• 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

Chappy

User
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Messages
2,443
Reaction score
733
Location
San Francisco
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Excerpted from “Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms” By DAVID E. SANGER and PETER BAKER, The New York Times, Published: April 5, 2010
[SIZE="+2"]P[/SIZE]resident Obama said Monday that he was revamping American nuclear strategy to substantially narrow the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons, even in self-defense.

But the president said in an interview that he was carving out an exception for “outliers like Iran and North Korea” that have violated or renounced the main treaty to halt nuclear proliferation.

Discussing his approach to nuclear security the day before formally releasing his new strategy, Mr. Obama described his policy as part of a broader effort to edge the world toward making nuclear weapons obsolete, and to create incentives for countries to give up any nuclear ambitions. To set an example, the new strategy renounces the development of any new nuclear weapons, overruling the initial position of his own defense secretary. …

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.
 
It's a political statement. He's got a hard-on for non-proliferation and decomission of nuclear arsenals, and this gives him more ammunition for the fight.

He's the President. He can push the big red button whenever he feels like it, day or night.
 

It eliminates much of the ambiguity that has deliberately existed in American nuclear policy since the opening days of the cold war. For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.

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.

White House officials said the new strategy would include the option of reconsidering the use of nuclear retaliation against a biological attack, if the development of such weapons reached a level that made the United States vulnerable to a devastating strike.

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

:rofl Weeeeeeeeeeeeee!
 
:rofl Weeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Pretty much my response.

"America is changing it's policy on nukes! We used to say we'd nuke you in self-defense. Now we will not nuke you in self-defense...unless we feel like it."
 
Perhaps a moderator would be good enough to merge my thread into this one.

Thanks in advance.
 
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.
 
You don't make your nuke plans public.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
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.
 
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.
 
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!
 
I think the point of this announcement was simply to negate the Bush beligeranced of "we'll use 'em when we damn well feel like it". There's no reason to incite that kind of fear in other nations, and it probably served to help the enlistment of terrorists.
 
1) People fear the unknown. Ambiguity could also cause fear. Yoda will tell you the rest.

That uncertainty/degree of unknown associated with ambiguity is what creates its deterrent value.

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

It leaves an option for "reconsidering" the use of such weapons, so there is a little flexibility. That posture does not have the same deterrent value that would exist if would-be aggressors with such weapons expected a strong possibility of nuclear retaliation should they use chemical/biological weapons.

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

The U.S. is the strongest power. However, its strength is not unlimited. One also has to consider potential combinations of powers. At the same time, the threat of non-state entities does not even begin to rival that which existed during the Cold War e.g., they do not pose an existential threat. Flexibility remains paramount.

4) It's just a policy. As another poster put it, the president always has the red button.

My view is that it is better to err on the side of caution when it comes to publicly articulating the nation's nuclear posture. I would prefer to preserve a greater level of ambiguity precisely because of the deterrence value such ambiguity has.
 
While I don't mind rolling back the number of nuclear weapons we have, since I believe we have way more than needed to achieve deterrence. I'm not liking this roll back of nuclear posture.

It eliminates much of the ambiguity that has deliberately existed in American nuclear policy since the opening days of the cold war. For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.

Those threats, Mr. Obama argued, could be deterred with “a series of graded options,” a combination of old and new conventional weapons. “I’m going to preserve all the tools that are necessary in order to make sure that the American people are safe and secure,” he said in the interview in the Oval Office.


I agree those threats could be deterred with the "series of graded options" but there's no reason to take the nuclear option off the table as an end all be all deterrence.

Mr. Obama’s new strategy is bound to be controversial, both among conservatives who have warned against diluting the United States’ most potent deterrent and among liberals who were hoping for a blanket statement that the country would never be the first to use nuclear weapons.

And here I tend to side more with what the NY times calls the Liberal argument, I think a statement that the US would never be the first to use a WMD, rather than nuclear weapons specifically, shows our commitment to non-proliferation of WMDs while leaving the nuclear option open for an attack which might not be nuclear but just as destructive.
 
Last edited:
Excerpted from “The Doomsday Dilemma; This Spring, Barack Obama will push toward his goal of a nuclear-free world. But the stiffest resistance may be at home.” By John Barry and Evan Thomas, NEWSWEEK, Published Apr 3, 2010; From the magazine issue dated Apr 12, 2010
[SIZE="+2"]O[/SIZE]bama's dream of a nuke-free world will encounter the stiffest resistance at home—from the people who make and safeguard nuclear weapons. America's nuclear systems are aging, raising questions about the reliability of bombs, planes, and missiles. The U.S. Senate never ratified the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, and though the White House has talked hopefully of getting a vote on the CTBT sometime in a first Obama term, congressional staff experts are skeptical. "The CTBT is going nowhere," says a staffer who declined to be named. "The Republicans are not going to go for it." The GOP rationale: the United States needs to at least preserve the option of testing the reliability of old weapons or developing new ones.

Go figure, the Party of ‘No’ will say “No.”
 
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.

How are we BETTER for it? What the hell do you think that Nukes are for? Show???

No, they keep the freakin peace people. Why do you think that there was a COLD war and not WWIII?

This is like putting a sign in front of your house saying "Hey, I've got a 12 gauge and ammo. But fear not thieves, I won't shoot you, even if you are ass raping my wife and kids."

I'm not FOR using nukes, per say, but telling the world we WON'T use them... ARE YOU FREAKING INSANE OBAMA? This doesn't make us SAFER, it tells the rest of the world the man in the White House hasn't got any BALLS.
 
Back
Top Bottom