On limiting use of nuclear arms even in defense...

[KFORCE1]

Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms - NYTimes.com

My two questions on this are:

1. Is this wise in today's dangerous world of lunatic leaders who hate and want to see the destruction of America and will they now stop hating America with the continuing apology tour?

2. Could there be outside forces or influences actually running and manipulating this country to be weaker militarily and economically other the man in the oval office?

???

 

[Wayneovich]

I have never really understood the whole Nuclear arms thing why have something you are to afraid to use? besides whoever nukes first wins

 

[Blanca BusaLess]

I have never really understood the whole Nuclear arms thing why have something you are to afraid to use? besides whoever nukes first wins

Not true.
Systems have been in place for yrs that will retaliate whether or not you and I are still here.
No matter who shoots first nobody will win.
A nuclear war will obliterate the earth as we know it.
There are also TNWs , Tactical Nuclear Weapons that can be fired from artillery pieces and take out small towns or cities.
Anyone who really envies the USA for what it has will not want to destroy the object of their desires with radiation.

A terrorist event while heinous and insane it will be wont touch off World War III nuclear style.

 

[KFORCE1]

I guess the quotation of my signature says it all. Too many rumors of war the end of which is innocent lives destroyed. It would be a good thing to eliminate all nuclear arms but how can you guarantee that with North Korea and Iran being defiant and now Russia and Chavez showing off military muscle and deals.

 

[Blanca BusaLess]

A couple quotes from him are troubling though..

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

This is dangerous to set 'rules' of war as there are none nor will our enemies while trying to kill us consider them !

The most immediate test of the new strategy is likely to be in dealing with Iran, which has defied the international community by developing a nuclear program that it insists is peaceful but that the United States and its allies say is a precursor to weapons. Asked about the escalating confrontation with Iran, Mr. Obama said he was now convinced that “the current course they’re on would provide them with nuclear weapons capabilities,” though he gave no timeline.

He dodged when asked whether he shared Israel’s view that a “nuclear capable” Iran was as dangerous as one that actually possessed weapons.

It has been how many yrs since No Korea tested weapons we swore up and down they could not have ?
North Korea is a much more deadly foe than Iran.
NKs military is hard core and Irans will surrender the first time a B52 flies over.
Look at history. We fought NK to a bitter stalemate. No surrender was the montra.
Iraq captured 1000s of Iranians as soon as they crossed the border during the 10yrs war with them.
Why do we pick on a garden snake and leave the rattler alone ?
Sure Ahmedinajad spouts and spews hate for his neighbor but he is just a public "Rush Limbaugh".
Big mouth no power !

 

[skydivr]

So, if a WMD (Chem or Bio) is used against us and kills 100K plus Americans, we'll tie our hands and won't retaliate with nukes? sheesh...

 

[ogre]

nuke the whales.

 

[Blanca BusaLess]

So, if a WMD (Chem or Bio) is used against us and kills 100K plus Americans, we'll tie our hands and won't retaliate with nukes? sheesh...

Seems that way.
A biological or nerve agent can kill as many I would think than any single nuke or at least as many ?

 

[Wayneovich]

Boy and I always thought the people who had aluminum foil hats were wacko I may be joining them

 

[ajblbv]

Well the issue with a nuclear response is that it hurts the population mostly, not the government, military, or terrorist organization that triggered the attack. In general, any country that would attack us would most likely not be a popular government with their people. So attacking the people would be a fairly inhumane response.

Flipside, broadcasting this to the world certainly will not make those countries under our nuclear umbrella feel super comfortable, and it does little to deter countries from developing non nuclear WMDs, which are in some ways much more dangerous than a nuclear weapon.

I started off as rather neutral towards Obama, but the way he is handling many things I am not a fan of. Hopefully something works out in the big picture.

 

[ogre]

you can't use nuclear arms to defend, only to retaliate, or as a pre-emptive strike. those are the only ways.

 

[Silent Shogun]

"you can't hug your kid with nuclear arms"

lol..can't remember what movie i seen that in...

Seriously...people are upset we are cutting back on our nuclear arms...we have enough to destroy the world a 100 times over... its all for political show. We never would get rid of them all. They are to much of a deterrant to other countries. The crazy terrorists are the ones we need to worry aboiut...how do you retaliate against someone that has no country??

"I do not know what WWIII will be fought with, but i know WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones"

 

[BIG GUY]

It would be great that there were no more nuclear weapons bing used, but that will never happen. There are too many smaller countries that have the little man complex that want to prove how tough they are.

 

[Blanca BusaLess]

nuke the whales.

I thought you wanted to nuke the gay christian white whales ?
or maybe all muslim whales....

Which one is it...?

Would that not then create an influx of immigrant seals ?
Underfed, overpopulated and not insured !

 

[m_ridgeway]

modern nuclear weapons if im not mistaken are 100x more powerful than the bombs dropped in japan.

wherever one drops nothing will survive and nothing will be able to reproduce or live there for decades if not a century or 2

considering we have conventional explosives as powerful as the ones from wwII i dont see a need to prove a point by killing a country of innocent with portion of "wrongdoers" then the ones that survive have to deal with somatic and latent radiation problems. when a very strong point can be conveyed by dropping a very highly non radioactive explosive on a few key points.

 

[DaCol.]

Look at it this way. If he keep this promise like ALL his others, we have nothing to worry about

At least I agree he should keep batting 100% and NOT keep this one either

 

[ogre]

you can't really be "gay" and "christian". you can be gay and "nice", or "polite", but if you continue to engage in homosexual acts, you're knowingly committing sin. all sins are equally bad in the eyes of god, so "gay christian" is like "lying christian", or "christian murderer", or "christian rapist". whether you cheat on your taxes (lying), or skin children and eat them, you're a sinner. equally. and there's no need to nuke muslim whales, they torpedo themselves into the great white sharks.

 

[ogre]

ok, technically, you could be a gay christian, but you'd be going to hell. which sort of misses the point of being a christian, wouldn't you agree?


the point is, if you're continually engaging in sin, you're not going to heaven. if you repent, and turn away from sin, and accept jesus as the only way to know god and get to heaven, then all that's required is the effort. you have to TRY NOT to sin. we're all sinners, but i'm going to heaven because i've accepted christ and i try to sin LESS. try to not sin at all, but that's not really a realistic goal. we're born sinners, nothing we can do to help that.

 

[Blanca BusaLess]

modern nuclear weapons if im not mistaken are 100x more powerful than the bombs dropped in japan.

wherever one drops nothing will survive and nothing will be able to reproduce or live there for decades if not a century or 2

considering we have conventional explosives as powerful as the ones from wwII i dont see a need to prove a point by killing a country of innocent with portion of "wrongdoers" then the ones that survive have to deal with somatic and latent radiation problems. when a very strong point can be conveyed by dropping a very highly non radioactive explosive on a few key points.

Very true. Not only that but each ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile) we have whether land or sea based is multiple warhead. Some have up to 16.
Each one is tremendously more powerful than Hiroshima bomb.
When at a strategic point in trajectory it opens up and each indiv warhead continues on to its assigned destination.
One ICBM can literally erase a country now and think that some of our subs have 16 missiles on them I think is the number.
That alot of 'boom' !

 

[Blanca BusaLess]

modern nuclear weapons if im not mistaken are 100x more powerful than the bombs dropped in japan.

wherever one drops nothing will survive and nothing will be able to reproduce or live there for decades if not a century or 2

considering we have conventional explosives as powerful as the ones from wwII i dont see a need to prove a point by killing a country of innocent with portion of "wrongdoers" then the ones that survive have to deal with somatic and latent radiation problems. when a very strong point can be conveyed by dropping a very highly non radioactive explosive on a few key points.

MOAB..Mother of all Bombs
first series of these was called the dasiy cutter and was developed during Vietnam.




Daisy cutter..vietnam era