Condoleeza Rice Takes On Obama

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
301

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
LOL

Your turn, Doc. Go git 'im![/quote]

“The eagle does not hunt flies.”[/quote]

Says the man who was obviously wholly ignorant of the NPT while criticizing START II as weakness, a position that the staunchest of Offensive Realists wouldn’t subscribe to. The people you “discuss” foreign policy with at a dinner party may not know IR 101, but hey, neither do you. [/quote]

I think you’re confused. START II was a deMIRVing treaty circa 1993 that never went into effect. I don’t have subscription to the WSJ online but I would imagine the author is referring to New Start.

302

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Another example of BHO’s weakness, intentionally depriving us of another diplomatic tool to contain Russia’s adventures:

“John Kerry told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday that “Russian provocateurs” had infiltrated eastern Ukraine in order to foment “an illegal and illegitimate effort to destabilize a sovereign state and create a contrived crisis.” Also on Tuesday, the Pentagon announced steep cuts to U.S. nuclear forces, four years ahead of schedule, in accordance with the 2010 New Start treaty with Russia.”

Atomic diplomacy? Are you serious? What is this, 1945-1952? Anyone who is passably familiar with the offense-defense balance and strategic nuclear weapons understands that they are inherently defensive in nature and serve as the ultimate deterrent, not as tools of “diplomacy”. If I put a gun to your head and tell you I will pull the trigger unless you cooperate, am I being diplomatic?

Even International Relations Realists; scholars and practitioners who believe in a Hobbesian world where power manifested as material capabilities is the ultima ratio in world politics; would find your argument to be naive to an alarming degree. You’re obviously wholly ignorant of the non-proliferation regime, are an ideological fundamentalist, or the most likely possibility, both. The United States is legally and morally obligated to reduce it’s nuclear arsenal. It has been since 1968.

Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) states that the nuclear weapons States those who had detonated a nuclear device before the treaty entered into effect; US, USSR, UK, France, and China are “to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”

The direct violation of article VI (i.e, vertical proliferation, one of the P5 increasing the quantity of their nuclear arsenal) would constitute a material breach of the NPT, which would give the non-nuclear weapons States (NNWS) a legal and moral basis to disregard their article II obligations.

Article II states that the NNWS are “not to receive the transfer . . . whatsoever of nuclear weapons . . . or of control over [them].” Additionally, the NNWS are required
“not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons” nor “to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons.”

Obviously a cascade of horizontal proliferation (NNWS joining the nuclear club) is a scenario the United States would like to avoid, and the Obama administration’s decision to recommit to the non-proliferation regime was a sage one.

http://www.un.org/en/conf/npt/2005/npttreaty.html

[/quote]

The partners agree “not to in any way to assist, encourage, or induce” a non-nuclear weapon state (NNWS) to acquire nuclear weapons (Article I).

It’s a good thing the former USSR/Russia has never done that since it came into force in 1970.

303

Article VI does not strictly require all signatories to actually conclude a disarmament treaty. Rather, it only requires them “to negotiate in good faith.”

304

Russia?s march on Crimea might top the United States? list of issues with its onetime foe. But it is hardly the whole list. Rather, Washington apparently believes that Moscow has also been busy violating the INF, a pact between the two banning the use of certain types of nuclear and conventionally armed missiles. This is no minor matter.

At the moment, Russia?s march on Crimea tops the United States? list of issues with its onetime foe. But it is hardly the whole list. Rather, as The New York Times reported in January, Washington apparently believes that Moscow has also been busy violating the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, a pact between the two banning the use of both nuclear and conventionally armed ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles within a certain range. This is no minor matter. When the treaty was signed in 1987, it was taken as a signal that the Cold War was finally thawing and, since then, it has been a been a defining element in U.S.-Russian relations, the United States and NATO?s deterrent posture, and the broader architecture of global arms control.

Despite this legacy, Russia has apparently developed a cruise missile designed to operate in the treaty?s prohibited range of 500 to 5,550 kilometers and has reportedly developed an RS-26 ballistic missile that also appears to have been designed for intermediate ranges; the latter missile has just barely reached beyond 5,500 kilometers with a minimal payload in testing…Foreign Affairs

305

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Russia?s march on Crimea might top the United States? list of issues with its onetime foe. But it is hardly the whole list. Rather, Washington apparently believes that Moscow has also been busy violating the INF, a pact between the two banning the use of certain types of nuclear and conventionally armed missiles. This is no minor matter.

At the moment, Russia?s march on Crimea tops the United States? list of issues with its onetime foe. But it is hardly the whole list. Rather, as The New York Times reported in January, Washington apparently believes that Moscow has also been busy violating the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, a pact between the two banning the use of both nuclear and conventionally armed ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles within a certain range. This is no minor matter. When the treaty was signed in 1987, it was taken as a signal that the Cold War was finally thawing and, since then, it has been a been a defining element in U.S.-Russian relations, the United States and NATO?s deterrent posture, and the broader architecture of global arms control.

Despite this legacy, Russia has apparently developed a cruise missile designed to operate in the treaty?s prohibited range of 500 to 5,550 kilometers and has reportedly developed an RS-26 ballistic missile that also appears to have been designed for intermediate ranges; the latter missile has just barely reached beyond 5,500 kilometers with a minimal payload in testing…Foreign Affairs[/quote]

Russian violation of article VI of the NPT and the INF. The Kremlin is intent on reassertion Russia’s status as a great power. Care to provide the link to FA?

307

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Article VI does not strictly require all signatories to actually conclude a disarmament treaty. Rather, it only requires them “to negotiate in good faith.”[/quote]

Article II and article VI represent the grand bargain of the NPT. The NNWS agreed not to contribute to horizontal proliferation, and the NWS would reduce their nuclear arsenals, with eventual disarmament being the end goal. It’s been over 40 year since it’s entry into force, and some NNWS have voiced their discontent with what they see as a lack of progress and great power irresponsibility.

308

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
LOL

Your turn, Doc. Go git 'im![/quote]

“The eagle does not hunt flies.”[/quote]

Says the man who was obviously wholly ignorant of the NPT while criticizing START II as weakness, a position that the staunchest of Offensive Realists wouldn’t subscribe to. The people you “discuss” foreign policy with at a dinner party may not know IR 101, but hey, neither do you. [/quote]

I think you’re confused. START II was a deMIRVing treaty circa 1993 that never went into effect. I don’t have subscription to the WSJ online but I would imagine the author is referring to New Start.[/quote]

Yes. My mistake. Sciatic nerve pain, pain medication, and insomnia do not always lend themselves to writing. MIRV are another topic worthy of discussion. I don’t believe counter-force weapons (which could target a State’s retaliatory nuclear capabilities in the event of a first strike) are conducive to a prudent foreign policy, as they make nuclear weapons an offensive weapon. What are your thoughts on them?

309

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
LOL

Your turn, Doc. Go git 'im![/quote]

“The eagle does not hunt flies.”[/quote]
[/quote]

310

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Another example of BHO’s weakness, intentionally depriving us of another diplomatic tool to contain Russia’s adventures:

“John Kerry told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday that “Russian provocateurs” had infiltrated eastern Ukraine in order to foment “an illegal and illegitimate effort to destabilize a sovereign state and create a contrived crisis.” Also on Tuesday, the Pentagon announced steep cuts to U.S. nuclear forces, four years ahead of schedule, in accordance with the 2010 New Start treaty with Russia.”

Atomic diplomacy? Are you serious? What is this, 1945-1952? Anyone who is passably familiar with the offense-defense balance and strategic nuclear weapons understands that they are inherently defensive in nature and serve as the ultimate deterrent, not as tools of “diplomacy”. If I put a gun to your head and tell you I will pull the trigger unless you cooperate, am I being diplomatic?

Even International Relations Realists; scholars and practitioners who believe in a Hobbesian world where power manifested as material capabilities is the ultima ratio in world politics; would find your argument to be naive to an alarming degree. You’re obviously wholly ignorant of the non-proliferation regime, are an ideological fundamentalist, or the most likely possibility, both. The United States is legally and morally obligated to reduce it’s nuclear arsenal. It has been since 1968.

Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) states that the nuclear weapons States those who had detonated a nuclear device before the treaty entered into effect; US, USSR, UK, France, and China are “to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”

The direct violation of article VI (i.e, vertical proliferation, one of the P5 increasing the quantity of their nuclear arsenal) would constitute a material breach of the NPT, which would give the non-nuclear weapons States (NNWS) a legal and moral basis to disregard their article II obligations.

Article II states that the NNWS are “not to receive the transfer . . . whatsoever of nuclear weapons . . . or of control over [them].” Additionally, the NNWS are required
“not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons” nor “to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons.”

Obviously a cascade of horizontal proliferation (NNWS joining the nuclear club) is a scenario the United States would like to avoid, and the Obama administration’s decision to recommit to the non-proliferation regime was a sage one.

http://www.un.org/en/conf/npt/2005/npttreaty.html

[/quote]

The partners agree “not to in any way to assist, encourage, or induce” a non-nuclear weapon state (NNWS) to acquire nuclear weapons (Article I).

It’s a good thing the former USSR/Russia has never done that since it came into force in 1970.[/quote]

I’m not doubting you, but can you provide specific examples? India comes to mind. France helped Israel develop their nuclear capability, and the US was complicit. LBJ effectively ignored the findings of the CIA regarding Israel’s nuclear intentions.

311

[quote]Bismark wrote:

I’m not doubting you, but can you provide specific examples?
[/quote]

North Korea and Iran.

It was the US(Kissinger under Nixon) who advised Israel to not declare their nuclear intentions. I can’t link to the Foreign Affairs article because I’m not a paid subscriber so I can only read one article a month. Maybe try copying some of the text and search with it from google.

312

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
LOL

Your turn, Doc. Go git 'im![/quote]

“The eagle does not hunt flies.”[/quote]

Says the man who was obviously wholly ignorant of the NPT while criticizing START II as weakness, a position that the staunchest of Offensive Realists wouldn’t subscribe to. The people you “discuss” foreign policy with at a dinner party may not know IR 101, but hey, neither do you. [/quote]

I think you’re confused. START II was a deMIRVing treaty circa 1993 that never went into effect. I don’t have subscription to the WSJ online but I would imagine the author is referring to New Start.[/quote]

Yes. My mistake. Sciatic nerve pain, pain medication, and insomnia do not always lend themselves to writing. MIRV are another topic worthy of discussion. I don’t believe counter-force weapons (which could target a State’s retaliatory nuclear capabilities in the event of a first strike) are conducive to a prudent foreign policy, as they make nuclear weapons an offensive weapon. What are your thoughts on them? [/quote]

A second strike capability is an important part of a nuclear weapons system. And the ability to remove an enemy’s retaliatory strike capability would obviously provide a massive advantage. In terms of global nuclear deterrence it’s probably best if no one had a second strike capability.

313

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
LOL

Your turn, Doc. Go git 'im![/quote]

“The eagle does not hunt flies.”[/quote]

Says the man who was obviously wholly ignorant of the NPT while criticizing START II as weakness, a position that the staunchest of Offensive Realists wouldn’t subscribe to. The people you “discuss” foreign policy with at a dinner party may not know IR 101, but hey, neither do you. [/quote]

I think you’re confused. START II was a deMIRVing treaty circa 1993 that never went into effect. I don’t have subscription to the WSJ online but I would imagine the author is referring to New Start.[/quote]

Yes. My mistake. Sciatic nerve pain, pain medication, and insomnia do not always lend themselves to writing. MIRV are another topic worthy of discussion. I don’t believe counter-force weapons (which could target a State’s retaliatory nuclear capabilities in the event of a first strike) are conducive to a prudent foreign policy, as they make nuclear weapons an offensive weapon. What are your thoughts on them? [/quote]

A second strike capability is an important part of a nuclear weapons system. And the ability to remove an enemy’s retaliatory strike capability would obviously provide a massive advantage. In terms of global nuclear deterrence it’s probably best if no one had a second strike capability.[/quote]

You have it backwards. Without a second strike capability, States would have much greater incentive to strike first, leaving nuclear arsenals precariously on a hair trigger. When strategists believe the offense-defense balance favors the offense, planners are eager to capitalize on a perceived first mover advantage. Case in point, the cult of the offensive leading up to the First World War. The specter of mutually assured destruction tempers fear and uncertainty that could lead to a nuclear exchange. I’ve read a decent amount of the nuclear strategy literature and I’ve never came across what you’re advocating. If something like that exists, I’d love to read it over so I can better understand the argument.

314

[quote]Bismark wrote:

You have it backwards. Without a second strike capability, States would have much greater incentive to strike first, leaving nuclear arsenals precariously on a hair trigger. When strategists believe the offense-defense balance favors the offense, planners are eager to capitalize on a perceived first mover advantage. Case in point, the cult of the offensive leading up to the First World War. The specter of mutually assured destruction tempers fear and uncertainty that could lead to a nuclear exchange. I’ve read a decent amount of the nuclear strategy literature and I’ve never came across what you’re advocating. If something like that exists, I’d love to read it over so I can better understand the argument. [/quote]

Yes you’re absolutely right. I was talking about a specific scenario in which every power’s first strike capacity had been reduced to such an extent that it would not decisively destroy their enemy. Should have been more clear.

315

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
She believes in werewolves. Werewolves! [/quote]

I hope you are not really this dumb and that is an attempt at humor.
[/quote]
OK, technically it’s WerwÃ???Ã???Ã??Ã?¶lfe . And it is 100% true.

Edit: it’s not letting me post the German word properly. [/quote]

The werewolf= Der Werwolf
[/quote]
That’s singular. I was spelling it in the plural but it won’t let me type an umlaut.

Regardless, she believes in them. Maybe she read about them in the Washington Times. [/quote]

Do you really not know the werewolves in question referred to former Nazi SS officers who allegedly kept up resistance after the wars end and not the werewolf of fables?
[/quote]
Do you really not know that the werewolves were more myth than reality? Rice didn’t. She compared the insurgency in Iraq to post-war Germany. It was a complete and total lie or, she is just that ignorant. Let’s see, let’s draw a comparison between a fictitious movement that did not kill one American soldier to a real one that killed thousands. And people fell for it.

316

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

You have it backwards. Without a second strike capability, States would have much greater incentive to strike first, leaving nuclear arsenals precariously on a hair trigger. When strategists believe the offense-defense balance favors the offense, planners are eager to capitalize on a perceived first mover advantage. Case in point, the cult of the offensive leading up to the First World War. The specter of mutually assured destruction tempers fear and uncertainty that could lead to a nuclear exchange. I’ve read a decent amount of the nuclear strategy literature and I’ve never came across what you’re advocating. If something like that exists, I’d love to read it over so I can better understand the argument. [/quote]

Yes you’re absolutely right. I was talking about a specific scenario in which every power’s first strike capacity had been reduced to such an extent that it would not decisively destroy their enemy. Should have been more clear.[/quote]

I thought you had made a writing error. In light of that, does Obama’s pursuit of New START constitute an act of weakness? (As the good Dr. asserted before he scampered away) Or a responsible act of governance, as I contend?

317

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

You have it backwards. Without a second strike capability, States would have much greater incentive to strike first, leaving nuclear arsenals precariously on a hair trigger. When strategists believe the offense-defense balance favors the offense, planners are eager to capitalize on a perceived first mover advantage. Case in point, the cult of the offensive leading up to the First World War. The specter of mutually assured destruction tempers fear and uncertainty that could lead to a nuclear exchange. I’ve read a decent amount of the nuclear strategy literature and I’ve never came across what you’re advocating. If something like that exists, I’d love to read it over so I can better understand the argument. [/quote]

Yes you’re absolutely right. I was talking about a specific scenario in which every power’s first strike capacity had been reduced to such an extent that it would not decisively destroy their enemy. Should have been more clear.[/quote]

I thought you had made a writing error. In light of that, does Obama’s pursuit of New START constitute an act of weakness? (As the good Dr. asserted before he scampered away) Or a responsible act of governance, as I contend?
[/quote]

Under the circumstances of Russia’s belligerence and treaty breaking yes .

318

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

You have it backwards. Without a second strike capability, States would have much greater incentive to strike first, leaving nuclear arsenals precariously on a hair trigger. When strategists believe the offense-defense balance favors the offense, planners are eager to capitalize on a perceived first mover advantage. Case in point, the cult of the offensive leading up to the First World War. The specter of mutually assured destruction tempers fear and uncertainty that could lead to a nuclear exchange. I’ve read a decent amount of the nuclear strategy literature and I’ve never came across what you’re advocating. If something like that exists, I’d love to read it over so I can better understand the argument. [/quote]

Yes you’re absolutely right. I was talking about a specific scenario in which every power’s first strike capacity had been reduced to such an extent that it would not decisively destroy their enemy. Should have been more clear.[/quote]

I thought you had made a writing error. In light of that, does Obama’s pursuit of New START constitute an act of weakness? (As the good Dr. asserted before he scampered away) Or a responsible act of governance, as I contend?
[/quote]

Under the circumstances of Russia’s belligerence and treaty breaking yes .[/quote]

Which could also be seen as signaling of benign intentions, and not even of the costly variety.

319

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

You have it backwards. Without a second strike capability, States would have much greater incentive to strike first, leaving nuclear arsenals precariously on a hair trigger. When strategists believe the offense-defense balance favors the offense, planners are eager to capitalize on a perceived first mover advantage. Case in point, the cult of the offensive leading up to the First World War. The specter of mutually assured destruction tempers fear and uncertainty that could lead to a nuclear exchange. I’ve read a decent amount of the nuclear strategy literature and I’ve never came across what you’re advocating. If something like that exists, I’d love to read it over so I can better understand the argument. [/quote]

Yes you’re absolutely right. I was talking about a specific scenario in which every power’s first strike capacity had been reduced to such an extent that it would not decisively destroy their enemy. Should have been more clear.[/quote]

I thought you had made a writing error. In light of that, does Obama’s pursuit of New START constitute an act of weakness? (As the good Dr. asserted before he scampered away) Or a responsible act of governance, as I contend?
[/quote]

Under the circumstances of Russia’s belligerence and treaty breaking yes .[/quote]

Which could also be seen as signaling of benign intentions, and not even of the costly variety.

Not sure how that interview with Mearsheimer relates but I disagree that Russia has ‘benign intentions’ and find it difficult to understand how anyone other than a closed minded ideologue could believe such. In terms of IR I favour Reagan’s policy of roll back. It was extremely successful and he more than anyone on earth is responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union and their reduction from superpower status.