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 2:48 pm
I wonder why he didn't run using this as part of his platform. If Elected, I will disarm our country unilaterally! Gee. Let me think…
April 6, 2010 at 3:06 pm
"Signaling to our enemies that we will not punch back as hard as we can will just embolden them. Even if the President intended this, he should not advertise it to the world. It is one thing to have a wimp in office. It is another thing to admit it. " from http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/04/06/obamas-dangerous-game-continues/
April 6, 2010 at 3:07 pm
And of course since we no longer have any chemical or biological weapons, and we won't use nucs against anyone who signs a piece of paper (I'm thinking of Chamberlain getting off the plane at Croyden in 1938), We have in fact said we will only respond to a non-nuclear WMD attack with strongly worded protests to the UN and if that doesn't work we can carefully and gradually escalate from small arms fire to 500 pound bombs.
The President is obviously a man with great intellectual ability because it takes great intelligence to be really, really stupid.
April 6, 2010 at 3:47 pm
Say what you want about it, the policy of mutually assured destruction has worked for two generations.
I think what I want to say about it is this: "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation."
Also, I might say something like: "The accumulation of arms strikes many as a paradoxically suitable way of deterring potential adversaries from war. They see it as the most effective means of ensuring peace among nations. This method of deterrence gives rise to strong moral reservations. The arms race does not ensure peace. Far from eliminating the causes of war, it risks aggravating them."
I might also want to add: "The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. 'The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties.'"
But then, these things have already been said, by folks more important than me.
April 6, 2010 at 4:09 pm
It was nice knowing all of you.
April 6, 2010 at 4:23 pm
Bend Over, Here It Comes Again (BOHICA)
April 6, 2010 at 4:45 pm
I dislike President Obama immensely, but you're off on this one. It's GOOD that he won't use nuclear weapons to defend us. We do not have to succumb to the level of those who would hurt us in order to get back at them.
Don't be reactionary neocons. Be Catholic. Neoconservatism, along with liberal dissent, is the scourge of Catholicism today. We need not be like Protestantism.
April 6, 2010 at 4:53 pm
Thank you anonymous! This is probably the first thing Obama has done that I agree with. Every now and then it's tough to separate American politics from Catholic morality. Many think the the Catholic Church and the Republican party/American foreign policy go hand in hand. It's really too bad. Seriously, how can a Catholic advocate for the "if you kill my kids, then I'll kill yours" morality? And if it's not true, then why say it?
April 6, 2010 at 4:57 pm
To both Anonymouses (anonymii?) I HEARTILY AGREE!!!!
April 6, 2010 at 4:58 pm
I think the issue isn't about ACTUALLY using them– seriously, if someone invaded my house, I don't think I would ACTUALLY harm them (if it could be helped), but I'd like to be able to hold a knife or gun and make them THINK I would harm them. It's a protection. I would NEVER use those weapons, but I'd sure want people to think I was willing to do it– let them think it and never test it, and no one will be hurt at all.
~Zee
April 6, 2010 at 5:34 pm
Even Peter carried a sword.
April 6, 2010 at 5:34 pm
Yes, and Christ told him to put it away.
April 6, 2010 at 5:52 pm
No one disagrees about not using nukes. The issue with the tactic of keeping your cards close to your vest to not encourage the crazies from doing something stupid. If they know that Mecca will still stand after they nuke us, then that becomes an acceptable risk to them.
April 6, 2010 at 5:58 pm
Yes. I say, have this policy, but make it a super secret policy. Why announce to all of the world, 'we won't fight back'? This isn't the schoolyard. They won't be so touched by our acts of kindness that they won't want to hurt us. Deterrence works. People don't want to cause their own destruction.
April 6, 2010 at 6:03 pm
Der Fuhrer wants another Nobel peace prize, no?
— d'oreo
April 6, 2010 at 6:13 pm
Anonymous:
Not using nuclear weapons is NOT the same as not fighting back.
April 6, 2010 at 6:20 pm
The man is jeopardizing national security. He is no longer fit to lead and must stand down.
April 6, 2010 at 7:56 pm
Obama was never fit to lead, never fit for the highest office. He was elected by a bunch of morons. His election signals that America might have become incapable of rational and responsible self-governance. The November mid-term elections may very well either seal America's doom or revive a catatonic nation. I cannot respect anyone who supported or supports Obama.
April 6, 2010 at 8:00 pm
I agree with Nzie…There's nothing more threatening to a burglar than the sound of a double barrel shotgun reloading right behind the door he's about to break through. In that instance, I'm sure the invader would think twice about his act of agression on my home if I were behind the gun. Do I have it in me to kill? I hope never to have the chance to find out. (Although I have a 20" fry pan that could do some damage if needed.)
I don't know that I'd have the heart to harm if I were in danger. But as a mother, isn't it only right and natural that I would do my utmost to protect the lives of my children? Then why shouldn't we have a gun on hand to protect the innocent civilians of our country? Do we really want another Pearl Harbor? Look at all the countries that were invaded by Hitler. How many innocent civilians (and I'm talking men, women, children, religious, young, and old) that were killed instantly on the spot. That's why we still have the right to bear arms. Not be agressors or barbarians. But for protection from those who seek to take our God given rights of life, and to protect our loved ones.
Obama's been working to cut our national defense too, oh by the way. He's no friend to this nation, make no mistake about it. For those who don't believe in weapons for the offense, they can at least see the immense harm in decreasing our country's defenses, I'm sure.
April 6, 2010 at 8:59 pm
(This thread's first anonymous here ….)
The difference between nuclear warfare and using a shotgun to defend your home against an intruder is that using a shotgun to defend your home is likely to be morally licit, and uses of nuclear weapons (outside some particular tactic situations) like is not. In other words, if you use a shotgun with proportionate force to defend your kids from an aggressor, you probably haven't committed a sin. If you drop a nuke on a city, you certainly have.
So threatening a thief with a shotgun and threatening a country with a nuke are not the same thing.