View Full Version : Obama tells the world the US won't use nukes, even if attacked
BoogyMan
04-06-2010, 07:46 AM
Mr. Obama has now been in office for 14 months and in that time he has dashed towards getting us into a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit with a long range plan to get us to a 20 trillion dollar deficit, and now he is working to make sure that our enemies have nothing that will stop them from taking us on.
We now will not respond with nuclear weapons, even if hit by chemical or biological weapons.
The man is a nightmare for America.
Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/06arms.html)
...
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.
Mr. Obama's strategy is a sharp shift from those adopted by his predecessors and seeks to revamp the nation's nuclear posture for a new age in which rogue states and terrorist organizations are greater threats than traditional powers like Russia and China.
It 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 non-nuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons, or launched a crippling cyberattack.
"I'm going to preserve all the tools that are necessary in order to make sure that the American people are safe and secure," Mr. Obama said during the interview in the Oval Office.
White House officials said that the new strategy will leave open the option of reconsidering the use of nuclear retaliation against a biological attack, if the development of such weapons reaches a level that makes United States vulnerable to a devastating strike.
...
.: Read the rest of this article :. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/06arms.html)
I am not so sure that Obama's new policy will make nuclear weapons obsolete but it could very well make the United States of America obsolete! Hopefully, the rest of the international community will realise that the current CinC is a joke and will likely be replaced in a couple of years.
namvet
04-06-2010, 08:52 AM
that was one of his goals. to eliminate nukes worldwide. lets see how much he screws this up
stephanie
04-06-2010, 09:21 AM
He should be tried for Treason.
He took an oath to protect the Constitution and the people of the United States.
...I think it was decided many years ago that they would not be used, what with MAD.
Do any of you really want the USA using nukes when you know that nukes will be coming your way minutes later?
...I think it was decided many years ago that they would not be used, what with MAD.
Do any of you really want the USA using nukes when you know that nukes will be coming your way minutes later?
Other way around....would anyone really want to nuke the US if they knew nukes would be on the way to their major industrial/population centers within in minutes of launching their own?
Odd how you stated it so that the US is the agressor ... must be the Euro in you!
HogTrash
04-06-2010, 11:06 AM
Other way around....would anyone really want to nuke the US if they knew nukes would be on the way to their major industrial/population centers within in minutes of launching their own?
Odd how you stated it so that the US is the agressor ... must be the Euro in you!The capitalist, imperialist American pigs are always portrayed as the bad guys by our marxist enemies who are responsible for the indoctrination and programming of young Noir.
BoogyMan
04-06-2010, 12:00 PM
...I think it was decided many years ago that they would not be used, what with MAD.
Do any of you really want the USA using nukes when you know that nukes will be coming your way minutes later?
You miss the point, our enemies are far more likely to consider such activity if they are fairly sure that we will just sit back and take it. Obama has removed the deterrent we once had that was a functional part of MAD.
You guys need to read the OP again...
It 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 non-nuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons, or launched a crippling cyberattack.
Nowhere in that does it say they will not use nukes to counter nukes, and infact it goes on to say...
White House officials said that the new strategy will leave open the option of reconsidering the use of nuclear retaliation against a biological attack, if the development of such weapons reaches a level that makes United States vulnerable to a devastating strike.
No really I'll restate my question, would you think it okay for the USA to use nukes on china if it where found that they co-ordinated cyber attacks against the USA?
Really nothing has changed, Obama has made this statement to look like he's doing something about nukes (an maybe try and do something to justify his Nobel peace prize) and the old political dance will play out; The left will claim he is being a good statesman ect, and the right will say he is making America less safe ect. When at the end of the day nothing has changed.
But what do I know, I'm justa eurofag, right? :laugh2:
Little-Acorn
04-06-2010, 12:33 PM
(sigh)
One of the most important part of our deterrent threat, was that our adversaries did not know just how far we'd go, did not know what lines we would or wouldn't step across if we were attacked with weapons of mass destruction.
Now they do.
Good job, Zero.
I've frequently said that GWB's most egregious act in office, was his signing of Campaign Finance Reform, a flatly unconstitutional infringement on Freedom of Speech. Then when he signed the first bailout, I started to hedge - that one was up there too.
With the present President, I'm hard pressed to decide WHICH of is acts his the most egregious. Signing Health Care is probably at the top of the list.
But making this announcement about our non-use of our nuclear deterrent, is right up there too.
It's kinda like trying to decide which is worse, smallpox or bubonic plague.
I never used to pay much attention to the If-we-treat-the-world-nice-they-will-treat-us-nice wimps before. Life was too short to deal with irrelevant losers.
Until we elected one to the Presidency.
Kathianne
04-06-2010, 09:36 PM
I would strongly suggest that our enemies look at Obama's list of promises kept, that should give them pause. I'm sure it's not what is meant, but there is no reason to think he'd keep his word on this, as he hasn't on anything else. Thus more instability in the world. What he says, what he means, what he does, what he may do.
stephanie
04-06-2010, 09:40 PM
I have to say I have never in my lifetime have a President who scares the shit out me this much with his so called "VISIONS" for our country.
I just wonder if we will survive it.
Kathianne
04-06-2010, 09:44 PM
I have to say I have never in my lifetime have a President who scares the shit out me this much with his so called "VISIONS" for our country.
I just wonder if we will survive it.
I totally agree with your assessment. This clown actually seems to want the US attacked, then will not respond.
I totally agree with your assessment. This clown actually seems to want the US attacked, then will not respond.
Can I just ask, relating back to the OP, what sort of attack do you anticipate that would require the US to use nukes, that would of been undertaken before Obama made this statement, and will not now?
Gaffer
04-07-2010, 10:16 AM
The dark lord has announced to the world they are free to strike us in any way they wish as long as they don't use nukes. That is what he said in the announcement. So now north Korea can arm their long range missiles with bio or chem warheads and shoot them at Hawaii and Japan and other US territories without worry of massive retaliation. Iran can do the same in the middle east and launch against southern Europe and only worry about conventional retaliation.
He's slowly disarming America. This is just another small step in the destruction of this country. It is an invitation to our enemies to bring war on us in any way they chose and he won't fight back.
BoogyMan
04-07-2010, 10:42 AM
Can I just ask, relating back to the OP, what sort of attack do you anticipate that would require the US to use nukes, that would of been undertaken before Obama made this statement, and will not now?
Any attack on the US should be understood and a possible precursor to a nuclear response, it is called a deterrent. Obama has destroyed that deterrent.
Can I just ask, relating back to the OP, what sort of attack do you anticipate that would require the US to use nukes, that would of been undertaken before Obama made this statement, and will not now?
here is a vignette for you:
North Korea provides a nuclear weapon clandestinely to Al Quaeda. Al Quaeda manages to get the weapon into a major US city. It is later PROVEN that the weapon came from NK, and that the NK government intends to provide more to AQ. Because NK did not attack the US directly, Obama's "promise" precludes the use of nukes to prevent NK from continuing such activity.
While that vignette sounds a bit far fetched, just remember that certain nations either already have or are very near attaining nuclear warheads/bombs and that some of those nations can and do provide weapons to non-nation entities like AQ, Hamas and so forth. The only reason (IMO) that those nations have NOT provided nukes to various terrorist organizations is that those nations KNOW the US would retaliate on the provider of such.
North Korea provides a nuclear weapon
Read the OP
even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons, or launched a crippling cyberattack.
No mention of not using nukes when nuke weapons are used against the US, wana try again at what sort of attack do you anticipate that would require the US to use nukes, that would of been undertaken before Obama made this statement, and will not now?
Read the OP
No mention of not using nukes when nuke weapons are used against the US, wana try again at what sort of attack do you anticipate that would require the US to use nukes, that would of been undertaken before Obama made this statement, and will not now?
Substitute chem/bio then. It is obvious you are convinced of the altruistic motives of everyone EXCEPT the US. For me, I would rather have the ability to follow thru with a nuclear deterent if need be than rely on the good will of other nations/entities. Because you are European, I understand your philosophy of relying on others to protect you when your faith in the good will of all men fails you.
I once performed a small test with a liberal (back in the late 70's) who thought much like you. He did not understand why the nations of the world did not just disarm (we sere specifically addressing nuclear weapons). I picked up a rather large rock and then stated that I was going to hit him with my rock, so he had better prepare to defend himself. He, knowing just what an evil jerk I could be, picked up an equally large rock. I then stated that we seemed to be at a standoff and suggested we disarm and forget the whole thing; I was willing to do so just as soon as he put down his rock. He replied that I should put my rock down first. I asked why should I be first and he replied that he KNEW I would hit him with my rock as soon as he put his down. I threw my rock to the ground and said "Now you understand."
Read the OP
No mention of not using nukes when nuke weapons are used against the US, wana try again at what sort of attack do you anticipate that would require the US to use nukes, that would of been undertaken before Obama made this statement, and will not now?
forgot to answer your question ..... I would anticipate chemical, biological and cyber attacks on massive scale without a nuclear deterent. If that seems unfair, well, .... I happen to believe in overwhelming force. I also believe in pre-emptive strikes, but I am certain you would disagree with that philosophy altogether!
Mr. P
04-07-2010, 11:29 AM
I think I'll post a sign in my yard that reads: I have guns in my house. If you break in intending to harm me and don't have a gun I will not use mine. You can use a baseball bat to beat me to death. Now if you use an aluminum bat I may use my gun, but I'll have to think about that after you severely beat me.
This is the message Bambam has given to those who seek to harm the USA, noir. Would you post such a sign?
I think I'll post a sign in my yard that reads: I have guns in my house. If you break in intending to harm me and don't have a gun I will not use mine. You can use a baseball bat to beat me to death. Now if you use an aluminum bat I may use my gun, but I'll have to think about that after you severely beat me.
This is the message Bambam has given to those who seek to harm the USA, noir. Would you post such a sign?
Noir is from Europe....the whole place has a sign that reads exactly that. The only reason they haven't been attacked is because of the fine print at the bottom that says "We are friends of the USA, if you do attack us they will nuke the crap out of you."
I think I'll post a sign in my yard that reads: I have guns in my house. If you break in intending to harm me and don't have a gun I will not use mine. You can use a baseball bat to beat me to death. Now if you use an aluminum bat I may use my gun, but I'll have to think about that after you severely beat me.
This is the message Bambam has given to those who seek to harm the USA, noir. Would you post such a sign?
The difference is if you use a gun, you will kill him. If Obama uses a nuke he will kill tens/hundreds/thousands of thousands of people depending where it is dropped. Not to mention the fallout for countless generations. Do you think they people of say China would deserve that if there goverment launched cyber attacks against the US?
The difference is if you use a gun, you will kill him. If Obama uses a nuke he will kill tens/hundreds/thousands of thousands of people depending where it is dropped. Not to mention the fallout for countless generations. Do you think they people of say China would deserve that if there goverment launched cyber attacks against the US?
In a word .... YES!
Dead is dead and in these economic times one nuke may be more cost effective than millions of bullets.
Mr. P
04-07-2010, 11:49 AM
The difference is if you use a gun, you will kill him. If Obama uses a nuke he will kill tens/hundreds/thousands of thousands of people depending where it is dropped. Not to mention the fallout for countless generations. Do you think they people of say China would deserve that if there goverment launched cyber attacks against the US?
Cyber attacks against the USA are repelled everyday from around the world, and as far as I know not one ICBM has been launched yet.
Would you post that sign?
Abbey Marie
04-07-2010, 12:38 PM
And as a corollary, I'll bet our Hussein gives inspectors much better access to our nuclear facilities than his namesake ever did.
namvet
04-07-2010, 12:41 PM
The dark lord has announced to the world they are free to strike us in any way they wish as long as they don't use nukes. That is what he said in the announcement. So now north Korea can arm their long range missiles with bio or chem warheads and shoot them at Hawaii and Japan and other US territories without worry of massive retaliation. Iran can do the same in the middle east and launch against southern Europe and only worry about conventional retaliation.
He's slowly disarming America. This is just another small step in the destruction of this country. It is an invitation to our enemies to bring war on us in any way they chose and he won't fight back.
The dark lord has announced to the world they are free to strike us in any way they wish as long as they don't use nukes.
are you shittin me !!!! incoming..............duck !!!!
namvet
04-07-2010, 12:45 PM
The difference is if you use a gun, you will kill him. If Obama uses a nuke he will kill tens/hundreds/thousands of thousands of people depending where it is dropped. Not to mention the fallout for countless generations. Do you think they people of say China would deserve that if there goverment launched cyber attacks against the US?
Osama use a nuke??? :lol::lol: craps don't want war. they don't know how to conduct one. if anything they'll apologize to our enemies saying it was our fault
Osama use a nuke??? :lol::lol: craps don't want war. they don't know how to conduct one. if anything they'll apologize to our enemies saying it was our fault
Sounds very European to me! Surrender is certainly one way of resolving conflict.
namvet
04-07-2010, 02:13 PM
Sounds very European to me! Surrender is certainly one way of resolving conflict.
their up all night now making our white flags
Cap'n Chew
04-11-2010, 02:12 PM
Cyber attacks against the USA are repelled everyday from around the world, and as far as I know not one ICBM has been launched yet.
Would you post that sign?
If we launched a nuke at wherever the someone committed a cyberattack on our country, there'd be nothing left.
namvet
04-11-2010, 02:27 PM
we came close in 95 when Norway launched a missle into Russia without telling them. the soviets assumed it was a US missle launch. they had trouble gettin Yelzin awake. they were frantic but he was drunk. his delay in making the decision saved our ass. or rather Vodka did. FYI
Cap'n Chew
04-11-2010, 02:40 PM
And for the chicken littles crying about how President Obama is "surrendering", three things:
1. The No-nukes strategy not apply to nations who haven't signed on to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, like Iran and North Korea. To say we wouldn't attack back at all is either an example of ignorance or downright lying.
2. We can whoop ass on any other nation using our modern conventional weaponry, with or without nukes. Has anyone even looked at today's military tech?
3. One of President Reagan's long-term goals was a world free of nuclear weaponry, Barack Obama is simply continuing his legacy. It's very sad when a comedian like Jon Stewart has to point this out to the Fox News zombies.
<table style='font:11px arial; color:#333; background-color:#f5f5f5' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='360' height='353'><tbody><tr style='background-color:#e5e5e5' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com'>The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td><td style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align:right; font-weight:bold;'>Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr><tr style='height:14px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;' colspan='2'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-8-2010/the-big-bang-treaty'>The Big Bang Treaty</a></td></tr><tr style='height:14px; background-color:#353535' valign='middle'><td colspan='2' style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; width:360px; overflow:hidden; text-align:right'><a target='_blank' style='color:#96deff; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/'>www.thedailyshow.com</a></td></tr><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><embed style='display:block' src='http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:269900' width='360' height='301' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='window' allowFullscreen='true' flashvars='autoPlay=false' allowscriptaccess='always' allownetworking='all' bgcolor='#000000'></embed></td></tr><tr style='height:18px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><table style='margin:0px; text-align:center' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='100%' height='100%'><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes'>Daily Show Full Episodes</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.indecisionforever.com'>Political Humor</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/videos/tag/Tea+Party'>Tea Party</a></td></tr></table></td></tr></tbody></table>
Cap'n Chew
04-11-2010, 02:41 PM
we came close in 95 when Norway launched a missle into Russia without telling them. the soviets assumed it was a US missle launch. they had trouble gettin Yelzin awake. they were frantic but he was drunk. his delay in making the decision saved our ass. or rather Vodka did. FYI
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hUVwR0rw5fk&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hUVwR0rw5fk&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
Mr. P
04-11-2010, 02:48 PM
If we launched a nuke at wherever the someone committed a cyberattack on our country, there'd be nothing left.
Duh!!!
Binky
04-11-2010, 04:36 PM
I would strongly suggest that our enemies look at Obama's list of promises kept, that should give them pause. I'm sure it's not what is meant, but there is no reason to think he'd keep his word on this, as he hasn't on anything else. Thus more instability in the world. What he says, what he means, what he does, what he may do.
Good one....What he says, what he means, what he does and what he may do.............is all highly irrelevent considering he flip flops and is talked into doing, saying other things. He goes whichever way the wind happens to be blowing..... And considering the type of people he has chosen to align himself with, only speaks volumns. But what the heck do I know....? I'm just a poor old commoner that's a nobody.....Oddly enough tho', I've learned to be wary of those that grin from ear to ear while the words they say come out both sides of their mouth....:eek: Double talk. Dancing in circles. Hemming and hawing.....All signs that the stinky poo they're yammerin' about is gonna smell horrendous......
LiberalNation
04-11-2010, 05:24 PM
plenty of conventional retaliation that wont destroy the world. Ever hear of mad.
MtnBiker
04-11-2010, 05:25 PM
2. We can whoop ass on any other nation using our modern conventional weaponry, with or without nukes. Has anyone even looked at today's military tech?
Perhaps and perhaps not. In just a few short years China is likely to have 30 million more males than females of marriaging age.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2790469&page=1
This will result in China being more willing to take risk. Despite what advantage our mondern conventional weaponry may have China will have a huge population advantage. And without a nuclear weapons advantage, China could be in the position to exploite the population advantage against us or our allies. It would be quite easy for them to invade countries in their region and there would be little we could do about it.
pete311
04-11-2010, 05:45 PM
Perhaps and perhaps not. In just a few short years China is likely to have 30 million more males than females of marriaging age.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2790469&page=1
This will result in China being more willing to take risk. Despite what advantage our mondern conventional weaponry may have China will have a huge population advantage. And without a nuclear weapons advantage, China could be in the position to exploite the population advantage against us or our allies. It would be quite easy for them to invade countries in their region and there would be little we could do about it.
China will invade a country to raid their women? China doesn't need to wait a few years. They already have an incredible pop advantage. Thankfully most of them are weak farmers. Wars are won in the air and china's air force is large but antiquated.
MtnBiker
04-11-2010, 07:00 PM
China will invade a country to raid their women?
Not necessarily, but it will allow them to have huge numbers of expendable males of fighting age. How much conventional ordnance will it take to counter those numbers?
Little-Acorn
04-11-2010, 08:14 PM
One of the most important part of our deterrent threat, was that our adversaries did not know just how far we'd go, did not know what lines we would or wouldn't step across if we were attacked with weapons of mass destruction.
Now they do.
Good job, Zero.
I've frequently said that GWB's most egregious act in office, was his signing of Campaign Finance Reform, a flatly unconstitutional infringement on Freedom of Speech. Then when he signed the first bailout, I started to hedge - that one was up there too.
With the present President, I'm hard pressed to decide WHICH of is acts his the most egregious. Signing Health Care is probably at the top of the list.
But making this announcement about our non-use of our nuclear deterrent, is right up there too.
It's kinda like trying to decide which is worse, smallpox or bubonic plague.
I never used to pay much attention to the If-we-treat-the-world-nice-they-will-treat-us-nice wimps before. Life was too short to deal with irrelevant losers.
Until we elected one to the Presidency.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.