Nuclear Arms and America

The United States has become significantly less safe under Barack Obama than we have ever been in the past. President Obama has now stated that the U.S., under his administration, will not use nuclear weapons in any case against a non-nuclear state. This basically means that even if we are attacked with a biological or chemical weapon, we will not nuke the agressor.

Naturally leftists are cheering the president for taking America down a notch. Yea, our European, more sophisticated and less backwoods *choke, gag, spit* ‘allies’ are glad that the only superpower is basically self-destructing under Obama. But countries like Japan, South Korea and Israel should be very worried. Even the American people should be worried. Our nuclear arsenal is the greatest deterrent the world has ever seen. At the height of the Cold War the Soviet Union had a larger military than we. If it weren’t for our advanced nuclear weapons we might have went to war. Today China, India, and others have larger militaries than we do. Yet we keep our status as superpower because of our power projection, world-wide influence and ability to neutralize potential foes via our large number of nukes. This is our greatest threat against China, whose military is modernizing and whose power projection is being increased.

So what does this mean Mr. President? Does that mean that if China invaded next month without using nukes on us, would we just sit back on our haunches with 20 million invading Chinese troops overrunning us? Would we seriously not drop the bomb on them if they attacked conventionally? Besides the threat of 200,000,000+ armed American citizens our nuclear payload is our safety against expansionist potential regional or super-powers. An emerging China, whom we depend upon for borrowing and cheap labor, is looking at eventually contending with the U.S. in regional power and has longer term goals of being to us soon what the USSR was yesteryear. China, however, doesn’t have our advanced nuclear arms and missile defense. This keeps them in check, for now. With Obama’s promise to not use nuclear arms, China has been green-lighted to speed their military upgrades and potential conflict with Taiwan. Do we really need a wet behind the ears president who doesn’t understand the complex diplomatic dance and international intrigue of the world stage deciding that we won’t use nukes?

This puts in question every American’s safety. Obama seems to think that his charm offensive is going to appease the Sino expansionism and lead to international peace whereby nuclear weapons become obsolete and every nation beats their swords into plowshares. Unfortunately, we live in reality, not some far off land where money grows on trees and dictators are talked out of their totalitarianism. This begs the question, will Obama come to his senses before a serious national security threat arises? Or has it already?


16 Responses to Nuclear Arms and America

  1. Zero says:

    A little research would put your mind at ease friend. There are, as always, loopholes to this decision. The decision comes as part of a treaty with Russia and also states that the US reserves the right to amend the entire policy in the event of a biological or chemical attack. (So that means that if we get attacked by a biological weapon, we’ll still nuke whoever did it. So you don’t have to worry about that.)

    The treaty also states that this only applies to those countries that signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, so countries like Iran and North Korea can still be nuked because they didn’t sign the treaty.

    Looks like this isn’t anywhere near the “End Of The World” that you are making it out to be. 🙂 Hope this puts your mind at ease.

    • Not really friend. My mind will only be put at ease when we have a REAL president that puts America first in office. EG: when Obama is no longer prez. Regardless of the loopholes, this shows Obama’s willingness to put America at risk to curry international favor.

      • Zero says:

        Unless you can prove that this actually puts America at risk, it would seem that your fears are unfounded. It’s not like you have the credentials to “understand the complex diplomatic dance and international intrigue of the world stage,” and therefore everything you’ve said is purely your opinion and has no basis on fact.

        There’s only a few ways that the international diplomacy can go with respect to the US. Either other countries hate us and therefore there will be little international cooperation (what happened under Bush), they will be friendly with us and therefore we can have international cooperation on world issues (what Obama is trying to accomplish and IS accomplishing) or there can be indifference. Personally, I’d rather allies and international cooperation than for nearly the entire world to continue to hate the US.

        So we reduced the number of nuclear weapons we have, instead of having the ability to blow up the entire world 10 – 12 times over, we can blow up the world 4 – 5 times. I don’t see a difference. As many presidents have tried (not just Obama), the less nuclear weapons there are, the better.

      • This puts America at risk because it states that we will not retaliate with nuclear weapons if a nation attacks us, including with chemical and biological weapons. I find no way that that does NOT put us at risk. And I may not have the credentials, but neither does our community organizer in chief. Where did he gather his credentials, representing ACORN or was it sitting in Wright’s church?

        Wrong, they can love us and not respect us, because everyone loves the whipping boy. Or they can hate us but know that if they pick a fight they won’t be the ones finishing it. And Obama is not getting increased intl. cooperation. Dissing the Dalai Lama, shaming Israel and Netanyahu, coddling terrorists and rogue states, sounds like a real good plan to me.

        Yes the less nuclear weapons there are the better. But we shouldn’t put our hopes in a purely theoretical idea that if we rid ourselves of nukes everyone else will follow suit. As I have shown, our main deterrent against potential conflict with other would-be superpowers are our arsenal of advanced conventional and nuclear weaponry. We get rid of that and we quickly become a second rate military force due to our smaller military size than many countries.

      • Zero says:

        You haven’t shown anything. Once again you say “we will not retaliate with nuclear weapons if a nation attacks us, including with chemical and biological weapons” yet I showed you that the treaty specifically states that in the case of chemical or biological weapons, the refusal to use nuclear weapons does not apply. So the only argument you have is that nuclear weapons are the only reason why other countries don’t attack us. Which is completely unfounded and has no basis in reality.

        You state that we have a smaller military that many countries, however according to various sources the only countries with a larger number of troops than the US is India and China. This assumes that the number of troops is the only measurement of military strength, which is entirely inaccurate. So if you wish to claim that this makes America so much less safe, then by all means show me at least one shred of proof for this. Obviously it’s not because our military is weaker, and it’s not because we won’t retaliate against chemical or biological weapons, so what is it?

        Regardless whether you believe Obama has the necessary expertise to make this decision, the decision was made and signed off by the Top Military officials and commanders. In fact, Obama specifically stated that he made this decision based on the advice from the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. If they are not qualified to make this decision, then I don’t believe anyone is. Personally, as President Obama stated, I’d rather take the advice of the Defense Experts and Military Top Brass than your unfounded opinions based on a gut reaction that have no basis in reality.

        Also, the treaty doesn’t just hope other countries follow suit, it actually states an exception for any country that is not part of the coalition for reducing nuclear arms. So any country that is not following suit, is not protected from nuclear retaliation.

        To recap: We don’t have a weaker military force so it doesn’t put us at risk because of that. We will still retaliate with nuclear weapons in the case of a biological or chemical weapon so that’s not why we’re at risk. It won’t stop us from using nuclear weapons on countries that aren’t following the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, so that’s not why we’re less safe. The joint chiefs of staff and secretary of defense are comfortable with this decision so Obama isn’t making this decision on his own, so we know that defense experts and people who know how to handle this sort of thing have been part of the decision making process. Hmm…how does this make the US less safe again?

      • 1. Have you read the treaty? How are you so sure that we will retaliate with nukes if we are attacked? I never stated that nukes alone keep us safe. I stated that our advanced technology as well as our nuclear weapons make up a large part of our deterrent. That includes the F-22 Raptor which would give us complete air superiority in the case of conflict with China or Russia. By cutting those, he seemed to indicate a more terror-oriented focus, yet the leader of the free world must always look at the possibility with conflict with other nation-states, including potential rivals.

        2. Russia also has a larger military than we. I did not say size of military is entirely indicative of strength, however, if we go to war with China, which has been modernizing their large military and concealing military expenditures, we are going to have a heck of a harder time than with say Angola or Mongolia. Size isn’t synonymous with strength, but it does help. With our shrinking stockpile along with our cutting of key futuristic weapons systems (including missile defense in the Pacific) it does make us less safe.

        3. As I have noted in the past, my belief in what Obama says is next to nil. Of course the generals are qualified. However I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised to find our somewhere down the road that the decision was foolish and risked our security after years of examination.

      • Zero says:

        You actually made no mention of advanced technology beyond our “advanced nuclear weapons”. As far as “our shrinking stockpile” of nuclear weapons, I really don’t think there is any difference between having several thousand nuclear warheads, and having 1,500 nuclear warheads. Considering that 1 nuke would be enough to utterly devastate a country, what does it matter? I say 1,500 because that’s what the treaty with Russia stated, that both us and them and every other country that signs the treaty would reduce to no more than that.

        So I have to ask, why is it so VITALLY important that we must retaliate with nukes specifically if we are attacked with a biological or chemical weapon? Can I say with certainty that we will? Of course not, however contrary to what you were saying, this decision does not say we won’t. Which is the entire point. Every point that you’ve made claiming that this makes us less safe, was wrong.

        Considering the deficit we have from fighting two ridiculous wars, cutting funding for a non-essential program makes sense, and was also backed by many security experts.

        If down the road we find out that this was a bad idea, then at that point i’ll be the first in line to say “Sorry, you were right.” but if the top defense and security experts agree with him on this that it will not make us less safe, then I’m going to have to side with them.

        By the way, the chances of an actual war with China are so infinitesimal that I find it ridiculous that you would bring it up. War with China would cause the economies of both us and them to tank due to the amount of trade that occurs between us. I’d be more worried about trade sanctions and other such problems LONG before the idea of a Chinese invasion of the US.

        Methinks someone is a wee bit paranoid 🙂

      • The point is, when we start reducing our stockpile and others such as China is building up, we are making ourselves less safe. 1 nuclear weapon would not be enough to destroy a country, especially one such as China or Russia.

        The reason is that the country that attacked us will know that we will utterly destroy them if they even try to attack us. Chemical and biological weapons can kill hundreds of thousands or millions of people, just with less environmental damage than a nuke. Thus we need to let potential foes know that if they attack us with any kind of non-conventional weapon, we will retaliate HARD.

        The deficit and two wars makes no sense whatsoever. Are you saying cutting the nukes saves money?

        It doesn’t matter about the chances of war, it matters that there is potential for conflict. Ever heard of contingency planning? Believe me, I think a war with China is a nightmare scenario, however, we always must be prepared to deal with potential foes. One of the reasons that we had trouble early on in both WWs was we were unprepared for the rise of Germany and especially Japan. At the onset of WWI we had like 130,000 troops. We clearly didn’t have nuclear weapons or advanced aircraft, but neither did Germany. The point being, both Germany and Japan were silently building up their militaries while we sat on our haunches. China is doing the same and has stated it’s goal of becoming THE major player in the Pacific and a rival to the United States. (BTW, I didn’t say a Chinese invasion: Mao and Stalin had considered a joint invasion post-WWII but called it off due to Mao’s thinking that in America ‘there is a gun behind every blade of grass.’ Another thing conservatives love and liberals hate 😉 )

      • Zero says:

        The point about the saving money was the cutting of funding for the F-22’s, $1.5 billion to be precise. So yes, it did save money.

        Once again you bring up the same point that means nothing in this argument. We never had something that said “If you attack us with a chemical or biological weapon we will nuke you.” You think that we are less safe because you believe that this treaty says we will not nuke someone even if they use a chemical or biological weapon, which I’ve repeatedly said is untrue. This treaty specifically states that in the event of a chemical or biological weapon we will still consider using nuclear weapons (as in no change). So yes, we will still retaliate if someone attacked us with a non-conventional weapon.

        Wow, rewriting history? In WWI we weren’t “unprepared for the rise of Germany”, we were staying Isolationist and purposely ignored it until they sank a ship that had American citizens on it. Even then we stayed out of the war because Germany complied with the agreement not to attack US ships with their submarines. It was only the revelation of plans to attack the US (by the British capturing and revealing a telegram from Germany) that caused the change to go into the war. We didn’t “sit on our haunches” we didn’t care, and when we entered the war, it was the reason the Germans ended up losing. They miscalculated how long it would be until we got troops over there. We also drafted nearly 4 million men in less than a year after we entered the war, so the “130,000” number is kinda ridiculous to use.

        As for World War II, we weren’t “unprepared for the rise of Japan” we just did not expect them to attack us. (Depending on who you ask, some conspiracy theorists believe that we knew about Pearl Harbor and allowed it to happen as a reason to join the war. I do not believe this theory, but would not be surprised if it turned out to be true.) Either way, it would seem that you have a view of the past that is not based on fact.

        By the way, your quote “there is a gun behind every blade of grass” has been attributed to Ho Chih Min, Emperor Hirohito, General Yamamoto, “a Japanese General”, etc. In fact, I can’t find it attributed to Mao anywhere. So should we be afraid of the Japanese trying to attack us again? Doubtful.

        Contingency plan? Sure, if China attacks we attack back. We have the technology, man power, weapons, Navy, etc. to do it. We wouldn’t need a nuke to fight back, all that would happen is the ire of the entire world if we launched a nuke. But it’s not as if we’re eliminating our stockpile, we’re just reducing it. As i said, instead of blowing up the world 10 – 12 times, we can do it only 5 – 7 times. Big deal.

        Once again, if the defense experts see no problem, the experts that were in place BEFORE Obama took office, then how does this make us less safe? You STILL haven’t given a single valid reason other than “contingency planning”. Which, considering the terms of the treaty and our current amount of military strength, seems to be “just another reason” to bash Obama, rather than having any real logical reason behind it.

      • While I am for saving money most anywhere possible, cutting defense items is one where I am not, especially in an area that is not a waste item. Also, cutting 1 billion is a paltry sum when there are trillions being thrown around for bailouts, ‘stimulus’ and health care.

        You state that my claim is untrue, I have the former ambassador to the UN John Bolten to back me up, who substantiates your claim?

        We were staying isolationist because we didn’t think the war ‘over there’ would affect us which led us to rest on our laurels and not be prepared for major conflict. When the war arose, we were able to quickly draft men into action because the war was ‘over there’. In the case of an invasion, presumably the west coast, we would be hit hard and would have a harder time to gather the man-power to fight back without major casualties first.

        As for WWII, true we didn’t expect Japan to attack us, but we still took a while to really reach our war-time potential of industry, military etc. Again, in the case of an invasion, we would be hard pressed to get into war gear quickly with enemy troops on our soil. Japan, while they had attacked us on our soil, had not landed troops near a major population center. We had time to get up to steam and we really didn’t begin to turn the tide in the Pacific until 1943.

        I’m pretty sure that despite what the world ALWAYS thinks of us regardless what we do, they would think we were justified in launching a nuke if China launched a combination biological/chemical/conventional attack on our mainland.

        As a side note, aren’t you liberals the ones that are always saying ‘our military just can’t handle both Iraq and Afghanistan’? How then are we prepared for China or any other potential rival superpower without nukes?

      • Zero says:

        First please don’t lump me with “you liberals”, while I may share many views with most liberal people and progressive people (which are not the same thing specifically), generalizations do make a good starting point for discourse.

        Could you please link me to the source of John Bolten backing up your claim?

        Considering the state of our technology, the idea that a coordinated attack by another country landing troops on our soil without us knowing or being able to respond is laughable. If we were attacked on our own soil right now, sure we would have a hard time gathering man-power to fight back because we are already fighting 2 wars. Obviously reacting to a third war would result in a slow reaction time. In a time of peace, if we were invaded (again, the likelihood of this occurring without any indication as to have troops landing before we could react is infinitesimal) I have no doubt that we’d have Jets, trucks, tanks, and all the necessary military able to respond in very short order.

        Obviously there would be major casualties because a major population center would be invaded. It doesn’t matter how fast we respond, a war on our own soil would result in major casualties. What you are describing is the difference between war-time and peace-time. Not having anything to do with ‘contingency plans’ or the like.

        Once again you bring up the point of biological and chemical attack which I’ve repeatedly said will still possibly be nuked and I agree we’d be justified in the use of a nuke in retaliation for a chemical or biological weapon. However, you specifically wrote that nukes are a deterrent to China attacking with ONLY conventional attacks. Not biological or chemical, just conventional warfare. In this case, we would not be justified is using a nuke, and that is the point I am trying to make.

        Personally, I really don’t care whether or not our military can “handle both Iraq and Afghanistan.” I believe both wars are entirely pointless and stupid wastes of money and lives which do nothing but breed more terrorists for everyone to be afraid of.

        Terrorist Attack -> Get afraid and declare war in retaliation -> Terrorists laugh at success of terror attack, use anger at war to gain recruits -> We must not be killing enough, declare another war -> Continue cycle.

        Dropping bombs and destroying a country won’t stop a bunch of guys hiding in caves and basements plotting to blow stuff up, alas this is off topic and a different discussion altogether.

        Getting back to your original post, the point I made which you keep avoiding, is that I have pointed out where your argument against this treaty is incorrect. As I said in my previous post, I would like to know what logical reason you have to be against this decision and treaty. It seems you are using possibilities and paranoia to defend your position rather than reasoned argument. This treaty and decision about nuclear weapons has, in no way, made us less safe. Unless of course you have a new point to bring up, in which case I would love to continue this discussion on topic.

      • Zero says:

        Sorry for the long wait on the reply. I did a little research. I see your Former UN Ambassador and raise you a Former US Ambassador, Richard Burt, who was Chief negotiator in the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks with the former USSR in 1991. He is currently the US Chair to Global Zero, the organization that is trying to achieve a world without Nuclear weapons.

        He has an interesting take on the idea, and in fact during the Cold War period was in favor of using Nuclear Weapons as a deterrent (as you say they are) and has since changed his views on the subject. The problem he sees (it’s easy to google this information and he did an interview on The Daily Show) is that using Nuclear weapons as a deterrent to conventional war results in the fact that if we ever went to war, it would immediately escalate to a nuclear war.

        His opinion is that creating an international coalition that makes nuclear weapons no longer a viable means of military or political expression will make it much more difficult for rogue states to continue to build their stockpiles.

        Considering that the treaty only reduces the warheads by a third, which leaves us with at least 1500 nuclear warheads still (most likely more), this is in no way lessening the stockpile enough for it to be claimed that it puts us at risk. Hurray! We still will have enough nukes to blow up the world several times over.

        As for my stance on gun control, I see pros and cons on both sides. Personally I would prefer stricter education requirements to get permits, too many stupid idiots who legally own a gun results in the majority of stupid incidents involving guns. Basically, I believe that outlawing personal firearms would only take arms out of law-abiding citizens, it wouldn’t stop criminals. Stricter regulations however, would hopefully provide for less absolutely ridiculous incidents of stupid people doing stupid things, such as leaving their guns out where children can take them and accidentally shoot themselves or someone else.

      • No problemo on the wait. I didn’t approve your comment because I’ve been working on reflooring a laundry room in the house. Nothing like working your back end off at the house when you can’t find a paying job. 😉

        His idea is not necessarily true. With the theory of MAD (I assume most people born before 1994 have heard of the term) both sides would have very good reason to keep it conventional if we went to war. The more nukes both sides had, the less likely of any war, let alone a nuclear war that would kill most everyone from both countries. Therefore it is easier for a nuclear conflict to erupt between Pakistan and India when both sides have few nukes than the U.S. and Russia who have many more. Basically that is why we never went to war with the USSR, both sides knew that a nuclear strike would result in many more, thus killing tens or hundreds of millions of people.

        I see no way that rogue states are listening to international pressure, let alone following along due to seeing how responsible states act. How then would us reducing our weaponry influence the decision of N. Korea or Iran to build their own stockpiles?

        You seem like a ‘common sense’ liberal on GC. However, I think that there are enough regulations as it is. Probably too many. For instance, look at what has happened in the way of gun accidents from years ago to now. It is harder than ever to buy a gun, yet there are many more accidents. Why? Because liberals and the gun control lobby have made weapons a forbidden fruit to the youth so when they encounter firearms they have no idea how to handle them. In the 50s and before children were often taught to fire guns shortly after they could ride bikes. And guns could be bought from the general store, sporting goods store, catalogs, gun shops, trade shows etc. Now you have to be certified to sell guns yet there are more accidents. The key is teaching kids young about the danger of firearms as well as what they are for. With gun violence glorified in movies and television, not to mention computer and video games, yet guns are nowhere to be found, kids grow up without a healthy understanding of guns.

        BTW, I agree that parents should be very careful about keeping their guns away from kids except when they are being closely supervised. (Also the general ‘always treat a gun like it’s loaded, never point at anyone, etc.)

    • Jim Brunner says:

      This is my first tour on this page, and I’m impressed by your logic. In fact, it’s SO logical, I’m wondering what you are doing here in the first place!! I’m used to the “braindead” whining from the Sarah Palins and Michelle Bachmann (has anybody ever told her, when she gets all “wound up” she sounds exactly like Roseanne Roseanna Danna of SNL fame?). Your rational voice is SOOOO welcome. Thank you.

      • Hmmm… without the intonation being heard, it’s hard to tell whether you’re being sarcastic or genuine. Regardless, I’ll think the best until I’ve been told otherwise. 😉

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: