[Newsbot]

Filibuster Cartoons
Title: Peacenik Presidents (click to view)
Date: April 16, 2010
World leaders descended on Washington this week as part of a landmark Nuclear Security Summit, a unique opportunity for multilateral discussions of issues relating to nuclear control and nonproliferation. The meeting, hosted by Obama, came mere days after the President signed a historic treaty with the Russian leadership that committed both nations to dramatically reducing their nuclear weapons arsenals by nearly 30% over the next seven years.

Obama has taken some flack on the right for these anti-nuke initiatives, which his critics have characterized as exceedingly naive, peaceniky fantasies. The Republican Party, in its current form, seems to prefer the idea of perpetual war as the ideal state of the international arena, where major international crises can be solved either through bombings, or threats to bomb. A Republican holding the strongest "foreign policy" cred with his base is usually the one most willing to engage in the most vicious and belligerent rhetoric regarding the advisable approach to resolving the problems of our unstable world.

It's unfortunate, because back in the day GOP presidents used to actually talk about "world peace" with surprising regularity. And not just "peace" in some sort of vague, amorphous way; peace in its most idealized, demilitarized, friendship-between-all-nations, anti-war form. You read the inauguration speeches of Nixon or Reagan, for instance, and you come across a lot of language that seems extremely airy-fairy in the context of today's pessimistic foreign policy malaise.

A double standard of judging rhetoric I can understand, but it's another matter entirely when one party decides that the very idea of world peace, or nuclear disarmament, is too fringe to tolerate.

[xerxes]

It just shows how ridiculous the Republican Party has become in recent years. If Reagan were around now, Palin, Beck, & co. would be calling him a liberal pussy. They will attack Obama over anything no matter how insignificant or benefitial to the country it is.

This arms reduction treaty isn't a drastic reduction by any means, but yet he's being attacked becuase he's reducing the ability to destroy the world from 4x over to 3x.

It reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Bart runs against Martin to be class president. They have the obligatory debate during the course of which Martin complains about the high levels of asbestos in the school. Bart on the other hand, retorts that there isn't enough asbestos in the school. Of course he doesn't know what he's talking about, but he knows how to ge the other kids riled up and that's what's most important.

The same applies to Sarah Palin. She doesn't know what she's talking about, but she knows to energize a room full of idiots.

[martin14]

Xerxes, you are proving to be a good parrot for the radical left.
Which puts you in the same category as the people on the other side
trying to energize their group of idiots.



The world was quite different for Reagan and Nixon.

It was in a way easier; almost everything could be dumped on the big bad soviets,
but the soviets werent flying planes into buildings, suicide bombers, ieds
and the like.

The principle problem in the US is the economy,
but Obama spends tons of energy on healthcare.

The principle foreign policy problem today is terrorism,
but Obama spends his time making deals with the Russians.

Same complete lack of focus on what needs to be done.

[dodobird]

You talk as if suicide bombers, plane hijackers, and home made explosives are something thats come around only in the last 10 years. They have been there for a long time even during nixon and reagon years. Infact i would even go as far as saying the soviets were probably funding such people aswell as the american administrations themselves.

We also have a mostly free market economy, this is what caused the recession and this is what will get us out. Do you think that the government; if it focused all its time and energy exclussivly on new ways to toy around with the economy; will help pull us out of a recession?

The mark of a good government is not one that focusus entirly on one or two issues but one that can come to bat on many issues and can get many things done. Should the Obama administration simply sit on its hands untill fanatics decide to come to the table and talk or just sit there thinking about new ways to bomb them?

What you say drips with so mush disdain for the current administration or your own partisan feelings that you dont really care what they do. You just make very very general statements about whats going on rather then looking at the deeper issues.

[commanderkai]

dodobird wrote:

You talk as if suicide bombers, plane hijackers, and home made explosives are something thats come around only in the last 10 years. They have been there for a long time even during nixon and reagon years. Infact i would even go as far as saying the soviets were probably funding such people aswell as the american administrations themselves.

They've been around for a while, yes. No doubt. The superpowers probably involved themselves with terrorism too. However, terrorism, in the grand scheme of things within the Cold War, was minor compared to the very real threat of nuclear war.

I'll use a quick example. The Munich Massacre. Those terrorists that attacked the Israeli athletes operated from Soviet proxies, and the Israeli reprisal against those terrorists was done by Israel's intelligence agencies, (a Western proxy). However, even though these events were a sad time for human history, in the grand scheme of things, the general balance of power stayed the same. The Soviet Union, nor the United States (or NATO countries) were stupid enough to openly use their own citizens against the other using terrorism.

With the fall of the USSR, and the now globalized economy, it's unlikely the major powers are going to start a shooting war with one another. Terrorism, especially NBC terrorism (nuclear, biological, chemical) is now a much more real threat as A) Russia will sell anything to anybody at the right price, and B) Terrorists usually don't align themselves with a singular state in today's day and age, thus giving them less to lose in committing a NBC attack.

Also, rogue states, like Iran and North Korea, are greater threats since those said states have no real legitimacy (in the sense that their governments are responsible for the well being of their populace). The fact Obama cut nuclear arsenals with Russia really means nothing, since Russia and the US aren't about to start launching nukes in the blink of an eye. Even though US and Russian foreign policy don't align, Russia isn't a major threat to the United States like it was before 1989.

Obama, and here's my HUGE contention with him over nuclear policy, is that he refused to build the missile defense shield in Eastern Europe to defend Europe and American interests from rogue state attacks. If Obama and Russia dealt with the missile defense shield, then there would have been a major accomplishment.

A START treaty really won't change anything. The Cold War is over, reducing nuclear stockpiles between the US and Russia is a non-issue compared to the more realistic threat of terrorism from rogue states. Nixon (who probably started carpet bombing Cambodia after his statement), and Reagan (who wanted to neutralized the threat of nuclear weapons with SDI, along with reducing stockpiles, a huge distinction between Obama and Reagan) made statements where the threat of a nuclear war between the superpowers was very real.

Where, exactly, is the threat of nuclear war between the US and Russia in 2010?

Edit: I also need to look up on what START says about nuclear delivery systems. The US is a bigger fan of submarines, aircraft, etc, as their delivery systems compared to Russian ICBMs. I think that's another huge issue the GOP has, since US delivery systems (heavy bombers, subs, maybe some cruise missiles?) also double as its conventional forces as well.

[Scape]

PNAC has had a significant impact on the modern GOP. The culture of wars without end is a byproduct of that. Subscribe to that line of thinking or not it does have a detrimental effect on a political viability as a whole. It may be prudent to think that way but it is not inspirational policy to say the least. People will not be inspired to vote for such policies because they do not challenge a people as a whole to strive higher and greater but to defend what is already there. Status que policies are stale policies. It may not be feasible to say there will be peace in our time but it is important to say that some day there might be and we should work toward it.

To say what's the point and just keep WMD because we know we are going to use them and that we should not secure the weapons that are out there is some meaningless gesture and some communist plot is naked fear mongering. The stockpiles of weapons are expensive to maintain and do not serve a purpose. They should and must be reduced.

[commanderkai]

Scape wrote:

To say what's the point and just keep WMD because we know we are going to use them and that we should not secure the weapons that are out there is some meaningless gesture and some communist plot is naked fear mongering.

But it IS a meaningless gesture, because it doesn't actually mean anything in the grand scheme of things. It might improve relations with Russia (highly doubt it), but how does this change the current, and more realistic threats of North Korea and Iran, let alone the potential of terrorism?

The new START treaty is a distraction from Obama's lack of progress with dealing with rogue states. If you want to pat Obama's back for basically reducing nuclear stockpiles, fine. But, if you think this is some amazing breakthrough of international relations, it's not. The Cold War is over, and Russia is far from America's major threat.

I have no idea where the communist threat is coming from.

Quote:

The stockpiles of weapons are expensive to maintain and do not serve a purpose. They should and must be reduced.

Oh but they do serve a purpose. M.A.D. will always be a reality, even if the threat of nuclear war is nil. Rogue states, state sponsored terrorism, some batshit regime being installed in Russia, China, or Pakistan are still real or potential threats today, so until the United States builds "Rods From God" somewhere in orbit, they'll always keep nukes.

I agree that they should be reduced because the strategic value of nuclear weapons is lower than they were in the 1980s. However, they still hold value, and will always hold value until the next WMD system is developed.

[Scape]

This will secure all known unsecured weaponied uranium in 4 years. That is not meaningless.

You propose we return to the era of hiding under our desks? There are MEANINGFUL dialogues that can be agreed upon without the process being hijacked by the radical minorities.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Hmm seems to me to also be a pretty smart idea economically. How much does it cost to maintain those missles and their bases/subs? Hell, as long as the US can blow up the world twice over, they'll still be in good nuclear shape.
I don't see it as a peacenik move at all. Just a smart financial move.

Btw JJ excellent cartoon.

[commanderkai]

Scape wrote:

This will secure all known unsecured weaponied uranium in 4 years. That is not meaningless.

Between the US and Russia. This isn't going to secure Iran or North Korea's nuclear ambitions, nor will it even hamper it. I don't see Russia as the United States' or the West's biggest threat. Far from it.

It's meaningless, not because it doesn't achieve anything, but rather it's focused on the wrong problem. Rogue states and terrorism is the problem, not a full scale nuclear war between Russia and the United States of America. This changes very little, if anything, to active threats posed against rogue states. Will this START proposal combat nuclear proliferation within rogue states? Most likely, no.

Quote:

You propose we return to the era of hiding under our desks? There are MEANINGFUL dialogues that can be agreed upon without the process being hijacked by the radical minorities.

I've been arguing the exact opposite. We live in an age where there is very little concern of full scale nuclear war between the US and Russia. Reducing nuclear stockpiles won't reduce a barely existing threat. The bigger threat, ONCE AGAIN, is rogue states and terrorism.

If you feel safer from a nuclear exchange between Russia and the United States after this, fine. I felt safe from said scenario long before this START proposal was written, because I don't see the US and Russia as enemies. Rivals, yes, but they're not on the brink of nuclear war like they were in the Reagan and Nixon administrations. This START treaty might reduce stockpiles, but outside of the US and Russia saving money, little will change in international relations.

[Scape]

That is not a valid reason why such material should not be secured. NK does not dictate terms to the world. As it stands there is already 7 hiroshimas worth of unsecured weaponized uranium that has gone unaccounted for. The more time wasted the more likely even more will end up on the black market.

This is not a worthless task:



I can not convince you because I can not fathom why you think rouge states should dictate terms. Anarchy is not sustainable and neither is your argument for inaction. It would be like arguing there should be no FBI because there will always be another Tim McVeigh.

[bootlegga]

xerxes wrote:

It just shows how ridiculous the Republican Party has become in recent years. If Reagan were around now, Palin, Beck, & co. would be calling him a liberal pussy. They will attack Obama over anything no matter how insignificant or benefitial to the country it is.

This arms reduction treaty isn't a drastic reduction by any means, but yet he's being attacked becuase he's reducing the ability to destroy the world from 4x over to 3x.

xerxes wrote:

It reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Bart runs against Martin to be class president. They have the obligatory debate during the course of which Martin complains about the high levels of asbestos in the school. Bart on the other hand, retorts that there isn't enough asbestos in the school. Of course he doesn't know what he's talking about, but he knows how to ge the other kids riled up and that's what's most important.

More asbestos! More asbestos! More asbestos! More asbestos!

[commanderkai]

Scape wrote:

That is not a valid reason why such material should not be secured. NK does not dictate terms to the world. As it stands there is already 7 hiroshimas worth of unsecured weaponized uranium that has gone unaccounted for. The more time wasted the more likely even more will end up on the black market.

And Russia controls ALL of the weaponized uranium in the world? (The answer is, probably not)

So basically, this new START plan is awesome because it secures Russia's weaponized uranium, when various other countries (more likely former Soviet Republics) also have unsecured weaponized uranium as well. So instead of Obama attempting to make a proposal on a global scale, he just secures it within one country, no doubt the largest source, but certainly not the only one.

Quote:

I can not convince you because I can not fathom why you think rouge states should dictate terms. Anarchy is not sustainable and neither is your argument for inaction. It would be like arguing there should be no FBI because there will always be another Tim McVeigh.

Did I argue any of this? I didn't.

First off. North Korea or Iran should not be able to dictate terms. However, they are STILL the larger threats to US security and US interests than Russia is. The fact that North Korea, nor Iran, have the best interests in their populace at heart through electoral legitimacy, makes them a bigger threat, because they have less oversight over the use of nuclear weaponry. Russia, even though it's interests RIVAL the United States, is not on the brink of launching a full scale nuclear war with the United States, because starting nuclear wars looks bad on election day.

Second. Anarchy? You know, as much as this might be hard, try to actually stick to actual points I have made, ever (even outside this thread). I have never supported anarchy ever. Not seeing this START treaty as some meaningful or ground breaking proposal, nor equal to the stature of START/SALT treaties in the past does not mean I support anarchy.

Thirdly, I never argued for the closing of the FBI. Quite the opposite, I'll try to use your analogy to show my argument.

"The FBI shouldn't focus 20 year old threats of terrorism when there are more realistic and immediate threats that have been called in the last few weeks".

Reducing nuclear arms, from an economic standpoint, is a good idea for the US, and a great idea for Russia. From a political standpoint, it might give the leaders on both sides some boosts in popularity numbers, and maybe a toast or two whenever they visit foreign countries. If that's what Obama's goal is, then he succeeded.

Will this remove the greater threats of nuclear terrorism, or nuclear proliferation by rogue states? No. Does this START treaty change little in the progress of the proliferation of nuclear weapons by rogue states? Yes. Will Russia now cooperate more with the United States over Iran? Unlikely. Is Iran now less likely to get a nuclear weapon from this START treaty? No.

Edit: Also. If you want to have a discussion, fine. However, I'm not going to find, nor post clips from Glenn Beck or whoever else, so don't waste my time putting up Rachel Maddow or leftist pundits.

[Scape]

You did not read the agreement. This is with 47 nations, not just Russia. Obama met with more heads of state in one day on US soil then any president since 1946. This is about securing the known quantities out there not about the creation or prevention of more stockpiles.

http://www.ploughshares.org/news-analys ... fact-sheet

Edit: The Maddow clip was about the rescue operation in Chile, not about Glen Beck left right tirades. Take off the rose coloured glasses.

[commanderkai]

Scape wrote:

You did not read the agreement. This is with 47 nations, not just Russia. Obama met with more heads of state in one day on US soil then any president since 1946. This is about securing the known quantities out there not about the creation or prevention of more stockpiles.

http://www.ploughshares.org/news-analys ... fact-sheet

Aren't we talking about START? I said start won't achieve much of anything in relation to global security. You post something from a "Nuclear Security Summit" days after the new START treaty is signed.

START is the treaty between the United States and Russia over reducing nuclear weapons. This NSS, although it might achieve the securing and removal of nuclear grade materials, won't change the fact that North Korea already has nuclear materials, and Iran is developing them. The only thing the NSS achieved is that China and the United States will work together for further sanctions against Iran. I'll remain skeptical on this.

Quote:

Edit: The Maddow clip was about the rescue operation in Chile, not about Glen Beck left right tirades. Take off the rose coloured glasses.

...Okay listen closely Scape. I am not watching a Rachel Maddow clip much like you won't watch a Glenn Beck clip. I have better things to do than to listen to pundits. Also, what the hell does the rescue operation in Chile have anything to do with nuclear weapons, rogue states, nuclear terrorism, etc?

Exactly, nothing. So unless you want me putting up videos about Beck's views on the US Constitution, or Youtube clips of the Rush Limbaugh show, let's not put pundits in the limelight?