Nobama's new nuke policy

Discussion in 'International Current News & Events' started by mosquitomountainman, Apr 6, 2010.

  1. mosquitomountainman

    mosquitomountainman I invented the internet. :rofl:

    3,698
    70
    "WASHINGTON (Reuters) - ...Under the revamped policy, the United States for the first time is forswearing use of atomic weapons against non-nuclear countries, a break with a Bush-era threat of nuclear retaliation in the event of a biological or chemical attack.

    But the new strategy comes with a major condition that the countries will be spared a U.S. nuclear response only if they are in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That loophole means Iran and North Korea would not be protected. ..."

    It should be labeled "Nobama's no-brainer." So what are we supposed to do if a non-nuclear country uses biological or chemical weapons? Shake our finger at them? Does he realize that these are the poor-man's nukes?
     
  2. beericus

    beericus Well-Known Member

    71
    0
    Dude needs to take a day off of changing stuff around already. Just cause you can, doesnt mean you need too...............

    he shoulda been studying past and present White Sox players instead of changing our Nuke policy around.
     

  3. HozayBuck

    HozayBuck Well-Known Member

    3,183
    16
    Now you know why the Founding Fathers put in the bit about

    Enemies Foreign and Domestic...
     
  4. beericus

    beericus Well-Known Member

    71
    0
  5. kyfarmer

    kyfarmer Well-Known Member

    638
    0
    Anyone doubt what a DOUCHE BAG our potus is now. :eek:
     
  6. allen_idaho

    allen_idaho Well-Known Member

    348
    0
    No, you don't get it. Using a massive barrage of conventional weapons is the smarter option.

    Sure, you could retaliate by nuking an enemy nation. But that radiation doesn't exactly go away for a very long time. In a place like the middle east, this would mean no access to their oil fields. Which is counter-productive.

    You also kill millions of innocent civilians. And then the conflict escalates from there. They use more chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. We use more nuclear weapons. Eventually everybody is dead.
     
  7. kogneto

    kogneto The Skeptic

    280
    0
    lol advocating for nuclear arsenals is like advocating you stockpile cyanide in your kitchen cabinets


    I think it's a bold move, but it doesn't mean it's a bad one, it's a step towards removing the cold war stigma that at any second we're going to need all 5,500 nuclear bombs to completely obliterate all life on earth

    If you think this is bad wait until nanotech scales up. The grey goo scenario in nanoterrorism leaves us a mile under the earth's new surface, or at the very least in carbon deposits throughout the atmosphere
     
  8. mosquitomountainman

    mosquitomountainman I invented the internet. :rofl:

    3,698
    70
    I don't think anyone is advocating nuclear weapons anymore than anyone is advocating biological or chemical weapons. The point is that for years the threat was that if they use weapons of mass destruction we do the same.

    The "innocent civilian" argument has a lot of supporters now that war is so politicized. Can you imagine trying to defeat Nazi Germany using the same battle plans we use today? The same battle plan that brought us Vietnam, Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan?

    Germany was defeated because we destroyed their infrastructure and ability to wage war. Japan capitulated after we destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki with one bomb each. Could we have defeated Japan without nukes? Yes, but at the cost of thousands of American lives.

    Quite frankly, nukes are expedient. We worry about "surgical strikes" and civilian casualties when fighting an enemy that targets civilians. We get involved in endless brush wars artificially propping up crooked politicians in foreign countries under the guise of democracy. These terrorist groups cannot survive without civilian backing. The civilians are just as guilty as those waging war.

    We go and clean up the mess and when we leave they go right back to where they were; killing each other and exporting their violence throughout the world. It would have been far simpler and saved American lives to just nuke their a$$.

    We need to get out of the UN and start functioning as a soveriegn nation. We need to become independant and self-sustaining; mind our own business; and, without apology, blast the h**l out of anyone who messes with us.

    Does anyone remember what happened under Reagon when civilian planes started falling out of the sky? He simply dropped some "care" packages on a few buildings occupied by the guy who sponsered the attacks in Libya. MK lost some family members so he got to experience the pain his support of terrorists caused to others and decided to back off a bit. Was it regrettable that "inncents" died? Of course. But their death saved a lot of lives and for awhile the rest of the terrorist community couldn't find any host countries willing to be their base of operations. (At least until war became "civilized" again.)

    Quit screwing around with these people and start putting the our welfare ahead of world opinion.
     
  9. Doomsayer

    Doomsayer Member

    17
    0
    You are right the wars we fight now are are to polictal...winning of the hearts and minds doent work unless you are in country for a generation or two...plus the generals in charge have to stop looking for the great battles fight the same as the enemy would strike at te enemies family and a sustained carpet bombing campagin in the region...the people will come around to your side faster look at germany ww2
     
  10. allen_idaho

    allen_idaho Well-Known Member

    348
    0
    You are not going to have supporters when you invade two countries without cause. Why did we invade Iraq and Afghanistan? It wasn't because of 9/11 or the war on terror. We just went on in and after 8 years, still haven't left.

    Then the locals decide to fight back, just like you and I would. And the "insurgents" become labeled terrorists. And the civilian casualties you care so little about continue to stack up. But WE invaded THEM. So it is our fault. Had we just minded our business and actually tracked down the one guy we were looking for, they would still be alive. Our troops would still be alive. The price of gas would still be relatively decent. And the economy wouldn't have gone so far into the crapper.
     
  11. mosquitomountainman

    mosquitomountainman I invented the internet. :rofl:

    3,698
    70
    So what's the problem? I agree that we have no business being in Iraq or Afghanistan. Regarding the locals fighting back...I don't blame them. We'd do the same against UN troops. (I hope.) But to be realistic when we're gone they'll still be fighting each other. Let them kill each other off. As long as they stay out of our business we should stay out of theirs.

    If someone wants to take us on then let them pay the consequences. If these people knew without a doubt that they'd get incinerated someone would rat Bin Laden out. If these people knew without a doubt that the consequences of taking part in any action against us would result in immediate and extremely lethal reprisals they wouldn't allow these people to operate from their country.

    Forget the global cop game. Mind our own business and carry a very large stick.
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2010