Obama limits U.S. use of nuclear arms

[Chicopee John]

Obama limits U.S. use of nuclear arms

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Obama administration unveiled a new policy on Tuesday restricting U.S. use of nuclear weapons but sent a stern message to nuclear-defiant Iran and North Korea that they remain potential targets.

 

Kicking off a hectic week for President Barack Obama's nuclear agenda, his aides rolled out a strategy review that renounced U.S. development of new atomic weapons and could herald further cuts in America's stockpile.

 

The announcement, calling for reduced U.S. reliance on its nuclear deterrent, could build momentum before Obama signs a landmark arms control treaty with Russia in Prague on Thursday and hosts a nuclear security summit in Washington next week.

 

But Obama's revamped strategy is likely to draw criticism from conservatives who say his approach could compromise U.S. national security and disappoint liberals who wanted the president to go further on arms control.

 

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.

 

"We agree that we've got a very hard problem in front of us -- the fact that states like North Korea and Iran ... are interested in these capabilities and the means to deliver them," a senior U.S. defense official said.

 

"And we have of course the continuing evidence that al Qaeda and others are interested in acquiring weapons of mass destruction."

 

THREAT OF NUCLEAR ATTACK

 

The Nuclear Posture Review, as the policy document is known, stated: "The threat of global nuclear war has become remote, but the risk of nuclear attack has increased."

 

The NPR is required by Congress from every U.S. administration but Obama set expectations high after he vowed to end "Cold War thinking" and won the Nobel Peace Prize in part for his vision of a nuclear-free world.

 

Seeking to set an example, the Obama administration said the United States would consider use of nuclear weapons only in "extreme circumstances" and committed to not developing any new nuclear warheads.

 

But it said that while reducing the role of nuclear weapons in national security, the United States would strengthen its conventional arsenal.

 

"We have other means of deterrence that we can increase our reliance on, such as missile defenses, such as non-nuclear strike capabilities," a senior U.S. defense official said.

 

The administration also pledged to pursue further arms control with Russia beyond the new START pact Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev will sign this week promising to slash nuclear arsenals by a third.

 

"The United States will pursue high-level, bilateral dialogues on strategic stability with both Russia and China which are aimed at fostering more stable, resilient, and transparent strategic relationships," it said.

 

But the Obama administration said the lack of transparency surrounding China's nuclear programs raises questions about the country's future strategic intentions.

 

"China's nuclear arsenal remains much smaller than the arsenals of Russia and the United States," the document said.

 

"But the lack of transparency surrounding its nuclear programs -- their pace and scope, as well as the strategy and doctrine that guides them -- raises questions about China's future strategic intentions."

 

Obama now faces the challenge of lending credibility to his arms control push while not alarming allies under the U.S. defense umbrella or limiting room to maneuver in dealing with emerging nuclear threats from Iran and North Korea.

 

The review is a test of Obama's effort to make controlling nuclear arms worldwide a signature foreign policy initiative. It is also important because it will affect defense budgets and weapons deployment and retirement for years to come.

 

(Additional reporting by Caren Bohan and Tabassum Zakaria; editing by Deborah Charles and David Storey)

 

[Mr. T]

Lowering the guard are we not? sounds like what happened under Clinton and then we get a 911 terorist attack.

 

 

 

Obama's failed legacy will be that Iran and N Korea become nuclear threats when they have "da bomb".

 

 

I dont think he (Obammy) has a clue to how our nukes protect so many, not just us here in the US but their are other smaller countrys who rely on us for their protection from being invaded by other rogue nations.

 

[Chicopee John]

Lowering the guard are we not? sounds like what happened under Clinton and then we get a 911 terorist attack.

 

 

 

Obama's failed legacy will be that Iran and N Korea become nuclear threats when they have "da bomb".

 

 

I dont think he (Obammy) has a clue to how our nukes protect so many, not just us here in the US but their are other smaller countrys who rely on us for their protection from being invaded by other rogue nations.

 

Trying to understand this, T. Since Nukes have devastating consequences, how many do we need to protect the US and our allies.

 

I don't feel all that good about exempting chemical and biological attacks but, unless they are sanctioned by a state/country, it would be difficult to respond via nuclear weapons.

 

Also, I don't feel all that comfortable with these types of actions - especially the signing with Russia later this week - that bring back memories of Jimmy Carter, North Korea and the need for Regan's famous, "Trust but verify" approach.

 

I also worry about being compliant with the rules - Iran and N. Korea. What is the threshold for them to be compliant. Do we get another Hans Belch/Blik??

 

 

To what extent is our nuclear arsenal deployed around the globe?

 

Lots of questions and some reason for uneasiness. However, some answers might sooth some uneasy feelings.

[VaporTrail]

T, do you understand how much an arsenal of 30 nukes can do? If only 30 were put into play, it'd change the playing field of the world. There is just absolutely no need for thousands of them. I mean, sure, it serves the purpose of MAD, but that's the last thing I want to see. And what on earth would getting rid of nukes have to do with the 9/11 attacks, I'm pretty sure we still have about a thousand that we still can use against the terrorists (which we won't).

 

As for N. Korea and Iran, it's a right of all nations to work toward nuclear energy, unfortunately, with that knowledge also comes the knowledge of what can destroy humanity. It really isn't that worrying should the Iranians and N. Koreans start making thousands of nuclear weapons, they only need to make one for it to be used against us.

[Mr. T]

Changing the rules of engagement is a major concern. Obama is giving countries like Iran the go ahead.

[Chicopee John]

Changing the rules of engagement is a major concern. Obama is giving countries like Iran the go ahead.

 

As I understand it - or the very little that I do understand - we hold the N option on Iran (as an example) as long as they aren't aligned with certain requirements. I already spoke about some reservations about how the 'compliance' vs. 'non compliance' verdict will be decided.

 

For the moment, though, let's assume Iran is in compliance. So........if Iran attacks US assets with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons we do not respond with anything but conventional weapons and this could/would embolden them to do something like this.

 

Is this your concern RE: rules of engagement?

 

In contrast, if Iran remains outside of compliance the 'N' option remains on the table.

 

Walk me through your concern, T. Truth be told I can be very naive and always fear non-intended consequences.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

We need enough nuclear weapons to be a deterrent against Russia and China mostly. I'm sure the figures you read in the papers aren't even close to being the actual numbers held by us or the other countries. Just numbers to satisfy the masses. Thats all I have to say on this matter.

[VaporTrail]

I read an article about Iran and nuclear weapons in newsweek a couple of months ago, from what I remember it was really interesting. I'll see if I can fish it up.

[Mr. T]

Will the senate ratify the treaty?

 

Obama thinks he can get 8 Republicans to go along with it. I would say maybe 3 moderates will. But it is an election year and this may the only bi=partisan thing that will get done since Obammy took office.

 

The Senate requires a two-thirds vote in order to ratify a treaty, a 67-vote threshold meaning that at least eight Republican senators would have to sign

 

 

ratify source

 

 

[VaporTrail]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/08...lear-arms-deal/

 

Obama, Medvedev Sign Treaty to Cut Nuclear Arms

 

important points...

 

The treaty commits their nations to slash the number of strategic nuclear warheads by one-third and more than halve the number of missiles, submarines and bombers carrying them.

 

The new treaty will shrink the limit of nuclear warheads to 1,550 per country over seven years. That still allows for mutual destruction several times over. But it is intended to send a strong signal that Russia and the U.S. -- which between them own more than 90 percent of the world's nuclear weapons -- are serious about disarmament.

 

I like it. But I still don't get why we need any more than 250 nukes. How many nuclear holocausts are we planning for? Beyond those first 200 or so the effectiveness of the nuke would suffer from diminishing returns, right?

[heckofajobbrownie]

“A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. And no matter how great the obstacles may seem, we must never stop our efforts to reduce the weapons of war. We must never stop at all until we see the day when nuclear arms have been banished from the face of this Earth.” - Ronald Reagan, 1984, in China.

[Chicopee John]

“A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. And no matter how great the obstacles may seem, we must never stop our efforts to reduce the weapons of war. We must never stop at all until we see the day when nuclear arms have been banished from the face of this Earth.” - Ronald Reagan, 1984, in China.

 

Early stages of Alzeimer's showing

 

[Westside Steve]

“A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. And no matter how great the obstacles may seem, we must never stop our efforts to reduce the weapons of war. We must never stop at all until we see the day when nuclear arms have been banished from the face of this Earth.” - Ronald Reagan, 1984, in China.

 

 

That was what Caesar thought.

Before the Barbarians figured out how to make bronze swords......

 

WSS

[Mr. T]

Has anyone takin in the account to how much it costs to maintain nuclear warheads?

 

There is a shelf life to them and in time they have to be dismantled and replaced. IMO: this is what is going on and it is being used for political gain.

 

Every step this administration does is calculated. They are in a nonstop campaign mode.

 

My biggest gripe is the change in the rules of engagement. I feel that we should never lower our guard, there are many rogue nations and leaders who are watching every move we make and would love to take a shot at us.

[Mr. T]

Where is the unthanks button? I just gave someone a thanks from the Touchpad on this droid and I don't know who. LOL

[VaporTrail]

That was what Caesar thought.

Before the Barbarians figured out how to make bronze swords......

 

WSS

 

Care to explain this? The way I'm interpreting it, it's a horrible analogy. We need nukes to keep the little guys in line? Our nukes will deter them from using their nukes if and when they get them?

[heckofajobbrownie]

"[T]he Cold War ended almost 20 years ago, and the time has come to take further measures to reduce dramatically the number of nuclear weapons in the world’s arsenals. It’s time for the United States to show the kind of leadership the world expects from us, in the tradition of American presidents who worked to reduce the nuclear threat to mankind." - John McCain, 2008.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Care to explain this? The way I'm interpreting it, it's a horrible analogy. We need nukes to keep the little guys in line? Our nukes will deter them from using their nukes if and when they get them?

 

All of his analogies are like that - headscratchers. You'll get used to it.

[Westside Steve]

Care to explain this? The way I'm interpreting it, it's a horrible analogy. We need nukes to keep the little guys in line? Our nukes will deter them from using their nukes if and when they get them?

 

What we need, VT, (IMO) is the most fearsome set of state of the art weaponry we can get our hands on.

Pretending that the scumbags will play nice if we act like Ghandi is laughable.

 

There's no doubt that the idiots will have nukes soon enough.

Sooner than later given the US administration but not a lot more.

 

If the idea of immediate annhiliation makes the little shitbags hesitate for a minute fine.

 

Life is like a shit sandwich.

The more bread you have the less shit you gotta eat.

 

WSS

[VaporTrail]

What we need, VT, (IMO) is the most fearsome set of state of the art weaponry we can get our hands on.

 

I agree, but what's the point of having a thousand of them?

 

Pretending that the scumbags will play nice if we act like Ghandi is laughable.

 

If the idea of immediate annhiliation makes the little shitbags hesitate for a minute fine.

 

Our nukes don't pose a threat to the people that would use nuclear weapons against us. Iran would have to be crazy, and I think Ahmadinejad is off his rocker, but I don't think he's stupid enough to go toe-to-toe with us or even give any terrorists nukes to use against us. If a nuclear weapon goes off in the United States, I'd expect Iran and North Korea to be removed from the planet quite soon afterwards, and I believe Kim Jong-Il and Ahmadinejad are aware of this. But that supports another point, the people that would actually commit the attack, fringe terrorist groups, aren't intimidated by our nuclear arsenal. How are our nuclear weapons going to scare people that don't have a centralized infrastructure? Are we supposed to nuke the living shit out of the Afghan/Paki border? That'd sit real well with the Pakistanis, Chinese, and Indians.

 

[Mr. T]

All of his analogies are like that - headscratchers. You'll get used to it.

 

 

Another one of Heck's insults. This is why a lot of people will not chime in and speak of what is on their mind or share their ideals.

 

But in reality, that is what he wants. PC is his business. Always trying to manipulate others into being silent so that they will except whatever, instead of having a voice.

[calfoxwc]

What we need, is a "suitcase" nuke, that is an extremely accurate killer

 

laser, devastation measured in feet, then it completely disappears, no radiation or anything.

 

We could solve a lot of problems with that.

 

Just a devasting blast of killer light.

 

I should have been a scientist.

 

got an "A" in physics in college ya know.

[Westside Steve]

What we need, VT, (IMO) is the most fearsome set of state of the art weaponry we can get our hands on.

 

I agree, but what's the point of having a thousand of them?

 

Pretending that the scumbags will play nice if we act like Ghandi is laughable.

 

If the idea of immediate annhiliation makes the little shitbags hesitate for a minute fine.

 

Our nukes don't pose a threat to the people that would use nuclear weapons against us. Iran would have to be crazy, and I think Ahmadinejad is off his rocker, but I don't think he's stupid enough to go toe-to-toe with us or even give any terrorists nukes to use against us. If a nuclear weapon goes off in the United States, I'd expect Iran and North Korea to be removed from the planet quite soon afterwards, and I believe Kim Jong-Il and Ahmadinejad are aware of this. But that supports another point, the people that would actually commit the attack, fringe terrorist groups, aren't intimidated by our nuclear arsenal. How are our nuclear weapons going to scare people that don't have a centralized infrastructure? Are we supposed to nuke the living shit out of the Afghan/Paki border? That'd sit real well with the Pakistanis, Chinese, and Indians.

 

Nope.

But my Subarus speedometr goes way past the speed limit.

 

 

The cold war, as we knew it, is over now.

And we probably don't need the stockpile.

And we'd still have enough to kill everybody a hundred times.

 

So since it really is a meaningless gesture we gain nothing except tha aura of weakness.

 

WSS

 

[VaporTrail]

We still have over a thousand nukes, I don't see how that gives us an aura of weakness.

[Mr. T]

The weakness is in the rules of engagement.

 

When someone breaks into your house and threatens your life and to loot your goods and have their way with your wife are you first going to see if they will sit down on the couch and talk about it first? Meanwhile your guns are locked in a safe in the other room and the bullets are being held by the local sheriff and you will need a 3 day wait before you can sign them out.

 

Meanwhile Israel is disgusted with the whole bogus treaty and opted out of attending the signing.

 

When will Obama make a real demand to Iran to stop their nuke program? Instead he continues to lower the bar for them to step right over.

[VaporTrail]

http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=58673

 

 

Highlights

Defense Officials Clarify Nuclear Review

 

By Ian Graham

Emerging Media, Defense Media Activity

WASHINGTON, April 8, 2010 – The Nuclear Posture Review has laid out a roadmap for the United States to follow in future nuclear dealings, and it also has raised a lot of questions in the public forum.

 

Bradley H. Roberts, deputy assistant secretary of defense for nuclear and missile defense, and Navy Adm. John E. Roberti, deputy director for strategy and policy for the Joint Staff, spoke with journalists on a DoDLive Bloggers’ Roundtable yesterday to clarify the particulars of the review.

...

The policy is by no means a reduction of capability, Roberts said, but more of a repackaging that will allow the United States to respond to threats appropriately and, ideally, to avoid the disastrous repercussions of using nuclear weapons.

 

“A nuclear weapon would be perfectly thorough in dealing with the military threat,” Roberts said. “We'd like to have other means; we think that would be more credible as a threat in the eye of [an enemy] that we might actually employ that other means.

...

“Our desire is to have the niche capability that we think is credible in the eyes of the Kim Jong-Ils of the world,” Roberts said, referring to the North Korean dictator, “but not to go so far down this pathway that we're preventing further nuclear reductions by Russia or generating concerns in Russia and China about the destabilizing impact of these capabilities.”

 

But it also uses what Roberts called “calculated ambiguity” to allow the president to call for a nuclear strike if needed.

 

“The president chose a middle ground because he was not persuaded that the conditions exist today to enable us to safely say that the only purpose of our nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear attack,” Roberts said.

...

 

Although the situation is different, Roberts said, it’s no less dire. North Korea and Iran have both made efforts to develop nuclear weapons programs. The leaders of al Qaida also have stated their intent to obtain and use nuclear weapons.

 

“These are all alarming indicators,” Roberts said. “They are not proof that there is a nuclear weapon being smuggled today or tomorrow, but there are alarming indicators that require our serious attention.”

 

According to the review and current nuclear policy, that attention could mean very bad results for anyone posing a threat to the United States. While the plan is to lower the number of nuclear weapons, it is not to shrink the United States’ ability to respond to aggression, Roberti said.

 

“Our declaratory policy says that if you're a non-nuclear-weapon state, as defined by the non-proliferation treaty, and you are in good standing, you're honoring your non-proliferation obligations, you are at no risk,” he said. “If you are not in good standing with your nuclear non-proliferation obligations, the United States rules out nothing.”

 

 

/edit...

 

Also! Just for funsies...

 

A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. And no matter how great the obstacles may seem, we must never stop our efforts to reduce the weapons of war. We must never stop at all until we see the day when nuclear arms have been banished from the face of this Earth.

[Westside Steve]

We still have over a thousand nukes, I don't see how that gives us an aura of weakness.

 

 

But you aren't Ahmedinijad.

 

 

We hope.

 

As everyone painted Reagan as a madman warmonger he could get away wiht that.

Like only Nixon could go to China.

 

But recall we were dealing with the Russkies.

There are crazier opponents now and we aren't dealing with them.

 

Like making a deal with the Hells Angels while the Crips and Bloods run the streets.

 

WSS

[Mr. T]

I believe Palin has hit on something here.

 

Earlier this week, Palin said of Obama’s nuclear weapons policy, “It's kinda like getting out there on a playground, a bunch of kids, getting ready to fight, and one of the kids saying, 'Go ahead, punch me in the face and I'm not going to retaliate. Go ahead and do what you want to with me.”

 

Source

 

Did he get a round table meeting from chicago's finest community of basketball and soccer moms to come up with his policy?

[tjs7]

Nope.

But my Subarus speedometr goes way past the speed limit.

 

 

The cold war, as we knew it, is over now.

And we probably don't need the stockpile.

And we'd still have enough to kill everybody a hundred times.

 

So since it really is a meaningless gesture we gain nothing except tha aura of weakness.

 

WSS

 

IMO it is far from a meaningless gesture. It does 2 things: if we are able to disassemble thousands of nuclear weapons, but still have enough for strategic purposes (still hundreds of times over), then we are cutting govt. spending on those nukes. Nice thing to do in the face of rising debt. Also, it gives us a stronger position when trying to get other countries to comply with non-proliferation treaties. We can go to them and say "look, we are reducing" rather than "please don't make nukes, but we are going to start a new nuke program."

 

Also IMO, no one is going to perceive us as weak when we go down to 1,500 nuclear weapons; everyone recognizes that that 1,500 can still blow up the world a thousand times over.

[VaporTrail]

What we need, is a "suitcase" nuke, that is an extremely accurate killer laser, devastation measured in feet, then it completely disappears, no radiation or anything. We could solve a lot of problems with that. Just a devasting blast of killer light.

 

I present to you

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1

 

 

Earlier this week, Palin said of Obama’s nuclear weapons policy, “It's kinda like getting out there on a playground, a bunch of kids, getting ready to fight, and one of the kids saying, 'Go ahead, punch me in the face and I'm not going to retaliate. Go ahead and do what you want to with me.”

 

Obama's response?

 

"The last I checked Sarah Palin's not much of an expert on nuclear issues."

 

"If the Secretary of Defense and the chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff are comfortable with it, I'm probably going to take my advice from them and not from [sarah Palin]''

 

After likening the world stage to kids on a playground she also went on to say, "We miss Ronald Reagan, who used to say, when he would look at our enemies he would say, 'You lose! We win!'"

 

Okay, but how about the source from my quote a few posts back... skip to 36 seconds.

 

 

Apparently she forgot about that