Does this not seem realistic to anyone else?
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.
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...
All he is doing is telling whatever non nuclear nation what they can do and not get nuked, seems kind of amateurish to me.
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.
"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!
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!
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
by Zubair Ahmed 6 years ago
Professor Francis Boyle, the person who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 enacted by the US Congress, said that in 2001-2004, the US Federal Government spent $14.5 billion for civilian bio-warfare-related work. What other purpose does this serve but to kill people?The US and...
by PhenomWriter 6 years ago
Please tell me it will not be, because that idea frightens me...
by theirishobserver. 8 years ago
President Barack Obama is hopeful of Senate ratification this year of the arms reduction treaty with Russia he is signing in Prague today, a White House official said.White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said "we hope and expect" ratification would be completed this year. Mr Gibbs, who...
by dadibobs 6 years ago
If Iran was to succeed in developing a nuclear weapon, how should our own nations react?Would we strike at the construction facitily, and possible storage sites?, or do we just use a nuclear weapon on them first?. Would more sanctions and embargo's actually do anything to prevent them from...
by rhamson 8 years ago
Yahoo:WASHINGTON – Despite near gridlock in the Senate, Republicans were expected to swing behind a new arms control treaty with Russia that President Barack Obama said they will like, even though some are reserving judgment until Obama can assure them the pact won't set back U.S. defenses...
by Miss Info 7 years ago
Why is it okay for the US to harbor weapons of mass destruction, but not okay for any other country?We all know that the US is in possession of weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, why is this okay for the US, but not tolerated (or condoned) for any other country in the world? Shouldn't other...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|