Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms

Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms

www.nytimes.com

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.

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.

(visit the link for the full news article)

This borders on insanity. To declare what kind of attacks would not be met with a nuclear response invites those very attacks. This borders on treason! Barack Hussein Obama is beginning to make Jimmy Carter look like the reincarnation of general George S. Patton.

Ronald Reagan is rolling over in his grave. The 2012 election can't come soon enough to save our country.

www.nytimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Great find, what a posture change, this is going to be a hot potato for sure, excellent post...... S& F's...

Wonder if he ever saw the film "Amazing Grace And Chuck" many years ago, and now that is influencing his Nuclear Policy? hmmmm...


**Trailer clip here


videodetective.com...

[edit on 5-4-2010 by freetree64]

As I posted on the other thread, I consider this excellent news.

These type weapons are unacceptable to humankind and to our planet, and any small step towards their removal needs to be greatly commended.

Good for OBama!!!!

This has the look's of going viral, storie's popping up on blog's, and all the new's site's, seem's to look like this might be the one that got away, for the Obama admin. Yike's what a huge move, and quite possibly his undoing, politically.

Is this a belated April fool's joke or what?

From source.

But Mr. Bush’s document also reserved the right to use nuclear weapons “to deter a wide range of threats,” including banned chemical and biological weapons and large-scale conventional attacks. Mr. Obama’s strategy abandons that option — except if the attack is launched by a nuclear state, or a nonsignatory or violator of the nonproliferation treaty

What is to stop a nuclear state from getting a non nuclear state to do their dirty deed?

Reducing nukes is one thing, but.....

Hmmm... "Are those launch key's I hear turning"?

Originally posted by Mirthful Me


This borders on insanity. To declare what kind of attacks would not be met with a nuclear response invites those very attacks. This borders on treason! Barack Hussein Obama is beginning to make Jimmy Carter look like the reincarnation of general George S. Patton.

Ronald Reagan is rolling over in his grave. The 2012 election can't come soon enough to save our country.

www.nytimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I'm not an Obama guy, but I think it sounds pretty reasonable. Nukes should only be used when the bottom falls out and there is no other option. The fact that he's excluding countries that piss on the nuclear proliferation. Bash him all you want, I might join in, but this isn't anything that makes me like him less.

Evidently...

BHO isn't familiar with the concept of deterrence. You can have any policy you want... But you don't let anyone know what it is... The thought that a WMD strike on the US could result in nothing more than a UN resolution sickens me. The threat of unmitigated wrath and fury being unleashed keeps the animal states in line... Not the surrender in advance strategy...

If there is an attack on the US due to this "invitation" that has just been proffered, BHO won't be able to run for dog catcher.

Strangelove Monkeys, not just for our precious bodily fluids anymore...

[edit on 5/4/2010 by Mirthful Me]

reply to post by Mirthful Me


Exactly... The whole playground bully scenario, and it now appear's with this decision by POTUS, that the USA just went and put all our gun's in the sandbox, so to speak, then walked back out on the playground, and said, o.k. your turn bully..... I think you know what come's next, and it ain't pretty...

In a speech in Prague last spring, Obama noted that "in a strange turn of history, the threat of global war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up." He warned that with more nations acquiring nuclear weapons, or wishing to, the scary but oddly stable reign of "mutual assured destruction" was giving way to a new disorder. "As more people and nations break the rules, we could reach the point where the center cannot hold." Obama stated "clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons." But, he added, "I'm not naive. This goal will not be reached quickly—perhaps not in my lifetime." And he threw in an important caveat: "Make no mistake. As long as these weapons exist, the United States will maintain a safe, secure, and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defense to our allies."

www.newsweek.com...

What happened to the caveat?

How can the US deter, when he has laid out under what conditions they will be used?

I can agree with him about reducing nukes and even getting rid of them. But IMO, he is giving away the playbook.

At last somebody with their finger on the button who does not get turned on by having that power.

Maybe he is the first president in the White House for a long time with:

a) Enough IQ to think for himself unlike at least the last 4 predecessors.

b) A big enough one to not need to over compensate.

c) The wisdom to know that now the US is not the only country in the world with nuclear weapons unlike the last time they used them, things are different now.

d) Realises that post 9/11 (inside job) Iraq Afghanistan the world is much much more dangerous place as seen in Georgia/Pakistan/Iran and currently Israel/Palestine.

e) It is like 2+2=? To understand using one means a very likely result of escalation to world destruction.

f) Unlike all the previous administrations has no friends or shares in any of the companies that make money of making, creating or using these sick things.

g) Genuinely cares about his children, and our children, and their children to, humanity above his Ego, and schoolyard cowboys and Indian Games

h) Having been given the Economic Depression to sort out when first in office, is not stupid enough to not realise the very thing that destroyed the Soviet Union, that is the inability to keep up with the costs of the Arms Race, could threaten the integrity of the nation of the USA to. The USA can’t afford to spend soo much on such things now you might have to pay for equal health care.

i) Understands that the rest of the world will not change their policies of following the American lead in this for decades, and wanting to be superpowers, no matter how many words are used and papers/treaties signed, so the only way is to lead by example. Normalise Sanity not MADness

h) Is not suffering from delusional ideas that he is being spoken to by God, and has to fight the antichrist in some sort of rapture in the Middle East.

i) Is aware the rest of the world dislikes, distrusts and is afraid of the actions taken by America since Vietnam, and especially Iraq etc... Probably does not want Russian Bombers so close to the borders as in the last few years, practising again so decides to cool down the rising tension between Russia/USA

j) is more interested in living alive on this earth now, as a human being, that is has some regard for his own life and is not on a self destruct mission externalised onto his job role.

k) Makes rational not emotional knee-jerk judgements.

l) Is making in this move and recent ones the first clear distinction between Israeli Policy and American Policy esp vis-a-vis Iran, and won’t be used by Israel anymore. He is reclaiming the USA's Nation soverenty, from puppet masters.

m) Is probably a lot more aware of the family/organisational links that have screwed the world recently with the bankers/fed etc and is reducing their power a bit by bit.

n) Is a politician/leader not a lobbyist’s ear for the first time in a generation?

o) Realises the dangers to his own like (JFK?) by doing these things but cares more about the greater good.

p) AS Said has an IQ above any of his predecessors except JFK and those before....so if he goes to buy a Gun to protect his family, one will do, why buy 100 guns? Is very aware of the ridiculous amounts of these weapons and the power that only a handle full have on the world.

q) Is reversing the idea that was touted and being Discussed, becoming policy in the pentagon and CFR, that pre emptive and "battlefield" Nukes were ok, following the crazy goings on their for the last 15 years.

r) Knows as proven on a few occasions now the strange lights in the sky can turn them all of anyhow!

s) Maybe practises the LOA?

t) Realises that very very soon indeed unless the US changes drastically, in many different ways China will soon overtake it as the World Superpower, leaving the US in the same situation Russia was in, second dog, an outcast to world majority and struggling to keep parity of economics and weapons, a race he know cant be won.

u) Does not like the idea of killing? infact maybe he genuinely wants to work towards a more peaceful world, god forbid that I know many will think, I know Its what 99% of the sane people in the world would do if they had his power.

v) The threat posed by REAL terrorism post 9/11 and pre emption is growing, along with technology... you can have 100 million nukes but it does nothing if a genuine Jihadist got hold of one or two... there is no one to attack besides wiping out all of the middle east parts of new York /Washington and all of Pakistan northern India parts of the caucus etc etc. It is now an obsolete weapon as the enemy has changed. 100 of them are enough to face of and destroy any conventional superpower. Reduce them or the likelihood of others thinking you will use them, or the ones in the hands of Russia not secured properly, or made in north Korea could get into the wrong hands easily.

w) Wants to approach for the first time in generations negotiations with others without being hypocritical and a bully. Why should not Iran try and get one when Iraq and Afghanistan has been invaded in a proxy false war for WMD, with Israel having them unofficially to? Why should states like that listen to a big blustering, bullying HYPOCRITE? He is preparing the table for genuine diplomacy and change by words not force.

x) If anyone has not noticed the world is going tits up anyhow, population increase, environment, economy, terrorism both real and produced, disease etc if humanity is going to live for another 100 years these sorts of baby steps are vital to get us there. He is aware of this.

y) Is Aware of the advances in modern technology and the real and more horrific almost dangers of very cheap simple to make in comparison Biological and Chemical Weapons, this move reduces the need and desire by those searching for more of these things as a counterbalance to American Nuclear Dominance.

z) Didn’t watch many john Wayne movies as a child.

Want me to start from 1 to?

Before anyone jumps on me liberal Obama supporter etc, see this thread from when he first got in, the first Real anti obama policy thread on ATS, and done by me, showing his negative aspects.... However as always I speak the truth about an situation, not some party political line or what my dad told me to think, when a child.

Obama Authorises Missile Strike (elf 2 days after getting in)

Obamas Missile Strike 10 Killed Pakistan

With his nuclear reduction moves, and this, at last in many years of madness maybe just maybe we are taking a step closer to a more peaceful world.

If not more peaceful, at least a politician who seems to disregard the lobbyists, status quo, Israel, Military Industrial Complex, and normalisation of violence and madness in US foreign Policy... a Real man imho in the white house at last. He has my total support on this... A glimmer of hope at last, and the threat of Multi lateral action against Iran takes a step backwards with this. Let Israel deal with it on their own for a change. Would be interesting how they could do this if the US stopped bankrolling like now, and how long it would take them to be in the same situation as Greece.

Kind Regards,

Elf

[edit on 5-4-2010 by MischeviousElf]

reply to post by MischeviousElf


I'll start with the number one...

1) Will fail to protect the United States and her citizens.

Everything else is moot.

[edit on April 5th 2010 by greeneyedleo]

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
reply to post by MischeviousElf

 

I'll start with the number one...

1) Will fail to protect the United States and her citizens.

Everything else is moot.

Including the rest of the worlds citizens?

Because honestly the general feeling around thw orld outside of the USA, with an growing awareness within it to, is that we feel much less protected or safe after the last few administrations moves and policies.

Protectionism Mirthfull?

How can this possibly not protect the people of the United States? if it leads to the first steps of leading by example, and then followed by others in the preperation of nuclear or WMD being used?

How does saying you are going to attack people with WMD in any way reduce the safety of those people you say they are trying to protect, when it makes enemies, and forces others to follow suit to protect there own citizens or way of life?

Reducing the number, liklihood of use and popularity of WMD in my mind can be the only way in fact to protect the current children of the USA, from growing up in a world where the liklihood of use is increased.

Kind Regards,

Elf

I realize that it's uncomfortable...

To see the rapid decline of our once great nation... While it is a chronic condition, I sense an immense rehabilitation in November 2010 and an eradication of the disease process in November 2012...

These misguided policies are not permanent... If we can manage this illness until a positive outcome can be obtained via the electoral process the US will once again take it's rightful place as a world leader.

I wish these weapons didn't exist but they do so we gotta deal with it. Im glad he's backing down their use I dont think they should be used. I wish he'd get rid of them completely but I also understand the enemies have them too and that would be a bad idea to get rid of them completely. I await a response from N Korea's little tator tot.

Just what I need to read before tucking in for the night. Glad to know Obama is doing all he can to keep us all safe. Someone just yanked his choker chain a little tighter and the agenda amazingly advances even faster.

This certainly sends one hell of a message from our weak kneed POTUS to all of our enemies. Just when I thought Obama could no longer tuck his tail any further between his legs, he pulls this move.

The nuke option has always been available as the ultimate deterrent.

Putin must be laughing his ass off right now. First, reduced nuke deal with Barry, then a $5billion dollar weapons deal with Chavez and now Barry says he is too scared to use Nukes in any situation beyond an if this, then that, but not that scenario.

Treason? WTF is this guy doing??