Victor Davis Hanson: The old Schell game

The New Criterion ^ | October 2007 | Victor Davis Hanson

[neverdem]

Ping

[veracious]

Duh, give an Iranian regime 15 minutes without opposition response, and well duh...

[Logophile]

Witness the recent Wall Street Journal opinion essay calling for global abolition of nuclear weapons by the deans of American foreign policy Henry Kissinger, Sam Nunn, William Perry, and George Schultz.

Global abolition of nuclear weapons is a Utopian fantasy. These "deans of American foreign policy" are suffering from delusions if they believe such a thing is possible in the real world.

[goodnesswins]

Uh....I think they caught Alzheimers from Reagan...bless his soul....he’s probably rolling in his grave.

[goodnesswins]

Uh....I think they caught Alzheimers from Reagan...bless his soul....he’s probably rolling in his grave.

[Brad from Tennessee]

I have always believed that it will take a nuclear exchange, probably between Pakistan and India, before disarmament is taken seriously. Even then, it would take a temporary alliance of the U.S., Russia and China to end Third World proliferation by military force.

[lepton]

Bookmark bump

[lepton]

I have always believed that it will take a nuclear exchange, probably between Pakistan and India, before disarmament is taken seriously.

SOMEONE responsible must have them...else the threshold to crazy is reduced to near nil.

[Brad from Tennessee]

If the U.S., France and the U.K. didn’t have nukes Western Europe would have been overrun long ago by the Russians.

[Brad from Tennessee]

You may have read this already. It’s a paper outlining the improvement of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, the deterioration of Russian nuclear forces—which they say now they are upgrading—and the limits of the Chinese.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85204/keir-a-lieber-daryl-g-press/the-rise-of-u-s-nuclear-primacy.html

[ccmay]

“it is absolutely impermissible for two or three countries to brandish their nuclear weapons at will, issue orders and commands, and lord it over the world as self-ordained nuclear overlords.”

What a pity that we did not do precisely this in 1945. We should have dictated peace on our own terms to the world under the threat of nuclear destruction, and followed through with an example or two if necessary.

-ccm

[occamrzr06]

Wow, where to start with this one.

First, I don’t think it is revisionist history to say Japan was more worried about Russia entering the fight against Japan, being a catalyst for surrender. The fire bombs of Tokyo did much more damage to Japanese strength than both of the nukes we fired.

I think a number of factors induced the Japanese to surrender. Russia entering the fight, the fire bombings, the nukes and our resolve to take casualties on Iwo Jima all lead to their decision.

The Russian factor played a large part. Just as German forces fought their way to surrender to Allied forces, instead of Russian forces, the Japanese knew they would get a better deal from the Allies, than from Russia.

Just my 2 cents.

The whole nuclear issue is another matter that I think this article and the media as a whole seem to try and simplify. Most of the media, in my opinion, think any nukes are just bad.

During the 50’s through the collapse of the USSR (1992 or so), nations who had nukes were predictable. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) was the doctrine all nuclear capable countries went by.

The doctrine has changed, yet not many are talking about the changes in doctrine, just the effects.

MAD does not have the same effect as it did in the past for the simple reason we are not dealing with nation states, but elements (Al Qaeda, Hamas, etc) that are not nation states. And yet they are supported by nation states.

So the issue is not which nation state has nuclear devices, but which nation state has them and are willing to use their proxy terrorist organization to use them?

I disagree that we are more likely today to have an all out nuclear exchange like the threat we had during the cold war. I fear we will give up after 1 or 2 nuclear devices go off and because of our inability to act decisively we will retreat and our enemies influence will be furthered.

This could be a whole dissertation.

Comments, criticism, and grammatical corrections welcomed.

[Tolik]

    Victor Davis Hanson Ping ! 

       Let me know if you want in or out.

Links:    FR Index of his articles:  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=victordavishanson
                His website: http://victorhanson.com/
                NRO archive: http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson-archive.asp
                Pajamasmedia:   http://victordavishanson.pajamasmedia.com/

[oldbrowser]

During the nuclear freeze movement of the 1980s, Jonathan Schell became well known for his detailed arguments calling for global nuclear disarmament.

This sounds like the John Lennon argument, "Imagine no more weapons".

Actually we had a "freeze" on weapons in 1945 until the Communist sympathizers gave the secrets to the Russians.

[Petronski]

Lost me right here:

The world’s nations often came to the bomb haphazardly. America used it at Hiroshima in sloppy and casual fashion.

[Madame Dufarge]

Jonathan Schell does have a way with words, and has used this talent to relentlessly attack America and suck in those educated beyond their intelligence since the the 70's. He was a huge advocate of the theory of Global Cooling then, and he has remained a silver-tounged charlatan ever since.

Here's a quote from his "Global Cooling" period.

Now, in a widening sphere of decisions, the costs of error are so exorbitant that we need to act on theory alone, which is to say on prediction alone. It follows that the reputation of scientific prediction needs to be enhanced. But that can happen, paradoxically, only if scientists disavow the certainty and precision that they normally insist on. Above all, we need to learn to act decisively to forestall predicted perils, even while knowing that they may never materialize. We must take action, in a manner of speaking, to preserve our ignorance. There are perils that we can be certain of avoiding only at the cost of never knowing with certainty that they were real.

-Uber-liberal Jonathan Livingston Schell

[Billthedrill]

The genie isn't going back into the bottle, and it amazes me how many wishful thinkers think it can be forced to do so by sentiment and good faith. Those who scream that the current U.S. ascendance constitutes intolerable oppression ought to be a little more circumspect about conferring an even greater imbalance of power to an international agency, especially in view of the incredible level of corruption, ineffeciency, and lack of accountability that typifies the present-day UN.

International diplomacy has not served to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation. MAD doctrines have served to prevent them from being used. It may be that a little more attention ought to be paid to what has worked instead of what has not but in some beautiful imaginary world might (or not). We don't live there.

[Madame Dufarge]

It may be that a little more attention ought to be paid to what has worked instead of what has not but in some beautiful imaginary world might (or not).

You've got to give Jonathan credit, the stupid have never failed to rally around, panting.

[visitor]

bump...rtro