Barry Hussein's No-Nukes Policy

[GaryG]

The Obama administration is locking up the country's nuclear weapons for all but the most "extreme circumstances," pledging in a new policy not to develop new nuclear weapons and to limit the use of the ones in storage -- even for self defense.

The new strategy stops short of declaring the United States will never be the first to launch a nuclear attack. But officials said the goal is to move toward a policy where the "sole purpose" of nuclear weapons is to deter or respond to a nuclear attack.

Hey Barry: There is no deterrent if they know you won't use them. Like carrying a 12-gauge under your arm when your enemies know you are not man enough to pull the trigger. Our nuclear policy should be: We will attack whenever the threat against us or our allies is great enough.

[Tom]

Telling about the policy is moronic at best.
HAVING a policy is worse.
As CNC, it is HIS decision (:eek::rolleyes:) when to use them or not.
Once he leaves office, that weight falls on the next guy,not him.
There is no need for a policy - that is why we elect presidents - to handle these situations as they come up.

I wonder if he writes this policy on his hand?

[johnhannibalsmith]

If someone has a decent link to a story that deals with the factual aspects of this proposal, I'd appreciate a good reference. I tried to read about this recently, but the article was so awfully disjointed, attempting to paint our administration in such a favorable light and using this policy as a benchmark that they forgot to actually detail the real concepts in their entirety.

What I did get out of it, and correct me if I am wrong, is that the US is proposing to cease development of new nukes and essentially vow to not use any nuclear arms against nations that do not have nukes. The caveat being that the US will ignore that pledge with regards to nations that do not have nukes but are actively seeking to develop them.

In theory, I guess there is an element of logic in trying to dissuade proliferation by taking the lead in scaling back our own development with the promise.

But, for those of you that, like me, enjoy brilliant pieces of filmmaking that the rest of the world thinks is awful - it reminds me an awful lot of the classic movie Mars Attacks!.

Yes, the film that was apparently based in large part of the posts of 46zilzal in this very forum, where the naive Americans welcome with open arms the martians, using their big evolved brains and peaceful tendencies to assume the best of the new arrivals to our planet.

Unfortunately, the martians could care less and tried to kill everything in sight and destroy our country landmark by landmark.

Perhaps this proposed approach is worth trying - nuclear weapons pretty much suck for everyone involved - but it seems that the target audience is largely the leaders of Iran and North Korea. Those two maniacs remind me just a little bit too much of those squalling martians in the classic aforementioned movie and I remain unconvinced that a good, logical, mutually beneficial idea has any place in dealing with those two leaders.

I'm afraid that nukes are here to stay and its just a matter of time before someone screws up and accelerates their use. Hopefully our leaders realize that all great, well-intended logical plans require a backup strategy to deal with the maniacally illogical that hate us.

[Greyfox]

I'm afraid that nukes are here to stay and its just a matter of time before someone screws up and accelerates their use. Hopefully our leaders realize that all great, well-intended logical plans require a backup strategy to deal with the maniacally illogical that hate us.

North Korea and Iran "maniacally illogical and hate us?"
Surely you jest. They are only developing bom..they are only developing reactors for energy purposes. Now where was that bridge you had for sale.

[Dave Schwartz]

Have you ever noticed how many things Obama is accused of that are defended with statements like, "Oh, that just can't be true."

My concern is that there are just so many.

[boxcar]

And besides those two, don't forget the Russians. The Ruskies should never, never be trusted. I believe they're bent on reviving the old Soviet empire, and economic conditions over there would make it easy for the state to get the people's mind off those dismal realities and onto war. And now that they're in bed with China....

Boxcar

[ArlJim78]

Its total BS to pretend like you can set and publish a policy of response. We will respond with nukes under these circumstances, but not in these. Better to leave it ambiguous and let people know that nothing is off the table in the case that the US were to be attacked. Like Tom said, the policy doesn't mean anything, what will matter is the judgement of the sitting president at the time of attack, which means we better hope we are not attacked in the next 2.5 years. Obama would respond by going to the UN for "meaningful" sanctions.

[Tom]

The correct policy to spread around the world is:

We used them twice before.
We have lots more now.
And they are bigger.

Do ya feel lucky,punk?
Go ahead,make my day.

[woodtoo]

Tom,thats a policy everone,no matter their I.Q. can understand. :ThmbUp:

[johnhannibalsmith]

"Defense Secretary Robert Gates says the change will pave the way toward an eventual nuclear-free world."

Can we ask him to repeat this statement while subjected to polygraph testing?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100406/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_us_russia_nuclear

[46zilzal]

The correct policy to spread around the world is:

We used them twice before.
We have lots more now.
And they are bigger.

Do ya feel lucky,punk?
Go ahead,make my day.
Mutual Assured Derstruction

[Tom]

Nope...more like Woo Hoooooooooooooooooooooo!

[ArlJim78]

"Defense Secretary Robert Gates says the change will pave the way toward an eventual nuclear-free world."

Can we ask him to repeat this statement while subjected to polygraph testing?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100406/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_us_russia_nuclear
I agree, there is no way he believes that statement.

[skate]

In the way that the USA deals with Iran concerning nukes, to me it's more like a joke.

We put a freeze on their assets, total $43 Million. They take more from oil in one Day.

Also, we allow, as we have for YEARS, contracts with Iran and our companys. Such as now, with Intel and Honeywell etc., GE and Halliburton in the recent past.

A Joke!

[bigmack]

The correct policy to spread around the world is:
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/4_6_10_19_57_59.png (http://popup.lala.com/popup/360569475234611726)
(Nuke to Play)

No one likes us-I don't know why
We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try
But all around, even our old friends put us down
Let's drop the big one and see what happens
We give them money-but are they grateful?
No, they're spiteful and they're hateful
They don't respect us-so let's surprise them
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them
Asia's crowded and Europe's too old
Africa is far too hot
And Canada's too cold
And South America stole our name
Let's drop the big one
There'll be no one left to blame us
We'll save Australia
Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo
We'll build an All American amusement park there
They got surfin', too
Boom goes London and boom Paris
More room for you and more room for me
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town
Oh, how peaceful it will be
We'll set everybody free
You'll wear a Japanese kimono babe
And there'll be Italian shoes for me
They all hate us anyhow
So let's drop the big one now
Let's drop the big one now

[Greyfox]

Mutual Assured Derstruction

??