Obama to Limit Potential Uses of Nuclear Weapons

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Dragoon68, Apr 6, 2010.

  1. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is another bad decision that telegraphs weakness to the world.

    Obama to Limit Potential Uses of Nuclear Weapons

    We should never limit our options to defend ourselves. We should always keep our enemies concerned that we will use them all if it is necessary.
     
  2. Paul3144

    Paul3144
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    2,378
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actions in war require a proportional response. Nuclear weapons use should be very limited because they cause large numbers of civilian casualties.
     
  3. windcatcher

    windcatcher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree.

    One step further:

    I think it is an open invitation......
    ......... and 'open season' on us... so to speak.... for a nuke attack.

    I do think this man's goal is to destroy US.
     
    #3 windcatcher, Apr 6, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 6, 2010
  4. Paul3144

    Paul3144
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    2,378
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why would the President want to "destroy us?" That makes no sense. Not even Bush wanted to destroy the country.

    What the Fox News article didn't say is that the new policy states that the United States will not use nuclear weapons against nations that do not have nuclear weapons and also abide by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That's it.
     
  5. JohnDeereFan

    JohnDeereFan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2009
    Messages:
    4,628
    Likes Received:
    11
    So, not content with destroying our country himself, now he's going to invite others to help.
     
  6. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,643
    Likes Received:
    158
    It would be highly surprising for Fox to put anything but a negative spin on anything Obama does. Not everyone see it their way.

     
    #6 Crabtownboy, Apr 6, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 6, 2010
  7. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    During WW2 both sides had poison gas but no one used it. Was this a sign of weakness or of becoming more "civilized?"
     
  8. ccrobinson

    ccrobinson
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm missing something here. Please help me understand what's bad about Obama's decision. I mean, you may be right. It may be a terrible thing he's doing, but I can't figure out how it's bad.
     
  9. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,643
    Likes Received:
    158
    I do not see it as a sign of weakness, but of confidence and strength.

    Any tin horn dictator who hates the United States knows we have weapons that can take him out as well as his henchmen at a moments notice without harming thousands of innocent people. Cruise missiles, smart bombs, and drone with Hellfire missiles. I would be very careful about not making the US too mad at me

    Besides those weapons I often wonder what has been developed at the Skunk Works and other places that your and I do not know about.
     
  10. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,429
    Likes Received:
    72
    This is a non-issue. However, most of the conservatives would find fault in Obama buying his wife a birthday present, so I honestly don't think it matters too much that they are upset over this.
     
  11. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    I was wondering how long it would take that Drudge headline to make it here...

    I absolutely believe this is a great thing. We need to eliminate nuclear arms in the world. This is something that can be achieved in our lifetime and will make our world safer for all. Nuclear weapons do no one any good and cause more harm than they prevent. We need a nuclear arms free world...this is a good way to start.

    Let us, the one true world superpower take the first step. I'm for it! :)
     
  12. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,643
    Likes Received:
    158
    Preach it brother! Preach the truth of the Prince of Peace! Amen and amen!
     
  13. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,258
    Likes Received:
    4
    Just curious, what damage to good ratio are you using ? Any real way to measure what they have prevented ?
     
  14. Robert Snow

    Robert Snow
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    4,466
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree. It's about time we stepped down our nuclear technology. It is unneeded and cost too much. Conventional weapons are what we use.
     
  15. matt wade

    matt wade
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Messages:
    6,156
    Likes Received:
    76
    There is absolutley no reason we need to tell other countries what the capability of our weapons is. We should keep all programs such a nuclear weapons secret.
     
  16. just-want-peace

    just-want-peace
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    5,505
    Likes Received:
    40
    Amazing!!!

    The "0"s followers have so completely been mesmerized by him that he can stab them in the back, call them &%$#_*&, and they turn around, thank him for it, and encourage him to do it again!

    And the original Pied Piper thought he was good!!!!!

    I always wondered how the Anti-Christ would be convincing enough to get the needed following to gain the power he would have, but the reaction of the "0" worshipers answers that question - total & blind allegiance.

    As to the OP, all any potential attacker against the US needs to know is that any such action will be met with a force superior enough the quell the attacker. How & what weapons etc. are for his military leaders to meditate over as they retreat or breath their last!
     
  17. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    You missed the point and, believe me, I understand proportional response in war! The point was that we should not telegraph to our enemies that we're limiting our options. That's just plain dumb!
     
  18. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,429
    Likes Received:
    72
    Here's the deal; such a pledge is mostly a paper tiger.

    If the US were ever actually threatened to a point that would require nuclear weapons, we would use them, regardless of previous promises. We could say that circumstances changed and our existence was threatened. As of now, we are not in that position, so we can encourage nuclear non-proliferation through such a statement.

    Essentially, we can gain positive benefits from it without really ever being faced with the negative cost as we could change positions if need be.
     
  19. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,429
    Likes Received:
    72
    You are assuming that our enemies would actually believe us on this.

    Think about it, would you trust your enemy making such a pledge? I would venture to say no.
     
  20. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Using only the force required is the honorable thing to do. Letting your enemy know in advance what you're not going to do is a dumb idea. They need to believe you will use all your capabilities and be worried that you might react more aggressively than is necessary.
     

Share This Page

Loading...