The US, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, China, etc. I would argue maintain nuclear arsenals for the purpose of self-protection. That is, they would have no reason for those arsenals if it weren’t for others having their own arsenals and doubting the intentions of others. For example, I believe the US should maintain a nuclear arsenal in tip-top shape because while I’m 99% sure Russia and China wouldn’t attack us with nuclear weapons if we didn’t have any, I’m 1% unsure, and to me that’s reason enough to maintain our arsenal as a deterrent, just in case. And then there are the countries that do have hostile intent. Our military might be one deterrent to keep Iran from using a nuclear weapon, but I think the idea of Tehran being completely swept out of existence within a few seconds is a much more effective deterrent.

North Korea fits category #2. I don’t think they necessarily want to use nuclear weapons against anyone (although I have my doubts), but I do believe they are in the business of selling nuclear weapons and technology to other countries like Syria and Iran. When North Korea recently did tests of missiles and nuclear devices I wasn’t thinking it was them talking to the US and its allies saying “Hey, watch out because look what we have” it was them talking to Syria and Iran saying “Look how much we’ve improved our nuclear technology and missile technology, now how much are you willing to pay for it?” It was a product demonstration. And it allows Mr. Il to show off within his own country.

Iran is the perfect example of hostile intent. They’ve stated that they want to wipe Israel off the map. Is there any doubt they’d like to acquire nuclear weapons so that they can do it?

Finally, some countries maintain nuclear weapons to prevent other countries from obtaining them. Not just in the sense of “Don’t go nuclear or else!” but “Don’t go nuclear because you don’t need to–we’re already protecting you with our arsenal.” For example, there’s no reason for Poland to go nuclear if they can depend on the protection of the United States, and the same goes for many other countries around the world. However, if the Unites States were to “take the lead” and unilaterally disarm and no longer maintain a nuclear arsenal, many other countries would suddenly race to develop nuclear weapons so as to have their own home-grown deterrents against the nuclear weapons of their potential enemies. This could have disasterous consequences, because the more countries that have nuclear weapons, the greater the chance that they may fall into the wrong hands, that is, the hands of someone who has hostile intent.

Thus, the safest and surest way to prevent more countries from developing nuclear arsenals is to maintain our own, which, by the way, we are not doing. We have substantially fewer missiles than Russia does, and ours are outdated and in poor repair. Nothing else short of complete disarmament could provide more incentive to other countries to develop their own arsenals for all the reasons listed above.

Since then, the US has never used a nuclear weapon against another country, nor has any other country used nuclear weapons. But can we trust Russia to not use them if we don’t have our own? Can we trust China to not use them if they don’t have the US nuclear arsenal as a deterrent? We don’t know. But the world should be able to trust the US, because we had them first. Yes, it’s true the Soviets had them shortly after we did, but seriously, who you gonna trust?

However, disarming the entire world of nuclear weapons is not, in my mind, a realistic goal. I don’t see it ever happening, nor am I sure it should happen, although I’m open minded on the matter. But the point is it’s useless to argue about how to do things that have no chance of happening. What’s more realistic is a partial drawback of nuclear weaponization. For example, could we convince Pakistan and India to simultaneously give up their nuclear weapons? This would not only provide additional stability for those two countries, but would greatly lower the risk of a nuclear weapon falling into the hands of terrorists or extremists.

Meanwhile, Cuba languishes. Its people are impoverished and suffering. The government blames the US for its woes and retains a tight grip on power. But if we opened trade with Cuba and ended the embargo, what then? My opinion is that it wouldn’t be long before the people of Cuba would throw out their government. Trade with the US and other countries would bring in new products, allow exports, raise the standard of living, and give the people of Cuba hope for something better, and they simply would not be able to stand a repressive government for very long. I believe the same goes for North Korea, Iran, and other countries.

Granted, I’m not talking about free trade of materials that can be made into weapons or anything, I’m talking about iPods, music, food. Our greatest weapon in fighting tyranny is not our military, it is our culture. The faster we open trade with Cuba and get our culture in there, the faster the Cuban people will demand the freedom to decide what type of government they want, and I have a feeling it won’t be the Castro regime.

But hey, I’m not Cuban nor an expert on the Cuban situation, I’m just a guy who thinks about things, and I’d love to hear some other points of view.

By removing the embargo and encouraging trade we could lift the living standards of the Cuban people. People who have higher living standards tend to be more educated. Educated people are less likely to tolerate a dictatorship than uneducated people. And these days a higher living standard often means access to information via the Internet which can be a catalyst for democratic motivation.

But I’m open to learning something new here. I’d love for somebody to explain to me why we’ve continued the embargo all these decades and why we should continue it.

Our trade policy with individual countries will mirror the policy they set with us. For example, if they eliminate all tariffs for our products, we will eliminate all tariffs for their products. If they subsidize certain parts of their economy, we will not subsidize the same part of our economy, but we will enact a tariff on that product to equalize the effect.

My first reaction upon reading Cohen’s opinion is “Do people really get paid for writing stuff like this?” Where’s the logic? Where’s the reason? Where’s the informed viewpoint? I know it’s an opinion article so it’s fine for it to be biased, but there’s a difference between bias and ignorance. Cohen makes a number of claims that show he’s either woefully uninformed, or just pushing the standard liberal script. Among his observations are:

1. Palin has little or no foreign policy experience. Liberals seems eager to point this out while ignoring that their own Presidential candidate also has virtually no foreign policy experience. If you disagree, let me know what foreign policy experience Obama has that Palin doesn’t.

2. “Behind Palinism lies anger.” Cohen is at least partially correct here, although his intent seems to be to further characterize conservatives as the “bitter clingers” Obama spoke of. Truthfully, I am a bit angry. I’m angry about being punished when I succeed. I’m angry about feeling like I don’t have a voice, that nobody in the government represents or listens to me. I’m angry when, at a 2-1 ratio, people believe our current financial crisis was caused by Republicans, when in fact most of the people on Wall Street are Democrats and it is Democrat politicians that enacted and supported the policies that resulted in the current situation.

3. “But, let’s face it, from Baghdad to Bear Stearns the last eight years have been a lesson in the price of exceptionalism run amok.” Hmmm, exceptionalism run amok, eh? How about liberalism run amok? Tell me what conservative policies led to the current situation.

4. Connected vs. closed. Cohen seems to imply that liberals are in favor of a “connected” world and conservatives want to hole up. Oh the contrary, it’s liberal policies that form the basis of protectionism, and conservative ideals that believe in being connected, albeit in a responsible way. Free trade? That’s a conservative policy, last time I checked. Isn’t it liberals who are always complaining about the ills of globalization?

5. Energy. Cohen negatively refers to “a huge transfer of resources to the Middle East, and the imperative to develop new sources of energy.” Let’s see…now who is it that has been against domestic oil production for the past 30 years, which resulted in this huge transfer of resources and wealth to the Middle East? Who is against nuclear power? Who is against clean coal technology? Who is against developing oil shale deposits? Liberals, not conservatives. Democrats, not Republicans. As Cohen says, “Enough is enough” and I’ll agree with him on that emphatic statement. I’ve had enough of Nancy Pelosi’s 100% politically minded leadership that says one thing to the public but then does nothing to solve real problems.

6. Learning from others. Cohen states that Obama is a candidate “who believes America may have something to learn from other countries (like universal health care)”. Has Obama learned that universal health care isn’t working out so well in other countries? This country certainly has problems with regards to health care, but is universal health care the solution? If that’s what Obama is learning from other countries, maybe he’s got a learning disorder.

7. Ignoring the past, looking to the future. Perhaps worst of all, Cohen advocates an approach of looking to the future instead of the past when he says “If I were Obama, I’d put it this way: ‘Senator McCain, the world you claim to understand is the world of yesterday. A new century demands new thinking. Our country cannot be made fundamentally secure by a man who thought our economy was fundamentally sound.’”

Perhaps this is why Obama’s foreign policy bears resemblance to that of the French government during WWII. Perhaps this is why Obama was against the surge that McCain pushed and which has exceeded anyone’s expectations. Perhaps it’s Obama’s ignorance of history that causes him to promote policies that were tried in the Soviet Union for 70 years and resulted in widespread misery and the ultimate collapse of that country. Remember that statement, oft-quoted by frustrated high-school history teachers, that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it? And yet Cohen advocates ignoring centuries of historical evidence that show the flaws in Obama’s policies.

If America has not been exceptional it is because of liberal policies, not conservative ones. Liberal policies have weakened the country economically and socially, created enemies, and weakened alliances. Would Russia have attacked Georgia if the US were adhering to conservative principals of strength and military pre-eminence instead of pacification? Would the terrorists and insurgents have had so much success in Iraq if the US had been 100% behind the military effort and committed to success in Iraq instead of liberal politicians constantly declaring that the war was lost, that the US military was composed of baby-killers, and that the US should pull out? In doing so, liberal politicians like Harry Reid contributed not so indirectly to untold deaths of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians.

What Cohen doesn’t grasp is that the American exceptionalism conservatives want is not an attitude, but a reality. We don’t care what others think of the country, we care about whether the country really is the strongest and the best, regardless of whether anyone else thinks so. If they think so that’s great, but what they think of us should be the last priority, not the first.

Ultimately, what Cohen is most ignorant of is where the illogical rage in this country lies. Where do you see people yelling and screaming? Where do you see angry people? Is it not in the faces of the war protesters, the words of the liberal bloggers, and the op-ed journalists of liberal publications like the NY Times? Conservatives are angry for a reason, but it is a measured anger focused on solving problems. Liberals are angry without knowing exactly why other than that they’ve been told to be angry, and their rage is fueling a campaign that claims “change” as it’s goal, although if you ask a liberal exactly what that change will be you’ll find just one thing–ignorance.