Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Obama: No to nuclear response to attacks on the US.
Brad Piff    4/6/2010 12:35:49 AM
Barack Obama is set to announce a new defence strategy that would reduce the circumstances in which the US would be prepared to use nuclear weapons. It would rule out a nuclear response to attacks on the US involving biological, chemical or conventional weapons. Nor would the US use nuclear arms on non-nuclear states that comply with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Mr Obama said he would make exceptions for states deemed in violation of the treaty, naming Iran and North Korea. Ahead of the report's release, Mr Obama told the New York Times he was convinced Iran was on a course that "would provide them with nuclear weapons capabilities". Last week, Mr Obama said he wanted to see new UN sanctions on Tehran "within weeks". Tehran insists its nuclear programme is peaceful, but its refusal to adhere to international demands has raised fears of a possible strike on its nuclear facilities by the US or Israel. Reduction pact The New York Times said Mr Obama described his new 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". More: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8604217.stm
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT
Hamilcar    @012 cannot come soon enough.   4/6/2010 12:38:11 AM
This IDIOT actually said this?

H
 
Quote    Reply

Brad Piff       4/6/2010 12:39:08 AM
finally a president who do not believe a massive weapons race will be the answer...if he starts reducing the nuclear arsenal he might deserve that nobel price...
 
Quote    Reply

buzzard       4/6/2010 8:57:27 AM
finally a president who do not believe a massive weapons race will be the answer...if he starts reducing the nuclear arsenal he might deserve that nobel price...
 
 Yeah, of course since you know every president before Obama was increasing our nuclear arsenal. Oh wait, the quantity of nukes in our arsenal has been decreasing for close to 20 years now. Hmm, maybe Obama has nothing to do with that. Instead Obama just has some inane Utopian notion that the nuclear genie will happily jump back in the bottle if the U.S. just disarms.
 
It is completely idiotic policy decisions like the above from the big O which almost lend credence to a Manchurian Candidate theory. 
 
Quote    Reply

smitty237       4/7/2010 1:21:41 AM
I held back on commenting on this thread at first because frankly I wasn't sure I believed it, but then today I heard from Hillary Clinton's own mouth. 
 
This has less to do with military defense than it has to do with the far left Liberal belief that all nuclear weapons are evil and they should never be used under any circumstances.  Unfortunately, the President of the United States embraces this bizarre, naive, childish view and has used his bully pulpit to unilaterally disarm this country.   We will still have nuclear weapons in our arsenal, but presumably nowthey can only be used in retaliation for a nuclear attack on the United States.
 
So according to Obama's new defense policy our enemies no longer have to fear a nuclear attack even if they manage to explode a chemical or biological weapon in one of our major cities?  What will be our response then if the Libyans or Iranians deploy an anthrax aerosol device in Madison Square Garden or launch a missile into Los Angeles equipped with a VX gas warhead?  Has it even occurred to Obama that one of the major reasons Khadaffi has never launched a WMD attack against the mainland United States is because he feared a likely nuclear retaliation that would turn his country to glass?  Surely not even Barack Hussein Obama is dumb enough to believe that the threat of a counter strike with conventional weapons will have the same deterrent effect.   
 
Quote    Reply

Mikko       4/7/2010 8:40:26 AM
I seem to be commenting all over the place today..
 
No nuclear retaliation to attacks with chemical or biological WMD's. It doesn't rule out use of similar weapons right back at the attacker. Eye for an eye. Leaving that unsaid, this was the first interpretation that came to mind.
 
Plus, it was a well directed statement, a focused diplomatic strike. It paved way for use of nukes in both Iran and North Korea. It prepared us - the grand public - for the idea of nuking Iran or NK, at the same time enforcing the idea that Americans are the good guys. It was a fair warning.
 
I understand the mistrust for BHO, but this statement... in all that I know about diplomacy... was quite golden.  It weakened the deterrence towards the most unlikely customers, factual loss being very small, and at the same time US flexed it's muscles big time to the current trouble makers.
 

 
Quote    Reply

buzzard       4/7/2010 10:18:54 AM
The U.S. does not have stockpiles of biological or chemical weapons (those went away with the Cold War), which is why we maintained that one WMD deployed could be retaliated by another (hence nukes). Saying we won't nuke someone for chemical or biological attacks means we won't reply in kind in any way. That is lunacy.
 
I don't see how restating our extant posture with more limitations somehow makes us look more forceful.  I'd say it does the contrary to be quite honest.
 
Quote    Reply

Mikko       4/7/2010 12:58:44 PM

The U.S. does not have stockpiles of biological or chemical weapons (those went away with the Cold War), which is why we maintained that one WMD deployed could be retaliated by another (hence nukes). Saying we won't nuke someone for chemical or biological attacks means we won't reply in kind in any way. That is lunacy.

I don't see how restating our extant posture with more limitations somehow makes us look more forceful.  I'd say it does the contrary to be quite honest.
'Good guy' -points. Every democratic nation that is dependant on trade needs good guy -points. A country that has exhausted its arsenal of threats and extended it's goodwill to the red zone even with the closest allies is virtually without power - no matter how well armed.
 
If you hurt foreign relations and your trade takes huge blows, there goes the economy. You have to be a good guy to prosper.
 
United States - adding limitations in directions where nukes aren't actively needed in the first place - gained leverage and deterrent against those that are a real threat. Lack of Good guy -points is the bottleneck of using WMD's against rogue nations.
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       4/7/2010 1:30:08 PM



'Good guy' -points. Every democratic nation that is dependant on trade needs good guy -points. A country that has exhausted its arsenal of threats and extended it's goodwill to the red zone even with the closest allies is virtually without power - no matter how well armed.

 

If you hurt foreign relations and your trade takes huge blows, there goes the economy. You have to be a good guy to prosper.

 

United States - adding limitations in directions where nukes aren't actively needed in the first place - gained leverage and deterrent against those that are a real threat. Lack of Good guy -points is the bottleneck of using WMD's against rogue nations.



First of all, most countries on this planet aren't democratic, and most democratic countries are socialist, not free. In the end, trades are regulated not by military power, but by the power of market. He who hath the biggest market layth the rules of trade.
 
And the red part only applies to small countries such as Finland. Americans don't need Nokia, but Finland needs the US to open its market to Nokia.
 
Nuclear arsenal is necessary as deterent against Communist China and a possible Fascist regime in Russia. It is also necessary to maintain rights for first strike against foreign hostility with nukes, especially after a severe biological attack that dramatically depopulates and cripples the country. Russia, India and China all have similar doctrine. There is no telling how long the US can maintain edge on military tech and conventional arms when the economy keeps going down, and we all know how reliable US allies really are.
 
Quote    Reply

Mikko       4/7/2010 2:27:12 PM


If you hurt foreign relations and your trade takes huge blows, there goes the economy. You have to be a good guy to prosper.
First of all, most countries on this planet aren't democratic, and most democratic countries are socialist, not free. In the end, trades are regulated not by military power, but by the power of market. He who hath the biggest market layth the rules of trade.
 
And the red part only applies to small countries such as Finland. Americans don't need Nokia, but Finland needs the US to open its market to Nokia.

Nuclear arsenal is necessary as deterent against Communist China and a possible Fascist regime in Russia. It is also necessary to maintain rights for first strike against foreign hostility with nukes, especially after a severe biological attack that dramatically depopulates and cripples the country. Russia, India and China all have similar doctrine. There is no telling how long the US can maintain edge on military tech and conventional arms when the economy keeps going down, and we all know how reliable US allies really are.

Truly democratic countries can't be non-free. If a democratic country is socialist, then the people in it are just inclined that way - free to choose the system to their liking.
 
Americans don't need trade? I bet you do. Just as everyone else. 
 
Quote    Reply

buzzard       4/7/2010 4:46:02 PM
Truly democratic countries can't be non-free. If a democratic country is socialist, then the people in it are just inclined that way - free to choose the system to their liking.
 
Mussolini was elected. Though honestly I don't need to make the extreme case to make my point. Freedom is not defined by the method by which power is allocated. A majority of 51% can decide to kill off a minority of 49% and that would be fully democratic. It, however would have nothing whatsoever to do with freedom.
 
Along those lines, a majority of people can decide to confiscate an unproportional tax rate on the rich and redistribute this wealth to others. The rich can't do anything about it but leave. That's not free either.
 
Freedom is about natural rights, not the form of government. 
 
Americans don't need trade? I bet you do. Just as everyone else. 
 
Americans do need trade yes. Just so, the rest of the world needs American markets. Since the U.S. runs such large trade deficits, who do you think would be hurt more if you didn't trade with us? 
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics