No Nuke Use For Obama

[randallscott35]

We shouldn't limit anything.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

We shouldn't limit anything.

This is a pretty silly statement.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by philcski

This is a pretty silly statement.

Not really at all. Saying you won't do something hamstrings you. Every situation is different.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

Not really at all. Saying you won't do something hamstrings you. Every situation is different.

Exactly. The articles I have seen also say that the president wants to build on a policy of deterrence. The only way to get deterrence is that a threat is credible.

We can dress this up in intellectual language, but it's essence is:

"Behave or I'll nuke you back to the Stone Age, from which you so recently emerged."

Then we can always choose to be nice, as long as everyone else is. But we're never to be bullied.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

Not really at all. Saying you won't do something hamstrings you. Every situation is different.

What do you think of the arms agreement with Russia?

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by Riot

What do you think of the arms agreement with Russia?

I like it.

[Cannon Shell]

Anyone who thinks this is anything but political manuvering is being myopic.

I seriously doubt that any rouge state or individual reads the NYT and says "Oh hell yeah! Now is our chance!!"

I also find it amusing that N Korea or Iran are considered more serious threats to the US "nuclearwise" than Russia or China. If we were Israel or Japan maybe I could take that seriously. But believing that a sociopath couldnt become leader of either Russia or China (the countries with thousands of weapons and capable delivery systems) simply ignores their history.

As for the use of nuclear weapons in response to a biological attack, I mean what world do people live in? Does anybody seriously believe that if there were biological attacks on this country that we would find a "smoking gun" that implicated a nationstate? If Al-Queda takes responsibility for the attacks what country do we bomb? All of them?

Treaties and other disarmament agreements are for show only. Only a fool woould believe that if Russia, China, France, Israel, India, Pakistan, ect would hesitate to use a nuclear weapon because of some piece of paper is laughable. That isnt to say that they wouldnt exhaust all other options but despite all the treaties and disarmament agreements there are still tens of thousands of nuclear weapons in the world and it isnt like they are going away anytime soon.

I just wonder why Obama did this now as opposed to after the elections. He cant possibly think this wont be used against them does he? While I could see people getting riled up enough to make this a negative topic for Dems on the other hand will anybody on the other side of the fence really feel strong enough on the topic to make a blip? Maybe he thinks that it is far enough in advance but I can see the GOP using this against the dems as being "weak" on natl security and having it be sort of effective.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Anyone who thinks this is anything but political manuvering is being myopic.

I seriously doubt that any rouge state or individual reads the NYT and says "Oh hell yeah! Now is our chance!!"

I also find it amusing that N Korea or Iran are considered more serious threats to the US "nuclearwise" than Russia or China. If we were Israel or Japan maybe I could take that seriously. But believing that a sociopath couldnt become leader of either Russia or China (the countries with thousands of weapons and capable delivery systems) simply ignores their history.

As for the use of nuclear weapons in response to a biological attack, I mean what world do people live in? Does anybody seriously believe that if there were biological attacks on this country that we would find a "smoking gun" that implicated a nationstate? If Al-Queda takes responsibility for the attacks what country do we bomb? All of them?

Treaties and other disarmament agreements are for show only. Only a fool woould believe that if Russia, China, France, Israel, India, Pakistan, ect would hesitate to use a nuclear weapon because of some piece of paper is laughable. That isnt to say that they wouldnt exhaust all other options but despite all the treaties and disarmament agreements there are still tens of thousands of nuclear weapons in the world and it isnt like they are going away anytime soon.

I just wonder why Obama did this now as opposed to after the elections. He cant possibly think this wont be used against them does he? While I could see people getting riled up enough to make this a negative topic for Dems on the other hand will anybody on the other side of the fence really feel strong enough on the topic to make a blip? Maybe he thinks that it is far enough in advance but I can see the GOP using this against the dems as being "weak" on natl security and having it be sort of effective.

Totally agree. (damn, did i just type that?)

This is a non-story to me.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

Not really at all. Saying you won't do something hamstrings you. Every situation is different.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Lec...Weapons-Policy

[brianwspencer]

And Jon Stewart for the win...as usual.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_531455.html

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

And Jon Stewart for the win...as usual.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_531455.html

No win for Stewart there.

Charles Krauthammer, on the other hand, has nailed it...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...le_105108.html

Excerpt:
"Under President Obama's new policy, however, if the state that has just attacked us with biological or chemical weapons is "in compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)," explained Gates, then "the U.S. pledges not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against it."

Imagine the scenario: Hundreds of thousands are lying dead in the streets of Boston after a massive anthrax or nerve gas attack. The president immediately calls in the lawyers to determine whether the attacking state is in compliance with the NPT. If it turns out that the attacker is up-to-date with its latest IAEA inspections, well, it gets immunity from nuclear retaliation. (Our response is then restricted to bullets, bombs and other conventional munitions.)

However, if the lawyers tell the president that the attacking state is NPT noncompliant, we are free to blow the bastards to nuclear kingdom come.

This is quite insane. It's like saying that if a terrorist deliberately uses his car to mow down a hundred people waiting at a bus stop, the decision as to whether he gets (a) hanged or (b) 100 hours of community service hinges entirely on whether his car had passed emissions inspections."

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by joeydb

No win for Stewart there.

Charles Krauthammer, on the other hand, has nailed it...

Nope, Stewart definitely has hit the mouth-foaming reaction right on the head.

Considering the report says:

Given the catastrophic potential of biological weapons and the rapid
pace of bio-technology development, the United States reserves the right to make any adjustment in the assurance that may be warranted by the evolution and proliferation of the biological weapons threat and U.S. capacities to counter that threat.

Which in the context of the portion of the report from which I pulled it basically can be boiled down to, "Yes, X nation-state, Krauthammer is totally spot-on. You can attack us with biological weapons, and we won't nuke you if you're in compliance with the NPT.....oh wait, except if we want to, then we're totally still going to do it."

It's the exact same thing as an "all rights reserved" clarification. This whole thing seems to mean something between zero and absolutely nothing, as far as what the President can/could do in the event of an attack, though Krauthammer's little thought experiment was pretty neat, thanks for sharing it!