Matt Yglesias

22 Responses to “Ellen Tauscher Will Be Undersecretary of State for Arms Control”

1. pseudonymous in nc Says:
   March 19th, 2009 at 4:23 pm

   The work that Bolton did between 9/11 and the invasion or Iraq to fuck over anti-proliferation treaty negotiations — chemical, biological, small arms — tends to be forgotten amid the other shit that went down. (This was also in the wake of the anthrax attacks.)

   It’ll be interesting, though, to see what kind of institutional pressures she’ll encounter over the question of extending independent oversight and verification to US chem/bio facilities. And she’s bound to be subject of the usual propagandistic shit from the NRA (who gave her an F rating), whereby any measures to prevent Ukranian-made, Serbian-fenced semi-auto rifles from ending up in west Africa is somehow designed to take away Wayne LaPierre’s toys.

2. Laura Ingraham Says:
   March 19th, 2009 at 4:25 pm

   What, she didn’t get that role in the Real World, because they don’t like plus-sized models?

   You liberals, always twisting my hateful words to sound….hateful.

   Kisses,
   Laura

3. dday Says:
   March 19th, 2009 at 4:53 pm

   That’s pretty misleading, Matt. You could also mention that Tauscher has supported the Reliable Replacement Warhead system in the past as well. I believe she’ll go along with the chief executive on this, but she’s not a no-nukes protester or anything. I’m very concerned that the RRW system would threaten a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

4. Campesino Says:
   March 19th, 2009 at 5:08 pm

   than one would hop to see

   How high must you hop? Is this March Madness?

5. Toady Says:
   March 19th, 2009 at 5:12 pm

   I wouldn’t call CA-10 “very safe.” Tauscher was preceded by Bill Baker, who served two terms in the 90s and was an unapologetic right-wing lunatic. Contra Costa County is also known as Orange County – North, and Solano County is very white working class.

6. James B. Shearer Says:
   March 19th, 2009 at 5:35 pm

   3. From your link:

   … During fiscal 2006 and 2007, Congress authorized and funded a design competition, and on March 2, 2007, a design from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratories was selected as the first RRW program warhead design. …

   Considering these are big employers in her district Tauscher’s support is not very surprising.

7. wiley Says:
   March 19th, 2009 at 5:39 pm

   Do not politicize nuclear weapons doctrine.

   Exactly. It’s too big to be a game ball.

8. Kolohe Says:
   March 19th, 2009 at 5:58 pm

   and one of the most important issues in the world

   Not by a long shot.

9. too many steves Says:
   March 19th, 2009 at 6:19 pm

   I wouldn’t call CA-10 “very safe.” Tauscher was preceded by Bill Baker, who served two terms in the 90s and was an unapologetic right-wing lunatic. Contra Costa County is also known as Orange County – North, and Solano County is very white working class.

   The district was gerrymandered after the 2000 census to be totally Democratic. That’s why it winds all the way up to Sacramento, taking every Dem-leaning area along the way. And if Contra Costa County was ever anything like the OC, it’s certainly not anymore. It’s a totally center-left Whole Foods type of place.

10. bobbo Says:
    March 19th, 2009 at 6:39 pm

    I think I would enjoy Ellen Tauscher much more in some sitcom where she plays the annoying next-door neighbor with a “Fargo” accent.

11. scythia Says:
    March 19th, 2009 at 6:48 pm

    And if Contra Costa County was ever anything like the OC, it’s certainly not anymore. It’s a totally center-left Whole Foods type of place.

    Oh. My. God. Have you ever been to Walnut Creek? Come on.

12. Richard Steven Hack Says:
    March 19th, 2009 at 7:31 pm

    From a Google search:

    “On general national security matters, she’s somewhat hawkish, but has at times walked a tight rope. She voted for the 2002 resolution to wage war against Iraq. In May 2007, she voted for a failed amendment by Rob Andrews, D-N.J., that would have prevented Iraq and Afghanistan war funding to be expanded into any operation against Iran. But she switched sides and voted against a more sweeping amendment by Oregon Democrat Peter DeFazio that stated no previous law authorized military action against Iran.”

    A quote from her:

    “Even for states like North Korea and Iran, who may not be as “rational” as we judged the Soviet Union to be, our nuclear weapons can provide a deterrent against nuclear and WMD attack.

    Iran doesn’t yet possess nuclear weapons; however they have continued to march in that direction, posing a grave threat to regional and global security. And Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons provides a lesson in the limits of nuclear
    deterrence. Our arsenal has, so far, done little to deter their ambitions and may be among the factors motivating Iran’s developments.”

    So she’s one of the idiots who thinks Iran has a nuclear weapons program, and she apparently thinks a military attack on Iran is justifiable.

    If these are “solid progressive views”, well…

13. Alan in SF Says:
    March 19th, 2009 at 8:55 pm

    Good fucking riddance. Can’t we get Feinstein appointed to something?

14. dayum Says:
    March 19th, 2009 at 9:11 pm

    Holy shit, what happened to her face?? It looks like half-melted plastic with rods jutting against the back of the plastic so it bulges in odd places.

15. Jonah Says:
    March 19th, 2009 at 11:07 pm

    Better hope she hasn’t said anything unusual about Israel…

16. Kolohe Says:
    March 20th, 2009 at 2:18 am

    You don’t think arms proliferation is an important issue?

    Seriously, no.

    It’s the global version of gun control. Weapons are just tools. Attitude is what matters.

    One does have to take into account both intent and capabilities when assessing threats. But in the long run all capabilities become possible to everyone.

    So in the end arms control is just a useless feel-good gesture where everyone does what they wanted to anyway. Moreover, the arms that are controlled tend to be the ones that are obsolete anyway. Washington Naval Treaty was like this. So were most of the Cold war agreements.

    And if one assumes the nation-state to have near absolute sovereignty, there really is very little moral case to say to someone that they can’t have something if they want to. It’s one thing if they signed an agreement that said they wouldn’t do something. (iran) it’s another if they’ve said they no longer abide by the agreement (dprk) and it’s yet another thing if they never agreed to anything in the first place (india,pakistan,israel).

    It’s definitely a quirky view, that *everyone* being armed better ensures the peace. But a view shared by some eccentric 2nd amendment supporters as well as a few star trek episodes. And late 20th century history.

    But (more) seriously, arms proliferation is way down on the list of global issues. Or even just security issues. Above it (in no particular order)

    unemancipated women
    2 billion on a dollar a day
    ethnic hatred
    local/regional environmental pollution
    local resource depletion
    lack of access to clean water
    government corruption
    climate change

    and that’s just off the top of my head.

17. Richard Steven Hack Says:
    March 20th, 2009 at 5:33 am

    Kolohe: “It’s one thing if they signed an agreement that said they wouldn’t do something. (iran)”

    Iran never did that, aside from some minor infraction the details of which I forget but which the IAEA has dismissed long ago. Not to mention that a number of other countries have done the same in the past.

    Iran is a member in good standing of the NPT according to the IAEA. The IAEA has continued to declare that there is no evidence of any diversion of nuclear resources to any weapons program, and little to no evidence of a program at all. ALL of the evidence provided for such a program appears to have originated in a laptop the provenance of which is questionable, to say the least.

    How anybody figures that’s worse than never agreeing to the NPT in the first place – Israel – is interesting.

18. Joe Says:
    March 20th, 2009 at 1:59 pm

    As someone in her district, I have to say I’ve never been that impressed with Tauscher. She usually gets my vote but only because the alternative is usually worse.

    She’s a capable Party hack, but she never impressed me with her capability for independent thought or expression. Now, that might not make any difference in actual work in an office and managing people. it just means she’s not a very persuasive public speaker.

19. Kolohe Says:
    March 20th, 2009 at 3:36 pm

    Not everyone is going to be around in the long run. Hopefully.

    Well, although Hack would disagree, hopefully someone is going to be around in the long run.

    First, this isn’t just about nation-states.
    Well, they are the de facto atomic unit of sovereignty for now and the foreseeable future. Changing this a completely separate issue, but on first order, I am loathe to do it. Internationalist anarchy is not a perfect system, but I postulate it’s better than any alternatives (at least until we can conveniently exit to the moon or mars)

    a government decides to commit genocide, I think other countries have the moral right to invade and stop them.

    Probably, but nobody ever has with possbile one-off exception of the Balkans (and only after a lot of crap had gone down already).

    Again for example, working with a country to provide better security for its weapons violates no other country’s sovereignty.

    Agreements between nations that are willingly entered into are not sovereignty violations; they are exercises of sovereignty. It’s not tresspassing when you’re invited into someone’s house to move some furniture in exchange for some pizza.

    To address your last point, first an aside: the marginal cost of production is (mostly) immaterial for a secondary market. Otherwise E-bay wouldn’t exist.

    But more directly, anti-proliferation efforts (more precisely the sticks not the carrots) are always focused on nation states and what they can and cannot have.

    People have been able to blow up cities through conventional means for a while now. And have within the last decade in every city you mention. It is likely true that the lack of capability limited the damage. But my point is that even with the best efforts you’re not going to be able to limit capability forever. I would wager at a sub 1:1 payoff (i.e. greater than 50% likelyhood) that a nuclear weapon will be detonated in an inhabited area prior to the end of this century. And thus focusing on ‘arms control’ and calling it the most important issue distracts from attack the real ‘root causes’ which may prevent such an occurence.

    Like I said I find the logic of arms control much the same as the logic of gun control. And I’m sure conventional liberals do to, that’s why there’s a correlation between support of one and support of the other.

    But, to go totally over the top, both are predicated on the notion that brown people are not to be trusted with weaponry because they’ll use it badly.

20. How to Get Your Ex Back Says:
    April 9th, 2009 at 5:46 am

    If you want to see a reader’s feedback , I rate this article for four from five. Decent info, but I have to go to that damn google to find the missed pieces. Thanks, anyway!