Response to American Digest on Nuclear Terrorism Thursday, Mar 6 2008
American Digest, a conservative blog, re-posted the nuclear attack image I posted yesterday, with the title “2008 Election Stakes”, and the subtext “Just in case you thought your taxes were the most important issue”, and the additional comment “HT Accelerating Future, where they seem to believe that donating to the Lifeboat Foundation and the Nuclear Threat Initiative is going to make it all go away.” Here is my response:
Hi,
The Nuclear Threat Initiative is co-chaired by Sam Nunn, an ex-senator who is also on McCain’s shortlist for VP. NTI’s fundraising requests are signed by Nunn.
If Nunn is the choice for VP, you can bet that stopping nuclear terrorism (by securing nuclear materials, not necessarily waging constant wars in the Middle East) will be on the top of the agenda.
In your post here, you dismissingly insinuate that donating to NTI won’t make nuclear terrorism go away. But NTI is the cause championed by Nunn, and the goals (with respect to nuclear terorrism) of NTI and a McCain-Nunn Administration would be quite similar. So you are pooh-poohing a cause that you would enthusiastically support if the very same suggestions were a public part of the McCain campaign.
Maybe you are slightly clouded by overfocusing on Republican-Democrat binary politics? Non-partisan non-profits get things done, too, you know. And the causes of non-profits can become the causes of Presidents, if the non-profits have enough influence. Donating to the NTI could help influence the President — yes, even a Democrat President — to take nuclear risks more seriously.
If you think withdrawing from Iraq automatically means we’re going to get nuked, you’re full of it. Being in Iraq is only boosting terrorist recruitment and shoving a stick into the hornet’s nest.
I am a supporter of fighting against terrorism, but I advocate a more targeted, considerate, and less expensive approach.
I suppose you think Democrats would be soft on terror. Why, then, does Hillary have a hawkish record on foreign policy as a senator, and why did Obama say he’d be willing to order a unilateral strike on terrorists in Pakistan?
I could be wrong in any of my assertions. My point is that you shouldn’t blindly assume, in a political/partisan fashion, that picking the conservative is the safest choice for America. Or that staying in Iraq is essential to stopping nuclear terrorism. All these things have to be continuously debated with an open mind. And it never hurts to donate to an organization with a history of major accomplishments in non-proliferation.
Using an image of a nuclear attack on Manhattan merely to scare up votes is making a complex issue one-dimensional.
17 Responses to “Response to American Digest on Nuclear Terrorism”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
March 6th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
I realize I’m going to get burned at the stake for heresy, but this needs to be said, so here it goes:
I would rather have a nuclear terrorist attack on New York or another major city than have McCain elected US President.
The damage, both short-term and long-term, that another George Bush-esque figure would wreak on the US and the world is far in excess of the ~100,000 people and $1 trillion or so in assets that would be lost during such an attack.
March 6th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Sadly, I’d say Tom is probably right.
(Unless the nuclear terrorist attack resulted in a Bush-esque figure coming to power, or a saner government adopting Bush-esque policies, as would be likely.)
March 6th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Do you even realize the global consequences of a nuclear attack in New York City?
Or did you fail to calculate the costs of the ensuing world war in your little cost-beneft analysis?
March 7th, 2008 at 1:26 am
Oh and Tom, I believe you told me to go speak to any scientist, so here:
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/Schmidt/cupj.pdf
But it’s just anecdotal evidence, right?
March 7th, 2008 at 1:57 am
I am becoming more and more convinced it doesn’t matter. Not that my opinion makes much of a difference, I have given up on the US. It is remarkable that in a mere half century a country can rot so much on the insides.
March 7th, 2008 at 8:51 am
“Maybe you are slightly clouded by overfocusing on Republican-Democrat binary politics?”
That was a great line! Can I steal it? It succinctly points out bias - and the resulting shortsightedness - on both sides of the political aisle.
Of course, your argument starts falling apart shortly after that great line, revealing that you aren’t as up to date on the issues or the details as you may think.* Right idea, wrong examples. (You had them dead to rights on their unprovoked ad hom attack against you.)
*(See: Al Anbar Awakening, which is rapidly becoming the Iraqi Awakening, and then, actually do some in-depth research on Mz. Hillary’s voting record and FEC reports please.)
The difference between McCain and Mr. Bush? In a fit of temper, instead of sending in the Marines, Mr. McCain would actually push that ‘little red button.’ …and to understand McCain, you really need to understand Arizona politics. Politics in Arizona are a bit surreal, in a Twilight Zone sort of a way.
Mz. Hillary? Can you say, “Mommy, Dearest”?
March 7th, 2008 at 9:43 am
I can use whatever examples I want to illustrate my point. I don’t understand what your comment has to do with what I said other than that you dislike McCain and Clinton. As far as I can tell, you’re just complaining that I mentioned politicians you dislike. Or was there another point?
Hillary Hillary Hillary. McCain McCain McCain. Does that bother you?
March 7th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Well, you’ve got to love your first commenter when he avows:
“I would rather have a nuclear terrorist attack on New York or another major city than have McCain elected US President.
The damage, both short-term and long-term, that another George Bush-esque figure would wreak on the US and the world is far in excess of the ~100,000 people and $1 trillion or so in assets that would be lost during such an attack.”
Sort of proves my point in a grisly way. Clearly a case of a person who assumes that the worst that would happen to the world in the case of a nuclear attack on New York would be what happens to New York.
New York would be, as I am sure you realize, only the beginning. And if that BDS besotted commenter thinks that the Bush/Cheney years have brought him an oppressive life, he should put what few functioning cells he has left to work imagining what sort of government we will have put in place like the law of gravity after a strike on New York. It will give him much more change than he can possibly hope for.
And yes you do my politics which are much more complicated than “conservative.” Not at all binary. Example: Of the national elections I have voted in since 1964 I have voted for a Republican/Conservative exactly once. All other votes have been for Democrats.
As for Sam Nunn, I’ve been following his career since the early 1980s and I agree he thinks right about the issue. But that doesn’t mean he has or will have a significant chip in the game. The VP position is a non-starter.
The potential for being nuked is independent of our actions in Iraq or anywhere else. It is independent of what we do or what we say or are in the field of foreign policy. It is a Black Swan event.
A lot of effort goes into trying to predict and talk about the future, but the hard reality is that we cannot see what the future holds or what will happen. It’s a common bias in humans.
And yes it is indeed sad to “believe that donating to the Lifeboat Foundation and the Nuclear Threat Initiative is going to make it all go away.” Because it just isn’t going to happen, but if it makes you feel good donate away.
You propose “If Nunn is the choice for VP, you can bet that stopping nuclear terrorism (by securing nuclear materials, not necessarily waging constant wars in the Middle East) will be on the top of the agenda.”
Nice. Makes one feel good. That’s the primary purpose of donating to tasks best characterized as “Windmill Quests.” Sadly, here’s the news. 1) The horse has left the Secure Nuclear Materials Barn long, long ago. (Add in the problem of Iran’s Nuke program) 2) We will be having wars in the Middle East for quite a few decades whether we stay or withdraw from Iraq. They’ll just be nastier and more in line with Hama Rules.
March 7th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
My argument is that donating to NTI is at least as good a strategy at lowering the threat of nuclear terrorism as any typical citizen can pursue. I didn’t say it was the only strategy, or that it would be guaranteed to work, just that as people sitting behind our PCs, it’s a simple thing we can do to help contribute to the fight.
If the horse left the secure material barn long ago, then how come the world’s enriched uranium is completely accounted for? Enriched uranium is hard to make and hard to steal. But you’re right, Iran’s nuclear program is a problem. We may go to war over it eventually.
March 7th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
An actually sane government, after a terrorist attack (even a nuclear one), could discover the culprits and destroy them without starting a world war. However, it might be unreasonable to expect this sanity from any realistic US government.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
A sane government is an oxymoron.
Regardless, you are failing to consider the public demand/international support for much more strict nuclear proliferation controls (after a terrorist nuclear attack). That is going to require much more invasive oversight, and that is not going to make Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, India, China or Russia (and Israel!) happy.
If any of those countries don’t go along, just what do you think is going to happen? Even Ron Paul would have to respond militarily, or be voted out and replaced by someone who will.
Not to mention the complete breakdown of civil liberties here at home.
Wow, what a rosy scenario compared to a McCain presidency! Just what exactly could McCain do politically that would even begin to approach the worldwide devastation that would result from a nuclear attack on NYC?
Over half the country is already anti-war, and a significant portion is non-interventionist… and you think throwing a nuclear attack on NYC into the mix will somehow be better than a politically hamstrung president McCain?
Whatever.
Maybe the “terrorist nuclear attack” was a ridiculously irresponsible attempt at hyperbole, not because of the the shock value but because of the laughable disregard for the ensuing ramifications.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
You’re assuming that Tom or I would favor a terrorist attack over President McCain even if you’re right about the consequences. Needless to say, we wouldn’t, but I’m far less certain that they would be so bad.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Vanderleun,
I think Mr. Cheney might respectfully disagree with your idea that being VP is a non-starter.
March 7th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
I’m not assuming that, that’s exactly part of the overall analysis.
You can’t claim a nuclear attack could occur within some kind of vacuum without any consequences, just like you can’t if McCain becomes president.
If you prefer 100,000 dead Americans and $1 trillion in damages with no further consequences (over McCain), than say so.
But a nuclear attack on NYC is going to be much more costly than 100,000 dead Americans and $1 trillion in damages in the long-term.
I personally would prefer any leading presidential candidate over 100,000 dead Americans, but that’s just me!
March 8th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Uh…Michael…who said I liked Republicans? There are positive and negative attributes to most politicians.
What most people on both sides of any
political argument in the States tend to overlook is the fact that we have three branches of government. Only one of which handles the purse-strings. Withou money, no one in any branch of government does anything.
Historically, the party which controls Congress makes the rules.
Historically, factually, irrefutably, that party has primarily been the Democrats (Controlling Congress for sixty of the last seventy years). Historically, they’ve decided when we went to war…and as a result, which companies got to spend all of your tax dollars.
…which means that Democrat controlled Congresses…decided to spend lots and lots of money on nuclear weapons. Which also means that Democrats are The Party of the Military Industrial Complex.
I’m a classical Libertarian, Michael. Something of a benign anarchist, in many ways.
I have a great deal of difficulty with government authority, at least, that manner in which it has been practiced in America, lo, these last seventy or eighty years or so.
With regards to candidates from both
parties, past performance is a rather accurate predictor of future outcomes.
Of the limited choices available today, I would have to pick Mr. McCain. As a thoughtful man, I have to recognise his past history, examine his voting record and his FEC reports…and his well-known temper. No matter the candidate, not doing studying these things carefully -even going so far as to fully use the scientific and scholarly methods, is iresponsible and foolhardy.
Your having stated that Mz. Hillary has a hawkish record reveals that
you have done none of these investigations wrt to her publicly-stated positions or voting record. It even goes so far as to reveal that you have not read or listened to her speeches about military related bills and related matters. It was an inaccurate statement.
That statement actually cut the heart out of your presentation, most of which I otherwise agreed with.
March 11th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Warren,
Big government is probably here to stay. Sorry.
About Mrs. Clinton, here is one story, but there are others:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8573139/
As a libertarian, you will always be disappointed, because it’s obvious that the majority of society likes stuff like roads, EPA regulations, and a social safety net.
May 27th, 2008 at 3:47 am
Generally agree with you but you might not be entirely correct on one point.
It is true that Iraq stirred up a hornets nest and increased terrorism dramatically. But if you look at the incidents of international terrorism pre-Iraq invasion it was actually pretty high. Certainly higher than it has been for the last two year.
Militant islam is not going to go away without being defeated by force. They will always find some justication to use violence whether Iraq was there or not. Iraq brought the boil to a head and statistically it seems to have popped nearly world-wide.
The US has had no significant attacks in 6.5 years. UK and Spain haven’t seen an attack for about 3 years. Even Saudi Arabia hasn’t seen much of anything for the last 2.5 years. Indonesia and the Filippines haven’t seen much in 3 or 4 years. Jordan - nothing for 4 years. Morocco had something 1 year ago.
And in Iraq, it looks like this month US fatalties are going to have the lowest daily average in the entire war (.69). The Sunnis are on our side. Al Qaeda can’t hold territory. Al Sadr is keeping his head down and has essentially lost 3 battles. The Iraqi government is still democratic. It’s military is strengthening every day.
What’s left is basically local phenomenon; Palestine, Pakistan, and Lebanon. Afghanistan still has a somewhat international dimension but Taliban attacks are down significantly from a year ago.
Maybe we would be in the same situation if we hadn’t gone into Iraq. But it seems with Islamic terrorism, you have to let them show their hand before the world decides to crack down effectively. Iraq certainly got them to show their hand.