Discussion in 'Politics' started by rc8222, Apr 6, 2010.
Yet another youngster wing-nut that has no conceivable comprehension of damage that could be done with modern conventional weapons.
I'm speechless at the idiocy of that mentality, let's kiss the worlds ass and ask them to please don't do anything, but if you do we wont respond much.
Of the nuclear powers, only the People's Republic of China and the Republic of India have declarative, unqualified, unconditional no-first-use policies. In 1982, at a special session of General Assembly of United Nations, the USSR pledged not to use nuclear weapons first, regardless of whether its opponents possessed nuclear weapons or not. This pledge was later abandoned by post-Soviet Russia. The United States has a partial, qualified no-first-use policy, stating that they will not use nuclear weapons against states without nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction.
LOL. Like he'd nuke somebody that attacked the evil and racist USA for any reaosn whatsoever. If somebody chembombed Wall Street, The One would put together a multi-billion dollar aid package for `em.
If only you dissenting cowboys had any of your facts straight, then you'd really be sumpin'
...However, even the pledge not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-armed states is hedged.
âGiven the catastrophic potential of biological weapons and the rapid pace of bio-technology development, the United States reserves the right to make any adjustment in the assurance that may be warranted by the evolution and proliferation of the biological weapons threat and U.S. capacities to counter that threat,â the review says, effectively warning that if a country managed to weaponize anthrax and threatened the United States, the Obama administration might consider a nuclear first strike.
âThis does not mean that our willingness to use nuclear weapons against countries not covered by the new assurance has in any way increased. Indeed, the United States wishes to stress that it would only consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners,â the review says.
No doubt. Nothing a few daisy cutters cant fix. We need nukes for three specific circumstances, and it will be all over in any event if any of those circumstances comes to pass.
I don't know that it's such a bad policy, we won't nuke anyone that doesn't have nukes. Of course it assumes that any attack made by such a nation will have minimum effect. Some group uses bio/chem and takes out a couple hundred it's probably a good policy not to have a knee jerk reaction. Now if some bio/chem takes out tens of thousands, and people seen dieing in a bio/chem attack will be ugly in a way we've yet to experience, I imagine the, we reserve the right to adjust our stance would come in to play. Bigger fish to fry than be upset about this.
Or, they use bio/chems on us, we use white phospho on the them.
National Defense A La Obama
Separate names with a comma.