Obama: Won't Use Nukes

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1

Obama commits US to not use nuclear weapons in response even if another nation engages in a massive attack against the US with chemical or biological weapons:

Excerpt:

“It [Obama’s plan] eliminates much of the ambiguity that has deliberately existed in American nuclear policy since the opening days of the cold war. For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.”

2

The deterrent Obama relies on I suppose is fear of being read their Miranda rights.

3

Yet another dog and pony show piece. It’s always been America’s policy to use them as a last resort, after WW2.
I guess he felt like he had to wax his stick some more.I have never seen somebody so enamored with themselves.

4

Add it to the list.

I don’t think Obama would use a nuclear weapon even if the Koreans or Iranians set one off on US soil and took full credit for it.

5

Even thought there’s specific exceptions for both those nations in the policy?

People seem to be hearing exactly what they want to hear with this.

The policy as stated, was that the US would not use nukes against a nation that itself has none, with the exception of those nations that “may” have them, or are trying to develop, i.e. Iran, North Korea, or any of those other “scary” places that make Neo-Cons shit themselves.

What folly! When Venezuela tries to invade us all we’ll have in the US Navy, Army, Air Force and Marine Corps to defend us. How will we ever survive!

6

Obama specifically said that he would not apply his new standards for nuclear use to “outliers like North Korea or Iran” who are in violation of nuclear proliferation treaties. Essentially, Obama has outlined a strategy that intends to make clear to non-nuclear countries that the U.S. will not retaliate against chemical or biological weapons attacks from them with nuclear weapons, if those countries are in compliance with the Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty.

However, Obama also stated that he reserves the option to reverse his stance on using nukes if the country that attacks the U.S. with biological/chemical weapons represents a catastrophic threat. Basically, what he’s saying is that if you attack the U.S. with a small amount of bio-chem weapons that does not result in widespread death or whatever, the U.S. isn’t going to nuke you into the Stone Age, but if you do carry out a large scale attack with non-conventional weaponry, you probably will be nuked into oblivion.

Look, the only countries in the world with declared nukes are the U.S., Britain, France, China, Israel, Pakistan, India, North Korea (w/o delivery capabilities) and Russia. Israel, Pakistan, North Korea and India have refused to sign the NNPT. So the only countries that Obama’s new strategy applies to are those without nuclear capabilities whatsoever or Britain, France, China and Russia.

The real threats are Pakistan, North Korea (if they get a delivery system) or Iran in the future. If they use nukes or large-scale bio/chem weapons against the U.S. they’re going to get nuked. Obama also included large-scale cyber attacks as an exception to his strategy, so if China carries out a massive cyber attack on us, they might get nuked too.

What’s so bad about this? Obama is just trying to reduce nuclear proliferation for those willing to play the game. The countries that are the REAL threats to the U.S. are not included in this new strategy. Those who are in violation of the NNPT are certainly still going to get nuked in the event of a large-scale attack, even if it is not a nuclear attack and most certainly if it IS a nuclear attack.

7

what a fucking brain-dead idiot!!!

8

[quote]Spartiates wrote:
Even thought there’s specific exceptions for both those nations in the policy?

People seem to be hearing exactly what they want to hear with this.

The policy as stated, was that the US would not use nukes against a nation that itself has none, with the exception of those nations that “may” have them, or are trying to develop, i.e. Iran, North Korea, or any of those other “scary” places that make Neo-Cons shit themselves.

What folly! When Venezuela tries to invade us all we’ll have in the US Navy, Army, Air Force and Marine Corps to defend us. How will we ever survive![/quote]

Hey, smart guy, I WANT the bad guys to be unsure of our response. It’s called deterrance. If the bad guys THINK about using any form of weapon against us, I want them WONDERING if we’ll use nuclear weapons on them.

Now this guy has removed the doubt.

Makes me wonder if anyone on the left has ever faced down a bully. They don’t seem to understand the basic premise.

JeffR

9

[quote]Jeff R wrote:

Hey, smart guy, I WANT the bad guys to be unsure of our response. It’s called deterrance. If the bad guys THINK about using any form of weapon against us, I want them WONDERING if we’ll use nuclear weapons on them.

Now this guy has removed the doubt.

Makes me wonder if anyone on the left has ever faced down a bully. They don’t seem to understand the basic premise.

JeffR
[/quote]

Because I’m sure anyone who would attack the US directly really cares if we nuke their population. Right?

And I’m sure someone will just attack us to attack us, right? Because that’s how war is fought. You go somewhere, attack, and then leave, right? Oh, wait, you invade right? I’m sure Cuba, or Albania are going to be trying to invade us, with their massive navies…

Seriously. I’d like someone to devise a half-way plausible scenario where this hurts us. Where some non-nuclear power is able to successfully invade us. Let’s hear them.

10

There is no uncertainty, he said he won’t use nukes, plain and simple. Now, use the opposite thinking, how about Iran’s position on nukes, still think anyone is really wondering? Ahmadinejad has made it really clear where he stands with nukes, is there any doubt now? You want to take that risk? You are talking about playing poker… for keeps.

11

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]Jeff R wrote:

Hey, smart guy, I WANT the bad guys to be unsure of our response. It’s called deterrance. If the bad guys THINK about using any form of weapon against us, I want them WONDERING if we’ll use nuclear weapons on them.

Now this guy has removed the doubt.

Makes me wonder if anyone on the left has ever faced down a bully. They don’t seem to understand the basic premise.

JeffR
[/quote]

Because I’m sure anyone who would attack the US directly really cares if we nuke their population. Right?

And I’m sure someone will just attack us to attack us, right? Because that’s how war is fought. You go somewhere, attack, and then leave, right? Oh, wait, you invade right? I’m sure Cuba, or Albania are going to be trying to invade us, with their massive navies…

Seriously. I’d like someone to devise a half-way plausible scenario where this hurts us. Where some non-nuclear power is able to successfully invade us. Let’s hear them.[/quote]

Hey, smart guy, why does it have to be invasion?

So you are a nation funding terrorists, if you think you are going to get nuked for that support, chances are YOU WON’T DO IT.

Can you wrap your brain around that?

12

[quote]Jeff R wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:
Even thought there’s specific exceptions for both those nations in the policy?

People seem to be hearing exactly what they want to hear with this.

The policy as stated, was that the US would not use nukes against a nation that itself has none, with the exception of those nations that “may” have them, or are trying to develop, i.e. Iran, North Korea, or any of those other “scary” places that make Neo-Cons shit themselves.

What folly! When Venezuela tries to invade us all we’ll have in the US Navy, Army, Air Force and Marine Corps to defend us. How will we ever survive![/quote]

Hey, smart guy, I WANT the bad guys to be unsure of our response. It’s called deterrance. If the bad guys THINK about using any form of weapon against us, I want them WONDERING if we’ll use nuclear weapons on them.

Now this guy has removed the doubt.

Makes me wonder if anyone on the left has ever faced down a bully. They don’t seem to understand the basic premise.

JeffR
[/quote]

The “bad guys” don’t have to wonder what our response will be; they now know that we WILL use nukes in the event of a catastrophic bio/chem/cyber attack from a non-signatory to the NNPT. The “bad guys” have always known that we WILL use nukes in response to a nuclear attack as well. Shit, they’ve pretty much always known what our response will be, which is why we went through a Cold War and not a Nuclear War with Russia for decades.

13

[quote]Jeff R wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]Jeff R wrote:

Hey, smart guy, I WANT the bad guys to be unsure of our response. It’s called deterrance. If the bad guys THINK about using any form of weapon against us, I want them WONDERING if we’ll use nuclear weapons on them.

Now this guy has removed the doubt.

Makes me wonder if anyone on the left has ever faced down a bully. They don’t seem to understand the basic premise.

JeffR
[/quote]

Because I’m sure anyone who would attack the US directly really cares if we nuke their population. Right?

And I’m sure someone will just attack us to attack us, right? Because that’s how war is fought. You go somewhere, attack, and then leave, right? Oh, wait, you invade right? I’m sure Cuba, or Albania are going to be trying to invade us, with their massive navies…

Seriously. I’d like someone to devise a half-way plausible scenario where this hurts us. Where some non-nuclear power is able to successfully invade us. Let’s hear them.[/quote]

Hey, smart guy, why does it have to be invasion?

So you are a nation funding terrorists, if you think you are going to get nuked for that support, chances are YOU WON’T DO IT.

Can you wrap your brain around that?

[/quote]

Wrap your brain around this. If the U.S. were to respond to a 9/11-style attack by blowing the country that sponsored said attack off the face of the map with nukes, WE would become the international outcasts. I don’t like it, but if we responded to an attack that killed 3,000 people by killing 300k people with one bomb, or killed 3 million people, the entire international community would flip the fuck out. Especially since we are perfectly capable of responding to such an attack with conventional weaponry.

14

[quote]Jeff R wrote:

Because I’m sure anyone who would attack the US directly really cares if we nuke their population. Right?

And I’m sure someone will just attack us to attack us, right? Because that’s how war is fought. You go somewhere, attack, and then leave, right? Oh, wait, you invade right? I’m sure Cuba, or Albania are going to be trying to invade us, with their massive navies…

Seriously. I’d like someone to devise a half-way plausible scenario where this hurts us. Where some non-nuclear power is able to successfully invade us. Let’s hear them.[/quote]

Hey, smart guy, why does it have to be invasion?

So you are a nation funding terrorists, if you think you are going to get nuked for that support, chances are YOU WON’T DO IT.

Can you wrap your brain around that?

[/quote]

Like Afghanistan did? Did our nuclear deterrent deter the then government of Afghanistan (the Taliban) from supporting Al Qaeda, and did we “nuke 'em” in response to the largest attack on US soil in a half a century?

I think we all know the answers… we neither deterred them, nor nuked them by “leaving all option on the table”.

Come up with a hypothetical, with some degree of probability that it will happen, where this policy hurts us.

15

So Spartiates, you believe the the government of Afghanistan decided to launch an attack on US soil?

If you don’t believe that, then your above post is completely senseless.

16

[quote]Jeff R wrote:

Hey, smart guy, I WANT the bad guys to be unsure of our response. It’s called deterrance. If the bad guys THINK about using any form of weapon against us, I want them WONDERING if we’ll use nuclear weapons on them.

Now this guy has removed the doubt.

Makes me wonder if anyone on the left has ever faced down a bully. They don’t seem to understand the basic premise.

JeffR
[/quote]

Good point…I would rather he say that we reserve the right to use nukes for any reason we deem necessary…
Not as a matter of practice, but as a voice in the back of somebody’s head when they consider attacking us or doing us harm…

17

[quote]animal6fat9 wrote:
what a fucking brain-dead idiot!!![/quote]

To say obama is an idiot is like saying a wheel is round…It’s is self evident.

18

[quote]

The “bad guys” don’t have to wonder what our response will be; they now know that we WILL use nukes in the event of a catastrophic bio/chem/cyber attack from a non-signatory to the NNPT. The “bad guys” have always known that we WILL use nukes in response to a nuclear attack as well. Shit, they’ve pretty much always known what our response will be, which is why we went through a Cold War and not a Nuclear War with Russia for decades.[/quote]

Was there a point in there? In the event of said attack, does anyone really care (besides obama/you) if they signed a flippin’ treaty?

I guarantee, if db’s family was harmed (God forbid), he’d want maximum force used to make sure it didn’t happen again.

Maximum force.

19

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Jeff R wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]Jeff R wrote:

Hey, smart guy, I WANT the bad guys to be unsure of our response. It’s called deterrance. If the bad guys THINK about using any form of weapon against us, I want them WONDERING if we’ll use nuclear weapons on them.

Now this guy has removed the doubt.

Makes me wonder if anyone on the left has ever faced down a bully. They don’t seem to understand the basic premise.

JeffR
[/quote]

Because I’m sure anyone who would attack the US directly really cares if we nuke their population. Right?

And I’m sure someone will just attack us to attack us, right? Because that’s how war is fought. You go somewhere, attack, and then leave, right? Oh, wait, you invade right? I’m sure Cuba, or Albania are going to be trying to invade us, with their massive navies…

Seriously. I’d like someone to devise a half-way plausible scenario where this hurts us. Where some non-nuclear power is able to successfully invade us. Let’s hear them.[/quote]

Hey, smart guy, why does it have to be invasion?

So you are a nation funding terrorists, if you think you are going to get nuked for that support, chances are YOU WON’T DO IT.

Can you wrap your brain around that?

[/quote]

Wrap your brain around this. If the U.S. were to respond to a 9/11-style attack by blowing the country that sponsored said attack off the face of the map with nukes, WE would become the international outcasts. I don’t like it, but if we responded to an attack that killed 3,000 people by killing 300k people with one bomb, or killed 3 million people, the entire international community would flip the fuck out. Especially since we are perfectly capable of responding to such an attack with conventional weaponry.[/quote]

What about a non-911 attack? What about a larger attack?

I think there’s a high probablity that the bad guys have been prevented from larger attacks simply out of fear of our response.

That includes thermonuclear weaponry.

Oh, I think it’s a bad idea to let our foreign policy be run by the “international community.”

20

Why the hell would we release information like this?

Why tell the world we have basically castrated ourselves “Come Get us, we won’t even have a death blow for you! It’s OK, we are no longer bad asses world.”

I see no logical reason to:

  1. create the weak policy to begin with
  2. To realease the policy to public

Unless we are inviting attack.

But I think it’s a typical bloviated policy to make us all “feel” good. All the while our CIC has no idea of the unintended concequences of this “feel good” policy. All it does is make our enemies “feel good” about pushing us around.