Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Until the day comes (if ever) when the world has actual peacemakers in positions of power instead of the collection of imperialists, religious fanatics, and political idealogues we have now, no actual disarmament of any kind will ever happen. Oh, treaties will be agreed to and signed but the ego-driven power brokers will still need to one up their “enemies” in secret and these treaties and agreements will be broken at will at the drop of a discouraging word.

Why do we need nukes?
We have enough firepower to destroy any country if we want to without actually nuking them.
Enough damage would be done by dropping a bomb on the nuke facilities alone.
Anybody seen the old movie ‘Wargames’ with the kid playing the simulation of WW3 and it turns real?
Do we really believe that if one country decides to launch a nuke at another everyone else will hit their button too?

I’d say the only use for nukes now is to make sure nations are too afraid to use ‘weapons of mass destruction’ against us. Not sure how valid that concept is, but the moment we use a nuke will prove that reason invalid.

Nice article, AP. It’s good to see a redux of the recent NPT negotiations - I haven’t had the time to do any serious reading on them.

Jackything said:

Until the day comes (if ever) when the world has actual peacemakers in positions of power instead of the collection of imperialists, religious fanatics, and political idealogues we have now, no actual disarmament of any kind will ever happen.

The medicine you seek is the poison you fear. How can anyone enforce an international treaty, especially when it’s countries like North Korea that are the foremost worry? Clearly, force has to be ultimately involved. An enforcement mechanism that rules out force is what we already have: a voluntary, unenforced treaty, that serves reasonably well as a means of embarrassing naughty countries, but can do nothing against power-hungry madmen. Who is more likely to actually use a nuke: a nation that blushes at embarrassment or a power-hungry madman?

A “peacemaker in a position of power” ceases to be a peacemaker. True peace is a set of means, not an end itself, and it is a set of means that cannot triumph over violent means. The ultimate ‘peacemakers’ (really ‘justice-makers’) of the last century were Roosevelt and Churchill, and they were second only to Hitler and Hirohito in warmaking. The tragic history of the nuke is that the one awful occasion of its use was an instance of international ‘peacemaking’: the US & most of the world resorted to the ultimate killing machine to stop the violence perpetrated by a militant Japanese regime.

There is no easy peace; only in a dreamworld can justice be affected without violence. We live in a tragically evil world, and unless good men are willing to kill bad men, bad men will rule us.

Great post!

Thanks Paul!

Dawn, our nuclear arsenal serves two main purposes. For one, it really does serve as a deterrent against states that might be tempted to attack or blackmail us or our allies. Our conventional forces are good, but stretched too thin to make a convincing deterrent. Even General Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs just said the US military would have a harder time reacting to a major threat, we “may be unable to meet expectations for speed or precision… The timelines may have to be extended. And we may have to use additional resources [AHEM! nukes. COUGH, COUGH! - AP]. But that doesn’t matter because we’re going to be successful in the end.”

The second purpose is to keep other countries from developing their own nuclear weapons. For example, both Germany and Japan have vowed not to develop nukes in exchange for America’s protection.

As an aside, anything that weakens the perception that America will come to the aid of those countries whether or not America itself is directly threatened pushes those countries closer to developing their own nukes.

I’m thinking in particular about the way the Bush administration has crapped on permanent alliances in favor of coalitions of convenience. And seeing how Washington is scrambling to keep Taiwan from becoming an independent democracy, Japan is already on the fence about whether the US has “got its back” in any potential confrontation with China.

AP,

Please belive me when I say that I have no clue why the US needs to possess nuclear weapons. We already have enough conventional weapons to wipe out most second class nations and enough to put a serious hurt on most first class countries, and do it quickly.
I just don’t understand the need to have the ability to threaten the entire planet with complete destruction.
The concept of mutually asured destruction is bullshit on it’s face. The first salvo alone will snuff the life from this planet, and even if it didn’t what kind of life would remain?
Retaliation would just speed the demise of everything.
BTW, I feel the same way about the stores of biological and chemical weapons that America posesses.
Realisticly, what’s the point?

Sorry, Rocky. I kind of immersed myself in the topic before writing it, and fell into the trap of thinking everybody’s on the same page with our nuke arsenal.

Our nuclear arsenal can and should be reduced. As you say, there is no reason for the large numbers in the arsenal right now. Our nuclear posture should also be refocused to bear on current threats, not the old Cold War targets and philosophies it’s currently based on.

Ex-CIA director John Deutch has an interesting article in a recent Foreign Affairs magazine that addresses drawing down, modernizing and refocusing our arsenal in a manner that achieves deterrence and advances non-proliferation. It’s pretty good. Unfortunately you have to pay for it. I couldn’t find a free copy online. :(

Anyhow, you’re right that we’ve got overkill. But as long as other countries have nuclear capabilities, there’s no way we can completely disarm. As Gen. Myers recently pointed out: Our conventional forces are stretched so thin they’re losing credibility as a deterrence.

The point is psychological.

There are three ways to be an acknowledged POWER on this planet:
1. Economy - When you can hurt Countries using Trade without harming yourself.
2. Space - When you can launch Satellites on your own.
3. Nukes - Self-Evident.

1 and 2 is HARD. 3 is the easiest to achieve.

Nukes are dirt cheap. Its costs less to develop a nuke than to maintain an Air Force. Ergo, Nukes makes sense.

Iraq has already proven that the US will only attack countries that can’t fight back. A Nuke a Day will keep Bush away.

Heh. That’s why nobody could understand why Bush was going after Iraq. As John Kerry said during the debates,

Thirty-five to forty countries in the world had a greater capability of making weapons at the moment the president invaded than Saddam Hussein. And while he’s been diverted, with 9 out of 10 active duty divisions of our Army, either going to Iraq, coming back from Iraq, or getting ready to go, North Korea’s gotten nuclear weapons and the world is more dangerous.

So far, neither North Korea nor any of the other 35-40 countries that had a greater capability for making WMD have yet to see any consequences. The US and Britain are occupied in Iraq, the French in post- post-colonial Africa, and Russia and China just aren’t interested.

There’s no international consensus on enforcing the NPT either through sanctions or force, and there’s no real effort by the Bush administration to create a consensus - after all, they might ask us to comply with our obligation to disarm under the treaty.

Very good article, AP.
You wrote:
“Not to mention the U.S. delegation spokesman Richard Grenell making the wacky excuse that we need nukes to fight terrorism, “We want to be creative with the tools we have at our disposal.” Yikes!”

Lovely isn’t it? I mean, obviously the man must needs be fitted for a straight jacket, but no, instead he’s our delegation spokesman.

I believe these meetings are convieniently linked with the neocon’s pre-scheduled build-up to US aggression on Iran — it’s being said we may expect the real announcement sometime in June. Of course, Faux News has already begun the pre-game slam-fest, guaranteed to create the proper level of hatred among redneck dimwits everywhere.

American Diplomacy? That’s a thing o’ the past.

AP,

I my opinion, the best way to project “Power in the world” would be to lead the way by destroying all of our nuclear stockpiles, and then start on the biologicals and chemicals.
Certinly, we aren’t afraid that North Korea, or Iran, will start raining nukes down on us. The Neo Con, cold war, mentality of duck and cover needs to go the way of the Dodo.

I am in no way a pacifist, but all this wrangling about a weapon that may yet destroy us all, is stupifying.

Certinly, we aren’t afraid that North Korea, or Iran, will start raining nukes down on us.

Not Iran, certainly. They don’t have nukes. Korea on the other hand, has nukes and missiles that can reach at least Hawaii and Alaska. Fortunately, they haven’t been able to combine the two - yet.

I think a reduction and modernization of our nuclear forces is in order, but not complete disarmament.

You also need to consider the effect of a nuclear state like North Korea using the threat of nuking Japan or South Korea as blackmail.

And don’t forget Russia and China. Who knows what the future holds. As Putin said just a few months ago after getting some criticism from Bush, “I would like to remind the current U.S. administration that Russia is still a nuclear power.”

Call me idealistic, but it seems to me that condemning other nations for developing nukes is just a wee bit hypocritical when we refuse to disarm ourselves.

It also seems to me that disarmament would be an excellent good-faith gesture on our parts - some measure of assurance that other countries without nukes will not be blasted into oblivion unless they acquire them.

“I would like to remind the current U.S. administration that Russia is still a nuclear power.”

And to that I would say “So what”.

AP,

America pretends to be the preeminent free state on the planet, yet will attack a “percieved” threat with no real provication.

If we are to lead this planet to peace and prosperity, we need to lead by example first.

rocky,

“The concept of mutually asured destruction is bullshit on it’s face.”

Nah, when you destroy the earth, you gotta make sure you get it GOOD [sic]. But in all seriousness, MAD is perhaps the only effective deterrent between major world powers. I mean, if you’re faced with a lose-lose situation, wouldn’t you much rather talk it out instead? So my basic premise is that the MAD scenario promotes diplomacy.

Rocky, there’s no doubt that we could set a better example by coming up with a plan to reduce the number of nukes in our arsenal. It would also help if Bush administration officials didn’t sound so gleeful about the prospect of using nukes in a first-strike and so giddy about “being creative” with them.

But Zeek is correct. You can’t just unilaterally disarm. The one cool thing about Reagan was that he really wanted complete disarmament (and peaceful co-existence with the Commies, but that’s another story) - even to the point of sharing SDI with the Soviets to acheive it - but he, and every president since Truman, has understood that our nuclear arsenal serves as a deterrent to attacks and (more likely these days) blackmail as I described in my last post.

I think there are very few people who wouldn’t want to wave a magic wand and have all nukes disappear forever, but that’s just not going to happen. But Bush can and should adopt a new nuclear posture that makes more sense.

He can also help by toning down the nuclear first-strike rhetoric. I think the world has gotten the message. It just makes our allies nervous and countries like North Korea either don’t believe it or don’t care.

And Bush could take care of that by enforcing the NPT - if 9 out of 10 divisions weren’t bogged down in Iraq.

Heh. Kim is jumping up and down waving his hands yelling, “HELLO! Look at me! I have NUKES!”, and Bush attacks Iraq. What a waste of lives and money…

Rocky
“The concept of mutually asured destruction is bullshit on it’s face. The first salvo alone will snuff the life from this planet, and even if it didn’t what kind of life would remain?
Retaliation would just speed the demise of everything.”

The first salvo as you put it wouldn’t equal the above ground testing prior to the cold war. Surprisingly we’re all still here.

The USSR detonated a 60 megaton weapon. Our entire ICBM arsenal doesn’t equal 60 megatons.

Life would suck for a while but it’s rather arrogant to think that we can annihilate the world. It was here long before us and it will remain long after. Nukes serve as a deterent to would be attackers but only if they’re an available option.

American Pundit

“Kim is jumping up and down waving his hands yelling, “HELLO! Look at me! I have NUKES!”, and Bush attacks Iraq. What a waste of lives and money…”

So…if we had attacked North Korea (to enforce the NPT) and millions of South Korean civilians died as a result it wouldn’t be a waste of lives and money?

Looney, tyranical dictators are not reasonable people. They can’t be negotiated with and they don’t keep their word. Diplomacy does nothing but prolong the excistence of a human tragedy.

At least Bush has improved the lives of millions of Iraqis (Saddam is gone).

Whose life was improved by Clinton? With US military might at his back, He couldn’t even beat a Somalian warlord. He didn’t do anything about North Korea either. They’ve been working on their nuke program a lot longer than 4 years.

American lives improved under a prosperous Clintonian economy - but that’s a whole nother issue.

The funny thing about MAD, is that raging psychotics and “looney, tyrannical dictators” sometimes do not act in their own best interests. It’s conceivable that a truly insane leader of a country like North Korea could actually want to touch off nuclear war, if they had some kind of religious fanaticism backing them, or just wanted to get in the history books as the one who Started the War.

So…if we had attacked North Korea (to enforce the NPT) and millions of South Korean civilians died as a result it wouldn’t be a waste of lives and money?

Looney, tyranical dictators are not reasonable people. They can’t be negotiated with and they don’t keep their word. Diplomacy does nothing but prolong the excistencesic of a human tragedy.

Perhaps if we had taken all the troops who are currently acting as policemen in Iraq, and threatened Kim Jong-Il with using them if he did not disarm, and then waited long enough to find out if he actually had disarmed..

Remember, this was back before Kim had anything to wave his arms about. The key to vast military might, as Iraq has taught us, is that it’s a much more effective threat than an option. In reality, if the worst-case scenario did play out and we were forced to carry out our threat, we would have all the nation-building issues we currently have in Iraq. Of course, if that was actually a last resort, rather than manifest destiny, we might actually have the support of the rest of the civilized world.

So…if we had attacked North Korea (to enforce the NPT) and millions of South Korean civilians died as a result it wouldn’t be a waste of lives and money?

No, it wouldn’t. Kim Jong-Il’s North Korea was - and is - a much greater threat to the United States and our allies than Iraq ever was.

Pat, just FYI,

In 1994, the administration of President Bill Clinton had begun preparations for military action against North Korea when former President Jimmy Carter traveled to North Korea in June and extracted a promise from Kim Jong Il to freeze nuclear production. The Agreed Framework was signed on Oct. 21, 1994.

Josh, nice post.

Remember, this was back before Kim had anything to wave his arms about.

Actually, we’ve figured Kim had two nukes since 1989. In 2002, he started reprocessing fuel rods and now has about 8. In fact, I’m listening to the radio and it looks like he’s going to test one soon.

Tick, tick, tick.

Jimmy Carter didn’t do crap. What’s another promise from the looney dictator? I can imagine Kim saying, “Can you believe these American idiots, all I have to do is promise I won’t, and they believe me?” Sure has been effective, seeing as how he has a nuke and all. As we have seen over the past 10000 years, the only way to get dictators to do what you want is to force them. Talking nice and waiting for the rest of the civilized world does nothing to help the people.

It is also a stretch to say Clinton was preparing for military action in North Korea (because we had a military?). It’s pretty easy to give credit for nebulous unsupported opinion. How many troops had he mobilized? What excercises was the Secretary of Defense running to ensure we were ready for that kind of warfare? What kind of movements was Kim making in preparation?

And, you can give the president credit for the economony like you can give me credit for the internet. The only real effect the president can have on the economy is by cutting taxes and Clinton would never do that.

Try this theory on for size.

You say,
“No, it wouldn’t. Kim Jong-Il’s North Korea was - and is - a much greater threat to the United States and our allies than Iraq ever was.”

What better way to show Kim that we have the resolve to fight him than to show him we will use our military? Saddam was easy. We get to show the world that the military option is on the table without killing millions of innocent people in South Korea. Just because North Korea is a greater threat to our national security doesn’t mean lives and money are less valuable.

Here’s a quote from the National Security Strategy for Bush. “…the United States cannot remain idle while dangers gather. We will always proceed deliberately, weighing the consequences of our actions.” The consequences of attacking North Korea far outweigh the ones in Iraq. And here’s one from Clinton, “President Kim has set a new course toward peace and stability on the Korean peninsula by opening new channels for dialogue and seeking areas for cooperation between North and South.”

Did Clinton forget that Kim is a lying, looney dictator? I’ll remind you that North Korea is in a humanitarian emergency because more than 300K people are in danger of death from starvation or malnutrition. How does pursuit of a nuke contribute to peace or stability, not to mention, the welfare of his people? The Japanese and South Koreans are scared out of thier minds.

You’re lying to yourself if you think we were about to move the military in and Carter swooped in to save the day. I bet Kim is sure happy too.

Well, Pat. What can I say. I’m just stating facts, but obviously your opinion can’t be wrong. Whatever.

BTW, for anyone who is interested in history rather than opinion, Carter’s CNN diplomacy stunt is a big reason why even Democrats don’t like him anymore. I vividly remember thinking that guy was a jackass for pulling it.

Anyhow, I see where Japan is going to take North Korea to the UN Security Council next month. It’ll be interesting to see how Bush responds.

It’s not opinion. Look at the result. North Korea was not dealt with in the Clinton administration any more than it has been in the Bush administration. We were saved from the brink of war by a looney dictator making promises? If war was really an option why didn’t we follow through after he once again lied?

Again, I must state that we can only make dictators do what we want by forcing them.

Kim is still in power, he has nukes and the Clinton administration did nothing.

Saddam is in a prison cell waiting for trial and Iraq saw real democratic elections for the first time in years. Whose foriegn policy is better at vanquishing our enemies?

Pat,

“Saddam is in a prison cell waiting for trial and Iraq saw real democratic elections for the first time in years. Whose foriegn policy is better at vanquishing our enemies?”

The term “enemy” is completely circumstantial for the U.S. If you will recall, we actually aided Iraq (as well as the Shah of Iran) when they were at war. This whole thing is a game of opportunism and as soon as a dictator loses his value to us, he becomes our enemy. In short, it is an overstatement of accomplishment when you mention Saddamn being in prison.

Ok, how about the elections? Is that an overstatement of accomplishment?

And you still didn’t answer on whose foreign policy is more effective. Dictator in jail vs. dictator making promises and still making nukes.

We’ll never convice one another but it’s been fun.

Pat,

“Ok, how about the elections? Is that an overstatement of accomplishment?”

Seeing as it is the undemocratically elected Prime Minister that holds the most power in Iraq, I would have to say yes, yes it is.

“And you still didn’t answer on whose foreign policy is more effective. Dictator in jail vs. dictator making promises and still making nukes.”

Ok hold it right there. “Making nukes?” There is no evidence that Saddam was even buying nuclear weapons much less making them. But more to the point, which is a more effective policy? Well, I would say that Clinton’s policy was definitely not effective, but Bush’s was disastrous. However, I concede that such things are not so easy to measure, so you could very well be right. But I doubt it :P

Ok, how about the elections? Is that an overstatement of accomplishment?

That depends on if you think an anti-American Islamist government based on Sharia law that sanctions extra-judicial killings, unlawful detention of political opponents, and torture is a good thing. I don’t.

So far, no Americans have been killed in North Korea. That’s a plus. If Bush can topple Kim without firing a shot, that would be best. If he could get Kim to agree to disarm and host a permanent inspection regime, that would be OK. War should be a last resort.

Unfortunately, Bush isn’t even considering the first two options, and with 9 out of 10 divisions earmarked for Iraq, the threat of a pre-emptive strike or even a showdown with North Korea isn’t very credible.

Bush has put himself in the worst possible position - and Kim knows it and continues to thumb his nose at us.

Japan is the wild card. They and South Korea are the countries most at risk from nuclear strikes or blackmail. It seems like we could do another Balkans job where we provide the air power, and Japan and/or South Korea provide the troops. But Japan and South Korea are squabbling amongst themselves.

Then there’s the elephant at the table: China. A united, pro-US Korea is like a dagger pointed at their heart. The obvious invasion route. They blocked reunification in the 50s, and that policy stands today.

It’s a complex geopolitical problem, and President Bush has left himself only two options: do nothing (the current state of affairs) or go to war without allies and with a thinly-stretched military.

Here’s an interesting development: Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the IAEA, says we should scrap the NPT and start over,

The sweeping overhaul he envisions - bringing uranium and plutonium technology under tougher, possibly international control - would mean a “sea change” in the nuclear realm. But it’s necessary, the U.N. nuclear chief says, “because we are facing a threat.”

””…in the next 10, 20 years we’ll have 20, 30 countries that I would call virtual nuclear-weapons states, meaning countries that could move within months into converting their civilian capacity or capability into a weapons program.”

“The first salvo as you put it wouldn’t equal the above ground testing prior to the cold war. Surprisingly we’re all still here.

The USSR detonated a 60 megaton weapon. Our entire ICBM arsenal doesn’t equal 60 megatons.”

“Life would suck for a while but it’s rather arrogant to think that we can annihilate the world.”

Pat,

For the sake of accuracy let’s address the second statement first.
I did not say that we could annihilate the world, but I don’t think that it would even be a nice place to visit.

As for your first statement,

As for the total yield of atmospheric nuclear testing, the estimated total tonnage as of 1992 is 438 megatons.

http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/nukes/ctbt/read9.html

You would have thought that by then we would have known how well it works.

As of 2002 the United States alone possessed aprox. 10,600 nuclear weapons, 7,982 of these are still deployed.
As of 2002, the United States alone possesses 53 attack subs and 18 ballistic missle subs.
As of now The United States alone has over 43 metric tons of plutonium still in weapons.

http://www.brook.edu/FP/PROJECTS/NUCWCOST/50.htm

Why do you think they call it MAD?

The fact is, we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on a weapon that we don’t dare use.

Please, some one tell me, what is the point?

Oh, and BTW,

The figures I have quoted don’t include our airforce or our ICBMs, and these are only the weapons that the US possesses.

America has always overdone things. Too much is never enough.
The nuclear active nations on this planet are capable of making it unlivable here. Sooner or later someone will push the button and that will be that.
Treaties are written so that someone will break them. We all know America’s history on that score.
Let us do more than our fair share to change things for the better.