Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (10232)	1/29/2006 12:15:46 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541702

Tom, the problem is, I believe, that we have not seen any alternative and viable plans from any other but the Administration on how to deal with terrorism. BUT we certainly have heard lots and LOTS of criticism. In the face of no other viable plans, but just criticism, I certainly don't think that everyone is on the same page. But rather, are just trying to politicize a very bad situation. Karen, this is simply not so. Whole forest have tumbled because there is an industry out there producing op eds, research papers, policy proposals, books, etc., that propose an array of different strategies. The most recent I've read is Daniel Benjamin and Steve Simon's, The Next Attack: The Failure of the War on Terror and a Strategy for Getting It Right. You can see a description on Amazon. amazon.com Both know what they are talking about; they served in the National Security Council during the Clinton administration. There previous book came highly recommended by tekboy, no small thing. I haven't talked with him about this one. But, should you choose to read it, it leads one into the literature. As for as one Nuke destroying America. No, I don't think one will do it. 5 or 10 would certainly have a terrible impact, for sure. But I think the think we all should think about is: what direction is the prevailing wind and the wind layers under that....? Where would the nuke debris head? How many cities would have fallout and possibly be quarantined? What would happen to our interstate commerce and travel? How and who would fix the infrastructure destroyed? And etc etc etc. On this score, there are two interesting pieces of work. A very interesting article by Benjamin Schwartz in this month's Atlantic Monthly which argues we are all focusing on the wrong thing. That the monopoly the US now has in nuclear attack capability has destroyed the one element in the old MAD business that preserved stability, the conviction on the part of the two parties, the US and Russia, that they could survive an attack and strike back. That conviction kept fears of first strikes down. That's gone, says Schwartz, principally, as I read it, because the Russians no longer have a viable nuclear sub capability and the Chinese never did. And in its place is a new regimen in China and Russia to disperse nuclear capabilities widely, the better to survive first strikes. But that has meant dispersing command capabilities which moves the ability to pull the trigger down the command chain. Which should trouble us all. Here's the link. theatlantic.com On the issue of the nuclear capability of Iran and other states that pose themselves as enemies of the US, Josh Marshall pulled together a group of high level experts to evaluate the administration claims that Iran is close to nuclear strike capability. Their conclusion: Iran is ten years away. Neither of us are in a position to evaluate those respective claims but we can evaluate the credibility of the folk making the claim. In which case, the Bush administration has very large problems given the Iraq wmd results. And we can also keep an open mind as we read lots of other materials on Iran.