The concept was simple. You (or actors under your control) use weapons of mass destruction against us, we will use them against you. Period. Say what you want about it, the policy of mutually assured destruction has worked for two generations.
Now President Obama, in his feckless arrogance, has decided to turn a blind eye to the dangers of the world and unilaterally limit the threat of retaliation against rogue states.
[NYTimes]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.
This move invites, literally invites disaster.
So any rogue state can use chemical weapons against the U.S. potentially killing tens of thousands of Americans without any fear of reprisal in kind.
By gutting mutually assured destruction, President Obama has invited unilaterally assured destruction.
President Obama’s feckless arrogance invites war and death.
April 6, 2010 at 9:33 pm
Slightly off-topic: Please don't display a weapon unless you are willing, able, and trained; otherwise, the attacker WILL take it from you and kill you with it.
— Mack
April 6, 2010 at 10:09 pm
One needs to differentiate the moral evaluations of possessing a nuclear arsenal, having an undisclosed nuclear policy with actually detonating a nuclear device. To blanket all 3 under a sweeping moral evaluation is fallacious and erroneous. For starters, morality considers the act itself, the circumstances surrounding the act albeit extenuating or aggravating and finally the intent.
April 6, 2010 at 10:28 pm
It would be in our country's best interests if the policy had its lid kept on it. I'm a military wife so this is a tough one. I'm ready to kick butt if called to do so . . . and, I grew up believing that if you aim a gun, you better shoot and shoot to kill or it might be used against you. You should pretty much know ahead of time what your actions would be when it comes to defending life and freedom. That said, I think there are enough people in America who would fight tooth and nail to keep America free . . . then again, last November pretty much sucked the air out of the room. Whatever happened to United We Stand? If we don't, we won't.
April 6, 2010 at 11:08 pm
Nuclear weapons do not have to be used against cities or civilians. They can be targeted against military targets and come in a variety of sizes. The point is to keep WMDs from being used at all. Unilateral disarmament has historically been one of the quickest ways to start a war.
April 7, 2010 at 12:12 am
Lot of buzz about this today. I think it is just a little posturing from Obama to make himself look good. Something he can do that makes him appear more worldly and feed his ego at the same time. The chances that the U.S. would use nuclear weapons against the perpetrators of such an attack is very slim.
What it does show is how inexperienced and naive he truly is. Past Presidents used the ambiguous threat of the nuclear option as a deterrent. Hence the acronym of the policy. Obama's foolishness will just embolden our enemies.
I'm guessing he was high and full of love when he made this decision.
April 7, 2010 at 12:36 am
If they know that Mecca will still stand after they nuke us
Yet, if I read the quotation correctly, the president said that he wouldn't respond to non-nuclear assaults with nuclear weapons. Which means that the threat to return nuclear with nuclear still stands.
I doubt any president would bomb Mecca, anyway. I sure wouldn't, because there would be hell to pay if Jerusalem or the Vatican were bombed, and I expect Muslims to have the same reaction.
April 7, 2010 at 3:26 am
Totally willing, able and trained to defend my home and children especially as my husband is deployed defending this nation.
Obama is an idiot.
April 7, 2010 at 4:03 am
We're not eliminating nukes. We're putting mostly reasonable stipulations on them. Maybe we could use more money on updating the ones we have, but we certainly don't need to be developing any more–we have more than than enough for the world.
I agree with the idea that the biggest danger today isn't from the countries who currently have nukes but from those illegally developing them or certain parties which obtain them. If we're asking other countries to reduce or not develop them, we better lead by example…that's human psychology–few people follow a person who doesn't live what they ask.
Honestly, the less nukes in this world the better. I'd sleep easier knowing that there wasn't a single one on Earth. They're terrible devices.
April 7, 2010 at 5:00 pm
This is a complex topic about which many are un – or misinformed.
But the bottom line is this:
Obama's move brings the world CLOSER to both nuclear war and war with other WMD's. (For the skeptical, I recommend the Center For Security Policy for details)
I am having flashbacks to the 1970's. In Catholic school the main focus was on the word "community" and what that meant (we spent an entire year on it). In church we sang Kumbaya EVERY SUNDAY – literally – and had to walk the gauntlet of unilateral disarmament pamphleteers on the way out the door.
Thank God, smarter heads prevailed.
Look: carrying a big stick is not immoral. There is am implied threat that one might use it for serious bodily damage – even death if need be. Otherwise why not just carry a medium -sized stick? Bullies do not respond to that.
Anyone who has even been picked on, abused or regularly beaten by bullies can tell you that a weakling is a turn-on for them. They don't just get encouraged to make peace, they actually get excited to do "what they do". It's like that "Chase, Trip, Kill" instinct that is triggered in a big cat when something runs away from it.
We have a MORAL OBLIGATION to protect ourselves (and others). But in this world, we are not talking about doing it with sticks. We are talking about nuclear weapons.
Right before I went into Iraq for Desert Storm, a letter was handed to the Iraqi's. It pretty much warned Saddam that if he used chemical weapons against us, that we would nuke them. (Although, the letter was purposely not explicit.)
I recall being in an Army hospital early Jan 91 and overhearing the doctors "taking bets" on the predicted number of casualties. They were talking about numbers in the 10's and 100's of thousands of US dead. We spent the time practicing putting on our MOPP gear as quickly as possible and practicing for auto-injecting ourselves to counter nerve gas, etc. It was…very…scary.
I thank God that I am here today, in part, because Pres. Bush (41) was willing to make clear that NBC (nuclear, biological or chemical) weapons use might just trigger annihilation.
Is it wrong to nuke innocent civilians? You bet. But it is also wrong to allow OUR CIVILIANS TO GET NUKED (or hit with a dirty bomb, chemical or bio weapons) JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE UNWILLING TO THREATEN. Sigh….
Threatening to DEFEND yourself (in retaliation) is NOT bullying – and it is not morally wrong.
If all you had was a very large bomb with which to defend yourself, so large that it would take out your whole block if you set it off – and assuredly kill innocents, would it be WRONG to tell an intruder, "Look buddy, if you don't put down that gun right now I will blow up THIS WHOLE BLOCK!" Well? Is that wrong? Nope. It isn't. The threat is not wrong. It also isn't pleasant, but neither is facing the threat from Jihadists who will only back down when we convert or are killed.
Disarming yourself and enticing – yes enticing attacks on yourself – and others is not just stupid, it is flat out wrong. It is an obviation of a moral responsibility as clear as the one a mother has to protect her own children.
Done. Sorry so long.
April 7, 2010 at 5:53 pm
Wow Jimbo! Great points!
So basically with Iran preparing Nuclear weapons, and North Korea still under insane leadership, we poised ourselves as a nation that said
"Okay, I'm putting my gun down, but as soon as I do, you need to put yours down too (you know, the one pointed directly at our heads)."
Yeah, that's reassuring.
April 8, 2010 at 12:35 pm
"Anonymous said…
Slightly off-topic: Please don't display a weapon unless you are willing, able, and trained; otherwise, the attacker WILL take it from you and kill you with it.
— Mack"
I just had to respond when I read that. This is patently false. Horrifyingly so. I did my thesis on exactly this topic, victim self defense. The occurrence of a victim being disarmed and killed with his own weapon is practically nonexistent. It is more likely to happen to an unsuspecting police officer unfortunately, than a civilian in their own home.
Criminals aren't generally ninjas, they won't disarm you. Victims who defend themselves have better and safer outcomes in home invasions. Sorry for being so off topic, but this is about protecting homes and families, and that belief that people are spreading that you have to be some kind of trained "expert" to protect yourself and your family is stupid and dangerous. The best defense is the willingness to defend yourself and family.
Oh, and while it is important to limit as much as possible the indiscriminate use of nuclear weapons because of the death of innocents, their licit use in retaliation can actually occur. This policy is just as stupid and dangerous and endangers people.