Reason.com
New at Reason
Feinstein is woman, hear her roar; forget the eagles, let the nukes soar; and having cornered auctions, EBay's bidding for more—in the new Reason Express.
Most Popular Stories
- 5 Classic Teen Sex-and-Drug Freakouts: Rainbow Parties, Butt-Chugging, And So Much More (By Which We Mean Less) (5.27)
- Government Beneficiaries and Other Fairy Tales (5.26)
- Do Organic Consumers Shop Exclusively at the Jerk Store? (5.26)
- Sharon Presley on Libertarian Feminism (5.26)
- Here Are the 15 Senators Who Voted to Stop Armed FDA Agents From Conducting Warrantless Raids on America's Farmers (Not One of Them is a Democrat) (5.24)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Reason-Rupe: Wisconsinites Favor Increasing Public Union Retirement Contributions to Address Budget Deficit (5.25)
- Reason-Rupe Poll Finds Support for Public Union Reforms (5.25)
- New Poll: Obama Leads Romney In Wisconsin, But Gary Johnson Could Impact the Race (5.24)
- Wisconsin Recall: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42 Among Likely Voters (5.24)
- Reason-Rupe Poll: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42, Obama Leads Romney 46-36 (5.24)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
|9.13.05 @ 12:12PM|#
Nice. How long'd that one take you?
|9.13.05 @ 12:34PM|#
Adopting a nuclear first strike policy might enhance our security vis a vis other states.
But it will most certainly be a blow to our prestige and image as a decent, moral nation, thereby increasing anti-American terrorism and discouraging other nations from cooperating as closely with us in antiterror operations.
That the administration would consider such a tradeoff to be worthwhile in today's world demonstrates how wrongheaded their national security vision is.
|9.13.05 @ 2:01PM|#
A country with WMDs, led by a man who claims the right to use them on any country who does things within its own borders that he doesn't like? We've invaded countries and toppled their leaders for much, much less.
Perhaps our administration doesn't like the way the No First Use policy played out in the Cold War.
|9.13.05 @ 2:06PM|#
"But it will most certainly be a blow to our prestige and image as a decent, moral nation, thereby increasing anti-American terrorism and discouraging other nations from cooperating as closely with us in antiterror operations." - joe
Throwing up the nuclear attack umbrella seems a bit extreme to me as well, but I don't think joe has much of a leg to stand on as far as his "international perception" argument goes.
Here's why I think that:
What are the odds that those who would volunteer to conduct anti-American terrorism are already as encouraged as they're ever going to be? I'd bet they're pretty damn good.
Face it, the U.S., of all the nations in the world, has long held the title of nicest super-power on Earth. Holding that title has done very little in the way of discouraging anti-American terror. Not holding it probably won't matter either, and fear or ruthless reprisal is certainly a motivator for most nations.
In fact, short of complete withdrawal from the world stage and total abandonment of our allies around the world, the folks who are likely to commit anti-American terrorism are still as likely to do so as ever.
What are the odds that fear of being nuked out of existence would discourage other nations from cooperating with anti-American terrorists? Again, I'd say pretty damn good.
That doesn't mean I think it's a great idea to hold the whole world at nuclear gun-point, but I think joe's argument for not doing so holds about as much sand as a fishing net.
|9.13.05 @ 2:11PM|#
So I take it the Bush Administration will declare all nuclear non-proliferation treaties null and void? Or will they only be null and void for US?
|9.13.05 @ 2:31PM|#
Perhaps our administration doesn't like the way the No First Use policy played out in the Cold War.
Actually the US never endorsed a No First Use policy during the Cold War. It was believed that the Warsaw Pact's overwhelming superiority in Land Forces (especially armor) would make a nuke response against them inevitable if the ever tried to invade Western Europe.
|9.13.05 @ 3:35PM|#
Even so, Isaac, Bush isn't talking about using nukes if someone tries to invade Western Europe--it's more like using nukes because someone has the capability of invading Western Europe. Big problem.
|9.13.05 @ 4:51PM|#
Good point.
Certainly, the use of nukes in the absence of any physical atack at all would be a really bad thing.
|9.13.05 @ 5:23PM|#
Of course, I have given up expecting anything but nonsense from this administration. I just hope we can get through the next three and a half years, and then it will be over.
And then the fun can start with another bunch of clowns.
|9.13.05 @ 8:49PM|#
Isaac Bartram,
I would be concerned that the "next bunch of clowns" would be cut from the same mold as Tom DeLay and Rick Santorum. People who are probably as willing as anyone to get the end-times started, so that they can get Raptured and, from Heaven, laugh at those of us left behind (tm?).