Topics

atomic blast
U.S. Department of Energy

The consequences of a "small" nuclear war would be widespread and long-lasting.

Featured Topic | Posted 39 weeks 1 day ago

Regional nuclear war would have worldwide fallout

If you think a small-scale nuclear war between, say, India and Pakistan would only devastate part of the Asian subcontinent, think again. A new report suggests that the effects of a regional nuclear exchange would have global environmental impact. What can world leaders do?

Read More

Ben likes: By the shadow of our hand

Wretchard/Belmont Club

The Guardian describes an extraordinary manifesto authored "by five of the west's most senior military officers and strategists..." At first glance, the manifesto appears to mark a return to the policy of deterrence; a rueful admission that nothing but a revival of the balance of terror can now secure the West against forces that its publics are unwilling to mobilize against. That thought will ironically comfort many of those who lived through the long shadow of East versus West. After all, if deterrence kept the West safe against the Soviets for the long duration of the Cold War might not containment and the mutual balance of terror also safeguard it indefinitely against radical Islam?

Deterrence worked because it made peace the only alternative to utter destruction. But it worked against the Soviets because for all their belligerence could always be counted on to choose life. The Commissars may have been stupid but they were not crazy. Can the same assumption be made about Islamic radicals who desire death? From the point of a theocratic zealot the rational choice may be to hasten Armageddon.

On closer inspection the manifesto might not be about deterrence at all. It is about committing to prevent terrorists from acquiring WMDs at all costs. The reason Lord Inge's remark that "to tie our hands on first use or no first use removes a huge plank of deterrence" is so significant is that it brings the trigger point back from second-strike or launch on attack to one in which WMD acquisition itself becomes the casus belli. It is almost a form of pre-deterrence. 

Read More

Joel likes: The greatest ecological threat of all

Tomdispatch interview with Jonathan Schell

You know, when I wrote The Fate of the Earth, back in 1982, I said that, first and foremost, nuclear weapons were an ecological danger. It wasn't that our species could be directly wiped out by nuclear war down to the last person. That would only happen through the destruction of the underpinnings of life, through nuclear winter, radiation, ozone loss. There has been an oddity of timing, because when the nuclear weapon was invented, people didn't even use the word "environment" or "ecosphere." The environmental movement was born later.

So, in a certain sense, the greatest -- or certainly the most urgent -- ecological threat of them all was born before the context in which you could understand it. The present larger ecological crisis is that context. In other words, global warming and nuclear war are two different ways that humanity, having grown powerful through science, through production, through population growth, threatens to undo the natural underpinnings of human, and all other, life. In a certain way, I think we may be in a better position today, because of global warming, to grasp the real import of nuclear danger. 

Read More

How readers are voting

average
vote
The Associated Press

John McCain in Jordan.

Featured Topic | Posted 41 weeks 3 days ago

Can McCain mend U.S. relations with the world?

John McCain’s trip abroad last week — which took him from the Middle East to London and Paris — was more than just a congressional fact-finding trip, or even a candidate’s attempt to appear statesmanlike. It was also an audition on the world stage for McCain in his new role as the Republican presidential nominee.

Read More

Ben likes: If Iraq is better, it's because of John McCain

Con Coughlin/The Daily Telegraph

McCain's robust attitude towards those who would threaten the security of America might have caused some friction among Washington's European allies, but nothing approaching the scale achieved by Messrs. Bush and Rumsfeld and Vice-President Dick Cheney.

It will be eight months before we know whether McCain's second run for the White House has been successful, but he has made it clear that his presidency would be very different in tone and substance from that of Bush.

Apart from adopting a more practical, less ideological approach to the war on terror, McCain has indicated he would be prepared to be more conciliatory on other key international issues, such as the threat posed by global warming. After meeting British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, McCain declared that he was confident "we can reach a global agreement that would include China and India. It's a compelling issue for the world's environment and I am committed to it."

Read More

Joel likes: More bellicose than Bush?

Paul Waldman/The American Prospect

Given how often we are told these days that McCain has "credibility" and "experience" on matters of foreign policy and national security, it's worth asking what effect all that alleged experience has had on him. Because when McCain actually opens his mouth to discuss these issues, his ideas and beliefs often sound so simple-minded they make George W. Bush look like Otto von Bismarck. And the one consistent theme in McCain's thinking is his support for the application of military force as the best way to deal with foreign-policy challenges. Because it's been working out so well for the last five years. 

Read More

How readers are voting

average
vote
The Associated Press

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton criticize NAFTA in Ohio, but Texas is choked with incoming traffic from Mexico.

Featured Topic | Posted 44 weeks 2 days ago

Can Obama be trusted on free trade?

So, is Barack Obama in favor of preserving the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), or would he renegotiate its terms? Does Obama want to expand free trade agreements between the United States and other countries, such as Colombia? Or does Barack Obama prefer trade agreements that protect labor unions and require extensive environmental rules?

These should be fairly straightforward questions, but somehow Obama's position on trade has become a matter of controversy. Some campaign insiders have said Obama’s protectionist stand on the trail was “more reflective of political maneuvering than policy.”

Should the next president revisit free trade? Or have free trade agreements such as NAFTA benefited the United States as a whole?

Read More

Ben likes: Sage's sagacity

New York Sun

Warren Buffett's advice on trade is exactly the opposite of the NAFTA-bashing message that the billionaire's preferred presidential candidates, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton, have been offering to the voters of Ohio. It's more in line with the pro-NAFTA message that Mr. Obama's economic aides have been assuring Canada he will hew once the primary season is over, and with the pro-Nafta message on which President Clinton rode to re-election in 1996. But on the record, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton are on this issue singing from a different hymnal than Mr. Buffett.

Read More

Joel likes: More concerns on Obama, trade

John Nichols/The Nation

Focus in on this core question: Is Barack Obama playing games with the trade issue that he has made central to his appeal to the voters of Wisconsin, Ohio and other industrial states where concerns about deals such as NAFTA runs deep?

And if he is doing so, will he end up planting the seeds of distrust similar to those planted by Al Gore and John Kerry in 2000 and 2004 on the trade issue? If he is talking out of both sides of his mouth, and if there are more revelations to come in this regard, then Obama is doing serious damage to his fall prospects as a Democratic presidential nominee.

Obama sounds a lot better than Gore or Kerry. That may be enough for a primary fight. But if he wants to win the presidency, he is going to need to be a lot better.

Read More

How readers are voting

your vote
average
vote
The Associated Press

Hugo Chavez: War leader?

Featured Topic | Posted 44 weeks 4 days ago

Is war looming in Latin America?

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has a knack for belligerent rhetoric. He's threatened to cut off oil to the United States. Now he's threatening to go to war with neighboring Colombia. Chavez on Sunday ordered Venezuela's embassy in Colombia closed and told the military to send 10 battalions to the border after Colombian troops killed a top rebel leader.

Read More

Ben likes: Is Chavez admitting an alliance with FARC?

Ed Morrissey/Hot Air

We saw a hint of this six weeks ago. Chavez demanded that Latin American nations recognize FARC (as well as a few other terrorist groups) as “legitimate armies” despite their track record of kidnapping and drug trafficking. As the Washington Post noted, even allies of Chavez balked at that notion. Now it looks as though Chavez will take Venezuela to war to support these terrorists, hoping to undermine President Alvaro Uribe and the democratic government in Colombia.

Read More

Joel likes: Revolution in Venezuela?

Joaquin Villalobos/The Nation

What Chávez has got wrong is his belief that he has made a revolution when in fact he's simply won some elections. And even those victories are more attributable to an arrogant, bejeweled opposition that lacks mass adherents than to Chávez. This has allowed Chávez to dominate some state institutions and to change some of the rules of the game, but it doesn't give him the leverage needed to impose the sort of drastic ideological sea change he clearly intends.

Nor does Chávez have a revolutionary army. On the contrary, the army has defeated him twice (1992 and 2002). The complicity of the army with Chávez today rests solely on weapons purchases, and that is much more about corruption than about preparing for war. It's exactly this sort of privileged corruption that closes the path to authentic revolutionary change. The Venezuelan military will neither kill nor die for Hugo Chávez.

Read More

How readers are voting

your vote
average
vote
The Associated Press

Lest anyone forget, Europe is fighting the terror war, too.

Featured Topic | Posted 44 weeks 5 days ago

Did the Bush administration misjudge "Old Europe"?

Donald Rumsfeld, the former U.S. Secretary of Defense, in 2003 famously referred to Germany and France as "Old" Europe. "You look at vast numbers of other countries in Europe," Rumsfeld said. "They're not with France and Germany on this, they're with the United States."

A few things have changed in five years. France and Germany have pro-U.S. leaders. Europe's economy is strengthening. And several Old European nations are fighting the good fight on the war on terror. Swedish and Norwegian authorities cracked down on terror financing on Thursday, arresting six people and seizing computer equipment from Internet cafes in coordinated raids in Stockholm and Oslo.

Was the Bush administration wrong about Old Europe? Have America's allies and interests changed? Does the U.S. have something to learn from the Continent?

Read More

Ben likes: Look to Sweden?

Henry Olsen/The American

Americans might be surprised to learn that “Old” Europe is actually ahead of us in tackling many of the most vexing domestic policy challenges. Without much fanfare, Sweden, Holland, and other countries known for their social-democratic welfare states have adopted innovative, market-based reforms on issues such as pensions, transportation, and education. What’s more, while U.S. politics remains paralyzed by partisanship, European parties on the left and the right have teamed up to implement free-market policy ideas that are criticized by the American left as extreme.

Read More

Joel likes: 5 Myths About "Sick Old Europe"

Steven Hill/Huffington Post

In the global economy, today's winners can become tomorrow's losers in a twinkling, and vice versa. Not so long ago, American pundits and economic analysts were snidely touting U.S. economic superiority to the "sick old man" of Europe. What a difference a few months can make. Today, with the stock market jittery over Iraq, the mortgage crisis, huge budget and trade deficits, and declining growth in productivity, investors are questioning the strength of the U.S. economy. Meanwhile, analysts point to the roaring economies of China and India as the only bright spots on the global horizon.

But what about Europe? You may be surprised to learn how our estranged transatlantic partner has been faring during these roller-coaster times -- and how successfully it has been knocking down the Europessimist myths about it.

Read More

How readers are voting

average
vote

Join the Debate

Start your own blog, comment on topics, and let your voice be heard. Start your free account now!

User login

login

Ads by Google