Spoke Steve Schippert, ThreatsWatch.com, re the Nuke Posture Review from the Obama administration, and learned that POTUS makes the exceptions of Iran and North Korea when identifying how he will and will not respond to an attacker. Gone is the ambiguity of a nuke response. Instead, POTUS provides clarity -- and the sort of clarity that emboldens belligerents and worries allies. POTUS does not believe in nukes as a weapon. He aims to eliminate nukes from the planet. POTUS ambition is self-concsiously vain. What is critical to POTUS is his peculiarly pacifist opinion of nukes, not the history of nor deterrence of nukes.
Will Obama, of Sainted Mercy, return from Prague and show us "a Piece of Paper" and tell us all we will have "Peace in our time"?
Did anyone in the current administration study 20th century history? Or did the Ivies teach that Hitler and Mussolini were misunderstood, and just needed a hug?
.....We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again....
How many millions will DIE because BHO wanted a cool signing ceremony in a European palace?
>"POTUS does not believe in nukes as a weapon."
Wrong! How is it possible not to believe!? POTUS believes in nukes alright, but he sees nukes it in terms of weapons to be used AGAINST AMERICA! Naturally, he does not want America to have nukes. America can hardly be persuaded to use its nukes against itself. By extension, therefore - in Obams’s mind - nukes are useless in America's hands.
It is clear that many in America have not yet figured out where we are headed with this president. We have only partially completed the jigsaw puzzle that is Obama’s enigma. We think that we have a pretty good idea what the final picture will look like. Yet some of the pieces are still missing. No matter how hard we try, the remaining puzzle pieces just don't seem to fit. The reason is because our assumptions about the competed picture don’t match the president’s.
It is easier for us to believe that the puzzle is somehow flawed; that we must return it to the store. It is easier for us to come up with excuses to ignore what the puzzle really shows: That this president does NOT have our best interests in mind. We sense trouble, but hope that in time the president will come to recognize it too, and change course. Maybe, we feel, it’s not up to us. This, after all, is what we elect a president for.
The tea partiers get it. They know we are the ones who are in danger. But it’s still not enough. That sense of doom churning in the pit of our stomachs speaks of something much more immediate than danger: We are being stalked. We are the target!
I just heard a speech by Arundhati Roy and Noam Chomsky at the 2010 Left Forum held a few days ago at Pace University in which they made reference to some of this. From what I can gather, their positions are in stark contrast to our own; and, as such, it sets the stage for a conflict that cannot be resolved. Compromise is not possible. Neither is it possible to defeat the base sentiment that America is inherently evil. This is an idea that bullets will never convince. What is the answer? Are we to suffer an endless war of attrition?
Here in America, we thought we'd solved everything by electing an avowed Marxist president. We didn't think he was a Marxist, though we might have suspected as much by his friends and affiliations. No, we only saw his skin color. We sought to slay the race demon for once and for all. Now we know better. If given even half a chance, we will not repeat the same mistake again.
http://peterkoelliker.blogspot.com/
i speak as one taught as a child to hide beneath a desk when the horn sounded.
single shot nukes present a deterrent problem in a way than barrage attacks did not.
if a foe makes a massive launch, an immediate massive retaliation launch is cooked in as a reflex. everyone knew this so deterrence worked. mad but effective.
a single shot however is different. somewhere a city dies in a flash. what next? kill another city in response instantly? each second of delay makes retaliation less likely politically in the international community and perhaps in the domestic community too. the longer we contemplate the horror the harder to carry it out. our little girls died. should theirs die now too? the stigma will lay both on the aggressor and on the retaliator if not equally then at least massively. unless the demons get to write the histories.
could demons calculate a city for a city as an acceptable trade especially if there was a chance of avoiding the blood price through ambiguity and denial and obfuscation?
i pity those who must think about such things day in and day out. they must think of the unthinkable but it is hard to stay human with such visions.
i think the trigger pullers must be convinced to the depths of their souls that we will come for them with personal doom and doom for their cause, no matter where, no matter what, no matter how long. this is why getting bin ladin is important. that others will know beyond doubt that we are serious.
This is a decision Israel must contemplate every day of the year. Israelis are civilized. A response in kind cannot be assured. Whereas ideology creates divisions across internationally recognized borders, nationalism is much more precise and easier to deal with. It may also fall under the category of 'extinct' (at least in Obama’s America).
Most of the rest of the world still has a sense of the land. As far as the political class in America is concerned, land has no meaning. Instead, what is important to American elites is Right vs. Left. Monies will be spent to convince hearts and minds; to elect; to prosecute; to incarcerate; to propagandize; to subjugate. Such are America's weapons now. There are no longer any hostile powers jockeying for position on checker board squares - only powers that may threaten to congeal and rise up against power itself.
We are the first to enter this new world in which wars are bloodless; in which 'victory' is ambiguous; in which patriotism has become an anachronism.
No one will follow our lead for some time yet to come. They will first want to see results. They will find that our vision was flawed; that it lacked essence, without which all else amounts to naught.
http://peterkoelliker.blogspot.com/
I do see the other side. If America need not respond immediately to a Nuclear assault, we can save trillions. If we abandon manned space programmes, we can save additional trillions.
In Data security, companies and agencies do a "risk assessment" for business continuity: they determine how long they can stay in business until their systems are restored. If it means keeping a "Hot backup" facility in 12 different states, they do it.
Obama is trying to change paradigms in order to cut military budgets. If we do not need to nuke an aggressor in 30 minutes, but 1 hour and 30 minutes, then we can save a lot of cash.
Why did he need to announce this a few days before Prague? Did the Russians ask for this?
What about a nation that is constantly attaching our infrastructure?