“Anti-Reaganesque”: Bolton rips Obama’s missile shield offer to Russia
posted at 3:10 pm on March 4, 2009 by Allahpundit
Via Closing Velocity, reliably tender red meat from the ‘Stache. On one side of the debate: Charles Krauthammer and Ace, wondering why Obama would tease Russia with cancellation of the European missile shield in return for help with Iran when everyone knows he’s inclined to cancel the shield anyway. The offer was bound to fail and U.S. prestige bound to suffer as a result. On the other side: German media, enthralled at how The One has changed the moral calculus or something.
Obama’s plan kills two birds with one stone, too. It offers the US a chance to back out of a plan with questionable applicability and technological feasibility while at the same time forcing Russia out of the position of the aggrieved. But Obama’s tactical maneuvering is aggressively defensive; it tacitly forces Russia to show the world whether it is willing to give up extensive trade and lucrative arms and technology deals with Iran in order to help calm growing fears about Iran’s developing a nuclear bomb.
Do either Putin or Medvedev give a wet rip whether the world perceives them as “aggrieved” or indifferent to the Iranian nuclear threat? This reads like a parody of internationalist “consensus-building”: Obama’s offer has, it seems, reshaped the consensus so that Russia is now seen as the problem partner, not those cowboys in Washington. That it hasn’t done anything to reshape Iran’s nuclear capacity is, evidently, of secondary concern.
Then again, it wouldn’t matter even if the offer was accepted, according to Global Security:
Globalsecurity.org’s John Pike see an entirely different shadow game at play. “Russia has neither the ability nor the interest to pressurize Iran into giving up its nuclear weapons program. It is one way the Americans can ‘engage’ the Russians, so as to not appear to be a Bush rootin’ tootin’ cowboy. But it is no more than a means to give diplomats something to talk about,” he tells Danger Room. “It is a way of putting the ball back into their court, so few months down the road we can say that we gave them the chance, [and] it is not our fault that we are forced to deploy BMD [ballisitc missile defense] components in central Europe.”
All of this is premised on the large assumption that The One intends to go ahead with the missile shield, which is highly uncertain. If he does intend to, then the German spin makes sense: The offer becomes a way of making it look as though Russia’s forced his hand by refusing to help with Iran. If he doesn’t intend to — and it sure sounds like he doesn’t given his comments yesterday about “rebooting” our relationship with Moscow — then what’s the point of asking Russia for help when he knows they can’t get Iran to give up its nukes even if they want to? Either he’s so desperate for a Plan B that he’s willing to try a Hail Mary (not impossible given Hillary’s dim expectations for negotiations with Iran) or he’s so eager for any pretext to cancel the missile shield that he’s willing to accept even something as feeble and futile as a Russian promise to “pressure” Iran in exchange. I know which way I’m betting.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
The Stache sets it straight.
carbon_footprint on March 4, 2009 at 3:15 PM
Neville Chamberlain Obama would never emulate
As he thinks that he thought too small and gave too little too late
MB4 on March 4, 2009 at 3:17 PM
His stache could destroy any Mullah anytime anywhere.
portlandon on March 4, 2009 at 3:18 PM
I won!
PootyPoot on March 4, 2009 at 3:18 PM
There is no way for Obama to win this hand, since he failed to maintain his poker face. If he bluffs, he’ll piss off the Poles and Czechs mightily. They might not be major players now, but they certainly won’t be friendly to Obama in the future if they are jerked around.
unclesmrgol on March 4, 2009 at 3:20 PM
It’s a very scary world out there,,, and we have a community organizer for a President who seems to care more about a talk radio host than he does the security of our nation.
JellyToast on March 4, 2009 at 3:20 PM
Yesterday, Shmuck Schumer was crowing about this as some sort of major accomplishment. He said something like (paraphrasing) “Cheney said we couldn’t do this, but yes we can!”
I threw up a little in my mouth.
J.J. Sefton on March 4, 2009 at 3:20 PM
The last thing we want is to be perceived as weak in the eyes of Islamic terrorists, yet, here we go.
jimmy2shoes on March 4, 2009 at 3:23 PM
I’m getting damned sick and tired of them using Reagan’s name. Blasphemers.
moonsbreath on March 4, 2009 at 3:24 PM
You mean the libs have no idea Russia and China HELP iran with their nuke program?
Good GOD we are in trouble.
lexa on March 4, 2009 at 3:25 PM
Terrorist strike targets INSIDE the US in…
a) One month
b) Two months
c) Three months
My bet is on less then six months for a MAJOR attack on US soil… The Messiah can save us…
FAIL!
Mark Garnett on March 4, 2009 at 3:25 PM
Aggressively defensive tactical maneuvering
Isn’t that called blitzkreig in German?
/
Christien on March 4, 2009 at 3:25 PM
No one is saying it so I will. Obama wins either way. He wants to diminish the U.S. His entire ideology screams for a weakened USA. Everything he is doing is ensuring a weakened USA.
If he “blunders” here it is a good thing. If his water carriers can spin it into something positive for him it is a good thing. If it succeeded (which we all knew it would not) then the media would have a field month crowing about his genius.
* The man can do no wrong because what he wants is wrong for America.
America1st on March 4, 2009 at 3:26 PM
because he thinks they are as gullible as the rest of the World has been toward him?
TheBigOldDog on March 4, 2009 at 3:26 PM
What is certain is that Obama and the Dems will disarm us leaving us vulnerable to terrorists and other enemies. The Dems have always looked at raiding the military budget as a way to fund their socialistic programs.
docdave on March 4, 2009 at 3:27 PM
FIFY
fumpbump on March 4, 2009 at 3:27 PM
Yeah … that’s a tough one … Why would the idiot messiah do that? Oy.
Sounds like “Land for Peace”. Yeah, that move’s got a pretty good track record. Uh huh. Sure.
“aggresively defensive”? Is that like screaming, “Run away!!” at the top of your lungs? Okay, I can see that.
Of course. Russia was just fooling around all the years leading up to now. They just wanted a little offer of the US giving up something that the US Precedent already said he wanted to give up. That’s how Russia would build international prestige. Drive those hard bargains. Yep.
progressoverpeace on March 4, 2009 at 3:29 PM
Sweet JEEPERS Hannity is tedious.
Good Lt on March 4, 2009 at 3:29 PM
Obama doesn’t want to fund the missile shield because he needs those tax dollars to finance his massive new welfare entitlements.
“Social justice,” baby.
AZCoyote on March 4, 2009 at 3:30 PM
“aggressively defensive”???
Libtards continue to create their own language to match their skewed Weltanshauung. Germany, here in the USA–don’t matter, the same bizarro-world view prevails and the same psycho-babble jibber-jabber is written and spoken to express it.
The last time we had a POTUS this inept and fundamentally stupid in foreign policy was the revered JFK–and the revered JFK almost got us all killed
I still remember the ‘emergency drills’ at Edgar Allan Poe Intermediate School in Fairfax County during the ‘Cuban Missile Crisis’. Kennedy started out by looking like a weakling and a fool when he met Khrushchev in Vienna in early 1961, and Obama is repeating the Worst of History
Janos Hunyadi on March 4, 2009 at 3:32 PM
Love Bolton. Thanks for posting on this. I’m hopeful that the shield goes forward, but I don’t expect it.
I think he’s right about Obama liking Brown’s economic message.
Spirit of 1776 on March 4, 2009 at 3:32 PM
It’s most likely this.
radiofreevillage on March 4, 2009 at 3:33 PM
Agreed… but we must get past him and onto Mark Levin, and thank God for Rush before him…
Mark Garnett on March 4, 2009 at 3:33 PM
I looked into his eyes and saw weakness.
Best,
Vlady (Who’s Yer Daddy) Pootin’
Kid from Brooklyn on March 4, 2009 at 3:33 PM
Presidents that can’t succeed at anything else, can always “succeed” at surrendering.
RBMN on March 4, 2009 at 3:33 PM
100% correct. I said a long time ago that Obama is a vengeful destroyer–the twice-abandoned bi-racial angry destroyer.
Everything that goes down, our defenses,our economy, our wealth, our status, our world leadership role, it all serves his psycho purposes.
JiangxiDad on March 4, 2009 at 3:36 PM
What’s up with Hannity?
Elric66 on March 4, 2009 at 3:37 PM
This Bolton clip proves that Obama does not deserve anything more than the grade of “F” in foreign policy.
Norwegian on March 4, 2009 at 3:39 PM
Yes. Please repost this fact on every pertinent thread. Many herebouts seem bogged down in irrelevant details, forgetting Obama is first and foremost anti-America.
splink on March 4, 2009 at 3:39 PM
I normaly do NOT like Hannity, but he IS making a good point about the hypocrisies of the radical left by pointing out and playing the Liberals wanting Bush to “fail” while condeming Rush, a private citizen, from wanting Obamby to “fail”.
Mark Garnett on March 4, 2009 at 3:40 PM
meh. i find a problem in his reasoning…
he compares this current action to reagan dealing with the USSR as if they are comparable.
reagan had a defined enemy with a defined capability. I hardly consider “what if” scenarios regarding a rogue state as sufficient a cause for missile defense as mutually assured destruction. make a real case, bolton, if you want to lambast the president for putting that particular part of the missile shield on the table.
ernesto on March 4, 2009 at 3:41 PM
Jelly is right community organizer is far from president. This guy is a total ZERO and so are his puppeteers, piglosi and dingy.
dogsoldier on March 4, 2009 at 3:42 PM
Oh ok. I like Hannity, he just isnt in the same league as Rush and Lavin.
Elric66 on March 4, 2009 at 3:43 PM
Your Liar-In-Chief has called for the COMPLETE dismanteling of ALL phases of The Missle Shield, not just this part…
Obama wants HUGE cuts in new systems and major reductions in OUR National Defense…
So you Sir, like your Leader, are liars…
Mark Garnett on March 4, 2009 at 3:44 PM
That’s a great expression Allah: “give a wet rip”. I’m going to have to start working that into my everyday conversation.
Obama’s diplomacy so far seems to be simple groveling. Its like he thinks he needs to make up for 8 years of that Cowboy George Bush with extra doses of capitulation.
Kronos on March 4, 2009 at 3:46 PM
ernesto on March 4, 2009 at 3:41 PM
A rogue state with known intercontinental missile capacity and will soon have nuclear capability.
And that’s just Iran.
N.Korea is just the opposite.
Known to have nuclear capacity.
Currently working on intercontinental missile capacity.
It takes a lot less time for a country to develop both of those capacities than it does to develop and install missile defense capacity.
Any country that plans it’s defenses for what potential enemies have today, and today only, is a country that is begging to be attacked.
MarkTheGreat on March 4, 2009 at 3:46 PM
Im talking about the interceptors in Poland. Who were we planning on protecting? And from whom? And how on earth does that compare to Reagan and the USSR?
and, since you’re so keen on it, what are the other phases of our missile defense? where are they deployed and for what purpose?
ernesto on March 4, 2009 at 3:47 PM
Come to think of it, isn’t Obambi Bizarro Reagan?
Kid from Brooklyn on March 4, 2009 at 3:47 PM
I don’t trust Putin for a minute. Didn’t he step down? Now he’s back in charge without being voted in. If The One thinks he can trust Putin he has made a grave mistake. Putin has done nothing in the past few years that says he can be trusted. I have bad feelings about all of this.
Brat4life on March 4, 2009 at 3:47 PM
Says the kid while sitting in the safety of his American homeland… I bet there are a few and I empahsize few European allies that would love to have the reassurance of the missle shield (which your side claimed would never work).
Side note, why do all you txting babies only cap the letter I, but never anything else? It would seem to be an all or nothing behavior.
ClassicCon on March 4, 2009 at 3:48 PM
Baracky IV
/THROW THE TOWEL!
Christien on March 4, 2009 at 3:49 PM
Look The Messiah is a nitwit – and that’s on his good days. He hasn’t a clue about foreign policy – remember the only two things he has ever done in his life is be a community organizer and vote “present” (well selling crack doesn’t count here). He’s a lightweight’s lightweight and now that he’s flipping those big ears in the real world, we’re going to take a big hit – Joe the VP was correct – this country is heading for Trouble with a capital T – and it will probably come from the Middle East………..
Cinday Blackburn on March 4, 2009 at 3:50 PM
Obama’s offer to Putin is Onion-worthy..
McCain stinks in defending Capitalism but I could only dream of if he & Bolton were driving foreign policy.
Quetzal on March 4, 2009 at 3:50 PM
more like Forward Retreat
runner on March 4, 2009 at 3:52 PM
Those European allies…who are we protecting them from? An Iran that is even less bellicose to them than they are us? The USSR? What? And if they are such threats…why don’t we put up more than a missile shield?
And I hope my capitalization has been better this time around. And as for the I on its own…an I like this ( i ) just looks silly.
ernesto on March 4, 2009 at 3:52 PM
Well Plugs did guarentee that Barry would be challenged in the first 6 months.
MarkTheGreat on March 4, 2009 at 3:53 PM
Iran for one, plus any other country that goes nuclear in the next few decades.
MarkTheGreat on March 4, 2009 at 3:54 PM
Now ask yourself, would Kissinger let himself get put into a box like this? Is there really only one course of action in foreign policy that is acceptable?
You mention a very, very vague threat…it seems almost counter intuitive to place all of our long term bets on a location that happens to be politically difficult. Certainly Poland does not represent the ONLY location such an installation could exist…especially given the fact that its our potential radar capabilities that really irk the Russians.
ernesto on March 4, 2009 at 3:59 PM
Sorry, didn’t mean to come off as an old geezer. Seriously trying to understand the habits one develops when using technology and why. My spelling for instance has seriously suffered since “always on” internet is now the standard on every computer.
ClassicCon on March 4, 2009 at 4:01 PM
European missile defense protects:
1. NATO allies.
2. The east coast of the US from Iranian ICBMs. Any US-bound missile from the MidEast must overfly very carefully chosen missile defense installations in Czech and Poland — we didn’t pick these out of a hat. Blame Newton for this.
3. And it happens to protect (drumroll)… Russia. Their missile defense tech is limited to a ring of 1970′s NUKE-TIPPED interceptors around Moscow.
Cuffy Meigs on March 4, 2009 at 4:04 PM
Why do you believe that this is the only option? Is it because your imagination is that limited? Or is it because that is the line the talking points memo tells you to take?
MarkTheGreat on March 4, 2009 at 4:08 PM
Spelling becomes an issue, but I mean im 22, born in 1986. 2nd grade we had a card catalog library and the 3rd we had this weird thing called a “modem”. Instant messaging taught me how to type, search engines shape my though process to a degree. Interesting times to raise a child to say the least.
Hmm…if the Iranian situation is somehow diffused over the next few years…doesn’t that drop 2 of the 3 reasons you just gave? Doesn’t the doctrine of realism then dictate that we must take a course of action that diffuses the Iranian threat…as such action both maximizes benefits WHILE minimizing risks. The shield proposal creates more problems than it solves, as currently Iran has no capability to test the shield, and the Russians have made it clear they view American radar peering over their borders as a justified non-starter.
Forgive my thinking out loud approach but im literally a student of foreign policy and appreciate being able to bounce ideas off of people…
ernesto on March 4, 2009 at 4:09 PM
Well Bolton here set the terms…that going ahead with the shield is the only acceptable policy. I dont see it that way, and neither would our better statesmen.
ernesto on March 4, 2009 at 4:10 PM
I see your ability with english is as weak as your other alleged talents.
All Bolton is saying is that not going ahead with the shield is unacceptable.
Nowhere did he, in this statement preclude other options from being followed at the same time.
MarkTheGreat on March 4, 2009 at 4:15 PM
if, if, if … somehow, somehow, somehow. Sounds strangely like you’re Hoping for something…
Cuffy Meigs on March 4, 2009 at 4:20 PM
And as I stated from the beginning, he does a poor job of explaining why thats the case. Why, exactly, is the shield a mandatory, necessary facet of our policy here…while other options are just options?
ernesto on March 4, 2009 at 4:20 PM
…and Hope is not realpolitik.
Cuffy Meigs on March 4, 2009 at 4:21 PM
Im not hoping for anything, im trying to assess possibilities. Believe it or not thats a possibility. its actually a more likely possibility than Iran launching a nuclear missile.
Apparently to some here, Iran launching a missile is not a possibility but a certainty. That would certainly require that America act to put up a shield…but Iran launching a nuke is not a certainty. and therefor, the relative benefits and risks of different policies that are targeted at different possibilites must be assessed. Bolton doesn’t bother. He sees walking back on the shield as unacceptable. I find that a cop out.
ernesto on March 4, 2009 at 4:24 PM
lol…you poor, poor misguided boy…such an innocent…
…I’m so glad my 19 year old son is much more informed than you appear to be…
ladyingray on March 4, 2009 at 4:28 PM
I’ve been saying the same thing for months, as have others. You are not alone. Obambi’s socialist/permanent Dem majority plans depend on a) wrecking the economy so that people come to depend on Government to “solve” their problems; and b) creating a state of fear externally so that their focus is again on Government to “protect” them – even as it fails miserably at that task (e.g., review Carter’s and Clinton’s foreign policy actions, which are replete with examples of putting the US at risk).
Meanwhile…
One tries to imagine ernesto responding to the Soviet nuclear buildup at the beginning of the Cold War…
/eye roll
Wanderlust on March 4, 2009 at 4:29 PM
are you mad?
next you’re going to tell me that North Korea’s going to pull a fast one and invade China.
you’re seriously telling me that Iran is more likely to launch a nuke than it is to bow to international pressure over the long term.
now, mind you we’re not talking “getting nuclear capability” we’re talking about using it. Now, if your the Pat Robertson type that sees all this as armageddon than you’re long gone…but i cant imagine how youd come to that conclusion any other way.
ernesto on March 4, 2009 at 4:30 PM
Can’t understand how you come to that conculsion, if anything it is the exact opposite of cop out. The true cop out is the approach of doing whatever is the least politically risky. Kind of like Bill Clinton and Osama.
ClassicCon on March 4, 2009 at 4:30 PM
right, because mutually assured destruction and a rogue nation with no nuclear capability are the same situation…mmhmm.
ernesto on March 4, 2009 at 4:31 PM
Letting your personal bellicosity come in the way of weighing all our options is something I consider a cop out. Like intelligent design, it amounts to allowing our bias keep us from seeking truth. He is an uber-hawk, its his philosophy…hes looking at this through that lens. That lens tells him there are no alternatives. Im sure Kissinger would see this scenario differently.
ernesto on March 4, 2009 at 4:33 PM
The Japanese used the expression “advancing backwards” to explain their military strategy to their people from 1943 onward. They were delusional, but fought savagely. Our leaders? Just the former.
J.J. Sefton on March 4, 2009 at 4:34 PM
I’ll bet the Ruskies and the Imams are really really scared now! Obama has probably already sent his minions out to let them know. Did you see what I did to Rush Limbaugh? Well you better play ball, mister our you are next! Muwhahahahah!
sabbott on March 4, 2009 at 4:34 PM
I try to give you some leeway because you are not as partisan as some and you tend to make statements that are not completely imbecilic. This comment I had to respond to.
Who are we protecting? Europe and the US. Iran just launched a rocket with a communications satellite. If you change the payload from a communications satellite to a nuclear warhead you have an ICBM. Iran is going to do what it wants to do. Nobody can honestly say that Iran will give up its programs without some serious sanctions and threat of force. Everyone knows Obama will never commit to force.
We also need to help prevent Russian expansion. I have a personal stake in this because my wife is Polish. She is very distressed that Obama just handed her country over to Russia. You can claim it is just a missile shield, but it is so much more. The Polish people observed that if a country has US troops in it, then it doesn’t get invaded. We know Russia is not above invading a country because they believe it belongs to them. Last years fiasco with Georgia proves the point.
This act is despicable and worthy of the great imperial powers from the 18th century when the 5 Great Powers treated the “lesser” countries like chips in a card game. The Hapsburgs would do it, but America is better than that! We have ZERO right to offer to give Russia anything other than what we own. If he wants to bargain than give them California.
txaggie on March 4, 2009 at 4:35 PM
Let me guess, he wants to nuke em.
getalife on March 4, 2009 at 4:37 PM
Right now I’m trying to imagine what our callow youth ernesto’s response would be in this scenario: suppose he lived in a rough neighborhood and gang members were robbing the neighborhood blind just a few houses down. Meanwhile, someone who lived down the street keeps shouting out loud, remarking about how he’d like to break into ernesto’s house the moment he got the chance.
Pop quiz:
* Would ernesto have a fence around his property?
* If he bothered to put up a fence at all, would he consider using concertina wire?
* Or would he just think that the guy down the street was just mouthing off, and hope for the possibility that he didn’t really mean what he was saying?
* Would he come to the conclusion that the people who got robbed by the gangs brought it on themselves in the first place, for merely having nice possessions?
Hmmmm…
Wanderlust on March 4, 2009 at 4:37 PM
No, we are not. We’re talking about a rogue state that can simply threaten to use their weapon if we (or their neighbors) do not accede to their demands, i.e. blackmail. Missile defense removes that possibility.
Cuffy Meigs on March 4, 2009 at 4:38 PM
Am I mad? In what way?
Do you mean crazy? A loon? A nut-job? No, I’m probably one of the sanest people you could hope to meet.
Or do you mean angry? Damn right I am – look at what The Precedent is doing to the country I love – the country my son is risking his life to defend while you sit on your ass typing your “enlightening” missives on the ‘net. I shudder to think what The Precedent will manage to do in four years.
pssst…I’m not worried at all about North Korea invading China, but I am worried about North Korea launching a nuke!
I’m a realist, young man. Iran is being governed by the same ilk that attacked us on September 11, 2001. They want us dead.
And if you’re going to insult me and call me a “Pat Robertson type” then you need to learn proper pronoun and verb usage.
ladyingray on March 4, 2009 at 4:38 PM
Poor Obama, he’s playing in the big leagues and in way over his head. You can pontificate from ‘the high moral ground’ all you want. It don’t mean squat if the other guy has his boot on your throat. And I’m sure all those European’s who love us will just come rushing to our aid.
GarandFan on March 4, 2009 at 4:39 PM
So Barry Zero wants to “Reboot” our relationship with Moscow. I’m sure he would love to blame the current issues on Bush, but it was that KGB thug Putin who wrecked everything.
Yep, it’s going to be another waving of the white paper while stating “Peace in our time.”
Anyone want to stat a pool on when and where the first nuke is set off?
evilned on March 4, 2009 at 4:39 PM
Heh. You’re so right…
ladyingray on March 4, 2009 at 4:40 PM
It’s not that Bolton is doing a poor job. It has more to do with your rigidly closed mind.
MarkTheGreat on March 4, 2009 at 4:40 PM
Do you know the internal workings of Iran? The party in power right now believes in the 13th Imam. For those not familiar with Islam, it is their version of the Messiah. I am not implying all Muslims believe this, just this fundamentalist group that is now in power. They believe that to get the Messiah to come you need to kill as many non-Muslims as you can. They also openly talk about the destruction of Israel. Not just some idiot religious leader nobody pays attention to but their president. It seems foolish to believe they would not use it giving what we know about their belief system.
txaggie on March 4, 2009 at 4:42 PM
Partially right. “Rogue” is right.
“No nuclear capability” is wrong. It has been reported recently that Iran may have over 20kgs of bomb-grade fissile material.
Others have reported on the state of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure; most recently there was a report in WSJ by an Israeli intel guy which outlined all the advances in ballistic missile technology Iran had achieved by launching a satellite a couple weeks ago.
Pay attention to details, kid.
Read the Closing Velocity website. It’s all there. Cuffy works in BMD as a manager on one of the many projects which fall under the BMD umbrella.
Google is your friend also.
Now go away and learn.
Wanderlust on March 4, 2009 at 4:42 PM
If you get your head out of your nether regions and actually study the Iranian leadership and what they believe, you wouldn’t be so incredulous.
Since when has any rogue regime given a flying flip about “international pressure”. Especially given the help the Iranians are getting from major players.
MarkTheGreat on March 4, 2009 at 4:42 PM
Ok, fine. I give up trying to make the case for discretion and a reasoned weighing of the options. We know no such thing here at HotAir, its all a matter of “good guy here, bad guy there, kill him dead ASAP no matter what the cost”…because thats how we’ve always conducted foreign policy…its silly of me to suggest analysis.
But, as a realist, im sure you’ve considered the fact that judging Iran and all its possible actions solely through the lens of “islamic radical 9/11 jihad” is antithetical to the realist worldview. Read Morganthau, understand “maximize beneft, minimize risk” and that all states act in their own interests if you’re really going to go around claiming to be a realist.
ernesto on March 4, 2009 at 4:44 PM
If the EMP people are right, it would only take a single nuke exploded above the atmosphere to return this country to the 18th century. Resulting in the deaths of 100′s of millions.
MarkTheGreat on March 4, 2009 at 4:44 PM
ernesto reminds me of most State Dept types. Who honestly believe that if only we talked enough, everybody would learn to live peacefully with their neighbors.
MarkTheGreat on March 4, 2009 at 4:47 PM
I could easily say the same of your naive pacifism, and considering my so called “bellicosity” has actually produced results it is hard to deny it. Your side always looks through the lens of appeasement so it is simply another issue our two sides will never agree.
It is going to be hard for many to be lectured by a 22-year-old college student who had a sippy cup for most of the cold war.
Oh and one more thing, this tendancy of your generation to demean Christians in order to somehow display your self percieved superior intellect is growing seriously boring. I am an athiest, and I actually fought Christians face to face long before it was the “hip and edgy” thing to do. Then I grew up and realized it was just not that important of an issue.
ClassicCon on March 4, 2009 at 4:48 PM
txaggie just gave you the Iranian leader’s interests. What part of that don’t you understand?
You, young man, are looking at Iran through your world view as skewed by the “can’t we all just get along” mentality , and thus you expect them to be “reasonable”. What you refuse to see that not everyone in the world thinks as you do – and these people want us dead. Period.
That is the new reality.
ladyingray on March 4, 2009 at 4:49 PM
So ignoring reality is now the “realist worldview”.
Nothing new there.
MarkTheGreat on March 4, 2009 at 4:49 PM
FIFY.
bluelightbrigade on March 4, 2009 at 4:50 PM
Like most liberals, ernesto believes he knows what is in the Iranians interests more than they do. And all he has to do explain his “realistic worldview” and they will suddenly realize that they have been wrong all these years.
MarkTheGreat on March 4, 2009 at 4:51 PM
Yes, and I’ll bet they are can’t wait for it! A nice little foreign relations crisis would serve nicely to take the spotlight off of the miserable job they are doing on the domestic front, wouldn’t it… hhhhmmmmm?
drunyan8315 on March 4, 2009 at 4:52 PM
Given the number of centrifuges Iran has, once they get their first bomb, they will be able to build many more, very quickly.
MarkTheGreat on March 4, 2009 at 4:52 PM
Im not saying that I diametrically oppose having a missile shield or even invading Iran, if it came to that. Its just that, given the current circumstances, I don’t agree with Bolton. I dont see putting the polish missle deployment on the table contingent to a set of actions on iran as unacceptable. Thats all.
This I understand. Again I try and take a thinking out loud approach here, and believe or not I value the input I get here.
Honestly, I just rarely find a situation that mirrors the way I see intelligent design so well. I dont normally do that in conversations that have nothing to do with religion, but I couldnt help myself this time. sorry.
ernesto on March 4, 2009 at 4:54 PM
Especially when my 19-year-old son is in South Korea freezing his @$$ of defending that 22-year-old college student.
I’m a Christian and his attempt to demean me missed its mark as I am quite immune to perceived superior intellect at this point in my life.
ladyingray on March 4, 2009 at 4:54 PM
Simple. That explanation says nothing of the interior interests of the state…just the ideology of its leadership. States have people and energy requirements and allies (you know Iran likes to cooperate with India on certain things…) and all sorts of variables that complicate these matters…simply looking at the ruling ideology is NOT a realist viewpoint.
ernesto on March 4, 2009 at 4:56 PM
No. Aggressively offensive tactical maneuvering is called blitzkreig in German. Aggressively defensive tactical maneuvering is called blingblingblitz.
unclesmrgol on March 4, 2009 at 4:58 PM
Fortunately the scenario you mention requires a thermonuclear warhead (not a fission bomb) as the yield needs to be above 1,000KT. If my memory is correct, highest yield on a pure fission device was 500KT. Hiroshima was 26KT.
Read about these shots: Hardtack Teak, Operation Argus, and Operation Fishbowl. There is a lively discussion on whether EMP would be effective in the scenario laid out by Carlo Kopp back in 1997.
What ernesto doesn’t understand is that ballistic missile defense is NOT an offensive weapon. It is a defensive shield that protects against a single shot – NOT against an overwhelming Cold War MAD volley scenario.
My final words on the subject:
I feel comfortable with Israel having 200 warheads because I know it would only use them in what is called the “Samson Option”.
But I am filled with dread at the thought of Iran having a single warhead, because of its incindiary rhetoric, links to terrorist organizations, and its leader’s embrace of a particularly fanatical strain of Islam (the 13th Imam eschatology).
If a man keeps saying he’s going to try to kill you, at what point do you take him seriously, ernesto? After you are dead?
Wanderlust on March 4, 2009 at 4:59 PM
I misspoke. It is not the 13th Imama but the 12th Imam. I was too busy trying to type a reply. To learn more about it click here.
txaggie on March 4, 2009 at 5:01 PM
The people don’t have their finger on the button…the leadership does. That is the ideology that must be viewed.
ladyingray on March 4, 2009 at 5:09 PM
It’s contingent on (in this order):
1. Russians keeping their word to the US that they will engage Iran.
2. Iranians agreeing to Russian demands.
3. Iranians keeping their word to the Russians.
That’s a lot of trust; I trust American technology more.
Cuffy Meigs on March 4, 2009 at 5:09 PM
A: Western Europe.
B: From Iran.
Ten interceptors would be insufficient to stop any Russian attack on Western Europe but are certainly more than enough to counter current Iranian capability. I think the Russians are far more concerned about the radar to be placed in the Czech Republic, since it provides a potential view into Russia and its borders.
Of course, the Russians should only be upset about the radars if they are intending an attack on some place they don’t want us to know about — like, say, Georgia.
Next question?
unclesmrgol on March 4, 2009 at 5:10 PM
Look at this another way…how do you think the rest of the world looks at America? By the viewpoint of the “interior” or the viewpoint of the leaders?
ladyingray on March 4, 2009 at 5:14 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »