• 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

Fiddytree said:
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:
Click to expand...

Okay, I see where you are coming from. Citing him is like citing Glenn Beck as they are both entertainers.

I only cited him because he made sense to me. I have not the time nor the patience to listen to qualified defense experts.
 
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...

This sort of thing is right up Stewart's alley: pointing out absurdities in the system and political discourse. I'm not "citing" Stewart, because the information is all readily available to the public and isn't in question for those of us who live in reality. The Daily Show just presents it in an entertaining fashion.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Mickey Shane
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.
Click to expand...

Erod said:
Nice understanding of history. LOL. Pathetic.
Click to expand...

No argument from you? Figures.

Tell me where I am wrong, oh master of history.
 
The EU and Russia are very please with Obams peace efforts, really!
 
Nuclear weapons are humanities greatest de-development. It's normal to fight its proliferation. Terrorist threats will never let us completely erradicate WMD's, which is a sad truth, but it is still no excuse to limit the use of nuclear weapons.
 
Last edited:
it thats your opinon, Im off to Mars!
 
The Carnage said:
Nuclear weapons are humanities greatest de-development. It's normal to fight its proliferation. Terrorist threats will never let us completely erradicate WMD's, which is a sad truth, but it is still no excuse to limit the use of nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

The way I see it, if we get rid of these things, terrorists will have a much harder time gaining access to them. The fewer nukes in existence, the better. Plus, there's almost no circumstance in which we would retaliate with a nuclear weapon to a terrorist attack. Even if Al-Qaeda detonates a full-blown thermonuclear warhead and obliterates New York City... who do you retaliate against? Any target would be more or less arbitrary and only result in mass civilian casualties for the possibility of killing a few terrorists. If we did manage to find the people responsible, we have much more precise methods of getting rid of them.

The only purpose a nuke has is to eliminate population and infrastructure on a large scale. The enemy we face now simply does not have either.
 
Deuce said:
The way I see it, if we get rid of these things, terrorists will have a much harder time gaining access to them. The fewer nukes in existence, the better. Plus, there's almost no circumstance in which we would retaliate with a nuclear weapon to a terrorist attack. Even if Al-Qaeda detonates a full-blown thermonuclear warhead and obliterates New York City... who do you retaliate against? Any target would be more or less arbitrary and only result in mass civilian casualties for the possibility of killing a few terrorists. If we did manage to find the people responsible, we have much more precise methods of getting rid of them.

Agreed

The only purpose a nuke has is to eliminate population and infrastructure on a large scale. The enemy we face now simply does not have either.
Click to expand...



What about the enemy we will face in 50 or 70 years, will we not need nuks then?

Is unclenching our fist working real well now? Sure, with countrys that are no threat anyway.

Not doing a thing for the real threats, never has, never will. Its human nature, talking is not going to change that.
 
cholla said:
What about the enemy we will face in 50 or 70 years, will we not need nuks then?

Is unclenching our fist working real well now? Sure, with countrys that are no threat anyway.

Not doing a thing for the real threats, never has, never will. Its human nature, talking is not going to change that.
Click to expand...

If they don't have nukes we wont need nukes to defend ourselves.
 
Deuce said:
If they don't have nukes we wont need nukes to defend ourselves.
Click to expand...


Do you remember why we nuked Japan in WW2? They didn't have nukes then either,

The whole point is, Why self impose limits on what we can do? We will never know what will happen in the future or what our response might have to be, limiting our options is not in our best interests, even though it might reduce some threats now it will cause more grief down the road.
 
Deuce said:
The way I see it, if we get rid of these things, terrorists will have a much harder time gaining access to them. The fewer nukes in existence, the better. Plus, there's almost no circumstance in which we would retaliate with a nuclear weapon to a terrorist attack. Even if Al-Qaeda detonates a full-blown thermonuclear warhead and obliterates New York City... who do you retaliate against? Any target would be more or less arbitrary and only result in mass civilian casualties for the possibility of killing a few terrorists. If we did manage to find the people responsible, we have much more precise methods of getting rid of them.

The only purpose a nuke has is to eliminate population and infrastructure on a large scale. The enemy we face now simply does not have either.
Click to expand...
What you are saying is completely true, but I don't think that getting rid of our warheads will be able to stop them from gaining nuclear weapons. Plus, if somehow a hostile country owns nuclear weapons, the others will simply want as well to impose superiority, even though strategically they offer poor results.
 
Last edited:
The Carnage said:
What you are saying is completely true, but I don't think that getting rid of our warheads will be able to stop them from gaining nuclear weapons. Plus, if somehow a hostile country owns nuclear weapons, the others will simply want as well, even though strategically they offer poor results.
Click to expand...

Yes, unfortunately the reality is that we can't totally control proliferation. Nor can we create a perfect airport security program that still respects our individual rights. Still worth continuous work, though.
 
cholla said:
Do you remember why we nuked Japan in WW2? They didn't have nukes then either,

The whole point is, Why self impose limits on what we can do? We will never know what will happen in the future or what our response might have to be, limiting our options is not in our best interests, even though it might reduce some threats now it will cause more grief down the road.
Click to expand...

Many people, including myself, still debate the moral imparative of the U.S. nuking Japan. Yes, doing so forced Japan to surrender and quite possibly saved countless lives in the short-term, but in the long run the US has "flipped the bill" so to speak for rebuilding Japan ever since.

There are consequences to the nuclear option; ours was to help rebuild Japan for atleast 4 decades.

As to the emposed limits, IMO, it no longer makes sense to maintain old nuclear contingencies for today's terrorist threats. What are you gonna do? Nuke caves or entire mountain side?
 
Objective Voice said:
Many people, including myself, still debate the moral imparative of the U.S. nuking Japan. Yes, doing so forced Japan to surrender and quite possibly saved countless lives in the short-term, but in the long run the US has "flipped the bill" so to speak for rebuilding Japan ever since.

There are consequences to the nuclear option; ours was to help rebuild Japan for atleast 4 decades.

As to the emposed limits, IMO, it no longer makes sense to maintain old nuclear contingencies for today's terrorist threats. What are you gonna do? Nuke caves or entire mountain side?
Click to expand...


From post 109 above, same question, same answer.

What about the enemy we will face in 50 or 70 years, will we not need nuks then?

Is unclenching our fist working real well now? Sure, with countrys that are no threat anyway.

Not doing a thing for the real threats, never has, never will. Its human nature, talking is not going to change that.
 
cholla said:
From post 109 above, same question, same answer.

What about the enemy we will face in 50 or 70 years, will we not need nuks then?

Is unclenching our fist working real well now? Sure, with countrys that are no threat anyway.

Not doing a thing for the real threats, never has, never will. Its human nature, talking is not going to change that.
Click to expand...

It's not really worth thinking about hypothetical enemies 50 years from now. In 40 years we'll work on that :)
 
Deuce said:
It's not really worth thinking about hypothetical enemies 50 years from now. In 40 years we'll work on that :)
Click to expand...

My point is that we have had nukes for 70 years and there is no sign that the need for them is going away. Not thinking about the possibilities of the future is a mistake that responsible people cannot afford to make.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom