Saturday, April 17, 2010

Krauthammer articles

Nuclear Posturing
Nuclear Posturing (II)

I generally like Krauthammer: his arguments are usually well thought out, and unlike the rest of the media, he's not over enthralled by Obama's formidable charisma.
Some good quotes:

Imagine the scenario: Hundreds of thousands are lying dead in the streets of Boston after a massive anthrax or nerve gas attack. The president immediately calls in the lawyers to determine whether the attacking state is in compliance with the NPT. If it turns out that the attacker is up-to-date with its latest IAEA inspections, well, it gets immunity from nuclear retaliation.... However, if the lawyers tell the president that the attacking state is NPT noncompliant, we are free to blow the bastards to nuclear kingdom come.

Well, if we thought we'd get something good out of the deal, that might be worthwhile. Normally you make concessions in exchange for something of value. But:

This under the theory that our moral example will move other countries to eschew nukes.

On the contrary. The last quarter-century -- the time of greatest superpower nuclear arms reduction -- is precisely when Iran and North Korea went hellbent into the development of nuclear weapons.

Really, Obama's foreign policy is like Carter's: Step 1, set a good example; Step 3, profit! We're collecting thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel because of Carter's decision to stop recycling it. Because that would stop proliferation. Great plan, eh?

And, of course:
This is deeply worrying to many small nations who for half a century relied on the extended U.S. nuclear umbrella to keep them from being attacked or overrun by far more powerful neighbors. When smaller allies see the United States determined to move inexorably away from that posture -- and for them it's not posture, but existential protection -- what are they to think?
Obama's nuclear weapons policies are going from bad to worse. We're going to give away all of our best counters, while getting nothing in return. When a person acts like this in his personal life, he's called a rube. What is it called when he's the president?

Iran is about 15 months away from Day Zero,
At which point the world changes irrevocably: the regional Arab states go nuclear, the Non-Proliferation Treaty dies, the threat of nuclear transfer to terror groups grows astronomically....But not to worry. Canadian uranium is secured. A nonbinding summit communique has been issued. And a "Work Plan" has been agreed to.
Is attacking Iran necessarily the right plan? No. But telling our National Labs not to modernize our deteriorating stockpile, and telling our allies they can't depend on our umbrella anymore: that is necessarily not the right plan.

No comments:

Post a Comment

It's been pointed out to me that using a cartoon character's screen name while disabling anonymous comments would be a pot//kettle//black situation. So let's try the "anonymous allowed, all moderated" paradigm. Please be aware that moderation will occur at most once per day, every other day might be more likely. Please be patient. (I also notice some FireFox related comment-leaving problems; perhaps Google is getting angry at Mozilla users?)