First use of a nuclear weapon against the US...

will not be against the US mainland (by a foreign power as opposed to terrorist organization).   Rather it will be used at sea against a carrier task force.  This article seems to indicate a conventional weapon but I will bet my licence on the fact it is capable of a nuclear payload.

Short extract:

Translated by the naval affairs blog Information Dissemination, a recent report provides a description of an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) that can strike carriers and other U.S. vessels at a range of 2000km.

The range of the modified Dong Feng 21 missile is significant in that it covers the areas that are likely hot zones for future confrontations between U.S. and Chinese surface forces.

The size of the missile enables it to carry a warhead big enough to inflict significant damage on a large vessel, providing the Chinese the capability of destroying a U.S. supercarrier in one strike.

Because the missile employs a complex guidance system, low radar signature and a maneuverability that makes its flight path unpredictable, the odds that it can evade tracking systems to reach its target are increased. It is estimated that the missile can travel at mach 10 and reach its maximum range of 2000km in less than 12 minutes.

The US Carrier task force is an unparalleled tool of state power.  It can go virtually anywhere on very short notice and deliver a serious blow to any modern state.  US air superiority is such that almost no nation can stand against even a single attack by our aircraft and standing against sustained attack is nigh impossible.  If you take out the carrier then you can by and large negate that advantage.  This makes a carrier battle group a high value target in a war against a great power like China or Russia.  First of all they are incredibly expensive to build  and operate (can't find the link now but something on the order of $1.5 Billion a year for the whole Battle Group).  This is an enormous sum of money.  Not only that it takes a long time to build capital ships of any sort and a carrier even more so, since we have limited number of ships available (12 or so) they are incredibly tempting targets.  Since  a nuclear strike can take out the whole group fast, with little chance of civilian casualties in a distant location with little or no physical evidence of the misdeed it is essentially a no lose situation for someone in a major war.   In the atmosphere these days what President is going to risk a general nuclear exchange?   This guy?  Doubtful.  So there you have it.  This is why a nuclear first strike against US naval assets is inevitable when we get into the next major war.

And how long will it be before Congress interferes here?

Senator Benjamin Cardin (D-MD) has introduced legislation to permit newspapers to continue to operate as non-profit businesses. Given the utter lack of transparency or accountability in the non-profit sector as it is this would be courting even greater politicization of the press.  Finally, do you want groups like the SEIU or ACORN controlling newspapers?

10 rights you don't have

As much as I like the Clash this is a much better statement on our (non)rights.

My favorite point:

3. You do not have a right to a retirement account provided by your children. You know that at some point in your life you will be old and won’t want, or be able, to work. Plan accordingly. The government does not have the right to steal from your children so that you can vacation in Florida every winter.

Thanks Monique

Ahhh...the Environment

Moe Lane has a great post on a recent Gallup Poll about how Americans feel about the Environment and the Economy.

Key Point:

This fairly elementary observation will no doubt infuriate environmentalists, who have been accustomed to being able to portray their beliefs as having an unimpeachable, universal morality.  Again, that is because they have been operating in a society that has thought itselfrich: now that it considers itself not-so-rich, certain priorities will be reconsidered over the next few years.  Including the priority of how important it actually is listen to environmentalists.

As the man says read the whole thing!

A great piece on gay marriage

Cynthia over at A Conservative Lesbian has a great piece on gay marriage.  

One of the most disheartening things about the passage of Proposition 8 is the utterly unhinged behavior of gays and their supporters.  Creating maps, hounding Prop 8 supporters out of their jobs, and targeting business owners who made contributions to the Prop 8 campaign is foolish and counterproductive.  Furthermore, it cuts the legs out from under folks like me who have argued in favor of gay marriage.  Let me tell you when someone like me (mid 40's, WM and very conservative) makes a principled stand for gay rights as a civil right people pay attention.  They might not agree today (or ever) but at least they can begin to be pursuaded.  But not if gay rights advocates act like spoiled children.  You lost in one of the most liberal states in the union.  That means you need to make better arguments for your position.  You need to educate and reach out to to different community groups and reassure them that your right doesn't interfere with their religious freedom.  That doesn't mean get on the back of the bus or that gays must be satisfied with scraps from the table of liberty, rather that they should prepare themselves and the field for another try.  This means educational outreach, fund raising, and reaching out to friends and finding new allies in unexpected places.  

The best thing I've seen all week

Look I don't know what is right with this AIG mess but I do know that the legislative lynching that occurred today was wrong; a danger to the rule of law;  and  a hazard to us all.