105 Comments

1. Charles:

Wretchard,
You make a good point about the Russians perceiving that they might have few many military options between the most extreme and most paltry. This is where the decline of Russia’s conventional armed forces and its lack of a professional officer and NCO corps could cause Russia to build more nukes, as they would seem a cheap deterrent in comparison to a truly well-trained and equipped conventional force. But how do you enforce immigration policies along a very long border with the world’s most populous nation using Topol ICBMs? And if Russia thought it could afford to maintain its present stockpile, why is the Kremlin so eager to take up Senator McCain’s offer of even deeper cuts in our respective arsenals? Because they know that they cannot afford to maintain even the nukes they have now.

The American and British conservatives presently arguing that Russia is engaged in some huge military buildup (perhaps, as Tom Barnett charges, to justify building more F-22s and nuclear attack submarines while the ground pounders need more trucks and men) are not doing much for their credibility. In the case of the most hardcore Russophobes in D.C., their views of Russia were essentially frozen in 1984 with some blend of the contempt for the basket case of the 90s thrown in. They had the expectation that Russia was supposed to sit back and say nothing as we cut it out of energy deals and influence in its own back yard. When the Chinese exploit a big offshore oil find in the Straits of Florida and the Russians develop Venezuela’s heavy oil fields with Canadian assistance, perhaps we’ll feel a tiny twinge of what Moscow felt in the late 90s when American oil men were striking black gold in Azerbaijan and sending it away from Russia.

While threatening to point nukes at specific targets in Europe is a hostile gesture, in the recent past this crowd has viewed any reassertion of Russian power as automaticlly a threat to the West. For example, when the Russians played hardball and cut off Ukraine’s gas supplies in 2006, this was viewed as a dire threat, rather than one country getting tiring of subsidizing cheap gas for another – heck, even Belarus was overnight turned into another victim of the mean old Kremlin rather than a country that needed to get off the dole.

At the end of the day, the weak Russia of the 90s that allowed Chechnya to become a playground for international terrorists was a far greater threat to the West than the Russia of today.

Jul 8, 2008 - 10:17 pm 2. Alexis:

I don’t think it is wise to allow ourselves to be deterred by any fanatical state.

It is insanity to allow ourselves to let al-Qaeda use Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent as a shield against an American response against al-Qaeda. When Pakistan allows al-Qaeda to camp on its territory while prohibiting the United States from attacking al-Qaeda forces, al-Qaeda should be considered to be in de facto control over Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent because Pakistan’s actions effectively create a nuclear umbrella for al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda’s lack of tactical control over Pakistan’s nuclear weapons doesn’t undermine al-Qaeda’s strategic control over those weapons.

Al-Qaeda will attack the United States regardless of what Americans may do in response. So, why do we let ourselves get deterred by Pakistan’s nuclear umbrella? Respect for Pakistan’s nuclear umbrella effectively creates a stronghold for al-Qaeda that we won’t destroy while the terrorists can attack us with impunity.

I don’t think an all-out attack against Pakistan is necessary or wise. Instead, we should act as if Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent doesn’t exist. For that matter, we should act as if the present boundary between Afghanistan and Pakistan does not exist, instead regarding Pakistan’s internal boundary with the tribal regions to be Pakistan’s western frontier. Pakistan’s acquiescence to al-Qaeda’s control over the northwest frontier should be considered to be an abdication of legitimate claim over that territory. (I would be surprised if Peshawar doesn’t fall to the Taliban within the next two years.) Al-Qaeda as already attacked us with the equivalent of tactical nuclear weapons against civilian targets; letting Pakistan deter us from attacking al-Qaeda is effectively letting Pakistan get away with murder.

Iran is the land of the minesweeper boys; one cannot assume that the Iranian government values human life in the manner that we do. Why should we “dare not take disproportionate action” against a regime that regards the annihilation of our people to be a blessed event? There is no basis for negotiation with a regime that promotes suicide bombing.

In the Prisoner’s Dilemma, “victory” is often assumed to be survival. But what if “victory” means ensuring that the other prisoner hangs? This is the problem we face with any society that engages in suicide bombing. Any society that idolizes suicide bombing necessarily cannot be reasoned with on the basis of a “win-win” scenario. As harsh as this may sound, given the behavior of groups that support suicide bombing (such as Palestinians), it would be logical to regard one’s own life as less important than killing a Palestinian because there is no basis for thinking he would reciprocate any decency.

The Soviet Union was materialist, and it was that materialism that allowed limited negotiations on the basis of deterrence. However, we must not assume that all of our enemies will be dialectical materialists.

Jul 8, 2008 - 11:48 pm 3. Nortius Maximus:

“Moscow finds limited but savage threats very useful indeed. It recently admitted to killing dissident Russian intelligence agent Alexander Litvinenko…”

Source? The linked post only says that UK sources say so, as they have for some time. Where’d you find anything from Moscow admitting same?

By the way, best wishes on your PJ move and thanks for all your hard work over time.

Jul 9, 2008 - 12:13 am 4. ajacksonian:

There is one difference between Iran and Russia: Iran need not utilize a warhead outside of the country to make it effective. The downside of irrational actors on the world stage is that they are not all irrational in the same way or degree and, because of that, conventional and even nuclear deterrence has problems being posited within a fantastical framework of belief. Over at the Hoover Institution, Lee Harris has an extremely insightful work on Al Qaeda’s Fantasy Ideology which examines how the fantastical plays in the decision making areas of the irrational.

While concentrating on AQ, the view is more broadly applicable to any organization that utilizes fantastical views to make irrational decisions: Iran fits this as did the Aum Shinrikyo Death Cult, as do other organizations to one degree or another that utilize fantastical ideas as a basis for real world actions. Deterrance must have meaning within the framework of that ideological system, even if it makes little or no sense in ours. In looking at Jerry Pournelle’s question on containment for Iran I had to look at the suppositions being given and one of the first factors is a capitulation of western liberties to radical Islamic threats of violence as seen by the self-censorship in the west, and by shifts from acculturation to accomodation of Islamic formulations of society in the west done by radicals. While containment is not deterrance, in and of itself, deterrance is used as a form of containment and it is that which is posited as being effective against non-rational actors. For that deterrance to be effective it has to have some basis of acceptance in those areas it is protecting. While barely tenable at the end of the Cold War, deterrance lasted long enough to exhaust the USSR economically so as to weaken rule and encourage not only dissent but active overturning of regimes.

The west and the US does not have that long-term view that was held from 1946-1991 against Iran or, indeed, other irrational actors. Passive deterrance for the long-run, by itself, is not a winning paradigm. Active defense and voicing that effects will be hard and fast for unacceptable activities then cast the US putting a threat system against an irrational actor. If an underlying basis for a belief system postulates that an ‘end time’ with large casualties is acceptable to usher in a ‘new age’ either via a 12th Imam or some hand of Death sweeping over the world, then threats of an active military sort become an accepted value to have as a part of that ideology. In threatening harshness and even mass death, one plays into the thought system of the ideology and reinforces it. If you postulate a single or a few low power nuclear devices inside Iran, the idea of utilizing them against their own population and blaming a threatening western power for the attack becomes not only acceptable but a way to clean the population of unacceptable elements. WMDs are not a strategic chess piece, but have an absolute utilitarian value of getting a mass of large size into one area and destroying it: weapon of mass destruction. The Cold War chess piece concept does not work in that paradigm, and threatening to attack a country without it having stated it will deploy such weapons becomes a grave geopolitical risk: it enhances the internal belief system and then gives rise to the opportunity to turn the threat back in an opportunistic way.

What that means is that asymmetrical retaliation in a military realm is not wholly effective through unconventional means and hard to make palatable in a conventional realm. That then posits that a western non-military asymmetric view must be taken in an area that a non-rational leadership has a weakness. As war is diplomacy by other means, war by other means must feature things that are effective and cannot be negotiated over: which puts diplomacy as a side-light as one does not want to be bargaining with irrational actors.

What sort of weapons can be deployed in this realm? Only the things that a irrational leadership cannot provide: accountable government, individual freedom and liberty, low corruption in government and official realms, equality of justice, equality of opportunity, freedom of religion… the gravest threat to Iran is a Shia Muslim state doing these things and being seen as effective in safeguarding them. A neighboring state would be the perfect place to do this. These are powerful tools in the National Toolkit to confront irrational actors as they typically lack in many of these areas and add in a police state mentality on top of it so that when the real world tries to effect them via local populations it can be quashed. For awhile.

If US foreign policy took the approach of ‘yes, we can wipe out the Iranian capability, but we are more interested in helping people reach to liberty and freedom, and will look to do that by helping to teach and sustain it…’ then there is no saber rattling, just a utilitarian response to an irrational set of actions. The latter, by being an earnest view long held in the US about these things, pits our universal understanding of humanity against the Iranian view of fatalistic Islam against each other. The strongest weapon against Iran is undermining their ideology by demonstrating it to be ineffective in dealing with everyday life and showing how personal liberty can lead to a better life with freedom.

Now when I start seeing educational institutions, religious institutions willing to teach secualr subjects, and US foreign policy based on those things, that will make an extremely credible threat in the one place that will harm Iran the most: Iraq. If Arabs, who are generally not seen as uncorruptable, can do that with a Shia majority population, then what is up with those Persians in Iran?

It would help if we could sustain these values in the west, too… but I am not holding my breath on that.

Jul 9, 2008 - 4:15 am 5. hdgreene:

The document that, as Richard says, “has the effect of threatening a vastly disproportionate response towards any attempts at aggression by strategic inferiors” was no doubt declassified as part of the Clinton Administration’s “We aren’t like that anymore” program. To be taken up with renewed vigor next Jan. 20, I suspect.

Jul 9, 2008 - 4:54 am 6. RWE:

Missile defense capabilities do add to uncertainty in two ways. First, in preventing your adversary from knowing how effective his attack will be. Second, in adding uncertainty to what you response will have to be. If Iran fires at someone and we shoot it all down, then the situation offers the Tom Clancy type of response where the President goes on TV and says “The countdown is starting. Either you turn over the following list of people to us and allow us to send in teams to destroy the following WMD targets, or we will destroy you utterly and completely, as a nation, as a people. 48 hours and counting on my mark … Now!”

When we were studying conventional ICBM options, it was assumed that the entire attack would be on live TV, covered as if it was a space launch, to support just that sort of scenario.

Then there is the other kind of uncertainty, the kind that really drove the Soviets crazy. I believe that their opposition to SDI was based largely on what would come out of such a broad-based effort into advanced military technology. Our first ASAT weapon was a modified anti-tank warhead, launched by what began as a short range nuclear missile from a fighter designed for a dedicated air combat role. Our legendary inventiveness has enabled us to keep changing the rules. The Russians fear what those anti-Iranian missile defense capabilities might become in response to their own saber-ratting.

Jul 9, 2008 - 5:14 am 7. CPT. Charles:

The Russians and Iranians came to an ‘understanding’ very early on.

Both the Soviet and American embassies were stormed; the difference? The Soviet ambassador told the ’students’: ‘get out, or Tehran will cease to exist within the hour.’ They left. The American Embassy? I think we all know how that story turned out.

Who do the Iranians respect? Where do their mullas go to make deals, bank their looted funds, party with long-legged blond hookers, and swill ‘forbidden’ hooch? Hint: it ain’t Vegas baby.

You can argue as to who using whom, but I view Iran as Moscow’s ‘cats paw’, against us and Western Europe. Just as the PRC is using militant islam as a cats paw against us. Note that as we chase and ‘beat-down’ the jihadis across the planet [by no means a worthless task...], the PRC is scooping up everything of value unhindered [not that DoS would be capable do anything useful to stop them...].

Things are never as simple as we’d like them to be.

Jul 9, 2008 - 5:48 am 8. wretchard:

Barack Obama has reacted to the Iranian missile tests by suggesting diplomacy and negotiations.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that Iran’s missile tests highlight the need for direct diplomacy as well as tougher threats of economic sanctions and strong incentives to persuade Tehran to change its behavior.

Obama criticized the Bush administration for not engaging Iran in direct talks and for using bellicose language against the government while at the same time increasing exports to Iran.

Iran has been the subject of nothing but diplomacy. After the US embassy was seized, the US used diplomacy. Despite continuous attacks on American soldiers by Iranian officers and personnel, the US has used diplomacy. The entire Iranian nuclear program has been handled through diplomacy, in conjunction with European allies and the United Nations. A whole raft of Security Council Resolutions have directed at the issue of Iranian behavior. America is not at war with Iran. It doesn’t occupy a single inch of Iranian territory. It might be relevant to point out that once upon a time the US actually had diplomats in Teheran in the form of an actual embassy.

It’s a little disturbing when a major Presidential candidate’s first instincts after the Iranians test 9 long missiles are to blame his government for not engaging in direct talks. The real story here is to ask why, if Teheran has no WMD ambitions, it has any ballistic missile program at all. Does anyone actually believe these expensive missiles are going to be fitted with conventional warheads? That would be so cost ineffective as to be implausible. Any reasonable person, looking at the situation, would regard the firing of the 9 missiles with alarm. I think BHO’s reactions are almost unnatural.

Jul 9, 2008 - 7:32 am 9. Nomenklatura:

Obama’s religion is that any problem can be addressed by words (from him). It’s a primitive sort of belief in magic which is common in US academic circles.

I encountered more sophisticated religious beliefs in African villages (though many witch doctors did make careers out of Obama-type scams).

Jul 9, 2008 - 8:25 am 10. Alexis:

I think BHO’s reactions are almost unnatural.

I think they are very natural if one looks at the situation from a Javanese (pro-Axis pro-Japanese Bandung-style anti-Americanism) perspective. American patriotism from a Javanese perspective would equate patriotism with saving America from being itself, not with protecting America from foreign intruders. To such a man, patriotism means telling Americans, “You need to make sure your child can speak Spanish.”

Remember, Iran only held white American hostages in a cynical attempt to play black against white, so Senator Obama’s lack of hostility against the Iranian government can be legitimately interpreted to be black racism. I wouldn’t be surprised if Obama regarded hostility against the Iranian regime as a symptom of being a “typical white person”.

As it is, it looks as though Ahmadinejad thinks he can dictate terms of American capitulation.

Jul 9, 2008 - 8:40 am 11. sirius_sir:

Is Mr. Putin quite sure he wants to engage the United States in another Cold War?

As to the issue of Iran’s missiles, that pursuit seems rather unnecessarily provocative, unless of course that is the entire point, i.e., to provoke a pre-emptive attack and so reveal the 12th Imam. A rational actor, at least from our perspective, might better decide to forego the whole attack-by-air mode and concentrate on another, albeit clunkier, means of delivery. A half dozen thermonuclear devices smuggled into our cities could have as much or more effect. Such weapons could be employed for coercive, deterrent or retaliatory purpose, depending on circumstance and/or whim. Of course any weapon so deployed might be prematurely discovered and defused, but the very fact of discovery would lend credence to the possibility of others not found and so might actually increase, not lessen, the intended effect.

Jul 9, 2008 - 8:41 am 12. RWE:

Nomenklatura: I think we now have an entire class of people who think that talking is the answer to everything. We have a large number of professions now that consist of doing nothing but talking to people and getting them to do what you want, ranging from car salesmen to welfare rights advocates to lawyers to politicians. Their skills at other tasks have atrophied, assuming they ever had them.

Furthermore, this Talker class have become to resent even suggestions that problems can be solved by anything but talking. And they have come to resent people who can do more than just talk. Nothing is impossible to the man who does not have to do it himself.

Jul 9, 2008 - 8:54 am 13. NahnCee:

…what hostile nations might attempt to achieve from a position of strategic inferiority.

Why don’t these assumptions and the analyses, then, apply equally to Iran and its position of strategic inferiority? It seems to me that Russia is being held to one set of standards of behavior, while the Mad Mullahs and Ahmadinnerjacket have the freedom to flop about irrationally with everyone tip-toing around them trying not to hurt their little Muslim feelings.

Or are we assuming that Iran is hiding behind Russia’s skirts? So that in order to deal with Iran, we first have to convince its big bully of a parent to allow the discipline.

Jul 9, 2008 - 9:38 am 14. sirius_sir:

PARIS: One day after threatening to strike Tel Aviv and United States interests if attacked…

It occurs to me that we have many and varied ‘interests’ contained within the danger zone. The same thought must also occur to certain parties connected with these interests in Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, the UAE, et al. It also occurs to me that the inhabitants of Paris itself reside a mere one thousand miles or less beyond the announced range of Teheran’s present (and to be improved?) firing position. Iran’s Revolutionary Guards are at least doing us and others the favor of giving fair notice.

Jul 9, 2008 - 9:55 am 15. Mark Maps:

Good comments. Another issue to keep in mind with these Iranian missle-firings is Iran’s desperate need for cash. Unfortunately for them oil shot up only $2 this morning. It had dropped $9 in the prior two days and was looking to go much lower. We can probably expect more sabre-rattling as they try to prop up their cashflow. The measely $2 pop tells me, though, that the market is getting wise to the mullahs.

Jul 9, 2008 - 9:56 am 16. sirius_sir:

Teheran will presumably do nothing except “if attacked,” but one has to wonder what might constitute a legitimate provocation. After all, Putin is threatening a renewal of the Cold War simply because some see a need to provide deterrence and safety to meet a mounting threat.

Of course, it would be impolitic to mention from where that threat is seen to be emanating, now wouldn’t it?

Jul 9, 2008 - 10:01 am 17. DanMyers:

“The very framework of a concept that depends on instilling fear and uncertainty in the minds of opponents was never, nor can it be, strictly rational. Nor has it ever strictly required rational adversaries in order to function.”.

With one proviso – the will to demonstrate irrationality. This by no means is a given in the West.

Jul 9, 2008 - 10:04 am 18. Al:

This has the effect of threatening a vastly disproportionate response towards any attempts at aggression by strategic inferiors. While a proportionate response is not ruled out, neither — and this is the essential point — is a wholly disproportionate one. Under such a doctrine a missile defense capability would play a very important role: it would greatly increase the potential lopsidedness of the exchange.

This goes to the heart of the matter. Despite all the rhetorics about the missile installations being purely defensive, Russia has a legitimate reason to worry. Keep in mind that the “disproportionate response” doesn’t have to be caused by Russia actually invading anyone. As we’ve seen in Yugoslavia, it may be triggered by the wholly internal “human rights violation.” The actual violations aren’t even required, it’s enough to wage a prolonged PR campaign to that effect. (One could argue that such campaign is already under way.)

This looks very worrisome from the Russian point of view, but all expression Russian concerns fall on deaf ears. Basically, Russia is saying that they had exhaused all the diplomatic means in trying to resolve this, so now they have no choice but to consider other options. Of course, this is seen as yet another example of Moscow’s aggressiveness.

Jul 9, 2008 - 10:30 am 19. Pajamas Media » Iran Flexes its Missiles; Russia Objects to US Shield:

[...] Read the entire post here [...]

Jul 9, 2008 - 11:06 am 20. Anthony:

Maybe the real question is why we continue to defend Europe. The Soviet Union was a threat to the United States both physically, but most of all, ideologically. There were lots of people who were willing to die for the concept of world communism. We could not allow Western Europe to fall under the domination of the Soviets lest we find ourselves overewhelemed.

With the end of communism, the Russians have fallen back on Slavic nationalism. The only people generally willing to die for pan-Slavism are a few silly Serbs and occassional Belorusian. So we have nothing to fear from the Russians unless we convert them back into an enemy.

As for Iran, they are no direct threat to US. Their threat is indirect, through terrorism.

All this missile defense plan does (and I am a big supporter of a US based missile defense program) is further inflame tensions while allowing the Europeans to free load off of our defense budget. This is very very ill advised.

Jul 9, 2008 - 11:09 am 21. Vilmos:

One can read how Dick Cheney, Ronald Reagan, etc. used this technique against the Soviets in the 80s.
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200302/msg00186.html

I remember, being a teenager in the 80s on the eastern side of the Iron Curtain, that Reagan and Co. were described as madmen. From an outsider’s perspective, seems ok. But if we think about what they accomplished, they were anything but madmen.

Vilmos

Jul 9, 2008 - 11:16 am 22. Eggplant:

Wretchard said:

“Barack Obama has reacted to the Iranian missile tests by suggesting diplomacy and negotiations…. It’s a little disturbing when a major Presidential candidate’s first instincts after the Iranians test 9 long missiles are to blame his government for not engaging in direct talks. The real story here is to ask why, if Teheran has no WMD ambitions, it has any ballistic missile program at all. Does anyone actually believe these expensive missiles are going to be fitted with conventional warheads? … I think BHO’s reactions are almost unnatural.”

I beg to differ. B. Hussein’s reaction is perfectly natural for a moonbat. Normally Hussein is fairly clever about maintaining the illusion of rationality but in this instance he allowed the mask slip.

Again for the umpteenth time: I am utterly terrified by B. Hussein and you should be too.

Jul 9, 2008 - 11:32 am 23. NahnCee:

that Reagan and Co. were described as madmen …

Nixon deliberately had Kissinger telling the Chinese and the Russians that he was nuts. Crazy. Insane. Don’t push Tricky Dick because no one knows what he’ll do and no one can rein him in.

Maybe we need to elect another President who can successfully act the madman, to counterbalance Iran’s and Russia’s madmen.

Jul 9, 2008 - 11:39 am 24. coisty:

Moscow finds limited but savage threats very useful indeed. It recently admitted to killing dissident Russian intelligence agent Alexander Litvinenko to send a pointed message

Though no one would be surprised if it is true it is way over the top to state categorically that Moscow has “admitted” to the killing when the evidence is based on some BBC source. That’s not an admission from Moscow.

Jul 9, 2008 - 11:55 am 25. dan:

Thank you for the exposition Wretchard that was great.

Frankly all this Russia sympathy in the comments has me a bit concerned. To it’s reasonably obvious that Iran is simply a weapon to swing at the West – who else is providing Iran’s nuclear technology? Does anyone really believe AQ Khan’s network was a “black market”? Come on – anyone ever hear of Victor Bout, the “former” KGB arms dealer?

Guys. All this war of maneuvor, of which al Qaeda, the Iraq and Afghan Wars, the oil spikes, are a part, all of this is part of a Russian strategy.

Someone referred to “Russophobes” above. Russophobes? An irrational fear of Russia? Do you, my friend, know much about the USSR, to say nothing of Russia prior to it? It is plausibly said that the business of the USA is business; England was the shopkeeper nation. What, in your opinion, is Russia’s character? Or do you believe that the 70% of KGB/GRU agents who currently run the Russian government and orchestrate its farcical democratic theater just said, “well played old chap, well played!” when the Soviet Union disintigrated?

Is that how you interpret the Ukrainian and other oil shut-offs – as reasonable economic comeuppance for these little states?

And what about Russian provision of all manner of help – from the US order of battle to Iraq prior to OIF, to missile and nuclear technology to Iran, to weapons for Hezbollah, and general diplomatic cover for all these states, including welcoming HAMAS to the Kremlin, among other things?

Personally I’m glad the missile shield is going up. Russia is just bitching to provoke all its erstwhile allies to carry water for it – there is no way that the United States is contemplating war with Russia, and so there is no way the Russians could possibly feel threatened.

As always, the primary thrust of Russia’s strategy is essentially *political,* not essentially military – and they know that our political scene is most vulnerable. The Left believes precisely what the Kremlin wants it to believe, and behaves in a disruptive and hamstringing manner in exactly the way that is most valuable to Russia. It only need to throw gas on those histrionic imaginations occasionally to keep the pressure on commonsensical Americans.

How could Russia’s strategy not be implacably aggressive, and its delusions of America’s hostility not rooted in its own essential aggression, when it is run by the people it is run by, and in the manner in which it is run? Come on. The Russia as victim thesis makes no sense, unless it is as a victim of its own idiot cunning.

Jul 9, 2008 - 12:10 pm 26. dan:

Oh please – who really believes Litvinenko wasn’t poisoned by Moscow?

Jul 9, 2008 - 12:11 pm 27. ForNow:

Is the person who posted a comment with the screen name “Wretchard” the real Wretchard (Richard Fernandez)? I’ve noticed comments ascribed to “Richard Fernandez” in previous posts here at the new site, not to “Wrechard.”

Jul 9, 2008 - 12:15 pm 28. The Deterrence of Uncertainty « Thinking Things Through:

[...] to the US placing defensive missiles (aimed at missiles incoming from Iran) in eastern Europe. Here’s a good explanation. What makes deterence work is not the certainty of the response, [...]

Jul 9, 2008 - 12:25 pm 29. Dadmanly:

Wretchard,

As always, excellent analysis. Underscores the wisdom of getting you installed here at PajamasMedia.

Keep up the great work, it’s never been as critically important.

Jul 9, 2008 - 12:42 pm 30. Rob:

The real story here is how far Russia has swung toward thuggish international relations. Is this just growing pains or an essential feature??

I have followed the Litvinenko story at Strata-sphere.com blog and found him convincing. The main thrust of his comments was that the Russians could not be that stupid and that the physical evidence suggested an accident with smuggled radioactive material.

The British led claim that this was an assassination by the Russians seems to be weakly supported when it comes to known facts. Do the British know something we don’t??

It will be good to learn more.

Not that the KGB isn’t capable of killing people.
What really happened with the attempted assassination of the Pope for instance??

Like Able Danger, this is a story that seems to have been misreported with key parts supressed.

Jul 9, 2008 - 12:49 pm 31. DensityDuck:

One thing to keep in mind in discussions of this sort is that MAD was an outcome, not a policy. When you look at nuclear war from a game-theory perspective, there are two ways to deter a first strike. One is to ensure that any conceivable first strike would not eliminate all of your nuclear force, and that sufficient forces would remain to destroy your opponent. The other is to ensure that the first strike never hits–i.e. active defenses (interceptors and the like.)

The assumption during the Cold War was that there would be no way to completely stop a first strike, due to the massive saturation attack involved. With the modern “rogue state”, that’s not necessarily the case; an attack involving one warhead is much easier to handle than an attack involving one thousand warheads.

Beyond that, the Cold War thinking started out with the assumption that civilian casualties were inevitable; the emphasis was on minimization, not elimination. And again, in a modern context that’s not necessarily true. Let’s say that the North Korean government says “pay us one hundred billion dollars or Tokyo gets it.” Do you really think that we wouldn’t just pay them? Even if they’d be blown up afterwards, Tokyo would be gone–and it’s cold comfort to the survivors that the Norks followed their victims into hell.

(It’s kind of ironic. If we’re attacked by one hundred warheads and ten get through, we’d consider it a success. If we’re attacked by one warhead and it gets through, we’d consider it a failure…)

Jul 9, 2008 - 12:50 pm 32. kabud:

unfortunately we don’t have time for deployment of missile defense shield:

if even the governments of Poland and Czechia agreed to that – it sounds trouble

because those governments are 100% kremlin controled

Gdansk ship building factories were recently bought by ukrainian gangsters , same goes for many major industrial facilities in eastern and western europe

Eastern european goverments most likely will either interfere with functioning of our missile defense shield there or provide kgb access to them

With world economic, financial, fuel crisis deepening and American political destabilization in works with the choice of two evils for the presidential race:

if the provoked by kremlin war with Iran will begin:

it will be the best moment for `stateless terrorists` serving Kremlin and Beijing interest to attack USA at our home land.

So

missile defense shield

is obsolete at this point. But should be installed anyway, may be with caution and

MUCH MORE MUST BE DONE.

Jul 9, 2008 - 12:53 pm 33. Steve Nelson:

Dan,
I would interpret Russia’s gas shutoffs as a hardball Russian style of negotiation, but ultimately, seeking a logical end – that Ukraine and Belarus should not receive the same Russian gas at a rate one quarter of what the end users (Germany, Austria) were paying merely because the export trunk lines crossed their territory. They didn’t refer to Timoshenko as “The Gas Princess” in Kiev for nothing, but what Western media outlet was going to give you the Yanukovich point of view? Hardly none, especially when James Carville was working for the Orange side. The fact that the Russians used the same “pay more or get cut off” tactics with their erstwhile ally Belarus as with Kiev tells me it was motivated more by Gazprom’s need to get more revenues to simply maintain production than politics. Not that politics can ever be separated from the oil and gas business, especially when we are talking about pipelines and cartel member producers.

And as for Wretch’s contention that the Kremlin admitted to killing Litvinenko, I’m not sure where he is getting that, but it seemed to have come from a BBC report this week that Medvedev described as an attempt by some in Britain to scuttle UK-Russian relations.

While I do not subscribe to the suggestion that there is any real anti-Russian conspiracy out there, I do think there are wealthy exiled Russians like Mr. Berezovsky that have a vested interest in screwed up relations, lest the Russian prosecutors that came to London in 2006 before Litvinenko and Politkovskaya were conveniently killed return presenting their case for extradition. And of course, these extradition issues only came up after the UK became the leading investor in Russia. Mr. Litvinenko, you may recall, worked for Berezovsky, whom the late Forbes journalist Paul Klebnikov viewed as perfectly capable of homicide.

As far as Russia being inherently aggressive, there is almost no conventional arms buildup, the nuclear stockpiles are stagnant or declining, to the point that some Western analysts provided the more paranoid Russians with bulletin board material by arguing that Russia is now vulnerable to a disarming first strike. Although Russia is no longer losing territory like it was in the early 90s it is losing 700,000 people a year, and its demographic profile (getting older and less healthy before it gets rich) would not seem to support much aggression. If anything, the Kremlin probably perceives the biggest threat to Russia, as in 1998, as a global economic shock. The collapse of world commodity prices in 1997 (which the siloviki partially blame the oligarchs for, since they were exporting Russia’s raw materials at dirt cheap prices) compounded the crisis that led to a backclash, or a return to equilibrium under Putin. A similar shock to the Russian economy, this time not from cheap commodity prices but from sky high food prices fueling inflation for basic staples, could bring back the instability that the Kremlin fears.

While the Western Left has largely become oblivious to Russia, I don’t understand why so many conservatives remain woefully ignorant about the Russian economy and its growing financial interdependence with the rest of the world. While flooding the world with cheap Saudi oil to bring down the USSR in the late 80s probably was a stroke of brilliance (in spite of the price paid here in the U.S. oil patch) trying to provoke the further breakup of rump Russia in my view is simple insanity – it is more or less proceeding on autopilot as if nothing has really changed since 1984. With Russians able to read what the NYT thinks of their country online, and a rising middle class able to travel to Europe, I would say that Russia has undergone revolutionary change for the better. There is no going back to a Soviet type regime, but I do think it is possible that if we don’t get food and energy prices under control worldwide Russia could take a turn that would make Putin seem quite soft and liberal in comparison.

Jul 9, 2008 - 12:56 pm 34. Hyperpotamus:

“Because of the value that comes from the ambiguity of what the US may do to an adversary if the acts we seek to deter are carried out, it hurts to portray ourselves as too fully rational and cool-headed. The fact that some elements may appear to be potentially “out of control” can be beneficial to creating and reinforcing fears and doubts in the minds of an adversary’s decision makers. ‘This essential sense of fear is the working force of deterrence.”

So – does this apply to the mullahs, too? Is this their game – to convince us that they are loonies who might do anything if riled? They are trying not to portray themselves as “too fully rational” – that part of their plans, at least, is working.

Jul 9, 2008 - 12:58 pm 35. tygurr:

I think if the idea of a missle defense scares Mr. Putin so then that is exactly the think we ought to do. His reaction to the plan validates the plan.

Jul 9, 2008 - 1:04 pm 36. kabud:

to Steve Nelson, respectfully of course

you just demonstrated the exact same naivety that killed thousands on 9-11

sad is that majority of westerners and americans included are thinking this way-

they, no!!!: YOU will die first, you never bother to get gas masks, guns, water supply, food suppy and and the most important:

you never bother who will lead this nation in November of 2008.

So you succumb to choice of 2 evils:

one an open pro-kremlin communist

and another- most likely compromised bu GRU and always fearing of their ways defeatist

There is no place to defect from USA- it is our last fortress of freedom

but people like you unfortunately make it volnurable

Please, i beg you from the bottom of my heart think about it and start acting

Jul 9, 2008 - 1:21 pm 37. Michael Hoskins:

Just for fun: What if a “Cowboy” (European definition, not High Noon) president, with a short temper, decided on a recon in force action…that is, like Sherman to Atlanta, marched a couple of columns from one side of Iran to the other (plus one from the sea?) that visited each interesting site, then left?

Jul 9, 2008 - 1:40 pm 38. Michael in Seattle:

Maybe we need to elect another President who can successfully act the madman, to counterbalance Iran’s and Russia’s madmen.

What? We need *more* “McCain has anger management issues” stories?

Jul 9, 2008 - 1:41 pm 39. El_Heffe:

ajacksonian’s comment while valuable in its own right, seems to be changing the subject.

General deterrence in post cold war/post proliferation world is the subject of this post/comment stream. ajacksonian contemplates a more proactive approach for dealing specifically with Iran. An approach which looks beyond deterrence to regime change.

Both objectives are worth obtaining to be sure.

Jul 9, 2008 - 1:50 pm 40. kabud:

то Michael in Seattle

5 years under GRU intensive treatment made out of him something i would like never to trust ANYTHING

this nation and Seattle geeks specifically )))are so naive

it is going to be very unpleasant to see its collapse

Well, it may come later to Seattle then to my beloved NY, so you have a geeky advantage-

arm yourself boy

Jul 9, 2008 - 1:54 pm 41. kabud:

to El_Heffe

unfortunately Washington seemed to have some agreement with Kremlin on NOT INSTIGATING ANY regime change ANYWHERE in the world

we tested it

-in Ukraine where in 2004 USA did NOTHING to support freedom besides lip service

-in Belarus later in 2005,6

-in Iran SINCE 1979!!- NOTHING!!!!

- in China even after the Tiananmen killings!!

we have a deeply routed problem and it goes FAR BEYOND the LEFT :

check THIS

Jul 9, 2008 - 2:03 pm 42. GW:

Richard, your discussion of Obama’s comments on the missle shield and strategic use of nuclear arms misses a much clearer statement that he has made on both these issues.

The sound on this You Tube video is not great, but if I hear it correctly, as part of Obama’s promise to strip our defenses, he plans to halt plans for the deployment of a missle shield in Europe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs

Jul 9, 2008 - 2:44 pm 43. NahnCee:

Michael / Seattle — fess up. Wouldn’t you just love it a lot to be able to see McCain reach across a table and grab Ahmadinnerjacket by the tonsils, jerk him up into the air, and demand, “Tell me again, Skippy – you Persians are gonna WHAT?!?”

Remember the headlines Dubya got when those South American punks were trying to strip his Secret Service guys from his group, and he waded back into the crowd to retrieve them? Good stuff, Maynard.

Jul 9, 2008 - 2:59 pm 44. 3Case:

“Just for fun: What if a “Cowboy” (European definition, not High Noon) president, with a short temper, decided on a recon in force action…that is, like Sherman to Atlanta, marched a couple of columns from one side of Iran to the other (plus one from the sea?) that visited each interesting site, then left?

Found this quote from November 1950 yesterday:

“there are not enough chinamen in the world to stop a fully armed Marine regiment from going where ever they want to go”
- Lewis B. “Chesty” Puller, USMC – when a journalist asked him about being surrounded by 22 enemy divisions

Jul 9, 2008 - 3:06 pm 45. dan:

Nelson – I’m inclined not to interpret the shutting down of the fuel flow to Russia’s near abroad in the dead of winter as anything except a pretty transparent form of coercion with implications beyond economics. Your insinuation that a Kremlin-controlled jackass in the Ukraine ought to be given some sympathy strikes me as proof of your idiocy, in fact. Forgive my abandonment of civility, but the suggestion that KGB Colonel Vladimir Putin has forgotten how the Cheka controlled its near abroad since roughly 1920 is preposterous and should be foisted on some other audience.

What is clear is that Russia intends to regain its prestige – if it ever lost it. What about the Shanghai Cooperation Organization? What about China’s 10 year, $100 billion investment in Iranian fuel? What about Russia’s provision of nuclear and missile technology, to say nothing of Iranian-designed or -made weapons and equipment that happen to be exact models of Russian gear? What about Russia’s diplomatic cover for Iran, (1) ostensibly on the basis of a bad faith interpretation of Iran’s energy rights under the NPT and (2) the supposedly decisive argument that Iran, afloat on a sea of oil and natural gas, requires nuclear energy for its fuel needs?

What about the recent political annexation by Hezbollah of Lebanon, a goal it’s pursued since the 1970s?

It strikes me that what Syria and Iran in fact have most in common is Russian sponsorship, not the flimsy Alawite claim to Shia Islam. Moreover, what really is the nature of Iran’s anti-Israel campaign, beyond the religious argument? Iran is not bordering Israel, Iran is not Arab. Might it not be indication of participation in a Russian information offensive, one of Soviet Russia’s goals having long been to deprive the USA of its main ally in the region? Particularly since Sadat agreed to abandon the USSR and thus deprive it of a major Arab colony?

The key here, I think, is to resist the temptation to see Russian/Soviet strategy as though it were divided or in any way substantially affected by the periodicity imposed by presidential administrations.

Jul 9, 2008 - 3:28 pm 46. wretchard:

The main thing to remember is that nobody is advocating war with either Russia or Teheran. At least I am not. But the Great Game is still alive and kicking. Russia continues to leverage its assets to advance its interests. It uses gas, subversion, even murder. Arguably even murder, in small doses, is diplomacy. But nobody is threatening war.

In that context there is no fatal bar to deploying a limited missile defense. Russia may respond by building a limited number of penetrators to recover theirs strategic flexibility. But ultimately, a small missile defense system does not pose an existential or even a serious threat to Russia. Unless Putin is wholly irrational — which I don’t think he is — the Russian reaction will be proportional.

For the Iranians, with their much smaller (potential) arsenal, a missile defense is much more serious because it nullifies the end result of what they have been working toward. Their ballistic missile program; the fancy warhead designs they may have bought; their centrifuges. The payoff from all that gets heavily discounted by missile defense. If Obama thought about it carefully, he would see missile defense as yet another component of diplomacy. Something to assist him in talking to the Iranians. It is certainly not an act of war, as much as raising a shield against a wrought sword has ever been an act of war. I know it is fashionable, in some countries, to consider wearing body armor a criminal offense, but body armor never killed anyone directly.

Obama’s plea for diplomacy is a little bit like “when did you stop beating your wife”. Iran is being engaged. He may not like the way it is being engaged, but certainly it is the diplomats and not the generals who are dealing with it now.

Jul 9, 2008 - 3:29 pm 47. John Samford:

“Deterrence of the Soviets never depended on having “rational” leaders. Stalin was in charge when the Soviets first began a build-up of nuclear arms, and it is difficult to consider him as an example of a rational leader.”

A very questionable statement. Stain was the most rational leader of the 20th century. I offer as evidence his longevity as the ruler of the Largest nation of the 20th century.
Anyone that doubts how rational Stalin was is using the wrong metric.

“But with Russian conventional forces vastly inferior to those of the US, the Kremlin’s nuclear leftovers formed the only means of sending Eastern Europe the proverbial severed finger.”
As Eastern Europe’s acceptance of the Missile is a way of sending Russia the lifted finger.
Plus PRESIDENT Bush scared the crap out of a bunch of despots when Saddam was dropped from the gallows. Putin was just one of many who could visualize his own self swinging from a gallows.
America is ENORMOUSLY POWERFUL here at the dawn of the 21st century. It’s not just the military part, but the economic and cultural advantages are perhaps even more intimidating. You cannot defeat America at war and yet if you don’t, you will be assimilated ( globalization ) eventually.
To see a President attempt to actually use that power, no matter how clumsy he was, had to strike fear in the hearts of Despots everywhere.
The Lead the US has in the Military arts to so large, that if we stopped working now, it would take over a decade for anyone else to catch up. And the pace of American military development is accelerating.
I assure you, the thought of a compenent American President causes Putin and the other despots to wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat.
Fortunately for them the American political system is designed to produce incompetent Presidents and prosper anyway. Another safeguard against Tyranny.

Jul 9, 2008 - 5:58 pm 48. NahnCee:

Wretchard – at this point, why on earth are you (still) not advocating war? Do you not consider us to already be at war? And if not, then what to you does war consist of?

Jul 9, 2008 - 6:06 pm 49. fred:

Stalin was rational in the sense that suicide was not an option for him or his nation. Nor is it in ours as well. But to state that the Mullahs’ irrationality is equal, in some way, to Stalin is a ridiculous assumption.

Communists don’t want to die. There’s nothing in it for them but the blackness of eternity.

Shaheeds do want to die. Glorious and erotic rewards await the faithful. You don’t need political officers holding pistols at their backs to make them fight for Allah.

I believe it is time to tell the Mullahs and the Russians that we are going to do the missile defense system and that if they don’t like it they can take their sustenance from the lower echelons of the outhouse.

Jul 9, 2008 - 6:27 pm 50. dan:

It was my understanding that Poland rejected the US project of missile defense – is this true? I believe I saw it in a Yahoo headline I skipped past yesterday or the day before.

Jul 9, 2008 - 6:34 pm 51. dan:

By the way, since the topic of Russia has been raised, I wish we could get Wretchard or some other reputable commentator to comment on Yuri Bezmenov’s video. I can’t tell from the silence I generally receive on this subject whether the audience is dismissing it or whether it is more widely known than I am aware of. It strikes me as an incredibly important document. I wish it were more widely known.

Jul 9, 2008 - 6:43 pm 52. kabud:

guys,
any idea that kremlinoids are irrational will kill you and kill you soon

Poland is 200% controlled by KGB

if you dont trust me in it read about Valensa as an agent Bolek recently published

forget about Poland unless we dare to support real anticommunist opposition there

i have a friend a university professor there-

he is so scared because of his anticommunist activism that is hiding his real first and last names when publishes anything

NOTHING CHANGED
COMUNISM IS AS STRONG AS NEVER

Jul 9, 2008 - 6:45 pm 53. Fortinbras :: Belmont Club » When in doubt, don’t :: July :: 2008:

[...] Belmont Club » When in doubt, don’t What a working missile defense shield will do is make any Russian limited WMD attack on the West a very uncertain proposition. [...]

Jul 9, 2008 - 6:58 pm 54. kabud:

to Fred
Man, you know no one wants to die)))

you got to understand this simple thing: Muslims are people like you and i

yes, i may volunteer to risk my life for a Greater Cause and i did in the past not once

I get it that you are may be couple of years older then I, may be 10 not more-
so you must be an experienced man
so why do u have this illusions planted by KGB in your head about islamic threat?

There is no treat coming from islam that is more dangerous then threat coming from Orthodox Russian Christianity))))

MOST OF MUSLIMS ARE VERY VERY VERY POOR AND TOTALY UNEDUCATED PEOPLE

thats all to it

Kamikadze were more dangerous cause they fought out of Honesty

Muslims are like u and i- nothing more nothing less, exept they are poor and dont know nothing: hence easily manipulated like proletariat

Jul 9, 2008 - 7:08 pm 55. kabud:

Dan,
about bezmenov video: youtube has some audience comments

what he said is simple and known to anyone from USSR: we were taught this since 1 grade: world communist revolution will take place)))

it is exactly the same nazi propaganda worked
on people

problem is that this topic is TABU in the west because the main and utter most task for subvesive measures taken by soviets and still in place is:

to nuetralize western media on the subject of soviet subversion

we are brainwashed in USA by TV and radio including FOX, ABC, etc

Jul 9, 2008 - 7:12 pm 56. Nortius Maximus:

I know it isn’t the main thrust of the post but I still see that no one has cited Russia actually acknowledging (even through an unnamed source) pulling the trigger on Litvinenko, or even making the Polonium. This doesn’t mean they didn’t do it; it means they are probably stonefacing / stonewalling. This is far more typical as these sorts of things go, and that’s why I was surprised Wretchard claimed otherwise. I suspect Wretchard misread the attribution and thought an unnamed UK source was a Russian one.

Jul 9, 2008 - 7:19 pm 57. kabud:

to John Samford
about putin scared by Bush:
dont put your hopes that high:

what i heard from people in Moscow: today’s republicans are even better suitable for moscow strategy because they are easier drawn into straight forward conflicts in the hot places in the world and because right wing has lots of antisemitic sentiment still motivating them and because NO ONE WILL SUSPECT THAT REPUBLICANS ARE HELPING KREMLIN

it is a complicated subject, but let me suggest that you analyse:

who is ms RICE and what is it that she accomplished in the government

Jul 9, 2008 - 7:21 pm 58. kabud:

to Nortius Maximus

mr Goldfarb filed on Freedom of Information law a request to fed government to release all that is known to it about polonium case

i met Goldfarb once about 10 years ago he was working for Soros then

he works for berezovsky if that matter to you

Jul 9, 2008 - 7:24 pm 59. fred:

Kabud,

No offense, man, but I can tell you’ve never studied Islamic scriptures (Qur’an), traditions (ahadith), or the words and deeds of the Prophet (Sira). What I know about Islam is right from their own camp. Nothing to do with dizinformatzia. Muhammad beat Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, Ho Chi Mihn, and Pol Pot to the punch by 1,300 years.

Please do not misunderstand. We don’t underestimate the influence and power of the Communists, but right now they aren’t strong enough to stand on their own. They actually do need the jihadis to help destroy Western civilization.

I never said Muslims were not human beings. I did say that they are powerfully, religiously motivated to fight in the way of Allah. It is the denial of this in the West that is going to get a lot of us killed. The world is actually wider than Eastern Europe. But, you won’t be the first one to underestimate the power of the followers of Allah.

Iran is not susceptible to the MAD doctrine. Not when the appearance of the 12th Imam hangs in the balance…

Jul 9, 2008 - 7:25 pm 60. kabud:

Fred,
>They actually do need the jihadis to help destroy Western civilization.

100% on the point.

But let me suggest this angle:

if our leaders will demand from kremlin to stop terror war and will retaliate for acts of war against us IN DIRECTION OF KREMLIN interest:
the Islamic threat will gradually disappear

and this is what i would recommend on IRAN affair:
http://www.jrnyquist.com/media/Homayoun%20Interview.mp3

Jul 9, 2008 - 7:34 pm 61. cedarford:

Alexis – we should act as if Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent doesn’t exist. For that matter, we should act as if the present boundary between Afghanistan and Pakistan does not exist, instead regarding Pakistan’s internal boundary with the tribal regions to be Pakistan’s western frontier. Pakistan’s acquiescence to al-Qaeda’s control over the northwest frontier should be considered to be an abdication of legitimate claim over that territory.

Great if you happen to be a lawyer, but stupid if you don’t realize the military implication of cutting your only heavy supply line to Afghanistan, which goes through Pakistan. Violate Pak sovereignity, you just drain out your lifeblood to spite the enemy’s nose and would have to fight a major war with possible nuke use against a very good, battle-hardened military to reestablish your logistics.

Alexis – Al-Qaeda as already attacked us with the equivalent of tactical nuclear weapons against civilian targets; letting Pakistan deter us from attacking al-Qaeda is effectively letting Pakistan get away with murder.

I don’t think you know what you are talking about if you think the destruction of three buildings (inc WTC #7) is equivalent of the destruction of a 500T-10KT tactical nuke set off. It isn’t even as much as a modern heavy bomber could do, or what even 3 160mm howitzers do to a city in 1 hour of firing.

Nor is Pakistan not taking on 30 million armed Pashtuns to get 6 fugitives to hand over to American Jewish ACLU defense lawyers “effectively letting Pakistan get away with murder”. After all, the US has offered sanctuary or at least didn’t go after numerous terrorists that took refuge in the USA. Cuban exiles that blew up planes, African dictators who killed 100s of thousands came here on the run. We offered sanctuary to Chechens and Mujahadeen “freedom fighters”, and to hundreds of IRA terrorists.

sirius_sir – A half dozen thermonuclear devices smuggled into our cities could have as much or more effect. Such weapons could be employed for coercive, deterrent or retaliatory purpose, depending on circumstance and/or whim.

People who keep saying how easy it would be for another nation to conquer us and control us by “simply smuggling nukes in” forget that the US, Russia, and China all agreed that detection or use of such a nuclear strategy would trigger full thermonuclear war. This was called the 4th Protocol.
Rather than capitulate, we would call the bluff on someone claiming 4-5 nukes were ready to blow in America. If one or all went off, we have 290 million people instead of 300, while 70 million in Iran or 120 million in Pakistan, plus the nations themselves – would cease to exist. Because Geneva would cease to exist as a binding treaty, and simply giving devices to terrorists would not shield nations from eradication. Nor would lawyers be able to stop it.

Same thing on people who claim how “easy and simple” it would be to get a bunch of nukes into a country in wartime. Nope, all Borders would be sealed with Draftees if the threat was high enough from shut down universities, all air and sea cargo still allowed would go to remote inspecting stations, not cities. Indeed, that is the reason why ICBMs were invented in the 50s – low probability such stealth nukes would work and bombers less likely to work each year.

And any discussion of the direct threat Iran poses right now – vs. 5 years or more in the future – is not to America, but our NATO treaty partners, the global energy supply, and lastly to the country we have no treaty with or vital interests with – Israel.

Jul 9, 2008 - 8:08 pm 62. kabud:

cedarford

i like your comment on jewish lawers))

kinda showed your real face

about nukes on US soil:

if it gets to detonate them it is planed to do only AFTER our executive branch and military command will be destroyed if ever

if it gets to it:

it will lok like stateless terrorists did it:

china or kremlin will `come to the rescue` of course

global energy supply desruption will mean starvation to millions of 3rd world countries people, you mean THIS IS NOT OUR VITAL INTEREST?

shame on you cedarford

Jul 9, 2008 - 8:24 pm 63. fred:

kabud,

I see you are getting to know c-fudd as we’ve come to know him. Stick around awhile and have a go at him. By the way, his posts are incredibly looooonnnnnng and require at least some latent masochistic tendencies to get through them.

Jul 9, 2008 - 8:39 pm 64. kabud:

gy man,
fred

pajamas became influential, there gonna be more of agents provocateurs here i bet

for me it was one time reading of c-fudd experience

i had enough)))

logically he is not interested at all- there are plenty of garbage around us, but we kinda clean it and go with our business, right?

Jul 9, 2008 - 8:46 pm 65. Dave:

To ajacksonian: Thanks for the link to the piece on fantasy ideology. Extremely useful and thought-provoking.

It also explains why Christendom and Islam have such a divergence in their definition of martyrdom. To us, a martyr is one who refuses to submit to evil, regardless of consequences to self. As a corollary, a martyr often goes down swinging so that the women and children can be shielded or at least make their escape.

To them a martyr is required to kill the women and children not in spite of their being non-combatants but BECAUSE they are non-combatants.

Now the rest of youy guys apply yourselves and go back and read what you missed. This one looks plumb important.

Jul 9, 2008 - 9:13 pm 66. kabud:

martyr-dom fascination ,
let me be honest,-
is very infantile moment in western culture

it just shocks you and you kinda of think:
i would not dare!!!

yes you will, if you family and home is at threat

well, you may gain some advantage if you have kamikaze at your disposal,
but reality is:

it is like schizophrenia: kinda rare thing to rely upon

yes, you can rally people if their Country is at threat or their families are

but if it is fanaticism- it has seeds of the failure in it

Nazi Germany is a perfect example when fanatism worked but failed very fast

Jul 9, 2008 - 9:41 pm 67. Gary Rosen:

C-fudd, you’re still weaseling out, come on and give one of your patented “heart and courage” blowjobs to the Hezzie baby-killers. You know you want to, have some guts for a change. And while you’re at it, let’s have another round of “unlikable” Jews so we can roll on the floor laughing at it from someone who’s been booted off countless blogs for his sweaty, compulsive, hysterical antisemitism.

Jul 9, 2008 - 11:10 pm 68. dan:

Cedarford is an agent – ignore him.

Jul 10, 2008 - 4:42 am 69. cedarford:

Kabud – global energy supply desruption will mean starvation to millions of 3rd world countries people, you mean THIS IS NOT OUR VITAL INTEREST?
shame on you cedarford

Well, wouldn’t it be wonderful if millions of 3rd Worlders think they are going to die if Iran gets nukes, that they all join up in a coalition and provide substantial numbers of troops?
Because they failed to come through and only a few of the Euros provided significant, but very small numbers of forces for Afghanistan and Iraq. The US bore 95% of the casualties and nearly the same amount as a percentage of costs….and there is no way the American public will get the US in a 3rd War where only we sacrifice, out of some sense of noblisse oblige to a pack of singularly ungrateful 3rd Worlders, Euros, Commie or quasi-commie countries, and of course the “vast peaceful lands of Islam.”

That is, if Iran doesn’t attack.

But if we start it without a legitimate casus belli – a 2nd “preventative” ME War – and it isn’t in our direct vital interests, our NATO and Asian Treaty allies, and go in alone – there will be hell to pay not only internationally, but in likely impeachment and criminal prosecution of any that launched us in a 3rd War without a Congressional AUOF. Or they get sent right to the Hague as war criminals.

**************************
Of course, if there ever is a Iran War, it’s a pretty safe bet no member of the Gary Rosen family will venture into harm’s way. Nor his pals at LGF.

Nor will we get manipulated again by alarmist, incorrect info the neocons pushed with the idea that Iraq was to just be the start of regime changes. That would see the “anti-Islamofascism” coalition sweep through Syria, Lebanon, and Iran – after the Iraq “cakewalk” – making the ME safe for You Know Who – not costiing them a life or a shekel.

Jul 10, 2008 - 5:49 am 70. Joe Buzz:

casus belli courtesy of Merr-Web
Etymology:
New Latin, occasion of war
Date:
circa 1841

: an event or action that justifies or allegedly justifies a war or conflict

Yeah thats all we need. Lets start making a list….

Jul 10, 2008 - 7:46 am 71. Dave:

cedarford: Get sent to the Hague as war criminals? Exactly whom are you planning to send there? Americans?

Be informed that The Hague has absolutely no jurisdiction over Americans.

Be informed that any attempt to excercise such jurisdiction is a casus belli.

Be informed that I am under absolutely, positively NO ethical or moral requirements to respect the authority or life of any person or persons seeking to put American officials on trial in any non-American court.

Be informed that I, along with others, are well aware of how jurors can render “Not Guilty” verdicts in contravention of your
fantasies.

This is a free and independent federal republic sir and it shall so remain.

Now, do you accept these premises without hesitation or mental reservation or do you wish to go ahead and make my day?

Jul 10, 2008 - 9:00 am 72. Eggplant:

Dan said:

“Cedarford is an agent – ignore him.”

No, he’s just a common troll.

And once again folks, what’s Rule #1 concerning trolls?

Don’t feed them!

Jul 10, 2008 - 9:32 am 73. Eggplant:

Off topic:

I just saw an interesting article titled “Siphoning G.M.’s Future”, refer to:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/opinion/10lowenstein.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

Note that the article is from the New York Times so one should not have high expectations.. The article describes one of the main reasons for GM being uncompetitive is the high pensions it must payout to retired UAW workers. This is a familiar story, i.e. an initially huge company agreeing to a generous pension program that was forced upon it by a powerful union, slowly dies as the work force ages and retires.

Now again, this article comes from the MSM. Here’s the interesting quote:

“Walter Reuther, the [UAW] union’s captain, would have preferred that the government provide pensions and health care to all citizens. He urged the automakers to “go down to Washington and fight with us” for federal benefits…. The sorry decline of General Motors has proved Reuther right: the government is the better provider of social insurance. Let industry worry about selling products.”

The (apparent?) blindness of this MSM journalist amazes me. He is advocating that the same process (socialized medical insurace and pension plans) which is killing (or killed) America’s former greatest corporations should be implemented nation wide. I guess the crypto-Marxist attitude is: If it worked against General Motors then it’ll probably work against the U.S. government.

Jul 10, 2008 - 10:27 am 74. sirius_sir:

cedarford, in case I was not clear or I am misunderstanding intentional obtuseness for a tempermental contrariness, my comments regarding thermonuclear weapons relate to Iranian (or more specifically the ruling Iranian’s) desires and designs. I was merely pointing out that imbedding those weapons in cities might actually be more effective than sending them by ICBM. In any event, your comments regarding the so-called 4th Protocol and the triggering of a nuclear response may or may not have the deterrent effect you assume, given the influence of the 12th Imam in the equation.

But beyond that, let’s examine the psychology a bit further. Say a device goes off in Seattle with five more set to go. The demand is for our immediate exit from Iraq. Now, even given the current much improved situation in country, how do you suppose most U.S. citizens would react to the decision to trade those remaining cities for a continued military presence in Iraq? It goes without saying there would be much anger over losing Seattle, and that alone would/could/should be sufficient to provoke a response. But the wrong response will also lose you NYC, Chicago, Los Angeles, Denver, and Atlanta. In that situation, I’d hate to be the one to tell the American people we’re staying in Iraq and “Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.”

Jul 10, 2008 - 10:30 am 75. sirius_sir:

In case anyone is still reading the thread, I’ll posit the Iranian display is actually a sign of weakness, meant as much for internal consumption as for an external threat/warning. The ruling mullahs perhaps fear an internal coup and this is their way of appearing strong and discouraging their citizens from transforming thoughts to actions.

Of course it is also meant to buy time for their nuclear program, and there are already too many talking about talking more because, obviously, we haven’t already talked enough.

But time is short and getting shorter, and this adversary seems more inclined to action than talk.

Yesterday, I wondered who else beyond Israel and the U.S. might feel threatened by this display of belligerance. I noted, somewhat obliquely, that Paris is considerably closer to the danger zone than is Washington. Maybe the French will notice before it’s too late. But they haven’t seemed to notice that Hezbollah has targeted Israel with a reported 40,000 rockets in direct violation of a mandate they were entrusted to enforce and uphold.

My hope is that a sense of honor and self-preservation will overtake them and us (and yes, the Israelis) before it’s too late. A concerted and simultaneous effort against Hezbollah and the Iranian ruling mullahs would be messy but essential to preventing much messier business later.

Jul 10, 2008 - 10:50 am 76. DanMyers:

All,

Cedarford has been posting on Belmont for YEARS. He is NOT a troll, but a differing viewpoint who has stuck with his meme. He is rarely in agreement with the majority of posters and (in my opinion)a welcome counterpoint to the typical poster here at Belmont..

Now, having said that….

Cedarford,

With your constant Pat Buchanan-like responses, I may partially agree with Dan.. You aren’t an agent though… You ARE Pat Buchanan.. Admit it…

Jul 10, 2008 - 10:51 am 77. Snowflakes in Hell » Missile Shields and Deterrence:

[...] Excellent post over at The Belmont Club today on missile defense and deterrence.  Well worth a read. [...]

Jul 10, 2008 - 11:28 am 78. kabud:

Pat Buchanan is a very stupid man spreading very stupid ideas on races

ideas that are the most defeatist they could be

my close associated met him and talked to him- and he thinks different

but he never convinced me

a friend of mine is a very kind person of high tolerance to idiots

i am not. i prefer to kick a fool in the head with my foot.)) thanks God i know how to do it))

there is some usefullness in Buchanan though:

he makes it sipmle for a simple man to understand that The West is under attack

But it is not a complicated concept

There is much more damage done by Buchanan:

his position is very helpful to kremlin

well, i dont give any argument here, hoping that this audience does not need it.

Jul 10, 2008 - 11:41 am 79. RWE:

Dave: The Lee Harris piece on fantasy ideology is indeed fascinating, and it led me to read his book that was inspired by the favorable response to that article, entitled Civilization and Its Enemies.

Unfortunately the book did not sustain the unique insight presented by that article. In fact, after a long and interesting journey from the beginnings of civilization, he ends up more or less saying that the Nazis and other fascists of WWII had their own fantasy ideologies. So, I see no reason to treat the Islamic Fascists any differently.

In any case, read the book if you wish, but don’t expect anything that expands usefully beyond the article.

Jul 10, 2008 - 11:54 am 80. Kirk Parker:

kabud, fred, and dan,

Nice to see others joining in the C4-as-an-agent-provocateur meme.

Jul 10, 2008 - 1:11 pm 81. Kirk Parker:

sirius_sir,

I don’t think think the suggestion is that we would respond to such an attack only by saying “press on”.

Jul 10, 2008 - 1:13 pm 82. Kirk Parker:

sirius_sir,

“I’ll posit the Iranian display is actually a sign of weakness”

I’ll definitely concur, provided you aren’t also saying that “weakness” implies “harmless”.

Jul 10, 2008 - 1:16 pm 83. Kirk Parker:

Oops, got so interested in the follow-up comments that I forgot my original jest:

“The fact that some elements may appear to be potentially out of control can be beneficial to creating and reinforcing fears and doubts in the minds of an adversary’s decision makers… That the US may become irrational and vindictive if its vital interests are attacked should be part of the national persona we project to all adversaries.”

Oh my gosh! All this time I’ve thought Frank J. was just a crazy amateur humorist. Who know he was reading US Strategic Command internal documents for source material??!?

Jul 10, 2008 - 1:33 pm 84. sirius_sir:

KP, quite the contrary on both counts. We should respond now to forestall an untenable position later. As to Iranian weakness, substitute craziness and any implication or assumption of harmlessness disappears.

Of course, that sword cuts both ways.

Jul 10, 2008 - 1:59 pm 85. John Samford:

“moscow strategy because they are easier drawn into straight forward conflicts in the hot places in the world ”

A strategy that will back fire as long as we (the USA) keeps winning those conflicts.

Russia has lots of OIL so they are feeling strong. The USA has more OIL that any other nation in the world. Our OIL is just not in liquid form, so it’s expensive to process. It’s still there though and as long as the environmentalists have BOTH political parties by the balls it will stay there.
Politicians being politicians, eventually one will be desperate enough to promise to drill and mine if elected. They will win in a landslide and the USA will set about controlling the Worlds OIL supply, or at least the bulk of it.
That will put a hitch in the get along of our Arab buddies as well as the Russians. America could set a base price of 60$US pb and put the screws to the Arabs. Not that the Arabs wouldn’t sell theirs too, but they would have to meet or beat our price. The issue about OIL is it’s price, not any mythical shortages or artificial supply and demand scenarios.

Jul 10, 2008 - 2:26 pm 86. Eggplant:

John Samford said:

“Russia has lots of OIL so they are feeling strong. The USA has more OIL that any other nation in the world. Our OIL is just not in liquid form, so it’s expensive to process.”

I presume you’re talking about our vast coal deposits?

Jul 10, 2008 - 2:32 pm 87. Deterrence « The View from Alexandria:

[...] 10, 2008 by philo Richard Fernandez reflects on the nature of deterrence. It’s crucial, he observes, to create uncertainty in the [...]

Jul 10, 2008 - 3:33 pm 88. Russia Objects To US-Czech Shield: Iran Flexes It’s Missiles « Evynn’s Weblog:

[...] clipped from pajamasmedia.com [...]

Jul 10, 2008 - 6:43 pm 89. Gary Rosen:

“if there ever is a Iran War, it’s a pretty safe bet no member of the Gary Rosen family will venture into harm’s way”

It is true that I have never been in the US armed forces. But my father was in the Army for four years during WWII, and my brother volunteered for the marines at the height of the Vietnam War, staying on for 10 years of active duty and 10 years in the Reserves.

It’s such a damned shame, C-fudd – you almost had me. If you had just said “Gary Rosen won’t …” I couldn’t have said much since I’m too old for the military now. But like your idol Pat Buchanan who couldn’t keep himself from Jew-baiting a 9-year-old boy your antisemitic personality disorder means you have less self-control than a junkie crawling through the gutter for a fix of cheap heroin. As always, you expose yourself as a liar and a classic antisemitic misfuck and loser. Keep ‘em coming, Fudd, I love it. I’m sure though that you’ll be “reporting for duty” as long as you get to smash the heads of little Jewish girls with your Hezbollah JO buddies.

Jul 10, 2008 - 11:13 pm 90. Ammo Guy:

What I loved about the Commies was their atheism – I always figured that if you don’t believe in an afterlife, you’d be less likely to do anything that would end your current existence prematurely. OTOH, those motivated by promise of a glorious afterlife, replete with the requisite number of undefiled maidens, have always scared the crap outa me since they were in a hurry to leave this earthly plane…taking me along with them. Sometimes I kinda miss the good old days of MADness.

Jul 11, 2008 - 9:30 am 91. Tony:

Wretchard wrote: “For the Iranians, with their much smaller (potential) arsenal, a missile defense is much more serious because it nullifies the end result of what they have been working toward.”

The Israelis just announced this week that their Iron Dome, a short-range missile interceptor,is operational. They’ve had our Patriot PAC-3 and their upgraded Arrow fielded for several years.

Obviously, the Iranians are aware of these systems. But perhaps they are like American Democrats, and refuse to believe they actually work?

Perhaps a stealthy psy-op in the form of a pamphlet drop over Tehran would be helpful. They could just say “Shalom” in Farsi on one side and Hebrew on the other.

Jul 11, 2008 - 3:26 pm 92. kabud:

John Samford:
i wish we win, but in reality
we are not wining, we lose((

we lost eastern europe, we lost Caspian region
we lost Iran in 1979 and so far it is not coming back
we lost afganistan
we lost Africa
we lost almost all latin america
we lost western europe effectively
we are about to be attacked at home again
well, our economy is under attack rioght now and our politics is in crisis in choice between 2 evils

this is basic reading on important subjects if you want to overcome wishful thinking:

http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/douglass/2004/0330.html
http://www.jrnyquist.com/cibulka_2004_0816.htm

this is what i think personaly:
http://xyu.livejournal.com/650192.html

Jul 11, 2008 - 9:14 pm 93. NahnCee:

kabud, you really need to define “lost”. All the areas you mention merely reverted back to the barbarism they had momentarily peeked out of. I do not see that it is either America’s duty to lend a helping hand to every single barbarian on the planet to help them into democracy or the western way of life, and equally, I do not consider America to have “lost” them if they slide back into their own form of barbarism and proceed with a life of honor killings like they have been doing for millenia.

Really, you *must* allow these citizens of other countries some responsiblity for their own lives and deeds, and not try to guilt-trip America into racing to save everyone, simply because we have not been able to lead Russia and *its* heathens into the light.

Russia is “lost” also, according to your lights, but it will suffer a longer and slower death from alcoholism, low birth rates, and AIDS, I think, no matter how much oil is discovered, nor how many old rusty nukes Putin sells to 4th rate dictators.

We do, of course, have the option of simply killing them all every time a country such as you list is “lost” (whatever that is), but that seems like such a fruitless and pathetic pursuit. We Americans think that simply by being, the rest of the world will look at us and want to be us … that all we have to do is live life, protect our liberty and pursue our happiness and by being a role model, we will convince others to help themselves out of their own quagmires. It just seems so pushy to be expected not to “lose” them, you know?

Jul 11, 2008 - 11:26 pm 94. kabud:

NahnCee
it is rather complicated to answer in 2 words. But unfortunately you have lots of wishful thinking(((
i will detail it tomorrow
so far may i suggest this
http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/geo/pastanalysis/main.html

Jul 12, 2008 - 12:33 am 95. NahnCee:

kabud – Russia is not the bellybutton of the universe. And I will resist unto death your efforts to convince me that all bad things stem from Moscow. They’re just simply not that powerful or important any more. More like a burr under the saddle than the horse, the rider, or even the saddle.

And besides that, they cheat. Any time a person or a counry has to resort to cheating, it indicates softness and weakness. Watch Russian performance at an Olympics competition and get a very good idea of their whole national malaise.

Jul 12, 2008 - 9:48 am 96. kabud:

NahnCee

even your wording is disturbing. You use `cute expressions` like
“bellybutton of the universe” which have NO MEANING and provide no understanding

So for you the history of 20th century and mass killings done by communists in the USSR, the WWII instigated by kremlin, wars in Indochina, Africa – is nothing. You cant get out of glib phrases
about “the saddle than the horse, the rider, or even the saddle.”

Well, cheating principal, when i reached THAT in your posting-
i decided to give up. It is sad that your ignorance and brainwashed state is a massive disease and will gradually lead to your own personal and of this society premature death

Jul 12, 2008 - 10:37 am 97. kabud:

Ammo Guy:

the good old days effectively ended in 1917

since then the forces that aim to destroy everything that you call “good and old” are growing in strength and successfully gain more and more ground. And of course they kill unnecessary people. And we are on their list.

We lost cold war. We lat our enemy gain enourmous strength without even acknowledging WHAT HAPPENED. Exactly like our enemy planed.

We let them successfully test ON OUR TERRITORY their new weapon known among fools as `islamic radicalism` and even more successfully test a biological attack which will be most likely the weapon of choice to kill , well, they rather plan EXTERMINATION, but we hope it will be limited at 100 million Americans only.

So your AMMO attitude may come handy.

Jul 12, 2008 - 11:18 am 98. Teresita:

Sirius_Sir: I’ll posit the Iranian display is actually a sign of weakness, meant as much for internal consumption as for an external threat/warning.

It’s not like the Iranians just decided to conduct two tests in a vacuum with no provocation to trigger it. So I’ll posit the Israeli air power exercise, and the joint US-Israeli operations over Iraq are a signs of weakness as well, with Olmert being cornered with his fraud allegations, and McCain confronted by an election season dominated by bread-and-butter issues with no scary foreign policy thing to wave in the face of voters.

Jul 12, 2008 - 11:51 am 99. NahnCee:

kabud – yeah. right.

whatever.

Tell ya what — I’ll agree to ignore you as being worthless, too, how ’bout that?

(I said “bellybutton” because I had a momentary brain lapse and couldn’t remember if it was “navel” or “naval” and didn’t feel like the discussion was worth taking the time to look it up. You got something against bellybuttons, which I think is a perfectly good allegory about your obsessive/compulsive desire to focus only upon Russia and its history.

Never mind — don’t answer that question. Set “ignore future pomposity” on now.)

Jul 12, 2008 - 2:38 pm 100. kabud:

no, you just degrading the discourse toward the simplicity which never provides understanding

this is exact the cultural thi ng that subversion created

it was PLANED to introduce this attitude and you bought it

a nation bought it!!!

it is worth then drugging or alcoholization it was done in the eastern eorope

Jul 12, 2008 - 4:47 pm 101. Zenster:

This is perhaps the grossest error of those who make arguments that the new multilateral threats are “undeterrable” because the new regional actors are not likely to be rational.

All rationality (or not) aside, all deterrence aside, there is little further trouble coming from a plain of hot, smoking glass. This is the bottom line in terms of all “strategic inferiors”. Even the slightest malicious act may be your last.

It may be an exaggeration to claim that a missile defense will have the effect of disarming the Kremlin of any viable military response between issuing a diplomatic protest and starting Armaggedon but it is quite clear it threatens to invalidate a large range of the “full spectrum” responses now available to the Russians.

One might expect Russia to take pause at the notion of building an even larger nuclear arsenal. Russia’s frail military infrastructure nowhere near adequately guarantees that one of their own devices might not be stolen and used against them.

Narrowing what would otherwise be a “full spectrum” of response may well be one of the best messages to send the Russians. Either they learn to be a productive member of the world community or find that their insufficient military is nothing more than a liability.

With a half dozen missiles at the ready the Ayatollahs could be reasonably sure that, short of an actual nuclear attack on an American city, Washington might not dare take disproportionate action. In other words, the uncertainty which forms the kernel of American deterrence would be effectively undermined.

Which neatly summarizes why Iran’s nuclear aspirations must be strangled in the cradle.

Deterrence is above all a psychological game. The Essentials of Post-Cold War Deterrence reminds us that the vast expenditures of the Cold War — and today — go towards the purchase of uncertainty in the enemy’s mind.

Yet one more reason why America’s interests in fighting global terrorism might have been better served by a display of massively disproportionate retaliation much earlir in our efforts to militarily engage Islam. Nothing quite rattles an enemy’s resolve like having the moldering corpse of a confederate in the same room with them.

ajacksonian:: The strongest weapon against Iran is undermining their ideology by demonstrating it to be ineffective in dealing with everyday life and showing how personal liberty can lead to a better life with freedom.

Now when I start seeing educational institutions, religious institutions willing to teach secualr subjects, and US foreign policy based on those things, that will make an extremely credible threat in the one place that will harm Iran the most: Iraq.

The exact problem being that the American government’s wholesale subscription to Multiculturalism has badly choked the exact mission you suggest. That shari’a law once again reigns in Afghanistan and Iraq has defeated a huge number of the valid objectives you state. Critical components of a health society like transparency, juridical integrity and benevolent law enforcement all suffer under the corrupt superstructure of shari’a law.

RWE: I think we now have an entire class of people who think that talking is the answer to everything.

Just as with how when your only toll is a hammer everything starts looking like a nail: All the liberals have is dialogue, so that everything appears to them as being negotiable. The delusional part is when they try to negotiate with Islam, whose objectives are non-negotiable. This is root and branch of the total psychological disconnect by the Left with respect to fighting Islam and terrorism.

John Samford: Stain was the most rational leader of the 20th century. I offer as evidence his longevity as the ruler of the Largest nation of the 20th century.
Anyone that doubts how rational Stalin was is using the wrong metric.

If you consider the murder of countless innocent people, incessant paranoia driven purges and imposed starvation to be “rational” forms of administration, then I suppose you could call Stalin rational. The man was a cold-blooded psychopath and little else. Your metrics are the ones that need retooling.

dan: By the way, since the topic of Russia has been raised, I wish we could get Wretchard or some other reputable commentator to comment on Yuri Bezmenov’s video.

I heartily second that motion. For those who are still unfamiliar with this important clip, here is a link to Yuri Bezmenov’s video.

A general discussion of The Communist Agenda and its far reaching implications with respect to America’s current political turmoil would go a long way towards clarifying the pervasive murk that roils our country’s stability.

Jul 12, 2008 - 8:03 pm 102. kabud:

Dan: you hit the bull eye!

Zenster:

One might expect Russia to take pause at the notion of building an even larger nuclear arsenal. Russia’s frail military infrastructure nowhere near adequately guarantees that one of their own devices might not be stolen and used against them.

it is a bad habit to call identify the Country of Russia with criminal gang in kremlin. Will lead to even more alienating of PEOPLE from us. And also it shows total lack of understanding of what is going on there on you part.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE to steal nukes in Russia. The level of security is UNBELIEVABLE. If something `gets stolen` it was designed to be TRANSFERED.

And on the military infrastructure:

kremlin maintains a very big special forces in numbers and they are extremely well paid and trained. It is in the numbers of hundred thousands troopers. They are also used to suppress internal decent.

There are underground bunkers build and remodeled, there are at least 50 thousand tanks, may be not very modern, but

DOES THE WESTERN EUROPE HAVE ADCOURAGE TO USE ANY FORCE IF SOVIET TANKS WILL ARRIVE IN EUROPEAN CITIES? I doubt there going to be ANY resistance AT ALL.

Narrowing what would otherwise be a “full spectrum” of response may well be one of the best messages to send the Russians. Either they learn to be a productive member of the world community or find that their insufficient military is nothing more than a liability.

Message sending NEVER works with gangsters and never worked. The only way WEST can survive is by actual change of REGIME in Moscow. There are things to be undertaken to do it:

1.it is a support of opposition to criminal regime

2.there is a way to limit kremlin nuclear capability: cut strategic metals supply to them.
They get uranium and zirconium from outside, from Ukraine mainly. That is the exact reason Ukrainian President was poisoned in 2004: he is married to american!!!

3.Since kremlin already DID oerform hostile acts towards our interest and Homeland: on 9-11, in Israel, and Lebanon, in Iran, around Georgia:

it is time to act NOT TO SEND MESSAGES. We have to seriously consider asymmetrical retaliation. This is a long story: what exactly to do, but it is clear from above in what direction it should go.

Yet one more reason why America’s interests in fighting global terrorism might have been better served by a display of massively disproportionate retaliation much earlier in our efforts to militarily engage Islam.

NOT DISPLAY: we have to take actions like ..yesterday. Wide actions, including total embargo on ANY trade with kremlin and Beijing and their allies; including imidiate switch away from oil and natural gas based economy done in several months.

Otherwise we will have to deal with WMD on our territory in a very near future. It will mean the end of USA and it is planned by communists.

and again Islamic threat is just instrumental in kremlin war against us

Jul 13, 2008 - 9:52 am 103. Steve Nelson:

When it comes to Russia, some of the folks on here are just plain nuts.

And as far as Russia’s Mideast policy goes, sure, up until recently, I think there was some “here’s some toys Iran, go play” mischief making going on. It is very clear from the historic documents that Brezhnev was playing that game in the 1970s by providing massive Soviet armaments for the Yom Kippur War – the payoff from higher world oil prices due to the Arab embargo paid back the Soviets a thousandfold on the cost of their arms in hard currency. But at the ideological level, besides sucking up to the Muslim world to keep their own Islamic populations in check, the Russians could care less about the Arab-Israeli conflict or “pushing the U.S.’s only ally out of the Middle East”. Jordan, Kurdistan and the Gulf Arab states to varying degrees are U.S. allies though not vassals, they are not selling the U.S. cheap oil anymore. When the Russians look at Iran, they mainly see just a business opportunity and a state they would rather not have sponsoring terrorism or collapsing near their borders, nothing more. Certainly not an ally.

As for Dan’s comments, while Ukrainians suffered briefly (for one day), I have no sympathies for the Ukrainian government which put them in that position by expecting cheap, subsidized Russian gas indefinitely.

And why are so many people here totally convinced that a non-state actor could not obtain a few hundred grams of polonium? The late Forbes journalist Paul Klebnikov thought Berezovsky capable of murder, so why wouldn’t he be capable of killing his own employee if he felt it would substantially decrease the likelihood of him being deported from the UK back to Russia to face the corruption charges he fled in 2000?

Jul 17, 2008 - 10:04 am 104. Rachel Peepers:

Hi,
The news coming out lately about Iran is scary. To top it off, John McCain keeps joking about what he calls “Senator Obama’s unbelievably naive idea to unilaterally destroy the United States arsenal of nuclear weapons while making terrorists pledge never to use rogue nuclear weapons. And we all remember McCain infamous habit of chiding his North Vietnameze captors by humming “The National Anthem” during torture sesssions.
War is not a joke. The truth is that the Bush-McCain policy to maintain a strong military while facing down 9/11 type terrorism just doesn’t work–it just makes things worse. We need what Senator Obama is famous for: tough talk, not the fool’s view that the U.S. can actually win a war, much less the war in Iraq.
I just signed this petition urging Congress to end the surge and begin bringing all our troops home, regardless of what the Generals on the ground say. We all know that most of them see war as a way to get promoted. I, Barack Obama, demand that President Bush get Congressional authorization to protect our country and its freedoms as he has pledged to do: Start destroying the United States arsenal of nuclear weapons. And to halt development of the defense shield that would protect the U.S. against nuclear weapons launched by terrorists or hostile countries, making our children safe.
Rachel Peepers
6556 Snake Trail Road
Charleston, IL61920

Jul 17, 2008 - 10:11 am 105. kabud:

you gonna die very soon if this happens EVER:

I, Barack Obama, demand that President Bush get Congressional authorization to protect our country and its freedoms as he has pledged to do: Start destroying the United States arsenal of nuclear weapons. And to halt development of the defense shield that would protect the U.S. against nuclear weapons launched by terrorists or hostile countries, making our children safe.

but i am not sure you are real

You Rachel Peepers and Steve Nelson: both of you are fakes, you work for KGB

the other possibility is your shear stupidity, which is even more dangerous

Jul 18, 2008 - 11:09 am

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.