jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (11 posts)

Obama is changing US nuclear policy

  1. 0
    LegendaryHeroposted 6 years ago

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/06arms.html

    Does this not seem realistic to anyone else?

    1. earnestshub profile image88
      earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, it does to me. smile

      1. 0
        LegendaryHeroposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        How's that?

    2. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I think it is a step that other countries could take message of hope from.  It will be interesting to see the take other countries get from it with regards to thinking that it would be okay to attack the US with anything other than a nuclear weapon and what our response could look like.

      It could be a dangerous step on the part of the US and test the resolve to keep to the agreement.  But I guess it would also be safe to say that if the attack was very great that the US would have justification in quelling it with whatever measure it wishes.  We have been known to break our promises before.  Remember the Native Americans.

    3. 0
      cosetteposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      he is still a junior senator and has much to learn.
      for him to be making such changes so soon doesn't exactly spell w-i-s-d-o-m. he also wants to begin drilling for oil and scale back space exploration...more reasons to drive his stock down in my book anyway. i may just have to write a hub about it. blechh...

  2. Padrino profile image61
    Padrinoposted 6 years ago

    All he is doing is telling whatever non nuclear nation what they can do and not get nuked, seems kind of amateurish to me.

  3. 0
    Poppa Bluesposted 6 years ago

    Why would we want to reveal to other nations what we will or won't do in a hostile situation?

    Frankly, nuclear non-proliferation is an illusion. It spite of all our efforts nuclear weapons continue to spread around the globe, and no matter what we do I ran will soon have them too.

    There is only one strategy that will work and that's Mutually Assured Destruction. The way to employ that strategy is to arm yourself to the teeth building more, and bigger, and better nuclear weapons, and have the willingness to use them with full force if attacked.

  4. Padrino profile image61
    Padrinoposted 6 years ago

    "Why would we want to reveal to other nations what we will or won't do in a hostile situation?"

    That's where the "amateurish" comes into play!

    1. 0
      Poppa Bluesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      He's not amateurish, he's naive and narcissistic. He actually believes he could convince foreign nations to do what he wants simply by reasoning with them using his superior, elitist Harvard education. I would think by now he would have learned from China, Iran, Korea, and Israel, that they don't care how smart he is, or what he wants!

      1. Padrino profile image61
        Padrinoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        "he's naive and narcissistic"

        Yes those too, but most definitely an amateur as well!

  5. MikeNV profile image76
    MikeNVposted 6 years ago

    It means absolutely nothing.

    And does the United States really have the "right" to tell other countries how they can or can not choose to protect their own interests?

    In our view those other guys may be the "Bad Guys" but in their view they are protecting what they believe in.

    Obama's we are going to eliminate Nuclear Weapons propaganda is a joke.  Are we going to destroy the 1,000's of nuclear warheads? Nope.

    It's pretty hypocritical.

    . Number currently in the stockpile (2002): 10,600 (7,982 deployed, 2,700 hedge/contingency stockpile)

    http://www.brookings.edu/projects/archi … ns/50.aspx

 
working