Your comment brings to mind one of Art Buchwald's satire columns in the late 60's, when he proposed a novel method of testing the accuracy of our ICBM's by putting all the skeptics on a raft in the Indian Ocean and shooting at it -- if the senator's assessment were indeed correct, they would miss by a mile.
A concerned reader in Pakistan wrote a letter to the editor of WaPo explaining his objection to such a scheme, as it would needlessly endanger millions of people in South Asia. When informed that Buchwald's was a humor column, he replied, rather sniffily, that such things as nuclear bombs should not be joked about. I thought the whole situation was terribly amusing at the time, but now I think he was roight.
To some extent at least, deterrence is a built-in feature of nuclear weapons. Even if there are no specific statements on the record, the side contemplating their use cannot be sure that a response in kind would not follow. It may even be that such uncertainty is preferable to specific statements of policy, which may be thought to lack credibility.
That’s why my suggested warning to V. Putin is not specific: Let him wonder about the details. For after all, there exist today some pretty destructive non-nuclear military options not previously available. Great pain could be inflicted on Russia without resorting to the Bomb.
One other point. I have a sense that if Putin did order a nuclear strike or demonstration, that could precipitate him and his regime into a terminal crisis. And he itself may fear this. However that may be, I think we can safely assume that his decision to make war on Ukraine and its disastrous results have weakened his position. It may seem paradoxical, but his resort to nuclear threats signifies that weakness.
Poe's Law: Without a clear indicator of the author's intent, every parody of extreme views can be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of the views being parodied.
I was sitting in the early morning at the Molokai airport in January 2018. Then came over my phone, and the phones of others, an alert was broadcast warning of inbound ballistic missile. It noted that this was not a drill. For several minutes the sinking feeling of doomsday hopelessness and inevitability sunk in. Shock, anger, rationalization, and then acceptance all in a minute or two.
It really happened, and then it didn’t. An error occurred, a technician at a computer choosing the wrong option on a menu. I wondered what if we had retaliated before discovering the truth.
Bullies must be meant with strength, straight up and face to face. There is no alternative. I fear a weak, equivocating president at this moment and it does not bode well for the world.
I’ve thought of this quote for a long time. I don’t know who first said it but it’s one I think we all should ruminate on. “Little by little the face the nation changes, by the men we choose to admire”.
The problem I have with Trevino's proposal is it would in effect extend the American nuclear umbrella to any non nuclear country attacked by a nuclear one beyond just NATO and other traditional US mutual defense obligations. I think this would be a very big change in policy and one that should not be taken lightly.
Your comment brings to mind one of Art Buchwald's satire columns in the late 60's, when he proposed a novel method of testing the accuracy of our ICBM's by putting all the skeptics on a raft in the Indian Ocean and shooting at it -- if the senator's assessment were indeed correct, they would miss by a mile.
A concerned reader in Pakistan wrote a letter to the editor of WaPo explaining his objection to such a scheme, as it would needlessly endanger millions of people in South Asia. When informed that Buchwald's was a humor column, he replied, rather sniffily, that such things as nuclear bombs should not be joked about. I thought the whole situation was terribly amusing at the time, but now I think he was roight.
To some extent at least, deterrence is a built-in feature of nuclear weapons. Even if there are no specific statements on the record, the side contemplating their use cannot be sure that a response in kind would not follow. It may even be that such uncertainty is preferable to specific statements of policy, which may be thought to lack credibility.
That’s why my suggested warning to V. Putin is not specific: Let him wonder about the details. For after all, there exist today some pretty destructive non-nuclear military options not previously available. Great pain could be inflicted on Russia without resorting to the Bomb.
One other point. I have a sense that if Putin did order a nuclear strike or demonstration, that could precipitate him and his regime into a terminal crisis. And he itself may fear this. However that may be, I think we can safely assume that his decision to make war on Ukraine and its disastrous results have weakened his position. It may seem paradoxical, but his resort to nuclear threats signifies that weakness.
Ha, ya got me. Good one.
Some RU sites are hard to parody because they are so like a parody of reality.
Poe's Law: Without a clear indicator of the author's intent, every parody of extreme views can be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of the views being parodied.
Tsargrad: “Decadent Westerner Berlinski and Her Syndicate of Transnational Gold Merchants Immanentize the Eschaton”
Eh? Did The Cosmopolitan Globalists just get dozed as a bunch of investment bankers? (Not meant as a compliment, I surmise).
Nah. I just post parodies of thinly-veiled Tsargrad and fellow traveler headlines every once in awhile.
I was sitting in the early morning at the Molokai airport in January 2018. Then came over my phone, and the phones of others, an alert was broadcast warning of inbound ballistic missile. It noted that this was not a drill. For several minutes the sinking feeling of doomsday hopelessness and inevitability sunk in. Shock, anger, rationalization, and then acceptance all in a minute or two.
It really happened, and then it didn’t. An error occurred, a technician at a computer choosing the wrong option on a menu. I wondered what if we had retaliated before discovering the truth.
Bullies must be meant with strength, straight up and face to face. There is no alternative. I fear a weak, equivocating president at this moment and it does not bode well for the world.
I’ve thought of this quote for a long time. I don’t know who first said it but it’s one I think we all should ruminate on. “Little by little the face the nation changes, by the men we choose to admire”.
The problem I have with Trevino's proposal is it would in effect extend the American nuclear umbrella to any non nuclear country attacked by a nuclear one beyond just NATO and other traditional US mutual defense obligations. I think this would be a very big change in policy and one that should not be taken lightly.
Well, *of course* none of this should be taken lightly--how much more serious could it get?