Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"President Obama said Monday that he was revamping American nuclear strategy to substantially narrow the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons... 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. Those threats, Mr. Obama argued, could be deterred with 'a series of graded options,' a combination of old and new conventional weapons.'"
I guess talking isn't working out for him so now he's going to set an example. This is like the gun control argument. If we take guns away, the bad guys won't use them and we'll all live together in peace and harmony on Planet Sunshine. I'll set a good example and everyone will follow my example.
He did not say we would not respond in kind. Considering the likeliest source of an chemical or biological attack would be an oil producing state and that a massive nuclear attack would destroy the petroleum infrastructure as well as a lot of people that didn't have anything to do with the attack I think this is a wise policy.
I do recommend a limited reprisal in the case of a bio/chemical terrorist attack. It should be the capture of the perpetrators and all of their close relatives followed by a mass public execution. IMHO the closest relatives of Osama Bin Laden and the rest of his crew should have been rounded up and executed within months of the Trade Center bombing. I base this on the fact that in that culture you may be held responsible for the actions of your brother, son or father. With this responsibility comes the right and duty to limit the actions of your immediate family. This makes it personal revenge instead of the usual western mass destruction of everybody and everything because of a few fools.
When looking at a combat situation, you have to think first "can the attack happen again, and what is the best way to stop it"
Those are the first questions that are answered. For instance, if a terrorist group, based in Saudi Arabia ignites a nuclear weapon on American soil, can they do it again.
The likely hood of that happening, is quite small. They probably only have one weapon, and vaporizing Saudi isn't going to stop it from happening, as the weapon would likely already be on American soil.
So what would nuking them do? Satisfy some sick "eye for an eye" need for revenge? The best course of action would be conventional attack, to disable and disband the terrorist group.
Now, if a country like China, or North Korea attacked us with a nuclear weapon, thats different. Both of those countries have demonstrated the ability to produce nuclear weapons on their own. They pose a threat to continue attacking us in that manner. The swiftest way to neutralize that threat is to retaliate with nuclear weapons in kind.
All this treaty does, is says that if you have a small group of terrorists in your country, that launch a nuclear attack against us, we won't nuke you back. No one is saying we won't level the place with MOAB's, possible biological and chemical strikes, and other things you don't even know exist yet.
No problem. Since obama is president now, just attack this country any way you feel like it. Many countries have chemical weapons, and terrorist groups could buy these, or just aquire them from supportive states. What if 20,000 American are killed by a terrorist chemical attack? Not an unlikely scenario. What happened to holding a country responsible for terrorist acts from their country?
The chemical weapons status of each country is available easily. Check out all the stuff that is laying around and the capacity that these countries have. Don't think terrorist can generate enough money for that? Check out how much money even Mexican drug cartels make from just the known drug exports to the US!
No problem. Since obama is president now, just attack this country any way you feel like it. Many countries have chemical weapons, and terrorist groups could buy these, or just aquire them from supportive states. What if 20,000 American are killed by a terrorist chemical attack? Not an unlikely scenario. What happened to holding a country responsible for terrorist acts from their country?
Let me give you a scenario.
A Islamic terrorist, born and breed in Montana, obtains some Anthrax. He then goes about making a biological weapon out of it. This weapon is used, oh, in Washington DC. It kills thousands, in a horrible way.
Should we then bomb Montana, because their citizen killed Americans?
If the state is sponsoring terrorists, its one thing, if a terrorist just comes from there, thats a totally different matter.
Most Islamic countries are trying to help us eradicate radical elements in their society. However, crazy people will always exist.
No problem. Since obama is president now, just attack this country any way you feel like it. Many countries have chemical weapons, and terrorist groups could buy these, or just aquire them from supportive states. What if 20,000 American are killed by a terrorist chemical attack? Not an unlikely scenario. What happened to holding a country responsible for terrorist acts from their country?
No doubt those are acceptable losses to the Obama administration as it would trim the numbers on Medicare/Medicaid/SS and be "fiscally conservative" to allow mass murder on American soil. If representative of the polupation approx. 50% of those killed woun't be contributing to the tax base anyway.
That said, EMP or bio/chemical are the most likely scenarios over thermonuclear destruction. The US has too many resources valuable to too many nations.
I guess talking isn't working out for him so now he's going to set an example. This is like the gun control argument. If we take guns away, the bad guys won't use them and we'll all live together in peace and harmony on Planet Sunshine. I'll set a good example and everyone will follow my example.
Okay, would you like to tell me why nuking (or even issuing a threat to) anybody and everybody is the only option, including those who are non-nuclear and respect nuclear non-proliferation treaty?
Would it be okay to nuke Britain if the next generation of terrorists that creates a havoc in America came from there?
Okay, would you like to tell me why nuking (or even issuing a threat to) anybody and everybody is the only option, including those who are non-nuclear and respect nuclear non-proliferation treaty?
Would it be okay to nuke Britain if the next generation of terrorists that creates a havoc in America came from there?
Stop using logic, thats not fair.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
