It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Obama : No Nukes Even In Self Defence

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 10:25 PM

Originally posted by kozmo
Not necessarily sure what to make of this... In one sense, I see his point. In another, I don't see the point in broadcasting it as such.

I can understand it perfectly.

He shows to the world how anti-nuclear he is.

then when he drops one on Iran and blows up
a nuclear reactor, he can claim it was THEIR BOMB
that detonated through a chain reaction.

It's a set-up story for dropping one on Iran. It's an ALIBI

posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 10:34 PM

Originally posted by bluemooone2

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, even in self-defense.
Im sure that china and Russia and Pakistan are going to love this.

Obama has shown that he has made a life out of lying through his teeth, so what makes ya think he is telling the truth now??

posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 10:38 PM
I hope this is true. It is time for a bit reason and sanity. But since I have witnessed too much lies, I fear trickery and deception.

Obama is a politician and most politicians are compulsive liars. If the United States attacks Iran and uses those “huge bunker busting bombs” be prepared for the detection of radioactivity. Then the warmongers will point their finger and proclaim: “See! Iran was building a nuclear weapon! We told you so, and the journalist will nod in agreement and write, let's expand the military engagement and change the regime!”

[edit on 5-4-2010 by Drunkenshrew]

posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 10:38 PM
You people are nuts if you think other countries are going to follow suit.
They are not going to give up their nukes because the US did.

posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 10:42 PM
Give this guy a listen to , really makes you wonder ...

[edit on 5-4-2010 by Max_TO]

posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 11:40 PM
So if Obama gets his way M.A.D. is no longer valid deterrent???

posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 11:46 PM
Are People living in LALA Land? What Obama is doing is painting a big old bulls eye over America. Of course the Obama Droids, will think this is a great Idea. As for the ones who live in the real world, who Know that a lot of countries totally hate our guts. Obama Just basically gave them the green light to do what ever they want. Obama couldn't run a 7-!!, but he is running our country( into the ground).

posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 11:54 PM
reply to post by Darkrunner

Carter's only problem was being a realist Democrat who caught a mess no president would have handled (except teddy Roosevelt, who would have beat stagflation down with his bare teeth) who got followed up by a trained actor of a Republican who made sure to sugar the crap before he put it in your sandwich.

If you want a bad president, I'd suggest Bush I, Coolidge, or perhaps Polk or Grover Cleveland.

posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 11:56 PM
reply to post by Target Earth

Because, you know, we can't cocksmack any seven countries combined into the dirt with our conventional military, right?

What a waste of five hundred billion dollars annually that military must be!

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 12:18 AM
reply to post by bluemooone2

This is just further proof that Obama is a Muslim! Every Christian knows that Jesus himself advocated to his followers that, should your enemy strike you, you should turn the other cheek to reveal that you're holding the pin of a grenade between your lips (or whatever the biblical equivalent was).

What a coward! Who is he to protect the innocents of the middle east, when it is clearly their vagrant terrorist neighbors causing all of the world's ills? I say we just nuke 'em now, and pave over the fallout with the world's largest Walmart parking lot!

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 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.

Don't make me laugh! If a terrorist cell in America successfully pulled off a crippling cyber attack against Russia, let alone a chemical attack, I would wholeheartedly support their right to nuke the hell out of the Midwest!

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 07:10 AM
Nuclear weapons have prevented an awful lot of 'speculative' military action by superpowers e.g. would Russia have been more tempted to help Castro create a major threat on the U.S.'s doorstep if they had not been threatened with nuclear retaliation?

The irony is the very thing which gave the U.S. the power to sort out the Bay of Pigs crisis, also put the whole world in danger of complete destruction.

Nuclear weapons are a very sharp tool - don't give them to a kid.

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 07:52 AM

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 where my problem with his new strategy comes from, the idea that if we had Sarin released over say 3 or 4 metropolitan cities he wouldn't promptly vaporize a few cities in the nation responsible. I don't know about anybody else but I consider chemical and biological weapons to be just as bad as nuclear weapons if not worse; once you uncork a bio weapon there is no way to stuff it back in the bottle. Imagine a weaponized version of Ebola Zaire that was communicable through the air - if someone dropped that on the country I would think a nuclear strike would be quite justified seeing as how a disease that potent could sweep from coast to coast and level the population in a few short weeks.

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.

This part cracks me up, because we all know that in terms of a biological attack we are sitting ducks; look at what happened when a few envelopes full of Anthrax were sent out. The TSA can't keep simple sharp objects off of flights most of the time, how are they going to keep biological agents out? Militarily we are stretched so thin that if a bio weapon were used against us today we wouldn't have the manpower here to cope with the after-effects of it, yet the article asserts that we aren't at a vulnerable state yet? I knew there was a reason I didn't like the Washington Post...

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 08:33 AM

Originally posted by rangersdad

Obama has shown that he has made a life out of lying through his teeth, so what makes ya think he is telling the truth now??

IMO the most accurate statement made on this thread so far.

He could get rid of them all - leaving us with no deterrent to other countries with nukes - and claim that this story was just reported incorrectly.

And like the post just abovesays , we've always used nukes as a deterrent against others using ANY kind of WMD against the U.S. Also unwise to remove this deterrent.

BTW, I love the posts about how this is either good or bad because of aliens ...

[edit on 4/6/2010 by centurion1211]

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 08:53 AM
Makes sense really i mean why nuke a country when you can send a 100,000 troops to occupy it for 10-20 years and make your puppet masters Trillions.

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 10:07 AM
I highly doubt Barry would do this UNLESS he knows he has more powerful secret weapons ready and waiting.

Maybe he realizes that they have fine tuned HAARP or some other more secretive project so well that it can do whatever any nuke could do,but without the radiation,or even launch detection.

The US will not give up its biggest weapons unless it knows there are better ones on the shelf,ready to go.
Just my opinion.

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 10:16 AM
reply to post by bluemooone2

Sorry OP, but after reading the article you linked to, it does NOT state that all NUKES are off the table and that we are now more vulnerable to attack, but It does clearly state the following:

— except if the attack is by a nuclear state, or a nonsignatory or violator of the nonproliferation treaty.

There are five declared nuclear states — the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China. Three states with nuclear weapons
have refused to sign — India, Pakistan and Israel — and North Korea renounced the treaty in 2003

According to the article, What that means is, if any of the above attacks us with a Nuke, we WILL retaliate with the same. So This has not changed and we are not a defenseless weakened state as is implied by the title.

But more importantly, in this era of terrorism and false flag attacks. What it ALSO means is that we will not necessarily resort to retaliation by automatically resorting to the retaliatory use of Nukes if we were attacked by a non nuclear weapon and/or country.

I do commend Obama on this move because with the half life of U235 at 700 MILLION years...

Lets try to prevent Nuclear Armageddon from ever initiating by allowing a situation to potentially escalate to the level of a Nuclear exchange or worse yet, a global Nuclear War.

....for it came to that scenario, there are really no victors.

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 10:38 AM

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
Excellent news! It's good to see the U.S. stepping up to make it known these type weapons are unacceptable to humankind and to our planet.

Good for Obama!

Actually, whether pacifists like it or not, there is a need for nuclear weapons. Namely deterrence. Enemies need to know you have the ability to wipe them out in order to deter them from attacking you.

Then again, pacifists have never been known for their intelligence on global or military matters.

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 10:48 AM
Yet,Russia reserves opt-out of arms treaty with US

MOSCOW – The new U.S.-Russian arms control treaty is a much better deal for Russia than its predecessor, but Moscow reserves the right to withdraw from it if a planned U.S. missile defense system grows into a threat, Russia's foreign minister said Tuesday.

Sergey Lavrov said Russia will issue a statement outlining the terms for such a withdrawal after President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev sign the treaty Thursday in Prague. The new accord replaces the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START I, which expired in December.

Lavrov has said before that Russia could withdraw from the treaty. But his comments at a briefing Tuesday were his most specific yet on how and why a withdrawal could occur.

"Russia will have the right to opt out of the treaty if ... the U.S. strategic missile defense begins to significantly affect the efficiency of Russian strategic nuclear forces," he said.

Moscow welcomed Obama's decision to scrap the previous administration's plans for missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic, but expressed concern about plans for a revamped shield, including a possible facility in Romania.

Moscow welcomed the decision, I bet they did.

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 11:12 AM
reply to post by Stormdancer777

Why can't Barry ever be the one with the Ace up his sleeve??
Kudos to Putin and his comrades for fleecing our fearless leader yet again.

Has the guy ever played a game of cards with his chums? Oh wait, he doesn't have any chums because no one can remember him.

[edit on 6-4-2010 by jibeho]

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 11:56 AM
Someone said the rest of the world could feel better that we wouldn't be trigger happy with our nukes. Was that a serious response? We've used two in combat and that was 6 decades ago. Nobody thinks we are trigger happy if they have a brain. A disarmed US hated by all is a bad thing. And yes our capitalistic society will still be hated. We just won't have the trump card anymore. We're talking about disarming while terrorist regimes are aqquiring nukes. But I'm sure they realize our conventional weapons are still more than enough to do the job.

I'm not bothered that we have nukes. Never have been. I think it's a good thing. I also think that unless we had something better we wouldn't scrap them. Especially in this time. The threat of mutual destruction kept the cold war from becoming a real war. The nukes have saved more than they will ever hurt. Besides if it is indeed our most powerful weapon at present time, would we really dismantle them all? God forbid we actually do need them one day.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in