John Edwards-- Abolitionist

Last week, John Edwards visited the Council on Foreign Relations--the citadel of the foreign policy establishment--to deliver a speech laying out his national security policy. There wasn't anything remarkable about the speech, "A Strong Military for a New Century." What was remarkable, however, was Edwards' answer to a question posed by Cora Weiss --President of the Hague Appeal for Peace and long-time human rights, anti-nuclear and peace activist (and Nation reader).

In the subsequent (on the record) Q&A session, Edwards joined those who have called for the elimination of nuclear weapons. In doing so, he signed on to views expressed in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on January 4, signed by Henry Kissinger, George Schultz, William Perry and Sam Nunn, whch called for a world free of nuclear weapons. (Their newfound wisdom came nearly a decade after The Nation published Jonathan Schell's The Gift of Time--a special issue calling for nuclear abolition.)

Here's the Q&A:

Cora Weiss: -- in keeping with your expression used today that there should be no excuse to abandon international law, and in keeping with the international court's unanimous opinion that all countries should eliminate their nuclear weapons, and in keeping with Mr. Kissinger, Sam Nunn and Schultz' op-ed in The Wall Street Journal calling for the elimination of nuclear weapons, when you are president, what will you do about nuclear weapons given that Mr. Bush has just announced the complex 2030 plan to redesign and develop a new generation of nuclear weapons?

John Edwards: Well, let me say first, I think I would want to associate myself with the concepts that are conveyed by Kissinger, Sam Nunn and others in the op-ed piece. I thought it was very thoughtful. And I think essentially what they said if I remember -- I don't remember the precise language -- was that we should aspire to a nuclear-free world. I agree with that. Now, there are a lot of steps that have to go between here and there. Some of them are pretty obvious, which is America should not be building new nuclear weapons. And then I think America should be doing things like leading an international effort to close the holes in the NPT. There are clearly serious flaws in the NPT. And I think America, leading an international effort to reduce the supplies nuclear sense in the world -- all aimed at the general goal that's described in that piece that you just spoke about.

Now that Edwards has broken the resounding silence (among the leading Presidential candidates) on the nuclear threat which engulfs us all, and spoken openly of his support for a nuclear-free world, isn't it time to challenge the other candidates to answer the same question?

For those candidates (and citizens) seeking an up-to-the-minute analysis and a cogent blueprint for how to rid our planet of weapons of mass destruction, get a copy of the just-released book --Nuclear Disorder or Cooperative Security?: US Weapons of Terror, The Global Proliferation Crisis, and Paths to Peace. (The authors are experts in law and policy relating to nuclear weapons, and bring a fresh, critical, perspective, informed by many years of experience.)

The Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy presents the book on May 31st at a conference in Washington DC. To order a copy, click here.

Comments (116)

1. Thought this piece - Apocalypse Soon by Robert S. McNamara in Foreign Policy - would be a worthy addition to the discussion here:

   http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2829

   Posted by srjenkins at 05/30/2007 @ 6:16pm

2. As nice as a nuclear-free world might sound, Edwards' advocacy is disturbing on a number of levels.

   First, it presupposes the compliance of other nations. We know that nuclear weapons can be extremely powerful foreign policy levers, which is why we've kept them around. A non-nuclear state operates at a tremendous diplomatic disadvantage relative to a nuclear state, as should be relatively apparent. That means that if any nations don't buy into this system for whatever reason, the US will be placed at a horrific disadvantage. At the very least, we would be significantly weakened at the negotiating table. More severely, though, unilateral disarmament would virtually annihilate the incentive not to simply nuke the United States so long as they could demolish any meaningful portion of our conventional weaponry.

   However, even if we could get universal cooperation, it would be bad on two levels. First, being unable to pursue a nuclear arsenal gives countries an incentive to pursue chemical and biological wweapons. That's bad because these weapons, and attacks from these weapons, are extraordinarily hard to detect and trace. A few people coughing in an airport, for example, could easily start an epidemic without authorities being able to trace its source.

   More importantly, though, what nuclear weapons do that's incredibly beneficial is provide countries with an incentive not to go to war with one another. They're certainly no guarantee that they won't, but they absolutely provide them with an incentive not to. In short, nuclear deterrence works. This means that even if every country magically eliminates its nuclear weapons AND removes its nuclear knowledge forever, it would still be a bad idea.

   Posted by Thrawn at 05/30/2007 @ 6:45pm

3. Oh, one other thing. Insofar as Edwards' advocacy involves rejecting the logic of nuclear deterrence, he no longer has any argument against a missile shield.

   Posted by Thrawn at 05/30/2007 @ 6:46pm

4. Posted by THRAWN 05/30/2007 @ 6:45pm

   A non-nuclear state operates at a tremendous diplomatic disadvantage relative to a nuclear state, as should be relatively apparent.

   That's because you have the big stick mentality. The problem is that this gives nations, like Iran, a huge incentive to develop those weapons themselves. It's not a huge advantage when everyone has them - which is exactly what will happen.

   First, being unable to pursue a nuclear arsenal gives countries an incentive to pursue chemical and biological weapons.

   All of which have tremendous control problems. It is a fact that pretty much any nation can set-up a lab to develop chemical and biological weapons. It is not terribly difficult or expensive. It is also a fact that these weapons, if ever used, would probably end up hurting the people using them as much as their enemy. In other words, they aren't good weapons.

   ...nuclear deterrence works...

   That is, until it doesn't. As McNamara points out, "The risk of an accidental or inadvertent nuclear launch is unacceptably high." Especially when you give them to everyone.

   And let's not even talk about his other main point: "I would characterize current U.S. nuclear weapons policy as immoral, illegal, militarily unnecessary, and dreadfully dangerous."

   If you want an argument against missile shields, how about this one - they don't work.

   Posted by srjenkins at 05/30/2007 @ 6:56pm

5. No Nukes? How is the US going to wield its mighty power? Our ground forces are tied down in Iraq for decades. We couldn't defend against an invasion of Russian or Chinese ground forces in a conventional war. Maybe we couldn't even defend against North Korea. Whats the alternative? We would need to build our conventional military to much higher numbers and at much greater expense than we have now. This prospect doesn't look to good with our voluntary and new contractor military such as Blackwater. Unless Edwards explains how we are going to defend ourselves, I can't see where this discussion is heading except for discussion sake.

   Posted by OneVote at 05/30/2007 @ 8:09pm

6. The nuclear free US...I can just see the rest of the world players...China, Russia, France...India, Pakistan..all line up to join the club...with a wink/wink/and yeah, we, er, ah, are in,smile, smile,...

   It's as if Edwards hasn't done enough to take himself out of the race, when, be4hold!! he tops himself yet again...perhaps he knows it was never a race in the first place and is just making trouble and being interesting and willing to see how far he can go out on the loon branch and still have some support...I must tell him, he can go out a lot further and those here will still celebrate his....willingness to speak the "truth"!!!anyway...

   Is he trying to capture the anti war/never, ever, fight for your beliefs vote at any cost, constituency.. IE., all those on the far left and many who reside here..in order to wield some sort of leverage for a position in any Dem administration? Other than that, I can't see him anywhere near the WH except in a tourist line or a Christmas Party invitation.(can I still say Christmas?)

   Edwards should join his buddy, McCain, and start writing their books now on how not to run for office...

   Posted by john maasch at 05/30/2007 @ 8:29pm

7. Spewing bile again I see.

   Posted by USAPRIDE at 05/30/2007 @ 8:38pm

8. Not Edwards, I'm talking about the pundits.

   Posted by USAPRIDE at 05/30/2007 @ 8:58pm

9. "Now that Edwards has broken the resounding silence (among the leading Presidential candidates) on the nuclear threat which engulfs us all, and spoken openly of his support for a nuclear-free world, isn't it time to challenge the other candidates to answer the same question?"

   Wasn't that Edwards' REAL point, Ms vanden Heuvel?

   Come on, you're supposedly to be smarter than that. One theory is "Edwards is a true blue progressive...saying all the right things and making me and 'The Nation' swoon over him"

   Another theory...."Edwards is saying all the right things to make people such as yourself and outlets such as 'The Nation' swoon all over him!"

   Here's the deal...Edwards HAS to out-flank Hillary on her Left. He also has to "out-progressive" Obama AND offer concrete proposals and ideas...something Senator Obama is often short on.

   So, how does he do it? Simple. Take a page from the Howard Dean playbook and hope (as Dean did) to get the base on your side and knock out the "Establishment candidate". Didn't work for Dean, but the ONLY viable option Edwards has.

   So...John Edwards is "no nukes".

   Here's another question though (if you're willing to be a bit MORE cynical)....AFTER he gets the nomination...will he still remain "true blue"?

   Posted by Mask at 05/30/2007 @ 11:02pm

10. another theory.. edwards beleives we should aspire for a nuclear weapons free world

    Posted by Will C. at 05/30/2007 @ 11:20pm

11. I think there's reasonable discussion back and forth about Edwards' political beliefs; I would suspect that though his own beliefs affect his advocacy a great deal, we shouldn't ignore the role of political incentives.

    That being said, it seems very clear that Edwards' proposal is absurd on a number of levels, many of which simply have not been contested.

    The first important issue, of course, is the impossibility of a categorical ban. It's impossible to actually ensure that no other nations have nukes, and that's a problem because a situation in which the US doesn't have nukes and other countries do is absolutely a bad one. If nothing else, nuclear weapons serve as a powerful disincentive not only to not nuke the possessing country, but also to not engage in any form of total war against the possessing country. Both of these are important, especially in a world where nuclear knowledge can never be undone.

    Perverse incentives also matter. Nations may have the ability to make chemical and biological weapons now, but if they can't possess nuclear weapons, they have an even greater incentive to develop these forbidden and virtually untraceable weapons. The airport example should be sufficient to dismiss the idea that these weapons would necessarily hurt the country wielding them (even if they might harm the particular person chosen to deliver them to the victim country). Giving countries an additional incentive to develop these weapons is a bad idea.

    The accident argument is fair, to an extent, but it suffers from a number of serious flaws. First, if anything, it's an argument to both reduce the quantity of nuclear weapons in existence and to increase the quality of nuclear weapons containment. More importantly, though, the empirical record doesn't seem to bear the claim out; there have been an extraordinarily few number of nuclear accidents of any kind, and I think that's significant. At that point, even if there is some risk of accidents (which I have to admit), it's outweighed by all of the crucial security benefits that nuclear weapons provide. To get rid of them would be a fool's errand, especially if (as would inevitably be the case) it was a unilateral disarmament.

    Posted by Thrawn at 05/31/2007 @ 12:54am

12. Also, a brief aside on the missile shield thing. The claim that a missile shield just can't work is flatly untrue. For starters, we're deploying one right now that has worked reasonably well. Far more importantly, though, your objection is nothing more than a reason to improve missile shield technology, because there's no inherent reason why a missile shield can't be effective. As such, an anti-nuke position leaves its advocate with no on-face grounds for rejecting the idea of a missile shield.

    Posted by Thrawn at 05/31/2007 @ 12:56am

13. another theory.. edwards beleives we should aspire for a nuclear weapons free world

    Posted by WILL C. 05/30/2007 @ 11:20pm

    I believe that was the FIRST theory I proposed, young WILL.

    BTW, it's "believe"...smallest of mistakes...hehe

    Posted by Mask at 05/31/2007 @ 07:12am

14. We know that nuclear weapons can be extremely powerful foreign policy levers, which is why we've kept them around.

    I don't think you have shown this.

    the missile shield has never worked after decades of throwing money down the rat hole. the tests have been ludicrously rigged.

    our "non proliferation" policy has been a joke, with Pakistan playing a great part in spreading nuke starter cultures.

    our policy is very selective.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 05/31/2007 @ 07:56am

15. I believe that was the FIRST theory I proposed, young WILL.

    BTW, it's "believe"...smallest of mistakes...hehe

    Posted by MASK 05/31/2007 @ 07:12am

    You really ought to stick to baking the cookies and pouring the breakfast cerial sweety. That wasn't the first theory you proposed.

    Unless you're really attempting pretend the quote at the top of your post was your first theory. It wasn't even your quote and the two theories you then propose had little to do with it.

    Posted by Will C. at 05/31/2007 @ 08:05am

16. We know that nuclear weapons can be extremely powerful foreign policy levers, which is why we've kept them around.

    the most important foreign policy initiative has been the ending of the cold war. both sides had nukes, wiping out any advantage possibly conferred by them.

    since it is politically impossible to use nukes, their value is extremely suspect.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 05/31/2007 @ 08:05am

17. oh and nice job correcting my spelling mistakes. I said it was you calling

    :)

    Posted by Will C. at 05/31/2007 @ 08:06am

18. the most dangerous nuclear flash point has been Kashmir, claimed by both India and Pakistan. both sides are nukefied. where is the advantage to either side?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 05/31/2007 @ 08:07am

19. Posted by WILL C. 05/31/2007 @ 08:05am

    "baking cookies and pouring cereal"? What does that mean?!?!!? Lot of people bake and eat cereal. What is that supposed to represent?!?!?

    BTW, my first theory was "John Edwards is a true blue progressive"

    Your retort was "edwards beleives we should aspire for a nuclear weapons free world"....same thing concerning this topic.

    (BTW, typically a person's name is Capitalized...i.e. "Edwards", not "edwards")

    Posted by Mask at 05/31/2007 @ 09:06am

20. Posted by THRAWN 05/31/2007 @ 12:54am

    Your post should be subtitled: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. It is absurd, on a number of levels, and it only indicates to me that you need to exercise your imagination.

    The first important issue, of course, is the impossibility of a categorical ban.

    A categorical ban would require enforceable international law. So, if a country ever actually used nuclear weapons, they would face the combined might of the rest of the world - and ultimately, justice.

    ...but also to not engage in any form of total war against the possessing country...

    Actually, it only makes it more dangerous. Let's imagine a scenario where someone like Hitler has nuclear weapons. Let's imagine a scenario where someone decides to strike first, with nuclear weapons. Let's imagine a scenario where someone thinks its a good idea to use nuclear weapons as "tactical" weapons.

    You logic fails completely in all three circumstances. It also shows that this line of argumentation is utter and complete lunacy masquerading as reason.

    ...if they can't possess nuclear weapons, they have an even greater incentive to develop these forbidden and virtually untraceable weapons...

    If anything, this is actually an argument for nuclear proliferation, so everyone has it. Is that what you are arguing for? Peace through the universal accessibility of nuclear weapons? Probably not because of the whole "mistake" or deliberate use problem.

    But I'll also point out the obvious that you don't understand how biological agents work. In order to be effective that have to have certain qualities - easily transmittable, quick onset of illness, etc. Anything that would work for your airport example would eventually travel worldwide. It's a faux argument.

    Now, you might have something if you could code a disease to attack a certain DNA type in a particular population, but I think that is more science fiction at this point.

    Chemical weapons I won't even discuss, because your argument doesn't even has the appearance of validity in respect to them.

    ...it's an argument to both reduce the quantity of nuclear weapons in existence and to increase the quality of nuclear weapons containment...

    Sure. Why don't we start there?

    ...the empirical record doesn't seem to bear the claim out...

    Perhaps you remember the Cuban Missile Crisis? Now, imagine this happening every decade as more nations get nuclear weapons. You feel confident that it wouldn't escalate into nuclear war? Come again?

    ...it's outweighed by all of the crucial security benefits that nuclear weapons provide...

    Translation: You like your big stick. The ones with the big stick makes the decisions in the world (Security Council). Without the big stick, we could no longer follow a foreign policy with its roots in the Monroe Doctrine.

    Posted by srjenkins at 05/31/2007 @ 09:24am

21. Posted by MASK 05/30/2007 @ 11:02pm

    ...AFTER he gets the nomination...will he still remain "true blue"?

    Why not? Perhaps the problem is your mentality that you have to come to the right to win.

    Posted by srjenkins at 05/31/2007 @ 09:27am

22. Posted by SRJENKINS 05/31/2007 @ 09:27am

    SRJ, it's not just MY "mentality". Think a lot of Democrats think that way too. And, historically, after you set aside all the conspiracy theories and "poor candidates" and "the Repubs cheated" theories....you're left with..

    McGovern.....Mondale....Dukakis losing. And "New Democrat", "Third Way" Bill Clinton winning....twice.

    Posted by Mask at 05/31/2007 @ 09:46am

23. incredibly, I partially agree with thrawn...but only partially. Aspiring for a nuke free world is wonderful, prying the nukes out of the hands of nations like pakistan and india while they are at eachother's throats, or north korea, or israel for that matter, will take decades, and as stated, someone is going to find a way to cheat, because the advantage of having nuke's in a nuke free world is just too tempting.

    That being said, in this post cold war world, is it really necessary to have an arsenal large enough to obliterate the world a few thousand times? Or to expand it? Deterrence is one thing, lining the pockets of defense contractors is another.

    The US has been absolutely dismal in it's enforcement, and blatant and highly selective in it's violations of the NPT, which makes the treaty more or less a joke. As a world leader, and the most heavily armed nation on the planet, it is our responsibility to take the initiative in putting some teeth back into that treaty. If there was actual US adherence to the NPT (and if the US didn't invade and destroy non-nuclear nations on a regular basis), then the driving force for nations like N. Korea and Iran (the "axis of evil") to arm themselves would be minimized and the potential for compliance with IAEA regulations would increase.

    Furthermore, while we've been slogging it out in Iraq, the potential disaster of "loose nukes" from the former USSR is not getting near the attention or funding that it requires.

    Posted by rzs at 05/31/2007 @ 09:52am

24. It seems important to recognize America's present position around the globe, i.e., to use G.W.'s logic, "you're either with us or against us."

    Considering there's about 190-200 nation states and many of these countries have come to view (since the Iraq War) the US as less of a noble Good Samaritan and more of a global bully, it's reasonable to believe -using the every country that wants a nuclear arsenal has one mentality- there would be no shortage of eagerness in pointing nuclear weapons our way.

    A nuclear shoot-out at the Global Corral seems like a negative-sum game no one should be engaged in. Kudos to John Edwards.

    Posted by onearth at 05/31/2007 @ 10:55am

25. Who do you think this Senator is going to be loyal to- InfoUSA or the saps that vote for her every six years?

    Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday that she followed all Senate rules when she accepted rides on a private jet from a longtime benefactor.

    "Whatever I've done, I complied with Senate rules at the time. That's the way every senator operates," the Democratic presidential contender said in an interview with The Associated Press during a campaign stop in Las Vegas.

    Clinton's travel, along with and consulting fees paid to her husband, the former president, have come to light recently in a lawsuit against Vinod Gupta, a Clinton contributor and chief executive of the data company, InfoUSA Inc.

    The lawsuit by company shareholders accuses Gupta of excessively spending millions of dollars, including $900,000 worth of travel on the Clintons.

    "Those were the rules. You'll have to ask somebody else whether that's good policy," she said.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070530/clinton-iraq/

    Yeah- ask someone else.

    Posted by fromredbird at 05/31/2007 @ 11:47am

26. Nuclear free world----hogwash-----you can't disinvent the nuclear bomb. We know how to make them and we have the materials to make them, someone will always make one if they see an advantage to do so. Don't waste time trying to eliminate them. Spend more time on diplomacy and the creation of alliances that will discourage their use. It is however wise to discourge any further expansion of the nuclear club--i.e. Iran

    Posted by Len Mosse at 05/31/2007 @ 11:50am

27. The US has been absolutely dismal in it's enforcement, and blatant and highly selective in it's violations of the NPT, which makes the treaty more or less a joke. As a world leader, and the most heavily armed nation on the planet, it is our responsibility to take the initiative in putting some teeth back into that treaty. If there was actual US adherence to the NPT (and if the US didn't invade and destroy non-nuclear nations on a regular basis), then the driving force for nations like N. Korea and Iran (the "axis of evil") to arm themselves would be minimized and the potential for compliance with IAEA regulations would increase.

    Posted by RZS 05/31/2007 @ 09:52am

    The simple truth. And- also lived up to it's commitment in the NPT to work to eliminate it's nuclear arsenal along with the other original nuclear-armed signatories.

    Posted by fromredbird at 05/31/2007 @ 11:55am

28. Nuclear weapons actually serve as a deterrent to cheaper chemical and biological weapons. Rouge nations such as North Korea and Iran that may not have nuclear weapons would become more powerful if nuclear weapons were eliminated. Then such nations could hold the U.S. and the European Union hostage with the threat of biological and chemical weapons.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 05/31/2007 @ 12:00pm

29. "then the driving force for nations like N. Korea and Iran (the "axis of evil") to arm themselves would be minimized"

    The driving force for them to arm themselves is power. If the United States ceased to exist North Korea and Iran would still continue down the road of acquiring powerful weapons. North Korea wants to dominate South Korea and Iran wants to destroy Israel. The quote above assumes that these countries only react to threats from the U.S. and that they would be nice if we would just stop being so mean to them. B.S.--Didn't we learn anything about evil in 1939. Playing nice with Hitler's Nazi Germany only encouraged and enabled him to become more power hungry.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 05/31/2007 @ 12:08pm

30. Power is also the driving force for the US to continue to violate the NPT in support for the nuclear ambitions of our allies, such as Israel and India, who are no less bent on expanding their own realm of influence. Your statements belie your apparent belief that what is in the best interest of the US is in the best interest of all, which, sadly, is just not the case. If there is to be the rule of international law and the existence of something like a non-proliferation treaty, then it cannot be applied unilaterally, otherwise it is neither international nor law.

    And "playing nice" with the US gets you what? If you're a developing nation like N. Korea or Iran, then "playing nice" means opening your markets to "free trade" and western-based corporations on a very unlevel playing field leading to the equivalent of an economic takeover and a looting of natural resources (something that Western nations and Japan did not allow during their development, and thus developed). If you are not inclined to "play nice" and embark on a nationalistic or even socialist agenda, you are opening yourself up to Western interventions, economic or military (most of central and south America are examples of this). This situation behooves any nation that would aspire for power, as you say, or self-determination, as I say, to acquire nuclear weapons as a deterrent.

    Posted by rzs at 05/31/2007 @ 12:50pm

31. Progressive foreign policy: one world government under the guise of international law and UN auspices; free trade replaced by socialism; rouge nations like North Korea and Iran placed on the same moral footing as the United States. Sorry, don't think these are ideas that a majority of Americans are ready to accept---thank God.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 05/31/2007 @ 12:59pm

32. Posted by MASK 05/31/2007 @ 09:46am

    ..."Third Way" Bill Clinton winning....twice.

    Interesting how Ross Perot apparantly is a non-factor in your historical analysis. Can you tell me which of the other examples you cite had a third party candidate that appealed to Republican voters and took more than 18% of the popular vote? A margin that, depending on distribution, could have elected all three of the other candidates you mention.

    Perhaps this is a problem in your analysis? Perhaps you would like to spend some time considering how Perot might have some similiarities to Wallace in 1968 or Nader in 2000 - particularly Wallace because that IS the applicable lesson here (the terrible politics of Wallace aside).

    But, no, you haven't done that because you think third-party politics don't matter, they don't get anyone elected. You need to snap out of that dream and look a little closer at what's going to happen to Democrats in the electoral cycle when they keep coming right and fail to differentiate themselves.

    I might vote for an Edwards. Clinton? Not a chance. Besides, everyone already knows sequels are terrible. It goes for movies, and it goes for Presidents. Perhaps that's yet another lesson we can draw from the current administration.

    Posted by srjenkins at 05/31/2007 @ 1:02pm

33. Posted by LEN MOSSE 05/31/2007 @ 12:59pm

    Yeah, you're right. I'm sure the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with why both North Korea and Iran went down the path to develop nuclear weapons. The timing is all just a coininkedik.

    And the gall of talking about the United States moral footing as compared to "rouge nations" shows a lack of familiarity with our foreign policy since day one - and particularly since World War II. Len crack a friggin' book already.

    Posted by srjenkins at 05/31/2007 @ 1:09pm

34. I wish I had more time to comment.

    Thrawn and Len Mosse, don't waste your time here in the sandbox. Tell it that spineless liberal, Henry Kissinger. He's the one who doesn't understand anything about real power.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 05/31/2007 @ 1:16pm

35. Posted by SRJENKINS 05/31/2007 @ 1:02pm

    I didn't say Perot was a non-factor. Like Nader costs Gore 2000, Perot costs Bush 1992. If you remember, my point on third parties was that ...they don't win, they spoil. And Ross did that.

    But I'd also point out that in 1996....Perot was a non-factor and Clinton still won. And he won, because he had backed off from his 1993-1994 stuff...and gone back to "Third Way" and yes, the dreaded "triangulation" between rejected liberal Democrats in Congress and going-too-far Republicans in the majority.

    But I've heard this theory before..."If we ONLY ran a pure, honest progressive...they'd win big time. It's only when we mitigate our liberalism and 'run to the Center' that we lose".....based on NO evidence and in opposition to the historical evidence of the losses of McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis.

    I call it the "Aaron Sorkin/Andy Shepherd/Jed Bartlett" theory...based on the writings of Mr Sorkin in "The American President" and "The West Wing", by which the ASSUMPTION is that the only reason Americans have rejected liberalism (nation-wide) for the last 35 years is....nobody "smart enough or articulate enough or forceful enough" has defended it.

    Which means that "no mistakes were made, no ideas were bad" and essentially means no self-criticism, self-evaluation, or self-CORRECTION is needed by a Left that ...as well...seems too egotistical to consider such things.

    Posted by Mask at 05/31/2007 @ 1:16pm

36. Progressive foreign policy: one world government under the guise of international law and UN auspices; free trade replaced by socialism; rouge nations like North Korea and Iran placed on the same moral footing as the United States. Sorry, don't think these are ideas that a majority of Americans are ready to accept---thank God.

    Posted by LEN MOSSE 05/31/2007 @ 12:59pm | ignore this person

    erecting a strawman again are we, little Lennie? and Iran and North Korea really should use a little less rouge, it looks tacky.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 05/31/2007 @ 1:28pm

37. I would submit that our moral footing isn't quite as steady as it once appeared. did Iran start a civil war in a country it invaded that has killed many hundred thousand? must be a well kept secret.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 05/31/2007 @ 1:31pm

38. Both North Korea and Iran were on the road to development of nuclear weapons long before our invasion of Iraq. Read something other than "The Nation" or other liberal rags once in a while will ya. As to our moral footing compared to rouge nations---pleeeeease stop, you're making me laugh so hard that tears are following on the keyboard. You just reinforce what I have already said---your brand of progressive Kumbyeya/NevilleChamberlain foreign policy has been proven a deterrent to only one thing---safety of the free world.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 05/31/2007 @ 1:33pm

39. Len, stop being childish. We are in a different era. As technology advances, it will longer require a wealthy nation to develop nuclear capability. It is essential to the safety of all that wealthy nations establish a framework that discourages this. The time to get serious about this is now. Your backward worldview does nothing but get in the way.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 05/31/2007 @ 1:46pm

40. And I hope your tears didn't cause your rogue to run down your cheeks.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 05/31/2007 @ 1:47pm

41. Lennie needs to read Ron Paul's reading list for Guiliani. holy &#$@ I agree with a republican. how's that for kumbaya?

    Posted by rzs at 05/31/2007 @ 1:56pm

42. The problem with the Progressive movement and one of the reasons that a true/blue Progressive has not won a Presidential election since 1964 (and you could make a good argument that LBJ was not a true/blue progressive by today's standards), is that it preaches self hate. Your attempt to put the United States on the same moral footing as North Korea or Iran is a classic example. Johannes mentions that our moral footing may have changed since our invasion of Iraq---While we have had our problems in Iraq, we did dispose a terrible dictator who was a threat to the region and to his own people--we will also eventially leave and allow the Iraqi people to govern themselves---something that historically is extremely rare. Rogue nations want power---they see the U.S. as an obstacle to the acquisition of that power----I would hope that you would think being an obstacle to leaders such as Kim Jong Ill and Amadinejad is a good thing.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 05/31/2007 @ 2:26pm

43. While we have had our problems in Iraq, we did dispose a terrible dictator who was a threat to the region and to his own people--we will also eventially leave and allow the Iraqi people to govern themselves---

    er, no.Saddam had long stopped being a threat, and at what cost to Iraq and the US. we have destroyed Iraq as a functioning country, and we have shown little sign of leaving. see, you just can't get away with these lies anymore.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 05/31/2007 @ 2:29pm

44. "Your backward worldview does nothing but get in the way"

    If you mean that I choose not to ignore the lessons taught by history then I guess I have a "backward" world view ---and proud of it. Humankind has not changed. We have the same strengths and weaknesses that we have always had. We face the same problems today that have been faced many times in history. Diplomacy is necessary when dealing with our enemies and should always be utilized to the fullest----but history has taught us many times that peace is reached through a position of strength not weakness---because there has always been those who see diplomacy as weakness, and can only be persuaded by the point of a bayonet.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 05/31/2007 @ 2:36pm

45. Saddam had long stopped being a threat, and at what cost to Iraq and the US. we have destroyed Iraq as a functioning country, and we have shown little sign of leaving. see, you just can't get away with these lies anymore.

    Saddam was still funding terrorism in Israel and had every intention of re-arming when the heat was off. Yes we have destroyed Iraq as it was---though tough and troubling, still a good thing---I still believe that something better can arise from the ashes (as long as we don't pull out too quickly and allow the new Iraqi government a fighting chance). As to our leaving---we will leave---it is just a matter of when and if the new government of Iraq can survive when we do.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 05/31/2007 @ 2:43pm

46. We got rid of Saddam, a thorough bastard, I agree with you there. The "moral footing" problem is that the US armed him and supported him while he was most definitely not only a threat but a force against his own people because he was a useful pawn against Iran, another nation where the US set up a real bastard of a dicator, and consequently handed to nation over to religious extremists, who happened to be the toughest bastards in town and the only ones capable of ousting the Shah. So it's not really a "moral footing" game, rather it's who can we use no matter how moral or immoral to get what we want, which is control of middle eastern resources.

    Iraq can be "self-governing" as long as the government "plays nice" with western-based oil corporations. If not, then there will be a US military presence until they do decide, under coersion, that "playing nice" is the only option.

    as for your "self hate" arguement, I prefer to think of it as a lack of self-aggrandisement and a distaste for hypocrisy.

    Posted by rzs at 05/31/2007 @ 2:47pm

47. As to our helping Saddam in the 80's ---Sometimes our choices are between bad and real bad. In the 80's after the Iranians took our Embassy people hostage we thought that Iran was worse that Iraq. Reagan thought Saddam was "real bad"---read his diary. But our choices are not always between obviously good and obviously evil---wish they were---sometimes we have to take the lesser of two evils----kind of like some of our Presidential choices.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 05/31/2007 @ 2:56pm

48. sometimes we have to take the lesser of two evils----kind of like some of our Presidential choices.

    that I'll agree with.

    Posted by rzs at 05/31/2007 @ 3:05pm

49. Posted by LEN MOSSE 05/31/2007 @ 2:26pm

    ...it preaches self hate.

    I like to call it applying the same moral standard. You see, let's go over a few basic facts:

    You don't get to talk about how bad a guy Saddam was without talking about the fact that the United States removed him from the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism and armed the man, while he was using chemical weapons I might add.

    You don't get to talk about our moral authority in respect to nuclear weapons when the United States is the only nation to have ever used them on a civilian population.

    We don't get to talk about moral authority when we have networks of secret prisons and are torturing people. Not only that, be we have been training the worst human rights abuses right here, in our School of Americas.

    I could go on all day, but these three examples should suffice.

    Does pointing out these rather disturbing facts mean I hate myself or hate America? Obviously, it doesn't. It's a stupid question.

    If you critically evaluate your own country (or yourself) by the same standards you apply to others, it is the central tenet in any system of morality. It doesn't mean you want to run out and have a picnic with Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-il.

    ...because there has always been those who see diplomacy as weakness, and can only be persuaded by the point of a bayonet...

    You can only speak for yourself.

    Posted by srjenkins at 05/31/2007 @ 3:06pm

50. Little Lennie, you are a bit too much in love with the point of a bayonet. as long as it's not pointed at you of course.

    "Yes we have destroyed Iraq as it was-"

    what about the people of Iraq? do they figure in your equation? half a mill dead, two mill fled, this is working out great for them, isn't it.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 05/31/2007 @ 3:10pm

51. Saddam was still funding terrorism in Israel

    er not exactly. what Saddam did was send money to the families of kamikazis who had their houses bulldozed by Israel. to punish relatives of criminals is not exactly kosher either.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 05/31/2007 @ 3:17pm

52. Posted by MASK 05/31/2007 @ 1:16pm

    MASK, please don't make up these weak positions for me. I'm not one of the people arguing about the perfect progressive, articulate candidate. I'm saying:

    1. I'm no longer voting for a Democratic candidate if they aren't making an effort to win my vote. The need to come quite a bit left to win my vote. Period.

    2. If they fail to come left and keep on with the "let's go right, we like Republican-lite" strategy, then I'm going to support a third party in their place - with the goal of getting them to suppliant the Democratic party or until the Democratic party decides to make them irrelevant, by taking their positions.

    As a secondary consideration of this strategy, I wouldn't mind seeing a third-party candidate make it impossible to elect a president at all by getting enough electoral college votes.

    Before you start huffing and puffing about this impossibility, think what would happen if Al Gore ran for the Greens. Not that I think he ever would - but it does illustrate the point.

    ...the only reason Americans have rejected liberalism (nation-wide) for the last 35 years is...

    Who says this? Even if we accepted the idea that "Americans have rejected liberalism" (which I don't), I can think of many reasons we could talk about - such as the rise of the Christian Right, the increased role/spending of advertising/public relations, etc.

    I think this actually says more about YOUR outlook than anything else. Update your arguments, I'm not offering the same line you've gotten used to knocking down.

    Posted by srjenkins at 05/31/2007 @ 3:34pm

53. If Ralph Nader had gotten 5% of the popular vote in 2000, then, the 43 Million $ in federal matching funds would have went to the Green Party in 2004.

    In 2004, Ralph Nader called the Green Party "part of the problem", and had his ass kicked by the Green Party really really fucken bad. Ralph Nader's doomed piece of shit traitor 4th party run, would have had the shit kicked out of it 10 times worse if the Green Party had gotten it's 43 Million $.

    Posted by conshame at 05/31/2007 @ 4:06pm

54. Just imagine Naderites, how bad Ralph Nader would have lost in 2004, if the Green Party he was running against had the 43 Million Dollars. Naderites are very much "as evil as Republicans" and very much "part of the problem".

    Posted by conshame at 05/31/2007 @ 4:08pm

55. President Al Gore = No Iraq War, period. Thanks Nader.

    Posted by conshame at 05/31/2007 @ 4:09pm

56. we will also eventially leave and allow the Iraqi people to govern themselves

    Posted by LEN MOSSE 05/31/2007 @ 2:26pm | ignore this person

    You are a liar. "We will leave"? WHEN, Republican liar. WHEN, Republican liar. When will you leave. When will you leave? Republican Liar.

    Posted by conshame at 05/31/2007 @ 4:13pm

57. The US will NOT leave Iraq if George Bush has his way!

    Bush envisions U.S. presence in Iraq like S.Korea [alertnet.org]

    It was always fiction that we're just there to help out. And it's really weird when Bush supporters include this fiction in their arguments. It's almost as if they've been brainwashed by their own leader. Hmmm.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 05/31/2007 @ 4:28pm

58. Diagnosing the Green Party by Joshua Frank, Fall 2005

    http://www.greens.org/s-r/38/38-14.html

    The Greens could and should have been vociferously opposing the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, but...

    They should have been on the frontlines of the campaign scene, denouncing John Kerry...

    despite being vilified by professional leftists, Greens, progressives...

    Many still cite the drastic reduction in votes for Nader in 2004 as evidence of failure but...

    Posted by conshame at 05/31/2007 @ 4:29pm

59. http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Oct04/Mayer1022.htm

    No Self-Respecting Progressive or Green Can Vote for David Cobb, Cobb Should Withdraw From the Race by Carl Mayer www.dissidentvoice.org October 22, 2004

    As Cobb and his allies have been exposed as nothing more than prevaricating patsies for the Democratic party, the campaign has grown more desperate and taken to doing the dirty work for the Democratic Party by urging progressives not to vote for the only dedicated progressive on the ballot: Ralph Nader.

    Someday soon, legitimate progressives will take back control of the Green party. In the meantime, David Cobb should withdraw from the presidential race.

    Posted by conshame at 05/31/2007 @ 4:37pm

60. (as long as we don't pull out too quickly and allow the new Iraqi government a fighting chance). As to our leaving---we will leave---it is just a matter of when and if the new government of Iraq can survive when we do.

    Posted by LEN MOSSE 05/31/2007 @ 2:43pm

    LEN....can you give us SOME idea as to when that will be and how many dead American GIs and what the TOTAL cost will be? Or is it "January 21, 2009 ...after Bush leaves office so any pull-out and inevitable trouble can be blamed on Hillary"?

    Posted by Mask at 05/31/2007 @ 4:49pm

61. Will the Real Michael Moore Ever Re-emerge? December 8, 2004

    http://www.votenader.org/why_ralph/index.php?cid=175

    By Ralph Nader

    Michael, you have to rehabilitate yourself and remove the stains of your political apostasy.

    Redeem yourself or forever be consigned to history's judgment of political turncoats, renegades and saboteurs.

    You can start this redemption by contributing toward the expenses of those disillusioned young people on our campaign.

    Posted by conshame at 05/31/2007 @ 4:51pm

62. Ralph Nader and all his supporters are part of the problem.

    Posted by conshame at 05/31/2007 @ 4:52pm

63. Posted by CONSHAME 05/31/2007 @ 4:09pm

    You should be thanking the people who voted for Bush or the people that stayed at home. Blaming people for voting for the candidate that felt best represented them is undemocratic and ignorant.

    Posted by srjenkins at 05/31/2007 @ 4:53pm

64. Posted by LEN MOSSE 05/31/2007

    ...allow the Iraqi people to govern themselves...

    Well, ain't that mighty white of ya...thanks boss!

    Posted by srjenkins at 05/31/2007 @ 4:54pm

65. SRJ, a couple of points---

    1. WHAT IF (just a hypothetical...maybe) the Democrats have "run the numbers", looked the polls, examined the voter trends, exit polls, etc. and determined that "Republican-lite" ...is where a MAJORITY of the voters want them to be?

    WHAT IF they've actually studied, investigated, and determined that...going "full-blown populist/progressive/liberal" whatever you want them to be...is an electoral loser for them and that "What's the Matter with Kansas?" isn't what's the matter...or atleast isn't liable to change without YEARS (maybe 4-5 election cycles) of loss after loss after loss....to try to win back the public to them.

    BUT, they have determined that winning elections, putting out some INCREMENTAL changes (like a minimum wage hike) and GRADUALLY implementing a more "populist" economic agenda, will win them more and more support....while going Hard Left or even Soft Left in ONE election cycle, will play right into the GOP's hands.

    WHAT IF....they actually know what they're doing as far as what the public really will accept and support...as opposed to what their BASE really wants and making THEM happy...and losing "the Middle" 40%?

    2nd--"Al Gore running as a Green and splitting the Electoral College" was actually a plan....for George Wallace in 1968. His plan was the same...split the EC, and force it to go to the House of Reps....where Wallace could play "power broker" and push either Nixon or Humphrey away from the civil rights movement by promising to throw his electors to them.

    If Gore did it (and succeeded...a rare chance at best)...he would face a House of Reps that might side with him and let him push Hillary "to the Left", or get Fred Thompson to "move Center"...or he might find they are partisans and would vote Hillary anyway and he would have split her "mandate" and left her with a "selected not elected" tag and a lot of hypocrisy to be eaten by Democrats who said a lot about "no popular vote mandate" from 2001-2004.

    Be fun to see, but the chances are minimal, as Democrats would rally to Hillary in the General Election and Thompson could play Al off of Hillary in the debates and seem "moderate" compared to the two of them.

    3rd...."Ssuch as the rise of the Christian Right, the increased role/spending of advertising/public relations, etc."---Posted by SRJENKINS 05/31/2007 @ 3:34pm

    There was no "Christian Right" in 1972...and Nixon won 49 states. The "Christian right" and "advertising/public relations" existed in 1992 and 1996 and Clinton won. But what WAS different about Clinton from McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis?

    Posted by Mask at 05/31/2007 @ 5:00pm

66. SRJ, how many Americans and Iraqis would NOT have been SLAUGHTERED, if Al Gore was President today???? Huh? I can't hear you SRJ. How many. I can't hear you. How many Americans would still have their limbs, still have their eyes, still have their minds. Tell us how much worse off America would be if Al Gore, was president.

    Go ahead, defend Ralph Nader. Tell us what a traitor you think Micheal Moore is. Tell us what a traitor you think David Cobb is. Tell us how "Al Gore is as bad as George Bush".

    Americans are DEAD, SRJ, because Al Gore didn't become President. AMERICA IS NOW 500,000 MILES TO THE RIGHT of where America would be, if Al Gore had become President.

    What do you want, you want me to forget? You want me to forgive? Ask forgiveness from the people who were butchered, because of Ralph Nader's lies - which he told, in West Palm Beach Florida, early November late October 2000. LIES. LIES. "Gore is as bad as Bush". "Gore is as bad as Bush". "Democrats are part of the problem". LIES. America is in a fix because of LIES, SRJ.

    Posted by conshame at 05/31/2007 @ 5:14pm

67. John Edwards was endorsed by Ralph Nader.

    Ralph Nader wrote a letter to John Kerry in July 2004 requesting that Kerry pick John Edwards as his running mate.

    http://www.votenader.org/why_ralph/index.php?cid=81

    Nader Urges Kerry to Pick Edwards as Vice President He will protect right of consumers to sue corporations June 22, 2004 John Kerry John Kerry for President, Inc. 901 15th Street, NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20005

    Dear Senator Kerry:

    I want to urge you to select Senator John Edwards as your vice presidential candidate.

    There is another reason for choosing Senator Edwards. One of the pillars (the other two being civil rights and civil liberties) of our democracy – the civil justice system – is under severe attack

    Posted by conshame at 05/31/2007 @ 5:24pm

68. Republicans LIED. They say, "oh no, Republicans didn't LIE". Whatever.

    Posted by conshame at 05/31/2007 @ 5:37pm

69. You don't get to talk about our moral authority in respect to nuclear weapons when the United States is the only nation to have ever used them on a civilian population.

    So I guess you think that we should not have used those weapons? I disagree---thankfully those weapons ended the war and ended the need for a very, very bloody invasion of the Japanese home islands.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 05/31/2007 @ 5:50pm

70. Posted by MASK 05/31/2007 @ 5:00pm

    As to point #1: Like I've said before, if you think it will work for you, give it a go - just don't whine about how Ralph Nader or whoever did you wrong when it doesn't work out. It's your strategy that did you wrong. Also, you don't get to talk about 2008 - because Democrats would have to do something incredibly stupid to mess the next election up.

    I'm just giving you the courtesy of letting you know that you aren't getting my vote. I'm done falling for that lesser of two evils nonsense. Nor are you going to be able to use the freakshow that passes as the Republican party to scare me into voting the circus act into office.

    2nd. It's a thought experiment. It could very well have the same effect as 1968 - and we get a new Nixon. More Iraq, more illegality. But someone in my shoes as few other options.

    3rd. I'd argue that advertising/P.R. was a serious force ever since Kennedy showed up tan to the Presidential debates and television took center stage. Christian Right has its roots in the 1950s but it was the 60s that helped galvinize them into a movement (probably doesn't hurt to have a Great Awakening fueling it).

    As for 1972, you don't need Karl Rove to spin a campaign that has a vice-president admitting to electro-shock therapy - or even Watergate documents.

    What is different about Clinton? Well, Bush 1 is a bit of weiner (did I spell that right JR?). Throw in a little Ross Perot, and who are you going to go with? Knowing what I knew then, I'd vote Clinton.

    Rinse, repeat in 1996 for Dole who is even bigger weiner - although probably would have been a contender if Perot wasn't in the picture and could manage to not speak of himself in the third person.

    Yep, that's the problem. Weinerism. It's cross party - let's look at the losers: Kerry, Gore, Dole, Bush 1, Perot, Dukakis, Mondale. You put them all together you might have someone with a personality. I'll even throw Bush a bone here. He has a personality. Even if that personality can be summed up as doofus, it's at least better than weiner.

    Although now I'm in a bit of a conundrum. Kucinich is definitely a weiner. I'm thinking Edwards is a borderline weiner. I don't think HRC is a weiner. Obama probably not a weiner. Not that it's much better on the Republican side - that's a regular package of Ball Park franks over there.

    Ah well, maybe I should make some comment about "progressive" candidates all being weiners, that the election cycle eats weiners and using that as my out as you suggested. Perhaps its endemic, and I should just give up and vote Republican.....NAH!

    Posted by srjenkins at 05/31/2007 @ 5:52pm

71. Posted by LEN MOSSE 05/31/2007 @ 5:50pm

    ...ended the need for a very, very bloody invasion of the Japanese home islands.

    More evidence that you need to do some more reading, my friend. Pretty much everyone in the Pacific theater from MacArthur on down knew that the "that Japan would have surrendered before the bombings if the U.S. had notified Japan that it would accept a surrender that allowed Emperor Hirohito to keep his position as titular leader of Japan, a condition the U.S. did in fact allow after Japan surrendered."

    I used Wikipedia as my source because it is convenient but any historical source will back up that your rational is flawed - and shows you haven't thought much beyond what you've been fed on this issue.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

    Posted by srjenkins at 05/31/2007 @ 5:59pm

72. You are a liar. "We will leave"? WHEN, Republican liar. WHEN, Republican liar. When will you leave. When will you leave? Republican Liar.

    Conshame----I have been on this board for a number of years now. I have stopped posting from time to time because of my busy schedule and the concern that many of the postings become just name calling sessions. It is unfortunate that you feel a need to continue the same crap. It is quite easy to do such things from the safety of the internet--knowing that such words face to face might bring a physical confrontation. So internet stud do you want to have a conversation or do you want to continue to spout your hate and crap. I have no problem with either choice you make---one will start a conversation that could bring about some sort of greater understanding and the other will just cause me to ignore you and I can take a nap,respond to someone more interesting, or spend more time practicing my golf swing---either is good

    Posted by Len Mosse at 05/31/2007 @ 6:05pm

73. Posted by CONSHAME 05/31/2007 @ 5:14pm

    Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn what you do. If you think your little outpouring of hysteria, cut and pasting (whose point is not particularly clear to me and only brings to mind Rese) and what not is convincing, it isn't.

    It is a fact that 47 million people voted for Bush. They are the reason he is elected. 93 million didn't vote at all. And you want to go on about the less that 3 million that voted for Nader? Put down the crack pipe.

    Posted by srjenkins at 05/31/2007 @ 6:08pm

74. More evidence that you need to do some more reading, my friend. Pretty much everyone in the Pacific theater from MacArthur on down knew that the "that Japan would have surrendered before the bombings if the U.S. had notified Japan that it would accept a surrender

    I have read a tremendous amount of this revisionist history. I am shocked that you are so easily convinced by any anti-U.S. propaganda. It has become almost a knee jerk reaction to believe the worst about your country. I believe the following:

    "The Japanese had demonstrated near-fanatical resistance, fighting to almost the last man on Pacific islands, committing mass suicide on Saipan and unleashing kamikaze attacks at Okinawa. Fire bombing had killed 100,000 in Tokyo with no discernible political effect." Even after the bombings many in the Japanese military still did not want to surrender and planned a coup to take over the government and continue the fight.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 05/31/2007 @ 6:20pm

75. wikipedia---now I know you are well read :)

    Posted by Len Mosse at 05/31/2007 @ 6:25pm

76. little Lennie, you are avoiding the point. the phrase unconditional surrender was the problem. many american historians believe the bomb was dropped mainly to keep the russians out of Japan. I believe that ALL bombing of civilians, nuclear or not, is a war crime.no matter who does it. it has also been revealed to be counterproductive.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 05/31/2007 @ 6:26pm

77. Harry Truman went to his grave believing that he had made the right decision and that he had saved lives---he never once had a second thought about his decision. I would say that Harry was a pretty good source.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 05/31/2007 @ 6:27pm

78. what would you expect from the guy who did it? this will forever be a source of disagreement, as there is just no way of knowing what would have happened had the nukes not been dropped.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 05/31/2007 @ 6:33pm

79. Bombing of civilian populations should be avoided in most cases. But we cannot use today's values and standards to judge what was happening at the end of World War II. In 1945 we were involved in all out unrestricted warfare. I hope the world never comes to that place again, but we were there in 45----Civilian populations were being purposefully bombed by both sides, and American prisoners were being starved and executed. Truman thought of the atomic bomb as just another weapon to be used in an all out war. He wanted the war to come to a quick and decisive end. He accomplished his goal.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 05/31/2007 @ 6:38pm

80. To not believe Harry Truman on this issue is to imply that he lied to the American people and the world so that he could send a message to the U.S.S.R. --He would have had to do this with a callous heart and no sympathy for the women and children who died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki=====now you know and I know that a democrat President just wouldn't have done such a thing----right??????????????

    Posted by Len Mosse at 05/31/2007 @ 6:48pm

81. Posted by LEN MOSSE 05/31/2007 @ 6:20pm

    I am shocked that you are so easily convinced by any anti-U.S. propaganda.

    "Any" is a pretty large universe, easily disproven. Example: I can't even be bothered to read Rese, much less believe him.

    Now let's end this little moment of amateur hour psychology and just chalk it up as a fact that you have any clue about what convinces or does not convince me, what I have or have not read, or whatever. I'll extend you the same courtesy.

    Now, you did a nice little bit of dancing around there. But here's the thing - if your military commanders in charge of the theater are against it, the military necessity claim is suspect - irrespective of how Truman felt about it.

    Now, you have a source that brings into question the truth of my premises: MacArthur loved the idea! He wanted to drop the bombs himself. Then you might have something.

    But presumably MacArthur - as the man in charge of the theater - knew exactly what was needed. Why doesn't he come to the same conclusion? Surely, he knew the enemy he was fighting?

    Was it self-hatred? Did he hate America? Was he easily convinced by anti-U.S. propaganda? See, you can't do the psychology line here. You actually have to have some facts and argumention - not some vague assurances about how much you've read "of this revisionist history". I'm interested in titles of books and page numbers - which I will check.

    Up for that?

    Posted by srjenkins at 05/31/2007 @ 7:02pm

82. Look--- it seems we both know all the arguments; you choose to believe that it was our demand of unconditional surrender that kept the Japanese fighting. You believe that we used the bomb to send a message to the U.S.S.R.---I believe that it was a political impossiblitly to treat Japan differently than we had Germany and not demanded unconditional surrender (especially after Pearl Harbor and the reports of how American soldiers had been treated in captivity)--I also believe that Trumans primary reason for the decision had to do with the estimates that somewhere between 250,000 to one million American dead or wounded with an invasion of Honshu was unacceptable---I believe that the battle of Okinawa demonstrated that the Japanese were unwilling to surrender and were fighting to the death---I also believe that the even after the bomb there were those in the Japanese military who still wanted to fight on---I believe you have decided to believe revisionist history because you have a knee jerk reaction to believe the worst about the U.S. because it supports your world view of International Law and United Nations one world socialized government---I do not and will never believe in that crap and I will fight to my dying day against it.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 05/31/2007 @ 9:49pm

83. Posted by SRJENKINS 05/31/2007 @ 5:52pm

    We can go round and round...but history bears it out, for over 150 years now (more than 1/2 the age of the country)....third parties don't win.

    And the BEST thing you can say about them is...they drive the debate. The most COMMON thing you can say about them is...they hurt one guy or the other of the Top Two.

    Now, do you think that splitting the Democratic party into "true blue progressives" who become "Greens" and more moderate, incrementalist types ...and handing election after election to the Republicans is the best way to promote your agenda....OR to help the country?

    Posted by Mask at 05/31/2007 @ 10:23pm

84. As for Truman and the nukes...there was a simple reason, stated by an engineer who worked at Alamagordo why they didn't try a "demonstration for the Japanese"....they didn't have enough plutonium.

    If the bomb had failed at that "demo at a small atoll before Japanese emissaries"...they would have had ONE bomb instead of two and given the Japanese didn't surrender immediately after Hiroshima, but did after Nagasaki (and falsely assumed America had DOZENS of bombs and Tokyo was next)....a demonstration that failed would have strengthened their resolve, not lessened it.

    'lest you forget, these were a people ALREADY driven to suicide attacks (kamikazes) and would die in human waves if the Home Islands were invaded.

    Plus how about this cold, pragmatic, but possibly TRUTHFUL idea....that WITHOUT Hiroshima and Nagasaki....the idea of nuclear war might have been more palatable to the US and USSR in later years!

    Posted by Mask at 05/31/2007 @ 10:27pm

85. Posted by LEN MOSSE 05/31/2007 @ 9:49pm

    And this is why I've moved to a more aggressive stance in this forum. When it comes to backing up a position, no one wants to bother. Let's review a number of your comments:

    "Nuclear weapons actually serve as a deterrent to cheaper chemical and biological weapons." You claim that Iran and North Korea are "evil" similar to Hitler Germany. Make some claims about a bogey man in the form of "socialized government" - whatever that means. Etc. Etc.

    Then, challenged on any of these points, you move on to:

    1. Amateur psychology - liberalism preaches self-hate.

    2. Tough guy talk - "only be persuaded by the point of a bayonet" and physical confrontation if this conversation were in person.

    3. Rationalization - Saddam was bad, but think of Iran!

    4. Liberal bias - Read something other than "The Nation"

    5. Changing the topic - Look, look over there, it's Truman.

    You see, having a rational discussion means actually acknowledging that the "other" side - or other sides as almost always is the case, actually has something to contribute and have a legitimate concern/perspective.

    Or maybe, share a little bit of the knowledge you have gained in all the copious reading you have done. Which book do you find particularly convincing regarding the relative risks and benefits of using atomic weapons on Japan? I'd be interested in looking at any web sites or recommendations you might have, and yes, I typically write down the books people mention if they sound interesting.

    Or how about seeing this as an opportunity to say, Hey, let's imagine how that might be done. How do we get nuclear material that is already on the black markets? How do we get rid of the existing arms? Interesting goal, but how does it all work? Which admittedly, THRAWN, did do to some extent.

    Why bother talking, just get out your bayonet! Evidence? No, don't show me any evidence, I might have to change my mind about something. All that sounds like work. So much easier to pretend all these little stories you tell yourself about liberals are true - and then go on the attack, showing all these liberals whose the boss!

    Then, when you get challenged a little too much, you can take all your Tonka trucks and go home. It's the Internet, you are more than welcome to spew any old B.S. you like and then go back to your golf swing.

    Posted by srjenkins at 05/31/2007 @ 10:45pm

86. Posted by MASK 05/31/2007 @ 10:27pm

    Plus how about this cold, pragmatic, but possibly TRUTHFUL idea....that WITHOUT Hiroshima and Nagasaki....the idea of nuclear war might have been more palatable to the US and USSR in later years!

    Now that's harsh. Hadn't considered that before. But there is probably some truth to it.

    Posted by srjenkins at 05/31/2007 @ 10:47pm

87. .....cold, pragmatic, but possibly TRUTHFUL idea....that WITHOUT Hiroshima and Nagasaki....the idea of nuclear war might have been more palatable to the US and USSR in later years!

    Posted by MASK 05/31/2007 @ 10:27pm

    I am not as well read in history (engineering/science type you know!) but this is the first I've heard of this chilling possibility! Need to give this some thought and imagination......likely place of use would have been....Korea?

    Unlike SR, I had never questioned our use, twice, to end WWII! The cultures of the Orient are heavily focused on the afterlife (kinda similar to Muslims) and suicides or death by the sword are honored ways to go! Their respects for their ancestors are such that every traditional family has small shrines set up at prominent places in the living or dining rooms. The US had every expectation of mass casualties on an invasion of Japan.

    MASK, is this "cold, pragmatic, but possibly TRUTHFUL idea" an original or did you pick it up somewhere? In case case, a true `heard it here first'!

    Posted by Happy at 06/01/2007 @ 01:23am

88. When it comes to backing up a position, no one wants to bother....

    Posted by SRJENKINS 05/31/2007 @ 10:45pm

    Pardon my interjecting a quickie: I readily admit to not "backing up" many positions and I am not willing to just shoot the bull when I know with some time & effort, I can back up most, if not all, my points.

    However, some posters seem to have such a command of their sources, it certainly give pause to me, that some posters here are possibly paid to comment here. Borrowing a fresh line from MASK, my suspicion just might be "cold, pragmatic, but possibly TRUTHFUL idea"! And obviously, those that post the most, with good, readable, articulate arguments, like you SR, could easily fall under this "suspicion".

    SR, I have not reached such conclusion on anyone here, but this is in the back of my mind, at times.

    Posted by Happy at 06/01/2007 @ 01:33am

89. because it supports your world view of International Law and United Nations one world socialized government-

    little Lennie, I have never espoused this, nor have I seen this from anyone here.now that I have disposed of this strawman, you can stop puffing yourself up with this till your dying day nonsense.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/01/2007 @ 07:11am

90. Posted by SRJENKINS 05/31/2007 @ 10:47pm

    Posted by HAPPY 06/01/2007 @ 01:23am

    Just an idea....that maybe people's deaths DO have some meaning, even if it seems (at the time) like a horror and tragedy.

    No Hiroshima/no Nagasaki...and a dozen years later, several MILLION people die in a nuclear war, due to the fact that nobody ever witnessed the horrors of an atomic attack and thought "It might not be that bad".

    Posted by Mask at 06/01/2007 @ 07:20am

91. can we talk of THIS war now? for the first time in the almost five years of war, there is talk of negotiating a cease fire with the "insurgents". you heard that from me for some time now.

    this thing with Korea is complete nonsense. a state of armistice has existed between the two Korean states. both halves of this sentence describe a condition completely unlike Iraq. the 15,000 US troops are there as a tripwire and a security guarantee. they are far too few to stop the north from overrunning the DMZ, as was shown in that war. it seems Bush will never run out of absurd rationalizations for his misguided adventure.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/01/2007 @ 07:47am

92. can we talk of THIS war now? ---Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/01/2007 @ 07:47am

    Damn straight, JR....would you please tell THIS guy to stop straying off-topic into Hiroshima and stick to Iraq?

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 05/31/2007 @ 6:26pm

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 05/31/2007 @ 6:33pm

    Posted by Mask at 06/01/2007 @ 09:34am

93. To start off with, there are two ways in which I would actually tend to agree with the more liberal posters here.

    First, I think SRJenkins was absolutely right when he said the following:

    You see, having a rational discussion means actually acknowledging that the "other" side - or other sides as almost always is the case, actually has something to contribute and have a legitimate concern/perspective.

    I think this necessity is unfortunately overlooked in many cases, and I'm really glad to see him articulate it.

    The second comes from RZS (Posted by RZS 05/31/2007 @ 09:52am); I absolutely think that we can stand to limit the number of nuclear weapons that we possess, and enhance safeguards on them to the greatest degree that is reasonably possibly. Additionally, I definitely think that we should "not do proliferation the dumb way," and as part of that should definitely crack down hard on smuggling of nuclear components between national actors. Though it's probably going to be difficult, I think it's absolutely critical.

    I think it's definitely too much, though, to suggest that the US should ever make a move to abolish nuclear weapons, at least in part because global elimination of them is impossible. Even if you believe that both sides in a conflict having nuclear weapons makes those weapons useless (which I don't; see the US and the USSR and the lack of direct conventional war), having only one side in a conflict have those weapons makes them incredibly powerful. If the US disarms and other actors (most likely rogue nations) don't, those rogue nations suddenly acquire a huge amount of leverage because they can devastate us in a way they know we can't possibly match.

    The prospect of international support for a nuclear-free world is deeply problematic on two levels. First, it presupposes that other nations would actually go along with this, which they almost certainly won't. Powerful nations like Russia and China have obvious incentives not to comply (because they also recognize that nukes matter), which mean no international enforcement is really possible. Even if that weren't the case, though, it's still unenforceable in practice even if most powerful nations agree to it, because oddly enough, nuclear development is both hideable and achievable without any direct first-world aid. Though I know "The Sum of All Fears" is a fictional work, its well-read and extremely intelligent author makes a strong point in this regard. Since a nuclear-free world is impossible, it would be poor policy for the US to give up its nuclear arsenal.

    Beyond that, though, what Len and I have argued fairly consistently is that the existence of nuclear weapons is net-beneficial. First, and I don't think was ever adequately responded to, nuclear weapons are an extremely powerful deterrent against total war. This isn't to say that every country ever should possess nuclear weapons; if Hitler were irrational enough to launch a nuclear first-strike even given inevitable retaliation (which I don't think is the case), I'm willing to say that he shouldn't have them. If he did, though, that's all the more reason for us to possess them as well, because wiping out another country is more rational (though still dubious) when you know that the other country can't do the same to you. Insofar as actors are minimally rational (which seems to be the case an overwhelming majority of the time), a nuclear first-strike will not occur, especially if both sides have second-strike capability.

    I also think there's something to be said for the ability of nuclear weapons to function as a disincentive to chemical and biological weapons. Though biological weapons may be somewhat unstable in their ability to spread beyond the target population, I don't know that such a spread is inevitable, particularly since the response to an epidemic would almost certainly be to suspend travel to and from the country suffering the epidemic. Moreover, the same irrational leaders that you talk about wouldn't care about biological blowback any more than they would care about nuclear retaliation, so I think that point at least is moot. What makes chemical and biological agents so problematic is that they are much easier to generate and far more difficult to crack down on, while still being extremely dangerous. Since any abolition nuclear weapons would inevitably incentivize nations to seek chemical and biological weapons instead, we have yet another powerful reason to keep nuclear weapons around.

    Ultimately, I think there many legitimate concerns that people have about nukes. Though there have been precious few accidents of any kind regarding nuclear weapons, and can be even fewer if proliferation is coupled with careful management, the danger can't be eliminated. Despite concerns like these, though, I think that eliminating nuclear weapons would only make the situation worse by putting total war in reach and giving countries an incentive to seek other agents that could have equally long-lasting and destructive effects.

    Posted by Thrawn at 06/01/2007 @ 11:47am

94. SRJENKINS A categorical ban would require enforceable international law. So, if a country ever actually used nuclear weapons, they would face the combined might of the rest of the world - and ultimately, justice.

    Except that enforcable international law requires international consensus. We can't get that on Darfur and Iran, for example, what makes you think that the rest of the world would commit its combined might against a user of nuclear weapons, especially if it had followed the ban and wasn't so armed?

    Let's imagine a scenario where someone like Hitler has nuclear weapons. Let's imagine a scenario where someone decides to strike first, with nuclear weapons. Let's imagine a scenario where someone thinks its a good idea to use nuclear weapons as "tactical" weapons.

    Except, of course, the existence of nucelar deterrents by the other side is one of the factors that prevented a first strike. Your argument is one for treaties dealing with limitations on first strike weapons such as MIRV ICBMs but not with nuclear weapons as a whole.

    Translation: You like your big stick. The ones with the big stick makes the decisions in the world (Security Council). Without the big stick, we could no longer follow a foreign policy with its roots in the Monroe Doctrine.

    No, the translation is that a small nuclear deterrent (maybe 1,000 or so warheads on bombers and subs) will remain necessary to provide a deterrent effect against countries like N. Korea and possibly Iran.

    RZS The US has been absolutely dismal in it's enforcement, and blatant and highly selective in it's violations of the NPT, which makes the treaty more or less a joke. As a world leader, and the most heavily armed nation on the planet, it is our responsibility to take the initiative in putting some teeth back into that treaty. If there was actual US adherence to the NPT (and if the US didn't invade and destroy non-nuclear nations on a regular basis), then the driving force for nations like N. Korea and Iran (the "axis of evil") to arm themselves would be minimized and the potential for compliance with IAEA regulations would increase.

    Agree completely. I would add that this should include 1) pressuring Israel to adhere to the NPT (including formally outing it as a nuclear power) and 2) not doing the type of insanity like the deal with India where we give them civilian nuclear assistance without them being required to sign onto the NPT.

    Posted by brunowe at 06/01/2007 @ 11:56am

95. I must confess that I was looking forward to Thrawn's response, and I am not disappointed. the thing with the nukes is not an all or nothing proposition, just like the disarmament talks with the russians. they did not result in an arms free world, but they were extremely helpful. Wood, your post too was fine.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/01/2007 @ 12:07pm

96. sorry, I meant Bruno, my apologies.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/01/2007 @ 12:08pm

97. Posted by HAPPY 06/01/2007 @ 01:33am

    I'll respond to THRAWN and BRUNOWE later - but couldn't resist a quick comment for HAPPY.

    Happy, what public relations firm is going to pay a PR hack to astroturf liberal causes on THE NATION? The whole idea is brilliant sketch comedy. "Sir, we have a great idea for forwarding the vast liberal media conspiracy, we'll pay someone to post to THE NATION."

    You let me know who's hiring for that kind of work. I'll send my resume today.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/01/2007 @ 2:32pm

98. Posted by SRJENKINS 06/01/2007 @ 2:32pm | ignore this person

    you mean you haven't gotten your check from The Nation? we all have.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/01/2007 @ 3:10pm

99. Posted by SRJENKINS 06/01/2007 @ 2:32pm

    Apparently....I'm "double dipping" (Canadian definition).

    Since I've been accused before of being a "GOP operative"...and now from HAPPY, that I'm possibly "paid to comment here" (obviously from the Other Side, since I've disagreed with him).

    That's a sweet deal....wish I was.

    Posted by Mask at 06/01/2007 @ 4:09pm

100. Happy, what public relations firm is going to pay a PR hack to astroturf liberal causes on THE NATION?....I'll send my resume today.

     Posted by SRJENKINS 06/01/2007 @ 2:32pm

     ...sweet deal....wish I was.

     Posted by MASK 06/01/2007 @ 4:09pm

     Heheheheh.....I KNEW there would be reactions! SR, NO, not PR firms!

     IF I was a high-level Rove-like pol. operative, I could easily envision coming up with a "brilliant" plan to sway some opinions. Say half-a-dozen folks w/good command of political history and obviously very current on the `hot' topics of the day, to do some of the `preaching'. My guess there is nothing illegal about it...just a higher form of propaganda. Oh, I'd hire you both.......funded by some obscure PAC, other non-profit or Bob Perry (funder of Swift Boaters).....after both of you pass political loyalty tests....with polygraphs....! LOL! Can't help it, it's been a good week!

     But like I said very clearly, "I have not reached such conclusion on anyone here", suspicions at times, hardly is worth taking to `trial'! I just don't believe some folks have this much time to BS here and take this SO SERIOUSLY!

     MASK is the most enigmatic and one Enigma machine ain't enough! He expends considerable efforts to dissuade 3rd Party voting.....why so passionate? Just be thankful they voted! Seems to me, many such 3rd party voters most likely would've been simply NON-VOTERS if Perot or Nader weren't on the ticket at all! I never blamed Perot and Bush41 deserved to lose....though I voted for him!

     Posted by Happy at 06/01/2007 @ 5:48pm

101. Posted by THRAWN 06/01/2007 @ 11:47am

     Alright, let's start with where we agree. We can agree that we need to reduce the number of nuclear weapons, increase safeguards, and stop smuggling. I'd like to reduce the number to zero. You'd like it to be a number higher than zero. Be interested to hear how you draw the line on what is necessary.

     I'm not sure how you do nuclear proliferation the smart way. As both Iraq and Iran should attest, we might change our minds fairly quickly regarding who we consider our allies. Cheney and Rumsfield in on a deal for a full nuclear fuel cycle for Iran under Ford? Say, it ain't so!

     Ok, so then you move into what you perceive as deeply problematic issues in disarmament. First, there is the bad faith issue. To which I offered that international mechanisms could be established to deal with it. To which you assert, it can't happen.

     Let me ask you this question. When was the last time Florida attacked Georgia? The only instance we have of a state attacking another state in U.S. history is the Civil War. Why? Because of federalism. You want good arguments for federalism? I refer you to the Federalist Papers.

     Also, I'd like to point out how, in our modern world, there are people somehow associate federalism with socialism. Isn't that interesting? Socialism is turned into just another word for "something I don't like and don't want to be bothered to understand".

     Now, with the United Nations, we are essentially in an even weaker position that we were when we had a government based on the Articles of Confederation. Ability to make decisions, no ability to enforce them.

     Your critique, then, is in the uneffectiveness of the United Nations. But, you are assuming that there is no solution to this problem. I'm saying there is a solution, Federalism on a worldwide level.

     Now, you can critique why this might be a problem. I think the ongoing discussion we have regarding States rights would be an effective place to argue - but you don't get to claim that it isn't possible to make it work because we know it is possible. The U.S. is our example here. Also, under a form of Federalism, we could argue that only the overarching world government should have access to nuclear weapons - not individual states. This would address your concern about rogue nations and retaliation capabilities.

     I don't think was ever adequately responded to, nuclear weapons are an extremely powerful deterrent against total war.

     Disagree here. The problem in the rationale is that it may in fact be a deterrent to total war, but when the tipping point gets reached, you have the certainty that they will be used which will result in the extinction of the human race and likely the planet.

     If we use the Hitler example, I'd think a modern day Hitler would have a pretty good reason to use a nuclear weapon on Israel. A Christian zealot that thinks Muslims are a threat to Western civilization has a pretty powerful motivation to send one to Mecca. So forth and so on. And you know what? People would defend these actions with the same vigor and excitement that some people around here justify the U.S. bombing of Japan.

     Further, you say, "I'm willing to say that he shouldn't have them." He either has them, or he doesn't. If he has them, what you are willing to grant is immaterial. Imagine a coup in Pakistan or India, for instance - you don't have control over that.

     Here's another point. Why hasn't anyone else used nuclear weapons? I'd argue that even if someone used them on a nation that does not have them - all the nations that do are suddenly going to get real nervous and start aiming their missiles. End result? Best case: a Cuban Missile Crisis. Worst? Extinction.

     I also think there's something to be said for the ability of nuclear weapons to function as a disincentive to chemical and biological weapons.

     I want more detail here. You both assert it, but I don't see how it makes any sense. If you assume the goal is power, as Len does, then you want every weapon in the arsenal. It is not a disincentive to making chemical and biological weapons. It is only a disincentive, perhaps, in their use. In if it's total war, they will be used - nuclear weapons or not.

     Moreover, the same irrational leaders that you talk about wouldn't care about biological blowback any more than they would care about nuclear retaliation...

     Not in the examples I just gave because the goal is to inflict damage on a particular population or ideology. So, it's not moot.

     Ultimately, you are playing a high-stakes game of dice. We are having a little hot streak at the moment. But the reality is that this is a game that, at some point, is going to leave everyone a loser.

     Posted by srjenkins at 06/01/2007 @ 5:58pm

102. SR, very fine, and entertaining from both sides.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/01/2007 @ 6:02pm

103. Posted by BRUNOWE 06/01/2007 @ 11:56am

     Except that enforcable international law requires international consensus.

     I refer you to my federalist argument in my response to THRAWN.

     Except, of course, the existence of nucelar deterrents by the other side is one of the factors that prevented a first strike.

     What makes you assume that it will prevent it? The Cuban Missile Crisis is one example where we came very close to nuclear war - irrespective of the fact that both sides had nuclear weapons. The first and the third examples I raised don't concern first strike weapons or conventional ideas about how nuclear weapons will be used. You need to make clearer what you think the problem is here.

     As for Iran or N. Korea, so my federalist argument again.

     Posted by srjenkins at 06/01/2007 @ 6:07pm

104. Posted by HAPPY 06/01/2007 @ 5:48pm

     The average American spends 1,555 hours in front of the television per year. I don't watch television. I also have a flexible schedule. Any questions? =)

     http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/07statab/infocomm.pdf (Table 1110)

     Posted by srjenkins at 06/01/2007 @ 6:32pm

105. SR, the EU is a good example for the views you have posted. no one ever thought the french and the germans could get along, after all those wars.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/01/2007 @ 7:00pm

106. TW, my first theory was "John Edwards is a true blue progressive"

     Your retort was "edwards beleives we should aspire for a nuclear weapons free world"....same thing concerning this topic.

     Posted by MASK 05/31/2007 @ 09:06a

     sugar buns, (Bwah Ha Ha Ha Ha) is that really the best you can do?

     Maybe you should let the kids pour their own cereal. That way you'll have a very large mess to clean up after they launch the contents of both box and bowl after you tell them that henry kissinger and george schultz are true blue progressives.

     Posted by Will C. at 06/01/2007 @ 8:52pm

107. and i really got under your skin when I cracked on your dumb assed substitution of words like attended and spoke at.

     but that's Ok sweety, correcting my spelling is certainly showing me.

     Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAa

     Posted by Will C. at 06/01/2007 @ 8:55pm

108. If the USA does not recommit to NPT and to the elimination of nuclear weapons, what credible and moral leverage can it it have in persuading others, like Iran, to desist from acquiring them. Many of the comments are just restatements of the principle of American exceptionalism. Moreover, the rest of the world remembers and knows that America is still the only nation to have used them, killing 140000 women, children and old men to send its first big shock and awe message to the world.

     Posted by Rick Taves at 06/01/2007 @ 10:36pm

109. Like Jenkins, I want to touch on our point of agreement before moving to where the real clash is. I think this is certainly a fascinating issue, and I'm glad that it's getting the fair and open discussion that it deserves.

     I'd like to reduce the number to zero. You'd like it to be a number higher than zero. Be interested to hear how you draw the line on what is necessary.

     Admittedly, this is where it's difficult. I'm certainly not in a position to say "well, the line of necessity is that X nations get Y number of nuclear weapons." I think that these kind of precise determinations require a great deal of dedicated policy analysis, and though I recognize the potential for that analysis to go wrong, I don't think that the impact of that (in probability and magnitude) would be anywhere near the impact of a nuke-less world. Moreover, the need for specific balancing here is no different than what would be needed in every single policy area with which the US concerns itself. If this sounds like a cop-out, it isn't; it's just me trying not to get in way over my head.

     I think the discussion has gotten just a tiny bit muddled, so I want to focus it in. Basically, the debate is happening on two distinct levels: practical and theoretical. The first seems to deal with the practical feasibility of pursuing nuclear abolition and the second seems to deal with whether a nuclear-free world would, on balance, be better than a world with nuclear weapons. The analysis about the international community and deterrence deals with the practical aspects of the debate and your analysis about the possibility of world government addresses the second.

     So first: is nuclear abolition a wise policy to pursue? The nature of this as a practical question is extremely important because it means that we don't get to create a perfect international order ex nihilo. Instead, when considering policy action, we have to look at the international community as it is and as we can reasonably expect it to be. As a result, even though there's a great deal of legitimate discussion to be had about the virtues and/or vices of world government, I don't think that debate is necessary here because there is no indication whatsoever that a world government is even remotely likely in the near future. States still regard themselves and one another as independent actors, and I think the continuing limitations of the United Nations provide telling evidence of this.

     I want to engage the world government alternative just a bit, though. In the most extreme case, where the nations all considered themselves merely subunits of a more cohesive and binding global community, you're absolutely right that nuclear weapons would serve no purpose, and neither would general military technology (unless you wanted to, say, create a Federation which could explore the galaxy in a vessel named Enterprise :D ). That world supports your position, but I also think it's exceedingly unlikely. In this sense, I would argue that desirability of nuclear weapons is closely tied into the desirability of militaries, such that they stand and fall together.

     So...given that we're probably stuck with a set of independent national actors, what is the best way to proceed? This is where the practical debate divides further into two questions:

     1) Is it practically possible to get categorical agreement for an abolition of nuclear weapons? 2) Even if it is practically possible for everyone to ditch their nukes, would that world be better than one with nukes?

     I think the answer to both questions is no. I've already dealt with the first in previous posts; nations whose cooperation would be needed have shown no inclination to participate in any kind of global nuclear abolition. That's clearly a problem for all of the reasons I've detailed (disproportionate power, etc.), and I think that that alone is sufficient reason to reject any policy aiming to abolish nuclear weapons.

     The debate on the second, though, is more interesting, and I think it's where the most meaningful clash shows up.

     I'd think a modern day Hitler would have a pretty good reason to use a nuclear weapon on Israel. A Christian zealot that thinks Muslims are a threat to Western civilization has a pretty powerful motivation to send one to Mecca. So forth and so on. And you know what? People would defend these actions with the same vigor and excitement that some people around here justify the U.S. bombing of Japan.

     This point actually turns against you. I think it's absolutely imperative to diminish the odds of destruction to the greatest extent possible. In your world, someone who wants nuclear weapons can still find ways to manufacture them and get around whatever international consensus exists. Given that, you want to make it so that the rationality required for a leader not to annihilate you is as low as possible; by doing that, you minimize the odds of a leader arising that is willing to destroy you. How do you do that? By possessing a nuclear deterrent, and sending the message that any attempt to wipe out your country will be responded to in kind. This also works for a nuke-less Hitler because you can say that any effort to annihilate your population conventionally will be met with absolute destruction even if your conventional forces can't contend with his. This eliminates the otherwise-extant incentive for stronger nations to prey on weaker ones. The best case for nuclear weapons, then, is the Cold War, where war was averted in large part because of mutual second-strike capability. I think it's incredibly telling that, as you admit, the Cuban Missile Crisis came dangerously close to war in spite of nuclear weapons, not because of them, and I think it's equally telling that even the most tense moments have never led to any nuclear exchange whatsoever.

     Nukes work as a deterrent in another way as well: they deter the production of chemical weapons, and I think you yourself have provided some of the groundwork as to why. Bio and chem weapons are certainly superior to conventional ones; they don't depend on the "correlation of forces" and are much better at spreading chaos within an enemy state. At the same time, I think you're absolutely right that chemical and biological weapons have significant downsides that nuclear weapons don't. Biological weapons might be either ineffective or not contained within the target area, and chemical weapons are somewhat untrustworthy and tend to have a relatively narrow range (except in Batman). As such, a nation that must choose (due to scarce resources) to build a "trump-card" weapon to protect itself will likely opt for nukes rather than chemical and biological weapons. In other words, conventional weapons first-strike weapon, because then the c&b use is divorced from a context that could clearly broadcast the attacker's identity. This, coupled with all the harms you listed of chemical and biological weapons, means that a world with these weapons as substitutes for nukes (which is what you get) is far worse than a world with nukes.

     Posted by Thrawn at 06/01/2007 @ 11:27pm

110. Posted by THRAWN 06/01/2007 @ 11:27pm

     I think we can pass on how you determine how much is "enough". It was more a curiosity than anything else, and I agree it is something which would require more knowledge than anyone here would have.

     The first seems to deal with the practical feasibility of pursuing nuclear abolition and the second seems to deal with whether a nuclear-free world would, on balance, be better than a world with nuclear weapons.

     This is a far enough description for this discussion.

     Instead, when considering policy action, we have to look at the international community as it is and as we can reasonably expect it to be.

     This is where we disagree. You have to state the goal upfront. Then, you have to decide how to get there. Let's just talk about all the things we agree on - containment, reduction and so forth. We cannot do these things without moving the international community beyond how you are defining reasonable - which is essentially the status quo. This is the gigantic hole in your argument that you keep glossing over. And if you have to build an international community in new directions, you have to have an idea about what it needs to be able to accomplish. I offered federalism as the answer to this problem. You are treating it as "theory" when in fact it is central to the practical solution.

     One new aspect you bring into the discussion is that you seem to accept how federalism might not only solve the nuclear issue but might result in a stable peace. So, we agree that it is an interesting strategy. We simply disagree whether it is possible or not. I don't think this is something either one of us will change our minds on - so I'll leave it that we shall agree to disagree.

     But the bottom line is that in order for these to be effective, you need international cooperation.

     This is where the practical debate divides further into two questions:

     1) Is it practically possible to get categorical agreement for an abolition of nuclear weapons?

     2) Even if it is practically possible for everyone to ditch their nukes, would that world be better than one with nukes?

     I think the answer to the first is no - if you don't build the international mechanisms. This is why I cannot let you gloss over this issue as you have been.

     Without international agreements, this discussion is moot because things will eventually simply reach the point where total war - with nuclear weapons will occur. You haven't addressed this assertion at all because you have this belief that nuclear weapons make the world safer. I'll grant that they may make it safer to a point, but past that point, it makes it much less safer. When you look at the range of danger where nuclear weapons are a deterrent to where there are incentives to use them, I'm arguing the sum is more dangerous. You are arguing it is not. I think, even if we were to suppose you are right and I see no reasonable reason to assume that you are, it is safer to err on the side of no nuclear weapons.

     Which brings me to the answer to the second question: yes.

     In your world, someone who wants nuclear weapons can still find ways to manufacture them and get around whatever international consensus exists.

     It is a fact that a coup could occur in a country with nuclear weapons. It has happened. It will happen again. You cannot control these outcomes. My world is the real world.

     Given that, you want to make it so that the rationality required for a leader not to annihilate you is as low as possible; by doing that, you minimize the odds of a leader arising that is willing to destroy you.

     Given the history of the world, why do you think rationality has anything to do with anything? All it takes is someone willing to die for their cause. Suicide bomber with THE BOMB. There is nothing sane about nuclear weapons, and we cannot pretend that rationality applies - especially when we see people, right here in this board, suggesting that if we had been a little more liberal in our atomic bombing of other countries in the world, the world would be a safer place. They'll give you some rather "rational" reasons for these remarks too. It doesn't change the fact that it's insanity.

     Bio and chem weapons are certainly superior to conventional ones; they don't depend on the "correlation of forces" and are much better at spreading chaos within an enemy state.

     Any military commander will tell you bio-chem weapons make terrible weapons. It can introduce chaos, yes. But I've yet to see you offer an argument that nuclear weapons act to deter the production of these weapons. Specifically, you say:

     ...they deter the production of chemical weapons...

     How? You seem to be suggesting that nuclear weapons are superior so eliminate the need for bio-chemical weapons. Yet, we know the United States continued developing bio-chemical weapons even after having nuclear weapons. Same with China, Russia, and Israel. Not to mention all the countries with suspected development. Your logic doesn't match the facts.

     Posted by srjenkins at 06/02/2007 @ 3:29pm

111. ......the existence of nucelar deterrents by the other side is one of the factors that prevented a first strike.

     Posted by BRUNOWE 06/01/2007 @ 11:56am

     What makes you assume that it will prevent it? The Cuban Missile Crisis is one example where we came very close to nuclear war - irrespective of the fact that both sides had nuclear weapons.

     Posted by SRJENKINS 06/01/2007 @ 6:07pm

     SRJ, I don't watch much TV either....while my `work' schedule is dictated by when the financial markets are open, I consider it very flexible! Still, I tip my hat to you (& MASK) for your devotion, time commitment & fastidiousness on so, so many issues. OK, w/that out of the way.....

     I was bemused by your questioning BRUNOWE and the MAD doctrine! It is, IMHO, a classic Lib Doublethink! Very similar to the Libs current cry that Bush has made the US `less safe' when the post-9/11 reality most rational people live in, is exactly the opposite. Heard about the JFK plot today?

     Over half-a-century of several powers, including two superpowers, possessing thousands of warheads have NOT LED TO ANY NUCLEAR WAR and you actually question if this has prevented such a horrifying WAR? The irony and, yes, stupidity (sorry!), are just too thick for me to let it by! And to top it off, you use the Cuban Missile Crisis in exactly the OPPOSITE way as sane people would.

     If the US did NOT have nuclear weapons then, and really wanted to prevent Soviet Union from putting them in Cuba, how would this Crisis have ended? Come on, it is precisely because "of the fact that both sides had nuclear weapons" that "we came very close to nuclear war" without actually doing so.

     Posted by Happy at 06/02/2007 @ 5:09pm

112. Posted by SRJENKINS 06/02/2007 @ 3:29pm

     With the quantification issue gone, I think there are three main areas of clash at this point:

     1) Is there a reasonably plausible world in which nuclear weapons are forever abolished? 2) Do nuclear weapons have a deterrent effect on war, or at least total war? 3) Do nuclear weapons deter the use of chemical weapons as a significant instrument of foreign policy?

     The first issue is where the federalism debate comes in. I fully concede that nuclear weapons as a deterrent would ultimately serve no purpose under a global government that wasn't threatened by Romulans, nor would military forces as a whole be necessary in the way that they are now. I think it's worth noting, as an aside, that your later analysis about terrorism requires nuclear weapons to still exist even in a world of global government, because terrorism would almost certainly still exist. At the very least, the potential for nuclear weapons would still exist because the knowledge and tools are and will continue to be available to those who avidly seek them.

     Beyond that, though, I think the question about whether global government is feasible is certainly an important one in any policy consideration. Though policy certainly does make an effort to alter the status quo, policymakers put a great deal of effort into determining whether the changes they seek to make are likely to come about. That's why, for example, questions about the plausibility of democracy in Iraq were relevant to the pre-invasion discussion; democratization would be nowhere close to a justification if it were shown that the aim of democracy is extraordinarily unlikely. As a result, all of my analysis about probability is still extremely relevant because the likelihood of your altered world is a huge factor in determining what policy direction the US should pursue. I think that alone is sufficient to reject any move to unilaterally wipe out our nuclear arsenal.

     The second issue is whether nuclear weapons deter war generally or total war specifically. This also seems to be where weighing becomes an issue, because of the claimed potential to deter war on the one hand and make it more likely and dangerous on the other.

     Given the history of the world, why do you think rationality has anything to do with anything? All it takes is someone willing to die for their cause. Suicide bomber with THE BOMB. There is nothing sane about nuclear weapons, and we cannot pretend that rationality applies - especially when we see people, right here in this board, suggesting that if we had been a little more liberal in our atomic bombing of other countries in the world, the world would be a safer place. They'll give you some rather "rational" reasons for these remarks too. It doesn't change the fact that it's insanity.

     This seems to be the crux of your anti-deterrence position: most threatening leaders aren't rational. I don't think history bears this out at all, though. Leaders act when they think they have at least some reasonable chance of winning; I know of no leader who has attacked a country even as he knew that his country would be utterly and completely destroyed. Many times, leaders that we paint as insane turn out to be coldly calculating, such that they would never take an action that would destroy them or undercut their base of power. That same logic also applies to coup leaders, particularly given the necessarily political nature of their struggle.

     Finally, the third issue: do nukes deter biochem weapons? I think you're missing a very important distinction here. I'm not denying that states who have nukes also possess chemical weapons. What I'm saying, though, is that in a nuke-less world, biochem weapons are no longer relegated to the back-burner role that they occupy in the status quo. Instead, they become the primary instrument for state deterrent policy, and that's bad. Even if that's not true, you still have a problem, because then the only meaningful deterrent is conventional forces, meaning that stronger nations have little to no incentive not to attack weaker ones.

     Nuclear weapons have been critical foreign policy instruments for over 50 years. Though their proliferation certainly needs to be carefully controlled, they still serve a valuable purpose in promoting peace and stability.

     Posted by Thrawn at 06/02/2007 @ 5:25pm

113. Posted by THRAWN 06/02/2007 @ 5:25pm

     You broke the discussion into three points. I think the first is fine. The second and third need to be restated. I'll touch on each in turn. I'll also approach this from a utilitarian point of view - which you seem to favor - and leave off the deontological moral arguments.

     1) Is there a reasonably plausible world in which nuclear weapons are forever abolished?

     Your position is that you believe that federalism could be a solution to nuclear proliferation and could help in its abolishment. You simply think establishing an effective form of federalism is highly improbable - which given the United States unilateralism, I would agree.

     For me, this is the central issue. You cannot make progress in the number of nuclear weapons, control of nuclear material & technology and so forth without enforcable agreements. NPT, for example, has not been signed by India, Pakistan, or Israel. North Korea signed and then later withdraw from it - with no consequences.

     If you don't get to enforceable agreements, then this whole discussion is moot. Nuclear capability will proliferate and will eventually by used in war and then in total war.

     2) Do nuclear weapons have a deterrent effect on war, or at least total war?

     Which brings us to your next point. I actually do not think this is the point of contention. I will grant that raising the stakes by introducing nuclear weapons into the picture makes people less likely to engage in total war - thus, the answer to this question is yes, and we are in agreement.

     The problem is that you are actually arguing that the deterrent effect brings the probabilities to near zero and that it results in a net gain in the amount of suffering in the world. So the real question is:

     2) Do nuclear weapons have a deterrent effect on war, or at least total war, that ultimately brings a net gain in the amount of suffering in the world?

     The problem for me is that when you look over a long enough time frame, I think some circumstance will occur where someone will use nuclear weapons and bring on total nuclear war. This will be the extinction of the world.

     The only way I can see your argument making sense if you also want to argue that the extinction of the world is going to happen anyway. If you don't assume the extinction of the world, then you have to talk about the eventual suffering that comes from total nuclear war.

     Up to this point, you have been assuming that this will not happen because of the rationality of the actors. I am saying you cannot assume this - especially over time.

     I think this point actually addressed both questions #2 and #3. But there is something else going on in your discussion on #3 that I want to bring out.

     3) Do nuclear weapons deter the use of chemical weapons as a significant instrument of foreign policy?

     Now, I finally see what you are doing here. Again, I don't think this is the right question - because I would answer yes to it.

     The problem is that you have a couple of implied arguments that you are not bringing out. I'm going to give them the best rendering I can, and then assume they are a good representation of your position. If they need to be adjusted, let me know.

     1. Biochemical weapons are more likely to be used than nuclear weapons. 2. If biochemical weapons are more likely to be used, they are more dangerous. C. Bio-chemical weapons are more dangerous than nuclear weapons.

     I will grant that bio-chemical are more likely to be used. However, this argument fails to account for the relative costs involved. For example, the use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war in Halabja claimed somewhere between 4,000 - 7,000 lives. Nuclear weapons, even so called "tactical" nuclear weapons, would have claimed many more. So, in effect, even greater probabilities of use may mean less suffering (or danger, if you rather). You need to address this issue.

     We could also use another perspective. Imagine the world after total biochemical war and after total nuclear war. I think the probabilities of humans surviving the first are better than the second - although I think both are bad options. It suggests there is something wrong with the argument that bioweapons are more dangerous.

     1. Bio-chemical weapons are a nuclear substitute. 2. Eliminate nuclear weapons and bio-chemical weapons will be the weapon of choice. 3. If bio-chemical weapons are more dangerous than nuclear weapons, it is better to select the less dangerous option. C. We need nuclear weapons.

     Another thing I find interesting is why you don't go and suggest that bio-chemical weapons also need to be abolished along with nuclear weapons. It's a false dichotomy.

     However, there are plenty of problems in your argumentation beside this point. For example, we know bio-chemical weapons are a poor choice for the battlefield because of the spillover effect and so forth. So, you went with a civilian attack, which has many of the same problems.

     But let's imagine the best case circumstance for your argument. Let's imagine a DNA disease that only strikes Americans based on a mutation in most American's DNA that has all the qualities of the ideal bioweapon - easily communicated, causes death, etc. Let's imagine that it was imported somewhere in the U.S. and was released.

     Who do you bomb with nuclear weapons? How do you get the other nations with nuclear weapons to agree with this approach?

     When you think this through, I don't think you can conclude that having nuclear weapons acts as a deterrent for any case where the delivery mechanism can be kept a secret. Huge problem for you.

     Do you believe that even if there was the perfect bioweapon, which I argue doesn't even exist, that it would be impossible to deliver it undetected - especially when retailation with nuclear weapons, bioweapons and/or conventional warfare provide a great incentive to cut down on forensic evidence? Your airport example suggests otherwise, and this raises some serious questions about your arguments.

     However, my main point is that bio-chemical weapons are simply not very good weapons. When you look at it from an effective point of view, the argument would look like this:

     1. Bio-chemical weapons are a nuclear substitute. 2. Eliminate nuclear weapons and bio-chemical weapons will be the weapon of choice. 3. Bio-chemical weapons are less effective and less dangerous than nuclear weapons, it is better to select the less dangerous option. C. We can get rid of nuclear weapons.

     Interested in seeing how you reply to these issues.

     Posted by srjenkins at 06/04/2007 @ 10:53am

114. Posted by HAPPY 06/02/2007 @ 5:09pm

     Very similar to the Libs current cry that Bush has made the US `less safe' when the post-9/11 reality most rational people live in, is exactly the opposite.

     Curious. How do define "less safe"? I define less safe as an increase of terrorist activity. If you use the National Counterintelligence Center statistics, you see the following:

     "According to open-source information, approximately 14,000 terrorist attacks occurred in various countries during 2006, resulting in over 20,000 deaths. As compared with 2005, attacks in 2006 rose by 3,000, a 25 percent increase, while deaths rose by 5,800, a 40 percent increase."

     That sounds like less safe to me. I'll not even bring in the increase of capability brought on by Iraq, where we are providing a training ground.

     If you like the "expert" point of view, why not take a look at the Terrorism Index?

     "As with the first index six months ago, the results show that America's foreign-policy community continues to have deep reservations about U.S. policies and priorities in the war on terror. Eighty-one percent see a world that is growing more dangerous for the American people, while 75 percent say the United States is losing the war on terror."

     http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/02/pdf/terrorism_index.pdf

     Also, has it ever occured to you that incidents like the FDR might be an indication that the threat is increasing? Also, don't incidents people Padilla suggest that the government has a history of cooking the evidence - at least to the point where we should be a little skeptical?

     Over half-a-century of several powers, including two superpowers, possessing thousands of warheads have NOT LED TO ANY NUCLEAR WAR and you actually question if this has prevented such a horrifying WAR?

     What is a good way to express this...given your interests, perhaps this phrase: "past results do not guarantee future performance". I think it is obvious that if no one had nuclear weapons, nuclear war would not occur. The fact that it hasn't happened yet - doesn't mean they aren't dangerous to have around and will eventually lead to nuclear war.

     I will agree with you on one point. It makes no sense for the U.S. to be the only one to get rid of its nuclear weapons. It has to be everyone, and there has to be mechanisms that enforces it.

     Posted by srjenkins at 06/04/2007 @ 11:16am

115. Posted by SRJENKINS 06/04/2007 @ 10:53am

     I think I can agree with the points of clash that you highlight, so I'll go ahead and address them as they come.

     1. Is a nuclear-free world plausible?

     I think the answer here has to be no. Since we seem to agree that a form of global federalism is not terribly plausible, the other alternative we have to look at is the internationally-enforced agreements that you reference. You're absolutely right that without enforceable agreements, no form of nuclear controls will be possible.

     The problem, though, is that lacking the very federalism you would like to see, enforceability means something very different in international agreements from what it means in domestic ones. Lacking a clear centralized authority, international agreements depend on individual member states to enforce them, which means they have to have some incentive to do so (or at least, no incentive not to). When it comes to particular forms of control, it's at least somewhat likely that states will want to do this; they no doubt want to avoid accidents and terrorism as much as anyone else. Of course, some states might not mind a little terrorism so long as it lets them stick it to their adversaries, so that's certainly a difficulty. More significantly, though, nations absolutely don't have an incentive to totally get rid of nuclear weapons. Smaller nations certainly don't, because they lose the ability to deter larger nations. More broadly, nations tend to like the balance of power that nuclear weapons create, and they certainly don't want to be able to be held hostage by the inevitable country that chooses not to cooperate. Finally, what no international accord can do is put the nuclear genie back in the bottle; the technology and information needed to construct a nuclear weapon is readily available, meaning that they can still be constructed no matter what international regulations exist. All of these combine to make nuclear abolition utterly improbable any time in the near future, which in turn means that it is a reckless policy course for the US to be pursuing.

     You concede that nuclear weapons have the capability to deter total war, so I'll go ahead and move on to where you think the real deterrence clash lies:

     2. Does nuclear deterrence lower net suffering?

     I think you hit the heart of the difficulty here. Any full-scale nuclear war would be utterly devastating. This point is only effective, of course, given the possibility of nuclear abolition, which though I disagree with (see above), I'll concede here for the sake of argument.

     All I can offer is the simple fact that nothing remotely resembling a nuclear war has ever happened, and I think your concern is precisely why it has never happened. People realize the tremendous destructive potential that nuclear weapons have, and deliberately choose not to incite a nuclear holocaust. The cost, by any reckoning, would far outweigh any possible benefit.

     The problem, of course, is that it may only take one launch, one military officer who wants to rid his country of flouridation, or even one wrongly-perceived accident. Honestly, I think that's the biggest weakness of the pro-nuclear position, but I just don't see a way around it.

     3. Do nuclear weapons successfully deter biochem weapons as significant instruments of foreign policy?

     Very interesting response here, I have to say. I wasn't expecting you to try and turn my argument here. More specifically, you seem to be turning the impact; nuclear weapons do deter chemical weapons...and that's bad.

     You first suggest that a total biochem war would be less awful than total nuclear war. Eh, that may be true, but I'm not sure the death toll would necessarily be all that different, especially if biological weapons can be as indiscriminate as you seemed to suggest earlier.

     Also, what if we could abolish both nukes and biochem? Hmm, interesting question. I think it's certainly a harder one to answer; I think I'd ultimately still say no, but it's a far more difficult decision to make. I certainly don't think that biochemical weapons are going anywhere anytime soon; they're significantly harder both to detect and to prevent than nukes are.

     Let's say that, as you suggest and I think is at least plausible, biochem weapons are far less devastating than nukes are. I think that's a huge problem for your position, though. As you yourself point out, the introduction of chemical weapons muddies deterrence structures considerably. Despite that, though, nations might at least hold back if they feared the ultimate retaliation. In other words, part of the reason nukes are so effective is because their use would be so devastating. For chemical weapons, those incentives aren't really there; their use in a first-strike isn't nearly as unthinkable as the use of a nuclear weapon would be, which means that having them as the main foreign policy instrument makes for a very dangerous and ugly world indeed.

     Basically, when it comes to biochem weapons, you're stuck either way. If they're really really dangerous, you have to reject them the same way you reject nuclear weapons. If they're not all that dangerous, that's bad both because their use is thinkable and because they're far less amenable to conventional deterrence structures.

     Posted by Thrawn at 06/05/2007 @ 12:08am

116. Posted by THRAWN 06/05/2007 @ 12:08am

     This has been an interesting discussion. Thanks for it. I'll just make a few minor points for clarity.

     1. I think the historical failure of enforcable international agreements is what makes the case for federalism so compelling.

     2. All of these combine to make nuclear abolition utterly improbable any time in the near future, which in turn means that it is a reckless policy course for the US to be pursuing.

     We should recognize that this was a response during a Q&A session. I don't think there is anything "reckless" with having a long-term objective of eliminating nuclear weapons. In fact, I would say the opposite is true.

     Short-term goals can include all those measures we agree on until the appropriate structures are in place to move to an international movement to abolish all nuclear weapons. It is not something an individual country can do alone - and I don't think anyone is arguing this position.

     3. You concede that nuclear weapons have the capability to deter total war - to a point. After that point, they make total nuclear war more likely, if for no other reason than they are around.

     4. All I can offer is the simple fact that nothing remotely resembling a nuclear war has ever happened, and I think your concern is precisely why it has never happened.

     However, we haven't had nuclear weapons for very long. This is not much cause for comfort.

     5. I think that's the biggest weakness of the pro-nuclear position, but I just don't see a way around it.

     I agree. This flaw also seriously undercuts arguments that it makes us safer, and it is why I cannot support a pro-nuclear position.

     6. [N]uclear weapons do deter chemical weapons...and that's bad.

     "That's bad" from a relative risk/utility point of view. I'd rather live in a world with only biochemical weapons than both biochemical weapons and nuclear weapons - even factoring in the deterent effect of nuclear weapons on the use of biochemical weapons. This seems self-evident to me - which was why I didn't see your position until you made it a bit clearer.

     I think you have raised a good point about biochemical weapons, and the way to address it is to abolish them along with nuclear weapons. Of course, this makes all of the other concerns you have around good faith and enforcability more difficult, but in my mind, the alternative is much worse - keep nuclear weapons around until someone decides to use them.

     Posted by srjenkins at 06/05/2007 @ 09:07am