Support for nuclear weapons

[GKMotley]

In Sep-Oct of 1940, Wilkie, the newly minted Republican candidate, made a couple of last minute campaign speeches, using a newly strident tone of isolationism that struck something of a chord, being a new position for him. He mentioned the President had caused a drift toward war, encouraged the conflagration, implied a secret agreement with England to enter the war. And, as a clarion call, “Our Boys Shall Stay Out Of Europe” followed by “I shall not send one American boy into the shambles of another war”.

Wilkie had been a moderate interventionist, up to that point, and was handled by the Repubs party pros to take a hard line on a point that Roosevelt was thought to be vulnerable on. Roosevelt, as a consummate politician, was used to being all things to all persons, hiding his real aims, walking a middle line. But he was, indeed, of a mind to get us into the war. Now was not the time to say any such thing. Wilkie had gotten a surge from his isolationist shift. The Dems party pros knew it needed to be countered. A new speech writer, Robert Sherwood, was brought in, speeches saying “we shall not participate in any foreign wars” came forth, Wilkie still gained in the polls. A few days before the election, in Boston, came the Sherwood phrase one remembers: “I have said this before and I will say it again and again and again - your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars”.

It was enough. And Hitler, on 11 Dec 41, solved his problem for him.

I’ve read that particular story many times, the last one being in Olson’s THOSE ANGRY DAYS, a consideration of US politics 1939-1941. it’s not the best I’ve read, but it’s all you’ll get. I need another bourbon.

 

[GKMotley]

Indeed.

Plus several historical comments, for 16 characters.

 

[undead_rat]

Or where does it say that it was the job of the USA to send the Marines to Tripoli to eliminate the ongoing piracy from the Barbary States? Yet Thomas Jefferson decided to do it. And the U.S. did send armed forces to Normandy. I sometimes get the impression that if others had been in charge, the US might have allowed the pirates free range, and Europe would have been left to fall to Hitler, in the name of non-interference and isolationism.

This is a good point. It does seem necessary to maintain world order through the use of force. The problem, as I see it, is that the available force has far outgrown what is needed to control pirates/outlaws, etc, and now threatens to destroy the world. There is simply not enough room in this world for two nuclear armed superpowers. One of them must voluntarily give way to the other. The present precarious balance only provides an opportunity for rogue states to develop their own nuclear weapons. N. Korea should not have these devices, but the Russians won’t take them out because N. Korea is a potential ally in its nuclear stand-off with the USA. And the USA can’t take them out either. With the threat of global nuclear war hanging over our heads, no country wants to be the first to start using these awful devices.
If the USA disarmed its nukes, then in partnership with Russia, all of the other nuclear armed states could be either persuaded or forced to disarm their nuclear weapons. This is a very serious situation, and Holy Scripture does not speak well of the eventual outcome.

 

[edwest211]

Again, this is about Russia, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel and Iran. Where did these countries gain the knowledge to build and/or acquire nuclear weapons? This discussion would cover decades. The proliferation of nuclear weapons has created further problems. Why did India develop nuclear weapons?

"Indian nationalist leaders speculated about the possibility of acquiring nuclear weapons even before its independence. India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru justified this by arguing: “As long as the world is constituted as it is, every country will have to devise and use the latest devices for its protection. I have no doubt India will develop her scientific researches and I hope Indian scientists will use the atomic force for constructive purposes. But if India is threatened, she will inevitably try to defend herself by all means at her disposal.”

The latest and best new defense equipment has the potential - right now - to engage an enemy effectively without using nuclear weapons. The average person - as it should be - does not know how to build nuclear weapons. Nuclear bombs, missiles and other nuclear devices need highly secure storage and have a “component” that does have a shelf life. Storage must include effective shielding as well.

If the North Koreans do launch a nuclear weapon and it hits the wrong target, like Japan, what is the appropriate response? Anybody? Ideally, it could be destroyed while still in its early boost phase, exploding over North Korea. There is the chance, if proper safeties are not part of the warhead, that it could detonate over North Korea. The US can take out North Korea using just fielded, non-nuclear weapons, and with high precision. Only their military needs to be targeted.

 

[MonteRCMS]

If North Korea shoots a missile at Japan … first of all, Japan has a force of anti-missile-missiles mostly sea-based. Second of all, Japan will delete North Korea.