OK, I get it. It's election season. And this election, despite the apparent low stakes, actually is quite bitter and heated. Possibly because the Republicans know they're in trouble over the war. Possibly because the Democrats are scared that, despite this advantage, they may not be able to fully capitalize on it. For whatever reason, prepare yourself for a few blogs on the frustating nature of our political system.
Here is one of my biggest pet peeves:
Why can't politicians answer a simple question simply?
My answer (simply):
It is (somewhat) because they don't want to, and (mostly) because we don't make them.
Get two politicians from opposing parties/points of view/pinnacles of power together, and you can observe this phenomenon for yourself. A simple question is asked, and then the politician (it doesn't matter which one) launches into a diatribe which rapidly transitions from the substance of the question into either 1) the politican's key messages of the day, or 2) an attack on their opponent. It usually ends with some dribble about the "intelligence of the American people" or some other meanlingless pandering. It does not matter what the question is, the answer is always the same.
And we wonder why many people cannot stand to listen to politicians. The problem is, this is our country these goof-balls are messing with. No matter, there is plenty of blame to go around, and the politicians are merely doing what works. The media is also to blame, because in their quest for ratings, they are scared to alienate influential and popular (ie good rating-getters) politicians by tough questioning lest their shows get black-balled for the Sunday talk circuit. So they all act tough, asking a "tough question" but then setting for the crappy, misdirection-laden, non-answers described above.
But I guess most of the blame must lie with all of us, the American People. We let this continue. Perhaps we have no choice. Anyone who tries to answer tough questions honestly gets ripped to shreds and destroyed in the media (by other politicians, attack ads, media personalities, etc.). There is really very little incentive for things to change.
Still, things must change. Our problems are not getting any easier in this world. We simply cannnot afford to condone sound-bite-laden lip-service as a fact of life in our policital system. We have too much at stake.
20061016
US Nuclear Policy - we cannot affort to blow this one.
The US should declare, concisely, our position and response to Nuclear attack by any means. We simply cannot afford to be ambiguous about this one.
Now that North Korea is in the Nuclear club, with Iran possibly close behind, we need to be very specific about our actions. When it comes to nuclear bombs, "close" is not nearly close enough.
It may actually not be possible for the US to stop countries from building nuclear devices. We may not be able to stop them from blowing up nuclear devices. However, that does not preclude the US from declaring openly what our response will be if and when a nuclear device is exploded on US soil.
I do realize that the threat of anniliation may not deter someone who is willing to die for his cause, but we absolutely need to find a way to motivate people in the proper direction. It seems to me that, unless everybody involved in the design,creation, and support of nuclear weapon trafficing is nuts, we should be able to at least partially deter this threat with such a "nuclear response doctrine".
Therefore I strongly urge the US government to declare something like the "doctrine of unilaterally-assured destruction" before the unthinkable actually does occur. The doctrine should go something like:
"The policy of the United States of America shall be one of immediate and full retaliatory military response towards any and all foreign governments that enable, engage, provide support for, harbor, or otherwise support any nuclear-based attack on US citizens, properties, or interests."
This may do nothing. But regardless, I'd rather have stated this policy before something happens, rather than wait until we get the nuclear equivalent of 9-11. I hope we never do.
Now that North Korea is in the Nuclear club, with Iran possibly close behind, we need to be very specific about our actions. When it comes to nuclear bombs, "close" is not nearly close enough.
It may actually not be possible for the US to stop countries from building nuclear devices. We may not be able to stop them from blowing up nuclear devices. However, that does not preclude the US from declaring openly what our response will be if and when a nuclear device is exploded on US soil.
I do realize that the threat of anniliation may not deter someone who is willing to die for his cause, but we absolutely need to find a way to motivate people in the proper direction. It seems to me that, unless everybody involved in the design,creation, and support of nuclear weapon trafficing is nuts, we should be able to at least partially deter this threat with such a "nuclear response doctrine".
Therefore I strongly urge the US government to declare something like the "doctrine of unilaterally-assured destruction" before the unthinkable actually does occur. The doctrine should go something like:
"The policy of the United States of America shall be one of immediate and full retaliatory military response towards any and all foreign governments that enable, engage, provide support for, harbor, or otherwise support any nuclear-based attack on US citizens, properties, or interests."
This may do nothing. But regardless, I'd rather have stated this policy before something happens, rather than wait until we get the nuclear equivalent of 9-11. I hope we never do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
