(Lake Martin Specific)
111,183 messages
Updated 6/9/2024 1:00:09 PM
Lakes Online Forum
83,663 messages
Updated 6/10/2024 6:28:47 PM
Lakes Online Forum
5,197 messages
Updated 6/10/2024 5:39:11 AM
(Lake Martin Specific)
4,171 messages
Updated 5/29/2024 10:51:34 PM
Lakes Online Forum
4,170 messages
Updated 6/10/2024 6:29:37 PM
Lakes Online Forum
4,261 messages
Updated 5/28/2024 6:31:10 AM
Lakes Online Forum
2,977 messages
Updated 6/10/2024 6:30:23 PM
(Lake Martin Specific)
169 messages
Updated 5/31/2023 1:39:35 PM
Lakes Online Forum
98 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM
|
|
|
|
Name:
|
Yankee06
|
|
Subject:
|
"Nukes" and "Bunker Busters"
|
|
Date:
|
3/1/2010 8:37:41 PM
|
|
Lot,
-Interestig points on Nuclear Strategy.
-Obama was very clear during the election that he would do everything you have listed above, --and more. In my files, I even have a video of him saying most of it, but I was unable to transfer the video to this forum.
-For many years in DC I did national security planning, so let me make a few comments for your consideration.
-1) Bunker Busters: I hadn't realized that he had already stopped the bunker busters. I'm surprised, it was a fairly extensisve program, or series of programs. They'll be restatarted, at a lot of extra costs, once he's gone.
-2) Preemptive Strategy: That was always a mistake when applied to nuclear warfare. Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) kept us safe for half a century, because both we and the Soviets knew that if one of us fired missiles the other whole retaliate full force. However, if we thought that each other had a preemtive policy, then we would always be looking for teh slightest indication of the other guy's preparations to fire, and we would have to fire first. That would be way to0 dangerous a policy to have.
-In conventional war, a preemptive policy is not as dangerous. Bush really instituted that policy to justify his planned attacks on Iraq. But in fact it wasn't really a "Premeptive" strategy, it was much worse, it was a "preventive" strategy. In other words the possible attack from Hussein wasn't imminent, it was very years off, if at all. SO we weren't prempting anything, we were preventing something that "might" happen. That is a very aggressive policy to have. But at least in teh war on terror, it did warn terrorists around the world, that we were not waiting for another attack on our homeland or on our deployed forces. In effect, we were telling them that we were going to come and kill them just cuz they exist.,...now, that's not a bad strategy.
-Nukes in Europe: Nukes in present day Europe really don't provide much deterrent to potential foes. remember the French and Brits have their own nukes. The only country of any interest that doesn't have nukes is Germany. Our nukes were there to assure the Germans we were there to protect them from the Soviets. Secondly, and maybe more importantly today, our nukes were/are there so the Germans won't have to develop and deploy their own. The Brits, French, and the rest of Europe are the ones who don't want us to pull our nukes out, --even in the united europe of today, deep in their hearts, no one wants the Germans to have nukes!
|
|
Reply
Back
Search
Off-Topic Forum
»
Alabama Lakes
»
Lake Martin
Login
|
Home
