Obama: Limits Nuclear Weapons

vh13

vh13

Well-Known Member
Obama policy sets limits on when nuclear weapons could be used

One prominent change was the administration's decision to forswear the use of the deadly weapons against nonnuclear countries.
Click to expand...
That loophole would mean Iran would remain on the potential target list.
Click to expand...
As a result, Obama said, the United States is "taking specific and concrete steps to reduce the role of nuclear weapons while preserving our military superiority."
Click to expand...
Very well played Mr. President.

+1 to the Moderates.
 
Mindmelted

Mindmelted

Well-Known Member
Thats all great,If you belive the other parties will stick to it.

It's all pretty sounding like most of his speeches.

But i am sure it will weaken our military in the long run.
 
Man o' the green

Man o' the green

Active Member
It only emboldens our enemies. I think this is a very ideological decision, and the belief may be that we will be better 'respected' in the world, when all it does is weaken our position militarily and diplomatically. The problem is, we are hated by the world, and no amount of 'compassion' will change that. The only solution in not being the target is to not be #1.
 
vh13

vh13

Well-Known Member
How does attempting to lessen the destructive power of our enemies equal less military power for ourselves? I see no disarmament policies, do you?

Yes, it's ideological. So was the movement that spawned this nation.
 
Man o' the green

Man o' the green

Active Member
vh13 said:
How does attempting to lessen the destructive power of our enemies equal less military power for ourselves? I see no disarmament policies, do you?

Yes, it's ideological. So was the movement that spawned this nation.
Click to expand...
You don't give your battle plans to the enemy. If they believe you won't attack them with more force for an attack of any kind, it only is asking for someone to take that bet.
One must be pragmatic in negotiating with enemies. Defending yourself is not ideological.
 
Dragline

Dragline

Well-Known Member
Man o' the green said:
It only emboldens our enemies. I think this is a very ideological decision, and the belief may be that we will be better 'respected' in the world, when all it does is weaken our position militarily and diplomatically. The problem is, we are hated by the world, and no amount of 'compassion' will change that. The only solution in not being the target is to not be #1.
Click to expand...
Name ONE country that would be emboldened by this. Name ONE country that would have feared a nuclear US attack but not a conventional one.

This is an empty gesture made in the name of promoting goodwill, that is it! It's only real use will come in the form of an excuse for the right wing to distort the truth and do more fear mongering for political gain.
 
Dragline

Dragline

Well-Known Member
Man o' the green said:
What about countries that host or sponsor terror ?
Click to expand...

Do you really think somewhere like Yemen or Somalia gives a shit about a US nuclear threat? Why would we even need to waste a nuclear weapon on a country like that when conventional weapons would easily blast them even further back into the dark ages.
 
Man o' the green

Man o' the green

Active Member
Dragline said:
Do you really think somewhere like Yemen or Somalia gives a shit about a US nuclear threat? Why would we even need to waste a nuclear weapon on a country like that when conventional weapons would easily blast them even further back into the dark ages.
Click to expand...
You are correct when talking about those countries. Their concern is probably that they will suffer the aftereffects of a nuclear exchange.

The real benefit of nuclear weapons is as a general way to prevent war, as long as the threat to use them exists.
 
vh13

vh13

Well-Known Member
Man o' the green said:
What about countries that host or sponsor terror ?
Click to expand...
The point of all this is to prevent nuclear weapons from getting into the hands of terrorists in the first place, or did you miss that?

I'd rather they have no weapons then hope they don't use them out of fear. The threat of war has been real since before ancient times, yet war happens nearly every generation. History makes it blatantly obvious the notion escalation leads to peace is false. Escalation leads to imperialism and tyranny and is a catalyst for exponentially more destructive war.

Also, luring your enemy into a state of confidence is hardly exposing vulnerabilities. In war, conserving your own forces for a battle of little resistance later is of paramount importance.

In the LA Times:

Henry Sokolski, a senior Defense official under former President George H.W. Bush and executive director of the Washington-based Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, said that although the new approach means the United States can no longer target, for example, Brazil with nuclear weapons, "we could still use them against Iran, North Korea, China, Russia."

"Bottom line: this new position changes very little," he wrote in an e-mail.
Click to expand...
 
Man o' the green

Man o' the green

Active Member
vh13 said:
The point of all this is to prevent nuclear weapons from getting into the hands of terrorists in the first place, or did you miss that?

I'd rather they have no weapons then hope they don't use them out of fear. The threat of war has been real since before ancient times, yet war happens nearly every generation. History makes it blatantly obvious the notion escalation leads to peace is false. Escalation leads to imperialism and tyranny and is a catalyst for exponentially more destructive war.

Also, luring your enemy into a state of confidence is hardly exposing vulnerabilities. In war, conserving your own forces for a battle of little resistance later is of paramount importance.
Click to expand...
I did miss that. How does reducing our options and announcing them help with this threat ?
We are hated and many actors would have no reservation using WMDs of any kind against us, no matter who would be retaliated against. making this nuclear policy symbolic only. Regardless of any practical effect that this policy may have, it only sends another message of weakness to allies and enemies alike. Acting reasonable to unreasonable people is worse than useless. Countries need to be held accountable for terrorists within their borders that threaten us. Any deterrent to those states whatsoever is useful.
Nuclear deterrence is not about war tactics, it's about negotiation and preventing war or attack through the threat to use them.
 
vh13

vh13

Well-Known Member
Man o' the green said:
Nuclear deterrence is not about war tactics, it's about negotiation and preventing war or attack through the threat to use them.
Click to expand...
The threat of nuclear attack is still very real for those nations we should be concerned about. For example: Iran, North Korea, China, and Russia still face the threat.

I think your point is valid in the short term in a general sense, but in this instance I don't think this bit of political maneuvering sacrifices anything, we only stand to gain.

Obama catered to the right on this one, and in this instance I think he benefited from their wisdom. Hence why I called it a "well played move."
 
tip top toker

tip top toker

Well-Known Member
Man o' the green said:
It only emboldens our enemies. I think this is a very ideological decision, and the belief may be that we will be better 'respected' in the world, when all it does is weaken our position militarily and diplomatically. The problem is, we are hated by the world, and no amount of 'compassion' will change that. The only solution in not being the target is to not be #1.
Click to expand...
lol, it's nowt to do with being number 1. people see, to jate tehran, and they're hardly clipping at your heels. it's to do with the USA thinking that because it is number 1 it can do as it pleases wherever it pleases

at the end of the day, how many nuclear weapons do you really need.
 
Mindmelted

Mindmelted

Well-Known Member
tip top toker said:
lol, it's nowt to do with being number 1. people see, to jate tehran, and they're hardly clipping at your heels. it's to do with the USA thinking that because it is number 1 it can do as it pleases wherever it pleases

at the end of the day, how many nuclear weapons do you really need.
Click to expand...

Russia has more than we do..

And they do not know how to keep track of it either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top