Obama’s New Nuclear Policy
[Guest post by DRJ]
The New York Times announces the Obama Administration’s new nuclear policy — the “Nuclear Posture Review” — that halts the development of new nuclear weapons and puts further restrictions on America’s use of existing nuclear weapons:
“Discussing his approach to nuclear security the day before formally releasing his new strategy, Mr. Obama described his policy as part of a broader effort to edge the world toward making nuclear weapons obsolete, and to create incentives for countries to give up any nuclear ambitions. To set an example, the new strategy renounces the development of any new nuclear weapons, overruling the initial position of his own defense secretary.”
The article suggests this policy will give Obama greater flexibility in dealing with “rogue states and terrorist organizations,” although I’m not sure how because it restricts rather than expands Obama’s options regarding the use of nuclear weapons:
“Mr. Obama’s strategy is a sharp shift from those of his predecessors and seeks to revamp the nation’s nuclear posture for a new age in which rogue states and terrorist organizations are greater threats than traditional powers like Russia and China.
It eliminates much of the ambiguity that has deliberately existed in American nuclear policy since the opening days of the cold war. 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.”
President Bush also sought to restrict the use nuclear weapons but retained the right to use them to deter threats from “banned chemical and biological weapons and large-scale conventional attacks.” IMO the only way Obama’s new policy makes sense is if he believes deterrence never works or works so poorly that it’s not worth retaining. In addition, by limiting options, doesn’t this make it more likely America would have no choice but to use ground troops and conventional weapons to respond to some unconventional attacks? How does that protect America or Americans, something Obama promised to do as President?
Finally, imagine what would happen if this policy were imposed on Israel — something I can envision Obama requiring if Israel wants continued American support. Even if that doesn’t happen, Obama’s words can’t give Israel much comfort:
“[Obama] dodged when asked whether he shared Israel’s view that a “nuclear capable” Iran was as dangerous as one that actually possessed weapons.
“I’m not going to parse that right now,” he said, sitting in his office as children played on the South Lawn of the White House at a daylong Easter egg roll.”
I can’t think of any words, images, or days to more effectively convey Obama’s dismissive attitude toward Israel.
At heart, it seems Obama’s policy is America will give up its nuclear weapons in the hope everyone else will, too. In the meantime, Americans and America’s allies are expected to trust that Obama’s policy will work and that he makes the right decisions — every single time.
How’s that working out so far?
— DRJ
DRJ – What’s the expiration date on the new policy?
daleyrocks (718861) — 4/5/2010 @ 8:40 pmI don’t think this policy has an expiration date since it apparently dates back to his college thesis. It might even be something from his childhood if his mother talked about it.
DRJ (daa62a) — 4/5/2010 @ 8:45 pmYou never know what the one will do next, but you know it will fly in the face of experience and common sense.
As others have said before, if he treated the enemies of the US like he treats political opponents (“he brings a knife, you bring a gun”), he would make GWB look like a dove.
MD in Philly (59a3ad) — 4/5/2010 @ 8:53 pmI think Obama doesn’t feel that we need deterrence, because in the new world Obama order, every country will deal with every other in peace and brotherhood and friendship.
Steven Den Beste (99cfa1) — 4/5/2010 @ 8:58 pmIs the rumor true that he is having the “big red button” repainted yellow?
elissa (72eb69) — 4/5/2010 @ 8:59 pmin the First Moron’s world, America will surrender to all attackers and attack all allies.
anyone still willing to defend the premise that this traitorous scumbag is a “good man”?
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 4/5/2010 @ 9:03 pmWorse than Carter.
Beldar (f9cafa) — 4/5/2010 @ 9:03 pmWhat the f? When I first said that he seemed to think that he’d been elected king of the world, I thought I was making a joke. This makes no sense, none.
htom (412a17) — 4/5/2010 @ 9:04 pmOMG. When does this ridiculousness end? Right about now there are several world leaders laughing at us. Again. And they are not our friends.
Go fierce little Israel.
Dana (1e5ad4) — 4/5/2010 @ 9:09 pmHelp me here. Are there *any* sensible Democrats left in, or on the periphery of government? Aren’t there any Dem statesmen around who find themselves waking up in the middle of the night sweating with concern over this president and with worry about our country?
elissa (72eb69) — 4/5/2010 @ 9:10 pmMr. Obama described his policy as part of a broader effort to edge the world toward making nuclear weapons obsolete, and to create incentives for countries to give up any nuclear ambitions.
This really brings to mind John Lennon’s Imagine: foolish, naive, and lacking a keen understanding of human nature. It’s fine if one is still a youthful idealist, but our president needs a big heaping dose of realism. This isn’t the role for dreamers. The genie cannot be shoved back into the bottle – that’s the reality.
Imagine there’s no countries
Dana (1e5ad4) — 4/5/2010 @ 9:27 pmIt isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace…
Indeed, this seems like some kind of idiotic thought that deterrence does nothing. But that can’t really be it. Anyone who has studied modern history knows that deterrence does work.
I guess Obama could just go back on his word on this too, and nuke whoever uses biological weapons on us. That doesn’t really solve the problem, though.
This is an idea meant to be good for the world, at the USA’s expense of risk. Obama doesn’t realize his job is to help the USA advance relative to the world, at least at diplomatic work. He knows overregulating and demonizing banks is helping other countries take the USA’s position at the center of business. He’s pleased with that? And our lack of energy investment is helping other countries advance while we languish. Cool?
And his successor will have an awfully hard time dealing with nuclear Iran. I guess that’s also part of the plan for a new balance where the USA is humbled. And when there’s a disaster, some will think that’s ok, because Obama tried to treat the world much more nicely, and that’s what counts to them. Hell, the dead people will probably be Jewish, so that’s probably no skin off half the world’s nose.
dustin (b54cdc) — 4/5/2010 @ 9:29 pmSince his first month in office I have said he is a lunatic.
HeavenSent (a9126d) — 4/5/2010 @ 9:29 pmDo you wingers ever, you know, read the actual policy before you hyperventilate? Think for yourselves. We have nukes. Therefore, we always have the option to use them. This doesn’t hurt our capacity to defend ourselves one iota. What is does is put large bullseyes on nations that do not sign on to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Would that you loved America as much as you loved your blind outrage.
Progressing (321b6f) — 4/5/2010 @ 9:29 pmAnd I’m just going to guess that the GOP house will fund a few weapons systems. Sure, Obama won’t be happy about it. But the Senate won’t stop it, if that even remains in the dem’s hands.
All that foreign money Obama invited into his campaign was wisely spent, but it won’t be enough to keep this crap going. Perhaps, when it’s apparent this cycle is turning around, that will be the most risky time.
dustin (b54cdc) — 4/5/2010 @ 9:31 pmthought before opening your piehole.
But stupid is as stupid does, and the O!ne has been a grand show of stupid since day one.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 4/5/2010 @ 9:34 pmprogressing, it doesn’t really sound like you have any idea what this policy says.
How does it paint a bullseye on nations that don’t sign the proliferation treaty? Because of the threat that Barack Obama of all people is going to nuke them? Are you serious? He won’t even sanction them.
The policy bars the use of nukes under certain circumstances. You’ve learned that we still can go back on our word with Obama at the helm. With Nuclear Weapons, it’s pretty important we simply make our policy clear and make no deviations from it. I know this is a lot for you to understand, but this is a very important topic for the USA to be clear about. We can’t just change it because we want to, or the consequences would be massive.
anyway, guess what? This is a democratic republic, and I think Obama’s amazing failures in foreign policy, even with allies, and his repeated BS like this, will make him look undesirable next to any GOP candidate.
We will be progressing real soon.
dustin (b54cdc) — 4/5/2010 @ 9:39 pm“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.”
So if someone starts firing nerve agents into American cities, we won’t use nuclear weapons against them?
What a total idiot this guy is.
He should be impeached just for being a moron.
Dave Surls (be7c7f) — 4/5/2010 @ 9:49 pmIt eliminates much of the ambiguity that has deliberately existed in American nuclear policy since the opening days of the cold war.
In basic terms, in terms most people can understand: Obama is like a big-pushover, lovey-dovey, feel-good mommy, and the brats (fanatics, despots, terrorists included) in the house — ie the world — know it. By contrast, those same brats aren’t as likely to make faces, snicker, talk back and push the limits if daddy walks through the front door.
The specifics of the new policy — as naive or, at best, innocuous as they are — by themselves don’t make us significantly more vulnerable. But in tandem with a “Goddamn America” nitwit in the White House, we end up looking like the sappiest, kissiest big mommy this side of kum-bah-wah land.
The brats of the world are further emboldened to have a field day.
Mark (411533) — 4/5/2010 @ 10:00 pmIt has been an article of faith among lefties since, oh, the 1970’s that America as a superpower was the real problem in the world. Especially since the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the USSR, they viewed the situation as being even worse, with the US the only super-power.
Such lefties felt that many world problems would be solved if only the last superpower disarmed — and they finally got their guy into the White House, and now that’s what he’s trying to do. The post-American president is trying to bring about a post-American world.
Steven Den Beste (99cfa1) — 4/5/2010 @ 10:17 pmObama’s so dumb he probably believes Imadamnutjob’s BS about living in peace and harmony.
daleyrocks (718861) — 4/5/2010 @ 10:20 pmdaley, see #11. Imagine all the people, living life in peace…
Dana (1e5ad4) — 4/5/2010 @ 10:23 pmIt’s a small world after all
daleyrocks (718861) — 4/5/2010 @ 10:48 pmIt’s a small world after all…………
Hey come on everyone. It’s just a Rope-a-Dope. He’s suckering someone to attack us just so he can use an atomic bomb on them.
There is no way a President in his right mind would tell the world that you can attack us and not suffer complete retaliation. Is there?
Alta Bob (e8af2b) — 4/5/2010 @ 10:59 pmAlta Bob – You know the difference between 1945 and now?
We’ve got Obama now.
daleyrocks (718861) — 4/5/2010 @ 11:02 pmThere are some real telling phrases that the NYT reporters use in the article. I am focused on the following (emphasis added):
Whether or not they realize it, the NYT reporters are acknowledging that Obama’s policy is to the left of Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy, and any and every Democrat over the last 65 years short of George McGovern. I don’t even think John Kerry would have proposed anything so childishly stupid.
The moral preening of this administration is scandalous, especially when it complicates our foreign policy objectives. I know Obama feels that he has to do something to deserve is Nobel Prize, but this is truly stupid. Yeah, this sort of grandstanding will win praise in Oslo, Bern, Caracas, Brussels, and everywhere else whose opinion shouldn’t matter much to us. Whether this gains us dividends in Baghdad, Islamabad, Tehran, and Riyadh remains to be seen, but I know how I would bet.
Final postscript: if Hillary stays for the full four years she deserves nothing but contempt for facilitating such a silly foreign policy. I guess after all these years it would finally give us a glimpse as to what her carefully hidden ideology really is.
JVW (08e86a) — 4/5/2010 @ 11:25 pmi’ve got some better foreign policy lyrics Dana:
March of Cambreadth
of course, pus nuts would sh1t himself if he even heard the words, let alone saw them enacted.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 4/5/2010 @ 11:32 pmi REALLY hate the loss of formatting that came with the upgrade…..
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 4/5/2010 @ 11:32 pmthat and Truman was an American patriot, whereas sh1tbird hates this country.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 4/5/2010 @ 11:34 pmIt’s not upgraded yet, just testing stuff. Really.
DRJ (daa62a) — 4/5/2010 @ 11:35 pmLimiting the Tonnage of Aircraft Carriers was the last effective worldwide disarnament policy that was initiated by the democrats – it lasted for about a dozen years until just before 1942
EricPWJohnson (4e868a) — 4/5/2010 @ 11:36 pmthats disarmament, not disleyastupidia
EricPWJohnson (4e868a) — 4/5/2010 @ 11:39 pmI guess after all these years it would finally give us a glimpse as to what her carefully hidden ideology really is.
She’s been too busy dodging sniper fire on airport tamacs in Bosnia to fomulate an ideology. However, blatant, shameless, screwball dishonesty does tend to be a trait among leftists, or ultra-liberals in particular. IOW, Hillary and Barack are mostly two peas in a pod.
Mark (411533) — 4/5/2010 @ 11:43 pmThere actually is a codicil to the Non-Proliferation Treaty which generally suggests that the nuclear powers will not target a compliant non-nuclear nation, with a few exceptions (e.g. allied to a belligerent nuclear power). Probably a good idea as signing the treaty adds to a nation’s security more than nuclear weapons would.
Too bad that no one made an example of North Korea for abrogating, but I digress.
If you accept that a nation is only justified in using nuclear weapons in extremis — generally an immediate and existential threat to the nation or one of its allies — the rules for the USA are rather different from those for Israel. Israel cannot survive even one small bomb, and may even feel justified in PRE-EMPTING with nukes if a nuclear attack is imminent. A successful nuclear strike on Israel would rigger the most horrific of responses.
The USA, on the other hand, has non-nuclear options even after a small-scale nuclear attack (although I rather doubt it would play out that way). Barring H-bombs on Manhattan and D.C. (or some such) such an attack would not threaten the continuation of the government. Our response would be measured and to the point of destroying the enemy command prior to invasion, rather than a wholesale genocide.
The thing that absolutely bugs me about this policy, though, is the idea that biological attacks are not considered existential. A tailored smallpox virus could kill a million people even if massive immunization was effective. Any president who did not respond most forcefully to such an event should be impeached via the short form.
But barring that — and accepting for the moment that a clear policy has benefits — I don’t have grave difficulties with Obama’s policy. If the freeze on bomb development is a bad idea, plenty of time to fix that once he leaves office.
Kevin Murphy (5ae73e) — 4/5/2010 @ 11:59 pmFrom the Levant, to the Plains of Persia, they shall grow mushrooms, and reap Gardens of Stone!
We have selected fools to lead us.
AD - RtR/OS! (0d3e7e) — 4/6/2010 @ 12:26 amsorry, but WMD are WMD: you may be a signatory of the NPT, but if you use chem or bio weapons, you should expect repayment in kind.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 4/6/2010 @ 12:32 amsince the US gave up bugs and gas back in the 70’s you get nukes from us if you are stupid.
you don’t want nukes, don’t screw with us.
that’s not some weird, hard to understand calculus that’s open to missunderstanding, it’s straight forward math: WMD + attacking the US = national annihilation.
if you don’t want the horn, leave the bull alone.
> doesn’t this make it more likely America would have no choice but to use ground troops and conventional weapons to respond to some unconventional attacks?
No, because you’re forgetting Option B: bend over and take it, while doing nothing in response, which is exactly how the lickspittle chickenshit crapweasel libtards want us to respond, and always have.
This was their idea of how to respond to the Nazis, it was their idea of how to respond to the Soviets and Red China, and now it’s their idea of how to respond to Terrorism.
Postmodern Liberalism is a CULTURAL SUICIDE MEME.
No “ifs”, no “ands”, no “buts”.
It has one goal, and one goal alone — the complete and total destruction of all nation-states descended from Greek culture. It seeks to destroy every last vestige of those ideas and their legacy to humankind.
It is sick and depraved, and it’s unfortunately very well along on its way to success.
Postmodern liberalism is a cancer eating away at society.
[note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]
IgotBupkis (79d71d) — 4/6/2010 @ 1:10 am[…] Telegraph: Barack Obama’s humiliation of Israel is a disgrace Patterico’s Pontifications: Obama’s New Nuclear Policy and More Obama “Civility” and The Back Story: Obama and Israel Times Online, Binyamin Netanyahu […]
10,000 Yellow Roses of Friendship… and Israel’s PM Netanyahu’s Reluctance to Accept Them from American Christians for Fear of Angering Obama « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 4/6/2010 @ 1:52 amObama is the equivalent of the hostage negotiator on TV that says, “Look. I’m putting my gun on the ground. Let’s just chill out and talk; okay?”
Which is all well and good — as long as the SWAT team is there, too . . . ready to blow the hostage-taker away at a moment’s notice.
Icy Texan (a892b1) — 4/6/2010 @ 2:51 amPatterico,
Please explain to RedState.com that they have been invaded by sockpuppetry they don’t understand…
I doubt they understand how to realistically track IP addresses or how the opposition baits people into responding.
They’ve been infiltrated by subtle stuff they don’t understand or comprehend. It’s not the normal troll shit, it’s the politically savvy kind of shit…
[note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]
Jeff Barea (eff5e1) — 4/6/2010 @ 2:53 amWritten like someone who trusts that every Democrat who voted for ObamaCare read all two thousand-plus pages.
All right, then … when didn’t nations who haven’t signed on to the treaties have “large bullseyes” on them? Are you saying that this is a new thing, or that nothing has changed?
So to disagree with Obama is not to love America. Wow, that’s a bold statement. Oops, did I say “bold?” I meant “stupid.”
The only ones who are “blind” around here are those with blind faith in Obama. Nothing he puts in motion shows any kind of long-range thinking. His overhauls of healthcare, the auto industry, the banking industry, and eventually the energy industry have no real-life models of success; America under his leadership is a coast-to-coast petri dish. When predictions that his half-baked plans will yield short-term results don’t pan out, he chides us for our impatience, and blames his predecessors. He doesn’t seem to really believe he has made any mistakes, or is capable of making them (remember 2004 when the MSM was hounding GWB to admit mistakes so Kerry could put them in his campaign ads?).
Are you under the impression that the opinions around here would be different if John McCain had overruled his own advisors and come up with a no-strike policy like this? If so, you are working off of your own prejudices and not paying attention. I’m wondering how long it will be before some of your ilk get over your delight that our new President has a “D” next to his name, and realize that he’s flying by the seat of his pants!
L.N. Smithee (5d7118) — 4/6/2010 @ 4:55 am“even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.””
A cyberattack? Oh noes!
imdw (abf08a) — 4/6/2010 @ 4:56 amDid you see the AP writeup, nauseating, and Biden, that other genius, who believed in the nuclear freeze a generation ago, concurred saying it was
ian cormac (349188) — 4/6/2010 @ 5:32 ama big f!@#$^&8 deal. “We really dodged a bullet there”
The stupidest thing about this policy is that he is announcing it.
i am not saying we should nuke a country that attacks us with conventional weapons. and i am not saying we should say we would. but we shouldn’t, under any circumstances, say we wouldn’t.
That’s just dumb.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 4/6/2010 @ 5:40 amWell, the kinds of cyberattacks that trolls post aren’t important. But even a great prat like imdw might want to, well, do a little research about cyberwarfare prior to popping off some snark. But that is what that troll is about. Just imagine how important cyberwarfare would be if BHO had said so!
Eric Blair (cfbd15) — 4/6/2010 @ 5:57 amThe dumbest part of this is removing the ambiguity in our response policy makes it more likely that we will be attacked. If Obama had read some game theory instead of Reinhold Niebuhr, we would be a lot safer.
Mike K (2cf494) — 4/6/2010 @ 6:00 amAs Mark Steyn has pointed out, reviewing some of Obama’s scribblings in the Sundial and other places, he didn’t think the nuclear freeze went
ian cormac (349188) — 4/6/2010 @ 6:04 amfar enough; specially when ‘peace and justice’ were on the line. Also, this is keeping with that pledgeto that pacifist group in Iowa, during the primaries
The stupidest thing about this policy is that he is announcing it
Yeah, kind of like announcing troop withdrawal dates from active war zones.
elissa (5a99d8) — 4/6/2010 @ 6:10 am“i am not saying we should nuke a country that attacks us with conventional weapons. ”
We’re the only country that has. So our announcement on this has some value.
“but we shouldn’t, under any circumstances, say we wouldn’t.”
This is one of those policies whose value is kind of hard to get if they’re unannounced.
imdw (7c85b9) — 4/6/2010 @ 6:14 amFYI, “progressing” was uttering the “official talking point” of the one. Criticism of it has already been thorough, just wanted to confirm it came central central command.
There is one line of thought for those interested in “just war” reasoning that would say the deterrence of “MAD” is somewhat immoral, and a more moral way is that of Reagan and GWB, a defense system that decreases the effectiveness and likelihood of attack. Rather than hold all of Pyongyang hostage, which the govt of NK doesn’t care about anyway, remove the threat of attack by being able to defend against it. That’s not to say I oppose the use of deterrence, I still think that is better than to invite aggression.
But that assumes there are mean people out there that still want to do us harm even though the one is in office, which is a concept they can’t/ won’t/ don’t grasp.
Yes, Obama did inhale while listening to John Lennon, the day he skipped class and missed seeing the film version of “Lord of the Flies”.
MD in Philly (59a3ad) — 4/6/2010 @ 6:27 amBefore the election – I said obama was going to make Carter look good. I was wrong. Obama is going to make Neville Chamberlin look great
Joe (dd01fd) — 4/6/2010 @ 6:29 amI am interested in this “value” of what imdw speaks, as I cannot find any “value” in this stated policy.
JD (e190da) — 4/6/2010 @ 6:47 amMD in Philly,
You may remember that the folks most interested in using Just War as a restriction on US–and only US–activities were loud in their resistance to missile defense.
Richard Aubrey (a9ba34) — 4/6/2010 @ 7:02 amPerhaps you should take your own advice: what would be the outcome if a nation which had signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty attacked the US with chemical or biological weapons? What would our response be?
Some chump (c2555f) — 4/6/2010 @ 7:04 amRichard,
Thanks for your comments. I remember some of that, but not exactly who and whether it was “sincere” or “leftist positioning”. I think the argument was (and is) that it risks promoting a pre-emptive attack by your enemies and suggests that you are actually promoting the idea that surviving a war is possible, hence making more of a threat.
That being said, since we don’t have other evidence of either the Soviets or Chinese actually wanting to live without aggression, I am skeptical of any treaties they were willing to sign- except with Reagan, because there they were at a disadvantage and would settle for whatever they could get.
That’s my take anyway. And one of the best pre-Reagan treaties was with N. Vietnam, which we did not enforce.
I apologize for a very superficial treatment of things overall, here, but I think the thoughts about pros and cons of missile defense are valid, even if not the “superior” ones.
MD in Philly (59a3ad) — 4/6/2010 @ 7:15 am“Perhaps you should take your own advice: what would be the outcome if a nation which had signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty attacked the US with chemical or biological weapons? What would our response be?”
All sorts of things from making empty internet threats to bombing them back to the stone age.
imdw (017d51) — 4/6/2010 @ 7:23 amYou really are a tool.
The point is, as others have pointed out, that Obama has actually removed a deterrent to attack. And, as DRJ stated in her original post, he’s made it more likely to have to commit troops to battle. Neither of these are good things.
And I doubt very much that the United States would make empty threats on the internet.
Some chump (c2555f) — 4/6/2010 @ 7:38 amIt’s obvious that while Obama gets support from the SEIU, he doesn’t negotiate for them.
Neo (7830e6) — 4/6/2010 @ 7:48 amImagine a union announcing that it will not strike just before tough negotiations between union and management.
“And I doubt very much that the United States would make empty threats on the internet.”
True but we have plenty of tough guy volunteers.
imdw (3bf1a8) — 4/6/2010 @ 7:53 amAll sorts of things from making empty internet threats to bombing them back to the stone age.
So if a country that has not signed the non-proliferation treaty attacks us with WMD, Obama would use nukes, but if they signed it, then he would bomb them back to the stone age with conventional bombs. Or are we supposed to assume Obama is just lying as usual and would use nukes regardless?
Gerald A (138c50) — 4/6/2010 @ 7:57 amI am sure he would not have a problem if ACORN was to become a nuclear armed community organizing agency of change.
Huey (efe02b) — 4/6/2010 @ 8:09 am“Imagine a union announcing that it will not strike just before tough negotiations between union and management.”
I think this would be more akin to a union announcing that it won’t use a strike against employers that agree to a certain standard.
Though a “strike” doesn’t quite capture this, as going on strike isn’t so… nuclear.
“So if a country that has not signed the non-proliferation treaty attacks us with WMD, Obama would use nukes, but if they signed it, then he would bomb them back to the stone age with conventional bombs. Or are we supposed to assume Obama is just lying as usual and would use nukes regardless?”
Well there’s always the possibility that another president would undo this policy. But it seems to be the basic outline: say that countries that adhere to a certain standard will be treated different than countries that don’t.
imdw (e66d8d) — 4/6/2010 @ 8:15 amOur President pisses away our borrowing margin that we would need in a big conventional war and he makes clear that we will not defend ourselves with our existing armaments. He alienates our allies (no – he makes clear that our friendship is worse than useless) and does not wish to hold what has been accomplished in strategic Iraq. What could go wrong when tender China is our biggest creditor?
I see our military as an asset we will have to hock to pay for our political stimulus and our pampered entitlements. That might last one generation, then we will be like the Greek slaves of the Roman Empire.
And, like the Romans, we decay from within. Freedom is just not worth the trouble.
Amphipolis (b120ce) — 4/6/2010 @ 8:16 amImdw
> We’re the only country that has. So our announcement on this has some value.
Value? Do you think we are safer today? Do you think a person who would WANT to attack us is now LESS likely to attack?
Try this. Go to New York. Go down a dark alley, with a sign that says “I am rich, unarmed, and unwilling to fight back.”
Visualize world peace? Visualize several crackheads beating the crap out of you.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 4/6/2010 @ 8:25 amI doubt we’d surrender on the Internet either, although we have plenty of amateur Chamberlains and Quislings.
Kevin Murphy (5ae73e) — 4/6/2010 @ 8:26 amI’m sure that when we are attacked, President Obama will be bewildered by the fact that his efforts to talk nicely to our enemies didn’t work. Of course, some of us will be dead.
Rochf (ae9c58) — 4/6/2010 @ 8:27 amTreaties are like locks –
they are for honest people.
Amphipolis (b120ce) — 4/6/2010 @ 8:35 amI haven’t seen this guy (or his crew) do one smart thing yet.
mojo (8096f2) — 4/6/2010 @ 8:38 amYou know if Obama and his supporters only would be the only ones killed or harmed by an attack invited by Obama dropping of US defenses, I’d be fine with it.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 4/6/2010 @ 8:41 am“Try this. Go to New York. Go down a dark alley, with a sign that says “I am rich, unarmed, and unwilling to fight back.””
Why new york?
“You know if Obama and his supporters only would be the only ones killed or harmed by an attack invited by Obama dropping of US defenses, I’d be fine with it.”
Obama is cleverly trying to get terrorists to target red states.
imdw (e064ee) — 4/6/2010 @ 8:54 amPOTUS = Pussy of the United States
SicSemperTyrannus (09cc33) — 4/6/2010 @ 8:59 amAW, Why New York?
See how easy it was to pretend refute your well founded argument with something totally incidental?
Of course, you’re on target. Is anyone less likely to attack us because of Obama’s childhood fantasy announcement? Of course not. Obama is aware that he is a one term president, and is just squeezing all the policy out of his administration he can get.
I don’t think this is the end of the world. Anyone sophisticated enough to develop WMDs realizes Obama won’t be in power very long, and an attack would guarantee a new cowboy republican gunning for them pretty soon.
But that’s not the only factor. folks. Many nations have a dwindling window for launching an attack, and may see Obama as the last best chance they ever have to do so. North Korea is a good example (though I think they have moved past the window), but they aren’t the only one.
What was this policy supposed to accomplish? We already promised not to nuke non-proliferation signees.
dustin (b54cdc) — 4/6/2010 @ 9:19 am“See how easy it was to pretend refute your well founded argument with something totally incidental?”
I guess it helps if you say that his caricature is “Well founded.” Now I’m sold.
imdw (223a39) — 4/6/2010 @ 9:28 amimdw, no one really cares what point you’re trying to make. You know his argument is that this announcement simply doesn’t further deter attacks. In fact, DRJ made the comment that it appears that Obama amazingly doesn’t even understand/accept how deterrence has worked for decades.
many are nothing, including Newsweek, that Obama refused briefings on our nuclear response plans for many months. This is his job, and he doesn’t want to do this part. He doesn’t really care that much about foreign policy, helping allies, learning the gritty details, etc.
It’s generally assumed democrats, while softer than republicans, will still honor their commitment to defend the USA, and handle the technical and challenging aspects of dealing with Russian and Chinese military power. It’s a long term ‘game’ that requires some effort from all administrations.
But your reaction to this and many other issues is just to mock, ask strangely obtuse questions, and sarcastically feign some kind of understanding.
AW made a point. You are acting like you have refuted it, but you did not address it. And when that was pointing out to you, you again acted like you refuted it without addressing it. And we all know why… you’re not as smart as AW and can’t argue outside your weight class.
dustin (b54cdc) — 4/6/2010 @ 9:36 amMany are “noting”, not “nothing”. LOL
dustin (b54cdc) — 4/6/2010 @ 9:36 amIs this the same strategy that Obama thinks Israel should use? Surely he can’t be so naive as to think our enemies don’t see this as a green light to attack us. I really believe that the pod people have taken over the White House.
Rochf (ae9c58) — 4/6/2010 @ 9:45 amIsrael is like Iran in that it hasn’t signed the non-proliferation treaty. So I suppose if they attack us with biological weapons, they are …
wait, what? That’s absurd?
Then why do we treat Israel as though they were Iran’s equal? One huge huge aspect of non-proliferation that Obama probably refused to read the memo on (he is refusing to take briefings on national security that presidents are supposed to get very early on) is that many countries count on the USA to defend THEM with nuclear weapons.
That seems insane in today’s context, but yes, the USA’s nuclear umbrella is supposed to deter nations from attacking our allies, and also deter those allies from investing as much in weapons. In this way, Ronald Reagan is more successful at non proliferation than Obama.
Obama is simply screwing this up.
dustin (b54cdc) — 4/6/2010 @ 9:51 amimdw
> Why new york?
okay, so you ignore my major argument and focused on a side issue. i take that as a confession you have nothing to say about the argument.
Anyway, why new york? because I had a nasty experience there, so when i think “crime-infested metropolitan center” i think new york. but feel free to subsitute your crime invested metropolitan center of choice, by all means.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 4/6/2010 @ 9:52 am“You know his argument is that this announcement simply doesn’t further deter attacks. ”
The comparison he chose to make was actually much stronger than this. It was that instead of decreasing deterrent (or not increasing deterrent) this eliminated it. Of course we still have plenty of other things we can do, both to NPF countries and to non-NPF countries, as a deterrent. It’s ridiculous of course, but so is the use of “new york.” Which is about the level that this ridiculousness should be addressed. I mean, how can it be refuted when even you didn’t grasp the extent of its idiocy?
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
imdw (16e110) — 4/6/2010 @ 9:52 amThat’s a good filter.
dustin (b54cdc) — 4/6/2010 @ 9:58 amimdw,
Then why not make that argument in the first place instead of your usual non-responsive snark? Also, I agree with others that you were rude to DRJ even though she has been unfailingly polite and engaging to you.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 4/6/2010 @ 10:03 amDustin
thanks for the complimentary (to me) put downs of imdw.
> the USA’s nuclear umbrella is supposed to deter nations from attacking our allies, and also deter those allies from investing as much in weapons.
Which is exactly why those nations became socialist democracies. you can afford a massive nanny state when you don’t have to worry about the traditional core functions of a state, such as self-defense. i understand the reasons why we decided to do that, but there is something to be said for weening them off now that the big, bad soviet union is gone.
I mean i find it amazing that liberals have been talking endlessly about an exit strategy in iran and afghanistan, but not for Germany. How they talk about the concern that iraq and afghanistan will become dependant on our largesse, while trying their best to make americans dependant on the federal government.
of course i do agree we need to exit iraq and afghanistan. yep, we need to retreat from both countries… and meet up in Tehran. But sadly no one is listening to me.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 4/6/2010 @ 10:03 amimdw, I’m not saying that I agree with your argument, just that it is worth discussing.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 4/6/2010 @ 10:04 amstash
i think we all understand that you take a pretty good stand on the freedom to say really stupid crap, as long as it isn’t spam.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 4/6/2010 @ 10:12 amIn all fairness, he did continue some of Bush’s policies. Now, if you had said ‘one honest thing’ I’d agree without hesitation.
quasimodo (4af144) — 4/6/2010 @ 10:14 amI may not like this point, but it’s a good point. A lot of nations are realizing that they will have to defend themselves if the USA elects someone like Obama. I guess that’s not a bad thing, but then what happens with those nations elect someone with problems?
Sadly, there are no easy answers. If you have nuclear weapons, everything is easier. It’s hard to reason a way out of that, but Obama’s making it really hard for nations to rely on our umbrella. And if that’s for the purpose of reducing the armies and weapons, it’s just plain dumb.
We do need to face Iran. I haven’t heard the solution for Iran that avoids this. It seems like it’s just politically untenable. People are tired of the war on terror. Bush surrounded Iran with every diplomatic measure he took (libs, look at a map and realize this was a plan). But the Iraq war became very unpopular because the right defended that war in the wrong direction.
They acted like it didn’t matter if Saddam had WMDs or not, which was a change of pace from pre to post war. Yeah, I am cribbing from Shattan. In order to deal with Iran, we have to rehabilitate the War on Terror in the US public’s eyes or wait for a real disaster. Iran is racing to the finish line, will get there during Obama’s administration, and attempt to impose much more power in the region.
When we ultimately do face Iran, it’s going to a lot uglier than Iraq or Vietnam.
dustin (b54cdc) — 4/6/2010 @ 10:14 am69.You know if Obama and his supporters only would be the only ones killed or harmed by an attack invited by Obama dropping of US defenses, I’d be fine with it.
Comment by PCD — 4/6/2010 @ 8:41 am
Let’s do the following “scientific” experiment:
MD in Philly (59a3ad) — 4/6/2010 @ 10:19 am“San Francisco, LA, Chicago, and NY promise not to attack, defend themselves, or retaliate for attacks, and the rest of the US will honor those commitments.”
He does everything to weaken the US economically, militarily, and socially.
He is every idiot 70’s anti-war “social studies” teacher you ever had who went in to teaching to avoid Vietnam and has spent decades recycling Peter Arnette 80s’ videos on Vietnam from the History Channel, which is to kids, more than back in the day
Becca Johnson (b869ac) — 4/6/2010 @ 10:23 amObama’s standing orders in the event of any attack on the United States: “Surrender first, then negotiate.”
Jaime (88d0da) — 4/6/2010 @ 10:25 amI’m not on board with PCD’s view. I understand how frustrating it is that some people elect a naive empty suit in the middle of war that already killed thousands of US Civilians.
But still, the fact is, if we do suffer a huge attack again, it probably will kill mostly democrats. I never looked into it, but I bet 9/11 killed mostly democrats. Just the way our people distribute. Iran won’t have an unlimited supply of weapons. But things could get out of control very quickly, since Iran is strategically critical to China. Perhaps we could take Iran over and sell it to China for a few trillion credited against our account? If only the world worked that way.
dustin (b54cdc) — 4/6/2010 @ 10:29 amDustin
Well, i didn’t mean to make that sound like a defense for obama. Because what i would do first is i would take our conventional forces out of europe, except to the extent necessary to throw bombs on countries that are likely trouble spots.
There is an independantly good reason to discourage nations like france from having nukes. yeah, it doesn’t seem likely today, but 50 years down the road, relatively harmless france might suddenly start selling nukes to terrorists. Mark Steyn’s book “America Alone” imagines some trends that might bring that scenario about. So i would say, no more conventional forces, but we will still provide a nuclear umbrella.
Not that i am sure it will do any good with iran anyway. i half think that president of their’s is just nuts enough to try to nuke isreal even if in the face of certain anihilation for his people. As 9-11 taught us, for some people, there is no such thing as deterrance.
but most people in the world don’t reach that level of craziness. i mean in a classic case of a liberal failing to understand the implications of their own words, our best hope in the 80’s of avoiding nuclear war really was “if the russians loved their children too.” Not for the idiot reasons Sting supposed, but because if they f—ed with us, we would have killed them and their children, too. Or at least we said that. That’s how deterrance works, and it works on most sane people.
One guy pointed out over at legal insurrection that it was like liberals from 30 years ago, who thought you could turn the guns into flowers or something. And i pointed out in turn to him about Steven Den Beste’s excellent essay explaining a whole lot of flakey thinking these days. i might have shared it here, too, but if i haven’t, here you go:
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/12/06/government-by-wishful-thinking/
Den Beste was hands down one of the smartest guys on the internet, and wrote really brilliant essays. they he gave it up and wrote about anime, but every now and then he pops up, says something, and frankly blows your mind.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 4/6/2010 @ 10:29 amMy honest view is that Obama wants to goad the right to look irresponsible, or distract them from their best arguments.
The right’s best argument right now is how Obama’s 2007-present policies are economically disasters. Second, is that his health care reform is going to make things worse and intrudes on rights.
If the White House says something about Nuclear weapons, people get distracted from just about anything for a while. Obama hasn’t really given anything up (we already knew he would never nuke anyone… he’s such a softy he won a Nobel Peace Prize for his promises).
It’s just a shell game. Kinda like how Michelle Obama called Kenya her husband’s home country. Hopefully she realizes he was born in Hawaii, but they know this is one issue that actually favors them, so they want to egg it on as much as possible.
They want us to be freaking out about biological attacks, in order to distract us from the massive Tea Party on April 15. I would bet every penny I have that there is some huge announcement from the White House just before April 15th that has nothing to do with health care. It will seem politically tone deaf, like this nuclear policy, and will distract a lot of people from the health care debate.
And again in late October.
These people are jerks.
dustin (b54cdc) — 4/6/2010 @ 10:46 amReally, liberal attitudes about violence are so screwed its not funny.
Like how do you stop murder? Hey I got an idea. Let’s pass a law that says that then no one can have guns. Of course the only people who will obey that law are the kinds of people who obey the law. Which isn’t the bulk of most murderers anyway. I mean right now, the city of Chicago is claiming before the Supreme Court that a ban on handguns is vital to controlling crime. Right now out of 412 murders committed in Chicago last year, 406 were committed with handguns, so apparently the ban has been a rousing success.
Meanwhile, you are taking a great equalizer away from law-abiding citizens. There are lots of people for one reason or another aren’t going to be very good in a contest of fists, or knives, or blunt instruments. All of those things depend on upper body strength. So if you are a paraplegic, hey I don’t want to put you down, but the odds are working against you. If you are some kind of little person, again let’s face it, you’ve got a few strikes against you. And the average woman cannot beat the average man in a contest of strength. Call it nature or nurture, that is just how it is. But if any one of those people have a gun, maybe things aren’t exactly fair, but they got a lot more even.
And then there was WWII. I don’t feel like going over again how if we just enforced the armistice strictly, either WWII wouldn’t have happened, or Germany wouldn’t have been half as powerful when it did. but the liberals at that time let germany grow from a nation that was literally no threat to anyone, to a threat to everyone all because they thought war was so awful as to be avoided at all costs. If you hate war—and every rational person does, even if we often acknowledge its necessity—then was that the best strategy for minimizing the warfare? No. the best strategy would be to keep germany within its limits under the armistice. Yeah, it might have taken some actual fighting and killing to do that, but not nearly half as what we did see. and we might have a lot more jews alive.
And of course in the meantime we are happily repeating the same mistake with iran. Take iran down now. It will be an easier fight than when they are a nuclear power. If you hate war, that is the most rational option.
And then we have this bit of nuclear idiocy. Again, if you don’t like war, then act all crazy and shit, and make them afraid that if they look at you funny you will nuke them. Sun Tzu can be quoted repeatedly for the idea that the best victory is one where you don’t have to fire a shot. He is right and typically liberals don’t understand what he is telling you. Let me write it in big letters so you get it: THE BEST WAY TO AVOID WAR IS TO MAKE YOUR ENEMY SCARED TO FIGHT YOU.
Sheesh.
[note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]
A.W. (e7d72e) — 4/6/2010 @ 11:03 amWe can walk and chew gum at the same time, it’s true that there is almost a hydra of malign policies
ian cormac (349188) — 4/6/2010 @ 11:13 amdirected against us
ian, it certainly seems like this distraction tactic is not succeeding against ‘us’ (which is becoming a huge group of people).
but I think that’s what they are doing. They announced this at a time that will maximize the coverage. They want this to be the major topic, and it’s obviously not a winner for them, so I say it’s a distraction (though obviously it is a serious issue anyway).
A lot of the tactics used against the Tea Party would have worked well in Illinois, where people are more afraid of being called a racist or unsympathetic to the great government’s feeding hand.
Obama’s not just bad at foreign policy, he’s bad at turning public opinion around. People say he should have waited until he was seasoned and experienced to run for president… he never would have been able to win if he had to justify actual enacted policy like Mccain did.
dustin (b54cdc) — 4/6/2010 @ 11:19 amWell there’s always the possibility that another president would undo this policy. But it seems to be the basic outline: say that countries that adhere to a certain standard will be treated different than countries that don’t.
I’m trying to figure out what the hypothetical situation is supposed to be. We must be talking about a country that is thinking of attacking us with non-nuclear WMD but hasn’t signed the treaty. So they would then be motivated to sign the treaty so that they will only be attacked with conventional bombs instead of nukes in retaliation. If that’s the case then the likelihood of them attacking us is now increased, not decreased, once they “adhere to a certain standard”.
If a country which has already signed it is thinking of attacking us, then the deterrence is now lowered.
So deterrence is actually lower in either case.
One other case is where a country is pursuing nukes or thinking of doing so and so hasn’t signed a treaty. If their motive for getting nukes is they are thinking of attacking us, then they’re not going to sign the treaty and nothing’s changed. If they aren’t thinking of attacking us, then they don’t care about this policy.
So this does nothing to deter anyone from attacking us with non-nuclear WMD’s in any situation. Nor would it motivate anyone to sign a treaty unless their motive for doing so was that they want to attack us. The bottom line is, your whole argument is idiotic.
Gerald A (138c50) — 4/6/2010 @ 11:20 amHe was never going to be ready, his mindset was sadly focused in the wrong direction, by friends of the family like Frank Davis, by his professors like
ian cormac (349188) — 4/6/2010 @ 11:29 amBell and Ogletree, by other mentors and associates
like Wright and Ayers.
“Let’s do the following “scientific” experiment:
“San Francisco, LA, Chicago, and NY promise not to attack, defend themselves, or retaliate for attacks, and the rest of the US will honor those commitments.””
For all the derision of large east (or west) coast urban centers that wingnuts deliver (see, for example, Palin recently) all is forgotten as soon as some muslim terrorist attacks those places.
“So this does nothing to deter anyone from attacking us with non-nuclear WMD’s in any situation. Nor would it motivate anyone to sign a treaty unless their motive for doing so was that they want to attack us. The bottom line is, your whole argument is idiotic.”
Or if they feared our nuclear attack for other reasons. I think the best argument for why there won’t be much reaction is that some other president can just change this policy or just act against this policy as they see fit.
imdw (6b4e5c) — 4/6/2010 @ 11:35 amSo we are going to lie about our stated nuclear policy? The ambiguity was installed deliberately because it would be a disaster to lie about something like this. It’s too important that when we specify something on this, that we mean it.
And that’s your *best* argument. You didn’t even understand Gerald’s excellent comment, anyway. Did you read it?
Obama set out justifications that are obviously incorrect. Obviously it’s still not a good idea to war with the USA, but this does not accomplish the goals he laid out. And you don’t address that, probably because you aren’t aware the point was even made.
that’s just damn incoherent. Palin delivered derision at the west coast? She IS the west coast. She is a smart energy policy wonk, who realizes, like most smart people, that trillion dollar damage to economic hubs affects the whole nation. You can’t isolate one part of this country from the other. You mention “muslim” and say we “forget” our “derision” because of this aspect of terrorism.
It’s clear you’re simply delusional and disturbed with your hate. You think Palin’s saying ‘Oh great, some democrats died! Oh wait… muslims did that, and I hate brown people even more than democrats! Excelsior!!!!’.
Pathetic. You’re the paranoid birther idiot on your side, clinging to lazy and stupid ideas because you don’t want to put the effort into understanding why someone like Palin would deride California’s economic system and also have a problem with Islamic terrorists killing millions of Californians.
And it’s not even that complicated. You’re just more interested in escaping. So you call Rush an anti-semite and joke about raping kids and say Palin’s a bigot.
Seems that you’ve become more detached from reality as time has gone on.
dustin (b54cdc) — 4/6/2010 @ 11:48 amWhat I like best about imdw is his passive aggressive rudeness. I mean, look at his saying continually how hateful the Right is, and he just can’t help but write “wingnut” repeatedly.
Notice how even Stash called you on rudeness, imdw?
Why do you post? I think you are worried you will lose your pom-poms soon. I suspect we will see more and more name calling and bitterness as time goes on and the polls show that most Americans aren’t buying what you are selling. And even that would be okay if you knew what you were selling other than “Animal Farm” style bleating that “D…good….R…baaaaad.”
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 4/6/2010 @ 11:52 am“If you wish for Peace, prepare for War!”
To obtuse ones such as our resident fool, imadickwad, if (or Heaven forbid, when) an IslamoFascist nuclear device is deployed against a major American metropolitan center, all will not be forgotten. What will happen is that the vast majority will rise together to demand payback against those that have brought this disaster, and those that allowed it.
Words have consequences, and those that acquiesced to the depradations of aggressors shall be brought forward to make reparation for their cupidity.
There will be no tolerance of Quislings!
When millions lie dead in the fields and cities of America, to say that what had gone before was just an academic exercise in geo-political theory, isn’t going to cut it.
Traitors will hang!
AD - RtR/OS! (cf9e75) — 4/6/2010 @ 11:59 amI’m not even mentioning the obvious point that there is a moral component to mass murder, of even your political opponents. I guess imdw’s fantasy wingnuts are too hateful to get credit for that, if he recognizes this point at all.
dustin (b54cdc) — 4/6/2010 @ 12:00 pm“So we are going to lie about our stated nuclear policy?”
No it would not be a lie if someone else changed it. But a president could fail to follow this policy. Yes.
“Palin delivered derision at the west coast? She IS the west coast.”
My bad. That was her spokesman. And it was directed at the East coast. But you’re likely to see it directed to places like Seattle or San Fran too. But did you not note I said ‘large urban centers’? I don’t think that’s Palin. Do you?
“Traitors will hang!”
See, I told you there would be plenty of volunteers offering empty internet threats.
imdw (c5488f) — 4/6/2010 @ 12:09 pmHoly shit, this is funny. Are you a conservative pretending to be a liberal? It’s not an argument in favor of a point to say it’s not so bad because it can be changed later. It’s not an argument in favor of a point to say we can simply not follow our promise (and yeah, that is lying).
I mean, being ugly to DRJ of all people take some damn devotion. What do we call mobies from the right, caricaturing the left?
[note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]
dustin (b54cdc) — 4/6/2010 @ 12:12 pmImdw
> For all the derision of large east (or west) coast urban centers that wingnuts deliver (see, for example, Palin recently) all is forgotten as soon as some muslim terrorist attacks those places.
This is a revealing comment. So you think that just because we think the northeast and the west cost is run in numerous unwise ways that we should be expected to, what? Be gleeful when they are murdered?
Amazing.
Is that how you would feel if a terrorist murdered a bunch of farmers in the Midwest?
> I think the best argument for why there won’t be much reaction is that some other president can just change this policy or just act against this policy as they see fit.
So the best argument is your fond hope that the next president will not be as stupid as Obama?
A.W. (e7d72e) — 4/6/2010 @ 12:31 pmIt used to be that California, specially Southern California used to be the adventurous, risk takingland, but now with some exceptions it has becomea clone of the east coast liberal mentality. This change of defense posture is so ill advised it boggles the mind, There is no logic to it,
ian cormac (349188) — 4/6/2010 @ 12:32 pmOr if they feared our nuclear attack for other reasons. I think the best argument for why there won’t be much reaction is that some other president can just change this policy or just act against this policy as they see fit.
What’s a country that fears our attack for other reasons and otherwise has no motive for acquiring nukes, is acquiring nukes or considering doing so and hasn’t already signed the treaty?
Gerald A (138c50) — 4/6/2010 @ 12:33 pm“When millions lie dead in the fields and cities of America, to say that what had gone before was just an academic exercise in geo-political theory, isn’t going to cut it.
Traitors will hang!”
– AD-RtR/OS!
Don’t be such a drama queen. You sound like you’re practicing your “Rouse the Troops” speech for some SCA battle up in fair mountain meadow.
It’s like Solomon said – Nothing new under the sun. This parsing is politics as usual; you guys sure are selective in your distrust of Obama.
Leviticus (f0f166) — 4/6/2010 @ 12:43 pmOr if they feared our nuclear attack for other reasons. I think the best argument for why there won’t be much reaction is that some other president can just change this policy or just act against this policy as they see fit.
Also why even if such a country actually existed someplace outside the fevered imagination of moonbats like you, would they be motivated to sign the treaty by this policy unless they are considering attacking us with chemical or biological weapons, which was my point above?
Gerald A (138c50) — 4/6/2010 @ 12:48 pmLeviticus, indeed, this isn’t the end of the world, which a few have already mentioned. No one really thinks Obama will ever use nuclear weapons anyway. So for him, dismissing deterrence when he know the world doesn’t respect his backbone, has a certain logic.
But this isn’t about whether or not we believe Obama. This is about how this policy only works against us. And how such a policy, along with many other diplomatic failures, can lead to a great disaster, as Gorelick and Clinton led to a long series of attacks. in many people’e opinion.
I do not think traitors will hang if Chicago is nuked. We’ll come together and face our enemy. But maybe I’m wrong. It’s worth wondering what the political consequences will be if Iran gets the atom bomb, or if someone attacks Israel with a WMD, or any number of terrible things that will be blamed on Obama just as the Iraq War’s certain failure was blamed on Bush.
What is the point of Obama doing this, Leviticus? Same point as a Commander of the most powerful military, engaged in a difficult war that has cost thousands of civilian lives, earning a peace prize based on disarmament and military reduction.
dustin (b54cdc) — 4/6/2010 @ 12:51 pmThe point is this: what if it causes some countries to abandon or slow their nuclear programs as a show of good faith?
I realize that that’s not likely, but what if it works?
Leviticus (f0f166) — 4/6/2010 @ 12:55 pmWhy would it do that? This applies only to a situation where someone attacks us with chemical or biological weapons. It’s saying if you attack us with non-nuclear WMD”s we won’t retaliate with nukes. You’re not making any sense.
Also it has nothing to do with “slowing” their programs. They have to sign the non-proliferation treaty. Who agrees or is asked to slow their nuke program anyways? What does that even mean?
Are you a moron?
Gerald A (138c50) — 4/6/2010 @ 1:03 pm“Mr. Obama described his policy as part of a broader effort to edge the world toward making nuclear weapons obsolete, and to create incentives for countries to give up any nuclear ambitions.”
Can you read?
Leviticus (f0f166) — 4/6/2010 @ 1:10 pmAlso, more generally: I guarantee that the US has biological and chemical weapons stashed away that make anything the rest of the world has look like a fart in a Zip-Loc bag. So what’s the big deal? That we’ll look weak when some country EMPs us and we respond with a passel of flesh-eating bacteria instead of a nuclear bomb?
Leviticus (f0f166) — 4/6/2010 @ 1:13 pmimdw, the pretense that you have a serious opinion gets more threadbare by the minute.
Leviticus, you guarantee that the US is currently in possession of weaponized chemical and biological weapons? Wow, I am surprised that you would “guarantee” that the US is in violation of its international treaty obligations.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/6/2010 @ 1:16 pmYou are telling me that you don’t believe that the US has chemical or biological weapons? Perhaps they’re not technically weaponized at the moment, but I would imagine it’s the same sort of non-weaponization that a gun has when its clip is out.
Leviticus (f0f166) — 4/6/2010 @ 1:21 pm“What’s a country that fears our attack for other reasons and otherwise has no motive for acquiring nukes, is acquiring nukes or considering doing so and hasn’t already signed the treaty?”
I don’t think this is aimed at particular country. Do you? I think its just a broad change in incremental incentives.
“Holy shit, this is funny. Are you a conservative pretending to be a liberal? It’s not an argument in favor of a point to say it’s not so bad because it can be changed later. It’s not an argument in favor of a point to say we can simply not follow our promise (and yeah, that is lying).”
I didn’t use this as an argument in favor. I used this as an argument for why there won’t be much reaction to this. That’s not very favorable to the policy.
[note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]
imdw (017d51) — 4/6/2010 @ 1:21 pmAre you? Because I happen to disagree with you on some things and choose not to argue my own position. I’d rather call you a moron.
Wait… I don’t actually do that. Neither does Leviticus. He postulated something that is possible and admitted it was unlikely. Why is that a problem?
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 4/6/2010 @ 1:22 pmLeviticus, with respect, I’m telling you that your claim was in effect that the United States is in violation of several treaties.
I will state that I am confident that the US has no weaponized biological weapons and no operational chemical weapons. We have stockpiles of chemical weapons in the process of being destroyed, and that are in fact quite dangerous just to store, much less use, because of their aged condition. It has been a very long time since the US actually produced chemical weapons ( other than irritants or incapacitating gases like tear gas ).
If you have reliable information to the contrary, I’d suggest that you produce it.
The reality is that we have no real deterrent to chemical or biological attack if Obama takes nuclear weapons off the table. The policy is the kind of juvenile policy that sounds great to left-wing college students in the dorm doing some weed, but is not a realistic nor serious policy.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/6/2010 @ 1:31 pm“Mr. Obama described his policy as part of a broader effort to edge the world toward making nuclear weapons obsolete, and to create incentives for countries to give up any nuclear ambitions.”
Can you read?
They have no incentive under this policy or at least the part where we pledge not to retaliate with nukes against a non-nuclear attack, to sign the non-proliferation treaty, unless they are considering the possibility of attacking us using non-nuclear WMD. In which case this policy could increase the likelihood of such an attack but in no case decreases it. This is just a matter of logic. If they aren’t considering attacking us using non-nuclear WMD, then it logically does not create any incentive whatsover to forego nukes.
Maybe you need to upgrade your reading skills. Or your ability to think logically. You seem to be making vague generalizations with no logical connection to the actual policy.
Gerald A (138c50) — 4/6/2010 @ 1:38 pm“I will state that I am confident that the US has no weaponized biological weapons and no operational chemical weapons. We have stockpiles of chemical weapons in the process of being destroyed, and that are in fact quite dangerous just to store, much less use, because of their aged condition. It has been a very long time since the US actually produced chemical weapons ( other than irritants or incapacitating gases like tear gas ).”
– SPQR
Fair enough (you’re talking about the Biological Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention, I assume).
For my part, (insofar as the US is a technologically advanced nation run by pragmatists that spends a hell of a lot of money on defense in any given year) I will state that I am confident that we do have both biological and chemical weapons. I can’t prove it, obviously, and I’m not even going to try. It’s just something I’d imagine we had at our disposal, whether the rest of the world knew about it or not.
If nothing else, how do you improve “biodefense” without having something to test it against? How do you keep it up to speed without keeping your testing agents up to speed as well?
Leviticus (f0f166) — 4/6/2010 @ 1:41 pm“You seem to be making vague generalizations with no logical connection to the actual policy.”
– Gerald A
That’s exactly what I’m doing. They call it “reading between the lines”, and it’s a big part of international politics and international diplomacy. Obama’s saying “Nuclear weapons make me sad” and hoping that other countries realize that nuclear weapons make them sad, too. And, oh yeah, maybe they’ll get something for their realization – say, I dunno, continued US military aid, or something.
Countries not planning on attacking the US with non-nuclear WMDs may not have any direct incentive to pay attention to this change, but that doesn’t mean they have no indirect incentive.
Leviticus (f0f166) — 4/6/2010 @ 1:48 pm# 11- Actually, it brings a Tom Lehrer song to mind– which may also bring a smile to our host as well.
First we got the bomb, and that was good,
‘Cause we love peace and motherhood.
Then Russia got the bomb, but that’s okay,
‘Cause the balance of power’s maintained that way.
Who’s next?
France got the bomb, but don’t you grieve,
‘Cause they’re on our side, I believe.
China got the bomb, but have no fears,
They can’t wipe us out for at least five years.
Who’s next?
Then Indonesia claimed that they
Were gonna get one any day.
South Africa wants two, that’s right:
One for the black and one for the white.
Who’s next?
Egypt’s gonna get one too,
Just to use on you know who.
So Israel’s getting tense.
Wants one in self defense.
“The Lord’s our shepherd,” says the psalm,
But just in case, we better get a bomb.
Who’s next?
Luxembourg is next to go,
And (who knows?) maybe Monaco.
We’ll try to stay serene and calm…
When Alabama gets the bomb.
Who’s next?
Who’s next?
Who’s next?
Who’s next?
– Tom Lehrer, ‘Who’s Next?’ from ‘That Was The Year That Was.’
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 4/6/2010 @ 1:50 pmWell, we obviously have the capacity to create some nasty weapons, Leviticus, filed away somewhere.
I doubt ours are the worst in the world. The US Military has the best when they want the best, but they lagged behind the Soviets on things they didn’t want.
And really, having some research in biological defense isn’t the same as having weapons, and further, there’s no way Obama or Bush or the next president will ever deploy that kind of weapon. Not that they would use nukes, either.
George W Bush didn’t use nuclear weapons on Tora Bora after 9/11. That’s one reason why I’m not too worried about Obama’s wishy washy policy… North Korea and Iran are certain Obama will never nuke them under any circumstance, including if they use nukes ‘first’.
Gerald A laid out why this policy is strangely backwards, though I hope he learns that you’re a smart and thoughtful person who deserves respect. I have to say, I understand why he’s frustrated. A lot of liberals act like it’s preposterous that the consequences of these policies will ever face us… that all these nuclear weapons programs, such as Saddam’s or Iran’s or DPRK’s are things we should be scared of. That’s what it evokes when someone says the point of this backwards approach is the extremely unlikely possibility of a country that doesn’t appear to exist, slowing their nuke program, because of a policy about biological weapons.
It’s written so that if you make and use a nuke, there is no difference. If you make a nuke and use biological weapons, there’s a difference. This kind of silliness as we actually move much closer to the catastrophe of Iran nuking Israel, London, and perhaps the USA. Obama might be making nukes obsolete by making biological weapons much more strategically viable. I still think Obama has the USA’s best interests at heart (I realize I’m going to be mocked for this), and don’t think he’s dumb enough to adopt such a strange policy.
but I asked you a pretty tough question, and I think you made the best effort answering it I’ve seen.
dustin (b54cdc) — 4/6/2010 @ 1:56 pmLeviticus, of course we have agents for test purposes. I happen to know people whose job descriptions involve those items. However, there is an immense difference between agents used to test defenses and actual operational, weaponized chemical and biological weapons. Not a semantic difference, but a difference from the first to the latter that would be measured in years. They really are not available in any operational capacity.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/6/2010 @ 2:09 pmLeviticus,
Please correct me if I am wrong, but the only country I know of that retreated from a nuclear weapon program was Libya, after they saw that Bush meant business about aggressor nations adhering to treaty obligations. Not that I am sure he isn’t doing trickery, but we’ve given lots of carrots to NK and only have a big hungry rabbit to show for it.
As SPQR has said, it would be the most unusual of circumstances that we would test our defenses against pathogenic organisma with the real thing. You use something with the same properties of survival, reproduction, or whatever you’re interested in. To do otherwise is playing hot potato with a live grenade.
imdw-
Since you snarked at one of my comments, let me clarify it for you. Yes, if San Fran were destroyed, people who live in the midwest where the only “homo” they know is “homo”genized milk would indeed be upset.
I was making a tongue-in-cheek reference to the idea that those who are responsible for the policies that make us weak should be the first to pay. I am quite sure than San Fran will vote for Obama even after Chicago has disowned him.
We don’t imagine that will happen, because those who know there is evil and stand and fight against it are different from those who think if we will be nice to Mr. Hitler we will have peace in our day.
MD in Philly (59a3ad) — 4/6/2010 @ 2:47 pm“Please correct me if I am wrong, but the only country I know of that retreated from a nuclear weapon program was Libya, after they saw that Bush meant business about aggressor nations adhering to treaty obligations”
South Africa also gave up its nuclear bomb. Not just its program, but an actual disarmament. I guess if one thing can cause a racist apartheid regime to disarm, it is the prospect of a black leader getting their hands on the nuke.
“I was making a tongue-in-cheek reference to the idea that those who are responsible for the policies that make us weak should be the first to pay”
I suppose there’s a not tongue-in-cheek, sort of opposite, argument that people in major urban centers that are targets of terrorism make their choices very clear as to what kinds of leaders and policies they want.
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
imdw (d9e9a5) — 4/6/2010 @ 3:18 pmimdw – Correct. Libtards such as yourself prefer Obama’s forceful projection of weakness approach to foreign policy. We understand.
daleyrocks (718861) — 4/6/2010 @ 4:16 pmwhen a President makes a statement such as Obama did – it does risk the lives of tens of millions of people also know as citizens but to those on the right they are known as our felow countrymen
therein lies the problem
EricPWJohnson (4e868a) — 4/6/2010 @ 5:16 pmSaid before and others here have, as well… this president is the most narcissistic man who has ever held the office of POTUS. His illness will eventually be a source of great harm to America.
GeneralMalaise (139767) — 4/6/2010 @ 5:44 pmIf I were Tawian, south Korea, australia, Western Europe i woud be looking for a new ally right about now.
unseen (f8f32d) — 4/7/2010 @ 3:29 amThis just in, the president of Iran just dissed obama, saying:
“Mr. Obama, you are a newcomer. Wait until your sweat dries and get some experience.”
Rather than lament that we have picked a president who inspires so little respect, let me suggest a constructive response for Obama: play the race card. Get Al Sharpton and Rev. Wright on TV to explain that plaintly iran is motivated by racial prejudice, and if he was white, the president of iran would halt his nuclear program.
So there.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 4/7/2010 @ 6:00 am[…] Patterico’s Pontifications, Obama’s New Nuclear Policy: President Bush also sought to restrict the use nuclear weapons but retained the right to use them […]
Charles Krauthammer: Obama’s New Nuclear Policy Either Insane or Ridiculous (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 4/7/2010 @ 7:50 am[…] Bombers Suspected in Killing at Least 38, Injuring More (video) Patterico’s Pontifications: Obama’s New Nuclear Policy Gateway Pundit: Newt Gingrich: Obama May Be “Most Dangerous President Ever” (Video) and Team […]
Rollback of the Reagan Years: Rush Limbaugh Has Renamed Barack Obama “Dr. Kevorkian” Based on His National Suicide Nuclear Strategy « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 4/7/2010 @ 2:27 pm[…] Telegraph: Barack Obama’s humiliation of Israel is a disgrace Patterico’s Pontifications: Obama’s New Nuclear Policy and More Obama “Civility” and The Back Story: Obama and Israel Times Online, Binyamin Netanyahu […]
Disturbing Pattern Emerging Against Israel & Jews from Pres. Obama — Visas Now Denied to Israeli Nuclear Scientists « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 4/8/2010 @ 7:20 pm[…] Shrugs: American Thinker: Obama’s Nuclear Poser Review Patterico’s Pontifications: Obama’s New Nuclear Policy and Possible Shoe-Bomber on DC-Denver Flight Gateway Pundit: 20 Years After Fall of Soviet Union […]
Sean Hannity in MN: Palin & Bachmann on Obama’s Nuclear Strategy, Like Asking for a Punch in the Face (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 4/9/2010 @ 5:07 am[…] Shrugs: American Thinker: Obama’s Nuclear Poser Review Patterico’s Pontifications: Obama’s New Nuclear Policy and Possible Shoe-Bomber on DC-Denver Flight UrbanGrounds: Sarah Palin Blasts Back at Obama at SRLC […]
Barack Obama, The Great Reneger — Music Video of the Week « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 4/10/2010 @ 2:16 pm[…] Poser Review Patterico’s Pontifications, States Borrow to Fund Unemployment Benefits: and Obama’s New Nuclear Policy UrbanGrounds: Sarah Palin Blasts Back at Obama at SRLC in New Orleans Thomas Del Beccaro, Big […]
Jon Voight’s Letter to America… Obama’s Lies and America’s Plunge to Disaster (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 4/12/2010 @ 8:42 am[…] Poser Review Patterico’s Pontifications, States Borrow to Fund Unemployment Benefits: and Obama’s New Nuclear Policy UrbanGrounds: Sarah Palin Blasts Back at Obama at SRLC in New Orleans Thomas Del Beccaro, Big […]
Jon Voight’s Letter to America… Obama’s Lies and America’s Plunge to Disaster (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 4/12/2010 @ 8:42 am[…] Due To ObamaCare Patterico’s Pontifications, States Borrow to Fund Unemployment Benefits: and Obama’s New Nuclear Policy Hot Air: Lieberman: Obama decision on terror terminology “Orwellian” and Obama to Palin: What […]
Is Great Depression II Around the Corner? Senate Dems to Push Unemployment Extension, Ignore PAYGO Rules, Rack Up More Debt, Repeat Errors of FDR « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 4/12/2010 @ 12:22 pm[…] Poser Review Patterico’s Pontifications, States Borrow to Fund Unemployment Benefits: and Obama’s New Nuclear Policy UrbanGrounds: Sarah Palin Blasts Back at Obama at SRLC in New Orleans Ace of Spades HQ: Report: […]
Constitution’s Recipe for Americans Against Tyranny: “We’ve Got Some Altering and Abolishing to Do!” Black Conservative Author Herman Cain Rocks at SRLC (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 4/12/2010 @ 1:18 pm[…] Poser Review Patterico’s Pontifications, States Borrow to Fund Unemployment Benefits: and Obama’s New Nuclear Policy UrbanGrounds: Sarah Palin Blasts Back at Obama at SRLC in New Orleans Ace of Spades HQ: Report: […]
Constitution’s Recipe for Americans Against Tyranny: “We’ve Got Some Altering and Abolishing to Do!” Black Conservative Author Herman Cain Rocks at SRLC (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 4/12/2010 @ 1:18 pm[…] Poser Review Patterico’s Pontifications, States Borrow to Fund Unemployment Benefits: and Obama’s New Nuclear Policy UrbanGrounds: Sarah Palin Blasts Back at Obama at SRLC in New Orleans Ace of Spades HQ: Report: […]
Constitution’s Recipe for Americans Against Tyranny: “We’ve Got Some Altering and Abolishing to Do!” Black Conservative Author Herman Cain Rocks at SRLC (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 4/12/2010 @ 1:18 pm[…] Poser Review Patterico’s Pontifications, States Borrow to Fund Unemployment Benefits: and Obama’s New Nuclear Policy UrbanGrounds: Sarah Palin Blasts Back at Obama at SRLC in New Orleans Ace of Spades HQ: Report: […]
FOX News: Morris Decries POTUS Nuclear Policy, Says Obama “Might Be the First Anti-American President We’ve Ever Had” (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 4/13/2010 @ 2:02 pm[…] Poser Review Patterico’s Pontifications, States Borrow to Fund Unemployment Benefits: and Obama’s New Nuclear Policy UrbanGrounds: Sarah Palin Blasts Back at Obama at SRLC in New Orleans Ace of Spades HQ: Report: […]
FOX News: Morris Decries POTUS Nuclear Policy, Says Obama “Might Be the First Anti-American President We’ve Ever Had” (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 4/13/2010 @ 2:02 pm[…] Poser Review Patterico’s Pontifications, States Borrow to Fund Unemployment Benefits: and Obama’s New Nuclear Policy UrbanGrounds: Sarah Palin Blasts Back at Obama at SRLC in New Orleans Ace of Spades HQ: Report: […]
FOX News: Morris Decries POTUS Nuclear Policy, Says Obama “Might Be the First Anti-American President We’ve Ever Had” (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 4/13/2010 @ 2:02 pm[…] Poser Review Patterico’s Pontifications, States Borrow to Fund Unemployment Benefits: and Obama’s New Nuclear Policy Thomas Del Beccaro, Big Government: Is Obama Misunderestimating Nuclear Weapons’ Contribution […]
Ben Stein on Obama: His Humiliation of Netanyahu, His Attempt to Appease Those Who Want Us Dead, His Utter Weakness « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 4/13/2010 @ 3:15 pm[…] vid added Patterico’s Pontifications, States Borrow to Fund Unemployment Benefits: and Obama’s New Nuclear Policy The Lonely Conservative: Ahmadinejad Mocks Obama’s Nuke Strategy Conservatives4Palin: More Voters […]
Obama Gaffe from 2009: US Constitution Written “20 Centuries” Ago (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 4/14/2010 @ 4:27 am