I think the argument can easily be made that criminally-minded sociopaths have taken control of western governments and are using their control to extract vast fortunes while simultaneously impoverishing many Americans and peoples overseas. There is no other way to explain their complete lack of concern for the well being of working Americans, while they make unprecedented fortunes on war, death and destruction. There is no other explanation for their complete lack of concern for Ukrainians, Gazans, Syrians, Afghans, Iraqis and others in targeted nations. People like that don't give up their power without an actual fight, but I don't think most Americans are up for a fight with the militarized police that are the protectors of the status quo. I don't see any political path to a saner America.
John, I concur. When I think about how police forces in cities large and small have been militarized in my lifetime (and on steroids this century), it speaks volumes to the fear the powers-that-be possess of the masses they work so hard to control. As to the pathology of it all, I can see why those of old summed up such evil as "demonic possession." It does seem to come from some horrific and irrational place.
Another Historical example of The Spiritual Path, eh Ray?
God commanded the Israelites to wipe out the Amalekites:
"Now go and smite Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.’” -1 Samuel 15.3
Dennis, you get sidetracked by denouncing Ray for his religious references, when what we need to do is to build a coalition of the willing and likeminded to change the world in the ways we want it to be changed. You and Ray, I believe, agree on the need for nuclear disarmament. You both want to prevent nuclear war. You both see the waste, risk, and folly of what the U.S. is proposing.
But how can you work together when you're constantly sniping and attacking?
Change won't come if everyone is attacking everyone else due to race, religion, gender, creed, age, nationality, etc. etc.
Put aside the sniping and find common ground. Unite and work together rather than fostering discord.
If you're offended by all religious people everywhere, I don't see how you could build an effective movement, let alone foster consensus.
Bill, I agree that we should not attack anyone's religious beliefs or, for that matter, anyone's non-religious belief system. Similarly we should avoid attacking the man, at least in this discussion space. I am committed to and trying to be a follower of Jesus, but am quite willing to join with anyone to work towards eliminating nuclear weapons.
It's to do with challenging folk who post unsupportable claims in comment threads.
It's not "attacking" or "sniping" or "sowing discord" to ask Ray for evidence of what he claims.
All I'm asking Ray for here is why he thinks a Spiritual Path is a political path to a saner America? A theocracy like in Iran?
After all the American Founding Father John Adams, the second POTUS would disagree. "This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it".
And James Madison, the fourth president of the United States, said: "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."- James Madison
How many People of any religious belief or persuasion are going to listen to anything You propose when You start by denouncing the fact that they have Faith and Belief in their Religion, and not scientific or logical proof?
Was Gandhi's Spiritual Path of "SATYAGRAHA" coupled with AHIMSA a political path to throw the British out of India?
And did it work without creating a "theocracy"?
And this world would be an even Much Better Place if there were no Governments able to wage Wars on other Governments, and to wage Wars on other and their own People, or on the Planet.
Religion could do absolutely nothing without Government to bankroll, inflict, and enforce what it wants to accomplish.
So fear and hate Government much, Much more than You fear and hate Religion.
Sad, but not in the least surprising that the supposedly 'liberal' paper of record, NY Times, refused to publish your well-stated rebuttal to Turner. NYT and WaPo, along with a few other former icons of liberalism, had long ago become just the media amplifiers for the Empire's security establishment; and I haven't given them a penny ever since discovering that fact.
Well, I definitely haven't trusted it for at least as far back as 9/11; and I suppose that when I first discovered and occasionally enjoyed reading it back in college days, I was considerably younger...and hadn't yet begun to fully perceive the patterns that would illustrate the nasty connections between the MICCIMATT's tentacles that would later become for me so easy to see.
The completely unnecessary upgrade of our nuclear weaponry is 100% a giveaway to nuclear armaments manufacturers. It is just one more example of grotesque abuse of power to fatten the coffers of the war industry and the stock portfolios of the investor class. There is no logic which supports the "improvement" of weapons which already can destroy the world 25 to 50 times over and vanquish all human life. Endless war, 700-800 military bases, buying military junk we don't need and often doesn't even work is bankrupting the US financially, socially, politically and spiritually.
Your arguments against “investing” in new nuclear weapons is irrefutable. What you fail to address, however, is what makes spending so much money on nuclear weapons possible. Currently, it is very simple to fund such potentially life destroying expenditures. All the government has to do is print the money, or it digital equivalent (inflation- an expansion of the supply of money). The solution to this problem is a return to the gold standard. As Ludwig Von Mises pointed out the great virtue of gold is that it makes the expansion of the supply of money independent of any party or program. If Turner’s proposal to spend more money on nuclear weapons was made with a nation on the old standard, the Treasury Secretary or Finance Minister would be in a position to say “We don’t have the money to afford such a program. To afford such a program taxes will have to raised, other government programs will have to be cut. The government will not have the easy out of resorting to the inflation tax. The government could borrow the money to finance such a program, but a nation on the gold standard would not be in the position to inflate away such debt, so this option just defers the hard decisions that would have to be made .
I am the rare leftist who supports the concept of the Gold Standard to rein in government waste. The very fact that its adoption would impose discipline on gov't spending guarantees it will NEVER return to use in USA. In the news just today: report that Trump proposes to eliminate the so-called spending cap on gov't budgets. Well, why not? Because current reality, with Congress giving more money to the War Machine than is even formally requested, renders the "cap" notion a bad joke. "[Government] Deficits Don't Matter" when it comes to war spending has been the philosophy among our brilliant "leaders" and Members of Congress for a long time now. Your children's children's children's children would still be ultimately footing the bill for today's insanity...if the world still exists in the not so distant future.
And of course those geniuses in US Congress are conveniently blind to these matters, as they are to so many "little" matters, like the Climate Catastrophe--which will be an apocalypse before that much longer. Oh, and BTW, of the extremely wide range of subjects of which Donald J. Trump is abysmally ignorant, ECONOMICS is right up there at the top! "O brave new world, with such people in't." --Shakespeare, "The Tempest"
Arleigh Burke, when he was CNO in the late 1950s was an advocate for 'minimum deterrence' - meaning you have enough nuclear weapons to keep yourself safe and no more. He saw that in the deployment of 40 (later 41) SSBNs carrying Polaris missiles and was critical of the land-base weapons as they would result in a 'launch on warning' situation. Almost the same situation today.
But the US 'plan' is to spend trillions to modernize the "strategic triad" of land-based, strategic aircraft-based, and submarine-based weapons. The obvious conclusion is nuclear weapons upgrades are primarily about more money for defense contractors to build weapons systems (except for the submarines and some tactical aircraft) that are obsolete.
Admiral Burke's world didn't have hypersonic delivery systems for nuclear weapons like Avengard, Zircon, and now Oreshnik. The dangers are more real and there are no 15-20 minutes to confirm a real attack versus a sensor issue. Disarmament should be the goal, but at a minimum now, start making massive reductions in the size of the arsenals. And will someone in the government start talking to Russia and China about how to avoid mutual annihilation?
Well written argument for the US to start engaging in diplomatic efforts to end the arms race, begin the process of mutual nuclear disarmament while cutting the extremely wasteful defense (war) budget. We are perfectly safe with the huge arsenals we currently posses. The challenge to our politicians and corporate CEOs is for them to return to economic competition, instead of the inherently wasteful competition of war, as the primary focus of global power. They must be too afraid to compete with the Chinese.
I was born before the nuclear age began and I am afraid I will die, I hope, before the s… hits the roof of humanity’s existence. My children and grandchildren may not be that lucky. America’s obsession with being the hegemon of the world is driving us to the edge of universal extinction. I don’t understand the mindset of the West’s political establishment. Better dead than red (probably means today self determination of China and Russia cannot be tolerated) is something that boggles my simplistic way of trying to understand international relations. I have come to the conclusion that we are governed by people who have no ethical or moral values. However much money they spend on trying to update the doomsday machines, the Russian’s, if my understanding is correct, are already two generations ahead of the U.S. and its allies in matching them with non nuclear supersonic weapons. This might be considered a positive development for some who believe that the survival of humanity is more important than protecting a phony American (or western) exceptionalism. Haven’t we caused enough bloodshed in the last 500 years?
Not really. The $1.7 trillion is invested by taxpayers, not by the weapons makers. ROI can only be calculated on the basis of the investor's investment and the profit received by the investor. You can't base it on one person's investment and a different person's profits.
E.g., If I purchase property from someone, I can't use the amount the seller received to compute my ROI.
So, as taxpayers and investors (you and I) in this $1.7 trillion investment, what profit will we (you and I) receive from it? Then we can calculate the ROI.
There was no suggestion that the US should unilaterally disarm. This is a direct quote from the authors “Consider as well that America’s nuclear triad, especially the navy’s Trident Submarine force, is potent, survivable, and more than sufficient to deter any conceivable adversary.” That does sound like unilateral disarmament to me. It appears to me that you are not addressing the arguments of
the authors in a serious manner and instead are creating the straw man of unilateral disarmament. It also reveals to me the intellectual bankruptcy and stupidity of your position. You are either to lazy or to stupid to construct an argument against the position of the authors.
As to second part of your statement, I would say that dismantling the American empire of bases and bringing all the troops is in the national security interest of the United States. The number one goal of American foreign policy should be to avoid involving the people of the United States in foreign wars. The result of the American Empire has resulted in countless expensive foreign wars that have played a large part in destroying the financial position of the United States, invited blowback terrorist attacks on the people of the United States, and most importantly has created a path of destruction, starvation, disease, and death among innocent men, women, and children. These are real people and are not characters in a video game. It is not OK to kill them.
A return to the policies of Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and John Quincy Adams, our greatest Secretary of State, of peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none
is a policy that is not only moral but also is in the security interests of the United States.
I am not intentionally constructing a straw man argument, but to quote you I in fact may be "to lazy or to stupid" to seriously engage in this discussion. However, I do seriously wonder if other nuclear powers would conduct a nuclear attack on a nuclear-disarmed America if we had prevously withdrawn from all of our foreign bases. Is there really that much evil out there?
You pose an interesting question. My guess is there is plenty of evil out there, but not enough to conduct a nuclear attack on us if we disarmed our nuclear forces. There's no real gain by destroying another nation with nukes. So why bother when there's nothing left to exploit.
I also doubt that any nation would attack us with conventional forces if we disarmed our nuclear forces. As the Japanese learned in WWII, a successful invasion and occupation of the US by any foreign nation with conventional forces is virtually impossible. We have about 350 million people and more privately owned guns than people in the U.S. We are protected by 2 huge oceans and no nation has the ships (which can easily be sunk) or aircraft (that can easily be shot down) to transport any serious number of combatants to our shores. We outnumber and outgun Canada and Mexico by such huge amounts that they pose no real threats to U.S. security. So who would do it?
If we were to disarm our nuclear forces, the most serious nuclear threat I see is the possibility of some renegade like Osama Bin Laden who is not responsible for a nation's welfare, and is obsessed with hatred for the U.S. and has somehow gotten hold of a nuclear device (let's say from Pakistan) and manages to infiltrate into the U.S. and blow up a city along with himself. In that scenario, how would our inventory of 5000+ super improved nuclear weapons deter this nutjob?
On the other hand, the most serious threats I see in maintaining our nuclear forces are
1) we continue to threaten and provoke Russia (or some other nuclear power) to the point that one or the other of us deploys the first nuke, and from there it's game over -- and
2) our new, improved AI defense systems pick up another flock of birds, interprets them as incoming nuclear missiles and launches retaliatory missiles (or some similar stupid accident) and from there it's game over -- and
3) our brainless politicians and generals become convinced that we can launch a first strike and survive any retaliation with "acceptable losses". (Probably the most likely scenario.)
Bottom line: I see a much greater threat to our national security by maintaining our nuclear forces than there is by totally disarming them.
Perhaps we would all be safer if the lunatics in charge of foreign policy in the USG were deprived of even the option of using nuclear weapons. It is a compelling argument and one I have not considered. Scenario number three is what scares me most. There is not shortage of Jack D. Rippers in the upper echelons of the deep state.
The authors have not suggested that the United States unilaterally disarm. It is very clear that they favor maintaining the deterrence of the Trident submarine force. It is also clear that other nuclear powers view the maintenance of US military bases up to their borders as a threat and not as a pretext to start a nuclear war. This is in fact the same position as the USG. Look at the response of the USG to the stationing of Soviet nuclear weapons in Cuba and the Monroe Doctrine. One of the numerous benefits of bringing all the troops homes and the dismantlement of the American empire of bases is it will create a more peaceful world. The world is inching closer and closer to a catastrophic nuclear war as indicated by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientist. The policy of US primacy and its connection to the US empire of bases is a primary cause of this impending catastrophe.
I haven't said the authors have said U.S. should unilaterally disarm. But I am trying that out as a possible position. So far no one wants to address that. Why not?
Paul Street Report minces no words describing the principal players in Trump's Cabinet, servants for the Oligarchic Plutocracy taking POWER in January.
Alistar Crooke, former British Diplomat, with insightful and credible analysis on what's unfolding in the Middle East with all the players, Israel, Iran, Turkey, Russia and the US over Syria in this video 'Is Israel on the Brink of Collapse?' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYWFdBEzk0s
The US just doubled the number of it's troops in Syria from 900 to over 2000.
China has made great strides with AI to be able to create such a dazzling artistic sight in the night sky with 7,519 synchronized drones establishing a Guinness World Record. Eat your heart out New Jersey!
I think the argument can easily be made that criminally-minded sociopaths have taken control of western governments and are using their control to extract vast fortunes while simultaneously impoverishing many Americans and peoples overseas. There is no other way to explain their complete lack of concern for the well being of working Americans, while they make unprecedented fortunes on war, death and destruction. There is no other explanation for their complete lack of concern for Ukrainians, Gazans, Syrians, Afghans, Iraqis and others in targeted nations. People like that don't give up their power without an actual fight, but I don't think most Americans are up for a fight with the militarized police that are the protectors of the status quo. I don't see any political path to a saner America.
John, I concur. When I think about how police forces in cities large and small have been militarized in my lifetime (and on steroids this century), it speaks volumes to the fear the powers-that-be possess of the masses they work so hard to control. As to the pathology of it all, I can see why those of old summed up such evil as "demonic possession." It does seem to come from some horrific and irrational place.
This example is in the Historical record for a reason;
Again, the devil takes him up to an exceeding high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
And said to him, All these things will I give you, if you will fall down and worship me.
Jesus said to him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve.
Then the devil left him, and, behold, angels came and ministered to him.
Lesser Mortals have no problem making lessor Faustian deals with the Devil for money, things and power, all transient things in this Material World!
Another Historical example of The Spiritual Path, eh Ray?
God commanded the Israelites to wipe out the Amalekites:
"Now go and smite Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.’” -1 Samuel 15.3
Dennis, you get sidetracked by denouncing Ray for his religious references, when what we need to do is to build a coalition of the willing and likeminded to change the world in the ways we want it to be changed. You and Ray, I believe, agree on the need for nuclear disarmament. You both want to prevent nuclear war. You both see the waste, risk, and folly of what the U.S. is proposing.
But how can you work together when you're constantly sniping and attacking?
Change won't come if everyone is attacking everyone else due to race, religion, gender, creed, age, nationality, etc. etc.
Put aside the sniping and find common ground. Unite and work together rather than fostering discord.
If you're offended by all religious people everywhere, I don't see how you could build an effective movement, let alone foster consensus.
Bill, I agree that we should not attack anyone's religious beliefs or, for that matter, anyone's non-religious belief system. Similarly we should avoid attacking the man, at least in this discussion space. I am committed to and trying to be a follower of Jesus, but am quite willing to join with anyone to work towards eliminating nuclear weapons.
This has nothing to do with religion, Bill.
It's to do with challenging folk who post unsupportable claims in comment threads.
It's not "attacking" or "sniping" or "sowing discord" to ask Ray for evidence of what he claims.
All I'm asking Ray for here is why he thinks a Spiritual Path is a political path to a saner America? A theocracy like in Iran?
After all the American Founding Father John Adams, the second POTUS would disagree. "This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it".
And James Madison, the fourth president of the United States, said: "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."- James Madison
Were Adams and Madison mistaken and Ray right?
Nothing to do with religion? Really?
Let's focus on ridding the world of nuclear weapons. Of getting rid of WMD. Of not wasting $2 trillion on genocidal weaponry.
Let's work together on that!
And it has everything to do with Religion.
How many People of any religious belief or persuasion are going to listen to anything You propose when You start by denouncing the fact that they have Faith and Belief in their Religion, and not scientific or logical proof?
Was Gandhi's Spiritual Path of "SATYAGRAHA" coupled with AHIMSA a political path to throw the British out of India?
And did it work without creating a "theocracy"?
And this world would be an even Much Better Place if there were no Governments able to wage Wars on other Governments, and to wage Wars on other and their own People, or on the Planet.
Religion could do absolutely nothing without Government to bankroll, inflict, and enforce what it wants to accomplish.
So fear and hate Government much, Much more than You fear and hate Religion.
Definitely possible with a Spiritual Path!
Sad, but not in the least surprising that the supposedly 'liberal' paper of record, NY Times, refused to publish your well-stated rebuttal to Turner. NYT and WaPo, along with a few other former icons of liberalism, had long ago become just the media amplifiers for the Empire's security establishment; and I haven't given them a penny ever since discovering that fact.
When were Turner, the NYT, the WaPo, or anybody else MSM/CON NOT propaganda wings for America's Ruling Political Class element of The Deep State?
Especially since 9/11?
Well, there was that episode with the Pentagon Papers, though of course you must go back 50+ years for that ...
Like i said Bill: Since 9/11.
One could go back even further to the MSM/CON endorsement of OPERATION DESERT STORM and the "liberation" of Kuwait.
And even further to bankrolling al-Qaeda in Afghanistan against the USSR, and Ollie North's Crusade in Central America.
All long after The Pentagon Papers had been forgotten.
Well, I definitely haven't trusted it for at least as far back as 9/11; and I suppose that when I first discovered and occasionally enjoyed reading it back in college days, I was considerably younger...and hadn't yet begun to fully perceive the patterns that would illustrate the nasty connections between the MICCIMATT's tentacles that would later become for me so easy to see.
The completely unnecessary upgrade of our nuclear weaponry is 100% a giveaway to nuclear armaments manufacturers. It is just one more example of grotesque abuse of power to fatten the coffers of the war industry and the stock portfolios of the investor class. There is no logic which supports the "improvement" of weapons which already can destroy the world 25 to 50 times over and vanquish all human life. Endless war, 700-800 military bases, buying military junk we don't need and often doesn't even work is bankrupting the US financially, socially, politically and spiritually.
WAR IS MAKING US POOR! ... https://warismakinguspoor.com
Your arguments against “investing” in new nuclear weapons is irrefutable. What you fail to address, however, is what makes spending so much money on nuclear weapons possible. Currently, it is very simple to fund such potentially life destroying expenditures. All the government has to do is print the money, or it digital equivalent (inflation- an expansion of the supply of money). The solution to this problem is a return to the gold standard. As Ludwig Von Mises pointed out the great virtue of gold is that it makes the expansion of the supply of money independent of any party or program. If Turner’s proposal to spend more money on nuclear weapons was made with a nation on the old standard, the Treasury Secretary or Finance Minister would be in a position to say “We don’t have the money to afford such a program. To afford such a program taxes will have to raised, other government programs will have to be cut. The government will not have the easy out of resorting to the inflation tax. The government could borrow the money to finance such a program, but a nation on the gold standard would not be in the position to inflate away such debt, so this option just defers the hard decisions that would have to be made .
I am the rare leftist who supports the concept of the Gold Standard to rein in government waste. The very fact that its adoption would impose discipline on gov't spending guarantees it will NEVER return to use in USA. In the news just today: report that Trump proposes to eliminate the so-called spending cap on gov't budgets. Well, why not? Because current reality, with Congress giving more money to the War Machine than is even formally requested, renders the "cap" notion a bad joke. "[Government] Deficits Don't Matter" when it comes to war spending has been the philosophy among our brilliant "leaders" and Members of Congress for a long time now. Your children's children's children's children would still be ultimately footing the bill for today's insanity...if the world still exists in the not so distant future.
I could learn to like leftist like yourself. At least you are astute enough to see the connection between inflationism and the warfare state.
And of course those geniuses in US Congress are conveniently blind to these matters, as they are to so many "little" matters, like the Climate Catastrophe--which will be an apocalypse before that much longer. Oh, and BTW, of the extremely wide range of subjects of which Donald J. Trump is abysmally ignorant, ECONOMICS is right up there at the top! "O brave new world, with such people in't." --Shakespeare, "The Tempest"
Just as we had to destroy the village in order to save it, we must now destroy the world in order to save it.
Arleigh Burke, when he was CNO in the late 1950s was an advocate for 'minimum deterrence' - meaning you have enough nuclear weapons to keep yourself safe and no more. He saw that in the deployment of 40 (later 41) SSBNs carrying Polaris missiles and was critical of the land-base weapons as they would result in a 'launch on warning' situation. Almost the same situation today.
But the US 'plan' is to spend trillions to modernize the "strategic triad" of land-based, strategic aircraft-based, and submarine-based weapons. The obvious conclusion is nuclear weapons upgrades are primarily about more money for defense contractors to build weapons systems (except for the submarines and some tactical aircraft) that are obsolete.
Admiral Burke's world didn't have hypersonic delivery systems for nuclear weapons like Avengard, Zircon, and now Oreshnik. The dangers are more real and there are no 15-20 minutes to confirm a real attack versus a sensor issue. Disarmament should be the goal, but at a minimum now, start making massive reductions in the size of the arsenals. And will someone in the government start talking to Russia and China about how to avoid mutual annihilation?
Well written argument for the US to start engaging in diplomatic efforts to end the arms race, begin the process of mutual nuclear disarmament while cutting the extremely wasteful defense (war) budget. We are perfectly safe with the huge arsenals we currently posses. The challenge to our politicians and corporate CEOs is for them to return to economic competition, instead of the inherently wasteful competition of war, as the primary focus of global power. They must be too afraid to compete with the Chinese.
I was born before the nuclear age began and I am afraid I will die, I hope, before the s… hits the roof of humanity’s existence. My children and grandchildren may not be that lucky. America’s obsession with being the hegemon of the world is driving us to the edge of universal extinction. I don’t understand the mindset of the West’s political establishment. Better dead than red (probably means today self determination of China and Russia cannot be tolerated) is something that boggles my simplistic way of trying to understand international relations. I have come to the conclusion that we are governed by people who have no ethical or moral values. However much money they spend on trying to update the doomsday machines, the Russian’s, if my understanding is correct, are already two generations ahead of the U.S. and its allies in matching them with non nuclear supersonic weapons. This might be considered a positive development for some who believe that the survival of humanity is more important than protecting a phony American (or western) exceptionalism. Haven’t we caused enough bloodshed in the last 500 years?
If $1.7 trillion spent on nuclear weapons is considered an investment, I wonder how they will calculate the "return on investment".
That's easy. The ROI will be determined by how much profits the various elements of the MICIMATT make making those nuclear weapons. Simple arithmetic.
Not really. The $1.7 trillion is invested by taxpayers, not by the weapons makers. ROI can only be calculated on the basis of the investor's investment and the profit received by the investor. You can't base it on one person's investment and a different person's profits.
E.g., If I purchase property from someone, I can't use the amount the seller received to compute my ROI.
So, as taxpayers and investors (you and I) in this $1.7 trillion investment, what profit will we (you and I) receive from it? Then we can calculate the ROI.
That $1.7 TRILLION isn't "invested" by taxpayers; it was and is stolen from taxpayers [past, present, and future] and given to the arms merchants.
The taxpayer has absolutely nothing to say about any of this: How much is to be taken, or how it is to be used by the Thieves, aka The Government.
Let's unilaterally disarm and remove all U.S. troops from abroad. No more blaming others. Just do it. Let the chips fall where they may.
That would require a coup d'etat and overthrow of the US Government.
And then there would be a whole different set of chips falling where they may to be dealt with.
There was no suggestion that the US should unilaterally disarm. This is a direct quote from the authors “Consider as well that America’s nuclear triad, especially the navy’s Trident Submarine force, is potent, survivable, and more than sufficient to deter any conceivable adversary.” That does sound like unilateral disarmament to me. It appears to me that you are not addressing the arguments of
the authors in a serious manner and instead are creating the straw man of unilateral disarmament. It also reveals to me the intellectual bankruptcy and stupidity of your position. You are either to lazy or to stupid to construct an argument against the position of the authors.
As to second part of your statement, I would say that dismantling the American empire of bases and bringing all the troops is in the national security interest of the United States. The number one goal of American foreign policy should be to avoid involving the people of the United States in foreign wars. The result of the American Empire has resulted in countless expensive foreign wars that have played a large part in destroying the financial position of the United States, invited blowback terrorist attacks on the people of the United States, and most importantly has created a path of destruction, starvation, disease, and death among innocent men, women, and children. These are real people and are not characters in a video game. It is not OK to kill them.
A return to the policies of Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and John Quincy Adams, our greatest Secretary of State, of peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none
is a policy that is not only moral but also is in the security interests of the United States.
I am not intentionally constructing a straw man argument, but to quote you I in fact may be "to lazy or to stupid" to seriously engage in this discussion. However, I do seriously wonder if other nuclear powers would conduct a nuclear attack on a nuclear-disarmed America if we had prevously withdrawn from all of our foreign bases. Is there really that much evil out there?
You pose an interesting question. My guess is there is plenty of evil out there, but not enough to conduct a nuclear attack on us if we disarmed our nuclear forces. There's no real gain by destroying another nation with nukes. So why bother when there's nothing left to exploit.
I also doubt that any nation would attack us with conventional forces if we disarmed our nuclear forces. As the Japanese learned in WWII, a successful invasion and occupation of the US by any foreign nation with conventional forces is virtually impossible. We have about 350 million people and more privately owned guns than people in the U.S. We are protected by 2 huge oceans and no nation has the ships (which can easily be sunk) or aircraft (that can easily be shot down) to transport any serious number of combatants to our shores. We outnumber and outgun Canada and Mexico by such huge amounts that they pose no real threats to U.S. security. So who would do it?
If we were to disarm our nuclear forces, the most serious nuclear threat I see is the possibility of some renegade like Osama Bin Laden who is not responsible for a nation's welfare, and is obsessed with hatred for the U.S. and has somehow gotten hold of a nuclear device (let's say from Pakistan) and manages to infiltrate into the U.S. and blow up a city along with himself. In that scenario, how would our inventory of 5000+ super improved nuclear weapons deter this nutjob?
On the other hand, the most serious threats I see in maintaining our nuclear forces are
1) we continue to threaten and provoke Russia (or some other nuclear power) to the point that one or the other of us deploys the first nuke, and from there it's game over -- and
2) our new, improved AI defense systems pick up another flock of birds, interprets them as incoming nuclear missiles and launches retaliatory missiles (or some similar stupid accident) and from there it's game over -- and
3) our brainless politicians and generals become convinced that we can launch a first strike and survive any retaliation with "acceptable losses". (Probably the most likely scenario.)
Bottom line: I see a much greater threat to our national security by maintaining our nuclear forces than there is by totally disarming them.
Perhaps we would all be safer if the lunatics in charge of foreign policy in the USG were deprived of even the option of using nuclear weapons. It is a compelling argument and one I have not considered. Scenario number three is what scares me most. There is not shortage of Jack D. Rippers in the upper echelons of the deep state.
The authors have not suggested that the United States unilaterally disarm. It is very clear that they favor maintaining the deterrence of the Trident submarine force. It is also clear that other nuclear powers view the maintenance of US military bases up to their borders as a threat and not as a pretext to start a nuclear war. This is in fact the same position as the USG. Look at the response of the USG to the stationing of Soviet nuclear weapons in Cuba and the Monroe Doctrine. One of the numerous benefits of bringing all the troops homes and the dismantlement of the American empire of bases is it will create a more peaceful world. The world is inching closer and closer to a catastrophic nuclear war as indicated by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientist. The policy of US primacy and its connection to the US empire of bases is a primary cause of this impending catastrophe.
I haven't said the authors have said U.S. should unilaterally disarm. But I am trying that out as a possible position. So far no one wants to address that. Why not?
Paul Street Report minces no words describing the principal players in Trump's Cabinet, servants for the Oligarchic Plutocracy taking POWER in January.
'Amerikan Fascism'
https://paulstreet.substack.com/p/amerikan-fascism
Paul Street is a whack job with a severe case of TDS.
I posted this online almost 3 years ago: https://rayjc.com/2022/04/13/us-politicians-are-sleepwalking-toward-the-nuclear-abyss/
German Spiegel International published this on December 4: https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/the-netanyahu-system-how-the-israeli-prime-minister-is-leading-his-country-into-the-abyss-a-97a68da1-e3cf-443d-a8b5-0684723ca0b6
Who is leading who to the abyss?
Alistar Crooke, former British Diplomat, with insightful and credible analysis on what's unfolding in the Middle East with all the players, Israel, Iran, Turkey, Russia and the US over Syria in this video 'Is Israel on the Brink of Collapse?' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYWFdBEzk0s
The US just doubled the number of it's troops in Syria from 900 to over 2000.
Another keen and credible analysis of the escalating US WAR with Russia in Ukraine by Colonel Douglas Macgregor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8iJNX7K3FI
China has made great strides with AI to be able to create such a dazzling artistic sight in the night sky with 7,519 synchronized drones establishing a Guinness World Record. Eat your heart out New Jersey!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpaSXwpKzGk&t=1s
Well reasoned, wrknight. Thank you.
Surviving a nuclear attack 101: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBqFoibhGSE&t=71s