+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 30

Thread: Nuke Policy?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    On the high seas
    Posts
    607

    Default Nuke Policy?

    Does anyone here understand what the President is doing with this change in policy towards proliferation of nukes or am I the only one who is confused. This is the single most important policy for national security as far as defense of the nation and he just blew it. Yea come on you half baked terrorists do what you want from where you want and we won't retaliate because we have a big heart and don't want to upset you. This is nuts and alot of people say that this leaves the United States open for attack by third world countries by other means but with the same conseqences.
    " That we may meet in a better place after this!"

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    posting from Bethesda, MD
    Posts
    13,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackchipjim View Post
    Does anyone here understand what the President is doing with this change in policy towards proliferation of nukes or am I the only one who is confused. This is the single most important policy for national security as far as defense of the nation and he just blew it. Yea come on you half baked terrorists do what you want from where you want and we won't retaliate because we have a big heart and don't want to upset you. This is nuts and alot of people say that this leaves the United States open for attack by third world countries by other means but with the same conseqences.
    I agree with the Church's position that any attack, retaliatory or not, on a general population, such as Hiroshima, is immoral. Too many innocents are killed. On the other hand, it seems stupid, on the face of it, to tip your hand to the enemy. I always hoped we would continue to use nukes as a deterrent to anyone else using them, but would not ourselves ever stoop to using them in fact. Of course, nowadays they have smaller, tactical nukes that they can use principally against enemy military targets without endangering general populations. So guess there is still some justifiable uses. Also, there is the possibility of our own government using them by those who don't share my view about attacking general populations. I think Bush was a good example of a President who might well have used nukes on general populations, believing that winning a war, or retaliation, justified it. That's the way I once felt.
    Aslan 11/1/90 - 6/15/10 Stormy 1/22/95 -8/23/10
    “There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church,
    but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”
    Bishop Fulton J. Sheen

    “It takes a very long time to become young.” Pablo Picasso

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,111

    Default

    During the Cold War, the USSR, China, Britan and France all had a no first strike policy. Amongst the Nuclear Powers of the time, only the US would not take such a pledge.
    To say that this leaves us open to attack by other nations by other means but with the same consequences is to show ignorance of just how terrible nuclear weapons are.
    Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out just how far one can go.


    We cannot direct the wind, we can only adjust our sails.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    posting from Bethesda, MD
    Posts
    13,912

    Default

    It's really a disgrace that the US and the nuclear countries have not gotten any further in disarmament than they have over the years. It may be the number one issue in the world. At least the President is not taking the business-as-usual path.

    Which is the better policy: Saying we won't use nukes, but then using them if the perceived need arises? -or- Saying we will use nukes, but then not using them if attacked (bluffing)?

    In the first case, no country will really believe that we won't retaliate with nuclear force if we perceived then need regardless of what we said.. And in the latter, no doubt most of our leaders would use them if they perceived the need; I think my hopes in days past that we were just bluffing was just a young and idealistic view of our leadership.

    We do have to wrench the capability of Iran to get nuclear weapons out of their hands. I agree with the President that the best way to do that is with the full cooperation of the rest of the world. At least I think that would be the way he views it. But time is getting short. If we don't act soon, I mean get really tough, the window will pass when we could have stopped Iran's nuclear development. Then it will only be a matter of time before either Israel acts where we were cowardly, or Iran get the weapons thrusting the world back into a cold war, fearful of their putting nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists or using them directly against Israel.

    Let's wait and see what the President and the world decides.
    Aslan 11/1/90 - 6/15/10 Stormy 1/22/95 -8/23/10
    “There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church,
    but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”
    Bishop Fulton J. Sheen

    “It takes a very long time to become young.” Pablo Picasso

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    posting from Bethesda, MD
    Posts
    13,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shadroch View Post
    During the Cold War, the USSR, China, Britan and France all had a no first strike policy. Amongst the Nuclear Powers of the time, only the US would not take such a pledge.
    To say that this leaves us open to attack by other nations by other means but with the same consequences is to show ignorance of just how terrible nuclear weapons are.
    A nuclear first strike on a general population is unconscionable.
    Aslan 11/1/90 - 6/15/10 Stormy 1/22/95 -8/23/10
    “There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church,
    but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”
    Bishop Fulton J. Sheen

    “It takes a very long time to become young.” Pablo Picasso

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackchipjim View Post
    Does anyone here understand what the President is doing with this change in policy towards proliferation of nukes or am I the only one who is confused. This is the single most important policy for national security as far as defense of the nation and he just blew it. Yea come on you half baked terrorists do what you want from where you want and we won't retaliate because we have a big heart and don't want to upset you. This is nuts and alot of people say that this leaves the United States open for attack by third world countries by other means but with the same conseqences.
    You may not understand the intent of the policy. The key is the standing of a country with regard to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. If they're playing games, like Iran and N. Korea, all options are on the table. I believe the intent is to not use nuclear weapons on some rogue state that develops a chemical or biological weapon, but even there the policy is intentionally vague. Thus far Obama hasn't been reluctant to resort to extreme measures in delicate situations such as drone attacks in Pakistan or approving putting American terrorists in foreing lands on lists for apprehension or assassination. But I know it's in vogue on the Right to paint him as "soft" on defense. Here's a key quote and link to a recent press conference:

    "Our declaratory policy says that if you're a non-nuclear-weapon state, as defined by the non-proliferation treaty, and you are in good standing, you're honoring your non-proliferation obligations, you are at no risk,” he said. “If you are not in good standing with your nuclear non-proliferation obligations, the United States rules out nothing.” http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=58673
    Last edited by Diver; April 12th, 2010 at 08:16 PM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Third base
    Posts
    11,322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aslan View Post
    It's really a disgrace that the US and the nuclear countries have not gotten any further in disarmament than they have over the years. It may be the number one issue in the world. At least the President is not taking the business-as-usual path.

    Which is the better policy: Saying we won't use nukes, but then using them if the perceived need arises? -or- Saying we will use nukes, but then not using them if attacked (bluffing)?

    In the first case, no country will really believe that we won't retaliate with nuclear force if we perceived then need regardless of what we said.. And in the latter, no doubt most of our leaders would use them if they perceived the need; I think my hopes in days past that we were just bluffing was just a young and idealistic view of our leadership.

    We do have to wrench the capability of Iran to get nuclear weapons out of their hands. I agree with the President that the best way to do that is with the full cooperation of the rest of the world. At least I think that would be the way he views it. But time is getting short. If we don't act soon, I mean get really tough, the window will pass when we could have stopped Iran's nuclear development. Then it will only be a matter of time before either Israel acts where we were cowardly, or Iran get the weapons thrusting the world back into a cold war, fearful of their putting nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists or using them directly against Israel.

    Let's wait and see what the President and the world decides.
    You seem to have forgotten about North Korea, who already have the bomb. There remains - for the present time - some doubt about Iran's nuke intentions.
    Dogma schmogma

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Diver View Post
    You may not understand the intent of the policy. The key is the standing of a country with regard to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. If they're playing games, like Iran and N. Korea, all options are on the table. I believe the intent is to not use nuclear weapons on some rogue state that develops a chemical or biological weapon, but even there the policy is intentionally vauge. Thus far Obama hasn't been reluctant to resort to extreme measures in delicate situations such as drone attacks in Pakistan or approving putting American terrorists in foreing lands on lists for apprehension or assassination. But I know it's in vogue on the Right to paint him as "soft" on defense. Here's a key quote and link to a recent press conference:

    "Our declaratory policy says that if you're a non-nuclear-weapon state, as defined by the non-proliferation treaty, and you are in good standing, you're honoring your non-proliferation obligations, you are at no risk,” he said. “If you are not in good standing with your nuclear non-proliferation obligations, the United States rules out nothing.” http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=58673

    I actuallly heard some guy on WABC spin this statement as O'bama threatening Israel.
    Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out just how far one can go.


    We cannot direct the wind, we can only adjust our sails.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    posting from Bethesda, MD
    Posts
    13,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Katweezel View Post
    You seem to have forgotten about North Korea, who already have the bomb. There remains - for the present time - some doubt about Iran's nuke intentions.
    Does North Korea have the same ties to terrorist groups as Iran? Is North Korea held in check by China? Would we hesitate to put the clamps on North Korea if they were seen to threaten the US directly?

    Is Iran's threat to the US, or is it to the US's ally, Israel? Are Iran's intentions clear enough to raise international concern?

    Of greater concern to the US beyond Iran is Pakistan, who although they are friends, have elements within that are hostile to the US, plus they are under siege from without by Taliban, a faction friendly to Al Qaeda.

    What do you think we should do about North Korea, other than what we are already doing? Apparently, you don't mind if Iran gets nukes, no? Is your solution to let them get nukes and then wait and see what they do? That will never happen. You know that Israel cannot let that happen. By our not acting strongly, we risk nuclear war in the middle east, since Israel is forced to fend for itself, and without us, they may not possess the conventional power to stop Iran's nuclear program. This situation is so dangerous and so many millions of lives are at risk, it isn't funny.

    I would not rely on the possibility that Iran is simply posturing. Don't we have to act as if what they are saying is what they mean to do? Can we afford to guess wrong?
    Aslan 11/1/90 - 6/15/10 Stormy 1/22/95 -8/23/10
    “There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church,
    but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”
    Bishop Fulton J. Sheen

    “It takes a very long time to become young.” Pablo Picasso

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aslan View Post
    Does North Korea have the same ties to terrorist groups as Iran? Is North Korea held in check by China? Would we hesitate to put the clamps on North Korea if they were seen to threaten the US directly?

    Is Iran's threat to the US, or is it to the US's ally, Israel? Are Iran's intentions clear enough to raise international concern?

    Of greater concern to the US beyond Iran is Pakistan, who although they are friends, have elements within that are hostile to the US, plus they are under siege from without by Taliban, a faction friendly to Al Qaeda.

    What do you think we should do about North Korea, other than what we are already doing? Apparently, you don't mind if Iran gets nukes, no? Is your solution to let them get nukes and then wait and see what they do? That will never happen. You know that Israel cannot let that happen. By our not acting strongly, we risk nuclear war in the middle east, since Israel is forced to fend for itself, and without us, they may not possess the conventional power to stop Iran's nuclear program. This situation is so dangerous and so many millions of lives are at risk, it isn't funny.

    I would not rely on the possibility that Iran is simply posturing. Don't we have to act as if what they are saying is what they mean to do? Can we afford to guess wrong?
    Both N. Korea and Iran are non-compliant with the Nuclear Arm Proliferation Treaty, so we can deal with them as we deem appropriate as outlined in this latest policy and that was basically the case prior to now. I very much "mind" if Iran gets nukes, but I think we need to prevent that waaay before they achieve that capability and without a nuclear strike. There's already a lot of information from our own military about a direct strike against their facilities being ineffective and the likely awful consequences of a nuclear strike by Irael in setting off a major upheaval that would "radiate" beyond the middle east. I don't know of anyone who thinks Iran is simply posturing. Overstating their present and near term capabilities, certainly. But we have to assume they have designs on a military nuclear capability. However, that in no way means we should act pre-emptively at this point. The meetings underway right now are an important step in building support for more pressure on Iran. Lots of difficult work to do and posturing on our side isn't going to help, even though it may make many of our own people feel better. Regarding Pakistan, their nukes are the main reason we're in Afghanistan.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    posting from Bethesda, MD
    Posts
    13,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Diver View Post
    Both N. Korea and Iran are non-compliant with the Nuclear Arm Proliferation Treaty, so we can deal with them as we deem appropriate as outlined in this latest policy and that was basically the case prior to now. I very much "mind" if Iran gets nukes, but I think we need to prevent that waaay before they achieve that capability and without a nuclear strike. There's already a lot of information from our own military about a direct strike against their facilities being ineffective and the likely awful consequences of a nuclear strike by Irael in setting off a major upheaval that would "radiate" beyond the middle east. I don't know of anyone who thinks Iran is simply posturing. Overstating their present and near term capabilities, certainly. But we have to assume they have designs on a military nuclear capability. However, that in no way means we should act pre-emptively at this point. The meetings underway right now are an important step in building support for more pressure on Iran. Lots of difficult work to do and posturing on our side isn't going to help, even though it may make many of our own people feel better. Regarding Pakistan, their nukes are the main reason we're in Afghanistan.
    I agree. I do not know the strength of our presence in Afghanistan that is necessary to prevent Taliban from overrunning parts of Pakistan. If we think that propping up the present regime is necessary to accomplish this, I do not think the American people are on the same page, and we'd better start selling that position because it means that we're going to be there for a very long time. It might be more fruitful to withdraw to a strategy of propping up/defending the Pakistani government, not the Afghani government. But I am way out of my depth here, not being able to see behind the scenes. When it gets down to guessing, I'm not sure any good comes out of discussion.
    Aslan 11/1/90 - 6/15/10 Stormy 1/22/95 -8/23/10
    “There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church,
    but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”
    Bishop Fulton J. Sheen

    “It takes a very long time to become young.” Pablo Picasso

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aslan View Post
    I agree. I do not know the strength of our presence in Afghanistan that is necessary to prevent Taliban from overrunning parts of Pakistan. If we think that propping up the present regime is necessary to accomplish this, I do not think the American people are on the same page, and we'd better start selling that position because it means that we're going to be there for a very long time. It might be more fruitful to withdraw to a strategy of propping up/defending the Pakistani government, not the Afghani government. But I am way out of my depth here, not being able to see behind the scenes. When it gets down to guessing, I'm not sure any good comes out of discussion.
    Obama's speech to the nation on his Afghanistan policy was very clear about the the situation in Pakistan being an important factor in shaping that policy.
    Hey, did you see the news from the nuke conference that China has publicly agreed to discuss sanctions against Iran? Long way to go but at least it's an encouraging change.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    posting from Bethesda, MD
    Posts
    13,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Diver View Post
    Obama's speech to the nation on his Afghanistan policy was very clear about the the situation in Pakistan being an important factor in shaping that policy.
    Hey, did you see the news from the nuke conference that China has publicly agreed to discuss sanctions against Iran? Long way to go but at least it's an encouraging change.
    Only the most severe sanctions will avail anything IMO. We are more than a long way from China agreeing to that.

    Iran has its strategy down pat. Like any well-schooled advantage player, they will achieve their goals before anyone can do anything about it. Only a watchful "eye in the sky" (Israel) or a change in house policy (the US) can keep them from gaining their objective. I say only, but there is also the possibility of a change of heart (internal revolution) or some unforeseen, unlikely event.
    Aslan 11/1/90 - 6/15/10 Stormy 1/22/95 -8/23/10
    “There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church,
    but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”
    Bishop Fulton J. Sheen

    “It takes a very long time to become young.” Pablo Picasso

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    On the high seas
    Posts
    607

    Default policy rebuttal

    I agree that any first strike policy is immoral to say the least. I think there is a misunderstanding on the policy in general to which I may be guilty of. I can only go on what the policy was meant to do as explained in general. The consensus of the new policy is that it leaves us venerable to open attack and that is what the debate is about. Left wing or right wing it bothers alot of people that know what it really means and that bothers alot of citizens. Liberal knee jerk reaction is that this is a step forward in reality it is a step forward off a cliff. The President is getting bad information or this is the firtst step to that will lead to America being attacked by terrorists. Even the bone head Biden said that if elected this President would be tested by fire or are they inviting attack?
    " That we may meet in a better place after this!"

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,111

    Default

    Why does the phrase "Often mistaken, but never in doubt come to mind"
    Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out just how far one can go.


    We cannot direct the wind, we can only adjust our sails.

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. The Dubai Financial Nuke Meltdown
    By zengrifter in forum ZenZone General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: December 12th, 2009, 05:23 PM
  2. Kucinich Calls For B-52 Nuke, New 911 Investigations
    By zengrifter in forum ZenZone General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 30th, 2007, 01:19 AM
  3. How Bush/Cheney Is Planning To Nuke Iran
    By zengrifter in forum ZenZone General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: April 5th, 2007, 03:11 PM
  4. When Rummy tried to nuke Russia
    By zengrifter in forum ZenZone General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 26th, 2007, 01:37 PM
  5. I just read an online casino's privacy policy
    By Positively+EV in forum ZenZone General Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: December 7th, 2006, 11:02 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts