Stuck In The Middle With A Nuclear You

The Washington Post reports; “the nuclear policy that President Obama will unveil today is a middle-of-the-road approach.”  Excuse me! The last time I checked, the best of all possible options for getting run over by a large truck is to plant yourself firmly in the middle of the damn road. 

While the policy will reportedly foreswear the use of nuclear weapons on non nuclear powers and describes the purpose of these weapons as a deterrent if you swear you won’t use them is it a deterrent?

The policy will, according to reports, eliminate a nuclear retaliation option in the event of a biological or chemical attack.  The question again occurs, what deterrent?  Will we use our own bugs to retaliate?  Will we retaliate at all?  Will a conventional response be enough?  Recent history with Saddam tends to indicate that, when prepared for it, the ability to hold out against conventional responses is significant.   

Apparently, we will not modernize our arsenal; this, despite Secretary Clinton running around the Middle East promising a U.S. Nuclear umbrella in exchange for, for, for, hell I’m not sure what the benefit to that is.

It is true that cold war threats have changed and evolved.  It is true that new strategic prerogatives are in place.  It is true that asymmetric threats dominate.

It is, however, also true that the major sources of asymmetric threats enjoy state sponsorship, countries such as Syria, Libya, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and others. It is also true that Russia and China have not adopted any lessening of their nuclear stance.

Russia and China have categorically refused to rein in Iran and North Korea.  Pakistan remains a disturbingly volatile nuclear power.  India’s policy of retaliation against the potential of a Pakistani action  is clear. Experts of all stripes opine that an Iranian nuclear weapon will set off a nuclear arms race in the region.  It remains questionable if the A.Q. Khan network has been fully dissembled.  Experts were shocked at the scope of nuclear technology that existed in Libya when Libya decided to negotiate away their WMD programs.  Syria was well along the way to completing a nuclear facility when the Israelis put a stop to it.  A North Korean presence has been reported in both Syria and Iran. 

Is this a good time to head for the middle of the road?  Even if you are heading for the middle of the road is it a good idea to announce it?         

Russia announced a much more aggressive nuclear use policy in October of 2009 (Stratfor).  Russia reserved the right to generate preemptive strikes if it determines that its security is in jeopardy.   Russian Security Council chief Nikolia Patrushev announced; “Conditions for the use of nuclear weapons to repel an aggression not only in a large scale conflict but also in a regional or even a local war have been revised.”

There is no question that Russia, China and their surrogates have no intention of joining President Obama in the middle of this potentially dangerous road.

  • Wow is anyone watching Glen Beck today? A whole show dedicated to talking about President Obama’s whole life to talk about how he had no chance to be anything but a screwed up person. How personal, Glen Beck has problems aka A-hole.

  • JD

    I am sure President Obama made this decision with out any word from the Pentigon. He is a crazied lunny!!! I need to join the closest tea party cause they know what is best and they are america.

    Seriously… I am sure there are things in place and the Pentigon has “OK”ed this move.


    “Wash. State Man Held for Death Threats Against Sen. Murray”

    By Susan Davis

    “Washington state resident Charles Alan Wilson was arrested by federal agents today for death threats he made against Democratic Sen. Patty Murray over her vote in favor of health-care legislation, the Associated Press reports.

    Sen. Patty Murray (AP Photo/Elaine Thompson)

    Wilson left several messages from a blocked number on her office voicemail in which he said she was a target and “it only takes one piece of lead.” In other messages Wilson said “I hope somebody puts a [expletive] bullet between your [expletive] eyes,” and “I do believe that every one of you [expletive] socialist democratic progressive [expletives] need to be taken out.” He also stated, “I want to [expletive] kill you.”

    Murray’s office reported the voicemails to authorities who traced the call to Wilson’s home.

    Wilson has a .38 caliber revolver registered under his name as well as a permit to carry a concealed weapon. In order to confirm that he was the caller in question, an agent posted as a member of a group that supports repealing the health-care law. Wilson confirmed to the agent that he made the calls to Murray’s office. “I do pack, and I will not blink when I’m confronted. … It’s not a threat, it’s a guarantee,” he told the agent.

    Wilson was charged with one count of threatening a federal official. He is scheduled to appear in court today.

    Murray’s office declined to comment on the arrest.

    Just last week, a man was arrested in Pennsylvania for threatening the life of Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the second-ranking House Republican.”

  • First and foremost, Landreaux is correct. We are shooting ourselves in the foot if we pretend that any other rogue nation will follow Obama’s misguided lead. We will disarm ourselves while the world builds nukes.

    Finally, onto to the fun.

    “I am sure President Obama made this decision with out any word from the Pentigon. He is a crazied lunny!!!”

    Funny, JD, I don’t remember you extending such a benefit of the doubt to George W over the Iraq War.

    Just sayin’

    “Wow is anyone watching Glen Beck today?”

    Kendale, I’m glad you are, maybe you’ll learn something.

  • JD

    Nate I said it before but I’ll say it again. I was not agains the 2 week war the US waged on IRAQ but rather the 6 year occupation which followed.

    That said, if you are suggesting I eat my words means that you obvously agree that the pentigon was right under bush and, therefor, should offer the benefit of the doubt to Obama.

    None the less, I see your point. I suppose we all agree with that we want to and see what we want to. I just don’t think Obama would make an offer like this if we didn’t have an ace up our sleaves.

    Plus keep in mind that the US still spends 41% of the WORLDS military spending… That is right we spend almost as much as the entire world does for our military. So I don’t think we are leaving ourselves empty handed. I would suggest we have technical weapondry the world hasn’t seen yet.

  • Learn something from Glen Beck? Sure I learn how deranged a human being can be in his attempt to make money and boost ratings by feeding the fire that is the simple minded conspiracy theorist, hate group, sheeple of America. I used to think Glen Beck was funny, that’s why I watched him. He also made some good points now and again, but something he just fly’s of the handle with ridiculous BS. Such as bringing up the childhood, family, and acquaintances of President Obama in a manner to somehow discredit him or trick people into thinking negative things about the character and ideals of the President.

    Sad thing is that it does change the minds of weak minded people. Then again, who cares, this world is run by idiots, I just live in it and deal with the BS as its thrown at me.
    If you think I can somehow gain some beneficial educating from watching that worthless television program then I am not only insulting, but you my friend have just made yourself to be a (explicative).

  • something = sometimes
    insulting = insulted…the click to edit options doesn’t seem to be working for me lately.

  • landreaux


    This AM there was a report that Secretary Gates was subjected to the political equivelant of waterboarding to get him to go along with the new nuclear policy. Gates is a classy guy and won’t drop a dime on the process but look for him to leave shortly. He’s had to swallow hard too many times.

  • JD

    Landreaux, can you provide me a link of the report? I am curious to give it a read.

    The policy does only say they woun’t attack members of the treaty with nuclear war unless a nuclear attack is waged. So all terroris nations do not fall under this coverage. It is business as usual for them.

    I don’t think Gates is going anywhere but I’ll stand corrected if he does and say you called it Landreaux.

    I did find the following: ” Months of laborious interagency meetings and discussions — 80 of them, one participant counted off at a Pentagon press briefing Tuesday afternoon — resulted in a document that for the first time places the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and particularly their acquisition by terrorists, as the principle nuclear threat the U.S. faces. The so-called NPR expressly forswears the use of nuclear weapons to retaliate against non-nuclear attacks by good-faith signatories of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, perhaps the first time that U.S. nuclear doctrine has been explicitly tethered to compliance with an international treaty.”

  • landreaux


    I can’t provide the link, at least I have not looked for it. I heard it on MSNBC this AM on Scarborough’s show.

  • landreaux

    Also in the interest of disclosure I AM NOT of the internationalist school of foreign policy. I think it’s the path to ruin for us and for others as well.

  • JD

    Landreaux, I never would have thought you believed in internationalism but are you for isolationism?

    If not what is the blend of the two that support?

    Also, no worries on the link. The reason why I asked was because I troll around on 5 or 6 political sites and had not heard what you were talking about. That said, I do know Gates took a different approach 2 years ago only because he said if we were to go forward with this kind of policy then we would need to modernize our nukes… So who knows, maybe he got the approval to “modernize”(whatever that means) or he was strong armed. Time and the book he will write will tell.

  • landreaux


    I would at the least put myself in the Realist School with a seasoning of Bush Doctrine.

    Definitly not an isolationist if fact I don’t think isolationism is even a viable concept these days.

  • landreaux

    The Iranian reaction to the new nuclear policy is in, This posted at CNSN:

    Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad derided Obama on Wednesday, depicting him as an ineffective leader influenced by Israel to target Iran more aggressively.

    “American materialist politicians, whenever they are beaten by logic, immediately resort to their weapons like cowboys,” Ahmadinejad said in a speech before a crowd of several thousand in northwestern Iran.

    “Mr. Obama, you are a newcomer (to politics). Wait until your sweat dries and get some experience. Be careful not to read just any paper put in front of you or repeat any statement recommended,” Ahmadinejad said in the speech, aired live on state TV.

    Ahmadinejad said Obama “is under the pressure of capitalists and the Zionists” and vowed Iran would not be pushed around. “(American officials) bigger than you, more bullying than you, couldn’t do a damn thing, let alone you,” he said, addressing Obama.

  • JD

    K, I don’t buy the “realist” school. Everyone thinks they are apart of the “realist” school. Sigh. I shouldn’t be telling you this but the second part of your reponse was informative.

    As for Iranian reaction… What haven’t they done as far as public statements? Not really sure what point is trying to be made here?

  • landreaux


    I think the point is, Obama believes that by taking what he considers a “leadership” role re: nuclear weapons others will fall into line. If, as a fundamental believe, you see us as the predominant problem then Obama’s view bears some logic. However, the evidence for anyone getting in line when we appease at any level is not encouraging.

    Also, my research indicates to me that there are very few realists in the administration but there are a lot of internationalists, and not just in State.

  • JD

    not accurate but you are intitled to your opinion. As for fall into line, did Iran do that under other forms of policy? Why is it a suprise to you that they are not now? And even if they did were you expecting to happen a couple days later?

    No offense that that isn’t very realistic.

  • landreaux


    If you look back on my other writings on Iran you’ll see that I never expected them to fall in line. I expect them to develop a bomb and the delivery systems to deliver it, short of a military strike. I also believe you can’t study the history of the left/progressives without coming to the the opinion that they DO believe that we’re at the root of all the problems. It’s doctrine a matter of faith absent facts.

  • JD

    Landreaux, The single problem you have is that you think in absolutes.

    Lets take a child for example. He or she steals a piece of candy or bullied a kid at the playground. Do I think the child is a horrible kid and the root of all the problems? No, but I do hold him or her accountable for her inappropriate actions.

    Admitting one is wrong does not make a man a weaker man but it suggests the opposite. It is this ability that allows us to stop beating our head against a wall and learn to use the door.

    Interesting that Conservatives have a hard time excepting this and yet they love to preach personal responsability. Kind of like how they claim to hate deficites but said nothing as three republican presidents for 22 combined total years loaded 8 trillion dollars to our debt.

    Maybe that is what is wrong with the RNC. I talks all about being independent but nothing about responsabilities.

  • D.D.Mao

    Landreaux……In regard to your post of 7th of April @2:15 PM where President Ahmadinejad states President Obama is an “ineffective leader influenced by Israel” perhaps you give President Obama more foreign policy savy than he deserves.If after what we witnessed on how Prime Minister Netanyahu was treated during his recent White House visit perhaps Iranian President Ahmadinejad is cattle prodding a willing President Obama into tightening the noose on Obama’s “single payer policy” on Mid-East peace.That single payer being ISRAEL !

  • landreaux


    Another interesting detail here is that as I understand Obama’s nuclear policy one of the few nations on earth that would qualify for the use of a U.S. Nuke would be………wait for it………..Israel.

    That on the basis of Israel not being a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and posessing nuclear weapons.

    Ironic at best.

  • D.D.Mao

    Landreaux…Amazing! I don’t think I’ve heard that mentioned anywhere else.