Monday, April 05, 2010

Why this man is dangerous… to us

image

Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms - NYTimes.com

Read it all. Then comment.

3 comments:

John W. Zimmer said...

Hi Nathan,

Politics are always a hard pill to swallow if one disagrees with the position. I would argue against the position (if I disagreed with it) rather than frame the title that way. We are living in highly polarizing times.

By the way after living through the United States and apparently the USSR's policy of mutually assured destruction... I agree with the statement you quoted:

"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."

You do have a valid critique that many probably do agree with... thanks for highlighting this as I did not catch the position change.

MrLefthook1984 said...

"Why this man is dangerous to us". This sounds like something that the non-thinking inbreds called Fox News, Tea Party, Dick Armey,and Sean Hannity would say.

Pretty soon Nathan, you're going to try to tell me that President Obama is a "socialist" or "facist". NATHAN, JUST STICK TO SELF DEFENSE...YOU'RE SOUNDING LIKE AN IGNORANT TEA BAGGER!!

Bob Patterson said...

Hi Nathan -

Here's another perspective: BBC News.

Note the sheer numbers of nuclear weapons that Russia and the USA have. IMO the UK has a reasonable number of weapons for defense. Seriously... a couple dozen of these high yield devices is more than enough destroy the planet. For sure I agree that the USA needs to significantly reduce our stockpiles.

I have no issue with not using nukes against conventional weapons. However, I'm not so sure if I agree with not using them in response to chemical or biological weapons.

I will have to see how this plays out as the details are released and verified before I comment further.

-BCP