No Nuke Use For Obama

[brianwspencer]

And Jon Stewart for the win...as usual.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_531455.html

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

And Jon Stewart for the win...as usual.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_531455.html

No win for Stewart there.

Charles Krauthammer, on the other hand, has nailed it...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...le_105108.html

Excerpt:
"Under President Obama's new policy, however, if the state that has just attacked us with biological or chemical weapons is "in compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)," explained Gates, then "the U.S. pledges not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against it."

Imagine the scenario: Hundreds of thousands are lying dead in the streets of Boston after a massive anthrax or nerve gas attack. The president immediately calls in the lawyers to determine whether the attacking state is in compliance with the NPT. If it turns out that the attacker is up-to-date with its latest IAEA inspections, well, it gets immunity from nuclear retaliation. (Our response is then restricted to bullets, bombs and other conventional munitions.)

However, if the lawyers tell the president that the attacking state is NPT noncompliant, we are free to blow the bastards to nuclear kingdom come.

This is quite insane. It's like saying that if a terrorist deliberately uses his car to mow down a hundred people waiting at a bus stop, the decision as to whether he gets (a) hanged or (b) 100 hours of community service hinges entirely on whether his car had passed emissions inspections."

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by joeydb

No win for Stewart there.

Charles Krauthammer, on the other hand, has nailed it...

Nope, Stewart definitely has hit the mouth-foaming reaction right on the head.

Considering the report says:

Given the catastrophic potential of biological weapons and the rapid
pace of bio-technology development, the United States reserves the right to make any adjustment in the assurance that may be warranted by the evolution and proliferation of the biological weapons threat and U.S. capacities to counter that threat.

Which in the context of the portion of the report from which I pulled it basically can be boiled down to, "Yes, X nation-state, Krauthammer is totally spot-on. You can attack us with biological weapons, and we won't nuke you if you're in compliance with the NPT.....oh wait, except if we want to, then we're totally still going to do it."

It's the exact same thing as an "all rights reserved" clarification. This whole thing seems to mean something between zero and absolutely nothing, as far as what the President can/could do in the event of an attack, though Krauthammer's little thought experiment was pretty neat, thanks for sharing it!

[Riot]

What the alternative result to the last Presidential election could have wrought, regarding nuclear policy:

"Governor, what should be the trigger, or should there be a trigger, when nuclear weapons use is put into play?"

"Nuclear weaponry, of course, would be the be-all, end-all of just too many people and too many parts of our planet, so those dangerous regimes, again, cannot be allowed to acquire nucular weapons, period. Our nucular weapons here in the US are used as a deterrent and that's a safe, stable way to use nucular weaponry. But, for those countries, North Korea also, under Kim Jung Ill, we have got to make sure that we're puttin' the economic sanctions on these countries and that we have friends and allies supporting us in this to make sure that leaders like Kim Jung Ull and Acmajinadad are not allowed to acquire to proliferate or to use those nuclear weapons, it is that important, can we talk about Afghanistan real quick also though?

- Sarah Palin, candidate for Vice-President of the United States of American, 2008 Vice-Presidential debate with Joe Biden

In other words: apparently didn't understand the question, didn't answer it.