No Nuke Use For Obama
 

We shouldn't limit anything.

Ur reeding may knead improovemint?

Oh wait, Joey beat me to it.

Today President Obama announced a new strategic policy with regard to the use of nuclear weapons. The New York Times reports:

President Obama said Monday that he was revamping American nuclear strategy to substantially narrow the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons. ... To set an example, the new strategy renounces the development of any new nuclear weapons, overruling the initial position of his own defense secretary. ...

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.

On its face, that is unbelievably stupid. A country attacks us with biological weapons, and we stay our hand because they are "in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty"? That is too dumb even for Barack Obama. The administration hedged its commitment with qualifications suggesting that if there actually were a successful biological or chemical attack, it would rethink its position. The Times puts its finger on what is wrong with the administration's announcement:

It eliminates much of the ambiguity that has deliberately existed in American nuclear policy since the opening days of the cold war.

That's exactly right. The cardinal rule, when it comes to nuclear weapons, is keep 'em guessing. We want our enemies to believe that we may well be crazy enough to vaporize them, given sufficient provocation; one just can't tell. There is a reason why that ambiguity has been the American government's policy for more than 50 years. Obama cheerfully tosses overboard the strategic consensus of two generations.

Or pretends to, anyway. Does anyone doubt that the administration would use nukes in a heartbeat if it considered such measures necessary? I don't. The problem is that when the time comes to actually use nuclear weapons, it is too late. The danger here is not that the Obama administration has really gone pacifist. On the contrary, the significance of today's announcement appears to be entirely symbolic--just one more chance to preen. The problem is that our enemies understand symbolism and maybe take it too seriously. To them, today's announcement is another sign that our government has gone soft, and one more inducement to undertake aggressive action against the United States.

Sigh ....

...and Zero fiddled.....

This is a pretty silly statement.

Not really at all. Saying you won't do something hamstrings you. Every situation is different.

Exactly. The articles I have seen also say that the president wants to build on a policy of deterrence. The only way to get deterrence is that a threat is credible.

We can dress this up in intellectual language, but it's essence is:

"Behave or I'll nuke you back to the Stone Age, from which you so recently emerged."

Then we can always choose to be nice, as long as everyone else is. But we're never to be bullied.

I laughed...

Oh, I dunno ... compare Obama to Bush in Iran ... Afghanistan ... Somali pirates ...

What do you think of the arms agreement with Russia?

I like it.

Anyone who thinks this is anything but political manuvering is being myopic.

I seriously doubt that any rouge state or individual reads the NYT and says "Oh hell yeah! Now is our chance!!"

I also find it amusing that N Korea or Iran are considered more serious threats to the US "nuclearwise" than Russia or China. If we were Israel or Japan maybe I could take that seriously. But believing that a sociopath couldnt become leader of either Russia or China (the countries with thousands of weapons and capable delivery systems) simply ignores their history.

As for the use of nuclear weapons in response to a biological attack, I mean what world do people live in? Does anybody seriously believe that if there were biological attacks on this country that we would find a "smoking gun" that implicated a nationstate? If Al-Queda takes responsibility for the attacks what country do we bomb? All of them?

Treaties and other disarmament agreements are for show only. Only a fool woould believe that if Russia, China, France, Israel, India, Pakistan, ect would hesitate to use a nuclear weapon because of some piece of paper is laughable. That isnt to say that they wouldnt exhaust all other options but despite all the treaties and disarmament agreements there are still tens of thousands of nuclear weapons in the world and it isnt like they are going away anytime soon.

I just wonder why Obama did this now as opposed to after the elections. He cant possibly think this wont be used against them does he? While I could see people getting riled up enough to make this a negative topic for Dems on the other hand will anybody on the other side of the fence really feel strong enough on the topic to make a blip? Maybe he thinks that it is far enough in advance but I can see the GOP using this against the dems as being "weak" on natl security and having it be sort of effective.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...4G8-QD9ETQPK80

His defense secretary, Robert Gates said the focus would now be on terror groups such as al-Qaida as well as North Korea's nuclear buildup and Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Who have we been "focusing" on? Guam?

"For the first time, preventing nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism is now at the top of America's nuclear agenda," Obama said, distancing his administration from the decades-long U.S. focus on arms competition with Russia and on the threat posed by nuclear missiles on hair-trigger alert.

Did he take a trip on the hot tub time machine back to the 80's? Since when have we been in an arms race with Russia? The original START treaty was signed by the first President Bush and then Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1991.

"The greatest threat to U.S. and global security is no longer a nuclear exchange between nations, but nuclear terrorism by violent extremists and nuclear proliferation to an increasing number of states," he said, spelling out the core theme of the new strategy.

I get what he is saying but arent we just shifting focus (though I am not sure how this treaty with Russia is appreciably different than anything that has been in effect for decades) from one set of countries (Russia and China though we arent actually allowed to acknowledge Chinese nukes) to Iran and North korea? And havent we been trying to get these countries to stop their programs for years with little success?


Think of the politics of it however but in essence this is like me calling a summit of trainers and saying that I will not start drugging my horses as long as everyone else does the same. Think Ness/Iran or Dutrow/S Korea are really gonna turn their needles/bombs in?

Totally agree. (damn, did i just type that?)

This is a non-story to me.

And I know this sounds anti a-mur-can, but the US's idea of Nuclear proliferation treaties is basically "look, we will get rid of ours at the same rate that you get rid of yours so at the end of the day you won't have them and we will because we are righteous and responsible and won't use them unless we HAVE to even though we are the only ones that have ever used them anyway."

America's stance on nuclear power is utter hypocrisy.

It is hypocracy only if you believe that we hold the same position that other countries hold. Like it or not we are the worlds military superpower and nukes are part of that deal. The deal with Russia leaves out the little tidbit that we have been paying to decommission russian nukes as well as our own, not only because they have been broke for decades but so we know it is getting done. However the truth is that these treaties are a joke in general. Israel wont even acknowledge that they have bombs let alone how many. Do you really think China accurately provides its numbers? India and Pakistan arent even members of the nuclear non prolif treaty.

Did you mean Nero?