Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms

#26
#26
This is a plan designed to strengthen the Nonproliferation Treaty and provide more weight behind enforcement, it seems to me. Taking nuclear weapons off the table for conventional, chemical, biological, and cyber attacks by nationals that are non-nuclear and in compliance with the NPT isn't ridiculously dangerous. However, it does leave you feeling a bit more exposed than you were before. I suppose you could always make something up to suggest that a nation isn't compliant with the NPT if you really wanted to launch some nuclear weapons their way.

The administration is actually showing a stronger commitment (for the moment) to preserving the existing stockpile (while continuing reduction in numbers) than I thought I would hear from them, so at least that is a plus. The commitment to no new nukes in today's Nuclear Posture Review is really nothing new...the Reliable Replacement Warhead and other varieties were DOA even in the Republican congress it seemed.
 
#27
#27
lawgator1 said:
Like who? Name one non-nuclear country that could or ever would bomb us (and that isn't otherwise an exception to the policy, such as N Korea or Iran) such that our conventional weapons wouldn't be enough to easily disuade them from trying?

Guatemala? Norway?
Click to expand...

I would say that the nightmare scenario would be large biological attacks on the US perpetrated by a non-nuclear country (or network of countries). Our conventional response would likely be sufficient assuming our troops are capable of going, but nuclear weapons present certain options that make our lives easier in planning against such a coordinated attack. It's not completely cut and dry, IMO.
 
#29
#29
TennTradition said:
I would say that the nightmare scenario would be large biological attacks on the US perpetrated by a non-nuclear country (or network of countries). Our conventional response would likely be sufficient assuming our troops are capable of going, but nuclear weapons present certain options that make our lives easier in planning against such a coordinated attack. It's not completely cut and dry, IMO.
Click to expand...


And in that respect note that we specifically reserve the right to alter the policy should we ever perceive that a potential attacker has developed biological weapons to the point that we deem it advisable to put a nuclear deterretn back on the table.

The policy is unilateral, anyway. We could change it or choose not to follow it with the swoop of a pen.
 
#30
#30
lawgator1 said:
And in that respect note that we specifically reserve the right to alter the policy should we ever perceive that a potential attacker has developed biological weapons to the point that we deem it advisable to put a nuclear deterretn back on the table.

The policy is unilateral, anyway. We could change it or choose not to follow it with the swoop of a pen.
Click to expand...
If that is the case, then why make this new policy public?? Just dont understand the motivation behind putting this policy out there if what you say is the case.
 
#31
#31
BearCat204 said:
If that is the case, then why make this new policy public?? Just dont understand the motivation behind putting this policy out there if what you say is the case.
Click to expand...


As I said, I don't know but there must be some gameplan at wok to do it, and specifically some manipulation of someone going on by announcing it.
 
#32
#32
I think the reason it has been made public and done at this time is to try and give Iran, possibly North Korea, more incentive to come to the table and scrap their weapons ambitions. Iran has sent subtle messages in the past and cooperated in some respects, usually when it served their purposes as well, for example giving us information that opened up the passes in Afghanistan after Iranian diplomats were killed by the Taliban.

I think Obama needs a clear policy victory win at the moment and he has set his sights on Iran to try and secure some sort of agreement. It will be baby steps with them, especially at first, but I believe this is a priority behind the scenes in this administration.
 
#33
#33
I agree that the reason this was made public is to attempt to add more meat to the NPT and build a stronger diplomatic position. I'm not sure that it will accomplish it, but I'm also not certain that its horrible policy.
 
#34
#34
I'm not criticizing this move. If he is indeed doing this to bring Iran into the fold it will achieve very little IMO. Our diplomatic relationship with Iran over the past 30 years has always been a one step forward, two steps back type game.

We've tried any number of things, why not throw this one out there and see what happens as well. North Korea will not be phased in the least by this, Kim Jong is a lunatic and only wants all the freebies he can get thrown his way. Iran on the other hand is a entirely different scenario.
 
#35
#35
lawgator1 said:
As I said, I don't know but there must be some gameplan at wok to do it, and specifically some manipulation of someone going on by announcing it.
Click to expand...



Obama Raises White Flag Over America

Not only does Obama’s revamping of American nuclear strategy renounce the development of any new nuclear weapons, it overrules the initial position of his own defense secretary Robert Gates.
Click to expand...

FR_obamainsane-1.jpg


Leader of most transparent administration in history also has more personal records redacted than any other president.
 
#36
#36
Apparently some folks in here agree with Ahmadinejad:

"Mr. Obama, you are a newcomer (to politics). Wait until your sweat dries and get some experience. Be careful not to read just any paper put in front of you or repeat any statement recommended," Ahmadinejad said in the speech, aired live on state TV.
Click to expand...

Iran ridicules Obama's "cowboy" nuclear strategy - Yahoo! News


So using your same transitive properties... you are an Iranian sympathizer. Time to go crazy.
 
#39
#39
lawgator1 said:
Notice the exceptions carved out for the likes of North Korea, etc. And it doesn't apply to nuclear powers, such as Russia or China. Basically, what we are saying is that if we are attacked by Ireland, we aren't going to use nukes.

This really isn't much of a change in any real terms.
Click to expand...

so you admit this is soley political grandstanding then?
 
#40
#40
VolInMn said:
I thought you guys were fans of Ronald Reagan?
Click to expand...

That's what I thought too. I remember reading somewhere that it was his dream to see a world without nuclear weapons and he wanted the US and the USSR to destroy all if their nukes. He made a speech in China that basically said nuclear wars cannot should never be fought and that no one can win a nuke war. It appears that Obama is more in line with Reagan than most of the other conservatives regarding this issue. If Ronnie can dream, why can't Barry?
 
#42
#42
All things considered, this really isn't a bad move. IMO, what is saying is he is declaring nuclear retaliation off the table except to those we think are legitimate nuclear threats. It basically focuses the threat of nuclear retaliation specific countries while lessening it elsewhere. We don't look like a bully to the whole world, yet we are still strong to those that deserve it. It seems to me that makes the threat more real where it matters, and why it should be very public.

Maybe that is a wrong interpretation, but it makes sense to me.
 
#43
#43
Chattaben said:
That's what I thought too. I remember reading somewhere that it was his dream to see a world without nuclear weapons and he wanted the US and the USSR to destroy all if their nukes. He made a speech in China that basically said nuclear wars cannot should never be fought and that no one can win a nuke war. It appears that Obama is more in line with Reagan than most of the other conservatives regarding this issue. If Ronnie can dream, why can't Barry?
Click to expand...

There is a big difference in saying I wish we didn't have to have nuclear weapons and actually reducing our missles, especially when N Korea has a nuke and Iran being very close to getting one.
 
#44
#44
rjd970 said:
All things considered, this really isn't a bad move. IMO, what is saying is he is declaring nuclear retaliation off the table except to those we think are legitimate nuclear threats. It basically focuses the threat of nuclear retaliation specific countries while lessening it elsewhere. We don't look like a bully to the whole world, yet we are still strong to those that deserve it. It seems to me that makes the threat more real where it matters, and why it should be very public.

Maybe that is a wrong interpretation, but it makes sense to me.
Click to expand...

I guess my question is why publicize it? I understand the concept of what he's doing but don't agree. When you start eliminating measures of retaliation don't you kind of increase the amount of people more likely to attack? To me it's a decision to be made once an event occurs and not now when everything is stable.
 
#45
#45
volfanjustin said:
There is a big difference in saying I wish we didn't have to have nuclear weapons and actually reducing our missles, especially when N Korea has a nuke and Iran being very close to getting one.
Click to expand...

you mean saying "hey if you attack me i wont use nukes" might not be a deterent?
 
#46
#46
utvolpj said:
I guess my question is why publicize it? I understand the concept of what he's doing but don't agree. When you start eliminating measures of retaliation don't you kind of increase the amount of people more likely to attack? To me it's a decision to be made once an event occurs and not now when everything is stable.
Click to expand...

I think you publicize it so the named countries on the list know when it comes to them, homey don't play. Everybody else has some wiggle room. It is more of focusing the threat of retaliation.

I also think that in reality, it is never completely off the table for everyone. Just some get more of the benefit of the doubt than others.
 
#47
#47
volfanjustin said:
There is a big difference in saying I wish we didn't have to have nuclear weapons and actually reducing our missles, especially when N Korea has a nuke and Iran being very close to getting one.
Click to expand...

We simply don't need the number of weapons currently in our stockpile.

Ronald Reagan proposed the original arms reductions that led to the START treaty reductions.

That process has worked, the USSR and US's stockpiles are falling, so we can continue to dismantle or disassemble.

Getting to zero is a much harder problem to solve, but the current nuclear arms reductions are certainly in the spirit of Reagan's original intent.
 
#48
#48
TennTradition said:
We simply don't need the number of weapons currently in our stockpile.

Ronald Reagan proposed the original arms reductions that led to the START treaty reductions.

That process has worked, the USSR and US's stockpiles are falling, so we can continue to dismantle or disassemble.

Getting to zero is a much harder problem to solve, but the current nuclear arms reductions are certainly in the spirit of Reagan's original intent.
Click to expand...

Now is not the time to start disarming, with North Korea having a nuke and there being an arms race in the Middle East. Russia is selling sotckpiles of weapons to Venezuela, that does not sound like a country that has interest in peace. If we continue down this path with thie regime we will be fighting with spit balls.

Nuclear weapons are one hell of a deterent.
 
#50
#50
rjd970 said:
I think you publicize it so the named countries on the list know when it comes to them, homey don't play. Everybody else has some wiggle room. It is more of focusing the threat of retaliation.

I also think that in reality, it is never completely off the table for everyone. Just some get more of the benefit of the doubt than others.
Click to expand...

the ones with nukes know that anyway so no need to inform them. They also know ours are way more advanced/accurate/deadly. It's the guys just below the nuke powers that need to be kept wondering.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top