Many people simply misunderstand the purpose of the public nuclear strategy. Liberal bloggers describe it like so: This is done in order to ensure that an all-out nuclear war isn’t created when so many other alternatives exist. (agreements ensure nothing) And then you hear Liberals calling up NPR voicing their indignation that the US nuclear strategy includes using nukes in any case for any reason – because we know how terrible they are now – it’s insane – and so on.
OK. I understand why the average Liberal might see our nuclear strategy like this. I mean, look at Obama. He can’t make a good move on either war or make a hair’s worth of progress against terror activities without posting it on the national refrigerator for us all to praise. And besides this, Liberals in general don’t seem to grasp the desperate realities or hard logics of war.
The nuclear strategy is part of the overall strategy of deterrence. In the simplest terms: If you don’t want the crazy people in the world to use their nukes on you – you damn well better keep them convinced you’re crazy enough to use your nukes on them in retaliation – immediately.
During the cold war maintaining this was essential. Likewise, enemies like India and Pakistan maintain the same deterrent check. Once Iran and N. Korea get there nukes, their neighbors will need nukes to deter them. Agreements won’t replace this logic, not when a war can be won and a civilization vaporized within an hour. (Remember, Hitler had that solid wall of democracies to his north and west convinced he had no designs on them, so they had no reason to stop him, until he picked them off one at a time leaving merry old England to fight the good fight by her self.)
Obama has decided it’s best to make some updates to the policy, primarily that he promises not to use nukes on countries not armed with nukes – with the noted exception of countries actively developing nukes in direct contempt of the national community, namely Iran and N. Korea. (Hey guys!) And he has no plans to update the current decades old US nuclear arsenal, but will be dismantling some according to future agreements.
Now the first one might seem natural, obvious, and logical – something that should have been included all along. Why would the US use nukes on a non-nuke country, besides Japan? The US and its allies have lived this past 50 years under a nuclear umbrella that not only protected them from nukes, but also Nazi-German-like conventional aggression, the kind made possible by tanks and trucks, the kind that can change the map over the weekend, the kind that Soviet military hardware was built for that every third-rate government owns. That’s why Western Europe doesn’t keep a serious standing army, the US is there to fish them out of any serious challenge to their sovereignty.
Under such an umbrella, only the truly crazy and brazen would invade a US ally. Sadam Hussein? Kuwait? Thankfully Kuwait was bordered with other allies and Sadam was so uncoordinated and weak that the US was able to push him out with one mighty effort. But the deterrence failed then because Sadam believed the US didn’t have the will to stop him, he underestimated, or rather we didn’t properly display, our crazy.
So why is Obama making such an odd change? Why is he compromising our crazy? Why is he giving the crazies of the world one less reason to behave?
Well, he wants to talk Iran and NoKo out of their nuclear weapons programs without a military strike, and thinks credibility will help. (Ever try to talk a crazy person out of something?) His idea is that, if he isn’t developing nukes, promises not to use nukes on non-nuke countries, and moves to reduce the US arsenal, the crazy guys will see the rationality in giving up their nukes. In other words, it will be harder for them to say: “eh, but you’re doin itnnnnnnnnnnn!”
If you ask me, this line of reasoning sounds like a campaign gimmick gone awry, like Cat’s Cradle fans starting a Bokononist church. There’s no way in hell Obama will earn a shred of credibility with the crazy leaders of the world, not the kind they respect anyway. And meanwhile Russia, China, and other rivals (possible future enemies) are updating their arsenals.
Again – one maintains a ready arsenal for fighting a war – so that war won’t have to be fought. We make bombs not so we can drop them. We make bombs so we can drop them, so we won’t have to. One can see how the philosophy behind this policy is dangerous. (deproliferation is another asinine topic for later, so enough with Obama’s reasoning)
The Liberals are going crazy over Sarah Palin’s latest Obama-bash in this regard. She equated the policy to announcing that anyone can – go ahead and punch me in the face, I won’t do anything about it. The Liberal counters, as usual, are nearly as fun an entertaining as Palin herself. They can’t point out any problems with her logic. They pretend she’s stupid without expressing why, and ponder if she’s just rabble-rousing. Then, usually end their piece extrapolating Sarah’s opinion into some radical view: She doesn’t agree with the policy change so she must want to go nuking some people!
Regardless, what I DO like – or love – about the policy change is the immediate message it has sent. “Ok – everyone without Nukes is cool. We’re not going to wipe you off the map any time soon. Oh – except for you two over there, yeah, you two.”
lol – Ahmadinejad is up to his usual mockery and N. Korea – well – N. Korea is being N. Korea. Mind you, I’m not saying I like the initial message because of the immediate failure of its ultimate goal – that failure being Iran and NoKo’s continues butt-slapping. I like it because it inadvertently told the two remaining spokes on the axis of evil that we got missiles with their names on them. Those two crazies NEED to know we’ve got all 14 of their probable locations targeted and ready for sudden abrupt zapping.
Loading ...
Raging Kitty