Per the JPOST:
In an interview with Kol Hai Radio, Peres also said that the arrest before the weekend of a Hizbullah terror cell in Egypt was a blow to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's power.
"Ahmadinejad recruits forces against us, but there are also forces against him," Peres said. "What happened in Egypt created a fierce opposition and we must unify all his opponents - the Sunnis and the Europeans, as well as those afraid of nuclear weapons and terror."
Wow, you mean that Iran is not a peaceful republic which has given so much to the world. At least, they were the villains in 300. Maybe, the way to deal with them is how the Spartans did at Thermopylae.
Peres went on to say that he hoped Obama's call for dialogue with Ahmadinejad would be heeded, but warned that if such talks don't soften the Iranian president's approach "we'll strike him."
I know some bad-ass planes we can sell to the Israelis. Also, it will keep some sweet, sweet jobs in the U.S.
We need to support the Israeli's as it advances our own interests in the region. The question is will it be done, and will the U.S. provide the support that the Israeli's need.
Showing posts with label nukes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nukes. Show all posts
Monday, April 13, 2009
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Nukes in the neighborhood
An excellent, as usual, lead editorial from the Wall Street Journal today about the fantasy that is the President's "nuke free world."
"And I had an excellent meeting with President Medvedev of Russia to get started that process of reducing our nuclear stockpiles, which will then give us a greater moral authority to say to Iran, don't develop a nuclear weapon; to say to North Korea, don't proliferate nuclear weapons," Mr. Obama said, implying that previous American Presidents had lacked such "authority."
The President went even further in Prague, noting that "as a nuclear power -- as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon -- the United States has a moral responsibility to act." That barely concealed apology for Hiroshima is an insult to the memory of Harry Truman, who saved a million lives by ending World War II without a bloody invasion of Japan. As for the persuasive power of "moral authority," we should have learned long ago that the concept has no meaning in Pyongyang or Tehran, much less in the rocky hideouts of al Qaeda.
The truth is that Mr. Obama's nuclear vision has reality exactly backward. To the extent that the U.S. has maintained a large and credible nuclear arsenal, it has prevented war, defeated the Soviet Union, shored up our alliances and created an umbrella that persuaded other nations that they don't need a bomb to defend themselves.
I love the idea that by reducing our nuclear stockpile, which has prevented war as well as massive proliferation, will give us the moral authority to tell Tehran to not continue with their weapons program. This makes about as much sense as the crazy old man in your neighborhood getting rid of his rottweiler and shotgun from his front porch and expecting the kids to not play on his lawn. I can imagine just how shocked he would be when, surprise, they proceed to go rooting in his front yard and upturning his petunias.
The moral authority of the United States doesn't come from agreeing to get rid of our stockpile of nukes, but from our saving the world from itself on numerous occasions within the 20th century. Also, we did invent the snuggie, along with a host of other items which have made the world a better place, up to and including the Slap-Chop, the Sham-Wow as well the Big City Slider Station. Should we agree to rid the world of our consumer durables? I think we would have more authority by agreeing to send Billy Mays and Vince the Sham-Wow guy to Gitmo than we would by apologizing for our use of an atomic bomb and destroying our deterrent which has, cost benefit wise, saved more lives than any conventional weapon in modern history.
What the current administration doesn't understand, or probably won't admit, is that the world is a dangerous place. The kids that want to play in our front yard don't care about upturning our petunias as much as destroying the moral order of our garden. The rottweiler and shotgun of our yard are nuclear weapons and a missile shield. I hope my President begins to understand this point.
"And I had an excellent meeting with President Medvedev of Russia to get started that process of reducing our nuclear stockpiles, which will then give us a greater moral authority to say to Iran, don't develop a nuclear weapon; to say to North Korea, don't proliferate nuclear weapons," Mr. Obama said, implying that previous American Presidents had lacked such "authority."
The President went even further in Prague, noting that "as a nuclear power -- as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon -- the United States has a moral responsibility to act." That barely concealed apology for Hiroshima is an insult to the memory of Harry Truman, who saved a million lives by ending World War II without a bloody invasion of Japan. As for the persuasive power of "moral authority," we should have learned long ago that the concept has no meaning in Pyongyang or Tehran, much less in the rocky hideouts of al Qaeda.
The truth is that Mr. Obama's nuclear vision has reality exactly backward. To the extent that the U.S. has maintained a large and credible nuclear arsenal, it has prevented war, defeated the Soviet Union, shored up our alliances and created an umbrella that persuaded other nations that they don't need a bomb to defend themselves.
I love the idea that by reducing our nuclear stockpile, which has prevented war as well as massive proliferation, will give us the moral authority to tell Tehran to not continue with their weapons program. This makes about as much sense as the crazy old man in your neighborhood getting rid of his rottweiler and shotgun from his front porch and expecting the kids to not play on his lawn. I can imagine just how shocked he would be when, surprise, they proceed to go rooting in his front yard and upturning his petunias.
The moral authority of the United States doesn't come from agreeing to get rid of our stockpile of nukes, but from our saving the world from itself on numerous occasions within the 20th century. Also, we did invent the snuggie, along with a host of other items which have made the world a better place, up to and including the Slap-Chop, the Sham-Wow as well the Big City Slider Station. Should we agree to rid the world of our consumer durables? I think we would have more authority by agreeing to send Billy Mays and Vince the Sham-Wow guy to Gitmo than we would by apologizing for our use of an atomic bomb and destroying our deterrent which has, cost benefit wise, saved more lives than any conventional weapon in modern history.
What the current administration doesn't understand, or probably won't admit, is that the world is a dangerous place. The kids that want to play in our front yard don't care about upturning our petunias as much as destroying the moral order of our garden. The rottweiler and shotgun of our yard are nuclear weapons and a missile shield. I hope my President begins to understand this point.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Wouldn't a world without mean people be nice too...
From the Wall Street Journal this morning.
Speaking at Prague's Castle Square, Mr. Obama told the audience his administration was committed "to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons."
"We have to insist: 'Yes, we can,'" he said, reprising a campaign theme recognizable to a crowd a continent away from his election victory.
Sunday's speech followed a meeting Wednesday between Mr. Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, where the two leaders committed to conclude a new bilateral treaty that would reduce U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals below the 1,700 to 2,200 deployed warheads agreed to in 2002.
Mr. Obama's strategy, however, also seeks to gain the support of developing nations by recognizing their right to develop nuclear power.
The Obama administration is specifically supporting the development of an international nuclear-fuel bank that aspiring nuclear-power states could tap to feed their reactors.
Such a system, say U.S. officials, would undercut demands of countries like North Korea and Iran that they need to develop their own infrastructure to produce nuclear fuel. Such technologies can be easily shifted into producing fissile material for nuclear weapons.
The President has a limited amount of political capital that he can use in both domestic and foreign affairs. Why he would choose to go into a former soviet Bloc country to call for an end to nuclear weapons in what amounts to not much more than a campaign speech is beyond me. The intention is good, but the steps to go about strengthening our position against Russian, Iranian and North Korean hegemony is not to pray for cats and dogs to live together in peace, but to take a substantiative stance against nuclear proliferation, including everything up to a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe as well as the possible use of force against those nations who would use nuclear capacity against there perceived enemies.
One thing that I have realized about the North Koreans is that they are willing to push the envelope but not to step to over the line. (Sorry about the mixed metaphors) In that regard, I believe that the President's response was appropriate. However, Iran is the big issue here. If this is a test, by proxy, of the President by the Iranians, unfortunately he came across in Carteresque fashion.
Speaking at Prague's Castle Square, Mr. Obama told the audience his administration was committed "to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons."
"We have to insist: 'Yes, we can,'" he said, reprising a campaign theme recognizable to a crowd a continent away from his election victory.
Sunday's speech followed a meeting Wednesday between Mr. Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, where the two leaders committed to conclude a new bilateral treaty that would reduce U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals below the 1,700 to 2,200 deployed warheads agreed to in 2002.
Mr. Obama's strategy, however, also seeks to gain the support of developing nations by recognizing their right to develop nuclear power.
The Obama administration is specifically supporting the development of an international nuclear-fuel bank that aspiring nuclear-power states could tap to feed their reactors.
Such a system, say U.S. officials, would undercut demands of countries like North Korea and Iran that they need to develop their own infrastructure to produce nuclear fuel. Such technologies can be easily shifted into producing fissile material for nuclear weapons.
The President has a limited amount of political capital that he can use in both domestic and foreign affairs. Why he would choose to go into a former soviet Bloc country to call for an end to nuclear weapons in what amounts to not much more than a campaign speech is beyond me. The intention is good, but the steps to go about strengthening our position against Russian, Iranian and North Korean hegemony is not to pray for cats and dogs to live together in peace, but to take a substantiative stance against nuclear proliferation, including everything up to a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe as well as the possible use of force against those nations who would use nuclear capacity against there perceived enemies.
One thing that I have realized about the North Koreans is that they are willing to push the envelope but not to step to over the line. (Sorry about the mixed metaphors) In that regard, I believe that the President's response was appropriate. However, Iran is the big issue here. If this is a test, by proxy, of the President by the Iranians, unfortunately he came across in Carteresque fashion.
NY TIMES gets it wrong...Again
This report from the NT Times this morning details the "failure" of the North Korean "satellite" launch over the weekend.
A disgraceful passage.
The command said that North Korea launched a Taepodong-2 missile at 11:30 a.m. Sunday local time, or 10:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on Saturday, and that its first stage fell into the Sea of Japan, which analysts had expected as the point of splashdown in a successful launching.
However, “the remaining stages, along with the payload itself, landed in the Pacific Ocean,” the statement said. Analysts had expected the rocket’s second stage to land in the Pacific but its third stage and its ostensible satellite payload to fly into space.
The command emphasized that “no object entered orbit,” apparently a reference to both the rocket’s third stage as well as the supposed satellite.
North Korea’s public portrayal of the event as a complete success was similar in its celebratory tone to the happy note it struck in 1998 after having failed to loft a satellite into orbit.
News reports out of Japan also said the rocket’s second stage splashed down in the Pacific, hundreds of miles short of the danger zone that North Korea announced last month. Western analysts said that shortfall, if correct, probably indicated a failure of the missile’s second stage.
Does it occur to the "Newspaper of record" that the North Koreans weren't trying to launch a satellite. Perhaps they wanted to rattle the saber at the Japanese and President Obama, who was giving a vaunted, teleprompted speech about a world without nuclear weapons. I know that my liberal friends want to compare the President to Superman, but if he is Superman it is the Superman of the 4th shitty movie; Superman IV: The Quest for Peace
What the situation over the weekend reminds me of is a D.A.R.E officer giving a speech on a drug-free school system while the bad kids sit on the fire escape snorting coke. "Maybe if those bad kids heard how good the speech about the drug-free world is then why would they use drugs." I think that we would be able to stop the Dear Leader's saber rattling by beaming this into the country.
Another case of the Trailer being better than the movie
A disgraceful passage.
The command said that North Korea launched a Taepodong-2 missile at 11:30 a.m. Sunday local time, or 10:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on Saturday, and that its first stage fell into the Sea of Japan, which analysts had expected as the point of splashdown in a successful launching.
However, “the remaining stages, along with the payload itself, landed in the Pacific Ocean,” the statement said. Analysts had expected the rocket’s second stage to land in the Pacific but its third stage and its ostensible satellite payload to fly into space.
The command emphasized that “no object entered orbit,” apparently a reference to both the rocket’s third stage as well as the supposed satellite.
North Korea’s public portrayal of the event as a complete success was similar in its celebratory tone to the happy note it struck in 1998 after having failed to loft a satellite into orbit.
News reports out of Japan also said the rocket’s second stage splashed down in the Pacific, hundreds of miles short of the danger zone that North Korea announced last month. Western analysts said that shortfall, if correct, probably indicated a failure of the missile’s second stage.
Does it occur to the "Newspaper of record" that the North Koreans weren't trying to launch a satellite. Perhaps they wanted to rattle the saber at the Japanese and President Obama, who was giving a vaunted, teleprompted speech about a world without nuclear weapons. I know that my liberal friends want to compare the President to Superman, but if he is Superman it is the Superman of the 4th shitty movie; Superman IV: The Quest for Peace
What the situation over the weekend reminds me of is a D.A.R.E officer giving a speech on a drug-free school system while the bad kids sit on the fire escape snorting coke. "Maybe if those bad kids heard how good the speech about the drug-free world is then why would they use drugs." I think that we would be able to stop the Dear Leader's saber rattling by beaming this into the country.
Another case of the Trailer being better than the movie
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
