Paul, the Congressman from Texas, is finding support for his non-interventionist positions from a growing number of foreign policy experts.
“He’s attacking our rich lazy friends, why is that not more popular,” said Harvey Sapolsky, emeritus professor of public policy and organization at MIT. He backs Paul’s calls for reducing America’s military budget, arguing that much of it is used to defend wealthy nations’ security.
“He’s easily dismissed as a crank,” said Sapolsky, who says Paul has good ideas but can be an inarticulate messenger.
Like most aspects of running a national political campaign, style often outweighs substance and both Sapolsky and Preble said that Paul is neither a great orator nor does he break down large global situations well.
2. Herman Cain clarified his original statement that China is developing nuclear weapons capability (which China has had since 1964) by saying "
"Maybe I misspoke," Cain said. "What I meant was China does not have the size of the nuclear capability that we have. They do have a nuclear capability. I was talking about their total nuclear capability."
An opinion piece in the China state newspaper the People's Daily suggests that China's nuclear deterrent capability is not sufficiently large for strategic defence if Cain and others do not have the perception that it is a deterrent.
Cain did not realize what a gaffe he has made, indicating China's nuclear capacity hardly leaves any impression among US society. That's very dangerous. The blurry image of China among the US public may mislead their decision-makers once bilateral conflicts escalated.
Aside from that, necessary action should be taken by the Chinese side in upgrading and expanding its nuclear stockpiles within the framework of international conventions and without breaking its promises to develop nuclear weapons. The strategic role played by nuclear weapons cannot be replaced by other armaments. Nuclear capacity serves the cornerstone of China's national security.
It turned out to be a shallow concept that China's nuclear deterrents have nothing to do with the quality and quantity of warheads. Two US researchers wrote in Foreign Affairs magazine in 2006, claiming the US is capable of destroying China's stockpiles or Russia's once and for all. Such an opinion, though questionable, has made worse instead of improved the neglect of China's nuclear capacity. As a result, the capacity of China's nuclear stockpile should be strong enough to dismiss the ignorance of Cain as well to stop the US people from resorting to military solutions when facing competition from China.
China's enhancement of its nuclear weapons does not mean it will alter its strategy from defense to offense. For China, there isn't necessity to do that. But we have to keep a detersive power for peaceful purposes, which demands rational and compulsory self-adjustment.
If you liked this article, please give it a quick review on ycombinator or StumbleUpon. Thanks