Good bye deterence. Good bye Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), a policy that kept the peace throughout the Cold War because our adversary, the Soviet Union, was not so foolish as to start a nuclear exchange that would have resulted in their own destruction. Now we are dealing with fanatics like Iran and North Korea, who would risk their own destruction in order to destroy their enemies. And what are we doing to stop nuclear development in Iran and North Korea?
Nothing aside from words.
Nuclear umbrella? Now nations like Saudi Arabia must consider obtaining nuclear weapons as a defense against Iran. Talk about proliferation.
Then there is the subject of Israel. We all know the recent moves by our administration to slap Israel in the face. Now this, as reported by Atlas Shrugs:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/04/new-obama-policy-israeli-nuclear-workers-denied-us-entry.html
Interesting. Iran and North Korea will continue their nuclear programs unimpeded, but any Israeli scientists involved in Israel's nuclear program are persona non grata in the US.
15 comments:
First of all, the administration has declared that if attacked by another nation with chemical or biological weapons, we will not respond with nuclear weapons IF THE ATTACKING COUNTRY IS A SIGNATORY TO THE NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY.
Gary, this is your brain on Fox News. Parts of the policy deal with these very issues.
"Given the catastrophic potential of biological weapons and the rapid pace of bio-technology development, the United States reserves the right to make any adjustment in the assurance that may be warranted by the evolution and proliferation of the biological weapons threat and US capacities to counter that threat."
Also, the bit about countries from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, you need to pay attention to how it's worded:
"[T]he United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations."
Note how they have to be in compliance? If Iran is not in compliance, then they can be a target.
Come on, do you really think that Obama wants to leave us open to nuclear attack? Are you really that brainwashed by the conservative media that you'd be willing to believe something as outrageous as that?
Lance,
Sounds pretty Orwellian to me. I took most of my talking points from an op-ed by Charles Krauthammer, a pretty well-respected commentator.
Besides, why should we advertise what we will or won't do? let our adversaries worry about that.
You're taking it from somebody's account rather than what the actual policy says?
The point is this: It doesn't say what you are saying that it says. Whether it's Orwellian or not is beside the point.
As for "advertising" it, the previous administration had a policy that you could look up as well. This is hardly unique to Obama.
From Krauthammer, news reports and several other accounts.
Gary, I'm quoting the policy itself!
Seriously? Are you really not getting this?
Question for you, Lance since I "am not getting it".
"[T]he United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations."
If we are hit by chemical or biological weapons by a country that has signed the NPT, what would Obama do or not do?
Break it down for me please. And remember, I am just a simple guy (like O'Reilly).
That's covered right here:
"...the United States reserves the right to make any adjustment in the assurance that may be warranted by the evolution and proliferation of the biological weapons threat and US capacities to counter that threat."
I had already quoted that part.
Look, if you want to critique this thing, then critique the fact that it's basically not changing anything. It's saying, "Hey, we're going to stop doing this unless something happens where we feel that it's okay for us to change our mind." I mean, you're right about it being Orwellian. You, and your sources, are wrong about it saying that we won't do anything in the wake of an attack. That's just simple fact, Gary. I feel that if your favorite sources told you that the sky was pink, you'd have a blog making fun of all the "blue sky believers".
Gary, which planet are you living on? There hasn't been any peace for as long as I am alive and this panic that Obama leaves us open to be attacked is ridiculous.
Why are you so worried about being hit by some country?
Shouldn't we worry about problems at hand?
Ingrid,
Planet Earth, of course.
What I worry about is a country like Iran handing off dirty nukes to terrorists who would use them here. I also worry about N Korea striking Seoul or Tokyo with a nuke.
I don't believe those are beyond the realm of possibility.
Lance,
So what Obama is saying is that maybe we will change our mind. Great.
I just think with Iran and N Korea feverishly developing nukes, this is not the right time to think about "a world without nukes".
Kinda like Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm.
Gary, the distressing thing about this is that I have clearly pointed out that you - and your sources - are saying things that simply aren't true, and this doesn't seem to even bother you a little bit.
Lance,
You didn't answer my question. Let me repeat.
If we are hit by chemical or biological weapons by a country that has signed the NPT, what would Obama do or not do?
Break it down for me please. And remember, I am just a simple guy (like O'Reilly).
BTW, If there is no change in policy, why did he make the announcement? I'm confused.
Sounds like that straw man thing you always bring up.
Do I really have to break this down for you? Is it really that hard?
The policy states that we won't respond with nuclear weapons with a country that does not have them. However, it states that this can be changed considering the nature of things like biological weapons.
In other words, the nuclear option is still on the table.
Hey, I'm with you when it comes to how meaningless this all ultimately is. I'm taking issue with your assertion that Obama somehow wouldn't be willing to retaliate against our enemies. I'm also pointing out the FACT that this policy does not state what you say that it states.
And if anybody is attacking a straw man here, it's you. (Are you still not clear on that concept either?)
Are you trying to wear me down here, lance?
How about this for an analogy: It's like telling rapists we won't arrest you for a new rape as long as you are currently registered as a sex offender.
Like that?
No?
No. Ugh. Never mind.
Post a Comment