Wednesday, September 23, 2009

When facts fail make them up

With the Dear Leader’s upcoming push for unilateral nuclear disarmament, the “reality based community” seems to be focusing on battlefield preparation to pave the way for our hobbling.

Case in point is self proclaimed “communitarian” and GWU professor Amitai Etzioni.

Writing in Time, Jonathan Tepperman lays out the case that Obama should embrace nuclear weapons because they have kept the work relatively peaceful the past 60 years citing the absence of direct armed conflict between nuclear powers. To which the distinguished professor Etzioni remarks:

Soon, it became clear that there is no research--let alone compelling research--to support this forehead-slapping claim, only Mr. Tepperman's simplistic conclusions ...... However, Mr. Tepperman fully reveals the depths of his "research" when he writes, "There's never been a nuclear, or even a nonnuclear, war between two states that posses them." I guess he has never heard about India and Pakistan.
I hope Etzioni isn’t a history professor because Pakistan and India haven’t had a shooting war since 1971, three years before India tested its first bomb in 1974 and a decade before Pakistan had its first bomb*.

But what are silly little things like facts for the “reality based community”.


  1. So you actually support the U.S. having nuclear weapons? Under what circumstances would you support the use of a nuclear weapon? Why do you think that the U.S., which has been in more wars than any other nation in history, should have access to the most dangerous weapons on the planet? That seems like supporting giving all violent rapists, dope pushers, and street gangs access to automatic weapons, while limiting everyone else to pepper spray. Please explain why the most violent and aggressive nations should have access to the most dangerous and destructive weaponry.

  2. Nuclear weapons have kept the peace for the past 70 years. Oh sure, we have had wars and (not sure how you justify your statement that US has had more wars than any other nation in history) some of them have been quite large and bloody but a conflagration on a global scale has been put off the list of options for rational policy makers. While the US has been the only nation to use nukes, I think the use was justified and given our early complete dominance with them, we have used them (or not used them) in a responsible manner. Had the leadership of the US decided to end the cold war early, we could have used our nukes to roll the Soviets up in 1950 and not had to wait another 40 years.

    So yes, I do support the US having nuclear weapons, and even support such upgrades as the reliable warhead replacement program, but that’s mostly for budgetary issues. I also support the current nuclear posture that this country has adopted, namely that any attack with nonconventional weapons will be met with nuclear annihilation. I pray to God that it never comes to that, but it’s a hell of a stick.