[tomder55]

Well it's not that bad... yet... but

President Obama will make an new policy about our use of nuclear weapons . Gone is the ambiguity of a deterrent policy where a President would not officially declare any restriction of the use of nuclear weapons .

The President's new policy according to the Slimes On Line is that we will not respond with a nuclear attack in the event of a chemical or biological WMD attack on the US or it's troops ;so long as the nation attacking us adheres to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty (NPT ).

In an interview with The New York Times ahead of the unveiling of his much anticipated revamped nuclear policy, Mr Obama said an exception would be made for “outliers like Iran and North Korea” that have violated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

But in a striking departure from the position taken by his predecessors, he said that the US would explicitly commit for the first time to not using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states that adhere to the nuclear treaty, even if they attack with biological or chemical weapons.

Obama to limit use of nuclear weapons - Times Online

Will we now see our potential adversaries in future conflicts make the same declaration ? Don't hold your breath.

The reasons against this policy are obvious . There was always that doubt in the back of the minds of potiential adversaries that the US would unleash the dogs. They had to put that into the calculation even though in practice nukes hadn't been used since the end of WWII .

Does our enemies now add to their calculation that they can attack us with chemical and biological WMD and not fear the mushroom shaped cloud ? Possibly . Prior to Desert Storm , the U.S. let it be known publicly and in direct private communications with Saddam that the Iraqi use of WMD would be met with another form of WMD.

Would that make a CBW attack on the US more likely . Yes . Is it probable that a CWB attack on a major US city will occure ? DHS thinks so and is preparing for it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/23/us/23helium.html

And what of our allies who have relied on the protection of the US nuclear umbrella ? Now their enemies also know that there are conditions the US will not use their nukes. Will this decision come into calculation when deciding on continuing this relationship with the US... or perhaps will they now determine to go it alone and break the NPT themselves ?

[Curlyben]

So basically The USA won't use it's REALLY BIG STICK, if the other side has signed a piece of paper and doesn't have it's own sticks.
Yep that makes total sense ;)

[tomder55]

What if the other side has them big sticks and is in compliance with the NPT ? We shouldn't have a nuclear reply or the option to use it in response to a CBW attack?

Why should we suject ourselves to WMD attack that could potentially kill 10s of thousands and handcuff our response ?

[Curlyben]

Exactly.

[excon]

Hello tom:

I don't disagree with anything you said.

excon

[smoothy]

At least we have our Second amendment rights...

And our guns that will keep anyone from taking them away.

And the Clock is ticking... less than three years to go before we get someone else in office, that has a clue about reality, and the real world.

[tomder55]

Here is this morning's IBD editorial on this issue .

Aiming at a world where nuclear weapons are obsolete, the administration's nuclear posture review leaves a world without American nuclear weapons and the backbone to use them.

After his stunning bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941, Japanese Adm. Isoroku Yamamoto lamented that all that had been accomplished was to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.

Under policies announced by the Obama administration, a devastating chemical or biological attack on this country might merely awaken our very own Hamlet and fill him with a terrible sense of angst.

We have said before that rather than strive for a world without nuclear weapons, we should strive for a world without enemies willing to use them against us. Our retaliatory power should be unquestioned, as should be our willingness to use it. President Reagan called this proven and successful policy peace through strength. It has been replaced by a hair-splitting policy of nuance.

The U.S. is now promising not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, even if they attack America with biological or chemical weapons or launch a paralyzing cyberattack.

This is good news for our enemies to know — they can wipe out much of New York City, but as long as their signature is on that piece of paper, their capital is safe from becoming a pile of irradiated rubble. We are not making this up.

In this nuclear posture, which can best be described as slouching in a recliner, we renounce the development of any new nuclear weapons, thus ensuring the aging of our nuclear deterrent into obsolescence and irrelevance.

And we'll be getting rid of some old ones — the long-range, nuclear-capable Tomahawk cruise missile, for example.

Our arsenal is to shrink by thousands of nuclear weapons, and we'll restrict the instances in which their use is an option. Worse yet, we'll tell our enemies when and if we will use them, eliminating the ambiguity that has helped keep us safe. Under President George W. Bush, our posture reserved the right to use nuclear weapons "to deter a wide range of threats," including biological and chemical attack.

President Obama will sign a U.S.-Russian arms treaty in Prague on Thursday and host a nuclear security summit in Washington next week. The administration says the treaty will scale back the number of deployed long-range warheads by 30%. Obama pledges we will "reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy." Unfortunately, he will reduce our national security as well.

There used to be a policy called mutual assured destruction, or MAD, by which war among the superpowers would be deterred by the ability of each to survive and still devastate each other. This new policy is just plain mad, without the deterrence, making conflict more likelier.

President Kennedy once said, and rightly so, that only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt could we be certain beyond doubt that they would never be employed. Reagan won the Cold War and pushed the Evil Empire into the ash heap of history through a policy of peace through strength. He announced the Strategic Defense Initiative, built a 600-ship Navy and put Pershing missiles in Europe.

Our potential enemies have not stood still. As Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, points out, Moscow is on track toward upgrading 80% of its strategic forces. It routinely conducts underground, hydrodynamic tests that Obama considers impermissible under the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty we religiously observe.

In his Prague speech last year, Obama spoke of "America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons," ignoring the fact that before 1945 we lived in such a world and it was neither peaceful nor secure.

We'd prefer that the security of the American people be entrusted to an American military ready to respond with overwhelming force to any attack from any source, rather than pieces of parchment and the goodwill of our enemies.

Obamalateral Disarmament - Investors.com

[paraclete]

Ah well just remember those famous words peace in our time

[inthebox]

In the schoolyards of my youth, there was an unwritten rule if you were going to fight someone;

No friends [ one on one ], no weapons, no below the belt stuff etc...
The reality is that knowing you are going into a fight, there are no rules when you want to win or have to win.

Is a self defense instructor going to tell a 100 pound woman what she can and cannot due to survive?

Obama really has no clue.


G&P

[smoothy]

In the schoolyards of my youth, there was an unwritten rule if you were going to fight someone;

no friends [ one on one ], no weapons, no below the belt stuff etc...
the reality is that knowing you are going into a fight, there are no rules when you want to win or have to win.

Is a self defense instructor going to tell a 100 pound woman what she can and cannot due to survive?

Obama really has no clue.


G&P

Exactly... you don't agree to what you can't or won't do... then let the other guy do anything he wants. Because they will, if they agree to anything else or not.

And if you pick a fight with someone a lot bigger than you, don't expect him to agree to have an arm tied behind his back to level the field. And if the other guy is smaller, you don't blinfold yourself, or tie your shoes together to make it more fair for him. You fight on equal terms... and if that's not fair to you, then don't get into the fight at all.

You pick the fight with a bigger or stronger opponent... then you take your chances that you will get your butt kicked... and kicked bad.