Hmmm, sounds vaguely familiar ...
| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms |
| 2010-04-06 |
| WASHINGTON -- President Obama said Monday that he was revamping American nuclear strategy to substantially narrow the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons. But the president said in an interview that he was carving out an exception for "outliers like Iran and North Korea" that have violated or renounced the main treaty to halt nuclear proliferation. That exception has an expiration date, remember ... Discussing his approach to nuclear security the day before formally releasing his new strategy, Mr. Obama described his policy as part of a broader effort to edge the world toward making nuclear weapons obsolete, and to create incentives for countries to give up any nuclear ambitions. To set an example, the new strategy renounces the development of any new nuclear weapons, overruling the initial position of his own defense secretary. Mr. Obama's strategy is a sharp shift from those of his predecessors and seeks to revamp the nation's nuclear posture for a new age in which rogue states and terrorist organizations are greater threats than traditional powers like Russia and China. It's what he promised to do when he ran, according to what he said in 2007, so this shouldn't surprise anyone. It might be stupid, but it isn't surprising. 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. Those threats, Mr. Obama argued, could be deterred with "a series of graded options," a combination of old and new conventional weapons. "I'm going to preserve all the tools that are necessary in order to make sure that the American people are safe and secure," he said in the interview in the Oval Office. But you aren't. This is essentially a 'proportionate response' strategy. If some nation is considering a crippling attack on the US, the last thing you want to do is tell that nation that the US will pull its punches. 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. Again, proportionate. If the biological attack fails, we won't respond. That's idiotic, since the attacking nation then has time to figure out what to do next. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #31 The Obama Doctrine Hmmm, sounds vaguely familiar ... |
| Posted by: DMFD 2010-04-06 21:03 |
| #30 "It is foolish (at best) to tell potential enemies what you will or won't do, and to tie your own hands against unknown developments" What makes you think Bambi thinks they're his enemies, Glenmore? >:-( |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2010-04-06 18:09 |
| #29 Yes... Europe, North America, but most importantly: Israel. Obama could very well be seen as setting a plate for the mullahs. |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2010-04-06 17:08 |
#28 "Any potential adversary should know that we will defend ourselves against the possibility of attack by unconventional arms. If such a strike does occur, as commander in chief, I will respond with overwhelming and devastating force," So the Obama administration's position is far to the left of even John Kerry... What will this radical shift do to the conept of the "American Security Umbrella" covering other nations so that they won't have to go nuclear? What about nuclear terrorism? Would there be a nuclear response against the usual suspects even if the culprit was not known with absolute certainty? It looks like a massive attack on targets in Europe and/or North America now carries a calculable and relatively small risk, but can yield potentially huge benefits. |
| Posted by: Glerelet Hatfield6056 2010-04-06 15:39 |
| #27 I think we need to review the source of this man's thinking, increasingly (think the 17 minute asnwer) it appears he really just thinks he's smart, when actually he has a mediocre intellect and a really poor education in some fundamental areas like history, logic and math. Bingo. I've said since the man first appeared on the national political scene that he's a first-rate BS artist with no real expertise, or even depth, in anything. A little perspective: Carter was a nuclear engineer. Clinton was said by friend and foe alike to be an exceptional student of any complex subject he (decided to) put his mind to, impressing auto executives and economists alike. When either of these flawed men decided to master a subject-- as Carter did wrt Israeli-Egyptian negotiations, for ex.-- they produced impressive results. But Barry has mangled every initiative he's taken on, in large measure because the man is simply, obviously, pathetically OUT OF HIS DEPTH. He is ignorant of history (cf his bizarre assertions that Zionism began with the holocaust, or that "a united world defeated communism"). He does not understand market economics or finance. He believes that American surgeons routinely amputate the limbs of diabetic patients in order to collect fees in the $50k range. He did not grasp the essential facts of either the stimulus fiasco or the health care botchjob that Harry & Nancy foisted on him and us. And in the one area where he supposedly had some professional experience prior to entering politics-- teaching law-- his bizarre comments about high-profile criminal cases (Hasan, Skip Gates) show him to be ignorant to the point of foolishness. The emperor has no clothes. Get rid of this man before he trashes this country. |
| Posted by: lex 2010-04-06 15:22 |
| #26 I don't know---given the man's reputation for verity, it could be a very shrewd psychological move. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2010-04-06 13:45 |
| #25 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy |
| Posted by: Parabellum 2010-04-06 13:33 |
| #24 I think we need to review the source of this man's thinking, ince increasingly (think the 17 minute asnwer) it appears he really just thinks he's smart, when actually he has a mediocre intellect and a really poor education in some fundamental areas like history, logic and math. Soros, and his creatures at Center for American Progress, and the IWW Union Leaders, and the academic marxists. Sadly, I do agree with much of the above comment that this is more scripted than we feared, but not by this babbling narcissist, rather he is merely the front for a much darker group that is marked by the shadows in the background. "Support and defend the Constitution, against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I will bear true faith and allegience to the same..." Bueller......Bueller? |
| Posted by: NoMoreBS 2010-04-06 13:28 |
| #23 #13, Exactly. If the Pentagon ever sent the military into U.S. neighborhoods to "control the citizenry" they would have a considerably more difficult time than they had in 1860. I personally believe that would never happen. The majority of the military would go AWOL (or UA) overnight. |
| Posted by: Phimble the Grim8504 2010-04-06 13:24 |
| #22 I'm forced to agree with Secret Asian. The itch that I can't get scratched is Obamas deliberate waekening of the U.S. Based on conscious choice or a disturbed subconcious or both? What is driving his decisions? Evil? Self hatred? Black 'dignity'? Islamo-centrism? What are this asshats ego drivers that trump the others? A psychiatric eval of this guy for a good seven hours would tell me exactly what is needed to bring about his undoing. He definitely has anti social tendencies. |
| Posted by: Richelieu 2010-04-06 13:05 |
| #21 This administration constantly astonishes me with its Kumbaya, naive, view of our enemies and its disdain for our allies and friends. What a friggin idiot. Posted by: JohnQC 2010-04-06 09:37 This man is outright dangerous because he has an unrealistic perception of the world.THE WRITING IS ON THE WALL Posted by: Elder of Zion 2010-04-06 11:23 There is nothing naive or unrealistic about this mans actions. He is doing exactly what he was intended to do by the forces that greased his election. He is deliberately trying to cripple or destroy this country. This is undeniable. |
| Posted by: Secret Asian Man 2010-04-06 12:50 |
| #20 Casey was a personable sort in the few dealings I had with him in Baghdad (he used to come down and smoke cigars in the courtyard off our office) Posted by: Verlaine Have a "Mr. Bean Koffee" on me today Verlaine. Thank you for your service. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2010-04-06 12:01 |
| #19 it seems BO is temporarily over stabbing Israel in the back as he is now busy on a new much more important task - The destroying of whats left of US role and cerdibility as a world superpower. What he is doing now is practically saying to Korea, Iran and the like "look, buddies, you can use anthrax or Ebola at us and if you only kill a moderate number of Americans ( Say less than 200,000) we wont do anything. What the fool does not understand is that the Mullah's will gladly sacrifice millions of innocent Iranians if they can destroy only a single large American city (in a "symbolic" Islamic victory). Same as Dear Leader has been starving millions of poor norks to death while playing a defiant pose to the US. Stupidity always comes at a price, only BAMBI will not have to pay the price personally. This man is outright dangerous because he has an unrealistic perception of the world. THE WRITING IS ON THE WALL |
| Posted by: Elder of Zion 2010-04-06 11:23 |
| #18 Is it too early too start drinking? |
| Posted by: chris 2010-04-06 11:09 |
| #17 Truman is/was a giant compared to Obama. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2010-04-06 10:58 |
| #16 Besoeker, seems there are so many appalling and (that old, devalued word again) "unbelievable" things happening the last 2 years that I lose track. Yes, Casey's comments after the Ft Hood massacre were - well, unbelievable. That such a public reaction was even possible, from the Army CoS, when the blood was still being wiped up, boggles the mind (though no more so than zillions of other actions and statements occurring on a daily basis). Casey was a personable sort in the few dealings I had with him in Baghdad (he used to come down and smoke cigars in the courtyard off our office). But even though it's obviously not all his fault, his position as captain of the foundering ship that was MNF-I strategy in 05/06 should have led to retirement, not promotion to CoS. This was an early jaw-dropper - though in this case attributable to Bush's worst flaw, his personal bonding with subordinates who served him and the nation poorly (a tragic, but not ugly, fault). At the time, a few of us thought it was as though Fredendall had come back from North Africa to a promotion (rough analogy but it works). |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2010-04-06 10:38 |
| #15 So this guy [BO] set about single handedly to destroy our health care system. Well he did it with the aid of a Donk Congress. He just about destroyed the economy because of a personal dislike for capitalism. Now he wants to destroy our nuclear deterrent. For a supposedly street smart community organizer he ain't too smart. By this reasoning, you should just rollover if carjacked, robbed or threatened with murder even though you were armed and could prevent it. This administration constantly astonishes me with its Kumbaya, naive, view of our enemies and its disdain for our allies and friends. What a friggin idiot. Personally, I think the next time someone kills 3000 citizens that enemy should know they are going to be destroyed. Whoever finances them and supports them should also know they are at risk for massive retaliation. Anyone who attempts to use biological weapons or chemical weapons; the same. Religious shrines are on the table also. I'm about fed up with this feel good, touchy-feely, fluffy bunny approach to war, PC crap. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2010-04-06 09:37 |
| #14 Who would we retaliate against if anthrax or such were effectively deployed against us by Al Quada? Riyadh, Islamabad, Damascus, Tehran, most of North Korea, Tripoli. |
| Posted by: Rob Crawford 2010-04-06 09:28 |
| #13 Those who believe the military would not be used to control the citizenry are sadly mistaken. I dunno, Besoeker...there might be plenty of spineless flag officers who'd want to follow Ogabe's orders in something like this, but I think they'd be opposed by a critical mass of company-grade and field-grade types. |
| Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) 2010-04-06 09:13 |
| #12 It is foolish (at best) to tell potential enemies what you will or won't do, and to tie your own hands against unknown developments. However, in the 'modern' world, where WMD of various kinds can be employed by stateless groups it is unlikely that we would employ nukes in retaliation. Who would we retaliate against if anthrax or such were effectively deployed against us by Al Quada? Nuking Mecca might feel good but it would (probably) not be effective. Still, we should not take the option off the table. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2010-04-06 08:59 |
| #11 going for that unprecedented second consecutive Nobel Peace Prize |
| Posted by: Frank G 2010-04-06 08:44 |
| #10 Perhaps a Dem holocaust in November Oil on its way to $4 per gallon, long term (mortgage) rates headed up, housing prices further threatened, unemployment at permanent Euro levels, banks holding underwater commercial real estate construction loans that can't be converted to mortgages. Oh, and socialized medicine without a spooonful of sugar. What could go wrong, he's still got the race card? |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2010-04-06 07:27 |
| #9 I thought that the ambiguity of use-of-nuclear-weapons was an important feature of the policy. No. Ambiguity leads to Korea. The enemy must be convinced that we are crazy enough to use them (sort of like we are afraid of Ahmadsdinnerjacket). When, ah, there's the rub. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2010-04-06 07:20 |
| #8 I thought that the ambiguity of use-of-nuclear-weapons was an important feature of the policy. I guess it's too late for someone to tell Obama that 'sharp shifts in strategy' and his personal ordering of rewrites are NOT reassuring to a growing number of Americans? |
| Posted by: Free Radical 2010-04-06 06:34 |
| #7 Alternative History anyone? Let's pretend the Harry Truman never lived, but rather Barack Obama followed FDR instead. Would the Enola Gay have flown to Japan? Would millions of American soldiers died invading Japan? Would Israel be a nation, or would the bullying of Israel and the Obama Anti-Israel Jihad simply been an anti-Jewish Jihad? |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2010-04-06 05:22 |
| #6 Posted by: Verlaine Your "assumptions" about the JCS and most of the senior brass are unfortunately quite valid. General George Casey speaking about the Fort Hood shootings: "As horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse." General Casey is not alone in his beliefs. Your comment about "nowhere else to go" is also correct. History teaches us that a seperate confederation of states has already been attempted and failed, at a cost of 600,000 lives. Those who believe the military would not be used to control the citizenry are sadly mistaken. In order to keep their power, Obama and his cadre would never shirk from another domestic butcher's bill I assure you. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2010-04-06 04:27 |
| #5 I'm trying to figure out the correct terminology - if such exists in English - for being constantly amazed and astonished, while at the same time being completely unsurprised and even unfazed by some phenomenon. The subject of course is the idiocy (can't think of a better term here) that is now so commonplace in Washington. Sadly, I saw this - and these people, in some cases literally the people involved - up close for many many years, and that's where the unsurprised part comes in. They have no business being part of any serious undertaking, much less the national security of a formerly important nation. (One direct exposure to the farcical future president was sufficient) Over a hundred meetings to do something obviously ill-advised, like clear up the ambiguity surrounding US retaliatory options? The terms "self-parody" and "unbelievable" have become meaningless in the last few years - for a reason. But Dr. Steve, I was discussing the treaty ratification consent issue just the other day with someone else who worked even longer than I did in the Senate on these issues. I have so little confidence in the courage, intelligence, and integrity of almost the entire Senate, both parties, that I wonder if the next START POS is DOA as you say. In a sane world - one that is actually fading in memory by now - of course there would be no chance of consent to ratification. But that was when 30% of the Dem contingent could be counted on to be thoughtful and responsive to overwhelming national sentiment on big issues - and most of the GOP squad even more so. Clearly, however, we are in a different universe today. As to the above comment that the JCS should do this and that - perhaps I'm assuming too much, but my general impression is that the JCS and most of the senior brass (excepting a few CINCs) are proving to be just the sort of worthless pliable political types that spell catastrophe with the current preposterous "administration". Gates, pretty much the same (never thought he was much of an asset in any circumstance, going back to his quintessentially mediocre CIA days). Perhaps a Dem holocaust in November - if an up-trending macro-economy doesn't suffice to beguile a pathetic US electorate - will magically create spine and character and good sense in a few Dem senators. I'm not counting on it. As has been said, there's no fixing stupid, and thus there's not much hope of ever advancing beyond the state where we must constantly fight against the contemptible efforts of our countrymen to make the country less prosperous, free, and secure. If there were any other US in the world as a refuge, people would be amazed at how many would have already fled there .... alas there isn't, so we're sort of like Canadians in the position they'll be in if the destruction of the US medical system is permitted - nowhere else to go. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2010-04-06 03:29 |
| #4 Having stated this as official policy, Obama has disqualified himself as CiC. Time for the idiot to go. We can't wait for 2012 becuase our enemies won't either. |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2010-04-06 01:46 |
| #3 In short this idiot actually believes that if we state we will never use nukes in certain situations - that Iran and North Korea would suddenly lose their interest in the ultimate terrorist weapon. What the f-k is he smoking? I don't think its just tobacco... Here's my policy - if you use any sort of weapon of mass destruction on the US or its territories (including biological and chemical) - weather delivered directly or via third parties (terrorists) all the cards - including nuclear strikes against nations will be on the table - we will determine the 'proportional response' at that time - most likely when we are really pissed off. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2010-04-06 00:43 |
| #2 It is about time for the Joint Chiefs to tell the leading Democrats that their Age of Aquarius/Fuzzy Bunny/Unicorn fantasies are full of crap, and that they will end up getting millions of people killed. And while this will be met with incredulity, and the insistence that unicorns *do* *so* exist, the Joint Chiefs should make it abundantly clear to them that if they try and leave America helpless, and it is attacked, they will personally hunt each and every one of them down and torture them to death as painfully as possible. Or a hundred thousand soldiers just like them. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2010-04-06 00:24 |
| #1 Thank G-d for President Obama. |
| Posted by: My_Name 2010-04-06 00:23 |