The Clear and Present Danger

[Please visit our sponsor:]

[Neil Mick]

"President Bush’s Nuclear Weapons Policy: Illogical, Ineffective and Dangerous" (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/page.cfm?pageID=1106)

comments?

[SeiserL]

IMHO, it is hard to assess a clear and present danger without the complete intelligence and the expertise to interpret it.

[Neil Mick]

Thank you for responding, Lynn. But, what is your take on the article?

To me, the REAL threat to the world lay in our approach to disarming it, and in disarming ourselves, from nuclear weapons.

[Neil Mick]

Apology, apology, apology.
"The Treaty requires each country to reduce and limit its strategic nuclear warheads to 1700-2200 by December 31, 2012. Each side may determine for itself the composition and structure of its strategic forces consistent with this limit. A Bilateral Implementation Commission will meet at least twice a year to discuss issues related to the Treaty.
"The 2002 treaty is remarkable for what it allows rather than for what it prohibits. Under its terms, the parties remain free to produce both warheads and means of delivery (missiles, including intercontinental ballistic missiles equipped with multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles [MIRVs], and bombers) without any restriction. Furthermore, non-deployed warheads possessed in excess of the agreed limits do not have to be decommissioned and destroyed; they may be stored without being subject to external controls. Thus, the constraints imposed by the treaty can be easily reversed. As stated in the text, each party will determine for itself the composition and structure of its strategic offensive arms. Consequently, instead of actually cutting their nuclear arsenals, Russia and the United States could simply rearrange them, qualitatively and quantitatively, or even increase them"

You can find this analysis, here (http://www.prio.no/publications/publication.asp?PublicationID=4315).
As outlined in the Department of Defense's Nuclear Posture Review submitted to Congress earlier this year, the United States plans to retire all 50 of its ten-warhead Peacekeeper ICBMs and convert four Trident submarines from strategic to conventional service. Additional steps to reduce the number of U.S. operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads to the 1700-2200 level will be decided subsequently.
"The only conceivable justification for such an arsenal is to maintain the capability to target Russian nuclear forces. That was the primary role assigned to nuclear weapons during the Cold War (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/page.cfm?pageID=623), and it remains the primary role in the Bush administration's Nuclear Posture Review."

(Now, pay attention to the last sentence, in this next quote...it shows a peek of that forest, that you're so keen on whacking away, leaf by leaf...)

"The Pentagon has undertaken a Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) that broadens the role of nuclear weapons beyond their cold war function of deterring a Soviet attack. According to the NPR, U.S. nuclear weapons will now target seven countries. Russia, China, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Situations in which the weapons could be used include a war in the Middle East between Israel and Iraq; military conflict between China and Taiwan; North Korean invasion of South Korea; or responding to what are vaguely referred to as "surprising military developments." Understanding of the danger inherent in nuclear weapons has clearly been lost." (http://www.clw.org/control/nprnobels.html)

Also the notion that N. Korea should be a lesson in Nuclear arms reduction is plain silly. If we were to spend the next 10 years destroying evry last one of our nuclear weapons would N. Korea say oh gee we should do the same! If anything N. Korea teaches us that Pre-emptiveness is better than reacting to the threat after an attack or a precieved build up of an attack.

Kind of like the way pre-emptiveness taught us about how to deal with other nations, such as Iraq, right?

And, with respect: you are not speaking from a realistic historical perspective. Diplomacy HAS worked with N. Korea in the past (1994), and has every indication of working in the present. The only party patently unwilling to go through standard diplomatic channels is, of course, our "peaceful President."
Besides if we hit N. Korea with a cruise missle he would over run S. Korea in 45 minutes. Not something we want to happen is it?

Quite right: not to mention, turning N. Korea into a "charcoal briquette" (to quote the former General Powell). Or, IMA: the effect of a nuclear war upon the whole region. You DO care what happens to Japan in such a conflict, don't you (it would seem sort of odd, if you didn't; practicing a Japanese art, and all...)

An argument for a position is greatly reduced when inacuraccies can be found with 5 seconds on google and when the article delves into other peeves the author may or may not have

Quite right again: it took me about that long on google to rebut your paper-tiger, pro-proliferation arguments. I note that not one word was given to the NPR stance upon increasing the bounds of nuclear weapons-use.

This is still not good enough, of course when these things are done by a Republican are they?

Republican, Democrat, Communist...I do not care WHAT stripe the politician. In fact, I find Clinton partly to blame for not taking care of the nuclear mess sufficiently enough, in the '90's. Clinton, IMM, laid much of the groundwork for Bush. What little good he did (in civil liberties, etc) has now been mostly swept aside, by Bush, et al.

But, this is somewhat off-topic.

[Neil Mick]

Another fascinating article...I don't agree with all of it, but it might interest Aikidoists who weigh both sides, of the issue.

Dominators rule (http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/2003/jf03/jf03krepon.html)

By Michael Krepon

Forget hawks and doves. The post–Cold War political struggle is between “dominators” and “conciliators.” Right now, thanks especially to Osama bin Laden, those who believe U.S. national security lies in raw military power, not cooperative agreements, are in control.