Comments on: Campaigning Like its 1979… (Obama and No More Nukes) http://poliblogger.com/?p=12594 A rough draft of my thoughts... Fri, 09 Nov 2025 18:01:26 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: Dave Trowbridge http://poliblogger.com/?p=12594#comment-1364832 Thu, 04 Oct 2025 11:22:50 +0000 http://poliblogger.com/?p=12594#comment-1364832 While the nuclear bomb was undoubtedly a force for stability during the latter part of what Philip Bobbitt calls "The Long War," I wonder if it will continue to be so in the twilight of the nation-state, as non-state actors play a larger and larger role in international politics. There may be realistic scenarios in which nuclear weapons become destabilizing--and certainly, the push by certain elements in the U.S. government to makes nukes just another tactical weapon will play a role in any of those. While the nuclear bomb was undoubtedly a force for stability during the latter part of what Philip Bobbitt calls “The Long War,” I wonder if it will continue to be so in the twilight of the nation-state, as non-state actors play a larger and larger role in international politics. There may be realistic scenarios in which nuclear weapons become destabilizing–and certainly, the push by certain elements in the U.S. government to makes nukes just another tactical weapon will play a role in any of those.

]]> by: Micah Tillman http://poliblogger.com/?p=12594#comment-1364822 Wed, 03 Oct 2025 12:59:53 +0000 http://poliblogger.com/?p=12594#comment-1364822 I don't think Obama is naive so much as nice. Nice guys want people to be nice. Well, maybe you can't be nice without being naive. In response to Joe's suggestion that all nukes be controlled by the UN: Doesn't your proposal mean essentially that there is no way of getting everyone to get rid of their nukes without someone keeping them (to ensure that everyone else gets rid of theirs)? If so, the question would have to be, "Why the UN?" I don’t think Obama is naive so much as nice. Nice guys want people to be nice.

Well, maybe you can’t be nice without being naive.

In response to Joe’s suggestion that all nukes be controlled by the UN: Doesn’t your proposal mean essentially that there is no way of getting everyone to get rid of their nukes without someone keeping them (to ensure that everyone else gets rid of theirs)?

If so, the question would have to be, “Why the UN?”

]]> by: Joe Mucia http://poliblogger.com/?p=12594#comment-1364820 Wed, 03 Oct 2025 01:47:49 +0000 http://poliblogger.com/?p=12594#comment-1364820 Sorry to double post, but I think <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/10/2/14391/2386" rel="nofollow">Kos has the best rejoinder to the "unserious" charge</a>. Sorry to double post, but I think Kos has the best rejoinder to the “unserious” charge.

]]> by: Joe Mucia http://poliblogger.com/?p=12594#comment-1364819 Wed, 03 Oct 2025 01:32:23 +0000 http://poliblogger.com/?p=12594#comment-1364819 While getting rid of nuclear weapons would certainly be difficult (i.e. 5% chance of happening) I think the U.S. seriously pursuing that goal would change the entire dynamic on the issue. If you could get the 5 major powers to agree to give up their nuclear weapons, you could supercede the NPT and create a much larger, more indepth nonproliferation regime with all nuclear materials controlled by a UN agency. All nuclear development outside the UN could be a cause for military action. With the major powers having already given up their nuclear weapons, they would not take the side of a third rate power to block military action, which has been the largest impediment to the original vision of the UN as a international security enforcement agency. While getting rid of nuclear weapons would certainly be difficult (i.e. 5% chance of happening) I think the U.S. seriously pursuing that goal would change the entire dynamic on the issue.

If you could get the 5 major powers to agree to give up their nuclear weapons, you could supercede the NPT and create a much larger, more indepth nonproliferation regime with all nuclear materials controlled by a UN agency. All nuclear development outside the UN could be a cause for military action. With the major powers having already given up their nuclear weapons, they would not take the side of a third rate power to block military action, which has been the largest impediment to the original vision of the UN as a international security enforcement agency.

]]> by: MSS http://poliblogger.com/?p=12594#comment-1364817 Tue, 02 Oct 2025 22:47:40 +0000 http://poliblogger.com/?p=12594#comment-1364817 Ah, yes, the latest foreign policy utterance from the candidate who suggests war with Pakistan. Ah, yes, the latest foreign policy utterance from the candidate who suggests war with Pakistan.

]]> by: Jan http://poliblogger.com/?p=12594#comment-1364814 Tue, 02 Oct 2025 20:00:21 +0000 http://poliblogger.com/?p=12594#comment-1364814 It strikes me as a sign of his naivety and evidence that he is not politically experienced enough for the office. I like some of what he has had to say, but he also often seems to make these types of statements that seem way off base for how the international system really works. It strikes me as a sign of his naivety and evidence that he is not politically experienced enough for the office.

I like some of what he has had to say, but he also often seems to make these types of statements that seem way off base for how the international system really works.

]]> by: RealClearPolitics - Blog Coverage http://poliblogger.com/?p=12594#comment-1364813 Tue, 02 Oct 2025 18:57:13 +0000 http://poliblogger.com/?p=12594#comment-1364813 <strong>Obama Urges Elimination of Nukes</strong> Off The Table: Obama Urges Elimination of Nukes

Off The Table:

]]> by: Mark http://poliblogger.com/?p=12594#comment-1364812 Tue, 02 Oct 2025 16:55:27 +0000 http://poliblogger.com/?p=12594#comment-1364812 You are so right. The nuclear bomb is now in more countries and more that would never give them up. You are so right. The nuclear bomb is now in more countries and more that would never give them up.

]]>