« Chilcot Report Blasts Blair by Willy B | Main | New Category: Borg Wars »

06 July 2016

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

different clue

HankP,

A President just has to force a firefight between American and Russian forces into existence, and the war takes care of itself and maybe even goes thermonuclear before Congress can even be convened.

A President Clinton would be her own General Jack D. Ripper.

different clue

Barish,

Clinton is the Overclass's designated Obama 2.0 President. They expect her to be worth as much money to them as Obama has already been to them. They will use every bit of the power they have to inject her into the Presidency no matter what.

No Clinton will ever be indicted by anybody for anything, ever. Ever.

different clue

Lefty,

Again I ask . . .

Could it be
that someone put
a horse's head
in Comey's bed?

Imagine

Biden got his son named Director of Burisma, Kolomoisky's oil company. They stand to buy oil land for pennies on the dollar and make millions if ethnic cleansing in east Ukraine is completed successfully. I can look the other way at the tobacco funding, or Biden's brother getting contracts to rebuild homes in Iraq, but: Ethnic cleansing for personal profit is a level of depravity I have to draw the line at.

Tel

In reply to the comment:
"It is clear to me that Hillary Clinton is an unscrupulous liar. Are we really going to let her "skate" on this in order to avoid living with the clown Trump? Washpost"

Do not underestimate clown power.

When everything else seems lost, a sense of humour still remains useful.

But more than this, the Jester has a special and irreplaceable role to fill... in a world where everything is right and proper, strict and controlled, the Jester is the only one who can speak the truth.

Dante Alighieri

Mr. Habakkuk:

Thank you for responding to my post!

Yes, I do think there is a flaw in your logic. What you fail to consider is the _overall_ likelihood of a US/Russian doomsday scenario, given the total aversion of 99.9% of both Americans and Russians, not to speak of all other international actors, to such an outcome. Formally speaking, this reduces your odds to 0.03 percent with Prez HRC and 0.006 percent with Prez Trump. Which amounts to an absolute risk difference of 0.024 percent! Honestly, after a couple of stiff whiskies, would such a trifle still matter to you?

Besides, consider the price of this 0.024 percent discount. You can have at present no idea what the impact a Trump election would have on markets, the economy, domestic politics (including especially the Republican party) and general foreign politics. But to predict it will be positive is adventurous to say the least. Here the negative risk is in double-digit percentages.

David Habakkuk

Dante Alighieri,

I am afraid your response to my comments reflects a more general failure of Western publics to absorb what has emerged about the actual truth about the Cold War nuclear confrontation.

At no point in that confrontation was there enthusiasm among either Americans or Russians for a nuclear war. It has however become quite clear that there were very serious dangers of such a war breaking out, despite this fact.

A good starting point here is a review of Eric Schlosser's 2013 study ‘Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety’, by Bruce Blair – a sometime Minuteman launch control officer who became one of the world’s leading authorities on nuclear command and control. In conclusion, Blair writes:

‘Eric Schlosser deserves a medal for exposing the popular narrative of the Cold War for the fiction that it is. The nuclear confrontation was anything but stable. It teetered on the edge of conflagration. Unleashing the forces took priority over preventing their use by accident, mistake, or without authority. Safeguards and safety features fell short in peacetime and degenerated in a crisis. And because of the uncertainties of retaliation – whether by means of pre-delegation, doomsday machinery, or launch-on-warning – both sides stood all too ready to initiate a first strike in a crisis.

‘Schlosser thoroughly captures this shrouded arc of Cold War history. Would that the major institutions of society and government (media, academia, think tanks, Congress) and key civilian officials most responsible for nuclear policy possessed Schlosser’s grasp of the extraordinary danger lurking beneath a false sense of security. Extreme secrecy hid the truth from them. Only a small coterie of nuclear mandarins knew the score. Excessive secrecy remains a serious obstacle to exercising democratic control over nuclear weapons, and it undermines our security, but less so thanks to Schlosser’s exposé.’

(See http://www.globalzero.org/files/bb_mad_fiction_2014.pdf .)

The review was however written prior to the movement back towards full-scale confrontation with Russia, resulted from events in Ukraine and Syria, which was initiated by the Obama Administration and which Hillary Clinton would almost certainly continue, and Donald Trump most probably would not.

On this, I would recommend the writings of one of the most distinguished American scholars of Soviet and Russian affairs, Stephen F. Cohen. From a summary of one of the regular appearances Professor Cohen now makes on the John Batchelor Show:

‘Batchelor and Cohen conclude by asking what current US presidential candidates have said about the deepening crises in Syria and Ukraine, or in Europe. Cohen argues that only Donald Trump has said anything meaningful and critical of US bipartisan foreign policy. In effect, Trump has asked five fundamental (and dissenting) questions. Should the United States always be the world’s leader and policeman? What is NATO’s proper mission today, 25 years after the end of the Soviet Union and when international terrorism is the main threat to the West? Why does Washington repeatedly pursue a policy of regime change, in Iraq, Libya, possibly in Ukraine, and now in Damascus, even though it always ends in “disaster”? Why is the United States treating Putin’s Russia as an enemy and not as a security partner? And should US nuclear-weapons doctrine include a no-first use pledge, which it does not include? Cohen argues that Trump’s questions are fundamental and urgent, but that instead of engaging them, his opponents (including President Obama) and the media dismiss the issues he raises about foreign policy as ignorant and dangerous. Some even charge that his statements are like “Christmas in the Kremlin” and that he is “the Kremlin’s Candidate” thereby, Cohen laments, further shutting off the debate we so urgently need.’

(See https://www.thenation.com/article/us-information-war-and-the-embryonic-kerry-lavrov-detente/ )

It is probably the case that Cohen is here being excessively favourable to Trump. On the mindlessness of the American – and British – foreign policy consensus that Hillary Clinton embodies, however, he seems to me absolutely right.

As you will be aware, in any normal sense of the term her proposed ‘no fly zone’ in Syria would involve being willing to shoot down Syrian and Russian planes. The only possible constructions I can put on her garbled attempts to repudiate this suggestion last December is that either she is simply blustering, or she is confident that faced by American threats Putin would climb down and abandon his whole Syria policy.

(See http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/hillary-clintons-baffling-foreign-policy-problem .)

With a woman like that in control, are you really so very confident that my estimate of a 3% chance of nuclear war is two orders of magnitude too large?

On reflection, I think I would vote for Trump cold sober.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

September 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      
Blog powered by Typepad