• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms

But at least he knows how to use paragraphs to make his writing readable.

If you can't attack the message, then attack the messenger.
 
Oh good lord. That is such a stupid statement. Like our plans would have any bearing at all on what another country decides to do in a time of war. What the hell does it matter if our plans are public?

I'm so tired of these cowards.

Our plans have a very real bearing on what other nations do.
Consider the act of sanctions on Iran, they are there with the implied threat of something worse if they do not change their policys. Telling them that we will go this far but no further takes away all credibility from the USA. Might as well say ok I am picking up my toys and going home, you guys finish playing without us.

Do you remember the Iranian hostage crisis? Iran played Jimmy Carter for over a year, and then as soon as Reagan was elected, all of a sudden the hostages were released.
Do you really think that that was a coincidence?:roll:
 
That seems a bit far-fetched.

Why? Do all the countries love the US?


Which enemy are you talking about?
Anyone who doesn't have a nuke and would like to take advantage of the fact that we are troops are currently fighting two wars.
 
Oh please, which enemy feels emboldened by Obama's statement,
Iran

and how is he restrained by anything he said?


He is not restrained by what he said, that is not the point. What he has done is to show Americas vulnerability.

A dog that rolls over on its back can still bite, but is nonetheless showing submission.
 
Why? Do all the countries love the US?

Of course not. What's your point?

Anyone who doesn't have a nuke and would like to take advantage of the fact that we are troops are currently fighting two wars.

So, you think they will launch a devastating biological or chemical attack on the United States in the hope that Obama won't retaliate with nukes? Obama's been known to...go back on his word, if you catch my meaning...
 
Last edited:
Of course not. What's your point?



So, you think they will launch a devastating biological or chemical attack on the United States in the hope that Obama won't retaliate with nukes? Obama's been known to...go back on his word, if you catch my meaning...

I am not worried about Obama going back on his word after we get hit. Its the getting hit part that actually matters.
 
He is not restrained by what he said, that is not the point. What he has done is to show Americas vulnerability.

A dog that rolls over on its back can still bite, but is nonetheless showing submission.

I wouldn't expect you to understand this, but Obama demonstrated America's strength, not its vulnerability. He moved beyond the bellicose, meaningless threats of the Bush administration, which used movie dialogue and didn't back it up (dead or alive?). Bush's threats to use nuclear weapons placed an unnecessary and inappropriate fear over our international relations, which Obama has removed.
The circumstances that would lead us to use nuclear weapons are quite narrow, we will not use them to destroy large population centers. If there is a large military base set in a remote spot - perfect application. Nothing Obama said would limit his options, and he certainly would not be tied in a national emergency by his own words.
 
I wouldn't expect you to understand this,]

Why the insults right off the bat? some kind of debate strategy designed to weaken my argument by showing that only you can understand things?

[ but Obama demonstrated America's strength, not its vulnerability. He moved beyond the bellicose, meaningless threats of the Bush administration, which used movie dialogue and didn't back it up (dead or alive?). Bush's threats to use nuclear weapons placed an unnecessary and inappropriate fear over our international relations,]

ASSURE” —“U.S. nuclear forces will continue to provide assurance to security partners, particularly in the presence of known or suspected threats of nuclear, biological, or chemical attacks or in the event of surprising military developments. This assurance can serve to reduce the incentives for friendly countries to acquire nuclear weapons of their own to deter such threats and circumstances. Nuclear capabilities also assure the U.S. public that the United States will not be subject to coercion based on a false perception of U.S. weakness among potential adversaries. (p. 12)

Quote from the above referenced Nuclear Posture Review seem to give the lie to your claim that Bush threatened like a movie.

[which Obama has removed.
The circumstances that would lead us to use nuclear weapons are quite narrow, we will not use them to destroy large population centers. If there is a large military base set in a remote spot - perfect application. Nothing Obama said would limit his options, and he certainly would not be tied in a national emergency by his own words.


Are you perhaps a secret confidant of Obamas? He tells you the circumstances in which the US would use nuclear weapons? Perhaps a link to back this up?
 
He is not restrained by what he said, that is not the point. What he has done is to show Americas vulnerability.

A dog that rolls over on its back can still bite, but is nonetheless showing submission.
are you assuming that the world believes obama wouldn't defend our country by any means necessary? that's pretty damned funny.
 
"We wont nuke you if you use chemical/bio on us. Except if it's bad and we want to use nukes to retaliate."

There's the good ol' Chicago doublespeak we've come to expect from Obama.
 
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.

Except that absolutely nothing changed. I don't know what's wrong with the Obamaites. Not all whom follow Obama are rabid and irrational, but the Obamaites are. They'll attribute anything and everything to Obama. Oh look...the sun came up! Obama is changing the world for the better!!!! And even something like this political move of a nuclear arms usage protocol. Did anything really change? No, nothing functionally changed in the least. But here we have people standing on the soap box proclaiming the brilliance of Obama.

I don't know when we decided to collectively, as a country, turn our brains off. But it's time to flip that switch back to the on position. Otherwise we'll just keep getting **** like Obama and other faux celebrity politicians.
 
he's making us the world's doormat

ahmedinejad openly LOL's

netanyahu storms out

putin plays our putzy prez like a puppet

hu holds him in his hoary hand

kim sinks ships on the parallel

the cartels kill consulates in ciudad

and now obama has gotten himself involved in some pissy fight with his doped up partner in kabul while 100,000 us soldiers put their heroic alls on the line for us

White House hints Karzai visit could be in doubt

yesterday ahmedinejad, the scrawny guy in the bad suit who held our 52 for 444 days, called obama an "amateur"

men "bigger than you, more bullying than you, couldn't do a damn thing, let alone you," the skinny punk with the scrawny beard spit at our pie-eyed president

Iran ridicules Obama's "cowboy" nuclear strategy - Yahoo! News

"wait until your sweat dries and get some experience," don't just believe "any paper put in front of you"

dang, the skinny dude talks like our pissiest dpforums members

kinda personal, don'tcha think
 
Last edited:
I do not think our president should be telling the world what will cause us to use our nukes.He might as well be saying if you do not cross this line we will not severely hurt you.It seems more like some dumbass idea that you are supposed to use equal force against the enemy. This idea that you are supposed to use equal force is a load hippy peace neck ***** retard crap and does not work in warfare, in war fare you are supposed to use overwhelming force against your enemy..
We used overwhelming force on two cities in Japan in 1944. It remains the worst civilian casualty rates ever in history. Still, generations of the people deformed by radiation live in those cities.

We will never do that again.

That's what Obama is saying. Nothing more.
 
he's making us the world's doormat

ahmedinejad openly LOL's

netanyahu storms out

putin plays our putzy prez like a puppet

hu holds him in his hoary hand

kim sinks ships on the parallel

the cartels kill consulates in ciudad

and now obama has gotten himself involved in some pissy fight with his doped up partner in kabul while 100,000 us soldiers put their heroic alls on the line for us

White House hints Karzai visit could be in doubt

yesterday ahmedinejad, the scrawny guy in the bad suit who held our 52 for 444 days, called obama an "amateur"

men "bigger than you, more bullying than you, couldn't do a damn thing, let alone you," the skinny punk with the scrawny beard spit at our pie-eyed president

Iran ridicules Obama's "cowboy" nuclear strategy - Yahoo! News

"wait until your sweat dries and get some experience," don't just believe "any paper put in front of you"

dang, the skinny dude talks like our pissiest dpforums members

kinda personal, don'tcha think

It was Bush who acted like a fool and pandered to Karzai, Putin and others. Obama is not afraid to show the truth about so called friends or enemies. Karzai is not worth dying for, Ahmawhatshisname is a joke, Netanyahu is the wrong man to lead Israel. When will you look at the issues instead of going back to sleep after Fox News tells you what to think?
 
Bush's threats to use nuclear weapons placed an unnecessary and inappropriate fear over our international relations, which Obama has removed.

Name one example, post one link, where Bush threatened to use nuclear weapons.

You're an embarassment.
 
We used overwhelming force on two cities in Japan in 1944. It remains the worst civilian casualty rates ever in history. Still, generations of the people deformed by radiation live in those cities.

We will never do that again.

That's what Obama is saying. Nothing more.


Nice understanding of history. LOL. Pathetic.
 
We used overwhelming force on two cities in Japan in 1944. It remains the worst civilian casualty rates ever in history.

Better them than our troops and our civilians.

Still, generations of the people deformed by radiation live in those cities.

I do not remember the US forcing people to continue living in that city.

We will never do that again.

That's what Obama is saying. Nothing more.
SO basically he said the nukes are nothing more than a bluff.
 
After WWII Truman entered the U.S. into a series of treaties and conventions which limited American action outside of international agreements and shared policies and thereby allowed us to escape the traditional fate of the world's leading power: fear and loathing of unilateral, arbitrary action.

The U.S. had more power and influence in the world during the Cold War years precisely because it had agreed to act in concert with its allies; it constrained its power, so then everyone felt comfortable with its power.

The Nonconservatives rejected the Truman Doctrine, basically saying the U.S. should be free to act as it saw fit without the entangling fetters of allied interests. President George W. Bush broke with the policies of every president since Truman and moved America outside of these long standing treaties and conventions, creating ad hoc alliances based on unilateral American action.

It was a disaster. The unilateral actions in Iraq left America with sole responsibility for the cost and casualties there. The withdrawal from the Kyoto treaty left America out of the discussion entirely. America's foreign policy initiatives were met with the traditional fear and loathing the world's leading powers in the past centuries had experienced.

Now, President Obama is restoring the Truman Doctrine to the center of American foreign policy; by acting in concert with allies and committing to comply within internationally accepted standards, America will regain its proper role of influence in the world without the fear and loathing the Bush Doctrine incurred.

I don't doubt that there are doctorates in international studies being written about this history, but, for this amateur, in a nutshell that's why I think Obama's declaration this week was important and a good thing for our country.
 
Name one example, post one link, where Bush threatened to use nuclear weapons.

You're an embarassment.

Administration?s Nuclear Saber Rattling on Iran Threatens Global Security | Union of Concerned Scientists

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjGX2Gdj2Y4"]YouTube- President Bush threatens World War III[/nomedia]

The Role of U.S. Nuclear Weapons: New Doctrine Falls Short of Bush Pledge | Arms Control Association

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_for_Joint_Nuclear_Operations]Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Pentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan - washingtonpost.com

Bush did threaten Iran with WWIII. Not an explicit "we will nuke you threat" but pretty close.

The Washington Post article indicates that our nuclear strategy included the option to launch a preemptive strike using nuclear weapons.
 
I don't see this strategy presenting a significant threat to America. What still matters more is how an Administration will interpret and use it.

I'll have to find another issue so I can "attack" the President.
 
are you assuming that the world believes obama wouldn't defend our country by any means necessary? that's pretty damned funny.


I'm not assuming anything about what "the world" believes, I am saying that Obama has given up the very real military advantage of potential enemys not knowing what we will do.

He has said that he won't use any means necessary, nuks are only to be used to retaliate for nuks, not an option for chemical or biological weopons used against us.
 
Bush did threaten Iran with WWIII. Not an explicit "we will nuke you threat" but pretty close.

How can you threaten a country with World War III?

Wouldnt it take an entire world fighting to make it world war III? not just America and Iran?
 
Back
Top Bottom