Preemptive Disarment... Obama's Nuclear Posture

[Zacha341]

Per today's Forbe.com site is an interesting article on president Obama's recent treaty signing. Another article siting the positive aspects of it was posted on CNN. See both articles below:

My question: Will ALL of the other boys in the sand box put up away their sticks too?

Preemptive Disarmament
Claudia Rosett, 04.08.10, 12:01 AM EDT
Obama's new nuclear posture means a more dangerous world.
http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/07/nuc...schannellatest

Quote from article...
"Obama now brings us a new U.S. "nuclear posture," in which America is promising not to use nuclear weapons against any nonnuclear states that comply with the nonproliferation treaty--even if they attack the U.S. with chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction..."

Obama's nuclear posture: Right for these times
By George Perkovich, Special to CNN
April 7, 2010 8:06 p.m. EDT
America's new nuclear weapons posture... gives much-needed momentum to the nuclear agenda President Obama set out in Prague last year.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/0...ons/index.html

Quote from article...
On the left, some may feel the president didn't go far enough. They were hoping the posture would declare that the sole purpose of nuclear weapons is to deter the use of those weapons by others. But it's important to recognize that this is the best policy that does not limit the administration's broader nuclear disarmament goals. President Obama is a realist and knows that he needs 67 votes in the Senate to ratify the new START treaty with Russia.

[Lowell]

OMG we'll only have enough nuclear weapons to incinerate 1500 cities. What we will ever do? We're helpless. Invading armies will walk all over us. See the move RED DAWN coming out this fall to see what will happen. Form militias now. Save America.

"We'll meet again, don't know where, don't when..."

[Zacha341]

Yes that's a point and others are entering the game. The two articles referenced point out the pros and cons of the issue of nuclear disarmament. Our military is being cut too. I just wonder if everyone is going to "do nice".... or will we have another Chamberlain situation going forth?

OMG we'll only have enough nuclear weapons to incinerate 1500 cities. What we will ever do? We're helpless. Invading armies will walk all over us. See the move RED DAWN coming out this fall to see what will happen. Form militias now. Save America.

"We'll meet again, don't know where, don't when..."

[ejames01]

We spend more on defense [[and offense) than the rest of the world combined.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...d/spending.htm

[rb336]

My question: Will ALL of the other boys in the sand box put up away their sticks too?

your question is moot.

Our nuclear arms have yet to deter an attack against us [[except, possibly, during the cold war). don't think these fanatics will worry if we nuke a bunch of innocents because of the actions a few extremists. There is hardly a country in the world apart from China and Russia that we couldn't march through with conventional forces, and for the most part, the threat is from non-governmental actors. Nukes will do nothing to deter them -- hell, they would love it if we nuked an islamic country since it would, in the minds of many, "prove" their point

[Detroitej72]

What is it with the right wing and fear mongering?

[Zacha341]

Where those articles from Fox news or Townhall.com? I think we are getting too knee jerk reflexive that any news or info on a certain subject is right-winged. One of the articles is Pro the idea of disarmament.

What is it with the right wing and fear mongering?

[Zacha341]

Perhaps it would be more moot if we could force everyone to put the nuclear genie back in the bottle... And I am not sure not having nukes [[or an intact military force) would NOT encourage some. We shall see.

your question is moot.

Our nuclear arms have yet to deter an attack against us [[except, possibly, during the cold war). don't think these fanatics will worry if we nuke a bunch of innocents because of the actions a few extremists. There is hardly a country in the world apart from China and Russia that we couldn't march through with conventional forces, and for the most part, the threat is from non-governmental actors. Nukes will do nothing to deter them -- hell, they would love it if we nuked an islamic country since it would, in the minds of many, "prove" their point

[gibran]

if this was Reagan he would have been hailed...i am starting to see a pattern here ...

[ejames01]

What makes you think that we won't have any nukes? You are either trolling or not very informed about this. And we spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...d/spending.htm

Perhaps it would be more moot if we could force everyone to put the nuclear genie back in the bottle... And I am not sure not having nukes [[or an intact military force) would NOT encourage some. We shall see.

[Diehard]

if this was Reagan he would have been hailed...i am starting to see a pattern here ...

Jon Stewart had a bit last night where Sarah Palin was blabbering about how Reagan never would've done this, then he showed clips of Reagan pledging to do exactly what Obama did. Brilliant.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-epi...-david-remnick

[Zacha341]

I do NOT troll. Nor, did I say we would not have any nukes in an absolute sense, I was being somewhat sarcastic for a point. We all know we will retain the nukes we have so far be they aged. The articles state that... The core point and subject is will we used them "preemptively".

Re-read my posts and articles I posted and response below.

Nukes indeed are a genie hard to put back into the bottle... I get that.

What makes you think that we won't have any nukes? You are either trolling or not very informed about this. And we spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...d/spending.htm

Originally Posted by Zacha341
Perhaps it would be more moot if we could force everyone to put the nuclear genie back in the bottle... And I am not sure not having nukes [[or an intact military force) would NOT encourage some. We shall see.

[Zacha341]

Yes, I noted that... the CNN article points out the Bush had started the process as well...
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/0...ons/index.html

Jon Stewart had a bit last night where Sarah Palin was blabbering about how Reagan never would've done this, then he showed clips of Reagan pledging to do exactly what Obama did. Brilliant.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-epi...-david-remnick

[Papasito]

I read somewhere that six of our big nukes can wipe the entire glove clear of life
Seriously, why would we need enough nuclear weapons to destroy life on the glove a hundred times over? The reduction of the amount of nukes we have doesn't bother me. The only thing that would bother me is going public with our specific terms of when why and how we would use our nuclear weapons. Our enemy does not need to know these guidelines. It's better they guess and have that thought in the back of thier mind that a nuclear winter could be coming to thier backyard if they hit us hard enough.....

[Zacha341]

Indeed alot of information is being conveyed. There's an interesting overview of the treaty referencing parts of an NPR article:

A Layman's Guide to Obama's Nuclear Posture Review

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001879-503544.html

Here's what the president is quoted as saying per NPR quote with the above cbsnews.com site:

"Negative Security Assurance"
Here's what the NPR says:

" ....the United States is now prepared to strengthen its long-standing 'negative security assurance' by declaring that the United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the [Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, or NPT] and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations.


"This revised assurance is intended to underscore the security benefits of adhering to and fully complying with the NPT and persuade non-nuclear weapon states party to the Treaty to work with the United States and other interested parties to adopt effective measures to strengthen the non-proliferation regime."

...The only thing that would bother me is going public with our specific terms of when why and how we would use our nuclear weapons. Our enemy does not need to know these guidelines. It's better they guess and have that thought in the back of thier mind that a nuclear winter could be coming to thier backyard if they hit us hard enough.....

[gibran]

the history of nuclear negotiations have been transparency [[to a degree)...with the goal to prevent mutual destruction....the boundaries are to build a level of trust that we are not going to use these as a first line of defense....so papa [[again we agree) however i think we have a few other tricks up our sleeves ....weapons we don't even know exists unless you are a special forces expert....these conventional weapons and locating things will be used prudently when we really need to....I don't see any president selling us out....despite what the idiots [[Palin, Beck and Rush et al) say...they are just protecting their ratings...but also destroying the ability to find middle ground...they see any compromise as weakness...even though Jesus [[who they claim to follow) teaches us a different where the meek inherit the world...

I find it also telling that Israel's Bibi refuses to attend the summit to reduce weapons ...maybe he is afraid he would have a0 acknowledge his countries development and b) would be held to standards he refuses to comply to...I know Iran has an aggressive program which is a disaster waiting to happen...but you wonder why when their biggest adversary has over 200..and most are aimed at them....[[ I think we need to aggressively get Iran to stop developing theirs and then turn to Israel and say you do the same).



it is also strange that Palin [[who can see Russia but not the misery in her own back yard) still tries to be an expert in these areas when maybe the bully in the play gound is her...

[Gistok]

I read somewhere that six of our big nukes can wipe the entire glove clear of life
Seriously, why would we need enough nuclear weapons to destroy life on the glove a hundred times over? The reduction of the amount of nukes we have doesn't bother me. The only thing that would bother me is going public with our specific terms of when why and how we would use our nuclear weapons. Our enemy does not need to know these guidelines. It's better they guess and have that thought in the back of thier mind that a nuclear winter could be coming to thier backyard if they hit us hard enough.....

Papasito... where on this glove did you ever learn how to type??

[[I'm kidding)

[Bullet]

Why don't we apply the same rules and laws to nukes as we did to guns? That worked.

[firstandten]

I have always been of the opinion that when its comes to nuclear disarmanent between especially the major powers, we are seeing a very elaborate mexican standoff

The real worry IMO is that nuclear weapons or tech falls into the hands of terrorist who don't have citizens of a nation that they must protect.

[ejames01]

Where do these people come from?????

Why don't we apply the same rules and laws to nukes as we did to guns? That worked.

[Jimaz]

From The Detroit News:

U.S. warns of al-Qaida's nuclear threat, adding urgency to summit

Washington -- The White House on Friday warned that al-Qaida is quietly hunting for an atomic bomb, adding urgency to a historic summit next week where President Barack Obama will try to persuade world leaders to step up efforts to keep nuclear weapons out of terrorist hands. Expectations for decisive action by the 47 countries are low, because existing controls haven't worked as well as hoped, and some nations worry tighter regulation will only slow civilian nuclear power projects.

[Patrick]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...040805444.html

[gibran]

it hard to nuke cockroaches [[ the real terrorists) without hitting civilian populations ...and we have more than enough firepower to deter countries hitting us...so why is the right so against ending the costs associated with having so many weapons idle...?

[Lowell]

Why don't we apply the same rules and laws to nukes as we did to guns? That worked.

We do. You are not allowed to keep a nuclear weapon in your house. I believe land mines, hand grenades, mortars, 150mm canons and bunker busters bombs are likewise banned.

Sheesh we have no rights to bear arms anymore. The second amendment has been shredded. Soon beebee guns will be outlawed. No wonder the Hutaree want to kill police officers.

[Whitehouse]

Instead of destroying the earth 7 times, we reduced it to 4 times.



Progress, progres....