No New Nukes

[SloanHater]

The United States will swear off the development of new generations of nuclear weapons and will not use its existing arsenal to attack nonnuclear states that are in compliance with nonproliferation agreements, the Obama administration said Tuesday.

Gates also noted, however, the new policy sends a "strong message" to states such as Iran and North Korea.

"If you're going to play by the rules [of the nonproliferation treaty], we will undertake certain obligations to you," he said. "But if you're not going to play by the rules ... all options are on the table."

Link

I'm still trying to wrap my head around how anyone could view this as a step in the wrong direction.

[byu71]

Link

I'm still trying to wrap my head around how anyone could view this as a step in the wrong direction.

What if some radical country decides to attack us with chemical warfare, but they don't have nukes? What do you think is the leverage we have with that Country if there is no fear of a retalitory nuclear response.

[SloanHater]

What if some radical country decides to attack us with chemical warfare, but they don't have nukes? What do you think is the leverage we have with that Country if there is no fear of a retalitory nuclear response.

You don't think we could destroy a country with our current non-nuclear arsenal? A non-nuclear assault seemed pretty effective in Iraq without the guilt of slaughtering thousands of innocents.

[Maximus]

Link

I'm still trying to wrap my head around how anyone could view this as a step in the wrong direction.

Nukes are a deterrent. It is highly naive to think a world without nukes is possible, let alone goal worthy.

[byu71]

You don't think we could destroy a country with our current non-nuclear arsenal? A non-nuclear assault seemed pretty effective in Iraq without the guilt of slaughtering thousands of innocents.

I guess you don't believe the theory that by nuking Japan, more lives were saved than by invading, The theory is both Japanese and American lives were saved.

I guess you think it is OK to keep spending money hand over fist on convential weapons and being the policeman to the world by threatening that if they misbehave toward us, we will send massive troops into their countries.

Now, maybe the concept of, hey I won't hate you if you don't hate me works. Can you name any major conflicts that were avoided by using that approach.

[happyone]

What if some radical country decides to attack us with chemical warfare, but they don't have nukes? What do you think is the leverage we have with that Country if there is no fear of a retalitory nuclear response.

Think Fuel Air Explosives and daisy cutter bombs

[Moliere]

Link

I'm still trying to wrap my head around how anyone could view this as a step in the wrong direction.

Policy seems fine, but it's a bit absurd to say we are not developing new nukes but at the same time keeping the old ones hanging around. I'd probably be more comfortable with building new nukes and disposing of the old ones, although I have no idea if nukes go stale. If we aren't inovating, someone else is and I'd hate to be at the short end of that stick.

[SloanHater]

Nukes are a deterrent. It is highly naive to think a world without nukes is possible, let alone goal worthy.

How did those nukes work in deterring 9/11? I still think this is a brillant politic move to increase the pressure on Iran/N. Korea without essential changing anything. In fact, they are cutting government spending. Conservatives rejoice!

[Clark Addison]

What if some radical country decides to attack us with chemical warfare, but they don't have nukes? What do you think is the leverage we have with that Country if there is no fear of a retalitory nuclear response.

I didn't read it, but did Obama say we were going to get rid of all our nukes? I'm sure that won't happen, and the US will have a sizable nuclear force for the forseeable future.

[il Padrino Ute]

How did those nukes work in deterring 9/11? I still think this is a brillant politic move to increase the pressure on Iran/N. Korea without essential changing anything. In fact, they are cutting government spending. Conservatives rejoice!

Yes, cutting spending in one of the only two things that the federal government should provide is a brilliant move.

Why doesn't Obama just admit that he's a pussy? The Cold War wasn't won because of being nice to the Soviet Union.

[SCcoug]

I still think this is a brillant politic move to increase the pressure on Iran/N. Korea without essential changing anything. In fact, they are cutting government spending. Conservatives rejoice!

Do you believe the US would nuke NK or Iran for pursuing nuclear weapons? I don't believe we would.

[Commando]

Thanks to nuclear proliferation from the 50's through the 80's, it has never been easier for some shit stain state to get a hold of a few rods of uranium via decrepit Russia. We are so lucky we haven't seen a rogue nuke go off it's not even funny. There have been scores of people busted with suitcases of uranium coming out of Russia to sell for just a couple million. It's only a matter of time before we run out of fingers to plug all the leaks.


That having been said, I don't think it matters one way or the other whether we have nukes or not-- other than it gives Iran and N Korea an excuse to have their uranium enrichment facilities. Those are the first things we should bomb unilaterally-- no question.

[TripletDaddy]

Yes, cutting spending in one of the only two things that the federal government should provide is a brilliant move.

Why doesn't Obama just admit that he's a pussy? The Cold War wasn't won because of being nice to the Soviet Union.

actually, how was the cold war won? was it won on the battlefield?

[SloanHater]

I guess you don't believe the theory that by nuking Japan, more lives were saved than by invading, The theory is both Japanese and American lives were saved.

I guess you think it is OK to keep spending money hand over fist on convential weapons and being the policeman to the world by threatening that if they misbehave toward us, we will send massive troops into their countries.

Now, maybe the concept of, hey I won't hate you if you don't hate me works. Can you name any major conflicts that were avoided by using that approach.

This is an odd post. First, we didn't have the technology we currently do during WWII. If we did, I doubt we would have needed Nukes.

Second, I think this rewards those who play by the rules and puts more pressure on those that don't.

Lastly, it ends the hypocrisy that was American development of nuclear arms. Now America is actually living by the standard it expects of the world.

[Edit] Can you clarify your question. Are you asking if I can name a conflict that was avoided by diplomacy?

[il Padrino Ute]

actually, how was the cold war won? was it won on the battlefield?

Do you believe Reagan played nice with Gorbachev? No, it was because Reagan wasn't afraid to let Gorby know what the US would do if the Soviets wanted to have some sort of fight.