Peace through weakness?

The Washington Times ^ | Tuesday, February 17, 2009 | Frank Gaffney

[ihatedemocrats]

Fresh from reworking the domestic economic order via the "stimulus" bill in favor of vastly expanded U.S. government influence and power, President Barack Obama proposes a set of changes with respect to American security policies and programs that will have the opposite effect. If equally successful, he stands to transform the "world's only superpower" into a nuclear impotent, with possibly catastrophic consequences.

Such a transformation would be the more extraordinary for it coming against the backdrop of others' buildups of their nuclear arsenals. Every other declared nuclear weapon state is modernizing its stockpile and the most dangerous wannabees - North Korea and Iran - are building up their offensive missile capabilities and acquiring as quickly as possible the arms to go atop them.

The American people are largely clueless about this state of affairs. Doubtless, they would be horrified by the affront to common sense and hard experience entailed, especially under these circumstances, by the sort of U.S. disarmament Mr. Obama has underway.

[Paladin2]

Peace through accommodation (supplying tribute and short term appeasement).

[Darkwolf377]

Peace through pre-emptive surrender.

[Steel Wolf]

On a theoretical level, I always wondered what the world would have been like had the U.S. not been the first nation to devise nuclear weapons. Certainly, Germany, Japan or Russia would have used them to flatten any resistance to their conquest, and ensured that no other country ever acquired them.

It almost sounds like science fiction, because we're so used to the unusual turn of events the 20th century produced. It would have all ended much differently had we lost that race.

Unilateral nuclear disarmament will reset that ending. I'll be a nice view into what human nature does to you when you turn your back on it.

[Izzy Dunne]

Weird. The SUMMARY for this article is the same as the summary for this article about nuclear disarmament.

[MrB]

Folks, this fits right in with Sowell’s description of the “unconstrained vision” -

any show of strength is provocative, and causes defensiveness and escalation. Therefor, showing good will and willingness to discuss is the only way to peace.

This is based on the assumption that reason and articulation of position are the paramount achievements of human interaction. And that people are capable of such.

The constrained (reality) view knows that mankind is inherently limited, flawed, and wicked, and only responds to incentives such as “if I take on that guy, I’ll get my ass kicked.”

[JimSEA]

Ah yes, yet another myth of the 1960’s that unilateral disarmament by America will bring world peace. Well, slavery is a form of peace.

[sam_paine]

How many posts till we find that this is the GOP’s fault for not putting Duncan Hunter on the ticket instead of McCain?

Somehow I don’t think McCain would be doing this, even though we’re told daily that there’s not a dimes difference between the Marxist and liberal McCain.

[Puppage]

the "stimulus" bill

aka The Reward Failure Act

[Oldpuppymax]

But surely if we are nice and destroy our nuclear stockpile, other nations will follow suit. There will then be peace, love and understanding throughout the world. I mean, just ask any paisley shirt wearing college professor or sandal sporting protestor...they’ll tell you! Now please excuse me while I resume work on my lead-lined bunker.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

In truth, a lot of the federal government is coming to an end. The big four budget items are Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Defense. Among the first three is some $100T in obligations.

The first three might die off altogether. But Defense can’t get through unscathed. Barney Frank has said that Defense might get chopped by 25%. The reality is that no matter who is in charge, Defense might get chopped by as much as 50%. The US military would be brought home, unless somebody attacks our interests. Pax Americana would end.

The point is, there is no choice. The government is bankrupt. The US has to have *some* Defense, but everything else is up for grabs.

Though it is two or three years away, I would not be surprised if the individual States call a constitutional convention, because they don’t have a choice. The federal government may have just seized up, and no longer functions. The purpose of the convention would be to renounce all debts and start over, in an anti-federalist revolution.

While this low Defense posture can’t be done right now, consider that by then the rest of the world will be far worse off than the US. Wars will be limited, and civil wars will be brutally suppressed. While they scrimmage with each other, they still won’t want to mess with us.

[mountainlion]

We to could be French.

[ihatedemocrats]

McCain did promise to negotiate with Russia on nuclear disarmament: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/27/america/campaign.php

He also opposed drilling in ANWR, opposed English as the official language, and supported the Communist Hispanic-supremacist group La Raza, which make him suspect in my book.

[ihatedemocrats]

Nukes are the most important part of defense; they should be the last thing to be cut.

[ckilmer]

obama wants to take aim at white america where he believes his true enemies are. therefor he requires peace and even surrender with everyone else in order to give him the stability at his back that he requires to accomplish the destruction he believes is his mandate.