Replies

Senator Robert(not john EFIN) Kerry back in '98 wanted us to get rid of some nukes so Russia would do the same since Russia could no longer control the many thousands they had. Then the US and Russia agreed to destroy some tactical nukes, we did and so did Russia then Russia reniged. Then we had to spend 400M$ to help Russia destroy some of their strategic nukes while China sits looking like the cat that ate the bird.

We have an interesting situation here. Some of the things we did in the 1990s (and earlier) to set the future tone for a peaceful world had lofty ideals behind them. These gestures are like money in the bank. It's not quick cash we can pull out at a diplomatic ATM machine, but it means something. Once we found that certain realities weren't what we expected, we were able to quickly pull away.

I'm thinking of three things in particular: the nuclear protocols between us and the Soviet Union. Very good -- and showed a strong level of maturity on the part of both military organizations.

Second, I'm thinking of those "reductions." They were a mistake in retrospect, but they showed the world we were serious about peace. I want 10x the production of what we had before those reductions today, but that's only something we can do without offending the world because we can say we tried.

Third, I'm thinking of our belated intervention in Kosovo. A tactical liability it has turned out to be, but a strategic net win history will give us. We can now say that we tried. We really tried. (Of course we should have moved sooner, but don't you think that was "Old" Europe's responsibility?)

It's not easy being a superpower. It comes with heavy responsibilities.