Treaty w/ russia...

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

Without the coordination of Syria, Jordan and Egypt I don't see any chance they could really threaten Israel, and I don't see any chance of this happening in the next few decades. Could they give terrorists a nuke? It's not likely unless you believe in the crackpot 12th Imam stuff.

It is quite likely that the states in the region will start to come together over time, but from what I've read it's Turkey who will be running the show.

I could only see Israel going nuclear if their existance was really on the line. And even then, it's difficult to imagine a scenario where they could nuke themselves out of it. Perhaps they could light up Tehran and scare the pants off of everyone else to stand down, but the chances of this erupting into a regional war are pretty good. They can't nuke everybody.

As to the eye for an eye position. I think this was all rhetoric and little reality. The US is not going to respond with Chemical or Bio weapons if we're attacked with the same. I definately could see us using a nuke to respond to the same. But nearly all situations are going to require the use of conventional forces, which is why we're in all these deadlock situations around the world.

I don't see any strategic ambiguity in our position. We are quite predictable. Israel wants everybody to be terrified of them (and they are) but this also limits their ability to operate. If they show the slightest sign of weakness it could erode the image. Not much ambiguity here.


I think Obama's strategy is to provide a clear direction then work others towards a common goal. If people think that something will happen, they will often times more than not side with who they believe to be the winner.

I'd note that he does appear to be making more progress than Bush.


Ours or theirs? When was the last time a US territory was under foreign occupation?


China is pretty fragile as a nation. I think they're scared of their own long-term prospects.

-spence

Not talking occupation. Talking a nuke / chem / bio weapon going off in Manhattan. Different stuff. Different scenario. "Occupation" by foreign forces is not what I mean. Not having New Yorkers occupy New York is what I mean.

I'm talking rational people and not so rational people. for all of MAD in the bad old days (good?) the Russians were rational. They new first strike would be devastating to them and same for us. MAD against nuclear peers / near peer is not the problem. It's some crazy mullah or desperate despot or their proxy that is the problem.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Not talking occupation. Talking a nuke / chem / bio weapon going off in Manhattan. Different stuff. Different scenario. "Occupation" by foreign forces is not what I mean. Not having New Yorkers occupy New York is what I mean.

In the mind of al Qaeda this would be a defensive strike, as they believe 9/11 was. It's not a sustained effort to influence but rather a lashing out. Granted, it would be terrible none the less.

I'm talking rational people and not so rational people. for all of MAD in the bad old days (good?) the Russians were rational. They new first strike would be devastating to them and same for us. MAD against nuclear peers / near peer is not the problem. It's some crazy mullah or desperate despot or their proxy that is the problem.

During the Cold War many seriously questioned that the Soviets were indeed rational people. I think Sting even wrote a song

But while there are crazies out there, I think a lot of the Islamic leadership is quite more rational than people might like to believe. Of course, they might want you to believe they are irrational, it works both ways

That being said, there's a combination of zealotry and available nuclear fuel which seems to be at a flash point right now, and is a huge problem.

All the more reason to praise Obama's efforts to contain the flow of nuclear materials going on...today.

-spence