Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms

What is the point of a doomsday machine if you don't tell anyone about it! Dr Strangelove. Nuclear deterrent is all about psychology and the fear of what will happen if a nuclear power is attacked. There hasn't been a nuclear war or a major war against powers since WW2, so why change the policy that has worked for all this time?

So, I'm not a huge fan of Obama, never have been, but you guys harp
about everythinghe does. Honestly, I don't find this as bad news, about damn time really. As far as I'm concerned they could just get rid of the nukes all together. Before you guys decide to flame on, yes I know other countries have nukes and are unstable. Still, I don't care, so mote it be. I am a American, born and raised in the USA but if some other country drops a nuke on us I dont think we should do the same. I mean geez, look at all the crap we have done to others and it's supposed to be just fine but lord forbid if someone retaliates.





[edit on 6-4-2010 by freeyourmind1111]

reply to post by Mirthful Me


I don't see the point if your the only member of the Club and
nobody want's to join the Club.

And the exceptions are for all those don't want to join the club anyway.
So nothings really changed. I guess Canada, UK, France, Australia can
sleep easier now knowing the US won't nuke'm before breakfast.

Obama is getting quite good at this, make big announcements, make
big changes, and everything is still the same.

It seems some people are very happy about this announcement, thinking it's moving the country in the direction that they wanted -and he promised- to move it. And some are not happy about it, thinking that Obama is the poison that will kill our country.

So, what else is new? Pure polarization. It's really getting old. This is just a difference of opinion on policy. He's doing what he said he would do.

I actually think it's a positive move toward the US being a respected member of world stage again. If 9/11 taught us ANYTHING, it should be that having, and being willing to use, more powerful weapons than it would take to destroy the world, is a FALSE sense of security. The threat does NOT keep us safe.

I don't know why people think this will make us more vulnerable. But everyone is entitled to their opinion.

I agree with a previous comment, you guys just find any detail you can to pick at Obama.

The world needs to be rid of Nuclear weapons altogether. The US is leading by example, as it has for a long time now. We are doing the RIGHT THING.

You guys crack me up.

This is a distraction.
I don't think anyone has to worry that their poor little nuclear arsenal is going to be junked.

But I am of the opinion, that they should never be used and should be junked, although we will not see this happen in our lifetime or our children's.

If we used one, life as we know it would be over, others would get us back, and so on and so on...

And all for what? To show we could? We were the toughest? Great, we were the meanest toughest kid on the block, but we are dead now or slowly dyng. Just like that bully on the block, everyone dreams of taking him down, but does everyone dream of taking down the nice kid? It is that simple.

Not to mention the fact that people in other countries are human too, it is sad how easily people can block that out, when they don't like someone.

So many sit here, complaining about our current president. We get it, he does not represent your ideals. Guess what, Ahmadinajad probably does not represent all his country's ideals either. Are you ready to destroy them or any other country for that matter, based on their leadership? Just wondering what humanity is worth to some of you?

And for all that will argue me, you can fight back without nuclear. We don't have to be the badest country of this century.

OK...The majority of responses here are related to Nuclear Deterrence in relation to MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) and it being the only policy that kept the peace during the Cold War.

HOWEVER, One must realize that it was our only way in which to Deter/prevent a first strike/getting nuked.

Since the break up of the USSR, the US has been investing heavily in Anti-Ballistic Missile Defense systems.
We now have multiple levels of systems in place that can identify, track, and knock down ICBM and missile based threats. This includes but is not limited to;

1)Naval warship based SM-3 (standard Missile stage 3) missiles paired up with AEGIS systems that can knock down missile threats.
2)Ground/Aircraft based Laser systems that through directed heat energy can knock down missile threats.
3)whatever else is still a black project (most likely a space/satellite based knock down laser or kinetic system.

SO, say that if someone shoots a nuke at us and they fail to hit us because we knock it down, we should automatically retaliate and nuke them back?

Nuclear weapons are not discriminate weapons. It defines collateral damage. Should we kill 200,000+ innocent North Koreans or Iranians or Russians, simply because a despot or dictator happens to be in power?

This policy change actually reflects more of the core principles of the US and proportionate response than anything else.

MAD was the method of protecting our citizens (and the world) from Nuclear annihilation. Thankfully we have progressed technologically, and are no longer bound by treaties preventing us from developing ABM systems.

We now have a better way to protect our citizens (and the world) from Nuclear Annihilation, and as such we can afford to take the unilateral high road and change our policy of automatically killing not just a regime but entire populations of innocent men women and children as NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARE DESIGNED TO DO.

I hope some of you actually read this and try to understand just because MAD and Deterrence worked for 50 years and was the best option at the time, doesn't mean that there aren't better options afforded to us now for protection.

Just my two cents.

Originally posted by XKrossX
...HOWEVER, One must realize that it was our only way in which to Deter/prevent a first strike/getting nuked.

Since the break up of the USSR, the US has been investing heavily in Anti-Ballistic Missile Defense systems.
We now have multiple levels of systems in place that can identify, track, and knock down ICBM and missile based threats. This includes but is not limited to;

1)Naval warship based SM-3 (standard Missile stage 3) missiles paired up with AEGIS systems that can knock down missile threats.
2)Ground/Aircraft based Laser systems that through directed heat energy can knock down missile threats.
3)whatever else is still a black project (most likely a space/satellite based knock down laser or kinetic system.

SO, say that if someone shoots a nuke at us and they fail to hit us because we knock it down, we should automatically retaliate and nuke them back?

Nuclear weapons are not discriminate weapons. It defines collateral damage. Should we kill 200,000+ innocent North Koreans or Iranians or Russians, simply because a despot or dictator happens to be in power?

This policy change actually reflects more of the core principles of the US and proportionate response than anything else.

MAD was the method of protecting our citizens (and the world) from Nuclear annihilation. Thankfully we have progressed technologically, and are no longer bound by treaties preventing us from developing ABM systems.

We now have a better way to protect our citizens (and the world) from Nuclear Annihilation, and as such we can afford to take the unilateral high road and change our policy of automatically killing not just a regime but entire populations of innocent men women and children as NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARE DESIGNED TO DO.

I hope some of you actually read this and try to understand just because MAD and Deterrence worked for 50 years and was the best option at the time, doesn't mean that there aren't better options afforded to us now for protection. Just my two cents.

Quoted for agreement. Wow a breath of fresh rational air. I just wanted to see my Avatar next to such a thought provoking contribution and pretend I wrote it.

Your .02¢ + my .02¢ = .04¢


[edit on 6-4-2010 by kinda kurious]

reply to post by XKrossX


Hope a few read your post, it would have been what I would say, I'f I had that knowledge at the tip of my tongue.
Good words, good job.

If you ramp up.. ramp up.. and continue to ramp up, and you fail to ever back down, eventually, this will blow up in your face. Perhaps this will set a precedence for other countries to do the same. Also, I think there is probably a deeper reasoning for this. I doubt he just woke up and said "Hey.. let's have less nukes!"

I realize that there is a sadly fair # of folks around here that would love nothing more than a nuclear war, but I would hope most sane people would applaud this sort of move.

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.

your bound to say that being on the side with all the power lol.

its not really treason and it doesnt really "invite those kind of attacks"

hes saying if you can do the job with the small guns....theres no need to get the big guns out... basically reducing the chances of nuclear fallout to occurr which is a gud thing.

just because hes reducing the situations where a nuke will be used doesnt mean those types of attacks will be carried out now.

america is no pushover, they can trample an entire country with soldiers, tanks and airstrikes if they REALLY had to. but...like most countries...they follow rules even in war which means they have to do things properly to reduce innocent casualties. if they could have gotten away with it then they would have been in and out of iraq and afghanistan within a week.

a nuclear fallout is unimaginably bad. 10's of thousands of people died in hiroshima the day the atom bomb was dropped and the fallout continued for decades afterwards with generations of deformed babies being born from the radiation poisoning.

its something nobody should have to go through. nuclear weapons are a good deterrant because of this.

if obama can reduce the chances of this from every happening then im all for it.

reply to post by Mirthful Me



Obama's heart is blacker than black. He has no guts to be different. Another American president protecting his own income.

The entire world know US been using Depleted Uranium & tactical nukes in military operations. His statement was nothing more than scare tactic against Iran and North Korea.

Shame on Obama.

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)

The country is gone and has been gone for awhile. We don't own it, we owe on it from the corporations and politicians who have passed their mistakes onto the debt of the American people. 2012 won't do us any good whatsoever, because they'll replace Obama with someone else who will continue this current direction. The two party system is flawed and has been infiltrated by CEO's and bankers who seek to control it. If you want to make a change, that's where you need to start.

I definitely agree that to set the standards for nuclear attacks invites those very attacks, you have a great point there. Wonderful insight on your behalf.

Star from me.

Much love to all...

[edit on 6-4-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]

Originally posted by 4ortunate1
What is the point of a doomsday machine if you don't tell anyone about it! Dr Strangelove. Nuclear deterrent is all about psychology and the fear of what will happen if a nuclear power is attacked. There hasn't been a nuclear war or a major war against powers since WW2, so why change the policy that has worked for all this time?

Because deterrents do not work with people likely to attack the country that come from non-nuclear nations...they dont care.

For examples, please see historical reference dated september 11, 2001.

Is there even a single hypothetical senario that this will effect? Mexico unleashes a chemical weapon on california because they no longer fear being nuked...and somehow they dont fear four thousand daisy cutters going off all around their cities a couple hours later, etc.

The policy was in place to checkmate giants with nukes. and that policy is not changing...we are simply stating that hey...if you dont have nukes, you dont have to worry about nukes...if your a nation that has no nukes but considering arming up...you sure you want to put yourself on the radar?

This seems like a far more effective deterrant than saying anyone could be nuked...once you put conditions on it, then it lessens a nations desire to attain that level of arms.


incidently, wouldn't it be great if worldwide we decided to abandon guns, modern weapons, and revert back to sword, bow, and skill...have zero collateral damage and bring some honor back to the battlefield.

Originally posted by wisdomnotemotion
His statement was nothing more than scare tactic against Iran and North Korea.

Shame on Obama.

Yes, Shame on Obama...how dare he try to encourage such nations to stop building up nukes.


man, the insanity is fierce lately.

Good riddance to all WMD's I say, 2nd line

Originally posted by zeuseadam
of course he does. he is the (set up orginally during bill clinton ) russian in a cowboy hat represented by the gY COWBOYS CLINTON ANDERSON AND ANDREA FAPPANI, DONT FORGET STERLING RANCH FOR ENGLAND..THEY ARE THE COMMUNIST IN COWBOY HATS YOUR COUNTRY IS DEAD JUST LIKE ME!!!!!!!
www.youtube.com...
look at tghe system matt day hokker creek ranch they own everything you idiots!!!(he s your new oregon god think fifedomn)

What does a video of you riding a horse (YouTube link), have to do with all this?

Originally posted by Mirthful Me

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.

There is a lot more wrong with the USA than anything that Obama has enacted since he was elected. I may not like him, but as I agree with much of what Ron Paul has to say...Obama is the least of our worries, at the moment.

To fix this country, and change what is wrong will require a massive social change unlike anything that elected an African American to the Presidential seat. And, honestly, in this age of global recession I do not see many people worrying about anything except how to put food on the table for their children.

We, as a nation, need to be the first to unite the world, and start a true progression to an open united society. Not to obliterate the past, and destroy nations and their history. No, to create a sense of brother/sister-hood, and to speed the process of amazing technological advancement to all people, and to give each and every person living on this planet a sense of fulfillment...a reason to live in peace.

Obama is not that man, as he is hampered by many of the things that politicians get bogged down with. Honestly, I don't see something like this happening until we do use nukes, and start all over again.