Reply #16: "Massive Retaliation" is a term of art and Senator Clinton is highly advised

[joefargo]

on such matters. Thus, we should expect that she knows what she is saying. Erecting a U.S. guaranteed security umbrella over mostly unstable totalitarian governments to oppose any attack (note she did not say "nuclear attack" or otherwise qualify the level of attack) on, say, Saudi Arabia, by Iran is a most dangerous entanglement. The only precondition she set was that countries covered under the security umbrella, other than Israel, would need to forswear the development of nuclear weapons. This is one of the most profound foreign policy initiatives that has come from any candidate for the presidency. Yet, it does not rise to the level of political discourse as say, flag pins? I can't decide if the media believes the public to be too shallow to weigh this issue or if the media, itself, is too shallow to give the issue the consideration it requires. My guess is that the elitist media pinheads have determined the public incapable of understanding any discussion over such matters.

Here are my questions: 1) what might constitute an "attack" that triggers our massive retaliation? 2) what if one country covered under the security umbrella were to attack Iran first? 3) what if one country under the security umbrella were to attack another country covered? 4) might women in Saudi Arabia be allowed to drive on public highways before we die for that country? 5) might we be compensated for any action by the countries covered under the umbrella -- or would the prospective resulting rise in the price of oil that would result from certain disruption in supply be reason enough for one or some oil countries to ensure that we were forced to take action under such an agreement.

Wow. If this is what stellar foreign policy experience produces, I'll opt for no experience...