We have enough nukes to literally destroy the entire planet. For anyone to use nukes as a offensive or defensive weapon would assure total annihilation. The sooner the world gets rid of them, the better off we'll be.
Ultimately, this is being done to put more pressure on Iran.
I read the article on a dem and also a conservative news site. Both essentially say the same thing, that is, that Obama intends to move toward a new policy that would take nukes off the table as a weapon to be used, even in self defense. Exception is made for Iran and N. Korea. So, what do you make of this? Is our President now saying that if we were attacked by nukes, that he would not retaliate in kind?
Surely this can't be so, can it?
After all, in the thinking of globalist "citizens of the world" our country is in no way unique and worthy of preservation.
We have enough nukes to literally destroy the entire planet. For anyone to use nukes as a offensive or defensive weapon would assure total annihilation. The sooner the world gets rid of them, the better off we'll be.
Ultimately, this is being done to put more pressure on Iran.
Well ok, if there were no nukes in the world, I would be perfectly happy. But, the fact is there are nukes. The fact is, there are crazies who might one day drop one on your house. I wonder what your response would be if a nuke was dropped on the US?
...and did so unprovoked, then I think we should blow them back to the stone age. And we could do that with or without nukes.
However, we have to consider that we have so many nukes that we can literally destory Earth. I'm not talking about fuck things up really badly. I'm talking about, as in there's no more Earth. I'm talking about pebbles in space.
And that's just what WE have. To boot, our nuke stockpile is aging. How safe are they from a malfunctioning deployment?
We need to work with everyone around the globe to eliminate as many nukes as possible. I'd prefer the US to have a dozen or so in reserve, but we do not need thousands of them. Nobody does. The fact that crazies exist in every country, and human error also exists, then just having that many is a very serious risk of all life on this planet.
But if they attack us with bio agents and kill most of the pop the idiot Obammessiah says a nuke will not be used and takes that option off the table letting our enemies know , pure genius .
As Sec. Gates said today, the new nuclear policy could change if a nation used bio-weapons against us. So it doesn't take it off the table.
What this does is that it puts increased pressure on Iran to abandon their nuclear ambitions, in order to get the promise that we will not attack them. It's a smart move politically.
I think the only biological agent that poses any threat would probably be small pox, and the only people who have access to that is the United States and Russia.
They'd realize that deploying and bio/chem agent to effectively destroy a sizeable population is a tremendous military technological and logistical challenge. Nuke far exceeds bio-chem in terms of ease of use, technology and effectiveness.
Back in the days of the cold war, the possibility of WWIII was a distinct possibility. Nowdays, that threat is almost non-existant. Russia is a non-issue, and global economies are so tied together these days that a nuclear attack from anyone capable of doing so would not be in their best interest. For instance, we owe China too much money for them to attack us.
The REAL nuclear threat these days comes from the possibility of a "dirty bomb" being smuggled into this country and detonated on-site rather than being delivered by an ICBM. And the people who would use a dirty bomb aren't the type to be deterred by the threat of retaliation... if fact they'd welcome the "end of days".
Also, the articles said that we'd take the use of nuclear weapons "off of the table". It doesn't say anything about getting rid of them.
That being said, I see no advantage of instituting that policy; what do we have to gain by announcing that we won't use nuclear weapons?? I don't believe it will make us any less safe, but then again, I don't see it making us any safer. So why do it??
Indeed, and the idiotic policy is only designed to make Obama look good 
...it's all media hype.
Consider, if "dirty" bombs were so dangerous, wouldn't someone have used them by now?
Saddam tried to develop a dirty bomb. You know what he found out? They don't work.
The US Energy Dept. found out the same thing. The explosion would disperse the radiation to a degree that it would be at safe levels. You'd get more radiation from an X ray then from a dirty bomb.
In fact, it's so ridiculous, that in order for someone to die from the radiation of a dirty bomb, the bomb would have to go off in an area where there is no wind, the debris would never be cleaned up, and you'd have to stand where the bomb went off for an entire year. Then, and only then, could you get sick enough to die from the radiation.
the signatories are the ones exempted from nuclear retaliation. LOL
Non Proliferation Treaty -notwithstanding that it lacks nuclear weapons - and this probably has something to do with the UN complaints that Iran has violated the treaty and Iran's periodic threats to withdraw from the treaty. I beleive that there are a couple of protocols Iran has refused to sign but otherwise they are bound by the treaty.
Israel -which does have nuclear weapons - is NOT a signatory of the NPT. Yet, while Israel gets slammed for everything else, our government seems to give them a pass on the NPT. Somehow XIA has snoozed through this one as there absolutely is no justification for this failure or our disparate treatment of the two nations for that matter.
-- Modified on 4/6/2010 7:27:10 PM
So why were they saying N. Korea and Iran exempt from BHO's decision?
If Israel attacks us with WMD, is Obama now in the clear to nuk'em?
Rush is generally uniformed. Let's not confuse our respective heros.
But a lot of people make that mistake. I've just never understood how on principal we can sanction Iran for violating the treaty while looking the other way at Israel's failure to sign the treaty.
Still applies to N Korea
Post the links to the sites and let people make up their own minds. That is those other than braying ones that already have their minds made up.
Anyone with half a brain realizes that to truly eradicate any weapon, system, or tactic, requires the development, deployment and demonstration of an effective countermeasure which renders the system in question null.
Anything else is crap.
Crappy idea I agree but the only logical one right now.
Weapons are a tool. No more or less. If you don't want someone to use their tool on you, you need to render it ineffective.
For instance, honor is a tool. its been professed, acknowledged and held as an ideal for millenia. It is quickly discarded if winning a conflict warrants its abolishment.