Obama announces we will not nuke non-nuclear countries who attack us with WMDs

[Little-Acorn]

(sigh)

One of the most important part of our deterrent threat, was that our adversaries did not know just how far we'd go, did not know what lines we would or wouldn't step across if we were attacked with weapons of mass destruction.

Now they do.

Good job, Zero.

I've frequently said that GWB's most egregious act in office, was his signing of Campaign Finance Reform, a flatly unconstitutional infringement on Freedom of Speech. Then when he signed the first bailout, I started to hedge - that one was up there too.

With the present President, I'm hard pressed to decide WHICH of is acts his the most egregious. Signing Health Care is probably at the top of the list.

But making this announcement about our non-use of our nuclear deterrent, is right up there too.

It's kinda like trying to decide which is worse, smallpox or bubonic plague.

I never used to pay much attention to the If-we-treat-the-world-nice-they-will-treat-us-nice wimps before. Life was too short to deal with irrelevant losers.

Until we elected one to the Presidency.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I dare you to go read the document first, read some facts...then talk.

 

[CHAINSAW]

Obama is just as, if not worse, than the idiot Peanut Farmer President we had 30+ years ago (Jimmy Carter).
The actions, or inactions, of this President will haunt us for many, many years in the future, just as the inactions of Carter.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

why becuse we will not nuke some nation for a small chemical attack? If they don't have nukes? The horror I guess that leaves us with...bio chem attack, and destroying them with reg arms, ( name a nation with no nukes we can't turn to dust in days with reg weapons)

and of course lets not forget the clause that allows this to be changed given the scale of the attack.

2 nations have agreed to turn over Weapons Grade Materials , that where not secure before, to be more secure..to keep out of the hands of terrorist who may actually use them...but you seem silent on that.

Its sad sometimes how so many on the right, are so scared of everything. To live there lives in fear that they need to have guns at all times, and think we need to be able to nuke the world and anyone we wish 1000 times over to be safe. But of course ignore anything that would actuly make things safer.

 

[Little-Acorn]

why becuse we will not nuke some nation for a small chemical attack?

I suggest you read the document.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

SO your suggesting you have? lol

 

[Helicitor]

SO your suggesting you have? lol

Much as I hate to say it, because I'm no Obama fan, this is much ado about nothing. Obama is simply trying to highlight our adherence to our obligations under the Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) in an effort to put pressure on states like India, Pakistan, and Israel and to bolster the treaty. The 5 legitimate weapon's states are obligated to seek to disarm (i.e., eliminate nuclear weapons) and agree not to attack non-nuclear signatories of the treaty. North Korea withdrew from the treaty so is no longer covered. Iran, if they develop weapons, will no longer be in adherence to the treaty, and so will no longer be covered.

A truly catastrophic chem/bio attack conducted by a state on the US is extremely remote, and we're not going to nuke anyone if a countryless terrorist organization manages a successful attack. The threat to world stability if the NPT fails is huge. Obama's statements to date really don't change anything significant in our defense posture.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Much as I hate to say it, because I'm no Obama fan, this is much ado about nothing. Obama is simply trying to highlight our adherence to our obligations under the Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT)

And clearing up some vagueness that should NOT have been cleared up, as I said in the OP.