Comments on: Take the Nuclear Option Off the Table http://www.blog.populistamerica.com/2009/01/21/take-the-nuclear-option-off-the-table/ Liberty, Peace, Prosperity Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:46:25 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Michael Boldin http://www.blog.populistamerica.com/2009/01/21/take-the-nuclear-option-off-the-table/comment-page-1/#comment-587 Michael Boldin Thu, 22 Jan 2009 13:49:14 +0000 http://blog.populistamerica.com/?p=780#comment-587 Steve, things have definitely not changed or improved since you wrote that. I have a bad feeling that in 10 years we'll still be saying the same thing. Steve, things have definitely not changed or improved since you wrote that. I have a bad feeling that in 10 years we’ll still be saying the same thing.

]]> By: Dave Anderson http://www.blog.populistamerica.com/2009/01/21/take-the-nuclear-option-off-the-table/comment-page-1/#comment-586 Dave Anderson Thu, 22 Jan 2009 12:19:12 +0000 http://blog.populistamerica.com/?p=780#comment-586 Clinton isn't too "lite" as far as Bush doctrine goes.  I have this strange feeling that Bush might end up being Hillary-lite as time goes on.  But, you're right Steve, the best move would be for Obama to get her our of there.  Maybe he likes the hawks? Clinton isn’t too “lite” as far as Bush doctrine goes.  I have this strange feeling that Bush might end up being Hillary-lite as time goes on.  But, you’re right Steve, the best move would be for Obama to get her our of there.  Maybe he likes the hawks?

]]> By: Steve Osborn http://www.blog.populistamerica.com/2009/01/21/take-the-nuclear-option-off-the-table/comment-page-1/#comment-585 Steve Osborn Thu, 22 Jan 2009 06:11:33 +0000 http://blog.populistamerica.com/?p=780#comment-585 In my message above, I was so upset to see yet more nuclear "Option" talk that I forgot to mention one of the better solutions. The President should take Ms Clinton "off the table," thus removing an enormous amount of camouflaged "Bush Lite" from his government. In my message above, I was so upset to see yet more nuclear “Option” talk that I forgot to mention one of the better solutions. The President should take Ms Clinton “off the table,” thus removing an enormous amount of camouflaged “Bush Lite” from his government.

]]> By: Steve Osborn http://www.blog.populistamerica.com/2009/01/21/take-the-nuclear-option-off-the-table/comment-page-1/#comment-584 Steve Osborn Thu, 22 Jan 2009 06:06:20 +0000 http://blog.populistamerica.com/?p=780#comment-584 I am a nuclear veteran (Operation Redwing, Bikini Atoll, 1956) and have written and worked for an end to the nuclear nightmare for over fifty years. An article specifically on the insanity of a nuclear attack on Iran is at this link.  http://www.populistamerica.com/this_way_lies_madness Things have not changed or improved much since I wrote that. This nuclear insanity must stop! Think ab out it, then work for it. I am a nuclear veteran (Operation Redwing, Bikini Atoll, 1956) and have written and worked for an end to the nuclear nightmare for over fifty years. An article specifically on the insanity of a nuclear attack on Iran is at this link. 
http://www.populistamerica.com/this_way_lies_madness

Things have not changed or improved much since I wrote that.

This nuclear insanity must stop! Think ab out it, then work for it.

]]> By: Michael Boldin http://www.blog.populistamerica.com/2009/01/21/take-the-nuclear-option-off-the-table/comment-page-1/#comment-583 Michael Boldin Thu, 22 Jan 2009 01:40:20 +0000 http://blog.populistamerica.com/?p=780#comment-583 From War, Peace, and the State: "<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif; font-size: small;">It has often been maintained, and especially by conservatives, that the development of the horrendous modern weapons of mass murder (nuclear weapons, rockets, germ warfare, etc.) is only a difference of <em>degree </em>rather than <em>kind </em>from the simpler weapons of an earlier era. Of course, one answer to this is that when the degree is the number of human lives, the difference is a very big one." "</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif; font-size: small;">But another answer that the libertarian is particularly equipped to give is that while the bow and arrow and even the rifle can be pinpointed, if the will be there, against actual criminals, modern nuclear weapons cannot. Here is a crucial difference in kind. Of course, the bow and arrow could be used for aggressive purposes, but it could also be pinpointed to use only against aggressors. Nuclear weapons, even "conventional" aerial bombs, cannot be. These weapons are <em>ipso facto </em>engines of indiscriminate mass destruction. (The only exception would be the extremely rare case where a mass of people who were all criminals inhabited a vast geographical area.) We must, therefore, conclude that the use of nuclear or similar weapons, or the threat thereof, is a sin and a crime against humanity for which there can be no justification." <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard26.html" rel="nofollow">Read the full article here</a></span> From War, Peace, and the State:

“It has often been maintained, and especially by conservatives, that the development of the horrendous modern weapons of mass murder (nuclear weapons, rockets, germ warfare, etc.) is only a difference of degree rather than kind from the simpler weapons of an earlier era. Of course, one answer to this is that when the degree is the number of human lives, the difference is a very big one.”

“But another answer that the libertarian is particularly equipped to give is that while the bow and arrow and even the rifle can be pinpointed, if the will be there, against actual criminals, modern nuclear weapons cannot. Here is a crucial difference in kind. Of course, the bow and arrow could be used for aggressive purposes, but it could also be pinpointed to use only against aggressors. Nuclear weapons, even “conventional” aerial bombs, cannot be. These weapons are ipso facto engines of indiscriminate mass destruction. (The only exception would be the extremely rare case where a mass of people who were all criminals inhabited a vast geographical area.) We must, therefore, conclude that the use of nuclear or similar weapons, or the threat thereof, is a sin and a crime against humanity for which there can be no justification.”

Read the full article here

]]>