US revises nuclear strategy

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mcrain, Apr 7, 2010.

  1. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #1
    This seems like a big deal, and the right thing to do...

    If anyone wondered where the Republicans would fall on this...

    What does the military say?

    I stopped on FoxNews last night, and Hannity was interviewing Former Speaker Gingrich, and they both said on several occassions that this revision was the President saying there would NEVER be a nuclear response, and they even said Obama was saying that if 10,000 Americans were killed in a chemical or biologic attack, America would NOT respond.

    I read the policy change, and we will use nukes against a country that is not a party to the NPT or who are not in compliance with that treaty (e.g. North Korea and Iran). We will be strengthening our conventional assets so we won't need to nuke someone.

    Can anyone explain how Hannity and Gingrich take that to mean we won't retaliate if we are attacked?

    I actually caught myself ready to throw something at my TV. The lies are incredible, and Hannity and Fox News are doing everything they can to perpetuate them and to scare the public. They should be ashamed.

    Ohhh, but they have such good ratings... blah blah blah

    (I'm sorry to include my opinions about the reactions in this original post. I would prefer a discussion about the actual policy shift, but I think in order to get there, it is necessary to address the lies and fearmongering that have already started.)
     
  2. 184550 Guest

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    #2
    While I certianly don't support this policy shift as I believe that the US should keep every option open and available in order to be able to best respond to any type of attack or threat, these out right lies help no one and only hinder the actual debate on this policy.
     
  3. mcrain thread starter macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #3
    Why don't you support the policy shift? If someone nukes us, they probably are not in compliance with the NPT, so we can nuke them back. If a country that is not a part of the NPT nukes us or attacks us in anyway, we can nuke them. If anyone attacks us, we will have a stronger conventional force to respond.

    It seems like the only thing this does is tell the world that we won't initiate a nuclear response against a country that has agreed not to proliferate the spread of nuclear weapons.
     
  4. thejadedmonkey macrumors 604

    thejadedmonkey

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Location:
    Pa
    #4
    This was on the front page of Reddit this morning, and somehow it seems very relevant.

    http://advrider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=565866

    I didn't quote it all, but you get the idea.

     
  5. mcrain thread starter macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #5
    I'm sorry, but I don't get the idea. Should we nuke the mule?
     
  6. IntheNet macrumors regular

    IntheNet

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    #6
    If one has nothing better to do perhaps; but I am sure domestic matters are a tad more urgent than regurgitating Cold War doctrine! Yes the Nuclear Posture Review is long overdue; that said, one doesn't have to give away the store of nuclear deterrence in order to show you revised the policy! Moreover, what is the United States obtaining from such nuclear capitulation? Like agreements/commitments from our NATO allies? Hardly. Like commitments from anyone? No. Moreover, he has abandoned the potential for the RRW program urged to replace aging and legacy weapons in the stockpile, a decision that alone threatens our security. There was an opportunity for president Obama to lead here with a strong showing on US nuclear deterrence; instead he's obviously getting his foreign policy Cliff Notes from Greenpeace! Giving up a third of what has maintained world peace for the longest period in history, as well as removing 'Islamic radicalism' from terror terms shows the weak pacifism of our rookie Harvard Yard professor; expect to see our competitors lining up soon in New York harbor since the surrender sign has now been issued! I think when even our enemies catch on it is time for some scrutiny of the Oval Office by the lame stream liberal media:

    (Reuters) - Iran's president made a scathing and personal attack on U.S. President Barack Obama on Wednesday as an "inexperienced amateur"...
    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6362IJ20100407
     
  7. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #7
    Which world would this be?
     
  8. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #8
    Yeah, I'd like to know about this "world peace" too. And what was this "longest period" of time? A month maybe?
     
  9. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #9
    So you and Ahmnadinejad agree. You're in great company :rolleyes:
     
  10. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #10
    I'm confused, but perhaps it's because there isn't a link to the policy change language. The first hit I got was from a USA Today article, entitled "Obama's critics zero in on no-nukes policy," that says:

    Gibbs says that for the US to use nuclear weapons, they would have to change these current revisions again in the future. I don't see an exception for use against a non-NPT country, but again, perhaps it's there. Or perhaps the distinction is one of a chemical vs. biological vs. nuclear response. Just don't know.

    Anyway, here's the article:

    http://content.usatoday.com/communi...4/obamas-critics-zero-in-on-no-nukes-policy/1

    EDIT: I see now that the OP has the Defense Department Fact sheet, so I guess that's indeed the revision. Trying to figure out now how that jives with the USA Today article and Gibbs' comments.
     
  11. jb1280 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2009
  12. mcrain thread starter macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #12
    It's cold... herein. Snowy too, thus the veratis that global warming is a hoax! ;)
     
  13. IntheNet macrumors regular

    IntheNet

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    #13
    The rookie Cicero response above aside, I assume you are asking about the Summit held there in 1986 between the One who ended the Cold War and Secretary-General Gorbachev, rather than directly inquiring about the the world's northernmost capital of a sovereign state! That said, I happen to think this locale, in 1986, prompted the global realization that, during the Cold War, both sides discovered the extent of the concessions each side was willing to make - a point Obie in the White House should study during his homework. Should he realize that diplomacy means both sides make concessions he would be leagues better off than he is now, making all the concessions himself!
     
  14. mcrain thread starter macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #14
    Two things. First, Reagan only gets credit for "ending the cold war" if you consider the U.S.S.R.'s realization that spending on military that puts your country into bankruptcy is a bad thing. If so, then GWB should be given credit for "ending US post-cold war status."

    Second, diplomacy led to the new START arms treaty. We got a new nuclear treaty. This is our internal policy on the usage of nuclear weapons, and it gives our military a lot more flexibility, which, in case you didn't know, is a good thing.

    BTW, I may be a rookie Cicero, but what are you? Still unwilling to answer my questions? Did you study Latin at Yale? :rolleyes:
     
  15. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #15
    This is just a load of talk in all reality, if **** starts to go down the tubes we are going to unleash some nukes before we get hit with one regardless of policy.
     
  16. jb1280 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2009
    #16
    Have you actually read the report?

    On RRW, please refer to page 39 of the NPR:

    "In any decision to proceed to engineering development for warhead LEPs, the United States will give strong preference to options for refurbishment or reuse. Replacement of nuclear components would be undertaken only if critical Stockpile Management Program goals could not otherwise be met, and if specifically authorized by the President and approved by Congress."

    Despite the fact that Obama may be personally against the idea of the RRW program, there is a contingency in the NPR that allows for the refurbishment, reuse, or replacement of components on a case by case basis.

    On this rhetoric of "threatening the national security," even should the new START be ratified, there will still be a significant arsenal of nuclear weapons for a strong deterrent to be present.

    The concessions being made in the NPR on when nuclear weapons would or would not be used have very little to do with bilateral relations concerning Iran or the DPRK. They are towards maintaining a level of seriousness about non-proliferation in the United States that is important towards fostering support from signatory states. This is important in coalition building vis-a-vis the DPRK and Iran, and it is important to keep countries in the NPT.

    Once you get through all of the rhetorical bluster of the NPR and the new Treaty, the reality is that all of this is costing the United States very little in terms of its own security in the world. Since it is costing the United States very little, any benefit reaped from cooperation by signatory states of the NPT who might otherwise not totally agree with US policy is getting something for free.

    Despite the fact that MAD maintained stability and peace during the Cold War, as early as Eisenhower, it was realized that they were unusable. Total war in a nuclear age was impossible. One might even make a strong argument that even without nuclear weapons, the Soviet Union and United States were content on fighting proxy wars rather than total war between the two states. This of course is counterfactual and I don't professionally ascribe to it.
     
  17. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #17
    And furthermore, we all pretty much knew already that the U.S. wasn't going to just haul off and nuke somebody (else), except in the wet dreams of certain extremists anyway, so what is wrong with simply stating it? It's diplomacy. The practical situation has changed not one bit: Nuclear weapons are a terrifying last resort, and our approach to their hypothetical use, while not entirely unthinkable, will be carefully measured.
     
  18. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #18
    Quite.
     
  19. jb1280 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2009
    #19
    Again, he's not making any real concessions here. It's also important to remember he's getting START done this week and has a meeting with the Chinese next week where nuclear issues will be discussed. If the NPR gives the President even an ounce more credibility to talk with the Russians and the Chinese the release of the document is worth it. Again, this is costing the United States very little.

    On the nuclear issue, there is actually very little light between the position held by Reagan and the position held by Obama. I would even argue that Reagan was a more fervent nuclear abolitionist than Obama. Both presidents, however, pragmatically realized that the United States could not unilaterally do away with their own arsenals while taking into consideration the domestic and international ramifications of such a decision.
     
  20. Macaddicttt macrumors 6502a

    Macaddicttt

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #20
    Comedic gold. Come on guys you know he's a troll by now. Listen to how hard he's trying to sound smart.

    The best part is that Gorbachev gets called by his full title, while Obama gets not his title, not his full name, but a nickname. The icing on the cake is that Reagan is referred to as "the One."

    This guy is giving more respect to an "evil communist" than the President of the United States, despite all his patriotic rhetoric. He can't possibly be serious. You can all stop responding to his posts now.
     
  21. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #21
    We should have stopped a long time ago...
     
  22. IntheNet macrumors regular

    IntheNet

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    #22
    jb: You don't see the 1/3 stockpile abandonment without like agreement from other parties as a concession? How nice!

    Not sure I share that sentiment; former UN Ambassador John Bolton was on Hannity last evening warning of dire consequences here and miles of distance between Obie's novice bargaining here and Reagan. I think the world sees Obie as giving away the store, especially after his earlier capitulation on the missile defense shield for Europe.
     
  23. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #23
    Doubly ironic when you consider that many right-wingers were sneeringly referring to Obama as "the One".
     
  24. yayitsezekiel macrumors 6502a

    yayitsezekiel

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Location:
    Irvine, CA
    #24
    well either way, thanks to mutual assured destruction, anyone who tries to nuke us will be obliterated as well. Hopefully it won't come to that, but hey, they said that by 2000 we'd all be flying around in jet cars. look what happened lol ;)
     
  25. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #25
    Well I think if a 'bad country' did try and nuke someone the only question is whose nuke would land first in retaliation, or if in reality no-one would retaliate at all with nuclear weapons.
     

Share This Page