Obama to Limit Potential Uses of Nuclear Weapons

[Dragoon68]

This is another bad decision that telegraphs weakness to the world.

Obama to Limit Potential Uses of Nuclear Weapons

We should never limit our options to defend ourselves. We should always keep our enemies concerned that we will use them all if it is necessary.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

This is another bad decision that telegraphs weakness to the world.

Obama to Limit Potential Uses of Nuclear Weapons

We should never limit our options to defend ourselves. We should always keep our enemies concerned that we will use them all if it is necessary.

Actions in war require a proportional response. Nuclear weapons use should be very limited because they cause large numbers of civilian casualties.

 

[windcatcher]

This is another bad decision that telegraphs weakness to the world.

Obama to Limit Potential Uses of Nuclear Weapons

We should never limit our options to defend ourselves. We should always keep our enemies concerned that we will use them all if it is necessary.

I agree.

One step further:

I think it is an open invitation......
......... and 'open season' on us... so to speak.... for a nuke attack.

I do think this man's goal is to destroy US.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

I agree.

One step further:

I think it is an open invitation......
......... and 'open season' on us... so to speak.... for a nuke attack.

I do believe this man's goal is to destroy US.

Why would the President want to "destroy us?" That makes no sense. Not even Bush wanted to destroy the country.

What the Fox News article didn't say is that the new policy states that the United States will not use nuclear weapons against nations that do not have nuclear weapons and also abide by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That's it.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

This is another bad decision that telegraphs weakness to the world.

Obama to Limit Potential Uses of Nuclear Weapons

We should never limit our options to defend ourselves. We should always keep our enemies concerned that we will use them all if it is necessary.

So, not content with destroying our country himself, now he's going to invite others to help.

 

[Crabtownboy]

It would be highly surprising for Fox to put anything but a negative spin on anything Obama does. Not everyone see it their way.

US President Barack Obama's administration has unveiled plans for substantial reductions in America's nuclear weapons' stockpile.

But its strategy review warned Iran and North Korea they would remain potential targets if they continued to defy the international community.

The US also raised concerns about the "lack of transparency" surrounding China's nuclear programme.

It said the US would only used nuclear arms in "extreme circumstances".

For the first time, the US is ruling out a nuclear response to attacks on America involving biological, chemical or conventional weapons.

But the Nuclear Posture Review comes with a major condition: countries will only be spared a US nuclear response if they comply with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty - this does not include Iran and North Korea.

"[Tehran and Pyongyang's] continued defiance of international norms and agreements will lead only to their further isolation and increasing international pressure," the document notes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8604217.stm

President Barack Obama is making the prevention of nuclear terrorism the top goal of U.S. atomic policy, according to an administration review that also would limit circumstances for using nuclear weapons.

The president’s Nuclear Posture Review calls for “a broader approach to deterrence” than depending solely on the threat of nuclear weapons.

“The massive nuclear arsenal we inherited from the Cold War era of bipolar military confrontation is poorly suited to address the challenges posed by suicidal terrorists and unfriendly regimes seeking nuclear weapons,” the report released today by the Pentagon says. “Therefore, it is essential that we better align our nuclear policies and posture to our most urgent priorities -- preventing nuclear terrorism and nuclear proliferation.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=axIFWrr14qWo&pos=9

The landmark nuclear pact the United States signs with Russia Thursday will significantly boost President Barack Obama's moral hand in pursuing non-proliferation -- a key foreign policy goal.
Analysts said the treaty, one of the last symbolic remnants of the Cold War era, will also enhance Obama's long-term goal of eradicating nuclear weapons entirely, a target even he admits is unlikely to be realized in his lifetime.
More immediately, the replacement for the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) will lend credibility to Obama's nuclear security summit of world leaders on April 12 and 13.
Analysts said the treaty will reflect an emerging geopolitical truth -- that the protective shield of a nuclear arsenal, while not yet obsolete, is a remnant of an earlier bipolar superpower era.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jKaz1nTUBjXGbFXufM-96Oq2quug

Discussing his approach to nuclear security the day before formally releasing his new strategy, Mr. Obama described his policy as part of a broader effort to edge the world toward making nuclear weapons obsolete, and to create incentives for countries to give up any nuclear ambitions. To set an example, the new strategy renounces the development of any new nuclear weapons, overruling the initial position of his own defense secretary.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/06arms.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

In the Review, the US government will pledge to refrain from using nuclear weapons to attack any country in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) -- even if that country has attacked the US with chemical or biological weapons.

“This is part of our effort to continue to incentivize nations to comply with the NPT, and to isolate those who don’t,” a senior administration official told ABC News. Nuclear states and those nations such as Iran and North Korea that are non-compliant with the NPT “get no assurance at all.”

The idea is that by continuing to develop their nuclear weapons programs, Iran and North Korea are taking steps that make them less secure.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalp...stration-to-introduce-new-nuclear-policy.html

 

[billwald]

During WW2 both sides had poison gas but no one used it. Was this a sign of weakness or of becoming more "civilized?"

 

[ccrobinson]

This is another bad decision that telegraphs weakness to the world.

I'm missing something here. Please help me understand what's bad about Obama's decision. I mean, you may be right. It may be a terrible thing he's doing, but I can't figure out how it's bad.

 

[Crabtownboy]

I do not see it as a sign of weakness, but of confidence and strength.

Any tin horn dictator who hates the United States knows we have weapons that can take him out as well as his henchmen at a moments notice without harming thousands of innocent people. Cruise missiles, smart bombs, and drone with Hellfire missiles. I would be very careful about not making the US too mad at me

Besides those weapons I often wonder what has been developed at the Skunk Works and other places that your and I do not know about.

 

[StefanM]

This is a non-issue. However, most of the conservatives would find fault in Obama buying his wife a birthday present, so I honestly don't think it matters too much that they are upset over this.

 

[preachinjesus]

I was wondering how long it would take that Drudge headline to make it here...

I absolutely believe this is a great thing. We need to eliminate nuclear arms in the world. This is something that can be achieved in our lifetime and will make our world safer for all. Nuclear weapons do no one any good and cause more harm than they prevent. We need a nuclear arms free world...this is a good way to start.

Let us, the one true world superpower take the first step. I'm for it!

 

[Crabtownboy]

I was wondering how long it would take that Drudge headline to make it here...

I absolutely believe this is a great thing. We need to eliminate nuclear arms in the world. This is something that can be achieved in our lifetime and will make our world safer for all. Nuclear weapons do no one any good and cause more harm than they prevent. We need a nuclear arms free world...this is a good way to start.

Let us, the one true world superpower take the first step. I'm for it!

Preach it brother! Preach the truth of the Prince of Peace! Amen and amen!

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I was wondering how long it would take that Drudge headline to make it here...

I absolutely believe this is a great thing. We need to eliminate nuclear arms in the world. This is something that can be achieved in our lifetime and will make our world safer for all. Nuclear weapons do no one any good and cause more harm than they prevent. We need a nuclear arms free world...this is a good way to start.

Let us, the one true world superpower take the first step. I'm for it!

Just curious, what damage to good ratio are you using ? Any real way to measure what they have prevented ?

 

[Robert Snow]

During WW2 both sides had poison gas but no one used it. Was this a sign of weakness or of becoming more "civilized?"

I agree. It's about time we stepped down our nuclear technology. It is unneeded and cost too much. Conventional weapons are what we use.

 

[matt wade]

There is absolutley no reason we need to tell other countries what the capability of our weapons is. We should keep all programs such a nuclear weapons secret.

 

[just-want-peace]

Amazing!!!

The "0"s followers have so completely been mesmerized by him that he can stab them in the back, call them &%$#_*&, and they turn around, thank him for it, and encourage him to do it again!

And the original Pied Piper thought he was good!!!!!

I always wondered how the Anti-Christ would be convincing enough to get the needed following to gain the power he would have, but the reaction of the "0" worshipers answers that question - total & blind allegiance.

As to the OP, all any potential attacker against the US needs to know is that any such action will be met with a force superior enough the quell the attacker. How & what weapons etc. are for his military leaders to meditate over as they retreat or breath their last!

 

[Dragoon68]

Actions in war require a proportional response. Nuclear weapons use should be very limited because they cause large numbers of civilian casualties.

You missed the point and, believe me, I understand proportional response in war! The point was that we should not telegraph to our enemies that we're limiting our options. That's just plain dumb!

 

[StefanM]

Here's the deal; such a pledge is mostly a paper tiger.

If the US were ever actually threatened to a point that would require nuclear weapons, we would use them, regardless of previous promises. We could say that circumstances changed and our existence was threatened. As of now, we are not in that position, so we can encourage nuclear non-proliferation through such a statement.

Essentially, we can gain positive benefits from it without really ever being faced with the negative cost as we could change positions if need be.

 

[StefanM]

You missed the point and, believe me, I understand proportional response in war! The point was that we should not telegraph to our enemies that we're limiting our options. That's just plain dumb!

You are assuming that our enemies would actually believe us on this.

Think about it, would you trust your enemy making such a pledge? I would venture to say no.

 

[Dragoon68]

During WW2 both sides had poison gas but no one used it. Was this a sign of weakness or of becoming more "civilized?"

Using only the force required is the honorable thing to do. Letting your enemy know in advance what you're not going to do is a dumb idea. They need to believe you will use all your capabilities and be worried that you might react more aggressively than is necessary.