No more.
As I mentioned a few days ago, the Obama administration was considering changing our policy of ambiguity as to when we would use nukes.
Now it is official. As reported by the NY Times, tomorrow the administration will announce a non-use policy even in reaction to chemical or biological attack:
But not to worry, the policy will be reconsidered if we suffer a devastating attack:... the new strategy renounces the development of any new nuclear weapons, overruling the initial position of his own defense secretary.
Mr. Obama’s strategy is a sharp shift from those adopted by his predecessors and seeks to revamp the nation’s nuclear posture for a new age in which rogue states and terrorist organizations are greater threats than traditional powers like Russia and China.
It eliminates much of the ambiguity that has deliberately existed in American nuclear policy since the opening days of the Cold War. For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons, or launched a crippling cyberattack.
White House officials said that the new strategy will leave open the option of reconsidering the use of nuclear retaliation against a biological attack, if the development of such weapons reaches a level that makes United States vulnerable to a devastating strike.Sheer lunacy. What doesn't Obama understand about "deterrence." That means that nations which possess chemical and biological weapons will not even think about using them against us because the consequences would be so devastating for them.
Now, a little chem weapons here, a little bio weapons there, and all is good.
The world now is a more dangerous place.
--------------------------------------------
Related Post:
Weakness Is The New Strength
Follow me on Twitter and Facebook
Now that Democrats are back in power, we won't retaliate with nukes should we be hit by chem or bio attack, but we will issue a strongly-worded letter through the UN!
ReplyDeleteDo all Harvard Law Review members, past and present, have a similar lack of understanding of history, or human nature? How does a person graduate from high school without learning the lesson's of appeasement and weakness of the western democracies in the 1930's.
ReplyDeleteIncredibly stupid.
ReplyDeleteAs noted, the ambiguity was deliberate, to keep potential enemies unsure what level of provocation would result in the ultimate retribution.
Again and again, the stunning amateurism and naivete of the Obama administration is chipping away at our security.
This is insane, but it's been the plan from the Left for 35 years. "If we just lay down our arms and beat them into plowshares, everyone will like us and leave us alone"
ReplyDeletePeace In Our Time.
Does anyone really believe obama would expend 1/10th the energy he spends attacking the USA defending it?
ReplyDeleteNote that Obama left himself the option of "reconsidering" the policy. In other words, he'll do whatever he feels like at the time.
ReplyDeleteThe only purpose of this policy is to make Obama and his cronies feel more moral than George Bush, without requiring them to actually practice any sort of morality.
As many know, I'm not a fan of the new breed of lawyer. At another website we are having the debate of how poorly a person is trained by Harvard and other places if he chooses to be a lawyer by profession. Does he take and understand accounting,economics, business, how to run a small business. He learns how to sue them in order to make a profit, but not how they function.
ReplyDeleteA once noble profession, being a lawyer today is about the pay day, which became the lethal blow for the field.
Obama is that new breed, not able to understand that humility should be part of the character of a lawyer. When one blogger said that many lawyers were Presidents, including Jefferson, I pointed out that there was no comparison between a Jefferson and a Clinton, a FDR and an Adams. It would be like comparing Kevorkian to a top heart surgeon because they are both doctors.
The trouble with lawyers and especially the new breed of lawyers is they insist on believing they are the smartest person in the room. They can't leave anything they touch alone. Obama's motives are two-fold. He really does hate America as she is now, and he is determined to touch and mangle anything he can just to prove he's a touch smarter than anyone else.
Either trait is bad, both together will cripple this nation for decades. Read the book. (www.revoltthebook.com) All kidding aside, this guy is making me nervous
Apparently he didn't learn the little secret from the Cold War: you put the nukes in place, make it clear you will use them if you need to, but intend to deal with minor problems with anything but them. He doesn't need to telegraph that we won't respond to skirmishes by nuking urban centers (unless that's the most prudent thing to do, as a very very last option) he needs to act as though they will be used in response to the most minor skirmish--even if that's just a bluff...you said it, he's made the world more dangerous!
ReplyDeleteI'm starting to believe bit by bit that he really intends to deliberately mediocratize America and eliminate that "unjust" superpower status.
The messes he is making in all areas are seeming to make it impossible for a next president to even begin to know where to start in the clean up.
ReplyDeleteI don't know what sickens me more, him or the people who supported and put him in office.
I'll bet money he doesn't even realize the function and result of a nuclear blast and the fact we have hundreds of tactical nukes. For example you could nuke Qom in Iran with a bunker buster version of a tactical nuke and leave the surrounding area relatively unscathed compared to an air burst. The shock wave and EMP effect would crush and cook anything below the impact point.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_bunker_buster
Now Obama is an ideologue trained and taught by people who are radicals and also ideologues. I am convinced he really suffers from a genuine lack of intellectual curiosity. To him, what he thinks it is, is what it is.
Dangerous for a dog catcher? No. But it is dangerous to a nation of three hundred million who have chosen him to lead them.
THIS IS TANTAMOUNT TO UNILATERAL SURRENDER.
ReplyDeleteFOR DELIBERATELY MAKING US WEAKER AND OUR ENEMIES STRONGER, AND THUS MAKING US LESS ABLE TO PRESERVE AND PROTECT OUR NATION, WE MUST IMPEACH HIM.
Professor
ReplyDeleteCmon, you gotta give me props for saying the same thing, first. http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/04/weakness-is-new-strength.html?showComment=1270233418247#c753672295987551367
Deek
> This is insane, but it's been the plan from the Left for 35 years. "If we just lay down our arms and beat them into plowshares, everyone will like us and leave us alone"
Its like they think they can turn the guns of an invading army into flowers.
Actually they can: into rapid firing death flowers. :-)
By the way, Steven Den Beste, one of the sharpest men on the internet (who sadly doesn’t write much anymore, except for on anime), wrote a brilliant essay on this: http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/12/06/government-by-wishful-thinking/
It explains a lot, and I mean A LOT, of flakey thinking on the left.
What happened to "If they bring a knife, you bring a gun"? Does that no longer apply? Or does that only apply to the Right?
ReplyDeleteThis man is inviting Russia and China to attack the USA. They can do that through their proxies Cuba and Venezuela.
ReplyDeleteTruly the Marxist-Maoists in the White House are a clueless bunch of idiots.
I wonder if this is yet another "policy" that had to be "considered" for more than 17 months.
All of the dithering, and in this case coming to the wrong conclusion is extremely bad for the USA.
Prior to the terrorist attack on the WTC (which was a declaration of war), I had already sensed that this would be the case. I understood it because of the initial attack on the WTC and I had an understanding of the enemy who is prepared to strike at any opportunity. What I understood the most is that after the first attack was a failure and did not have the desired effect then it was more than likely that it would happen again. My own words on the night (Australian time) prior to the attack in answer to a question was that those people would "declare war".
The question itself was based upon our own misunderstanding of the issues surrounding the Muslim vs Judeo-Christians (I am including both groups together because we are both targets)and also to the perception that I had of the USA with regard to proselytizing in certain countries - this is aimed at those evangelicals and cults such as Mormons and JWs that spread out everywhere taking their literature with them, thus endangering the rest of us. I think by that stage the Baptist family in India had already been attacked and killed (not sure of timing but it was a gruesome attack on the family by Hindus). Thus there has always been a mixture of religion involved in the resentments shown to us as westerners.
However, at that point in time I was not even considering the trade implications. This is because the jihadists have been less interested in trade.
Anyway, I think that this new policy is totally dangerous. Putin must be laughing so much that his sides will be splitting. He now has the perfect opportunity to continue to spread mischief via Iran, the Middle East, Cuba and Venezuela and bring down the enemy.
The so called Harvard graduate has not a single clue when it comes to world issues. He is a totally clueless individual and there is not a grain of intelligence, let alone Wisdom in how he sees things. He is an ideologue. He is a Communist.