Same as the old boss

[cyrano]

Have you signed the recall petition yet? Act now because time's running out.
First day at the new/old job; two days a week.

Another thing that's been bugging me. If G-Bu supports pre-emptive strikes to protect national security (Israel and the US are two that come to mind) How would he feel about Kim Jong Il exploding a nuclear device in Chicago to dissuade the US from its hostile overtures toward his nation? That's probably completely different.

Comments

[miss-friday.livejournal.com]

How would he feel about Kim Jong Il exploding a nuclear device in Chicago to dissuade the US from its hostile overtures toward his nation?

A few points on in answer to your question: a) the only non-testing use of a nuclear weapon was during WWII, it was not a pre-emptive strike (at least in the sense you mean); b) North Korea has no means of delivering a nuclear bomb to this country. Their ballistic missles can reach Japan but that's about it. I don't think they have any heavy-payload bombers up to the task, either (I don't think they have any means of delivering conventional weapons to this conuntry.); c) a proper pre-emptive strike is, at least nominally, against a combative target, the Pentagon or other military installation would be a better choice; d) I could think of no better way of pissing the entire world off (including France) than by using a nuclear weapon either in war or pre-emptively.

P.S. The reported reason Syria has not responded with force (or threat of same) to Isreal is that they have an incredibly weak military.

[batratblue.livejournal.com]

How would he feel about Kim Jong Il exploding a nuclear device in Chicago to dissuade the US from its hostile overtures toward his nation?

Not that that's a ridiculously biased tail on that question there or anything, but have you studied much about how North Korea has been handling this whole thing from the get-go last year? Or are you contenting yourself with what you're getting off the radio/TV/newsstand?

Regardless: A pre-emptive strike is a strike which destroys the retaliative capability or offensive capability of the target. Israel sees a bunch of tanks lining up on its border, they take them out before the Egyptian generals can shout 'charge'. That's pre-emptive. Likewise, their 1981 destruction of of the Osiraq reactor in Iraq was pre-emptive, given that it was a design explicitly purchased by the Iraqis because of its ability to act as a breeder for weapons-grade uranium. Likewise pre-emptive. Targeting training camps as well as the military and command structure of a nation that harbors and trains terrorists to attack your own nation before those terrorists can leave to strike, that's pre-emptive (and we're not the only nation to have ever done such a thing, nor is Afghanistan or Iraq the first time we have done such things.). The strike on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese was pre-emptive. It was designed to prevent our possible participation in the war by destroying our Pacific fleet in harbor (and it failed to do so). An attack on Chicago won't pre-empt anything except maybe a visit by the Chicago Metropolitan Opera or the Sox.

In point of fact, the only good pre-emptive target in the U.S., due to how widely distributed our military is, would be Washington...And even that wouldn't slow down the response significantly as our forces, and our infrastructure, are far too widely distributed. Mother Russia in her finest nuclar hour couldn't have managed a guaranteeable pre-emptive strike against us for this exact reason, while we had a much better shot at them because of their tendency to clump command and control centers and to have a highly inflexible military hierarchy with little individual command initiative.

Do a little homework about Kim Jong Il and his regime, sometime. You can hate Bush all you like without needing to cast totalitarian fascist dictators as if they were 'victimized innocents'.

Even if that is a popular tactic these days in some circles.

Poor Saddam!

Poor Uday and Qusay!

Poor Hitler!

That mean ol' U.S.!

[cyranocyrano.livejournal.com]

You're right; if it hadn't been so early in the morning I'd have chosen someplace more military as a proper target. Possibly Moffet Field, or the Boeng plant in Seattle, or the Pentagon, or the terrorist training camp in Florida they call the College of the Americas. (My intelligence assures me they're very aggressive in their recruiting.)
However, do not assume that because I disagree with the 'Presumptive Strike' Doctrine that I think Kim Jong Il is at least as batshit crazy or downright evil as Saddam Hussein. What I am saying, instead, is that our President has said 'If you think somebody is going to attack you, you have the right and responsibility to attack them first'. Perhaps not in so many words, but in spirit and in substance. And I feel that this is not the best position to take on the national stage when so many people hate us.
And thank you for taking me to task in such a rational, intelligent, fully supported fashion.

[cyranocyrano.livejournal.com]

So pre-emptive strikes are best against forces that can't fight back.
This is an unstated tenet of our foreign policy....

(Also, he wouldn't have to deliver the bomb by aeroplane. He could bring it over in a briefcase or a crate of lettuce. And yes, I should have chosen a more appropriate target. I address that in my next comment.)

[miss-friday.livejournal.com]

He could bring it over in a briefcase or a crate of lettuce.

Small nuclear weapons are much more technically sophisticated than large ones. I doubt a country who gets off by boasting they simply have a nuclear arsenal has the capability of making small ones. Plus, I don't think North Korea exports much of anything (save refugees) anywhere these days and certainly not to the United States.

[cyranocyrano.livejournal.com]

Okay, let's pretend that my point is not the feasibility or advisability of such an action.
Let's pretend that my point is that the Presumptive Strike Doctrine that our President has advised as a wise course of defense is in fact is a dangerous and insecure plan when anybody besides us decides to use it. Which, now that we've endorsed it, is increasingly likely.
This is me being sore and cranky and hoping I've failed to be clear enough and that's why you haven't understood me rather than a plan of deliberate obtuseness.

[cyranocyrano.livejournal.com]

do not assume that because I disagree with the 'Presumptive Strike' Doctrine that I think Kim Jong Il is at least as batshit crazy or downright evil as Saddam Hussein.
Rather, do not assume that I do not think.
This six-day week thing is going to get to me.

[miss-friday.livejournal.com]

[Omit truly snarky and cutting remark in the interests of polite civility.]

But, I don't think the United States endorsing a course of action will automatically cause it to be fashionable in the realm of foreign policy. As a hyperpower, the United States has a unique position in the world right now. Other countries could follow our example, but it would be gravely dangerous for them. For example, I doubt South Korea will be invading the North anytime soon because the risks are enormous. They could easily piss off the Chinese with such a manuever.

Yes, Israel did attack Syria, but Israel has a history of attacking its neighbors like this (think Lebanon within that last couple years as an example). If anything, the United States is following Israel's example of how to fight terrorism, not the other way around.

[cyranocyrano.livejournal.com]

Well said. This should probably make me feel more comfortable, and I suspect in time it will. A world full of people not attacking each other would be a good thing.