We promise not to use nukes

[natisha]

Against any country that doesn't have them, no matter what they do to us.
Is this part of Obama's (;)) foreign policy plan. Does he think this will stop countries like Iran from having nuclear weapons?
Part of the reason we have them is because it makes our enemies think twice. Like Fonzie, he never had to beat anyone up, but the thought that he might stopped people from messing with him.
I don't understand the logic behind this.

[palomino]

Reagan for prez. Fo sho.

[JackieB]

I wasn't aware of this policy, but I'm OK with it. Conventional weapons can be used to destroy facilities if necessary.

All war is awful, but nuclear weapons leave a legacy of problems that stretches for decades after peace has been achieved due to radioactivity.

Iran absolutely will continue to try to obtain nuclear weapons. But this policy doesn't impact our ability to try to deal with that threat one way or another.

[JackieB]

Again I don't know the story behind this policy, but the logic would be in the message to moderate people in the region. War is the final act of diplomacy, right? And we know that there are moderate people in Iran who are trying to stand up the the regime. A policy like this would be more of a message to them.

[HoustonFarrier]

And we know that there are moderate people in Iran who are trying to stand up the the regime. A policy like this would be more of a message to them.

The "moderates" in Iran don't get much info in prison........

This administration wants to bring a knife to a gun fight........hoping that when our adversary sees we only have a knife, they throw their gun down. Care to bet on that happening?

Steve

[Ol Man River]

HIROSHIMA 1945

http://f500.mail.yahoo.com/ya/download?mid=1%5f7338%5fABImvs4AAKSGS7fkhwm%2fUj9V VME&pid=2&fid=Inbox&inline=1

http://f500.mail.yahoo.com/ya/download?mid=1%5f7338%5fABImvs4AAKSGS7fkhwm%2fUj9V VME&pid=3&fid=Inbox&inline=1

http://f500.mail.yahoo.com/ya/download?mid=1%5f7338%5fABImvs4AAKSGS7fkhwm%2fUj9V VME&pid=4&fid=Inbox&inline=1


We all know that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed in August 1945
after explosion of atomic bombs. However, we know little about the progress



made by the people of that land during the past 64 years.


HIROSHIMA - 64 YEARS LATER


http://f500.mail.yahoo.com/ya/download?mid=1%5f7338%5fABImvs4AAKSGS7fkhwm%2fUj9V VME&pid=5&fid=Inbox&inline=1

http://f500.mail.yahoo.com/ya/download?mid=1%5f7338%5fABImvs4AAKSGS7fkhwm%2fUj9V VME&pid=6&fid=Inbox&inline=1

[JackieB]

This administration wants to bring a knife to a gun fight........

I think the appropriate analogy there would be to say that we wouldn't use nuclear weapons even against a country that possesses them and was poised to use them against us. That would be the "knife to a gun fight" equivalent, but natisha didn't say that.

Ol Man River,
I can't see your photos, but I have no doubt that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving cities. And I'm not judging the use of nuclear weapons to end WWII. We did what we thought was best to end the war. The after effects of the radiation are well-documented, though.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

[...] We did what we thought was best to end the war. The after effects of the radiation are well-documented, though.

Yes, and it's good that it is. The more horrifying the prospect of a nuclear attack, the better. It ~needs~ to be horrifying. That's what has made it an effective deterrent for decades. Nobody has wanted to use them again.

But the question about what might trigger a nuclear response needs to be left a little intentionally vague. Even if there is a protocol written down in the war room, those rules of engagement must be kept close to the vest. To show those cards is just senseless.

Amadinejad is sensing weakness in Obama and that's exactly the wrong signal to send to a bully. Obama's baiting Amadinejad to hit us with something like a nerve gas attack. I don't think I'd toss that bait, if it were up to me.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Again I don't know the story behind this policy, but the logic would be in the message to moderate people in the region. [...]

There are no moderates in the region. None that matter, anyway.

[GrungeEquestrian]

Yes, and it's good that it is. The more horrifying the prospect of a nuclear attack, the better. It ~needs~ to be horrifying. That's what has made it an effective deterrent for decades. Nobody has wanted to use them again.

Now, although I don't agree with the Eisenhower's administration on putting all our eggs in one nuclear basket; I completely agree with the above statement. Now let's think, how many world wars have we had since World War II with the invent of the nuclear bomb? Yup nada. Now I'm not going to give credit all to the fact that these bombs could end the world and make leaders think twice, but that has a lot to do with it. Did the Russians bomb us or vise versa? No. I think although it probably would be better if it was never invented, but the nuclear bomb had brought more negations to the table as a better option than war, since more is on the line. Think the Cuban Missile Crisis (although Russia could have hit us from Russia just taking two more minutes than if from Cuba :innocent:) Even Stalin who was crazy enough to murder 20 million of his own people wasn't crazy enough to end the world. I don't think this policy is going to do much at all.

[JackieB]

But the question about what might trigger a nuclear response needs to be left a little intentionally vague.

As if that isn't already understood anyway. Give me a break, RD. Any student of military history, and definitely including enemies of the USA, know that the only real rule in war is to win. What's that saying? "Every weapon created by man eventually gets used."

And even if President Obama is solemn in his pledge, he'll only be president for six more years. Enemies of the USA know that as well.

A different subject, but I find the silence on this forum regarding anything related to the RNC and Chairman Steele's recent race-related comment to be deafening. I guess when it's your own team...

[JackieB]

I'm impressed that you know these things, Grunge. That is reassuring.


Now, although I don't agree with the Eisenhower's administration on putting all our eggs in one nuclear basket; I completely agree with the above statement. Now let's think, how many world wars have we had since World War II with the invent of the nuclear bomb? Yup nada. Now I'm not going to give credit all to the fact that these bombs could end the world and make leaders think twice, but that has a lot to do with it. Did the Russians bomb us or vise versa? No. I think although it probably would be better if it was never invented, but the nuclear bomb had brought more negations to the table as a better option than war, since more is on the line. Think the Cuban Missile Crisis (although Russia could have hit us from Russia just taking two more minutes than if from Cuba :innocent:) Even Stalin who was crazy enough to murder 20 million of his own people wasn't crazy enough to end the world. I don't think this policy is going to do much at all.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

[...]
A different subject, but I find the silence on this forum regarding anything related to the RNC and Chairman Steele's recent race-related comment to be deafening. I guess when it's your own team...

I knew of some allegations of mishandling money about Steele, but I don't know what race-related comment you mean?

[WashingtonBay]

A different subject, but I find the silence on this forum regarding anything related to the RNC and Chairman Steele's recent race-related comment to be deafening. I guess when it's your own team...

Well, I've been pleading "busy" and avoiding politics, mostly, lately, but I perk up at such a challenge from JackieB. :)

I honestly had no idea what you were talking about... haven't been watching news talk... And probably would have turned the channel if he was on. He's just not that interesting to me. So I looked it up: RNC Chairman: Obama and I Are in the Same Racial Boat (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2489004/posts) - On Free Republic. Read the replies.. I read the first 50 or so... I guess I agree with them. He's an idiot. Was that the question? :)

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Well, I've been pleading "busy" and avoiding politics, mostly, lately, but I perk up at such a challenge from JackieB. :)

I honestly had no idea what you were talking about... haven't been watching news talk... And probably would have turned the channel if he was on. He's just not that interesting to me. So I looked it up: RNC Chairman: Obama and I Are in the Same Racial Boat (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2489004/posts) - On Free Republic. Read the replies.. I read the first 50 or so... I guess I agree with them. He's an idiot. Was that the question? :)

Ah... Yeah... I missed that one. I don't pay a lot of attention to Steele. He's part of the "old guard" type republican that really just needs to go away. Regarding the comment... I don't really think it's all that controversial. Mainly, he's just wrong. He thinks that he and Obama get less of a margin for error because of their race when it's actually quite the opposite.

[GrungeEquestrian]

I'm impressed that you know these things, Grunge. That is reassuring.

Thanks JackieB. I'm currently taking a history course called America Since 1945, interesting stuff and I am getting near a hundred percent so I do take the course seriously. Have to give a lot of credit to my unbiased history teacher (least not biased in his teaching, kids are still trying to figure out if he is a liberal, conservative, or moderate ;)).

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Gotta admit... I'm with Bibi on this one. Go Bibi go! :)

Netanyahu cancels trip to Obama's nuclear summit (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6375QC20100408?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true)

:banana::banana::banana:

[mare]

Regarding Steele, he is an idiot. I'm just a conservative (if I have to label myself), which in Wyoming can jump around party affiliation.

With what little I've heard of this joker, I can't believe he hasn't resigned. Isn't that what big outfits give people who are liabilities a chance to do?

Went up and read the link on the race statement. I didn't know Steele is black. I need to get out more. He's still a goober.

[cowgirlup@idaho]

, he'll only be president for six more years....

I seriously don't think so.

[HoustonFarrier]

A different subject, but I find the silence on this forum regarding anything related to the RNC and Chairman Steele's recent race-related comment to be deafening. I guess when it's your own team...

You mean when he said...."he a clean, articulate black guy..."....oh wait, that was Joe Biden....my bad:p

Steve

[rocknK]

The last thing the Commander in Chief should do is broadcast to the world ANY military strategy. Its always been MY opinion that our enemies should know that any attack on the United States will leave their country a smoking hole. That sorta tends to stop attacks before they start. At least it worked with the Godless Commie Ruskies! If the countries that support terrorism could be convinced that we really mean business they might be able to persuade terrorists that it is not in that countries best interests to mess with the U.S. Don't know ifn' that will stop any future 9/11-type attacks............

[natisha]

A different subject, but I find the silence on this forum regarding anything related to the RNC and Chairman Steele's recent race-related comment to be deafening. I guess when it's your own team... I missed this too JackieB. Perhaps it would stand out better in its own thread. I'll check it out soon. Thanks for the heads up.

[natisha]

All good points about why or why not but my why is-Why does anyone have to know what we would or would not do? I think keep 'em guessing is the best course.