Replies

Keller betrays his lack of faith in America as the shining beacon of liberty in the world in this nevertheless informative article. I find three faults with it:

He portrays missile defense as an offensive weapon. This is exactly what the Communists wanted us to accept, and it was Johnson's most heinous mistake: the world's leading force for freedom has a right to defend itself!
Nuclear weapons are portrayed as impossible to use devices which, even for Americans, the possession of which would be tantamount to dealing in slaves. Again, American nuclear weapons were used in WWII to win our victory over Japan, and they could have been used in Korea and Vietnam. We could have used them in Iraq, and we may yet need to use them now. We should not be acting as a nation ready to relinquish these arms, no matter how serious we are about disarming others.
Israel's nuclear capabilities are again brought into question.

I'm sure there is more to criticize here. Have at it!

I think we'll see North Korea become the "example" for other nations who want to develop nukes. The example will be set by North Korea receiving many incoming ICBMs following an unannounced testing of a No Dong or Taepo Dong that is headed towards the US or Japan.

With the Soviets, as well as the ChiComs, there was/is a protocol of announcing ballistic missile tests in order to stop the follow on launch of counter strike. These protocols do not exist with the DPRK due to Kim's arrogance and ignorance. Clinton isn't in the White House anymore.

Note to Self:

never accept a dinner invitation that has you sharing a table with Bill Keller - the man has diarrhea of the mouth.

I have to admit to a fondness for nuclear weapons.

I have two reasons for this. The first is their safety. Total number of persons killed by H-Bombs since their invention: 0. If we count the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclear weapons have still taken far fewer lives than any other tool for homicide, including the antelope femur. As Russell Baker, himself no fan of the military, once said: "There is no other bomb with a comparable safety record. You could almost grow fond of a bomb like that."

The second reason is that nuclear weapons have guaranteed that governments, not just their armies and their subjects, are exposed to the possibility of annihilation. Before the H-Bomb, rulers could send forth their legions to make war in near-perfect confidence that their own lives would continue to be safe and comfortable. There were exceptions, of course, though very few. But nuclear weapons practically guarantee that a serious war would reap the lives of the rulers who started it.

Is proliferation a serious matter? Of course, and we treat it as such. Consider Iraq. But note this as well: there has yet to be a war involving nuclear powers on opposite sides. India and Pakistan, which fought almost continuously before they became nuclear powers, have not fought since.

Eventually, the advance of technology will grant the most unprepossessing anonymous person the capacity to take millions of lives at a cost of a few dollars. We're not there yet, thank God, but we'll get there. And the technology involved probably won't be nuclear.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason:
http://palaceofreason.com

What's he talking about when he says Bush is only trying to eliminate rogue regimes, not the nuclear arms themselves? Bush made quite clear that one of his goals was to disarm Saddam. He had a cow when NKorea said it had the bomb. I wonder what Mr. Keller would expect the President to do differently if he were interested in controlling the weapons themselves rather than in just eliminating the rogue regimes?

At the Wagha border crossing, where I left India for Pakistan, soldiers of the two countries stage a ritual every day at dusk. They shoulder rifles, compose their faces in warlike resolve and march straight at one another, stopping only when they are close enough to smell one another's breath.

How many miles is that?

Toleration of a nuclear North Korea, he said, would send a message to the Iranians and others: ''Get your nuclear weapons quickly, before the Americans do to you what they've done to Iraq, because North Korea shows once you get the weapons, you're immune.''

The strongest argument for striking North Korea as soon as possible is China doesn't bring them to heel. And no more blackmail (give us oil/food and we won't nuke you).

This is the key test of the Bush Doctrine. The outcome will determine whether we can be effective in stopping the Iranian nukes and other weapons programs.

Is Keller logorrhoeic or what?