Nuclear Weapons
Politico has a very revealing story on the vetting of Governor Sarah Palin.
John McCain’s lead vice presidential vetter said Friday that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin “impressed” in her interview, knocking the senator’s most important questions “out of the park.”
A.B. Culvahouse, a powerful Washington lawyer and former counsel to President Reagan, told an audience of Republican lawyers that for McCain, selecting a vice president came down to three questions: Why do you want to be vice president? Are you prepared to use nuclear weapons? And the CIA has identified Osama bin Laden, but if you take the shot there will be multiple civilian casualties. Do you take the shot?
Now that we have had a laugh, I am really struck by the simplicity of the first question, and the outrageousness of the second.
Why do you want to be Vice President? Are you kidding me? Was the follow up “Where do you see yourself in 5 years?” One would think that the vetting of a VP nominee would be more strenuous than a typical job interview for a mid level associate position. But, given the stories that came out later about Sarah Palin, I guess not.
The second question is very revealing of McCain and his intentions. I do not think it was a question to test Sarah’s resolve to do what is necessary in a crisis. That is what the third question is for, and that third question is relevant given the threats that face us today, and given the crises a modern President would face. A nuclear launch from the Soviet Union is not among those threats.
So either McCain was living in the past with that question, or he did intend to use nuclear weapons against Iran or North Korea, perhaps preemptively. Why else ask the question? Indeed, in this day and age, we should not be prepared to use nuclear weapons for any purpose. The question is irrelevant. But not to McCain.
I think it just shows how McCain thinks. I believe he’s an act first, ask questions later kind of person. It certainly explains his campaign and his choice of Palin. Contrast McCain’s VP process with Obama’s. McCain is so much like Bush it’s almost scary. Thank your favorite deity that McCain didn’t become president.
“Indeed, in this day and age, we should not be prepared to use nuclear weapons for any purpose.”
Fail
‘Bulo has secured another Palin answer through his deep-under-cover source, but he doesn’t know to which question:
“When I grow up I want to be a veterinarian because I like working with people.”
BREAKING: ‘Bulo can now confirm that this came from her official Miss Iditarod questionnaire.
BREAKING #2: Little-known fact. Palin’s desire to excel in politics grew out of her Iditarod experience. She was inspired by the race’s motto: “If you’re not the lead dog, the scenery always looks the same.” Feel free to amuse your friends with this anecdote.
Tom S. please tell me how you can justify using nuclear weapons today.
“Tom S. please tell me how you can justify using nuclear weapons today.”
To prevent violence from escalating. There are worse things than one nuclear weapon going off.
To prevent violence from escalating. There are worse things than one nuclear weapon going off.
Only an idiot thinks that in this day and age, there can be such a thing as “one nuclear weapon going off.”
someone remind me which country is the only that ever used nukes?
“someone remind me which country is the only that ever used nukes?”
Remind me what would have happened if we hadn’t.
No way to know NostroTomos.
But I do find it so amusing that you are in favor of killing tens of thousand INNOCENT people with a nuke and are against abortion.
Make sure to square that tomorrow after you said the “Our Father” or after you take the “Body of Christ”
hypocrite
More like millions, DV.
I read that article and thought — Thank God this guy didn’t win the Presidency.
If your willingness to kill people is all it takes to be a VP nominee in the GOP, then they deserve to be wandering in the wilderness for a very long time. There was nothing in that interview — nothing — that had anything to do with governing. Just whether Palin could step into Cheney’s shoes. As if that would be a good thing. We’d be in a world of hurt if McCain had won — and if I was an Arizonian, I’d be thinking this guy needs to retire now.
If you’re not in the White House and prepared to use nuclear weapons, you have no business being there.
I maybe reading too much into the phrasing. But being prepared to do something is not the same as wanting or planning to do it.
The person who sits in the Oval Office must – MUST – realize the awesome power and incredible responsibility that comes with that job. Nuclear weapons are unfortunately part and parcel of that. And until scientists figure out a way to put the genie back in the bottle, any president worth his or her salt must also ask themselves that question: Are you prepared? In a godforsaken worst case scenario, will you be able to confirm your launch codes and authorize a launch, or will you break down and crack up like a nut?
I’ve marched at peace rallies. I’ve studied Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The idea of nuclear war terrifies me. But until the totalitarian Russians, the crazy-ass North Koreans, the zealots in Israel or the utterly unpredictable individuals in charge of India and Pakistan destroy their arsenals, I want a president who’s willing to press the button, and I want other countries to know that.
Mutually Assured Destruction was indeed the height of military insanity during the Cold War. But it WORKED.
All of that may be true, but my comment was more about the remarkable shallowness of the questions asked. Certainly being a heartbeat from the President should involve some discussion on governing philosophy, thoughts on what the applicant wants from the job and other items that might tell you something about how you may work together and the kind of hands you might leave the country in if in fact the worst happens. McCain and his people weren’t especially interested in any of that — just whether you’d push the button. Nuclear weapons are not the beginning or the end of the governing of this country and it amazes me (well maybe not) that they didn’t account.
“Pressing the button” would mean the end of higher forms of life on the planet. For example, a bomb going of in the Philadelphia area would be the dirtiest of dirty bombs, causing world wide contamination of the environment from the spread of nuclear waste from 3 – 4 blown up and melted down nuclear power plants. In addition to the initial widespread poisoning, the radioactive material that would spread world wide via the oceans and atmosphere would irrevocably poison the gene pool with constant DNA mutations that would ultimately make reproduction of viable species impossible.
We are a long long way from Hiroshima and Nagasaki when nuclear power plants did not exist. Anybody who posits nuclear war, or even a single nuclear bomb near multiple nuclear power plants, as survivable by anybody or anything is a homicidal-suicidal fool.
“No way to know NostroTomos.”
Are you seriously pretending an invasion of mainland Japan would have been puppies and rainbows?
“But I do find it so amusing that you are in favor of killing tens of thousand INNOCENT people with a nuke and are against abortion.”
Barry killed 3 pirates, that one man might live.
Don’t act like you don’t know what was at stake with the bombings. Either tens of thousands died at Hiroshima or millions, maybe even tens of millions would have died in an invasion.
“More like millions, DV.”
You’re both wrong, all tolled it was about
200,000
“If your willingness to kill people is all it takes to be a VP nominee in the GOP, then they deserve to be wandering in the wilderness for a very long time.”
http://delawareliberal.net//2009/04/12/handled/
Come again?
When a Democratic president displays an iota of martial resolve you people might as well be dancing in the streets but when John McCain (you know, the guy that has actually fought a war) says he wants a Vice President who is ready to defend this country then we’re all just a bunch of knuckle-dragging war mongers. Go string up some Somalis and ready another lecture.
H
Y
P
O
C
R
I
T
E
That all you’ve got?
Hypocrite,
There is the popular belief that we bombed japan to get Russia to wise up. So what proof do you have we would have invaded mainland Japan?
What proof do you have we wouldn’t have just continued to bomb them with several bombs and not one baby killer?
You’re such a joke. Favoring a nuclear war and any war for that matter and you try to believe you are a devout Catholic.
It’s all I need Tom. I’m not worried about the bomb and what and if’s. I just love the fact that you attend church every Sunday. Rail against abortion. Claim to know this that and the other about Dogma…
But low and behold don’t have a problem with Nuclear Bombs and war in general.
It must be nice to be one of those supermarket Catholics where you get to pick and choose which parts of the religion you like and want to follow.
“There is the popular belief that we bombed japan to get Russia to wise up.”
Fascinating……
“So what proof do you have we would have invaded mainland china?”
….none?
“What proof do you have we wouldn’t have just continued to bomb them with several bombs and not one baby killer?”
How would that have been any better? More people died in the firebombings of Tokyo than in the nuclear bombings, does it really matter how folks die?
“Favoring a nuclear war and any war for that matter and you try to believe you are a devout Catholic.”
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3040.htm
Things are a little more complex than you might want them to be.
“I’m not worried about the bomb and what and if’s.”
Perhaps you should be.
“But low and behold don’t have a problem with Nuclear Bombs and war in general.”
That.s a bit of a stretch.
“It must be nice to be one of those supermarket Catholics where you get to pick and choose which parts of the religion you like and want to follow.”
Try again tomorrow.
This whole discussion is absurd. The bombs that went off in Japan were firecrackers compared to what is available today.
Tom would answer “yes” to question #2. I’d answer “no.” Tom S is willing to kill all of the life on the planet. I’m not.
That’s all there is to it.
“Tom S is willing to sacrifice all of the life on the planet.”
Things are a bit more complex than that.
“Anybody who posits nuclear war, or even a single nuclear bomb near multiple nuclear power plants, as survivable by anybody or anything is a homicidal-suicidal fool.”
Yeah, thanks for that complete non sequitur. No one here has posited such a thing. Go back into your hole now.
No, actually, they are not. Use of nuclear weapons would lead to a planet that was uninhabitable by higher life forms for millions of years.
There is no reason that would ever be acceptable. None.
It is that simple.
“It is that simple.”
No, it really isn’t.
Lets say Israel nukes Iran, then what? What other nuclear power would be compelled to act? The human misery would be unbearable and war would follow but not the end of the human race.
Limited nuclear war is possible. Not saying anyone should venture into it lightly, but it is possible.
Tom,
I know that you’re trying to be rational and all that. But you can’t have a limited nuclear war, particularly if you bomb a nuclear facility. The earth turns, winds blow, ocean currents move. You can’t keep it in one place. The world wide environmental catastrophe of a so-called “limited” nuclear war is unfathomable. Even conventional bombing of a nuclear energy facility would be catastrophic. It would be a massive “dirty bomb” with sustained deadly effects lasting millions of years after the initial explosion.
I appreciate your sincerity, but recognize your lack of understanding of the extreme toxicity of plutonium and the effects that even ton quantities of nuclear isotopes dispersed world-wide would have on DNA and genetic reproduction for millions of years.
The more people think that a “limited nuclear war is possible” the more likely a catastrophic nuclear war becomes.
And that is all I have to say.
I concede I am no expert in this matter but Chernobyl blew and I know the Ukraine is still having problems from that but Humanity is still very much here.
I concede I am no expert in this matter
Respectfully, that is quite true, but neither am I an expert. But you don’t have to be.
Chernobyl blew
Yes, but not with the power of a nuclear explosion or even a large conventional bomb. It caught fire, but much of the fuel in its reactors was contained and covered with a cement “vault”. And they still don’t know what to do about that and they’re still seeing horrific long term health problems of the people who worked on the clean up and surrounding farms.
If you imagine the nuclear fuel of a single reactor spread over several hundred inhabitable square mile just at the start and then it gets into ground water, rivers and streams, carried by wind, and animals walking in and out of the area, you’ll begin to get just a slight feel for the enormity of the catastrophe. Then add two or three more reactors…
Tom, I hope that you take this to heart and make it part of whatever faith practice that you have to work against the prospect of any nuclear war. The prevention of a nuclear war must be at least the one thing that can unite us all.
Mutually Assured Destruction has nothing to do with the use of nuclear weapons. Indeed, just the opposite. The policy, or strategy, was meant to deter the use of those weapons by assuring that if we did use them on Russia, or if they used them on us, then we would both be destroyed.
The great irony here is that Ronald Reagan was convinced that nuclear weapons could never be used, and did seek to eliminate them. In his second inaugural, he laid out the goal to eliminate them from the Earth, just as Obama has done.
Jesus will save the nuclear fall out victims in Tom’s world
Just a couple of facts for the discussion:
First of all, a thermonuclear device — a “hydrogen bomb” — is hundreds of times more powerful than either of the weapons we dropped on Japan. Exploding one in or above a city would kill millions.
That said, one detonated in or above Philadelphia — I’m assuming we’re talking about a bomb with ground zero at Billy Penn — would not cause much damage to the region’s nuclear power plants, which are heavily fortified structures.
Carry on.
would not cause much damage to the region’s nuclear power plants, which are heavily fortified structures
Clueless.