Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms

reply to post by oozyism


It is abundantly clear you are incapable of intelligent discourse. I'm not sure what clouds your logic and masks your reasoning other than utter contempt of America. You feign constructive dialogue as witnessed by your exchanges with other intelligent posters.

For the reasons above, for the first time ever, I'm giving you the ATS hang up, bye now.
Dial tone.................................................

[edit on 7-4-2010 by kinda kurious]

Seems quite a few people missed the day in school when they covered reading comprehension.

First off, we are not going nuke free, just getting rid of a few. Fine with me, we dont' need 12,000 and they are expensive to keep.

It is just changing some of the standards gauged on the use of a nuke. And here is an answer to some of the elementary knee jerk reactions:

1) not nuking countries that don't have nuclear capabilities.

Some of you cried that another country could supply them. That is what intelligence is for. And I am pretty sure that teh guys , like the five star generals, who are consultants, have thought of that. Intelligence would easily find who supplied the nukes...period.


2) this will leave us vulnverable. The US could cut its military spending in half and it is still twice as much as the next country; China. We don't have a lack of weaponry, and supplies. We are quite ok, I assure you.


And I agree with the previous poster that all this whiney about losing some nukes that it makes us vulnerable only makes you look paranoid and doesn't reflect well.



It is called the Department of Defense. Not the department of Offense.

The style is being changed to preventive warfare. Instead of waiting to be hit, you stop the attack in the first place. Just like you don't spend all your energy on removing viruses from your computer, you have anti-virus software to keep them from happening in the first place.

Better to stop an attack then to have an attack happen and have to retaliate.


3) no one likes a drama queen. cut it out.

We never do any of what we say we will do. At the beginning of WWII we said we would never bomb civilian populations. We changed that and bombed millions.

This doesn't mean anything, do you honestly think the government follows its own laws? We haven't even declared war, and suddenly you think this paper promise means we wouldn't use nukes if we were nuked?

Let's not be naive, people.

Originally posted by earthdude
We never do any of what we say we will do. At the beginning of WWII we said we would never bomb civilian populations. We changed that and bombed millions.

We don't intentionally bomb civilians though...the cowards cuddle around civilians because they know we won't bomb them...and when we do we are viewed as murderers. I'm against the war(s), but I wish people would stop demonizing our military.

[edit on 7-4-2010 by yellowcard]

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!

This borders on rational moderate policy!

C'mon...be serious.

He is offering an incentive to foriegn governments to abandon thier nuclear proliferation efforts...at a time when developing nuclear weapons is relatively cheap and easy for these countries. Syria gave it a shot last year before Israel bombed the facility.

Under what scenario do you see the US launching a nuclear attack (as opposed to our overflowing stockpiles of conventional weapons) against a nation that doesn't have nuclear capability?

Biological weapons that might spread widely, quickly and kill indiscrimanetly?

White House officials said the new strategy would include the option of reconsidering the use of nuclear retaliation against a biological attack, if the development of such weapons reached a level that made the United States vulnerable to a devastating strike.

No country is going to decide that it is now a good idea to attack the US, since they won't get nuked...really...we have enough convential bombs to obliterate any nation short of Russia and China...and they are still on our Nuclear can do list.

I can't find any logic in the spin you put on this OP...Agenda yes...logic, no.



[edit on 7-4-2010 by maybereal11]

"It is my fervent goal and hope…that we will some day no longer have to rely on nuclear weapons to deter aggression and assure world peace. To that end the United States is now engaged in a serious and sustained effort to negotiate major reductions in levels of offensive nuclear weapons with the ultimate goal of eliminating these weapons from the face of the earth." Ronald Reagan, October 20, 1986

"We seek the elimination one day of nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth."
- Ronald Reagan, Inaugural Address, January 21, 1985

Source

Hmmmmmmm. Sounds more like the fantasy of a Liberal Dreamer than the hero of the Republican party. And how is THAT sentiment any different than this?:

"Just as we stood for freedom in the 20th century, we must stand together for the right of people everywhere to live free from fear in the 21st century. And as nuclear power –- as a nuclear power, as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act. We cannot succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it, we can start it." - President Barack Obama, April 5, 2009


Perhaps some would rather dream while others actually take action.






[edit on 7-4-2010 by kinda kurious]

reply to post by ladyinwaiting

Okay, then help me to understand. How are thermonuclear warheads a good thing ?

I would like to see them completely as obsolete, and to future generations as something people made once upon a time that proved to be very heinous contraptions, and were consequently gotten rid of when humanity came to it's senses. Better for everybody if they had never been invented.

This is my position. I applaud and celebrate anyone who has the guts to step up and start recognizing this, while putting their policies where their beliefs are.

Unless, of course, you also believe Hiroshima was a good thing.
If you do, please explain why.

I have given reasons here why I support the recent decision of the President.

Now, please give reasons why you believe these weapons are good things to maintain.

However, if you believe it is okay to indiscriminately mass murder huge numbers of people and destroy our planet in the process, then it's true that you and I have nothing left to discuss on this forum.

We are only beating a dead thermonuclear weapon, er I mean horse. I gather from some of your posts above, you prefer them because they are cheap and efficient?

ZZZ never seen anyone misunderstand my posts this much, me and you are in the same side, the difference is you are believing a lier whose profession it is to lie, hence Obama..

I agree that Nukes should be abolished, but I don't regard this as a baby step, he is still saying he will use it, he is not saying he will reduce it, infact they been saying they will reduce it for a long time now, just to keep people like you happy, ofcurse that is their job, to keep the masses happy.. While they do their dirty work..

Let me elaborate, Bush was the bad cop, Obama is the good cop, but they are both in the same side.. Bush made the American public very increasing with policies such as these:

A nuclear draft doctrine written by the Pentagon calls for maintaining an aggressive nuclear posture with weapons on high alert to strike adversaries armed with weapons of mass destruction (WMD), pre-emptively if necessary.

Obama is just tuning it down alittle bit so people like you can become happy again, and once you are happy, trust me, you will see that all this was mere show..

It has happened many times before, I expect an ATS member to learn from the PAST..

Hey remember how people were pissed in regards to Guantanamo? Obama toned it down alittle bit, but then once people got happy, what happened?

People up the ladder know if you stall something long enough, people will forget.. It is a sad fact, people have forgotten, people have forgotten the fact that many many promises were given by Bush in regards to Iraq withdrawal, date after date, yes you got fouled, yes even I got fouled, but I won't be fouled hundreds of times, that would simply mean I'm F@CKEN BRAINWASHED..

I found this just for you, so you don't think I'm just talking trash:

On November 13, President George W. Bush pledged to reduce the deployed U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal to between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads over the next 10 years, prompting Russian President Vladimir Putin to say that Russia would try to “respond in kind.”

www.armscontrol.org...

[edit on 7-4-2010 by oozyism]

Originally posted by kinda kurious
reply to post by oozyism

 

It is abundantly clear you are incapable of intelligent discourse. I'm not sure what clouds your logic and masks your reasoning other than utter contempt of America. You feign constructive dialogue as witnessed by your exchanges with other intelligent posters.

For the reasons above, for the first time ever, I'm giving you the ATS hang up, bye now.
Dial tone.................................................

[edit on 7-4-2010 by kinda kurious]

STOP embarrassing yourself, your credibility dropped right here.. This thread..

Good day to you sir.

Originally posted by oozyism
People up the ladder know if you stall something long enough, people will forget.. It is a sad fact, people have forgotten, people have forgotten the fact that many many promises were given by Bush in regards to Iraq withdrawal, date after date, yes you got fouled, yes even I got fouled, but I won't be fouled hundreds of times, that would simply mean I'm F@CKEN BRAINWASHED..

EERRRR!!!!.....


Wrong!

This is just the latest in a long line of reduction talks spanning more than 30 years started Probably before you were born OOZ.

Let's START at the beginning shall we?

Once upon a time on a planet not so far away...

There were TWO very bad boys. The US and the USSR who between them had enough firepower to destroy the planet 1000 times over.

SALT Strategic Arms Limitation Talks


The rest as they say is history. Or is it?...





[edit on 7-4-2010 by SLAYER69]

reply to post by SLAYER69


Say way to go slayer, most people dont understand the world... Or the past.... everything isnt black or white, just because Barry might not want to drop the bomb desnt mean someone else wont.... If we could get rid of all nukes it would be great but I dont think it will happen.... Its a power thing.

And today , fresh off the press, Obama signs a document with his Russian counterpart, which means that both nations will be reducing their nuclear weapon stocks by thirty percent over seven years.
I applaud Obama , for taking the hand of Russia in doing this deal. Its been a hell of a long time coming but there you go.
This is the way all these big stand offs SHOULD go down. Both parties just backing up a step and realising the blood flowing in thier veins is all the same flavour.
Now, if we could just focus a little bit on the positives? Russia and America have 90% of the nuclear weapons on the planet, so no matter what either nation does, they will still have the biggest sticks. Further more, with America promoting a more responsible attitude to the use of nuclear weapons, all I see is a chance for the rest of the world to look at the tale of the cold war, and realise what a great thing it is NOT to have to bother with DECADES of political bull, JUST to agree to get rid of the damn things !

reply to post by TrueBrit


It is only a piece of paper!! And contained within this this treaty is a back door that enables Russia to opt out of the treaty if they ever feel threatened by a US Missile Defense system. Much like the ones that we wanted to deploy in the Czech Republic.

Watch out for those back doors!! This one appears to be a revolving one.

BTW I don't recall seeing a back door for the US to opt out in this treaty.

[edit on 8-4-2010 by jibeho]

reply to post by SLAYER69

5968 deployed warheads as defined by START rules

seriously you tell me, what kind of psycho thinks they need 5968 nuclear bombs to win a war ^^..

They have enough weapons, they just came to their senses that we don't need all deployed ^^

This is not about riding the world of nuclear weapons but a show as I said before..

Originally posted by Mirthful Me


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

Absolutely. I am always suprised when posters seem to have issue that a Mod has an opinion. Mods are people too.

For me... I welcome mods political opinions...I am just dissapointed that a Mod would engage in a "hit" piece,
spin an article...
toss out words like Treason etc.
Fly thier bias flag proudly...
and then RUN from the thread when direct and logical questions were asked...avoiding any debate what-so-ever about SUBSTANCE.

That kind of intellectual behavior is always dissapointing, but more so comming from a Mod who is assumed to be an authority in fair and rational debate.

[edit on 9-4-2010 by maybereal11]

reply to post by maybereal11


Posts like that are why you have been "Friended" since I read your very first post. Thanks for the clarity as per usual.

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

5968 deployed warheads as defined by START rules

seriously you tell me, what kind of psycho thinks they need 5968 nuclear bombs to win a war ^^..

They have enough weapons, they just came to their senses that we don't need all deployed ^^

This is not about riding the world of nuclear weapons but a show as I said before..

First, Oozy, you DO know the difference between 'tactical' nukes and 'strategic' nukes, right? If you don't you should get back on your homework. While you're at it, try to ascertain just how many of each type are included in that 5968 figure. Hint 1: BOTH types are 'deployed', hint 2: there is a vast difference in destructive power.

Second, you're right about one thing, it's NOT about ridding the world of nuclear weapons, it's about ridding the US of nuclear weapons, and giving the adversaries of the US a decided advantage.

It's about weakening the US, not making the world safe for children and other living things. It will make the world decidedly LESS safe, put the US at a disadvantage, and allow all the chaos that generally ensues in such a situation.

What kind of psycho thinks Obama has the power to disarm our enemies by disarming US? Not all the kids in the sandbox play nice, as some folks would like.

Third, for everyone, watch what the left hand is doing while they're waving around the right hand to get your attention with all this nuclear disarmament BS that just suddenly came back up out of the blue. I'm telling you right now that I think something is up, something in the offing, and they're only trying to distract folks with this nonsense. Nuclear destruction is WAY down the list of current dangers, and there's no logical reason to be placing this much attention on it.

Originally posted by nenothtu
...watch what the left hand is doing while they're waving around the right hand to get your attention with all this nuclear disarmament BS that just suddenly came back up out of the blue. I'm telling you right now that I think something is up, something in the offing, and they're only trying to distract folks with this nonsense.

FACT CHECK Chief.

This was a campaign promise KEPT. This is nothing new. He campaigned on it.

Barack Obama Campaign Promise No. 197:
Stand down nuclear forces to be reduced under the Moscow Treaty

Under the new treaty, the U.S. and Russia would reduce their number of deployed nuclear warheads to 1,550 warheads, 30% lower than the deployed strategic warhead limit of the Moscow Treaty.

.....Obama is making progress toward well exceeding the goals set out in his campaign.
This continues to be a Promise Kept.

Source

Nuclear destruction is WAY down the list of current dangers, and there's no logical reason to be placing this much attention on it.

What "list" are you referring to? The less nukes the better IMHO. We already have enough to destroy the world 10 times over. Any overall reduction globally is a good start. Many feel it wasn't enough. Who knows, it could even avert a self-inflicted accidental detonation on our own soil. With or without provocation.


[edit on 12-4-2010 by kinda kurious]

Originally posted by kinda kurious

FACT CHECK Chief.

This was a campaign promise KEPT. This is nothing new. He campaigned on it.

Barack Obama Campaign Promise No. 197:
Stand down nuclear forces to be reduced under the Moscow Treaty

Under the new treaty, the U.S. and Russia would reduce their number of deployed nuclear warheads to 1,550 warheads, 30% lower than the deployed strategic warhead limit of the Moscow Treaty.

.....Obama is making progress toward well exceeding the goals set out in his campaign.
This continues to be a Promise Kept.

Source

I stand corrected. Evidently this sleight of hand was planned for way ahead of time. I still maintain, however, that there are far more immediate threats to worry about, and find it curious that this particular issue is what's up for the agenda at the moment.

Also, I'm going to assume your use of the word 'Chief' was not intended as a racial slur.

Nuclear destruction is WAY down the list of current dangers, and there's no logical reason to be placing this much attention on it.

What "list" are you referring to?

I thought it was pretty clear what I typed - the list of current dangers, of course!

The less nukes the better IMHO.

Hard to argue with that. Who gets the task of convincing the OTHER folks to put theirs up, too? Do you suppose they'll just do it out of the kindness of their hearts, and their general good will for humanity?

We already have enough to destroy the world 10 times over.

Not the first time I've heard THAT particular bit of misinformation. I find it a curious and quaint thought. How, pray tell, would the word be destroyed '10 times over'? Who's going to rebuild it after the first couple of times it gets 'destroyed', much less the tenth?

Furthermore, just how much planet-destroying nuclear capability do you think this backwards planet has? One would think it would take a considerable amount of explosive force to crack an egg the size of a planet. The physics of the situation just doesn't support that premise.

We currently haven't enough firepower to destroy even just the human race, much less an entire planet. Well, we COULD destroy the human race, if we could get everyone to stand still in a small circular area while we dropped everything on that area. I'm willing to bet there would be some folks who just wouldn't want to go along with that plan.

As an exercise, determine the yields of all available current nukes, and figure the destruction they could wreak if unleashed, keeping in mind that the damage potential increases as the cube root of the yield, not linearly.

I think you'll be surprised when you do that.

Your argument above is the same one propagated in the 80's, mostly to scare children up to college age. I know it spooked ME, which is why I did the math for myself.

After that, this particular argument was pretty ineffective.

It might thoroughly inconvenience some city or other that you have a particular fondness for, but it would hardly 'destroy the world', much less 10 times over.

Any overall reduction globally is a good start. Many feel it wasn't enough.

Agreed, an overall reduction globally WOULD be a good start. A unilateral one, not so much.

The hypocrisy that you accuse others of being uninformed is hilarious.


[edit on 12-4-2010 by kinda kurious]

Perhaps so, but I at least did my homework on all things dangerously nuclear before I started out with fairy tales to scare the children with.

reply to post by nenothtu


Thanks for retracting your erroneous claim. It is rare and refreshing.

Originally posted by nenothtu
Also, I'm going to assume your use of the word 'Chief' was not intended as a racial slur.

No disrespect. I know nothing of you personally but your Avatar states "Chief of Security." If anything it was a mild case of sense of humor failure. Sorry if you read it as anything more.

Furthermore, just how much planet-destroying nuclear capability do you think this backwards planet has?.....As an exercise, determine the yields of all available current nukes, and figure the destruction they could wreak if unleashed,

Perhaps you missed my link at top of page 2. 50 Facts about US Nuclear weapons

Perhaps so, but I at least did my homework on all things dangerously nuclear before I started out with fairy tales to scare the children with.

And I mine. Thanks for containing your mischaracterizations of my post to single digits. I think a nuke blast might do a tad more than "inconvenience" a city. I'll keep my umbrella handy just in case.

More unbiased data here

MAD yet?

Perhaps we are in more agreement than each other realizes.

Good day.



[edit on 13-4-2010 by kinda kurious]