<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
   <channel>
      <title>Peter Scoblic</title>
      <link>http://peterscoblic.com/blog/</link>
      <description></description>
      <language>en</language>
      <copyright>Copyright 2009</copyright>
      <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Dec 2009 11:01:42 -0500</lastBuildDate>
      <generator>http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/</generator>
      <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs> 

            <item>
         <title>Did Missiles Win the Cold War? A Soulless New Book Gets the History Wrong.</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<p><img align="left" alt="" src="http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/detail_page/nmissiles8.jpg" /></p>

Check out my <a href="http://www.tnr.com/article/environment-energy/missile-man">review</a> of Neil Sheehan's new biography, <em>A Fiery Peace in a Cold War</em>, on TNR's website. Here's an excerpt:

Sheehan has written an exhaustively researched and reported book that details the tremendous scientific, managerial, and bureaucratic skill that it took to produce the first American missiles. Unfortunately, he has done so in the service of a thesis that makes little sense. For Sheehan, Schriever was not simply a talented man who saw the future of warfare. Schriever’s efforts to build the ICBM, he claims, were “for the highest stakes--preventing the Soviet Union from acquiring an overwhelming nuclear superiority that could tempt Soviet leaders into international blackmail and adventurism with calamitous results for human civilization.” By beating the Soviets--by “winning the race”--to the ICBM, Schriever helped to stave off the catastrophe that would have ensued if the Russians had gotten there first. That is Sheehan’s argument. But it is untenable on theoretical and historical grounds, and Sheehan himself provides the evidence that undermines it. The result is a confused book that obscures rather than illuminates the nature of the arms race. 

...

[<a href="http://www.tnr.com/article/environment-energy/missile-man">Read the rest here.]</a>]]></description>
         <link>http://peterscoblic.com/blog/2009/12/did_missiles_win_the_cold_war.html</link>
         <guid>http://peterscoblic.com/blog/2009/12/did_missiles_win_the_cold_war.html</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Sat, 05 Dec 2009 11:01:42 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Obama Channels Eisenhower</title>
         <description><![CDATA[Richard’s <a href="http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-plank/obamas-inconsistencies">post</a> nicely highlighted a tension in last night’s speech that struck me as well, but I think that the pull toward realism was far, far greater than the pull in the other direction. I was most forcefully struck by this sentence: “As president, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, or our interests.”]]></description>
         <link>http://peterscoblic.com/blog/2009/12/obama_channels_eisenhower.html</link>
         <guid>http://peterscoblic.com/blog/2009/12/obama_channels_eisenhower.html</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Sat, 05 Dec 2009 10:59:42 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Deterred From Logic on Nukes</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<p>In the latest issue of <i>Newsweek</i>, Jonathan Tepperman has <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/214248">a very confused piece</a> arguing that nuclear disarmament is a bad idea because &ldquo;[t]he bomb may actually make us safer.&rdquo; Taking a stand against Washington&rsquo;s allegedly overwhelming &ldquo;nuclear phobia,&rdquo; he writes, &ldquo;Knowing the truth about nukes would have a profound impact on government policy.&rdquo; I&rsquo;m not sure I&rsquo;ve ever heard anyone suggest that they know &ldquo;the truth&rdquo; about nuclear weapons, but I&rsquo;m quite certain that Tepperman hasn&rsquo;t found it.</p>
]]></description>
         <link>http://peterscoblic.com/blog/2009/09/deterred_from_logic_on_nukes.html</link>
         <guid>http://peterscoblic.com/blog/2009/09/deterred_from_logic_on_nukes.html</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Wed, 02 Sep 2009 12:46:56 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>The Hawkish Case for Nuclear Disarmament</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<P mce_keep="true"><IMG height=300 alt="" src="http://www.kirkwood.k12.mo.us/parent_student/khs/plattes/Topics21-23/topics21-2325.jpg" width=475 border=0 mce_src="http://www.kirkwood.k12.mo.us/parent_student/khs/plattes/Topics21-23/topics21-2325.jpg"></P>

<em>Nuclear weapons have done little to guarantee our security and have blunted the power of our conventional forces.</em>

Last week, peace activists around the world commemorated the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, arguing that nuclear weapons should be abolished so that such destruction will never be repeated. Their call for peace through disarmament has traditionally been a rallying cry of the left. In fact, the peace sign, that ultimate icon of 1960s war protests, is actually a rendering of the semaphoric symbols for the letters "N" and "D": "Nuclear Disarmament."

Conservatives, by contrast, have put their faith in "peace through strength," an ancient notion made fresh during the Cold War by Ronald Reagan. Which is why, in April, when President Obama outlined his vision of a world without nuclear weapons, the right reacted with incredulity, as if he had suggested pacifying the Taliban with a group hug. Newt Gingrich, for one, called the president's disarmament speech a "fantasy." 

As the president moves to reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal in concert with Russia's and implement new arms control measures, the allegedly foolish goal of disarmament has become an obvious target for hawks hoping to undermine the president's agenda. But if the abolition of nuclear weapons is a fantasy, it's one that ought to excite the country's hawks as much as its doves.

[<a href="http://www.latimes.com/la-oe-scoblic16-2009aug16,0,2095867,print.story">This op-ed appeared in <em>The Lost Angeles Times</em> on August 16, 2009</a>]]]></description>
         <link>http://peterscoblic.com/blog/2009/08/the_hawkish_case_for_nuclear_d_1.html</link>
         <guid>http://peterscoblic.com/blog/2009/08/the_hawkish_case_for_nuclear_d_1.html</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2009 11:23:08 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Offense-Defense Nonsense</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<em>On nuclear issues, conservatives are still stuck in the cold war. Why?</em>

Nestled in the <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/The-Joint-Understanding-for-The-START-Follow-On-Treaty">Joint Understanding</a> that Barack Obama and Dmitri Medvedev issued last week was a line that outraged some conservatives. It notes that the nuclear arms-reduction treaty to be signed later this year will contain a provision on "the interrelationship of strategic offensive and strategic defensive arms," by which they meant the link between nuclear weapons and missile defenses. As Charles Krauthammer <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/09/AR2009070902363.html?hpid=opinionsbox1">wrote</a>:

<blockquote>Obama's hunger for a diplomatic success, such as it is, allowed the Russians to exact a price: linkage between offensive and defensive nuclear weapons. This is important for Russia because of the huge American technological advantage in defensive weaponry. We can reliably shoot down an intercontinental ballistic missile. They cannot. And since defensive weaponry will be the decisive strategic factor of the 21st century, Russia has striven mightily for a quarter-century to halt its development.</blockquote>

I'm not sure what's weirder about this line of reasoning: the implication that we remain in some kind of cold war-style arms race with Russia, or the notion that, if we were, we could win. Despite strained relations over Georgia and other issues, I think it's clear that the cold war is over--indeed, this has been one of the primary conservative arguments against pursuing further arms control agreements over the past 20 years. Given, however, that the Obama administration is not only shrinking the U.S. nuclear arsenal, but also is hoping to negotiate or ratify a variety of other accords to reduce the salience of nuclear weapons in international politics, it's worth dissecting the flaws in Krauthammer's argument.

(<a href="http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=10f6ba29-e1d4-4394-887c-9013b872abc6">Cross-posted from The New Republic</a>.)]]></description>
         <link>http://peterscoblic.com/blog/2009/07/offense-defense_nonsense.html</link>
         <guid>http://peterscoblic.com/blog/2009/07/offense-defense_nonsense.html</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Sun, 12 Jul 2009 18:06:13 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>McNamara&apos;s Other Legacy</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<p>As one would expect, coverage of Robert McNamara's death has focused on his management of the Vietnam war and his later reappraisal of its necessity, but the former secretary of defense left an equally important-and far more positive-legacy regarding U.S. nuclear policy.</P>
<P mce_keep="true">When McNamara joined the Kennedy administration in 1961, American nuclear "strategy" called for launching the entire nuclear arsenal-nearly 3,500 weapons-at the communist bloc if the Soviets made any move against Western Europe. This approach had severe flaws. For one thing, it meant that the United States would kill hundreds of millions of civilians. Indeed, it would decimate nations, like China, that were unlikely to even be involved in a Soviet attack. What's more, such an attack would leave the United States open to nuclear retaliation. After all, there was little chance that our first strike would destroy every Soviet weapon, and even a modest number of warheads could take out most major American cities.</P>
(<a href="http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2009/07/07/mcnamara-s-nuclear-legacy.aspx"><em>Cross-posted from </em>The New Republic.</a>)]]></description>
         <link>http://peterscoblic.com/blog/2009/07/mcnamaras_other_legacy.html</link>
         <guid>http://peterscoblic.com/blog/2009/07/mcnamaras_other_legacy.html</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:03:54 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Why Obama&apos;s Nuke Stance Makes Me Sleep Better At Night</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<IMG style="WIDTH: 193px; HEIGHT: 188px" height=288 alt="" src="http://www.poptech.org/blog/uploaded_images/Doomsday-clock-744723.jpg" width=287 border=4 align=right mce_src="http://www.poptech.org/blog/uploaded_images/Doomsday-clock-744723.jpg">

For a while there, it was looking like we were going to spend the next four years arguing whether Barack Obama's foreign policy was actually different than George W. Bush's. As I <a href="http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2009/03/27/george-w-obama.aspx">noted</a> the other day, Robert Kagan, the neoconservative foreign policy adviser to the McCain campaign, has been <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/08/AR2009030801493.html">arguing</a> that "the pretense of radical change has required some sleight of hand." A few former <a href="http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4588&page=0">Bush</a> <a href="http://www.enews20.com/news_Continuity_not_change_will_shape_Obamas_foreign_policy_15885.html">officials</a> have made similar points. And, last week, the Foreign Policy Initiative--the new joint venture between Kagan and Bill Kristol, the same duo that brought us the pro-Iraq war Project for a New American Century--held a bipartisan <a href="http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2009/04/02/an-obama-kristol-foreign-policy-alliance.aspx">love-fest</a> in support of Obama's approach to Afghanistan. Fortunately, the president's <a href="http://prague.usembassy.gov/obama.html">speech</a> in Prague last weekend on nuclear policy was about as un-Bush-like as you can get--and the pushback from the right has already begun. ...

(<a href="http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=dbbfa229-c23d-4a84-818f-b81ed043e10e">Cross-posted</a> from <em>The New Republic</em>.)]]></description>
         <link>http://peterscoblic.com/blog/2009/04/dropping_the_smart_bomb_why_ob.html</link>
         <guid>http://peterscoblic.com/blog/2009/04/dropping_the_smart_bomb_why_ob.html</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:35:24 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>George W. Obama?</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<IMG src="http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/black-hat.jpg" border=0 mce_src="http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/black-hat.jpg">

In light of the new Foreign Policy Initiative that Mike <a href="http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2009/03/26/kagan-and-kristol-together-again.aspx">blogged </a>about yesterday, it's somewhat ironic that many conservatives have actually been arguing Obama's foreign policy is shaping up to be little different from Bush's. For example, Robert Kagan, one of FPI's founders, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/08/AR2009030801493.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns">wrote</a> a piece the other week titled "Foreign Policy Sequels," which argued that the "pretense of radical change has required some sleight of hand." Now, there is some merit to this in the sense that in the final years of his presidency Bush's approach to the world became far more pragmatic and far less ideological-that is, he moved away from the absolutist positions of his first term toward policies that Obama was advocating. And, yet, as <a href="http://www.amazon.com/U-S-vs-Them-Conservatism-Nuclear/dp/0143115103/ref=pd_rhf_p_t_1">I've argued</a>, it would be ridiculous to gloss over the extent to which Bush's good-versus-evil worldview profoundly impacted his presidency on issues like Iran, Pakistan, and missile defense. We're only a couple months into the Obama's administration, so it would be premature to predict the specifics of Obama's policies-or their prospects for success-but we do know that Obama's worldview is 180 degrees different. Contrary to Kagan's assertion that the "premises of U.S. policy have not shifted," they have in fact shifted quite dramatically-away from Manichaeism. I have a short piece up on <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102349690">NPR.org</a> right now putting this in some context.

--<em>Peter Scoblic</em>

[<a href="http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/default.aspx">Cross-posted from <em>The New Republic</em> online.]</a>]]></description>
         <link>http://peterscoblic.com/blog/2009/03/george_w_obama.html</link>
         <guid>http://peterscoblic.com/blog/2009/03/george_w_obama.html</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2009 12:57:45 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>&apos;U.S. vs. Them&apos; Is Out In Paperback!</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<P mce_keep="true"><IMG height=215 alt="" src="http://us.penguingroup.com/static/covers/us/9780143115106H.jpg" width=160 border=0 mce_src="http://us.penguingroup.com/static/covers/us/9780143115106H.jpg"></P>
When Barack Obama launched his campaign for the presidency, he vowed to "end the mindset that got us into Iraq"--but just what was that mindset? In the paperback edition of <strong><em>U.S. vs. Them: Conservatism in the Age of Nuclear Terror</em>, </strong> J Peter Scoblic explains the origins of conservative foreign policy, and why Barack Obama is out to reverse it. <a href="http://www.amazon.com/U-S-vs-Them-Conservatism-Nuclear/dp/0143115103/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237581986&sr=1-2">Purchase this essential volume at Amazon</a> today!]]></description>
         <link>http://peterscoblic.com/blog/2009/03/us_vs_them_is_out_in_paperback.html</link>
         <guid>http://peterscoblic.com/blog/2009/03/us_vs_them_is_out_in_paperback.html</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2009 16:35:17 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>J. Peter Scoblic&apos;s &apos;U.S. vs. Them&apos;: A &quot;Fresh Air&quot; Interview On NPR </title>
         <description><![CDATA[<IMG style="WIDTH: 155px; HEIGHT: 133px" height=537 alt="" src="http://www.wowowow.com/files/imagecache/slide/2009_0223_npr_logo.jpg" width=540 border=0 mce_src="http://www.wowowow.com/files/imagecache/slide/2009_0223_npr_logo.jpg">
(Listen to the podcast <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93010521">here</a>.)]]></description>
         <link>http://peterscoblic.com/blog/2008/07/peter_scoblic_discusses_us_vs.html</link>
         <guid>http://peterscoblic.com/blog/2008/07/peter_scoblic_discusses_us_vs.html</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jul 2008 13:03:51 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>What&apos;s So Bad About The India Nuclear Deal</title>
         <description><![CDATA[One of the most insidious things about the <a href="http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/001200807232077.htm">India nuclear deal</a> (which <em>The New Republic</em> has opposed for <a href="http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=67a47eaa-66ab-4a16-bc8c-72a08b1ae0ea">these reasons</a>) is that its value <em>derives from us breaking the principles of the nonproliferation regime</em>. 

That's because so much of the deal's value is psychological. Its architects have sold it as a <a href="http://www.stimson.org/pub.cfm?id=276">paradigm-shifting gateway to a new strategic relationship</a>, in which India will finally join the family of Westernized, Democratic great powers and ally with the United States.

But how, one might ask, is a simple technology-sharing deal supposed to accomplish all this? Unless there's a fundamental change in their own interests, India's strategic goals will <a href="http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/3995/india_deal.html?breadcrumb=%2Fexperts%2F863%2Fxenia_dormandy%3Fback_url%3D%252Fpublication%252F18414%252Findoisraeli_relations%253Fbreadcrumb%253D%25252Fexperts%25252F1631%25252Fronak_d_desai%26back_text">remain largely the same</a>: They <a href="http://www.tcf.org/list.asp?type=NC&pubid=1659">will not start containing China</a> simply because they're using GE reactor parts; nor will they <a href="http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/01/india-iran-america-biz-energy-cz_ma_0701pipeline.html">suddenly halt cooperation with Iran</a>. And the development benefits of nuclear power are small, hype notwithstanding--they can't possibly reorient India on their own.

No, the only paradigm-shifting aspect of the deal is related to India's belief that the Nonproliferation Treaty is a form of "nuclear apartheid," which has kept India a second-class citizen in a world of nuclear great powers. In that view, the United States is breaking the chains of bondage that have held India down for decades. As a <em>Council on Foreign Relations</em> <a href="http://www.cfr.org/publication/9663/">primer</a> puts it, the deal would "gut" the NPT--dismantling a system that India finds fundamentally unfair and granting it recognition it has always felt it deserves. 

Any U.S.-India "alliance" would be built on this interaction--and, as such, <a href="http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2005_10/OCT-Cover.asp">undoing America's commitment</a> to the nonproliferation regime is the essence of the India deal, rather than an incidental result of it. 

Update: See more bad things about the India deal <a href="http://www.stimson.org/southasia/?SN=SA20051212930">here</a>.

--<em>Barron YoungSmith</em>
]]></description>
         <link>http://peterscoblic.com/blog/2008/07/whats_so_bad_about_the_india_n.html</link>
         <guid>http://peterscoblic.com/blog/2008/07/whats_so_bad_about_the_india_n.html</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:09:54 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>New York Review Of Books: Samantha Power Reviews &quot;U.S. vs. Them&quot;</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<P mce_keep="true"><IMG style="WIDTH: 213px; HEIGHT: 188px" height=600 alt="" src="http://nyrb.typepad.com/classics/images/2008/08/10/red.jpg" width=600 border=0 align=right mce_src="http://nyrb.typepad.com/classics/images/2008/08/10/red.jpg"></P>
<strong><a href="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21670">The Democrats & National Security</a></strong>

By Samantha Power

<em>Us vs. Them: How a Half Century of Conservatism Has Undermined America’s Security
by J. Peter Scoblic</em>
Viking, 350 pp., $25.95

<em>Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats</em>
by Matthew Yglesias
Wiley, 251 pp., $25.95

<strong>1.</strong>

<strong>Since the Vietnam War</strong> the Republican Party has developed a reputation for having a superior approach to national security. Americans have long trusted the views of Democrats on the environment, the economy, education, and health care, but national security is the one matter about which Republicans have maintained what political scientists call "issue ownership."

Partly, this is for particular historical reasons. President Eisenhower initiated US involvement in Vietnam, and President Nixon escalated the war in 1969 and kept US troops on the ground in a manifestly unwinnable mission until 1975. But John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson were tagged as the primary culprits. President Carter was widely seen as having bungled the Iran hostage rescue mission and having responded ineffectually to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Although he substantially increased US military spending, he was never forgiven for his claim that Americans had "an inordinate fear of communism."]]></description>
         <link>http://peterscoblic.com/blog/2008/07/new_york_review_of_books_saman.html</link>
         <guid>http://peterscoblic.com/blog/2008/07/new_york_review_of_books_saman.html</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:08:01 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Dancing In Pyongyang</title>
         <description><![CDATA[North Korea just blew up the cooling tower on its own Yongbyon reactor, as part of an ongoing dismantlement deal with the United States. This is a momentous step because it's largely irreversible: North Korea will never again be able to kick out inspectors and start reprocessing plutonium in a matter of days, as it did in 2003. 

Of course, we don't know if Kim's decision was affected by the fact he now has a nuclear arsenal. North Korea may very well renounce its nuclear program, but keep the 8-15 bombs it produced during George Bush's "I'm not talking to you" phase (cir. 2001-2006).

By pursuing that <a href="http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=1ee357dd-8d80-4ffc-9523-bb40d982d397">ridiculous policy</a>, George W. Bush may have perversely increased America's long-run incentive to prop up the North Korean regime--since now, a coup or political meltdown would run the risk of putting those nukes in the hands of terrorists.

--<em>Barron YoungSmith</em>]]></description>
         <link>http://peterscoblic.com/blog/2008/06/dancing_in_pyongyang.html</link>
         <guid>http://peterscoblic.com/blog/2008/06/dancing_in_pyongyang.html</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:35:40 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>&apos;U.S. vs. Them&apos; Reviewed in Arms Control Today</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<strong>“Moral Clarity,” Ideological Rigidity, Strategic Myopia</strong>
<strong>by Paul Boyer </strong>(<a href="http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2008_06/BookReview.asp">Link</a>.) 

Before I retired as a university professor, I would mentally calculate as each term began what public events that year’s freshmen were likely to remember. For today’s freshmen, born around 1990, the earliest such memory might well be Bill Clinton’s impeachment. As for national security issues, even the rare freshman attentive to such matters would be aware of little before the current Bush administration.]]></description>
         <link>http://peterscoblic.com/blog/2008/06/us_vs_them_reviewed_in_arms_co.html</link>
         <guid>http://peterscoblic.com/blog/2008/06/us_vs_them_reviewed_in_arms_co.html</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2008 16:28:26 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>&apos;U.S. vs. Them&apos; Goes Multimedia</title>
         <description><![CDATA[Check out this <a href="http://carnegieendowment.org/audio/us_vs_them_scoblic.mp3">audio book talk</a> about <em>U.S. vs. Them</em>, featuring Peter Scoblic, the <em>Washington Post</em>'s E.J. Dionne, and a cameo by John B. Judis.]]></description>
         <link>http://peterscoblic.com/blog/2008/06/us_vs_them_goes_multimedia.html</link>
         <guid>http://peterscoblic.com/blog/2008/06/us_vs_them_goes_multimedia.html</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:10:38 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
      
   </channel>
</rss>

