Nuclear Weapons: Back in the Headlines
Of all the reasons to be horrified by the developments in U.S. politics, a critically important one is summed up in the petition put forth below. This was an issue in the election campaign, but unfortunately, it didn’t win the day; 61 million people didn’t have a problem with the idea of a sociopath having the sole power to destroy our civilization.
Craig, Rep. Ted Lieu and Sen. Ed Markey, have proposed urgent legislation to prohibit the U.S. President from launching nuclear missiles without a declaration of war by Congress — which Donald Trump can currently do if he feels so inclined. As President Richard Nixon observed in 1974, “I can go back into my office and pick up the telephone and in 25 minutes 70 million people will be dead.” Nixon shouldn’t have had such power and neither should the current supremacist-in-chief.
Sign the petition in support of the Lieu – Markey bill. The world is ours to protect.
Craig,
What Rep. Ted Lieu and Sen. Ed Markey are proposing, means the end of US defense capacity and possibly the end of the USA.
The US Congress could take weeks, months, even years, to declare war, during which an enemy would have a complete advantage.
The MAD doctrine has kept the world, if not safe, at least locked into a stalemate for 70 years. The policy of Mutually Assured Destruction has prevented a World War 3, and while not ideal, it has worked well for the West since conflicts became largely economic.
Although Beijing has more than trebled the number of nuclear warheads capable of reaching the U.S., it’s main focus is on the old enemy, Russia.
The really terrifying threat of nuclear weapons is not large established nuclear powers, but from small rogue states and even small groups of terrorists armed with WMD.
Ignoring the new Presidents irritating habit of announcing policies by tweets, it’s true the US nuclear arsenal needs updating and replacing.
It’s understandable that in an era where the old USSR no longer exists, and the PRC is not yet a creditable threat, expenditure on an expensive weapons system that can’t be used without ending life as we know it, must seem unnecessary.
Unfortunately, it’s the old case of if my enemy has a weapon, I must have a better weapon as a “deterrent”.
Personally I believe all this rhetoric is simply to sound tough, please the mob, while creating employment and economic activity in one of America’s last remaining domestic heavy industries, the defense sector.
The obsession of a threat from Russia is a delusion by both the right and left of politics who seem to desperately need bogymen.
Russia is now a very second rate and fairly isolated power, with very limited capacity (apart from nuclear). Russia lacks any global ambitions, it’s conflicts are limited to border disputes involving concentrations of Russian minorities cut off due to Soviet era borders.
Despite all the recent sabre rattling, the PRC lacks the economic incentive, allies, or resources to indulge in large scale warfare.
So why spend so much money on US defense ?
IMHO, US Presidents are locked into military spending partly because of electoral demand, party because of economic considerations, but mostly because as “top dog’, the US feels the pressure to remain “Awesome”.
As for any worry about Donald Trump starting a nuclear war, that’s pretty far fetched. No Nuclear war is “winnable”. The President loves his family and has more to lose than most politicians.
Guy’s like Trump don’t want Armageddon or ‘Götterdämmerung’, it would eliminate their audiences. It’s lonely, introverted ideologues, and religious fanatics who would bring about a “Twilight of the Gods”.
All good points, but, IMO, you overestimate the emotional maturity, self-control, and overall sanity of Donald Trump. There must be some sort of compromise here, perhaps the unanimous opinion of the president and two other top military people.
Craig,
Donald Trump is far saner and in possession of better judgment than FDR in the last year of his life.
You may not like his style or annoying tweets, but I think your judgement has become a little unbalanced.
Donald Trump may be a brash sort of New Yorker, but he exercises a lot more personal control than many revered Presidents.He neither drinks, gambles or smokes by personal choice. Considering the company he keeps, that’s quite an achievement.
Even Presidential greats, had personal problems, JFK, Bill Clinton, Nixon, The last year of FDR life was marred by his personality change, Andrew Jackson was bat shit-crazy, Ulysses S Grant was a corrupt, functioning alcoholic. Warren Harding’s administration was riddled with corruption, bribery and general ineptness, while he was a drug using philander.
In contrast, Donald ain’t so bad.
Trump is very hard working, with an ability to focus on the main issue and not get sidetracked. For an egotist, he’s remarkably flexible and adaptive. He’s a quick learner, ruthless when he needs to be, but quick to cut his losses when dealt a losing hand.
Most of his bluster is very calculated, when it becomes ineffective, he switches to charm and self-deprecation. Essentially, he prides himself on being a negotiator.
But Trump has prove himself over the years to be a shrewd, disciplined,knowledgeable investor and speculator on the stock exchange. He enjoys a very enviable track record.
Like Reagan, Trump enjoys being underestimated. What critics to perceive to be a thin skin, is largely an act to disguise a cunning and crafty manipulator.
Those close to him, say he’s warm, humorous caring and sensitive to the members of his inner circle.
However, you make a good point, the framers of the Constitution could never have foreseen the protocol for nuclear war.
In the case of an attack on the US, fail-safe kicks in without the President and launches retaliation automatically. (that’s why it’s called MAD).
The problem is one of timing, there may only be minutes to order a first strike, that would require a quick decision by one individual.
“Guy’s like Trump don’t want Armageddon or ‘Götterdämmerung’, it would eliminate their audiences.” The rational here seems to assume a degree of literacy, some awareness of historical context and a demonstrated ability to proceed from clear facts to a conclusion along with paradoxically a narcissistic perspective.
Because this is what is being called into question in the original post the reasoning seems a bit circuitous.
The idea of hamstringing the presidential powers is typical legislative zealousness. It is reactionary rather demonstrating any foresight. It could easily be construed as a power grab by congress. What about some other president or some other circumstance. North Carolina recently tried to do something similar with its chief executive and the courts did not approve.
If there is a question of the capacity of the officeholder then it is with a specific person in a specific circumstance. And that is in a perfect world how any remedy should be directed.
But I am not entirely sure that in an imperfect world the appropriate solution is imperfect legislation. Congress has other remedies which are just as likely to be passed as this legislation.
The more nukes there are the greater the odds that one will fall into the wrong hands, have an accident, or be used.
Trump wants to build more and have an arms race.
That money will make us less secure and could be used to make a more secure world.
Every leader and probably every person should have to watch the Hiroshima documentaries, and then be told how much more powerfull todays weapons are.
We don’t need to be making a first strike.
Trump wanted to know why he couldn’t use a nuke.
Enough said. Wake up.
Bar,
It’s good to hear a traditional old fashioned post, using an argument the could have been lifted straight from the 1950’s “Ban the Bomb” movement.
It’s true the invention of nuclear weapons always represented the height of human recklessness when developing technology.
It’s also truly frightening to think that Adolf Hitler came close to acquiring nuclear technology.
But the problem with the “Ban the Bomb” movement, was and always will be, it demands only one side lay down it’s arms.
The original Ban the Bomb movement was communist inspired and used as a method to advance the interests of international communist expansion. It disappeared with time and funding from the USSR.
Like most of President Trumps proposals, the desire for a newer and better nuclear arsenal, is really only presenting a long over due modernization as a Presidential accomplishment.
In reality, it’s just a shrewdly hyped announcement.
The question of the sanity of the president has repeatedly come up in the last two months. Here is a brief video on that subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0kmi2ZGVkk
Just to be sure Mike Pence is also aware of these concerns and that has constitutional ramifications: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PgBTFlbEio
And for a crazy scenario from the other side: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srkprvwKdrg
Breath,
The question of President trump’s sanity will continue to vex those people who just can’t accept he got elected and they got it so wrong.
The UK conservatives were very shrewd and consolidated the Brexit victory by replacing the outgoing leader with a Prime Minister whose inclusive style allowed the retention of populist leaders in positions of influence within the party and cabinet.
By this method the conservatives retained conservative voters who otherwise may have been attracted to populist and more extreme movements. By creating a ‘broad church’, the Tories have managed to give the disenchanted a voice with the conservatives. A more effective voice than with small splinter groups.
For once, this was not the result of discipline from a “great leader”, but sane and realistic attitude from ambitious senior conservatives, who were shocked by the fall of the popular and sincere David Cameron.
Conservative politicians (well, all politicians) aren’t usually very good at self restraint and the discipline required for collective leadership. No doubt it will breakdown eventually, but while it lasts, the UK is experiencing an period of unprecedented political stability and administrative progress.
The defeat for the left by a sitting government in the recent Copeland by-election is evidence of how the conservative’s new inclusive policy works.
Copeland is in the leftist heartland. It’s been held by socialist candidates since 1935, always with strong majorities. That all ended in February as voters rejected the Labour candidate in favour of a Conservative by a substantial majority.
The electorate also rejected challenges by populist right wing parties, confirming the power of populist Tories to attract voters away from populist splinter parties.
As I prepare to leave the UK for Australia I was intrigued by the release of a new study from the Adam Smith Institute about the preponderance of leftists among University lecturers. My first thought was to dismiss this as a “is the Pope a Catholic” news item, but something new caught my attention,
“1964, 35 per cent of academics supported the Conservative Party. Today, that figure is only 11 per cent. Forty-six per cent support Labour, and 77 per cent support parties (including Labour) of the Left. A separate poll of university staff last June showed that 89 per cent would vote Remain in the EU referendum. The once-mixed garden of academia has become almost a monoculture.”
Although the findings of study by a libertarian organization is always questionable the lack of opposition to the study by leftist counter-parts would seem to confirm it’s hypothesis.
If study is correct, it reveals how out touch, irrelevant and divisive the elitist left have become.
How this effects the voting intentions of student graduates 10 years after leaving university is currently the subject of no less are no less than five studies from diverse institutions.
These studies will focus on analyzing what, if any, effect the political bias of tertiary influence has on graduates, and what category of graduate is more susceptible.
The argument that this is all part of an inevitable widening divide in society is worthy of further study.
We live in interesting times.
Marco I have been watching with some interest the present UK discussion in government airing objections to receiving a state visit from President Trump.
Hi Breath,
I think you are confusing the rantings of a few opposition MP’s with the UK government. Government government MP’s currently out number Labour 331 to 228. Decisions of this nature in the Westminster system, are decided purely by Cabinet. The Cabinet is united in inviting the US President.
The UK government issues the invitation for a State Visit by the Head of State, it doesn’t require parliamentary consent. (It does need the formality of Royal consent).
The wide-ranging attack by Labour MP Paul Flynn describing President Trump’s intellect as “protozoan”, displays even less diplomatic skill than Trump himself.
Although this will undoubtedly be an excuse for the usual gang of Socialist left, anarchists,professional demonstrators, and cranks of all descriptions to take to the streets to annoy the public, waste taxpayer money and generally annoy law enforcement, it hoped the protest will be peaceful.
I have my doubts. With the fortunes of leftist parties at historical lows, hard-line activists will be agitating a maximum of violence. Angrily demonstrating their civil rights by smashing windows, committing arson and destroying the property of ordinary folk.
Why they believe the US President would care what some ranting demonstrator failed undergraduate from Essex University thinks when setting fire to some unfortunate family’s small hatchback, is beyond comprehension, but it’s all part of a rich history of self-delusion.
99% of the British people will treat the US President to respect owning to the US Head of State. Even those who don’t share the US President’s political opinions, respect the US people, and for their sake will be hospitable to the US President.
I think many UK citizens will be intrigued to know how Trump behaves and relates to his UK counterparts now he’s President.
A small, violent, noisy, self-opinionted rabble may make good TV and news stories, but they don’t represent the people of the UK, only themselves, and their failed aspirations.
Oh Marco, I think you are confusing my “interest” in the conversation with either an “opinion,” or a recognition of some “authority.” Rather, I also seem to enjoy your recounting of the events. “Protozoan” seems like an intellectual adjective only the British could create.
My only concern is that this may grow to somewhat of a “sadistic” enjoyment.
Breath,
” Oh Marco, I think you are confusing my “interest” in the conversation with either an “opinion,” or a recognition of some “authority ”
No, not at all ! But it’s often a common mistake made in foreign media to misinterpret remarks made in Parliament as attributable to government policy.