April 6, 2010

Obama's announcement about nuclear weapons.

Did he really change anything here?

171 comments:

Scott said...

The only thing that has changed is that fewer people can take him seriously.

Joe said...

It's not the WORST thing he's done, even in Foreign/Security Policy.

I think it falsely removes ambiguity from the nuclear equation. In that SUPPOSEDLY we won't use nuclear weapons against a state, for a biologic attack, as long as they are NPT-compliant....BUT let 50,000 people from Chicago die in an anthrax attack, to include Tony Rezko and Bill Ayers and suddenly this policy is going to be moot.

And that is just silly and wrong, but the use of WMD's is pretty much at the margins of International Norms, so it's practical effect is going to be fairly small, I'd imagine.

Scott M said...

I haven't read anything in-depth on the proposal yet, but from the frantic headlines, it's being spun that use of nuclear options would be far more restricted than it currently is. The main talking point right now is that his new scheme wouldn't allow their use even in some cases of self-defense.

I'm not sure if that's tactical or nuclear. If it's tactical, that's not a huge deal as the use of tactical nukes has long been anathema to war planners.

Strategic, on the other hand...well, then it's a huge deal. Like it or not, MAD is still in effect. The true usefulness of nuclear weapons is the deterrent of retaliation. Saying that we wouldn't use them as a "shoot-back" weapon reduces that deterrent significantly.

I'm puzzled about the President's use of the word "obsolete" in regards to nuclear weapons. I'm not sure how the world is in a technological place to call any such weapon "obsolete". Unless you can faultless track them, destroy them, or nullify them, they are not obsolete. I don't see evidence for any of those cases. How, for example, are ICBM's obsolete? How are MIRV's obsolete?

rhhardin said...

He makes an attack more likely.

traditionalguy said...

This is what Obama was sent to do to us, which is to remove the USA's world dominance. We have been able for 60 years to leverage a conventional military stretched thin all over the globe with the assurance that if a country attacked and surrounded it until we could mobilise and come to its relief, then the Nuclear weapons would be used. That meant that any country trying to cut off and destroy our conventional forces was "themselves hostage...not us". That basic unfairness of the USA's strategy is now surrendered by Obama. Mission Accomplished, Mr Soros.This will mean wars everywhere, not peace. That should cut population fast to the one billion the Greens desire. War leads to hunger which leads to plagues, whichis the goal of Soros.

rhhardin said...

The question that underlies Bush's approach to the war on terror comes from what happens if a repeatable destructive attack on US cities happens, by Islamonutballs.

What will the American people demand? Pretty clearly something that will settle the matter in an afternoon.

To head off that finish, Bush thought making it hard to nonstate groups to organize, and making it clear that Islam would be better off moving in a more modern direction, was the moral response.

A favor to Islam, in the modern day of ancient hatreds and modern weapons.

Obama undermined it, not seeing the favor. He never sees the favor.

Pogo said...

Obama: 'If you hit me, I won't punch you back.'

I feel safer already.

2yellowdogs said...

Yes Ann, he has changed something. As Joe said, he's taken away necessary ambiguity and has made an attack more likely.

Yes, anyone who would attack us with chemical or biological weapons would most likely be crazy/suicidal anyway. But the chance of nuclear retaliation MIGHT be enough to give someone like that pause. Now, however, the dear leader has tipped his hand and told them, "Nah, don't worry about it. If you kill half of Baltimore with a nerve gas attack, you don't have to worry about being nuked in retaliation."

Again, the likelihood is that such an attack wouldn't come from a readily identifiable nation state, so we probably wouldn't be able to launch against them anyway. But why be so naive as to make that kind of announcement?

New York said...

Did he really change anything here?

Ask the Manchurian Corporation what it is that they have in mind.

Joe said...

I'm puzzled about the President's use of the word "obsolete" in regards to nuclear weapons. …they are not obsolete.

It sounded good to Michelle, Malia and Sasha….



He makes an attack more likely.


I’d dispute that and Lord Knows, I ‘m no supporter of Obama. IF 100,000 US citizens die and IF the attack can be traced to a Genobian Biolgical Weapon, i.e, Genobian Swamp Ebola, does anyone in Genobia, REALLY think the US is just going to send a sternly worded letter? I think not.

garage mahal said...

This thread is going so unpredictably.

Maguro said...

So, states that attack us with bio or chem weapons don't have to worry about nuclear retaliation as long as they're in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? Seriously?

I know Obama's a lwayer and everything, but this is ridiculous. Legalism run amok. Did it ever occur to Barry that if a state is willing to use biological weapons, they're probably not all that serious about complying with the NPT?

Good lord.

Scott said...

Trolls like predictable.

traditionalguy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Scott M said...

"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 a significant change. As the Times article states, it was purposefully ambiguous. While I seriously doubt we would respond with a nuke at anything like a single biological strike, why put it out there? How many times has this administration, or other administrations, said something like, "everything is on the table"?

Then there's this nugget from the paper of record.

"...and among liberals who were hoping for a blanket statement that the country would never be the first to use nuclear weapons."

About five decades too late, isn't it, to be worrying about that? That being said, the only time they've been used, they worked exactly as they were supposed to and facilitated the end of the war...not through their use, but the deterrent affect that the Japanese had no idea how many we had and could deploy against. The actual bombings were in many ways less destructive than previous strategic bombing raids. The fact that it was a single weapon, though, had significant psychological impact. Just read the Emperor's speech just prior to surrender.

Hoosier Daddy said...

So, states that attack us with bio or chem weapons don't have to worry about nuclear retaliation as long as they're in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? Seriously?

That definitely is in the category of you can't make this stuff up.

Then again, his spiritual advisor though our nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a horrible thing. I mean ending a war that was consuming US Marines in the tens of thousands not to mention the tens of thousands of civilians dying daily under brutal occupation was a bad thing to the Reverend Wright.

Actually, I'm not in the least bit surprised myself. He's living up to the exact expectations I had of him since day one.

Theo Boehm said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
New "Hussein" Ham said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AllenS said...

he is one of the least competent Presidents in our history.

Listening to that interview when he claimed he was a White Sox fan, reinforces the idea of him being an absolute idiot.

WV: atent

Scott said...

The thing that makes Barry O.'s pronouncement so mocus is that he can't really know how he would react if some other nation started lobbing nukes at us. A nuke hits Kansas City and we're looking at the breakdown of civil society anyway.

But for any country that thinks chucking nukes at us is an option, Barry O.'s new posture does provide them with a measure of aid and comfort. Maybe the trolls can tell us why this is a good thing.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"I think it falsely removes ambiguity from the nuclear equation. In that SUPPOSEDLY we won't use nuclear weapons against a state, for a biologic attack ..."

Who is "we," exactly?

Barack Obama might not do it - but he's only going to be around for about another year or two anyway.

WE would do it. And even if we would not, that is what our enemies should believe. The ambiguity was and is purposeful and useful.

This is just more evidence that Barack Obama is attempting to destroy the United States from within its borders. He is deliberately encouraging others to attack us with impunity.

He is a horrible leader and we should impeach him for his crimes as soon as is possible before he hurts more people.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"Did he really change anything here?"

Yes. Our posture.

But that's not the point, Ann. And I'd think a sophisticated person who has excellent strategic thinking skills should be able to pick that out. Where were you educated?

But, then again ... you were easily fooled into voting for Barack Obama, weren't you - so I'm still wondering whether you have strategic thinking skills. If so, you aren't displaying them.

This sort of a question is why we don't let women and pussies run things.

You need us on that wall.

Hoosier Daddy said...

This policy change basically allows our enemies to safely bring a knife to a gun fight.

Thanks Mr. President.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"As a candidate for President of the United States of America, I have this message for our enemies: "If your governments, or groups such as al Queda that you may harbor within your borders launch attacks on the people of the United States - we will respond and retaliate with due force necessary to remove you and your regimes from power - up to and including the use of every weapon in our national arsenal."

That 30-second ad writes itself.

Michael said...

Yes, and every bill will be posted on the internet for five days before being signed. And if they bring a gun we will bring sushi.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"This policy change basically allows our enemies to safely bring a knife to a gun fight."

Precisely.

All it does is alert those currently planning attacks against us that they can safely attack us with biological weapons and we will not respond appropriately.

It invites attacks.

It's a deliberate attempt by Barack Obama to speak directly to our enemies and to give them our attack plans ... no different than a traitor who sneaks over the hill to inform the enemy that we have run out of ammo.

Barack Obama is a fucking traitor.

Arrest him. Try him. Hang him.

paul a'barge said...

Everything this moron has done and will do can and will be undone if we elect the right people in 2010 and especially in 2012.

Everything.

Be patient and be prepared.

We are going to send his ass back to Chicago and he will live in infamy in history books forever.

AllenS said...

Looking on the bright side, nobody, including the enemies of the USofA believes a damned thing this idiot says. He is a LIAR.

WV: fungnoli

What is growing in between his toes.

Beldar said...

He threw away an advantage -- flexibility -- and got NOTHING in return.

rdkraus said...

AllenS called the President a LIAR.

I called the President a LIAR.

AllenS and I have both called the President a LIAR: therefore, AllenS and I are both racists.

He's still a LIAR.

AJ Lynch said...

Hmmmm this is not news. Throws like a girl and fights like a girl. Back to you Garage!

Tibore said...

I thought the operative procedure was to speak softly and carry a big stick, not prance your intentions around loudly while being empty handed.

No one denies that the use of nukes would leave behind horrid aftereffects, but there's a way to display morality without showing weakness. Just rolling over preemptively is not that way.

Balfegor said...

I don't think it really changes anything. It might matter if there were automatic triggers for retaliation -- doomsday devices the automated and irrevocable decision-making process of which rules out human medding, and so on -- but I don't think that automatic retaliation policies, if we even have any, are affected here. I would imagine those are only for doomsday scenarios in which there has already been a nuclear launch by the enemy, and communication with the civil authority has been disabled. Not like standing orders that if North Korea crosses the DMZ, you may fire nukes at will.

But to the extent that it covers "discretionary" use of nukes, those uses are entirely within Obama's discretion, since the order is supposed to come from him anyway, not General Ripper, no? It's not a change to "American" nuclear strategy, it's just publicisation of Obama's decision-making process on use of atomics. If anything, I think it may make American nuclear policy, de facto more aggressive than it had been before, since I didn't really think that there were any circumstances in which this president would be willing to fire off nuclear weapons and plunge the world into purifying flame.

I guess the flip side of this, though, is that if the US won't even use nuclear weapons in self defense, then the nuclear umbrella, e.g. for Japan, may no longer be in effect. In addition, Hatoyama II's policies are markedly more anti-American than the policies of his predecessor, Asou Tarou, or those of his own grandfather, for that matter. He's a bit of a googly-eyed leftist and so on, so there's not much likelihood that he would drive Japan to formally declare as a nuclear power, but a successor might do so, if he's from the anti-American strain of the Japanese Right (like the fascist governor of Tokyo). So there might be some minor destabilising effect from the declaration, but that's all tatemae, as everyone in Northeast Asia probably already realises that a nuclear weapon is easily within the capabilities of Japan today, and their ballistic missile technology is highly advanced, in the guise of civilian space technology. No real change in the balance of terror.

bagoh20 said...

The surest way to get hit is to suggest you won't fight back. Bad actors only pick on those they DON"T think will hit back hard.

Obama's promise that we would restrict or retaliation to conventional methods only guarantees the attacker a fighting chance and a promised opportunity to kill a lot of American soldiers.

This is so grade school stupid. Who voted for this inept fool? I heard a lot of "reasoning" against McCain because he would get us into a war.

This is the most dangerous of modern fallacies. Weak leaders cause war, not strong ones. With a leader that does not have delusions of grandeur and personal ambitions of power, which our system negates, his willingness to go to war and win is what maintains peace.

I suggest, that if Al qaeda knew how Bush and America would react to 9/11, it would not have happened and all that followed would not as well. How different would our world be today if Bush was as scary before as after 9/11.

traditionalguy said...

This policy is analagous to eliminating the death penalty. The power then shifts to those who still use it at will. The Japanese and the Germans will figure out that they are now on their own unless they develop their own nuclear weapons. The USA will become a poor district in North America with no economy, no military defense, and no friends. But Obama will be called an Historic world liberator all over the world. Then the Chinese will test us and occupy Taiwan.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"... if we elect the right people in 2010 ... "

And I would remind all Americans of this: If we elect the right people in 2010, we needn't wait any longer to rid ourselves of this troublesome traitor.

Barack Obama has committed several high crimes as President. He has thusfar escaped justice, because he has friends in the United States Justice Department who are acting in a conspiracy to prevent Barack Obama from being brought to justice.

However ... if we elect the right people to the Congress this November, then Barack Obama can be brought to justice for his high crimes and misdemeanors by being investigated and impeached by a Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

We need a Republican Congress ... not necessarily because they'll govern better, or spend better. But because we need a cop on the beat.

Barack Obama is a criminal, but without a cop around, he'll never be brought to justice and he'll continue making us less safe and inviting attacks.

Elect Republicans in 2010 who promise they'll investigate Barack Obama's crimes.

Barack Obama is deliberately making America less safe and he is deliberately bankrupting us in an attempt to create conditions that would not allow us to re-arm ourselves once he's gone. The sooner he is gone, the less damage he can do.

So, swallow hard and vote for Republican and Tea Party candidates this fall even if you disagree with some of their positions on lessor issues.

We need a cop to arrest Barack Obama, and that cop is a Republican House of Representatives.

We need a judge to try him ... and that judge is a Republican Senate.

Do the right thing for your country.

Scott M said...

Throws like a girl and fights like a girl.

Actually, AJ, there's a new study out that suggests a parity between men and women for domestic violence. There is data to suggest that women are actually more aggressive.

In each case that I know of where a woman has struck a man (be it a friend, relative, or yours truly), after calmer heads prevail, the woman has always said something like, "well, I hit him because I didn't expect him to hit a woman."

Hmm.......

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"Then the Chinese will test us and occupy Taiwan."

The Chinese are already testing us by making everything we use and depend on in our daily lives.

All they need do is stop supplying us with these things and they could take us over in about 7 days. We are at their mercy, thanks to Democrat Party trade policies that enrich their citizens and leave ours jobless.

If you really care about your country, you'd stop shopping at Wal Mart and tell your Representatives to impose trade sanctions against the Chinese for illegally undercutting American manufacturers.

We need things to be made here, by Americans.

Or we forfeit our country.

bagoh20 said...

garage mahal said...

"This thread is going so unpredictably."


So is that your side of the argument,... again?

Talk about predictable.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"No one denies that the use of nukes would leave behind horrid aftereffects ..."

I deny this.

It has been proven empirically that the use of nuclear weapons turns aggressive people into productive people by rechanneling their energies. The use of nuclear weapons turns poor war-torn economies into highly productive economies.

We don't have to guess about the long-term effects of nuclear weapons.

A very small population, confined to a very small island, have managed to produce the second-largest economy in the world once they saw were shown the light and the way.

So, I'd argue the long-term effects of nuclear weapons are to produce efficient economies and non-warring people.

Nuclear weapons - according to everything we've seen in our history - produce peace.

Eric Muller said...

He should be making us safer by announcing plans to use nuclear weapons in more situations and less predictably, rather than making us less safe by announcing plans to use nuclear weapons in fewer situations and more predictably.

In fact, the thing that would make us most safe of all is if he would just go ahead and use one or two.

But he's too weak for that.

Quayle said...

Does this guy Obama really intend to implement every single last hackneyed 60s slogan as national policy and call it progress?

My goodness, even the former soviet union doesn't believe in central government planning anymore. Their mafia bosses and government protectors are full free-market entrepreneurs, the way it used to be in America.

But here, it's really quite amazing to watch this guy serve up such discredited lefty platitudes as though they were some sort of wise new thinking.

(I know, I know, garage - all he is saying is give peace a chance.)

AJ Lynch said...

I should have said "throws like a girl and fights like a pussy".

Trad Guy - bingo re the death penalty analogy. Obama's brain is stuck forever in his college days..."yeah man why can't we take the money for the armies and use it to give everyone a house, a unicorn, a rainbow with a pot of gold....and on and on."

bagoh20 said...

Beldar said...
"He threw away an advantage -- flexibility -- and got NOTHING in return."



Exactly, because this only benefits those who would attack us. Even our allies are less safe now.
Who benefits besides our enemies? Obama gets to feel like a peace maker while increasing the chance of war. I imagine him and Chamberlain sipping tea and arguing over who is the greater man of peace.

Theo Boehm said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Roger J. said...

What Balfegor and Trad Guy said--this restructuring of nuclear policy leaves out our allies who have (rightly or wrongly) relied on a US nuclear umbrella to consider their own fate absent some time of US assurance.

We can walk thru all the nuclear deterrence arguments from fifty years ago--Shelling and Kahn covered those in detail.

In my opinion uncertainty is what guarantees deterrence not certainty. No answer to this, but I fear Mr Obama has further reduced the uncertainty thing.

Does anyone on this board think that Mr Putin will respond in kind?
Obama is a genuine fool--dont give up something and get nothing in return.

The sooner this idiot is gone the better for this country. Fortunately the clock is running on him

Roger J. said...

Theo: good comment, sir

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"... all he is saying is give peace a chance."

And he didn't even say that. He's punking his own voters (again).

He specifically said he would use nuclear weapons against innocent Iranian civilians. What a horrible, horrible man to threaten to annihilate women and children in Iran if Iranian religious mullahs don't do what he wants them to do.

He's using threats against innocents to achieve foreign policy. Hardly "give peace a chance." He's holding a gun to teh heads of little Iranian children heads to get what he wants.

Barack Obama doesn't want to give peace a chance. He wants to invite an attack on us. Or otherwise attack other innocent people as a way to provoke an attack on us. He wants someone to attack us so he can surrender quickly and destroy the country.

And he'll kill Iranian women and children who are prisoners of the mullahs in their own country to do it.

David said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Scott M said...

All they need do is stop supplying us with these things and they could take us over in about 7 days.

Please cite your evidence for this. I'll even give you 10 days just in case you didn't carry the one when you added that up. I'm sure you are drawing from plenty of strategic material, fuel, resources, manpower, etc, but please humor me and show me the info.

Otherwise, you're not really helping the side you think you're helping.

...just sayin'

Theo Boehm said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
New "Hussein" Ham said...

"He threw away an advantage -- flexibility -- and got NOTHING in return."

Precisely.

He's laying down our arms even before the attack begins.

The man is a traitor to his country.

bagoh20 said...

Conventional methods can be just as destructive, but it cost us much more in money, men and will power. This makes the enemy much less sensitive to our threat of using it, and I would add that our current enemies might even like the idea. That's why the only method they ever beg for us to give up is drones, because we fly but only they die. It sucks for them.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"There are, for example, very good arguments, based on the astounding advancement of the precision and capability of conventional weapons, that a serious rethinking of the US nuclear strategy is inevitable."

There is not one good argument for announcing that rethinking to your fucking enemies in the pages of the New York Times.

Theo, nobody is arguing that we shouldn't have attack plans. That is a red herring and a strawman you have erected to advance your liberal thinking here.

What we are pointing out is that it serves no useful purpose whatsoever to announce to the enemy what you are and are not willing to do.

It is stupid to do that and worse, it is fucking dangerous. It gets people killed.

It invites attack.

Osama bin Laden told interviewers that he was willing to attack the United States precisely because he believed we were a weak horse. That we would not respond. He was convinced by our actions after Kobar Towers, the Cole, the first WTC attack.

We are not quarreling with the idea that we should always have an up-to-date battle plan; we are quarreling with the idea that Barack Obama - by his actions - makes us less safe.

He invites attack on us. That's not a "moby" position - unless Dick Cheney is a "moby.

The problem with this site isn't moby's ... it's progressive Democrats infesting the comment section leaving their discredited droppings laying about.

Go shat elsewhere.

Rialby said...

I used to ask a question of my left-leaning friends about what they would do if they were POTUS and we were attacked in a limited way with a WMD. One of my good friends said - we couldn't do anything to a sponsoring state except MAYBE convetional attack. He also added - 9/11 only killed 3,000 people - that's not that many - we could take 1 of those every day for a year and it would still only be 100k people.

bagoh20 said...

In reality, the main advantage of nuclear weapons is the threat of use. Does anyone think there would even be an Israel without it. I'm positive that as soon as Iran has nuclear capability, the nuclear threat from Israel is all that will protect it from immediate annihilation. Does anyone think they would ever make such a promise to their enemies. Canaries in deed.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Assume the long term goal is elimination of nuclear weapons and the shorter term goal is to make their use less likely.

To your first point (elimination), sorry ain't gonna happen. That genie is out of the bottle and the bottle done broke. The idea that any nation who currently has them will unilaterally or multi-laterally give them up is fantasy.

As for less likely to be used, well the first one was used well over half a century ago and none have been used since and there hasn't been even a close call since the Cuban Crisis and that was nearly 50 years ago when there was an actual nuclear armed enemy we had to contend with.

In terms of the nuclear players, none are on anything close to a war footing where they would be deployed. No, its going to come from some terrorist group who will one way or another get their hands on one. Unfortunately for Mr. Obama's pie in the sky outlook on reality, they don't care much for proliferation treaties.

Roger J. said...

What bagoh20 said

bagoh20 said...

"we could take 1 of those every day for a year and it would still only be 100k people."

Liberals aren't great with the math. There are actual right and wrong answers. That is just fascist.

Hoosier Daddy said...

He also added - 9/11 only killed 3,000 people - that's not that many...

Par for the course with the left. Recall when we went to Afghanistan (the good fight remember?) and the terrorist supporters were already compiling a body count and lamenting that we killed more than they did.

I guess we owe the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese an apology too.

Montagne Montaigne said...

Barack Obama just woke up this morning and decided to fuck around with our nuclear posture. He's wacky like that. Maybe tomorrow he'll decide to rename Arkansas. Never a dull moment. But seriously, this thing that he did by himself that I don't fully understand and don't intend to look into any further? I'm sure it is of a parcel with the idiotic beliefs that I already have about this administration. Hussein!@!!!

PatHMV said...

Those of our enemies who may take comfort in the President's assurances today should really remember that all of his promises thus far have come with an expiration date. He is saying this to please a portion of his electoral base, not because it indicates what he really would or would not do when the time came.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"Assume the long term goal is elimination of nuclear weapons ..."

Then I say that Barack Obama is making us less safe and is a bad leader.

I WANT our nuclear weapons. I think that under the proper circumstances, they serve many purposes ... not the least of which is their deterrent value. I am not opposed to their use despite 60 years of liberal propaganda on this subject.

Other countries have no intention of surrendering their nuclear weapons - no matter what posture they present.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Barack Obama just woke up this morning and decided to fuck around with our nuclear posture.

On the contrary I think it was on his list of things to do from day one.

He basically told the world that as long as you adhere to non-proliferation treaties you can attack us with chem/bio weapons and in response we'll lob a couple of conventional Tommohawks your way.

If you listen closely enough you can hear maniacal laughter coming from Tehren and Pyongyang.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"Those of our enemies who may take comfort in the President's assurances today should really remember that all of his promises thus far have come with an expiration date."

He comes with an expiration date, too. Our enemies should take careful notice of what we are about to do to him electorally.

Barack Obama is only announcing Barack Obama's nuclear policy.

He is not announcing America's nuclear policy.

Hoosier Daddy said...

One also wonders what South Korea and Japan who rely on our nuclear umbrella think of this.

Personally if I was running the show in either country, I'd be working diligently on my own deterrent supply as the current administration hasn't exactly shown much interest in making allies feel at ease.

Montagne Montaigne said...

"in response we'll lob a couple of conventional Tommohawks your way."

That's just stupid. I'm waiting for you to admit that nothing attributed to be the decision or idea of Barack H. Obama could ever be something you approved of. You don't even have a clue what you're talking about-- nor do you feel the need to!

Joe said...

Barack Obama is only announcing Barack Obama's nuclear policy.

He is not announcing America's nuclear policy.


Uh that is one of the more stoopit things said here today…….The US Constitution makes Obama the Commander-in-Chief of the US Military…the National Command Authority in the nuclear parlance. ONLY the NCA can authorize the release of nuclear weapons! Ergo, Obama’s Nuclear Policy IS the US’ Nuclear Policy. What colour is the sky where you live?

Joe said...

That's just stupid. I'm waiting for you to admit that nothing attributed to be the decision or idea of Barack H. Obama could ever be something you approved of. You don't even have a clue what you're talking about-- nor do you feel the need to! Ok that becomes a close second to most stoopit thing said today….is this a critique? If so please present your thesis statement and some evidence, otherwise this is just some non sequitur phrase.

Montagne Montaigne said...

Joe-- saying that the U.S. would react to a biological or chemical attack with "a couple Tommmohawks" (sic) because of this nuclear posture review is STUPID. It is the statement of a JUVENILE IDIOT.

Clear?

David said...

New Ham--My point is that even if you assume the goals that Obama apparently has, his action achieves nothing.

I'm not particularly interested in giving up nuclear weapons given the type of projectable conventional force China is going to be able to create.

Hoosier Daddy said...

That's just stupid.

It certainly is and that is exactly what Obama stated. If you bothered to read the article, Obama believed such attacks could be deterred with 'graded conventional means'.

I'm waiting for you to admit that nothing attributed to be the decision or idea of Barack H. Obama could ever be something you approved of.

Nonsense. I applauded his decision to allow oil drilling off the coasts. I will applaud even louder if he actually follows up on it.

You don't even have a clue what you're talking about-- nor do you feel the need to!

Au contraire mon ami (that's French btw) I do know of what I speak as I read the article where obviously you did not. If you think my reply was 'stupid' tell it to Mr. Obama since it was his own idea.

Joe said...

Joe-- saying that the U.S. would react to a biological or chemical attack with "a couple Tommmohawks" (sic) because of this nuclear posture review is STUPID. It is the statement of a JUVENILE IDIOT.

No it’s NOT “clear”…as I understand the policy that could INDEED be our response to biologic weapons attack….If the attacking nation was NPT-compliant and the biologic stockpile/threat did not exceed some magical “number” known only to the POTUS, the US will NOT respond with nuclear weapons. Leaving us the options of:
1) A Diplomatic protest;
2) Sanctions:
3) International Action, via the UNSC;
4) A Couple of Tomahawk cruise missiles;
5) A sustained air campaign, designed to achieve set military-political objectives;
6) Or invasion, followed by regime change.
So, no your “complaint” makes no sense whatsoever, because the ACTUAL policy annunciated encompasses just ht option. Yours is the knee-jerk reaction. But thank you for contributing.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Monty, from the article:

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.

Those threats, Mr. Obama argued, could be deterred with “a series of graded options,” a combination of old and new conventional weapons.


So yes I have to agree that this is the statement of a juvenile idiot. On that we are both clear.

ken in sc said...

I agree with those who think this is destabilizing and dangerous—not just for the US. Every semi-advanced country that signed the non-proliferation treaty, under the assurance of the US nuclear umbrella will now have to develop their own deterrent or join forces with the closest local bully that has one. That’s not just Germany and Japan. There are scores of countries with the resources to do so.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"... saying that the U.S. would react to a biological or chemical attack with "a couple Tommmohawks" (sic) because of this nuclear posture review is STUPID. It is the statement of a JUVENILE IDIOT."

I have to agree with this because it's precisely the posture that Bill Clinton used following the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. He lobbed a couple of Tomahawk missiles at some empty tents and an aspirin factory.

And Bill Clinton was a juvenile idiot - as you suggest Montaigne.

Clinton's juvenile delinquency was the primary reason why he was impeached by the House of Representatives.

Mick said...

Joe said...
"It's not the WORST thing he's done, even in Foreign/Security Policy."

The worst thing he has done is to subvert the Constitution in many ways, including his very eligibility for the office (but Althouse, the lawprof doesn't care about that. Here are 2 articles about the meaning of the term from 1789 and from 1916 (only 18 years after Wong Kim Ark and well after the 14th Amendment). They both verify the Natural universal Law meaning of "Born in a Country to Parents who are it's citizens".

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/04/06/important-new-twist-in-natural-born-citizen-history-at-post-email/

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/founder-and-historian-david-ramsay.html

Balfegor said...

Personally if I was running the show in either country [Japan or South Korea], I'd be working diligently on my own deterrent supply as the current administration hasn't exactly shown much interest in making allies feel at ease.

South Korea worked on uranium enrichment throughout the 90s (up to 2000). The impression I have got from news reports is that they verified that a nuclear device was within their technological capabilities, and decided to terminate the program at that point. I don't think it would be difficult for them to resume those efforts. They are also developing their delivery systems technology, with their space program. A launch facility has been established on an island in South Cholla province (near my grandfather's ancestral home, as it happens), although I don't think it's fully operational yet.

Japan, meanwhile, has had the technological capability to build a nuclear weapon for decades. Along with France, they are one of the largest users of civilian nuclear power, and as a result, they have a huge supply of plutonium. They also have uranium enrichment facilities. If they wanted a nuclear weapon, they could have one in months. As far as delivery systems go, they can hit an asteroid from Tanegashima, so Pyongyang shouldn't be all that hard. And Japanese politicians including senior leadership of the LDP have, on occasion, been surprisingly candid both about Japan's nuclear capabilities, and the possibility that they might choose to assemble them, sometimes in response to Chinese belligerence, often in response to North Korea.

I don't think it's a matter of diligence here -- the technology, materials, and know-how are basically all sitting around ready to be assembled. All that is required is the political will.

edutcher said...

Joe's point, "I think it falsely removes ambiguity from the nuclear equation. In that SUPPOSEDLY we won't use nuclear weapons against a state, for a biologic attack, as long as they are NPT-compliant", brings to mind his 'new' oil drilling policy, which turned out to be the same one the Demos floated with great fanfare during the '08 campaign and ditched the second they had won.

So we need to take a harder look when the actual document emerges, but rh's point of making an attack more likely is on the money simply because of the appearance of weakness, whether true or not.

In any case, Rush's point that everything he says has an expiration date still holds. Eventually, we'll elect a real President who will supersede this, but it could be a bumpy 2 1/2 years.

traditionalguy said...

This is what Obama was sent to do to us, which is to remove the USA's world dominance.

The National Socialists have had this in mind since they community organized (i.e., subverted) the campuses against the Vietnam War. In those days, it was about diverting money from the Great Society; today, along with ZeroCare, cap & trade, etc., sending us to the poorhouse so an effective military is unfundable is the goal.

Mission Accomplished, Mr Soros.

Not yet, but we should keep in mind the currency-manipulating Nazi collaborator who is his money man.

Montagne Montaigne said...

Barack Obama just woke up this morning and decided to fuck around with our nuclear posture. He's wacky like that.

By George, I think he's got it!

Howard said...

Hi Ann. I would say yes, this action does little to change policy.

The news has predictably spawned a gigantic fraidy-cat response from the chickenhawk teabagger set.

911 was in response to the chickenhawk hero Raygun pulling out of Beirut and selling out to Iran, showing our juicy hole ripe for the fucking.

Big man cowboy W allowed Iran to go nukular while he fucked up two wars that occupied the enemies of Iran without defeating Al Queda.

We need more of that swagger and big macho talk about fighting every single battle without regard to common sense.

The posts here are embarrasing: you 'baggers are a big bunch of hand-wringing pussies and are too stupid to even realize it. Someday you silly girls will have to move out of Mommies service porch and venture into the big bad real world.

Joe said...

Howard, I think it best to just ignore your pathetic "post"...from me you get Noth'n more. When you got something more that poor thought out invective, try back.

Howard said...

Say it ain't so Joe. Your insightful posts are such a delight. Bringing up 2008 campaign smears and Obama's family to support you views is brilliant. Now you have destroyed my self esteem with your diss.

I notice that you don't deny being a pussified chickenhawk teabagger hiding behind Sarah's skirt.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I don't think it's a matter of diligence here -- the technology, materials, and know-how are basically all sitting around ready to be assembled.

Let’s face it, nukes are 65 year old tech which, as you correctly stated, pretty much anyone with the will can cobble one together. South Africa built one and I believe Brazil did also (they subsequently dismantled them) if for no other reason than to demonstrate the ability that they can.

Lets also explore Obama’s conventional deterrence. That pretty much boils down to our ability to project air power either by a ‘couple of Tomahawks’ or by some carrier groups. That’s all fine and good when you’re bombing piss ant places like Serbia or Iraq but consider countries like Iran and the NORKs who have (smartly) invested considerable treasure in state of the art anti-aircraft defenses which can quickly degrade our ability to sustain any kind of effective air campaign. Start taking down US aircraft in double digit numbers and watch how quick that deterrence ends.

No, this is just another example of a guy who can give a darn good speech but has absolutely no clue as to what he’s doing.**

** Actually I am trying to give him the benefit of the doubt that this apparent showing of our hand isn’t deliberate.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

Don't feed the liberal trolls.

They deliberately say things like this to re-direct the attack from Barack Obama onto them (a tried-and-true Alinsky tactic).

Stay on target.

Alex said...

How dare Obama try to make the world safer!!!!

You know that's the new meme.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"Actually I am trying to give him the benefit of the doubt that this apparent showing of our hand isn’t deliberate."

It's deliberate. It's also just damn shallow.

Barack Obama believes that by announcing that we'll only use nukes on North Korea and Iran we can impact their decision-making. That's 9th grade thinking.

Barack Obama has a strategy. It's just that his strategy sucks. It will be ineffective and won't achieve its intended goal, meanwhile it will have deleterious side effects he hasn't considered well enough.

He's just not a very smart person.

That simple.

Let's find new leaders.

Alex said...

Honestly it seems like Barry is bouncing from one issue to the next with no real purpose. He knows he can't do anything about the economy. He should also know that he sure as FUCK was not elected to dismantle our national security.

Alex said...

Obama is obviously not a very smart person. A smarter President would be focusing on fixing the economy. My guess is the liberals are setting up 9% unemployment rate as the "new normal".

Roger J. said...

Alex--it is possible that this particular demarche is designed to take the heat off of health care reform--it does change the subject a bit. Just sayin

Alex said...

If Hussein thinks that he can just change the subject on something as fundamental as health care, he's even dumber then I thought. Dumber then a bag of hammers.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"... it is possible that this particular demarche is designed to take the heat off of health ..."

Yes, it is possible.

However, pretty much all overs have already formed an opinion about the perfidy and bribery that Obama used to get his huge health insurance tax increase passed.

So it won't really do him any good to change the subject now to how he's not only raising our health insurance taxes, but he's disarming the country as well.

Like I said, he's just not very smart.

All there is to it.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"If Hussein thinks that he can just change the subject on something as fundamental as health care ..."

You keep saying "health care" but Obama didn't provide anybody any health care.

All he did was raise taxes by forcing people who don't need insurance to buy it from his campaign donors.

If he wanted to provide care, he'd have built hospitals and hired doctors.

All he wanted to do is enrich his insurance agent campaign donors by forcing people to buy their product.

Alex said...

Apparently Hussein is trying to please his left wing loony base, since he doesn't know how to appeal to indepedents or Republicans.

Joe said...

Apparently Hussein is trying to please his left wing loony base, since he doesn't know how to appeal to indepedents or Republicans.


Ya danz wit the wun what brung ya....true, these aren't the ones who "brung him" but they had a big part of in it, and if the Independents are leaving the dance who else can he dance with?

And this policy odesn't fully satisfy them.

Alex said...

I mean really who does this appeal to - dismantling our national deterrent capability? I can only think of the Huffington Post crowd who is enthusiastic about such a thing.

Obama seems to have forgotten that he was elected primarily on an ambiguous "hopeychange" feeling. Def no mandate for a socialist makeover on health care and capitulate to our enemies.

Nora said...

Smoke and mirrows to stop the US nuclear weapons development program. This is the only thing that this policy will stop. The enemies meanwhile will have opportunity to profress with developing their.

Considering that latest developments in nuclear weapons are in direction of devices that hart civilian population as little as possible, the ban on weapon development is even more peculiar.

bagoh20 said...

As Hoosier mentioned above,
in the only times that a nuclear response became a serious concern so far, Japan 1945 and the Cuban Missile Crisis in 62, the threat of it's use saved millions of lives.
Why would a wise leader throw that away for nothing in return or even for something?

The only argument on the other side here is: you people are stupid, and just hate Obama. Yea, that's it. It really is wise, but we just don't like Obama so much we can't admit it.

The truth is just the reverse: This is WHY we don't like him. Tell us why it means we should. Why is this wise policy? You know, argue the point.

bagoh20 said...

If Obama was to come out and announce: "Hey I'm a crazy ass cowboy way nuttier than W., and I'll fire off nukes just as soon as one of you stupid shits give me a good excuse."

If he does that, I'll disprove the notion that I hate everything Obama does.

garage mahal said...

This is WHY we don't like him.

So you hated Reagan then too right? He stated publicly on many occasions that he wanted to rid the world of nuclear weapons. Doh!

AlphaLiberal said...

Yes, he most certainly did. He stepped back from the First Use policy, for smaller nations. That's downright historic.

He has also moved discussions to tactical nukes in Europe, where Russia has a huge numeric "advantage."

He has led the international community in stepping back from the nuclear arms race, instead of engaging it and telling others to step back.

This is great work by our President. These nuclear weapons are massively destructive killing machines and need to be destroyed. This is part of the reason I supported him, based on his work with Sen Lugar to round up old nukes from FSU.

AlphaLiberal said...

I'm puzzled about the President's use of the word "obsolete" in regards to nuclear weapons. I'm not sure how the world is in a technological place to call any such weapon "obsolete".

I think it's because:

a) "conventional" bombs have become much more powerful than they were during the Cold War.

b) The Cold War is over. We do not accrue a strategic advantage, if we ever did, from stockpiling nuclear weapons.

c) You cannot use nukes against al Qaeda.

d) We need to cut the budget where we can and wasteful and destructive weaponry that serves no useful purpose is a prime area.

Joe said...

This is great work by our President. These nuclear weapons are massively destructive killing machines and need to be destroyed.

Which suggest you are not very serious about this issue….as Bernard Brodie observed, “Nuclear weapons exist.”

AlphaLiberal said...

Bagoh:

The only argument on the other side here is: you people are stupid, and just hate Obama. .

for the record, while I do think about 98.99% of all conservatives hate Obama, or any other Democrat elected to the Presidency, I do not believe they are all stupid.

I think many more are stupid than I previously imagined, but not all.

For example, when you ignore the very long-running valid points made by the "side" that wants to reduce nuclear stockpiles into the cartoonish misrepresentation of bag and others, you're not looking especially bright.

And, via diplomacy, use of nukes has been threatened more times than you cite. At least also in Viet Nam but I'm fairly certain in other cases.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"Yes, he most certainly did. He stepped back from the First Use policy, for smaller nations."

Why is Barack Obama wasting everybody's time talking about what nobody was ever going to do anyway, and not talking about the 20 million undermployed people in the country he is failing to help?

Millions are losing their unemployment benefits and he's prattling on about how we're not going to nuke fucking Lichtenstein.

There is important work to be done in America and our nuclear posture vis-a-vis the Principality of Monaco isn't it.

IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID.

AlphaLiberal said...

Joe:

Which suggest you are not very serious about this issue….as Bernard Brodie observed, “Nuclear weapons exist.” .

Oh my! I'm "not serious"! You've wounded me!!

So serious people ignore the inhumanity and destructive potential of these devices?

You've got that completely backwards.

For starters, our nation has been highly polluted from nuclear weapons processing and production. Let me guess, "serious people" ignore that, too.

AlphaLiberal said...

Ham, exactly how much diplomatic activity do you suggest the USA shut down due to the jobs crisis?

There's a jobs crisis so we can't do anything else. Except Bush put us into such a deep hole that it will be years before our country can recover.

God save us if the Republicans are restored to power and try to reinstate the same policies that got our country into this mess.

AlphaLiberal said...

Back in the 1980s we had a movement for a complete abolition of all nuclear weapons. This was based on the deep immorality of these weapons that are basically tools of genocide.

Or, in the case of the US and Russian stockpiles, suicide.

I never really signed up for that political approach but find the moral argument to be very persuasive. Others do, too.

Here is Pope Benedict addressing the nuclear weapons lunacy:

"What can be said, too, about those governments which count on nuclear arms as a means of ensuring the security of their countries? Along with countless persons of good will, one can state that this point of view is not only baneful but also completely fallacious. In a nuclear war there would be no victors, only victims. The truth of peace requires that all -­ whether those governments which openly or secretly possess nuclear arms, or those planning to acquire them ­- agree to change their course by clear and firm decisions, and strive for a progressive and concerted nuclear disarmament. The resources which would be saved could then be employed in projects of development capable of benefiting all their people, especially the poor.

In this regard, one can only note with dismay the evidence of a continuing growth in military expenditure and the flourishing arms trade, while the political and juridic process established by the international community for promoting disarmament is bogged down in general indifference. How can there ever be a future of peace when investments are still made in the production of arms and in research aimed at developing new ones? It can only be hoped that the international community will find the wisdom and courage to take up once more, jointly and with renewed conviction, the process of disarmament, and thus concretely ensure the right to peace enjoyed by every individual and every people. By their commitment to safeguarding the good of peace, the various agencies of the international community will regain the authority needed to make their initiatives credible and effective."
.

Wait, wait. Don't tell me. The Pope is a "socialist," right?

Hoosier Daddy said...

a) "conventional" bombs have become much more powerful than they were during the Cold War.

Aside from fuel air explosives, not really.

b) The Cold War is over. We do not accrue a strategic advantage, if we ever did, from stockpiling nuclear weapons.

The issue isn't stockpiling more its over when we would use them. Your point is irrelevant.

c) You cannot use nukes against al Qaeda.

Sure you can.

d) We need to cut the budget where we can and wasteful and destructive weaponry that serves no useful purpose is a prime area.

Yes cutting back on our biggest deterrent is the perfect option.

Hoosier Daddy said...

So you hated Reagan then too right? He stated publicly on many occasions that he wanted to rid the world of nuclear weapons. Doh!

Wait I thought Reagen had his finger on the button and wanted to destroy the planet?

I honestly can't keep the liberal meme straight anymore. I change more often than Tiger Wood's girlfriends.

Joe said...

So serious people ignore the inhumanity and destructive potential of these devices?
Serious people acknowledge their reality and benefit. UNSERIOUS people seek to disinvent them……Iran and the DPRK seek nuclear weapons because their possession grants them certain advantages. UNTIL the disadvantages outweigh the advantages those regimes will continue to seek them. Ergo, to discuss the destruction of nuclear weapons suggests that you:
1) Unserious; or
2) Believe that Iran and/or the DPRK deserve to be able to advance their regime objectives unhindered by the United States.
And that ignores the forces of Russia and the PRC, and our friends the French, the British, the Israelis, and the neutrals such as Pakistan and India…. All these nations have interests, some of which could be advanced by their possession of nuclear weapons. Tell me, why is it that the US must accept those interests, instead of its own, should the US divest itself of nuclear weapons?

Alternatively, why would any of those nations divest themselves of their nuclear arsenals? And should they do so, isn’t there a built-in incentive to cheat? IF all other nations have divested themselves, then the possession of just a few will grant one nation a dominance. And every nation understanding this has a built-in incentive to cheat, if only to prevent a surprise in the future, after all cheating MAY grant you an advantage in arguments over Kashmir, or the West bank, and at worst merely prevents your opponent(s) from blackmailing you, because you too kept some nuclear weapons.

Consequently it’s fairly obvious you aren’t really very serious in your thought about this issue…..again as Bernard Brodie observed, Nuclear weapons exist.”

traditionalguy said...

Attitude determines everything. It determines your approach to other people and their reaction to you. That is why Obama has diligently changed a friendly attitude to an unfriendly attitude towards allies, while also changing an unfriendly attitude to a friendly attitude towards enemies. The result is that Obama has destroyed of the USA's alliances in the world. Mission accomplished, again.

Joe said...

The Pope, has only “soft power” and so consequently in the Pope’s view only “soft power” carries legitimacy. After all we emphasize the powers we possess. The Papacy has been, at times, much less pacifistic in its philosophies, when it had access to combat power exceeding the Swiss Guard.

Roger J. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Roger J. said...

Please tell us Alpha how many US citizens have died from the US production of nuclear weapons since the inception of the manhattan project

Joe said...

Please tell us Alpha how many US Citizens people have died from the US production of nuclear weapons in the US
To be fair to Alpha, statistically, it is obvious that the nuclear arms race has killed Americans. Radiation produces cancer, increased radiation increases cancer, it follows logically. Just because we can’t say exactly WHO died in excess of a normal number of deaths does not mean that there were no deaths.

And I can think of at least ONE American who has died from the production of nuclear weapons, a physicist at Los Alamos, who received an lethal overdose of radiation whilst “tickling the Dragon.”

madawaskan said...

Alpha-

So you're a cafeteria Papist?

garage mahal said...

Wait I thought Reagen had his finger on the button and wanted to destroy the planet?

No, those are just the strawmen in your head. Reagan did wreak havoc in several central american countries though. That might have been what you were thinking of.

AlphaLiberal said...

"Alpha-

So you're a cafeteria Papist?"

No, I like cafeterias but don't follow Rome. I do consider the views of a wide variety or religious and moral leaders in forming my own, though.

The point remains these weapons are very immoral. One might say "evil" if one was inclined to use such language.

Joe said...

Louis Alexander Slotin, of course technically as a CANADIAN citizen, he doesn't count....you can "wiki" him concering the criticality experiment that went "bad."

Roger J. said...

Joe--in my early army days I was a nuclear weapons assembly man at Sandia Base--and yes, some technicians died in the late 1940s when the nature of nuclear energy was obscure.
As far as US citizens living near say, Oak Ridge? New Mexico? None as far as I know. Unless Alpha can cite some cases I will remain unconvinced.

Joe said...

The point remains these weapons are very immoral.

More proof of your failure to think seriously abut the issues of war, weaponry, and morality…NO WEAPON IS IMMORAL, certain uses of a weapon may be immoral, but no weapon is immoral.

Why is being vapourized by a nuclear weapon, whilst advancing upon Moscow in your M-1a2 any more moral or immoral than being burned alive in said M-1 by a Russian ATGM?

madawaskan said...

Does anybody notice a conflict in the article between here:

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.


And then this segment:

White House officials said the new strategy would include the option of reconsidering the use of nuclear retaliation against a biological attack, if the development of such weapons reached a level that made the United States vulnerable to a devastating strike.

It has a "clean up on aisle five" feel to it.

Roger J. said...

The production of nuclear weapons is a fairly straight forward process--their production poses little risk to those producing them.

And as been pointed out the genie is out of the bottle--the production of nuclear weapons is fairly straight forward but does require some advanced engineering--their production is well within the capacity of national entities who wish to invest in the production. In short, nukes are not going away. A modern nation that feels it needs them can produce them. As long as the US nuclear "umbrella" remained intact, most nations I suspect would not invest the resources. Thus the folly of Mr Obama's latest belch

Joe said...

...and yes, some technicians died in the late 1940s when the nature of nuclear energy was obscure.


Were they Illegal Aliens, so then yes, US Citizens HAVE died from the production of nuclear weapons.

The increase in Tritum, Strontium, and the like form production AND testing, ahve, no doubt, increased the numbe of cancer deaths, WORLDWIDE....just becasue I can't say, "this guy here died from Plutonium poisoing." Doesn't mean that if the number of cancers was increased by 0.5% that those deaths aren't any less real. Does it?

I don't deny the negative effects of nuclear weapons, I just don't deny their utility.

garage mahal said...

Not serious!
What crazy terrorist loving leftist said this:

"I call upon the scientific community in our country, those who gave us nuclear weapons, to turn their great talents now to the cause of mankind and world peace: to give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete."

I can’t believe that this world can go on beyond our generation and on down to succeeding generations with this kind of weapon on both sides poised at each other without someday some fool or some maniac or some accident triggering the kind of war that is the end of the line for all of us. And I just think of what a sigh of relief would go up from everyone on this earth if someday–and this is what I have–my hope, way in the back of my head–is that if we start down the road to reduction, maybe one day in doing that, somebody will say, ‘Why not all the way? Let’s get rid of all these things.’


Most of the people have been hearing in political dialog from one side, since we’ve been here in the 3 1/2 years, that I somehow have an itchy finger and am going to blow up the world. And that has all been duly reported by so many of you that that is the tone that the people have been getting. And it doesn’t do me any good to tell you that, having seen four wars in my lifetime, I don’t know of anyone, in or out of government, that is more determinedly seeking peace than I am. And my goal is the total elimination of nuclear weapons. If we can get those fellows back to the table and get them to start down that road of mutual reduction, then they might find out what common sense it would mean to eliminate them."


It is my fervent goal and hope…that we will some day no longer have to rely on nuclear weapons to deter aggression and assure world peace. To that end the United States is now engaged in a serious and sustained effort to negotiate major reductions in levels of offensive nuclear weapons with the ultimate goal of eliminating these weapons from the face of the earth.


As I have indicated in previous statements to the Congress, my central arms control objective has been to reduce substantially, and ultimately to eliminate, nuclear weapons and rid the world of the nuclear threat. The prevention of the spread of nuclear explosives to additional countries is an indispensable part of our efforts to meet this objective. I intend to continue my pursuit of this goal with untiring determination and a profound sense of personal commitment.


“I know that there are a great many people who are pointing to the unimaginable horror of nuclear war…. [T]o those who protest against nuclear war, I can only say, ‘I’m with you.’” “[M]y dream is to see the day when nuclear weapons will be banished from the face of the Earth.”

Joe said...

And Garage, another Conservative Icon, MARGARET THATCHER opposed and castigated Reagan for this illusion....

Roger J. said...

Joe: we were treated to several movies in my training period about nuclear radiation--the technicians that died were soldiers and airmen who were involved in the production, and in most cases they tried to separate nuclear material with their bare hands. And we were treated to movies showing the progressive nature of nuclear exposure. These cases were few and far between.

garage mahal said...

Reagan would be laughed out of the Republican party today. Definite RINO.

LarsPorsena said...

lease tell us Alpha how many US Citizens people have died from the US production of nuclear weapons in the US
To be fair to Alpha, statistically, it is obvious that the nuclear arms race has killed Americans. Radiation produces cancer, increased radiation increases cancer, it follows logically. Just because we can’t say exactly WHO died in excess of a normal number of deaths does not mean that there were no deaths.

And I can think of at least ONE American who has died from the production of nuclear weapons, a physicist at Los Alamos, who received an lethal overdose of radiation whilst “tickling the Dragon.”


Do you know how many US citizens
have died in the production of conventional explosives? Makes the nuke production death count trivial and this line of argument silly.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"It has a "clean up on aisle five" feel to it."

This is Barack Obama's attempt to change the subject from the 17.5% U-6 unemployment in the country.

The economy is being destroyed by Barack Obama's piss-poor economic policies and practices and he wants to change the subject to why we won't nuke Malta. I mean, nobody is fooled by this, are they?

The economy is the problem ... so naturally, Barack Obama wants to talk about our nuclear stance vis-a-vis the island nation of Tuvalu.

Anything except that he's doing a piss-poor job helping ordinary Americans find work.

Nobody cares whether he'd nuke the Maldives. They care about feeding their families and not losing their homes. They need a President who is focused on the right priorities and sadly, Barack Obama isn't focused on the economy.

It's a fucking shame that peole are going hungry in America and Barack Obama is talking about not nuking Tuvalu instead of feeding our starving children trapped in his soup kitchens.

madawaskan said...

Alpha

OK I see your response now-there is something hinky in the way that blogger loads comment threads for me lately-I don't "see" comments that are done while I'm off typing another comment.

So I see your point you think the intent of the weapons is immoral -

What about the effect of the balancing of power?

{see my previous comment}

Roger J. said...

Lars--speaking in the abstract you would be correct--in fact anyone working in the nuclear program is badged and their radiation exposure is monitored. I started working with nukes in 1962 and was monitored and checked routinely. The dangers of exposure to other sources of radiation, eg cosmic radiation, is probably greater than that involved in working with nuclear weapons.

LarsPorsena said...

"...The point remains these weapons are very immoral. One might say "evil" if one was inclined to use such language."

I think what AL really means is that they are immoral if the US has them,anybody else ..not so much.

Hoosier Daddy said...

No, those are just the strawmen in your head.

I don't think so garage. Maybe you're a lot younger than me but I came of age in the 1980s and I recall quite vividly Ronnie Raygun and how he was going to destroy the planet.

Then again garage, Reagan knew how to negotiate from a position of strength. Obama is basically showing the world our hand and starting negotiations from there.

Balfegor said...

Reagan would be laughed out of the Republican party today. Definite RINO.

And Kennedy today would be to the right of much of the Republican party -- he campaigned on tax cuts, and a missile gap. In the last speech he delivered before he died, he boasted of his huge increases in the defense budget, expansion in the size and deployment of America's nuclear arsenal, and a sixfold increase in US forces deployed in Vietnam. It is hard to imagine such a speech being delivered by any Democrat today. Even most (though not all) Republicans would shy away from it, as too overtly bellicose.

The country moved violently to the left after Kennedy's assassination. And the country moved markedly to the right under Reagan and afterwards. It's possible that the country is in the process of jerking back to the left, but that change is unclear. In any event, views change. Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis

Joe said...

Why is a spiked club to thead or a barbed lance to the abdomen (both ILLEGAL) be any more IMMORAL, to be distinguished from ILLEGAL, than having one's head perforated by a piece of shrapnel (LEGAL and MORAL) and one's abdomen slit open by a bayonet (LEGAL and MORAL)?

And why is being reduced to ash by a nuclear weapon be IMMORAl, whilst being reduced to ash by a thermite is MORAL?

Scott M said...

In response to my query about calling nuclear weapons "obsolete", Alpha said:

"I think it's because:

a) "conventional" bombs have become much more powerful than they were during the Cold War.


No they have not. They have become magnitudes more accurate. And that's only because the western democracies abhor collateral damage and avoid it as much as possible when possible.

b) The Cold War is over. We do not accrue a strategic advantage, if we ever did, from stockpiling nuclear weapons.

Correct. We won. In large part due to our technical ability to design, build, and deploy nuclear-capable forces. This isn't nationalistic jingoism, it's fact. There was no real advantage to stockpiling, as you say, other than survival and detente. The Soviets and their stooges had a large edge in conventional forces, as well as the will to use them. It may be cliche, but the only reason Germans don't primarily speak Russian is because of these immoral weapons you keep referring to.

c) You cannot use nukes against al Qaeda.

You can nuke anything you want. You simply have to have the political will and military means to do so. Nukes are all city-killers, by the by. Tactical nukes get down to the field-artillery level.

d) We need to cut the budget where we can and wasteful and destructive weaponry that serves no useful purpose is a prime area

And here we agree wholeheartedly. I think it's a bit ironic to do so while carrying water for this administration though. However, that's another thread.

All weaponry is destructive. The useful purpose nukes now serve is the same thing they have served since they ended WWII...deterrence. Do we need to stockpile and continue to build nukes in vast numbers? Nope.

Do we need to have enough to accomplish strategic and tactical goals? Yep. That equals deterrence. And that equals having enough to 1) be deployed at all times 2) have yet again 1/3 more down for maintenance, and 3) about a 1/10 more for training purpose. Then, you need to keep researching them to make sure you've got the best, most reliable systems.

Sure, there's a finite number in play here. That's not the issue. The issue is that they are a deterrence first and foremost and need to be maintained.

Look. I hate nuclear weapons. I have since 6th grade when I was old enough to realize I might not live to grow up. That fucked me up good for about half a year (circa 1980) and I never forgot that we could all go up with less than 15 minutes notice. Everyone I knew had this on their mind to varying degrees.

The problem is...you cannot unmake the fact that they exist. You cannot change the fact that there are people in the world that would use them in a heartbeat if they could. You can't change the fact that Iran has been testing ballistic missile launches from a disguised ocean freighter.

All of these things suck, but you cannot undo them. You cannot rid the world of them, because those in power, who wish to remain in power, will always keep an ace up their sleeve.

Unless you can, with 100% accuracy, track them, destroy them, or nullify them, they are not obsolete.

Tibore said...

""No one denies that the use of nukes would leave behind horrid aftereffects ..."

I deny this.

It has been proven empirically that the use of nuclear weapons turns aggressive people into productive people by rechanneling their energies. The use of nuclear weapons turns poor war-torn economies into highly productive economies.

We don't have to guess about the long-term effects of nuclear weapons.

A very small population, confined to a very small island, have managed to produce the second-largest economy in the world once they saw were shown the light and the way.

So, I'd argue the long-term effects of nuclear weapons are to produce efficient economies and non-warring people."


You deny to your error then. The rechanneling of the Japanese people's energies were the accomplished by the postwar policies their occupiers - Ameria - implemented that took advantage of their society's discipline and energy. It was what America did after the bomb that put them on the path to prosperity. It was not the bomb itself. You poorly and inapropriately associate historical facts in your statement. The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did no more to foster growth in Japan than the damage to Stalingrad fostered the Soviet Union's rise to supwerpower status. It's what the governing authorities did in the aftermath that counts.

If you say that the atomic bombs removed a militaristic regime and paved the way for the US to help Japan, then you and I are in agreement. But if your point is that the use of the weapon in and of itself led to a prosperous Japan, then you are in error. Weapons of any kind destroy, they do not create, and like surgery to remove a tumor, the most they do is excise malicious growth.

On top of that, you also disagree with one of the large figures of US conservative politics: Ronald Reagan. Remember the quote Theo provided?

There's rhetoric and there's over the top parody. You're the latter. No one is saying never, ever use them. Rather, the only thing we're criticizing is Obama's overly naive statement inducing a weakness in the US's defensive stance. You extend that criticism too far. Theo is right, you're quite obviously a Moby.

Scott M said...

So, I'd argue the long-term effects of nuclear weapons are to produce efficient economies and non-warring people.

Definitely mobyesque.

By the way, "nukes are all city-killers" in my previous post, should have read, "not all nukes are city-killers".

Cedarford said...

. "The US president has said his goal is to have a nuclear-free world, and has promised to cut the number of nuclear weapons in the US arsenal."

Balefegor said similarly, but this is what I wrote:
The problem with reductions that would take the number of nuclear warheads down to a bare minimum needed to defend the US from a single aggressor, or allies...is that it diminishes the credibility of putting nations under a nuclear umbrella. Not down to the present number perhaps, but where the Obamites state they wish to get to, shortly.
The danger of suddenly exposing once-protected by US strategic deterrant nations to attack is that it will suddenly make a heck of a lot of sense for Japan, S Korea, Germany, Australia, Sweden, Turkey, etc. to develop their own arsenals. (Which the Left will acknowledge in academic papers, but not publically).
Once the US draws down too far, the idea that we would launch nukes to retaliate for a N KOrean attack using nerve gas, biowar, and nukes as well as conventional arms - becomes less credible. Because we could end up after expending those nukes with less than what we think would have to exist to deter a 3rd nation like Russia from thinking an attack on us could be successful.
So a far deeper cut in US strategic arms could actually trigger crash programs in Turkey, Japan, Poland, S Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand as they sense the nuke umbrella and alliances no longer protect them from nuke attack.
The Obamites have also not addressed cheating. The Russians massively deceived us with a secret biowar program - VEKTOR - they kept up until the Soviet Union fell. What the Soviets finally realized was that Nixon's vision that massive nuclear deterrance made cheating with bioweapons and nerve gas an impossible proposition, but could not overcome internal beaurocratic resistance to disassemble VEKTOR until they had a regime change. So would Putin ever contemplate cheating, dear Mr Putin??? If we go further down to a nuke weapon inventory they could take out if they maintain a secret stockpile of some 40% more total weapons than we have added into their "official inventory"?? Yes. It has to be a concern. Russia having 3,000 warheads when we have 2000 would not alter the strategic calculations, but if we go down to 300 or so as Obamites hope we do as "the next step" - a stash of 500 or so nukes not declared in Russia or China could mean they could win a nuke war.

-------------------------------

edutcher said...

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"It has a "clean up on aisle five" feel to it."

This is Barack Obama's attempt to change the subject from the 17.5% U-6 unemployment in the country.


According to Gallup, it's more like 20.3, and this is off Kos.

bagoh20 said...

Tibore,

Moby or not, his point is correct as in your surgery analogy since the recovery absolutely required the nuclear knife and would have been impossible or much more costly in lives without it.

Alex said...

We should adopt the stance of Berkeley and become a "nuclear free zone". New Zealand is also "nuclear free".

Scott M said...

Let’s not jump to conclusions.

I believe it’s perfectly plausible that President Obama has done this as a precursor to his announcement of impenetrable force fields for all cities, limitless free energy, and a cookbook entitled, To Serve Americans.

Cedarford said...

2. "A White House statement on Monday said the new nuclear policy offered "an alternative to developing new nuclear weapons, which we reject"."

Which means the Obamites have bought into the liberal koolaid that unlike all the modifications and new designs in nuke weapons of the past that did not encourage ANY proliferation - just a desire to keep parity in the case of the Soviets - somehow a redesign of a W-76 warhead that keeps the same yield but with electronics that last longer will cause some mass desire in other nations to seek the Bomb.

The Left has peddled that crap that other nations only developed their Bomb because we went from a W-59 to a W-61 design of the same yield and such, for years. As a "blame America for everything" tactic.


But when we have finally gotten the decision-making history of nations that got the Bomb absolutely NO nation has stated they green-lighted a national bomb development program because "the US went ahead with the MK-61 design" when they had the 112 other designs, or "we weren't going to develop 30 kiloton fission bombs, but when the Soviets replaced their 20 megaton plutonium pit city busters with a 20 megaton HEU pit design...well, that changed everything!"
As if India decided a Russian test of an Asroc sub-kiloton nuke was why India suddenly needed a bomb against CHina's threat..
It is so stupid and ridiculous an argument even a HS kid gets it has to be wrong if explained, but it is solidly fixed in Leftist ideology. No matter that Israel (off the record), France, S Africa, Britain, China, N KOrea, India, Pakistan say news of a new Soviet bomb design in the 50s, and a new American anti-armor design in the 70s had utterly nothing to do with their national decision to go with a nuke weapons program.

Same with military leaders of some 45 nations that have decided not to proliferate. Their strategic position is assessed based on adequacy of a nuclear umbrella for some, if they can create a reliable nuclear free zone for others, if going with nukes would create more problems that they would solve (Sweden's logic).

Think of a comparable.
Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Poland, Japan could create their own jet fighter rather be dependent on others for providing the means. But thought it a waste of time and resources. And that decision obviously does not rest on if the Chinese develop a J-10 or a new Sukhoi model comes out or the US decides in needs a replacement to the A-10 Warthog ground attack plane, after all.
Nations do not cluster their leadership and top military to urgently debate how they have "No moral choice left" but to develop their own jet fighter program from scratch(as Lefties might put it) because Russia has a better Sukhoi design plane now on the boards.
It's just achingly stupid reasoning by Leftist and progressive Jewish lawyers unfamiliar with military and national security strategy and what little impact a replacement design has on balance of power.

And you know the Left and the Obamites would rush out if Russia said it was replacing a 1960s design warhead 1 for 1 with a safer to handle, easier to maintain design. They would be the 1st to say to the public that NOTHING HAS CHANGED strategically, if Russia did that. And they would be right.

madawaskan said...

Alpha-

I'm seeing another assumption you are making-earlier in the thread. Al Queda is not the future perhaps-it is the present.

The path to attaining nuclear arsenals has already been cleared it's hard to visualize others not being tempted to follow. Even though Russia was economically destroyed as a fall out of the nuclear arms race does not mean that in the future someone else cannot fill that void.

In fact what has maybe worked in favor of others not filling that void is America's current stance and the perceived futility in matching that.

A big part of prevention is preparing for future scenarios-and not overly tinkering with the status quo-it might be an oversimplification but-there is always the law of unintended consequences.

If America is seen as retreating from it's stance as a super power who plays in that vacuum?

What are the new threat scenarios-what are the new alliances and balancing equations?

That works both ways btw-for friends and foes.

garage mahal said...

Makes you wonder what the real unemployment figure was under Bush. Funny it never came up then. Couldn't have been too good when we were bleeding 750k jobs per month.

bagoh20 said...

The argument on the left side here has gotten slightly better, but is now only:

1) Nuclear weapons are really bad.

2) Reagan did it too

So I offer equally good reasoning:

1) Unilateral disarmament and then attack those who don't do similar with conventional weapons to force them. It's immoral after all to have them.

2) Tell us how much you love Reagan now. Alpha even remembers the world wide leftist protests against him and his refusal to disarm, which confuses me since he is now a leftist hero.

madawaskan said...

And I can't state this often enough-but before I leave the thread and I really have to get going, bluffing, obfuscation and not speaking clearly all of that -and its accompanying perils gets amplified a thousand times in foreign policy.

When you couple this with Obama's actions start with his trajectory on missile defense and add to that his treatment of long held allies-Britain, Israel- perhaps Canada, Australia,and Japan and you can see a set up for a situation ripe with negative potential.

Alex said...

bagoh - unilateral disarmament is unilateral surrender. Regan said it best in his 1964 speech -

"You can have peace, and you can do it in the next minute. Surrender."

But Reagan understood that it's better to die on your feet then live on bended knee.

bagoh20 said...

"You can have peace, and you can do it in the next minute. Surrender."

Give peace a chance. If not now, when? If not here, where? If not Obama, who?

Alex said...

Fascists like Obama have no concept of honor, and he certainly has no love for America. With Reagan, Bush you knew that love for America beat within their heart. With Obama, I sense a very dark heart.

bagoh20 said...

madawaskan: "...you can see a set up for a situation ripe with negative potential."

Right on! and this is the real problem more than just this one silly policy statement. He is dangerous and is getting nothing for the sacrifices. Our enemies and the smart people with our allies do not see him as smart or clever, just naive and inexperienced. In short: an opportunity and one that may not last. It's very dangerous.

His stronger action in Afgan/Pakistan is the only offsetting policy, (yes he does some things I agree with) but in the larger scheme, can be discounted if you want to fight us diplomatically or any other way. It simply weakens us overall.

g2loq said...

Si vis pacis parabellum ...

There, sound more sophisticated in Latin but is quite simple actually.
Time proven ... will have to be rediscovered, the hard way. Effete people are dangerous to your health.

F them all and the tall and the long and the short ....

Tibore said...

"bagoh20 said...
Tibore,

Moby or not, his point is correct as in your surgery analogy since the recovery absolutely required the nuclear knife and would have been impossible or much more costly in lives without it."


I do not believe that was what he was getting at. My own point was that the bombs themselves at best cleared the way for the US policy to accomplish what it did, and nothing more than that. The bombs on their own were responsible for nothing more than the destruction of cities and the surrender of the former imperalistic regime. It's the morality of the US that accomplished the actual Japanese renaissance. I see his post as an attempt to parody "conservative" views by taking them to an illogical extreme. No one credits the A-bombs for doing anything more than removing that regime. Dropping the bombs without postwar occupation would not have lead to a recovery, whereas not dropping the bombs (and paying severely in lives by implementing the alternative) would likely have, since the ultimate result of that would have been an occupation anyway. The consistent element here is the US occupation and implementation of proper recovery policy, not the atomic bomb's destruction itself.

You can't draw a straight line from the A-bombs to the recovery without including the datapoint of the US occupation's governance in-between. Yet, that's what he attempted to do: "The use of nuclear weapons turns poor war-torn economies into highly productive economies... We don't have to guess about the long-term effects of nuclear weapons". That's somewhat ironic, given that the very next paragraph said "... produce the second-largest economy in the world once they saw were shown the light and the way". It wasn't the bomb that "shown the light and the way", it was MacArthur and the occupational policies that did that. The only "light" the bombs produced killed the witnesses to it, and did precious little to instruct them of anything other than the folly of taking on a superior industrial power. None of that leads to prosperity.

Doug Wright-OG said...

Please approve, I'm really a nice and somewhat, occasionally, compliant commenter!

"Not a strongly worded letter?" That statement's going a bit too far. We should always have that option in our arsenal, so to speak.

What concerns me today is when shall this country officially apologize for dropping the A-Bomb on two Japanese cities. That includes providing gadzillions in reparations to Japan for said hostile act. We should also apologize for creating such a hostile environment that forced the Japanese to react by sending that peaceful task force towards Pearl Harbour!

Cheers!

g2loq said...

The more I think about it the more I realize that Obama and his voters are an existential problem for me and my close kins ...

mmmm ...

traditionalguy said...

Incidentally, the Japanese Army never surrendered. They were trained to die first. The 2 new Fusion Bombs had demonstrated to the Emperor that he had no where left he could hide. Hirohito had never been trained to die for nothing like the poor suckers who worshiped him at his sun god cult. So he surrendered Japan against the Army's wishes, on condition that he lived and continued as sun god Emperor. Yes, it was all Truman's fault. Hurray for Truman.

Theo Boehm said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Balfegor said...

Incidentally, the Japanese Army never surrendered. They were trained to die first.

On the contrary, Japanese Army units, including from the notorious Kwantung Army (Kantou Army) surrendered, following the Imperial Rescript on Surrender, and the issuance of surrender orders by the commanders in the field.

The 2 new Fusion Bombs had demonstrated to the Emperor that he had no where left he could hide.

They were fission bombs. Fusion bombs weren't used until the 50s.

bagoh20 said...

Hate to be picky, but fission not fusion. Fusion is what me and Jesica Alba did last night. It was explosive though and changed her world at least.

Doug Wright-OG said...

Guys, one was fission and one was fusion. I think Fat Man was fusion, at least the 2nd one was.

The whole idea behind the A-bomb dropping was to get the Jap Army to surrender otherwise all of Jap occupied Asia was going to go up in flames along with all those bypassed island fortresses the Japs had.

Remember that in addition to about 2-million green Jap troops on the home islands, there were probably at least that many elsewhere in Asia. Additionally, many more civilians would die if the Imperial Army didn't fold its tents and turn over its swords.

Jeez, what's next, that we actually lost that war to Antarctica?

Snark is actually good for the soul.

Joe said...

No someone is confusing IMPOSION with GUN....both weapons in Japan were Fission. "Little Boy" was a gun-type weapon firing 50-plus kilo's of U-235 into a critical juncture, no compression. "Fat Man" was a Plutonium Pu-239 Implosion weapon, containing a "pit" of ~6 kilo's of 96% Pu-239.

In both weapons heavy nuclei were "fissioned" into lighter, more stable elements, releasing large amounts of energy.

Fusion involves the fusing of Hydrogen nuclei into heavier Helium nuclei...and so releasing large amounts of energy. The first US fusion device was IVY MIKE, detonated in 1952.

Roger J. said...

Re Fat Man and Little Boy--Fat man was an implosion type weapon and little boy was a gun type weapon--in the former, critical mass is achieved by igniting an explosive shell and in the latter critical mass is achieved by cramming two pieces of uranium together.

Fusion has to do with thermonuclear weapons and, as some have noted wasnt done until the 1950s.

Roger J. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Roger J. said...

Joe beat me to it and more elegantly

Joe said...

And the Japanese Army DID surrender...it tried to prevent the release of the Imperial Rescript accepting the Potsdamm Declaration, but failed. Once the Emperor called on "his" people to endure the unendurable, they acquiesced to Hirohito's Divine Will.

Japan is one of the few nations defeated with the largest portion of its army intact...much of the IJA was in China, or New Britain, never defeated, directly.

Roger J. said...

The engineering of nuclear weapons is fairly straight forward. Mr Obama's pronouncement is less so. If one assumes, as I do, that deterrence has to do with uncertainty, Mr Obama has set our nuclear policy, some sixty years old, back considerably. Mr Obama is, my view, an uninformed and an ahistorical ass who will do our county ill.

Fen said...

Change: our allies no longer laugh at us, our enemies now do.

This is the stupidty of "proportional response" that the Left sought to impose on Israel.

Obama: Do not strike back twice as hard... unless they are Americans.

Fen said...

Libtard: The point remains these weapons are very immoral.

Weapons cannot be immoral. Moron.

At least stick to screwing up the economy, idiot. You and your kind are going to get us all killed with your stupidity.

roesch-voltaire said...

Oh boy I just read from one poster that "Nuclear weapons - according to everything we've seen in our history - produce peace." By that logic let us bomb the world to bring peace. But as far as I can tell we still maintain high alert, MAD is still in existence, and a clear warning sent to Iran and Korea that atomic weapons could be used against them.
Now in addition maybe we could keep the peace by trying to hold down proliferation?