To add to my previous thread- because they are related, but different

Gdjjr

Platinum Member
Oct 25, 2019
11,072
6,114
965
Texas
The principal defense against nuclear weapons, given the difficulty in preventing their use, is deterrence. Attack me and I will destroy you in return. This mutually assured destruction is unsatisfactory, since the failure of deterrence leaves both sides devastated and dead. Horror at this possibility led Ronald Reagan to advance the Strategic Defense Initiative. Alas, the likelihood of thwarting a determined attack by even a medium-size nuclear power is slight, at least in the near term.


The best response is to reduce the odds of getting into a nuclear war. Most Americans understand that instinctively, but not Washington’s foreign policy community. Its members largely share a consensus that the U.S. must run the world, irrespective of cost. Some seem almost giddy just thinking about Washington trampling its adversaries underfoot. Hence the strong support for endless wars, at least until they turn into irrevocable disasters, such as Iraq.








When it comes to nuclear weapons, most members of the Washington blob appear to believe that nuclear war just can’t happen, so the U.S. should feel free to threaten to unleash death and destruction on other states to advance its foreign policy ends. For instance, President Dwight Eisenhower publicly discussed using nuclear weapons to encourage negotiations over ending the Korean War. In 1973 Richard Nixon issued a nuclear alert to back Israel in the Yom Kippur War. Hence Washington’s refusal to endorse no first use of nukes.


For Whom Should America Fight a Nuclear War?
 
1622834185190.png


Show me on this doll where the Jew touched you........
 
The principal defense against nuclear weapons, given the difficulty in preventing their use, is deterrence. Attack me and I will destroy you in return. This mutually assured destruction is unsatisfactory, since the failure of deterrence leaves both sides devastated and dead. Horror at this possibility led Ronald Reagan to advance the Strategic Defense Initiative. Alas, the likelihood of thwarting a determined attack by even a medium-size nuclear power is slight, at least in the near term.


The best response is to reduce the odds of getting into a nuclear war. Most Americans understand that instinctively, but not Washington’s foreign policy community. Its members largely share a consensus that the U.S. must run the world, irrespective of cost. Some seem almost giddy just thinking about Washington trampling its adversaries underfoot. Hence the strong support for endless wars, at least until they turn into irrevocable disasters, such as Iraq.







When it comes to nuclear weapons, most members of the Washington blob appear to believe that nuclear war just can’t happen, so the U.S. should feel free to threaten to unleash death and destruction on other states to advance its foreign policy ends. For instance, President Dwight Eisenhower publicly discussed using nuclear weapons to encourage negotiations over ending the Korean War. In 1973 Richard Nixon issued a nuclear alert to back Israel in the Yom Kippur War. Hence Washington’s refusal to endorse no first use of nukes.


For Whom Should America Fight a Nuclear War?

you got links to the Nixon and the Eisenhower "NUCLEAR THREATS"?
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #4
you got links to the Nixon and the Eisenhower "NUCLEAR THREATS"?
Your favorite search engine is wonderful, stupid- then, you can prove me wrong all by your stupid lonesome-
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #5
View attachment 497354

Show me on this doll where the Jew touched you........
Didn't read the article I see- as usual- but since you want to bring it up, stupid




“If Israel has been the aggressor in the Middle East, the role of the United States in all this has been even more unlovely. The hypocrisy of the U.S. position is almost unbelievable – or would be if we were not familiar with U.S. foreign policy over the decades.”


Murray N. Rothbard (1967), This originally appeared in Left and Right


Zionist Israel and the U.S. Are One and the Same Monster!



But, let's stick to the topic at hand- if you can-

more from the original link

Nuclear weapons are here to stay. Such is the reality of the world. Washington still could reduce the danger. The most important step would be to close the assorted nuclear umbrellas which the U.S. has distributed around the globe.

Even if extended deterrence was necessary during the Cold War, it no longer advances American security. Indeed, it is affirmatively dangerous. Restricting nuclear weapons to America’s defense could become an important legacy for the Biden administration.


Now, do you feel (I know you can't think for yourself, but surely you have control of your emotions- correct?) that you can respond to the OT? Ya know, the Original Topic- article- which says absolutely 0 about your betters- well, except the ass clowns in the District of Criminals- are they all jews? Is that why you're butt hurt?
 

Forum List

Back
Top