I’m not going to provide too much commentary here; I’m sure you all are perfectly capable of deducting the various ironies, good points, and other pieces of worthwhile information yourselves (but I’ll help out a bit with some visual styles):

As we learned in the 1970s, the devil of arms control often lies in the technical arcana of warheads and delivery systems, so we’ll await the text before pronouncing judgment. But the devil of arms control also lies in the overall concept, with its implicit assumption that the weapons themselves are inherently more dangerous than the intentions of those who develop and deploy them.

What Mr. Obama wants to kill specifically is the Reliable Replacement Warhead, which the Bush Administration supported over Congressional opposition, and which Mr. Obama now opposes despite the support of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the military. Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told us this week that “we do need a new warhead.” When we asked about Mr. Obama’s views on the warhead, the Admiral said, “You would have to ask him.”

The irony is that Mr. Obama’s opposition is making substantial reductions in the total U.S. arsenal that much riskier. In the absence of actual testing, which hasn’t happened in the U.S. since 1992, the only real hedge against potentially defective weapons is a larger arsenal. Naturally, arms-control theologians are instead urging the Senate to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and ban the production of weapons grade uranium and plutonium.

The thinking here is that somehow the American example will get Russia, as well as North Korea, Pakistan and perhaps Iran, to reject nuclear weapons. In fact, a U.S. nuclear arsenal that is diminished in both quantity and quality would be an incentive for these countries to increase their nuclear inventories, since the door would suddenly be opened to reach strategic parity with the last superpower. Mr. Medvedev, for one, recently announced Russia would pursue “large-scale rearmament” of its army and navy, including nuclear arsenals.

France also plans to deploy new sea-based nuclear missiles next year, even as it reduces the overall size of its arsenal. The French understand that a credible nuclear deterrent requires modern and reliable weapons. The Obama Administration should understand that the best security for both the U.S. and the allies that rely on our nuclear umbrella lies in an unchallengeable arsenal, and not an invitation to the world’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejads to compete on equal terms.

Let’s just say that for the first time ever on this blog, I am on record as wanting to be LIKE France — a country with a little more common sense than Obama seems to be exercising at the moment.  I mean, wasn’t Bush’s biggest criticism during the war being too ideologically driven and not listening enough to his military advisors?  Bush bent over backwards to find common ground with Russian leadership only to have that generosity used against him to further Russian power politics.

Bottom line: we shouldn’t sacrafice ‘deterrence’ — and all its various benefits– for the sake of political popularity or Russian opinion.

via Barack Obama Seeks to Sign an Arms Control Agreement With Russia’s Dmitri Medvedev.

AMERICA  ~ part 2 

Here is part 2 of my installment on Jean Baudrillard’s book, “America“.  In this portion, Baudrillard really starts ‘drawing the boundaries’, if you will; clearly defining the fundamental elements of society – elements by which we distinguish ourselves from Europe and the rest of the world.   I find great importance in his explanation;  primarily because it reaffirms the fact that we are unique… it carries with it a certain form of identity–an identity we so easily miss without the perspective of a foreigner.  

The confrontation between America and Europe reveals not so much a rapprochment as a distortion, an unbridgeable rift.  There isn’t just a gap between us, but a whole chasm of modernity.  You are born modern, you do not become so.  And we have never become so…

Every country bears a sort of historical predestination, which almost definitively determines its characteristics.  For us, it is the bourgeois model of 1789 – and the interminable decadence of that model – that shapes our landscape.  There is nothing we can do about it:  everything here revolves around the nineteenth-century bourgeois dream.

As an initial matter, I find Baudrillard’s fatalistic point of view fascinating; the differences we have with Europe are not simply skin deep but amount to an insurmountable hurdle.   His phrase, ”a chasm of modernity”, is particularily important in this regard; it implies an inescapable difference in values — values that appear impossible to change.   When he writes, It is almost as if he wishes he could have been born modern; but realizes it would be an futile attempt to become so.  

Read the rest of this entry »

I spent most of last weekend reading a book titled “America” by the French philosopher Jean Baudrillard.  Baudrillard, who recently passed away, was perhaps France’s most influental “modern” philosopher (in terms of his writing, he would be classified as a ‘post-modern’ philosopher.)  In some ways, I am on a Baudrillard `kick`… America is the third book of his I have read, all have been excellent.

Although not a particularly recent book, “America” it is still a very insightful look into American culture and opinion as a general matter.  Baudrillard’s genius is the ability to ascertain causes–to determine why things exist in their current form.  Much of the book spends time exploring the reasons WHY the US is different then Europe –Culturally and Politically — often with a surprisingly positive conclusions.

Over the next month, I will be exploring a number of different topics addressed by Baudrillard–sparing you the time required to read the book in its entirety, but allowing you to think about the important issues he raises. 

If you are looking for stimulating reading without weeks of commitment, I highly suggest picking this book up at your local amazon.com retailer.

I just stumbled across a couple great articles on the renewed US – Europe relationship (here and here).  A lot of people have been complaining recently about how Bush has “tarnished” and “ruined” our perception in the rest of the world… and that we need a democrat so that the world will “love” us again.  

I have an alternate theory (no big surprise, of course).  Maybe Europe for the last decade was lead by a bunch of puerile, jealous highbrows who couldn’t handle seeing us prosper while their countries, economies, and traditions slowly wasted away.  Maybe europeans are the ones with the attitude problem.  If fresh leadership is all it takes to improve US/French relations, then maybe our image is much more a function of european attitudes than U.S. leadership or policy.  

It’s just a theory.

By the way, is Sarkosy super classy or is that just me?