Obama limits use of nuclear weapons

applecorped

Banned
applecorped
Joined
Mar 8, 2008
Messages
20,145
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/06arms.html

"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 adopted by 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 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 non-nuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons, or launched a crippling cyberattack.


White House officials said that the new strategy will leave open the option of reconsidering the use of nuclear retaliation against a biological attack, if the development of such weapons reaches a level that makes United States vulnerable to a devastating strike."
 
applecorped said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/06arms.html

"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 adopted by 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 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 non-nuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons, or launched a crippling cyberattack.


White House officials said that the new strategy will leave open the option of reconsidering the use of nuclear retaliation against a biological attack, if the development of such weapons reaches a level that makes United States vulnerable to a devastating strike."
Click to expand...

Good news. When Rumsfeld and Cheney discussed using nuclear weapons against terrorists as "bunker busters", it was horrifyingly irresponsible. Even this article discusses using nukes against a country for a cyberattack. Really? They ruin Youtube and we kill millions of their citizens? I'm assuming the DOD has its own network that isn't dependent on the same internet backbone we all use, so really, how can mass civilian casualties possibly be justified by a cyberattack, no matter how successful?

A biological attack is harder to gauge. I'd hope the official policy is that we don't use nukes unless attacked by nukes. But I concede that there are doomsday scenarios where half the country is wiped out and your options become limited. In that case, you need to officially "leave your options open". But since I think this scenario is largely fantasy, I support this policy.
 
applecorped said:
For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons, or launched a crippling cyberattack.
Click to expand...

I think the odds of any country trying such attacks being in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty are effectily zilch.
 
I am strongly in favor of this new move.

The strategy is simple: By proclaiming that the only way the USA will ever use nuclear weapons is in response to an attack in kind, and any other use is irresponsible, this allows us to criticize others building or developing nuclear weapons without hypocrisy.

Naturally, the more hawkish on the 'Net are already decrying this as treason... I really do not see it, not at all.
 
This means nothing. It's not a law, just a policy position adopted by the President. Given that, it can be reversed at any time and for any reason, including no reason at all.
 
Was there ever a real chance of the USA using nukes in case of anything less serious than a nuclear attack on it? I just don't see what's the big deal, although it's naturally a good thing as a symbol.
 
Skeptic said:
Was there ever a real chance of the USA using nukes in case of anything less serious than a nuclear attack on it?
Click to expand...


Yes.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/28/ground_penetrating_nuke/

US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld yesterday asked Congress to agree $8.5m of funding for research into a ground-penetrating nuclear weapon which would address what Rumsfeld considers the growing problem of potential enemies burying vital installations deep underground. Last November, Congress pulled the plug on $27m earmarked for a study into the "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator", Reuters reports.


Rumsfeld was at pains to point out that Pentagon wants the cash purely for research - not to build an actual weapon. He said: "The only thing we have is very large, very dirty, big nuclear weapons," adding: "It seems to me studying it [the RNEP] makes all the sense in the world."
Click to expand...
 
Unabogie said:
A biological attack is harder to gauge. I'd hope the official policy is that we don't use nukes unless attacked by nukes. But I concede that there are doomsday scenarios where half the country is wiped out and your options become limited. In that case, you need to officially "leave your options open". But since I think this scenario is largely fantasy, I support this policy.
Click to expand...

A biological attack can be even more devastating than a nuclear strike, since biological agents proliferate by themselves and can spread well beyond their initial deployment zone (or ground zero), and unlike the radiation from a nuclear airburst, can remain there for years (depending on the agens). To say a nuclear strike cannot be justified by anything less than another nuclear strike is just plain stupid.

The primary use nukes have in the modern world is deterrence. That means you're prepared to use them whenever you think they're the only appropriate response.

That being said, I also agree with this:

The strategy is simple: By proclaiming that the only way the USA will ever use nuclear weapons is in response to an attack in kind, and any other use is irresponsible, this allows us to criticize others building or developing nuclear weapons without hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

Since this is just a statement of policy and completely unbinding, adopting this position indeed has some diplomatic benefit without compromising the nuclear deterrent. For that same reason, however, the benefit of this is almost zero.

McHrozni
 
DC said:
and radiation from a Nuke not?
Click to expand...

In an air burst the residual contamination of the area is considerably lower than in a ground burst, as most of the radionuclides be sucked in the stratosphere and become a part of the global radiation background. Not ideal, but not that concerning either. Local fallout is a long-term health concern. I checked and a person living in Nevada in the period where atmospheric tests were done there (1955-61) would receive the yearly dose which would still be acceptable for a worker in a nuclear power plant, or perhaps slightly more. Not ideal, but hardly the top concern. If you got pneumonia and need 3 chest X-rays as a result you'll receive more radiation from that. It'll also be more concentrated in time and a greater health concern.

Overall, the residual fallout from an airbursting nuclear weapon is one of the least concerning things. Breakdown of law and order is much more likely to kill or seriously injure you if you made it through the blast.

McHrozni
 
Last edited:
Obama really seems to be dedicated to this nuclear issue. I suppose being a child while all of humanity was under the threat of radiological destruction rubs off on you.
 
applecorped said:
Obama limits use of nuclear weapons
Click to expand...

Let's see: We currently use nuclear weapons, on average, about once a century. Given that we would be due for another one within my lifetime, and my kid's lifetime, I'm kinda okay with limiting that even more.
 
I'm glad they're not developing small, bunker-buster nukes. IIRC, they'd still be on the order of 100x a MOAB and, while probably getting the job done, also introduces basically yet a smaller size of nuke, which is all the rage for terrorists, supposedly.
 
I think it's a great idea to let our enemies know that we won't over-react to biological or chemical weapons attack. We should bomb them with flowers.
 
if a non-nuclear state is part of a biological or chemical weapons attack against the USA, in which hundreds or thousands of people are killed, we should indeed reserve the right to retaliate with a small but highly destructive nuclear weapon.

should our response and the number of people we kill, in retaliation to an attack that killed 3,000 people, only kill an equal amount of people?

no. that is not a good deterrent. taking out 10,000 of them..when they kill 1,000 of us, is a much better deterrent.

it sends the message to the world: "if you **** with us, we will **** with you 10x harder"
 
Upchurch said:
Let's see: We currently use nuclear weapons, on average, about once a century. Given that we would be due for another one within my lifetime, and my kid's lifetime, I'm kinda okay with limiting that even more.
Click to expand...

You're presidential material.
 
Skeptic said:
Was there ever a real chance of the USA using nukes in case of anything less serious than a nuclear attack on it?
Click to expand...


During the Cold War days, while the Soviets had a publicly declared 'no first use' policy in regards to nuclear weapons, NATO did not. The U.S. reserved the right to use tactical nuclear weapons if they were deemed the only way to halt a Soviet invasion breakthrough in Western Europe.

The Soviets liked to make great political hay out of their having a 'no first use' policy while their opponents did not, but the U.S. position was a pragmatic, if not politically popular, position.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom