Putin's angry response today about US INF testing shouldn't be a surprise. He has every expectation that Trump will get the rest of the US defense establishment in line, and doesn't understand (apparently) that the military-industrial complex was more than happy to ditch INF. /1
That was a shot directly at Trump in an attempt to intimidate him. It'll work, but it won't matter much, since the nuclear fanboys have what they want: a license to spend on new nukes. This was not in Putin's game plan. He was counting on Obama's passivity or Trump's fear. /2
This should be a reminder, as @LawDavF and I have said many times, that Putin really isn't that good a strategist. He's been lucky in short-term gambles, and blessed with cooperative opponents, but long-term he's leading Russia into a dead-end that could lead to war. /3
@LawDavF What's really interesting here is that INF testing shows the USG (and I DO NOT REPRESENT THE USG, KTHANX) and the President really have separate policies. The President has no idea what the INF treaty did, and didn't care. Putin was violating it, something about China, etc. /4
But beyond that, the USG is kind of on a post-2014 course, except for the nuclear guys, who have picked up the ball - a football, one might say - and are running with it. Trump, for all his "I hereby order" stuff, isn't really running very much when it comes to policy. /5
And so now, for no good reason at all other than that Russia is run by a mobster and America is run by an ignoramus, two major powers are headed for an incredibly risky nuclear arms race right out of 1982. I saw this movie and I didn't like it the first time, either. /6x
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is an outdated way of thinking about nuclear bombers.
Yes, they are recallable - a great thing to have in 1960. Today, not as big a deal. Here's why. Short 🧵
/1
During the Cold War, you assumed that a crisis could erupt into hemisphere-wide, all-out nuclear war. So you wanted a way to get at least some of your nukes out of the way early - and show the enemy your readiness. Bombers are A+ for that./2
Once ICBMs enter the picture after 1959-ish, however, we have a new problem: What if the enemy's massive first strike destroys the ICBMs and the sub pens, leaving the last few subs able only to destroy cities and trigger Armageddon?
Bombers wait for the order, is what. /3
I don't usually respond to critics, but this guy hauls me up short on what I get wrong about my insistence on absolute deference to experts.
A thread!
/1
Good point here about scientists who can't speak to the normals:
/2
And yeah, we should have maybe paid more attention to the problem of progressives who wouldn't let go:
/3
Franck is making the case for a solipsistic, self-regarding approach to voting, that is all about you and not about collective action. Sometimes in politics just as in foreign policy, you understand that you end up in alliances you don’t like for the sake of a greater purpose. /1
Franck reminds me of the political scientists years ago who scratched their heads about why people bothered to vote when no single vote can affect very much. But voting even when you don’t like any of the choices is part of civic maturity. /2
It is remarkably self-absorbed to think that your vote is a character-afflicting endorsement rather than a strategic choice. Voting when you like the choices is easy. Making a strategic decision when you don’t like the choices requires thought. /3
My (friendly) disagreement with @NoahCRothman reminds me of something that happened to me when I was doing a speaking engagement at a college. One of the faculty was - no, really - very Trumpy. And he made a comment to me that really encapsulates our political asymmetry. /1
He said: "Your contempt for the voters is palpable," because I was talking about The Death of Expertise and how voters vote based on not knowing stuff.
He felt that was very elitist.
"Your contempt is obvious as well," I said.
He was, uh, taken aback.
/2
He felt that *his* loathing of millions of Americans was rooted in a morally defensible hatred of anyone who votes for progressive positions on abortion, gay rights, etc. But *my* criticisms of people who think the ACA and Obamacare are different was unacceptably hostile. /3
Some Memorial Day reading about how much Trump, the man who would be Commander in Chief again if he gets the chance, disdains our military - especially those who gave their lives, who he calls "suckers and losers."
Gifting these articles:
🧵
The president has repeatedly disparaged the intelligence of service members, and asked that wounded veterans be kept out of military parades, multiple sources tell The Atlantic. theatlantic.com/politics/archi…
The military colleagues who saved my life knew what service means. Trump, in contrast, lets his personal insecurities endanger America’s national security. theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
I'm (a little) surprised at people who want to take issue with me and who insist that Americans, as a nation, really suffered through Afghanistan and Iraq, when the criticism I'm making is that we offloaded all that onto volunteers and then ignored them (and the wars). /1
I mean, normally, that might seem like a left-wing criticism, no? But I don't think it's either left/right, but just *true* in an empirical sense. A tiny fraction of the country serves in the military. We have not been a country "at war" in any meaningful sense since Vietnam. /2
People also seem to have forgotten the scale of the butcher's bill in Vietnam. Not only was no one drafted, but *20 years* of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan produced fewer than half as many casualties as Vietnam generated in *1968 alone*./3