I've never really understood why plenty of smart people think the United States still needs thousands of nuclear weapons (or ever did).

At least one rationale was that the Soviets kept trying to keep up with us and bankrupted themselves in the process. Why we need so many now? I have no idea.

You answered this question

The editorial page, by contrast, is often a parody of right-wing lunacy: the last refuge of discredited neoconservatives, supply-siders, and other extremists. Do the Journal's editors really think democracy is best served by offering the public such a one-sided diet of opinion? Do they feel no responsibility to offer a wider range of views to their readers, as the rival Financial Times does? More importantly, wouldn't their market share (and profits) be increased if they offered a more diverse range of views? I'm equally puzzled by the op-ed page of the Washington Post: what's the business model that says cornering the market on tired neoconservative pundits is the best way to attract new readers? (FP is now owned by the Post corporation too, I might add, but anyone who follows this Web site knows that there isn't any discernible party line here.)

by yourself

You're entitled to your version of history

Unless you think only people who agree with you are entitled to that (i.e. The Guardian editorial page).

A related point: I can't figure out why newspapers aren't hiring more bloggers to write columns for them on a regular basis.

Bloggers have mainly been hired by magazines now (the Atlantic for example), but they used to simply write for themselves.

The Washington Post just hired Ezra Klein. The New York times hired Ross Douthat. So maybe the ice is breaking.

For no. 4, I assume that it becomes a norm/rule that you got to have some association to claim the the right of the land. You got to be there for a while to be in the game. Otherwise, without the historic association as a criteria to claim your ownership of a territory, then anyone can come here and claim to be the owner. You know, a few hundred years ago, some native indians lost their lands like this. They can only open casinos now. This might happen to others if there is no such pre-condition.

One thing that I will always remember is when I was in a masters degree program and a professor noticed that I had not taken a course about public opinion and voter behavior, so he made me read a big stack of books about the subject.

Whew! Phew! That was quite an experience. I hope that I am not being too simplistic, but too many people do not really base their political decisions on rational self interest or----what’s that approach? Oh yeah, they are not realistic. They simply fall into line with however they were raised. It takes a big bang on the head to make people change.

Take those factors along with powerful lobbies spewing out expertly conceived propaganda and here we are.

Hummm---I just did what I hate. I gave a simple answer as being the answer.

Bob Spencer

assume for the sake of argument that stephen walt was the guy that told the avionics techs to install a sleeper program --a GPS flight path-- into those 9/11 airliners...

would the techs have known what they were doing? ...hell no. ...they would have been told they were upgrading the navigation software in the airplanes' nav systems.

okay... so walt dreamed this scheme up, but he needs to find someone to blame... and that's where the torture comes in... walt can rip out fingernails until he finds somebody who can confess convincingly to something he didnt do ...and then mr walt's home free.

see why torture is so important to the project?

deathwish christians:

if jews must abandon their morals to defend israel ---as per mr dror in the jewish forward--- should we expect hagee's deathwish christians to abandon their morals, too?

or have they abandoned their morals already?

should israel's pandering to deathwish christians ---who expect jews to be exterminated in their deathwish christian end times--- be regarded as evidence that israelis have abandoned their morals?

is it possible that deathwish christians could, at some point, give god a little hand in exterminating jews, in the belief that they were only the "hand of god" doing "god's will"?

finally, there IS someone annoyed by having to remove shoes, give up keys and wallets, or use a 5x7 or whatever size plastic bag. and arriving airport a full two hrs before departure? could we ask the pollsters to poll what percent of us are annoyed by it? by my own citizen to citizen check, until Walt's disclosure, i thought no one was unhappy--they shrug their shoulders and continue to read their books, waiting like sheep going on the butcher's block.

somebody must be laughing somewhere--talking about asymmetric war!

Another excellent post by Professor Walt. I just got my Newsweek in the mail today that re-confirmed your point 7. A lot of bloggers are simply better AND more prolific than the mass print stuff. It's like they can't cater for an educated niche, and so the writer has to be a shallow generalist and the text designed for the lowest common denominator, the results speak for themselves!

1. I've never really understood why plenty of smart people think the United States still needs thousands of nuclear weapons (or ever did). I'm familiar with the abstract theology of nuclear weapons policy and I don't favor total nuclear disarmament, but the case for an arsenal of more than a few hundred weapons eludes me. See here or here for convincing arguments to this effect.

I'm surprised to hear this from you, actually. The US needs thousands of nuclear weapons (or probably at least a thousand) because

1. Not every nuclear missile hits. They can conceivably fail at any of the several stages (including the warheads missing the targets).

2. There are many targets that might require multiple hits, such as hardened bunkers, certain city areas (destroying a city is much more effective when you use multiple kiloton level warheads spaced properly than a single or few megaton warheads), and of course, another enemy's nuclear missile silos. Speaking of which-

3. The US's nuclear strategy has always been to have a credible and effective first- and second-strike deterrent. That means that you need enough nukes to cripple the enemy's deterrent, or at least significantly reduce it in the advent of conflict.

And frankly, I’m also surprised that the U.S. armed forces haven't put up more resistance to the seemingly open-ended missions they keep getting handed by ambitious politicians. I can think of various reasons why they remain willing to make these sacrifices (it's a volunteer force, there’s a long tradition of civilian authority, our soldiers, sailors and airman are dedicated patriots, the top brass are often chosen for their political malleability, etc.), but it still surprises me.

They did, for a while - Powell and the Vietnam Generals all put into place strict guards and doctrines against getting involved in any conflict other than a conventional conflict, and other than with overwhelming force (the Powell Doctrine). The problem was that they didn't stay in power forever, and they're being replaced by generals who didn't fight in Vietnam, and whose primary military experience has been counter-insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Basically, we've created an officer corps that is increasingly filled up with veterans of COIN wars.

3. I don't understand why many people think invoking God is a compelling justification for their particular policy preferences, and why they assume that this move is a trump card that ends all discussion. The idea that Jehovah, Jesus, Allah, Odin, or Whomever gave some people permanent title to some patch of land, dictated how men and women should relate to each other for all eternity, or provided the incontestable answer to ANY public policy question is simply beyond me. Yet it remains a common feature of political discourse at home and abroad. Weird.

The power of religion, I guess. It's particularly potent when mixed in with nationalism, since you tend to get the worst of both worlds - the irredentism and xenophobia of steep nationalism, plus the absolutism and fanaticism of religion (particularly certain types of religion).

5. I do not understand why Americans are so susceptible to the self-interested testimony of foreigners who want to embroil us in conflicts with some foreign government that they happen to dislike.

We're just so used to meddling that it's second-nature, I guess (plus we have a lot of resources). Not to mention that many of the political class who meet these individuals tend to have weak foreign policy experience, narrow experience, or strong ideology, so they're susceptible to nice, fancy-haired individuals with western accents telling them about good deals (particularly when it lines up with some values they hold).

What's odd is that people who make such claims tend to think their view is simply incontestable and other equally valid historical claims aren’t worth paying attention to. You're entitled to your version of history, I suppose, but why do you assume that anyone is going to be persuaded by it?

That's probably rooted in deeper psychological biases in humanity. We have a much easier time pointing out other people's stupidity and irrationalism than we do our own.

8. In an era where the United States is facing BIG problems at home or abroad, it is both puzzling and disheartening to observe the amount of ink and airspace devoted to the Skip Gates arrest, Michael Jackson's demise, or the "birther" controversy. But then I didn't get the Princess Di phenomenon or the whole reality-TV thing either.

It's a mixture of the fact that amateur mediums are much more accessible and inter-linked with the major mediums (so, for example, what might have been confined to a tabloid 50 years ago is now on 5000 blogs, and the major networks, who are all in steep competition, keep an eye out on there for potentially big stories that would draw viewers), and the fundamental nature of the news business (and this goes back well over 150 years ago).

In the latter's case, scandal has been important in American newspapers and later mediums ever since newspapers started shifting away from being primarily based on subscriptions to being heavily based on advertising. The latter requires a large customer base in order to make a profit, so the businesses have strong incentives to reach out to as many people as possible, and follow stories that achieve that.

.

i share quite a few of your confusions--some maddeningly frustrating. since this summer evening is young, and the weather conducive for creative musing, i shall struggle to see if i can turn some such musing into words.

ref #2,

I’m also surprised that the U.S. armed forces haven't put up more resistance to the seemingly open-ended missions they keep getting handed by ambitious politicians.

i'll get rid of this one first, as this is the only one i don't feel too confused. one needs not going into the arcane art of economical analysis to see the apparent--as yourself pointed out, the convenience of a volunteer force. your confusion came because of your habit of purposefully choosing protocol of polite speech over accuracy of expression. a volunteer force is not what it really is--our soldiers are definitely not the do-gooder peace corp volunteers subsisting on stipends (you made them sound like true volunteers).

yes, more people than Netanyahu thought 9/11 is good. i happened to be working inside Fort McCoy around 9/11--the spirit, the vibes, was day and nite before and after. before, the dispirit was palatable--the place felt like a semi-deserted ghost town. after, everybody suddenly had a spring under their feet. the soldiers, the cafeteria people, the veteran's hospital close by, whose staff cut in half because whose Vietnam War charges were dying off, all of them simply could not hold back their glee over the catastrophic event. a prof secure in a true ivy tower with tenure, yes, tenure, might not sense the military is a huge employer of a vast vested interests group of people. the American people are young and optimistic--the risk of American lives in a war basically executed with pushing buttons is very much cost effective, in this case, in reality and in the eyes of the military families. the earnings and benefits (including better and better after service health insurance) are as good as anyone without a degree or trade could ever expect. our misadventures abroad will never stop if we doom ourselves with a volunteer army.

right up to the launch of Iraqi war among military or pseudo military outfits one would be hard pushed to find any voice of caution. regular patriotic folks simply could not wait for the war to begin. so i don't think the politicians are the ones who really need the wars. they are simply folks who know their constituents well. i don't think a volunteer force is a lessor problem to peace than medical insurance companies to health care reforms.

hopefully more musing to other confusions to come:). the weather is too good to stay at the screen.

then what?

then the PNAC people got into positions where they could make the new pearl harbor happen, and then the new pearl harbor happened... then what?

wont connect the dots.

The Wall Street Journal's belongs to Rupert Murdoch, who does have a history of influencing the editorial line. See The Guardian, Monday 17 February 2003, article by Roy Greenslade.

Murdoch's strategy of supporting whomever is in power and lobbying for right-wing issues at the same time could be the explanation you're looking for. Was the op-ed so right-wing before the take-over by News Coporation in August 2007?

#2 also amazes me...

Another thing that I do not understand is why so many people believe that talking to someone you don't agree with undermines your position. That you need "preconditions" to talk... which is weird because it implies that before talking about change with a rival you must previously demand change from them (??).

I remenber being in your class in Barcelona, 2008, and you talked about the tenure. You said that academic live had become something like a comfort zone where people enjoy a nice middle class living and just wrote about things that do not matter at all. I guess most of the international politics literature nowadays is no more than trivia--specially those technical-wannabes with all that econometrics in their artciles--. I have been reading, for my dissertation, must of the journals on political science and international law (though in those days there not much diference within both fields) from the 1920s. 30s and 40s you can see people commenting real live situation, giving concious comments aimed to influences policy-making. They were critical against US governments or against other countries. Take Schattschneiders´ classic book (1934) on trade politics for an example. Yo got also Berglund during those days, or Walter Lippman or Clarence Streit.
But, most important, they were written in a plain language, they did not pretend to usea pseudo-scientiphical argot you nowadays amnong the so called "Political Science". Read Carr, or Morthengau, Maier, etc. or Kennan´s brilliant lectures (Kennan´s writtings are simply superb!). They were all brilliant analysis that mattered, that discuss important issues. They did not pretend to mimic the scientific jargon. They wanted to make people think about reality, critically, not to discover scientific laws of international relations aimed at "predicting" just like you do with physics or natural science.
I guess Walt discovered that path with his work on the Israeli Lobby (you can see that work really mattered). Let us wait he goes further ionto that path, using his tenure. This post is a good evidence he migh be.

While the Post lets the Neocons in on occasion, it is primarily staffed by progressives, liberals, and haters of everything conservative. Seriously, have you read the daily columns by Cohen, Robinson, Myerson, Kinsley, and even Ignatius? The WSJ OpEd is no worse than the Post, just apparently on a side you don't agree with.

This reads like the kind of lists I used to write in high school when I'd wear all black and wonder why the evil right-wingers wouldn't let us all become happy socialists.

And God forbid a newspaper shouldn't have only leftists writing its op-ed pieces. Those people are evil, doncha know!

Prof.,
many of these have to do with bringing Pork to states:

e.g. It was very difficult to kill F-22 because $$$ were being sent to many states.

Others have to do with politicized defense issues (MDA, huge nuke stockpiles) -- no-one wants to appear weak on defense, no matter the rational choices.

Look at the Kyle amendment:

http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/2401/the-kyl-amendment

People have forgotten that it is un-American to have a huge bloated military:

e.g. James Madison’s incredible insight into
George W. Bush and Cheney:

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people…. [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and … degeneracy of manners and of morals…. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

What puzzles me is why providing health care for all citizens is even being debated -- which other rich industrial nation does not?

This is our America instead -- shameful:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/us/31land.html?_r=1&ref=us

Many problems would be fixed by making paid lobbying (i.e. bribery) illegal: Pharma, Israel, defense, etc.

#11 Why do people only talk about the 2-state solution?

Even when they know the Israelis are looking for a 1-state plus 1-ghetto solution (i.e. Israelis will keep nukes and Palestine will be demilitarized....riiiiight). Why not give some breathing space -- nay, back -- the one-state democratic solution?

#12 Why Don't Leaders Lead Anymore?

Why do they instead pander to constituents?

Why don't they tell us what they think is right and bring us on board instead of salivating at the thought to getting the vote from the lowest common denominator?

Why are they so quick to compromise on their morals (Obama included).

Why can't they say backing Israel, Egypt and Saudis is immoral and against US laws?

Had we the kind of leaders we have now, historically, we would never have abolished slavery.

#13 How did Sarah Palin become a candidate for V.P.?

What does this show about the electorate?

Imagery is all -- reality is optional. This is also why we support Israel. Good propaganda and lobbying.

Nuclear deterrence is a rather subjective concept: How many weapons are enough to ensure deterrence? How difficult is it to achieve and maintain deterrence? How important are the technical details of a country’s nuclear forces, such as the size, configuration, and readiness, to the goal of maintaining deterrence? The answers to these questions vary across recent history and across geographic areas.

One view, I would say the dominant view in U.S. defense planning, is that deterrence can be achieved only through difficult choices, sustained with intelligent effort, and will depend very much on the technical details. This is the view expressed in Albert Wohlstetter’s 1958 Rand monograph, The Delicate Balance of Terror, which helped to shape the dominant Cold War attitudes about deterrence.

A different view is that, beyond a certain point, all of this is crazy talk, and the technical details don’t matter very much at all. The balance of terror is anything but delicate. An enemy who can be deterred, will be deterred by the prospect of a counterattack, even if it consists of only a few nuclear weapons. Beyond that minimum threshold, nuclear weapons provide little additional deterrent benefit.

More at:

http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/minimum_deterrence_7552

wise folks have long realized religion is needed for good people to do bad things. e.g. Christianity was used to spearhead colonization. i would further argue that religion is needed for any otherwise questionable fantastical enterprise by good or bad people. because no one, especially political leaders, can possibly function without consider themselves good.

also i do think it helps to consider each utilization in its particular environ. the invoke of Jehovah is the only rationale for the realization of a never dying collective desire of a Jewish homeland. Allah, on the other hand, is the anchor of a familiar world that has been pummeled to shreds by a relentlessly advancing alien culture. we in America feel puzzled because we don't know how it feels to have our inner world pulled right out from underfoot like a piece of rag. remember man does not only on bread live? i think that is why your job of advocating a sensible (for us), sensitive (to others) foreign policy so crucial :)

the even sadder truth probably is that few can think for themselves and are easily swayed by fear, a founding stone of all religions.

Missile "defense"[sic] is a hoax to transfer wealth from taxpayers to Raytheon Inc.

It will encourage Iran to build more missile to get thru the leaky "defense".

There has not been one realistic test of missile defense using countermeasures in a surprise setting.

Missile "defense"[sic] is an _expensive_ hoax.

I want my tax $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ back!

See:
"An ineffective defense against a non-existent threat"
-Former Defense Secretary Perry

http://docs.ewi.info/JTA.pdf

4.7 Effective missile defense has proved an elusive goal
since the development of ballistic missiles. Nuclear
warheads make the requirements for defense especially
stringent because a defense that is even ninety percent
effective could hardly be judged satisfactory by the
defending country, even though the attacker might
well consider this to be a serious threat to his offensive
capabilities. Missile defense is by its nature a competition
between the offense and the defense, and to date the
advantage has lain with the offense. Because it is a competition, the offense can be expected to take measures
to destroy, overcome, or outwit the defense. One of the
obvious ways to do that is to find alternative means of
delivery for nuclear warheads: aircraft, cruise missiles,
or less conventional means such as freighters entering
a port. Here we consider some of the specific challenges
facing the proposed European missile defense system.

http://docs.ewi.info/JTA.pdf

4.6 By contrast, the X-band EMR can observe warheads
and decoys with a range resolution of roughly 15 cm.
Such high-resolution data does not guarantee the ability
to conclude whether an object is a warhead, decoy, piece
of wire, or yet another object, but without this radar the
system would have no chance of discerning possible
diff erences in the signals from the many objects that
could accompany warheads during an attack. The EMR
is intended to perform the critical function of tracking
enemy targets for the defense not only of Europe, but
also of the United States.

details on the so-called missile defense:

http://docs.ewi.info/JTA_TA_Defense.pdf

The "discrimination" process thus has two steps – using the X-band groundbased
radar to identify which cluster contains the warhead, and then using the
separate and independent infrared sensor in the kill vehicle to identify the warhead
within the cluster. If either completely independent process fails, the system will
fail to intercept the warhead.