Obama plans "dramatic reductions" to US nuclear arsenal

[Brown, Jon Brow]

What are our American friends view on this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8543897.stm

Barack has a vision for a nuclear weapon free world and reducing excessive stockpiles is a step towards this. I wonder if the Russians will do the same?

In my opinion it is a good step, but I still believe one of the reasons the Cold War didn't kick off was because the existence of nuclear weapons assured no one could win.

I still think the US spends too much on its military though. They really do seem to spend vast amounts to engage an enemy that doesn't exist.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/47398000/gif/_47398962_world_nuc_warhds_466.gif

[BDunnell]

It is bound to provoke the usual paranoid and deeply contradictory reaction from certain quarters of political opinion. This involves the same people who believe passionately in the supremacy of the USA's military might suddenly becoming concerned at the mortal nuclear threat posed to the USA by Russia and other 'rogue states'. If the USA does enjoy such supremacy, and I believe it unquestionably does, there is no need for such concerns, as any potential aggressor would, without doubt, come off second-best if they were to attempt an attack, and are therefore highly unlikely to try.

Equally, the same people who are so keen to bleat about the way in which 'the world has changed' since '9/11', thereby seeking to justify such actions as the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, seem to revert to the view that the nuclear deterrent retains its Cold War value. Which is it? Has the world changed or has it not? Like I said, it's a deeply inconsistent worldview, which has far more to do with personal political opinions than any sense of principle or analytical thought.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I think there is a rationale to shrink the nuclear arsenal of the USA. I think the Russians if they were smart would do the same. That said, MAD is a theory that actually kept people thinking of ways of NOT letting war's escalate. It did keep major powers from going at each other when there was a lot more distrust between them than there is now.

Not sure what the right level is, but judging by the numbers on the diagram, the USA and Russia would be saving a lot of money by getting down to a more manageable nuclear force. IN a perfect world, such weapons are not required. In this one? Well the genie has been out of the bottle since the 40's so unilateral disarmanent by the USA isn't wise..

[anthonyvop]

All we have to do is hold on till 2012

[Daniel]

Mark is right. MAD keeps us safe

[chuck34]

I wonder if the Russians will do the same?


No.

[chuck34]

I think the Russians if they were smart would do the same.

Do you think the Russians are "smart"?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Do you think the Russians are "smart"?

They can be. They however never do anything based on any rationale that benefits any nation but their own, so if they are SMART, they will realize the savings in cutting the nuke inventory in half or maybe down to levels similar to all the othe nuclear powers, they would still have a credible deterrence.

See, this is where some of the peaceniks have a point. If 200 nukes could kill everything on earth, why you need 2800? The idea of actually using one makes any leader of the US probably blanche in utter fear and despair, and despite their bluster, the Russians never pushed things over the edge. The real fear and need for nukes to always be in the hands of the more senior members is to deter rogue states. Lets face it, if you lived in a world where North Korea was the only nuclear power, do you REALLY believe anyone would be safe?

The USA, for all their bluster and self interest had the only nukes for a 3 year period, and they did everything they could to be be responsbile with that power. When the Russians joined the club, they also realized they were shackled to the grim reality that any war using them would be the last.

So they are part our lives for evermore, but I do think for the most part, most nations that attain nuclear status quickly realize they are ONLY a deterrent. The only fly in the ointment is if a rogue nation gets them and decides to use one as an offensive weapon. THAT is the fear that drove the Iraq war (irrational or not, no one sane would give Saddam that kind of power)and what has everyone really in a quandary with Iran.

[Hondo]

First of all, Obama or any politician thats says they would like to do away with nuclear weapons completely is playing to the crowd. The genie is out of the bottle now and ain't going back in. Those that have them are going to keep some and those that don't have some, are going to get some. We don't trust each other enough to do away with them completely and even if there was one dictator in charge of the whole world, he'd keep some to make examples of pesky rebellious provinces and to combat any invaders that might show up from another world.

I too, believe nukes have done a fine job of preventing a major world war. I also think that having nukes will help with holding newcomers to the club, like Iran, in check. The world acts with more restraint with North Korea because they might have nukes. Iran wants that same respect. Bush may have thought Saddam had chemical weapons but he never would have invaded Iraq if he thought Iraq had even one nuclear device. I can understand why smaller countries would want a nuke or two. Now we may think North Korea and Iran act a little silly from time to time but both of them know if one of their nukes goes pop in the wrong place the retribution will be immediate, nuclear, and blanket any areas they have that has any sort of nuclear industry, including power plants.

All that out of the way, I'm all for the USA reducing our nuclear stockpiles. I would think we could get along just fine with 500 or so. If other countries want to reduce theirs, fine. If they don't, thats ok too. It's their money.

Like it or not, windmills, tidal, and solar energy may be cute but aren't going to do the job of providing reliable power at an industrial level for a long time to come, if ever. If the government wants to spend money on nukes, spend it developing and refining nuclear power instead of more weapons. We make flight recorder containers that do a good job of surviving crashes so I don't know why we couldn't do the same with small nuclear reactors. Forget the weapons, let's develop better, lighter weight radiation protection and smaller, fixed output, sealed reactors. I'm for it.

[Mark]

See, this is where some of the peaceniks have a point. If 200 nukes could kill everything on earth, why you need 2800? .

Because the other 2600 got wiped out in the first strike?

[chuck34]

I agree that we don't need as many nukes as we have. A fraction of the number we have is MORE than sufficient. But to anounce to the world that we are unilataerally dismanteling our arsenal may not be the best political move ever.

Mark, I agree with your points and that's why I put "smart" in quotes. Because the Russians are clearly smart (acting in a way that bennefits them). Just perhaps not "smart" in the way many think.

North Korea ... I agree they are just looking for attention. They'll never use nukes, they know the costs.

Iran ... The jury is still out on them. I'm not totally convinced on what his intentions are. From what I've seen and heard about him (again I'm not convinced or saying this is true), he may not be acting "rationally". He seems to be part of a group that wants to bring on the 12th eman or some other such nonsence. If I was POTUS or someone with access to real intelligence, I'd sure as hell direct them to find out what his real background is.

[Sonic]

All we have to do is hold on till 2012

Or skynet! ;)

[BDunnell]

All that out of the way, I'm all for the USA reducing our nuclear stockpiles. I would think we could get along just fine with 500 or so. If other countries want to reduce theirs, fine. If they don't, thats ok too. It's their money.

Very reasonably put. After all, it's not as if anyone is actually going to use them, for the simple reason I outlined earlier.

(By the way, I am delighted to see one brief but tremendous contribution to this thread that proves my point precisely about a certain section of opinion...)

[Mark in Oshawa]

All we have to do is hold on till 2012

So if Obama does win again, what will you do then? Remember the Clinton years....you guys on the the right there thought you had him in the crosshairs in 96...and he got re-elected. I understand the Ross Perot factor to be sure, but never say never. It is a democracy, the other side is going to win more often than you will like, and you guys win more often than THEY would like. It is the ying and yang of things.....

Fact is, the US could do without 3/4 of the warheads stockpiled. The Nuclear arms race was a sad comment on how stupid things had gotten. I understood why Reagan did it mind you, but when the wall fell, the need for all the warheads fell immediately.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Reading about the nuclear arsenals has got reading a lot about the Cold War. I also watched a BBC Drama on nuclear war in the UK called Threads.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT96sgTwmvo

Being born in 1989 I was fortunate that I missed the Cold War. But to those who lived through it - what are your memories? What do you remember in terms of Cold War propaganda and advice on what to to do in the case of a nuclear attack? Did people have shelters planned out if the heard the air raid sirens?

[Hondo]

When I was a kid we did air raid drills at school along with the normal fire drills. I don't recall anyone being traumitized by it. We were more trusting then and were taught to get under our desks and cover our heads with our hands or if you were outside somewhere too far from a shelter, to get behind something and cover your head with your hands. In any case, as long as you could get down under something and cover your head with your hands, you would make it through with no problems. Heavily built public and private buildings, especially if they had a basement, had signs designating them as public fallout shelters and were stocked with blankets, water, military rations, and medical supplies. I don't recall ever having any community or city air raid drills. Some people in the neighborhood had custom bomb shelters built underground in their backyards. Very cool! Others rebuilt a corner of their basements as a shelter. As a matter of fact, I think organizing and protecting a corner of basement to be used as a shelter was one of the tasks you could do to earn a particular Boy or Cub Scout merit badge. My parents never seemed to spend much time worrying about it. The Cuban Missile Crisis was a different story and there was some concern about that one. I knew my Dad was in the Naval reserve. I didn't know he worked with the Navy more than the minimum amount of hours the reserve required and I didn't know he was a player in the secret naval NBC programs of the time. So Dad went missing for a while and the crisis went away and he came home along with other neighborhood dads that had been called to their reserve units.

Most of the cold war, in hindsight, could have been avoided. A lot of it was caused by the blindness induced by lack of trust and lack of understanding. Some of it intentional and some of it accidental.

I think what affected me the most during the cold war, and has probably had an influence on my thinking since then, was the need for communist countries to erect fences and barriers not to keep invaders out, but to keep their own people from fleeing from them. I could only imagine how terrible a society would have to be to shoot it's own people for trying to flee to a better life.

[BDunnell]

I think what affected me the most during the cold war, and has probably had an influence on my thinking since then, was the need for communist countries to erect fences and barriers not to keep invaders out, but to keep their own people from fleeing from them. I could only imagine how terrible a society would have to be to shoot it's own people for trying to flee to a better life.

It saddens and, when I think about it after drinking a bit of wine, angers me that there is a genuine section of eastern German public opinion across the political spectrum — and, for that matter, unthinking left-wing opinion elsewhere, not least amongst some academics who ought to know better — that still chooses to ignore the appalling actions of the East German regime and others in favour of an overly romanticised view of how uncomplicated life was in East Germany, how untainted by capitalism and how good the social benefits were. This ignores quite a few important, and unpleasant, truths. Being proud of a nation of which you were once a citizen is fine, but I have a major problem with it when it involves being proud of a nation like East Germany, one based, not to put too fine a point on it, on lies.

[Mark in Oshawa]

It saddens and, when I think about it after drinking a bit of wine, angers me that there is a genuine section of eastern German public opinion across the political spectrum — and, for that matter, unthinking left-wing opinion elsewhere, not least amongst some academics who ought to know better — that still chooses to ignore the appalling actions of the East German regime and others in favour of an overly romanticised view of how uncomplicated life was in East Germany, how untainted by capitalism and how good the social benefits were. This ignores quite a few important, and unpleasant, truths. Being proud of a nation of which you were once a citizen is fine, but I have a major problem with it when it involves being proud of a nation like East Germany, one based, not to put too fine a point on it, on lies.

That is so true Ben. I read about Germans in the "ost" wanting some of the old days back and I shuddered to how brain washed you would have to be to want that. That wasn't socialism, it was criminal!

[BDunnell]

That is so true Ben. I read about Germans in the "ost" wanting some of the old days back and I shuddered to how brain washed you would have to be to want that. That wasn't socialism, it was criminal!

It is understandable on one level, I suppose, in that times have been hard for a lot of them since unification. But I don't feel that even this renders defensible this concept of 'Ostalgia'.

[anthonyvop]

So if Obama does win again, what will you do then? Remember the Clinton years....you guys on the the right there thought you had him in the crosshairs in 96...and he got re-elected. .

I never thought Clinton was not going to get re-elected and most Conservatives agreed. His popularity was high and the economy was generally in good shape. Why do you think the G.O.P. put up Bob Dole as their Candidate?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

When I was a kid we did air raid drills at school along with the normal fire drills. I don't recall anyone being traumitized by it. We were more trusting then and were taught to get under our desks and cover our heads with our hands or if you were outside somewhere too far from a shelter, to get behind something and cover your head with your hands. In any case, as long as you could get down under something and cover your head with your hands, you would make it through with no problems. Heavily built public and private buildings, especially if they had a basement, had signs designating them as public fallout shelters and were stocked with blankets, water, military rations, and medical supplies. I don't recall ever having any community or city air raid drills. Some people in the neighborhood had custom bomb shelters built underground in their backyards. Very cool! Others rebuilt a corner of their basements as a shelter. As a matter of fact, I think organizing and protecting a corner of basement to be used as a shelter was one of the tasks you could do to earn a particular Boy or Cub Scout merit badge. My parents never seemed to spend much time worrying about it. The Cuban Missile Crisis was a different story and there was some concern about that one. I knew my Dad was in the Naval reserve. I didn't know he worked with the Navy more than the minimum amount of hours the reserve required and I didn't know he was a player in the secret naval NBC programs of the time. So Dad went missing for a while and the crisis went away and he came home along with other neighborhood dads that had been called to their reserve units.

Most of the cold war, in hindsight, could have been avoided. A lot of it was caused by the blindness induced by lack of trust and lack of understanding. Some of it intentional and some of it accidental.

I think what affected me the most during the cold war, and has probably had an influence on my thinking since then, was the need for communist countries to erect fences and barriers not to keep invaders out, but to keep their own people from fleeing from them. I could only imagine how terrible a society would have to be to shoot it's own people for trying to flee to a better life.

My house is about a mile away from a Royal Navy Communication Installation for submarines (and former runway). The UK government expected about 3 megatons to be dropped on it when they intendified priority targets the Russians would strike in the 60's.

It's hard to think of any places in the UK that would have been safe from attack. Even most rural places are home to military bases, power stations or communication installations.

[Captain VXR]

The USA should keep some nukes simply so other countries cannot threaten them with nukes i.e. N Korea, however it is very sensible to reduce the amount vastly, because what are the practical uses of 2000 nukes? That's like walking around a battlefield carrying 200 AK47s single handedly

[Hondo]

My house is about a mile away from a Royal Navy Communication Installation for submarines (and former runway). The UK government expected about 3 megatons to be dropped on it when they intendified priority targets the Russians would strike in the 60's.

It's hard to think of any places in the UK that would have been safe from attack. Even most rural places are home to military bases, power stations or communication installations.

Just get under a table or something and cover your head with your hands and everything will be ok. You'll come through it.

[Easy Drifter]

Whatever happens do not put Fousto in charge of disposal. He would do it by dropping them on about half the countries in the world!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :eek: :D

[Mark in Oshawa]

Just get under a table or something and cover your head with your hands and everything will be ok. You'll come through it.

AS I was born in 65, I got to miss all that, but Gee, from what I have seen of old newsreels of the footage of what the blast does, I cant believe you guys bought that. I asked my dad what they said about the possiblity of nukes hitting here when he was in his 20's, and he told me that he figured he wanted to look at the light because living through the aftermath would be worse....

[Hondo]

AS I was born in 65, I got to miss all that, but Gee, from what I have seen of old newsreels of the footage of what the blast does, I cant believe you guys bought that. I asked my dad what they said about the possiblity of nukes hitting here when he was in his 20's, and he told me that he figured he wanted to look at the light because living through the aftermath would be worse....

As I said at the beginning of the original post, it was a different time and we trusted adults. There was no internet and what few pictures there were of nuclear explosions were out in the middle of nowhere. Quite frankly and in hindsight, I think the advice they gave us was a good way to handle it. There was never any panic or anxiety about attack because we were given simple instructions, that we could do on our own, on how to survive it.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

As I said at the beginning of the original post, it was a different time and we trusted adults. There was no internet and what few pictures there were of nuclear explosions were out in the middle of nowhere. Quite frankly and in hindsight, I think the advice they gave us was a good way to handle it. There was never any panic or anxiety about attack because we were given simple instructions, that we could do on our own, on how to survive it.

I suppose that would be the only way to stop widespread panic. Otherwise you would have a Hollywood disaster movie scenario where all the roads are gridlocked with cars and such.

It would be nice to think that hinding under a table would save me from a 3 megaton blast a mile away. I'd be one of the lucky ones that would be engulfed in the fireball before I realised what was happening.

[BDunnell]

As I said at the beginning of the original post, it was a different time and we trusted adults. There was no internet and what few pictures there were of nuclear explosions were out in the middle of nowhere. Quite frankly and in hindsight, I think the advice they gave us was a good way to handle it. There was never any panic or anxiety about attack because we were given simple instructions, that we could do on our own, on how to survive it.

I think you're right. From what I've seen and heard of such things, it was dealt with in the matter-of-fact way that was more typical of that era, though there were exceptions, especially later on. It also helped that the threat was viewed by many as genuine and ever-present.

[Mark in Oshawa]

As I said at the beginning of the original post, it was a different time and we trusted adults. There was no internet and what few pictures there were of nuclear explosions were out in the middle of nowhere. Quite frankly and in hindsight, I think the advice they gave us was a good way to handle it. There was never any panic or anxiety about attack because we were given simple instructions, that we could do on our own, on how to survive it.

Yes, that's true. Ignorance is bliss, although in hindsight you must admit that the calm and cool way it was dealt with is disturbing. Look how society reacts to acts of terrorism and the trauma of something like the Oklahoma City bombing and yet here you were in the 50's just thinking going under the desk when the nuclear war started would save you. As if it happened once or twice a year like a Tornado in the midwest. The simple naivety of it all is truly amazing, but thank god it was, because otherwise you would have lost your mind wondering if it might happen.

[BDunnell]

Yes, that's true. Ignorance is bliss, although in hindsight you must admit that the calm and cool way it was dealt with is disturbing. Look how society reacts to acts of terrorism and the trauma of something like the Oklahoma City bombing and yet here you were in the 50's just thinking going under the desk when the nuclear war started would save you. As if it happened once or twice a year like a Tornado in the midwest. The simple naivety of it all is truly amazing, but thank god it was, because otherwise you would have lost your mind wondering if it might happen.

It was a simple naivety, but I think that attitude is far more healthy than paranoia. Thankfully, such paranoia never set hold in the UK during the IRA terrorist threat, which was just as dangerous (i.e., in terms of the probability of oneself or anyone one knew being harmed, not very) as any current threat.

[Mark in Oshawa]

It was a simple naivety, but I think that attitude is far more healthy than paranoia. Thankfully, such paranoia never set hold in the UK during the IRA terrorist threat, which was just as dangerous (i.e., in terms of the probability of oneself or anyone one knew being harmed, not very) as any current threat.

The IRA threat had to be frightful. I remember as a kid watching the news and hearing about the IRA bombing here and there and everywhere. It likely wasn't too many people actually affected, but terrorism is a mind game as much as anything else.

It is why talking about reducing nuclear arms is a rational conversation now to have, because terrorism and its various threats are unaffected by how many nukes a nation has access to.

[Sonic]

Gonna need a few left to blow an asteroid out of the sky! Bruce Willis can't always be on hand to save us. ;)

[BDunnell]

The IRA threat had to be frightful. I remember as a kid watching the news and hearing about the IRA bombing here and there and everywhere. It likely wasn't too many people actually affected, but terrorism is a mind game as much as anything else.

The British attitude to such a threat was completely different to the American one in the wake of '9/11', a difference displayed again in the wake of the 7 July 2005 bombings in London.

[Hondo]

Yes, that's true. Ignorance is bliss, although in hindsight you must admit that the calm and cool way it was dealt with is disturbing. Look how society reacts to acts of terrorism and the trauma of something like the Oklahoma City bombing and yet here you were in the 50's just thinking going under the desk when the nuclear war started would save you. As if it happened once or twice a year like a Tornado in the midwest. The simple naivety of it all is truly amazing, but thank god it was, because otherwise you would have lost your mind wondering if it might happen.

It was a different time. Doctors made house calls. But it wasn't all naivety. Cub, Boy, Brownie, and Girl Scouting were all tremendously popular then. You wore the uniform proudly to your once a week den meeting and once a month pack meeting. We were taught first aid, to be prepared, self reliance, lifesaving swimming, respect, and citizenship. By citizenship, I don't mean blind allegience to a political doctrine, I mean doing things that would help your neighbors and community. We knew there would be some devastation after a nuclear attack but we were prepared to step up and use our first aid and other skills after the attack and after most adults had fallen apart from the shock. Rightly or wrongly, we had confidence in our leadership and ourselves.

Scouting was a good thing then. I hardly see them now. But I can imagine the hysteria that would prevail at schools today with the knowledge that most of the 8-9 year old boys were heavily armed with hard earned boy scout knives in their pockets. Lol, back then, it wasn't uncommon for a teacher to ask to borrow a pocket knife from a known scout for a few minutes.

[airshifter]

The British attitude to such a threat was completely different to the American one in the wake of '9/11', a difference displayed again in the wake of the 7 July 2005 bombings in London.

It's strange how many times people in that region repeat this, yet I never saw fear on the part of the people in the US.

I don't recall any public transport riders being gunned down either. I suspect that in the eyes of the press that was OK and us "Yanks" were all quaking in our shoes doing it daily.

[BDunnell]

It's strange how many times people in that region repeat this, yet I never saw fear on the part of the people in the US.

I don't recall any public transport riders being gunned down either. I suspect that in the eyes of the press that was OK and us "Yanks" were all quaking in our shoes doing it daily.

I don't recall any public transport riders in the UK being 'gunned down' either. Getting your facts right before commenting might be a good idea, on this subject as on the differences between the US reaction to a terrorist attack and the reactions of a country that had been subjected to such many times before. Such a thing is only natural.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Ben, The Americans I saw that day were shocked, for about maybe an hour, and then full of resolve. I was in my daily trucking days back then. I crossed the border right when the second plane hit, and got to my destination for pick up in Lockport NY about 30 mins later. Most of the workers at that plant are all Air National Guard guys out of Niagara Falls NY. Let me tell you, I KNEW I was in a different country that day, and I didn't see any sign of fear, just quiet resolve to go and kick someone's tail.

You Brits tend to roll wiht the punchs, but I would hardly characterize anyone in the US as really panicking. As Flight 93 proved, when faced with a death flying into the White House, we saw the courage and determination on average citizens to stop them. Same with last Christmas's aborted bomb attack. The citizens stopped him. Americans may be a lot of things, but cowardly or insecure in times of crisis wouldn't apply AT all.

[BDunnell]

Ben, The Americans I saw that day were shocked, for about maybe an hour, and then full of resolve. I was in my daily trucking days back then. I crossed the border right when the second plane hit, and got to my destination for pick up in Lockport NY about 30 mins later. Most of the workers at that plant are all Air National Guard guys out of Niagara Falls NY. Let me tell you, I KNEW I was in a different country that day, and I didn't see any sign of fear, just quiet resolve to go and kick someone's tail.

You Brits tend to roll wiht the punchs, but I would hardly characterize anyone in the US as really panicking. As Flight 93 proved, when faced with a death flying into the White House, we saw the courage and determination on average citizens to stop them. Same with last Christmas's aborted bomb attack. The citizens stopped him. Americans may be a lot of things, but cowardly or insecure in times of crisis wouldn't apply AT all.

I certainly wasn't accusing anyone of cowadice. However, in the aftermath of such attacks in the UK, having a leader saying something like 'You're either with us or against us' would not be tolerated, yet in the USA this was lapped up.

[airshifter]

I don't recall any public transport riders in the UK being 'gunned down' either. Getting your facts right before commenting might be a good idea, on this subject as on the differences between the US reaction to a terrorist attack and the reactions of a country that had been subjected to such many times before. Such a thing is only natural.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4706787.stm

Fact enough? It seemed there are quite a number of accounts of how it happened, and they vary significantly.

I'm sure if it happened in the US it would be due to the paranoia of the country. Do you have any links that display any US law enforcement pumping 5 rounds into a "suspect"?

[BDunnell]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4706787.stm

Fact enough? It seemed there are quite a number of accounts of how it happened, and they vary significantly.

I'm sure if it happened in the US it would be due to the paranoia of the country. Do you have any links that display any US law enforcement pumping 5 rounds into a "suspect"?

Oh, that. I thought you were referring to terrorist attacks. My apologies.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I certainly wasn't accusing anyone of cowadice. However, in the aftermath of such attacks in the UK, having a leader saying something like 'You're either with us or against us' would not be tolerated, yet in the USA this was lapped up.
That's the difference between the UK and the USA Ben. Americans don't really give a rat's behind about making friends and shades of gray when 3000 citizens of their nation were killed in a terrorist act. Bush decided either nations supported democratic nations, or terrorist groups, and they shouldn't sit on both sides of the fence. You see this as a negative for what reasons?

Face it Ben, Thatcher would have said something simliar. Heck, Blair agreed, but the populace of the UK didn't. Yet Blair remained PM and his party still does, so someone saw through it all and grasped what the deal was.

It was blunt, maybe stupid to say, but you cant disagree with the sentiment of asking nations to either support the rule of law, democratic ideals and the like, or supporting terrorist groups who attack sovreign nations.

The people of the UK don't like the war in Iraq, and I don't disagree at this point it has been the wrong way to deal with Hussein, but when that attack happened, we saw a world jolted out of its slumber by a horrifying attack. That rhetoric made a lot of sense to Americans at the time....

[BDunnell]

That's the difference between the UK and the USA Ben. Americans don't really give a rat's behind about making friends and shades of gray when 3000 citizens of their nation were killed in a terrorist act. Bush decided either nations supported democratic nations, or terrorist groups, and they shouldn't sit on both sides of the fence. You see this as a negative for what reasons?

I do not recall the statement being made about nations. And I would prefer to see a more nuanced view being taken, as, thankfully, it has been in Northern Ireland. When, on 7 July 2005, I received an e-mail from an American acquaintance expressing sympathy in relation to the London attacks that included the statement 'Kill the s', I felt like writing him an extremely rude response indeed — something along the lines of 'You boorish, belligerent simpleton.'



Face it Ben, Thatcher would have said something simliar. Heck, Blair agreed, but the populace of the UK didn't. Yet Blair remained PM and his party still does, so someone saw through it all and grasped what the deal was.

You ignore the fact that the Conservatives at that time were in a complete mess, unelectably so. They had supported both wars in a highly unthinking manner, yet it did them no good. And there is no doubting the dislike that many (most?) Britons feel for our involvement, whether or not Blair was re-elected.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I do not recall the statement being made about nations. And I would prefer to see a more nuanced view being taken, as, thankfully, it has been in Northern Ireland. When, on 7 July 2005, I received an e-mail from an American acquaintance expressing sympathy in relation to the London attacks that included the statement 'Kill the s', I felt like writing him an extremely rude response indeed — something along the lines of 'You boorish, belligerent simpleton.'.
Nuance is fine Ben for intellectual purposes, but on 9/11 the fact the Bush Administration was bombing half of Afghanistan further into the stone age on the next day was about as nuanced as I expected.

There was a lot of thought in the first week or two on how to respond. The thing is, the IRA attacks on the UK was a different war. How does one decide who is the the enemy in Ulster when the terrorists are all living techically still in the same country AND carry passports saying so? It is a far more ticklish operation.

Different sentiments, different "war" and yes, a different culture that was attacked. I would say both nations responded fairly well and in keeping with their political cultures.




You ignore the fact that the Conservatives at that time were in a complete mess, unelectably so. They had supported both wars in a highly unthinking manner, yet it did them no good. And there is no doubting the dislike that many (most?) Britons feel for our involvement, whether or not Blair was re-elected.

That is true. I am a conservative by nature and I wouldn't vote for the current UK Tories if I lived there....

That said, Blair ignored you, Gordon Brown ignored you. We always say we want politicians to do what is right, not chase polls. Blair did that...or thought he was..