Obama General Discussion

[Headache in a Suitcase]

this nuke thing is a giant mistake.

[BVS]

How is it a mistake, no one has been able to explain it to me, all I hear is hawkish irrational thinking.

[Earnie Shavers]

Yes - why is it a mistake? Or which part of it do you think is a mistake?

[BVS]

The only answer that I've I've heard is: Well what if some group from Egypt decides to set off a chemical weapon in New York, now we can't nuke Egypt...

Really, that's what you want? The ability to nuke a country for the action of a few? When did that become the rationale for nuclear war?

[Irvine511]

i fail to see how a chemical/biological attack would kill, say, 3,000 people in Manhattan on a tuesday morning in September. and no one got nuked after that. nor should anyone have gotten nuked after that.

seems to make sense to me.

[Earnie Shavers]

I saw that part as Obama just scoring cheap points. Of course the US would never retaliate to such an attack with nukes, so why not formalise the reality for an easy "look at me taking a nuclear step back" win?

If you are talking about a terrorist group launching such an attack (a) a threatened nuclear response would be no deterrent, they'd do it anyway, and likely (b) love that response above all others anyway, but then (c) as mentioned, nuke what exactly? A city or country they were based in or planning in before the attack? Manchester? Hamburg? Pakistan? Saudi Arabia? No. Be the first country in 55 years to use nukes, only to launch it at....a cave? No.

And whether it's a terrorist or state attack, then in the end, there's no way, in 2010, the United States would launch a nuclear attack under any situation other than a direct and immediate threat to the existence of the United States. Somehow, I don't think North Korea really applies there. They won't do it, such countries know it, so, again, it's really no deterrence. But those countries would know for damn sure that they wouldn't get away with it. So, does by what means matter? No.

It might be a change in formal policy, but it would not change - at all - the reality of any potential scenario.

[Irvine511]

^ you see, folks? this is what happens when we surrender our God-given national sovereignty to Australia.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

it's not a mistake to practice it... it's a mistake to say it.

the idea that we could use them is the best deterant we have going for us. even clinton agreed with that one.

i don't think we should actually go around nuking people... i just want our enemies to think that we might.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

i just want our enemies to think that we might.

So you're against all peace treaties?

[Earnie Shavers]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

... i just want our enemies to think that we might.

But they don't. They know you won't. I'm not talking about threats in a relatively similar weight class to the US (major nuclear nations like China and Russia) because that's where the deterrent actually does work. I'm talking about people like Iran, North Korea, or stateless organisations. They know the US will not - ever* - launch a nuclear attack unless it's part of a nuclear nukefest nukeoff with a major nukenemy.

Think it through. If it's via one of those lesser idiot states or a terrorist organisation, I can't even see the US responding in kind if a whole city and a couple of million people are lost. Not responding in kind wins not just every humanitarian argument, but every strategic argument too. Fox News and the raving mad end of the right wing would detest anything but a response in kind, but after the initial understandable fury and bloodthirst, the majority of the US would come around to seeing that too. There's just no way it would happen*. (Whispering) And other people know this too.

The deterrent doesn't exist in strategy because it doesn't actually exist in reality, so it's an easy win to just delete a paragraph or two.





* Palin Pending

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by BVS

So you're against all peace treaties?

yes that is obviously what i meant. fuck peace.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by Earnie Shavers

But they don't. They know you won't. I'm not talking about threats in a relatively similar weight class to the US (major nuclear nations like China and Russia) because that's where the deterrent actually does work. I'm talking about people like Iran, North Korea, or stateless organisations. They know the US will not - ever* - launch a nuclear attack unless it's part of a nuclear nukefest nukeoff with a major nukenemy.

Think it through. If it's via one of those lesser idiot states or a terrorist organisation, I can't even see the US responding in kind if a whole city and a couple of million people are lost. Not responding in kind wins not just every humanitarian argument, but every strategic argument too. Fox News and the raving mad end of the right wing would detest anything but a response in kind, but after the initial understandable fury and bloodthirst, the majority of the US would come around to seeing that too. There's just no way it would happen*. (Whispering) And other people know this too.

The deterrent doesn't exist in strategy because it doesn't actually exist in reality, so it's an easy win to just delete a paragraph or two.





* Palin Pending

save your "fox news" rhetoric for someone else. the last thing i am is a right wing hawkish "bloodthirsty" republican.

what, as if russia and china aren't potential future enemies of the united states? you honestly couldn't see a scenario in which one (or both) of these two nations came into conflict with the united states? especially in this time of dwindling resources?

[deep]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

it's not a mistake to practice it... it's a mistake to say it.

the idea that we could use them is the best deterant we have going for us. even clinton agreed with that one.

i don't think we should actually go around nuking people... i just want our enemies to think that we might.

there are a lot of layers to this

the country was quite united after 911. some would have been fine if we used tactical nukes in Bora Bora to get a sure kill on BinLaden

there would have been controversy, but just playing a loop of the planes going into the buildings would have been enough justification for many. how could we take a chance that Obama might get away and do it again. He would have no qualms getting a nuke from a failed state and launching it. does anyone doubt that ?

[Bluer White]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

save your "fox news" rhetoric for someone else. the last thing i am is a right wing hawkish "bloodthirsty" republican.

That's right. Don't allow yourself to be labeled in here!

But I do agree with Earnie's posts. There's nothing to worry about. It's good presidential diplomacy.

what, as if russia and china aren't potential future enemies of the united states? you honestly couldn't see a scenario in which one (or both) of these two nations came into conflict with the united states? especially in this time of dwindling resources?

I don't trust them either. But America is not that naive and I think we'll always have the threat of blowing them to hell and back with nukes. Our "friends" know that too.

[deep]

Originally Posted by Strongbow

Well, the United States did not believe nation building would be worth it in Afgahnistan ...

While the Karzai government is far from perfect, its not clear that a better alternative(Afghan leader or political group) has emerged. Leaving Afghanistan because the US and NATO has an imperfect partner certainly will not solve the problems or the threat that is posed by a chaotic and unstable Afghanistan. Those problems would only get worse.

Afghanistan??

How will the ramp up of troops go with these developements??

http://afghanistan.blogs.cnn.com/201...n-afghanistan/

Protests topple Kyrgyzstan's president, opposition claims - CNN.com

[Bluer White]

Originally Posted by Strongbow

While the Karzai government is far from perfect, its not clear that a better alternative(Afghan leader or political group) has emerged. Leaving Afghanistan because the US and NATO has an imperfect partner certainly will not solve the problems or the threat that is posed by a chaotic and unstable Afghanistan. Those problems would only get worse.

I see your point, thanks.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

yes that is obviously what i meant. fuck peace.

My point is how is this any different from any peace treaty? You put certain things in writing and if you break that word you pay the consequences.

[Strongbow]

Originally Posted by Earnie Shavers

But they don't. They know you won't. I'm not talking about threats in a relatively similar weight class to the US (major nuclear nations like China and Russia) because that's where the deterrent actually does work. I'm talking about people like Iran, North Korea, or stateless organisations. They know the US will not - ever* - launch a nuclear attack unless it's part of a nuclear nukefest nukeoff with a major nukenemy.

This is not true at all. If it were, Iran would not be spending so much money on hardening its underground nuclear facilities against ground burst from nuclear weapons.

The deterent effect is why the United States has never ruled out the use of nuclear weapons before in these situations.

Think it through. If it's via one of those lesser idiot states or a terrorist organisation, I can't even see the US responding in kind if a whole city and a couple of million people are lost. Not responding in kind wins not just every humanitarian argument, but every strategic argument too. Fox News and the raving mad end of the right wing would detest anything but a response in kind, but after the initial understandable fury and bloodthirst, the majority of the US would come around to seeing that too. There's just no way it would happen*. (Whispering) And other people know this too.

Nuclear Weapons have other uses besides blowing up cities. If nuclear weapons were used against a rogue state, it would not be for flattening major cities in the country.

The deterrent doesn't exist in strategy because it doesn't actually exist in reality, so it's an easy win to just delete a paragraph or two.

But your assuming that the leaders of the state in question would come to the same conclusions as yourself about what was "realistic". The reality is that while for many it might not be a deterrent, for some it could be, which is the drawback to stating precisely when the USA would respond with such weapons.

[Strongbow]

Originally Posted by deep

Afghanistan??

How will the ramp up of troops go with these developements??

Around the Web: Kyrgyzstan and the U.S. effort in Afghanistan – Afghanistan Crossroads - CNN.com Blogs

Protests topple Kyrgyzstan's president, opposition claims - CNN.com

There are already plans in place to to deal with a situation where the airbase at Manas in Kyrgyzstan could not be used. The government there had recently decided to end NATO's use of the airbase but reversed that decision. There are other airbases available in the southern former Soviet Union for the right price.

[MrsSpringsteen]

Obama clashes with gay rights hecklers in L.A. - Yahoo! News