Obama to release a statement today about our nuclear weapon policy

[DisgruntledVirus]

WASHINGTON — 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.

But the president said in an interview that he was carving out an exception for “outliers like Iran and North Korea” that have violated or renounced the main treaty to halt nuclear proliferation.

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 of 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.

Wrong move IMO.

Nuclear weapons have worked quite well as a deterrant, and letting the enemies know our gameplan is stupid. Even if nuclear was never on the table, our enemies should NOT know that.

 

[nageov3t]

it gets a thumbsup from me, I just wish he could be half as aggressive towards disarming Iran as he is towards disarming his own country.

 

[totalnoob]

It is a smart move.. Nuclear war is simply not an option for any country. It means the suicide of human civilization.

 

[Craig234]

Right move IMO.

You always get the people who lack any real sense of the moral issues with the use of nuclear weapons, who support their nation having anything no matter how powerful, having all freedom to use it for their own power, without any understanding of the importance to avoid their use.

Robert McNamara, the Secretary of Defense at the most dangerous time in world history, felt the #1 priority for mankind is to rid the world of nuclear weapons.

It's all too easy when you're in the country who has the power to dominate the world to value that over any real world peace without it.

It's going to be no easier to convince the people who want nuclear superiority to give it up than to convince slaveowners who depended on them for prosperity to end that.

There's just no dealing with people when it comes to big advantages, who will justify the 'downsides' such as the inhuman subjugation or mass murder of others.

It's all too easy to say 'if we give them up we can get conqered and so we need them to deter attack'.

Forget how inaccurate that need is - you can look to McNamara's comments to get the opinion nukes are not needed for security - just keep them and deny them to others.

It's not as if we had a billion lives at risk on a hair trigger to nuke every city in the USSR and China of there was one conventional conflict, it's not as if we avoided nuclear war starting from the Cuban Missile Crisis from luck, it's not as if Nixon didn't tell his staff he wanted to use nukes against Vietnam, it's not as if nuclear prolifiration is an ongoing great risk while nations maintain nuclear stockpiles and need them for protection from invasion, it's not as if they pose a continuing risk for disaster.

No, keep them until there's a nuclear use, by nations or by terrorists.

Predicting the 'you can't prevent them' responses, that's not what experts seem to say. It's the gun control debate repeaed, but the facts are not the same.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Right move IMO.

You always get the people who lack any real sense of the moral issues with the use of nuclear weapons, who support their nation having anything no matter how powerful, having all freedom to use it for their own power, without any understanding of the importance to avoid their use.

Robert McNamara, the Secretary of Defense at the most dangerous time in world history, felt the #1 priority for mankind is to rid the world of nuclear weapons.

It's all too easy when you're in the country who has the power to dominate the world to value that over any real world peace without it.

It's going to be no easier to convince the people who want nuclear superiority to give it up than to convince slaveowners who depended on them for prosperity to end that.

There's just no dealing with people when it comes to big advantages, who will justify the 'downsides' such as the inhuman subjugation or mass murder of others.

It's all too easy to say 'if we give them up we can get conqered and so we need them to deter attack'.

Forget how inaccurate that need is - you can look to McNamara's comments to get the opinion nukes are not needed for security - just keep them and deny them to others.

It's not as if we had a billion lives at risk on a hair trigger to nuke every city in the USSR and China of there was one conventional conflict, it's not as if we avoided nuclear war starting from the Cuban Missile Crisis from luck, it's not as if Nixon didn't tell his staff he wanted to use nukes against Vietnam, it's not as if nuclear prolifiration is an ongoing great risk while nations maintain nuclear stockpiles and need them for protection from invasion, it's not as if they pose a continuing risk for disaster.

No, keep them until there's a nuclear use, by nations or by terrorists.

Predicting the 'you can't prevent them' responses, that's not what experts seem to say. It's the gun control debate repeaed, but the facts are not the same.

While I can definitely understand avoiding nuclear use (and agree with that), the main issue I have is that he is putting it out there so publicly. I agree with the general principle that nuclear retaliation for a non-nuclear attack is not something that we realistically would ever use, I disagree with making it so public.

Although, the arguement could be made that "everybody knows we wouldn't use them in retaliation from a non-nuclear threat, so why not just make it official and public."

 

[MrEgo]

Although, the arguement could be made that "everybody knows we wouldn't use them in retaliation from a non-nuclear threat, so why not just make it official and public."

That'd be my argument. I can't think of any situation I'd ever want to use nuclear weapons against another country that didn't already initiate a nuclear attack against us.

 

[cubeless]

hmmm... in thinking about scenarios, what if some country released a biological that caused > 100k deaths in nyc? we send soldiers to kill and get killed?

this is the problem with any action, it generally isn't the populace who does the dirty, it's the bosses... maybe a policy that says "we'll hunt down and kill the top 3 tiers of your government and their families if you attack us, and you should expect some collateral damage as we do so because we intend to do it with bombers, not soldiers..."...

what's a valid deterrent these days?

 

[heyheybooboo]

It's a start.

I'd prefer "No First Use" but this appears to be a rollback to the "Limited First Strike" of the Cold War days.

Anything would be better than the Bush option of "Preemption" against nonnuclear states.





--

 

[Circlenaut]

I somehow don't think our actual nuclear stockpile or development is getting shelved. To much power to give up here.

 

[Atreus21]

Is there any further development in that ground-based anti-missile laser thing?

 

[iGas]

IMHO, the us economy is in trouble and nuclear is one of the service that is the result of cutback. Once the economy turn around the US will be back on track with their nuclear plan. And, Obama is using this opportunity to try to gain browny points by giving the world a lips service.

 

[irishScott]

Is there any further development in that ground-based anti-missile laser thing?

In a way. Remember Boeing's laser on a 747? Well that actually successfully shot down a missile a couple of months ago. Suffice to say most didn't hear about it, the project has apparently just "disappeared" and Boeing's getting some new government funding.

So yeah, I think it's safe to say we're getting somewhere.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

It's a start.

I'd prefer "No First Use" but this appears to be a rollback to the "Limited First Strike" of the Cold War days.

Anything would be better than the Bush option of "Preemption" against nonnuclear states.

--

Yeah, I would have much preferred a statement saying "No First Strike" or "Limited First Strike" instead of no nuclear except against nuclear.

IMO any WMD (chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear) all are grounds for nuclear strikes. Not saying that if any of them happen that nuclear should always be the response, but if any WMD attacks happen I believe nuclear should be on the table depending on the circumstances and situation.

This is in situations when we clearly have an aggressor (for example like Pearl Harbor), and can clearly identify who attacked us. Unfortunately I believe a lot of that is in the past, and in the future most battles will be against militia/freedom fighters/terrorists/etc who attack us and not against specific countries. In those "rogue group" situations, nuclear is not an option.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

In a way. Remember Boeing's laser on a 747? Well that actually successfully shot down a missile a couple of months ago. Suffice to say most didn't hear about it, the project has apparently just "disappeared" and Boeing's getting some new government funding.

So yeah, I think it's safe to say we're getting somewhere.

It's amazing how hard it is to hit an ICBM size object in mid-flight, from an airborne platform, with a laser that's not that large diameter, while correcting for atmospheric diffraction.

 

[K1052]

While I can definitely understand avoiding nuclear use (and agree with that), the main issue I have is that he is putting it out there so publicly. I agree with the general principle that nuclear retaliation for a non-nuclear attack is not something that we realistically would ever use, I disagree with making it so public.

Although, the arguement could be made that "everybody knows we wouldn't use them in retaliation from a non-nuclear threat, so why not just make it official and public."

I believe there is some ambiguity in our response to a non-conventional attack. Since the US destroyed it's stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons we would be unable to mount a response in kind should such an attack be perpetrated against us.

 

[squirrel dog]

The rest of the world dosen't play by our rules . Nukes would be the first option for some nations .

 

[Craig234]

In case people are interested, at the height of the cold war, JFK did have a secret policy he would not launch a nuclear war, even if there were reports of incoming missiles.

He felt the deterrence was important, but that actually killing the billion people had no real purpose to take any risk on.

I'm not saying he wouldn't have retaliated if there was an actual attack, missiles landed, but if there was a chance it wasn't a real attack at least, he was willing to accept that.

This was a case when it made a lot of sense to keep that sort of thing secret, for MAD. I wonder how many on the right agree with him on the choice.

This info comes directly from Robert McNamara. If you would like to hear the context, google for his speech to the Global Affairs Council IIRC.

 

[Sinsear]

The rest of the world dosen't play by our rules . Nukes would be the first option for some nations .

That does not matter. Obama and the pussies that voted for him would rather see us perish.

 

[soccerballtux]

It is a smart move.. Nuclear war is simply not an option for any country. It means the suicide of human civilization.

so in other words this bill is not necessary.

 

[halik]

Wrong move IMO.

Nuclear weapons have worked quite well as a deterrant, and letting the enemies know our gameplan is stupid. Even if nuclear was never on the table, our enemies should NOT know that.

What enemies? Putin?

 

[halik]

Right move IMO.

You always get the people who lack any real sense of the moral issues with the use of nuclear weapons, who support their nation having anything no matter how powerful, having all freedom to use it for their own power, without any understanding of the importance to avoid their use.

Robert McNamara, the Secretary of Defense at the most dangerous time in world history, felt the #1 priority for mankind is to rid the world of nuclear weapons.

It's all too easy when you're in the country who has the power to dominate the world to value that over any real world peace without it.

It's going to be no easier to convince the people who want nuclear superiority to give it up than to convince slaveowners who depended on them for prosperity to end that.

There's just no dealing with people when it comes to big advantages, who will justify the 'downsides' such as the inhuman subjugation or mass murder of others.

It's all too easy to say 'if we give them up we can get conqered and so we need them to deter attack'.

Forget how inaccurate that need is - you can look to McNamara's comments to get the opinion nukes are not needed for security - just keep them and deny them to others.

It's not as if we had a billion lives at risk on a hair trigger to nuke every city in the USSR and China of there was one conventional conflict, it's not as if we avoided nuclear war starting from the Cuban Missile Crisis from luck, it's not as if Nixon didn't tell his staff he wanted to use nukes against Vietnam, it's not as if nuclear prolifiration is an ongoing great risk while nations maintain nuclear stockpiles and need them for protection from invasion, it's not as if they pose a continuing risk for disaster.

No, keep them until there's a nuclear use, by nations or by terrorists.

Predicting the 'you can't prevent them' responses, that's not what experts seem to say. It's the gun control debate repeaed, but the facts are not the same.

I was gonna mention the same thing - the documentary about Robert McNamara is a phenomenal eye opener to the whole issue. The man was on the front lines of the cold war and is one of my most qualified people to speak on the subject.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Next up: Taking away body armor from our soldiers because it gives them an unfair advantage.

 

[K1052]

Also the US hasn't produced a "new" nuclear weapon in about 20 years since we have no reason to. What we have done and will continue to do is refurbish old weapons to keep them at a state of readiness with more modern components, the existing 'physics packages' in US inventory can be reused almost endlessly.

 

[halik]

That does not matter. Obama and the pussies that voted for him would rather see us perish.

Free republic is that way ->
Feel free to take your ann coulteresque nonsense with.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Next up: Taking away body armor from our soldiers because it gives them an unfair advantage.

Sinsear:
That does not matter. Obama and the pussies that voted for him would rather see us perish.

I see the trolls are out in force over this. Want to post something that at least has a little bit of reality in it?

This isn't "new" news, it's been like that a long time, barring a brief run of idiocy during the GWB days. But even he wasn't dumb enough to actually use them.