10 Comments

1. 

   acilius

    /  February 4, 2009

   It’s amazing that one person holds the power to slaughter hundreds of millions, potentially to extinguish the human race altogether. The reference to Reagan reminds me of a piece from a recent issue of The American Conservative that I’ll be mentioning in my next “Periodicals Notes” about that publication- they have a pretty weird take on Reagan’s attitude towards tnuclear weapons.

2. 

   cymast

    /  February 4, 2009

   How many people besides Obama have the power to blow up the world? When you take into account the leaders of nations with nuclear weapons and the terrorists devoting their lives to blowing up the world . . I kind of wonder if a nuclear holocaust is inevitable- the world hasn’t gotten any more peaceful since the creation of nuclear weapons.

   I can imagine Obama being handed the nuclear football as a matter of course: “A nuclear football at my fingertips for the sole purpose of blowing up the world? Check!” What sane person wants that power? And what sane person accepts that power and still manages to go about business as usual? Regarding nuclear weapons, Reagan was more sane than any other nuclear age president IMO.

3. 

   acilius

    /  February 4, 2009

   “How many people besides Obama have the power to blow up the world?” None, I don’t think. Several world leaders have the power to destroy one or two countries, a couple of them might have the capability to enshroud the northern hemisphere in a fairly severe nuclear winter, but I don’t think any other country has anything close to the 5000+ fully operational nuclear warheads that the USA could deploy within an hour. The Russians certainly don’t, not anymore.

   ““A nuclear football at my fingertips for the sole purpose of blowing up the world? Check!” What sane person wants that power?” No sane person, definitely not. That’s why saying that “Reagan was more sane than any other nuclear age president” is damning him with faint praise. It’s like saying that David Berkowitz is more sane than any other famous serial killer.

4. 

   cymast

    /  February 4, 2009

   So if the leaders of the countries with nuclear weapons decided to target the USA, Obama wouldn’t throw the football?

   *Regarding nuclear weapons,* Reagan was more sane . .

5. 

   acilius

    /  February 4, 2009

   “So if the leaders of the countries with nuclear weapons decided to target the USA, Obama wouldn’t throw the football?” Probably, but in that case it wouldn’t be those other leaders destroying the world. They would be destroying parts of the USA. Mr O could then destroy the world if he chose to do so.

   “Reagan was more sane”- as you say, more sane than the other raving lunatics who have occupied the Oval Office in recent decades.

6. 

   cymast

    /  February 4, 2009

   I doubt Mr. O would not launch missles if missles were launched at the USA, and I doubt Mr. O would launch missles on his own. He is a robot. That is my reasoning.

7. 

   acilius

    /  February 5, 2009

   Mine too. That’s why I voted for him.

   Gort/ Robbie 2012!

8. 

   cymast

    /  February 5, 2009

   Are Gort and Robbie robot friends of yours?

9. 

   acilius

    /  February 5, 2009

   I’ve never met them, but they seem well suited to the presidency. They could dispense with the president’s daily intelligence briefing- Vice President Robbie would just start announcing “Dan-Ger! Dan-Ger!” at appropriate moments. And if his performance in THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL is any indication, Gort not only knows his way around Washington, but he wouldn’t bore us with a lot of long speeches. And since Gort apparently carries the power to annihilate the human race with him at all times, we can be confident that the nuclear football would be in experienced hands under a Gort administration.

10. 

    cymast

     /  February 5, 2009

    Ah! A THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL reference! I was thinking those were obscure politicians you were naming. Ever since I saw that movie I’ve thought Gortbots are the only way to go. Too bad most people wouldn’t agree with that, or give valid reasons why they wouldn’t agree.