Just started watching this one. Right before coming here, I had just finished reading a fine blog post by SEK over at The Edge of the American West about the NYT article the diavloggers mentioned that reported on Obama's article written while he was at Columbia. Killer ending. And a good missile defense cartoon, too. [Added] Another link: B'Head Robert Farley has some thoughts on non-proliferation and the RRW idea.

I'd love to see Farley do a diavlog with Bob Kagan or Francis Fukayama or even Eli Lake.

Preach it, Elizabeth!

Quoting Wonderment: Thanks for doing this one. Even though public interest in the details may seem minimal, obviously the issues couldn't be more critical to our future.

I quite agree. I hope this one gets watched more than the early comment traffic indicates.

It's depressing to analyze what sort of political deals must be made in order to promote a reduction in the risk of a catastrophic nuclear attack, accident or war, but that's the reality of the US Senate and humanity in general.

Yes. Even if Senators wanted to vote to approve a treaty, they would not be who they are without considering what they could get it return for their votes. Maybe someday, the mood will change where it will be possible to shame a Senator into voting to approve arms limitations and reductions. Right now, unfortunately, it's all too easy to use shame ("my opponent is weak on national security") in the other direction.

The Irony of the Nuclear Age Award goes to the Japanese diplomats Elizabeth refers to who are supporting a robust US nuke program. They really ought to know better.

In some ways, yes. But having North Korea in your backyard

In some ways, yes. But having North Korea in your backyard probably makes you think about things besides history, too.

That's the point, isn't it? We all have North Korea in our backyard. And Israel. And India. And Pakistan. And especially the USA. It's everybody's nuclear yard. Even Henry Kissinger understands that. It's mind-boggling that many US Senators do not.

Quoting Wonderment: That's the point, isn't it? We all have North Korea in our backyard. And Israel. And India. And Pakistan. And especially the USA.

I don't really agree with this, and I certainly don't think some people in Japan do, either. North Korea can already reach Japan with missiles, easily. Japan is also a much smaller country, geographically, and lot more densely populated, compared to the US. And as you mentioned earlier, they do have an cultural memory of what even a small A-bomb does. I think it's also the case that North Korea is not seen by everybody, particularly its neighbors, as nearly as stable (i.e., as disinclined to launch a first strike) as the other countries you list. I'm not saying these beliefs are objectively true. But I can easily imagine how some people in Japan would worry more about North Korea than the worldwide nuclear problem.

It's everybody's nuclear yard. Even Henry Kissinger understands that. It's mind-boggling that many US Senators do not.

I'm not sure about this either. Seems to me pretty much all of them do. The problem, from yours and my perspective, is that some of them think the way to deal with this is by maintaining or even enhancing the US's

Acton ay? As in Lord Acton? I wonder if he's a member of the great recusant family? Probably nay. Am I the only one who cares? Probably yay.

I have an idea, how about we just sell some of our nukes to NKorea and some to Iran and try and cover the 1 TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT this President and his Congress have now created.

That’s $1,000,000,000,000, soon to be 2,000,000,000,000! Total U.S. debt is now over $11 trillion. This massive deficit is caused when the idiot liberals voracious spending exceeds revenues taken in by the Treasury.

Obama's deal with Russia was nothing but posturing and BS. You all can wet your pants over some fantasy -filled paper Obama wrote in college but this is the real world and in this world all the Russian leaders toast Obama but not for the reasons you think.

Quoting Toryentalist: Acton ay? As in Lord Acton? I wonder if he's a member of the great recusant family? Probably nay. Am I the only one who cares? Probably yay.

Yeah probably. But the more pertinent question is: why do you care? Are you suggesting that an Acton must be on the right side of history? Or, perhaps, on the wrong side? Some would say that Lord Acton was moralistic trifler who never amounted to much of anything.

Quoting Wonderment: The Irony of the Nuclear Age Award goes to the Japanese diplomats Elizabeth refers to who are supporting a robust US nuke program. They really ought to know better.

It's kind of amazing that they do have this reasonable attitude. Japanese politics about the war have long been defined by the hard right, and besides regularly causing diplomatic incidents with its neighbors this has also led to textbooks and official references being scrubbed clean of any offensive action on Japan's part. It's good to see that hasn't infected high-level government thinking and that they have a relatively realistic understanding of nuclear weapons.

Fascinating how ruling democrats are so resistant to factual defense of their policy positions. Mega deficits, cold weather all year, stimulus not working, successful missile defense tests - not to be discussed, queue the crickets. What is the problem with missile defense? It works, it is improving all the time, it takes the edge off of the need of the US to attack Iran and NK and it accomplishes strategic arms reductions indirectly. Lawrence Eagleburger was on Greta last night and he stated flatly that the US should have attacked NK in the 1990s before it got nukes. He then said the US has to attack before NK gets a long range missile capability. With missile defense, a catastrophic attack on NK possibly can be avoided. I assume one of the objectives of strategic arms talks with Russia is to reduce the number of launchers. With missile defense, it is credible for reductions to be accomplished by simply keeping the number of launch missiles from being increased. Reason being that incremental improvements in missile defense reduces the number of launch missiles which will reach their target. The sooner the republican people can secede and be free of

Quoting pampl: Japanese politics about the war have long been defined by the hard right, and besides regularly causing diplomatic incidents with its neighbors this has also led to textbooks and official references being scrubbed clean of any offensive action on Japan's part.

You can credibly argue that the US and the UK had no business being in East Asia and the Pacific to the degree it was prior to WWII. Meaning Japan was justified in its offensive actions. A strong and expanded Japan could also have prevented the Korean and Vietnam wars to the extent it would have opposed Russia and China from exerting their influence. Would also be good for the US if Japan was stronger because the US could form an alliance against China.

Quoting Wonderment: Thanks for doing this one. Even though public interest in the details may seem minimal, obviously the issues couldn't be more critical to our future.

But there was little if any focus on how the US can position itself to limit the damage from the inevitable us of nuclear weapons somewhere in the world. The US has an advantage that it is geographically distant from the likely blast sites. Arguably, serious attempts to eliminate nukes will only take place after nukes are used. The US should withdraw its forces from foreign lands, stop sending rural americans to fight and die overseas, forget about Israel and the Palestinians and more or less dial down all international institutional involvement. Hunker down and focus domestically on the changes needed to the federal system to wall off the democrat debt from legacy Americans.

Quoting Whatfur: I have an idea, how about we just sell some of our nukes to NKorea and some to Iran and try and cover the 1 TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT this President and his Congress have now created.

I am noticing that fewer and fewer of the democrats who appeared on BHTV during the Bush years are showing up now. No one in the democrat party appears to have the guts to make or discuss the hard decisions that are necessary to keep the country financially solvent.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: You can credibly argue that the US and the UK had no business being in East Asia and the Pacific to the degree it was prior to WWII. Meaning Japan was justified in its offensive actions.

A strong and expanded Japan could also have prevented the Korean and Vietnam wars to the extent it would have opposed Russia and China from exerting their influence. Would also be good for the US if Japan was stronger because the US could form an alliance against China.

I'd like to hear your credible argument. First for why specifically it's OK to declare war on anyone you think is too close (should the US have declared war on the USSR over Cuba?) and second why you think it's ok to murder hundreds of thousands of civilians and press gang tens of thousands of women into sexual slavery as a tactic to increase your colonial holdings to surpass any other country at its worst. Land held by Imperial Japan was as awful a place to live as land held by the communist Russians and Chinese. You're not opposing the Korean and

Quoting pampl: I'd like to hear your credible argument. First for why specifically it's OK to declare war on anyone you think is too close (should the US have declared war on the USSR over Cuba?) and second why you think it's ok to murder hundreds of thousands of civilians and press gang tens of thousands of women into sexual slavery as a tactic to increase your colonial holdings to surpass any other country at its worst.

Land held by Imperial Japan was as awful a place to live as land held by the communist Russians and Chinese. You're not opposing the Korean and Vietnamese wars on any sort of moral, humanitarian grounds but rather a Ron Paul-ish "let 'em rot" attitude.

Admittedly, I can only argue the case for Imperial Japan so far, but then I have no insight into the Asian POV. Was the Japanese colonial presence better accepted in East Asia pre WWII than the American and European one? As bad as the attack on Pearl Harbor was, you have to see that attack in the context of what the US would have done if an Asian or

.
I'm not sure about this either. Seems to me pretty much all of them do. The problem, from yours and my perspective, is that some of them think the way to deal with this is by maintaining or even enhancing the US's stockpile and capabilities.

You don't think Senate Republicans represent a strongly nationalistic, exceptionalistic ideology? Nuclear disarmament is an issue like global warming. It can only be effectively addressed by the community of nations. The weapons are too destructive to be playing "If you fuck with me I'll nuke you" games (deterrence). There is a growing progressive consensus that accepts this view. Hard-core hawks like Kissinger, Perry, Schultz and Nunn have been won over. They all want to get to Zero. The dinosaurs are in the way.

Quoting Wonderment: You don't think Senate Republicans represent a strongly nationalistic, exceptionalistic ideology?

Nuclear disarmament is an issue like global warming. It can only be effectively addressed by the community of nations. The weapons are too destructive to be playing "If you fuck with me I'll nuke you" games (deterrence).

There is a growing progressive consensus that accepts this view. Hard-core hawks like Kissinger, Perry, Schultz and Nunn have been won over. They all want to get to Zero. The dinosaurs are in the way.

I don't disagree with any of this. I was just differing with your earlier view that "many US Senators do not" understand that "t's everybody's nuclear yard." I believe that some of them truly think, for example, that disarmament is impossible, that verification won't work, that mutual trust is unrealistic, to hope for any of this is naive, and that therefore, to maintain the US's security and position in the world, it is necessary to stay our insane course with respect to nuclear weapons. In other words, they are in some sense even more aware of the dangers of nuclear proliferation. They just have a completely different view on how to deal it, compared to people like us.

How could republicans secede from the United States?

Quoting Lyle: How could republicans secede from the United States?

they would secede from the Federal government not the country. Change the constitution to allow states to opt out of the federal system. Republicans would move to states that opted out. Parcel up the federal budget in terms of programs and how much they cost. For each program a state opts out of, reduce the federal taxes of residents of that state by its share of that program. When a state opts out of the stimulus plan, its people get a proportionate cut in their taxes.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: they would secede from the Federal government not the country. Change the constitution to allow states to opt out of the federal system. Republicans would move to states that opted out.

Parcel up the federal budget in terms of programs and how much they cost. For each program a state opts out of, reduce the federal taxes of residents of that state by its share of that program. When a state opts out of the stimulus plan, its people get a proportionate cut in their taxes.

Haha... now I know you're not serious.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Admittedly, I can only argue the case for Imperial Japan so far, but then I have no insight into the Asian POV. Was the Japanese colonial presence better accepted in East Asia pre WWII than the American and European one? As bad as the attack on Pearl Harbor was, you have to see that attack in the context of what the US would have done if an Asian or European power had been colonizing South America or occupied Hawaii.

It's probably good that you won't argue the case too far, since you seem to have no idea what actually happened in WWII. Imperial Japan's principal target was never the British or American colonies in Asia, but rather China. They were at war with China first, and any theory that treats Japanese agression as a result of British and American colonialism is idiotic.

Quoting ehoddes: It's probably good that you won't argue the case too far, since you seem to have no idea what actually happened in WWII. Imperial Japan's principal target was never the British or American colonies in Asia, but rather China. They were at war with China first, and any theory that treats Japanese agression as a result of British and American colonialism is idiotic.

If the target was China, why attack Hawaii? It is in the other direction and makes an enemy of the USA.

Quoting Lyle: Haha... now I know you're not serious.

I am serious in that the breakup of the federal system is inevitable because of the Obama deficit. Maybe the breakup of the Soviet Union will be the pattern.

Could, say, Vermont or some other granola-eating state opt out of the military in your scheme? Just not contribute to defense, have their taxes halved, and then when Canada (or whoever) invades, the federal government won't do anything about it? Seriously, I'm interested, not trying to be a troll. I'm trying to get at what you meant by "opting out of the federal government, not the country".

Maybe the breakup of the Soviet Union will be the pattern.

The USSR got into the position where it could break up because its economic system was a disaster, but if the political elites of the Baltic states and Ukraine hadn't seen themselves as nationally distinct from the rest of the USSR, they wouldn't have broken up. Countries generally don't break up because of arguments over the economy. It's true that one of the reasons Slovenia declared its independence from Yugoslavia was because it was the richest part of ex-YU and the Slovenes felt their government was using them as a cash cow and they weren't getting any benefits from it, but if they hadn't had a separate language, history, ethnic identity, etc., I guarantee it wouldn't have happened. If the Republic of Texas had been around for longer than ten years, and if there weren't so many non-Texans living in Texas and Texans living outside of Texas, you might have a point, but as it is, I don't see it.

Quoting kezboard: Could, say, Vermont or some other granola-eating state opt out of the military in your scheme? Just not contribute to defense, have their taxes halved, and then when Canada (or whoever) invades, the federal government won't do anything about it?

Seriously, I'm interested, not trying to be a troll. I'm trying to get at what you meant by "opting out of the federal government, not the country".

you could broaden the definition of "country" to be "people of shared values and ancestory". That gets you Canada, USA, Australia, New Zealand and Great Britain as one large complex. In that shared culture and history geographical entity, Canada is not pulling its share of the joint defense. So sure, states could get away with not contributing their fair share to the defense of the country. In a big way, segments of the US are already opting out of the joint defense. I am sure a county by county analysis of Iraq and Afg war dead would reveal a large disparity in the percentage of those killed and wounded.

Quoting kezboard: The USSR got into the position where it could break up because its economic system was a disaster, but if the political elites of the Baltic states and Ukraine hadn't seen themselves as nationally distinct from the rest of the USSR, they wouldn't have broken up. Countries generally don't break up because of arguments over the economy. It's true that one of the reasons Slovenia declared its independence from Yugoslavia was because it was the richest part of ex-YU and the Slovenes felt their government was using them as a cash cow and they weren't getting any benefits from it, but if they hadn't had a separate language, history, ethnic identity, etc., I guarantee it wouldn't have happened. If the Republic of Texas had been around for longer than ten years, and if there weren't so many non-Texans living in Texas and Texans living outside of Texas, you might have a point, but as it is, I don't see it.

I think people's politics and cultural values have a large affect on where they choose to live. Over time, that has to affect how much people identify with parts of the country

Haha.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: If the target was China, why attack Hawaii? It is in the other direction and makes an enemy of the USA.

Japan was at war with China for four consecutive years before Pearl Harbour. They invaded China and annexed Manchuria in 1931, ten years before attacking British or American possessions.

you could broaden the definition of "country" to be "people of shared values and ancestory". That gets you Canada, USA, Australia, New Zealand and Great Britain as one large complex.

I'm not talking about "nation" or "people" (which, again, is different from some sort of idea of a broader Anglophone culture we share with Canada, New Zealand, Britain, etc.), I'm talking about "country" as in "state" as in "political entity".

So sure, states could get away with not contributing their fair share to the defense of the country. In a big way, segments of the US are already opting out of the joint defense. I am sure a county by county analysis of Iraq and Afg war dead would reveal a large disparity in the percentage of those killed and wounded.

As it turns out, the state with the most Iraq war deaths per capita is -- Vermont! I swear I wasn't leading you into a trap there. I found a list of Iraq war deaths per state/territory per capita and it doesn't seem to be very amenable to generalizations. It seems like the main factor that gives you a higher place on this list is being more rural, not being more red. Hence

Quoting Francoamerican: Yeah probably. But the more pertinent question is: why do you care? Are you suggesting that an Acton must be on the right side of history? Or, perhaps, on the wrong side? Some would say that Lord Acton was moralistic trifler who never amounted to much of anything.

Nup. Just wondering about the grand English Catholic family name tis all.

Quoting kezboard: Besides, that's not what I was asking. I'm asking if a state could stop contributing money to the national defense under your scheme, and if in that case you'd be OK with it getting invaded by someone else.

I think the detail of how loosely federated states would arrange for their joint defense would work itself out. I certainly would not let it be a show stopper. The likelihood of a deliberately defenseless state being invaded by a foreign power is pretty remote. A more pressing concern is border disputes between states. or immigration and migration disputes. The EU is able to maintain the peace in Europe. The objective is that an AU do the same. The arrangement of the states could be we have one foreign policy, one defense force ( one face to the world ), but the feds have no authority to impose a national retirement, unemployment, education and health care system on the states. Thinking about it, I would limit or prohibit the feds ability to directly tax citizens of the country. Each state contributes a proportional percentage of the taxable income of the country. If states want to participate in a joint retirement

Quoting ehoddes: Japan was at war with China for four consecutive years before Pearl Harbour. They invaded China and annexed Manchuria in 1931, ten years before attacking British or American possessions.

Are you saying Imperial Japan did not mind the Americans being in the Phillipines and the British in Burma? The Dutch also had a colonial presence in the region, correct? ( actual question. someone must have had Indonesia. ). And they fought a war with the Russians some years prior? My understanding is there had been a lot of foreign powers in that part of the world for quite some time. The US being one of those powers. Japan was ascendant and wanted them out. I think it is worthwhile to question if the whole situation could have been worked out. I read a very good book by Thomas Fleming in which the author is very critical of FDR's unconditional surrender policy. http://www.amazon.com/New-Dealers-Wa...7755076&sr=8-4 The fact is the people running US foreign policy at the time wanted a crippled Japan and it got it. That created a power vacuum in the region that resulted in the US involvement in two costly wars after WWII.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: I think the detail of how loosely federated states would arrange for their joint defense would work itself out. I certainly would not let it be a show stopper.

How do you plan to bring about this "loosely federated" American Union, without actually spelling out what it involves? I mean, it's obviously not a serious proposal and probably not even intended to be (I have a feeling you are a put-on), but just for the hell of it, how do you see it working? Series of constitutional amendments? States pulling out and threatening to resist US forces with their militias and armed Republican citizens? What? Who do you see (besides yourself) as the moving force behind this plan?

Quoting stephanie: How do you plan to bring about this "loosely federated" American Union, without actually spelling out what it involves?

I mean, it's obviously not a serious proposal and probably not even intended to be (I have a feeling you are a put-on), but just for the hell of it, how do you see it working? Series of constitutional amendments? States pulling out and threatening to resist US forces with their militias and armed Republican citizens? What? Who do you see (besides yourself) as the moving force behind this plan?

I think the national debt, increasing more than GDP, is pushing people towards secession. Also the ever increasing percentage of income that is paid in taxes. The percentage of the population employed by government also appears to be increasing. We see how dysfunctional California is, how the government cant solve its financial problems. The federal system is on a clear path to the same end. Obama is not reducing his deficit. Taxes are going up and so is spending. If the economy continues to falter as high taxes discourage investment ... the sensible thing to do will be to dismantle the federal system.

Quoting stephanie: Who do you see (besides yourself) as the moving force behind this plan?

from a link on huffpo, here is someone running for congress from Va who says that if the ballot box fails the people should use bullets to combat tyranny ( by the feds ). A lot of cheers from the audience after her remarks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paeuC...layer_embedded

Quoting DenvilleSteve: I think the national debt, increasing more than GDP, is pushing people towards secession.

Again, assuming this implausible claim is true, for the sake of argument, how would this happen? These random individuals declare that they have left the union? Some states claiming they've pulled out? An attack on US gov't entities and such in the state? A proposed constitutional amendment? What?

Quoting DenvilleSteve: from a link on huffpo, here is someone running for congress from Va who says that if the ballot box fails the people should use bullets to combat tyranny ( by the feds ). A lot of cheers from the audience after her remarks.

Ah, someone running for Congress who managed to make it on YouTube. Sounds unstoppable. What is this alleged "tyranny" referred to, btw? I'm not in the mood to play the video.

Quoting stephanie: Again, assuming this implausible claim is true, for the sake of argument, how would this happen? These random individuals declare that they have left the union? Some states claiming they've pulled out? An attack on US gov't entities and such in the state? A proposed constitutional amendment? What?

I think there needs to be a guiding school of thought as to how the states would function without the current federal system. Followed by a lot of talk to get people accustomed to the idea. Then congressional Representatives and Senators sign on to vote as a block to allow states to opt out. Followed by a state actually doing it. A key turning point being when residents of a state dont pay their taxes directly to the feds, but thru the state government.

What is the difference between the current system and your proposal? Would not every negative of the current system, still be there under your system? It sounds to me like all you would be doing is making the current state gov'ts, into what we now call the federal gov't, and making the current city/county gov't, into what we now call the state gov'ts. I do not think there is as much political solidaraty in each state as you think there is. There will still be like a 40% minority perpetually pissed off at the ruling 60% (I bet the two sides would switch back and forth when moderates get pissy at the ruling side). On the off chance you are not just a troll, and you actually want change, I would suggest stop ranting about succusion, and your mythical do no wrong red staters, and instead start advocating for a 3 or more party system.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: I think there needs to be a guiding school of thought as to how the states would function without the current federal system. Followed by a lot of talk to get people accustomed to the idea.

Since you would have to actually convince people of this idea, yeah, I'd think so.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Then congressional Representatives and Senators sign on to vote as a block to allow states to opt out.

How does this give the individual citizens (in whatever state they live) the right to ignore the law? You need some constitutional amendments. I guess you could have Congress abolish all the programs you don't want the feds to do and then let the states that want them to do them individually (or I guess you could if we were in alterno-world where it's politicially plausible), but if you could do that you wouldn't need some weird opt out thing.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Followed by a state actually doing it. A key turning point being when residents of a state dont pay their taxes directly to the feds, but thru the state government.

This is hilarious. You're screwing around, aren't you?

Quoting Starwatcher162536: What is the difference between the current system and your proposal?

Would not every negative of the current system, still be there under your system? It sounds to me like all you would be doing is making the current state gov'ts, into what we now call the federal gov't, and making the current city/county gov't, into what we now call the state gov'ts.

the theory is that states with limited government will have a better economy and better quality of life than high tax, nanny state states. We see that now, where pro business states like Texas have higher employment rates than high tax states. Without the feds around to mess things up for all, low tax states would thrive.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: On the off chance you are not just a troll, and you actually want change, I would suggest stop ranting about succusion, and your mythical do no wrong red staters, and instead start advocating for a 3 or more party system.

I'm not sure how that would address his concerns. I'm assuming it'd end up looking like Western Europe with a labor/socialist party, a conservative pro-business party, and a working class party of radical nationalism and racism. I suspect you'd see even less concern for deficit cutting if it were divorced from concern about American strength. Instead of "porkulus" you'd have "American jobs for American workers"