I believe that what you are referring to is called channeling or invitation by design. Governments and people, in general are like electrons - they choose the path of least resistance. Bad Leroy Brown has just suggested euthenasia of America to the jihadists/millitant muslims (His Brothers)and given them a "get out of jail free card". Do you really think we can survive two and a half more years of this imbecile? Does NO One have standing (or spine) to force this bastard to show his birth Cert.?

Correct analysis, but I disagree with Mr. Krauthammer's assumption of the administration's motive. Mr. Krauthammer supposes that the President is naive and means to use our infirm posture to discourage proliferation.

I don't see that at all. Indeed, Mr. Krauthammer himself hits upon the actual motive: this new posture makes our allies very nervous at best, and distrustful of American foreign policy at worst. They may even, as Mr. Krauthammer supposes, choose to acquire their own WMDs as a self-preservation measure.

Every single foreign policy move of this administration has been calculated to insult, outrage or frighten our allies -- except those that were designed to suck up to, appease or otherwise embolden our enemies. Or both.

Even if President Obama naively decided to weaken our nuclear posture as some misguided way of lessening proliferation in the world, it would still be unthinkable to declare such a policy for all the world (including those nations and groups overtly hostile to us) to hear. Even Jimmy Carter would not have done that. Instead, if reduced proliferation was the goal, a naive President would quietly meet with allies and inform them of the new policy along with the goals that spawned it.

To loudly bray about this policy in a manner so obviously calculated so that NoKo and Iran cannot fail to get the message can only have some other motive. Why would the President declare a policy that scares our allies away while inviting our enemies to attack -- unless those were his goals?

What Obama has just done reminds me of a quote that Winston Churchil once said.

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last".

It appears the "messiah" wants to dismantil our military capability. He has already cancelled the production of the F-22 Raptor with stealth technology, and cut back on the number of F-35 fighter planes that were supposed to replace the over 20 year old F-16,and f/A-18. Not to mention he has reduced the number of ships for the Navy. He is the worst president this once great country has ever had!

The fact is there are so many nuclear weapons in US and Soviet Union that reducing the stockpile a little will not eliminate the MAD or mutually assured destruction Mr. K worries about above.

We do need to however, to develop better missile defense systems to deter future nuclear powers like Iran from attacking us. The leaders of these and other terrorist countries may actually be MAD and welcome mutual destruction.

J Rothman, with all due respect, seems to be slightly misinformed. That's not surprising, given the totally dishonest job our media does on us every day.

Both the United States and the former Soviet states began nuclear reduction in the 1990s under the START treaties negotiated by Reagan and Gorbachev in the late 80s. Reagan's approach was bold and smart -- "trust but verify." While Leftist nuclear disarmament proponents wanted the US to disarm and simply hope the USSR followed our example, Reagan pursued a different strategy. You disarm a missile while watch, we disarm a missile while you watch. The START treaties set up a schedule of disarmament that went at least into 1999. The number of nuclear warheads currently in service, last I heard, is a fraction of what populated the planet in the 80s. More of a deterrent factor today than MAD arsenal.

Moreover, the MAD approach that has been mocked endlessly by the Leftist media was in fact one half of the two-part reason we never did fight a nuclear war. There was of course never any possibility that we would start such a war, but MAD relied upon the fact that the Soviets did not want to die either. We depended upon that fundamental sanity (which does not exist in the Iranian or North Korean leadership) to incentivize both sides into avoiding nuclear warfare because both sides knew it would indeed lead to mutual destruction. It was nutty-sounding but ultimately ingenious strategy that kept us safe for 50 years.

There is also no missile defense system that can keep us safe from terrorist countries possessing nuclear weapons, because they do not need to deliver those weapons via ballistic missiles. They can simply smuggle them into the country via Mexico or Canada (our highly porous borders) and then drive the nuclear bombs into any American city in a U-Haul truck. Very simple.

The only defense against that type of attack is to keep the ability out of the terrorists' hands in the first place. That is one course Obama seems determined not to pursue. That's odd, since Iran has stated repeatedly that they are aware of our (former) policy and ability to retaliate. They express their willingness to accept any retaliation up to and including total annihilation if it means they get to strike at Israel or America with nukes. They're willing to trade the lives of every single Iranian for the chance to kill millions of "infidels." There goes the MAD strategy, right out the window.

Michael SSEC

Other than your belief that I am misinformed we seem to be on the same page here. How do you suggest we go about keeping nuclear weapons out of hands of terrorists?

Would a missile defense system in Israel deter Iran from launching an attack on Israel? While I agree they are MAD would they trade every Iranian if they think the attack may fail?

I personally find Krauthammer opinions akin to excretement. Anyone, including "wheel-chair Warrior Jews" who supported the cremation of live women, children and old people by proximity fused white phosphorous artillery shell, during the last Gaza War Crime incident, should simply NOT be taken seriously at all.

When this individual stops urging the nuclear bombing of Iran, (who hasn't invaded anyone since the times of ancient Greece), and stops spewing forth the rest of his racist tripe, then MAYBE I shall endeavor to "take him seriously".

This is just IMHO of course.

I do not believe our nation has the will anymore to use nuclear weapons. The 9-11 attack was worse than Pearl Harbor for us. After 9-11 I thought for sure we would retailiate with a few nukes. Granted there's not much of value to destroy in Afghanistan but we would have sent the world a message that we will not tolerate terrorist attacks against the United States.

Now, our new "policy" is expected to deter agressors?!

My recollection may be imprecise on some details, but the US stated it's right to use nukes to retaliate against attacks by chem-bio weapons at teh time we renounced development or stockpiling of chem-bio weapons. This retained our retaliatory ctredibility.

Obama having reversed that, we now have no retaliatory credibility against such an attack. So I expect we will see all the bad guys become VERY interested in chem-bio. Where there's not even an NPT to offer the facade of prevention.

D'uh.

Yet another reason to: IMPEACH OBAMA!

J Rothman, I did not intend to be insulting. If anything, I was trying to point out that the media is making it very hard for us all to keep a thumb on the facts these days. It was not my intention to insult you, so please accept my apology.

You raise some good questions, and we might actually have some good answers.

I don't remember now if it was George Will or Charles Krauthammer (I'm leaning toward Mr Will) who wrote a column last year or possibly in 08 discussing the best strategies for keeping nukes out of Iranian hands. He included the obvious option of military force, in various degrees up to and including outright war. But we're currently waging a war and a half (it was two wars then) so going that route would be enormously expensive in more ways than one.

He listed some other options and made brief remarks on their likely efficacy.

Then he talked at length about regime change. He made the rather startling (and correct, IMO) argument that we only care about Iran acquiring nukes because they're a tyrannical, hostile regime with a history of supporting terrorism. Meanwhile, we don't break a sweat over England or France possessing nukes. Why not?

The answer is so obvious, it might actually go overlooked when thinking about this stuff. We don't fear those countries having nukes because they are not controlled by dangerous, unstable regimes -- nor are they likely to become so in the foreseeable future. One might expect that would be alarmed over India acquiring nukes, but we were not -- for the same reason.

Pakistan posed a bit of a problem, but deals were struck and promises made, and in the end if Pakistan decided to use such a weapon they would do so knowing full well we just might respond in kind -- and we have a LOT more nukes than they will ever have. Pakistanis are not suicidal.

That brings us to your last question, which is a good one. Does Iran subscribe to the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction? No, they have said repeatedly, and I see absolutely no reason to disbelieve them, that they would be willing to sacrifice every Iranian soul to a nuclear response from America if it meant wiping Israel off the map.

But of course, the key to your question is the subordinate clause at the end: "if they think the attack may fail." I don't believe they would commit to an attack if they thought it might fail. They would not launch an attack upon Israel unless they were pretty certain it would succeed. They don't seem to mind sacrificing every man, woman and child in Iran to achieve the destruction of Israel because they believe that's a noble goal worth dying for. But I believe they would balk at sacrificing themselves in a failed attack because that would mean they did not accomplish their goal, and they would be around anymore to try again.

I suppose the options break down into two groups: 1) strategies to pursue before Iran gets the bomb and 2) containment after Iran gets the bomb. All the 1 strategies are preferable to even the best 2 strategies because containment under a radical, tyrannical regime is a pretty sporty proposition. Who says they must deliver their warhead in a missile, just because they happen to be working on missiles? They could decide it's just easier to smuggle the bomb into Israel in pieces.

Of all the 1 strategies, I think Mr Will's analysis of regime change holds the best promise for genuine LONG TERM peace with Iran. That's why President Obama totally fumbling the ball at the UN Security Council speech last year was so stunning. And his reaction to the pro-Democracy demonstrators in Iran was inconceivable. Rather than doing everything in his power to support and encourage the very regime change in Iran we desperately need, Obama declared the tyrants were the rightful rulers and basically told the protesters to go home. They cited the Democracy in Iraq as direct inspiration for their movement, which means the seeds we planted in Baghdad are bearing fruit today.

Your remaining question, as to whether Israel could shoot down Iranian missiles with Patriot-style defenses, I think I read recently that Obama has canceled further deployment of those missile defense systems to Israel, so the Jews would need to get the job done with what they already have. But that may be a moot point, since Iran by necessity would have few nukes to risk against a missile defense shield. I expect they might decide to forego a missile delivery system in favor a more covert method such as smuggling pieces into Israel and just detonating re-assembled warhead(s).

Bottom line, the best defense of all is to stop Iran from acquiring nukes while doing everything we can to encourage regime change there. Mr Krauthammer gave a speech (you can get it on Heritage.org, excellent lecture!) on January 19th (I think) of this year analyzing Obama's rookie year in the White House. He was asked whether he thought Israel would attack Iran. He said something to the effect that it's clearly a survival issue for them, but he was not certain they had the actual capability to carry it out. There are midair refueling concerns and other military details to consider. I agree, the Israelis have no choice but to attack if they can't rely on American intervention. Obama has proved they can't. To sit and do nothing would simply invite an attack. To destroy Iran's ability to build nukes would certainly touch off retaliatory strikes and counter-counter-strikes, but as ugly as that would be, I don't see how Israel can avoid bombing Iran's nuclear production facilities.

If anything is excrement, it's calling Mr. Krauthammer "a "wheel-chair Warrior Jew[s]" who supported the cremation of live women, children and old people by proximity fused white phosphorous artillery shell, during the last Gaza War Crime incident, should simply NOT be taken seriously at all.

White phosphorous shells were NOT used in Gaza to "cremate" anyone and your characterization of a man like Mr. Krauthammer as a "wheel-chair warrior Jew" is disgusting. Mr. Krauthammer does indeed live in a wheelchair and shows more bravery than you ever will.

Your opinion is anything but humble. Nor is it even an opinion. It is a deeply seated racist mode of insanity which forces you to concoct your own facts to justify your hatred.

Mr. Krauthammer. One thing not mentioned above is that Israel is not a signatory of the treaty that forms the nuclear/non-nuclear response watershed. In other words, Israel, which did not sign the NNPT, is now under threat should someone use a chemical or biological weapon and blame it on them (which the media will believe immediately - it believes libel against Israel ever day, from Al-Dura to the gibberish mentioned above re: phosphorous bombs to the fellow just released after having been detained and tortured by the Egyptians after the whole world bought the lie he'd been killed by the IDF) while Iran, a signatory which has no intention of living up to its agreements imposed by the IAEA which monitors the Treaty, is safe from nuclear weapons.

This is insane and a direct assault not only on Israel but on the idea of national sovereignty itself. What Mr. Bush contrived to do in preventative attacks to Westphalia is peanuts compared to that agreement wrought by this pinhead.

I believe a signal to Israel is, at least in part, the purpose of this insane announcement. It is furthermore a violent threat against a sovereign power to yet again dictate its own domestic and now its sovereign foreign policy decisions.

No one is forced to sign an agreement. That is why they are negotiated. Those who sign are provided with benefits that, theoretically, outweigh the disadvantages, in this case, not to pursue nuclear armaments. Israel forewent the advantages provided by the IAEA and developed its own nuclear power and, possibly, its own nuclear weapons too.

This threat strikes at the heart of the Treaty process between sovereign states. I find it hard to imagine Mr. Obama not understanding the damage he is doing. While on the one hand he says the USA is done with its bluster and threats he, on the other hand, states baldly that those who are not coerced to sign agreements they deem contrary to their national interest will live under the shadow of possible annihilation. This is madness. It makes Mr. Bush look like a benevolent genius and protector of the Treaty of Westphalia.

Michael SSEC

Very insightful comments.