No Nuke Use For Obama

[Riot]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

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

What do you think of the arms agreement with Russia?

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by Riot

What do you think of the arms agreement with Russia?

I like it.

[Cannon Shell]

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.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

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.

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

This is a non-story to me.

[dalakhani]

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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

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.