Obama to Limit Potential Uses of Nuclear Weapons

The reason for informing other nations is to project our power. Most of the power associated with NBC weapons is not the actual use of them but the projection of capability.

 

We can still reduce our nuclear stockpile without reducing our deterrent. We do not need to retain the capability to destroy the earth several times over.

If we can reduce our nuclear arsenal without sacrificing our nuclear deterrent, then it's a win-win scenario.

Besides, massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons don't really deter anyone. Mutually Assured Destruction theory prevents us from actually engaging in nuclear war with any established nuclear power. Our real threat comes from emerging nuclear powers, such as Iran and North Korea. A small fraction of our nuclear capability could destroy every square inch of these countries without even touching our stockpiles.

 

If a nation is crazy enough to attack the US, I doubt that the threat of nuclear destruction would sway them.

Besides, threats from terrorists and terroristic regimes often are accompanied by a suicidal impulse.

Regardless, these words don't mean anything. We could simply change our policy at will if we were ever truly threatened.

 

I would much rather use resources to develop and maintain a more effective conventional force that would could actually use. Nuclear weapons tend to gather dust, so to speak. Instead of developing and maintaining an excessive number of nuclear weapons, I think the best approach is to maintain a reasonable deterrent, including strategic and tactical nuclear weapons with a variety of delivery systems while devoting the remaining resources to conventional warfare methods.

Moreover, the comparison of nuclear weapons to conventional warfare is not justified. There is a major qualitative difference that differentiates nuclear vs. conventional weapons. Yes, more troops, transports, etc. are all good ideas, but more nuclear weapons (weapons deployed in war exactly twice in history) do not create a better deterrent. Who cares if I have enough weapons to blow up your country 100X over? Once is all that matters (along with sufficient backup measures).

 

You Are So Right....

You hit-the-nail-on-the-head, Dragoon!

 

I said country, not world. We could definitely annihilate individual countries several times over without risking our stockpile.

I have no problem with having more than is "necessary." I believe a nuclear sub contingent, strategic nuclear weapons, air-deployed nuclear weapons, and tactical nuclear weapons are all excellent components of a nuclear deterrent. We should have backup systems in place for all of these. Probably backups of backups of backups. However, I still believe we could accomplish all this with fewer weapons to provide a more cost effective deterrent.

 

Double post.

 

The real message we may be telegraphing to the world may not be about reducing or eliminating nuclear weapons..... but that we have issues with Korea and Iran.

I think the super powers and brains behind the NWO actually want a war with Iran.... and maybe a conflict with Korea. It would push the weakened economies beyond the point of self recovery, demand greater economic collaboration between nations, reduce the strong holds of sovereignty amongst many people who are broken by havoc and devastation and impact the environment and populations, and create such a demand for assistance and relief that the governments and their economies would submit to consolidations and collaborations of power. I regret having to say the next because of its implications... but I do think there is a cabal of elietist in cloistered positions of power, who do not believe in our God, but have their own spirituality in the occult and dark forces and are driven by these forces to control and destroy the world as we have known it: They are driven by the same demonic forces as Hitler and are following a playbook which nearly brought him success. They too have ideas about racial superiority and cleansing...... but it is not as clearly divided as we might think. [We 'think' in divisions of colors and origins and culture and religions, 'white collar' vs 'blue collar' etc. By knowing how 'we' think... they can manipulate and divide us, just like hitler did. ........this is one reason why I would not answer the 'race ' question on the census. It does not belong to any people to whom it is not a difference: To those who would make a difference it is a tool to divide humanity into sub groups.] They view 'race' in terms of power and DNA. [Evolution is their theory.] Because they have power, they believe they are superior and deserve to rule the world and are genetically superior. The rest of us are expendable to serve their ends and too weak and ignorant to be free and entrusted with self-rule........ and deserve to be ruled upon. Conflicts are their creation and the sacrifice of soldiers and innocent civilians in those unjust wars are blood sacrifices to their demons, keeping those appeased and cloaked in their dark powers. They've sold their souls and are past redemption. They are involved in the scandals of the Vatican and church, corruption of governments, through vairous ranks of the military and the positions in the defense dept. (it only takes a few)). Jesus Christ and His church is their only and greatest enemy. And the weapons of our warfare is prayer and knowledge of the Word and the righteousness of the blood of the lamb of God our faith and shield.

 

you may intend on limite used, you should never tell potential enemies that.

 

A nuclear option is never a porportionate response.

We need to completely rid the world of nuclear weapons. This is a task we can accomplish and make everything safer.

There is no satisfactory argument for the continued proliferation of nuclear arms in a world where there only exists one superpower.

 

"You " get rid of yours. Then I'll get rid of mine.




TRUST ME!

 

I tend to agree with you although I suppose it could be proportionate to a direct nuclear attack. Even then, you still have issues with non-combatant immunity because nuclear weapons are very indiscriminate.

I would like to see a world without nuclear weapons, but I don't see how that would work as a practical matter. It appears that there's no going back to a pre-nuclear weapon age.

 

It's easy to tell who the right-wing war-mongers are.

 

It's also easy to see who the ones are that had an accident, "got right with God", and then went back to being liberals.

 

If you equate being against war and being for peace (remember who Jesus is, the Prince of Peace), then your wires are not only crossed, but a tangled mess. If being for peace, in your mind, means someone is a liberal, the Jesus was the greatest Liberal that ever lived, and I am proud to stand with Him!