Obama: No Nukes Even in Self Defense!

[Rael]

Obama now poses an immediate danger to the security of the United States. He should be impeached immediately!

"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. "


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/06arms.html

[zade]

I agree with the president. How is this an impeachable offense?

[QueenB4Liberty]

This is why he got the peace prize.

[Rael]

I agree with the president. How is this an impeachable offense?

Failure to uphold his oath of office.

He's basically saying, it's ok if you put anthrax in our water supply, or use chemical weapons on us, we won't even consider nuking you over it.

[Kotin]

thats moronic.. not because it might not be a good policy.. but because you dont tell people that kind of thing.. they are there to deter.. you dont tell people you wont use them.. even if that is the case.

[Number19]

I disagree - I have no problem with this policy. The threat and use of nuclear weapons should only be used in retaliation for the use of nuclear weapons.

However, I would make it policy, and be very clear about it in no uncertain terms, that the U.S. would respond with nukes in the event that nukes were used against any American interests.

[zade]

Failure to uphold his oath of office.

He's basically saying, it's ok if you put anthrax in our water supply, or use chemical weapons on us, we won't even consider nuking you over it.

Do you really believe the threat of nukes was the only thing stopping people from doing this? Do you really believe that a nuclear weapon that would unavoidably kill hundreds or thousands of civilians would be a good way to combat what could only be a small group of individuals?

[jrkotrla]

how is this a bad thing? I seriously doubt these people were ever in true danger of nuclear retaliation to begin with. Making it official is simply good sense.

We have much more accurate weapons than nukes (even tactical nukes) that we really don't have any need for nuclear weapons except as a method to eradicate the majority of human civilization. unless we are intent on wiping out mankind, we really don't need them for any reason.

[sofia]

who in their right mind would ever attack us anyway besides Israel

[phill4paul]

No nuke. Fine. 30mm on innocent Iraqi civilians. Two thumbs up (our ass).

[QueenB4Liberty]

who in their right mind would ever attack us anyway besides Israel

Why would Israel attack us?

[Andrew-Austin]

Ask him if he thinks Truman was justified in nuking Japan, he'll probably say yes.

[micahnelson]

I like this, but I wish he wouldn't have said it out loud.

Hes kind of all over the place between "drill baby drill" and now pulling a "You can't hug the world with nuclear arms."

[silus]

Obama now poses an immediate danger to the security of the United States. He should be impeached immediately!
You know nothing about national security. Which is why you didn't utter the same thing about the doctrine of preemptive nuclear strike.

[micahnelson]

I think people forget the majority of the Ron Paul movement is anti-war.

Not anti-military per se, but we don't like unjust actions committed by governments. Nuking a country that didn't nuke us seems like a pretty unjust action.

[TER]

I wish I could believe it, but I don't. A promise or 'commitment' to not use nuclear weapons on the stated threats makes him look like a great peacemaker and worthy of such noble accolades as the Nobel Prize. It will make headlines all over the world and he is counting on it.

Unfortunately, the world over all ready knows what a US promise is worth these days. And it ain't much. Even Moody's might agree...

This 'commitment' will last as long as it has to, and not a moment later... a farce just waiting to be exposed in a future 'Executive Order'.

[Rael]

thats moronic.. not because it might not be a good policy.. but because you dont tell people that kind of thing.. they are there to deter.. you dont tell people you wont use them.. even if that is the case.

Exactly.

I don't think it would be appropriate to use nukes in many, or even most, cases of biological or chemical attack. But you never take it off the table, as it is a deterrent.

Keep in mind that we don't have the option to respond to an attack with our own bio or chem weapons. Depending on the nature of a bio or chem attack, it may not be feasible to respond with conventional forces. Especially if the attacker is using those weapons on our forces. I would rather us use a tactical nuke than send perhaps tens of thousands of troops to die from bio or chem warfare.

[Rael]

Unfortunately, the world over all ready knows what a US promise is worth these days. And it ain't much. Even Moody's might agree...

This 'commitment' will last as long as it has to, and not a moment later... a farce just waiting to be exposed in a future 'Executive Order'.

Which makes this a very stupid move. Basically, we will would still use the nukes, except now we don't have the deterrent (which might prevent an attack in the first place). Plus it would be another broken promise that could cause further instability.

[silus]

Exactly.

I don't think it would be appropriate to use nukes in many, or even most, cases of biological or chemical attack. But you never take it off the table, as it is a deterrent.

Keep in mind that we don't have the option to respond to an attack with our own bio or chem weapons. Depending on the nature of a bio or chem attack, it may not be feasible to respond with conventional forces. Especially if the attacker is using those weapons on our forces. I would rather us use a tactical nuke than send perhaps tens of thousands of troops to die from bio or chem warfare.
If revealing intentions was your concern, your first post did a terrible job at explaining that. Which is probably why you are piggybacking onto someone who is actually making a rational evaluation, as opposed to your simpleminded "the world is going to end" knee jerk response.

[Anti Federalist]

I like this, but I wish he wouldn't have said it out loud.

Hes kind of all over the place between "drill baby drill" and now pulling a "You can't hug the world with nuclear arms."

Stoned?

YouTube - 60 Minutes Kroft To Joking Obama "Are You Punch Drunk?" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNu9xjUwPEk&feature=player_embedded)

[rp08orbust]

Sorry, I have to agree with Obama this time. http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard26.html

[micahnelson]

Its kind of the opposite of Dr. Strangelove.

"Yes, but the... whole point of the doomsday machine... is lost... if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?"

The whole point of not using nukes is if people think you will!

[Kylie]

Stoned?

YouTube - 60 Minutes Kroft To Joking Obama "Are You Punch Drunk?" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNu9xjUwPEk&feature=player_embedded)



Then the motherfucker better make it okay for everyone else. That is definitely not an executive privilege.

:D

[.Tom]

How the hell can you use a nuke in self defense? What about all the millions of innocents who will be murdered?

[pcosmar]

He will say and do exactly what he is told to do and say.
Perhaps long drawn out wars are more profitable than a nuke.
:(

[Agorism]

I agree with the president. We should not nuclear weapons in response to a non-nuclear attack.

[Bman]

I must say this is one thing Obama has said that I will agree with. That being said the fact that we have them also means the rules can change at any time, but as an initial statement on intent I think it is a great sign for developing countries to not be feared into acquiring nuclear weapons.

[pcosmar]

I must say this is one thing Obama has said that I will agree with. That being said the fact that we have them also means the rules can change at any time, but as an initial statement on intent I think it is a great sign for developing countries to not be feared into acquiring nuclear weapons.

Watch for them to be turned over to the UN.
For "Peacekeeping". :rolleyes:

[nandnor]

I cant believe how many nuke supporters there are here.. You are no better than the iraqi journalist murderers. Nuking, or any bombing whether preemptive or retaliatory, means killing innocent civilians, it is MURDER, no better than mass shooting in universities or raping and torturing by sociopaths, there can be no justification for it!

[Romulus]

thats moronic.. not because it might not be a good policy.. but because you dont tell people that kind of thing.. they are there to deter.. you dont tell people you wont use them.. even if that is the case.
this

[Bman]

Watch for them to be turned over to the UN.
For "Peacekeeping". :rolleyes:

Now that I would have a real problem with.

[iddo]

BTW, the official policy of Israel is also that they won't be the first to use nukes in the Middle East.
Whether anyone believes it is a different question...

[RyanRSheets]

This is ricockulous. I oppose the use of nuclear weaponry, in a situation where it could possibly kill a civilian (read: just about always), but telling the world we won't use our nukes is stupid as hell. We shouldn't be talking about nuking anyone, but I do think we should declare to the world "if anyone attacks us, we will destroy them, thoroughly, with whatever weapon we have to".

[RileyE104]

This is ricockulous. I oppose the use of nuclear weaponry, in a situation where it could possibly kill a civilian (read: just about always), but telling the world we won't use our nukes is stupid as hell. We shouldn't be talking about nuking anyone, but I do think we should declare to the world "if anyone attacks us, we will destroy them, thoroughly, with whatever weapon we have to".

The OP says he only said we wont use nukes in the event of a non-nuclear strike upon our country... I see nothing wrong with the President's position with this matter. I agree with him on this.

[M House]

The OP says he only said we wont use nukes in the event of a non-nuclear strike upon our country... I see nothing wrong with the President's position with this matter. I agree with him on this.

It's strange having Obama say something you can agree with isn't it?

[Fox McCloud]

I hate nukes, but they're essentially what has prevented WWIII--nukes have a heavy hand in preventing large-scale, multinational wars (instead we get armed conflicts in 3rd world nations).

Mark my words, if nearly all the nations adopt this silly policy (or worse, get rid of all their nukes), then another large armed conflict is nearly inevitable.

[DAFTEK]

YouTube - Barack Basically Called A Liar From Critic During Obama Speech To A Joint Session Of Congress (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gawTPJ5byYE)

YouTube - Obama's PROMISE To End The Iraq War - Oct. 27, 2007 - "You Can Take That To The Bank" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZvWilRn0L8)

[CUnknown]

I applaud Obama's committment not to nuke people here... but it seems like much ado about nothing to me. I would hope we wouldn't throw around nukes!

To those who think he's leaving us open to attack, give me a break. He didn't say we wouldn't drop other kinds of bombs on them, MOABs can be almost as devastating as nukes, minus the radioactive fallout.

[RyanRSheets]

The OP says he only said we wont use nukes in the event of a non-nuclear strike upon our country... I see nothing wrong with the President's position with this matter. I agree with him on this.

The wording should be more to the effect of "we won't drop a nuke bomb to kill a fly" and "we won't resort to killing innocent bystanders to kill the enemy". Instead, Obama has essentially just said "we won't use our biggest weapon unless the enemy has a weapon just as large" and that's a flawed concept. That's hardly different than me saying "I wouldn't shoot someone that held me at knifepoint".

[fisharmor]

To understand the nature of the present war -- for in spite of the regrouping which occurs every few years, it is always the same war -- one must realize in the first place that it is impossible for it to be decisive.
...
The primary aim of modern warfare... is to use up the products of the machine without raising the general standard of living.
...
But it was also clear that an all-round increase in wealth threatened the destruction -- indeed, in some sense was the destruction -- of a hierarchical society. In a world in which everyone worked short hours, had enough to eat, lived in a house with a bathroom and a refrigerator, and possessed a motor-car or even an aeroplane, the most obvious and perhaps the most important form of inequality would already have disappeared. If it once became general, wealth would confer no distinction. It was possible, no doubt, to imagine a society in which wealth, in the sense of personal possessions and luxuries, should be evenly distributed, while power remained in the hands of a small privileged caste. But in practice such a society could not long remain stable. For if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later realize that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away. In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance.
...
The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labour. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent.


We don't need less nukes. We need more nukes.
Our nuclear armament is basically 1960s technology. We haven't been able to contemporize it.
We have nuclear missles in silos, nuclear bombs on airplanes, and nuclear missles in submarines.

The reality of 2010 is that if we were able to update them, we would only need the ones in silos. Private corporations can read newspaper headlines from space, but ICBMs have an accuracy measured in miles. Thus we need bombers and submarines for accuracy purposes... which of course we don't really need at all.

Not to mention the fact that if allowed to, we would surely develop nuclear warheads which are down in the 1kt range (Hiroshima was 21kt if memory serves) which actually would serve a tactically defensive role. And warheads could be further miniaturized so as to save on infrastructure and fuel costs for ICBMs.

But, that's too much like the smart thing to do. Instead we dump money into a pit and light it on fire, putting boots on the ground on the other side of the globe, creating the conditions necessary to dig more pits and light more fires.

Why? I'm disgusted to point out that someone figured out why over 50 years ago.

[virgil47]

If we are not going to respond to a non-nuclear attack with nukes then we need to build up our biological and chemical munitions so we can respond in kind. This is what most of you are advocating is it not? You surely wouldn't want the U.S. to just bow down before an attacker would you? Or maybe we should just sit down and talk out our differences. Although if you've ever worn a gas mask you'd know that talking while wearing one can be very difficult. I'm sorry but limiting ourselves to the type of weapon we are attacked by is the stupidest thing I have ever heard or seen in writing. I can just imagine an enemy attack and our side says time out. What caliber and capacity are your weapons because we want to respond in kind don't ya know. Talk about self defeating.

[Vessol]

There are a few exceptions that the media didn't cover.

US President Barack Obama plans to release a review of the US nuclear arms strategy that purportedly restricts the use of its nuclear arms against most non-atomic states except Iran and North Korea.

http://presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=122594&sectionid=3510203