So my thoughts about nuclear weapons seem to have stirred some interest. Responses ran from they do act as a deterrent; to they are simply a way to keep government bureaucrat employed.
I guess that my pondering started with the arms treaty that PresBO, and the Russians signed a few weeks ago. I was trying to figure out why it was important, because it seems so obvious to me that Obama would never use them. A terrorist group could detonate a high yield nuke in Detroit, and the Assclown in Chief, would be talking about the environmental impact on climate change that had occurred. So if we will not use them, who is likely to use them? Russia, North Korea, Pakistan, and I am pretty sure if Israel were attacked with nukes then they would have no qualms about retaliating with nukes.
I know it would seem anti-libertarian, or anti-objectivist of me to say, but I support George W Bush's "illegal" war in Iraq and Afghanistan. I put illegal in quotes because every time I see someone call the war in Iraq "illegal" I laughed at them, because they are either blinded by hatred, or too stupid to understand the definition of illegal. Now one may say that we shouldn't have gone to Iraq, that the intelligence was flawed, that W was on a personal vendetta against Saddam for Bush1, and I am fine with all of those arguments,but "illegal"?. Illegal means "against a law", so what law was broken geniuses? Some sort of "world law", or a NATO Law, or a UN Law? Well guess what idiots? We are not subject to any of those "laws", therefore we cannot break those "laws". Sorry to get bogged down in technicalities, but these anti-war people really get on my last nerve. They will accuse us of Nation-building, and being imperialist, and so on, and there is no evidence of that, and frankly there is no more consistent fighter for peace and justice around the world than the US. More than half of the world is free (or at least were free before the decided to embrace the enemy) directly because of the US, and what have we to show for it? Supposedly the whole world hates us, and I say, do they really hate us, or are they just upset because they cannot be us? Frankly I for one, do not care what they think of us. If they feel so strongly, then let them boycott us. Quickly back to Nation building and being imperialists; if I were in control there would be exactly this. What happened to the good old days of war, when a country kicked another’s countries ass, and therefore, that country’s land and treasure was taken by the conquering army? I think we set a very bad example in World War I, when we allowed German to be run by Germans. We won, should have been our country. World War II, same thing. The entire country of Germany should be the State of Germany of the US. I probably sound like a lunatic to you folks, since starting with Woodrow Wilson, we go save someone’s ass (Europe’s in these 2 wars,) at our expense of lives, and treasure, and what did we receive in return? Allies? Like France? We should have been paid back in money for the sacrifices that we made, but no, we were and are morally superior to the rest of the world. Fast forward to 1991. We kicked Iraq’s ass, and then listed to the stupid UN, and did not finish the job, leaving Saddam to rebuild and grow a new set of balls. Not only should we have gone in and deposed Saddam at that time, but we should have set up a new government, RUN BY US, established prosperity and freedom to the people, AND controlled the oil. That is a treasure, and we have earned it with blood, and money, and giving it back to the people who will use the money to fund attacking us makes as much sense as handing a .45 1911 pistol to the guy who you just beat up after raping your daughter.
I believe in American Exeptionalism. I believe that we are not equal to the other countries of the world, but that we are superior to them in just about every way. We are morally, intellectually, and substantially better than they are. SO the question is, why would a peace loving philosopher pirate, support the killing of people? It all comes down to the greater good. Are the Iraqi people better off today than they were under Saddam? I would say yes. They are certainly freer. Are the Afghans freer? Yes I would say. Why are the women's rights groups not writing songs to honor ole "W"? Did he not take some of the most oppressed women in the world and give them some dignity and some freedom? More importantly Iraqi people that can actually chose their own leaders, and an Afghanistan that has some hope to turn away from a breeding ground of hate and terrorism, is that by taking the fight to the terrorist (wherever they are), this has hurt their opportunities to strike us here. I believe in rational self-interest for myself, and for the United States. If you are someone who believes that the Iraq war was for oil (I don’t, but...) that would be a good enough reason for me. It is economically not good if the supply of oil is controlled by Dictators and totalitarian regimes.
Am I a war monger? You may call me that if you would like, but there remains a truth that nobody can controvert. There will be 1 nation that is stronger than the rest. I want that to be the United States. Others see that when we use that power, that we are doing a bad thing, I see it as we are doing good. HOWEVER, this is not to say that I agree with how these wars have been fought, which is why I started talking about Nuclear Weapons. Like it or not we are in a global economy, and face global problems with security. If we are not the strongest, then who should be? I am for fighting wars to win them. They are a nasty thing, and should be so nasty that people do not want to be in them. *This is where I will lose most of you:)* Frankly I think we should unleash a few nuclear missiles in Northern Afghanistan. 1 launched from here in the states (preferably flying very low over France), 1 launched from a ship in the Atlantic, and one from a sub in the Pacific. For too long, we have allowed political correctness to fight wars, i.e. Nukes are bad, civilian casualties should be avoided (of course they should be avoided, when they can be, but the question is at what cost? At the cost of our soldiers? Not for me.), don't use excessive force. I say bullshit to all of that. Destroy the enemy decisively and quickly, and I believe that my Nuke plan would be quite a deterrent to the bad guys of the world. Just sort of says, "When we don't like what you are doing (building your own nukes, committing genocide, enslaving people) and we ask you to stop, it would behoove you to do so. For too long we've been like a parent that threatens to spank their child to improve behavior, yet never spanks the child, therefore the child gets worse and worse, because the threats have no action behind it. How long before Iran allows us in to inspect their nuclear facilities? Do you think it would be 1 or 2 days? Frankly if it were not for the recent struggles in Iran for a free society against the theocracy, which has received zero support by PresBO, I would say give Tehran the nuke it so longs for. Not tactical, full blown, big yield nuke. Go ahead! Call me what you will, but I can guarantee we will not hear much out of Iran, or North Korea again. As long as we can reach out and touch someone, who cannot reach us, we win. This is the oldest axiom of war. If my arrows can reach you, but yours cannot reach me, then we win. Same thing with ICBM. Ally or enemy, I would not allow any other country to have weapons that can harm us, and if that means a preemptive strike, then I say go for it. I realize it is in their best self interest to obtain nukes, and the ability to deliver them, but I frankly do not care about their interest, I only care about ours.
So to summarize ( and I do apologize for the less than usual amount of concise coherency)
1) Nukes are a deterrent only for a country against attack from another nuclear country. It loses its effectiveness as a tool for coercion against lesser countries if they are never used. It has been 65 years since the last ones were used, and the non-nuclear countries keep pushing and pushing due to their belief that the US will not do anything to stop them. Iraq was incorrect, as we did use military force, but my thought is 1 nuke, could have saved a lot of time, money and lives.
2) Imagine if we did send an artillery shell tactical nuke into Fallujah. Do you think the rest of the country and the “insurgency” would have been worse or less?
3) If we are to be the world’s police, wouldn’t a valid threat of using everything in our arsenal be an awesome (literally) deterrent to the many problems in the world. Darfur comes to mind. “Stop the genocide today, or we unleash hell.”
I guess what I am trying to say is that the USA should be the “badguy” that the world professes us to be. I feel comfortable in that role. Sorry if I alienated friends, and I am not 100% on this, but it’s how I feel, and I make no apologies for that.
England and Idaho
2 days ago