It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms

page: 2
31
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 10:16 PM
link   
It boggles my mind that an intelligent person could read this:


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.


and not consider it a good thing. The article CLEARLY indicates that all retaliation options
remain to answer nuclear attack.

I suppose some people just don't see past the man and the good he is striving to do. Some people want to live in a by gone era and operate under the misguided notion that nukes solve all our problems.

Especially considering 50 fun facts.

1. Cost of the Manhattan Project (through August 1945): $20,000,000,000

2. Total number of nuclear missiles built, 1951-present: 67,500

3. Estimated construction costs for more than 1,000 ICBM launch pads and silos, and support facilities, from 1957-1964: nearly $14,000,000,000

4. Total number of nuclear bombers built, 1945-present: 4,680

5. Peak number of nuclear warheads and bombs in the stockpile/year: 32,193/1966

6. Total number and types of nuclear warheads and bombs built, 1945-1990: more than 70,000/65 types

7. Number currently in the stockpile (2002): 10,600 (7,982 deployed, 2,700 hedge/contingency stockpile)...................






[edit on 5-4-2010 by kinda kurious]




posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 10:49 PM
link   
I have to laugh a little at the people screaming about the POTUS leaving us with no deterent to foreign attack. Just because he has an awareness off what an all out nuclear war could do globally and he seems much more aware than you guys do of all the other fun little toys our military has at their disposal. just because we're not going thermo nuclear on someone doesn't mean they won't get their asses handed to them if an attack were launched on American soil.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
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!!!!

That is not a small step, that is no step at all lol.. OMG what world are people living in these days.. Sorry if your post was sarcasm but I didn't get it..

Seriously, how is this news related towards their removal? They have been saying they will reduce it for a long time, but why would they? That is what give them that power over other nations, to control, rule, suppress, bully..

America won't be America without that power, the great USA would collapse without that power..

Get real and come back to reality before you go too lost in your own imaginatory creations..



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Mirthful Me
 


Ok...I agree that it is not a smart move...I don't think there should be any policy on when this option should be used (even though I would personally never want to see it be used)...it is a deterrent...and should be used as one.

But this:

This borders on treason! Barack Hussein Obama is beginning to make Jimmy Carter look like the reincarnation of general George S. Patton.


I would expect this from the common user from ATS...but from a "Super Moderator"??? Really....TREASON??? Do you honestly think this is treason???

I don't know...just...dissapointing.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 11:02 PM
link   
This is pure irresponsable treason! he is allowing it and making this nation weaker. What shall happen, in the event, a nation like north korea, russia launch 4 nuclea warhead.. 50-80 million american citizens have beeen vaporized and/or dying of letah gamma ray radiation. Send an army by air n ship so they can finish nuking us off?
I think it was Macknimarra, who initiated MAD mutualy assured destruction. Basically that knida meant, if russia launched a missle at us, their would be a no question retaliation to balance things.
obama needs to go out of office. Sooner or later at this rate, all that wil be left of america, is illegal alines and 8-% of its land chinese and radiation owned



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
America won't be America without that power, the great USA would collapse without that power..


That is a matter of opinion. Should I drag out my Hiroshima stats & pics?

Has Japan collapsed without nukes?

Insecure much?



[edit on 5-4-2010 by kinda kurious]



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Absolutely... Perhaps you should review the Oath that BHO took (at least twice)



"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."


www.presidentsusa.net...

This decision violates that oath (like BHO would care, his entire Presidency life is a fraud) and would thereby would constitute treason.

On being a member of the staff... I'm entitled to to have an opinion like everyone else.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Mirthful Me
 



"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."


I fail to see anywhere in there or in the Constitution that states that the President MUST USE NUKES.

Where do you LOGICALLY come to this conclusion?



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ziggy1706
This is pure irresponsable treason! he is allowing it and making this nation weaker. What shall happen, in the event, a nation like north korea, russia launch 4 nuclea warhead..


You might save yourself embarrassment if you would actually read the ENTIRE ARTICLE. Not just the headline. This was SPECIFICALLY addressed:


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.


Regards...kk



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 11:41 PM
link   
For who's benefit were these remarks made ?

How will potential enemies view this news ? Will other countries make use of this info to devise and reform there current doctrine ?

Will this news do anything to detour rising threats ?

There is a reason that this news was released and I can tell you that it wasn't released to give the world warm fuzzy feelings .


Very strange to see this kind of news being released to the MSM at this current time .



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 12:53 AM
link   
If the only thing this nation is great for is the possibility of nuking non-nuclear nations, then I question this soo called greatness.

Like saying a man is great because he will probably use a flamethrower on a neighborhood bully armed with only his fist.

If we cannot reason with these small nations that have no nukes, and if they push the envelope, we have enough to turn such a nation into little more than dust and rubble 40 times over without even considering a nuclear option. If such a nation isnt deterred by that, then a nuke wont deter them either.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


M.A.D.

Has kept the nuclear Ginnie somewhat in it's bottle for over 50 years. President Kowtow is now removing the "M" [Mutually] and now America is potentially at risk of "Assured Destruction.



Walks off scratching his head.

CHANGE?

Hah! ha ha ha ha ha



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 01:08 AM
link   
I'm sure his intention was to limit the use of excessive force.

Excessive Force and America's middle name...

Would it be excessive to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear power countries. Would the US use nukes if the world wasn't watching? Is the reason for holding nuclear weapons nothing more than compensating for what could be lacking?

I say yes yes yes!


[edit on 6/4/10 by spearhead]

[edit on 6/4/10 by spearhead]



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 01:11 AM
link   
So if we were to take away the weapons it would make us safe? This backwards thinking is wrong on many levels. Our enemies want us to disarm and it is not because they want to do the same. Should it not be a mutual thing? But what do I know.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by jam321
 


M.A.D.

Has kept the nuclear Ginnie somewhat in it's bottle for over 50 years. President Kowtow is now removing the "M" [Mutually] and now America is potentially at risk of "Assured Destruction.



Walks off scratching his head.

CHANGE?

Hah! ha ha ha ha ha



This doesn't change anything about M.A.D.

This doesn't change anything about the response to a nuclear attack or even an attack from a nuclear power. Only from NON-NUCLEAR nations.

I don't agree with publicly announcing this policy...but don't try to turn it into something it is not.

Is there no respect for honesty anymore??? Do we all just have to lie whenever we can to try to push our own personal agenda???

It sometimes seems that ATS is no better than the "corrupt lying" politicians that everyone hates around here...whatever pushes your agenda...damn the truth.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by spearhead
Is the reason for holding nuclear weapons nothing more than compensating for what could be lacking?

I say yes yes yes!


So....

India, Pakistan, China, Russia, France and all other Nuclear powers are lacking?

Yes Yes Yes.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Subjective Truth
 


Perhaps you should start practicing what you are preaching!
Nobody is going to put down their weapons while the world's greatest threat holds onto their own!

Perhaps America wouldn't feel so threatened if America hadn't so willingly wronged many countries. You can argue "but it wasn't us!" but it was you! Your leaders! YOU!


[edit on 6/4/10 by spearhead]



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 01:16 AM
link   
Are you people so naive to think what he is saying is anything more than political rhetoric?



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 01:19 AM
link   
Our Government seems to be systematically tanking the country. When I saw this earlier I couldn't believe my eyes. It may sound like a good idea to some, but they need to look at the big picture. Iran is most likely building nukes, Pres announces this. Way to look strong, and yes I'm aware he was excluding countries like Iran and NK, but if those little guys aren't scared of us when we are not pulling nukes off the table, imagine what the big dogs think when we say we wont retaliate.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by red_d
 


The word of the US government certainly isn't its bond. So i'd take everything with a grain of salt. Even reverse threats such as these.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join