On this solemn anniversary, it’d be interesting to discuss the progress we’ve made–or the ground we’ve lost–in scientific as well as political and humanitarian terms.
It’s my feeling that we’ve never had a president who is more likely to consider nuclear warfare a viable option as is our current cowboy in chief; no cite, just a subjective character judgment. GWB has made it abundantly clear that he’s more likely to make a decision–even an irreversible, even a lethal decision–based on his unreasoned gut impulse than on a thorough consideration of the consequences.
That coupled with the increasingly rudderless situations in an increasing number of places around the world (Korea, Africa, and the Near and Middle East) could lead us closer, I think, than we’ve ever since come to reprising Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
[Respondants: please don’t point out that this is conjecture. What I’m attempting to initiate is an exercise in conjecture; a thought experiment.]
I dunno, as much as I can’t stand GW Bush, I’d like to think even he has enough restraint to avoid dropping a nuclear weapon on a whim. Does anyone really want to be known as the President who broke the United STates’ current nuke-free streak?
On the other hand, given the cold-blooded realpolitik nature of some of Bush’s handlers (particularly Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld), they just might go ahead and push for such a thing. After all, it won’t be their names that get dragged through the mud of history if it happens…
If by ‘conjecture’, you mean you simply want another orgy of Bush-bashing based on accusation, feel free. It’s not like that’s never happened on the SDMB before.
All I will point out is that your conjecture is not based on much beyond a general dislike of Bush in particular and Republicans in general. This was tried with Reagan (“that cowboy”), where the Left tried to portray Reagan as a trigger-happy idiot who was going to drag us all into WWIII. It didn’t happen then, and it isn’t going to happen now.
Consider the anniversary. I suppose you could class 9/11 as a provocation similar to, if not equivalent to, Pearl Harbor. The only reason the President in 1941 didn’t respond with atomic weapons is that we didn’t have them. Once we did, he did.
We did have nuclear weapons on 9/11. We did not use them. We have since overthrown two terrorist regimes (Afghanistan and Iraq), and are negotiating with a third (North Korea). There has never been serious consideration given to use of nuclear arms in any of these cases.
So if you are arguing that Bush is a murderous cowboy because he is going to start nuclear war, I would point out that the evidence is against it. A provocation sufficient to trigger use of nuclear weapons in the past (if Pearl Harbor == 9/11) is not sufficient to trigger it now.
I am hoping your “thought experiment” is more than simply saying that you know Bush is a dangerous idiot because he will start a nuclear war, and you know he is going to start nuclear war because he is a dangerous idiot.
Pearl Harbor and 9/11 are not really comparable in this way. When Pearl Harbor was attacked, there was no question about exactly which country did it, and whose navy we had to fight in the Pacific.
If the attacks of 9/11/2001 had been immediately identifiable as the deliberate act of a specific government, there would have been immediate talk about retargeting an ICBM, and it’s not hard to imagine Cheney or Rumsfeld proposing it. Congress might even have remembered its constitutional responsibilities and declared war. That’s my bit of conjecture.
As things are now, I’m not worried about GWB ordering a “newkular” strike; I’m just worried that his administration’s ham-fisted idea of diplomacy will continue to help make the world more dangerous.
I am certainly no fan of George II. I think that is pretty well known on the board. But I doubt he will engage in a nuclear first strike on anyone.
This does not arise from a strong sense of his moral stature. It comes as a simple assessment of the nature of the tactical and strategic threats he faces. (Note: I personally don’t believe that is identical to the threats we as a nation face, but that is a different subject.)
We have no enemies against whom the use of nuclear weapons would provide a tactical advantage, and the strategic cost of such an act is extreme. George II is not entirely guided by fools, at least in the realm of military expediency.
Somehow I doubt that he would even retaliate for a terrorist launched nuclear strike with a nuclear response. There is no target for such a strike.
This assessment comes, not from confidence in the dynasty that rules our nation. It comes from the assessment that nuclear weapons are a nearly useless remnant of a military age that has passed. We have far more effective means of destroying military targets, or civilian targets if our whim so moves us. If we were smart, we would disarm ourselves of these dinosaurs, unilaterally, and put the money we saved into more modern weapon systems, or, perhaps even projects to benefit humanity.
I’m absolutely no fan of Bush or his foreign policy by any stretch of the imagination, but he hasn’t even seriously hinted at the use of nuclear weapons (yet), unlike two prior administrations - Eisenhower in order to end the Korean War and Nixon’s ‘madman’ strategy in Vietnam.
My fault, but I didn’t mean to focus exclusively on W; he is just one aspect of a larger discussion about where we are in the nuclear age. I get it that not everyone reads him the same way I do (which I knew; I should have anticipated that including him as a “conversation starter” would inevitably lead to this thread becoming nothing more than a done-and-done-again defense of W and his policies–in any case, I was talking about his personality, not his policies; I know his policies are not explicitly pro-first-strike).
But what about the other aspects of this issue? How likely is North Korea to attempt to Take Over the World; for Kim Jong Il to pull a Hitler, as it were? How likely is it for a nuke to fall into the “wrong” hands (HA! whose are the right hands?) such as an extremist like Bin Laden?
How likely is it that we ever really achieve full disarmament?
To what degree do you think we use our nuclear capabilities like the Sword of Damocles, to shore up our economic dominance?
THOSE kinds of things; sorry again for tossing the Wbomb into the midst of this.
North Korea already has nuclear weapons–they’ve said as much. They have even stated they have the capacity to launch a nuke from North Korea to California. Kim Jong Il, if he thinks keeping power requires it, will launch such an attack–he really is that nuts. If that happens, expect a parking lot between South Korea and China.
I’m not sure that his saying so is any kind of proof; I think he’s bluffing, to get concessions that will allow him to REALLY develop the weapons. Not that he shouldn’t be treated as a credible threat, just that he’s unpredictable and insane enough that his CURRENT capabilities don’t scare me half as much as his, well, unpredictability.
Why do you think he’s crazy? Other than a few scathing comments in the media (expected of any enemy) I haven’t seen any evidence of insanity.
It seems like to me that his posturing has produced the desired results: we’re now trying to negotiate with him rather than taking a hard line do-it-or-else stance.
I don’t know that he has ever been diagnosed, but there are some anecdotes flying around that, if true, would put him a little beyond eccentric.
The Herald Sun reported (I had a link, but it is expired) that he ordered that all triplets in North Korea be taken away from their parents and raised in orphanages, because he had a premonition that he would be overthrown by triplets. And he has admitted kidnapping Japanese to train them as spies. Salon.com reported that he had his favorite South Korean actress kidnapped to improve North Korean cinema.
I think most of the accusations of insanity come from his policy of trying to create nukes during famines that kill millions of his people.
Some of this may be negotiation ploys, but perhaps not all of it.
Nigel says “there is a fine line between clever and stupid”. In this case, it is a fine line between acting like a complete fruitcake and being a complete fruitcake.
Actually, what he wanted was unilateral talks with the US only, a non-aggression treaty, and economic aid, in return for another promise not to create nukes. So far, it is not working, as the negotiations are multi-lateral, and no non-aggression treaty has been signed.
The NKs are trying further ploys, where they are acting all huffy and insisting that the chief US negotiator be expelled from the talks for making some perfectly true and accurate characterizations of the present government of North Korea. Whether or not it will achieve anything beyond further delay while the NKs continue to develop nukes is anyone’s guess.
You must be quick! But, don’t worry. The repub bashing / Bush bashing threads are many. And, alas, Shodan won’t always be there. So, keep alert, and welcome to the SDMB.
Sorry, but the evidence does not suppor this. We just went to war with Iraq. We knew exactly who we were dealing with and which gov’t we wanted to overthrow. No one called for the use of nuclear weapons.
Our convential miliitary strength is so overwhelming that we really don’t need to use nukes. No country has a chance against our military. We have nukes beacuse others have nukes (even though we basically started it all). It would take a truely extreme stuation for any president to consider a first strike nuke attack.
I am relying on you to hold up my end next week, when I am gone on vacation. No Internet, no telephones, no e-mail, no pager. And people in Bible study (this is a church camp) react badly when you yell “Cite?”, so I will my friends on the SDMB.