’s New York Times published an article about a paper Obama wrote 20 years ago as an undergraduate student at Columbia University. The topic was how to negotiate with the Soviets to cut nuclear arsenals and create a nuclear-free world, and it’s clear Obama still embraces his college dream of a nuclear-free world. However, I wonder if Obama fears he will not be able to get Senate ratification if he is willing to go to any length (including eliminating inspections) in search of that dream.
Obama’s current nuclear-free goal focuses on convincing all nations to voluntarily disarm existing stockpiles and agreeing to international control of fissile materials. In other words, he believes he can put the nuclear genie back in the bottle:
“Each of those steps would require building a global consensus. It would also mean persuading countries to give up the coveted freedom to make fuel for reactors — and instead, probably, buy it from an international fuel bank.
Most of all, Mr. Obama and like-minded leaders will have to establish a new global order that will truly restrain rogue states and terrorist groups from moving ahead with nuclear projects.
“I don’t think I was that unique at that time,” the president said of his Columbia days, “and I don’t think I’m that unique today in thinking that if we could put the genie back in the bottle, in some sense, that there would be less danger — not just to the United States but to people around the world.”
This is the height of naivete’.
— DRJ
he smoked a lot of marijuana is my understanding
happyfeet (e8d590) — 7/5/2009 @ 3:48 pmThis wouldn’t even make a good 1960’s political novel. And yeah, I can just see the Senate debate on the lack of burdensome inspections….
This will die quicker than you can say “James Matoon Scott.”
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 7/5/2009 @ 4:01 pmThis is the height of naivete’.
“As I have indicated in previous statements to the Congress, my central arms control objective has been to reduce substantially, and ultimately to eliminate, nuclear weapons and rid the world of the nuclear threat. The prevention of the spread of nuclear explosives to additional countries is an indispensable part of our efforts to meet this objective. I intend to continue my pursuit of this goal with untiring determination and a profound sense of personal commitment.”
Ronald Reagan, March 25, 1988
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 7/5/2009 @ 4:02 pmAs in
General James Matoon Scott, Seven Days in May
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 7/5/2009 @ 4:06 pmDCSCA, he also said “Trust, but verify.” Obama just wants to trust, although it will probably be OK it the Russians verify.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 7/5/2009 @ 4:07 pmNot to mention having an ABM system and keeping bombs out of the hands of, say, Pakistanis, Norks and crazy Iranian religious zealots.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 7/5/2009 @ 4:09 pm#5- =yawn=
“It is my fervent goal and hope…that we will some day no longer have to rely on nuclear weapons to deter aggression and assure world peace. To that end the United States is now engaged in a serious and sustained effort to negotiate major reductions in levels of offensive nuclear weapons with the ultimate goal of eliminating these weapons from the face of the earth.”
Ronald Reagan, October 20, 1986
“… having seen four wars in my lifetime, I don’t know of anyone, in or out of government, that is more determinedly seeking peace than I am. And my goal is the total elimination of nuclear weapons. If we can get those fellows back to the table and get them to start down that road of mutual reduction, then they might find out what common sense it would mean to eliminate them.”
Ronald Reagan, Press Conference, May 22, 1984
“And I just think of what a sigh of relief would go up from everyone on this earth if someday–and this is what I have–my hope, way in the back of my head–is that if we start down the road to reduction, maybe one day in doing that, somebody will say, ‘Why not all the way? Let’s get rid of all these things.’”
Ronald Reagan, May 16, 1983
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 7/5/2009 @ 4:19 pm#4- Uh, yes and in that work of superb Cold War fiction, General James Matoon Scott, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, plotted a military take over of the United States and was flushed out as a traitorous right wing zealot– ‘a strutting egotist’– by loyalists to the Constitution and forced to resign.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 7/5/2009 @ 4:26 pmThat was only a novel, not real life.
Official Internet Data Office (37b677) — 7/5/2009 @ 4:29 pmRonald Reagan,
Interestingly enough, Reagan’s biggest blunder was when he went against his administration’s own publicly stated policy — and, in effect, pulled a Jimmy-Carter routine out of his hat — of never dealing with hostage-taking nations and secretly negotiated with Iran.
The liberal portion of any person’s brain often will be where foolish, naive, if not outright idiotic, thoughts are located. For example, George W Bush’s willy-nilly responses towards bloated budgets and illegal immigration. Or his father’s notorious squishiness on “read my lips, no new taxes.”
That’s why I believe if a person already enters the gate as an out-and-out leftwinger (eg, Obama), he’s that much likelier to be a total fool and naif. And, worse of all, proud of it.
Mark (411533) — 7/5/2009 @ 4:31 pmIn a nice dream world, no nuclear weapons would be so nice. So would a world without disease, Britney and hunger. That genie ain’t ever going back in the bottle.
Reagan. The biggest difference between Obama and Reagan? I could trust that Reagan would never lay down the tactical and political advantage we held militarily with our nukes until he was absolutely sure he could put that genie in the bottle again. Obama? I don’t trust him. He has made it very clear that he is taking a hardline against allies and a softline with enemies.
Vivian Louise (c0f830) — 7/5/2009 @ 4:51 pmDCSCA,
Reagan lived in an era when the countries with nuclear weapons were at the negotiating table. That is not true in today’s world, as illustrated by Iran and North Korea. In addition, show me where Reagan ever wanted to put the supply of fissile materials under international control.
DRJ (cdbef5) — 7/5/2009 @ 4:53 pmThis may be just the first step towards his goal of submitting our soldier’s actions during wartime to the tender mercies of the world court – he’s as clueless as Carter, but also as dangerous as Wilson.
Dmac (f7884d) — 7/5/2009 @ 5:11 pmThe above must be concurrently one of the most chilling and idiotic things a president has ever said.
Memo for Obama: THERE IS NO WAY YOU CAN PUT THE GENIE BACK IN THE BOTTLE, BECAUSE HE KNOWS ALL THE WAYS TO GET OUT OF THE BOTTLE. HE’S A GENIE, REMEMBER?
MarkJ (d2394a) — 7/5/2009 @ 5:12 pmIs this Constitutional? Not that the Constitution matters to these usurpers.
Even though the START I deadline is 5 months away, the Administration is concerned it won’t have time to get Senate ratification of a new treaty, and it is looking at other “ways to enforce some aspects on an executive level while waiting for ratification.”
Jayke (f7125d) — 7/5/2009 @ 5:29 pmJunior doesn’t belong on a world stage.
Putin is lighting up a cigar as we speak. Like taking candy from a baby.
jdflorida (cb54f8) — 7/5/2009 @ 5:30 pmThe only way he’d be concerned about ratification is if he’s considering quasi-unilateral disarmament.
Republicans hate nuclear weapons treaties so much that Bush the Elder ratified the START I way back in 1991. I can’t see them opposing a rational decision.
I fear it will be a “The Russians say that if we disarm first, they’ll follow suit at a date to be named later” type deal.
Techie (482700) — 7/5/2009 @ 5:42 pmBTW, isn’t this a bit “unitary” of the Executive to be doing without Senate approval?
Techie (482700) — 7/5/2009 @ 5:47 pmHe who controls the Spice, controls the Imperium.
Techie (482700) — 7/5/2009 @ 5:50 pmIf President Obama was able to attain his “goal” of a nuclear-free world, the first tin-horn dictator who managed to build on — Kim Jong Il, call your office — becomes a superpower.
It never seems to occur to the dreamers that the presence of nuclear weapons has kept the peace in a lot of cases.
The realistic Dana (474dfc) — 7/5/2009 @ 5:57 pmSorry for baiting DCSCA.
And the funny thing about DCSCA is he probably would have been opposed to Reagan’s negotiations and for a nuclear freeze like all the leftards of the day. Assuming he’s old enough to remember a president before Clinton, that is.
Rather than quoting chosen snippents of Reagan, condier the results: He cut nuclear weapons from some 30K warheads a side to maybe 3K, and tried to bring it to zero by exchagning mutual defense for mutual destruction. Gorbachev balked at Reykjavik.
But he would have verified, and Obama doesn’t think we need to bother.
No way the Senate will go for it. Of course, Obama wants to avoid having the Senate vote. Good luck with that.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 7/5/2009 @ 6:01 pmIs the clown car on board AF1?
achalle (562c57) — 7/5/2009 @ 6:07 pmThis idiot is on a vodka run.
Shit, commander zero can’t light a match.
Putin will piss on him, while he’s looking.
Forget Russia.
Does Obama actually believe he can get both India and Pakistan to give up their nuclear arsenals?
Never gonna happen…and Obama’s insane if he thinks he can make it happen.
Tailgunner (61eb03) — 7/5/2009 @ 6:08 pmI remember “Nuke the Whales” bumperstickers at the time Obama was attending Columbia or they might even have been a little earlier.
With 60 votes in the Senate, I love it that he’s worried about ratification.
daleyrocks (718861) — 7/5/2009 @ 6:15 pmWeakness is provocative. I’m pretty sure Reagan said something along that line, also.
Chris (a24890) — 7/5/2009 @ 6:15 pmThe problem is, no matter how many nuclear warheads we have, the little Kenyan queer is the only one who can order their deployment.
nk (e98769) — 7/5/2009 @ 6:21 pmSo the New York Time is now looking into President Obama’s past? Well, better late than never, I guess.
tyree (8125cd) — 7/5/2009 @ 6:24 pmNk-
Stop acting like a leftist and grow up.
tyree (8125cd) — 7/5/2009 @ 6:24 pmMy only comfort is that he will fry first, despite Washington’s ABM defenses. Russia’s Atanas MIRVs can overwhelm all ABM defenses we have now.
nk (e98769) — 7/5/2009 @ 6:25 pmI don’t think the Ruskies will nuke us. It’d be bad for business.
My fear is that every tinpot banana dictator with $5-10 million to burn will be aching to join the nuclear club in the brave new world where the Norks, the Iranians and the Dr. Khan’s of the planet are taking all comers.
Techie (482700) — 7/5/2009 @ 6:31 pmReagan was speaking Pre- Hans Blix, Pre- Eason Jordan.
President Obama is living in a Post-Hans Blix, Post- Eason Jordan world. We can’t trust the UN or the journalists to back us up and tell us the truth.
You would think that would mean something the the President and Democrats.
tyree (8125cd) — 7/5/2009 @ 6:34 pmWhat’s his point anyway? As soon as the last nuke has been disabled, some tyrant will look up the blueprints on the internet and build another one.
Grow up, Obama!
Patricia (2183bb) — 7/5/2009 @ 6:36 pmWhat I find scary here, on lots of issues Obama realized his dreams were just that and had a major reality dump land in front of him. How is it that this particular inmate is still loose in the asylum?
Soronel Haetir (506ccb) — 7/5/2009 @ 6:44 pmGosh, do you think Obama will be able to look into Putin’s eyes and see his soul?
Larry Reilly (45e7a4) — 7/5/2009 @ 6:54 pmHa. What a naive thought. Putin? Soul? Yeah, right. Obama would have to be more a dunce than even the inhabitants of this tiny, intellectually inbred echo chamber believe him to be.
You’d have to be a droolin’ victim of mad cow disease to think you could look into Putin’s eyes and see his soul.
Don’tcha think?
If you want to talk about a U.S. president visiting Russia and having his lunch money lifted, you don’t need to predict. Just read recent history.
Why do troll’s keyboards have faulty [Enter] keys?
Techie (482700) — 7/5/2009 @ 7:04 pmGood Allah, Mawy. Teh One is in charge now. And you are certifiable.
JD (17b802) — 7/5/2009 @ 7:06 pmMawy Reilly’s on her third Shirley Temple, it would appear. But someday Mawy hopes to get into a gang – bang with her cousins down the street, and then she’ll be a Big Girl – right, Mawy?
Dmac (f7884d) — 7/5/2009 @ 7:06 pmHow many times have we heard on this site by some of the usual suspects about Bush’s Signing Statements, his ignoring the Constitution, blah, blah and yet now all I hear is….silence.
This President likes to rush everything and it just increases my doubts about his decisions.
Dana (8d88ef) — 7/5/2009 @ 7:20 pmMaybe President Obama can set of 500 warheads at nuclear testing sites to fight global warming.
Michael Ejercito (833607) — 7/5/2009 @ 7:33 pmIt’s amusing because it’s completely irrelevant.
START treaties between the US and Russia have no particular meaning or importance in a world where, by last count, nine countries have some nuclear weapons capability.
JJM (41da5a) — 7/5/2009 @ 7:43 pm#16 — Comment by jdflorida — 7/5/2009 @ 5:30 pm
Putin is lighting up a cigar as we speak. Like taking candy from a baby.
I was thinking the same thing. Putin had to be laughing his head off when President Obama was elected. Chavez smiled, Kim Jong grinned, Hamas celebrated, Iran began sharpening their knifes…
Pons Asinorum (a7fa22) — 7/5/2009 @ 7:49 pmUnicorns and rainbows.
steve miller (722243) — 7/5/2009 @ 7:50 pmThere was a moment, when she was sandwiched between the two Finnish dwarfs and the Maori tribesman …
JD (4ff1b9) — 7/5/2009 @ 7:54 pmSorry … I just heard that quote in a movie, and laughed my ass off.
JD (4ff1b9) — 7/5/2009 @ 7:55 pmGosh, do you think Obama will be able to look into Putin’s eyes and see his soul?
I mentioned previously that when any person’s feel-good, do-gooder (read: liberal) instincts get the better of him or her, foolish, naive — if not also idiotic — reactions often will ensue. Which means that if Bush could be vulnerable to sappy “progressive” sentiments on occasion, imagine how much more of that is going to be pouring out of the mind of a flat-out leftist like Obama.
Mark (411533) — 7/5/2009 @ 8:01 pmI’ll go out on a limb and guess that Iran & North Korea will not be on board with this concept.
Tug Speedman (b2907a) — 7/5/2009 @ 8:29 pmTug – Teh One stopped the oceans from rising. Making the Nork’s and Iran abandon their nukes should be childs play after that feat.
JD (4ff1b9) — 7/5/2009 @ 8:39 pmObama demonstrates once again why a community organizer isn’t fit to be president of anything but a Banana republic. Talk about ignorance, stupidity, arrogance, and a complete lack of understanding.
If only Obama’s barin had lived!
Thomas Jackson (8ffd46) — 7/5/2009 @ 9:15 pmThis will not last any longer in the Senate for one to say, Benedict Arnold. B. Hussein is just trying out his radical college theis on the former KGB agent, Putin. I can’t wait until Nov 2012 when this radical commander in thief is voted out of office.
Luke Taylor (69c39f) — 7/5/2009 @ 9:25 pmPresidente 666 is the Manchurian candidate.
Thomas Jackson (8ffd46) — 7/5/2009 @ 9:31 pmIf Presidente 666 believes he doesn’t need inspectors to eliminate all nuclear weapons why not just abolish the IRS and trust the American people to pay their taxes?
How I long for the competence of Carter, the honor of Clinton, and the wisdom and realism of Wilson.
Thomas Jackson (8ffd46) — 7/5/2009 @ 9:33 pmReagan was speaking Pre- Hans Blix, Pre- Eason Jordan.
There were no incorrigible narcissists going for regional bragging rights?
Reagan in 1984 warned Pakistan of “grave consequences” if it enriched uranium above 5%.
By 1988, New York Times reported US government sources believed Pakistan “had produced enough highly enriched uranium for 4-6 bombs.” They soon retrofitted F-16s the US sold them to form a credible delivery system.
steve (b78a78) — 7/5/2009 @ 10:17 pmsteve – What is your point?
daleyrocks (718861) — 7/5/2009 @ 11:14 pmCutting 500 warheads wouldn’t be so bad if we made sure that the remaining ones were definitely ready to go BOOM if necessary.
M. Scott Eiland (5ccff0) — 7/5/2009 @ 11:41 pmThe basic problem is with Barry al Hussein. A wimp and one who values other countries, other cultures before the United States. He believes in his inherent abilities to talk and persuade – an egomaniac by most observations. Barry does not understand that we have real differences with some around the world and instead of holding firm, Barry the “community organizer” wants to “build consensus” with everyone, including our adversaries.
How childish and self-obsessed this man is.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. In his mentality, he’s the Alien in Chief. He cares little for the USA. As Sarkozy said of him, “he’s got a messianic complex”.
jpp (f6cafd) — 7/6/2009 @ 4:03 amdaleyrocks wrote:
I believe tat was “Nuke the gay whales.” Please make a note of it.,
The nit-picking Dana (3e4784) — 7/6/2009 @ 4:21 amReagan must have been naive beause he tried to do the same thing.
Of course, it could just be that conservatives would enjoy a nuclear war, so making any effort to reduce nuclear weapons is a ripe subject for them to object to…
JEA (fa6c73) — 7/6/2009 @ 5:23 amOr it could be that you are an idiot, JEA.
JD (4ff1b9) — 7/6/2009 @ 5:36 amAgain, could the trolls please explain why Obama would fear/doubt Senate ratification unless he’s planning on some pretty heavy concessions.
Techie (482700) — 7/6/2009 @ 5:46 amIt’s just another thing for which conservatives want to citicize a president they don’t like.
I can break that down into small words so you can understand it, JD
JEA (fa6c73) — 7/6/2009 @ 5:53 am[…] just lovely and extremely “naive.” Throw “irrational” into the mix as well. Patterico posts: Obama’s current nuclear-free goal focuses on convincing all nations to voluntarily disarm […]
“This is the height of naivete’.” « Gunservatively! (725c82) — 7/6/2009 @ 6:03 amThe Constitution requires a 2/3 vote for ratification and always has. Every president has had to deal with this. You people may want to read up on Woodrow Wilson and the Treaty of Versallies. I think that was a bit more important than this one, and they were shy by only one vote.
That’s 67 votes that are required, NOT 60 – unless you are The One, in which case you can unilaterally adopt treaties as long as the Russians trust future administrations to be unable to undo this fait accompli.
Amphipolis (b120ce) — 7/6/2009 @ 6:27 amI’m frankly astounded that informed citizens are unaware of the 2/3 rule, which is over 200 years old and has been a thorn in the side of pretty much every president until now.
This should not be obscure. It is one of the primary checks built into our system of government and it has until now made senators very, very important. It is why we have not had many treaties, and why we had no true alliance between the Revolution and NATO.
Such colossal public ignorance allows Obama to do what he wants.
Amphipolis (b120ce) — 7/6/2009 @ 6:37 amJEA – You said that it could be that conservatives would enjoy a nuclear war. I was simply pointing out that your words have no basis in fact, and that you are imputing motives and positions to people here that people have not taken. Now, we all know you are comfortable with being fundamentally dishonest, but that was particularly dishonest of you.
JD (4ff1b9) — 7/6/2009 @ 6:41 amHow could it be that we forget what is clearly and unambiguously written and has been followed for generations beyond count, what has constrained more than 40 presidents, some sitting at the absolute pinnacle of world power redrawing the boundaries of Europe and Asia and bringing to an end global war?
Two. Thirds. Two for every state, 50 states – that does not come to 60. Is it a math problem?
I demand an answer.
Amphipolis (b120ce) — 7/6/2009 @ 6:43 amAmphipolis – They have complete disregard for anything that limits their ability to exert their control over other people’s lives.
JD (4ff1b9) — 7/6/2009 @ 6:48 amJEA – In short, you can take your passive-aggressive BS and shove it back up your arse.
JD (4ff1b9) — 7/6/2009 @ 6:49 amOf course, it could just be that conservatives would enjoy a nuclear war
Actually, many of us prefer to use smart bombs instead – say, what was that home address of yours, anyway? Just asking.
Dmac (f7884d) — 7/6/2009 @ 7:00 amJD – I know that, but why do the American People not understand that treaties require a 2/3 vote?
This public apathy is why they are able to do what they want. Do you see it?
How, why do people not understand this? How did it come to this – that most people, even if they do understand, don’t care at all? How could a population once free and self-governing willingly forget their heritage and become slaves? Here is a particular and clear cut constitutional issue. People (maybe most people? maybe everyone?) on this very site are ignorant of it. How can this be?
Someday, future generations will ask how this could have happened.
Amphipolis (b120ce) — 7/6/2009 @ 7:01 amAmphipolis – I agree apathy has something to do with it. Even more than that, Teh One’s supporters treat him as some type of divine being, capable of no wrong. Couple that with the MSM being constitutionally incapable of pointing out simple facts that run contrary to Teh Narrative, and it is a recipe for their being able to reach well beyond the defined parameters of power.
JD (4ff1b9) — 7/6/2009 @ 7:12 amNot naivete’, insanity.
htom (412a17) — 7/6/2009 @ 7:25 amPeople right here didn’t know. Most people don’t know. We can’t blame that on Obama or this week’s coverage in the media.
Our citizens don’t know what the Constitution says, or why, and they simply don’t care. Until this mindset changes, all arguments fall on deaf ears.
Amphipolis (b120ce) — 7/6/2009 @ 7:28 amLarry,
Most conservatives were appalled at Bush’s soulful moment with Putin.
And “I know you are but what am I” is not a very cogent argument.
Patricia (2183bb) — 7/6/2009 @ 7:50 amI think we are on the wrong track. He let six months go by without talking to the Senate about START I.
Obama will unilaterally disarm and say he did it because he couldn’t get 67 votes in the Senate.
Amphipolis (b120ce) — 7/6/2009 @ 7:59 amthe inhabitants of this tiny, intellectually inbred echo chamber
Does that include you, troll ?
The lefties are fond of quoting Reagan on reducing nuclear weapons but they have a memory spasm when it comes to missile defense. The ear leader is planning something right out of 1968, the last time he thought about things, and has cut missile defense at the same time.
The Soviet Union is gone ! Hello in there !
They are not the problem. They were always rational and responded to negotiation. The ahmadinejads of the world don’t.
Mike K (2cf494) — 7/6/2009 @ 8:23 amYes, let us un-invent the wheel too.
HeavenSent (1e97ff) — 7/6/2009 @ 8:42 amThe real problem is that no matter how many nukes the Senate agrees to, or not, the decision to use them in the hands of the Watusi Weenie.
nk (e98769) — 7/6/2009 @ 9:28 amMore paranoia here, or fake paranoia. Whatever.
Let me clue everyone in: America has plenty of nukes. There will be plenty of nukes after Obama’s four or eight years. I’m sure we’ll have plenty to destroy the planet over at least three or four times, despite the inclinations and efforts of the dastardly Obama.
To think that the president’s goal is to disarm the U.S. based on something he wrote in college and something that, theoretically, any peace-loving person should at least desire — THAT is the height of naivete. Or it’s just a political Talking Point to take another shot at the president.
Again: Whatever. In the end, it’s all of a stripe.
Myron (98529a) — 7/6/2009 @ 9:32 amJimmuh’s awakening to the realities of the World was the pain of the Iranian Hostage Situation,
AD - RtR/OS! (820b2e) — 7/6/2009 @ 9:53 amand the Invasion of Afghanistan, and the ongoing difficulties experienced by America developing from those situations.
We can only hope that any awakening of the LiC will lead to consequences not of such severity for we will suffer the consequences of his domestic policies for decades, if not generations, as I am unsure of the moral strength of the vast majority today that just wants the govt to “put gas in their tank, and pay their mortgage” and how they will stand up to a future world of conflict – both foreign and domestic.
BTW, where are the rest of the LiC’s college papers, transcripts, etc?
AD - RtR/OS! (820b2e) — 7/6/2009 @ 9:55 amAmusing, the New York Times thinks this is worthy of an article but if DRJ thinks so, its “paranoia”. The trolls are not getting any better.
SPQR (72771e) — 7/6/2009 @ 10:01 amAgain: Whatever.
Gee, thanks for dropping by and giving us your trenchant Valley – Grrrlll analysis, Myron. Sheesh.
Dmac (f7884d) — 7/6/2009 @ 11:32 amOn the 4th of July, I watched the history channel’s series on the Revolution, and all I could think was that Obama is going to sqaunder everything those people died for. I don’t trust him to protect us against a militant troop of boy scouts, much less North Korea, Russia and Iran.
rochf (ae9c58) — 7/6/2009 @ 12:09 pmMyron, Myron ? Hello ?
It’s about missile defense, Myron. Yes, we have plenty of nukes although there is doubt that they will all go off due to aged components that are no longer available and the inability to test.
The crazies only have to lob one nuke into NYC and we will see how that affects US politics, especially for the party that gutted missile defense.
I know, I know. They’ll bring it in with a truck. That’s why some of us like border protection and your pals don’t.
Same party
Mike K (2cf494) — 7/6/2009 @ 12:36 pmI haven’t attacked anyone on this site, yet I am am continually insulted. If you have a valid argument to make, then make it and let’s talk like reasnable adults instead of this eight year-old playground bullshit. I could sling it too but I choose not to.
Why is negotiating the reduction of nuclear weapons a bid idea? Do you LIKE the idea of the world being burned to a crisp? Should we aspire to annihilation or should we aspire to a secure peace? We’ve had conservative presidents before who have done it, namely Nixon and Reagan.
In those cases it was us versus the Soviets; now anybody who can lay a hand on a nuclear weapon can be a threat. It’s irresponsible and doesn’t serve our security in the least to allow those weapons to stay around.
This is a long term goal. Everyone should understand that – right now they’re a deterrent. But there’s no sane reason to make an attempt to reduce them.
And, just in case anyone’s forgotten how our government works, it requires 2/3 of the Senate to pass any treaty. That means at least 7 Republicans.
JEA (fa6c73) — 7/6/2009 @ 12:47 pmJEA – You did not attack “anyone”, you attacked everyone with your passive-aggressive BS in #57 where you said conservative could enjoy a nuclear war.
So, tell us what affirmative steps Teh One is taking to disarm North Korea and Iran. Explain to us why taking inspections off the table is a good idea.
We have already been told that they do not think they can get a pie-in-the-sky treaty the likes of which have been discussed previously passed, and are looking at Executive measures they can take for enforcement. Again, it is your people that are giving the Constitution the finger.
JD (4ff1b9) — 7/6/2009 @ 1:08 pmLet us remember all the nukes in the world meant nothing to the mullahs who invaded the US embassy in Tehran knowing that weakling Carter would do nothing. Let us not forget that had the US not had a nuke these same mullahs would have released the hostages knowing that Reagan would destroy Iran had they not done so.
Now the question isn’t if Obama reduces our nuclear stockpiles its whether anyone believes he is Reagan or Carter.
Our enemies know. So do the trolls and lemmings.
Obama is the worst incompetent and only president who ever hated the USA. He should be impeached for shredding the Constiutution and so should all the dhimmies who are his accomplices in shredding the constitution.
Thomas Jackson (8ffd46) — 7/6/2009 @ 1:17 pm#12- Reagan lived in an era when the countries with nuclear weapons were at the negotiating table. That is not true in today’s world, as illustrated by Iran and North Korea. Reagan lived in an era when the countries with nuclear weapons were at the negotiating table. That is not true in today’s world, as illustrated by Iran and North Korea.
You challenged Obama’s position as naivete based on thinking from his ‘college days’ which, based on Reagan’s position from that era as noted, was not out of step with the thinking of that time. A ‘space shield’ (aka Star Wars) Reagan proposed was chided with similar naivete. SDI was no less ‘pie-in-the-sky’ than Obama’s mussing on a ‘fissionable materials bank.’ I see it as a bargaining position, a goal to target and a position of no less validity than Reagan’s SDI scheme which was panned as largely unworkable. But it proved to be a savvy bargaining chip.
And actually, the nuclear powers of the Cold War era were seldom publicly at the negotiation table until the period after the Cuban Missile Crisis although back channels were always an option. And the fifty year effort to decelerate their proliferation has simply moved to a fresh set of players with a new generation or problems. But its basically the same ‘game.’ And Iran does not have nuclear weapons to bring to a table to negotiate over as of July 4.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 7/6/2009 @ 1:29 pmInternational Man of Parody – Pitch perfect, right?
JD (4ff1b9) — 7/6/2009 @ 1:32 pmHow about because NK and Iran have kicked the inspectors out? Short of war, I don’t see anything we can do to influence NK, and the Chinese don’t appear willing to do anything either. Sanctions haven’t worked.
As for Iran, we could stop them dead in their tracks if we could get everyone to stop buying their damn oil – except the Chinese (again) aren’t willing to do that.
So, how do we apply pressure to the Chinese when they’ve financed so much US govt debt? It’sall well and good to be outraged, but what are the realistic options here?
As for my remark about conservatives wanting nuclear war, all the rants here don’t say much else beyond Obama’s wrong for wanting to reduce nukes. So what conclusion do you draw from that?
One more thing – I don’t have ‘people’. I’m less than thrilled with liberals as well as conservatves.
JEA (fa6c73) — 7/6/2009 @ 1:46 pmDCSCA:
Your ignorance is amazing. The major powers didn’t talk to each other till the Cuban missile crisis. When were born little man. What do you think happened in 1956 when the Russians crushed the Hungarians and when the Russians threatened the West over the Suez? What do you think happened over Laos or Vietnam or Taiwan?
Now I understand the public school system is noted for its failures and the colleges are jokes but do you have to demonstrate how badly they have executed their mission.
Such bold assertion on your part is only matched by your ignorance. You have no idea when the test ban treaties started nor the underground test treaties, nor even nuclear safeguard treaties.
Do inform us of how you acquire dyour vast knowledge of national security, foreign affairs and overseas relations. We are all impressed by your surely impressive military background and foreign service experience.
So don’t be timid. Impress us all uber troll.
Tell us, yell it from the roofs, tell it on the mountain.
You dullard.
Thomas Jackson (8ffd46) — 7/6/2009 @ 2:15 pmTruth is, Russia is now run, at least in part, by super rich and super corrupt sleazeballs. This is better than the USSR because such people really, really, don’t want nuclear war. They don’t mind the ‘game’ being played, but war with the USA isn’t going to happen.
Nuclear risks are real from Iran and North Korea. Not real from Russia. Obama is going to pretend he made a difference by agreeing to things bush already set in place, and ignoring the real problem. If we are nuked, it will be a truck or boat or isolated missile, and the best protection is to stop North Korea and Iran’s programs ASAP. In all likelihood, it’s too late to do anything but destroy what they have built and perhaps change the regimes. Which in Iran, wouldn’t even require external manpower.
Bush really missed his chance by not being president when the Ahmedminijad election sham occurred. how sad!
Juan (189aa5) — 7/6/2009 @ 2:22 pmJEA – So we should just give up and disarm?
I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt about conservatives desiring a nuclear war but it appears that you imagination is so wanting the only conceivable policies are nuclear war and following Teh One. That is a failure on your part, nobody else.
JD (4ff1b9) — 7/6/2009 @ 2:57 pmDCSCA,
Obama apparently hasn’t changed his opinions on this topic since college. And how is it a bargaining chip to turn over control of nuclear materials to an international body? Do you really think the Russians would be intimidated by the thought of the UN controlling WMDs?
DRJ (6f3f43) — 7/6/2009 @ 3:06 pmDRJ – They trust everyone in the world more than the US, and especially conservatives. It is remarkable, and it is sad.
JD (4ff1b9) — 7/6/2009 @ 3:11 pm“…Do you really think the Russians would be intimidated by the thought of the UN controlling WMDs?”
Comment by DRJ — 7/6/2009 @ 3:06 pm
Only if the U.N. put them under the control of a commission headed by Chavez, or Mugabe.
AD - RtR/OS! (820b2e) — 7/6/2009 @ 3:16 pm“And, just in case anyone’s forgotten how our government works, it requires 2/3 of the Senate to pass any treaty. That means at least 7 Republicans.”
JEA – It was good you had to look that up for yourself. It never hurts to check.
What were your thoughts about the unilateral disarmament Obama was discussing last year? Is that off the table now? Is he becoming Bush III.
daleyrocks (718861) — 7/6/2009 @ 3:24 pm“…Do you really think the Russians would be intimidated by the thought of the UN controlling WMDs?”
Comment by DRJ — 7/6/2009 @ 3:06 pm
When the U.N. speaks, people listen. Just ask Saddam.
Oops, nevermind.
daleyrocks (718861) — 7/6/2009 @ 3:26 pm93 – JEA So we should just give up and disarm?
No, I did not say that. Nuclear weapons are deterrents, but these days they are only deterrents against other governments – not against terorists or rogue states, unlike during the Cold War.
Having more around – and poorly secured by countries like Russia, or like N Korea who are willing to sell them – only puts us in more danger, not less.
I’m not advocating disarmament. I’m talking about tough negotiations which are going to take years and probably won’t be finished by Obama, even if he gets a 2nd term.
I’m trying to understand what the objection is here – Obama is talking long term, not short term. Everyone should understand that, which is why I think the ‘pie in the sky’ criticism isn’t fair. It’s attainable, even if it takes 2-3 decades.
JEA (fa6c73) — 7/6/2009 @ 6:29 pmJEA – It was good you had to look that up for yourself. It never hurts to check.
Thank you, but I remember some of my Civics classs, even if it was 4 decades ago…
JEA (fa6c73) — 7/6/2009 @ 6:31 pmJEA, how many nuclear weapons have been sold intact versus how often have countries obtained nuclear weapons by the basic work of applying the known physics and developing their own?
Since we don’t know of any nuclear weapons being “sold” by Russia or North Korea, the justification you cite is not a realistic one.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/6/2009 @ 6:32 pmJEA, I agree that it would be wonderful if Russia had fewer nukes, and I don’t think the USA having a bunch is very helpful (though we probably need a few, and we need to maintain them a lot better than we currently are).
But how will this affect North Korea?
In all honestly, my only objection is that we will be giving up a missile shield, which protects us from our real threat to some extent in exchange for preventing a much less real threat.
Juan (189aa5) — 7/6/2009 @ 6:34 pmAnd all those 3000 men, women and chidlren massacred on 9/11 are much better off having been killed by a plane rather than a nuke.
Patricia (2183bb) — 7/6/2009 @ 7:04 pmJEA,
I think the U.S. is more likely to succeed in making the world a safer place by helping nations become democracies than by trying to eliminate nuclear weapons, but we seem to be doing the opposite under Obama.
DRJ (6f3f43) — 7/6/2009 @ 7:10 pmSure, because Obama’s pretense to democratic rule is just that. He’s a secret Muslim conqueror who will proclaim himself dictator. It’s why he refused to “support” street protests in Tehran (with cruise missiles or tanks brigades or the kind of wonderful rhetoric the elder George used for the Kurds in ’91. It never fails!) and its the reason in the name of democracy he refused to rubber stamp a military coup in Honduras.
So in five months he has shown he will not act in those hotbeds of geopolitical fulcrums of Tehran and Honduras. We should all shiver.
JEA, we’ve helped Iraq and Afghanistan “become democracies” in just the last decade and the peace of democracy has descended on both lands.
“helping nations become democracies” straight from the mouth of Bloody Bill Kristol himself
timb (8f04c0) — 7/6/2009 @ 7:17 pmPatricia, that’s an interesting point. But really, avoiding a huge nuclear weapon strike is a great aim. It just shouldn’t come at the expense of the missile shield or ignoring North Korea and Iran.
Russia and China could help us stop Iran and North Korea in short order. They don’t want to, of course, but we could probably work something out if we tried hard enough. DRJ’s ultimately right… democracies almost never go to war with eachother.
that said, I would rather die by 737 than nuke, just because I would expect the people in my town who didn’t die to live without cancer.
Juan (189aa5) — 7/6/2009 @ 7:18 pmtimb, take the rhetoric Obama has used against honduras…. that’s what we wanted to see used against Iran.
It’s really not that complicated. We’re not talking about cruise missiles. An George Bush, like him or not, created 50 million voters. Obama has made it harder for some 60 million to have freedom.
it’s easier to destroy than to build.
Juan (189aa5) — 7/6/2009 @ 7:20 pmtimb, there was no military coup in Honduras. What Obama has shown is that he’s no friend to our friends and no enemy to our enemies.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/6/2009 @ 7:20 pmtimb,
I was talking about Honduras and Iran but it could apply to Iraq and Afghanistan, too.
DRJ (6f3f43) — 7/6/2009 @ 7:24 pmtimb,
The more I think about it, the more interesting your comment is. Do you think Obama wants Afghanistan to become a democracy or do you think he wants our troops fighting there to fail?
DRJ (6f3f43) — 7/6/2009 @ 7:29 pmSure, because Obama’s pretense to democratic rule is just that.
It’s actually his pretense of being such a kind-hearted, humane, caring, wonderful human being, but unfortunately as distorted and mishapened by the mind of the typical leftwinger. So in the world of the left — in Obama’s ass-backwards way of thinking — good people/good situations become bad, bad people/bad situations become good.
The paradigm of this is the way all too many garden-variety liberals spend more time worrying about the existence (or verdict) of capital punishment instead of the victims of that person sentenced to death.
Mark (411533) — 7/6/2009 @ 7:52 pm“helping nations become democracies” straight from the mouth of Bloody Bill Kristol himself
Comment by timb
Tim is 40 years old and we should take him as seriously as he deserves.
Mike K (2cf494) — 7/6/2009 @ 10:04 pmJEA – What you do not understand is that reducing the number of warheads vastly increases the chances they will be used. If the US and Russia each has thirty thousand warheads then their use is unthinkable.
Have Blue (854a6e) — 7/7/2009 @ 9:27 amIf each side has ten then someone, somewhere, is saying, “Germany and Japan, and even the USSR (by land warfare, not strategic bombing)lost ten cities during WW II and managed to survive.” For somone the unthinkable becomes all too thinkable.
Now where is the cutoff. Would I risk war if each side had 500 deliverable warheads? No. But someone, somewhere, somewhen will.
#94- It’s a chip to use to open dialog. It’s not a policy proposal set in stone.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 7/7/2009 @ 12:54 pm#92 If we are nuked, it will be a truck or boat or isolated missile, and the best protection is to stop North Korea and Iran’s programs ASAP
Love your ‘Bunker mentality,’ Archie. Fear mongering is quite Cheneyesque. But then, he was wrong all the time, too.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 7/7/2009 @ 12:59 pmWhat do you think Von Braun would do in this situation, Dggcrpp? After all, you met him in your dorm hallway in your underwear, and exchanged many serious and meaningful ideas, full of portent, no doubt?
Please inform us of your thoughts on this highly relevant matter from your own cited backstory.
Dmac (e6d1c2) — 7/7/2009 @ 1:03 pmDCSCA, cheney was particularly wrong that we could prevent a 9/11 attack in LA by waterboarding the mastermind of the 9/11 clinton permitted. Cheney was also wrong that we could scare Libya and motivate a freedom movement in Iran by toppling Iraq… somehow without Iraq falling to an intractable civil war.
Boy, I sure hate being considered like Cheney!!!
DCSCA, are you seriously saying that I’m wrong in my general premise that we are more vulnerable to some isolated attack than we are to a hoard of missiles?
Juan (bd4b30) — 7/7/2009 @ 1:10 pmThe International Man of Parody ridicules someone as having a bunker mentality for doing what? Why for downplaying the probability of an all-out nuclear exchange versus that of a single nuclear device being smuggled into the US.
That’s great self-parody.
SPQR (72771e) — 7/7/2009 @ 2:28 pmPerhaps he was just baiting me, but my point of view on smuggled weapons actually supported his contention of opposing SDI. Well, at least if you think we shouldn’t protect ourselves from both threats.
Juan (bd4b30) — 7/7/2009 @ 2:33 pm