Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 118

Thread: Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms

  1. #11
    Familiaist


    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Last Seen
    11-16-16 @ 09:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    7,470

    Re: Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms

    I think it's just a show.

    If an American President were to use a nuclear arm, then it wouldn't be in response to anything planned.
    "I do not underestimate the ability of fanatical groups of terrorists to kill and destroy, but they do not threaten the life of the nation. Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive al-Qa'ida." -- Lord Hoffmann

  2. #12
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,277

    Re: Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms

    You don't make your nuke plans public.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  3. #13
    Familiaist


    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Last Seen
    11-16-16 @ 09:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    7,470

    Re: Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms

    And why not?
    "I do not underestimate the ability of fanatical groups of terrorists to kill and destroy, but they do not threaten the life of the nation. Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive al-Qa'ida." -- Lord Hoffmann

  4. #14
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    05-13-11 @ 09:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    4,075
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms

    Obama does

  5. #15
    User
    Chappy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    04-07-15 @ 01:50 AM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    2,443
    Blog Entries
    26

    Re: Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms

    NATO defense plans included first use of nuclear weapons against invading Soviet forces. America has always refused to commit to no first use until today. Barack Obama is once again changing the course of history and we are better for it.
    “Real environmentalists live in cities, and they visit what's left of the wilderness as gently and respectfully as possible.” — Donna Moulton, letter to the editor, Tucson Weekly, published on August 23, 2001

  6. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms

    I think the policy is well intended, but it has no teeth. If the U.S. wants to nuke another country and the general public are on the bandwagon, then it's going to get done.

    I don't think any strategy was revealed. He left out the key nations who would be the most likely to call the American bluff. Gotta keep the deterrent in place, after all.

  7. #17
    Guru
    Councilman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Riverside, County, CA.
    Last Seen
    11-04-11 @ 10:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,454
    Blog Entries
    10

    Re: Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms

    Bio weapons can kill millions or at least 10s of thousands and to tell a potential enemy your plans or intentions and is about as stupid as you can get.

    Obama is without any doubt the dumbest dumb ass in the history of the world.

    No one unless he is a total (expletive) fool signals that he will allow some devastating attacks on their Nation and not have the most serious response possibly in reserve.

    This is absolute proof Obama is either inviting an attack or welcoming one, and he has no concern for this Country or us as citizens what so ever.

    Is this idiot out of his (expletive) mind?

    He has taken the bluff possibility out of the equation. This is beyond Amateur to the point of being a really dumb ass but he invites an attack.

    Even the stupid people who worship this fool should be outraged by this.

    What is he up to?

    You never ever tell a potential enemy what you might do in response even in a school yard situation with a bully.
    Last edited by Councilman; 04-06-10 at 05:03 AM.

  8. #18
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    11-28-17 @ 04:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,690

    Re: Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms

    I have reservations about the new policy, as described in news accounts for three reasons, even as some behind-the-scenes narrowing of situations for the use of nuclear weapons might be useful:

    1. Ambiguity can help play a beneficial role as a deterrent.

    2. Ruling out their use should chemical or biological weapons be employed takes away an important deterrent to the use of such mass casualty weapons.

    3. The assumption that non-state entities pose a greater threat to the U.S. than any single power or group of powers is questionable at present and far from certain over the long sweep of time. Such an assumption can create policy rigidity that is not helpful.

  9. #19
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,775

    Re: Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    I have reservations about the new policy, as described in news accounts for three reasons, even as some behind-the-scenes narrowing of situations for the use of nuclear weapons might be useful:

    1. Ambiguity can help play a beneficial role as a deterrent.

    2. Ruling out their use should chemical or biological weapons be employed takes away an important deterrent to the use of such mass casualty weapons.

    3. The assumption that non-state entities pose a greater threat to the U.S. than any single power or group of powers is questionable at present and far from certain over the long sweep of time. Such an assumption can create policy rigidity that is not helpful.
    1) People fear the unknown. Ambiguity could also cause fear. Yoda will tell you the rest.

    2) The policy change clearly leaves a nuclear response on the table should a bio/chem attack become a mass casualty event.

    3) There is no state that stands a chance against our conventional forces. In the future, possibly, but the policy can always be changed

    4) It's just a policy. As another poster put it, the president always has the red button.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  10. #20
    The Philosoph from Europe bennyhill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Europe
    Last Seen
    02-03-11 @ 04:24 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    710

    Re: Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms

    Not nuking countries who dont have nukes like Israel makes good public relations. It doesnt change the world but some could sleep better until GWB gets relected in 2012!
    Liberalism is freedom from tyranny. People of world unite to free us from Wallstreet!

    Republicanism is just another word for remaining selfish and ego-centric!

Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •