No nukes in retaliation for biological or chemical weapons hit inside of USA

[Seasoned]

And this is a problem because conventional weapons no longer have obliteration properties?

 

[Kulindahr]

Given our capabilities with cruise missiles, etc., I think we can strike back at anyone who pops something at us.

OTOH, there is deterrence value.


I know I've harped on it in the last few days, but we should build THOR -- if we had that, we wouldn't need nukes.

 

[SoulSearcher]

I know I've harped on it in the last few days, but we should build THOR -- if we had that, we wouldn't need nukes.

I hope you people either have a revolution or uprising of people demanding investment in schools and infrastructure rather than more weapons, or you go bankrupt before any such crazy ideas like the Rods from God your twisted mind is so excited about ever comes to materialise.

 

[hotatlboi]

If you read the entire thing it says there is still an exception if we feel that is the last resort to defend against a major attack.

So nothing has changed really.

 

[Kulindahr]

I hope you people either have a revolution or uprising of people demanding investment in schools and infrastructure rather than more weapons, or you go bankrupt before any such crazy ideas like the Rods from God your twisted mind is so excited about ever comes to materialise.

Look, if you think it would be fun to be defenseless against the world except for some god-awful expensive forces maintained at even more expense, how about you go find the next place in Israel the Islamofascists who want to rule the world arte going to blow up, and have a cup of tea or something there?

The U.S. is going to maintain potent forces. The "Rods from God' would be a lot cheaper than most of the games we play. Consider that a good cruise missile costs over a half million, and a heck of a lot more than that to get it into position to even launch. Then consider that one "Rod from God" will be just a few thousand bucks.

Now, if I want to hit a hundred targets, I can drop one or two RfG on each one for less than the cost one a single cruise missile.


So, since the U.S. isn't going to decrease its military potency, which system will allow us to build more schools?


Yep -- THOR is more economical.

 

[Kulindahr]

If you read the entire thing it says there is still an exception if we feel that is the last resort to defend against a major attack.

So nothing has changed really.

Yes it has. The prior U.S. position was that if we get hit with a weapon of mass destruction, we hit back with one. This pulls back from that in a limited fashion.

 

[Kulindahr]

Oh, SoulSearcher:

I take it from your post that you'd rather have nuclear weapons being used on the planet rather than pieces of metal being dropped from LOE.

I'll put you in the "I like nukes" column.

 

[Kulindahr]

isnt ambiguity good if in fact you are willing to use nukes

Could be, though doctrine has been that a guarantee will keep people from risking it.

 

[archive]

Yep -- THOR is more economical.

(hypothetical) but arent you assuming that for the first time in history (if its built) that contractors will be cost effective

 

[NickCole]

If you read the entire thing it says there is still an exception if we feel that is the last resort to defend against a major attack.

So nothing has changed really.

Exactly.

Obama makes a big announcement but really nothing has changed.

Not that, in this instance, I object to the no change. Just the pretending.

 

[NickCole]

Yes it has. The prior U.S. position was that if we get hit with a weapon of mass destruction, we hit back with one. This pulls back from that in a limited fashion.

Oh please.

If we're hit with a weapon of mass destruction, the President will respond as he wants and he'll have Congress and the majority of the people supporting him.

 

[SoulSearcher]

Oh, SoulSearcher:

I take it from your post that you'd rather have nuclear weapons being used on the planet rather than pieces of metal being dropped from LOE.

I'll put you in the "I like nukes" column.

Oh no, don't do that, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were state terrorism, I DON'T like nukes, and hope for the eventual destruction of all nuclear weapons, as is the goal of the non-proliferation treaty.

 

[Kulindahr]

(hypothetical) but arent you assuming that for the first time in history (if its built) that contractors will be cost effective

Done the way it should be, we could put up enough "rods from God" to eliminate every military vehicle, ship, plane, missile or radar installation, communications center and command center on the planet and have plenty left over, for less than the first full years of our two current wars.

Allow for a 30% cost overrun and guarantee the contractors a 15% profit on everything done right and on time, and it still comes in for less.


No, that's not cheap -- but it's enough firepower to take on any three enemies at a time, no matter who they are, and refilling the platforms would be cheap.

 

[Kulindahr]

Oh no, don't do that, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were state terrorism, I DON'T like nukes, and hope for the eventual destruction of all nuclear weapons, as is the goal of the non-proliferation treaty.

You're in that brainwashed group....

If you don't like nukes, then you're contradicting yourself, because you objected to a cost-effective way to replace not only them but a good deal of running troops around the world. That means keeping the nukes.


Though personally I'd ship the nukes off the planet and use them for steering useful asteroids this direction.

 

[SoulSearcher]

You're in that brainwashed group....

I could say the same about your kind

Though personally I'd ship the nukes off the planet and use them for steering useful asteroids this direction.

Yeah, it'll be better if every one of them are steered towards all of the earth, then it'll hasten the coming of the zombie!

 

[JB3]

If you read the entire thing it says there is still an exception if we feel that is the last resort to defend against a major attack.

So nothing has changed really.

Plenty has changed. The previous position was that nukes were always on the table in case of a major attack. Now, that option is off the table. Even if the nukes were never used (which they probably would never be) having that option on the table was a powerful deterrent.

Obama should have made this decision without announcing it to the world.

 

[NickCole]

Plenty has changed. The previous position was that nukes were always on the table in case of a major attack. Now, that option is off the table. Even if the nukes were never used (which they probably would never be) having that option on the table was a powerful deterrent.

Obama should have made this decision without announcing it to the world.

Droid, do you seriously believe if we were attacked and Obama, or his advisors, believed a nuke was the retaliation they wanted to use, they wouldn't -- just because of some position Obama had announced?

It's just silly.

Look at all the promises he's broken, geez he can't even be fully forthright in filling out his Census form, and you think he'll stand on a ceremonial promise if he believes our national security is at stake? As usual with Obama, nothing has really changed. Obama moves the furniture around the room and calls it redecorating.

 

[NickCole]

Re: Obama limits Nuclear Weapons?

The Nuclear Posture Review, as it is officially called, is a smart move to bring the United States current nuclear policy into the 21st century. No longer is our biggest threat Russia, China or another major superpower. Therefore we agree to not use nuclear weapons with such countries, so long as they are complying by the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The minute they stop complying, the nuclear option is back on the table.

If you're saying Obama's announcement is about Russia or China or the handful of countries with nuclear arms, you're wrong. There are nearly 190 countries signed on to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and this is about the nonnuclear states.

Quoted from the NYT piece linked in the OP:

For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.

On top of all that, the President reserves the right to alter these options should the immediate threat of the United States come into play. He also decided to keep over one thousand weapons on a so-called "hair trigger."

LOL! In that case, as I've said, he's made no change at all.

I mean is he saying he won't use nuclear weapons on a nonnuclear state if the United States isn't in immediate threat? Wowie, that's really big of him.

Essentially this is a smart way to force compliance by many countries to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, while also making sure that we are best equipped to deal with terrorism in a smart, but aggressive, way.

No, essentially it's another Obama Photo-Op with no substance that he'll crow about as an achievement.

 

[Kulindahr]

^

Quite fun.

 

[NickCole]

Can anybody figure out exactly what the big change is? To me it sounds like a lot of words and no change.

Ten minutes of crap from Secretaries Gates and Clinton yesterday:


http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6385845n&tag=related;photovideo