Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
    Loading
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • “Seven Reasons Why Obama’s Nuke-Free Utopia Won’t Work”

    Posted by Chicago Boyz Archive on May 14th, 2009 (All posts by )

    Tom Barnett weighs in:

    [Obama’s] concept of a nuclear-proof world is patently unattainable, potentially dangerous, and inherently wrong. “I’m not naïve,” the president said. “But we go forward with no illusions.”
     
    But he is, and he has.

    Read the whole thing.

    This is a very timely slice of grown-up thinking. Not a minute too soon.

     

    12 Responses to ““Seven Reasons Why Obama’s Nuke-Free Utopia Won’t Work””

    1. Shannon Love Says:

      I think that for Obama, it’s more important to be seen talking about global nuclear disarmament than it is to actually accomplish anything either way. For leftist, intent always counts more than results. If Obama intends to accomplish a safe world well that’s really all he as to do to feel good about himself.

    2. Ginny Says:

      Most of Barnett’s points are givens and many were surely thought of by major strategists since Hiroshima. Do we want to assume that Obama hasn’t thought of these seven – or do we want to think that he has approached them with different assumptions about human nature? Barnett usefully begins by summarizing what he sees as Obama’s vision: “George W. Bush had his “axis of evil,” while Obama seems to find nuclear weapons to represent a kind of natural evil unto themselves — no matter who possesses them.” Where have we seen this kind of thinking before? I suspect neither the people in Kansas nor the people in the White House nor the people on this blog nor the people on Wall Street can’t think – but rather that each begins with different assumptions about human nature. I’d opt for the “realistic” one Barnett descrbes; I’d also opt for a more egalitarian view of humans. We are agents of our own lives – not always successful ones, of course, but more because of our bad choices than manipulation by others.

      And then there is the nature of our own nation. Some of us see our nation as flawed but the laws (preferably administered with less empathy than objectivity) mean power is checked. Of course, the Rosenbergs didn’t trust America and believed a different balance would be good. Many don’t trust us today – some see us as Satanic. Their thinking clearly comes from a different angle and would have a different notion of nuclear containment. Perhaps they are right – what do I know – I’m an American. But it seems to me there is evidence to the contrary. Still, Barnett’s arguments in 3, 4, and 5 don’t hold much water if you begin with different assumptions.

    3. david foster Says:

      “Obama seems to find nuclear weapons to represent a kind of natural evil unto themselves — no matter who possesses them”…this is the point I was making the other day when I said that “progressives” seem to believe that moral agency attaches to objects rather than to people. This view was very much on display in the debate–shortly after 9/11–about whether airline pilots should be armed in order to protect their aircraft and passengers. See my post arming airline pilots–the deeper issues.

    4. Lexington Green Says:

      “… it’s more important to be seen talking about global nuclear disarmament than it is to actually accomplish anything either way …”

      Shannon, he has also taken the serious concrete step of cancelling the warhead upgrade that Gates said was essential.

      Obama is already unilaterally disarming.

      Ginny, to the extent Obama holds “presumptions” which cut against Barnett’s analysis, that is yet one more reason he should not be president, and why he is a very dangerous man to have in that office.

      Obama is going to get a huge number of people killed if he keeps this up.

    5. Mad in Madtown Says:

      If Obama recognizes that he is “not naive”, then what does that mean? Does it mean that he has considered all the possibilities and he would prefer a United States at a disadvantage to other powers with nuclear capability? Is it his intention that it is better for millions of Americans to die at the hands of some punk with a bomb than to sully his own conscience? He wanted to be President of the United States, he doesn’t seem to understand that he is going to be a bad guy. He doesn’t seem to comprehend that he has a unique power to chooose who gets to live and who gets to die. He appears that he thinks Americans dying is the better choice in any equation.

    6. Lexington Green Says:

      “He appears that he thinks Americans dying is the better choice in any equation.”

      The logical end of liberal guilt is collective suicide as moral expiation. See James Burnham.

      I keep hoping Obama will act more like a cynical opportunist.

      Unfortunately, he seems to be a Leftist ideologue, at least on this critical, life-or-death issue.

    7. david foster Says:

      I think “liberal guilt” is largely a myth. Yes, there are some Trustafarians who feel personally guilty, but most “progressives” don’t feel guilty *at all*…they feel superior, and they believe that *the rest of us* should feel guilty.

      More than 50 years ago, C S Lewis explained this phenomenon very well in an essay which I excerpt here.

    8. Tatyana Says:

      Lex, this is hugely OT, but I think you’re the best-qualified person to ask:

      in what cases State of Illinois declares a law License “voluntarily surrendered”, and also when it is considered “voluntarily retired”? Apparently, the former is the case with Michelle Obama’s State license, and the latter – with Barack Obama’s.
      I think it smells foul.

    9. pst314 Says:

      “Of course, the Rosenbergs didn’t trust America and believed a different balance would be good.”

      The “balance” they sought was no balance at all: It was a future in which America and the West were utterly defeated and the Soviet Union enslaved the world.

    10. pst314 Says:

      David Foster: I agree that “liberal guilt” is insufficient to explain the mindset of the advocates of nuclear disarmament. In the decades in which I have spoken with such people, it was clear that most of them only pretended to want a nuclear-free world. In actual fact they simply wanted the West to disarm and allow itself to be defeated.

    11. Lexington Green Says:

      Tatyana, I do not know the answer to your question.

    12. tomw Says:

      If you follow the link, and read the last entry for Ms Obama, it says:
      “No malpractice report required as attorney is on court ordered inactive status”

      What court set in place the order, and what was the reason for it to order?
      Fishy? More along the lines of finding an deceased equine cranium in your bed fishy. At first glance, that entry indicates there was some reason for the court to exercise their authority. Surprising that it has not been ‘corrected’ already…
      Reminds me of that picture of Stalin walking along the river with four [pretend ‘–‘characters to ‘correct’ the number] three others… Airbrushed history for those who no longer are amongst the living. People who disappeared.
      tom