For John, BLUF: Mark Steyn writes sarcastically about nuclear proliferation. It is coming. Nothing to see here; just move along.
Canadian expat Mark Steyn, writing in National Review talks about nuclear proliferation, with the title "The Axis of Torpor". M Steyn starts by reviewing recent movie releases and then reviews the nuclear proliferators and talks about the possible long term outcomes of such proliferation. He also talks about economies across the globe and wonders why there are rich nations who don't care about nuclear weapons and poor nations that do. He then looks at different approaches to the problem of nuclear proliferation by different factions down in DC. Here is the last paragraph:
As the CPAC crowd suggested, there are takers on the right for the Rand Paul position. There are many on the left for Obama’s drone-alone definition of great power. But there are ever fewer takers for a money-no-object global hegemon that spends 46 percent of the world’s military budget and can’t impress its will on a bunch of inbred goatherds. A broker America needs to learn to do more with less, and to rediscover the cold calculation of national interest rather than waging war as the world’s largest NGO. In dismissing Paul as a “wacko bird,” John McCain and Lindsey Graham assume that the too-big-to-fail status quo is forever. It’s not; it’s already over.Hat tip to the Instapundit.
Regards — Cliff
CPAC—Conservative Political Action Conference
NGO—Non-Governmental Organization
Rand Paul—US Senator from Tennessee, who recently conducted a near 13 hour filibuster regarding possible proliferation of Drone (RPA) attacks.
3 comments:
And THAT folks is why I like Mark Styne. All I can say to his last paragraph is..."AMEN!!!"
We run headlong into problems when we construct an elaborate and highly lethal palace defense, and then export it to try to inflict our world view on others whose world view will NEVER equate to our own. Defense cannot simultaneously be offense. One or the other, or both suffer catastrophically.
There is plenty we can do by being an astute and good neighbor, but I suggest in the strongest of terms that we need to get out of the nation building/rebuilding after we destroy it business. A talking head this morning claimed that Iraq is better for our "intervention" and so are we. BS!!! We have both suffered the devastation of an unnecessary war. And now, in Afghanistan we are suffering the fate that police responding to domestic problems have long known....the object of your protection will quite often turn on you. They have.
I am a strong advocate of having a nuclear deterrent capability second to none (second best is the same as loser) and make it well known that we will, if provoked employ that capability as we see fit. You attack me, you have now given me permission to respond in my own time and way. Oh....and bystanders don't get a vote.
Beyond that, we need to stick to our own knitting and keep our snoot out of other folk's business.
If second best provides functional retaliation, against the first best, aren't the functionally equivalent?
That is, is there anything 'better' than functional MAD capability?
I think Neal means that if the other side tries to play the game of going up the escalation ladder you want enough to bounce the rubble at some point, so you always have escalation dominance.
It is an ugly business, but, as you say, functional MAD capability is the best we can hope for, short of the Parousia.
Regards — Cliff
Post a Comment