Hillary Clinton, Warmonger

[OneFootInTheGrave]

nuclear holocaust

between Pakistan, India, Israel and US who will start it first? I think we need a poll

[SlowwHand]

Iran, you leave out? North Korea, you ignore?

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
nuclear holocaust

between Pakistan, India, Israel and US who will start it first? I think we need a poll

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Iran, you leave out? North Korea, you ignore?

Behold!

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Iran, you leave out? North Korea, you ignore?

Iran has no capability now, and will take a while (10 years + ? ) to get there.. and furthermore they have no missile tech to do more damage except perhaps nuke Israel...

North Korea is not worth a mention those puny nukes they made they need to use some more reliable delivery method otherwise their shot at Tokyo will finish in the middle of the Pacific... while they themselves will be roasted... Kim Il is not that crazy I think...

And those two also know that if they do it nuclear holocaust on their ass... the though to certain doom without any gain is a good enough deterrent... so no go from them...

But the first four however.... Israel knows that noone will nuke them if they obliterate Iran, Iraq, Syria or other... US will only holocaust the nation which does not have the capability to strike US (so that excludes arms use on Europe, Russia, China and Israel ) ... India and Pakistan could get volatile enough and say "we have enough people" to survive MAD, and than obliterate the other one in the process... we can survive... thus those are the REAL options...

now off I go to vote in the other thread

[Alinestra Covelia]

Originally posted by DirtyMartini
Old news,

While bringing it up was stupid sabre-rattling (as Obama said) that would actually be a legitimate reason to go to war. In fact, if any nation nuked any other nation, I'd say that's a reason to go to war.

Agreed on all counts. Especially the sabre rattling as talk, justified reason as war point.

(Except for the "old news" bit. Because I was a bit out of touch and this was genuinely new for me.)

[Kuciwalker]

Did Clinton bring this up on her own? Or was it a response to a question some reporter asked?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Response to a question:

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Vote2008/story?id=4698059&page=1

Clinton further displayed tough talk in an interview airing on "Good Morning America" Tuesday. ABC News' Chris Cuomo asked Clinton what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

[Barnabas]

Let Israel defend itself, why must the USA be its bodyguard?

[Kuciwalker]

Then how is this sabre rattling? She just gave a perfectly valid and true answer to a question someone else asked her. I don't see why anyone intelligent is surprised.

[Ramo]

As the first sentence in the quote says, her previous position was not to comment on hypotheticals involving nukes (when asked about nuking OBL during one of the debates last year). One of the advantages of that position, incidentally, is that you avoid making ridiculous sounding threats (like promising to "totally obliterate them").

So anyone paying attention would be surprised...

[Imran Siddiqui]

like promising to "totally obliterate them"

But she didn't say that. She said: "we would be able to totally obliterate them.", which is absolutely true... but she never promised she would.

Basically she's asserting a deterrent thread and makes clear that she doesn't say that she WILL obliterate them, but that the US CAN obliterate them.

[Ramo]

She says "we will attack Iran," and then talks about total obliteration. There's no practical distance here. The issue is diplomacy, not policy.

[DRoseDARs]

Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Defense expert on Hillary's nuke-Iran proposal: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."
by John Aravosis (DC) · 4/23/2008 10:50:00 AM ET · Link
Discuss this post here: 20 Comments · reddit · FARK ·· Digg It!

Over the past week, Hillary repeatedly said that she would nuke Iran if Iran nuked Israel. She also said that she would consider extending the US nuclear umbrella to protect other US allies in the Middle East as well. This is a rather large change in US nuclear policy. Apparently aware of this fact, senior members of Hillary's staff tried three times yesterday to deny that Hillary said she would nuke Iran (Hillary literally said that the US would have "a nuclear response" to Iran - it doesn't get any clearer than that) and they denied that she said we should extend our nuclear umbrella to protect other countries in the region (but she did, twice).

In an effort to determine just how a large a gaffe Hillary made, I decided to contact a national security expert. AJ, our former defense intelligence officer, is taking his law exams, so in the meantime, here's the take of Dr. Jeffrey Lewis. Dr. Lewis is Director of the Nuclear Strategy and Nonproliferation Initiative at the New America Foundation. He founded and maintains the leading blog on nuclear arms control and nonproliferation, ArmsControlWonk.com. Here is Dr. Lewis' take on Hillary's, and her staff's, comments on this issue:

It is frustrating, because she handled it exactly wrong. I like Senator Clinton and, if she is the Democratic nominee, will wholeheartedly support for candidacy for President.

That said, I think the strain of the campaign is getting to her. A couple of rules about nuclear weapons.

Rule number one is never, ever, ever threaten to use nuclear weapons against another country unless you plan to do so in the near future. Brandishing our nuclear arsenal doesn't achieve anything beyond what comes from having nuclear weapons in first place-- the Iranians are well aware of our nuclear capabilities. Talking about it always rings hollow, while encouraging the other side to call your bluff by saying or doing provocative things in response.

Rule number two is don't act freaked out by other countries current or possible nuclear weapons. The model here is LBJ, who gave a very reassuring speech saying that China's first nuclear test in 1964 wouldn't change the balance of power in Asia. The goal is to reassure allies, not talk like some deranged lunatic, which Senator Clinton is normally not.

Rule number three is to remember that the credibility of the nuclear umbrella comes from the credibility of our security commitment to other countries. So you don't talk about extending nuclear deterrence; you talk about how we regard the security of Israel (or Japan or Europe or whomever) as a vital national interest. The nuclear part is pretty obvious and best remains unsaid.

A couple of months ago, I thought Obama got the better of an exchange with her over his decision to rule out the use of nuclear weapons in Pakistan and Afghanistan against civilians. She trotted out the tired, old never rule anything in or out.

I wrote an op-ed in the FT about it and mentioned in a recent essay for SIPRI. I still think he got the better of the debate (because he was right on the merits.) But her gaffe really illustrates the rationale behind the conventional wisdom. It's Abe Lincoln -- better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

She's not a fool, of course, but this kind of mistake helps illustrate the downsides of talking about nuclear weapons, either as a campaign ploy or when one hasn't thought carefully about the policy matter.

There are other entries from AmericaBlog since Monday's interview on ABC (last link is the video of said interview).

Second time today, Hillary implied that she'd nuke Iran - now she's backing off

Hillary dramatically rewrites US nuclear weapons policy in the Middle East, then her staff says "never mind"

3rd Hillary staffer: Hillary didn't mean she'd nuke Iran when she said we'd give them "a nuclear response"

Hillary vs. Hillary on US nuclear policy

ABC News -- Clinton on Iran Attack: 'Obliterate Them'

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Barnabas
Let Israel defend itself, why must the USA be its bodyguard?

If you were surrounded by a gang of bullies wanting to kick your ass, or killl you, would you appreciate help?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ramo
She says "we will attack Iran," and then talks about total obliteration. There's no practical distance here. The issue is diplomacy, not policy.

For people who backed Kerry, you'd think they'd learn what the word "nuance" means. Saying we'll attack Iran and we would be able to obliterate them does not automatically go from one to the other. It's basic MAD talk (nukes really **** **** up) without really committing a nuclear response (attack doesn't mean nuke the bastards... though if they nuked Israel, I'm guessing most Presidents would be hard pressed not to respond in kind... or look the other way when Israel does it and then jump in afterwards).