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: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 11:08 AM
reply to post by Mirthful Me

Is that the only person Republican's have to turn too??? Ronald Reagan? I mean this seems to be all I hear lately, Ronald this and Ronald that he'd roll over in his grave yadayadayada. How about we deal with the here and now, Ronald is long dead and isn't going to rise from the ashes to help anything. So pretty much what I'm saying is find a better solution then Ronald must be rolling in his grave, or Jimmy Carter looks like Patten. I mean really what did your comments do to enlighten the subject matter??

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 11:10 AM
Do people really believe having a strong nuclear deterrent is the same as wanting to nuke someone?


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

Couldn't agree more Heretic. I think it's about time America did what it used to and took a stand, especially against these two countries (and their leaders) that I DO see as being tyrannical and that don't seem to be getting the world message.

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 11:16 AM
reply to post by Anjin

Agree with you as well, basically Obama is saying that this isn't the course of action anyone wants to take but if need be we will. These countries need to understand if their going to keep pushing that someone will eventually push back!

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 11:17 AM

for the love of Pete.

Drop em already.

I'm tired of paying taxes.

Google Video Link

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 11:23 AM
Think of a second please...!

Who is going to wage war against a nuclear capable country..? The cold war experience was the good example of this kind of politics..! Does anyone still remember the good old USSR and the USA and their relationships..?

In the world we are living in with the hundreds of thousands of conventional firearm makers around it, a profitable market is damn important. In nuclear wars both sides will lose, since there will be no winners, there will be no profit to collect! So stop the nukes will be a popular politic and topic of the day!

Stopping the nuclear weapons, then you most probably supporting conventional weapon industries, bloodier that the last one! Because you can not stop the wars, with nukes you can delay it though.

This little peace we all enjoying since the WW2 is blessing from having NUKES, not the other way!

That’s my 2 cents anyway…!

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 11:46 AM
When Obama was running for President all his zombies said "He's for change" But they could never not once tell me what that meant.

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 11:49 AM
I totally oppose this idea of Obama, i mean seriously, what if some country attack us?! Also, what if some aliens try to attack and we are left with no weapon ( crazy theory but plausible) and again what if some meteor is heading right towards earth and we got no weapon to blow that up?!

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 12:27 PM
How are we supposed to defend our country if we can't blow up the world? The socialist-crats are taking our nukes! Impeach Obama!

/end obvious sarcasm

Originally posted by Ufokrazy
I totally oppose this idea of Obama, i mean seriously, what if some country attack us?!

Then we play fair and use conventional weapons. Just because someone does it to us, does not make it right to do to them. If the Soviets were to have launched on all our major cities we would have done the same, even though we would be screwed anyways and our backlash would just be in hateful spite.

The killing of innocent people does not it right to kill even more innocent people.

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 12:31 PM
reply to post by Ufokrazy

You don't blow up a meteor with nuclear weapons, it just makes things worse. If another country attacks you, defend yourselves. No one is stupid enough to do so anyway, nukes or no nukes. And if aliens want to take over, you can be sure that nukes won't stop them. I can't believe I just wrote that last sentence.

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 12:35 PM
I saw this on Foxnews. It is the only thing I agree with Obama about. The fact that he wants to limit nuclear weapon use to only if threatened or in retaliation to a nuclear attack.

But officials said the goal is to move toward a policy where the "sole purpose" of nuclear weapons is to deter or respond to a nuclear attack.

There is no need to use nuclear weapons on nations that don't have them. The area affected can not be used for hundreds of years. Why do that to anyone. Plus it is not like a nation without nuclear weapons would attack us, they know that we would crush them.

Its like Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto said when they attacked Pearl Harbor. "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant."

[edit on 6-4-2010 by Pajjikor]

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 12:38 PM
The United States needs to lead the way in disarmament, and it needs to lead by example as it has always done. The current policy justifying the use of nuclear arms is too broad. It makes us just as bad as anyone that would use them for their own personal gain.

Nuclear disarmament in this world CAN NOT WAIT.

Congratulations to Obama, for putting this world one small step in the right direction.

[edit on 6-4-2010 by Takamuri]

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 12:46 PM

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!!!!

You seem to not understand that it invites others to nuke us because they now know that we won't launch nukes back. Remember if we are ever attacked by nukes (which is NOT impossible) i want you to go to ats and say that again and see if you don't get burned.

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 12:48 PM

Originally posted by red_d
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.

...and just what power would attack the US with conventional weapons, pray tell? Again, what do you mean by "retaliation"?

I frankly can't imagine that the US would use nukes against a non-nuclear adversary under ANY president, because this would alienate the rest of the world for the next 200+ years and require that every American sees a shrink twice a week for the rest of their lives (this does not include people who can't think, which are unfortunately many).

So, a little piece of rhetoric from Obama causes accusations of treason... My Lord... You cursed this country with stupidity.

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 01:00 PM
... and lets not forget the little fact that If the US struck a country with a nuclear missile, that country would have the moral support of the whole rest of the world.
But if you go in with conventional weapons, killing them just as dead, you can get folks to lend a hand, even in "shoot back first" scenarios like Iraq.

I also got to admit I must have missed the movie were Reagan played a Saint. Thought he just played the President.

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 01:02 PM
**Key the sinister music***

In the back of my head I have the sneaky idea that the US may now have a weapon that is "non-nuclear" and very powerful we could use on a country if needed. What is the possibility of that? Seems palusible to me, but what do I know. Could be a HAARP weapon or even some kind of special EMP bomb, who knows what we are capable of coming up with. It would be hard to come up with a weapon like that but the question is did we actually do it.

**Stop the sinister music now**

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 01:14 PM
reply to post by Mirthful Me

Dude, if the US got hit with multiple Nukes we wouldn't be having elections. We wouldn't have electricity, the internet. The first blast would be a high altitude detonation which would wipe out all electrical countrywide. Except for a few hardened bunkers. No electricity to pump the gas at gas stations. No desiel to power the trucks bringing in groceries, the list goes on and on and on.

Heck it would be survival of the fittest, and just finding something to eat that wasn't full of hard radiation and something to drink that isn't contaminated and a place to sleep will be the #3 things to keep a person going for another day.

After Nukes go off elections will be the farthest thing on anyones mind.

You really have no idea what a atomic detonation does do you...
Go read some, watch stuff, Learn.

It was the worst day of human history when they developed the first atomic weapon. I know it was to shorten World War II. But the cost...
of human lives was unimagined..

There are thosands of nukes worldwide enough to kill everyone 100x over, its really a pointless weapon. for only the insane would use it on another.

If I could Id gather all the nukes of the world up and launch them into the sun, then make it a death sentence for anyone caught building the weapons. Then we could go back to the old fashion ways of warfare.

Is a traditionalist..

::holds up his sword with a grin::

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 01:31 PM
You know, my first thought here was, "Hey, this is good, we all hate nuclear war, being such a hassle and all, what with having to live in a post-apocalyptic wasteland afterwards". Although I did like the Fallout games, admittedly.

Then, I realized, this is some pretty dumb # to say publicly. Or incredibly good, depending on your disposition. Inviting to attacks of specific kind, and all that. Of course, we all know stupidity isn't a factor when it comes to the Powers That Be and their plans. That leaves us to believe there is a specific intention with this blunder.

[edit on 6-4-2010 by David_Reale]

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 01:36 PM

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!!!!

I agree with you 100% for many may be ok with this country using them but would hate to feel the pain involved ALL THEY DO IS MAKE EARTH LOOK LIKE SATANS FRONT YARD, EXECELENT POST!!!!!!

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 01:42 PM
Many of you guys that bash Obama are so blinded it's sad , but if you are slow enough to believe that the president actually runs the country then that is to be expected. You whine and complain about him not bringing the troops home from the 2 wars that were started while the last cowboy puppet was in office , and in the same breath you cry how we need nukes to be safe. Stop fear mongering. The reality of the situation is that we are not under threat from any state that doesn't have the bomb in the 1st place. Except for those 2 douche bag countries. We haven't been attacked by any state in more than 50 years because the world sees what we do to those countries that mind their own business. Team America comes in and starts kicking down doors. I'm sure they could imagine what we would do to an actual threat.

That's the image that we want to get away from & I think this new policy paints us in a better light. If you knew anything about our nuclear policy prior to today, you would know that not much has changed fundamentally. Strategically Nukes are used for Mutually Assured Destruction. " I've got the bomb , you've got the bomb if you press the button... then i will too and all this S*** is over" Nukes are not offensive weapons , and the only time they were used in that function was by us anyway.

I think that we need to get away from relying so heavily on nukes anyway. The face of war has changed, the days of attrition warfare have been over since WWII for us. We're in the days of the 3 block war , and the threats that we are going to face in the future will be specialized. We've been using drones more and more overseas during this administration and I think that reflects the change in strategy.

Please don't think that I'm some Pacifist. I was in the Corps & I worked in the 2 shop , so I have a decent understanding of these things. I do understand that sometimes war is a necessary evil and a certain level of collateral damage is to be expected. But I am and have always been against cooking civilians en masse with nukes. Non combatants didn't sign up for it and in most cases don't have a say in their nations policies in the 1st place (In that regard we are no different).

But for all of you misinformed persons that believe this new policy is going to make us "less safe" , these assumptions simply illustrate your ignorance on the subject as a whole. Try this , this might help your small brain housing group comprehend the changes better. In the future when you read articles about Obama's new nuclear arms policy. Trade the Name Obama with Reagan as you read it , Then maybe that will make you feel safe knowing that good ol' daddy Reagan is taking are of you.

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in