Obama limits use of nuclear weapons

[Peephole]

Fox News held a fair & balanced discussion on the subject:

 

[casebro]

Yes but pushing the big red button in the 'football' can be the first move in the reversal of his policy.

Therefore, his stated policy is nothing but a political statement to accomplish ummm... I guess quieting the Iran situation makes the most sense of any idea put forth so far.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Could you perhaps point out to poor clueless me in which bizarre parallel universe I asserted that this is US policy? In this particular universe you and I inhabit, I am referring to the policy that several posters in this thread suggest the US should have.

The post I responded to, initially. You are not being very clever here.

So nuking a city full of innocent civilians in nuclear retaliation is not deliberately killing innocent civilians?

No, it's war at its worst. You are mixing apples and oranges. Nuclear war, if it comes, renders this "killing of innocence" as some separate thing, moot: we all burn together, innocent and guilty alike when the nukes fly.

Tell me, what kind of drug do I have to take in order to think that, for example, Kim Jong-Il´s victims in North Korea are guilty of whatever insanity he might commit with his nukes, that you think it is not killing innocent civilians when the US nukes them in retaliation?

You make a presumption of innocence that is not only out of context, but silly in the context of that horror that is nuclear war. You are also abusing "innocence" in your typical dishonest semantic ploy, so good day.

We agree on one thing: nuclear war sucks. It would be best for one not to happen.

DR

 

[BeAChooser]

Good news. When Rumsfeld and Cheney discussed using nuclear weapons against terrorists as "bunker busters", it was horrifyingly irresponsible.

How about when they told Saddam during the first Gulf War that if he used WMD weapons (and he most definitely had them during the first war) against our forces we would retaliate with nuclear weapons. Was that irresponsible? Would that sort of warning/policy be allowed under Obama's new rules?

 

[BeAChooser]

Was there ever a real chance of the USA using nukes in case of anything less serious than a nuclear attack on it

Yes. See the warning Saddam was given in the First Gulf War.

 

[INRM]

I think this is a bad idea.

Somehow I have this feeling that he's talking about the potential for nuclear terrorism while doing nothing to stop Iran to get people primed for a staged nuclear attack which will be blamed on domestic terror use and will be justification to throw the Constitution in the trash-can and then crack down on any dissident he doesn't like; or to weaken America to allow it to be more easily integrated into a world government, or a combination of both.

INRM

 

[Thunder]

Obama needs to worry more about our safety.

 

[BeAChooser]

Anything to limit the use of nuclear weapons is a good thing. Those devices should not exist.

Thank goodness they do.

Or surely the US and Soviets would have become embroiled in a life or death conventional war, culminating in their development and repeated use.

 

[Thunder]

Thank goodness they do.

Or surely the US and Soviets would have become embroiled in a life or death conventional war, culminating in their development and repeated use.

indeed. the fact that nuclear weapons may have actually PREVENTED many wars, and thereby many deaths, is quite ironic.

 

[Just thinking]

... The great masses don't really ever start wars, neither do the great masses decide to launch a weapon of mass destruction.

Really? Just who do you suppose is keeping the whereabouts of OBL all these years? ... a person who likely doesn't sleep in the same place twice. A person who many believe if he had the means of using WMD's, he would. If that doesn't make the masses in this case willing accomplices ...

On top of this I would love to hear your opinions about death penalty given not so casually to 10,000 but only to one person, and not randomly chosen but indeed guilty of a deadly crime?

Depends on the circumstances, but I wouldn't rule it out completely.

 

[Just thinking]

indeed. the fact that nuclear weapons may have actually PREVENTED many wars, and thereby many deaths, is quite ironic.

I agree as well ... but I think another part of that equation is the fact that to date these weapons have been under the control of those who value life, including their own. But in the hands of someone willing to die for eternal virgins?

Commercial airplanes have been a great asset to the world, yet they can become terrible weapons in the wrong hands.

 

[332nd]

Stupid.

If that's the policy he wants to implement that's his call.

But why announce it? Has he never played poker in his life?

Is this somehow going to make N.Korea,Russia,Iran etc love us?

Have you?

 

[McHrozni]

What about "Nuclear winter" theories, some of which suggest even a relatively small number of targets could cause an unprecedented global cooling catastrophe due to fires injecting tons of stuff way high in the atmosphere?

Since the "relatively small number" means "1/3 of worldwide nuclear arsenal", I'll ask what about it?

A retaliation for a terrorist attack would be a few (1-10) nuclear strikes, most of those would also be relatively small weapons. Nothing that wasn't done several times before with above-ground nuclear testing. Granted, the 1950s saw a lot of freak weather worldwide and I suspect this was the result of atmospheric nuclear testing, but nothing as severe as a nuclear winter.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

indeed. the fact that nuclear weapons may have actually PREVENTED many wars, and thereby many deaths, is quite ironic.

I don't see anything special in it. Deterrence has been one of the oldest principles in history. Nuclear deterrence is just a lot better at it than any other we know of.

McHrozni

 

[Chaos]

DR never asserted that as a policy. For any country. Ask someone who posits it as a good policy to answer your question; DR has given his take -- and IMO a good one -- on the subject.

Here´s what DR suggested:

"We reserve the right to respond in whatever order of magnitude we bloody feel like, so take your chances. You might get flowers, might get a few air raids, or maybe get a shower of nukes.

You can add 'Hope the US aren't in a PMS moment' into your warplan, if you like."

Sounds just like "we´ll kill any number of innocent civilian we feel like, whenever when feel like doing it, for whatever reason we feel like doing it".

You can, of course, spin it any way you like, but you can´t remove the basic fact that DR advocates the killing of innocent civilians as "punishment" for what others have done.

Not that the idea is all that revolutionary...

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Sounds just like "we´ll kill any number of innocent civilian we feel like, whenever when feel like doing it, for whatever reason we feel like doing it".

Sounds like that. To you. And yet it isn't.

You can, of course, spin it any way you like, but you can´t remove the basic fact that DR advocates the killing of innocent civilians as "punishment" for what others have done.

A creative interpretation.

 

[Chaos]

Sounds like that. To you. And yet it isn't.



A creative interpretation.

Perhaps then you would consider explaining how something isn´t what it perfectly obviously is? Go ahead, amaze me!

 

[Darth Rotor]

Here´s what DR suggested:



Sounds just like "we´ll kill any number of innocent civilian we feel like, whenever when feel like doing it, for whatever reason we feel like doing it".

You can, of course, spin it any way you like, but you can´t remove the basic fact that DR advocates the killing of innocent civilians as "punishment" for what others have done.

Not that the idea is all that revolutionary...

I recommend that you refresh your understanding of deterrence, in the nuclear age, before you open your mouth on this topic again. You've missed the years from about 1950 to 1990, so far. Two critical elements of deterrence, to be effective:

1. The consequences of a risk taken being intolerable
2. Uncertainty of just how horrible a reaction would be

If you look at WW I, and how it unfolded, the risk analysis done in France and Germany showed a lot of "tolerable" if bloody outcomes, none of which was too terrible to deter aggression, by either country.

The Cold War ushered in a period where some risks simply weren't worth taking, since the reaction would bring an uacceptable price.

Another way to deter someone from messing with you is if they can't be sure of your reaction, be it mild rebuke or a punch in the mouth, or a chair broken across one's face.

You want to deter an action? Threaten unpalatable consequences, or at least leave the option open. It makes the prospective actor cautious ... which is the whole point of deterrence.

Good day.

DR

 

[ZirconBlue]

Stupid.

If that's the policy he wants to implement that's his call.

But why announce it? Has he never played poker in his life?

Is this somehow going to make N.Korea,Russia,Iran etc love us?

It's my understanding that the President is required by Congress to provide a Nuclear Posture Review on a periodic basis.

 

[Checkmite]

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.

A crippling cyberattack? The US honestly had to sign a treaty promising not to nuke a country if one of their citizens starts hacking our computers???

This is hilarious.