Friday, March 17, 2006
previous entry | main | next entry | TrackBack (0)
Open National Security Strategy thread
Our national security strategy is founded upon two pillars:The general thread of media commentary is that this is a more realist strategy than the 2002 document. I'll leave it to my readers to judge the accuracy of that assessment. posted by Dan on 03.17.06 at 09:28 AM
I too am pretty busy today but I'll just throw this into the mix:
I'll throw these two things into the mix:
Among the things I'll throw into the mix are:
I wish the National Security Strategy was limited to those elements defined in the Constitution: repelling invasion and supressing insurrection.
Why does every American president also want to be the world's policeman, headmaster and cheerleader? Is leading the US not a big enough job?posted by: bartman on 03.17.06 at 09:28 AM [permalink]
Your excerpt leaves out "and a pony," but doubtless it's in the original document.posted by: Anderson on 03.17.06 at 09:28 AM [permalink]
'Many of the problems we face – from the threat of pandemic disease, to proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,'
Well, the proliferation of WMD part is partly our own fault. We have about 10,000 nukes, 10-freakin' thousand, ready to launch on the President's order. Moreover we brandish our weapons, including nukes at other countries and refuse to swear off a first-strike option, while we convey prestige in association with the possession of lots and lots of nukes.
If we threaten other countries with our own WMD, brag about our massive warhead numbers and try to associate the nukes with strength and prestige, of course other countries are gonna try to get their hands on 'em for their own arsenals. Iran, North Korea, Israel, Pakistan, India-- you ain`t seen nothin' yet, as half the rest of the world tries to do the nuke prestige thing too (especially as Bush uh, rather unintelligently breaks treaties and offers to basically build India's nuke arsenal for it-- so, maybe proliferation doesn't have to have nasty consequences after all, at least in the eyes of quite a few).
The only solution is for us to go way down on the scale, not disarm of course, but limit ourselves to low 3 figures, say 100 or so nukes- perfectly good for fending off an attack but not enough to do the Day After thing and cause a really bad day for everybody especially us. Obviously, other nations would have to accept similar limits. But overall, this reduces the association of power and prestige with having a big nasty nuke arsenal. Certainly a big improvement over the current way of doing things.posted by: Vinnie on 03.17.06 at 09:28 AM [permalink]
Any national security document that does not address climate change and petroleum supply-demand issues is a waste of the paper it is printed on.
I would argue that it should take a broader view of energy supply-demand than just petroleum. The EIA's latest long-term view has us charging blithely down the same path to dependence on foreign sources for natural gas in the future as well. I believe they envision over 25% of our NG supplied by imports by 2025, indirectly putting sizeable parts of our electricity supply at risk...posted by: Michael Cain on 03.17.06 at 09:28 AM [permalink]
Very much a realist agenda - insomuch as it seems to be at peace with the absurd incoherence of its positions and acts accordingly with astute miscalculation. Oh so real.posted by: saintsimon on 03.17.06 at 09:28 AM [permalink]
What happened to the federal sentencing guidelines regarding crack cocaine offenses? ISTM that many of our leaders should go away for a long period of time. They must be on crack.posted by: Nixon Did It on 03.17.06 at 09:28 AM [permalink]
Post a Comment: