National security questions for the candidates

[Peter1469]

National security questions for the candidates (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-arent-the-candidates-talking-about-the-next-security-crisis/2016/10/17/72c1fc44-946d-11e6-bc79-af1cd3d2984b_story.html?utm_term=.fa9bfa00dc4f)

Maybe we will get some relevant questions at the last debate:


Several pointed to Pakistan as the epicenter of the next major international crisis. “Pakistan is making nuclear weapons faster than any other country on earth as its society becomes more violent, more radicalized, and more anti-American,” said former CIA and National Security Agency director Michael Hayden, adding “what happens if Pakistan fractures?” Former undersecretary of defense for policy Eric Edelman points out that Pakistan has adopted “a nuclear doctrine that, like Russia’s, foresees the battlefield use of low-yield, short range nuclear weapons” and that “a nuclear confrontation or nuclear war between India and Pakistan . . . would be the most likely route to terrorists getting hold of a functioning nuclear weapon.” What would either major-party candidate do to prevent this?

And


Others point to the vulnerability of our critical infrastructure. Retired Gen. David Petraeus, former CIA director, points out that “a sustained cyber-attack on our physical and/or virtual infrastructure . . . could prove especially challenging because of the extensive damage it would do, because there is no agreed concept for America’s response, and because it would likely be difficult to achieve unity in determining the appropriate international response.” How would the candidates handle such an attack? My American Enterprise Institute colleague Mackenzie Eaglen suggests an infrastructure attack could come not from cyberspace, but outer space. “China, Russia, and others . . . are developing and testing missiles and spacecraft to destroy or manipulate our satellite constellations, which allow for financial markets to trade in milliseconds, enable our cars and phones to help us get from point A to point B, and undergird the entirety of the US military,” she said. “How will each of you deter or fight back against a Russian or Chinese day-one space salvo?”

or


Others suggest that the next crisis could involve East Asia. “How would you respond if there were a collision between Japanese and Chinese military forces in the East China Sea — a disputed area that the two countries patrol in close proximity?” asked former CIA deputy director and acting director John McLaughlin. “If some sort of military action ensued, Japan, as a U.S. treaty ally, could call on the U.S. for help in combating China. What would you do?” And how about this for a terrifying question: “What if a North Korean ballistic missile test goes wrong, and a missile lands in Seoul or Tokyo?” asks Michael Auslin, AEI’s director of Japan studies. Wow.

Read the entire article at the link.

[exploited]

Neither candidate is qualified to answer those questions, particularly when it comes to cyber-security.

[Peter1469]

Neither candidate is qualified to answer those questions, particularly when it comes to cyber-security.

I think that is correct.

[Common Sense]

Regardless of how people feel about Clinton's track record, she is at the very least more informed about foreign policy than Trump is. I'd wager that skill set transfers over to cyber security as well. However, I'm sure that will set her up for some zingers from Trump.

[TrueBlue]

Regardless of how people feel about Clinton's track record, she is at the very least more informed about foreign policy than Trump is. I'd wager that skill set transfers over to cyber security as well. However, I'm sure that will set her up for some zingers from Trump.
Well I tell you, the zingers are going to be coming from Hillary for Trump at tomorrow's debate! Wait for them! :)

[The Xl]

Despite being informed and experienced, Hillary Clinton's foreign policy record is among the worst of any modern American politician, and her vision for the future is reckless at best, catastrophic at worst.

[exploited]

Regardless of how people feel about Clinton's track record, she is at the very least more informed about foreign policy than Trump is. I'd wager that skill set transfers over to cyber security as well. However, I'm sure that will set her up for some zingers from Trump.

She is more informed in some ways, but her judgment is absolutely horrendous. I have no doubt whatsoever that she will destroy the very real geopolitical options created by Obama.

[Mark III]

She is more informed in some ways, but her judgment is absolutely horrendous. I have no doubt whatsoever that she will destroy the very real geopolitical options created by Obama.

She is more informed in some ways,

That's a good one. Just what ways do you think Trump is more informed about foreign policy than Clinton?

[exploited]

She is more informed in some ways,

That's a good one. Just what ways do you think Trump is more informed about foreign policy than Clinton?

He knows all the best breakfast places in Europe.

[Common Sense]

She is more informed in some ways, but her judgment is absolutely horrendous. I have no doubt whatsoever that she will destroy the very real geopolitical options created by Obama.

I think that's been exaggerated.

[Peter1469]

She destroyed Libya and Syria.

She screwed up the Russia reset.

And more as seen in some of the recent document dumps.

[exploited]

I think that's been exaggerated.

I don't. She is extremely aggressive and is very comfortable using US military force abroad. Barack Obama was and has always been significantly less aggressive, and in my opinion, that has paid off significantly. He has opened up numerous foreign policy options - first by starting the pivot away from Saudi Arabia and towards Iran (coupled with making the Saudis his b*tch by reminding them the US has oil too), then by pivoting towards Asia, finally by being a moderating influence in re: general Middle Eastern adventurism. Not only that, but he has remained very cool and collected in the face of Russian aggression, and seems to understand that we can push the Russians only so far (in regards to NATO and countries in Russia's peripheral).

Libya. Iraq. Arming the rebels in Syria, and attempting to alter the domestic political situation there. I won't criticize her on Israel because she is pretty much in line with every other politician in the US, but that is also concerning.

In other words, where Barack Obama will leave his predecessor with vastly more options than when he took office, she will not, and the President after her will be dealing with tremendous path dependency.

[ripmeister]

I think that is correct.

Even if they did it would never be addressed as things will probably devolve into mudslinging and hyperbole.

[Peter1469]

Even if they did it would never be addressed as things will probably devolve into mudslinging and hyperbole.

That is why I fall asleep around 30 minutes into the last two debates.

[Common Sense]

She destroyed Libya and Syria.

She screwed up the Russia reset.

And more as seen in some of the recent document dumps.

Yeah, that one person was responsible for all those things. I feel your hatred of the woman has clouded your judgement.

These are complex scenarios. It's quite easy and myopic to blame one person.

[Common Sense]

I don't. She is extremely aggressive and is very comfortable using US military force abroad. Barack Obama was and has always been significantly less aggressive, and in my opinion, that has paid off significantly. He has opened up numerous foreign policy options - first by starting the pivot away from Saudi Arabia and towards Iran (coupled with making the Saudis his b*tch by reminding them the US has oil too), then by pivoting towards Asia, finally by being a moderating influence in re: general Middle Eastern adventurism. Not only that, but he has remained very cool and collected in the face of Russian aggression, and seems to understand that we can push the Russians only so far (in regards to NATO and countries in Russia's peripheral).

Libya. Iraq. Arming the rebels in Syria, and attempting to alter the domestic political situation there. I won't criticize her on Israel because she is pretty much in line with every other politician in the US, but that is also concerning.

In other words, where Barack Obama will leave his predecessor with vastly more options than when he took office, she will not, and the President after her will be dealing with tremendous path dependency.

Obama was less aggressive? Clinton is often blamed (even here on this page) for things that happened under Obama. He was and is the president. I've never heard any of this vitriol hurled at Condi Rice or Powell.

Clinton was largely responsible for that so called pivot away from the Saudis.

I find it strange to criticize her actions, yet congratulate Obama for some of the things Clinton was directly involved in.

[Peter1469]

Yeah, that one person was responsible for all those things. I feel your hatred of the woman has clouded your judgement.

These are complex scenarios. It's quite easy and myopic to blame one person.

Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, and Samantha Powers were the force behind those interventions. Obama was not on board initially.

[Peter1469]

Obama was less aggressive? Clinton is often blamed (even here on this page) for things that happened under Obama. He was and is the president. I've never heard any of this vitriol hurled at Condi Rice or Powell.

Clinton was largely responsible for that so called pivot away from the Saudis.

I find it strange to criticize her actions, yet congratulate Obama for some of the things Clinton was directly involved in.

I don't believe Hillary was for the shift away from the Saudis. Obama was.

[Crepitus]

They will both do damage, but I suspect Trump will do more through sheer ignorance.

[Common Sense]

Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, and Samantha Powers were the force behind those interventions. Obama was not on board initially.

Yeah, he was only the president.

Yes I know there was conflict between them over intervention, but ultimately Obama was president.

I'm sure Obama is loving this election. No one talks about him anymore. He's chillin...

[Common Sense]

They will both do damage, but I suspect Trump will do more through sheer ignorance.

That's the thing. Republicans are offering a bus driver to fly a jet airplane.

Clinton's far from the ideal pilot, but at least she's an actual pilot.

[The Xl]

Clinton has never met a regime change or war that she didn't like. Whether or not you consider her a driving force or not in those conflicts, she chose the wrong side literally every single time. Her current comments almost ensure she'll continue the same policies. However, the enemy and the stakes are much higher now.

[exploited]

Obama was less aggressive? Clinton is often blamed (even here on this page) for things that happened under Obama. He was and is the president. I've never heard any of this vitriol hurled at Condi Rice or Powell.

Clinton was largely responsible for that so called pivot away from the Saudis.

I find it strange to criticize her actions, yet congratulate Obama for some of the things Clinton was directly involved in.

Obama is significantly less aggressive, yes.

I don't blame Clinton for his actions at all. Not sure where that came from. I agree, he is the President, and it is his call. However, the historical record shows that Clinton advocated a much more aggressive stance towards Libya, Syria, Iraq and Iran. Obama moderated that considerably.

As for Clinton being responsible for the pivot away from the Saudis, I'm not sure what you mean. I also haven't read anything to this effect, although I'd be interested if you have something for me to look at. I think we can both agree that she advised Obama as Secretary of State, but that the decisions made were his.

[The Xl]

I'll take my chances with the bus driver flying the plane over a kamakazi pilot.....

[Common Sense]

Clinton has never met a regime change or war that she didn't like. Whether or not you consider her a driving force or not in those conflicts, she chose the wrong side literally every single time. Her current comments almost ensure she'll continue the same policies. However, the enemy and the stakes are much higher now.

If you want to make a valid argument against her, claim she followed the direction set by Bush. Or at least had to deal with it. Bush's plan was the same. Destabilize and initiate regime changes in a variety of countries including Syria, Libya and even Lebanon and Somalia.

Those actions were set in motion by the previous administration. It seems Clinton inherited that plan and the consequences already set in motion.

People can cry "go ahead, blame Bush" all they want. It's a tired line. Bush set in motion a shit storm that the world has had to deal with for 15 years.

[Common Sense]

I'll take my chances with the bus driver flying the plane over a kamakazi pilot.....

That's hyperbolic...there is no rational argument that she intends to doom America.

But I do find it funny that people are willing to do just that...hire a bus driver to fly a plane. You seem willing to do it because of exaggerated and irrational hatred of a person. Good luck getting off the runway. Don't forget to remind him to pressurize the cabin. If he figures out how to start it.

[ripmeister]

Relevant to the POTUS' comments today Trumps reaction to these scenarios would be to whine when the tough issues come up.

[Peter1469]

Relevant to the POTUS' comments today Trumps reaction to these scenarios would be to whine when the tough issues come up.

Not if he prepared as he did for his foreign policy speech several months ago. Most of that was spot on.


I just don't know where it went after that.

[ripmeister]

Not if he prepared as he did for his foreign policy speech several months ago. Most of that was spot on.


I just don't know where it went after that.

one possibility is that it was a rote regurgitation of something that was fed to him. One thing that's been established about Trump is that he is intellectually incurious. He's a salesman.

[Peter1469]

one possibility is that it was a rote regurgitation of something that was fed to him. One thing that's been established about Trump is that he is intellectually incurious. He's a salesman.Perhaps.

I commented on that speech that night. Perhaps my only clear support for anything that came out of his mouth.

[ripmeister]

Perhaps.

I commented on that speech that night. Perhaps my only clear support for anything that came out of his mouth.

Perhaps? I can't think of,one policy statement that Trump has made where you can tell he is vested. He's an automaton when it,comes to policy IMO.

[Peter1469]

Perhaps? I can't think of,one policy statement that Trump has made where you can tell he is vested. He's an automaton when it,comes to policy IMO.

OK.

I liked and supported his foreign policy speech and that was about it.

[ripmeister]

Too bad we can't have more substantive discussions like this at this site without devolving into name calling.

[Peter1469]

Too bad we can't have more substantive discussions like this at this site without devolving into name calling.

Agreed. PM me.