Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Nuclear Bananas-4

"All in all, the Obama administration's nuclear weapons policies appear confused and self-defeating. ... Moreover, the Obama administration [OA] is opposing moderization measures designed to protect against the risk that the aging of US weapons will compromise their safety or reliability. There is an important connection between proliferation risks and modernization. But the [OA] seems to have it backwards. If the US fails to ensure the continuing safety and reliability of its arsenal, it could cause the collapse of the US nuclear umbrella. Countries such as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia and others might decide that their security requires them to acquire their own nuclear arsenals, rather than rely indefinitely on the US. ... The [OA's] nuclear weapons policies--including its treaty talks with Russia--affect the way America's friends and potential adversaries view the integrity of the US deterrent. The wrong policies can endanger the US directly. They can also cause other states to lose confidence in the American nuclear umbrella and to seek security in national nuclear capabilities", my emphasis, Douglas Feith and Abram Shulsky at the WSJ, 4 August 2009, link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204313604574328430978849134.html.

I agree. His Obamaness has things backwards. Again.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wrong again, IA, you rabid old probably-never-served-in-the-military hawk.

How many times over do we have to be able to destroy the world to have a credible nuclear deterrent? Fifty? A hundred? Ten thousand?

Anonymous said...

Holy crap... from Feith's Wikipedia entry...

"In February 2007, the Pentagon's inspector general issued a report that concluded that Feith's office "developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers."

The report found that these actions were "inappropriate" though not "illegal." Senator Carl Levin, Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, stated that "The bottom line is that intelligence relating to the Iraq-al-Qaeda relationship was manipulated by high-ranking officials in the Department of Defense to support the administration's decision to invade Iraq.

The inspector general's report is a devastating condemnation of inappropriate activities in the DOD policy office that helped take this nation to war."[7]

At Senator Levin's insistence, on April 6, 2007, the Pentagon's Inspector General's Report was declassified and released to the public.[8]"

What is this guy still doing hawking public policy???

Independent Accountant said...

Anonymous 2:
Welcome to the real world of intelligence policy and analysis. How do you know the inspector general's (IG) report wasn't faked? Having seen some, I would never trust say, an SEC IG's report. Why should you trust this one? The CIA has "slanted" analysis to suit policy for decades. Levin's entitled to his opinion. By the way, I have always opposed our Iraq adventure.

edgar said...

It's like he's messing us up on purpose.

Anonymous said...

But IA...

That stuff about Feith is in Wikipedia... it must be true.

[Smirk]