Very quick post, but I'm watching President Obama's first State of the Union address. He has turned to the matter of nuclear weapons, and while his remarks are brief, there's one word that he just used that always gets me:
deterrence
He says the US and Russia are in the final stages of negotiating the most forward-looking arms control agreement in two decades. Very true. He says that international pressure on countries like North Korea and Iran is what will be required to work towards a world without nuclear weapons and to secure all loose fissile material in the next four years. Also a well-argued position.
But somewhere in those short remarks on nuclear weapons, he slipped that word in:
deterrence
And while I understand the need for it, I believe he could have implied the same concept without using the actual word. To me, the word "deterrence" slipping out of Obama's mouth is unnatural, abnormal. It's as incongruous as Bush actually saying something correctly ("Is our children learning?").
Obama's speech tonight focused on resetting the mood in Washington, about working together to "get the job done." Part of that reset process, I think, is in consciously and deliberately moving away from the use of certain verbiage. Even if very briefly, uttering the word "deterrence" just to please the folks on the right side of the chamber doesn't justify its use.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

1 comment:
Rizwan,
I don't exactly understand what is it that you have against the term deterrence. I would agree with your position if Obama had used it to refer to non-state actors, but I think it is a highly adequate word for the situation he was referring to. Would you mind explaining more on why you think it is inappropriate?
Post a Comment