Hiroshima-- are we projecting backwards?

[Charles Gray]

Just my thought-- is it that Hirosshima wsa so bad, (and it wasn't
worse than Tokyo), or are we simply projecting the emotional and moral
baggage that nuclear weapons have come to be associated with on it?

[Matt Wiser]

Charles Gray > wrote:
>Just my thought-- is it that Hirosshima wsa
>so bad, (and it wasn't
>worse than Tokyo), or are we simply projecting
>the emotional and moral
>baggage that nuclear weapons have come to be
>associated with on it?
I think it's the latter. And as a historian, we're also projecting today's
ethics and moral dilemmas on events nearly 60 years ago. At the time, nearly
everyone in the US and Britain felt it was necessary.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[Ed Rasimus]

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:58:52 GMT, "Matt Wiser"
> wrote:

>
> Charles Gray > wrote:
>>Just my thought-- is it that Hirosshima wsa
>>so bad, (and it wasn't
>>worse than Tokyo), or are we simply projecting
>>the emotional and moral
>>baggage that nuclear weapons have come to be
>>associated with on it?
> I think it's the latter. And as a historian, we're also projecting today's
>ethics and moral dilemmas on events nearly 60 years ago. At the time, nearly
>everyone in the US and Britain felt it was necessary.

Most assuredly after 58 years of hand-wringing and pontificating over
nuclear weapons it is the latter. The impact of the single bomb power
of Fat Man and Little Boy was significant, but the damage relative to
the conventional strategic bombing campaigns of WW II was not that
great. The fire storms of Dresden or Tokyo were certainly equally
terrifying.

But, if we are to be objective in analysis, the possession,
deployment, development, refinement, etc. of nuclear weapons by the US
(and Great Britain, France, Soviet Union) stabilized the world for the
second half of the Twentieth Century and eventually led to the
collapse of the SU and conversion of most communist nations into mixed
economies.

The dismantling of significant quantities of nuclear weapons (and
weaponry) since the early '80s has been remarkable.

The question for debate is whether there will ever be a situation in
which a rational national leadership of a nuclear power would use
nuclear weapons. If the answer is no, then how much longer will there
be an economic acceptance?

I postulated that immediately after 9/11/01 that we had actually
encountered a possible, acceptable nuclear scenario in the mountains
of Afghanistan. Given that the US was struck first, that the leader of
the strike was isolated in an undeveloped and virtually unpopulated
region, that the Russians, Chinese, Indians, NATO (virtually all
nuclear powers) were supportive and would recognize the justification
and lack of threat to their national sovereignty--why not?

The fact of the matter is, that most of the hand-wringing comes from
folks who have no understanding of the size, capability or effects of
nuclear weapons. They simply whine and whimper about Armageddon and
hang their arguments on emotionalism.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Alan Minyard]

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:30:53 GMT, Charles Gray > wrote:

>Just my thought-- is it that Hirosshima wsa so bad, (and it wasn't
>worse than Tokyo), or are we simply projecting the emotional and moral
>baggage that nuclear weapons have come to be associated with on it?

Actually I believe that it is the usual, anti-US drivel that jealous and/or
stupid people think makes them look "feeling".

Al Minyard

[John Campbell]

Matt Wiser wrote:

<snip>
> I think it's the latter. And as a historian, we're also projecting
> today's
> ethics and moral dilemmas on events nearly 60 years ago. At the time,
> nearly everyone in the US and Britain felt it was necessary.

I like many people on the NG are here because our fathers didn't have to
face the beaches of Honshu or Kyshu. The attitude I have is that of somone
I met who was dying of cancer possibly due to the Nagasaki bomb - he
thought it gave him 40 years he wouldn't have had as a POW (read less then
slave).

regards

jc

[Matt Wiser]

John Campbell > wrote:
>Matt Wiser wrote:
>
><snip>
>> I think it's the latter. And as a historian,
>we're also projecting
>> today's
>> ethics and moral dilemmas on events nearly
>60 years ago. At the time,
>> nearly everyone in the US and Britain felt
>it was necessary.
>
>I like many people on the NG are here because
>our fathers didn't have to
>face the beaches of Honshu or Kyshu. The attitude
>I have is that of somone
>I met who was dying of cancer possibly due to
>the Nagasaki bomb - he
>thought it gave him 40 years he wouldn't have
>had as a POW (read less then
>slave).
>
>regards
>
>jc
If the original aim point for the Nagasaki bomb had been hit, the POW camp
would have been out of the blast zone, IIRC the actual release point was
about 2-3 miles from the intended AP. Still enough to wreck the industrial
targets in the city. Wasn't the POW camp shielded from the actual blast area
by some hills? The hills prevented a firestorm as in Hiroshima and in the
Tokyo fire raid.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[Stephen Harding]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> I postulated that immediately after 9/11/01 that we had actually
> encountered a possible, acceptable nuclear scenario in the mountains
> of Afghanistan. Given that the US was struck first, that the leader of
> the strike was isolated in an undeveloped and virtually unpopulated
> region, that the Russians, Chinese, Indians, NATO (virtually all
> nuclear powers) were supportive and would recognize the justification
> and lack of threat to their national sovereignty--why not?

I remember that post.

Surely you will admit that nuclear weaponry comes with a lot of
political "baggage". Just having them is a real turn off to many
people, not necessarily our enemies.

If the US were to use nukes, say in the tactical role in eastern
Afghanistan in busting bunkers and caves, do you think the political
fallout (no pun intended) would be worth being concerned about? Would
it be no worse than our current political situation where it *seems*
multilaterists define the politcal, anti-American, climate?

Do you have nay concerns over "slippery slope" arguments of nuke use?
The US used them for tactical purposes (perhaps with good result), so
now it's "not so bad" using nukes. Eventually, it becomes "not so bad"
to use them to level Samarra, or Tikrit, and on from there? Or an enemy
who has them, to use them against us, stepping up the "reasonable use"
definition?

There may be little destructive difference between the use of many
non-nuke bombs versus a single atomic one (i.e. Hiroshima versus
Tokyo or Dresden), but I think anything that undermines the "too terrible
to use" belief in nuke use doesn't bode well for the future of humanity.
(Not that I actually believe a full scale nuclear war would necessarily
destroy humanity).


SMH

[Ed Rasimus]

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 14:51:14 -0500, Stephen Harding
> wrote:

>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
>> I postulated that immediately after 9/11/01 that we had actually
>> encountered a possible, acceptable nuclear scenario in the mountains
>> of Afghanistan. Given that the US was struck first, that the leader of
>> the strike was isolated in an undeveloped and virtually unpopulated
>> region, that the Russians, Chinese, Indians, NATO (virtually all
>> nuclear powers) were supportive and would recognize the justification
>> and lack of threat to their national sovereignty--why not?
>
>I remember that post.
>
>Surely you will admit that nuclear weaponry comes with a lot of
>political "baggage". Just having them is a real turn off to many
>people, not necessarily our enemies.

Any discussion of nuclear weapons inevitably becomes political rather
than military and the arguments are emotional rather than practical.
Quite clearly (at least to me), anyone who starts the debate with
"just having them is a real turn off" isn't going to be objective in
the discussion. (I'm not accusing you, Stephen, but merely pointing
out one of the problems.)
>
>If the US were to use nukes, say in the tactical role in eastern
>Afghanistan in busting bunkers and caves, do you think the political
>fallout (no pun intended) would be worth being concerned about? Would
>it be no worse than our current political situation where it *seems*
>multilaterists define the politcal, anti-American, climate?

My initial proposal (apologies to Swift if I dare to characterize it
as a "modest" one,) was not for tactical use, but rather for one
demonstrable, political, effective and arguably strategic action. It
would be the sort of thing seen in the "micro" level in which daddy
administers a good spanking to prevent future indiscretions by the
rowdy child.

And, while multilateralism is a wonderful goal, when it interferes
with national self-interest, it becomes secondary. A benevolent
hegemon seems to this jaded observer preferable to a non-sovereign,
politically correct subordinate bending to the popular vote of
Cameroon, Gabon, Madagascar, Somalia, et. al.
>
>Do you have nay concerns over "slippery slope" arguments of nuke use?
>The US used them for tactical purposes (perhaps with good result), so
>now it's "not so bad" using nukes. Eventually, it becomes "not so bad"
>to use them to level Samarra, or Tikrit, and on from there? Or an enemy
>who has them, to use them against us, stepping up the "reasonable use"
>definition?

Here we can view the long experience with deterrence. The "slippery
slope" argument isn't a bad one, but if the results are good, the
political agreement of the justification is obtained (as in my
original scenario) and the US continues to maintain a superpower
military capability applied with justice and supported by deterrence,
it doesn't seem problematic.
>
>There may be little destructive difference between the use of many
>non-nuke bombs versus a single atomic one (i.e. Hiroshima versus
>Tokyo or Dresden), but I think anything that undermines the "too terrible
>to use" belief in nuke use doesn't bode well for the future of humanity.
>(Not that I actually believe a full scale nuclear war would necessarily
>destroy humanity).

The "too terrible to use" argument is pure emotionalism. And the
linkage to "the future of humanity" is more of the same. It is much
like the objection to napalm or CBU or land mines. Military weapons,
by definition, kill people. The conclusion of that line of reasoning
is that "war is too terrible" and then you find yourself on the
slippery slope to subjugation.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Cub Driver]

>Or an enemy
>who has them, to use them against us, stepping up the "reasonable use"
>definition?

I haven't the slightest doubt that, if able, Al Qaeda would use nukes
against the United States. That wouldn't require first-use by us.

That was the administration's reasoning when it decided to take out
Saddam, the most likely source of nukes for Al Qaeda.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Stephen Harding]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> Any discussion of nuclear weapons inevitably becomes political rather
> than military and the arguments are emotional rather than practical.
> Quite clearly (at least to me), anyone who starts the debate with
> "just having them is a real turn off" isn't going to be objective in
> the discussion. (I'm not accusing you, Stephen, but merely pointing
> out one of the problems.)

Don't disagree with this observation. Use of nuclear weapons (even
nuclear energy) is fraught with emotional and political bias. But that
is the world in which decisions on use must be made. That's the way
it is, rightfully or not. It simply will not be possible to make a
decision on military use based solely on military concern.

> My initial proposal (apologies to Swift if I dare to characterize it
> as a "modest" one,) was not for tactical use, but rather for one
> demonstrable, political, effective and arguably strategic action. It
> would be the sort of thing seen in the "micro" level in which daddy
> administers a good spanking to prevent future indiscretions by the
> rowdy child.

Well I don't remember experiencing "one spanking" by my daddy and
forever after eschewing the path of wickedness and irresponsibility.
I remember being spanked on many occassions. Color me a slow learner!

This seems to me to be the worst possible use of nuclear weaponry, but
perhaps because I can not see an example of the type of use you were
proposing (sorry, I don't remember the details of your scenario).

Nuking a "trouble spot" in Iraq like Samarra? Making eastern Afghanistan
unlivable and thus no longer a viable hiding spot for Bin Laden? What
of the characteristics of nuclear weapon use that don't exist in
traditional weaponry; specifically residual radiation effects? Is this
quality a part of the weapon's "effective" use?

Outside of World War or where the very existence of the nation is truly
threatened, I just can't picture an example of the use you seem to be
suggesting. Haven't seen one anytime since Nagasaki actually, with the
possible exception of later stages of the Korean War.

Did Vietnam offer a possibility of your possibly strategic, one time
demonstration of nuclear weapon use?

What would you have done if you could have strapped a nuclear bomb on
your Thud and dropped it where you wished in NVN in '65-72? What
would it have accomplished? What of Soviet/Chinese side effects? Even
after a successful use, what of other nations later (e.g. Soviets in
Afghanistan)? Would we live in a safer world?

> And, while multilateralism is a wonderful goal, when it interferes
> with national self-interest, it becomes secondary. A benevolent
> hegemon seems to this jaded observer preferable to a non-sovereign,
> politically correct subordinate bending to the popular vote of
> Cameroon, Gabon, Madagascar, Somalia, et. al.

I lived in Cameroon a couple years. We definitely don't want Cameroon
making national interest decisions for the US!

> Here we can view the long experience with deterrence. The "slippery
> slope" argument isn't a bad one, but if the results are good, the
> political agreement of the justification is obtained (as in my
> original scenario) and the US continues to maintain a superpower
> military capability applied with justice and supported by deterrence,
> it doesn't seem problematic.

Perhaps the world has a weapon that by its definition, is a deterrent.
It is a deterrent because of those very beliefs and emotions that make
it "too terrible to use". Weaken those [perhaps erroneous] beliefs,
and the deterrence value weakens.

I still wonder if every nation from the US to the Seychelle's had a nuke,
would the world be a safer place? The very fact that two intensely
hostile towards one another, armed to the teeth, military powers faced
each other in intense competition over a period of 50 years, yet never
went to war [directly] against one another is quite remarkable
history. Why did war not happen? Probably lots of reasons, but I
think having "too terrible" weapons at their disposal was a strong
part of it.

> The "too terrible to use" argument is pure emotionalism. And the
> linkage to "the future of humanity" is more of the same. It is much
> like the objection to napalm or CBU or land mines. Military weapons,
> by definition, kill people. The conclusion of that line of reasoning
> is that "war is too terrible" and then you find yourself on the
> slippery slope to subjugation.

The "too terrible" characterization of nukes may very much be nothing
more than emotionalism. But that may be what makes nukes so potent.

Once upon a time, the cross bow was too terrible. Just before WWI, it
was believed total war would no longer occur because it had become "too
terrible". As we know, we got over those self imposed, "emotional"
restrictions. We'll certainly get over similar limits on nukes at some
point in the future.

But at the moment, the freedom and independence of the US is not weakened
by a definition of nuclear weaponry, using primarily political and
emotional terms, as being "too terrible" to actually be used.


SMH

[Ed Rasimus]

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 08:23:12 -0500, Stephen Harding
> wrote:

>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
>> My initial proposal (apologies to Swift if I dare to characterize it
>> as a "modest" one,) was not for tactical use, but rather for one
>> demonstrable, political, effective and arguably strategic action. It
>> would be the sort of thing seen in the "micro" level in which daddy
>> administers a good spanking to prevent future indiscretions by the
>> rowdy child.
>
>Well I don't remember experiencing "one spanking" by my daddy and
>forever after eschewing the path of wickedness and irresponsibility.
>I remember being spanked on many occassions. Color me a slow learner!
>
>This seems to me to be the worst possible use of nuclear weaponry, but
>perhaps because I can not see an example of the type of use you were
>proposing (sorry, I don't remember the details of your scenario).

I suggested that after 9/11/01 and the identification of Afghanistan
as the breeding ground, that with cooperation of the other nuclear
powers (fUSSR, China, India, France, UK, et. al.) that application of
one significant special weapon (B-61 maybe?) to the region of eastern
Afghanistan would have taken care of the problem and sent a clear and
unmistakable message to future terrorists of the high cost of doing
that business.
>
>Nuking a "trouble spot" in Iraq like Samarra? Making eastern Afghanistan
>unlivable and thus no longer a viable hiding spot for Bin Laden? What
>of the characteristics of nuclear weapon use that don't exist in
>traditional weaponry; specifically residual radiation effects? Is this
>quality a part of the weapon's "effective" use?

The essential characteristic is high yield for low throw weight. See
the MOAB for comparison. One B-61, in the 1000 pound class with a
yield in the range of 150 kt, could have solved the problem of which
cave UBL was hiding in and eliminated the need to root him out
manually.
>
>Did Vietnam offer a possibility of your possibly strategic, one time
>demonstration of nuclear weapon use?

No, not at all.
>
>What would you have done if you could have strapped a nuclear bomb on
>your Thud and dropped it where you wished in NVN in '65-72? What
>would it have accomplished? What of Soviet/Chinese side effects? Even
>after a successful use, what of other nations later (e.g. Soviets in
>Afghanistan)? Would we live in a safer world?

Quite clearly the international situation in the period of the Vietnam
War was different. The world was grappling with the question of how to
keep the nuclear genie in the bottle. The two super-power axes were
suspicious of each other and poised to unleash nuclear arsenals. The
tension obviously drove the restrictive ROE that we dealt with and led
to the gradualism that killed so many of us.

There was no target that I can think of that wouldn't have been
decidedly "counter-value"--i.e. unacceptable in terms of its
collateral damage and civilian casualties.
>
>> And, while multilateralism is a wonderful goal, when it interferes
>> with national self-interest, it becomes secondary. A benevolent
>> hegemon seems to this jaded observer preferable to a non-sovereign,
>> politically correct subordinate bending to the popular vote of
>> Cameroon, Gabon, Madagascar, Somalia, et. al.
>
>I lived in Cameroon a couple years. We definitely don't want Cameroon
>making national interest decisions for the US!

My point precisely. While international organizations have provided a
forum for problem solving in a number of valuable areas, they can't
make reasonable defense decisions for the US based on the huge
disparity of size and diversity of national interests.
>
>Perhaps the world has a weapon that by its definition, is a deterrent.
>It is a deterrent because of those very beliefs and emotions that make
>it "too terrible to use". Weaken those [perhaps erroneous] beliefs,
>and the deterrence value weakens.

Deterrence, as I teach in my "Intro to Political Science" course
requires three components:
1.) rational leaders
2.) willingness to respond
3.) credible, i.e. survivable second strike capability.

If you start with "too terrible to use" you no longer have credible
deterrence.
>
>I still wonder if every nation from the US to the Seychelle's had a nuke,
>would the world be a safer place? The very fact that two intensely
>hostile towards one another, armed to the teeth, military powers faced
>each other in intense competition over a period of 50 years, yet never
>went to war [directly] against one another is quite remarkable
>history. Why did war not happen? Probably lots of reasons, but I
>think having "too terrible" weapons at their disposal was a strong
>part of it.

See the three components. Proliferation to many nations deteriorates
requirement 1 and 3, increasing the likelihood of irrationality (can
you say fundamentalists?) and without second strike survivability,
increasing the motivation to attempt pre-emption. Not good.
>



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Jeb Hoge]

Cub Driver > wrote in message >...
> >Or an enemy
> >who has them, to use them against us, stepping up the "reasonable use"
> >definition?
>
> I haven't the slightest doubt that, if able, Al Qaeda would use nukes
> against the United States. That wouldn't require first-use by us.
>
> That was the administration's reasoning when it decided to take out
> Saddam, the most likely source of nukes for Al Qaeda.

Veering the topic a little, is anyone else antsy about two active
attempts on Musharaff (Paki president...not sure I spelled it right)
in two weeks' time? I really hope CIA or State has pushed US
protective support on the nuke supply in Pakistan; that seems to me to
be *the* single most likely source for a weapon to disappear from and
reappear in a most inconvenient place and time.

<on topic> I'm in DC, been hearing and occasionally glimpsing our CAP
F16s in the sky, as well as one gorgeous KC-135 departing Andrews. I
was amazed how quiet the CFM56 were.

[Cub Driver]

>I suggested that after 9/11/01 and the identification of Afghanistan
>as the breeding ground, that with cooperation of the other nuclear
>powers (fUSSR, China, India, France, UK, et. al.) that application of
>one significant special weapon (B-61 maybe?) to the region of eastern
>Afghanistan would have taken care of the problem and sent a clear and
>unmistakable message to future terrorists of the high cost of doing
>that business.

The United States is an extremely unpopular member of the world
community today, because it insisted on its right to preemptive war
against a threatening regime. Can you imagine what its status would be
if it had resorted to nukes in Afghanistan?

(Especially if it had missed Bin Laden, as it might well have done?)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Charles Gray]

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 06:12:04 -0500, Cub Driver
> wrote:

>
>>I suggested that after 9/11/01 and the identification of Afghanistan
>>as the breeding ground, that with cooperation of the other nuclear
>>powers (fUSSR, China, India, France, UK, et. al.) that application of
>>one significant special weapon (B-61 maybe?) to the region of eastern
>>Afghanistan would have taken care of the problem and sent a clear and
>>unmistakable message to future terrorists of the high cost of doing
>>that business.
>
>The United States is an extremely unpopular member of the world
>community today, because it insisted on its right to preemptive war
>against a threatening regime. Can you imagine what its status would be
>if it had resorted to nukes in Afghanistan?
>
>(Especially if it had missed Bin Laden, as it might well have done?)
>

My biggest problem is when we get him, I want toe KNOW the son of a
bitch is dead. If we nuked, he'd just go elvis on us, whether or not
we'd actually killed him.
Right now, there are very few targets that the U.S. could or should
use nukes on-- the overwhelming qualitiative and quantitiave
superiority of U.S. combat assets makes nukes not only unneeded, but
in many cases counterproductive.

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 06:12:04 -0500, Cub Driver
> wrote:

>
>>I suggested that after 9/11/01 and the identification of Afghanistan
>>as the breeding ground, that with cooperation of the other nuclear
>>powers (fUSSR, China, India, France, UK, et. al.) that application of
>>one significant special weapon (B-61 maybe?) to the region of eastern
>>Afghanistan would have taken care of the problem and sent a clear and
>>unmistakable message to future terrorists of the high cost of doing
>>that business.
>
>The United States is an extremely unpopular member of the world
>community today, because it insisted on its right to preemptive war
>against a threatening regime. Can you imagine what its status would be
>if it had resorted to nukes in Afghanistan?
>
>(Especially if it had missed Bin Laden, as it might well have done?)

I'm not ready to assume the conclusion of the leftist media regarding
America's popularity. We've got sixty nations signed on to assist with
the rebuilding of Iraq. We've just witnessed some cooperation from the
recalcitrant French. We're high on the "good guy" list for the former
Warsaw Pact nations eagerly participating or seeking membership in
NATO and most of developed Asia thinks we're a model for their future.

And, of course, there is the old truism about leadership that I don't
need to be liked, I simply need to be respected. While many nations
seem to express distaste for unilateralism, most admit to envy over
the economy, freedom and particpative democracy we enjoy. And, if
pressed, most would eventually concede that WMD make a policy of
preemption an entirely different matter than the concepts of "just
war" originally espoused by St. Ambrose.

As for my "modest proposal", timing is everything. While we had the
emotional support of the world after 9/11/01, a year later, the
sympathy was dissipated. And, I didn't propose "nukeS" but
"nuke"--just one. A statement, a signal, a warning.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Tarver Engineering]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >I suggested that after 9/11/01 and the identification of Afghanistan
> >as the breeding ground, that with cooperation of the other nuclear
> >powers (fUSSR, China, India, France, UK, et. al.) that application of
> >one significant special weapon (B-61 maybe?) to the region of eastern
> >Afghanistan would have taken care of the problem and sent a clear and
> >unmistakable message to future terrorists of the high cost of doing
> >that business.
>
> The United States is an extremely unpopular member of the world
> community today, because it insisted on its right to preemptive war
> against a threatening regime.

No, Dan, the US is unpopular because the status quo was economically
bennificial to certain European and Asian Nations.

> Can you imagine what its status would be
> if it had resorted to nukes in Afghanistan?

It is Iraq that made the US unpopular. (ie Euros)

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 06:12:04 -0500, Cub Driver
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >>I suggested that after 9/11/01 and the identification of Afghanistan
> >>as the breeding ground, that with cooperation of the other nuclear
> >>powers (fUSSR, China, India, France, UK, et. al.) that application of
> >>one significant special weapon (B-61 maybe?) to the region of eastern
> >>Afghanistan would have taken care of the problem and sent a clear and
> >>unmistakable message to future terrorists of the high cost of doing
> >>that business.
> >
> >The United States is an extremely unpopular member of the world
> >community today, because it insisted on its right to preemptive war
> >against a threatening regime. Can you imagine what its status would be
> >if it had resorted to nukes in Afghanistan?
> >
> >(Especially if it had missed Bin Laden, as it might well have done?)
>
> I'm not ready to assume the conclusion of the leftist media regarding
> America's popularity. We've got sixty nations signed on to assist with
> the rebuilding of Iraq. We've just witnessed some cooperation from the
> recalcitrant French. We're high on the "good guy" list for the former
> Warsaw Pact nations eagerly participating or seeking membership in
> NATO and most of developed Asia thinks we're a model for their future.
>
> And, of course, there is the old truism about leadership that I don't
> need to be liked, I simply need to be respected. While many nations
> seem to express distaste for unilateralism, most admit to envy over
> the economy, freedom and particpative democracy we enjoy. And, if
> pressed, most would eventually concede that WMD make a policy of
> preemption an entirely different matter than the concepts of "just
> war" originally espoused by St. Ambrose.
>
> As for my "modest proposal", timing is everything. While we had the
> emotional support of the world after 9/11/01, a year later, the
> sympathy was dissipated. And, I didn't propose "nukeS" but
> "nuke"--just one. A statement, a signal, a warning.

We always have that, should these same people hit us again. Consider, Ed,
that 80% of the motivational power of a weapon is the threat of using it;
once done, only 20% of the weapon's political power remains.

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 11:49:32 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...

>> As for my "modest proposal", timing is everything. While we had the
>> emotional support of the world after 9/11/01, a year later, the
>> sympathy was dissipated. And, I didn't propose "nukeS" but
>> "nuke"--just one. A statement, a signal, a warning.
>
>We always have that, should these same people hit us again. Consider, Ed,
>that 80% of the motivational power of a weapon is the threat of using it;
>once done, only 20% of the weapon's political power remains.
>

Conversely, if there is no doubt that the weapon is "too terrible" to
use, the motivational power is eroded to zero. It's a lot like the
death penalty. Is there no crime so heinous that it merits the
ultimate?

It brings to mind the wild-eyed cop, Riggs, played by Mel Gibson in
the Lethal Weapon series. While the criminals take advantage of the
rationality of the politically correct law-enforcement officer, an
encounter with Riggs, can often result in more dire consequences.
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 11:49:32 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >> As for my "modest proposal", timing is everything. While we had the
> >> emotional support of the world after 9/11/01, a year later, the
> >> sympathy was dissipated. And, I didn't propose "nukeS" but
> >> "nuke"--just one. A statement, a signal, a warning.
> >
> >We always have that, should these same people hit us again. Consider,
Ed,
> >that 80% of the motivational power of a weapon is the threat of using it;
> >once done, only 20% of the weapon's political power remains.
> >
>
> Conversely, if there is no doubt that the weapon is "too terrible" to
> use, the motivational power is eroded to zero. It's a lot like the
> death penalty. Is there no crime so heinous that it merits the
> ultimate?

I would propose that such a political position could cause the Federal
Government to be incapable of delivering their basic product of
"protection". The failure to deliver on "protection" would enable some
other "organized crime" unit to fill the void. This would tend to
invalidate the legitimacy of the Federal Government and therefore also their
power. Keep in mind that no less money is in play here than the worldwide
distribution of heroin. A Government that can not deliver basic services to
the People, will fall like the FSU.

> It brings to mind the wild-eyed cop, Riggs, played by Mel Gibson in
> the Lethal Weapon series. While the criminals take advantage of the
> rationality of the politically correct law-enforcement officer, an
> encounter with Riggs, can often result in more dire consequences.

Have you seen "Swordfish"?

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Ed Rasimus
> writes
>It brings to mind the wild-eyed cop, Riggs, played by Mel Gibson in
>the Lethal Weapon series. While the criminals take advantage of the
>rationality of the politically correct law-enforcement officer, an
>encounter with Riggs, can often result in more dire consequences.

Wasn't Nixon alleged to use this gambit, of appearing to be irrational
in order to make his actions harder to predict and the consequences of
error potentially worse?

I'm running on very hazy memory and can't find a source, so would
welcome correction or clarification.


--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Guy Alcala]

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

> In message >, Ed Rasimus
> > writes
> >It brings to mind the wild-eyed cop, Riggs, played by Mel Gibson in
> >the Lethal Weapon series. While the criminals take advantage of the
> >rationality of the politically correct law-enforcement officer, an
> >encounter with Riggs, can often result in more dire consequences.
>
> Wasn't Nixon alleged to use this gambit, of appearing to be irrational
> in order to make his actions harder to predict and the consequences of
> error potentially worse?
>
> I'm running on very hazy memory and can't find a source, so would
> welcome correction or clarification.

Yes, the Madman principle. Kissinger played the stable role.

Guy

[Tarver Engineering]

"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Paul J. Adam" wrote:
>
> > In message >, Ed Rasimus
> > > writes
> > >It brings to mind the wild-eyed cop, Riggs, played by Mel Gibson in
> > >the Lethal Weapon series. While the criminals take advantage of the
> > >rationality of the politically correct law-enforcement officer, an
> > >encounter with Riggs, can often result in more dire consequences.
> >
> > Wasn't Nixon alleged to use this gambit, of appearing to be irrational
> > in order to make his actions harder to predict and the consequences of
> > error potentially worse?
> >
> > I'm running on very hazy memory and can't find a source, so would
> > welcome correction or clarification.
>
> Yes, the Madman principle. Kissinger played the stable role.

Kissenger is a wanted criminal.

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 21:26:21 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:

>In message >, Ed Rasimus
> writes
>>It brings to mind the wild-eyed cop, Riggs, played by Mel Gibson in
>>the Lethal Weapon series. While the criminals take advantage of the
>>rationality of the politically correct law-enforcement officer, an
>>encounter with Riggs, can often result in more dire consequences.
>
>Wasn't Nixon alleged to use this gambit, of appearing to be irrational
>in order to make his actions harder to predict and the consequences of
>error potentially worse?
>
>I'm running on very hazy memory and can't find a source, so would
>welcome correction or clarification.

I would be reluctant to attribute such behavior and would consider it
more likely a political interpretation for the benefit of opponents.

It was Nixon (despite the obvious first association with that name),
who coordinated Vietnamization to shift the burden of SEA to the
locals, who opened the door to a "two China" policy and recognition of
a billion people as the "real" China, who implemented Linebacker I/II
to finally conclude the Vietnam involvement and gain the release of
our POWs, and who when faced with accusations of malfeasance in office
and impeachment took a more honorable course of action and resigned.

As a political science teacher and international relations teacher,
I'd certainly be revisionist if I were to introduce major power leader
irrationality as a strategy, particularly in a world that was during
Nixon's tenure governed by the concept of M.A.D.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 21:26:21 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
> > wrote:

> As a political science teacher and international relations teacher,
> I'd certainly be revisionist if I were to introduce major power leader
> irrationality as a strategy, particularly in a world that was during
> Nixon's tenure governed by the concept of M.A.D.

Paul just saw that movie where Nixon was a drunken ranter and thought it was
real. It is also common, amoung those living outide the US, to believe this
is a dangerous place, due to the presentation of our society in media.

[B2431]

>From: "Tarver Engineering"

>Kissenger is a wanted criminal.
>
Bye whom?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Guy Alcala]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 21:26:21 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
> > wrote:
>
> >In message >, Ed Rasimus
> > writes
> >>It brings to mind the wild-eyed cop, Riggs, played by Mel Gibson in
> >>the Lethal Weapon series. While the criminals take advantage of the
> >>rationality of the politically correct law-enforcement officer, an
> >>encounter with Riggs, can often result in more dire consequences.
> >
> >Wasn't Nixon alleged to use this gambit, of appearing to be irrational
> >in order to make his actions harder to predict and the consequences of
> >error potentially worse?
> >
> >I'm running on very hazy memory and can't find a source, so would
> >welcome correction or clarification.
>
> I would be reluctant to attribute such behavior and would consider it
> more likely a political interpretation for the benefit of opponents.
>
> It was Nixon (despite the obvious first association with that name),
> who coordinated Vietnamization to shift the burden of SEA to the
> locals, who opened the door to a "two China" policy and recognition of
> a billion people as the "real" China, who implemented Linebacker I/II
> to finally conclude the Vietnam involvement and gain the release of
> our POWs, and who when faced with accusations of malfeasance in office
> and impeachment took a more honorable course of action and resigned.

"Accusations" of malfeasance in office? Ed, are you kidding? There was no
doubt whatsoever of his guilt (if you doubt that, I suggest you listen to
the tapes that have been released, or read the transcripts; they're
online), he was going to be convicted. Especially the "Smoking Gun" and
"Cancer on the Presidency" ones. Here's a sample from the latter, where
Nixon and Dean discuss paying hush money to the plumbers and others:

MARCH 21, 1973, FROM 10:12 TO 11:55 A.M.


DEAN: Right. Uh, so that's, that's it. That's the, the extent of the
knowledge. Now, where, where are the soft spots on this? Well, first of
all, there's the, there's the problem of the continued blackmail.

PRESIDENT: Right.

DEAN: ...which will not only go on now, it'll go on when these people are
in prison, and it will compound the obstruction of justice situation. It'll
cost money. It's dangerous. Nobody, nothing--people around here are not
pros at this sort of thing. This is the sort of thing Mafia people can do:
washing money, getting clean money, and things like that, uh--we're--we
just don't know about those (noise) things, because we're-not used to, you
know--we are not criminals and not used to dealing in that business. It's,
uh, it's, uh--

PRESIDENT: That's right.

DEAN: It's tough thing to know how to do.

PRESIDENT: Maybe we can't even do that. MARCH 21, 1973, FROM 10:12 TO 11:55
A.M.

DEAN: That's right. It's a real problem as to whether we could even do it.
Plus there's a real problem in raising money. Uh, Mitchell has been working
on raising some money. Uh, feeling he's got, you know, he's got one, he's
one of the ones with the most to lose. Uh, but there's no denying the fact
that the White House, and uh, Ehrlichman, Haldeman, Dean are involved in
some of the early money decisions.

PRESIDENT: How much money do you need?

DEAN: I would say these people are going to cost, uh, a million dollars
over the next, uh, - two years. (Pause)

PRESIDENT: We could get that.

DEAN: Uh, huh.

PRESIDENT: You, on the money, if you need the money, I mean, uh' you could
get the money. Let's say--

DEAN: Well, I think that we're going--

PRESIDENT: What I mean is, you could, you could get a million dollars. And
you could get it in cash. I, I know where it could be gotten.

DEAN: Uh, huh.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

If you consider resigning to avoid definite conviction and thus getting a
free pass from Ford, 'honorable', then we have a very different conception
of the meaning of the word.


> As a political science teacher and international relations teacher,
> I'd certainly be revisionist if I were to introduce major power leader
> irrationality as a strategy, particularly in a world that was during
> Nixon's tenure governed by the concept of M.A.D.

See Kissinger's books, where he says he ascribed just such behavior to
Nixon to the North Vietnamese. Of course, neither Henry K. or that
paranoid creep Tricky Dick are/were exactly known for their veracity when
they are describing their own behavior, but enough other material is
available to confirm their accounts.

Guy

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
>
> >Kissenger is a wanted criminal.
> >
> Bye whom?

Brussels.

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 23:59:44 GMT, Guy Alcala
> wrote:

>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
>> It was Nixon (despite the obvious first association with that name),
>> who coordinated Vietnamization to shift the burden of SEA to the
>> locals, who opened the door to a "two China" policy and recognition of
>> a billion people as the "real" China, who implemented Linebacker I/II
>> to finally conclude the Vietnam involvement and gain the release of
>> our POWs, and who when faced with accusations of malfeasance in office
>> and impeachment took a more honorable course of action and resigned.
>
>"Accusations" of malfeasance in office? Ed, are you kidding? There was no
>doubt whatsoever of his guilt (if you doubt that, I suggest you listen to
>the tapes that have been released, or read the transcripts; they're
>online), he was going to be convicted. Especially the "Smoking Gun" and
>"Cancer on the Presidency" ones. Here's a sample from the latter, where
>Nixon and Dean discuss paying hush money to the plumbers and others:

I really didn't want to get into a revisitation of Watergate. Let us
agree to disagree on the subject. The fact that I alluded to is that
Nixon was accused in a political forum and that impeachment, while we
can assume that it would have been voted, did not come to a vote
because Nixon resigned.

There were no criminal charges made against the President. No
arraignments, no indictment. There might have been, but the
combination of the resignation and the preemptive pardon from Ford
leaves us never knowing.

Without an impeachment, an indictment or formal charges, the assertion
that "he was going to be convicted" is conjecture. Probably true, but
again, something that didn't come to pass.

My implication, which I'll now spell out, is that since 1974 we have
experienced an actual impeachment, actual criminal charges, an actual
Senate trial and more against a sitting President. And, I wanted to
point out that while the Nixon presidency is forever besmirched, there
were positive outcomes from the administration.

>If you consider resigning to avoid definite conviction and thus getting a
>free pass from Ford, 'honorable', then we have a very different conception
>of the meaning of the word.

I don't think I used the word "honorable" in my statement regarding
Nixon achievements. See above regarding "definite conviction" and
please revisit the Clinton inauguration eve pardons of January 2001
regarding the unlimited (and unquestionable) power of the President to
pardon.

To imply that someone receiving a presidential pardon is somehow then
tainted with dishonor is disingenous.
>
>
>> As a political science teacher and international relations teacher,
>> I'd certainly be revisionist if I were to introduce major power leader
>> irrationality as a strategy, particularly in a world that was during
>> Nixon's tenure governed by the concept of M.A.D.
>
>See Kissinger's books, where he says he ascribed just such behavior to
>Nixon to the North Vietnamese. Of course, neither Henry K. or that
>paranoid creep Tricky Dick are/were exactly known for their veracity when
>they are describing their own behavior, but enough other material is
>available to confirm their accounts.

It's been a while since I read "White House Years" and strangely
enough, in scanning the shelves just know, I appear to have discarded
it. A quick Web search disclosed a Brit author (anti-war) named
Shawcross who appears to have applied some home baked psychological
analysis to Nixon and Kissinger in a suspect diatribe and another work
by Jeffrey Kimball that similarly used the description of methodical
irrationality.

I find it a bit difficult, however, to engage in political discussion
when it involves name-calling such as "that paranoid creep Tricky
Dick." Sorry, Guy, I've known you for a long time, but in political
discussion I've found that name calling usually is one of those
terminal refuges of those with more emotion than rationale in their
analysis.

I don't disagree that Nixon's presidency ended in disrepute. And, I
also assert that he had some successes.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Chris Manteuffel]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message >...

> Wasn't Nixon alleged to use this gambit, of appearing to be irrational
> in order to make his actions harder to predict and the consequences of
> error potentially worse?

The Madman gambit. Part (at the beginning of his first term, the
centerpiece) of his secret plan to get out of the Vietnam war was to
try and act as crazy as possible. He would be the bad cop with his
finger on the button, making all sorts of crazy threats and putting
nuclear forces on high alert and such. Make the Russians (and
Vietnamese, though the chronic American cold war obsession with
Soviets to the exclusion of all else meant that they were ignored in
these calculations, mostly) squirm and think that maybe he was crazy
enough to go nuclear over Vietnam. Kissinger would be the good cop,
offering negotiations to the Russians and such.

It didn't work. Among other reasons, the US completely failed to see
how much the Vietnam war was local, and not directed from Moscow (a
consistent failure of American intel- they had NIE's on Soviet
internal politics in 1989 that don't mention Boris Yeltsin at all, at
a time when he was certainly more popular then Gorbi). Also, the
Soviets apparently failed to pick up on all of his crazy actions, but
never seriously considered that the US would go nuclear.

Chris Manteuffel

[B2431]

>From: "Tarver Engineering"


>"B2431" > wrote in message

>> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
>>
>> >Kissenger is a wanted criminal.
>> >
>> Bye whom?
>
>Brussels.
>

Traver, under Belgian law anyone can charge anyone with war crimes. Now please
provide proof a charge has been filed and that a warrant has been issued. If
they don't exist then he's not "wanted."

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Charles Gray]

On 28 Dec 2003 04:54:52 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

>>From: "Tarver Engineering"
>
>
>>"B2431" > wrote in message
>
>>> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
>>>
>>> >Kissenger is a wanted criminal.
>>> >
>>> Bye whom?
>>
>>Brussels.
>>
>
>Traver, under Belgian law anyone can charge anyone with war crimes. Now please
>provide proof a charge has been filed and that a warrant has been issued. If
>they don't exist then he's not "wanted."
>
>Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
Didn't they restrict that recently? Iseem to recall some change in
the law.

Granted, I lke the idea of some, even U.S. citizens, being called to
account, but the idea of any nation being able to issue such warrents
could lead to a miserable situation.
For the record, I opposed Pinochets extradidtion, not because he
wasn't a prize SOB, but because if that gets started, only a fool
would relinquish power peacefully.

[Matt Wiser]

Charles Gray > wrote:
>On 28 Dec 2003 04:54:52 GMT, (B2431)
>wrote:
>
>>>From: "Tarver Engineering"
>
>>
>>
>>>"B2431" > wrote in message
>>
>>>> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
>>>>
>>>> >Kissenger is a wanted criminal.
>>>> >
>>>> Bye whom?
>>>
>>>Brussels.
>>>
>>
>>Traver, under Belgian law anyone can charge
>anyone with war crimes. Now please
>>provide proof a charge has been filed and that
>a warrant has been issued. If
>>they don't exist then he's not "wanted."
>>
>>Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
> Didn't they restrict that recently? Iseem
>to recall some change in
>the law.
>
> Granted, I lke the idea of some, even U.S.
>citizens, being called to
>account, but the idea of any nation being able
>to issue such warrents
>could lead to a miserable situation.
> For the record, I opposed Pinochets extradidtion,
>not because he
>wasn't a prize SOB, but because if that gets
>started, only a fool
>would relinquish power peacefully.
I recall about 2-3 months ago that the Belgians changed the war crimes
law under pressure from the U.S. and Britain, due to a number of frivilous
suits being filed. They now have to have Belgian victims or perps to get
a charge filed. Now the far left there is right ****ed, but when both NATO
and the EU threaten to leave Brussels because of such a poorly written law-guess
what? The law got changed mighty fast.All the ones filed against Bush Sr.,
Powell, Schawartzkopf, Cheney, Blair, Thatcher, Sharon, Tommy Franks, etc.
were summarily dismissed as a result. And good riddance to such suits.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[Stephen Harding]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 11:49:32 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
>>>As for my "modest proposal", timing is everything. While we had the
>>>emotional support of the world after 9/11/01, a year later, the
>>>sympathy was dissipated. And, I didn't propose "nukeS" but
>>>"nuke"--just one. A statement, a signal, a warning.
>>
>>We always have that, should these same people hit us again. Consider, Ed,
>>that 80% of the motivational power of a weapon is the threat of using it;
>>once done, only 20% of the weapon's political power remains.
>>
>
>
> Conversely, if there is no doubt that the weapon is "too terrible" to
> use, the motivational power is eroded to zero. It's a lot like the
> death penalty. Is there no crime so heinous that it merits the
> ultimate?

The "too terrible" label on nuclear weaponry is pretty much a popular
belief, not necessarily a technical or procedural one. If the weapons
really were too terrible to be used, why build them to begin with?

If anything, the especially terrible consequences of using nuclear
weaponry, or at least, the widespread belief that such use would be
extremely negative for humanity, in practice helps keep leaders
"rational". It serves your definition of deterrence.

Even the most radical of fundamentalists should think carefully
before flinging these things about. Once use of these weapons
becomes accepted, even for promoting truth and justice, a line is
crossed; a psychological barrier broken. Deterrent value reduced.


SMH

[Stephen Harding]

Paul J. Adam wrote:

> Wasn't Nixon alleged to use this gambit, of appearing to be irrational
> in order to make his actions harder to predict and the consequences of
> error potentially worse?
>
> I'm running on very hazy memory and can't find a source, so would
> welcome correction or clarification.

Can't say I've ever come across this interpretation of Nixonian
political technique.

I have heard he and Kissinger played the "good cop/bad cop" gambit
a bit. This is alleged to be the case with Bush and Powell as well,
but I think in both cases, this may simply be opponents spinning
interpretation of political figures they don't like.


SMH

[Stephen Harding]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> I don't disagree that Nixon's presidency ended in disrepute. And, I
> also assert that he had some successes.

I've come to believe Nixon is going to become America's Richard III;
a character forever painted in unflattering strokes, deserved or not.

It is still, even with the passage of 30 years, not possible to
view Nixon in an impartial, non-prejudiced manner. My guess is
it will take another 50 years plus for history to pronounce more
balanced judgments on the man, his actions and policies.


SMH

[Cub Driver]

>It is still, even with the passage of 30 years, not possible to
>view Nixon in an impartial, non-prejudiced manner.

I certainly can't!

Thirty years from now, people will likely be saying the same about
Clinton.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>Even the most radical of fundamentalists should think carefully
>before flinging these things about. Once use of these weapons
>becomes accepted, even for promoting truth and justice, a line is
>crossed; a psychological barrier broken. Deterrent value reduced.

That might possibly have deterred Saddam, but I doubt very much it
would deter bin Laden or his followers.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Tarver Engineering]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >It is still, even with the passage of 30 years, not possible to
> >view Nixon in an impartial, non-prejudiced manner.
>
> I certainly can't!
>
> Thirty years from now, people will likely be saying the same about
> Clinton.

The Clinton Presidency will be forgotten in 30 years.

[Stephen Harding]

Cub Driver wrote:

>>It is still, even with the passage of 30 years, not possible to
>>view Nixon in an impartial, non-prejudiced manner.
>
> I certainly can't!
>
> Thirty years from now, people will likely be saying the same about
> Clinton.

I think Clinton will be neither "good" nor "bad". He'll be one
of those presidents that no one knows too much about, like an
Arthur or Cleveland.

Nixon on the other hand, is going to be more favorably judged by
history than by his contemporaries IMHO.

People are certainly going to know about him, whatever way
history ultimately decides.


SMH

[Guy Alcala]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 23:59:44 GMT, Guy Alcala
> > wrote:
>
> >Ed Rasimus wrote:
> >
> >> It was Nixon (despite the obvious first association with that name),
> >> who coordinated Vietnamization to shift the burden of SEA to the
> >> locals, who opened the door to a "two China" policy and recognition of
> >> a billion people as the "real" China, who implemented Linebacker I/II
> >> to finally conclude the Vietnam involvement and gain the release of
> >> our POWs, and who when faced with accusations of malfeasance in office
> >> and impeachment took a more honorable course of action and resigned.
> >
> >"Accusations" of malfeasance in office? Ed, are you kidding? There was no
> >doubt whatsoever of his guilt (if you doubt that, I suggest you listen to
> >the tapes that have been released, or read the transcripts; they're
> >online), he was going to be convicted. Especially the "Smoking Gun" and
> >"Cancer on the Presidency" ones. Here's a sample from the latter, where
> >Nixon and Dean discuss paying hush money to the plumbers and others:
>
> I really didn't want to get into a revisitation of Watergate. Let us
> agree to disagree on the subject. The fact that I alluded to is that
> Nixon was accused in a political forum and that impeachment, while we
> can assume that it would have been voted, did not come to a vote
> because Nixon resigned.

Sure.

> There were no criminal charges made against the President. No
> arraignments, no indictment. There might have been, but the
> combination of the resignation and the preemptive pardon from Ford
> leaves us never knowing.

> Without an impeachment, an indictment or formal charges, the assertion
> that "he was going to be convicted" is conjecture. Probably true, but
> again, something that didn't come to pass.

The Smoking Gun tape clearly shows Nixon (out of his own mouth) engaging in
obstruction of justice; there just ain't no doubt. And it was only because the
Supreme Court ordered him to turn that tape and the others over that he decided
to resign (what, two days afterwards?). Would he have been impeached and
convicted? Certainly. Would he subsequently have been prosecuted for
obstruction of justice, and sent to jail/prison? Doubtful. I suspect he would
have lost his law license, etc., maybe paid a fine.


> My implication, which I'll now spell out, is that since 1974 we have
> experienced an actual impeachment, actual criminal charges, an actual
> Senate trial and more against a sitting President. And, I wanted to
> point out that while the Nixon presidency is forever besmirched, there
> were positive outcomes from the administration.

I've never denied that there were, as well as many negative ones.

> >If you consider resigning to avoid definite conviction and thus getting a
> >free pass from Ford, 'honorable', then we have a very different conception
> >of the meaning of the word.
>
> I don't think I used the word "honorable" in my statement regarding
> Nixon achievements.

You wrote (and I replied to) the following:

"and who when faced with accusations of malfeasance in office and impeachment
took a more honorable course of action and resigned."

Now, maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but it appears to me that you think that
his and then getting a free pass, while never admitting any responsibility, is
honorable behavior. I disagree. If he (or more recently, Clinton) had admitted
his guilt and accepted responsibility for his actions and _then_ resigned (with
no pardon), I'd call that honorable. But that's not what either of them did, is
it.

> See above regarding "definite conviction" and
> please revisit the Clinton inauguration eve pardons of January 2001
> regarding the unlimited (and unquestionable) power of the President to
> pardon.

I've never argued that the President doesn't have the power; I merely point out
that pardons handed out as political favors, with no admission of guilt, smell
to high heaven.

> To imply that someone receiving a presidential pardon is somehow then
> tainted with dishonor is disingenous.

I implied no such thing. I implied that a guilty man who had dishonored the
Presidency and who was then given a pre-emptive pardon which absolved him from
ever havoing to admit to his crimes or be tried for them, as part of a political
deal, was not acting honorably. You stated that he was acting honorably.

> >> As a political science teacher and international relations teacher,
> >> I'd certainly be revisionist if I were to introduce major power leader
> >> irrationality as a strategy, particularly in a world that was during
> >> Nixon's tenure governed by the concept of M.A.D.
> >
> >See Kissinger's books, where he says he ascribed just such behavior to
> >Nixon to the North Vietnamese. Of course, neither Henry K. or that
> >paranoid creep Tricky Dick are/were exactly known for their veracity when
> >they are describing their own behavior, but enough other material is
> >available to confirm their accounts.
>
> It's been a while since I read "White House Years" and strangely
> enough, in scanning the shelves just know, I appear to have discarded
> it. A quick Web search disclosed a Brit author (anti-war) named
> Shawcross who appears to have applied some home baked psychological
> analysis to Nixon and Kissinger in a suspect diatribe and another work
> by Jeffrey Kimball that similarly used the description of methodical
> irrationality.
>
> I find it a bit difficult, however, to engage in political discussion
> when it involves name-calling such as "that paranoid creep Tricky
> Dick." Sorry, Guy, I've known you for a long time, but in political
> discussion I've found that name calling usually is one of those
> terminal refuges of those with more emotion than rationale in their
> analysis.

I wasn't name calling, just describing his personality. Actually, it should
have read "insecure, paranoid creep Tricky Dick" etc. Which of the two
adjectives do you disagree with (or was it the noun)? His nickname was
well-earned, but if you wish, I shall avoid adding colloquialisms, add balance
and refer to him in future by my full assessment of the man, viz. that bright,
talented, insecure, paranoid creep, Richard M. Nixon.

> I don't disagree that Nixon's presidency ended in disrepute. And, I
> also assert that he had some successes.

I agree, he did. In fact, I'd say that Nixon was the closest thing we had in
the last century to the hero in a greek tragedy. Here's a man of tremendous
ability, brains, and political savvy, but crippled (and ultimately brought down)
by his flaws: insecury, paranoia, lack of interpersonal skills and personal
warmth, and ambition. This last is hardly unique to Nixon; indeed, he and
Clinton shared some of the same traits (obviously, not the interpersonal ones;
even if I always found Clinton's 'empathy' about as sincere as the average
televangelist, lots of others apparently found it believable). It's rather odd
that of the three smartest Presidents of the last 50 years or so, two disgraced
themselves and the other was ineffectual. Perhaps it just shows that it's not a
job for really bright people. With the incumbent, at least, I have no worries
on that score;-)

Guy

[B2431]

>From: Stephen Harding

>
>Cub Driver wrote:
>
>>>It is still, even with the passage of 30 years, not possible to
>>>view Nixon in an impartial, non-prejudiced manner.
>>
>> I certainly can't!
>>
>> Thirty years from now, people will likely be saying the same about
>> Clinton.
>
>I think Clinton will be neither "good" nor "bad". He'll be one
>of those presidents that no one knows too much about, like an
>Arthur or Cleveland.
>
>Nixon on the other hand, is going to be more favorably judged by
>history than by his contemporaries IMHO.
>
>People are certainly going to know about him, whatever way
>history ultimately decides.
>
>
>SMH
>
Clinton will be remembered the same way Andrew Johnson is: only for his
impeachment.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: Stephen Harding
>
> >
> >Cub Driver wrote:
> >
> >>>It is still, even with the passage of 30 years, not possible to
> >>>view Nixon in an impartial, non-prejudiced manner.
> >>
> >> I certainly can't!
> >>
> >> Thirty years from now, people will likely be saying the same about
> >> Clinton.
> >
> >I think Clinton will be neither "good" nor "bad". He'll be one
> >of those presidents that no one knows too much about, like an
> >Arthur or Cleveland.
> >
> >Nixon on the other hand, is going to be more favorably judged by
> >history than by his contemporaries IMHO.
> >
> >People are certainly going to know about him, whatever way
> >history ultimately decides.

> Clinton will be remembered the same way Andrew Johnson is: only for his
> impeachment.

I believe some still remember Andrew holding up Reconstruction; resulting in
four more years of slavery, for some.

[Charles Gray]

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:51:49 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> >From: Stephen Harding
>>
>> >
>> >Cub Driver wrote:
>> >
>> >>>It is still, even with the passage of 30 years, not possible to
>> >>>view Nixon in an impartial, non-prejudiced manner.
>> >>
>> >> I certainly can't!
>> >>
>> >> Thirty years from now, people will likely be saying the same about
>> >> Clinton.
>> >
>> >I think Clinton will be neither "good" nor "bad". He'll be one
>> >of those presidents that no one knows too much about, like an
>> >Arthur or Cleveland.
>> >
>> >Nixon on the other hand, is going to be more favorably judged by
>> >history than by his contemporaries IMHO.
>> >
>> >People are certainly going to know about him, whatever way
>> >history ultimately decides.
>
>> Clinton will be remembered the same way Andrew Johnson is: only for his
>> impeachment.
>
>I believe some still remember Andrew holding up Reconstruction; resulting in
>four more years of slavery, for some.
>
A bit off topic, but I think Andrew suffered from a Later Johnson's
problem-- he wasn' charasmatic and had a hard time working with
others. But let's not forget that Lincolns original reconstruction
plan was very lenient to the South, so if he lived, the same thing
might be said of him.
Of course, MY opinion (and I'm texan by family), was that what was
needed was somethig very much like what Germany and Japan got in terms
of occupation and "De-southifacation" Of course, at the time, such an
idea would havd been most arrant fantasy.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Charles Gray" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:51:49 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >From: Stephen Harding
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Cub Driver wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>>It is still, even with the passage of 30 years, not possible to
> >> >>>view Nixon in an impartial, non-prejudiced manner.
> >> >>
> >> >> I certainly can't!
> >> >>
> >> >> Thirty years from now, people will likely be saying the same about
> >> >> Clinton.
> >> >
> >> >I think Clinton will be neither "good" nor "bad". He'll be one
> >> >of those presidents that no one knows too much about, like an
> >> >Arthur or Cleveland.
> >> >
> >> >Nixon on the other hand, is going to be more favorably judged by
> >> >history than by his contemporaries IMHO.
> >> >
> >> >People are certainly going to know about him, whatever way
> >> >history ultimately decides.
> >
> >> Clinton will be remembered the same way Andrew Johnson is: only for his
> >> impeachment.
> >
> >I believe some still remember Andrew holding up Reconstruction; resulting
in
> >four more years of slavery, for some.
> >
> A bit off topic, but I think Andrew suffered from a Later Johnson's
> problem-- he wasn' charasmatic and had a hard time working with
> others. But let's not forget that Lincolns original reconstruction
> plan was very lenient to the South, so if he lived, the same thing
> might be said of him.

Let us not forget that Congress and the States ratified the Thirteenth
Amendment in 1865. Let us not forget that congress and the States then
ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, in support of the Enforcement of the
Thirteenth Amendment. Yet, for all that law, wealthy men in the South
continued the practice of Black slavery.

> Of course, MY opinion (and I'm texan by family), was that what was
> needed was somethig very much like what Germany and Japan got in terms
> of occupation and "De-southifacation" Of course, at the time, such an
> idea would havd been most arrant fantasy.

My ancestors were in Arkansas in those days and liberated the State of
Kentucky (thier mother's State of birth), from Union opression. (2nd
Arkansas) Then the 2nd Arkansas joined Briggs at Chatanooga, to fortify his
position. Later, my ancestor represented the Administrator, in the
enforcement of the Thirteenth Amendment, under the processes of Martial Law;
as laid out by the Congress. All very nepotistic.