Hillary Clinton, Warmonger

[Ramo]

What, exactly, is the point of extending the nuclear umbrella to a state that has nukes?

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.

You're completely missing my point. The problem is the tone of rhetoric such as "total obliteration." It sounds unhinged.

[SlowwHand]

Jump in, that depends. I don't see the USA sending troops into a nuclear contaminated area. They might bomb hell out of any after the fact problem children.

[DRoseDARs]

It sounds downright McCainian.

[Berzerker]

Had George Bush I told Saddam we'd attack if he invaded Kuwait we could have avoided the last 18 years of disastrous foreign policy under Bush-Clinton-Bush

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ramo
What, exactly, is the point of extending the nuclear umbrella to a state that has nukes?

Of course that isn't anything that's confirmed, though everyone knows about.

Besides, if France or Britain got nuked during the Cold War, I'm positive the nuclear umbrella would have been extended to them.

You're completely missing my point. The problem is the tone of rhetoric such as "total obliteration." It sounds unhinged.

Why, pray tell, does that sound unhinged? That's the entire point of MAD.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Had George Bush I told Saddam we'd attack if he invaded Kuwait we could have avoided the last 18 years of disastrous foreign policy under Bush-Clinton-Bush

George Sr. bowed to the U.N.'s wishes for a Cease Fire.

Clinton did nothing, even after the terms of the Cease Fire were broken.

George Jr. should have had us out with the capture of Hussein. That's said with the knowledge that no one here has all the facts.

[Ramo]

Of course that isn't anything that's confirmed, though everyone knows about.

Besides, if France or Britain got nuked during the Cold War, I'm positive the nuclear umbrella would have been extended to them.

I don't understand your answer. Why are we making threats to completely obliterate a state if it nukes another state with a far more advanced nuclear program (i.e. actual nukes)?

Why, pray tell, does that sound unhinged? That's the entire point of MAD.

Uh, no. It's not MAD. MAD is mutually assured destruction. They certainly won't have the capability to completely destroy us with nukes within the next 10 years.

Once again, the issue is diplomacy, not policy. A potential leader of the most powerful state in the world is talking about the total obliteration of another state. There's no good reason to imply that you're willing to punish that state's civilians to a vastly disproportionate degree.

[Kuciwalker]

I don't understand your answer. Why are we making threats to completely obliterate a state if it nukes another state with a far more advanced nuclear program (i.e. actual nukes)?

Why not? As Imran said, the UK and France are also under our nuclear umbrella, and they have much better-developed nuclear arsenals than Israel. (And theirs are actually publicly acknowledged.)

Once again, the issue is diplomacy, not policy. A potential leader of the most powerful state in the world is talking about the total obliteration of another state. There's no good reason to imply that you're willing to punish that state's civilians to a vastly disproportionate degree.

Of course there is, that's the entire point of a nuclear deterrent.

Jesus Christ, Ramo, you just sound desperate for something to criticize Hillary on.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't understand your answer. Why are we making threats to completely obliterate a state if it nukes another state with a far more advanced nuclear program (i.e. actual nukes)?

As Kuci pointed out, what was the point of having Britain and France under our umbrella during the Cold War?

There's no good reason to imply that you're willing to punish that state's civilians to a vastly disproportionate degree.

Why do states build nukes again?

Jesus Christ, Ramo, you just sound desperate for something to criticize Hillary on.

QFT.. though its been like this since the beginning of the campaign.

[Kuciwalker]

Ramo, a hint: no one will think less of you if you pass up an opportunity to attack Hillary, or sometimes admit Obama is wrong. In fact, most people will give your arguments a good deal more respect.

[Ramo]

Why not?

Because Israel is more than capable of retaliating in terms of nukes...

As Imran said, the UK and France are also under our nuclear umbrella, and they have much better-developed nuclear arsenals than Israel. (And theirs are actually publicly acknowledged.)

1. The nuclear umbrella predated their weapons programs. In fact, the British program was pretty much an appendage to our own. And for much of this period, I doubt that the UK or France had the arsenals to destroy the Soviet Union.
2. As I stated, the umbrella in Europe was taken seriously precisely because we had a huge troop presence there (i.e. there would basically be no choice but to retaliate).

Of course there is, that's the entire point of a nuclear deterrent.

I'm pretty sure nuclear deterrence is taken seriously when heads of state aren't making wild threats. Overwhelming response is assumed. Being explicit about it is gratuitous. Regardless of what the policy is, the tone of the comment was not conducive to diplomacy. That's one reason why it's common policy not to comment on hypotheticals involving nukes.

I think DR's article is spot on.

Jesus Christ, Ramo, you just sound desperate for something to criticize Hillary on.

I don't think that the tone of the comment is appropriate, but that's a minor issue. I really don't care that much.

I actually came here to discuss the merits of the nuclear umbrella, specifically in a broader context. It could be an interesting idea. But no one else wanted to pick up on that.

Ramo, a hint: no one will think less of you if you pass up an opportunity to attack Hillary, or sometimes admit Obama is wrong. In fact, most people will give your arguments a good deal more respect.

I'm pretty sure I already do that. I like Clinton's health care agenda more, and I like Obama's foreign policy more. The former isn't discussed here too frequently, though.

[fed1943]

This thread is itself a demonstration that things that are Foreign

Affairs to other countries are Domestic Affairs to USA.

Best regards,