In WWII, it was a different scenario. No one else had nuclear weapons, and they were much less powerful.

I get that. What I don’t get is how obliterating a city can be called ‘defense’.

I think the point of Gravel wanting to keep half of our nuclear arsenal is the concept that a strong defense is the best way to gain peace. If everyone has the ability to destroy each other, what’s the real point of waging war? What’s the point of keeping these weapons, unless they’re being used exclusively to threaten?

Now, I’m not saying that that is 100% correct or that Gravel agrees with it 100%, but I am saying that Gravel might agree to it to a certain extent, and that is why he is in favor of keeping at least some nuclear weapons.

At least that’s how I interpreted it.

I’ve not talked about disarming. But nukes – as well as landmines and other civilian targeting weapons – are in a special category. Having them in your national armory either means you are willing to use them on civilians or you like to waste money on storing expensive and bizarre artwork.

For a government to have nuclear weapons, landmines, city-flattening bombs, or other WMDs or specifically civilian-targeting weapons is for that government to be saying “This government is willing to destroy civilians if the government under which those particular civilians live does not cooperate with us”. It is essentially trying to use innocents as hostages – a particularly crazed way to deal with dictators.

Most Libertarians recognize this by rejecting the use of state-enforced food/goods embargoes for political purposes. I hope that others can extend this logic to recognizing that keeping nuclear weapons is as bad, or worse, a tactic for controlling dictators as economic embargoes.

He’d hold onto the other half to have something to “trade” with the other nuclear nations. Give them an incentive to go non-nuclear.

I.e., “We’ll give up all our nukes, if you all give up all your nukes.”

I’m antiwar, but even I think we should hold onto some nukes if other nations have them.

I like the Swiss model. They’re well armed, yet they don’t cause wars. We should likewise be well armed, yet pursue a peaceful, neutralist foreign policy.

(Yes, I know the Swiss don’t have nukes; but they got away with it for a complex of reasons, part of it being the “balance of power” among several nuclear nations.)

PEACE
Steve

blink

Who said anything about ‘zero national defense’? Could you possibly be suggesting that you consider nuclear missiles defensive weapons? Is that Mr. Gravel’s position as well?

And hey, I know Libertarians feel the same way as Gravel with respect to US Imperialism. But I also know he’s got government experience at the highest level of any candidate, is a military veteran, and went head-to-head with the Nixon Administration during Vietnam.

I’d say that’s a slightly deeper level of intimacy with these issues. I could be wrong, but I know I’m not.

Happy now?

It’s a start. Why only half? What does he plan to do with the other half? Sit on it ‘till it hatches?

If Mr Gravel weren’t so new to the LP (and I have no idea what your political affiliation is), he’d probably realize this isn’t true. But I guess that’s just another indication that Gravel (or at least you) think that Libertarians never considered this amazing notion that the US government was imperialistic before Gravel descended to teach the natives. Glad we have Mr. Gravel to teach us these important things.

Gravel does not think the US government has that right, nor does any other country.

So why does he still want to keep nukes on Trident subs?

Coming from someone who totally misinterpreted what Gravel is getting at, that’s pretty crass. Whatever.

Maybe you’re being confused by my grammatical error. Unilateral should be used as an adverb, not an adjective.

Gravel would “unilaterally disarm half our nuclear stockpile.”

Happy now?

And, considering he wants to reduce our military budget by 65% and have a stronger, more efficient defense, where exactly is the supposed waste of money?

You do realize we spend more on defense than the rest of the world put together, and only Gravel talks about this or the hubristic notion of American Imperialism that dictates our current foreign policy?

You are completely misinterpreting… Gravel does not think the US government has that right, nor does any other country.