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 Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 01:22 AM
The way I'm reading this it basically says if you attack me with a gun, Ill shoot back. If you use a knife however, I wont use my gun.

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 01:30 AM
This means JACK !@#$%

There used to be limits on when the US Army would be used.

We threw that doctrine away when we decided we wanted Iraq's OIL.

You think a piece of paper with rules and restrictions will matter, when the day comes that some madmen want to use nukes?

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 01:34 AM

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
You think a piece of paper with rules and restrictions will matter, when the day comes that some madmen want to use nukes?


But our retaliation would be limited by what President Kowtow has signed.

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 06:37 AM
You people are just frightening. You're prepared to turn the world into a radioactive ball of dust just to "protect your great nation". Well, methinks that any "nation" with that kind of mentality isn't great at all. Just completely insane.

I neither care about your president or any other of your internal policies. But I do find it reassuring to a point that the man in charge of you lot doesn't advocate nuking the everliving s*** out out anything that moves, just so that his countries paranoid and psycotic citizens can feel "safe".

You are self-centered and insecure to a point that I find hard to comprehend.

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 07:03 AM
This was a thread of mine from a few days ago when it appeared that Obama was going to remove the pre-emptivie use of Nuclear weapons from the strategy.

What a turn around eh?

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 07:18 AM
reply to post by MischeviousElf

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

And just what is his IQ? Last I knew that was never releasted. Along with his collage transscripts, to give us a better idea of what's running around in his head.

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.

Just what new friends have we gained under obama? What all these little dictator nations understand is one thing "Strength". What obama's doing is showing weakness with this latest move along with cutting down on our arsenal.

[edit on 6-4-2010 by Chance321]

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 07:40 AM

Originally posted by kinda kurious

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.


I suppose this document is a living and breathing entity that can simply be altered to suit Obama's crisis de jour. OK General X out N.Korea and insert Venezuela.

Life doesn't work that way nor does reality. Were taking our pants down while the rest of the world is concerned with strapping up. The peace BS just does not float when it comes to protecting US soil.

I guess my next question is when does Obama plan on letting an invasion of foreign troops into the US?

Kudos on the new avatar. Not sure Karl will appreciate the disrespect though

[edit on 6-4-2010 by jibeho]

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 07:49 AM

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
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.

Typical, the country was in decline years before Obama came along. You really think nukes protect you? Nuclear war will be the end of civilization. They will be obsolete in the coming years when new technologies worse than nukes are discovered anyway.

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 08:11 AM
A conventional response to a biological attack would seem to be to be disproportionate in favor of the attacking party, thats exactly what this plan looks like to me so far. I don't know about anybody else but the idea of a disease that can't be controlled, scrubbed, or waited out (half life) seems to be a bigger threat than a nuclear weapon. Granted the article seems to make it out like if a country has a roaring bio weapon program then we might be able to think about using nukes against them, but if its a country who just buys a six pack of weaponized Ebola or Smallpox or whatever from China or Russia then our hands are tied since they didn't develop it.

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 08:16 AM

Originally posted by Mirthful Me

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]

the thought of america using a nuke on any other country again sickens me and majority of the people here in America. Its one thing to go to war its a total other to use nukes. Any American who supports the use of nukes supports its destruction.

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 08:25 AM

Mr. Obama argued for a slower course, saying, “We are going to want to make sure that we can continue to move towards less emphasis on nuclear weapons,” and, he added, to “make sure that our conventional weapons capability is an effective deterrent in all but the most extreme circumstances.”

Well I don't know about anyone else but this sounds logical and reasonable to me.

The hysteria and fearmongering going on in some of the replies in this thread make me very sad.

Our maturity as a race is in question here. Will we continue with the behaviors that will destroy our civilzation or will we try and rise above our very natures.

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 08:25 AM
I am pretty happy (I guess that's easy being from Australia and pretty disliking of the very thought of Nuclear weapons) so am quite for the reduction and type of available to be used, the limitation of when, where, how they should be used (... I trail this with ... if at all). Tip my hat to Obama or anyone else that identifies the MAD in the use or rat race production of Nuclear weapons. Gradually reduce and perhaps one day the Globe can be slightly more free then it was when held in the bondage of the cold war. I guess we by nature also have short memories (or just simply weren't born to remember) or have never read).

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 08:28 AM
Oh, NO! We can't kill others by the hundreds of thousands, what will we ever do?

Please, grow up. If you think this will leave you unsafe you are seriously a paranoid person. I think nukes should be off limits due to how many innocent people die within a split second.

This, if you don't know, is not only catastrophic for that split second, but years and years after it has been dropped.

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 08:33 AM
Hmmm is there a place that I can read that tells me under what conditions we will retaliate by shooting a few nukes at a country? Some could be completely irrational... Long from treason I think. Perhaps the people that previously wrote these standards are guilty of treason by potentially increasing the chance that the US is wiped off the map... But hey maybe Obama is increasing the likely hood that we all die. Either way Nuclear weapons are very dangerous and I personally am happy to hear we are overlooking and narrowing the reasons to use them.

[edit on 6-4-2010 by vertedtwylight]

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 08:43 AM
reply to post by Mirthful Me

WHOA ! Calm DOWN man! At least your president is actualy moving toward peaceful and responsible intent in terms of foreign affairs, unlike the blunt and unrelenting bludgeoner that was George W. Bush. It isnt good that the US and others who whine about nuclear proliferation are also often the folks with the most arms available at any one time, and this clarification will go quite some way to dissipating the fears of those in the mid east who believe the wests possesion of nuclear arms is one of the ways in which we (westerners) dictate to them . Its a factor used by terror recruiters to persuade otherwise rational folk to do insane things. I can only see this as being a step forward. Lets face it, if your security services are worth all the drug money they pay themselves , Im sure no more terror attacks will happen as a backlash.

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 09:03 AM
so there are more restrictions on using nuclear weapons? sounds fine.

also I doubt this is an invitation of an attack.

this is at most likely a PR move, perhaps to project the idea that America doesn't like being a nuclear power (lol)

[edit on 6-4-2010 by piddles]

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 09:14 AM
reply to post by Mirthful Me

Yes i agree, it is somewhat an invitiation for those countries (not the outliers) to do an pre-emptive attack but the same goes for the other party signing the treaty. They also declare their intentions clearly.

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 09:21 AM
reply to post by Mirthful Me

There's a couple things I could say about this.

Maybe, this is their "non-news" story to distract people/press from the wikileaks video?

Or this could work into the "false-flag" theory ive seen many people put forth, that a nuclear attack is the next false flag. To me this seems to be a very well crafted and thought out move by obama's team. So many people on here are already screaming that we will now get attacked. Its not likely, we're still the biggest super power out there, and in the extremely unlikely chance we are attacked, who knows what the military brass would do with or without obama.

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 09:26 AM
And in the meantime, Military Officers and Generals are laughing their butts off at the president's ridiculous policy, which SHOULD result in a letter being sent to the president, stating: Sorry "Chief" but we took an oath to protect the country from enemies both foreign and domestic, and we will do so regardless of what you say.

Then, they will assign snipers to prepare their scopes so they can take the president's "mugshot" as its become obvious that Obama has now become one of those enemies aforementioned.

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 09:34 AM
Israel says its like this - nothing is changed -

Obama to limit U.S. use of nuclear arms, but not on Iran

But even as President Barack Obama limits the conditions under which the United States would resort to a nuclear strike, he is making clear that nuclear-defiant states like Iran and North Korea will remain potential targets.

"I'm going to preserve all the tools that are necessary in order to make sure that the American people are safe and secure,"

- yeah, right! - what a noble liar he is, a puppet.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in