Funny how that works
A couple of things about today’s Krauthammer. First:
It is understood by all that the decades-old American nuclear umbrella in the Pacific Rim commits us to attacking North Korea — presumably with in-kind nuclear retaliation — were it to attack our allies first.
Gruesome stuff, but run-of-the-mill in the nuclear age.
Reopening the nuclear seal? Thousands, perhaps millions, dead? Radioactive rain? Ho-hum. Man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do. Desperate times, desperate measures, and all that. Spoken with the blithe impatience of a man who wants to witness from a safe distance the death, destruction and dominion of a first-strike nuclear attack, which he’s already justified to himself morally as the only sane option of last resort. (The world’s a very dangerous place run by unaccountable madmen, etc., and hey, why are you looking at me like that?)
Second: Der Kraphammer seems to believe that a nuclear North Korea proves we should invade Iran.
Above: ‘Kiss of Death’ (1947), featuring Richard Widmark.
Huh? Krauthammer is talking about “in-kind nuclear retaliation” — that is, if they carry out a nuclear first strike, we retaliate. He’s not talking about an American “first-strike nuclear attack”. He’s talking about the same kind of MAD deterrence that was in operation throughout the Cold War. And, as he says, it’s pretty run-of-the-mill in the nuclear age. What exactly are YOU talking about?
I despise Krauthammer, but that’s no excuse for distortion and tendentious misreading. I expect better than this from SN.
Yeah, because as we know, Krauthammer has never argued in favor of preemptive military action.
Thppth!
—
In the schoolyard, there were three kinds of kids: Bullies, those picked on, and those who stood in a circle and shouted encouragement to the bullies. That circle? Future Republicans.
well said, brooksfoe…Krauthammer is basically echoing JFKs warning
to the Soviet Union about a nuclear attack from Cuba in the early 60’s.
I don’t see any reference to a U.S. first strike. I don’t follow the logic about Iran in the latter part of the article and I admit I’m no expert on
Krauthammer but I don’t feel you are accurately summarizing this
particular column.
It’s amazing how Kunthammer and his ilk actually think they could witness a nuclear exchange from a safe distance; that the conflict would not spread like nuclear wildfire; that the secondary effects of nukes wouldn’t reach and overwhelm their exclusive gated communities in a matter of weeks or months. It’s the same idiocy that led some of our leaders and thinkers to believe America could ‘survive’ a nuclear war with the USSR.
You’re right, brooksfoe, with regard to this specific column. I jumped to a conclusion based on what I read as the underlying premise of Krauthammer’s recent writings, which seek to portray Iran as an unreasonable player with whom conventional means of deterrence aren’t possible. He’s helping to lay the groundwork for the tactical nuclear strike called for by far less subtle writers and being analyzed by the DoD. A first-strike remains on the table, and we clearly don’t have the ground forces to pursue that route.
”Today [Iran] is deterred from overt aggression against its neighbors by the threat of conventional retaliation. Against a nuclear Iran, such deterrence becomes far less credible,” he wrote less than a month ago. “Against millenarian fanaticism glorying in a cult of death, deterrence is a mere wish.”
A potentially nuclear Iran, Krauthammer argues, is as dangerous as an already nuclear North Korea. He urges deterrence for the latter, and conflict with the latter.
Oops. That last sentence should read “He urges deterrence for the latter, and conflict with the former.” (What happened to the preview button?)
What article did brooks read?
Krauthammer in this very diatribe makes clear his disappointment that the US won’t do the right thing, and just obliterate North Korea on principle.
The only way to disarm the regime is to destroy it. China could do that with sanctions but will not. The United States could do that with a second Korean War but will not either.
So we are back to deterrence.
See, if Krauty was in charge of the show, we’d solve this problem the right way, the tough guy wingnut way, by vaporizing millions of innocents.
He also admits that his policy recommendations are for a planet other than the one we live on, in an alternate universe somewhere.
This policy has a hitch, however. It works only in a world where there is but a single rogue nuclear state.
Fictional foreign policy is so easy and satisfying!
“Against millenarian fanaticism glorying in a cult of death, deterrence is a mere wish.�
Funny–unless he’s a moral relativist, Krauty is essentially justifying a first strike against the U.S. with that sentence. Look at the Rapture fans with the nuclear football… and who has North Korea invaded lately?
The right is all about projection.
China could do that with sanctions but will not.
Waitaminute. I thought this guy was some kind of educated, scholarly wingnut. That’s about the dumbest sentence he could have produced without help from a syphalitic, drunken, retarded monkey. It is in China’s best interest to have the current North Korean regime in place on it’s border. Oh, and China KNOWS that. First, in the collapse of the regime, China would have to deal with a couple million starving refugees streaming over the border. Not good for stability, not good economically. Second, if Kim’s government collapsed, the likeliest scenario would be unification of the penninsula under the Seoul government. That would eliminate the physical buffer between China and the South Koreans/Americans. They have LOTS of pretty good reasons to want that buffer there. In fact, in a lot of ways, it’s good for America too.
If an old broken down marcom geek knows more about the extant political situation in Northeast Asia than a well known published pundit, it says a great deal about who’s getting published in this country…
mikey
I still think Krauthammer’s not a real person, but an elaborate prank.
I mean, just look at his name. “Krauthammer”? That’s bad Three Stooges play on Kissinger. The guy can’t possibly be real.
I love how every wingnut thinks that after decades of research and billions? of dollars spent on nuclear weapons technology that now N.K. is dying to sell it, for pennies on the dollar, to islamic fundies.
Or that atheist Stalinists and Muslim fundies are natural allies.
I love how every wingnut thinks that after decades of research and billions? of dollars spent on nuclear weapons technology that now N.K. is dying to sell it, for pennies on the dollar, to islamic fundies.
Y’know, that’s a very good point on a couple of levels. First, it is a reasonable assumption that NorKor developed the weapons for their own defense. I’m not sure that Kim gives a rats ass about the middle east, except to the extent that him and Ahmedinajad seem to be working as a pretty good tag team. Second, every nation that produces fissile material for nuclear weapons does it a little differently, like different batches of crank from different cookers. Western Intelligence would have no dificulty identifying the source of a weapon used by terrorists, so this theory that a nuclear nation could somehow use Islamic terrorists as some kind of proxy to allow them to attack America and not face retaliation is false – and they are well aware of that fact.
But the other issue is the VALUE of a nuclear device to a terrorist organization. They do not have ICBMs, so they would have to smuggle the device into the US, probably on a container ship. If the shipment ended up interdicted, it’s not like they could just try again. This would be their Ace, their big hammer. They could not risk losing it, so they might not ever be willing to use it.
mikey
Why would Islamic fundies go to NK when they could visit AQ Khan in Pakistan?
I love how every wingnut thinks that after decades of research and billions? of dollars spent on nuclear weapons technology that now N.K. is dying to sell it, for pennies on the dollar, to islamic fundies.
Actually, it worked the other way around. North Korea purchased key nuclear science from the Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan. The CIA was hot on his heels in 2001 until George W. told them to back off because. . . well, the investigation might have embarrassed the Saudis. And I’m sure none of us want that!
Whoops, should have read to the end and Elemental’s post.
OT, but amazing:
wow
Marijuana FORESTS?!?
Wow. That takes me back to college days daydreaming.
As far as what Krauthammer’s saying, whatever, but that’s the best Photoshopped picture since the Atlas Pammy eating shark.
Actually, the shark refused to stoop to John Bolton’s level.
Krauthammer: The world of 1962 was still technologically and ideologically primitive: Miniaturized nuclear weaponry had not yet been invented, nor had modern international terrorism.
Um, yeah, sure, Charles.
you and your lustful dreamfields, TC.
The fact is that the Democrat Party has no chance of taking Congress, no matter how many deceitful Democrat “polls” they lead in.
They say it’ll be a landslide, but that was the same claim from the left in 2004 and 2002, and 2000.
The fact is that the infrastructure of the left is crumbling. Air America is bankrupt. George Soros has given up on his anti-Bush vandetta. Soon the leftist blogs will fall apart after another Republican victory in 2006.
They’ll claim fraud, and forget that their ideas of high taxes and low morals doomed them in the polls.
The Democrat Party is on the verge of being put into the dustbin of history.
The fact is that Gary is a figment of someone’s demented imagination…WHY CAN’T YOU SHARE THE GODDAMM DRUGS BIATCH!?!
Apparently now even the polling companies are part of a conspiracy against the noble republican party
Who are they exactly Gary? And who exactly was ranting on and on about massive Democratic landslides in 2000, 2002 and 2004?
Yes, because the leftist blogs will just give up if they lose an election. By such logic, on November 8th, I’m guessing you will be singing the praises of Pelosi.
I always thought that something was wrong with the Democrats’ “Vote Lewdly” campaign. And hey, I’m sure we’re gonna find out real soon that Mark Foley secretly was a democrat all along, planted by Pelosi and Clinton as part of a desperate scheme to trick the American public into not voting Republican.
Yeah, because the dudes who went around talking about throwing things into the dustbin of history are really such a going concern these days.
I can’t tell if this is just a fake gary spouting deliciously ironic talking points or real gary is getting a might troubled about what exactly is gonna happen come next month.
Y’know, I’ve been hanging around this here blog now for what, about 6 months? So I’ve got a good half year of reading Gary Ruppert under my belt, and I’ve got to point out that he’s used the Trotsky line at least five times. Gary, do you think to refer to “the dustbin of history” makes you look edumacated or something? Dood, the line comes from LEON TROTSKY! Do you know who he is? And how often do you find yourself using the term “Dustbin” in everyday conversation? Are you familiar with the concept of the “Cliche”?
It does need to be noted, however, that this particular post is amazing. Simply beyond all understanding. I mean, I’ve heard of whistling past the graveyard (hey Gary, maybe you should use that one too), but if you set out to writh the ultimate Rovian “Black is white and up is down”, you could not do any better than that…
mikey
Hey, His Grace! I’m impressed. It took a lot of courage to write that post without a preview button!!
George Soros has given up on his anti-Bush vandetta
Hey, Gare! I used to drive a Vandetta too, dude!!
mikey
You have to hand it to him, he’s doing a great impression of Baghdad Bob.
Nah mikey, the real heroes are those who urge the people brave enough to use html tags onward, while lambasting those cut’n pasters who treasonously long for the pre 9/11 mindset that was the preview button.
I would bet money that if the Dems take either the House, Senate or both, we’ll never see Gary again.
Netvocates will have lost its contract.
Whatever Gary. Can you go outside now so the grownups can keep talking?
The USA has always had a nuclear first-strike option as part of Mutually Assured Destruction. That way, the Soviets could never be sure when their tanks rolled into West Germany that we wouldn’t drop the Big One. Or Big Thousand.
So embracing MAD is the same thing as embracing a nuclear first strike.
Roy Moore for Prez! Coach Dave for Veep!
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_10_01_digbysblog_archive.html#116078617716892213
The USA has always had a nuclear first-strike option as part of Mutually Assured Destruction. That way, the Soviets could never be sure when their tanks rolled into West Germany that we wouldn’t drop the Big One. Or Big Thousand.
So embracing MAD is the same thing as embracing a nuclear first strike.
All true. The Soviets also had a first strike option. And a retaliation option. Nobody’s saying that strategic deterance is rational, but historically, it DOES work.
mikey
OT, Threadjack, whatever . . .
OK, am I the only one chomping at the SN bit the last few days? What with that squeakily pornographic train wreck between annie and differentbrad over at the Ruppert thread and the really lame Gary posts, I’m feeling a bit antsy for more substantive talk here. The GOP sex scandals are dropping off the trees and — oh yeah — they gutted habeas corpus just a coupla weeks ago. Hello? There’s an election coming up, dammit!
So do any of you read IOZ? Just discovered him recently (I’m probably very late to the game) but here’s something he’s got up today:
Democratic victory is not going to rescue America from America. One need only listen to the candidates grasp at the same bread-and-butter pieties of Patriotism, Security, and Constitution to know that. “Tax relief for the middle class” doesn’t sell me. I am not an incrementalist. “Tougher and smarter on security” sells me even less. Why should I waste my beautiful mind, as Bar Bush put it, on the selection of the less egregious users of euphemism, when I know already that they will roll on issues of significance and spend their time hawking bastardized medical subsidies and pledging to keep social security as it is, was, and ever shall be. I haven’t heard a Democrat mention our habeasless nation in weeks; it slipped from their minds as quickly as it slipped from the minds of the public upon receipt of that great gift: knoweldge that Mark Foley may well have slipped something else somewhere scandalous.
Democrats are as committed to the idolatrous War on Terror as Republicans. I know it comforts their rank-and-file supporters to believe that they subscribe to such euphonious fluff only insofar as it makes them appear “strong on defense,” just as it comforts them to believe that once they acquire office they will all uncross their fingers, unlock the doors of the gulag, put away the culture war, and go about the business of maintaining a Democratic majority, amen. They are soft, weak, foolish, pipsqueaks reaping nothing they sowed, but only the unavoidable devolution of the other passel of assholes now so gluttonously fatted at the government teat.
More of this available at http://whoisioz.blogspot.com/
Hope I didn’t befok any tags with this . . . (although I do now understand that preview is apparently for wimps).
Hehe, i’m waiting for Gary to claim that the DNC only has enough money for take-out chinese and a packet of M&Ms again.
The fact is that Gary’s news source is Kermit the Frog.
The funny thing about people like Kraut Hammer: if someone (say, Al Qaeda) were to premptively nuke US; the rightous indignation they would sing form on high of how insane these evil nuke people are, and how dare they even contimplate using such terrible weaponry, yadda yadda yadda. Irony is dead upon them.
Wasn’t the whole point of invading Iraq to prevent people from using nukes evar? (well, no, but let’s keep in the Land of Make Believe, Henrietta)
I am not an incrementalist.
Sorry pal. I don’t know another solution. Sure, this one might not work. Just what the HELL are YOU advocating? You vote for them, they happily devour your children and your pets. You vote Dem, maybe, you got a chance. Maybe not. What’s the choice again?
mikey
let’s keep in the Land of Make Believe, Henrietta
Meow meow waterboard meow.
I dunno, Travis… you’re the one who works in these salt mines. Why don’t you tell us?
Honestly, mikey, I’d rather read something by you than a screed by Krautmallet any effing day. Really, really. Hell, it could be about what you had for dinner last night, or your last satisfying BM, and I guarantee that it’d be scads better that any of the tripe CK peddles. I’d be willing to bet money on that!
D’oh! Forgot my mikey quote! Well, it was supposed to be … this:
And what followed was my comment directly above. BRING BACK TEH PREVIEW BUTTON!! What do you guys think this is, World O’Crap?!?
Marq, the terrorist hate us for our preview buttons. That why we had to remove them. So they wouldn’t get destroyed. It’s in a safe place, next to the American Dream and behind your Inaliable Rights, and we’ll have them allll back once the evil threat has been vanquished.
Krauthammer: The world of 1962 was still technologically and ideologically primitive: Miniaturized nuclear weaponry had not yet been invented, nor had modern international terrorism.
Irgun? The Stern Gang? EOKA? Presumably not “international terrorism” since they did not involve US citizens being menaced by swarthy people.
Sorry, Dok. Irgun/Stern Gang = freedom fighters, EOKA = Commies. Nope, no terrorists here.
And let’s face it: CK isn’t an isolated ignoramus in the wingnut ranks. Look at the Doughy Pantload: his qualifications for punditry (including LA Times) are…what, exactly?
The world of 1962 was still technologically and ideologically primitive: Miniaturized nuclear weaponry had not yet been invented, nor had modern international terrorism.
yeah but see, it was 44 years ago, so terrorism wasn’t modern… because it was 44 years ago!
Advantage, Krauthammer!!!
yeah but see, it was 44 years ago, so terrorism wasn’t modern… because it was 44 years ago!
As opposed to post-2000, when terrorist attacks are achieved with …. box cutters.
Not knowing the source of CK’s disability, I always wonder if he’s not overcompensating somehow.
Besides hat, exactly how is a psychologist qualified to be a top tier Rightwing pundit again? Oh, yeah, the precedent was set by Cal Thomas who is qualified to do exactly nothing, except develop a Quality turkey neck wattle in his dotage years.
Spalpeen Hammer said,
Sorry, Dok. Irgun/Stern Gang = freedom fighters, EOKA = Commies. Nope, no terrorists here.
[Quickly consults Wikipedia]. No, EOKA were anti-commie, and assassinated quite a few Cypriot socialists — this fits in better with the not-terrorist Good-guy argument. But one of the people killed by EOKA had a young daughter, who much later became the Frau Doktorin Penny, so I am biassed against them.
I was all prepared for some argumentative sod to point out that Krauthammer’s claim was still valid because these pre-1962 groups were not “international”. I would then point out in a flurry of pedantry that EOKA was international since some of its funds and weapons came from the Greek government. However…
yeah but see, it was 44 years ago, so terrorism wasn’t modern… because it was 44 years ago!
Advantage, Krauthammer!!!
— I’m out of my league.
So I went to IOZ and I read this:””Democratic victory is not going to rescue America from America.”
And I had to say: True fact, IOZ. True fucking fact.