9.11.01 – Eight Years
September 11th, 2009
|
| Share |
I’m not sorry. I am not sorry that my country supported the Shah of Iran. I am not sorry that my country put opposition to the Soviet Union over other things when considering who to support. I’m not sorry for the Gulf War. I’m not sorry for Hiroshima or Nagasaki. I’m not sorry for the firebombing of Dresden or for the Treaty of Versailles. I’m not sorry for the contracts oil companies made in the 1960’s or the 1950’s. I’m not sorry for acting in the interest of the US in an area that is inherently violent. I’m not sorry for supporting Israel, the one and only civil society and democracy in the Middle East.
I am sorry we didn’t back up our commitment to defend those who fought with the US in South Vietnam after the Paris Peace Accords. I’m am sorry that we didn’t do anything about the Nazis or the Imperial Japanese until 1941, when we should have years earlier. I am sorry that in the name of pacifism we disarmed ourselves in the 1920’s and 1930’s. I am sorry that we disassembled many of the air defenses we built during the Cold War.
For those who hate the US, the West, the non-Islamic world, I do not want to change your hearts and minds to our side. That’s not possible. There will always be those who choose to hate or scapegoat such a conspicuous target. I want to change your hearts and minds into a superheated gas.
There is but one message that can keep the peace, and that is the message that we are not so pacifist as to avoid confrontation in our own defense. The very willingness to do so is, more often than not, enough to prevent it from ever being tested. Yet when it is, it cannot ever be revealed to be a paper tiger, because that is not a sign of peace and civility; it is an invitation to slaughter.
He who awakens the sleeping giant shall bare his full wrath.
This entry was posted on Friday, September 11th, 2009 at 9:00 pm and is filed under Misc, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
View blog reactions
September 11th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Perhaps a post on the extreme unwisdom of the complete elimination of nuclear weapons (the single most effective peacekeeping military technology ever devised) from the world is in order.
September 11th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
I made this graphic but elected not to use it in this post: http://depletedcranium.com/W78_MK12A_RV_Minuteman_III_bus.jpg
September 11th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
Doc,
You might enjoy this page:
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/
It frequently features essays on how some self-loathing members of free societies tend to bend over backwards to defend the bunch of savages that seem to inhabit a certain little corner of the world. All while maintaining a left-leaning bent that I would not have expected. An interesting read.
September 11th, 2009 at 11:44 pm
Chuck P. said:
Yeah.. I mean.. I try to keep this from turning into a political blog. Obviously there are times that science and politics mix. This is an entirely political issue, but it is September 11th and it’s hard to escape that fact.
I’m not unwilling to say I feel different than many of my peers. I don’t look at September 11th as an example of how the horrible empire of the industrial west provoked an attack. I see it as a savage act of murder against civilians that requires action.
September 12th, 2009 at 12:39 am
Too bad you didn’t use the W78/Minuteman III graphic and its caption because it would have been a powerful addition to your statement.
Because I know damned well that as a Canadian I enjoy almost all of the benefits of being an American, without having to shoulder many of the responsibilities, I make a point of not being critical of U.S. foreign policy. Has it always been right? No, but I challenge anyone to show me any empire that has been. If anything (and as you alluded to) the U.S. has given its opponents the benefit of the doubt longer than most, and has paid more in the end for its unwillingness to act in haste.
Cultures, like people, can be good or evil. That there exist a large number of individuals that believe in their culture does not in and of itself absolve them or it of moral error. The Nazi Party that condemned many to death in the camps and invaded the territory of others were in the wrong; the communists who turned their nations into slave-pens and openly declared their intention to do it to everyone else were wrong; a religion that condemns a woman to death because she was sexually assaulted and other excesses of that nature is wrong. These groups go beyond the point where any rational, moral and ethical State can stand by and not interfere, claiming it’s not their business anymore than I could ignore domestic violence in my neighbors house with a similar excuse.
America shouldered the mantel of world policeman when the British could no longer carry on alone. They did it because it had to be done, and those of us that live in the peace they have provided owe you a thank you we often neglect to extend.
September 12th, 2009 at 12:41 am
Simple opposition to the Soviet Union was necessary but not sufficient. We had to articulate individualist capitalism as a philosophy, and unfortunately, we didn’t. Communism became the standard bearer of anti-imperialism, and we ended up on the side of the European imperialists by supporting them in World War II and their interests afterward. That’s totally the opposite of our historical tradition–we started decolonization, after all! When Europe was weak after WWI, we should have made our move. That would have discredited communism forever in the Third World, if we had articulated our philosophy during and after the “World War 1.5″ with Western Europe on one side and the US on the other that would presumably follow (i.e., not what we did in the Philippines). If attacking the USSR would have solved the problem, I would be advocating it, but the USSR was based out of Russia because that’s the one place where the international communist movement succeeded. Attacking the USSR, even successfully, would just transfer the center of communist thought elsewhere–we’d be playing whack-a-mole for decades. We would have had to attack the capability of the international communist movement to propagate itself, worldwide.
Have to disagree with you here. The Gulf War was a dumb strategic move–Saddam Hussein was secular and ruthless, a combination we badly needed after 9/11 and didn’t have. Saddam Hussein could have secularized the Islamic world with a crowbar–basically, been more violent and dictatorial than the mainstream Muslims–and after 9/11, American popular opinion would have been amenable to providing him with the aforementioned crowbar. As a result of the Gulf War, we lost that diplomatic relationship. Basically, Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden liked each other about as much as Richard Dawkins and Jerry Falwell. Uniting those two was a feat of historical proportions.
Versailles, 1919, I presume? Versailles was totally indefensible–Wilson was a fool to not simply lay down a list of demands and then walk out of that conference when they weren’t met. The US was the only effective army left standing in Europe in 1919; Wilson could have dictated terms. It’s just unbelievable to me that a man with a Ph.D in political science couldn’t figure out that national self-determination leads to war because war is the only binding way to resolve international disputes. Even in the American Civil War, the dispute was between two groups of people who thought they were sovereign–sovereignty means that you can make all your decisions yourself and ignore any decisions that anyone else makes, so a sovereign state that submits to “binding” arbitration and loses can simply ignore the result. Why on Earth anyone would consciously set up a system like that is beyond me–a nation is simply a tribe with an army that can defend a perimeter. But, Wilson had a bunch of ideas for “reforming” the American system to make it more like Europe (sound at all like certain people today who think that Europe is a wonderland?), such as state sovereignty (as an ex-Confederate), a parliamentary system, and racial segregation. What a bozo.
If a country is going to have international trade, it had better regulate that trade or be prepared to make the decision at some point in the future as to whether to use force to protect that trade. There’s nothing about an unregulated agreement made by a private citizen that makes it proper. Certainly, private organizations shouldn’t make foreign policy on their own initiative, which is what they’re doing. Why not instead regard these agreements as treaties subject to approval by the Senate? Yeah, it would cut down on foreign trade, but that’s the price of not getting onto the wrong side of some dumb conflict in Central America at the behest of a banana magnate. Call me an isolationist if you like.
Europe was “inherently violent” until 1945. The US and USSR split Europe down the middle and made sure that it didn’t happen again, and it didn’t. The trouble is, we blew our chance to put Saddam Hussein in charge and we’re going to have to wait for another crisis, and an evil ally equally affected by the crisis.
The Middle East won’t be violent, some day (of course, by that time, the violence will have moved somewhere else, probably Africa). It wasn’t violent before 1914. You can thank the Treaty of Versailles for our current problems there, too.
Turkey? Turkey is secular, on top of it, and Israel isn’t. Put bluntly, Israel is a racist colony. No one has an ethnic right to certain land, and a melting-pot federation like the US has no business supporting it. It’s a total departure from our traditions and even our stated aims, in the constitution. I’m with George C. Marshall on this one–it’s not a core goal, or even a peripheral goal. Israel is a distraction from America’s goals, if we even believe in having independent goals anymore, instead of being a good little nation.
Now, don’t get me wrong, the people on the other side are nuts. We shouldn’t support the weird mix of Islamic fundamentalists and Arab nationalists, probably 90% of whom are fundamentalists by Christian standards (using the definition of “fundamentalism” as being a literal adherence to the holy book, rather than the common definition of it as being those interpretations of that book which are relatively more radical), who oppose Israel. Why can’t we just leave that whole mess alone? We’ve got coal out our noses; we can synthesize our own petroleum products. We don’t need Arab oil. Let’s take our ball (in this case, refining capacity, which they need) and go home.
The trouble is making guarantees to other people instead of pursuing our goals. If being in Southeast Asia was key to our goals, and it was, to prevent the Vietnamese communists from putting the Khmer Rouge in charge of Cambodia, we should have pursued our goals, and, of course, we didn’t.
Yet to (a) prevent Nazism and militant nationalism from taking hold in places in the Third World and (b) get enough manpower to beat the Nazis and Imperial Japanese without anyone else’s help, and presumably the Soviets too, we would need to take the offensive, into the Third World and against the Western Europeans, in the interwar period. Given the success with which the far left usually gets its weird interpretation of history into the mainstream, it’s surprising that Britain and France aren’t held responsible for World War II, as the Soviets asserted they were (on the basis that they declared war first, and Hitler offered to make peace during the Phony War and the offer was not accepted). We would go down in woo-woo ahistory as racist imperialist warmongers, attacking peaceful, neutral Germany and Japan.
As the format of your post alludes to, there is broad sympathy on the left for bin Laden, his stated motivations, and his stated goals (which I don’t believe for a second, given bin Laden’s background and far-right religion). If there had been a Democratic president on 9/11, there wouldn’t be these problems, but everybody on the left got so used to slamming Bush that he could have said it was Tuesday on 9/11 and they wouldn’t have listened to him–and bin Laden knows exactly what to say to get people like Noam Chomsky to independently derive his line and spread it around like it’s the avant-garde. Barring a PR genius on the level of Lincoln or Churchill showing up in the right wing, that’s not going to change–and if it did, they’ll claim to have been behind him all along.
September 12th, 2009 at 10:13 am
If I’d been living at the time, I wouldn’t have demanded unconditional surrender but would have been willing a compromise peace where the existing regime could continue within Japan proper, but would be nuked immediately if they tried to resume the war.
I wouldn’t have opposed the atomic bombings, but I would have been shocked with delight that they actually produced an unconditional surrender.
(Also, I think nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki in reprisal for Pearl Harbor is way disproportionate. I could only justify them in my mind by thinking of them as punishment for the rape of Nanking and other atrocities in China…)
Why doesn’t Turkey count?
And anyway, since Israel is a settler colony rather than a nation indigenous to the region, you cannot use it as an example for the region as a whole unless you plan to exterminate the Arabs and recolonize the region with non-Muslims — a redrawing of the racial map of the world even grander than that of Hitler’s Generalplan Ost.
DV82XL said:
Isn’t military intervention by America (or anyone else) without the consent of the UN or other body representing the international community in toto not policing but vigilantism? Police are supposed to enforce the law, not make the law!
Stewart Peterson said:
Is “secularizing” the Muslim world really necessary though? A Gallup World poll suggested that those Muslims who approved of the 9/11 attacks were no more religious than Muslims who condemned the attacks. It was noted that the 9/11 hijackers gambled and visited bars and strip clubs before the attacks — NOT very Islamic behaviour!
And weren’t most of the Muslim terrorists who attacked the West radicalized there, not in Muslim countries? I’m not convinced that military action against Muslim countries is needed to stop Muslim terrorism in the West.
September 12th, 2009 at 11:47 am
Ahem. It’s ‘bear’, not ‘bare’. To bear, to carry a burden. Not to lay open or denude. In the context of your statement at the bottom of the post I’m presuming you mean to be burdened with the full wrath of the sleeping giant. If we’re going to see proper science on this blog, let’s see correct language. The two go together.
I agree with the sentiment though.
September 12th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Bill Sticker said:
Actually, the way I read it, bothbear & bare make sense;
Bear – feel the effect of the sleeping giant’s wrath
Bare – reaveal said wrath to the world
I do agree with you to a certain extent, improper use of homophones buggs the hell out of me.
September 12th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
George Carty said:
IF the UN were an effective body, I would agree with you but as it stands it is not. But specifically here I was referring to America’s role in the nuclear stand off, its maintaining of of open sea lanes, and the other secondary areas that the leading superpower effects just by its stance. For awhile this was covered by Pax Britannica, when it became too much for them to maintain on their own, America picked up the slack. If the UN were able to do this it would be great, but we all know that they are not ready to do so.
September 12th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Visit….
http://www.sotoman.info/freethinking/index.php?topic=1198.0
you are such a lying piece of ****…
VAGUE, EH?
September 12th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
you are a little lying idiot and will be destroyed…
http://www.sotoman.info/freethinking/index.php?topic=1198.0
September 12th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Chuck P. said:
Another homophonic mistake I’ve noticed Buzz make is “heat sync” instead of “heat sink”.
September 12th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
I agree with your sentiments, drbuzz0. Could you change Shaw to Shah and Verses to Versailles?
September 12th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
try to censor my comments, you little ****…
http://www.sotoman.info/freethinking/index.php?topic=1198.0
you will burn in HELL!
September 12th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
you ****ing americans got what you deserved on 911 and worse is coming…
http://www.sotoman.info/freethinking/index.php?topic=1198.0
September 12th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
you ****ing americans got what you deserved on 911 and worse is coming…
September 12th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
What a pathetic little person.
drmabus99 is one of those that believes in violence against atheists, and similar radical ideas, and there is quite a list of sites from which he has been barred.
A total waste of skin.
September 12th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
I’ve said it before Steve: stick to the science. Preaching ain’t for you.
/Michael
September 12th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Michael Karnerfors said:
I agree with Michael on this one. This post has the tone of a neo-con-ish rah-rah gung-ho America cheer that understandably leaves a sour taste in other people’s mouths, hence the legacy of the “ugly American”. I think the rest of the world very much appreciates America and all she has done but they hate how damned obnoxious Americans can be when touting themselves to the rest of the world. As they say, hindsight is 20/20 and it’s pretty clear that America has made its share of mistakes, many of which manifested into unforeseen “blow-back” events from what previously seemed like great ideas at the time like selling chemical weapons to Saddam. And yet, many Americans are not only clueless as to why we are despised in many other parts of the world but they don’t even have the intellectual curiosity to discover why, and again the ugly American rears its head again.
Anyone who can’t pause for a moment to consider this and simply rejects this statement as being anti-American doesn’t understand what patriotism really is. I like how Adlai Stevenson put it: [Patriotism]
is a sense of national responsibility … a patriotism which is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime.”
September 12th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Mike and Jason – Do you make a habit of telling others what they may or may not talk about in their own homes?
Keep in mind that we are the guests here, if you don’t care for the topic don’t read it, but I think it is exceptionally rude to suggest that the guy that’s paying for the place not speak his mind when he wants too.
September 12th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
DV82XL said:
Well… since I expect my guests to be honest with me and not hide their feelings about me, I tend to extend the courtesy of honesty to others as well.
If Steve wants it any other way he’s free to tell us he doesn’t appeciate constructive criticism.
/Michael
September 12th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
George Carty said:
Well that is an interesting problem. The thing is that when some floated the possibility of terms that did not include a complete and unconditional surrender, it was immediately picked up by some of Tojo’s war hawks as evidence that the US was wavering. They were portrayed as the US realizing that they could not force a surrender so they compromised.
It was quite a problem, especially because the US didn’t actually know what was being discussed in the leadership in Japan. The power rested in the emperor, if he chose to speak and use it, but for most of modern history, it had been relegated to ceremonial roles. He was officially the top authority, but emperor Hirohito was especially weak when it came to taking authority. There were certainly those in the war cabinet who were not willing to surrender.
George Carty said:
I do not see it as punishment or reprisal. In fact, I think it is entirely wrong to see war as an opportunity to make your opponent suffer as a means of somehow “getting back” at them for what they did. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was part of a much larger strategy, which was based on the idea that if you destroy enough infrastructure, military or otherwise, you cripple the opponent’s ability to fight and support their own stratigic needs.
The fact that a lot of people died is not the goal of this. That may be a consequence, but you’re not really trying to just kill as many as possible. You’re looking to impare their warmaking ability. If that involves a lot of death, then that’s part of it, but that’s not the goal in and of itself. Nor should it ever be.
Regreatably at the time, you could bomb cities, but you really could not bomb only the factories and stratigic locations. When the bombs went off they destroyed factories, port facilities, telephone switching stations, power lines, rail yard and so on. If there were a way to do this without destroying everything else that was in the area it might have been different.
The only real precision bombing method of World War II was dive bombing, and that was a very limited thing, because you used small aircraft and dropped one bomb at at time,
George Carty said:
Depends on the definition of “middle east.” Turkey has been defined traditionally as the “near east” but it is also part of the “Greater Middle East”
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/GreaterMiddleEast3.png
George Carty said:
I would never want to exterminate the Arabs. Although I think the region is very sadly mired in radical religion. As for Israel, it’s smaller than the state of New Jersey and mostly occupies desert. The whole thing with Israel being created was a no-win situation. Jews had been living in “British Palestine” for decades and were not going to leave. The compromise solution obviously had some major problems.
George Carty said:
That would depend on the circumstances. If ICBMS are coming at you, you have about 20 minutes, at the most, to make the decision. Not much time to convene an assembly. Aside from that, the UN is not a world government. It’s an organization that makes rulings, but the definition of sovereignty is being able to do your own actions. If the US is attacked, then no ruling by the UN is going to stop military action against the attacker.
George Carty said:
Oh no… I would never ever suggest that we should go out slaughtering Muslims in their countries. I do think we should be very skeptical of anything such countries and keep a close eye on them, but the idea that simply because they’re Muslim they need to be fought is absolutely unacceptable.
That said, if someone does ever orchestrate an attack against US assist, or even provide support to groups that do, or shelter to them, or if they in any way assist such an action, then they should receiver very swift and extremely severe concequences.
This alone should be enough to stop most threats. In fact, not even doing it, but simply making it 100% clear that this will be the result can serve as a deterrent in its own right.
Most of the time when a cop pulls their gun on someone they don’t shoot. Almost always the person puts their hands up and surrenders. Very rarely do cops need to actually fire their weapon. However, if word got around that they wouldn’t do it, even under the worst circumstances, nobody would surrender anymore.
Jason Ribeiro said:
I’m not one who always thinks the US is god’s gift to the world. I admit that there are things about this country that I don’t like, but I’m proud of this country and generally like it a lot.
But… I don’t go around obnoxiously telling everyone how great the US is in general. I don’t get all nationalist and gung-ho.
EXCEPT: On issues relating to 9/11. I’m just sick and tired of hearing so much crap about how sorry we should be and how much we deserved it. This time of the year is when I don’t roll over and ignore that. It’s not a sciences issue, but it’s an issue that I can’t escape on 9/11, when the news is always saturated with the aniversery
BUT… today is September 12th. So it’ll be another year before I get all patriotic and angry again.
September 12th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
Michael Karnerfors said:
Michael, I appreciate your criticism and patronage as always. On September 11th, nearly every blog or site has at least some acknowledgment of the events that occurred on it. It would be a conspicuous omission for me not to. I know plenty of science blogs and such things where the author put some kind of post about the events up there.
I prefer to be honest and upfront about how I feel about things like this. I didn’t write a very long drawn-out thing, but I said how I feel: That I’m angry and I don’t feel that my country needs to be apologetic. I could have bit my tongue and just said something generic.
I certainly realize that I’m not 100% objective. Even on matters of science, although I try to look at the facts, no human can be relied on not to let their own bias sneak in at times. In some ways, I think it is healthier to admit this and be up front about it.
It’s a full disclosure kind of thing. People object to receiving information from a PR firm and not being told it’s from a PR firm. So while I don’t dwell on it, the fact that I have political opinions is not something that I think serves any good by trying to deny.
September 12th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
drmabus said:
DM, the comments are not censored for message, only content, where certain words are obscured. I do this because I don’t want the site being blocked by filters or being unsafe for people to see at work. The content should still be clear even with the words starred out. If you really need to curse to make the point, then you’re the little ****
Now let me address your message: I have also posted the test Connie Sonne took by the JREF. The Challenge has a fairly broad definition of what is “paranormal” Quite honestly, they would be delighted to get someone who claims to have larger psychic powers come in to take the test. However, it is very hard to get people to really nail down their claims and submit to the formal test.
As for the test, I not only posted the video – I was physically there and saw it with my own eyes. I have every confidence it was legal and fair, as it was completely transparent. I also appreciate that Miss Sonne was willing to take it and was gracious even when she ultimately failed.
As for your website:
I know Mr. Randi and Phil Plait quite well. I’m not sure what would make Randi a “Loser” because he’s been very successful. While I do not always agree with him 100%, I very much respect his accomplishments in establishing his foundation and his many notable debunking (he basically ruined Uri Geller’s scam single handedly)
The MDC never stopped. It is still going on. It was announced a year ago that it might be ending, but that was changed. The reasons for that are because one of the major benefactors who has put up the money had indicated that they might think the money would be better spent elsewhere. However, that whole thing is now resolved and is a non issue. The MDC is not going away.
PZ Meyers is PZ’s real name. The “PZ” are his first and middle initials. His name is Paul Zachary Meyers.
Of the above mentioned individuals, Richard Dawkins is the only person I do not actually know personally.
Let me be clear on something else: From all my interactions with them, they are honest, helpful, approachable and genuinely conscious people. Mr Randi, for example, is the kind of person who will help you out if you need his advice or anything else in matters he is involved in. He is very enthusiastic about anyone who wants to help out. I very much appreciate his help on a number of things and I know how hard he works to try to do what he can for the empirical skepticism movement.
Phil Plait is a very knowledgeable and equally approachable person. It is very obvious that he loves what he does. He is fun, funny and entertaining and he is very humble about how much he appreciates being given the opportunity to be part of major public outreach activities.
PZ Meyers, I do not know as well. Of all those you mentioned, I find myself at odds with his approach more than the other two (which is still the minority of the time.) Anyway, he is a passionate and honest person who is very knowledgeable and a very interesting individual to shoot the breeze with.
Besides that, let me add: I know very well the person who is in charge of taking applications for the MDC and I also know the person who is in charge of most outreach activities and also assists in the MDC application process. They’re both people who I have nothing but respect for.
The woman who is currently doing the MDC activities is probably about the most honest, tolerant and hard working people you will meet. She is so nice that it angers me that she has to deal with some of the crap she does, but she can handle it. I know she bends over backwards (as does everyone else) to make the challenge as fair as possible. She’s a good friend and a very good person.
But I can’t make you take my word on this.
However, if you are going to insult these people please include myself as well.
You’re free to continue to comment, but please do not keep posting repetitive comments of your site. That will be considered spam. If you have something new to say or a response, it will not be deleted. Do not deluge the site with repeated comments either. That’s also spamming.
September 12th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
George Carty said:
I may be a horrible speller, but there are a couple things I know:
“Bare” means (as a verb): to open to view; reveal or divulge: to bare one’s arms; to bare damaging new facts.
Bear means: To carry, to suffer; endure; undergo, to accept or have, as an obligation
As in “to bear responsibility; to bear the cost.”
See: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Bear
Sync: to synchronize, in synchronization, in harmony, to put into harmony, to make work together, to bring into phase, to complete or to bring up to date
Sink: to displace part of the volume of a supporting substance or object and become totally or partially submerged or enveloped; fall or descend into or below the surface or to the bottom
to penetrate, permeate, or seep
to reduce in amount, extent, intensity, etc.
a device or place for disposing of energy within a system, as a power-consuming device in an electrical circuit or a condenser in a steam engine.
See here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Sink
As in:
Heat Sink
Carbon Sink
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_sink
I actually looked up both of these because I was not sure and wanted to be right.
September 12th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
Steve: I know this is a science blog, but I understand that it would be more dishonest to not say something about your view on the terrorist attacks, since it is a big deal and something on everyone’s mind. I tend to agree with most of what you say, and honestly, the portions that I don’t, I do not really want to debate.
What you have to say is thoughtful and thought provoking. Part of being in a free society and contributing to it is giving your say.
I don’t see why this is not appropriate for a blog that is primarily science. To go on like it is any other day is more of a conspicuous example of ignoring the obvious. Maybe it is different for those who don’t live in the US, but it would be out of place to just post some random story about RF radiation or something on September 11 and not bother to say a few words about things on that day.
September 13th, 2009 at 12:59 am
DV82XL said:
No. I fully appreciate one’s rights to speak their mind and I admire the creativity Steve puts into this blog very much. Michael’s comment offered an avenue that reflected some my feelings about the post but it wasn’t intended to tell the blog owner what he should write about. Based on Steve’s response, he didn’t take it personally or as a suggestion not to speak, which it wasn’t. I really appreciate his response though as it helps me better understand where he’s coming from and I respect that. Besides, a little bit of a challenge from the readers of a blog keep things interesting and dynamic.
September 13th, 2009 at 1:18 am
It’s one thing to keep this blog science-oriented, but as I read this post I think what came across to me was that Buzz strongly feels that he does not look at the attacks of 9/11 as anything other than unacceptable and worth fighting back over and that he is not one to think they were the fault of the US.
I have no problem with that. Maybe it depends on the context of how you read it. I understand how one could see this as being an overly obnoxious ugly American thing if you read it as a message of superiority.
The thing I got out of it was more like “Hey, Ossama, here’s my middle finger.” Maybe a little less than that, but it is defiant and that is for sure. I think in some sense, that is what the muslim extremists do not want. 9/11 can be seen as a call to arms and an outrage or it can be seen as a tragic event to waffle and go to pieces over.
Let me just go onto another topic related to this:
I believe that if the US gave up nuclear weapons, it would be turning its back on a big commitment and leaving others high and dry unfairly. US nuclear weapons do not just protect the US. You have to remember, one of the big reasons that Canada did not develop nuclear weapons was the assurance that was given by the US.
In the early 1950’s, the US entered into pacts with Canada and other countries for mutual support in their defense. This became the Northern Command and NATO. A big part of this was the guarantee that there would always be complete protection of the deterrence and this was assured by the international nature of the command by commanders from all countries and headquartered in Brussels. The RCAF was authorized to carry a number of nuclear weapons under NATO, most being American but a few being British. We also are in the joint airspace command that is NORAD.
This has not come for free. It’s not as if the US just is doing us a favor here. Canada spends a very large portion of the defense budget directly on our commitment to Norad and Nato related support. We also are the location of some of the most important early warning systems and have maintained them since the first days of the DEW line. My father helped create some of the stations. The US is very dependent on Canada to locate and to help maintain the communications relays and the stations themselves.
Canada never wavered in these commitments. In addition to the billions spent over the years, Canadian military units have practiced with our allies. We’ve supported the Brits and Canada was one of the countries that sat on the nukes in West Germany in case they were needed.
It would be a betrayal of the US for Canada to suddenly pull the plug on all the radar stations and leave the US high and dry and blind. It would be just as bad for the US to suddenly cut its commitment. Less the US think that they are the only ones with an interest in the deterrent, others paid more than their fair share to be under that umbrella.
I also think that if they were to take it away, which would be foolish on their end, it should not surprise them if some of those who they leave suddenly see the need to develop their own weapons.
September 13th, 2009 at 1:53 am
Gordon said:
Gordon, you make some very interesting points and I agree with the one above with one addition. The stockpile of weapons is extremely expensive to maintain, about $17 billion for the NNSA (the majority of the DOE’s budget) and it’s weapons programs. If cutting the number of weapons to under 1000, or the minimal required to keep the deterrent intact and credible, could save money then I’m all for it.
September 13th, 2009 at 3:36 am
drmabus said:
I read your link. I read the links in it to your site of video collections.
You are a delusional person, but beyond that you’re pathetic. you think the “lost book of Nostradamus” on History is some kind of proof of something?
If this is the case, why are you so scared of the skeptics?
You call people like James Randi and Richard Dawkins “The Great Demon” and “The Monster” like they’re so powerful and threatening. Why do they scare you so? If you are so clearly right then they shouldn’t even be worth taking notice of.
Jason Ribeiro said:
If we are going to disassemble the weapons (which itself can be expensive) then there is still an expense which is that the cores need to be guarded and secured. I don’t know it will cost as much, but they remain there in the stockpile and may need to be stored specially to keep them chemically stable.
If weapons are disassembled, I very much hope that material can be used for producing fuel. For one thing, a lot of effort and expense went into producing the enriched uranium and plutonium. Lets get something back for that investment at least.
Mox would be okay, but fast reactors would do even better!
September 13th, 2009 at 4:04 am
Jason Ribeiro said:
‘Credible deterrence’ is the issue. Keep in mind that deterring the first use of nuclear weapons is only one aspect of the equation – making a conventional large scale attack a prohibitively expensive undertaking is the other. To that end, and considering the strategic situation has become more, not less complex than it was in the Cold War, a U.S. arsenal of under a thousand warheads is probably not going to be enough.
You are right that the expense is huge, however it is a good deal less than the cost of maintaining the conventional forces that would be needed to replace the nuclear capability if the number of nuclear weapons were to drop below some critical threshold. Unfortunately, it is now to Russia’s benefit, economically and diplomatically to reduce its nuclear warheads to levels much lower than would be wise for the U.S. to follow. Given the mood of the current American administration this could become problematic, particularly for those countries (like Japan for example) that have not acquired a nuclear capability on the promise of an American strategic umbrella. A smaller U.S capability would bring up Charles de Gaul’s observation justifying his own nuclear program, that France could not expect the U.S.A. to sacrifice New York to save Paris.
This is a very complicated issue, that I fear is being oversimplified in too many Western capitals because it is being driven by popular demands made by those who haven’t thought this through. One hopes wiser heads prevail.
September 13th, 2009 at 5:12 am
DV82XL said:
The exact numbers to maintain the credible deterrence I’m sure has been calculated in a range of data sets by many military analysts and is probably classified. That said, I have a hard time imagining why at least a thousand would not be enough. Somewhere there is a number were stockpiles could be reduced to, maintain their credible deterrence, reduce costs, and gain greater public acceptance of the inventory figures. From a strategic analysts’ view there might be good reason to maintain ~9400 warheads in total inventory, but to most people, this borders on the absurd.
http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nuclearweapons/nukestatus.html
When people see these numbers published there is no rationale to explain them and even if there were most wouldn’t understand it. http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2009/02/sort.php
And while ~2500 is an approximate number of deployable ready weapons, I’m left wondering what the purpose of the excess inventory is? Does anyone expect there to be a salvo #2 after a full exchange of those weapons?
As you state, this is a complicated issue, but the public also has a right not to be condescended to on this matter since we are paying for it. I have yet to hear a president explain to the people why we need that many, perhaps because they don’t understand why either.
September 13th, 2009 at 6:43 am
Steve, of course I’m not telling you outright to not speak your mind. I’m just telling you it’s not one of your strong points.
How you decide to deal with this information is of course up to you. Maybe you’ll take a course in rethorics and develop your skill in the art of this kind of public address. My wife is urging me to do it because she feels that although I’m technically correct and have the reasoning in order, she thinks my way of delivering it sucks.
Unfortunately, getting the arguments and reasoning right is only part of the way of getting the message accross. This bothers me like nothing else because it shouldn’t be the way you say something that matters. it’s the content of the address that should matter. But as we see people falling for sweet-talkers and silver tongued jerks… we find that reality has a differing opinion on how it works.
To adress a couple of specifics abiove:
1) 9/11 was in all its cruelty and callousness an exceptionally calculated and well executed attack. It left the US with very few options on how to respond… and unfortunately, the US leadership picked a the worst options, playing right into the terrorists hands. Afghanistan… it was kind of reasonable. But Iraq… I’m sorry but I cannot think about something that could have made the orchestrators of 9/11 happier.
I think 9/11 was an Agent provocatuer operation, and the US took it all, hook, line and sinker. Today Iraq is fostering more terrorists than it ever did under the leadership of that idiot Saddam Hussein.
Responding with outrage was perfectly natural to expect… and I think that is exactly what the orchestrators of this heinous crime wanted. Occams Razor: if it was the most likely outcome, it was also most likely that this is what they aimed for. Iraq… that was a sweet bonus for them.
2) Nuclear deterrent. In theory, it’s great… just like solar, wind and the piezo-electric freeway.
Then the cracks in the facade shows up…
Yes Prime Minister – Nuclear Deterrent
M.A.D – Challengable assumptions
/Michael
September 13th, 2009 at 8:18 am
Michael Karnerfors said:
If you are of the belief (like Stewart) that political Islam is the enemy, then the invasion of Iraq certainly made sense. Politicized Christianity in Europe was destroyed by the Thirty Years’ War — perhaps the planners of the Iraq invasion hoped that a Sunni/Shi’a bloodbath there would do the same to politicized Islam?
September 13th, 2009 at 8:51 am
drbuzz0 said:
OK, so now we’re arguing about the efficacy of strategic bombing. Some people believe that strategic bombing doesn’t work.
On the other hand, I was reading The Wages of Destruction by Adam Tooze (a book about the Nazi economy), which suggested that the RAF’s campaign against the coal and steel industries of the Ruhr crippled Germany’s warmaking capacity (although he thinks bombing Berlin was a pointless waste of lives).
I suppose bombing residential areas of Japanese cities was justified in economic terms, as the Japanese had dispersed much of the manufacturing. Attacking their heavy industry (which AFAIK was mostly in Manchukuo and North Korea, where the resources were) would probably have been a better idea, but because strategic bombing kills large numbers of civilians, this would be harder to justify against cities in occupied territory (rather than in the enemy homeland). It would have probably also resulted in heavier losses for Allied air crews, as they would have to overfly more Japanese-controlled territory to reach their targets.
drbuzz0 said:
If Islam itself is the problem, it is unlikely that any action short of genocide would work. The more monotheistic a faith is, the more tenacious it is in resisting attempts at conversion. In Europe paganism barely even put up a fight against Christianity. And Islam (the ultimate monotheism) was only ever removed from regions by outright ethnic cleansing (eg the Iberian Peninsula, much of the Balkans). I don’t know how atheism fits into this, but I suspect it’s quite a weak meme.
drbuzz0 said:
One justified Palestinian grievance against Israel concerns theft of water. Perhaps we should demand Israel stops this, while providing them with an alternative (some free nuclear desalination plants)…
drbuzz0 said:
The British should never have appointed Haj Amin al-Husseini as Grand Mufti of Jerusalem — he certainly wouldn’t have got such a position under the Ottomans (the only regime — despite their bad image — that actually did a half-decent job of running the Middle East in the second half of the last millennium).
And if they had anyway, they should have whacked him when it became clear that he sought not just an Arab-run Palestine, but a Judenrein Palestine.
drbuzz0 said:
I was talking about occupying countries because you disapprove of how they are governed, not about self-defense against aggression! Also, have you never thought that the notion of “policing the world” is incompatible with the notion of sovereign states?
drbuzz0 said:
True, disapproving of US foreign policy (or even violent resistance to military occupation) is one thing, while killing innocent civilians that had nothing to do with said foreign policy is quite another. I agree with Michael Karnerfors on the subject of 9/11 – I wonder if he’s read Doug Muder’s Terrorist Strategy 101?
September 13th, 2009 at 9:02 am
George Carty said:
I am not.
Making Islam an enemy is as dumb as it was by McCarthy to make communism an enemy. It doesn’t serve a purpose. It doesn’t allow you to form any kind of viable strategy. It’s as counterproductive as belief in a non-substantiated theory, like believing in spirits, a heavenly father figure or the invisible pink unicorn, because it cannot guide you in any way that relates to the real world.
And it’s especially counterproductive when you’re alienating approximately 2/7’s of the world and nearly 100% of those whose hearts and minds, or at least their disgruntled acceptance, you need to win.
/Michael
September 13th, 2009 at 9:26 am
Michael Karnerfors said:
I wasn’t addressing you personally. — I should have said “If the Bush administration was of the belief…”
Sorry.
September 13th, 2009 at 9:29 am
Michael Karnerfors said:
Actually it’s worse, because Soviet Communism was an illegimate regime ruling by brute force and without the consent of the people. Islam isn’t.
Oh, and I was talking about political Islam there (as in mosque-state integration), not Islam as a religion.
September 13th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Jason Ribeiro said:
There was once a good reason to maintain large inventories, mostly because of reliability issues and the range and accuracy of the delivery systems, and other things like being able to assure the destruction of the huge arsenal on the other side of the hill. Times change and the total number of warheads could be reduced, however the point to which they can be lowered is not just a function of keeping one other player in check anymore ether. Traditional notions of deterrence are conceptual baggage left over from the Cold War, these cannot and ought not to apply in the current situation.
The US cannot have a “one size fits all” deterrence posture. That might have been a good idea during the Cold War when the main challenge was deterring the Soviet Union. Today, however, the US needs to tailor deterrence to varied adversaries and strategic environments. In practice, tailoring deterrence means expanding its scope. This requires both a quantitative and qualitative superiority, which was an important motivating factor behind such programs as the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, Advanced Concepts Initiative and the Reliable Replacement Warhead.
Keep in mind what I said about the costs of an effective conventional deterrence. While a nuclear weapon is a large and ongoing expense, so is a highly mobile, fast deploy, armored division. If deterrence against a nuclear attack were the only goal there would be no need for the force levels, warhead and infrastructure characteristics, and supporting strategies that are required for a broader nuclear role. It takes a small arsenal of nuclear weapons, say 200, to deter states like Russia and China. Given adaptive planning United States Strategic Command could safely deter both simultaneously with 200 weapons. The French and the British do just that but are no longer major players and to a very large extent, no longer the independent nations that they used to be. The problem, however with small arsenals is that in the event the situation demands a tactical response and conventional forces are not available, one has little choice other than to respond with everything you got, (use it, or loose it) or accept defeat.
The point here is that nuclear weapons are much more complex an issue than can be accurately described by a simple number. I fear however that political expediency both inside the U.S. and among the other players will present it to the pubic as such, and while that may lead to short-term political gain, it may be at the expense of long-term global security.
September 13th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
I’m considering closing this post to further comments. I hope that everyone understands that it is my feelings on an event in our recent history that had a deep effect on myself and many many others. However, this is (primarily) a science blog, and while I don’t take back my comments, I’d rather not get things too side-tracked.