The guy we got now doesn't even listen to himself while he reads his teleprompter.dfariswheel said:Bill had no respect for the Office, but he wasn't anyone's puppet.
A common trope is that whoever is President is just some puppet for some "they". No one fights and claws his way to the office by being anyone's puppet. You may owe people, but they don't get to run things. The ego needed to be president won't allow that.
My recollection is fuzzy, but IIRC, you're not entirely correct. Our policy, after various weapons treaties, was that all weapons of mass destruction (Nuclear, Biological or Chemical) were equal and our nuclear response (since we didn't have any B or C catagory weapons for equal retalliation :bolt: ) would follow use of any WMD. Saddam was pointed advised as much since he was known to not only stockpile gas, but to have used it repeatedly.Kevin Gibson said:. One of the things Obama did right in my opinion (tommy will kill me for this one) is codify what was America's policy for the past 50 years regarding the use of nuclear weapons.
Stand in line -- behind every democrat politician in America! :neer: oke:Kevin Gibson said:Fortunately, since the early '80's there was never a time where it's use was a likely scenario (which is why I'm sure he took such a candid attitude). It would take one hell of a happening for everyone to be talking about launching nuclear missiles. One of the things Obama did right in my opinion (tommy will kill me for this one) is codify what was America's policy for the past 50 years regarding the use of nuclear weapons. I thank GOD slick Willie had the luxury to be so careless.
The one thing that is important for an enemy to know (and yes, this is my Machiavellian opinion popping up here) is that if we are attacked, our response will be immediate and completly devastating. This leaves the potential enemy with only one possible counter; that is to become so powerful as to be able to launch a first strike that will be, not partially disabling, but completly obliterating.Kevin Gibson said:The part that made sense to me was codifying that an attack by another nation with a WMD; in the past, the immediate response was to turn to a nuclear response. Such a response is really not logical and having that as a written policy (whether anyone followed it or not), was not a great idea. From an international standpoint, one of the greatest things you can do for peace is be as predictable as possible.
On the contrary, it's completely logical: if you use WMD on us, we'll nuke your ass! That's perfectly predictable.Kevin Gibson said:. ....codifying that an attack by another nation with a WMD; in the past, the immediate response was to turn to a nuclear response. Such a response is really not logical ...... From an international standpoint, one of the greatest things you can do for peace is be as predictable as possible.
See above: I'm not really sure how you're intending to counterstrike with conventional weapons, but it surely will not be done "at minimum risk to our military personnel". See above again. Your preferred course of action works only with opponents who share your frame of reference and are willing to compromise to achieve a mutally agreeable state of existance. Faced with opponents convinced of the righteousness of their cause and with no regard for human life, it invites attacks. Hell, it virtually gurantees them.The US increasingly needs to be taking the higher moral ground. Even if the US is nuked, we really shouldn't respond in kind unless that's the only viable course of action. For example, if Iran nukes us, or one of our allies, we not NEED to resort to nuclear weapons to deal with Iran by a long shot, we can decimate that nation conventionally with a minimum of risk to our military personnel.
In that case I vote "yes" and thus endeth the thread. :mrgreen:Kevin Gibson said:.... Each scenario that even considers the use of a nuclear weapon should be considered with the greatest of seriousness. Think about it, if 9/11 would have been perpetrated via a WMD (say, chemical weapon that killed 2,500+ Americans) rather than the aircraft, would it have been prudent to nuke Afghanistan?
If your answer is yes, then I don't think we have much else to discuss.