No New Nukes

[byu71]

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.

I think he pledged to any non-nuclear country we wouldn't use nukes on them. If that is the case, even if we have the arsenal, if we are attacked we have pledged not to use them.

Now if this is a way to persuade Iran not to get nukes or not use them on us when they do get them, it seems pretty naive.

First, hey Iran, attack us with chemical warfare if you want as long as you don't have nukes. Or, hey Iran, go ahead and nuke your neighbors as long as you don't nuke us.

He can personally have this policy if he wants, he is the President. The fact Gates seems to back him on it doesn't make me entirely opposed to it.

However, to ask the question as Sloan did, indicating what reason could there be to be against Obama's plan is either an effort to troll or to express eveyone should live in lala land.

[statman]

Think Fuel Air Explosives and daisy cutter bombs

While those are impressive - You'd need to deliver literally thousands of those to equate to a strategic nuke.

[byu71]

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

It was won by escalating an arms race and forcing the Soviet Union into bankruptcy and potential revolt.

The way things are going, our enemies just have to be patient.

[happyone]

While those are impressive - You'd need to deliver literally thousands of those to equate to a strategic nuke.

true, but since we can literally put them through a window, it would give the recieptiant quite a headache.

[SloanHater]

While those are impressive - You'd need to deliver literally thousands of those to equate to a strategic nuke.

Or one strategically aimed at the enemy leader's house.

[statman]

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.

Which hypocrisy is that?

[SloanHater]

Which hypocrisy is that?

Telling Iran to not develop nukes while the labs in N. Mexico develop nukes.

[Maximus]

Telling Iran to not develop nukes while the labs in N. Mexico develop nukes.

The US has not agreed to not build nukes.

[byu71]

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?

I can name many where one side tried to appease the other and they still got hammered. Read French history. Hell, they even tried to appease the Vikings and when they ran out of stuff to give them, then the Vikings attacked.


I would like to know an instance where someone kept appeasing someone else and it worked out well for the appeaser.

[SloanHater]

I can name many where one side tried to appease the other and they still got hammered. Read French history. Hell, they even tried to appease the Vikings and when they ran out of stuff to give them, then the Vikings attacked.

I would like to know an instance where someone kept appeasing someone else and it worked out well for the appeaser.

You mean like the Belfast Agreement?

The US has not agreed to not build nukes.

"The new nuclear strategy calls for a halt to the development of new nuclear weapons and for an extension of the life of existing U.S. warheads. "

[Maximus]

You mean like the Belfast Agreement?



"The new nuclear strategy calls for a halt to the development of new nuclear weapons and for an extension of the life of existing U.S. warheads. "

The new strategy...in other words, the US did not sign an international agreement to not get/build nukes.

[byu71]

You mean like the Belfast Agreement?

No I don't. I think conflict went on for years and years. I don't know if either side offered to appease the other. I am talking about appeasement that thwarted a conflict.

Please don't offer up negotiated agreements where both sides feel they get something. I am talking about one side meeting the demands of the other side in order to avoid the conflict. Kinda like England and Hitler.

I don't doubt there is an instance, I just can't think of it, but thought you might have many of them in the back of your mind.

[wuapinmon]

[dabrockster]

On another similar topic on foreign policy.

Obama is now changing some language in the National Security Strategy. He is removing the word "Islamic Radicalism"..


Ok. I am curious to see where this document is going?? I have a sinking suspicion that "Home Grown" terrorism is going to be the new flavor of the month..

Not sure that it matters because the work being done on the front lines may not change. I don't know.. But I think this, "hold hands and sing around the campfire" is not the best approach for our security.. But we'll see..



http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100407/D9EU2T1O1.html

[SloanHater]

The new strategy...in other words, the US did not sign an international agreement to not get/build nukes.

No new agreements or treaties. Simply precedent from the Nuclear Posture Review.