• 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

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

YouTube- President Bush threatens World War III

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

Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
Click to expand...


I followed all 3 links, they are all someone interretation of Bushs policy, all 3 left leaning sites, not one of them is a direct quote of any member of Bushs adminisration.

I suggest that you are being mislead by someone with an agenda on these sites.:roll:
 
Chappy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Acting in concert with allies? He's done nothing but snub them since he stepped into the Oval Office; missile defense, the Falklands, Israel, etc. The only real overtures he's made are towards people that hate the US; Iran and Chavez.
 
Chappy said:
I support President Obama in his re-establishing American leadership in the world by clarifying our previously ambiguous policy regarding ?first use? of nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

Politically, he had to say that. He didn't want to give the R W Reps the ammo to call him weak and indecisive. Realistically, he'll never use the Abomb on any country. No sane leader would...

ricksfolly
 
Chappy said:
I support President Obama in his re-establishing American leadership in the world by clarifying our previously ambiguous policy regarding “first use” of nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

I think that the president has made a serious mistake in judgement and has given up an important tool of war that may have to have been used against a miscreant country. I do beleive that acting soft will in any way make us a "leader". It is always better to "speak softly but to carry a big stick but if yoou give up the stick you are screwed !!!
 
F107HyperSabr said:
I think that the president has made a serious mistake in judgement and has given up an important tool of war that may have to have been used against a miscreant country. I do beleive that acting soft will in any way make us a "leader". It is always better to "speak softly but to carry a big stick but if yoou give up the stick you are screwed !!!
Click to expand...

Nothing has been given up. All these so-called policies on nuclear weapons can be outright ignored at any time by the president.
 
Deuce said:
Nothing has been given up. All these so-called policies on nuclear weapons can be outright ignored at any time by the president.
Click to expand...

The projectionof the power that is implicet with having nukes is what Obama is eroding with this policy.

This was the main weapon in the cold war, not the actual bombs.
Obama may be trying to eliminate the escalation of those days, but there is not another superpower to play with anymore.
There is no need for this and it only weakens the USA.
 
The president would never nuke non nuclear nations like Mexico or Nigeria. He improved Americas image abroad and it didnt cost him a dime. Great diplomacy.
 
improved america's image abroad---LOL!

tell it to kim, tell it ahmedinejad

tell it to netanyahu, putin and hu

tell it to the cartels of ciudad

tell it to crazy karzai, our corrupt co-combatant

when's that personal diplomacy with the leaders of iran---without preconditions (LOL!)---gonna go down?

why won't hu and putin back sanctions?

where're the rich and rewarding results from all the reachout?

improved america's image abroad---LOL!

how could he, he's still selling health care in IOWA, MAINE and CHARLOTTE

the most incompetent politician at the national level america has ever produced

deal with it
 
I guess we have 200 hundered countries in the world, if a few are unhappy then lets get better.
 
bennyhill said:
The president would never nuke non nuclear nations like Mexico or Nigeria. He improved Americas image abroad and it didnt cost him a dime. Great diplomacy.
Click to expand...

apologytour.jpg


Obama's apology tour was epic. I think it did cost the taxpayers some money, though. The cost of flying around to each country to apologize for America's capitalist greed is certainly not free.
 
Yeah, but you can deduct that as a business expense.
 
bennyhill said:
Yeah, but you can deduct that as a business expense.
Click to expand...


If you were a corporation that paid taxes instead of a government that sucked taxes.
 
bennyhill said:
The president would never nuke non nuclear nations like Mexico or Nigeria. He improved Americas image abroad and it didnt cost him a dime. Great diplomacy.
Click to expand...


Do you have anything to show that Americas image is improved abroad?

Which countrys for example? Any premiers, presidents, kings, potentates speaking up in praise of this move?

Maybe Israel will be pleased with this move.

The loudest one I hear is Iran thumbing their nose at Obamas show of weakness.
 
Don't limit nuclear arms, create a nuclear defense grid. There will never be a nuclear free world, and even if we disarm all nuclear weapons we will still have the ability to make more. Obama is being naive (especially by trusting Russia). Just build our nuclear defenses to make nuclear weapons ineffective.
 
Last edited:
cholla said:
The projectionof the power that is implicet with having nukes is what Obama is eroding with this policy.

This was the main weapon in the cold war, not the actual bombs.
Obama may be trying to eliminate the escalation of those days, but there is not another superpower to play with anymore.
There is no need for this and it only weakens the USA.
Click to expand...

We still will have enough to blow up the world and will still have the ability to use them whenever we feel like it. What the hell are you talking about?

Did you get your information from Fox News when they outright lied about what the new agreements and policies said?

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-8-2010/the-big-bang-treaty
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
We still will have enough to blow up the world and will still have the ability to use them whenever we feel like it. What the hell are you talking about?

Did you get your information from Fox News when they outright lied about what the new agreements and policies said?

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-8-2010/the-big-bang- treaty
Click to expand...

Of course we will still have enough nukes, my point was Obamas giving up projecting power.

By the way Jon Stuart is funnier than ****,
 
What "lies" did the evil Fox News peddle about this change in policy??

Specifics, please.
 
Deuce said:
Proportional response. A country that launches tear gas at our troops (technically a chemical weapon if used in war) doesn't get nuked. Makes sense to me.

edit: HAH, there really isn't even any significant change.



"We wont nuke you if you use chemical/bio on us. Except if it's bad and we want to use nukes to retaliate."
Click to expand...


Except that, by stateing that we won't respond to an NBC attack with NBC weapons, you invite such an attack to take place.
 
Sounds like a solid agreement to me.

Critics who would argue that Obama is making use defenseless are themselves have not educated themselves on the treaty (or have been undereducated via FOX news).

White House Pledges Cuts to Nuclear Stockpile | PBS NewsHour | April 6, 2010 | PBS

Above link contains the transcript from a PBS news story which summarizes the treaty.

Among other changes, a declaration that the U.S. will neither use nor threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries.
Click to expand...

Conservative Sword said:
What "lies" did the evil Fox News peddle about this change in policy??

Specifics, please.
Click to expand...

They stopped reading there, essentially.

Argument is that we would be open to attack from biological weapons, and we would not be able to use nuclear warheads in response.

But the U.S. reserves the right to make any adjustment to this policy in the case of biological weapons threats. And the new policy doesn't apply to any countries out of compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or NPT.
Click to expand...

So, basically that theory is out the window. We could response with a nuclear warhead to a biological weapons threat. And we can respond with a nuclear warhead to those not in the Non-Proliferation Treaty (North Korea, Iran, anybody who would threaten us anyways, etc., etc.).

This is abridged from the daily show, by the way. Stewart goes into greater detail.

Jon Stewart on Fox News's Willful Ignorance on Obama's Nuclear Treaty with Russia | Indecision Forever | Comedy Central
 
Last edited:
Bassman said:
Ahh yes, the same bull**** strategy that Carter used.
Click to expand...


[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_zSBtx76B8&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube- Obama Dismisses Palin on Nuclear Strategy: "Sarah Palin's No Expert on Nuclear Issues"[/nomedia]
 
apdst said:
Except that, by stateing that we won't respond to an NBC attack with NBC weapons, you invite such an attack to take place.
Click to expand...

The policy very clearly does not apply to nations that are out of compliance with the non-proliferation treaty. The signatories of that treaty are not going to attack us.
 
Am I the only one who is confused why people are citing Jon Stewart for rebuttals regarding conservative outrage at the Obama's conception of nuclear theory and practice, when they are plenty of other, actually qualified defense policy experts ready to defend his actions?
 
Last edited:
Fiddytree said:
Am I the only one who is confused why people are citing Jon Stewart for rebuttals regarding conservative outrage at the Obama's conception of nuclear theory and practice, when they are plenty of other, actually qualified defense policy experts ready to defend his actions?
Click to expand...

Get off your high horse.
 
Yeah, forgive me. I will just remember why the Daily Show was created and furthermore, why Jon Stewart does not want to be held accountable for making political debate in the media better (hint: it's because it's not his job. He's the class clown in the back of the classroom throwing spitballs and he prefers it that way). :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom